MrShorty

My problem with the "it only takes once" mentality is that people pick and choose what they apply it to.  We all do it and that is our prerogative. It only takes one lousy driver one time to kill or maim everyone in the car which is infinitely more likely to happen than an abduction, yet you never see parents keeping their kids out of cars. We tend to pick our favorite dangers and ignore others no matter the actual risk.
 
On a tangent on the cars, I once saw a study that suggested an increase in kids getting killed by cars due to more parents driving their kids everywhere.  If you're trying to save one child, don't kill five more in the process. That's called a step backwards.
 
In this case at hand, the parents took time and diligence to teach the kids the route to and from the park. The kids were hardly out roaming wild in idiocy. When did it became so wicked to teach kids skills?

My thoughts are a bit jumbled on this, so I don't think I can make it all coherent. In summary, sxfritz says that this behavior is "unwise." I think much of what the free-range parenting movement is trying to do is to challenge the fears and beliefs that make us say that it is unwise. Why is it unwise? Are we sure those fears are rational and reasonable or are they overblown and unreasonable? At what point does our nanny state decide to criminalize such "unwise" parenting behavior -- especially if it does it based on irrational fears?

My thoughts are a bit jumbled on this, so I don't think I can make it all coherent. In summary, sxfritz says that this behavior is "unwise." I think much of what the free-range parenting movement is trying to do is to challenge the fears and beliefs that make us say that it is unwise. Why is it unwise? Are we sure those fears are rational and reasonable or are they overblown and unreasonable? At what point does our nanny state decide to criminalize such "unwise" parenting behavior -- especially if it does it based on irrational fears?

You can say it fails due to agency... you can say if fails due to logistical challenges, but either way by so doing you support the point I was making.  Failure of your HT or VT to visit is not an indicator what the church or its members think about a persons worth.  They are just as human as the OP.
 
Christ is the one whom suffered, bled and died for us.  Its his actions we should use to judge our true worth, value and importance..  Not the actions of some flaw humans. (Although the flawed humans stepping up would be awesome)

AAMFT (aamft.org) maintains a directory of licensed therapists. They obviously don't list religious affiliation, but it is sometimes possible to guess.

You've got a pretty good grasp on it :)  (not an easy thing to do)
 
 
 
The above analogy is limited, as you pointed out.  This one is limited because your Earthly dad is imperfect.  Can you imagine if he was perfect?  
 
 
 
Claire, why do you worship God?  And what do you mean by "worship"?
 
I define "worship" as giving my highest respect, admiration, praises, listening to their words, and wanting to be like that person.  I worship God because He is Perfectly loving, just, merciful, kind, knowing, patient, etc. I don't worship Him because He's made of some supernatural-unknowable substance.  Rather I worship Him cause off all that He is.  He made me, gave me life and this wonderful Earth.  He gave His son that I could wash away all the stupid stuff I've done, and start anew with Him. I tell Him "thank you" and "I love you" every day.  I owe Him everything and want nothing more than to be like Him.  If that's not worship, I don't know what is.
 
When I go to Heaven, and through Christ's blood am completely perfected, I too will be completely loving.  I too will be completely just and merciful.  If not, then how could I dwell in God's presence?  I will live with Him and be like Him (and so utterly happy).  
 
Just because I could possibly be like God one day, doesn't mean He's any less deserving of my praise (today or tomorrow).  If anything, it means He's more deserving of my worship because without Christ's sacrifice none of it would have been possible.  

Lets discuss this sticking point...  First God choose the title Father...  I think it is save to assume he understood the implications that would have.  Second we accept that our Earthly Fathers are by their very natural pale, distorted, twisted versions of the Divine Model.  Third you are basing your thought on your status as an adult standing equal with your Earthly Father.  You can stand on your own now without your father, but this was not always so.  We are infants before God we depend on him for everything.  We were once infants who depended on our caregiver (I used caregiver due to the possibility of mortal failing of Fathers) for everything. To that little untrained infant 'worshiping' and 'obeying' our caregiver is clearly the best and safest path.   Due to their care we grew to the point were we could enjoy the privileges, rights, and powers as our Earthly Father (aka Adults).  When the scriptures command us to become one with Christ like he is one with the Father, the LDS perspective is that they are telling us to Grow-up Spiritually so we can enjoy the privileges, rights, and powers as our Heavily Father.  That is a brain twister for alot of people (even among some LDS)
 
Now what happens to our relationship between us and our Heavenly Father once we grow up, that were we have a bunch of unknowns...  We get really speculative at that point.

(I realized I left something important off this list)
 
The Father will always be my Father and Christ will always be my Savior, no matter where I shall dwell in the next life.  Under no scenarios am I going to "replace" the Father or Savior.

