Magus

I think we're kind of picking sides here, when really there isn't a side to pick. Yes, Jesus will forgive the repentant, while the unrepentant are not forgiven, though all are loved. What's the debate?

A noble goal. Which degree? One of my goals is similar. I speak conversational Russian from my mission, and the only reason it's still functional is largely because my wife is Russian, but I'm still not fluent. I figure the one of the biggest ways of doing that is to speak it at home more. They say in the MTC, if you want to speak your language - speak your language!

...In other words, besides the big stuff like, be a good husband/wife/father/mother/member of the Church... Do you want to learn a new skill? Pick up a certain hobby? Travel to certain places? Do you have a certain mission for yourself that you want to accomplish? Go back to school? Write a book? Read certain books? Become an amazing cook? Start a business? Learn to draw?

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

Just throwing this out there - according to many scholars (and even one of the lost gospels, if I remember right), Mary was about 14 when she conceived Jesus......and also, to refresh everyone's memory, Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng And granted, it was legal back then and according to Helen Mar Kimball, there weren't sexual relations (though I personally don't rule out that there could have been - and it doesn't bother me), but I'm just saying Mormons comparing gay marriage to under-age marriage might not be the the best tactic, considering the circumstances. Also, what's objectionable by society at any given time (it changes) and what is an actual sin in God's eyes are are gonna be two different things. Not trying to attack you or single you out, Just A Guy, nor is this a specific response to you or to anyone at all really. I was just reading the course of the convo and this came to mind, that's all.

Didn't read the whole thread - but the Church in Russia, both from the business end and within the ecclesiastical end, has some similar problems. My take is this - when the Church goes to a country where corruption is rampant, it's hard to find people who won't carry those practices with them into the Church, because for them, it's a way of life. It's just how things are done, and they've been doing it so long, that's how they think. They kind of have to be re-programmed. There also can be a disconnect at times between American leaders in a foreign land and the people beneath them. Sometimes the Americans do expect things to be done a certain way and can be insensitive to the culture around them. The guy who wanted everyone speaking English, (my guess) probably just wanted to make things simpler and didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but ended up stepping in it by doing so. I am very much for the Church adapting to the culture of their area, and not simply Americanizing the people around them. It's a problem that this is seen as an "American Church," - but it's something we have a tendency to do to ourselves. Ideally, it should be seen simply as God's Church and let the culture of the area fill in the rest. It's kind of funny in a way, but even here in America, the cultural issue goes one more level in - we have Utah culture vs. the culture of wherever else the Church is in the country. Some people move in from Utah or are from that general area and have certain ideas about how things are supposed to be done.

How else would you show the principle I was trying to show? I respect your opinion about Jesus being best man at a gay wedding. I'm strongly inclined to disagree. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe there's an exceptional circumstance in which He would do it - but my point of view is based on the idea that you can show love for someone without participating in what they are doing. Objectively speaking, I certainly don't think it's a slam-dunk conclusion that Jesus "for sure" would be his best man.

I agree with the rest of your post as well, but I wanted to particularly emphasize my agreement with this part of it. As members of the Church, we should strive to avoid contention. Especially with each other. I don't care if it's conservative disagreeing with liberals or liberals disagreeing with conservatives - I think we all need to make an effort to curb our online snarkiness with each other. I mentioned this elsewhere, recently, but there was a time I came here (quite awhile ago) with some points of view I wanted sincere feedback on, and it quickly devolved into a rather snarky and somewhat disrespectful internet debate, probably because people were feeling defensive with what I said and misunderstood me, and as someone else has said, they were probably thinking about how to respond, not how to listen. It turned me off and I left the community for quite awhile. I face enough condemnation from the world for my religious/political views, get called a bigot for it, etc etc. Or I get called a cult member for being a Mormon. The last thing I want when I come to a Mormon community is to face more condemnation, judgmentalism or internet snark from other members, when we are supposed to be One, as Jesus prayed for in Gethsemane. Despite whatever our views or differences are, we are supposed to be One. Brothers and Sisters. We are supposed to be, ultimately, strengthening each other and showing love, even if we disagree on things. If any place on the internet should have a different culture from all the snark, the back-biting, the contention and negativity - it should be and LDS forum. Otherwise, we're just like everybody else.

