estradling75

Indeed.. We have Culture, or the Unwritten Order of things... Which I think is very similar to what the scripture call 'Traditions of our Fathers' This is not doctrine or truth... It might however have been a good idea or helpful or even necessary at some point in our history. And maybe it still is or maybe it is not any more. It is nice to see those with the proper stewardship going through and removing that which they determine is no longer useful or correct at this time

Do you have ad or java script blockers? Because the comments are hosted on a disqus plugin that can be easily blocked.

And lets not over step our stewardship either. The prophet is the one to look for solutions church-wide, the Stake President stake-wide, the Bishop ward-wide, Individual families, individual family-wide. I see no use in trying to "fix the church" beyond the limits of the stewardship God has given me.. More then that is ark steadying territory

Sigh... Per the quote in the OP I have a heterosexual identity and a church identity. And they need to live in harmony with each other for my mental health... that seems reasonable. However my church identity puts real limits on my heterosexual identity. Many aspects it does not care about but two it very much does. The first is the Law of Chasity and the second is Priesthood or Relief Society. Both those force my expression of sexual identity into certain channels. For example my church identity does not allow me to have sex with multiple partners. Yet one does not have to look far to see many people seeing that as part of their sexual identity. If I were to do so I would experience mental trauma as various aspects of my church identity came into conflict with this expression of my sexual identity. This trauma would lead to me deciding which was the most important part of my identity, which part I wanted more. This test is exactly why we are here to determine if we will follow God or if we will follow something else. Now for me my sexual identity and my church identity aren't in that much conflict... that just means that my testing is going to be in another area. For those of the LETTER Soup group their sexual identity (whatever it is) is going to be in more conflict. And that conflict is going to cause trauma, which we can and should be sensitive to. But in that sensitivity and desire to help we should not try to undo the test they have to face. They to have to make a choice on what is most important, on whom they will follow just like we do.

I can not answer the question about limiting PMs... That is above my pay grade. I do know that posts from new users have to be approved by the Mods, but there can be issues with making PMs subject to Mod approval, so someone else above me will need to make that call. I do know that PMs can be reported to the mods just like posts can be. And I know we have ways of dealing with SPAMMERs once we become aware of them. So until/unless changes are made the best course of action is to report all content you find to be questionable. And then let us deal with them

This something that we need clear defining of terms on to discuss The Patriarchal Order is God's order and it is not dead because God is not dead. We can't kill God's order... but we can very much cut ourselves off from it. It is a very sad day when we have been so thoroughly cut off that we mistakenly think it is dead rather then we are dead. Now in many ways the Priesthood and the Patriarchal order are the same thing. Realizing this then we can also realize that the Patriarchal Order must be handled as outlined for the Priesthood in Doctrine and Covenants Section 121. This means we can be cut off from it very easily. That is one way to define the Patriarchal Order. Another (and much more commonly used one) is by those that claim to live by it. In this group you have those that are living it right...(few) those that are trying to it right but failing to some degree (many), and those in full on Unrighteous Dominion while calling it the Patriarchal Order (more then there really should be). Under this second definition there are many that need to be called to repentance, and rightfully so. This is not a problem with the Order itself but a more general problem of the Human Fallen State. Now there are some that like to define Feminism as a call to repentance for the misuse and abuse of this authority, and as far and as long as it is simply rebranded repentance it is as acceptable as repentance itself. However no one should be surprised that God's order and God's ways are under attack... That instead of calling upon men to step up to their covenants and obligations. They are being told to stand aside, to stand down, to stop trying, that they never can do it, so they should never try. This is also a definition of Feminism and it is utterly toxic while hiding behind Girl Power catch phrases. You call tell what definition they are using both sets of terms by its impact on men. If it is a call for Men to step up and be more Christ-like it is acceptable whatever the branding... If it is a call for Men to avoid their obligations (either through unrighteous Dominion or abandonment of responsibility) it is toxic no matter the branding.

