JohnsonJones

Depends on who you talk to. I know some that think drinking coffee cold or iced tea or the green tea drinks in the stores does not break the Word of Wisdom as it specifies directly in verse 9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. Which we have defined as being coffee and tea... The history is something weird with statements like this from 1975 Or from 1980 President Kimball himself stated Which is where many of the stronger stances against caffeinated drinks really started to take off. Technically, the Word of Wisdom in how we, the church, apply it has a basic minimum, and that minimum is what we stand at and hold the members accountable for today, which is basically, no tobacco, coffee, or tea or alcohol. Other than that, we do not hold anyone accountable for anything beyond that, and even with those four items, it really is more of a temple recommend question than anything else. We don't check to see how often someone is eating meat, or how often they are eating grain, or in what degree they are eating wheat vs. corn or oats and rye. This is how it's always (well, since the Word of Wisdom was made mandatory, it wasn't always so) Even with the temple recommend questions, which we are advised to keep strictly to unless someway the spirit prompts otherwise is Do you keep the word of Wisdom? In many ways, the LDS church's interpretation is up to each individual in how the interpret it and how they adhere to it. This applies to many of the various gospel principles and covenants that we keep. PS: and keep inline with the marijuana theme of my posts...I have not done marijuana, but from what I understand, caffeine is actually MORE habit forming than marijuana. Something of interest. And also, once again, just to be clear I do NOT use marijuana nor do I support it's usage in daily life.

It actually USED to be spoken against, even sometimes mentioned in Conference. However, there are some leaders, and one in particular that love their caffeinated drinks. The one that has had the biggest influence probably is the one that is apparently addicted to Diet Pepsi (and for some reason, there are those out there that apparently can't live without their Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or Mountain Dew...not sure why myself, but there it is) and regardless of Doctor's advice, diabetes, and everything else, still insists on drinking it by the caseload. The changes in mentioning about caffeine correlate a LOT to not just that individual, but others in the General Authorities gaining more and more ability to change LDS opinion and thoughts on this topic. So, yes, basically it can be seen that as they gained power in the church, the ideas around caffeine have changed. Do you find that offensive for some reason? I don't know why. I know some anti-Mormons try to make a big deal about this, but in truth, it's laughable. I'm personally of the thought that the Word of Wisdom is a worldly law, but not one that is going to really play with whether you gain exaltation or not. It's a law for our time. however, it's not something that is like the Law of Chastity or any other eternal law. You need to try to adhere to it to go to the temple, but it's not like anyone is going to go and strictly define it to you in what you have to or do not have to do outside the strict limitation of exactly what it states in the Word of Wisdom itself. However, the big difficulty in the LDS church's buildings and campuses is that there ARE those who do not drink caffeinated drinks (such as my family) for religious reasons. Telling people that those are not valid reasons is pretty divisive overall. In addition, BECAUSE the church pushed so hard on not drinking caffeinated drinks (am I the only one that old on this forum...am I the only one who was alive when the LDS church had that as a standard) it is ALSO known about this outside the LDS church (and a reason Gordon B. Hinckley made a point about it in an interview at one time about LDS being able to drink caffeinated drinks in the 90s). Even if you know you are good, those outside the LDs church WILL judge you as participating in the appearance of evil.... Marijuana is a great example. It's exactly in the position caffeine had been in the past few decades (on both the good and the bad sides). In all honesty, most of what's come out about Marijuana has been that caffeine is actually more harmful, tobacco is actually more harmful, and Marijuana oil is actually a far better health item in regards to pain and such than many other legal drugs. In truth, in some ways it parallels caffeine far more, except the extracts of it for medical reasons are probably far more healthy than any caffeinated drink. There is NOTHING in the Word of Wisdom itself that says, Marijuana is not allowed...if you also say caffeine is allowed. Personal takes on drugs is what determines whether one sees one drug (caffeine) as no problem and yet sees another drug (marijuana) as being such, even though medically, Marijuana actually has been proven to be more useful than caffeine (ironic...eh?). PS: Just to be clear, I do NOT use marijuana nor support it's usage in daily life. It's an example of how divisive saying caffeine is allowed in a church local may be...and yes, Marijuana is now legal in some states and nations...so it could be an issue. More so when a doctor prescribes it to one of your members.