I did say that my comparisons weren't exact - I was just trying to show the principle of not participating in something that is directly against God's law - and regardless of how much you or I sympathize with gays, the humanity of what they feel and are going through, etc etc - gay marriage is against God's law and is, quite frankly, an abomination. Some of you, I understand, seem to be uncomfortable with that. Fornicating is also very human and I can be sympathetic to people who have sex before marriage, whether for love or just for the pleasure of it - but all of that is still sin, wrong, and - there's that word again - an abomination. And if the word "abomination" makes you uncomfortable - this is God's langauge, not mine. In just the same way that Martin Harris was a "wicked" man, per the D&C. Anyway, I'm not judging anyone for whatever decision they make. I personally disagree with the idea of being his best man. It's not what I would do. If he goes and does it, it's for his own reasons based on his own rationale. As far as comparing homosexuality to pedophila or other depraved acts - i think it depends on how one arrives at it. There are some people have only known homosexuality their whole lives. There are other people who arrive at it through "burning in their lust," which is the scriptural way of saying "perversion," and all perversion shares common roots. As far as "perverts asking for a certificate of debauchery," I think that's pretty much what a permit to have gay pride parades is, if you look at many of those parades and the kinds of things they often show.

My personal feeling is that participating in a gay wedding is...in fact....participating in a gay wedding. To draw a parallel, if your best friend wants you to play a piviotal role in some debauched frat party in his honor, do you do it just because he's your best friend? If your best friend is part of some racist organization and he's getting an award from it, and he wants you to present it to him because "it means a lot" to him, do you do it? This is not to demonize him for being gay. I think homosexuaity is a pretty human experience, and so the parallels aren't going to be totally exact. But would Jesus be the best man at a gay wedding? Or Thomas Monson? Honest, open question I'm postulating, I realize some of you may have different answers, but it's something to think about. If he was my very best friend, I might go to his wedding, but I would not participate in the wedding itself by being best man. Just a guess, but it seems to me that by asking you to be best man, your friend is trying to strong-arm you into showing acceptance for what he is doing. We've seen a lot of strong-arming into acceptance from the gay community lately, haven't we? Seems they think that is acceptable. It's not. If your best friend is really your best friend, he'll understand where you're coming from and settle with you attending the wedding and giving your regards to them by wishing them a measure of some kind of happiness in this life, instead of knowingly making you participate in something that is blatantly against your most cherished principles. Best friend? Sure. Trick-monkey? No. I'd tell him I appreciate the honor of the offer, but cannot do it due to my principles, but I'll see him at the wedding.

I will come out and say that in puberty, I sometimes got slightly turned on by nude renaissance art. That's how it goes when you're young and full of hormones. I will also admit that some of it is not at all uneasy on the eyes, to this day. And I've heard plenty of adult women talk about how enjoyable Michaelangelo's "David" is, and not merely artistically speaking. Hot dogs, anyone?

Excellent way around that problem. :)

