SpiritDragon

It's true. It's hard to know what sources are trustworthy. There is so much deception in the world. With that said, if it can be trusted, this recent study suggests there is indeed a link between glyphosate and bee die-off. I've only read the abstract and can't speak to the quality of scientific evaluation drawing these conclusions. http://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10305 Of course, on the other side it seems the argument has shifted to the honey bees being overpopulated and now endangering other pollinators. If this means they crowd out wasps and hornets, I'd admittedly prefer the bees... especially since I've been dealing with more and more wasps every year.

That sounds very inclusive

I feel very strongly about the prophets ability to receive revelation, but I also feel very strongly about consistency of doctrine throughout the ages. My personal feelings on what the prophet teaches are somewhat irrelevant to whether or not the teachings are true. For instance, if I don't like ministering, it doesn't change the fact that ministering is the current church-endorsed program of looking after our ward family. If I don't like the idea that sleeping around isn't okay, it doesn't change the fact that it's not okay and has never been an accepted doctrine. However, what does matter is the tripod @Carborendum has brought up. Is the teaching consistent with past teachings found in the scriptures? Consistent with prophetic teachings? Does the spirit bear witness now? So what to do, whether the teaching aligns or not with personal beliefs, is to study the words of scripture and prophetic counsel and pray for an answer.

As I was reading I could hear Herman's Hermits singing it, but then a back-up singer's, "No Sam" was missing so I fixed it for my liking

If you can't see how absurd this statement is I don't think there is much hope for you.

I generally differentiate the two as SSA or homosexuality. What I'm saying is that the standards of morality have been set forth. The Church is as likely to say pornography is now okay as it is to say homosexuality (the act) is okay. The prophet can receive revelations regarding the direction of the church, but the core principles of the gospel are unchanging. We believe the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. Second repentance. Third, baptism by immersion. Fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. A change to the homosexuality issue (or the murder issue, or theft issue, or chastity in general...) strikes at the heart of these fundamentals. A god who flip flops on what His commandments are is not a God we can exercise faith in with confidence. What is the point of repentance if the rules change, why not just complain on the other side, "if I lived in this or that time my sin would have been righteous" there is no balance of justice and mercy there, just inconsistency which again takes away the faith necessary to call upon God to help in the process of repentance. By changing what needs to be repented of, the requirements of baptism are changed and apparently what the Holy Ghost could never abide previously will now be sanctified... The very nature of what constitutes sin is not negotiable, if flies in the face of the balance between mercy and justice. God would cease to be God. 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

I can only speak for myself personally. If the church leadership proclaims that homosexuality is righteous, it is my belief that the church will have apostatized, not me or anyone else who leaves. Having spent much of my life exploring other faiths and finding the LDS teachings to be the only faith I can fully accept, I would likely wind up agnostic after a renewed search for truth elsewhere. There are core principles that God cannot excuse Himself from. The very definition of what is sin is one of them. Changes to "how" we go about the work of salvation are not that big a deal, the underlying message is still the same. Changing the "requirements" of salvation is an entirely different story. Whether we ward teach, home teach, or minister is really not critical, but whether we keep the law of chastity or not - the commandments can't change and God be a consistent God we can put our trust in.

Yeah. It seems to mostly be a commonwealth thing.

I see that you slipped in a similar thought process to mine between when I started my post which was interrupted and when I posted. Now my thoughts appear a touch redundant.

@Alia I understand what @anatess2 is suggesting is scary, but she may very well be on to something. You might try setting some money aside to work within the smaller budget before dropping your job or investigating if there is something part time in your field that would allow you to be home more often, but still working within the smaller budget. This way your husband still wouldn't have the extra money to buy toys as he wants, and you'd have more time with your little one. The hope would be that your husband would realize how serious you are about being home and that the money isn't as important. Then maybe he would step up and provide so you could come home, but you wouldn't tear away the safety net entirely. Possibly a compromise could be reached as well, where you continue to work part-time or casually while your husband also works full time and on the days you are both working your little guy visits grandma. If you work 12-20 hours a week, that should be 20-28 more hours a week at home with your child assuming you are working 40 hours - I realize when my uncle was working in the legal arena it was more like 60-80 hours a week. I can't give you any answers, just ideas.