How an exalted person compares to God is something that (to my knowledge) can't be explained in fine detail, but it seems a safe bet to accept that they will be equal. This is based on phrases found through-out the scriptures such as "becoming one," "Joint-heirs," "sharing all the Father hath," and so on. However, the idea of equality itself can become another conversation entirely as well. For instance I consider myself equal to my wife, although we are very different... so if we are looking at equality as meaning identical... then equality with God may not be correct. I prefer to look at equality in terms of equivalent value and potential. This time as an example I'll use my earthly father. Now that I am an adult we are on equal terms speaking man to man and have mutual respect for one another. I have equal opportunity to have posterity and raise them, but I will always revere my father and even encourage my children to look to him as an example and respect his legacy. This is largely how I view our relationship with our Heavenly Father as exalted beings. We will be like children that learned from our parents and matured to a point where mutual love and respect prevail. We'll have our opportunities to go on to experience everything our Father has, while always honouring Him as our Father.
 
As for who is God's father and so on we can only speculate:
 
 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
~1 Corinthians 8:5-6
 
Whether our God has been made One with those who came before and in this way they are all one, or He is simply the ONLY one of the gods that pertains to our salvation and with which we deal doesn't change the net effect that we worship one God and God's works are one eternal round... which also speaks to the nature of how far back this goes - infinite - no beginning and no end - we likely can't comprehend it.

In mortality, I'm not convinced we can literally "know" anything. We pretty much act on faith in everything. We claim we "know" but we don't really. We trust what we strongly believe and act on it. That's faith.
 
Of course that idea gets a bit out there when you get into ideas like are we all in a big Matrix, is the sky blue, does China exist, etc. But when it comes to spiritual things, not many of us have the privilege of "knowing" and even those who do don't really know. In fact, the world plainly claims those who experience visions are delusional.
 
Either way, I'm not convinced knowledge is the key.
 
We have Laban and Lemuel as a prime example. They, technically, "knew". God spoke to them directly. Angels appeared to them time and again.  And yet they had no faith. Can we argue that their faith was merely "dormant" because they knew.  Hardly. Their faith never existed. They had no faith to become dormant even in the face of knowledge.
 
Satan has knowledge. He knows God exists. He knows Christ is the Savior. Etc. It has no meaning. Knowledge is insufficient. Faith is required.

Felix Culpa!
 
I think just about everything's been covered in other people's excellent responses, but I figure I'll throw in my two cents as well :)
 
There is a tradition of viewing the fall as a "good" thing in branches of Christianity other than Mormonism. In Catholicism for example, there's a prayer normally recited during the Easter Vigil which "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" (Felix Culpa is latin for happy fault). 
 
Adam's sin was definitely, well, a sin. That being said, there is certainly a long tradition (dating to at least St. Augustine in the fourth century) where the Church has recognized that the good won through Christ redeeming us surpasses the good found in the pre-fallen state of Adam and Eve. 
 
Anyway, I hope that helps!
 
-Claire

There is a great deal of speculation. I agree. What is not speculation is that God knows everything, sees everything, the beginning from the end, and is not learning/deciding as He goes.
 
It is worth pondering. But it is worth pondering with a proper basic understanding of God, rather than a supposition that He's still not sure how He's gonna play all this out moving forward. Concerning the primary question:
 
 
God's plan is based on a perfect foreknowledge. The question seems to imply that God may not have a perfect foreknowledge. He does. And that is the simple answer to the question. But I agree there is potential use in having an expanded discussion, but not if that expanded discussion has false premises at it's core.

The short answer is that receiving counsel from (being guided) does not equate to counselling together (trying to come up with solutions).
 
The Lord counsels us all the time. It means He's guiding us. It doesn't mean He doesn't know the beginning from the end.

At least part of your question, to me, seems to center around several elements of textual criticism of the Bible. I don't know how deeply you have studied the field (I have only scratched the surface), but there are several authors, scholars, and researchers (mostly from broader Christianity -- I don't see a lot of LDS authors at the forefronts of Biblical textual criticism) who have made it their life's work to study the manuscripts and parts of manuscripts that we have in an effort to understand what is reliable in the Biblical text and what seems less supported by the available evidence. Obviously, a single internet forum post cannot cover in any kind of complete way this field of study. If you have not yet done it, I would suggest putting something like "biblical textual criticism" into your favorite internet search engine, and see what those who study the Bible at this level have to say about it. It certainly is not a field without controversy, but it is interesting to see what comes out of the study.