We are not that hard to understand... We have the pilgrims who came to America to escape Government persecution. We have the Revolutionary War which was about escaping Government persecution.. Then if you are an American LDS then you have even more examples of trying to escape Government persecution. That is our history that informs on our culture... While others might not have this History... oppressive Governments are not a rare cases. So to understand this American mindset all one has to do is take whatever they think is dangerous and take that mindset and apply that to government. And bingo you have the American mindset.

Which is irrelevant and simply shows you are not listening... A pretty big failure for someone that started this thread looking for advice

What is hard to follow? You do not like guns right? You think the world would be better if guns were more restricted. A gun is powerful tool no doubt. And in the wrong hand it can be deadly this is also true. The government is also powerful tool, much more powerful and deadly then any individual gun. In the wrong hands it can be deadly to large groups of people. Therefore should it not also be highly restricted? Should it also not be highly limited? Yet you call for reducing the threat of guns and increasing the threat of government how does that make any sense? When you see and understand that your government is more dangerous to you then any gun will ever be.. then you will begin to understand.

It an understanding of History thing... You were taught about Hitler Right? He did not cause all the evil and pain and sorrow he did because of the power he had as an individual... He caused it because he got the power of the government. And as he was coming to power I am sure many of the people he later hurt didn't think the government would be coming after them either.... until it did. Thus the American Freedom view is about curbing government power as much as possible. That way if and when the next Hitler tries to come to power... there is no real power for him to have. His power is limited, his power is checked. Now you might just say... well don't elect the next Hitler... How is that working for you? You are asking which one you should vote for... figure out which one is most likely to abuse governmental power yet?

Really... let see what you have said earlier So its ok to publicly deride or belittle the fat or the ugly or the mouth breathers or the nose pickers or the tattooed... Are they not human too? Are the not entitled to equal protection under the law? Are they not also a demographic? What makes them less human then some one of African descent? What makes them less human then someone of a different sexual orientation? Once you start playing "protected class" game a case can be made for everyone to be protected.. and the only reason not to is because it makes the protected status worthless. Thus it is clearly not about "protecting people" but rather a power grab to enforce your morality on someone else.

About as seriously as a Canadian that is afraid to visit is America because of its "Guns" It is about being afraid of bad actors. Canadian are afriad bad individuals exercising unrighteous dominion. Americans are afraid of bad government exercising unrighteous dominion. Both groups have solid reasons for their concern. However history generally records bad individuals behaving badly as foot notes if it notices them at all... Whereas it writes whole chapters and books about bad government,

Maybe I was not clear... The most likely reason the bishop asked her about her pants being a sign of rebellion is because of the "Wear Pants to Church" movement founded by apostates... (Which is a perfectly valid reason in my mind). Thus the movement becomes directly responsible for the behavior it claims it is trying to change. The author of the article instead of critically thinking about "why " the bishop asked the question. Instead she jumps to her own conclusion. So the irony is the movement causing the behavior they are say they are against. And the irony of some one demanding people not to make assumptions of her behavior and actions while clearly making her own assumptions about the actions and behavior of others.

@Sunday21 you and the others are talking past each other because both sides have presumptions that I do not think the other side is really considering. You talk about needing people both as a country and as your local ward. However your presumption seems to be that anyone that you get is going to roll up their sleeves and get to work bearing their fair share of the burden and by so doing make every thing a bit easier. And you are so right, in that case what is not to like? I fully support those kind of immigrants here in the USA too. However my experience is that there is a subset of immigrants that are not going to do that. They are takers. Possibility criminal, possibly lazy maybe even both (which has nothing to do with skin color). I am reasonably sure you do not want these types. No one in the right mind really does. This is the assumption that many others in this thread have. If you have immigration you have to have immigration filters (you called it points) to weed out the undesirables. If you have filters as a matter of law then you need to have the freedom to discuss, to debate, to criticize.. because that is how you keep the filters healthy and responsive. You can't do that if people have to fear being called racist for even trying to have a healthy discussion about it.

That is the irony I was pointing out. "Oh no the bishop is oppressing me by asking a question because I wore pants.. So I need to support or otherwise join a rebellion who very existence is the reason the bishop asked his question in the first place."

