yjacket

This very well could be; you can get a backlash generation. I do have to remind myself that my kids are not in the Millennial generation, they are post-millenial-whatever that is. The 4 turnings of generations is an interesting philosophy.

Me personally, I like a little saltiness. I love the "Lions of the Lord". The scriptures are full of very stern prophets that as Christopherson said "Repent!". But I get that maybe today is not the day for those prophets. Every age calls for a different type of prophet. I think it really depends on the response of the people. Some generations and ages need a firmer hand, others a softer hand. I doubt towards the end of the BoM a softer, gentler prophet would have done any good. At least with the firm, (maybe even harsh) prophets, there was absolutely no doubt. Abinadi certainly wasn't soft! But of course, maybe I've always had an affinity for them simply b/c my first testimony of the BoM came from the absolute boldness that Abinadi testified. Man, I'll never forget how I felt age 15-16 reading about Abinadi . . .I could feel the power of God through his words-awesome, just awesome. But, I've also noticed that in general God reserves those prophets almost as a "last warning" type, as in-you didn't hear me when I sent my servants and they spoke in a pleasing manner, hear them now or be destroyed! Just like my kids . . .one of them needs the firmer hand (here me now!!!) and the others just word of warning.

That's a good question. I don't think it will, but I think it will. I don't believe the Church is going to change it's stance on homosexual relationship, women and the priesthood, etc. So in one sense, the Kate Kelly's of the world are going to have to go pound sound. However, I think it will as a stumbling block. Children in today's society are being raised to be SJW. A quick example; my son is in 3rd grade. He has a 3rd grade reading assignment about space exploration and then a written assignment afterwards about 1st's in space. Every single first listed was a SJW topic, first woman in space, first black in space, first black woman in space, first indian-american in space, first LGBT in space (okay thankfully they didn't go that far, but you get my point). I'm an engineer, my son loves engineering stuff . . .why the shooting darn heck (avoiding the profanity filter :-) )) are they teaching this crud instead of, first rocket into space, first obit, first space walk, first satellite, etc. From a very small age, our children (it has gotten especially bad with Common Core) are being pumped and primed to be SJW through identity politics. No matter how much you teach your children at home, when they go to indoctrination camps for 8 hours a day they will pick up some of this stuff. Today's adults don't realize it b/c most people don't quite fully understand at how bad public schools have become at leftist, social indoctrination-but over the last 10 years . . .it's gotten bad. As a consequence of it, we are seeing the rise of SJW phenomena in the rising generation. Now what happens when these kids who have been indoctrinated get out on their own . . .which indoctrination is going to win? That of their parents, or schools? What happens when the indoctrination of schools, peers, etc. win out over religion and parents? Why is the Church having a much larger problem with retaining today's youth (once they leave the nest) than previous generations? One of the reasons given for lowering the mission age was specifically to address this (i.e. provide less gap time between high school and mission-and it has worked more youth are going on missions). What happens when the SJW finds out that their worldview is not the Church's worldview? They either try to change it (good luck with that!) or they leave. And that is the concern. So no, I don't believe it will gain traction with believing members. But I do believe it will make it more difficult for individuals to maintain believing member status-especially for the rising generation and in that sense it will gain traction-for those that leave.

My personal opinion is that is it an attempt to completely overthrow culture; I have my own conspiratorial thoughts on the origins of it. But that is why I loved Christoferson's talk. He hit on the difference between the shame culture and guilt culture. Shame culture is one where one must apologize for not holding whatever current moral views society holds (which depend on which way the wind is blowing today). Guilt culture is one where there are moral absolutes of right and wrong and when one commits wrong one feels guilty about it. How much of the SJW's attitudes and teaching is about shame vs guilt, shame for the social structure as it is (and a burning desire to change it) vs. teaching moral absolutes of right and wrong. This world is sick-no fear here, but I pray one day soon (hopefully sooner rather than later) Christ will come and set it all right.

Amen Eowyn, love your comments!

Some thoughts after conference. Does anyone every think as to what exactly is the point of SJW in the Church? For example, I read about a father who has gender bended the scriptures, i.e. femanized all males in the scriptures and made males out of all the females in the scriptures and is reading them to young children. Why? I really don't get it. So women can have "strong" examples in the scriptures. So torture, twist and reverse the scriptures just to make a modern day political point to young impressionable children? The scriptures have enough lessons in them to be learned by young children without the need to change them to fit our own social agenda. Needless to say, the only boy in the family didn't like it. I have an idea . . .let's take all the stories about Cinderella, princesses, etc. and reverse them too! My goodness, the current society is just plain nuts. We have a falling birth rate, the US is below repopulation rate (i.e. without immigration in 20-30 years the population will actually start declining) and the most important lessons we can teach to young impressionable minds is that the scriptures are wrong about gender? Right, like some amazonian woman teancum is going to heave the massive javelin and kill the Queen Ammorona. My goodness, instead of teaching the values of family, hard work, persistence, grit, determination we are teaching children that women can do everything men can do. Why are we trying to teach young girls that they can be everything that a man can be? It's patently false, men and women are different, each have their unique strengths and weaknesses and this is good. God made is so that man and woman can come together become one flesh, become perfected through each other and Christ form families and enjoy all the blessings God has. This is just so incredibly nuts . . .

