andypg

As a college student, I can't afford to buy too many nice clothes. It actually took me a while to figure out white shirts are standard so I came to shirt with a shirt and tie, but the shirt wouldn't be white. In an attempt to "fit in" more I ended up buying two white shirts, what I could afford.
 
But now I feel underdressed because I don't have a suit jacket. They are expensive. Hopefully soon.
 
I think if your heart is in the right place, you will dress respectfully. That may not always be a suit (I've shown up once in a button down shirt, jeans and sneakers because my flight made it home early and it was either go like that or miss church) but it is dressing humbly and respectfully. Not run down t-shirts and flip flops.
 
Honeslty, I rather you go to church with an open heart willing to learn than skip because you don't have the clothes (or time to change).

I feel like I'm the only one who has no desire to see this movie! Maybe it's because I've already met so many different types of Mormons. 

I have always said..if there isn't steak in heaven I ain't going.

I see nothing wrong with praising Joseph Smith. I don't worship him. But, I do honor him. And, I am very grateful for his life, his example, his visions and revelations, and his teachings.
 
Using an existing tune is done all the time. One of my favorites is "Lord, Dismiss Us with Thy Blessing." I always want to start singing "Go tell Aunt Rhody, Go tell Aunt Rhody, Go tell Aunt Rhody, The old gray goose is dead."

I don't think we should question merely for questioning's sake.  But if, in the course of our studies, questions or issues come up:  By all means we should explore them; honestly, with an open mind, and not trying to write personal revelation out of the process.
 
In another thread I referred you to The Crucible of Doubt by Terryl and Fiona Givens.  You really should read it.

I think, after listening to Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in Priesthood session, we should be less concerned about who a specific talk is or isn't directed toward, and be asking ourselves "Lord, is it I?"

Just when I thought President Uchtdorf gave the best Conference talk I wake up this morning and play this! (I'm visiting family so I'm watching it on DVR slowly and a little delayed).
Wow. Just as people saw and heard Joseph Smith when Brigham Young spoke outside the Nauvoo temple, I'm pretty sure I saw and heard King Benjamin when Elder Holland spoke!
But in all seriousness, my biggest complaint about my year as a Mormon so far was the apparent lack of discussion on charity and help for the poor and less fortunate. It may just be me, but I can count on one hand the amount of times they were mentioned. As a Catholic, that was most of what was talked about next to Christ.
My main question I wrote before conference was, How can I live a Christ-like life in this Church especially when it comes to helping the poor and needy? Then I heard Elder Holland's talk.
Like classylady, I couldn't help but cry with him too. This, for me, is a call to do what I can to help those around me and in need no matter who they are.

Dahlia, I don't think Elder Holland was speaking specifically about the children coming from Mexico, but they are probably included.
I think one of the implications of his talk was that we need to be careful not to let the political dogma and dogmatic theology interfere with practical religion. Yes, it is true that the best long term solution for the poor is to get them work and self sufficient. But we need to be more compassionate and empathetic in how we get people there.

The rebel in me would grow a Hitler 'stache (approved so long as it doesn't pass the corners of the mouth) until beards were allowed.
 
 
The coward in me would tell people I was emulating Charlie Chaplin.

I'm not big on superficial standards that have no meaning, to me at least.
If that's the image the college wants to project I empathize with the students, but ultimately it is up to the college.
 
 
I didn't know about the negative bias against shorts!  I LOVE shorts. Yeah, other, closer, decent, colleges have better rankings for my major, so arbitrary "standards" don't help it look like an attractive choice. Still a potential place to go to for education, just not #1.

So I wrote a paper about this last year for a class. My professor at the time was Urban von Wahlde who is considered a leading American scholar on John and the Johannine community. So when I look at the question of "Who killed Jesus" especially with allegations of "It was 'the Jews'", I tend to look at it through the lens of the Gospel of John.
 
The Gospel of John went through three editorial stages by three separate authors in the Johannine community. The first edition refers to the Jewish leaders as the “Pharisees” and “Scribes” however, in the second edition the author uses the term “the Jews” in order to describe the Jewish religious leaders, not the Jewish people as a whole. The Gospel writer (of the second edition) uses the Greek word Ioudaios.
 
