jerome1232

Because I want them to realize that it was the gospel that taught me to be good, and not my own drive. That is awesome is someone thinks I  am great... but that does little for them. If they see that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that made me great, then they know where to turn so they too can be like Jesus Christ.

Probably thought you were a Mennonite.

Browsing my phone's newsfeed today I cringed a little when I saw this headline.
"Mormon church leader wants people to stop using 'Mormon.'"
I find it hard to not use the word Mormon, heck just last night I was talking to a guy and it came up that I was Mormon, he then asked me where my hat was, and if that's why I had a beard 
Hat? I started laughing, "what hat!?" I think he was thinking about Judasim, idk. I didn't want to try saying that I'm LDS, knowing I'll have to clarify that I'm Mormon anyways. Saying "I'm a latter-day saint" sounds like I'm bragging. "I go to the Church of Jesus Christ" doesn't sound definitive enough, sounds like I'm talking about your generic Christian chapel down the block. Maybe I'll try using that but I have a feeling I'll always end up saying I'm "Mormon" to clear things up.

I find organic costs too much for nothing. I like to get my evolution with a heavy dose of lab assisted gmo to steer it along. Usually it's in aisle C14 or thereabouts.

Oh my, I'm hoping this will be a weekly comic!

Visconti Sepia in Platinum 3776 Century, F (Noah & ark; also the woman dating carbon in next post)
Sailor Sei-Boku in Pilot Stargazer, F (triceratops)
Waterman Mysterious Blue in Waterman Laureat, F (Brontey; also carbon in next post)
Akkerman #09 Laan van Nieuw Oost-Indigo in Pilot Vanishing Point, F (Kangasaurus Hex)

When it comes to handing out judgments for how moms choose to parent, I align strongly with this parenting philosophy:

The church uses the King James Version of the Bible. It was compiled in 1611. In that era, and up until about 1970, masculine pronouns were used in English by default. Gender-neutral pronouns are now used for references to a general audience. When reading older literature, understanding this basic reality should help all of us avoid the false belief that prior to 1970 everyone was misogynist. 

@carlimac
@pwrfrk
I've got a real life friend that believes this exact scenario is a real thing. She used the priesthood becoming available to people of all lineages as her example too.

The issue is they aren't comparable. The priesthood ban, at it's introduction, was said to be temporary (even if Brigham Young didn't think it would happen before the second coming of Christ, he still acknowledged this wasn't a permanent thing).

Who does and doesn't hold the priesthood isn't a core foundational doctrine of the church. To change who is eligible doesn't contradict any core doctrine. 

The family though? The nature of the family? That stuff is core. It's foundational. If Pres. Nelson got up and announced that the church was wrong about the nature of the family and said that same gender unions were sanctioned by God that would contradict core, foundational, scriptural doctrine.

If that happened it would mean at the very least that Pres. Nelson wasn't speaking for God. It would mean Pres. Nelson was leading God's church astray. I don't believe God would allow his church to be lead astray like that. If that happened it would shake my faith to the very core.

Because I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ is truly Christ's church here on earth, and Pres. Nelson was called by God to lead His church. My simple response is that your comparison is flawed, and it's a silly hypothetical that won't ever happen.

@carlimac
@pwrfrk
I've got a real life friend that believes this exact scenario is a real thing. She used the priesthood becoming available to people of all lineages as her example too.

The issue is they aren't comparable. The priesthood ban, at it's introduction, was said to be temporary (even if Brigham Young didn't think it would happen before the second coming of Christ, he still acknowledged this wasn't a permanent thing).

Who does and doesn't hold the priesthood isn't a core foundational doctrine of the church. To change who is eligible doesn't contradict any core doctrine. 

The family though? The nature of the family? That stuff is core. It's foundational. If Pres. Nelson got up and announced that the church was wrong about the nature of the family and said that same gender unions were sanctioned by God that would contradict core, foundational, scriptural doctrine.

If that happened it would mean at the very least that Pres. Nelson wasn't speaking for God. It would mean Pres. Nelson was leading God's church astray. I don't believe God would allow his church to be lead astray like that. If that happened it would shake my faith to the very core.

