The Folk Prophet

While perhaps true, that is not really relevant to whether He would stage a protest of some sort, walk out on his bishop, or quit His calling, if things weren't to His liking. The point is not whether the meeting length is appropriate or not. Everyone agrees it's too long. The point is more, how do we handle it when things are less than perfect, others behave less than perfectly, and situations are difficult and uncomfortable? Trying to handle these difficult things in a Christ-like manner means, to me, showing patience, long-suffering, and humility, but also incorporates teaching, exhorting, and standing for right with kindness.

You do realize what you are saying here is that you would literally walk out on God if you didn't like what He was saying?

I only made 15 seconds.

Haha. Not quite what I said, but yeah.

Concerning - I have a hard time seeing quitting and/or walking out as the way Christ would handle it. I can see it being appropriate in certain circumstances, I suppose. But my opinion is that those circumstances would need to be quite a bit more extreme than what has been spoken of here. I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I just don't think walking out or quitting is the proper solution. Doesn't seem in line with any principles of the gospel I've ever learned. Patience, humility, long-suffering, etc... Note, I don't reject the idea of clearly setting a time limit per MOE's suggestion. Just not in terms of rebellion, formal protest, or giving up.

Though I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. :) I agree with Dahlia's post...and I'm not sure how many Mormon's would just lay down and let people steal from them. Generally speaking, we're gun-toting conservatives that believe in truth, justice, and the American way. Er...at least we used to be. In Utah that's still fairly predominant I think, at least.

I agree with MrShorty. If normal means common, then yes, it is normal. What I was trying to say in my post was that we should not consider it acceptable, just-the-way-it-is, everybody-does-it-so-you-just-have-to-live-with-it, etc... I also agree and support the thought that it is not "good" or "healthy". The spirit of contention is of the devil: 3 Nephi 11:29 "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." And in the next verse: "Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." If we are to be righteous, it is requisite that we do away with the spirit of contention. Yes, it will happen in a marriage. How we treat it matters though. If we react to contention by humbling ourselves, making efforts to remove the contention (we can use a variety of methods, one such suggested by MrShorty, but there are others as well (The New Peoplemaking by Viginia Satir is one my father-in-law (taught marriage and family course in college) recommends), and strive to do away with such things, then we may, line-upon-line, grow in our marriage and spirituality. This should be the goal of every marriage. The real key, in my opinion, to successful marriage is to humble oneself and approach conflict with complete selflessness. Ideally our spouses would do the same. But we cannot control them, only influence through righteous means (as listed in D&C 121 (long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, etc.), which can have a profound effect by way of example and by bringing the spirit into our lives. My personal approach (or one of them). When my wife is upset at me (something I hate because I'm rather sensitive and insecure), I get to work -- dishes, cleaning the house, etc. Sometimes this temporarily makes her more frustrated, but in the long run our marriage has steadily improved. (Note: She has made great efforts as well. I am only giving one example that I do.) We also have a no yelling rule. If and when one of us raises their voices (even not at each other, but like when grumbling at a project or something inanimate), we have, from day one, been able to say, "No yelling honey. That's against the rules." Because we established that from the start, and we know it, it generally helps (though there have been times it has made the other yell more...in which case the other must remain patient and then talk about it later when things have calmed down). It's an ongoing effort and goes hand-in-hand with our levels of spirituality and righteousness. (Another note: My wife and I do have, and always have had a very good relationship. I don't want it to come across like we fight all the time or something. But childish conflict occurs in the best of relationships.)

Normal? No. And I think accepting it as normal is a problem, or rather, indicative of a problem. Yes, there will be conflicts in a marriage. Of course. But each time there is it should be viewed, in my opinion, as an issue to resolve and overcome, not "the norm". What sort of "support" are you asking for? A General Authority quote that says fighting is/isn't a normal part of marriage? What would that have to do with what we "feel" about it. Not trying to be a stinker here...just clarifying what you're hoping for. :)

My guess is that by working with other adoption agencies, but still working for LDS parents, and as JAG said, hopefully still subsidizing them, they'll have a much broader pool of children placed into LDS homes.

STAY...ON...TARGET.

Seems excessive. Why don't you raise the issue. Meeting that are that long take leaders away from their families needlessly. As part of the ward council you certainly have the right to raise the concern.

Can you clarify the discussion (I assume you mean debate) points to address more specifically? I would think it means exactly what it seems to. Angels minister to us. I suspect the only lack of clarity would come in what defines an angel. I would say, anyone serving God qualifies.

That's because, and I know you sort of already said this, it didn't need to, because it is only now trendy to push this sort of thing. When the last Handbook updates were made I suspect no one was clamoring to attend Elders Quorum in a dress.

Repentance Forgiveness Mercy Karma

I hope we all believe in that. :)

I would guess that it is a variable, but not necessarily the prime reason.

Personal revelation for the whole world or for the church is the part I rule out. God will reveal new truths (as you said) through the established priesthood authority. God will not give revelation for the whole church/world through some Joe Schmoe not even a part of His church. Not even through someone high up in the church. Only one man is authorized to receive revelation for the whole world.

One true church with exclusive authority is non-doctrine? What about the "racist" teachings in the scriptures? Are those non-doctrine? I agree with you that half-truths are effectively leading people away from God. You're interpretations of what qualifies as a half-truth seems a bit askew. How about things like, love your neighbor means total tolerance of sinful behavior, or the prophet is fallible so we can pick and choose what we follow, or following the prophet means your a mindless sheep, or the leaders of the church are fallible so that means the church is under condemnation, or nobody's perfect so we don't have to worry about it if we're not doing our home teaching, or pornography isn't that bad of a sin because it's so common, etc., etc. I have never known anyone that translated "the one true church with exclusive authority" into "we're better than you, neener neener" and the implication that there's a half-truth in there leading people away from God is a half-truth in itself. I am also not aware of anyone who took some of the mistaken thoughts about race and the priesthood once taught (now disavowed) and turned into the spawns of Satan from it. The imperfection of our leaders does not lead us away from God. If we humbly follow those He has set to guide us we will be blessed and brought closer to Him, in spite of imperfections they may have.

If someone found some documents and they were legitimate archaeological finds, I agree with you. Still wouldn't be scripture until accepted and canonized through the proper priesthood channels, etc. but could be useful (like the Dead Sea Scrolls). In the case of the Aklatan, a record that the author has only ever seen in a dream...??? I think it should likely be taken as nothing more than someone's fantasy fiction.

Right on! Mark 2:17 is not meant to exclude anyone. We all need Christ's grace. The idea that Christ somehow meant that some people did not need Him just doesn't work.

In a bit of a mood today there? I'm stepping out of this conversation. It is hurtful and not productive. I cannot help but feel I've contributed to the hurtful side of it, for which I apologize.

*shrug* You're probably right. I'll let you know how I feel about it in 3 years. I should rephrase a bit though. "Couldn't afford" isn't absolutely accurate. "Shouldn't" is probably more correct.

The idea that there is no degree to sin is entirely unsupportable. The very fact that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven means that there are, indeed, degrees to sin. I can hardly recall a more ridiculous concept than the idea that any sin is just as bad as murder. Some sins require church discipline. Some do not. Hmm...could that be because there are degrees of sin? The fact that all sins lead you away from God in no way leads to a no-difference-in-severity conclusion. That's nonsense logic. Clearly some sins lead you further away from God than others and are more difficult to repent of. Obviously.