Anddenex

Carry a handgun BB gun. Next time this happens, draw, click, pull trigger. Just make sure you aim well.

skippy740 is correct. We are not responsible in any way before the Lord to convince you. We are under responsibility to share and answer questions people do have. It is the Holy Ghost that teaches every person on this earth the truth, John 14: 26. It is the responsibility of the hearer to do their due diligence, by humbling themselves, in seeking the Lord's will and not their own. My first answer to your question, which comes with a question and an invitation. Have you read the Book of Mormon? I would pay special attention to Moroni 10: 3-5. I would also pay attention to James 1:5, and how the Lord does ask us to ask him. Remember, when Jesus asked his disciples, apostles, who he was. Simon answered in a way that the Lord said something to this point, "Blessed art though Simon for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven." It was not Jesus who convinced Simon, it was Heavenly Father's witness through the Holy Ghost. Simon new because God revealed it unto him. We believe in living revelation, and living prophets. The Lord through his living prophets have declared that this is the Lord's true church. However, as members we aren't here to convince you of anything, and if we try to convince you we would be much like Paul who stood before a man, don't remember his name and to lazy to look it up, who said "Almost convinced me to be a Christian." As members we could try all day to convince you and we may come close, but it will never be convincing. The moment God convinces, it is hard to deny. Best Regards.

I would invite them in. If a hot day, give them a drink of water. Then send them on their way. I have seen the video, and although the video was somewhat well mannered, it was meant as a joke. They weren't being series, but rather annoying. If it is the same video I am thinking of, they actually went to one of the stores and purchased garments, and then walked around in them. No reason not to let them in.

Yes, of course there was real caramel apples ready for them to eat, after they tasted the bitter. I am a mean Dad, but not that mean.

Thank you mikbone. I really appreciate the last part of this quote given by Brigham Young, This is why I am a proponent of a "local flood" depth verses a whole world depth also.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence of organic evolution at a micro level. I have never read any overwhelming evidence pertaining to a macro level, example, an ape into a human, or if we want to get really technical, a fish from the ocean who walked on land, and over time became a human. I understand your point with the mayfly, however, how do we know the adult mayfly actually "doubts and scoff"? I don't believe science should call anything factual unless they can provide testable and observable data, until then it is theory and they should represent it as such. I have never considered a great ape looking or even acting so human. They act like animals with no remorse for their decisions. They cannot increase upon their stature, and intelligence without the aid of humans. I remember one person I spoke with who tried to convince me that apes and humans are the same because an ape learned sign language. I am not talking the simple sign language all pi-bedals use, but the sophisticated sign-language developed by humans. Yet without human interaction, they would not have learned anything. The soapberry bug, at least to me, is an example of micro evolution, within a species, or adaption, but not an example of a species fully evolving into another species unlike one of it primary ancestors. I have noticed, a lot of members on LDS.net who are very scientific minded, unlike myself, and thus my questions. Trying to seek to understand. Thank you for your response. Ha... the pi-bedals was supposed to be bi-pedals, oopss.

Yes, remembering the taste can definitely help us not to want to taste it again. The lesson began with the quote, "God creates, and Satan imitates." We verified with the children if they understood what it meant by "imitate." We clarified the definition with the children who didn't understand. We discussed how Satan is able to make something bad look good. We discussed how we need to be able to discern the truth, and possible ways, to discern truth: 1. What do the scriptures say? We then discussed the importance of knowing scripture, because Satan will even use scripture to deceive people. If you know scripture, then he can't deceive you, but if you are not studied, then he can. 2. We discussed how Satan has appeared to some as an Angel of light, and how he imitates God. We discussed ways in scripture that specify how we are able to be protected from this imitation. The children had different questions, and I don't remember their questions right now, but we answered them. Then we allowed the caramel onions to sink the lesson in. What they saw was sweet, but what they actually tasted was bitter.

No need for the "sorry", I fully understood the intent. I think a honest jab at each other is healthy at times. Plus, I never felt it was a personal attack, just specifying the potential "baloney" I offer, which it could be. I agree with the first sentence, the part after the comma, I think BYU's and BYU Idaho's ratio of men to women disagree. I agree. I would agree with this statement also, and fully understand, however I think this is a result of horny young men conversations, with intelligent young women, who think the idea of the "intimacy" aspect, and that young men only specify the idea of being intimate with more than one woman. I honestly do not believe, the idea of "intimacy" will be an issue in the next life, and polygamy is not a sexual based doctrine, but unfortunately, male nature only focuses on this aspect. For example, referring back to my friend who lost his wife to cancer after a year and a half, who is also sealed to his second wife. When the time comes he is able to meet his first wife, I wouldn't be surprised if both wives will have a choice to remain with him or not. However, if they both choose to remain with him, does this negate or lessen my glory that I may have my wife and no others...I think not. If polygamy isn't an eternal principle, then I really feel sorry for one of the wives of my friend. The first wife, probably is looking forward to the reuniting of her husband and children. The second wife, would it be fair to her to loose her husband in the next life, a husband she only knows, and then if so, to choose a companion she has no experience with? Either way it could be the case, but I don't believe it is. Good conversation, and good thoughts.

