askandanswer

My OCD is waking up and going to sleep. I do both activities every single day, without fail, and on good days, even more than that. If a day goes by without either sleeping or waking, I'll pay for it dearly the next day.

Never mind Zil, she just likes to show off

I think that in matters that might adversely impact on its reputation, the church tends to shoot first and ask questions later. It seems that in certain types of situations, an excess of caution by the church has led to an approach whereby you are guilty until proven innocent. We've had a situation in our stake in which a member of the stake with a prominent calling was charged with two offences, one of which was quite serious, and eventually found guilty of the lesser offence, for which they received a sentence of 6 months imprisonment, fully suspended for two years. During the various court procedures associated with the matter, particularly the sentencing, when other prominent church members around the stake were asked by the convicted person if they could provide character references, they were told by church authorities that no such references should be provided. Some leaders followed this counsel and did not provide a reference, and some ignored the counsel and provided a reference. Nothing bad happened to those who provided a reference, and nothing bad happened to the reputation of the church as a result of this matter. After the trial and sentence, some months later, the stake eventually got around to convening a disciplinary council and this person was excommunicated, and has since been rebaptised. I was a little surprised that the church felt that no discplinary action could commence until after the trial, and that no readmission procedures could commence until after the two year suspended sentence had been finished. This sounded to me a little like God's justice, and the process of rescuing a badly damaged soul and helping them to return, had to take a back-seat to the vagaries and delays of temporal justice. What made things worse was that at the time this happened, the Courts in this part of the country had a huge backlog, and the person who was arrested had to wait more than 2 1/2 years until their trial came up. That's 2 1/2 years that they had to wait until the church felt that it could commence its disciplinary council and thus take this most important step in this person's repentance and rehabilitation process. And then another two years while they waited out their suspended sentence before the church was willing to consider taking the next major step in this person's repentance process by holding another disciplinary council, resulting in their rebaptism. The two processes of legal trial and disciplinary council, to me, seem to be quite seperate, with different purposes and methodologies, and I haven't yet worked out why the needs of temporal justice take precedence over saving a soul. The approach taken by the church seemed, to me, to be completely inconsistent with the teaching of Christ to go out and seek the lost sheep. In this case, what seemed to happen was that the lost sheep was thrown out of the fold, and then the gate was locked to prevent their return. It's times like this that we need to rely more on our faith than our reasoning and to have faith that God will make everything right in the end, and that until we get to the end, He will sustain us and help us overcome the obstacles, and give us the strength that we need to endure the trials if we continue to stay faithful.

As is Vort himself

Vort, if you continue to expose their codes and secret protocols, the Socialist International Left League for Youth (S.I.L.LY) might be tempted to terminate your membership.

And lets not forget that President McKay was first sustained as the prophet in 1951

I often feel slightly annoyed/disappointed when I come across this phrase about not being pertinent to our salvation, or one of its many variants, particularly when I see it somewhere here in mormonhub.com. I feel that all knowledge has value, although there is considerable variation in that value, and how much value a piece of knowledge has is a very subjective and individual judgement. I have sometimes received this phrase in response to some of the questions I have raised here and sometimes when that happens, I feel a little bit saddened by what seems to be the responder's apparently limited vision. If all goes as it should, apart from matters relating to temple ordinances and the Priesthood, we should know all that is pertinent to our salvation well before we finish Primary. A very large percentage of all lessons, talks, conference addresses, firesides, etc, will simply be slightly more elaborate and detailed repetitions of what we were taught in Primary. The main reason why I ask the questions that I do in this forum is that for me, (and I realise this may not hold true for others) there is a bit of a correlation between my knowledge/understanding, and my faith. As one increases, it helps to increase the other. I wish this correlation was tighter and more direct, and its my fault that it's not, but that's something i need to work on. For example, if, as a result of my study and reasoning, I had come to a fairly reliable and well informed conclusion that in a given set of circumstances, God is likely to do X, then when those circumstances arise, my faith that God will do X is greatly increased. I like what Brigham Young said on the value of knowledge and the importance of its acquisition, regardless of what sort of knowledge we are working on acquiring. Here is jost one short quote of many, many great things he said on the subject: What to Study—It is our privilege and our duty to search all things upon the face of the earth, and learn what there is for man to enjoy, what God has ordained for the benefit and happiness of mankind, and then make use of it without sinning against him. 9:243.

If this is the case, I'd like to have a few words with those programmers and point out a few of their errors

It still surprises me when I reflect on the fact that the man who is now the prophet was already an apostle when I was born.

I'm pretty sure that at least a dozen former number #3's have left once they find out what its really like.

I was just wondering if it would be a promotion or punishment to make it up to number 2?

I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought a little bit more about Matthew 5:34, 37. These seem to be quite specific and direct, in giving us very clear instructions, about what to say and what not to say. 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. These verses seem to be somewhat different from the verses in James, which seems to be James expressing his opinions and attitudes re. tongues and communication.

Zil you're number 4 now? Is that a promotion?

