askandanswer

How well did the Law of Moses fulfill its primary intention?

The prosecutors basically gave Puljos a slap on the wrist because they knew prosecuting him for “killing” a racist sex offender wouldn’t further their careers if they decided to run for higher office. I'm a bit puzzled as to how one person can simultaneously hold the same beliefs^^. Administering justice on the basis of political expediency, at first glance, doesn't appear to be a hallmark of a great legal system.

My scripture reading this morning took me to this phrase here from Mosiah 27:13 This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall boverthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people. To me, this statement seems to be saying that the church can be overthrown by the transgression of the people. How much weight does this statement from an angel add to the conclusion that the works of man - in this case their wickedness and transgressions - can indeed stop or end or thwart the work of God - in this case the establishmen and ongoing operation of His church? If it is the case that the wickedness of man can hinder the work of God, there may be some difficulties in reconciling that idea with Joseph Smith's teaching that "no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing."

Just a question about political philosophy in general - is it a good thing or a bad thing when the operation of a system seems to be so reliant on one person? No doubt there are both good and bad aspects of having a system that depends so much on one person, but does the good outweigh the bad or does the bad outweigh the good? Of course I acknowledge that the system is not totally dependant on just one person, but I think its obvious that they system is at least heavily dependant on just one person. So is that a good or a bad thing?

Not quite defunct, but I believe, defunded. One can easily lead to the other in both directions.

I've been doing some reading in Helaman and found the most annotated verse in the Book of Mormon, according to Elder Nattress, who got his information from whichever part of church administration that keeps track of these things: Helaman 5:12 12 And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the arock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your bfoundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty cstorm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

Is Woo Hoo a common kind of call name?

The commandment says SIX days shalth thou labor and do all thy work. Not 5 as has become the common practice. Not 7, as is also become too frequent. Six. If we are working anything other than 6, are we breaking this commandment?

Hebrews 4 relates to the 7th day. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the aseventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. I'm asking about the 6th.

Where do you get this idea from? The commandment clearly refers to working on the 6th day.

N Nothing that a good editor can't fix.

For those who rest from their usual labours on Saturday, and take the time to play sport or go hunting, or stay at home, do a rado trip or whatever, are they violating the 4th commandment? Most of us have become accustomed to working 5 days a week whereas this commandment clearly commands us to work for six days. Probably there are many of us that do work 6 days a week, but for those who only work 5, are we violating this commandment, or is there a teaching from the church somewhere that gives us an exemption? Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;

In a sacrament meeting with Elder Nattress from our Area Presidency last week, he said that the church keeps track of which scriptures from the church’s website have the most annotations. In case you are wondering, the top five, from least to most are: Moroni 10:3 Moroni 10:4 Ether 12:27 1st Nephi 3:7 I can’t actually remember the most annotated scripture, but I think it might have been somewhere in Helaman and I think it was something about being able to do all things through Christ.

I think its a fairly common experience to initially feel that a calling is beyond your abilities. I've never turned down a calling and my wife and I have always strongly encouraged our adult children to never turn down a calling. Having watched the process over many years whereby callings are considered and extended, I have faith in the process. I've had some callings that I didn't enjoy, but I'm certain that was my fault. I was once called as a ward family history consultant when I had recently moved into a new ward where nobody knew me and I knew nothing about family history. Fortunately, that calling only lasted a few months. There's a calling that I've wanted for a long time but which has never come my way. I think that the Lord's representatives and servants generally know what they are doing when they issue callings, and when they don't, its best to act as if they do.

Can you respect their choices while at the same time mourning their choices? If one of my children was to come out as gay, I would still love them but I would mourn there choice knowing that if they wanted to get married they would have to choose between a same-sex marriage not recognised by the church or a marriage to someoen of the opposite sex that they are less likely to enjoy and with which they are unlikely to be sexually satisfied. That seems to be to be a choice worth mourning.

And not just in the US either. Somehow its all his fault over here as well. It's amazing the influence and trickery that gator has.