I haven't read 50 Shades - I know it has extended sex scenes in it, but I also know it's not quite the same "literature" as in actual Erotica, which is usually about (give or take) 90% depictions of very lurid, graphic, detailed sex in written form and maybe 10% set up to the sex. 50 Shades seems to be sort of border-line as a genre, trying to be in the realm of an actual fiction novel, you know, with focus on character development and such, but with a fair amount of sex as well, interspersed. I think there's also a difference between writing a sex sene in a novel to depict the experience of the character as a human experience (the entire point of literature in the first place) and writing a sex scene to try and get the reader off. However, it's certainly feasible that the author of 50 Shades may have been trying to do a little of both. I'm not sure I consider 50 Shades to be "porn" in the sense that the erotica genre is porn in written word. There's a novel by Paulo Coehlo (author of The Alchemist) called Eleven Minutes, which is about a Brazillian prostitute and her sexual/spiritual journey in life. It has a number of graphic scenes in it - but I don't consider it porn, because the purpose is to show an honest portrayal of this woman's experiences and how they affected her in who she becomes by the end of the story. There are times in the novel where the character is indeed degraded, but it fulfills the author's purpose to show that she was in a degrading situation. It doesn't try and dress it up in a pornographic way that says "degredation is good." I understand that 50 Shades deals with BDSM themes. For some people, that's very taboo and a lot of people have a closed mind toward BDSM and believe it is degrading under any circumstance. I disagree. BDSM, on face value, is a form of sex, and any sex can be degrading or uplifting depending on how it is used, how the other person feels about it, etc, etc. The actions themselves are not the degrading factor so much as the intent, purpose and reception of those actions. There are a lot of sexual things that people do that one couple would not like and feel degraded by, but another couple would like very much and it would bring them much closer together. So, I know I called 50 Shades "mommy porn," but the reason I called it that was because, like romance novels, a lot of women like to read them because of the romantic and sometimes sexual elements. I'm saying that the intention of the author (whatever it may have been) is irrelevenat to how the book is being read and what it is being used for - and a lot of mommies have apparently been reading 50 Shades for its reputation of sexual content. How someone is reading or using something doesn't make it, of itself, porn - but it makes it porn for the person who is making it porn for themselves. My guess is that the author off 50 Shades did indeed write many, if not all of the scenes, to be sexually arousing and interesting, but I also guess that she probably wrote them to serve the purpose of her over-arching story as well. So I feel it might be a bit too easy and too simple to actually try and label the book "porn," or to try and place it fully in the erotica genre, because there is a story there besides the sex, but one isn't wrong for also pointing out that there is a lot of sex and eroticism in the novel, and that people are getting off on it, and that the author likely intended for those scenes to be an enticing part of the story. Whether or not reading any sexual content in any type of novel, and being aroused by it, is degrading or, in all cases, inherently sinful, is a deeper discussion. I see where it can be, and I see where it could desensitive one to the Spirit, but I'm open to other possibilities as well, as outrageous as that will sound to some.

England Wales Ireland Mexico Netherlands Germany Austria Italy Hungary Lithuania Estonia Ukraine Russia

I think the Church has chosen to tread lightly on this issue, due to the complexity of it, and simply tell members to pray about it. I suppose there's wisdom in that, though I wish it were more concrete at times. And I suppose it's conceivable that there might be situations where birth control of some kind could get a pass from God, but I think generally speaking, Spencer W. Kimball's views on contraception were right - and his were also very Catholic. I have my doubts about abortions - even if in the exigent circumstances the Church still says to pray about it. That's not a "yes, go ahead and abort," message. My own personal views on contraception and abortion are pretty Catholic, and I applaud the Catholic church for their stalwartness on that issue. As far as when the spirit enters a human body, my understanding is that Church doctrine is that it is spirit which gives anything life - so I feel life begins at conception and that your spirit is somehow attached or associated with its body from the moment it begins in embryo. Just my guess.

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. Joseph was a restorer, and Freemasonry claims to have its origins dating back to the temple of Solomon and even further back than that. Naturally, Joseph and others would be attracted to this, and I believe it was meant to be that he discover the things in Freemasonry that were true and right, and also use it as a catalyst for the rest of the inspiration he received. My personal opinion is that Freemasonry, in its various forms through the ages, has done a great service to mankind by attempting to preserve such sacred things through the ages. There really isn't an issue.

i agree 50 shades is "mommy porn" - but I can't have an opinion on it degrading women unless I read it. Which would be a brave task. But I might be up to it. I've managed to slog my way through some terrible books in my time.

Evil is like a tree. It's always growing, and it grows for a long time and over generations. I think what is different from our time and times past is that we're starting to see the institutionalization of evil, and the public at large is losing its sense of morality and replacing it with a false sense of morality. Anyway - more and more, I'm just trying to keep my head down and my eyes closed. It's not the kind of world I want to live in, so I just try to live in my own.

