LeSellers

All the talk will be on Gun Control .....while sweeping Mental Health under the carpet.

Very sad.
 
However, I agree.  Not only do gun free zones not work, in actuality they create an area that is more dangerous to the public.  Due to gun free zones, any psychopath or criminal that wishes to inflict harm has an established area full of people that they know will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Yet another example of how gun free zones are ridiculous and they do not work.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Reports-Active-shooter-on-the-Umpqua-Community-College-campus--330285921.html?mobile=y
It is so strange and so confusing to me how people fear guns. Guns cannot act on their own. It's seems that society is afraid place blame on humans for fear of offending, so they blame an inanimate object. It's primal logic and completely ludicrous. Place blame on the mentally ill human behind the gun and allow the mentally healthy to defend themselves.
The police are NOT the first responders. We, the citizens, are the first responders. Citizens should not have to run, hide, cower in fear, and be murdered, waiting for the police to come save them. That is a crippling way to live and very sad.
Very, very, sad.

That was my point. The "priesthood of all believers" is usually derived from the verses found in 1Peter2:5,9, or possibly Revelation1:6.
 
1Peter2 :5,9 is looked at as a quote from Exodus19:5-6.
 
My point? Since there was no preisthood found in the OT which included all believers--then the very priesthood Peter was referring to in 1Peter2:5,9--which was a quote from Exodus19:5-6--could not have been a preisthood of all believers either.

Well, section 137 calls Shem "the Great High Priest", and Melchizedek has the same title elsewhere in scripture. Shem was still alive during Abraham's lifetime. I've seen some chronologies that show his dying after Abraham did. Nowhere does Melchizedek appear in scripture as the son of anyone. But Shem has a genealogy, both backwards and forwards to Abraham. Abraham was seeking for the priesthood from the fathers. We do not have an explicit statement saying that Melchizedek's name was Shem (which means "name"), but there is abundant circumstantial evidence that it was. Keep in mind, that Melchizedek is a title, not necessarily a name.
BTW, for kicks'n'grins, "Melchizedek" means king of righteousness. He was the king of Salem, which means king of peace.
Lehi

But there is no right to any of these things. The only rights one has are to his person and his labor and the property he has legitimately acquired. Rights come with concomitant obligations and responsibilities. If you have the right to food, for instance, you have the right to force someone else to give it to you, in other words, to make him your slave. If you have the right to housing, you must have the power to make someone else give it to you, or, in other words, to make him your slave.
In the case of health care (which is not the same thing as health insurance), in order to have the right to it, you must have the power to make a doctor, a nurse, a hospital give it to you, in other words, to make them your slaves. Absent that power, you must have the power to force someone else to pay the doctor, the nurse, the hospital when you use those services. In other words, to make him your slave.
I find no mention in scripture where it gives you or me or anyone the right to force others to pay for my education, for my food, for my home. There is no right to make others my slaves.
You bring up the abomination of "public" schools. (Please note I did not say "public education" because the laws pertaining to them require attendance, not learning.) The issue is that when Horace Mann imported schools from Prussia in 1852, he did it for one reason (and only one): to divorce children from their parents, from their parents' values and their religions. (See Mary Peabody Mann, Horace Mann: A Life.) Any education that happens in a government-run, tax-funded welfare school is purely by accident or is the bait to get parents to turn their children over to bureaucrats to raise them and instill acceptable value to those children. When John Dewey described the effects of grtf-welfare schooling, he wrote, "What can they do in their one hour of Sunday School when we have their children six hours a day?"
Charity stops being charity the moment it is forced. Welfare in any form is immoral: it takes from those who produce and gives a tiny portion of the proceeds to the group the government deems "needy" and keeps the majority for itself. Charity is vastly better than welfare. Welfare destroys, welfare weakens, welfare undermines the Family, God's fundamental unit of civilization. Charity builds up, ennobles, and builds the Family.
Finally, government is incapable of doing anything without taking something from someone, and taking it by (the threat of) force. The force is potentially lethal. All laws are based on lethal force and will be enforced by potential lethality. Government has perverse incentives. Government cannot make good decisions because it cannot understand all the parameters and cannot turn on a dime when that's the necessary action.
Lehi

Speaking for myself, I don't think that everyone "should" homeschool their children. (In an ideal world, with an ideal society, perhaps, but not in our society.) What I do think is that everyone should take responsibililty for their children's education. I have no problem in principle with leaving publicly funded schools in place, but they should be understood as an adjunct to the parental duty to educate the child. No one should ever say that the schools have the primary duty to educate the children. They do not. The parents do.
 
