Leah

Members
  • Posts

    1159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Leah got a reaction from Sunday21 in Law of Chastity and self-control in marriage   
    Wow.
    I can't find polite or ladylike words to express what I think about these husbands.
    Wow.
  2. Like
    Leah got a reaction from Palerider in Can you lose temple recommend over too much diet coke?   
    I don't see any other point to your imaginary, wildly speculative post other than your desire to be "right" in all things and to continue your hobby of judging others.
     
    There are plenty of scriptures and quotes from various sources that I could throw in here, but it would be wasted on someone who won't let anything get in the way of his own personal agenda.
  3. Like
    Leah got a reaction from LeSellers in Gun free zone = killing spree zone   
    Am watching the latest news conference.
     
    It is striking in the comments of the sheriff, who refused to name the shooter and stated that the shooter's name will not be spoken by him, ever.  He made additional comments regarding this point and I have to say his words and manner were striking and powerful.  His concerns and energies clearly lie with the victims and their families.
  4. Like
    Leah got a reaction from theSQUIDSTER in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    I have one last thing to say and then I am out of here.
    Once again, we have people condemning others by trotting out their hypocritical cries of "You're judging others". They don't want others - including Heavenly Father's chosen prophets and leaders - saying anything that conflicts with their limited and self-focused viewpoint. In today's world especially, it is never about anyone or anything else, it's always about me, me, me.
    And they also are judging our prophet and apostles and,yes, Heavenly Father himself. They don't like what they hear so the immediate reaction is endless criticism and pronouncements that Heavenly Father got it all wrong and that we smug and superior mortal beings know better than him.
    And I remain frustrated and baffled by the practice of church members who castigate other members for "judging" anyone outside the church but then never hesitate themselves for even an instant to judge those inside the church. I've never seen the likes of it anywhere else and it's just as off-putting now as when I was investigating the church. You will embrace anyone living life at distinct odds with the gospel but won't extend the same kindness to fellow members of the church.
    As for this policy - I am trusting Heavenly Father on it and not the murmurings of the discontented.
  5. Like
    Leah got a reaction from theSQUIDSTER in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    I really don't understand the anger about this.
     
    Wait.  Yes, I do.  It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church.  It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way.
     
    I was a little puzzled when I first started reading about the handbook changes but the more I thought about it, I understood that it's a good thing and not the evil, hurtful, politically-incorrect attack.  It is actually policy meant to protect children, families, and the church.
     
    Take the LDS church and same-sex marriage out of it for a moment. 
     
    You have a minor child who gets interested in a religion through...say...social activities with a friend.  The religion is at complete odds with the parents' beliefs/lifestyle.  Joining the religion is going to cause a rift...friction...between the child and parents.  Why should that be encouraged?
     
    And it is a child we are talking about.  A still maturing mind and heart.  Having beliefs at odds with one another can cause difficulties in a marriage where you are dealing with two adults, who have more experience, education and maturity and they often are unable to navigate the differences and keep the marriage together, but we expect children to deal with all of this and burden them with the responsibility of keeping a family together?  Because that is how it is going to feel to them and that is what the naysayers are asking them to do.
     
    How does it help the children, the family....anyone....if you have a child who dearly loves his/her parents, but learns that their parents' behavior and choices are at odds with the church?  Why would you place such a burden on a child's shoulders? You are expecting them to understand things that they cannot possibly understand and make choices they should never have to as a child.
     
    I see this as policy meant to help families, not hurt them.  To protect children.
     
    And, yes, I think it protects the church, too.   There are those with an agenda of hatred who - as same-sex parents whose child is interested in joining the church - would gleefully welcome an opportunity to attack the church (or any and everyone who doesn't agree with their world-view), claiming that the church is harming the child and their family by teaching their child "bigotry", etc. The word 'cult' would be thrown around. Lawsuits would happen. And their goal would be to eradicate anything and anyone who doesn't share their same beliefs.  Because that is what the goal is for more and more people.  It's not enough that people get to live their chosen lifestyle, that they got to change the definition of marriage, etc.  They want EVERYONE to come around to their world-view and not be allowed to live or believe in a way different to their own.
     
    And I am not talking just about gay people.  I am talking about the growing numbers of people who think any kind of religion is wrong.  Its not enough that they have the freedom to not believe in God or live whatever lifestyle they so choose, they don't want anyone else believing in God, either.
     
