lonetree

This.
It's not so much about whether a boycott works or not.

For the record.  I won't buy Nike.  They gave money to a guy who gave money to a cop killer.  Sometimes it is the principle that matters.  I have some other things to say about Nike and their chosen spokesidiot, but then Pam would ban me for language.

The Beastie Boys got it completely wrong. There is nothing in the least hypocritical about a sinner telling his child not to sin, whether that sin is adultery or smoking or cussing or thinking unkind thoughts. Hypocrisy occurs only when you put on a false face and pretend to be something you are not. And calling yourself a Saint (the Latter-day type) while refusing to publicly advertise your own sins doesn't qualify in any sense as putting on a false face.
Now, if you're telling your child or friend, "Be virtuous like me!" while you are secretly embezzling from your employer, then yes, you are a hypocrite. If you decry the perversion of homosexuality while you cheat on your wife, you're a hypocrite. The hypocrisy lies in the pretense, not in the imperfection.

I find the evidence that Macchiavelli was just kidding when he wrote Il Principe to be compelling but not convincing. The treatise reads as a straightforward exposé, and the advice given is chillingly, cold-bloodedly direct and honest. I could perhaps believe it was written exactly for this purpose, to expose the motivations and machinations of European princes (and politicians of all stripes). But satire? Nope. There is nothing satirical about the work.

Sure, that would be great.
I have lots of doubt.
On the contrary, there is plenty of reason to think exactly that.
Why do you think this? I think this statement is obviously false. For God, all things are eternal, including "temporal ramifications".
None of these obvious statements are in any way relevant to the topic of discussion. That there are ten zillion unfit heterosexual parents in no way provides evidence that homosexual parents are just dandy.
And I would much rather have a child raised by biological abusive parents than by wolves. What of it? That's immaterial.

Think it can't happen...look at the Boy Scouts and tell them that they didn't have this happen to them, or multiple other organizations that had a parent with custody approve something for a child and have the LGBTQ come right back at them and sue the pants off of them.
The reason I saw the policy applied in the first place is due to the judicial activism the LGBT groups have been taking.  They are FAR more active in this arena and aggressive than just about any other group out there.  They also win quite a bit.

I think it’s been pretty easy for apologists to categorize past policies as, at least, being appropriate for the time and place in which they existed.
This one is harder, because as @Midwest LDS says—what has changed in the last three years, really?  
(Other than, the mass apostasy of featherweight Mormons who couldn’t reconcile themselves to the 2015 policy.  Hmm, maybe that’s it.  Maybe it was supposed to be another “Zion’s Camp”/wheat-versus-tares sort of moment . . .)

I'm really struggling with this policy change. I'm really trying not to, but I remember President Nelson talking about the last change being revelation. A revelation that only lasts 3 years? An action that leads to seperation from God for eternity is no longer apostasy? I don't want to feel shook, I don't like this feeling. I'm just glad I know this is Christ's church, this would be really hard without my testimony in Christ.

Did you know?  Jacinda Ardern, PM of New Zealand, was raised Mormon?  She allegedly left the Church due to “gay rights”.
I wonder if she knows Islam’s stance on gay rights when she donned that hijab.
Anyway, just wanted to share this meme.

They're important people, Anatess, important people with important things to do. They graciously condescend to make time for the little people, and what do the little people do? Whine that The Important Folks® aren't paying sufficient attention. Like they really need to hear that from the unwashed masses, who are actually being given the privilege of addressing them! I ask you, who are the REAL victims here?

Ok, please someone start listing the factual errors in the story.   While there is some opinion in this article, what was Wrong?
Sorry, I’m struggling with the whole idea of spending millions on “Meet the Mormons” and the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, to flip and suddenly the Mormon label is offensive to God.    I’m struggling with reversal of the baptism of LGBTQAXYZ’s kids with the now we can.   The fact that heteral and homo marriages will be treated equally when it comes to transgressions.....
Why leave out kids of polygamists?   Why no longer consider homosexuality being apostate?  I believe the church is moving towards acceptance of homosexual marriage, and IT WILL in order to maintain tax exempt status.   
I will be praying and listening hard this weekend, because my heart is troubled by the inroads that the gay agenda is making in our church.   With Bishops like Paul Augentstein and Richard Ostler being allowed to spread the agenda that it’s ok to be gay, bad times are coming....

Do we have a factual narrative from the Mormon Newsroom? I'm curious to know what has actually been said by the Church on the matter.

No, CNN and the atheists are just going around saying we kill gay kids.

Super-short answer: all people who follow Christ will spend eternity with Him, happy beyond their wildest dreams.
Much more informative, but longer answer: members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints don't view the afterlife as a binary Heaven/Hell the way other Christians do.  Rather the LDS view is more of a spectrum view, where even evilest* people end up happy in the eternities, with some measure of God's presence.  The more one accept God into your life, the more of God's glory and happiness that person receives in the eternities.  Obviously LDS folks hold that LDS beliefs are the most correct and fullness of the Gospel, leaving to the fullness glory / happiness / God's presence. 
Even much more informative, but longer answer: see here https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng&_r=1
 
*Ok, 'evilist' excluding the Cain type folks.    