To share another example I am aware of, however to be frank my understanding of the science behind Egypt could be wrong. I understand according to science that Egypt was a dry wasteland when it was settled by the Egyptians, however within the Pearl of Great Price it mentions the daughter of Ham discovered Egypt while it was under water, most likely a marsh land similar to Nauvoo. Anyone want to shed some light? This is the type of contradiction of science vs. religion I am speaking about also.

I would agree science and religion go hand-in-hand, and believe in the idea that it is the theories of science and the theories of religion which contradict each other. We should reject theories on both sides, or better said, accept what we know is "truth" on both sides, and contemplate other aspects without specifying they are factual. I am actually a proponent of a "localized flood", verses a worldwide flood, however if the flood was worldwide as specified in Ensign articles, then this would fly right into the face of science, and if science is wrong on this aspect, then our knowledge of science and how the earth formed and resulted is very infant - EDIT - My opinion. Either way, it doesn't affect my testimony, but I have been curious also, because I am not a scientific minded person, and am actually very critical of any factual evidence provided by science unless it is observable or common to all. Example, gravity vs. evolution of a species. We all witness a ball dropping, thus we know something is exerted on the ball, we call it gravity. However, no person has ever experienced or even seen a species evolve into another species, yet so many people call this a fact without any observable or testable evidence - EDIT - My opinion.

@Vort & @HiJolly I appreciate your remarks, and would like to understand more of why you feel our understanding of the flood is wrong. Is it solely due to science discoveries, or through personal revelation. The reason why I ask, is because the church has published through Ensign articles that the flood was worldwide, and this should be our stance. In this article he quotes Elder Howard W. Hunter saying, @HiJolly - Yes, as LDS we definitely shouldn't avoid science or history. :)

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings? For example, according to mainstream science a flood which covered the whole earth never happened. The Bible however, and confirmed by Latter-day Apostles and Prophets, confirms that a flood took place. Science says, the earth is billions of years old. However, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with this fact. How old the earth is, is pretty speculative even within doctrine, thus it is easier to reconcile the two. However, when two contradict, no flood covering the earth, verses the Bible specifying a flood did cover the earth. The question: Is the science wrong, or is our understanding of the flood wrong - even past prophets and apostles, as well as current apostles and prophets?

No worries Seminary, another person's opinion on the subject matter, when speculating or providing different answers doesn't bother me, nor is it mean. It appears we agree on something, we both can see baloney. I would think a woman who has been barren her whole life would highly disagree with you, well, at least my friends who have not been able to have any children and are unable to adopt any, would surely disagree. The idea of receiving glory from someone else's child, does not dictate in no way the lack of being a mother yourself. I met a woman on my mission who PB talks about being a mother. She was diagnosed at 19 unable to have any children. Her consolation, she will gain value and honor as she helps her siblings with their children, and will help teach and assist in helping them. Within a step-family, does a step child bring honor or value to the step-father/mother? You bet it does. In our ward we had a father who lost his wife of 1 year and a half to cancer. They had one son. He remarried. The wife has since the child was 9 or so months old raised him. This is not her son, but does this son reflect her, and give her value in life. Her words, "You bet it does." He is her son, and his accomplishments will be as a direct result of her efforts and her husbands. We had another father whose wife up and left one day without any notice. She had a child before they were married. The oldest child was not his own flesh and blood, but will this child give value and honor to him? You bet the child will. We agree. This is merely a personal opinion, and according to your definition of a Celestial marriage. Are you suggesting the polygamous relationships entered into by Jacob, Joseph Smith, and others were not Celestial marriages? True, and yet at the same time, they don't. The value of polygamy in this life has already been specified, to raise up a righteous seed. The question then, is this a true principle, an eternal principle, or solely an earthly principle? I would disagree with your assessment and what you consider to be inequality and value. Truth doesn't take any sides. If polygamy is a true and eternal principle, which most likely it is, then this idea would be incorrect, or as you bluntly like to say, "baloney." No hard feelings Seminary...I appreciate your candor and our discussions. :)

In addition to the comments specified, and in accordance with LM's response, if the Stake President and Bishop are unwilling to act appropriately, then you have the right to contact the area authority, and let them know the situation also. I agree with everyone here, this man should not be allowed to be with any young men or women within the ward. This individual should have been released the following Sunday.