    Just recently here in Portland, some school districts have banned choirs from singing at The Grotto, a beautiful piece of Catholic property, during The Festival of Lights at Christmas time.  Because - obviously - singing a few Christmas songs in such a location is somehow "forcing religion down our throats".  I guess if you sing a Christmas Carol in such a location - shazam! - you are forced against your will to be a Catholic or something.
     
    A few years back, I was personally aware of a situation where one spouse wanted to convert to Judaism but the other parent objected and it was putting the marriage at risk.  The rabbi in this situation counseled that he could not recommend - nor would he be a participant in - potentially breaking up a family over it.  That if the choice was between the marriage or the conversion, that the correct choice would be the marriage.
     
    A child with same-sex parents would be placed in a difficult situation that could cause great distress to them and to the family. It actually seems the kinder thing to me to not place a minor child in that situation.  Let them participate as they can, but it makes great sense to have them wait until adulthood to officially join the church if they still so choose.  Their salvation is not being denied in any way.  They are not being condemned to hell or however all of the malcontents are saying it on FaceBook and internet forums.  They are being relieved of some burdens and responsibilities that those who are only looking to their own selfish needs would place on shoulders too young to bear it.  And they will get to make the decision to join the church when they are no longer a vulnerable child.
     
    The church isn't about destroying families. The church would not institute a policy that would cause such.  This policy is actually trying to preserve families.  But the anti-church people (members as well as non-members) can only see their own selfish, short-sighted needs and refuse to the eternal goals at work here.
     
    I've been woefully inarticulate here.  But I have been pondering and praying and I have received confirmation that this comes from a loving Heavenly Father through those He has appointed to lead us through these increasingly difficult times.
  6. Like
    Leah got a reaction from JojoBag in Modesty   
    This is something about the church (or its members) that makes absolutely no sense to me.
     
    We dress modestly/wear our garments except if we want to take a job where dressing immodestly is part of the job??
     
    I guess that means if we want to take a job that requires us to...oh...I don't know...drink...smoke...do drugs...have sex (I hear being a sexual surrogate pays pretty darn good)....then it's all hunky-dory because, hey, it's just part of my job, right?
     
    Orthodox Jewish women dress modestly.  They wouldn't dream of dressing immodestly just to make a buck or two.
  7. Like
    Leah got a reaction from carlimac in Terror attack in Paris   
    And you get your "facts" from where, exactly?   A government official was just explaining on CNN why they have changed their tactics to just exactly the kinds of attacks that have gone on in France.  They require no expensive, long-term sophisticated planning. Coordinated planning, yes.  But no hijacking of planes, etc.  Just walk into a "safe" place where people gather.  You just need a few people to go into crowded, easily accessible venues with guns and can quickly murder dozens, if not hundreds of people.  It is a variation on the suicide bomber.  These murderers had no intention of escaping, hence their suicide belts.  These kinds of attacks are much harder to track and prevent than 9/11 style attacks.
     
    These kinds of attacks are going to occur with more and more frequency.
     
    I have the privilege in the past of speaking with Israeli and American experts in terrorism.  Most people have no clue what is going on, what has gone on, and how many attacks have actually been thwarted.  But we can never stop them all and it's just going to get worse, not better.
  8. Like
    Leah got a reaction from lagarthaaz in Modesty   
    Boy, Mormons sure like to toss out the "judgment" word.  Especially while in the act of judging others.
     
    Have I gone to these women and scolded them?  But I guess expressing my opinion (what so many Mormons like to call "judgment") that - yes - those outfits are immodest is verboten in Mormonland.  As is my confusion at the inconsistent and hypocritical messages sent. No wonder people outside the church roll their eyes.  We're supposed to be modest.  Except for when we want to make money?  Except for when we just feel like?  Tell me what are the REAL rules on modesty?  And why are you allowed the "judgment" that dressing immodestly is perfectly okay but anyone who disagrees with you is not allowed to make that "judgment"?
     
    I have at least half a dozen personal friends in the entertainment industry - for decades - who have never worn outfits...costumes...whatever you want to call them...that would be considered immodest or incompatible with garment wearing.  So it IS possible.  Just as I knew untold numbers of Orthodox Jews who did the same.  It's a CHOICE.  Dressing modestly is a choice.  Dressing immodestly is a choice.  No one is forced either way.
     
    But I am not allowed to scratch my head over the mixed message sent. It comes across clearly that the REAL teaching is that we dress modestly and wear our garments except for when we don't want to.  No showering, swimming or intimacy need be involved. 
     
