estradling75

By that logic it is totally fair for her to require you to become LDS... After we do not tell you to stop believing in God either As a christian you should be familiar with the concept of the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Before you think it is OK to do anything to your girl friend make very sure you are OK if the tables are turned and it is being done to you

Of course I can. But I did not go to you seeking understanding... You came to us. As for not being sure that God exists... That is a personal thing between you and him and has always been. However when faced with a group that thinks and believes "differently" do not presume that they do not have the "best interest of humans" at heart. We simply disagree with what that best interest is.

Figured as much.... Which is why I said your answer was deflecting. As for your girl friend Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are not mindless brain washed drones. Which is why everyone is telling you to talk to her. The best we can do is tell you the standard teachings of the church. How much of it she has accepted, how much she personally values, that is not something we can answer for you.

The answer is simple.... If God exists (and has the attributes we claim). Then he knows for a fact what brings to pass the greatest well being of humans and tells us so all we have to do is follow his instructions... Without God we are blown from one thing to another trying to guess what is "the best for humans" Take health and diet how many people are really willing to do what it takes to live healthy? If you read the headlines science is all over the place and often contradictory. And that is for something as simple as physical health that should really be the low hanging fruit of "doing what is best". Then you have things like mental and emotional health which are much harder to understand. Then assuming God exists there are "eternal health" How to we even begin to evaluate what might be "Best" for eternal health? Thus following God is putting the well being of humans first, because we trust that God is the only one that can see clearly what that is.

He is being told he needs to talk to her... His response is "I do not want to talk to her." If he is seriously considering her then this response is a deflection. Because if he never talks to her again then this whole thread is a big waste of time. If he is not wasting our time then he will at some point talk to here again and there are several things he has been advised to cover

I support a platform's right to support or block whatever content it wants on its platform.. That is a right of ownership. I also support the right of anyone who get blocked or otherwise restricted to find/create another platform... Let the ideas flow and be heard based on value the market assigns them. Valuable ideas will be heard... nonsense will diminish and no one group will have a strangle hold on the platform that information flows through

That is true of course... By polygamist aspect I was meaning "while all parties are still alive" polygamy. Which is were most of the conflict has come from. Any religion that thinks marriages can last beyond death and also allow remarriage of the still living spouse.. will from the Eternal perspective have to allow for some form of Poly marriage in Heaven.

Many others have give some reasons for this... I'd like to give another... It contains the Doctrine for Eternal Marriage (aka that marriages do not have to be until death do you part) Eternal Marriages are still very much a thing in our faith. Without Section 132 we do not have the doctrine to support such a belief. Given that it is a full of instructions about marriages it should not a be a surprise that it also included directions for Plural Marriage (aka Polygamy). While the polygamist aspect of Eternal Marriage was stopped with the Manifesto (also found in the D&C here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng the rest of it is still very much practiced. Thus not only is it historical relevant it is currently relevant to our beliefs.

There is an additional factor to why Random Joe Internet claims of divine revelation/instruction/guidance gets rejected... Because the Lord has explicitly told us to reject it. The scriptures are clear that God is a God of order and has his organization is place to give us a sure understanding of who speaks for him. Any claims outside that path is deception plan and simple. Does this mean that Random Joe Internet can't get personal revelations? Of course not... It simply means that is is personal and private and should be treated as such. The public revelations come through the Lord's appointed channels. If Random Joe Internet revelation is in harmony with what the Lord has chosen to reveal then he can bear testimony of such... If it is not then either Random Joe Internet have a false understanding or the Lord bless him with something he has not see fit to reveal to the rest of the world. Both cases make it utterly and totally wrong for Random Joe Internet to start proclaiming his 'revelation' By all accounts the Church loves new guidance and direction... (See any of President Nelson recent changes) But we are highly resistant to it coming from any other source for very faithful, rational and logical reasons.

Do you remember what happened when the press repeatably ignored part of its market to cater to its own interests?? Fox news came in a made bank off the part they ignored by offering an different take. Think Rotten Tomatoes is biased and fraudulently misrepresenting to promote and agenda? If you are right on how bad it is build your own site and you will make a buttload of money and can laugh all the way to the bank.