I thought this 23 was going to be some Michael Jordan nostalgia I didn't even have the right sport.

Where is the outrage. Why aren't men and women marching on temple square holding hands while listening to their anthem, "Love Child" ... wait that song actually speaks against having a love child. I'll have to work on an anthem

Not to mention premarital heterosexual sex has been popular for a long time as well. With the homosexual population making up around 2% of the population compared to the other 98% if the idea was to cater to popular ideas wouldn't the church start by making immorality okay to the larger group or everyone. The thing is, of course, that such a teaching would let people know the church is no longer true, if it ever was (at that point).

I should have known better than to be concerned about posting here. I also should probably have thicker skin, but I must admit that being ridiculed over something so dear to me (I imagaine a large part of my respect for the day comes from my grandfather fighting in Europe during the second world war) was really hurtful and left me gun shy of sharing that side of myself again with others that I wasn't confident felt the same way. This year marked 100 years since the signing of the armistice to end the Great War. Too bad it hasn't been 100 years since war was fought.

Remind me. You're in Florida, right?

I had actually thought about posting about Remembrance Day (what we renamed armistice day as opposed to what you renamed armistice day), but I wasn't sure how it would be received. On my mission in the States I was sent a poppy in the mail that I could wear as I have always done for Remembrance Day. I wore it naively thinking that people would be okay with me honouring heroes in my way that day, instead I was met with great ridicule for wearing a "gay little flower" as my companion put it, and he wasn't the only to disrespect me and my custom. I still haven't figured out that reaction and decided since we Canadians are such a minority here, I'd just do my thing and not ruffle any feathers. Thank you for putting something up to keep in remembrance those who have fought for our freedoms.

I think the fact that I reacted to your post is indicative of the fact that I played Magic: The Gathering as a child as well.

There are other options available. One would be that the members of the church are stalwart and recognize evil for what it is and the church continues to prosper, even if growth slows. Another is that the Saviour sees the world is ripe in iniquity and the second coming is ushered in to protect children from being raised in such an evil culture where they don't have a good chance at ever having the gospel take root in their hearts.

It may not fully answer your question, but I believe the following may help. The prophet Joseph Smith taught on the authority of succession belonging to the twelve by teaching: ‘I will give you a key that will never rust. If you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray’” We also have what is sometimes termed the last charge given to the apostles wherein Joseph rolls the kingdom off his shoulders and onto the brethren. Concerning Brigham Young in particular, I was listening to the dramatized church history audio recordings and heard them relay a story of Brigham speaking in tongues and the members feeling that Brother Joseph would set him straight soon enough, as he had done with others who were not acting on the spirit of the lord when doing so. In this instance Joseph, instead, defended Brigham's gift of the spirit and declared he had spoken in the pure Adamic language and would one day preside over the church. I wondered if this could be verified or if it was a bit of artistic licence taken in the dramatization of the narrative. I was pleased when I was able to later find that there is a record of this event in the 25th volume of the millenial star on page 439 under the heading of History of Brigham. The link I had doesn't seem to be working, but I can give you a screen shot of the PDF version I have on my computer. I'm not sure what impression the early saints were under. I do know that in the vacuum created by the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum who would have succeeded him that there was a push to grab power by various factions. Sidney Rigdon felt to take charge as the surviving member of the First Presidency. Brigham Young became the president of the quorum of the twelve and explained the position that in the absence of the president, the first presidency dissolved and Sidney's claim to leadership wasn't correct. It seems the bid to have Joseph the third take leadership was perhaps Emma's doing and she wanted to put an end to polygamy by guiding the young leader. Joseph did teach sufficiently to help the young church know what to do, but it took time because they were all so used to asking Joseph everything. I hope any of that helps.

I don't think your link is working as intended.