It's not conspiracy theory about them being addicts...it's actually fact. Also, I said Leaders, I didn't point out the exact individuals. However, yes, this is very much to the heart of the matter. In fact, I'm pretty positive if it were not for that, policies would not have changed as they have. Reality may not be what you want, that doesn't change the tenets of the church. Afterall, it used to be (whether you like it or not) that the Word of Wisdom was just that...a Word of Wisdom rather than a commandment that we keep. Apparantly, despite popular pushings by some when those leaders were younger, they took it as just that, a Word of Wisdom, and chose to do as they wish... When they got more ability to change things around, they did, as some of the changes of opinion in regards to caffeine is directly traceable to these people and those who sympathize with them. They chose to drink caffeine, and yes, some seemingly cannot do without it. Is that a bad thing? I don't find it necessarily bad, but if that offends you...well, there are some other things which are in nowise against the commandments or word of the Lord which you might not want to know about the Leaders of the church which don't exactly correspond to popular LDS culture that would probably offend you much worse.

Well she seems in good health and going strong. If she were to pass away though, would Charles just pass it along to William, or who do you think would actually get the throne?

I think it's a bad idea. Caffeine was avoided for the same reason marijuana or other drugs are avoided to a degree. Originally it was because the common thing tea and coffee had between them was caffeine. Hence, it was assumed that to even avoid the "appearance of evil" one should avoid anything of the like, which would include caffeinated drinks...something we apparently have forgotten in these days and don't care whether we appear evil or not. That aside, a more common reason today, is still the appearance of evil. There is NOTHING that says one can't do marijuana in the Word of Wisdom itself, but we do not partake due to clarifications in many ways, as well as that entire "appearance of evil" adage. The secondary reason to not include caffeine originally was because it causes division among the saints. Some do not drink caffeine, others do. When the church openly promotes caffeinated drinks, even though there are those who do not drink such because of their religion it is like trying to say the same thing as that LDS kid that smoked. You tell them you don't smoke because you are LDS...and he comes back and says...soooo...I'm LDS too and I smoke. Basically, it's a way to disarm someone's religion or religious reasons. The REASON I see us being less strong on the caffeine over the past few decades is twofold. First, there are several General Authorities that have caffeine addictions. Rather hard for them to be against it when they openly drink it. The Second reason is related to the first and not to discretely held. A Major LDS leader was completely addicted to Diet Pepsi...having cases of it even. It's probably one of the primary causes of his diabetes. Even then, he still had to have the Diet Pepsi kick. That sort of changes the dynamic when leaders of the church are heavily into caffeinated drinks that they'll keep on drinking it, even after it's caused a pretty harsh bodily reaction, and then against the advice of medical suggestions. So, I see the change going on, which brings us closer to the world and makes it harder for those who DO ascribe to the no caffeine thing to follow the dictates of their religion when the religion may be actively advocating something else. So, how long until they start distributing marijuana on campus? Or maybe we should start a little lighter and only offer cold coffee and cold tea (afterall, they won't be hot...right???) on campus. I know several that drink Ice Tea or Green Tea drinks with that same type of reasoning.

Well, if any of you suddenly vanish please inform us here so that we know we were left behind.

I think you are correct that the Founders would not really recognize what has become of our nations laws today, but some of it would be other than what we probably think. For starters, I think they'd be shocked that something like income tax exists. If you think about the reasons for the revolution, and then inherent attitudes towards taxes...even with representation...well...I think they'd probably die from heart attacks at what our tax system is like today. They'd probably be shocked at how over riding our Federal government is. The Federal Government was never viewed to be this strong compared to the states. Even Hamilton never imagined a Federal government with the type of powers we have, though I think he was for a STRONG Federal government, nothing like what we have today would even close to his approximation of that, it is FAR stronger than he imagined, to the point he may even call it a dictatorial or oligarchic tyranny. We can thank a Republican for this change of view. Before the 1860s it was thought that States had the right to make laws, even those that may not go along with that in the Federal government's thought process. Article 10 was seen as the trump card of the states. However, when attempting to use that to separate from the Union, Abraham Lincoln over rode that and enforced that idea that the Federal government, in fact, overrides the states, even with Article 10, in all things...and brought them back. This is not to deride Abraham Lincoln, as I, along with many others would probably say he is perhaps the second (or third) greatest President the US has ever had. However, from that point on, the Federal Government has gained power more and more over that of State governments. AS has been pointed out, this atheistic application of ideas to the Constitution was probably never imagined by our Founders. In their time, even those with more atheistic tendencies (ala...Benjamin Franklin at times) were still deeply appreciative of religion, and almost all of society was Christian in the colonies. It was with the Christian mindset that many of the principles found in the Bill of Rights, as well as other wise were thought of. It was the application of the Christian moral code into a codification of laws that created our Constitution, after the failure of other attempts (such as the articles of confederation). I think it is flexible enough to allow other religions, but the overall idea was that Christian morality would be the one guiding the American principles from there on out, but without establishing any specific Christian religion as a STATE religion (or one that was the religion of the United States, but that each individual state could actually have it's own state religion, as exemplified by several states at that time and afterwards). As we moved from our Christian roots, we have departed more and more from what the original Founders probably intended. However, the US still stands, and I would attribute that this IS BECAUSE the Constitution is a living document (otherwise, why allow for Amendments to even be made, if it was not made to be flexible and changeable as according to how times and peoples change). That is part of the greatness of the Constitution, that it allows the flexibility to change, without completely abandoning the original intent of governance. I think in this, at least, the founders would not be surprised, as I feel this was part of their intent from the beginning, to have a living document that could change according to how society changes so that the US as a nation could stand for as long as possible while allowing as much freedom to it's people's as possible during their time.