Christoferson, Utchdorf and Holland. Utchdorf: Don't fear have faith. Makes total sense-we can have a complete understanding of the evil, wickedness and problems that are surrounding us and becoming stronger (it is the latter days) but we ultimately know who wins. Faith overcomes fear. Holland: The Church is for everyone who is willing to love God and earnestly striving to do so. Christoferson: We must be willing to speak out and stand for what's right and true, understanding sometimes being firm and unwavering in truth and right will be labeled as judgmental. Being a discipline of Christ requires speaking truth.

I don't know; I take a different approach. In human history it was the exception rather than the rule to live to a really old age. 80s was doable, but very rarely did people make it to 90s, etc. They were in better shape (having to work outside in the farm) and disease or the elements would take them if their bodies got too frail to endure the hardships. I think in many ways, this is a more merciful approach. None of us get out of here alive; we all die it's just a matter of when,where and how. I'm reminded of a line from the Shawshank Redemption. "You either get busy living, or you get busy dying." IMO when you get to the point that your body no longer functions properly and you're more or less an invalid, it's time to get busy dying. I will have strict orders, I will never allow my children to put me in a nursing home-they will be written out of the will if they do that. If I can't function on my own (or with the help of a spouse), I'd rather get busy dying. It's the ultimate insult-to live 70+ years as a functional adult on your own and in your last years have to be taken care of like a baby-no thank you. I won't actively kill myself-but I sure will make sure it doesn't stay that way very long. And it's possible to live in your 90s on your own.

I wish you all the best, but this statement does cause concern. The best outcome is for you and your husband to fix the problems and become husband and wife. The best outcome for your children is that they see that mom and dad have a more important relationship than being mom and dad; the relationship of husband and wife. I guarantee if you go in focusing on whatever is best for the kids-you will lose your marriage (if not now in the future). A child-centered family/marriage is doomed to fail. You obviously loved your husband before this happened or you wouldn't have gotten married and he loved you; you both entered into a commitment to each other. Which came first-the marriage or the kids? Obviously the marriage, so set the marriage as priority #1 and then the best outcome of being functional parents will fall into place. If the marriage fails, being a functional dad and mom will become sub-optimal. I would also encourage you and your husband to read, ponder, study and pray about The Family Proclamation.https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true I know it is not en vogue these days with the 3rd wave of feminism, but the way that God has set up the family is 100% absolutely the best way. Don't ask me why, it's just something that I have observed. The scriptures provide plenty of guidance on how husbands should treat wives and wives should treat husbands. I can promise you, the more your family abides by, believes in, strives to be like the family model outlined in The Family Proclamation, and in the scriptures, the more peace, happiness, love you will feel in your home. The less it is like that, then the more likely you will feel neglect, strife, envy, anger, malice, etc. God's way truly is the best way. Best of luck to you.

Yeap. I'm not liking the current trend of POTUS and Ryan attacking the Freedom Caucus-they are the most conservative and best of Congress. Rather than attacking the Freedom Caucus they should be attacking all the moderate/liberal sheep in wolves clothing Republicans (I'm looking at you Mr. Paul Ryan). I agree with the Twitter wars of Justin Amash, one of the very few patriots in Congress. Justin Amash‏Verified account @justinamash 4h4 hours ago More Justin Amash Retweeted Donald J. Trump It didn't take long for the swamp to drain @realDonaldTrump. No shame, Mr. President. Almost everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment. Justin Amash added, Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018! 610 replies2,398 retweets4,182 likes Reply 610 Retweet 2.4K Like 4.2K Thomas Massie, another really good one. Thomas Massie‏Verified account @RepThomasMassie 4h4 hours ago More Thomas Massie Retweeted Donald J. Trump .@realDonaldTrump it's a swamp not a hot tub. We both came here to drain it. #SwampCare polls 17%. Sad! SwampCare . .. lol-exactly right.

While we might be at more opposite ends of the spectrum. I can heartily agree with this!

Yeap, so much for the Paul Ryan's "process"- he's just another RINO. The Rs voted how many times to repeal it and Obama vetoed the repeal bill? This is exactly why people were/are ticked off and why Trump won. The RINO's showed their true colors today. What is so hard about passing the same bill you passed a year ago? The House is more conservative, the Senate more conservative. Oh that's right b/c some congresscritters like to pretend they are conservative by voting yes on meaningless bills that will never become law and then when the rubber hits the road, they want to pass Obamacare Lite. This is absolutely a failure of leadership-a failure of leadership on Paul Ryan and I hope he goes down for it. They should throw out any congress critter who isn't a member of the Freedom Caucus and start over. And there is more afoot here that just repeal I believe. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/03/24/trumps-health-care-melee-major-problem-for-speaker-paul-ryan.html I'd love it if Ryan got pulled from Speaker.