So when the Gospel of John refers to the Jews (Ioudaios) who opposed Christ, it is referring to the religious leaders, not the entire Jewish community. While the Gospel of John talks about the plot of the Jews to kill Christ, it is a very small and specific group the author is referring to. It is the religious leaders responsible.
 
Now, looking at the passage from Matthew, and I’m much less familiar with the Matthean tradition so I may be reading this wrong, the first two verses of chapter 27 reads: “When morning came, the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death. They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor.” (NRSV)
 
The “they” that bound him and led him to Pilate were the chief priests (arciereis) and elders (presbuteroi). Now, in verse 25 that you quoted, it says that “all the people” called for Barabbas. Now, this is where my lack of knowledge of the Matthean tradition puts me at a disadvantage. In John, Ioudaios (the Jews) could to us bring about images of a large group of people, but in reality to the Johannine tradition and author it was just the religious leaders. In Matthew, the Greek says, pas ho laos translated “all the people”. We could take it to mean a large group of the Jewish community, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be that. It could be all the people who were present, and since there is no evidence provided by the author of Matthew that a large following went with the chief priests and elders to Pilate, all the people who were there could well be just the chief priests and elders, the religious leaders of John’s Gospel.
 
If I had more time on my hands, I’d try to find out the wording of the Marcan and Luke traditions, though I think they might agree with Matthew.
 
Now in all this I think it’s important to remember this: When Christ is being crucified in The Passion of the Christ, it is Mel Gibson’s hand that is hammering the nail. Why? Gibson wanted to symbolically show that he (and all of us) have a role in the crucifixion. That’s the important part we need to remember when discussing who crucified Christ.

Hermione was Baptist.  She loved to find her answers in authoritative book, and frequently would cite their chapter and verse.

I'm the most libertarian person on here (or at least I think I am). I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage (I know I'm in the minority on here), though if I found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will make sure everything is taken care of for the eternities and if that means obtaining legal recognition on earth in order to be sealed, so be it. That is more important than my not recognizing the government's authority on declaring marriage.

I'm the most libertarian person on here (or at least I think I am). I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage (I know I'm in the minority on here), though if I found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will make sure everything is taken care of for the eternities and if that means obtaining legal recognition on earth in order to be sealed, so be it. That is more important than my not recognizing the government's authority on declaring marriage.

I have two coffee makers. One instant, one is a stove top espresso maker. I make the best Cuban coffee out of anyone I know (not to brag), so if I'm asked, I'll make it for you.
I also have alcohol in my freezer. Most of my friends are 21 and not LDS, so we'll get together to hang out and I have no problem with others drinking, even in my apartment. I'll even give recommendations for wine.

It's interesting the range of thoughts on this. As converts we are the only members of the church in our respective families. We don't keep coffee and tea (other than herbal tea) in the house on a regular basis. However I have no problem with family bringing their own and would be happy to serve it to them. My mother stayed recently to watch the kids while we went away for a few days, I would have bought coffee and tea for her, except I wasn't organised so she bought her own, it's still here and I expect it will stay here for future visits. We also have welcomed friends and family who bring their own wine or beer for meals with us. Smoking friends/family go outside, but I don't know anyone who would smoke even in their own homes, so that's just normal and not because we are members.
 
On a side note, my mother keeps a stock of my favourite herbal tea in her house, which she doesn't drink. She does it because she wants us to feel comfortable and welcome. I want people to feel the same way in my house, so I am accomodating of their preferences. We wouldn't tolerate illegal drugs in or around the home - but that hasn't changed from before.

I would describe myself more on the lines of believing government should just step out of marriage altogether.  But, I also figure, why rock the boat?
 
That the OP wanted to balk at government-marriage, I'm for... until it gets in the way of red tape.  Sure, we might not like that the red tape is there, but it's there.  So if you want the temple blessings, you jump through the hoops.