Correct in a general sense... However in the case of the article she convicts herself with her own words... No mind reading required. And it swings both ways... accusing bishop (or other church leader) of wrong doing because they asked a contextually relevant question when we do not why... is just as wrong

The bishop in the article did exactly that (if you take her word for it)... While I think it is very silly... but if you are going to associate with apostates you really have no room to complain if the leaders question if you are one.

The ironic thing is.. the bishop asked because of the "wear pants to church" movement. I would wager that if that movement had not happened the bishop would not have said a word. The Church standard is Sunday Best. That has always been a personal call, with culture having an influence. The culture of women being limited to dresses was already fading naturally all on it own. Simply by all the women making there own personal call on what there Sunday Best was. And yes there was some push back by individuals who like to impose there own will, that is the nature of sinful people. But it was and still is going away. Then there was the rebellion...(and yes that is exactly what it was an organized rebellion). Cultural rebellions happen all the time... but these apostates targeted our worship service and that provoked the reaction that has powered this thread. And gets otherwise innocent people in the cross fire. Because now Church leaders have to at least consider a woman wearing pants to be in open rebellion. (Which is kind of silly but that is the effect of the actions of these apostates)

You do not tell someone that they should not attend the ward. It is not your stewardship, it is not your prerogative. However nothing requires you to support actions you disagree with. The moment they ask you for 'help' that gives you a limited stewardship and prerogative. You can say no to rendering that aid. If you respect that limit you are on solid ground. Beyond that you need to leave it be.

I disagree... The core audience are those that follow God through his prophets.. I view it as yet another wheat and tares moment. Some may fall away... and that is sad.. but the only ones drawing the lines and setting the limits are they themselves.

In many ways what needs to be in your bugout bag depends on your plan for bugging out. For example if you plan to bugout on foot... then you are limited to what you can carry and still get out... That is not as much as many would hope for. If you have a transport then you can carry more.. but you have to be sure the transport can make it through if everyone else is trying to bug out at the same time. Then you also have to factor in what the longer term plan is. Is it just to keep you alive until you can transition (and if so transition to what) or is it to help you start over? Once you know what you want to accomplish with your bugout bag then you can look through all the resources online and make your own call... Saying yes I need that... No I do not need this, and Oh I did not even think of that. One of the biggest factor of preparedness success is not in having 'stuff' it is in having a plan. Once you have plan what stuff you need answers itself with a little bit of research

Indeed... Part of believing in a True and Living Church. Is that living things grow and respond and adapt to their surrounding. Such growth, responses, and adaptations do not make the church false when they happen... neither do they make it false when they are no longer needful it simply means the context it is living in changed

This... exactly this... It is the Lord's voice we are to follow exactly and without question. It is his voice his sheep respond to. The method of delivery does not matter. We can hear it in the scriptures, we can hear it in a church leader, we can hear in from a stranger on the street, we can hear it from a little child, we can hear in as impressions in our heart and mind. The fact that we can hear his voice in a variety of ways does not mean that everything that we heard coming from same path is his voice.

Yet until now your case has not been about how we talk about it too much, but how it is wrong and not truthful. Hearing about it to much is a complete and total opinion. Even if you gathered the number of times your heard it in the last say six months as facts... it would be irrelevant to anyone else because they could get totally different numbers. Saying that it is wrong and not truthful is an opinion that can be supported or called into question by various historical document. Given that it is also taught by the church makes it also an implicit attack on the church and its leaders... something that always provokes a response here.

Indeed... I have no problem with someone that does not want to believe the 'peeping stone looking into the hat story'. They know it exists they can look into it as much as they want and they can make up their own mind about it. I do have a problem when those people who after having the privilege to make up their own mind try to take that privilege way from others. That their choice is the only right and correct one and therefore it should be forced on to everyone else. That is not how the gospel is suppose to work. Plus someone who has heard the 'peeping stone looking into the hat story' whither they believe it or not... is immune to that line of faith degrading attack by the antis