I guess that if I was her counsel, I'd try to make the arguement that the defendant's behaviour demonstrates the effectiveness of the law as a deterrent: she was about to make a threat, suddenly remembered, in the nick of time that it was illegal to do so, and therefore did not make an overt threat because she knew what the law was and wanted to abide by it, or at least wanted to avoid the consequences that could follow from not abiding by it. .

Just out of curiousity, in relation to this case, could you hazard a guess as to what extent the decision to charge might have been driven by 1) a genuine belief by the charging officers that the law might have been broken, or 2) a reaction to the public's reaction?

Interesting. It seems that some of the nuances of US gun laws are not so well conveyed in aspects of the popular media.

I'm only seeing things from a very great distance, but isn't it the case that anybody with a licence to concealed carry might be bringing a gun to school with them every day? The way I read it, she said she was going to bring loaded guns to school. I had the impression that in the US it was a relatively common occurence for people to bring loaded guns to school? In the context of this incident I'm not sure how much of a difference there is between something who says they will bring a gun to school and someone who actually brings one. How is one worse than the other? If she had said what she was going to do with those guns, and if what she proposed to do was violent and damaging to people or property 'then that to me would sound like a threat. Without explicitly stating her intentions, we are left to guess, and I think we start on a slippery slope when we start handing out convictions on the basis of guesses. I think that if her actions are outside the norm, and again, I'm saying this from a distance, then perhaps at most they might be enough to get her onto a police watch list for a while.

Thanks @Vort, this is an example of the kind of answer I have been hoping for. So how similar or different do you think these arguements are to the arguements being used today to oppose same sex marriage? It seems to me that what you have listed could be re-written as follows: —The ban (on temple marriage) is specific to those who act on of black sub-Saharan African descent same sex attraction. People who feel but don't act on same sex attraction Men with black skin can and do currently (1976) hold the Priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the temple. The ban exists for a reason, even if we have not explicitly been given that reason Many Church leaders, including General Authorities, have given both spoken and published reasoning on why people who act on same sex attraction people of black sub-Saharan African descent cannot hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple blessings. Are these men not specifically charged with defining Church doctrine? Why, then, ought we not simply accept their doctrinal explanations? The Priesthood temple marriage ban is effectively a curse to those whom it renders unable to receive the Priesthood or its blessings as expressed in the temple. So these people are, in effect, a cursed people. No one denies that they may be saved and even exalted with the rest of the Saints, but as to Priesthood and temple blessings today, they are cursed. Objecting to this wording while ignoring the simple facts of the matter constitutes straining out perhaps non-existent gnats while swallowing some very large camels. So while we are obligated by him whose Church this is to welcome such people into our meetings and even into the very waters of baptism, we must certainly teach our children about the temple ban and why they must never date or otherwise plan to marry those of black sub-Saharan African descent, who are LGBTQ, even fellow Saints. How accurately do you think this re-writing of the 1976 arguements reflects some of the 2000 arguements about the extent to which LGBTQ people could participate in the church or the 2022 arguements about same sex temple marriage?

!! I'm surprised to hear at the lengths that some people will go to demonstrate their hatred, ignorance and fear. Surely if you no longer believe someting, all you should do is just walk away and leave it alone. I dont understand the need to try and bring others with you.

Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but I don't think I've ever come across ex-members pretending to be members and I'm pretty sure that none of my ward friends have either. How often did you encounter such people?

I'm not too worried about this - I've actually torn that day off my calendar

Thanks to newsroom article you linked to I now have a better understanding than I did yesterday. It's interesting and helpful to see Elder Wickman say the following from the article: ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?” Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence. The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course. The idea that same sex attraction is only a temporary, temporal condition is consistent with the speculation I raised in another thread that same sex attraction could be a deliberately selected trial for mortality aimed at achieving a post-mortal outcome. It makes much more sense to choose a trial knowing that it will only be of temporary duration than choosing something that will be of eternal duration.