    Or is it just when it involves money, for that is the justification being given here.  I am going to be homeless in a few weeks if I don't find a way to increase my income.  Pot is legal here in Oregon and there's a crap-ton of money to be made in that industry.  Soooo....that would be cool for me to sell pot, right? Or with just a bit of training, I could become a pot "mixologist" and make a cool $90,000 a year.  Heck, I could even make more just trimming the plants than working where I work now.  Because it would be my JOB and that's a free pass.  Or if I wanted to become a stripper.  They make good money and I really need the income.  And it's a JOB, right?
     
    Or...as Folk Prophet hinted at in his post....maybe it's dependent on the time involved.  Like if I were a model and I only modeled lingerie part time instead of full-time, that would be cool with the "rules".  Or if I worked only part-time in the pot industry.  Yeah...I just have to figure out what the time limit is that's allowed by the church and then it's all good.
     
    And I wasn't talking about any of those other situations you listed.  So nice of you to treat me like a moron. 
     
    It was this kind of crap on message boards that was a real turn-off when investigating the church.  It's still a big turn-off.
     
    And still....no one has ever addressed the mixed message.  Anyone can use any reason at any time not to dress modestly...not to wear their garments....and it's okay.  ALWAYS.  For ANY reason. That is the reality.  No one is willing to address things like why it's okay for a young, married, endowed woman to post endless photos on FaceBook of herself in various states of undress and partial nudity. That wouldn't be considered modest by anyone.  How that aligns with what we are taught in the temple about wearing our garments.  Oh yeah...right...I can't n think about that much less ask about it. It's "judging". 
     
    There are people who have a stroke over the thought of someone not wearing their garments to bed at night, but if someone wants to leave their garments at home because they want to go out in that dress that plunges down to there and slit up to here to make sure they get noticed...well...that's perfectly okay.  Nope, can't have a discussion about the dissonance.  That would be "judging".
     
    You know...one of the reasons I was drawn to the church was because the member who first shared their testimony and beliefs with me did it in a way very different from any other Christian addressed me as a Jew.  There was no 'you're bad, you're wrong, you're going to hell".   But - wow - once you're a member, the attacks never end.  No matter what side of an issue you are on, there's guaranteed to be members to tell you how wrong  and bad you are. 
     
    But...noooo....THEY aren't the ones judging.
     
    People can walk down the street naked for all I care.  (This is Portland. This happens).  But I do care about trying to figure out the logic behind all of this.  Or I did.  Because there really isn't an answer other than the Mormons top the list of religions whose members pick and choose what "rules" they follow.
     
    So the next time I pass on buying that cute dress because....whoopsie...it's backless....I won't have to pass on it.  Because it's okay to be modest or not.  And it's okay to wear your garments or not.  Whatever floats your boat, right?
  9. Like
    Leah got a reaction from kapikui in Modesty   
    This is something about the church (or its members) that makes absolutely no sense to me.
     
    We dress modestly/wear our garments except if we want to take a job where dressing immodestly is part of the job??
     
    I guess that means if we want to take a job that requires us to...oh...I don't know...drink...smoke...do drugs...have sex (I hear being a sexual surrogate pays pretty darn good)....then it's all hunky-dory because, hey, it's just part of my job, right?
     
    Orthodox Jewish women dress modestly.  They wouldn't dream of dressing immodestly just to make a buck or two.
  10. Like
    Leah reacted to Anddenex in First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes   
    Even with this clarification we have members who are posting this, 
     
    Particularly this statement:
     
     
    Sustaining the Handbooks, is sustaining the prophet and apostles.  As I have shared previously this quote from President Harold B. Lee, "Divine Approval":
     
  11. Like
    Leah reacted to NeuroTypical in First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes   
    And just think, up until June 26 2015, everyone was all "All we want is the right to marry.  Give us that and you and your church can go do whatever it wants."
     
    They didn't want to tell us what to do, they didn't want us to tell them what to do.  It was such an easy choice.  Right?
  12. Like
    Leah reacted to zil in First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes   
    And key to the pattern is going to God in faith, already believing, which was what Nephi did (see also Ether 12:6).  Like Vort, this was the most sorrowful part for me - to see so many jump straight to doubt or worst-case, made-up scenarios instead of trusting first.  I'm grateful for this reasoned, calm explanation.
  13. Like
    Leah reacted to Vort in First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes   
    My feelings exactly. It is not the ignorance, but the faithlessness, that I find galling.
  14. Like
    Leah reacted to EarlJibbs in First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes   
    Very well clarified. 
     