That's a fascinating thing to bring up. Something related but not exactly the same is regarding dates. In the West, many time the fruit of good and evil is portrayed as an apple. However, among some in the Mediterranean and Middle East (and East of there) the fruit is considered to perhaps be the Date (though some think of it as the fig I've heard as well).

You realize it is about 2000 KM from the Northern point of Saudi Arabia near the Red Sea and the Sinai peninsula to Yemen. It took the saints around 100 days or more to travel to Utah. For ease, do a google maps look from Tabuk, Saudi Arabia to either Sana'a, Yemen or Yemen, Yemen and you'll get an idea of the distance that we are discussing. Then, do a search from Sana'a, Yemen to Salalah, Oman, which is around 1400 KM. This should give you some idea of the distances being referred to in general. If I understand you right, you state that Nephi and Lehi traveled 2000 KM in under 30 days (and that's being generous, many days journey typically does NOT mean that long if something is referred in that fashion if they also utilize other ways of recording time...normally many days means more than 2 days but less than several weeks or a moon, depending on civilization) which puts them at traveling around 65+ Km ( which is a little more than 40 miles a day). Then, they slow down for some reason to travel less than half a mile (or, to be more apt, half a km which is more like less than 1/3 of a mile...and note...Nephi doesn't say they stayed and tarried until later in chapter 17 and then built a ship) a day for the next 8 years. Next do a search from Eilat, Israel to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, which is around 278 Km (or 225 -250 if you go more straight). This is far more likely a distance they traveled for many days, and from there, if they travelled due east, would skim over the Northern shore of the Persian Sea and onto Asia. Thus, as per Nephi, they travel in the wilderness (not stop and dwell a LOT which is not in Nephi) in an eastward direction for quite a while). Further evidence, even as the Arabs would start voyaging Eastward on the ocean, it was seen as suicidal if you went certain directions or too far in certain ways, before the age of sail. Some of this probably has to do with the currents and other factors that they just were not prepared for in those days (scurvy is a nice one to come down with for example). Ironically, there is a current or two from East Asia which would make travel to the Americas far more amenable to the Pacific Islanders (and of course, from America back to that area) and if they were lucky to be able to find it and then catch it, even those from East Asia. This is an interesting thing to discuss and look at, I am familiar with the Saudi Arabian Peninsula and the Arabian Peninsula theories (which does include the idea about NHM while it ignores other Nahom's elsewhere...interestingly enough. Nehhm/Nihm/Nihim, or NHM, and the Arabic meaning of Stone Cutting, which correlates to approximately 600 AD (not BC, interestingly enough, though there are both the 600 dates there), is an interesting supposition by some archaeologists that it therefore means that it was the Nahom (related to mourning as per the BoM) in 600 BC. Is it? I don't know, but it is an interesting speculation. (of interest, do a google map search for Nahum, or NHM, or even Nihm, or any of the other deriviatives in yemen...it should prove interesting...) PS: If you cannot find it, it may be because some think NHM refers to a tribal name and the location they traveled instead of a named location specifically. I wouldn't go that far...but it can make an interesting discussion piece.