I understand that some parents are completely inept at parenting, and that they would be (and are) massive failures at teaching their children what the children need to know. But they still have the duty, even if they fail at it. When society as a whole recognizes that they do have that duty to educate their children and that they are failing at it, and start putting the primary blame where it belongs -- on the parents, not on the schools -- then perhaps we can have meaningful reform in education.

Lehi, thank you for the last post responding to mine.  It helps me to know that I over-estimated what I thought I had gleaned about premortal existence.  Ironically, my answer to your inquiry about hell is similar.  We do not have a great deal of information on the rationale for Hell.  Clearly, it is a place of punishment.  What we do know is that it exists.  We know it is aj ust, and even good place.  Some LDS here have actually answered your question (though they were referring to the outer darkness).  The big idea is that Hell is the one place in the universe where God is not.  Those who have chosen to oppose God and reject his love would find any place that includes the presence of God a worse hell.  So, for them, hell is the best they can have.
 
Personally, I'm with C.S. Lewis.  I don't like the doctrine.  But that's not the question.  Is it true?  If it is, I must teach it. 

Then why are non-scriptures used to as the ruler to measure belief?  (Asking a Protestant here)

So many people, including active members, are letting the thoughts and philosophies of the world dictate their thoughts instead of doctrinal and church teachings.
 
Many of the negative comments I've seen on lds discussion boards on facebook have been from members who state they are active, recommend holding members.

I am going to limit discuss to this single single sentence.   This understanding is flat out wrong.  It is claimed by those that should know better, and believed by those that lack understanding of how the church works.  As a way of saying I am still following God but the church is not.
 
The leaders of the church are on record as saying no change are made unless the quorum of the 12 and the First are all in agreement.  That issues presented toward them can and have been tabled for long periods of time before agreement is reached.
 
What does it tell us...   It tells us a few things.  One is that the Quorum of the 12 is not a bunch of yes men to the First Presidency.  That they have and are willing express disagreement, when in council, with the Prophet and First Presidency.
 
Now each of these 15 men have a sound understanding of the Gospel and how to receive revelation. And they have one job.  That job is to study out the issue facing the church, and pray about the correct decision to make, and then follow the promptings of the spirit to guide the church as the Lord wants.   By any stretch of the word that mean lead by Revelation.
 
Therefore to make the claim that it was not revealed... Requires all 15 of these men to neglect the fundamental thing they were called to do.  It requires all 15 of them to chose as the correct path that the Lord wants them on... Something that is not so.  Now anyone can have a bad day, the church leaders are human, but the idea that all 15 are missing the mark, requires serious amount of hubris on the member making the claim.
 
Now was it Revelation in the sense of revealing new Gospel truths...  No of course not.  However it was revelation in the sense of the Lord saying "I want my church to turn right here instead of left."  The Lord might have different instruction tomorrow.  And you can guarantee that part of the reason for the Lord to do so is to test and see who is going to hold true to correct principles gospel and who is going to hold on to something else.  Because that is the whole point of our being here.

Dennis, I'm not LDS, so you need to help me understand your strong reaction.  You were aghast.  Why?  Most children do not make the decision to be baptized without their parents' approval.  LDS theology does not bar those not baptized in LDS fonts to eternal damnation.  Children cannot become members of the church without their parents approval.  Given all that, why is it so traumatizing to say to a child of gay parents that they cannot be considered for baptism until they are adults?  In fact, if the church were to do as you ask, and eagerly seek our the children of gay parents for baptism, would the LBGT community not be aghast?  "Why," they might ask, "would a church that condemns our lifestyle recruit for baptism from amongst our children?"  It seems the church could not win here.  Yet, you say this policy is what drove you to resign.  Why?

Personally, anyone who leaves their children in the public socialist indoctrination system is asking for trouble.  I home schooled my kids and it was the best thing I ever did.  You can't overhaul the public school system.  It needs to be scrapped and then we need to start over.  Children are denied rights in school that they have outside of school.. They aren't allowed to defend themselves against bullies; they are subject to illegal search and seizure among other things;  The overwhelming majority of the texts lean so far left you can't stand them on end.  Home school your kids.

Your statement reminds me of the argument (within the Church) regarding "government" schools in the early 1900s. President Joseph F. Smith consistently warned the Saints not to turn over the education of their children to the government, but it was a losing battle and I believe he knew it. Private schools simply could not compete with "free" government schools even for "faithful" Saints.  The Prophet's warning that [if they supported government schools] the Saints would see the day when God would be completely eliminated from their child's education has certainly come to pass, hasn't it?