Yes you are right my response was to an offshoot not the main thread. My apologies for the threadjack :-(.

Amen to that!

You are probably right, I was being hyperbolic. So I agree with your statement that you don't agree with me (I don't agree with mysefl???) :0

Completely agree.

I totally agree. And I'm not advocating for it to come back or for it to not come back. Just that it wouldn't surprise me if it did. The topic started on the out of wack ratio of females to males who are temple worthy and the solution to it. Polygamy is one way to solve it-and in line with scriptural reasons for doing so.

Totally disagree with this. Shows like Big Love, Sister Wives, etc.? But you are probably right, quite frankly I'm not sure members of the Church have enough faith to have polygamy back again. More members are accepting of a complete perversion of God's laws (homosexuality and homosexual marriage) than they are of polygamy. What a perversion in today's society. The God ordained law as specified in D&C 132 is regarded more repugnant-even among God's people-than the perversion. Members have bought into the lie about polygamy (it's horrible, abuse,etc.) yet they ignore and have bought into the lie about homosexual relationships. Sick, sick world. One day Christ will return and set it all right.

I have to say Eowyn and others have given some really awesome advice. I also agree a lot with DrLemon. I can also say, that God moves in mysterious ways and if we are righteous and truly seeking Him, it is awesome to see how He will take a mistake we made and make it into something beautiful-and this IMO is the true power of the Atonement. The Scriptures are replete with instances of men of God who made mistakes-disobeyed promptings from God, repented of their mistakes and then God used it to make something beautiful. The one that comes to mind is David and Bethsheba. Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the Holy One came from that lineage. Satan tried to thwart the plans of God, but he couldn't and he can't. I don't know if what you felt that day come from God or from Satan or from yourself-but what I do know is that regardless from whence it came, God can make your current situation with your husband beautiful.

Let me be clear. I'm not so sure of an imminent return of plural marriage in the Church, I think it is probably highly unlikely but I really have no clue. My point being that the IMO the actual reasoning God gave the Prophets for discontinuing it is imminently in danger of being obsolete. With SCOTUS's decision on SSM, they have no grounds to support Reynolds vs US. All it would take is a really good lawyer and a court willing to take up the issue and a good court case-IIRC there are lawsuits out there on this issue. The biggest challenge right now is that most bigamy laws are not enforced and one needs standing for the SCOTUS to take it up (i.e. someone needs to get legally get married twice and then be prosecuted for it). Once the legal requirements are gone-then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it came back.

Joseph Smith taught ' "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation." Now in today's modern church what pray tell do the majority of members really sacrifice? Compared to 100 years ago, very, very little is required of rank and file membership. Being a member of the Church today is very easy for a significant portion of members-especially in the US. I think it is more likely today than at any time in the post. Official Declaration 1 explicitly states that the reason why the Church discontinued polygamy was specifically b/c God revealed to Wilford Woodruff what would happen if it did not do so-the Church leaders would be jailed and the Church would collapse. All it takes right now is a reversal of the Supreme Court decision and the actual reason for discontinuing polygamy will be gone.

Totally agree. That is why they are called to be Judges in Israel.

I completely agree, I just wish that there was at least one word in the article, just one sentence that acknowledged without caveats that this behavior is sin and disobedience and will eventually lead down a path away from God. But it wasn't there. Instead it was all about acceptance for "who they are".

I agree, but the inevitable question then becomes (bolded part), what does being homosexual and chaste mean and look like in practice? Is it just simply no sex? What about two guys holding hands? There is nothing unchaste about a boy and a girl holding hands. But for two homosexuals? I personally believe that homosexual relationships (not just the act are sin), therefore having two homosexuals walk into Church, sit in the pew and be cuddling is sin-in fact IMO it is flaunting sin. The same act that would be chaste for unmarried heterosexuals is not chaste for homosexuals. And for the homosexual, we are talking about 1-2% of the population, a very small percentage. IMO, someone who is an active member of the Church but who is leading a homosexual lifestyle should either be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. To do otherwise, is making a mockery of God's commandments. One would disfellowship or excommunicate a bf/gf living together, it really is that simple.

Yeap ...b/c there is a societal push and agenda to accept homosexuality behavior as normal and healthy. First it started off on the fringes (i.e. 20 years ago this wasn't even a problem) then the left adopted it and it has become part of the liberal ideology. Since the Church is neither left nor right, plenty of members are apart of the Church who have a liberal ideology. That then pushes on the Church and that push is affecting the Church.