WAAAAAY off topic. Part of the difficulty is seeing the challenges of adoption. I have discussed with my wife about adopting, but it seems a LOT of paperwork and other things just to adopt. We'd adopt any kid, but think perhaps focusing on a Hispanic kid or a minority in that arena would be more what we'd look at (and not an infant, more like at least age 5 on up. 5-10 probably being the ideal, but perhaps even up to their mid to late teens. We are older, so no desire to die off before a kid we adopt is an adult). However, when we look at all that we have to do just to get to that point, thus far we've just tossed up our hands and given up. I think that may be the case with many. Adopting in the US is no picnic (even if one is willing to pay all the fees, the rigor moral of needing to jump through the hoops is enough to make one simply decide it's easier not to). If it were easier, I think there would be more adoptions. We ruled out foster care for one reason though. We just aren't cut out for it. Our daughter and son in law wanted to adopt for a while and went through foster care being foster parents. It tore their hearts out. They'd take care of one kid, and then that kid would be taken out of the home and another put in...and the process just kept going. It seemed very hard on the heartstrings. I don't think me and my wife could handle that type of approach to children...and our hearts couldn't take it, which is why we don't do the foster care thing.

PS: To be fair, some scholars also ascribe to the Arabian Peninsula theory (from what I've heard, and I don't know, but the Ensign article may also hint at this in part 1 which I listed) where Lehi traveled in the Arabian Peninsula as theory #1 ascribes, but then, later turned northward and exited the Peninsula and then spent the next 8 years traveling eastward to who knows how far. I'd include that on the Asia Trek theory as well though...as it still ascribes to a trek through Asia rather than simply staying on the Arabian Peninsula. To be fair to the other side, their is also a quote attributed to Joseph Smith (attributed being a key word here) that he stated to the effect that Lehi's family went down by the Red Sea and then to the Southern Ocean and then traversed it. Though it may hint at the above, overall the Ensign article relies on the timelines for a main Arabian theory by positing Lehi's family spent a lot more time dwelling than traveling, (so instead of interpreting Nephi 17:1 as traveling...they ascribe it as dwelling most of the time with a little travel). Much of this is trying to match the travel with the statement that was attributed to Joseph Smith...though I have not been able to verify it was actually a genuine quote itself...despite it being attributed as such. (sort of like some other famous statements by prophets in the church, that when looked into were actually more secondhand accounts of them stating such rather than something they recorded in writing themselves). For those who are interested...the above article in the Ensign was just part 1 of the travel, Part 2 can be found here...if one is interested in reading the rest of the journey and article of that idea at the time. Lehi's Journey - Part 2 Obviously I don't agree with the conclusions specifically overall, but it is a very interesting, and I'd say even enlightening, read. (and even moreso, perhaps, if you agree with the conclusions. As I said, in the statement attributed to Joseph Smith, they are trying to follow the trail in that statement).