I would agree Dravin. I didn't think it appropriate to explain a 30 minute lesson on this Forum, thus only shared the funny moment at the end of the lesson. This morning my son woke up and said, "Dad, I still can taste the onion." Ha. One of our other sons, actually turned the caramel apple so that the bottom was facing up, and he noticed the caramel apple, wasn't an apple, and looked at us and said, "This is an onion, I am not eating it."

Yes, indeed, I don't think as a child I would have handled it without being upset either. It is a good thing our children take after their mom more than their dad.

Yes.

Agreed, however, I get to be picky also. The Book of Mormon was given for our day and time, that we may liken it unto ourselves. Great thought. I would agree because Zenith was "over-zealous", not just zealous. I personally feel that the Lord would say it is up to you, but be temperate in all things. The moment we are "over-zealous" in any attribute (e.g. love, kindness, justice, mercy, etc...) we are no longer following the Lord's counsel, but we are trusting in our own arm of the flesh.

So for our FHE lesson tonight, our lesson covered the idea that God creates, and Satan imitates. For treats, yes, you might have guessed it... instead of caramel apples, they had the wonderful imitation of caramel onions. Our oldest, as usual, was so excited he quickly took a huge bite thinking of the sweet savor of the caramel and apple. To his disappointed he laments, "This is not an apple, this is an onion. No you didn't! And then he ran over to mom while we are both laughing and tackles her. Then gets up and runs to the bathroom, "I need to get this taste out of my mouth." While he is running to the bathroom mom says, "Satan imitates."

In this definition I don't see any conflict with polygamy than, because there isn't any responsibilities you are kept from, under your personal umbrella within the marriage relationship, or that wouldn't bless you. If the business partner agreed to the decision, then yes, it will still be a full partnership. Within a business, there can be multiple partners, yet the number of partners does not dictate the lack of full partnership. The idea of business partnership, doesn't negate a partner from venturing on his own into other avenues, even if it is within the "facility" the partner owns. My question, why would a partner object to a business partner, on his own tab, starting another business? Would you interfere with a business partner who wants to use the facility you both own to further his investments? If he did so, would this negate your full partnership...no it wouldn't. No, I never said this, and I don't believe this idea being presented is factual. The husband and wife are "one", thus what one receives the other receives also. If a husband gains more glory, would this not reflect upon his spouse? If a wife gains glory, would not this reflect upon her husband? A simple parable to share my point: There is a small village. In this village it is ruled by one man with many wives. The wives have many children. The children grow up in stature, good stature. They go out into the world, and their actions garner the influence of others. As they continue their good works, and increase in reputation, will the children's actions reflect only one spousal relationship, or will they affect the village? The answer is both. Each child from each wife will greatly influence the mother and father, as will the collective actions of the children greatly influence the village as a whole. This is similar to polygamy. The village being marriage. All involved will be influenced collectively, thus the "blessings, glory and relationships etc." will shared by all within this relationship. I would disagree with this, since this coincides with the previous statement.

Well said Vort.

I like to be the devil's advocate regarding these types of questions, especially when I hear/read people say something to the nature of: I then like to say, to ruffle some feathers, Personally, I wouldn't be able to sell alcohol or tobacco.

I like Elder Eyrings comment regarding tithing: From a First Presidency Message titlted, "The Blessings of Tithing."

I think I would like to tackle this question Seminary... I would think the premise in asking this already is incorrect. The question assumes that a full partnership can only be a full partnership if there are only two. It really depends on the definition of "full partnership" and whether or not our understanding of being full partners is correct. A husband with more than one wife, has full partnership with each spouse within their sphere of influence, their stewardship. The idea that another partner is added to the companionship, does not dictate that the new companion is able to interfere with another stewardship. It does dictate a new dynamic to the relationship, nothing more nothing less. A relationship will continue to be full no matter how many partners are within the group.

I have a cousin who is mentally handicapped. She is a wonderful woman, however by herself, she would not be able to sustain herself financially very long. Her father passed away and her mother still lives. When her mother passes away the responsibility has already been decided to fall within the oldest child, and she is willing to do so. Family should be the first form of assistance. Where family is unable to assist, then the government, or others, should assist. This however is not a right, or a privilege, but should result from a caring and compassionate society. Institutionalized? Depends on the severity of the handicap. No, they should not loose freedoms, but privileges may be lost due to their handicap. This one is tough for me, because I have a hard time finding any excuse or reason for the government to assist a person who suffer from addictions. Addictions are usually the result of a personal choice. Society, already intervenes through addiction courses, and prison. These appear to be a good method. No thoughts pertaining to the children. That is very tough.