    Many people should feel embarrassed about this entire thing. Not for the lack of understanding, but for taking to social media to publicly declare their frustrations and anger for not understanding immediately upon hearing from sources that have ulterior motives. I was reminded last night while reading in 1st Nephi that Nephi wanted to understand the mysteries of God as his father (a Prophet) did. Instead of whining and complaining to everyone about it (as we do to social media) Like Laman and Lemuel, he prayed to God and was visited and learned for himself. We see this pattern in the BOM many times, if you have questions and concerns go to the Lord, seek to be reassured by the Holy Ghost, do not trust in the understanding of men, uninspired men and women will surely lead astray.  
     
    I have a feeling that this is what will separate the faithful from the unfaithful more and more. I was warned by my Bishop years ago, as he was warned by the brethren that a  storm was coming and I needed to make sure my testimony was strong and that my family was as strong to weather the storm. Those warnings have been ringing true ever since.
  15. Like
    Leah got a reaction from carlimac in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    Some people aren't interested in communicating/understanding.  They just want to be "right'.
  16. Like
    Leah reacted to UtahTexan in New Here   
    I am a fairly new member.
     
    Well...sorta
     
    I am a returned missionary.  I left the LDS Church in 1989 and was VERY anti.  Then, through a series of incredible miracles, I was led back to the Church and rebaptized in May 2015- 26 years after I left.
     
    I am very glad to be back
  17. Like
    Leah got a reaction from lagarthaaz in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    Some people aren't interested in communicating/understanding.  They just want to be "right'.
  18. Like
    Leah reacted to The Folk Prophet in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    Sure. It just seems an odd way to imply that we shouldn't be sarcastic by being sarcastic. Rings a bit hollow. I'm guilty of the same, so no judgement on this one. But still...if we're going to do better, perhaps we should start by doing better.
  19. Like
    Leah reacted to The Folk Prophet in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    Here's my overall response to the turn this thread has taken, which apparently largely involves something about me and sock puppets. 
     
    Okay...here's the response:
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

  20. Like
    Leah got a reaction from NightSG in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    I really don't understand the anger about this.
     
    Wait.  Yes, I do.  It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church.  It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way.
     
    I was a little puzzled when I first started reading about the handbook changes but the more I thought about it, I understood that it's a good thing and not the evil, hurtful, politically-incorrect attack.  It is actually policy meant to protect children, families, and the church.
     
    Take the LDS church and same-sex marriage out of it for a moment. 
     
    You have a minor child who gets interested in a religion through...say...social activities with a friend.  The religion is at complete odds with the parents' beliefs/lifestyle.  Joining the religion is going to cause a rift...friction...between the child and parents.  Why should that be encouraged?
     
    And it is a child we are talking about.  A still maturing mind and heart.  Having beliefs at odds with one another can cause difficulties in a marriage where you are dealing with two adults, who have more experience, education and maturity and they often are unable to navigate the differences and keep the marriage together, but we expect children to deal with all of this and burden them with the responsibility of keeping a family together?  Because that is how it is going to feel to them and that is what the naysayers are asking them to do.
     
    How does it help the children, the family....anyone....if you have a child who dearly loves his/her parents, but learns that their parents' behavior and choices are at odds with the church?  Why would you place such a burden on a child's shoulders? You are expecting them to understand things that they cannot possibly understand and make choices they should never have to as a child.
     
    I see this as policy meant to help families, not hurt them.  To protect children.
     
    And, yes, I think it protects the church, too.   There are those with an agenda of hatred who - as same-sex parents whose child is interested in joining the church - would gleefully welcome an opportunity to attack the church (or any and everyone who doesn't agree with their world-view), claiming that the church is harming the child and their family by teaching their child "bigotry", etc. The word 'cult' would be thrown around. Lawsuits would happen. And their goal would be to eradicate anything and anyone who doesn't share their same beliefs.  Because that is what the goal is for more and more people.  It's not enough that people get to live their chosen lifestyle, that they got to change the definition of marriage, etc.  They want EVERYONE to come around to their world-view and not be allowed to live or believe in a way different to their own.
     
    And I am not talking just about gay people.  I am talking about the growing numbers of people who think any kind of religion is wrong.  Its not enough that they have the freedom to not believe in God or live whatever lifestyle they so choose, they don't want anyone else believing in God, either.
     
    Just recently here in Portland, some school districts have banned choirs from singing at The Grotto, a beautiful piece of Catholic property, during The Festival of Lights at Christmas time.  Because - obviously - singing a few Christmas songs in such a location is somehow "forcing religion down our throats".  I guess if you sing a Christmas Carol in such a location - shazam! - you are forced against your will to be a Catholic or something.
     
