estradling75

Sigh another weaponized compassion thread... When people make the statement, 'I want them to be happy so I....' It implies that anyone that disagrees with them do not want others to be happy... And that is fundamentally dishonest... For example I want Gays to be happy too... But I am also a Christian that believes true happiness comes from following God. I Believe that God has declared Marriage to be between a Man and a Woman. (See The Family Proclamation). I Believe that God has commanded that Sexual Relations to only happen between people who are married to each other (See all kinds of scriptures). And that disobeying God is the surest way to be miserable. Therefore it is because I want them to be happy that I must hold the line. Now they can ignore me, they can attack me, they can slander me. But the only reason I put up with that, and maintain my position is because I want them to be happy and I seek their eternal welfare. Any one who implies or states otherwise is either ignorant or flat out lying. Now for those who think "well God has changed things before so I will get out ahead of this one and wait for God to catch up." The very rephrasing that I just did should show the dangers of that. Yes God ended the Law of Moses, and Yes God ended the Priesthood Ban, so yes God might, maybe, possibly make another change. But if he does it will be according to his time and his wisdom, using his judgement, attempting to preempt that is clear hubris and pride. (Aka SIN)

See that would be the Topic of General Agreement. Most people would agree with that... The Method you chose (Universal Healthcare) is where the disagreement comes from. For example I think Universal Healthcare will only make things more expensive (see Obama Care). While many like to claim that the Healthcare system is proof that Capitalism and the Free Market are failures, its only true because they got strangled out. (Compare the shopping you did to get the best value of your latest toy vs the shopping you did on your latest medical procedures) The simple fact is most of your Local Healthcare is practically a Monopoly, that is not free market. If you want to do 'something' to rein in outrageous healthcare costs... You need to break the Monopoly (see Anatess deregulation comments)

I was speaking in general terms based on my historical experience with these discussions.. So if your 'What???' is prompted by the thinking I was accusing you... I was not. If however your 'What???' was an indication of not understanding what I wrote then please tell me where you got lost and I will try to clear it up.

These arguments always come back to a bait and switch... They flow like this... Pick a topic most people will agree with (Say like helping the Poor and Needy)... then once you know everyone agrees then you pick a method (in this case Universal Healthcare) as an answer to that topic. Then when any one disagrees or points out problem with the method ignore the points made and instead attack them for be an heartless monster who does not care about the topic. Such a bait and switch is fundamentally dishonest and I see no reason to engage such people

Honesty if the politicians over turn it chances are they will not get re-elected... However they can tweak/amend/adjust the law. As long as it still allows medical MJ then the will of the people is still stands and the proper protections can be put into place/beefed up.

For me I am less concerned about where someone has been then where they are currently headed. That being said your spouse is more then just some random stranger you are commanded to Love. Your spouse is your partner, your help meet, the person you should trust to have your back and for you to have theirs.. Therefore a higher level of due diligence and discrimination (yes discrimination can be a good thing) is required/recommend before taking that step. Your spouse's baggage/history becomes your baggage/history. You need to make sure you can bear such weight. (All the shaming of strangers telling you you should... does not magically increase your capacity) Which means you need to get a good feel for that that history is and your ability to deal with it. Having said that sometimes our spouse might keep secret... that is a sad possibility. The answer to this is still due diligence and prayer. One should not get married until they know it is the path the Lord wants them to take and/or the person in question becomes a "No matter what" person. (aka No matter what is in their past or future they are the one you want). When you have either one (preferably both) of those then you move forward... because what ever they might reveal down the road you have already answered the hard question and are comitted to working through it.

Isn't that why you said it looks like the political influence of the Church is declining? I mean if the church said "Don't do this." and the people do it anyways that does seem to be a lack of influence.