Thanks to you and Vort for the replies. A more detailed explanation of my thoughts. It could be. I believe he states they travelled in a South-South Eastern direction for four days, and then it states for many days (which is undefined) in Nephi 16. After that, it states they traveled in almost an Eastward direction...for EIGHT YEARS. So, there are several theories on where and how they traveled. The two main ones utilized these days make no sense in comparison to that stated by Nephi. The first has them traveling in a slightly Western direction, or South-South West. This is how they arrive at Shazer, or what some scholars think correlates to what Nephi Called Shazer. They walked a pretty extensive area rather quickly in this instance. Possible, but not necessarily exactly how we've seen the nomads in the Middle East travel that route. Furthermore, with the closeness of political lines...a good way to get themselves killed in the ancient times. However, it does correlate to the statement of travelling along the borders of the Red Sea. The question then, is how far they travelled along the border the Red Sea and how far. I would say it was less than a month, as Nephi doesn't even state it was several weeks, just several days. My thoughts is it was actually somewhere between 5 and 14 days. The scholars of this theory however, postulate that in this "several days" period, they went from one end of the Peninsula to the next (from the Northern end, to the Southern end). They then took 8 years to travel the shorter distance traveling in a East-North East direction. So, in the matter of days, they traveled the length of the Arabian Peninsula, and then took 8 years to traverse the Southern edge? According to the main theory...Yes. I personally disagree that this makes any sense whatsoever. Not only does it disregard the actual directions Nephi states, it also is pretty crazy for the length it goes. This main theory is an old theory though, and is rather easy to find. Here is something about it from an Ensign. You will note that there can be variations on the above theory. Lehi's Journey on LDS dot org Some have noted that it's a little hard to reconcile this, and have an alternate Arabian theories, very similar, in which they traveled some distance before getting the Liahona, and then traveled to Shazer, and then travel to the OTHER side of the Arabian Peninsula...and then down again. Once again, more akin to what Nephi stated, but instead of due east, they still insist on going down the Arabian Peninsula. It does have the added attraction that there is no defined stop to their journey, as many who apply the above and former theory think, but if they don't stop at the tip of the Arabian Peninsula...that means they either backtracked....or went West. Even with this theory, it means that they turned from going East, and then went in a SouthEastern Direction. Another take is that the South-South East direction along the Red Sea is actually the Eastern direction they travel. So they travel, and then continue down the Peninsula for the Eastward direction (traveling South-South East and then east for 8 years rather than mainly Eastward as Nephi states in his account). I also have problems with this theory. The difficulties arise in knowing how far this family was able to travel. Both theories above ascribe the family travelling a MASSIVE amoung of distances for anyone (much less a family) in a few days time (or several days), while then, slowing that same group down to an interminable crawl for the next 8 years...which to most historians probably does NOT make a whole lot of sense. OR, alternatively, that they did NOT actually travel as Nephi states, doing something different. The other idea, when they acknowledge how ludicrous in comparison to the culture in the Arabian peninsula and the travel times, is that instead of traveling as Nephi states, Lehi and Nephi dwelt extensively in certain locations...OR...were like the ancient Israelites...wanderers in the desert for 8 years. Both of these ignore Nephi 17:1 on it's statements of travel. However, traveling eastward through Asia does have another account. This account happened many thousands of years later (or almost two thousand years) but would have utilized similar measures. Marco Polo's journey took 3 and a half years. They were guided by people who already knew the route, and they had a set destination to travel. This may be less time than Nephi and Lehi took, but with families, children, and other measures, eight years is more reasonable traveling in that direction, than traveling eastward on the Arabian Peninsula (and verse 17:1 in Nephi makes it clear that they traveled EAST in the wilderness, not South-South East, not East-North East, etc). In addition, with date estimation, it is estimated they traveled for nearly 8 years GOING east...unless you decide to ignore what Nephi wrote and instead do what some do to justify the above theories where Nephi and Lehi instead dwell by the Ocean for a lengthy period. Marco Polo also points out a good reason why the overland route was probably better then the Sea route. When Marco Polo attempted to return, it still took two years and on that voyage returning on the ocean, lost almost 600 people. Only 18 people survived that sea voyage. If Lehi's family traveled South-South East for a little while, but were still above the Northern point of the Persian Sea when they started East, that would make more sense to me. Then, turning East, they have all of Asia to travel for the next 8 years, traveling mainly Eastward just as Nephi states in his narrative. In addition, it puts them FAR closer to the Americas as they travel, which means a far less distance to travel and less peril on the seas. Sea Travel WAS perilous in the ancient world, even deep sea travel, and for more than just how the ships were designed, but things dealing with storage of food and water. Land travel overall, was far safer, even with the perils of encountering different nations and natives. A lot of my thoughts deal more with the time they traveled, and how logical it would be to depart on a sea voyage from where some scholars say they did in the popular theory, vs. that of following what Nephi actually states, and with my own experiences in the Middle East and my travels there, as well as the logic of the distances involved with a sea voyage in consideration of various abilities in the Ancient World (which is far more than simply ship building, but involves food storage, and other preparations which would also be necessary for such a journey). The other thing to look at are the sea currents. You do not have a sea current (which is what made it a LOT easier for travels by Columbus to the New World and others in before the modern age with our engines and other things) which travels from Arabia to the Americas. It is more likely to be able to catch one from the Eastern Edge of Asia (though you may still have to travel) than it would be from Arabia. The easiest way for the Lord to get Lehi's family to the America's via ship would be one of those currents. Oceanic Currents So, I don't ascribe to the major LDS scholar's theory of Lehi's path, but instead think it is far more logical to look at it on how they traveled over 8 years. The Arabian peninsula itself, even travel by the sea, is a FAR harsher place to spend 8 years (no need to have your woman and children eat raw meat, you are going to be lucky if you just find fresh water that isn't guarded by the natives of the area that they will not kill you over...) then the travel...which is another thing which has stayed very consistant with for the past 2000 years (though now it's easier to get fresh water...go back just 100 years and if you were not a member of one of the tribes, and tried drinking their water without their consent, it would be a very easy way to be killed). there are several other observations I could make in regards to that area of the Middle East, but that's just the basics...it gets more complicated when one looks more at the culture of the area. Scholars have been delighted in finding what they think are areas with the same naming conventions as used by those in the Book of Mormon, but to me, knowing the culture, the area, and the timelines described by Nephi, doesn't actually make a lot of sense to me. That's why, I prefer the Asia trek idea/theory.