Should we also de-canonize D&C 135?
IMHO our God is big enough not to get His nose out of joint just because, every now and again, we say (or even sing!) that a particular prophet did a pretty good job.
And frankly, if anything the modern Church probably downplays the significance of Joseph Smith’s life and ministry; as well as his role as the head of our dispensation.  There are already several restorationist churches that throw Brother Joseph down the memory hole, and we don’t need to be trying to occupy that theological niche. 

This is not the Radio Program. It is a musical based on the original book. Check it out, it is good.

I understand the reaction - it would probably be my first reaction if someone had asked me that question.  But it's as short-sighted as the woman who made the original request.  Even if it were too late for her to get educated this round, we should never discourage someone who (finally) wants to learn how to vote responsibly.  If something today or yesterday finally triggered a desire in this person to engage in this process, it should be encouraged - there's already more than enough to discourage people from our political process.  If you feel compelled, a gentle rebuke, such as "Here are some good resources.  I recommend giving yourself a month or so before the next election, in case you run into issues you want more time to research or discuss." would do the trick.

I just got a FB post from a sister in the ward, wanting to know how to research the candidates.  Voting is tomorrow. Personally, if you are that ignorant of the candidates and issues so that you don't bother about them until the day before the election, you shouldn't vote.
I'm just gonna say that I left the plantation. You couldn't pay me to vote Democrat. Yes, I'm one of those who votes a straight ticket. As far as I'm concerned, there are no 'good' Democrats in office. They are out to ruin families, keep blacks as an underclass, ruin the economy and give it over to globalists, and erase American culture. In my mind, there is no 'best person for the job' if that person's party is anti-life and anti-America.
I lived in Seattle for almost 5 years. I know what a government based on liberalism looks like and it ain't pretty.
Also, this 'they need to work with other parties' stuff is a mistake. Work with other parties how - vote for 3rd trimester abortion? Allow all undocumented illegals in? Where do you compromise your principals? It's bad enough when corporate Republicans fail to act on illegal aliens because they need the labor (I'm looking at you G. Bush). I don't have to go looking for places to compromise my beliefs just because some people think it will make me look like a better person. 

I would like to thank George W Bush for saving the banks. He bailed out the US banks at a critical point. If he had not done so, it would have been a disaster.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-signs-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.W97qGBpyahA
The Canadian banks are highly regulated with the plus side that they are very stable. At this point in history, Canada looked like a financial genius. But still a US banking crisis would have affected everyone. 

A couple of obvious ones:
The material world is inherently corrupt. God is not corrupt. Therefore, God is immaterial. God is wholly other; he is not like us. We are his creation, nothing beyond that.

Maybe I need to look into it more, but I think, as a Canadian, that all the parties support universal healthcare and a national pension plan - these have just been a part of life as long as I've existed.  I think to undo them would be political suicide for any party.
That being said the conservative parties do tend to make healthcare cuts, while the other parties seem to spend spend spend. I agree with both to an extent, people need to be held accountable and systems kept efficient so that state run programs such as healthcare don't bloat, but pay also needs to be decent enough that we can attract quality personnel. It's sad how instead of getting the system streamlined and efficient with people happy and well paid, instead we manage to have healthcare and education workers who are overworked and underpaid while money is flooding the system and going to waste because governments change and organizations don't feel safe putting increased funds into payroll when those same funds could at anytime get cut. Instead they go to stuff and temporary positions, but the money doesn't get to where it's needed most. Then we end up with MRI machines that are only used two hours a day while people wait for months to get assessed because we don't have sufficient staffing and training to run and maintain the equipment. 

The Liberal Party promote socialist policies (universal healthcare, national pension plan, national college loan and repayment programs, etc.) but are not for Socialization of the entire Canadian economy.  But lately, they've been veering more and more towards full blown Socialism which is part of the reason why they're getting pommeled by the Conservative Party lately. 

I've been noticing a lot more lately people using acronyms for swear words in conversations.  This would be considered filter skipping which is against the rules of the site.  For example:  BS
5. No cursing or crude language. Any swearing, including filter skipping, will result in an automatic one week suspension.
This is not the type of language that we want here on the forums and it needs to stop.  I realize some subjects are hot topics to some.  But we can't allow this type of conversation to continue.
 
 

It comes down to whether you like tyranny (IOS device) or freedom (Android).

I'm saying that Apple products have historically been underpowered, possibly as an incentive to upgrade. For all their faults, Microsoft has never intentionally underpowered their products. If anything, the knock on Microsoft was that the expected too much hardware power, not that they delivered too little.