The stance is we want medical marjuana done right... Prop 2 does not do it right and it needs to be rejected and something better needed to be found. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/coalition-seeks-safe-compassionate-alternative-utah-medical-marijuana-initiative

The answer is yes... But other Christians tend to deny us a place at the table because we do not believe the various Creeds. They have established the Creeds as the bench mark for Christianity, and we believe such Creeds to be an abomination. Note that the bible does not set the creeds as the standards. By the standards of the Creeds the early Church Leaders (Peter, James, John, Paul, etc) aren't Christian either, because the Creeds did not exist back then. The bible sets a different standard. The tells us to have Faith in Christ, to Follow Christ, to obey his command however imperfectly we might be. By that standard the early Church Leaders we very much Christian and so are we. Our actions can be summarized as it is in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 25 versus 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. Do note that calling us Mormons is like calling other Christians Mattans, Markans, Lukeans, Johnans, or Paulans. Simply because they believe the words that Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul wrote about Christ. We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And we are Christian even if the rest of Christianity wants to deny us that title.

Yes and no... Kavanaugh was confirmed... But there are still a lot of people who are clearly confused by the difference between Being Heard, Being Believed, and Being Proved. We can see this in the way various people are trying to re-frame the fact that he got confirmed as sexual assault victims not being Heard. While that can be a problem that is not what Kavanaugh's case shows. His main accuser (Ford) got Heard loud and clear. (probably more so then most accusers get) As for her Believably that is an opinion people form and most people base such on factors that had nothing to do with any kind of facts. As for being Proven... Her accusation is very serious and requires equally serious proof and that was severely lacking. Lacking after several FBI background checks... including one focused directly on the accusation.

@Iggy Got the strike through for you

There is a lot we simply do not know about things that happened before we were born. We know that parts of us always existed (aka are eternal) but we do not know how God organized those parts into US as his Spirit Children. The only thing we have is how in this world is the process of taking existing material to create our physical forms. Some people run with that idea for the creation of our spirit bodies. Its not necessary a wrong idea... its simply a we do not know for sure idea. No matter what we think we need to be very clear on the difference between a spiritual creation (which we do not know the details about), and a physical creation which is something we can observe/experience here on earth.

It does happen... But lets do some basic math. If we assume 2 hours of Church instruction a week (Sunday School, Priesthood/RS) and include Conferences or other events as instructions. Then 2 hours for 52 weeks equals 104 hours of instruction a year. If we assume 20 years as an adult that is 2080 hours of church lead instructions. Which would including going through each book of the standard works 5 times in Gospel Doctrine Class. This 2080 hours does not include personal study nor the study you might need to do if you have a 'teaching' calling. I think it is pretty safe to say that if after 2080 hours of teaching a student still does not grasp the basics of a subject, then things need to change. Continuing on the way you were is just wasting everyone time.

The Samuel Principle also explains Aaron creating of the Golden Calf. Think about it... Aaron is called to be a leader and spokesman for Moses... Then he creates a Golden Calf for the Israelites to worship. Moses returns and calls them to repentance, yet in-spite of being a leader, in-spite of creating the Golden Calf nothing happens to Aaron. The only way this makes any sense is under the Samuel Principle. Under the idea that Aaron was following the prompting of God to give the Israelite what they wanted to their condemnation. The Samuel Principle also means that the Promise that the Lord will not ever allow the prophet or leaders to lead us astray... is not quite as reassuring as many would like it to be. Because the prophets can lead us to condemnation if that is what we ask for. Don't believe me... just ask Martin Harris how taking the 116 pages with Joseph Smith permission worked for him, Or the Isrealites how the Golden Calf Aaron Created or the Kings Samuel Picked worked for them. For the current changes that President Nelson is making determining if it is a blessing or a condemnation... The answer is probably YES... and what path you come down on and declare it to be will probably reflect more on your judgement of your fellow saints then the mind of God. Either way... blessing or cursing... it is the path we are on now

The most important role of a parent is to teach/train there kids to become responsible adults. If this does not ultimately happen then the parents will have failed as parents. This is not to say that your kids will not make mistakes or rebel (they will), this is not to say you will not make mistakes (you will). But it does mean that you as a parent have to keep the end goal of your kids becoming responsible adults in mind. And that means your kids actions have consequences and they need to make hard choices some times. What is your daughter doing now to be a responsible adult and single parent? What is her plan to support herself and her child? She needs a workable plan. Her parents (You) can be a help and a stepping stone in getting there but you should not be the way. So does your daughter have a plan that get her independent of you? If not you are failing and you need to help her get one. One could ask the same of your son.