No, his mother did not buy the guns for him. He killed her while she was sleeping, and stole the guns. Lehi

A couple of points here:
 
1) There was an apostasy--and that is evidenced in the creation of new denominations with a different theology, resulting from the Reformation. Resorting to the claims of--"He never declared a complete apostasy."--cannot solve the problem for the faith alone. There remains the evidence of apostasy--regardless of what one believes the percentages are.
 
Could you explain to us what the difference is in a restoration for a 50% apostasy--and a 90% apostasy?
 
2)  Peter's reference to the priesthood, found in 1Peter 2.., was thought to be a quote from Exodus19:
 
1 Peter 2:9---King James Version (KJV)9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 
Exodus 19:5-6---King James Version (KJV)5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
 
Where do we find a priesthood of all believers in the OT?

Carborendum,
 
I don't think you're alone in experiencing miracles.  But there's no way to know where anyone else's belief begins or ends (short of them telling you, and the Spirit being involved to ensure understanding).
 
Moroni's words come to mind (the whole chapter is relevant, really).
 
I think that most people consider miracles so personal that they don't discuss them - and not always of their own choice, but sometimes because the Spirit tells them not to.  Also, I think there are a lot of us who don't feel the need for the more obvious miracles. I'm still undecided as to whether the apparent lack of obvious miracles is evidence of a lack of faith, or evidence of efficient use of resources (probably both, depending on details).
 
I know someone who lists among his reasons for being inactive, the fact that modern prophets don't publicly make statements like the President McKay quotes above.  I, on the other hand, am baffled that he feels a need for them to publicly proclaim something which I was always certain of without such public declarations.
 
One thing I am certain of is that we in the church need to do our very best to be converted to the gospel and help others be converted to the gospel (not the missionaries, not the church, not their Mormon friends or neighbors, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ). I find it very distressing when my fellow members list their various social and ethical and familial reasons for coming to church and never once say they come because they have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that the church is His church restored to the earth.

Perhaps a comparison between heavily religious areas of the country vs. those who are not might hint at an answer here?
 
http://visual.ly/religion-and-crime-there-correlation
 
The gist of the link is that irreligious states tend to be more peaceful than heavily religious states.  Utah broke that mold, as did Nevada (Utah = peaceful, Nevada = violent).  YET, the authors point out that correlation does not equal causation.
 
Even looking for areas with low divorce rates, would not account for domestic violence, etc.
 
My conclusion:  We support missions because people need the gospel so they can find their way to God's eternal best.  Any social benefits that come out of our work are 'frosting on the cake.' 

I would start by suggesting we solve the problem that really exists, not a perceived problem that is not real.  Mass shootings have remained at a relatively steady pace, for decades.  There has NOT been a sudden increase in them.  Due to a few recent, highly covered incidents, that perception is strong.  It's just not real.
 
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html#
 
So, how to solve the problem of mass shootings?  Maybe, we must first determine if this problem ranks high on society's "need-to-fix" list.  As bad as killings are, I'm guessing that driving under the influence (now, to include cannabis, in some states) is far more deadly.  I hate to say it, but fast-food french fries probably kill more people each year than mass-shooters do.

Agreed; otherwise, we are all lost. But when you're paid to be a teacher, a certain amount of knowledge (and the ability to impart it to others) is assumed.

Along those lines, there's a lot more to life than being smart.  

This should not be directed only at Vort.  Just about any of us here are smarter than stupid people...

Some of the wisest, kindest, and most helpful things I've heard, have come from teachers.  Some great examples of humanity, too.
 
Some of the dumbest, most wrongheaded, and most factually incorrect things I've heard, have come from (other) teachers.  Some horrible examples of humanity, too.
 
Mixed bag.  We're teaching our kids to respect things and people worthy of respect.  And just being employed in a profession where you exercise authority over children, isn't enough.  It takes more.

Teacher anecdote from a month ago:
 
My ninth-grade daughter loves her science teacher, so I was happy to meet him (albeit only for a short moment) at the school's meet-and-greet between faculty and parents. This young (mid- to late 20s) man told us parents that our days of helping our students with homework were likely over, because in ninth grade, Things Get Hard. (Ninth grade, mind you.) To drive this point firmly home, he explained that the students this year were starting out studying -- steel yourself for it -- continental drift. He assured us that this mind-numbingly difficult concept was so outrageous that he, himself, a high school science teacher with a master's degree, didn't understand it and had to learn it as he taught the lessons. You know, continental plates drifting around and all. Good luck with that.
 

 
Now, I realize that "science" isn't everybody's thing, which is fine. But if you're a science teacher, well then, yes, it should be your thing. You have a master's degree; continental drift should not come as a surprise, nor should you assume that all the parents are as clueless about it as you yourself may be. Experiences such as this are not the best way to build confidence in your daughter's learning experience at school.

Well, it's about time.