No. I'm directly stating that those who believe they can counsel God on what should and shouldn't be sin, instead of listening to His counsel aren't following the spirit of God. There was someone else in the pre-existence who thought he knew better than Heavenly Father... could it be him that so many are listening to? Besides this, it is ridiculous to suggest that because 50% of youth have one view and 50% the other that all of a sudden we can lump them all into one category and state that they do or do not have the spirit to be with them. I will say that I firmly believe that anyone who believes homosexuality is pure and righteous has been deceived. They may still have the spirit with them in other areas of their life, but they have not been guided by the spirit of God to that particular conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with someone with same sex attraction going to the temple so long as they are living righteously (not acting out on homosexual behaviours) You are correct that it's hard to change people's minds, especially when they've deluded themselves into believing that sin is beautiful and acceptable to God and those championing it have the spirit [of god] with them. I would really like you to answer why the sin of homosexuality should be given special status to be over-ruled compared to any other sin. Why should we accept because some people struggle with this we need to change God's commandments around it, but you don't seem to be saying that those who would choose to steal or murder because they have a weakness towards it should be allowed to do so. Perhaps you will say because these are harmful to other people and homosexuality is done between consenting adults. The thing is no one truly lives in a bubble and decisions do have trickle down effects, not to mention being disqualified from the blessing of living righteously is pretty serious harm being done to themselves and their partner(s). At the very least by changing God's position on homosexuality, it seems to me, that one would likewise need to change position on pornography as it supposedly doesn't hurt anyone else either. Garbage! Even if no one else knows about it, it effects how the user thinks and interacts with others and quite importantly affects self-esteem and confidence to take part in the Lord's work. Just like people argue that the bible doesn't use the word homosexual in condemnation, the bible doesn't use the word pornography either, but the saviour taught about lustful thoughts being akin to committing adultery. Here we get a clear picture of where pornography fits in even without a specific teaching against it (teaching using the exact word). We have numerous passages in the bible that give as much or more reason to believe homosexuality has always been and will always be a sin. You may not have said that the rising generation is more spiritual than others, but it was certainly implied by stating that around half of youth are apparently in favour of homosexual marriage which means the spirit is acting in their lives. It strongly suggests that you think those who favour homosexuality have the spirit while others do not. This is simply not so.

I agree with what I perceive to be the main premise of your statement, but I also agree with @carlimac's point. I think it's important to differentiate between ways we can reinforce our families against the evil around us and exposure to the evil around us. Without being a completely sheltered hermit, it would be impossible to avoid exposure to so many evils that are considered normal these days. However, you can definitely build a home that insulates against the evil by greatly limiting what exposure enters the home and preparing young minds with correct principles in advance to help them side-step many of the pitfalls that threaten them day by day. But, there is exposure that happens outside of parental consent, sometimes even in church where children from homes with different standards bring undesirable actions and "lessons" with them to other children in the church group. The only way to be sure one isn't exposed is to avoid contact with other humans. We just happen to have other ways available to strengthen ourselves and our families so we can live in the world but not of the world.

@Tyme I found an interesting article that looks at what the bible teaches about homosexuality. I know you've been continually asking for bible verses that say one way or the other. I found this to be fairly well written and certainly holding integrity to the intent of the biblical messaging on the topic and not disengenuously trying to reframe biblical passages into our culture of calling evil good and good evil. https://www.pccmonroe.org/what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality.html As for disregarding any prophetic teaching on homosexuality as something that will one day fade away like the priesthood ban, it really is important to understand that homosexuality has always been condemned in every dispensation and has never been mentioned as something that will change. However, just as the Law of Moses was prophesied to return to a higher law one day and the gospel in general became available to gentiles and priesthood become available to more than just the levites, the priesthood ban in this dispensation was always understood to be temporary. I will reiterate that no where in the scriptures or teachings of modern prophets has there ever been anything suggesting that one day what God has warned against as sin will one day be acceptable. This is like Zeezrom trying to trick people by asking Alma and Amulek if God will save people "in" their sins - He won't, it is contrary to justice, but He will save us "from" our sins if we allow Him to change us. This salvation from sin is not only in the sense of being redeemed in the afterlife, but actually being strengthened against sins in this life. The Lord promises that, "weak things will become strong..." This doesn't necessarily mean someone struggling with same sex attraction will no longer have same sex attraction, but it may for some people. I would posit that most likely people will be strengthened to resist acting on the temptation and as they let virtue garnish their thoughts unceasingly they stop having lustful thoughts and find great joy in other areas of life. Believe it or not there is much more in life to find happiness from than merely sexual satisfaction.

Feel free to remove all traces. I realize that my perspective of separating out characteristics from the monster doesn't mean that the mention of or image of said monster is a good idea. My apologies.