SpiritDragon

I agree that the point of the article is expressing a concern that people nowadays have an attitude of ease. If it isn't convenient and comfortable to go to church I just won't bother. I find it sad that churches sometimes "bribe" people in with coffee and donuts.... even more sad, we do the same for activities in my own ward minus the coffee.

Good old merriam-webster... I guess I checked the wrong online dictionary. Mine only showed arrogant attitudes, which happened to already be the understanding of the word I had.

We read in the scriptures in various places about the condescension of God. Surely this is not a reference to a prideful God who is always being "high and mighty" or otherwise prideful. So I looked a little further into the idea and wikipedia suggests the word is synonomous with accomodation in a religious context which "is the theological principle that God, while being in his nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to. The concept is that scripture has accommodated, or made allowance for, the original audience's language and general level of understanding." I'm just curious what others think the condescension of God is referring to?

My take is you missed the point. For some fancy clothes are in abundance and easily accessible, these people show a lack of respect for deity when they come to church dressed down from what they would wear to a nice restaurant for instance. Perhaps the best others can do is take the time to pre-clean their sneakers and throw on a golf shirt with jeans, the point being that the choices of clothes worn are an outward reflection of an inner intent. Jesus didn't get mad at the publicans and sinners for being in their day to day clothes when he was out ministering to them, but this is a bit different than what they would wear to the synagogue. Now of course abuses of this idea came into play because people of worldly status became uncomfortable with those living a reality of poverty (which they didn't want to see or have those around them exposed to) so they would cast the impoverished out. Clearly this goes against what Jesus would do. He would have the rich clothe the poor. I don't consider myself rich, but I can afford respectful clothes. I'd be willing to buy you some and ship them to you if you'd like.

Definitely an interesting read. I can see both sides of this. I think too much fuss can be made about dressing just so ( a pride issue ) and judging others for their inability to do the same, but I also surely agree that too little fuss can be made to dressing up ( a respect issue). My personal view on the matter is that Jesus would not care so much what was worn, but that he would care that it reflected an upgrade from the norm for the individual. Styles change. That's a fact. What we wear to church now is nothing like what they wore in Christ's time which was likely different from what was worn in ancient Israel as well. What we wear does influence how we think and act to some extent, as such dressing up can serve to put us a more reverent frame of mind. Of course sadly too many people I know only dress up nice to go to the club or staff party.

I thought you might like this link, it explains how right you are. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ

That is cool.

Is that enough to shake a picture off a wall?

Indeed, those who preside are servants. Making tough decisions can be one of those services. The Saviour himself is the least and the greatest. He descended below all things and atoned for our sins and can comfort us in our sorrows, he is well acquainted with suffering. He is also tasked with the burden of figuring everything out for final judgment, this means he has authoritative decisions to make. Looking at this another way, police officers are to serve and protect. They are given authority to act in the capacity to uphold law and order, they are not however supposed to be above the law or garner special privileges. What they do is a service. The police don't get to make the law and they are not supposed to choose which laws they'll enforce. Similarly priesthood keys and permissions are given to servants here to help uphold God's law and order, which is the proper administration of the church. Priesthood leaders don't get to "decide" in the context of what is doctrinal or not, but they do have tough decisions to make regarding individuals within doctrines and policies that God has established.

Gotcha. So would it be safe to say what you're really asking is if we are becoming more crotchety as we age? I suppose in all honesty I'd only use the word crotchety in terms of "old-fashioned, intolerant, and narrow-minded", but your explanation of yourself I would describe as becoming more devout.

Just for curiosity, what definitions do you go by?

I see this all very differently. My intent being to give my perspective and not to argue. I don't think Satan has really changed anything about his strategy. I think it has served him well for centuries and if anything he has become more adept at implementing it. Opposition to truth is very strong in our day. Sure we don't contend with gunmen raiding the conference center (at least not yet) but our values are constantly under attack and this is a recurring theme through history as well. Tempting people to transgress seems to have started in Eden, so I don't think it is a new tactic either. Satan fights a multi-front war on us. He attacks in variuos ways... take agency by addiction, mess lives up through poor choices, get trapped in sin of this kind or that kind, get killed because we won't give in, get distracted with internet forums with the guise of possibly doing missionary work and or coming closer to God... and so on. So yes we are not currently under threat of physical harm, but everything the church stands for is under constant attack. The concept of morality is skewed to the point that those who would suggest sex should be limited to marriage between a man and woman are either idealistic fools or bigots, religion in general is undesirable. How dare a parent make a choice based on religious convictions that differ from mainstream ideology such as a JW not wanting a blood transfusion. Joseph Smith resisted liquour for his pain when he had his leg operated on, today people don't get much choice (especially where kids are concerned - they'll be deemed unfit parents) Satan's plan seems to me to have always been to get us to choose to give our agency, or to not put up a sufficient fight while he gets others to do so.