You dare to deny the power of the Elder wand despite having already seen how it can be used to win elections??!! Those who ascribe Trump’s victory to cunning campaigning and a dependence on the deprived and depraved seem to have fooled by the falsity portrayed in the film that Harry broke the wand. The reality is that Harry sold the Elder wand to Trump to fund the reconstruction of Hogwarts, and to build a wall to keep out unwanted giants and all Trump had to do was to wave it, and win. Things DO work that way, as evidenced by the election result. No doubt, on being sworn in, Trump will immediately task the Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA to begin searching for the Invisibility Cloak and will get his engineers to commence constructing a new set of horcruxes – if he hasn’t done so already. Fortunately, for Latter-Day Saints, the High Priest wand trumps the Elder wand.

This comment makes me ponder the Lord’s attitude towards free speech. On the one hand, it seems to be a concept that He was reluctant to ban the practice in the war on heaven, despite that war costing him 1/3 of His beloved children. And the concept of free speech features prominently in the constitution which He inspired, and of which He has spoken in such approving terms. On the other hand, I note the sentiments expressed in the following scriptures: Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. James3: 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. 7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: 8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewithcurse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. (New Testament | Matthew 15:11) 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

..... and she might still be waiting for you..........

I have no doubt of the need for such a call. And like Jonah, who eventually accepted his call, I would accept such a call, although I doubt that I would have the same kind of success that Jonah had in Ninevah.

Trump might say that you've already had the alien invasion and it came from Mexico. It united enough of the people to get him the presidency. Now, having been elected, he wants to return the aliens back to where they came from.

The above ^^ is one of those answers where its important to get the comma and the full stop in the right order

Those of us from more righteous countries dread the call to Utah as none of us believe that we are sufficiently wicked to deserve such a cruel punishment. Actually, now that I think about it, probably there is nobody who is so wicked as to deserve that punishment.

I can envisage a situation, and I'm not suggesting that this is in any way likely, but it is possible, whereby, after experiencing the reality of the first six, or ten or twelve children, and what its really like being a father, you might suddenly find yourself wishing for just 3 or 4.

Its a complete non-issue for most people, but the former Prime Minister was on Radio National last week, pointing out that in the last 10 (?) years, 218 people have been brought to court charged with this offence. It only started to become an issue in 2011 when one of the then Prime Minister's favourite columnists was successfully sued under this law for writing a column in a very popular mainstream newspaper, in which he ventured the opinion that some people had chosen to identify themselves as “Aboriginal” and consequently win grants, prizes and career advancement, despite their apparently fair skin and mixed heritage. The judge found that "fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed in the newspaper articles" More recently, a cartoonist in Australia's only national newspaper was the subject of a court action under Section 18C when the newspaper published a cartoon he had drawn. The cartoon depicted a policeman holding a young Aboriginal person in front of the young person's father The policeman says you'll have to talk to your son about social responsibility. The Aboriginal father replies "yeah, righto, what's his name then. The cartoon stirred up a lot of controversy nationally in the media and among politicians for a few weeks, but last Friday, the complainant decided to drop the matter. ps The newspaper in which this cartoon appeared was established, and is still controlled by, Rupert Murdoch, who I believe holds a controlling interest in Fox News, way back in the early 1960's when he was still an Australian citizen.

I thought that part of his electoral appeal was that he portrayed himself as being an outsider, and not part of the insider, Washington beltway system?

Basically, there is a strong push by the right wing of the party currently in power to change the Racial Discrimination Act by removing the words offend and insult. Currently the Section 18C makes it unlawful to say or do something that will offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or ethnic origin. The proposed change is to remove the words offend and insult, so that the amended version would make it unlawful to say or do something that would humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race or colour. The man in the street is very much uninterested in this debate, its being driven very much by the politicians and some interest groups. The man in the street feels that the whoe argument is a waste of time and complete non-issue. One of the reasons why the issue was revived following the last election is that a former, highly respected radio news journalist was elected as an Independent Senator, and in his former career as a journalist, he was sued under Section 18C.

A newly re-emerging political controversy in Australia is the proposal to amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. In 2014, the Prime Minister at the time announced his approval of the plan, but shortly after, as a result of enormous public pressure, he changed his mind and reversed his position, and the Act was left untouched, and the issue disappeared for a while. After our national elections in July this year, the issue has re-emerged. In August, the current Prime Minister announced that he was happy with the Act and saw no need to change it and had no intention of doing anything about it. Last week, after continuing pressure from the right wing of his party, he agreed to support a parliamentary inquiry into Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Currently, Section 18C reads Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. The current push for change, and the 2014 push, is to remove the words offend and insult. Other proposals that some people are pushing for are to replace the words offend and insult with the word vilify, and yet others call for the abolition of the whole act. For better context, I've included Section 18D which states Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith: (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or (c) in making or publishing: (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. Is it pandering to special snowflakes to retain the words offend and insult, thereby making it illegal to say anything that will offend or insult someone on the basis of their race, colour or ethnic origin, or is it a fair and reasonable to protect people from being offended and insulted on the basis of their race, colour or ethnic origin? What do you think? Incidentally, the man who was Prime Minister in 2014 who was going to remove the words offend and insult and then changed his mind, announced a few days ago that he now regrets not having made the change. Also, in 2014, when giving a speech in Parliament the Attorney General (who is still the Attorney General today) attracted a lot of attention when he declared, in defence of the proposed changes, that ‘we all have a right to be a bigot.”