I concede you may be right. People who drink coffee these days probably do tend to drink more of it than in previous times, due to ease and accesibility, and there may be some consequence to that.

Yeah, I agree.

Also this is one of my fav's. Doesn't get looked at as often as some of their other hits, but it's amazing. Golden. Gods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_CqSWUZDJg

Robert Plant is one of my heroes - both as a young man and as an old one. When he was young, he was indeed a golden god of rock n' roll. But even now as an old man, he's still got this wild zest for life and music in him, a sort of sparkle in his eye and a skip in his step - and still great musical taste and talent. Big Zep fan. Also, have you seen these chicks? They're Zepparella, an all female tribute band to Led Zep, and they're dynamite.

I saw Jupiter Ascending - enjoyed it. It's, of course, very sci-fi - and that can be a divisive genre - but the characters are developed well and the special effects/action are pretty mind-blowing. A solid, entertaining film. My only big criticism is that a big aspect of the plot is a little too similar to The Matrix....humanity unknowingly being used as a resource by some other group with the upper-hand.

There are cases, I'm sure, where coffee has negatively affected a person's stomach - but people have been drinking coffee a long time, and the vast majority of them don't have their stomachs rot out. And yeah, it's addictive, but so are a lot of other things not in the WoW. And yes, I agree about the spirit of the law in not becoming addicted to things. But strictly speaking, the WoW doesn't prohibit all things that are addictive. Anyway. I try not to whine about it too much because there's no point, and then I really will become tempted. And then I'll want to start drinking wine or smoking a pipe, as well. So no black/green tea, no coffee, none of that other stuff - oh well. Nothing I or anyone can do about it. I just try to remind myself that it's for my ultimate good that there's a barrier on certain things, because the flesh is weak, after all.

In many European countries, having tea is very much a customary part of the culture, and members of the Church do not give up all tea when they join, only the types of tea that actually have the tea leaf in it, as required by the modern interpretation of the WoW. On my mission in Russia, every time we went to anyone's house, it was basically a tea party, as we were always served herbal tea and some sort of snack. We missionaries also regularly drank it back at our apartments, as well, and were really quite partial to certain brands or flavors. It was a big thing. Missionaries not into herbal tea before their mission came home very into it. Herbal tea is great and very good for you. There really shouldn't be a problem, imo. I do wish that black or green tea wouldn't be part of the WoW, there are so many other things we do that are worse for you. Coffee too, for that matter. But whatever, I get it and I can go along with it. And I get that that point of view is where your concern is...you don't want the temptation to arise to start drinking actual tea. But I feel like that's sort of like saying, let's not drink Root Beer because then we'll want to drink caffienated drinks, and then if we drink caffienated drinks, we'll be tempted to drink coffee. People can make their own decisions, but meanwhile, I don't think we need to shun a good thing just because someone, on their own, might make an association and might find a personal temptation there. Temptations are everywhere, every day, and we all will deal with them. Tea parties with herbal tea are okay, in my opinion. The more one makes a big deal about the concern, the more of a conscious thing it becomes anyway. And that's what you'd actually want to avoid. So my feeling is just don't make a big deal about it. That, and I'm personally against over-sensitivity. If people like the idea and want to do it, go with it, have fun, and if anyone is offended, that's their own personal problem. At some point, zealotry stops having a net benefit. The other question that needs to be asked is, not IF people will be offended/tempted, but SHOULD they be offended/tempted? And follow-up question: What kind of culture do we want to nourish within the Church? What kind of member do we want to build? One that only feels safe in a super-Mormon culture that shuns anything that is too similar to aspects of the world we don't participate in, or one that can be comfortable and (within reason) fit in with the world around them and be able to participate in it, still keeping the commandments, but also still feeling perfectly at home? Without making non-members uncomfortable because "oh, you're Mormon..." - because they can sense that. I think this is a perfect case where the boundaries should be pushed and people exposed to what is, all in all, a wholesome cultural activity.