At least part of your question, to me, seems to center around several elements of textual criticism of the Bible. I don't know how deeply you have studied the field (I have only scratched the surface), but there are several authors, scholars, and researchers (mostly from broader Christianity -- I don't see a lot of LDS authors at the forefronts of Biblical textual criticism) who have made it their life's work to study the manuscripts and parts of manuscripts that we have in an effort to understand what is reliable in the Biblical text and what seems less supported by the available evidence. Obviously, a single internet forum post cannot cover in any kind of complete way this field of study. If you have not yet done it, I would suggest putting something like "biblical textual criticism" into your favorite internet search engine, and see what those who study the Bible at this level have to say about it. It certainly is not a field without controversy, but it is interesting to see what comes out of the study.

At least part of your question, to me, seems to center around several elements of textual criticism of the Bible. I don't know how deeply you have studied the field (I have only scratched the surface), but there are several authors, scholars, and researchers (mostly from broader Christianity -- I don't see a lot of LDS authors at the forefronts of Biblical textual criticism) who have made it their life's work to study the manuscripts and parts of manuscripts that we have in an effort to understand what is reliable in the Biblical text and what seems less supported by the available evidence. Obviously, a single internet forum post cannot cover in any kind of complete way this field of study. If you have not yet done it, I would suggest putting something like "biblical textual criticism" into your favorite internet search engine, and see what those who study the Bible at this level have to say about it. It certainly is not a field without controversy, but it is interesting to see what comes out of the study.

Yes. Imagine what a witch/wizard could accomplish (in both universes) if she/he can learn to consistently and reliably create a flying car that (to some extent anyway) is "conscious" and can act without direct human input? Here in the muggle world, we talk about cars that can park themselves and planes that can fly themselves, how quickly could our technology advance with a little magic to overcome some of the limitations we face? What could a wizard (like Harry Potter or Dumbledore or even Tom Riddle/Voldemort) accomplish (for good or evil) by combining elements from both universes in a serious endeavor?

You've already mentioned it in post 7, but I have often been struck by what you call the "insular" nature of the wizarding community. Even with the substantial subcommunity of "muggle borns" and "halfbloods", there seems to be a significant lack of understanding or desire to understand the muggle community.
 
I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

Yes. Imagine what a witch/wizard could accomplish (in both universes) if she/he can learn to consistently and reliably create a flying car that (to some extent anyway) is "conscious" and can act without direct human input? Here in the muggle world, we talk about cars that can park themselves and planes that can fly themselves, how quickly could our technology advance with a little magic to overcome some of the limitations we face? What could a wizard (like Harry Potter or Dumbledore or even Tom Riddle/Voldemort) accomplish (for good or evil) by combining elements from both universes in a serious endeavor?

For your consideration:
 
I propose that the irreverence in Sacrament Mtngs is significantly less of a problem in our journey to Zion than the nit-picky, judgmental, holier-than-thou, criticism that ensues therefrom.

I really wonder about porn, its effects, and the moral/spiritual stain it causes.
 
We (as a group) have an interesting "all-or-nothing" approach to, I suppose, "sinfulness". So if we view pornography even one time, we are guilty of that and are stained before the Lord. But if someone really does have a psychological addiction to pornography, wouldn't limiting himself to one instance of porn viewing per day be considered something of a victory, or at least a big step forward? One cigarette per day is pretty nasty, but it's a whole lot less bad than a pack a day.
 
I do not know the answer. Any sin is too much sin, and the Lord can tolerate no sin. So I would never advocate for what I have heard many people say, along the lines of, "It's just porn. No big deal. Get over it." But I wonder if our hyperfocus on porn might tend to work at cross purposes to confronting the problem. How many of us have had a New Year's Resolution, such as "Don't eat M&Ms" or "Exercise every day", but as soon as we screw up one time -- BAM! IT'S OVER! I have officially Messed Up, so now there's really no reason to worry about it more! Might as well finish the whole darn bag of M&Ms, or forget about exercising from now on, or spent the next three hours surfing ever more vile porn.
 
Well, such rationalizations are very human, and they damn us. So we need to overcome them. But I wonder if we could create some social values or memes that help us not to throw in the towel just because we slipped one time.

You've already mentioned it in post 7, but I have often been struck by what you call the "insular" nature of the wizarding community. Even with the substantial subcommunity of "muggle borns" and "halfbloods", there seems to be a significant lack of understanding or desire to understand the muggle community.
 
I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

You've already mentioned it in post 7, but I have often been struck by what you call the "insular" nature of the wizarding community. Even with the substantial subcommunity of "muggle borns" and "halfbloods", there seems to be a significant lack of understanding or desire to understand the muggle community.
 
I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

You've already mentioned it in post 7, but I have often been struck by what you call the "insular" nature of the wizarding community. Even with the substantial subcommunity of "muggle borns" and "halfbloods", there seems to be a significant lack of understanding or desire to understand the muggle community.
 
I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

I notice that Wikipedia calls it the year of the goat, with further explanation that it the goat sign is sometimes called sheep or ram. So maybe it is about separating the sheep from the goats.