Something that came up when reading the forum, but felt instead of polluting a thread with this thought, I'd simply post it here. I personally think those who think they went down the Arabian peninsula don't really know Arabia too well. I've always thought they most likely journeyed East through Asia. The Arabian Peninsula theory is based off the idea that there are several areas on that Peninsula that sound or seem similar to words or names utilized in the Book of Mormon. However, though the children of Israel spent 40 years as Nomads there, does not mean it takes 8 years to travel it. Nomads could travel that peninsula in less than a year. To travel 8 years there is basically being pointless in the desert...aka...NOT being led to the promised land. It makes far more sense if they actually had a point to their travels, and traveled through Asia until they hit that Eastern Coast...at least to me. From there, it is a FAR SHORTER trip to the Promised land as well, rather than what would take a LOOONG time otherwise. I don't think the Lord would have Lehi and his family take an unnecessarily LONG trip over the ocean where supplies could get slim on a voyage that long...even with our modern technology if we don't plan it right. Instead, having them travel through Asia where food and water could be found, and then leaving at a spot where the voyage would be shorter makes a LOT more sense to me. Of course, that's not the POPULAR opinion right now (popular opinion is that they went through the Arabian peninsula). The popular opinion is that they went more south then east, rather than a Southeastern direction (at least until you hit India...then it would have to be either purely east, or they left from that area). This puts them wandering down the edges of the Arabian Peninsula...and then if one follows the cities and towns that they claim are named after stuff in the Book of Mormon...ironically for a while to the WEST.

I have gone/done research in nations that basically have Sharia Law. It is harsh on women, but there are some good things in those nations. Pornography is outlawed. It is a crime to have pornography (think about what that might do to slow down pornography problems in our nation). It is a crime to commit adultery and a crime to commit fornication (which has led to some sticky situations with the law for a few people from Europe/West at times in those nations). I have been astonished at how honest people are (probably because you can have your hand chopped off for stealing). I lost my wallet in one of those nations once, the police contacted me and told me people had turned in the wallet. It had ALL the money still in there. (I've lost my wallet in the US before, and never had the money still in it if/when it got returned, even in Utah in Provo and other majority LDS areas) That doesn't mean there isn't an underworld of crime, but in general, people were a LOT more righteous (ironically I suppose compared to how we think about those nations at times) than we in the US are. On the otherhand, you may think of it as forced righteousness, as the penalties for committing crimes can be quite harsh. However, I think even in Biblical and perhaps the Book of Mormon, many of the laws of the land were based on the commandments of the Lord, rather than being more secular like our laws in the US are today. I prefer living in the freedoms we have, but I don't think Sharia law is necessarily as bad as some make it out to be, at least for one who has Christian values in their general life and how they live...except for one distinct difficulty which is in many of those areas Christian religions are NOT recognized by the government. PS: This does not mean I'm condoning us to live under Sharia Law by any means. Hopefully no one got that confused. I prefer the freedoms we have (and I'm positive my wife feels doubly so about that) in our nation. My point was in some ways, if we view the Book of Mormon as a parallel to our day, that while we as the Nephites grow more wicked, the Lamanites are proving to be more righteous than we.

Ah, yes, I've heard about this stuff once upon a time, maybe even on these forums. Who knows, the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Of course, we are lacking many of the other signs still...

When one says leftist values they are talking the political left's values. What you are stating there is a typical Far right republican talking point, which overall, is confusing your own political ideology and trying to teach it as a religion. There are many Republicans that would laugh in your face at you trying to state that their "values" were leftist values. There are many republicans today that also feel religion should be destroyed or shut out, and that are atheist in thought and belief. There are Republicans that feel that marriage is an outdated notion and that relations outside of marriage are not just moral, but normal and justified. There are many other morals they have...that if you tried telling them that these were "leftist values" would have them LAUGH you out of the park...why...because when you say leftist values, you are defining a POLITICAL term. I would ask you to stop directing political attacks on people, such as myself. It is offensive, and derogatory. Instead, we should be brothers in the Lord, and in the church, because we have a common ground in LDS values and a common goal of the salvation of our brothers and sister through the gospel. This is NOT the sieve that we are going through, but it CAN act as something that tries to separate the saints instead of them recognizing that members come in all types and forms, and the Lord is no respecter of persons. We should LOVE all of our brethren and sisters, even if we do not and cannot condone their actions. There is a great sifting (which is what the topic is about) taking place, and sadly, it isn't really over something as little and trifle as politics usually, but normally more over a lack of testimony and withstanding against the temptations and trials of the world. In fact, may I suggest you use the term...worldly values instead, as that probably is more in context with what is truly sifting us...in it is the values of the world or the values of men vs. that values of the Lord and what we have a testimony of.