I find this one difficult to answer. I'm not sure how to view conservatism morally (or liberalism for that matter). The key trouble I have is that I see morality as black and white, right and wrong, but conservatism or liberalism are not black and white, right or wrong. I view things as immoral or moral. I generally see being conservative as being responsible, sustainable, careful etc., and liberalism as taking risks, trying new things. With these definitions in mind I definitely have a tendency toward being more conservative. I'm a "play it safe" kinda guy. I suppose if anything I am becoming more so as i age. Largely, I think, because I needed to take more risks in my youth to gain experiences to put everything in context. Now I have my opinions and I am more set in my ways. That being said I am always actively studying all kinds of things and I am open to the perspectives of others. I just get tired of being called closed minded because my opinions don't always fit within someone else's narrow point of view. After all, when I have taken the time to search things out and drawn a conclusion, why is this closed minded? By my interpretation of the definitions given by anatess I'm actually more morally liberal as I age because the societal traditions around me at large are more and more corrupt. I'm more concerned with my own ability to make decisions for myself and not having society collectively decide what is and is not acceptable. For what it's worth I'm 30 and have no kids yet either... also hoping that changes soon.

I remember years ago... before the internet staying up late into the night to finally watch a news story I was interested in. Inevitably they always made me wait to watch everything else to see the part I cared to see.

bourne identity

I don't follow the news much. I generally feel like if something important happened I'll hear about it. I do get lots of notices (usually useless) when I check my email, and I have to listen to the radio all day at work though.

I didn't know any of those places existed in middle earth Sorry, couldn't resist.

I suppose it is fair to say that the average temple-worthy young adult virgin getting married doesn't know much about how they will feel about sex because they haven't experienced it yet. Still there are clear points that can be discussed between a couple before marriage such as the conditions surrounding it. For instance before I married my wife we had a candid talk about sexual expectations that we did understand. It worked out well, we felt that if we couldn't talk straight about sex to each other we had no business getting married yet. We agreed that sex would have a place in bringing us closer as a couple in addition to being a procreative power, or rather that it wasn't only to conceive children. We discussed certain behaviours that we'd heard of that we ruled off limits together because they did not seem mutually beneficial and thus did not serve the purpose of bringing us closer together as a couple. Maybe we just got lucky that we have great parents and had good Church leaders who helped encourage such discussion.

I wonder if I'll ever see a seeded watermelon again.

As for sex being a "need" I agree it is not a basic need in the sense of food, shelter, clothing etc. However, I do believe it is a conditional need for a fully functioning marital relationship at some point. It isn't that it is needed on the wedding night, or anniversary, or valentines day, or any other given night because one partner wants it, but if it NEVER happens there is a problem that will assuredly weaken the relationship unless both parties agreed to a sexless relationship from the outset. Which brings up the fact that communication about sexual expectations should be done before marriage. Wedding vows of chastity and fidelity are just that, vows to only share the most intimate emotional and physical experiences with the one you're marrying. Wedding vows are not an oath to celibacy.

Barring limiting factors such as physical inability or trauma from past experiences I firmly believe that sex in marriage is a great bench-mark for the health of the relationship. Assuming two people are capable and enjoy the activity there is no reason for it not to be taking place within the relationship, and if it isn't it is a good indicator that something isn't right with the relationship. The thing is that the frequency and enjoyment of sex is a symptom of a good or bad relationship, not the other way around. If the relationship is working well both partners will want to express love in this way. But simply agreeing to have sex more often will not fix the underlying conditions that made it lose spontaneity in the first place. These issues must be addressed and fixed for proper intimacy to occur, which as Anatess said is not sex, but can involve it.

That changes everything doesn't it :) Have fun what ever you do!

It always seemed like it was the way things were supposed to be done when I was out ten years ago. It was a bit tricky for many, because even when a wife stayed at home to cook we weren't allowed inside without her husband or another man home. However it was a generally good policy because it allowed us to be out during prime hours when investigators were home. Furthermore we often had splits/exchanges with ward missionaries that would allow us to get six lessons in the same night before regrouping and going home at 9:30 for curfew. We always had sufficient funds to feed ourselves if needed, the only ones who complained about not having enough money for food were those who ate out for every meal. The purpose of eating at a members house was to get referrals, not food. I can see how in areas where the teaching pool is small, and ward missions are not being as successful as they were in my mission that eating at different times would certainly provide an opportunity to visit with the members to get referrals.

Great post PC! I think all too often people like to take the easy way out, they get the idea that god is loving and transform that to mean what they interpret loving to be without taking any further effort to actually learn the teachings of Christ. I can't count the number of times I've heard ridiculous and uneducated exclamations about what the bible says about certain topics from people who obviously haven't read it. It is indeed hard if not impossible to recognize God and His handiwork when we don't know the first thing about it. Worse still so many deceive themselves into believing they know all about it.

Miracle Max: It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.Inigo Montoya: What's that? Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.