lonetree

A remember that paradigm shift for me.  When I was a child, I looked to so many of the adults in my life with blind willingness to follow and blind idolization-- they could do no wrong.  
At age 9, I decided to read the Bible cover to cover myself.  By the time I got to Genesis 9, that picture of was thoroughly shattered.  Naked Noah, Lot sleeping with his kids, and all of the other messed up stuff that "my Primary teacher didn't tell me about THAT!".  Come Exodus, the people of Israel... on one hand I was like "can you please stop whining-- God just saved you 1 chapter ago!  And now you're whinging AGAIN.  Got literally sends you food from Heaven...and then you whine that you don't like it?  Quit being such babies!"   But then also...I ..I whine a lot.  I understand the fear of an empty belly, fear not knowing what's going on, fear of incoming danger... I get that.  
The going-into-the-wilderness theme repeats again and again in scripture.  Adam leaving Edem, Lot leaving Sodom, Moses leaving Egypt, Isrealites being scattered, latter-day Saints across the US.  Every time there is GREAT uncertainty of what's going to happen, pain, hungry bellies, death, and shattering outer turmoil.  Leaders during that time are lead by God, but they also are human and make mistakes.  Likewise are the humans that follow them, some growing strong through the fire, and some breaking and deserting.  We're not any different today either.  

Oh man, I love watching British national politics!  Endless hoot. 
Handy Star Wars reference is handy.

I guess he had little choice, but Boris has 'hit the ground running'. After gathering his cabinet together, his performance against the charges of the opposition's chief sj blather-er is not only inspiring but entertaining(July 25, see the 2hr 17 min. mark).
 

I guess he had little choice, but Boris has 'hit the ground running'. After gathering his cabinet together, his performance against the charges of the opposition's chief sj blather-er is not only inspiring but entertaining(July 25, see the 2hr 17 min. mark).
 

Iran has been talking belligerently since the Ayatollahs took over in 1979 when Carter was in office. This is nothing new.

Iran seems to be *trying* to start a war.  I’m glad Trump isn’t playing, and I hope he has the resolve needed to stay out.
But, nature abhors a vacuum.  There will be a realignment, and it will be ugly; and the question is going to be whether we can bring ourselves to stay out of it when Russian troops are braining infants on the steps of the Kiev temple.  

https://lutheransatire.org/media/st-patricks-bad-analogies/
M.

How do you interpret the weeping, wailing and nashing teeth then.

I am not looking for a 'primary' answer to this subject. Just asking for some in depth thought.
My thoughts have been around the plan of salvation but more specifically the purpose of Mortal existence. It does not seem so clear to me that the purpose of Mortal existence is fair or is what we think it to be. For example the scriptures say and the prophets teach that the purpose of this Earth life was to come here and gain a body and have mortal experiences such as: suffering, physical pain and death in the physical sense. They also teach that God ordained it to be a space of testing to see if Man will do what they ask of him. I think it is safe to assume other kinds of non physical pain such as emotional cognitive pains may have been experienced in the pre mortal existence and do not necessarily become a part of the purpose for us being here.
So my question is: what is the point of this life for a person that knows nothing about Christ or God or their ways, lives their life and then dies and then perhaps they hear about it in the afterlife. If they were going to hear about it and accepted in the afterlife why did they go through mortal experience and why is this mortal experience so crucial to our eternal progression? Why couldn't I go through life without knowing God, then accepting in the afterlife. Seems there are different rules for those that are born into a place where Christ and his ways are known as opposed to those who know nothing of Christ. 
More to the point my question is what is the point of the mortal experience. Because it does not seem so clear to me that finding Christ and relying on him and keeping covenants and repenting in this life is the only way to enter the celestial Kingdom.
I hope I am clear.

I used to be fascinated by NDEs and took some trouble to look them up, research them, etc. No more. Some years back, I decided that (1) the stories were completely unverifiable, (2) many of the storytellers did not strike me as credible, and (3) in a few years, I'm going to find out first-hand what's going on.
#3 was the big one. I could see no compelling reason to invest myself in investigations of stories that were basically unknowable and would be proved or disproved within minutes after I die. What the heck is the point to worrying about NDEs? Live the gospel, serve God and your fellow man, and soon enough you'll find out by first-hand experience what happens after you die.