Did your daughter fornicate in your house (or else were) with your tact approval? (like your son was doing before his dad come home) If so that is were you screwed up.

Indeed... The Son gets a chance to make an adult level choice. Force out the Girlfriend... then let the Son make his own choice follow the girl friend or stay home. No force applied to the Son

Don't evict your son... evict the girlfriend she is not family its not her home she has no right to be under your roof... and no right whatsoever to be in your son's room... And if your son does not like that then he can learn to be an adult and get his own place were he can control who can spend the night.... Or to put in back at you... a mother that is cold heated enough to encourage/enable her son to spiritually self district and never become an adult does not deserve children

Lots of people have given there ideas and they make sense. But most are judging the possibly that the man might change his mind about being OK with you not being a member... and that is them playing the odds... People are not odds.. People are unique individuals who can be different then expected. With people you get no guarantees... you can find someone who you think is perfect only to have them turn out to be a horribly abusive monster after you get married... and that other guy who seems to have everything stacked against them might just be able to turn it around and be the best partner you could ever have.. There is simply no guarantee. The best you can do is know what you want... and then do your due diligence. If this guy is generally acceptable (based on what you currently know) Then it is time for due diligence.. If you have a concern about him remaining ok with you not becoming a member then you should ask him to explain why he is ok with it (aka talk about it). Then listen very carefully to what he says and how he says it. You know how important it can be to many members, he needs to have a solid, logical reasonable answer that shows he has thought it through. If his head and his heart are in the same place then he is more likely to be and remain stable on the issue. (Again no guarantees but it is a much better sign) If he can't really answer the question, or his answer does not make alot of sense, or shows he really has not thought it through then yeah he is probably being lead by emotions. His head and heart are not in the same place which means it is unstable and prone to change, because eventually they will sync up. A single date is not a commitment and it might be worth it to see where he really is on the issue.

Yeah more or less... Sadly lots of people misunderstand how it works... some think it is like some kind of Legal Court Room where punishment is handled out for wrong doing causing them to be confused/offended when different 'punishments' are handed out for the 'same sin.'

As much as people would like to pretend this was all on Brigham Young and wish the Church would do more then Disvow the teachings and condemn the racism that some members tried justify using these teachings... That is not going to happen because we have related canonized scriptural revelations from Joseph Smith. Let look at Moses 7: 22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. Modern sensibilities might call that racist.. But said segregation by skin color also happened by skin color in the Book of Mormon (see Nephites and Lamanites). And this verse is canonized scripture from the hand of Joseph Smith. Now in the stories of Cain there are no scriptures of him being cursed with a skin change. His curse is clearly spelled out as the ground being cursed, much like Adam was but worse. Adam's curse was that he would have to work to make the ground yield to him (ie by the sweat of his brow). Cain's curse was that the ground would not yield to him. Period. There was also a mark given him, but the mark was designed to be protective not a curse. We do not know what the mark was and most modern leaders thoughts on the matter generally fall into the disavowed teachings category. So why were the descendants of Cain black? This fact is clearly indicated by scriptures given by Joseph Smith (barring those who really want to wrest the plain meaning given the scriptures give)? And the answer is... we do not know. However there is another scripture of interest if we talk about people getting black skin that is Moses 7:7-8 7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. So there is a group from Canaan that goes to war and destroyed the people of Shum. The Lord again curses the land... this time with much heat. Which causes the skin change and being despised. Also note that these two verses come before the declaration in verse 22 about the skin color of Cain's descendants. Thus here we are given a reason. Now I did not find (maybe I missed it) a direct declaration that the seed of Cain were the people of Canaan. But look at the overlap in the names, the description of blackness and how others responded. Either we have two distinct groups that are a lot alike or we have one group being described. Based on the data we have Occam's razor points to one group. But that is only valid until we get more data. So we have the Cain's seed being black and a strong suggestive link to them being the Canaanites... But so far nothing about Priesthood... So lets tackle that next. The first indication we have of a linage based priesthood restriction, (based on scriptural Chronology) is Abraham 1:21-27 those are quite a few verses so I will link and summarize. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng Ham married Egyptus (which name means forbidden). They had a daughter who discovered Egypt, and her Son was the First Pharaoh. (Genesis 9 also notes that Ham had a Son named Canaan) This Pharaoh was a Canaanite by blood (see verse 21). So it seems that Ham married a Canaanite. Now this first Pharaoh by the scriptural account was a righteous man. He Tried to set up his kingdom after the manner of righteousness but he was cursed from holding the Priesthood (see verse 26). The verse makes it sound like Noah cursed him or caused it but it does not explain why. The closest we get to Noah cursing any one is in Genesis 9:21-26 which is a very weird little event. Modern church leaders have tackled this but they all run into the more recent Disavowal. Thus we have a priesthood restriction on the Canaanites who are black, by the time of Pharaoh. Although it is not clear exactly why it was given. Was it because of Cain? Was it because of the war with the Shum? Was it because Noah got drunk? Was it something else? We do not know. So there we have a scriptural foundation for a priesthood restriction given (and accepted by the church)in Revelations from God to Joseph Smith. But he did not implement it. Which is a real oddity. Brigham Young did and the scripture we accept support such an action. Which also explains why the later church leaders felt a revelation was needed to lift the ban. As for racism these scriptures and revelations might be used to justify... well that is not uncommon either but it is condemned. Remember the Lord comment to those that thought that being Abraham's seed made them better? Remember the words of Jacob to those Nephites that thought they were better because they were not Lamanities? Note that in a world ripe for destruction (right before the Flood) Eqyptus was counted among the righteous. And her grandson the First Pharaoh is explicitly called out as being righteous... Yeah so the color of a person's skin (or other linage) has no real meaning when it comes to God and following him in righteousness. Try say you are better because of how you were born (or how someone is worse because of how they were born) is repeatably condemned. In the scriptures and by the church. But do not confuse people attempt justify their racism with the teachings and being condemned by the prophets, with the condemnation by the prophets of the teaching themselves. They are not the same thing