Because I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ is truly Christ's church here on earth, and Pres. Nelson was called by God to lead His church. My simple response is that your comparison is flawed, and it's a silly hypothetical that won't ever happen.

Look for a post on here that I think was started by Grunt a month or two ago. He asked almost exactly the same question and got many good responses.

On occasion I listen to The Way I Heard It by Mike Row. It's a mildly interesting podcast where he tells a story about how a certain famous figure came to become what they are known for but he doesn't reveal their name until the end.
 
And that is as far into the podcast worlds as I have ventured.

I was wondering if you fine folks knew of any uplifting LDS podcasts? I did a small amount of searching and saw a few but then I noticed John Delins name was attached to one, so I thought instead of just jumping in and wading through mud that maybe I should get some recommendations for good, faith inspiring content.
 
Also what do you use? I just jumped into the podcast section of Google Play Music, so is there a particular service or app for android? For a Linux desktop? Something that works on a google home mini?

@mordorbund
Interesting. I had no idea of those other meanings for celibate.

I thought celibate meant only total abstinence from sexual relations. I didn't know it could also mean remaining unmarried as well.

I don't know if it's just my perspective or not, but I think celibate, at least in these days, is usually meant to mean sexual abstinence. I mean, I didn't even know about the other meaning!

IMO, the only reason to ask the question is if you do not understand certain eternal truths.
Truth.  God.  The Lord Jesus Christ.
 

It is a silly what if because you're asking "what if the church stopped following God".  

Note: I'm assuming your OP that you are talking about people committing fornication, not people just have homosexual desires.  People who have homosexual desires can indeed validly attend the temple, serve wherever God calls them, etc.   People who fornicate cannot do so worthily because of their unrepentant sins.
So, your question is what happen if God said "fornication is ay-okay?"  Not going to happen.
It does not make any sense to compare God's repeated command not to fornicate ever (including in scripture and modern revelation) to a temporary earthly policy that never really had any backing (and those things were said at the time).  Such arguments a just a redherring.

The conflict comes in intentionally placing yourselves in a place of temptation. Satan works hard to prevent worthy couple's marrying and I find it unwise to intentionally put yourselves in a position where it would be so, so easy to give in.
 
Very unwise.

Yes and no...  Baptism (and the other proxy ordinances) done by the proper authority is a one and done thing.
While we have no control over if they have accepted it... having done it on their behalf we have done our part to help them.  We do not have to keep doing it.

Ezekiel 37 (stick of Joseph/stick of Judah) is one.  But it’s important to note that non-LDS Biblical scholars have perfectly plausible—even persuasive—explanations of these passages that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.  They’re great passages of faith-bolstering dual prophecy; but I wouldn’t use them as proof-texts.

The conflict comes in intentionally placing yourselves in a place of temptation. Satan works hard to prevent worthy couple's marrying and I find it unwise to intentionally put yourselves in a position where it would be so, so easy to give in.
 
Very unwise.

The conflict comes in intentionally placing yourselves in a place of temptation. Satan works hard to prevent worthy couple's marrying and I find it unwise to intentionally put yourselves in a position where it would be so, so easy to give in.
 
Very unwise.

The conflict comes in intentionally placing yourselves in a place of temptation. Satan works hard to prevent worthy couple's marrying and I find it unwise to intentionally put yourselves in a position where it would be so, so easy to give in.
 
Very unwise.

The conflict comes in intentionally placing yourselves in a place of temptation. Satan works hard to prevent worthy couple's marrying and I find it unwise to intentionally put yourselves in a position where it would be so, so easy to give in.
 
Very unwise.

The conflict comes in intentionally placing yourselves in a place of temptation. Satan works hard to prevent worthy couple's marrying and I find it unwise to intentionally put yourselves in a position where it would be so, so easy to give in.
 
Very unwise.

Bah, I love a good cup of herbal tea, but then I live in So. Cali where we are currently enduring our 3rd week of straight 100's. I like iced peppermint tea, iced country peach passion, and iced berry zinger.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.