Indeed.. That is what I meant by "arranging the spamming of" (And yes I totally acknowledge it goes both ways) Any site or group has a demographic (Rotten Tomatoes does, Third Hour does etc) Thus is polls or review done will represent that demographic. The owners of the site will push and maybe even cater to a certain demographic. Those polls or reviews will represent that demographic. The personal value one gets from the poll or review will be directly related to how closely you match the demographic of the site in question. Now should a internet group #disneyMustDie!!!!! organize. And start attacking #proDisney site well of course they are going to get shutdown. If a group of #AllMormonAreHerticAndMustBeKilledWithFire started highjacking Thirdhour.org you better believe we shut them down as hard as we can. But we would let in #MormonsAreChristian with open arms. Thus bias where we allow one group over another The problem is not that sites have biases... the problem is thinking that sites don't. If you don't like the biases of a certain site don't attack them in a vain attempt remake them in your own image... Start your own site and compete

What part of Perhaps you are confused by the fact that what the Lord commands you to do can change? That something can be commanded and even required by the Lord... and then the Lord can command it to stop. Any Christian who has studied the bible knows this to be true. Through out the Old Testament (and even parts of the Book of Mormon) the Lord commands that the people live the Law of Moses. Then Christ comes and the commands changed. A new law is given and the old is removed... This is very clearly established in the New Testament (and the Book of Mormon). As we progress in the gospel we become eligible for certain privileges. (Membership in the Church, the companionship of the Holy Ghost, Sacrament, Temple recommend/attendance, garment wearing etc) When we become eligible/worthy the Lord commands us to partake. When we sin we regress, we become ineligible, unworthy of the privileges and the privileges are removed. We see this in the scriptures were it commands us to not let the unworthy partake the sacrament because the leads to the damning of their souls, we see this in the scriptural command to blot out the names of the members of the church who rebel. We see this when we lose the companionship of the Holy Ghost due to sin. It should not surprise us that other privileges can also be revoked/restricted. Nor is it surprising that method used is pretty much the same (lost of the spirit and actions of church leaders) When we lose a privilege due to sin we should not compound damnation upon our heads by partaking unworthy. But rather we should understand that the command is really "partake worthily". (Please also note worthy does not mean Perfect) Thus we obey Gods command. If we are worthy we partake, if we are not worthy we do not partake, but focus instead on becoming worthy again. Thus we obey. Worthy to partake is not only measured by the person involved, but also by those that God has called, set apart and has given authority to to render such (Aka Bishops). Thus if we are not worthy then the command is not to partake unworthily to our damnation... but rather to become worthy so we can partake again. Thus repentance is all about obedience and keeping covenants and never about breaking them. Sin is were the disobedience and breaking of covenants happens

There is a big difference between one person posting one post or review about what they liked or disliked about a movie (Even if it is not very on topic) and one person spamming 1000 review(s) promoting their views or otherwise arranging for the spamming of a system (the first one is acceptable the second one is not)

It is simple really.... When one is trying to repent they need to stop digging deeper into sin. Just changing your sin of choice is not really helpful. When one goes through the temple they make promises and are given instructions. This includes directions on wearing the garment. If a person is trying to repent they should not think that is is wise or helpful to disobey the instructions given by the Lord through his leaders. Therefore someone who is temple endowed and trying to repent should be also trying to faithfully obey every command (including wearing the garment). If during the process of working through one repentance with the bishop (or other representative of the Lord) they instruct one to stop wearing the garment for a time then that is the most current and most personalized instruction/commandment and it trumps the more generalized temple instructions while in force. Thus the wearing or not wearing of the garment is an act of obedience (or disobedience as the case may be). Obedience is helpful (and really required) to the repentance process while disobedience is counter productive to the process.

You wear garments until/unless instructed not to by your bishop or other authorized leader.