:)  I think you misunderstood me.  I do follow Gods Will for me in my life, and I do NOT have the attitude that "I have been good, is that enough?".  I was simply quoting you, and remarking that that is not how I live my life, nor is it how I view my life.  Throughout the rest of that paragraph, I was trying to say that nothing I can do will ever be enough, I have to give my whole self at all times, and yet, with my humanity, I will always fall short.  But it doesn't stop me from doing my best every day to live a virtuous and hardworking life, devoted entirely to God in service to all around me, and done with genuine love.   
 
We also have magazines (I subscribe to two magazines, another we get as part of my hubby being a member of the Knights of Columbus, and we also receive our Diocesan Catholic Newspaper every month), I attend conferences (in which I have one I am very excited about this month on the 20th) , and we also have plenty of encylicals and teachings which can be found online, in a bookstore, and/or heard on the radio or tv.  All of which I, and my husband, participate in.  And all of these things do the same things you explain yours to do.  :)  The New Covenant I also keep, by partaking of the Holy Eucharist in Mass, the wedding feast of the Lamb.  In my Church, my husband and I are highly active and were named "Family of the Year" in our Parish in 2012, among approximately 2,500 registered families.  I guess I could say that we are also active in the ward we would've been assigned to, if we were LDS, by contributing to all holiday charities the ward fundraises for, with money and food; and by being strong members of our neighborhood community. 
 
I guess what I'm saying is, I am living the Gospel as best as I can.  And for me, I have a testimony of my faith which drives me and sustains me everyday in my work.  I live what is expected of me, by those I believe, and know, to have the true authority.  Now, obviously, on this forum, you and most everyone else, believe that the true authority resides in your church.  I'm not trying to argue with you about this, the OP, IMHO, was a challenge to forum members to consider how we choose to live our lives in accordance with the Gospel.  I merely answered that question from my own POV, and in line with my own faith.        

Penn Jillette, my favorite atheist, has said on more than one occasion that you don't need religion to be moral, and I agree with that. To say, "I'd be a serial rapist if there wasn't that threat of hell" doesn't make you more moral or superior than an atheist who believes rape is wrong and would not do it. Maybe it makes it worse.
That being said, Dr. Dawkins makes me question that hypothesis a bit. Is that where atheism leads? Or is that where nihilism leads for a biologist?
I'm inclined to believe the problem is with nihilism and not atheism. Though then you have to wonder about the relationship between the two philosophies.
my ultimate question is why do we, or anyone, listen to an evolutionary biologist when it comes to religion or morality. Now, if Dawkins wanted to make the point from an evolutionary standpoint abortion would be better for the species, fine. But to bring in morality and the question of the morality of abortion in this circumstance is outside of his field. I should mention I would disagree on both questions, though he has more standing seeing it biologically than morally.
That's my main problem with these famous atheist scientists. I'll listen to Dr. Dawkins, or Dr. deGrasse Tyson, if they stay within their fields of evolutionary biology and astrophysics, respectively.
The minute deGrasse Tyson opens his moth on biology or philosophy I shut off because that is not his area. The same with Dr. Dawkins on morality and theology.

I'm the most libertarian person on here (or at least I think I am). I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage (I know I'm in the minority on here), though if I found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will make sure everything is taken care of for the eternities and if that means obtaining legal recognition on earth in order to be sealed, so be it. That is more important than my not recognizing the government's authority on declaring marriage.

I'm the most libertarian person on here (or at least I think I am). I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage (I know I'm in the minority on here), though if I found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will make sure everything is taken care of for the eternities and if that means obtaining legal recognition on earth in order to be sealed, so be it. That is more important than my not recognizing the government's authority on declaring marriage.

These are from the church website and may be helpful for study:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual?lang=eng
 
https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual?lang=eng
 
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2014?lang=eng
 
As far as parts I love - sections 89 and 122
 
Congrats on finishing the Book of Mormon!

I'm the most libertarian person on here (or at least I think I am). I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage (I know I'm in the minority on here), though if I found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will make sure everything is taken care of for the eternities and if that means obtaining legal recognition on earth in order to be sealed, so be it. That is more important than my not recognizing the government's authority on declaring marriage.

Finally finished the Book of Mormon for the first time a year and 3 days after my baptism. Next time it won't take that long.
Now onto the New Testament! Then the D&C...
I'm starting to like this multiple books of Scripture thing