    A few years back, I was personally aware of a situation where one spouse wanted to convert to Judaism but the other parent objected and it was putting the marriage at risk.  The rabbi in this situation counseled that he could not recommend - nor would he be a participant in - potentially breaking up a family over it.  That if the choice was between the marriage or the conversion, that the correct choice would be the marriage.
     
    A child with same-sex parents would be placed in a difficult situation that could cause great distress to them and to the family. It actually seems the kinder thing to me to not place a minor child in that situation.  Let them participate as they can, but it makes great sense to have them wait until adulthood to officially join the church if they still so choose.  Their salvation is not being denied in any way.  They are not being condemned to hell or however all of the malcontents are saying it on FaceBook and internet forums.  They are being relieved of some burdens and responsibilities that those who are only looking to their own selfish needs would place on shoulders too young to bear it.  And they will get to make the decision to join the church when they are no longer a vulnerable child.
     
    The church isn't about destroying families. The church would not institute a policy that would cause such.  This policy is actually trying to preserve families.  But the anti-church people (members as well as non-members) can only see their own selfish, short-sighted needs and refuse to the eternal goals at work here.
     
    I've been woefully inarticulate here.  But I have been pondering and praying and I have received confirmation that this comes from a loving Heavenly Father through those He has appointed to lead us through these increasingly difficult times.
  21. Like
    Leah reacted to Traveler in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    I do not believe it is "the world" but rather a culture shift we are experiencing in our country - and certain others.  Though I am concerned with the current culture shift - I am more concerned with where the trend (current) is taking us.  As an experienced white water rafting guide - these kind of turbulence  at the surface are an indication of something much deeper and push the limits of my personal capabilities to safely navigate.  I am concerned that the trend is towards even more dangerous turbulent waters.
     
    I am well aware that when panic challenges the brave and experienced when our vessels of safety are overturned we begin to realize that our life vests are not safe enough to preserve us and we are at the mercy of the turbulence - and we pray that the din on the horizon is not a waterfall into rocks.
  22. Like
    Leah reacted to estradling75 in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    It is not...  It is not inherently sinful.  Now individual within the marriage can act to make it better or worse, good or bad, but the act of marriage even to non members or exe members, between and man and a woman is not inherently sinful, in fact just he opposite really.
     
    Now being unequally yoked as to faith does tend to make things harder when it comes to living the gospel, which is why it is generally cautioned against.   But that caution is not a condemnation.
     
    As for kids I think everyone of us can pull up a personal experience of feeling shunned or left out or ostracism and to this day feel a be of pain from it.  It seems to be a common childhood trauma that we experience and hopefully grow stronger from.  However I think it is a very rare and unusual experience for a child realize that their beloved mother (or father as the case might be) is an unrepentant sinner and going to go to hell unless they break up with their current spouse.  Very likely this will cause the child to rebel completely from either the Church (most likely) or the parent(less likely) unless they have matured enough to handle such a heavy and sorrowful understanding.
     
    As a parent I don't like having to deal with my kids feeling shunned, but I would much rather deal with that then my kid feeling that he has to choose between a parent or the church.
  23. Like
    Leah reacted to yjacket in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    Yes, I just realized that. There is absolutely no problem giving a blessing of comfort.  However, if one used a blessing of comfort to then give a naming and a "life" blessing then that would not be acceptable. The deference being that a blessing of comfort is more for specific circumstances, whereas a naming and blessing is more of a "life" blessing.
     
    Even a Father's blessing is used for more specific circumstances relative to what is occurring in the person's life rather than a life-long blessing.
  24. Like
    Leah reacted to estradling75 in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    We are not in disagreement...  yjacket posted the one you need permission for... I posted the one that you do not...  Compare and contrast the two and you  see if you are breaking the rules or not. Priesthood holders should have been taught or at least have access to the outlines for all the priesthood blessings so that they can know what they are doing.
     
    That being said your point about other not understanding the difference is exactly why I addressed the danger of people seeing you bless your grandkid assuming you did something you weren't allowed and pushing for doing more things you should not do (thinking you already crossed that line)
  25. Like
    Leah reacted to estradling75 in Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children   
    Quit bullying me..  You misunderstood me... You attack me... and then you blame others for the tone of the forum. You just caused it.  So stop it right now.
     
    You misunderstand me if you think Vort is the only one to offer carlimac advise and thought on her dilemma (and there for the only person I could possibly be referring to).  Go re-read the thread and count them.  Then I want an apology to me and all the forum members for your part in degrading the quality of this forum.
     
    Unlike the last time you can now be assured that you are seeing me angry (And you didn't acknowledge your mistake then either)