My thought is that a better example with which to examine this premise would be the oneness Pentecostals. Doctrine-wise, they line up 95-99% with me. Their worship is awesome. They love Jesus--oh do they love Jesus. They are conservative, biblical literalists, and they do Pentecost they way we use to do it. BUT, they deny the Trinity. If I were to officiate a baptism using their formula ("I baptize you in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins) I would be defrocked.  So, are they Christians? I suppose C.S. Lewis would say no. Many of the groups you consider "Anti" would deny them as well. I'm pretty sure they would be denied membership in the National or World Council of Churches. Again...are they Christian? If doctrinal orthodoxy determines the word's meaning, then no. If it is something else, then maybe or probably.
Honestly...I don't argue the word. If Lewis is right, then the word does not refer to "what Jesus actually taught," because by that definition Muslims could be Christian. After all, they argue that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, and that his disciples corrupted his message. If Lewis is wrong, and the word's meaning based on anything subjective, then, like the word "gentlemen," just about anyone can use it, but the word becomes most imprecise in meaning. I suspect that's where the larger Christian world is heading--to a very broad, all-encompassing definition--one that includes rather than excludes.
To get at where someone is really at, the term Christian will need to be followed up with, "What kind?"
One more example. A guy at work told me he was Catholic, but that he disagreed with some of the church's teachings. Which ones? Abortion, birth control, gay marriage, etc. etc. I quipped, "Are you a Christmas/Easter only Catholic?" He look a bit embarrassed and said, "Well...I don't really go that often."

Maybe it's frowned upon for me to say so, but...if I were a so-called traditional Christian, I wouldn't include Latter-day Saints as Christians, either, at least not in an all-inclusive way. The fact alone of the existence and acceptance of the Book of Mormon, not to mention having yet other books of scritpure, modern prophets, a quorum of twelve apostles, and an active effort to proselytize people away from traditional Christian churches, would put them on the wrong side of what my ideas of "Christianity" would almost certainly include.
As a Latter-day Saint, I obviously believe we are Christians—in point of fact, the only true Christians. But in my beneficence, I am generously willing to extend that label to most of those who want to claim it, even though they may not quite live up to what I believe are the elements of a Christian. But then, when the guy who denies the divinity of Jesus and says that the "atonement" was merely a fairy tale wants to claim the title, I privately do not agree to that. So it would be inconsistent, if not hypocritical, for me to raise a huge stink about traditional Christians wanting to deny me the title.

And the indoctrination of the young continues. Wake up, parents!

Dr. No was released the year I was born. It was a sci-fi spy thriller, different from what the viewing public of the early '60s was used to. Though a pretty low-budget affair, it was well-written and directed, and Sean Connery was perfectly cast as the debonaire Bond making his British way through a Cold War world. That is the reason, and possibly the only reason, the franchise took off like it did. The subsequent installments certainly do not qualify it as an all-time great series. Those who owned the franchise quickly settled on car chases, cool tech, lewd double entendres (Pussy Galore? Seriously? <barf>), and lots and lots and lots of sex and skin (of the female variety) as their signature hook.
Hey, it worked. I might complain, but as Joe Paterno used to say, nothing succeeds like success.
The '60s TV series was truly revolutionary, almost like a Bond film that was made for TV and that the whole family could watch. It was frankly much better than Bond, IMO. More clever and less dependent on silly devices than on subterfuge (with the exception of the face masks, an MI staple). The movie franchise has done very well, largely because the much-maligned Tom Cruise just nails the role. My only beef with the movie franchise—and it's huge—is that they made Jim Phelps into a bad guy to start things out. That's simply sacrilege, or the Hollywood version thereof.

I think the Lord said it best
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
While talking about the priesthood... it clearly God's way of using any power or influence.  We would be wise to follow his lead on the matter.

Both choices require perfect information, which many times is unobtainable.
So it can be a conundrum.

I'm not sure Cornelius Vanderbilt would agree.

Was Jesus kind to the scribes and Pharisees when he exposed them as hypocrites? If so, then I agree we should always choose to be kind. But in that case, I say it's a false choice.
This sort of Hallmark Card "wisdom" is largely responsible for the pathetic condition of today's Americans, especially the leftists.

Glad to have you here!  You will always be welcome to start attending church again.  You should be able to find the right meetinghouse and time for your ward online here.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/maps/meetinghouses/
When you go, you can introduce yourself to the bishop (if he doesn't introduce himself first).  He will be the one to help guide you back and answer those types of questions.  
I wish you the best!