I would disagree strongly. Most evidence point that he was NOT baptized, and in fact, this is perhaps one support for the LDS church (though also used as one for the Baptist as well). Catholic theology argue that he must have been baptized, else there is NO way the Lord could have stated he would be with him in paradise. Other theologist point out that typically those who were considered followers of the Lord were identified in verse and scripture as such when they spoke (even if that context is only found in Latin or Greek and wasn't made the transfer into English), whereas the Thief on the Cross is NOT identified as being such. Nevertheless, it does not identify the thief definitively either way...and it is not important. What that story shows is twofold. First, that the thief was the only one loudly vocal enough to defend the Lord in that crowd. Secondly, the it is the LORD who chooses who goes to heaven...NOT man. In this, the Lord is the judge. As a final note, the LDS church has noted that the Lords statement can also strongly indicate that the man was not baptized as his statement has a different meaning for the LDS than for other Christian denominations. Instead of promising the individual exaltation, or even salvation, he told the man that he would be with him in paradise. In the LDS religion, one does not have to be baptized to go to Spirit Paradise, but many who are good people on this earth, but lack the ordinances and blessing, will go there and thus have the ability to receive such in that kingdom as well. Hence, it was simply a promise for the thief to go, and possibly either receive these, repent, or otherwise.

Leftist values IS talking politics. I would counter and say I do not think you understand what leftist values are either. IT is SAD when one cannot tell the difference between their own political leanings and the gospel of the Lord. Both sides of the political spectrum have their problems, trying to blame it all on one side while ignoring the problems of the other is a prime way to deceive oneself until the day they need to truly make that choice between religion or politics. I know your statements may offend some who are on what we call the leftist side of the political spectrum. As someone who would say I'm liberal and a leftist compared to much in Mormondom...I might even say your statement was a direct attack on my political values. I don't think that's a good thing. We may have different political leanings, but we should both be brothers in the LORD. The Lord is neither on the right, nor on the left, but we may be on the right hand or the left hand. The Lord is neither rightest nor leftist, but rules over all men. The falling away isn't something that deals with leftist values, or conservative values, or whatever you have, but more of something that deals with each individuals testimony. There is a great deal these days that try to destroy the testimonies of members, and it are those things that are causing the great sieve in the church. This thing is probably necessary for the church, but I think all of us should be saddened when we see members fall away from the church into apostasy or anti-Mormon hatred. I would agree though, that though I think it's begun, it is probably going to continue until the second coming of the Lord. I would hope that we've seen the worst of it already, but in all likelihood it will get worse if the book of Revelation or Nephi occurs like many interpret it.

Not that I've heard of. Is this another one of those false alarm things that have been going off in recent years about a big quake leveling Provo (and the majority of the Mormon areas south of Salt Lake...) type thingy? The only thing I've heard of is an LDS conference coming up (which I think the womens' portion is what Zil is referring to...)

I would counter and say it's not. Many would say I'm leftist, and yet, I'd say I have pretty strong views on morality. Looking at it from the other side towards the conservatives of the US... Lack of charity, attributing our riches to ourselves instead of the Lord and hence justifying why you should not share that wealth with others, condemning the poor because the Lord has blessed you with more than they...all values of the political right. Stating that you are being robbed (as if you can be, it is the Lord that blesses and takes away) by having to help your fellow man, or other such ideas...is that really Christian? However, I do NOT see the values of the liberal or conservative as the great sieve, or really anything dealing with it in particular. It is not just a USA thing, or a Europe thing and is NOT defined by the political values of either of those locations. I would say we currently are undergoing a great sieve...not just in the Valleys of Utah and Northern Arizona and Southern Idaho, but in much of the church. I think we see it as more and more members fall away and reveal themselves as being anti-Mormon, or who truly do not have testimonies and hence are deceived by the cunning of men. More and more anti-Mormon arguments (and most of them are age old arguments that are from the beginning of the church) are regurgitated in more and more areas online which are accessed by many people and members all the time. Hence, many who seem to be good Mormons, fall away, deceived by these practices and evil arguments, thinking that they know better and are now among the educated of the earth. Many of these turn very vile and angry towards the church, hating those who are Mormon for no other reason than that their neighbors are Mormon...not for any other good reason at all. I'd say the sifting has already begun, and unfortunately it brings tragedy and sadness for many in it's wake. However, in this process, I see that as it occurs, slowly but surely the wheat is being separated from the chaff inside the church. I don't see it ending anytime soon, but I do see that those who keep and attain their testimonies make the church core itself more solid and sturdy.