Welcome @marge In our faith the Bishop does not forgive sin, he does try to help the sinner be reconciled to God so that they can be forgiven (and know it). Therefore it is not the Bishop's job to hand out a punishment (although sometimes it can look and feel that way). Each individual sinner is going to be at a different place in being reconciled to God, the Bishop needs to learn and understand where the sinner is and then help the process continue. The hardhearted, rebellious, and proud, will tend to get actions that will hopefully soften them (Excommuncation, Disfellowship etc.). The brokenhearted, the humble, the meek and such is met with the arms of love wide open. Of course most people are a mixture and therefore the Bishop responds in a mixed manor. Since we are an internet forum responding to limited data from the OP we can not tell what the bishop's response will be after hearing her, asking questions, and asking the Lord for guidance. We do not have the knowledge and the guidance the Bishop should get. As for fear... people generally fear what they do not know... and when they do something wrong they can fear others responses when the other people find out. This is not the way Christ would have it, but it is what he (and us) has to work with.

Indeed... My wife and I have a special needs child... We have had many people come up and say something like "I do not think I could handle that" Or " I do not know how you handle that" and in public we just smile and nod.. But in private we are like... "What other option do we have? We would fix it if we could but that is not something the Lord has given us... And all the options for Not Handling it are so... so... much worse.. to the point that they are unacceptable." For plural marriage the options are "Doing what he Lord says" and handling all that comes with that... or "Not doing what the Lord says" and handling all that comes with that. (and currently the Lord says no) The whole point of this life is to see if we will do what the Lord commands, we should not expect all of those commands to be easy. Hopefully we will gain wisdom to realize that not following the Lord is so... so.. much worse.

Who here made that claim? Wow talk about an unrighteous judgement... The people making that determination have been given the stewardship and the authority to do so. Like all of us they are going to be held accountable for their actions and discharge of their stewardship. Maybe they are seeking the spirit that they are entitled to for that stewardship... maybe they are not... But to throw out such an accusation is unbecoming of anyone claiming to be Christian.

Traveler do the math... If say 500,000 new students want to attend this year and they only have room to take 5,000... All the desires and well wishes in the world is not going to enable them to take 500,000. That is 495,000 rejected students plain and simple. They have to go elsewhere. You of all people should know that no one can provide more then they have the means to do so.