ldsguy422

President Lee called the Sermon on the Mount, "the constitution for a perfect life." I think it's fair to say that it teaches more about true discipleship than any other passage of scripture.

You should read the revised version of Matthew 7. I love it! It's such a great chapter because it fully aligns with my worldly views of never judging others.

We often see Baal and Asherah show up in the Old Testament. What's the difference between the two as far as what they represent - and what ritual acts were involved? Was Baal the masculine idol, and Asherah the feminine idol? And were the groves just wooden idols? Also, I still don't understand how you could worship an inanimate object? Did the idols merely represent a god that resided elsewhere?

The Guide to the Scriptures, on the church website, states that the Church of the Devil is every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

Make rappers quote Apostles Great Again.

So, in my first post in this thread I mentioned how I was seeing lots of active members show support of the pro-choice movement (mostly for those that are economically distressed). The 7th question in the temple interview is: "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Would a blanket pro-choice stance ever be in conflict with this temple worthy standard? Not sure I've heard one way or another.

Did the church make an official statement in 1973? Sounds like you're saying the position the church took in 1973 was essentially the exact position we take today, but the world interprets the meaning of pro-life a little differently today. Yeah, I guess when I think of a stance on abortion, I'm thinking of the elective abortions - the ones that comprise 98-99% of all abortions. Which is why I believe the general rule is pro-life, but you could say we're pro-choice in the rare exceptions.

How is the church's official position pro-choice? Pro-choice, at least in my interpretation, means you're okay with someone aborting an unplanned pregnancy. There are no qualifiers. It's simply your choice. The position of the church that you're touching on is the exception, not the rule. The official declaration from the church states, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions." That is the rule, not the exception. If we're pro-choice on abortion, are we also pro-choice when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Nephi, the Israelites, and a few others were instructed to kill their enemies. But, as we know, that obviously isn't the rule - that is the exception.

Elder Bednar believes agency is the least understood gospel principle. Do you think his comments would indicate that it's our responsibility not to justify the sins of others? I'm sure he's mostly speaking of our individual actions, but he also mentioned our agency being enlarged, which I take it as impacting more than just self.

I'm seeing lots of active members of the church show their support for the pro-choice movement. I've always felt like pro-choice was incompatible with the views of the church. Am I wrong here? God is pro-choice in the sense that he gives everyone the freedom to choose. But, if you took a covenant to represent Christ, I expect your support to align with Christ, and not the world. Yes, I realize that other people have their agency. But, what about the agency of the unborn that is being completely ignored? Am I missing something? Obviously we allow for the rare exceptions such as the life of the mother being threatened, rape, and incest. But, what about all of those elective abortions? How can a pro-life stance be consistent with the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

What is your intention with the missionaries? Are you trying to engage in a specific discussion?

I'm not a Sunday School teacher, but I sub pretty regularly. I usually ask what everyone has learned - or what questions they may have had from the lesson material. If no one raises their hand, these are the steps that I more-or-less follow for facilitating/moderating Sunday School. 1. Begin by giving a decent amount of context on what the Israelites were facing (or Saul, David, Solomon, whoever). 2. Ask a class member to read an important passage of scripture from the week's reading 3. Follow-up with that class member that just read - and ask what their thoughts are on the scripture 4. Give my own impressions on the verses that were just read. Talk about the teachings of the church concerning that specific topic, whether it be on complaining, seeking after other gods, or trying too much to fit into the culture of another land. 5. Talk about how those principles are relevant in our day and time. 6. Ask open-ended questions to the class. i.e. How might we be tempted to fall into the exact same traps as the Israelites? And what are ways we can check ourselves not to fall victim to these outside pressures? 7. Let the class take over. Ultimately, the spirit will take over. There's revelation scattered all over the room. The more we stay focused on a specific issue and a specific doctrine, and build off of each other, the more I feel like we understand a passage of scripture in the spirit in which the author intended it to be understood. I will insert thoughts from time-to-time related to the discussion - and will sometimes reel the class back in if we veer too far from the topic. 8. If the discussion dies down, then I proceed to the next portion of the lesson - and repeat the cycle. Usually classroom comments take up 80-90% of the class time. That's the way it's intended to be, IMO. It's really cool when the doctrine is taught, the spirit is felt, and you can see people's eyes just light up.

I wrote this a couple weeks ago. I feel like it's relevant to the discussion, especially as it relates to contention: One of the more underrated teachings from the Savior is the admonition to, “agree with thine adversary quickly (Matthew 5:25).” This is a very practical teaching about disarming ourselves, so to speak, from sensitive topics which often arouse negative emotions. It’s natural to want to defend our beliefs and positions. That’s okay. We absolutely should have convictions, and not bend to whatever the popular whims of the day might be. It can become problematic, however, when we become so rigid in our stances that self-righteousness, arrogance, and contention overpower our better senses. Contention isn’t what happens when people disagree. It’s what happens when we lose trust and respect for one another. Contention is what happens when, “the love of many shall wax cold (Matthew 24:12).” Many people naturally enjoy engaging in civil discourse from time-to-time. And many people enjoy discussing a myriad of different topics. Unfortunately, the discourse nowadays isn’t becoming so civil. We are sometimes consumed with the need for being “right.” And we want others to know we’re right. The Savior’s counsel reminds me that there are more important things than being right. We could have peace of mind, we could have mutual respect for others, and we could build on commonalities. The aim of any discussion should not be victory, but progress. A protestant minister once said, “God cares about people more than he cares about truth in the abstract. Jesus didn’t die on the cross to make a point. He died on the cross to save people whom he loves. We too must represent our Lord, with love to God and our neighbor, always foremost in our concerns.”

I feel like the ward I live in is pretty close to 50-50 on Democrats and Republicans. Members bring up politics far too often, IMO. Whenever I'm teaching a Sunday School class and someone interjects with a political comment, I usually respond by saying, "Hey, if you have something political to say, please save it for a testimony meeting." Politically-charged comments are inevitably going to irritate someone in the class. Most people can see that my comment is facetious, and it quickly diffuses an otherwise tense situation.

How could defunding the police possibly make the public more safe ? Who is more likely to be impacted by that kind of reform?