Backroads

I had a conversation with a friend last night. Following her divorce, she decided to take up drinking. (the odd logic involved in that decision is relevant to my point, so I am not going to go into that) One of her comments was that she still believes the church is true but, that she is following a path she feels like she needs right now to better understand herself and become a better person after it's over.
 
She has the right to question herself and just how much the gospel means to her. As long as that stays private, she will likely just face chastisement from her bishop and removal of the blessings of the temple and sacrament, (remember, partaking of the sacrament when one is not truly repentant is a further damnation, so that particular probationary step is a beneficial reminder and not a punishment at all)
 
If, however, my friend begins to go around publicly stating that moderate drinking is not problem and that the Word of Wisdom should be repealed, or at least amended, then her bishop can no longer just lovingly counsel her and hope she comes around. If she begins to imply that many church members agree with her or that even her own bishop has not reprimanded her for it, then the church would HAVE take a stronger position with her.
 
I feel confident that many people privately spoke with President Kimball about their desires for Blacks to hold the priesthood. I'm sure that's part of why it weighed on his mind enough for him to plead with The Lord on the topic. I am equally certain that if one of those same individuals had publicly called the prophet less inspired on the topic than he himself was, he would also have found himself under church discipline.

There's a chance it could be ruled in favor of. There's a chance justice Kennedy is a bit libertarian leaning, which may lead him to side with state rights on this issue. There's also a bigger chance justice Kennedy is a bit libertarian leaning and decide that government doesn't get to decide who gets to marry or not.

Remember, prop 8 didn't get ruled on by the supreme court, they chickened out and said the people don't have the right to bring it to court, our beloved (haha, that's sarcasm) governor who won't defend it has to.

I will hold to hope, I will continue to pray for our judges to make good judgements. I will hope they will be receptive to the spirit when making their judgements.

I'm waiting for the "law of unintended consequences" to kick in, like, plural marriage being legalized.  It's going to be a hoot when that whole community screaming marriage equality (no, not just the gay community, puleez!) rises up and screams "NO, that's not what we wanted!"

Stop buying cheap white shirts. 

Mostly its a cultural thing... however one small point in its favor, at least for the priesthood, is that white does tend to symbolize purity, so there may be some application of that for those who are to officiate in any priesthood calling at church. Don't know how much that would matter or not. If the current bishop says you need to, then do so.. if he says let you get your own answer then pray about it and study and feel what seems most appropriate for you (probably the better path IMO) and go with what you feel is best.

1. I clearly understand sarcasm "from your mouth to Gods ears" sounds like a pretty sarcastic remark that I made which you took to heart......honestly I'm surprised that someone who understands sarcasm as well as you didn't pick up on that.
 
2. For the record I never said I do not think that the GA's are not inspired men. I believe that they are led by the spirit that the prophet leads and guides our church through direct revelation from Christ. I am a believer. 
 
3. It is the holier than thou attitude that I take issue with. It demonstrates a key issue with poor retention numbers and why people fall away from the church, or come to church and feel judged. Somehow my not wearing a white shirt makes me less worthy? or if i choose to get a tattoo, or pierce body parts it makes me less eligible to participate in the church? Yes we have been counseled against these things but people are free to make their own decisions. What if I have a smoking problem or drinking problem? what if I do drugs? Should I not be welcome? Who is the church for if not these people?
 
4. Cultural Bias is relevant how could it not be? Unlike you I choose not to stick my head in the sand and deify our leadership. Our prophet pulls his pants on one leg at a time, when he goes to the bathroom it stinks. Is he the leader of our church? YES do I try to follow his teachings sure I do, and when he says all members must wear a white shirt to be members in good standing guess what....I'll probably wear a white shirt.

I don't think it's quite right to say I would have been "ignoring" it--I would have made several radical course corrections in an attempt to comply and had loans still been necessary after all of that, it would have been a fraction of what was otherwise needed.
I'll leave it for you and TFP to hash out exactly what the Church's advice has been over the years re student debt, and just leave my testimony that I wish I hadn't been so cavalier about racking up student debt and I wish I had taken the Church's general advice about debt a lot more seriously.

You know, I can't find any quote on this. Can you source it? The primary principle that the church has had on debt since 1975-ish has been as indicated in One For the Money:
 
"With the exception of buying a home, paying for education, or making other vital investments, avoid debt and the resulting finance charges."
 
I'm wondering if there's some context missing in what Pres. Benson actually said.

Aerosol hairspray gets out ink stains.  I know this from many years of experience with a husband that puts pens in his pocket upside down.

There is a product sold at Hobby Lobby in the sewing department that gets out pretty much anything.  It's called Grandma's Secret spot remover.  I've tried it and it's awesome.

"For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day."

LeKook you are the perfect example of why she needed to be ex'd.  You say want dialog... The church is dialogging and it is changing where it can.  However to be truly a dialog both sides need to be listening to the other.  The church has heard the women who are having issues.  It has changed what it can and been very clear on what it can't.
 