If your understanding of modesty is limited to needing certain number of square inches of material to cover certain number of body parts... then your understanding of modesty is juvenile and immature. Now we all have to start somewhere and that understanding is a decent start to modesty. But if we lock that down as the end all and be all of what modesty is we have retarded our ability to progress in light and knowledge on the subject. If in addition we start publicly berating the church for not following our limited understanding we have compounded our ignorance, and retardation with pride and arrogance. Repentance is needed stat. Now lets tackle why the square inches of material covering certain body parts fails. First we generally consider running around in public in just your underwear to be immodest. This is true even if your underwear is a wrist to ankles one piece. It was true back when that was fashionable underwear it is true now that it is not. It would still be true if we considered a burka and face veil to be underwear... (which we do not). That is one extreme... Here is the others... I can be perfectly modest without a stitch of clothes on. I am not immodest just because I am taking a shower or a bath. Nor am I generally considered immodest because I am changing my clothes in a bathroom or locker area. From those extremes we can see that modestly can not be strictly defined by what you wear. If it is we all (hopefully) fail to be modest on a regular basis. Now you might point out the my examples are not fair. There is after all a difference to what one might do in private and what one should do in public... And that is exactly my point. Circumstances can change what is modest and what is not. For example generally speaking if I am walking around town without a shirt on I'd consider myself being immodest (and no one wants to see that). But if at a public pool swimming, I can feel perfectly modest in a pair of baggy swim trunks. Circumstances matter, not just square inches of fabric. So lets go to the subject of garments. Garments are underwear, and therefore have all the modestly of underwear in general. Garments generally have more square inches of material then most common underwear today but that does not make them innately modest because they are still underwear. We are instructed to keep our garment covered for various reasons. On the subject of modesty covering the garment is a good start. But it is not the final word on the subject, it can not be. The garment can't be the final word because the Lord looks on the heart. Those who want to put up Pharisaical rules and laws will find themselves missing the heart of the matter. If you try it make the garment the standard rather then a first step, then you get people pushing the limit of standard as hard as they can (we all know people who have done this), and that is not what Christ wants. Rather then trying to make the 'law' more restrictive (by resizing the garment) we should be helping people more fully understand what modesty really means. (And it is not the sum total of the number of square inches of fabric we are wearing)

Interesting... I can't help but wonder if this has more to do with being more connected now then ever before? When I served long distance communication was expensive. Calling home every week would have added up fast. But nowadays you can reach the far side of the world as easily as you can next door.

Note discipline is protective... you are saying that you do not want to protect your child... and I just do not think that is true. Discipline is to take the long view (or at least a longer view then your child). For example a toddler might think it is fun to play in the pots and pans. As a parent when you have a pot of boiling water you are going to act quickly and firmly when they try to play with that pot. You are going to say no... you might slap their hands... you might distract them... you might do hundreds of different things... but you are not going to let them get that pot of boiling water... That is discipline... and you will do it and you can still be a "Fun" parent. You do need to take the long view with your child and that is you have the responsibility to turn them into a happy competent functional adult... With that view in place discipline and fun will come naturally as needed. But you got to keep the view

First note that many of us who are giving you advice, have failed at some point. A singular failure is not the end of the world. We are talking more about repeated actions. Second also note that your response needs to be age based. For example you respond to a infant to feed them in the middle of the night when they demand it... whereas if your teenager wakes you in the middle of the night demanding food you have issues you need to deal with and it is not feeding them. So as for tantrums the younger they are the less damaging it is to give in, but you must adapt and change as the kid gets older. The older they are the more likely a warning (and follow through) of discipline can work. Younger kids are less likely to understand such warning, but they are more easily distracted. So those are options... And of course there is always the option to basically ignore the tantrum. If you are meeting the Kid's needs on a regular basis, a tantrum is not going to hurt them. If you are in public get them where they aren't going to bother others and let them melt down. They spend a lot of energy and effort for nothing. Then once they are done and back to normal... reward the restored normal and nice behavior

Nothing new about that

He can be both

Related to this... Their brains are a developing neural network (A type self programming computer). We all start with a basic set of needs, wants and desires, and an imperative to fulfill such. But no real direction on how to fulfill such. So they try everything they can think of (like throwing raisins). That which works (or gets close to working) gets positively reinforced, that which does not work gets negatively reinforced. Thus if one adult is more permissive the child will clue in and learn to use that very very quickly. If a set of behavior (bad or otherwise) gets them what they want then such behavior will continue and get more pronounced. This is a normal and expected part of development. It is up to the parent (or other caregiver) to not reward behavior that is undesirable. Because rewarded behavior is repeated behavior. Sadly this is easier said then done because in the middle of a meltdown giving them what they want will naturally stop the meltdown.

That is not logic... that is total selfishness and emotion.

The logical argument against abortion is the same arrangement against murder of human begins..

When we talk forgiveness we generally mention D&C 64: 9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. This is a hard thing. The Lord knows this. It is made even harder when we have a misunderstanding of what forgiveness means... The Lord however makes it very clear in the very next verse what forgiveness really is 11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds. When you can truly turn it over to God for re-balance and redressing of the wrong done to you that is forgiveness. Please note this in not the same as trust. Trust is earned. If you wouldn't trust a stranger then there is no reason to trust again someone who has broken said trust. With trust you just be careful you are not being punitive about it (aka you would trust a stranger but you refuse to trust them)