The Folk Prophet

Sure. But I expect the wording wasn't such that if looked at carefully it meant "you must have a career". Maybe. I dunno. Worth considering.

Oh... and for what it's worth, the above doesn't imply having a career.

There are already repercussions.

I guess what I can't help but think is.... we always look at these sorts of things as if our job is to make it as easy as possible for others to return to God. To remove all obstacles. To lay out the red carpet, etc., etc. Obviously there is some correctness to this idea. And yet... Life is meant to be a trial. And how do we know that we aren't meant to be a trial for someone else? I mean....maybe God put someone in our path because He knew we'd rub them the wrong way in everything we say and do and they're being tested to see if they'll stay true to Him despite that? That doesn't mean we ought to go about being jerks to people on purpose with the idea that we're testing them. (Everything being relative. Because He has asked us to speak truth boldly and warned us that we will offend, and he that is ashamed because of the offense of the world is not worthy, etc., etc.) I just worry about second-guessing that because of OUR wisdom in what's offensive and what isn't. The simple matter-of-fact is that Christ offended. Constantly. Every where He went. He offended, and offended, and offended. They put Him to death for it. And we've been asked to take up the cross and follow Him. We should expect that doing so will EXTREMELY offend others. I've learned, sadly, that speaking the truth offends. And it offends badly and often. If we speak the truth, we will offend. I get what you're saying. I have, myself, often made changes in my communication methods to try and better align with what I believe God would have me do and say. But we also need to be careful to not hide away, fail to speak what is true and right, etc., because we fear offending others. There's obviously a balance there to be struck. And maybe some strike it easier than others. I struggle with it.

The creepy music they added helped.

#defundTheMods

Oh...I have no current complaints. I only claim RIGHT to be able to complain....hashtag ...#allModsAreBulliesWithBadges!

We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!

Nevertheless, I don't agree that the Community of Christ should be classified as a church of God. It's not led by God and it has none of God's authority. Those are my defining criteria for a church being God's. Not whether it has some truth and light or not.

Since you followed up your "yes" with a view that seems to believe that stating that it's stupid to believe the earth is flat as a general statement on a forum is equivalently improper to telling someone they're stupid to their face, and exactly opposite to holding one's tongue when speaking face to face with a flat-earther, I am entirely unconvinced by your claim to recognize the difference.

Just out of curiosity, do you recognize the difference between, for example, stating on a forum that believing the world is flat is stupid and going up to a flat-earther and telling them that they're stupid?

This is an interesting thing to think about. I accept what you're saying as valid. But.... I also have to ask myself.... how can one fight falsehoods without truth? It's an interesting challenge. If one cannot respect father-dom how can they respect our Father? It's absolutely requisite. And we'd get nowhere by not teaching them the truth of that matter. But...tact, timing, line-upon-line, etc.... Those things matter. It's interesting.

God is very clearly racist AND sexist. I mean, first, he's white (which means he's racist). Second, he's the power class (racist). Third, He restricted the priesthood and other thing by race. He specifically declared a certain race "My people". I mean if that doesn't fit the modern definition of racist.... And let's not even get started with traditional marriage, polygamy and the patriarchy.

I'm not sure that's the end all of the temple recommend question though. When I'm asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom and say yes it's in light of no coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco usage. But..... I often consider whether my eating and drinking choices are in alignment with the Word of Wisdom and make adjustments. I don't think if I confessed that I sometimes have drunk too much Dr. Pepper that any church leader would say, "Well...then we can't issue you your temple recommend, garumph, harumph." But that doesn't mean it's all hunky-dory for me to be pounding 300oz of the stuff in a day.

3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.

I understand why some are reticent to say such things, particularly with the harshness of the phrasing. But I don't think the idea was ever to specify another church as entirely belonging to the devil. But the idea behind specifying there are only 2 churches seems to me to be to teach a principle, not malign others. The principle is sound. Jesus's church is His church, and the foundation of all others is built by the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and workings of he who leads the fight against Christ's church...the devil. That doesn't mean every principle in every church but Christ's is satanic filth. All Satan has to do is convince someone of a single falsehood to lead them astray. And that's the principle and warning within the idea of there only being two churches. We are fully and completely guided by God, or we are not.

The logic behind these examples kind of baffles me and isn't related to my thoughts. But I'm not interested in arguing. If people want to think the next low tide is a sign of the end of times, go for it. Someone could try and argue that an eclipse was a fulfillment of "the sun will be darkened" and it would at least make sense. I think that's a pretty serious stretch. But maybe at least. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" That would be a reasonable (though flawed to me) argument to make. Lest we forget however, here's the discussion: me: Eclipses are common enough that it's a stretch to call them a sign. mikbone: People have often associated eclipses with eras ending. me: So what? People are superstitious and historically make all sorts of crazy stuff up. mikbone: what about scriptures. Are they irrelevant? me: ?????? Wha......???? This reply isn't really related to what I said. I don't disagree with any of it. God certainly could use an eclipse as a sign. I just don't think it's useful to apply "sign" to an event in reverse. The prophesy of the sign generally comes first, like you said. An event happening without the prophesy, particularly, when it's a natural common event... I don't find a lot of use in calling that a sign. Anyhow, I've said my peace (piece? My piece of peace?). I'll step out now.

What about all the signs in the heavens discussed in the scriptures? Are those irrelevant too?

The fact that there has been superstitious association with anything at any given time is irrelevant to the signs of God.

How can an eclipse be a sign of the end of times when eclipses have always occurred throughout history? Hear ye, hear ye, in the end of days something will happen that......has happened since the earth, sun and moon were created and put in their orbits. But....you know...THIS time it's a sign....

Every time I see the title of this thread I envision what my new church uniform might be. I mean I already wear a white shirt to church. But maybe something like my dress blues from the Air Force? Or the Marines dress blues. That was always classy looking.

I'm not sure what subtext you mean, specifically. But if by "embracing" you mean don't make jokes, then a pox on you and your humorless house. On a side-comment, I always joked with my wife that I didn't want her barefoot and pregnant.... because I prefer high-heels.

Since ultimately I'm probably a "women should be barefoot and pregnant housewives" type (a.k.a. chauvinist pig), I think my logic would be pretty consistent. I think there's a difference, of course, between what women "should" do and what women should be allowed to do. And I think there's some nuanced allowance to be made on the "allowed" side of things in the military. If some woman wants to go be a Green Beret and can hold her own just as well as the men in that regard... I can see carving exceptions out, legally speaking. But obviously the qualifying part is unlikely to happen in most cases. They have to lower standards to make it "equitable". And that shouldn't be happening. Flying helicopters or jets or what-have-you.... once again, I think there's some allowance for nuance in the "if she wants to" side of things. I certainly don't believe women should be legally excluded from all military roles. But certain ones...yeah. Really though, when it comes to fighting wars... a country that sends their women out to die for them deserves to rot in the pit of hell where they're surely headed. And a large part (sadly) of that is that the women want to in the first place. Hollywood is lying to you all!

Nope. Even if they want, we should proactively discriminate against certain things when it comes to the military (specifically I mean trans and women. Trans because I believe they're mentally unfit, and women because women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us).

That's a non-starter for too many. I, for example, would literally kill and die without hesitation before I'd let them send my daughter off to war. I suspect, that despite the corruption and evil in the world, that there are still too many who feel as I do in that regard.