If I were not LDS and had no desire to become LDS, my first choice probably would not be Utah to find someone to marry. LDS who marry in the LDS TEMPLE have a lower divorce rate from what I understand, but those who marry outside of the temple have divorce rates comparable to the rest of the US. Most LDS girls that are firm in their faith desire to be married in an LDS temple. That means, dating an LDS member. As an example, I taught my daughters that the marriage they should aim for was a temple marriage. This means they should avoid dating those who are NOT members. In addition, they should look for those that are return missionaries, possibly Eagle Scouts or involved in Boy Scouts, and who CURRENTLY SHOW a great devotion to the LDS faith in their habits (prayer, church attendance, consideration of the scriptures...etc). That doesn't mean that I have anything against those who are not LDS, but I desired my daughters to have marriages in the LDS manner. That means, I would have actively discouraged them from dating those who are not members of the LDS faith. I think I am not the only one who does that with their daughters. It's nothing against non-members, but it is something that you should be aware of before making a hefty life choice dependent on finding an LDS girl that will be faithful and true to you. Is it possible? Of course. However, I'm not sure the chances of marrying a good and faithful LDS girl is going to be the easiest thing to do... UNLESS...of course, you are willing to be baptized into the LDS church and become a faithful member! You know we can be pushy, but it's for good reason, especially if you want to marry our daughters.

This. I have dealt with veterans that truly need that service dog. A service dog is an official medical item, trained for years, and certified by PAPERWORK. These animals can help sense when their owners are in some sort of stress and having problems and help deal with it, or trained to help their owners avoid certain situations which could raise up conflicts. The same goes with dogs that aid the blind, they are trained extensively and have PAPERWORK which shows what they are. This entire thing of having "Comfort" animals, or buying some vest and claiming your pet is a service animal is a disgusting thing that hurts the reputation of REAL service animals out there. There really should be something that lets airlines, stores, and others check to see if it is an official service animal, and if it is not, a VERY HEFTY fine levied against the individual. My spouse ALSO has a huge amount of allergies to any animal which has pet dander. Basically it can kill her within a few days (So not as fast acting or as dangerous as it is to some individuals, which have it worse and these are a much higher threat) if exposed to it constantly. Seeing people who basically think they deserve the service animals, but really do not, and are not willing to pay for it because their insurance and medical providers do not deem it necessary...should not be claiming some animal they have is a service animal. I should be more forgiving on this aspect...I need to learn to turn the other cheek, but when it involves my wife's safety...I tend to get a little defensive/offended...which is terrible and bad of me. I admit I need to be more righteous on this front, but if you can't tell, I too am bothered on this action that many do these days. On the otherhand, I understand the need for REAL service animals. I would in no wise want to deny the blind a service/guide dog or a Veteran who really needs it a service dog...and if it became a problem me and my wife could go elsewhere. I just dislike the pretenders out there.

It appears they say basically what I said, but trying to clarify it more so those who would take any statement by a prophet or general authority will not mistake that those statements necessarily represent the LDS doctrine.

A +5 what??? Is that part of those Avenger movies?

Jeremy started listing some of the ones I thought of from what I've heard my kids talk about. CSI is a big one. NCIS is another. These are HUGE. Person of Interest. Continuum. Criminal Minds. Agents of Shield. If they are teenies, the CW shows are good ones...Arrow, the Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Supergirl. If they watch more morally dubious shows, Game of Thrones would be one, Narcs (I think that's what one of my coworkers was talking about, not positive about the show name). The Expanse, Killjoys. The new Battlestar Galactica. If older than teens they may recognize these from their youth...or younger years... Batman: Brave and the Bold, Smallville, Avengers: Earth's mightiest heroes, Justice League Unlimited. Macguyver is back in vogue (So both the old theme and the new one). The A-Team movie theme is very similar to the Old A-Team show theme.