I suspect that point came before 1980, and quite possibly before I was born. We treat entertainment as if it's sacred. It is not. I cannot remember how many people responded to arguments against watching R-rated movies with, "But Saving Private Ryan/The Passion of the Christ/The Terminator/Night of the Living Dead/<insert favorite R-rated movie here> was rated R!"
I'm sure Moses, Adam, Nephi, and Russell M. Nelson greatly regret having missed such fine movies. Maybe they will lose their exaltation for not having seen them. But I doubt it.

I understand where you are coming from and of course you have every right to watch whatever you want to.
True. Thank you for your understanding.
I think some people though will read a "progressive agenda" into something that just isn't there. If you (generic, not you meaning @Anddenex) are 100% convinced that big, scary "progressives" are polluting entertainment, than confirmation bias will kick in and you'll find it everywhere.
True. Also true for people to recognize a wolf when they see it. The wolf doesn't have to be big or scary, it is simply what it is.
I've always wanted to do an experiment. I'd like to take someone who has never seen Saved by the Bell before and convince them that it's filthy, dirty, obscene and R rated. Then I'd have them watch it. See if they think it's "filthy, obscene, dirty, etc."  If they can say, with a straight face, that Saved by the Bell is rated R, then my theory that you'll find what you are looking for (confirmation bias) might be correct.
There are some people who would believe Saved by the Bell was not a good show. This highlights what I was saying "from my frame of reference." My parents didn't like us kids watching Saved by the Bell or 90210. I can fully comprehend why they did not like 90210. I to this day have never seen an episode of Friends. Other people, like my sister, rave about Friends and probably have seen the whole series multiple times. From my frame of reference, I didn't care about Friends.
I believe there is a Youtube video about Saved by the Bell, and someone pointing out how "bad" the show truly was for kids.
Let me provide an example, from my frame of reference, pertaining to focal point with two shows: Mrs. Doubtfire and Supergirl. Both shows had an alternative lifestyle being highlighted. Mrs. Doubtfire's focal point though was a father trying to make it possible to spend time with his children, which he had felt he had been robbed of time with them. It was funny. It was good from my frame of reference.
Supergirl on the other hand wasn't focused on Supergirl. Supergirl was the backdrop to a sister coming out. When episodes spend 15 minutes or so on coming out, when the show is Supergirl -- ya, I stopped watching the show because I wanted to see episodes on Supergirl. Not progressive agenda.

You think Arthur is going to make more money because they had a gay wedding? Or that Toy Story 4 wouldn't have done as well had they not included what they did? Or that if Taylor Swift's latest song would have been about traditional romance it wouldn't have sold as well?
I don't believe for one second that adding that kind of thing into entertainment sells better. That is not why they're doing it.

It may have actually been a fellow/lady here, but I recall someone once bringing up "Doctor Who", a show that had its original long-running incarnation back in the 60s, I believe. If you are unaware, the show follows the adventures of a virtually-immortal time-traveling alien who is very old. And yet, only now in the recent edges of time suddenly everyone is LGTBQ.

I have mixed feelings about this topic. Growing up, I didn't listen to secular music, because my church told me that rock and roll was full of satanic messaging. Funny how nobody bemoaned the drunkenness and adultery/fornication that is so prominent in Country/Western. Then there were the boycotts of the 1980s of shows and material that were not "family friendly." We eventually grew out of that stage, and now the liberals suddenly think it's a good approach--boycotting Chick Fil-A, Walmart, etc.
The anti-Christian, pro-immorality messaging is just so prolific. I suspect the strongest answer--at least if we are to be "in the world but not of it" is to have our answers ready. Our children need to know why we "love the sinner and hate the sin." They need to know why we don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew, and why we choose to remain chaste unto marriage, and why we do not approve of men lying with men and women lying with women. They need to know why we insist that God created us male and female, and we need to honor that, regardless of any sense we have of gender dysphoria.
Sheltering only goes so far. If we push beyond, might our children not think we were hiding the truth from them? I'm done with boycotting, but I get the desire not to provide unnecessary exposure to immorality.

That's how the gum analogy was taught to me in a combined Sunday School class many years ago. The object lesson involved bringing out a stick of spearmint gum and asking if anyone wanted it (plenty of hands went up) followed by chewing it and reissuing the offer (no hands went up). We were taught breaking the law of chastity has permanent (in mortality) consequences like the gum that had been chewed. It's best to stay pure in the first place for this reason. However, some of us may have already strayed from the ideal and it's important to understand that through the atonement we can be made clean again and just like a fresh stick of gum... with the caveat that some consequences like STD's and pregnancy could still bring about lifelong challenges that we would not have had to face if we hadn't strayed in the first place. I've never understood the push back against what seems to be a fine analogy.