Christ controls the church, Christ decides who the priesthood can be confirmed upon.  Currently that is all worthy males.  To extend it to females requires the church to receive revelation from Christ that church is to do so.  Revelation that it does not have.  The Church isn't going to defy Christ for you or anyone (including the Ordain Women movement) so that they can get what they want.
 
But it appears that for all the calls for dialog a dialog wasn't really wanted.  She didn't listen to church as the church listened to her.  She instead wanted to lecture the Church and tried to gather people (like yourself) together to try to bully her desires over the Churches' understanding of what Christ wants it to be doing.  That is simply not acceptable

I really want this to hit the supreme court. I think it'll finally put their backs to the wall and we'll finally get to find out if states really are free to decide this or not.

I fear what the result will be.

Sorry, but it is thoughts like this that bug me to no end.
 
Kelly inniated a dialogue.  Believe it or not, she succeeded on that front. 
 
BUT she didn't like the answer and kept going.
 
Therefore, we can only assume she wasn't looking for a dialogue. That, or didn't properly understand what a dialogue is.
 
Once again, she didn't "just want to start a dialogue".  She wanted ordination.  That's it.  Stop making up stuff about what she wanted.

BYU did a study on all the references to Heavenly Mother throughout the years. 
 
Free pdf here: https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf

The Father begat the Son. The Father is not the Son. The Father did not beget the Father, nor the Son beget the Son. Nor did Father, Son, and Spirit beget the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
I can think of only two ways your statement could be accurate:
 
1. Modalism, which is largely viewed by Christian theologians as misguided in its most innocent form or heresy in its worst.
2. Your statement is using "God" as an overloaded operator and would be better read "God (the Father) somehow begat [God (the Son)]".
 
The second is nonsense because it condemns Mormons for the same kind of thinking (which can't be the case in the Brigham Young context). The first isn't viable because that's not what the majority of Trinitarians believe. It can come back into play if it can be shown that while the majority don't believe it today, it was in fact, what Trinitarian Americans believed in the mid- to late 19th century. Which brings us back to Maureen's call for citations.

In some quarters of the bloggernacle, Oscarson is coming under fire for daring to suggest that an excommunication is due to the excommunicant's (is that even a word? It should be a word) own actions.

I attend Sacrament at a YSA Ward every now and then when time allows, while most of the women seem to follow the general layout of what the sister missionaries wear there are a few men and women who do not dress 'the norm' so to speak. Though I will admit I am the only guy who goes with pierced ears, I usually take them out out of respect but every now and then I find myself slipping up and remember when I catch the bishop looking at them.

Actually, yes.

If I had it to do over again, I would have focused more on picking a marketable undergrad major (I majored in history, because it was what I "liked" and because I had enough high school AP credits that a BYU history degree could be done in three years.  Useless degree . . . absolutely useless).  And I wouldn't have done law school at all--law school should only be done if you love the law and/or you already have a connection at a stable law firm that you know will give you a job after you've passed the bar.  I'd have taken a second job as an undergrad, and--horrifying as it sounds--I would have asked Just_A_Girl to work as much as possible, even if it meant suspending her studies.  (Yes, it sounds very sexist; but Just_A_Girl always planned to be a SAHM anyways and $15K is a heckuva lot to pay as a twenty-three-year-old for a college degree that you're not going to use professionally.  As it turned out, the shot made Just_A_Girl so sick that she wound up having to drop out of school anyways.)
 
As for having a family?  "Birth control" would have involved watching the calendar, and if the kids come anyways . . . we just deal with it.  Student loans might still have been necessary for us, over the long haul--but they'd probably be less than a fifth of what they ultimately turned out to be, and I'd probably be making nearly double what I actually make.

You mean this whole time all I had to do was get a tattoo to avoid my home teachers!
I'm getting this one:

I'm getting sick of all these blog posts demanding we show love and fellowship for these supporters.  Not because we shouldn't show love and fellowship, but because every single blog posts demands we consider their point of view. 
 
I considered it.  I don't like it. I'm not going to "reconsider" so these supporters feel loved. 

Your bishop said you were whining?????  Wow. You'd think he'd be more sensitive. 
 
This is why I have issues with taking everything to the bishop. I've been reading these and other LDS boards for awhile now and it's obvious to me that they just don't have the training they need for some of the problems they encounter and church members suffer because of it.

I know that a lot of people say that socializing is not part of it.  I've always disagreed with that idea.
 
I think socializing is very much a part of the church experience.  Even making that occasional contact with someone one on one is socializing.

These excommunications were not to harsh at all.  In fact they are merciful.  I am surprised they didn't happen sooner and I bet that more are on the way.
 
Those who support same-gender marriage, abortion, ordination of women, and other beliefs contrary to what God has taught should pay close attention to what is being said during General Conference.
 
Those that openly support such things should look up the definition of apostasy, study what God has said to do about apostates, and not be surprised when they are cast out from among the saints.