person0

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

Feels good to know I've been missed!  I uh, guess I've just been a bit sidetracked, lol.  The thought just came to mind to check in.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now.  I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel.  One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness.
I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out.
I appreciate the way he noted the parable.  I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins.  When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin.  This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction.
I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

I get torn.  As a general rule, I speak out now as long as my response is rooted in scripture and faithful.

Agreed.  And I do indeed pray over my food now, every time, even junk food.  But you won't hear me asking God to make my donut nourishing.  Talk about hypocrisy, or something.  And if anything, I'm now more grateful for all the food I eat, and more mindful of how nourishing it, in and of itself, may be.  (Those were questions I was asking myself, not asking the group - though I appreciate feedback on that, too, since I've resolved to always be open to changes that improve my spiritual experience.)

Why would the servants at the wedding listen to Mary and obey her when she told them to do whatever Jesus said to do?
As to this miracle being different, are there any other recorded times when Christ's mother asked him to perform a miracle?
Upon who's faith was the miracle based?  Mary's?
Jehovah performed instructional miracles for Moses and the Bro. Of Jared (tablets carved with finger, skin turned leprous, stone made light).  Likewise Jehovah turned the water in Egypt to blood.  Given his disciples faith was also increased, perhaps, among other things, this miracle was important because it established Him as possessing the power of Jehovah.

I think the primary purpose is to express gratitude and to thank God for providing for our physical nourishment.  It isn't about the food so much as about the fact that we are blessed to have it.  I'd say somewhere along the line the waters got muddied and we also started asking a blessing upon the food, which I still regularly do myself.
I remember during my pre-school years attending a day-care where we always recited the same prayer over meals:
"God is great.  God is good.  Let us thank Him for our food.  Amen."
No blessing on the food in there, just pure gratitude.

Perhaps the lesson here is that if we had the faith Jesus and his disciples demonstrated here we really could bless the donuts to “nourish and strengthen our bodies”.

This is wonderful.  Welcome to the Church, and welcome to KY!  I could be wrong, but I believe I am the only other active forum member from KY.

Well hello there! I'm Ashley!
 
As the title shows, it has been awhile since I have been on this site.  I joined back in 2014 and posted only 1 thread.  
 
That was almost 9 years ago! However, I am coming back and how time has changed!  
When I first created my account, I had just moved to Pennsylvania from Illinois.  Gotten married!  Started a new job 1 month after I had created my account.
 
It is really amazing how much things can change in 9 years!
Last year, my husband and I moved to Western Kentucky where we now live nearby his mother!
I am also an hour and a half from my family in Southern Illinois.
I started a new job after working for 8 years for Amazon!
 
But probably the best news of all............
 
After 10 years of investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints........
..............My husband and I were formally baptized and confirmed into the Church on Sunday, February 5, 2023!!!
 

If I'm not misunderstanding you, I think the resolution from within the Skousen model would essentially be the idea that God already has a complete monopoly on power, and so rejecting Him would leave one with absolutely nothing.
For me, the principal takeaway from the Skousen view is that God's power is not magic (which is the way most faithful people in the world seem to view it).  Whether or not he muddies some of the other details is less relevant to me.  I believe it is true, in some form, that God's power and dominion are directly linked to His perfection and to the honor, respect and obedience to Him because He can be trusted to always remain constant.  By extension, clarity is then added to the belief that we can become like him and inherit all he has when we attain the same degree of perfection based on the such a principle.  Likewise, by extension, exercise of the priesthood enables man to perform the works of Christ, based on His attributes, when in accordance with his will.
Me too!  I think we had a whole thread discussing that a couple years ago or so.

Not really, because I think the election conspiracies are wrong but mostly harmless. The Jan 6th crowd that tried to party it up in DC are the exception. They also aren’t terribly influential so I don’t worry about them. They’ll end up hurting their own side in the end, so it’s they need to learn that lesson themselves. 
 
A person becomes a dangerous conspiracy theorist when they slander innocent people like Alex Jones did or when they go full Nazi and start ranting about how much they hate Jews, etc. 

People are caught up in the idea that the Court couldn't prove intent.  But for me proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar to clear for very good reasons.
But people seem to be ignoring the fact that the Court found disenfranchisement of the vote.  If our vote is suppose to matter, if we are suppose to be able to "Trust" the results of an election this should be a huge red flag.  This should be triggering warning bells, this should have people of all political parties saying it does not matter if this was intentional, or incompetence, or some kind of system failure, it is simply unacceptable anywhere for any reason.
Now people might be inclined to think is is a little podunk place in Arizona that had no impact, on the end result.  Ok, but if we wait to fix it until it has an impact then it is to late. 
Bottom line if you like to dismiss cry's of vote fraud as the work of sore losers and wacky conspiracy theorist this courts findings should scare you spit less.  This court finding gives those claims and more importantly future clams legitimacy.  Unless steps are taken to secure the vote now the next election will have even more contested elections. And those that contest them will be seen as more and more reasonable.  This should be of great concern to everyone no matter their party, who expects votes to matter and to be honored.
 
 

Is that your answer to every election integrity case, always?  How closely have you followed the AZ election?  Did you watch the trial?
The thing that annoys me when members of the Church respond in the way you have, on election concerns, is that it flies in the face of the scriptures and the words of the prophets.  That is not to say that all election concerns are valid.  That said, to dismiss them outright and to be unwilling to recognize the reality that fraud does occur, that disenfranchisement does occur, and that secret combinations do exist for the purpose of securing power and circumventing the will of the people, is just entirely disingenuous.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-08-2620-secret-combinations?lang=eng
I don't believe all voter related issues that are announced are real, however, I think we would be quite foolish to dismiss all simply because they are dismissed by a judge and the courts.

Thank you for that clarification. That is what I thought, it seemed a smaller county, but then came across an article specifying that a county could change the election. Then I was confused.

I don't believe the county from the video you originally posted could have had enough of an impact to alter the results.  The initial holdup was claimed based on the belief that if another county's votes were fraught with irregularities, the voters in his county would be disenfranchised by the flaws of another county with a much larger population.

This is the goal of the Lake team, as well as the Hamadeh team:
Flashback: Previous Arizona Gubernatorial Election Was Overturned (westernjournal.com)

I doubt it will happen.
 
I don't know if you are describing me as a conspiracy theorist.  My claim in the AZ situation is that a conspiracy didn't have to have occurred at all in order for the face value, plain as day result to be unreliable due to election day issues that led to voter disenfranchisement.

Consider Nephi who prophesied of the Chief Judge's murder from his tower.  He was accused of being an accomplice, the 5 men who went to verify were imprisoned, and the people believed the wicked and corrupt judges, because that's what they wanted to believe, until they had verified everything Nephi said in a way they could not deny before the people.  The reality is that corruption occurs, and the sad reality is that because corruption is real, the devil will distract from real corruption with fake rumors of corruption.

Regardless, what I care about most is the truth, and learning and knowing it, even in regard to issues like the AZ election.  I am less concerned with winning and losing elections at this point because I already believe the devil has sufficient grasp of the populous that we are on the downward spiral toward tribalism and generalized wickedness.  I don't expect to get to the full truth regarding most situations in this life.

In this particular instance, in my view the election day issues were so clear and provable that there didn't even have to be any actual fraud or conspiracy for the result to be untrustworthy due to the way voters were affected.  There have been other elections in the 2022 cycle which have been thrown out for similar, though admittedly much lower profile.

On the flip side, I think those who refuse to acknowledge plausibility are also acting with cognitive dissonance.  It is quite difficult to imagine that one particular election can be declared illegitimate without fearing the validation of throwing into question any and all elections and thus undermining trust in the entire system.  I think the fear of collapsing the system can just as easily lead people to dismiss things that should be given ample review.

In a perfect world, both sides would be willing to establish election rules that would lead to fully trustworthy and irrefutable results.  Unfortunately, only one side seems to express legitimate interest in the types of things that would actually bring that about. (shrug)

Is that your answer to every election integrity case, always?  How closely have you followed the AZ election?  Did you watch the trial?
The thing that annoys me when members of the Church respond in the way you have, on election concerns, is that it flies in the face of the scriptures and the words of the prophets.  That is not to say that all election concerns are valid.  That said, to dismiss them outright and to be unwilling to recognize the reality that fraud does occur, that disenfranchisement does occur, and that secret combinations do exist for the purpose of securing power and circumventing the will of the people, is just entirely disingenuous.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-08-2620-secret-combinations?lang=eng
I don't believe all voter related issues that are announced are real, however, I think we would be quite foolish to dismiss all simply because they are dismissed by a judge and the courts.

Says every government that has fallen before it fell. History repeats itself, and every strong nation that has fallen has fallen from conspiracies denizens' and politicians said did not exist.
As I have shared here before, I'm pretty sure from history Ceasar was told there was no conspiracy to dethrone him until he was stabbed in the back. But isn't that the thing about conspiracies, they are easily hidden until its too late.
All it takes is for people to continue to deny the signs until it is too late also. Is there a conspiracy here? Could be, just as there could not be. Is it interesting to see how in two cases now, potentially more, where a candidate doesn't debate, doesn't do anything to promote, and yet somehow gets more votes than someone who has more influence?
Could it all be coincidence, sure, any intelligent mind will be open to that as any intelligent mind is also aware of history and the secret combinations within said government to take away the freedoms and rights of its denizens.

EXCLUSIVE: Katie Hobbs’ Office Threatened County Board With Arrest, Indictment If They Didn’t Certify Results | The Daily Caller
For this to be true, it would also have to be true that the election outcome was not impacted by voter disenfranchisement.  You may or may not believe the issues that took place were sufficient to have impacted the result, but if it they were, then your assessment is invalidated.  The problem for the Lake team is not in proving the disenfranchisement happened, nor is it in proving the law was broken (they successfully established both of those things at trial), instead, the problem is proving that the issues were the result of intentionally malicious acts, which is a much higher standard.

I am not from Arizona, however, I have been following the election and the legal proceedings, and can confirm that this is real and true.  On a related note, as it stands, Kari Lake's legal team lost their lawsuit because they weren't able to prove that the voter disenfranchisement that occurred was intentional.  She is appealing the decision, but as I understand it, it is unlikely to succeed because, despite what appears to many to be very clear evidence, proving the disenfranchisement occurred is insufficient from a legal standpoint; in AZ, they must be able to prove that it was an intentional act.  While it is plausible that it was an intentional act, proving that is much more difficult than proving that it took place.

I am not from Arizona, however, I have been following the election and the legal proceedings, and can confirm that this is real and true.  On a related note, as it stands, Kari Lake's legal team lost their lawsuit because they weren't able to prove that the voter disenfranchisement that occurred was intentional.  She is appealing the decision, but as I understand it, it is unlikely to succeed because, despite what appears to many to be very clear evidence, proving the disenfranchisement occurred is insufficient from a legal standpoint; in AZ, they must be able to prove that it was an intentional act.  While it is plausible that it was an intentional act, proving that is much more difficult than proving that it took place.