Midwest LDS

Excellent use of Justice Taney by the way you warmed this history teacher's heart.

Right here is the distinct problem with formulating policy on this issue though. There really is almost no room for compromise. The pro choice side is not going to be swayed by our arguments. No matter what arguments we use all you hear is "We want to strip women of their freedom". On our side it's the same. No matter how eloquent your agruments all a pro life person hears is "Women should have the right to execute their children". How do you legislate a divide that vast? There may be some middle ground in regards to rape, incest, or the life of the mother (as Georgia's law acknowledges) but that's about it. The only option that makes sense is to repeal Roe V. Wade and allow the states to make their own choice. Some states will stay pro choice and others will follow the lead of Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama. Is there any other option?

I do agree with you here. We can't control the world. There will always be people who say upsetting things to you (generic), both accidentally and on purpose, and it's a very useful life lesson to strive to learn control for your (generic) own reactions. However, I do think there is value in learning to control one's own tongue as well, which was the point of my earlier post. Because of the pain my wife and I went through (especually my wife) due to infertility (which you completely understand) I will not ask that question of strangers or the person I say hi to once a week. We can't control the world, as you rightly pointed out, but we can control ourselves.

This is tough for me. My wife and I were infertile for 6 years, and this question became very old. I tried not to let it bother me, and I think in general I was able to seperate my emotions over our infertility from the innocent questions (fortunately I never had to deal with jerks trying to make me feel bad). But my wife took these questions a lot harder than me. She tried not to, but her inability to conceive sent her spiralling into severe depression and every time someone asked her this it almost always left her in tears. So while I truly don't feel like anyone who asked me had malicious intent, I'm always going to avoid asking this question because I know how much it can hurt, even unintentionally.

I'm actually the opposite from you. My wife is the only one I would trust to work with me on something like that and I believe a significant stumbling block to many men (and women) in getting over pornography is their inability to tell their spouse before it all blows out into the open. But the great part about Covenant Eyes (and similiar systems) is that anyone can be your partner. If you've got a close guy friend that you trust with this, great use him. In a way, it's designed to banish that isolation that you rightly point out is a serious problem in society. And for the record I 100% agree with you that the modern world has lost out on and no longer understands intimate friendships between men. Our obsession with sexuality above everything else has clouded our minds to valuable relationships, like your Muslim friend, that have made many people's lives brighter.

It's a fairly effective system. Porn thrives in darkness and, by making sure someone you know and trust is always aware of what you are doing, it gives you the tools to help resist the temptation. It's not a perfect system, nothing is, but it really would be a helpful system for anyone struggling with addiciton or looking for something to help protect their kids.

That's great, and I agree that there is room for discussion. Believe me I know healthcare is somewhat broken in this country. But abortion isn't healthcare, it's an industry of death that, according to statistics produced by even pro choice papers, is mostly fueled by abortions of convenience. Even one of those abortions is too many, especially with the prevalence of safe and effective birth control methods. If the Alabama law serves to overturn Roe V. Wade, then even as flawed as it is it will have served a valuble purpose for future generations.

If that's the case that's great news (thanks for the links). If our push for alternative options is working (ie. birth control, education etc.) then it should be even easier to overturn Roe V. Wade and return the power to legislate abortions to the states ( while I would love it to happen at the federal level, I know it won't so I will take a victory at the state level).

I think you have a fair point. I was thinking of government help and intervention, of course single mothers need help right now. I don't know exactly what the perfect answer is, although I do know there are thousands of private groups that make themselves available to help women in a difficult situation. While abortion must stop, I'd be happy to launch some studies to see what the most effective way of helping women in pregnancy crises would be and acting according to that data.

That's fine and I'd be happy to have those conversations. But abortion on demand must end for after birth care to matter as much.

This represents my big problem with the pro choice side of the debate. If they were pushing for more comphrensive help for pregnant women and their children after birth, we might have some productive conversations. But in reality, pro choice only means pro death. It's as if you (generic) throw out all of these ideas to try and discredit the pro life side of the debate, and yet you (generic) just throw up your hands and say "but despite all these ideas of how to make it easier to care for children , it's impossible so let's just kill them." Of course we aren't talking about after birth care right now, babies are being killed throughout the country. You don't argue about how you're going to afford a place to live while the house is on fire. You get out of the house first. Once we put a stop to the unconscionable act of abortion, we can have productive conversations about how to better care for people both medically and financially but as long as people feel like killing inconvenient children is socially and morally acceptable, it makes it kind of difficult to move on to any other topic of conversation.

And I've got a 100 Grey Knights for each of your Daemons

The church is very pro life. There are numerous talks that focus on the sacredness of human life and the evils of abortion, many of them by President Nelson. I agree with you and also applaud the Alabama legislature, although I hope there is an exception for ectopic pregnancies which are impossible to save. Hopefully between Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama we can finally challenge and overturn the most disgusting Supreme Court decision since Plessy V. Ferguson, Roe V. Wade. Most abortions are of convenience. I've seen studies that anywhere between 85 to 95 percent of them are strictly because said person doesn't want the inconvenience of another baby (it'll hurt their career, they aren't ready, they have too many already etc). Those should be outlawed, and it breaks my heart to think of how many babies have been killed on the altar of convenience. However, I do not believe the church should change it's policy, because it's direction is set by the Lord. He will change or keep the policy as he sees fit, and he knows far better than we what direction to take on this matter. I've read often enough other talks wherein they explain that even the exceptions should only be considered after prayer and consultation with the Lord and priesthood leaders (sorry I'd post examples but I'm off to work in a minute, a quick google search out to bring them up).

Yes I suspected that was an opinion we would both share☺

Nope he was a man like you or me. He spoke for Christ, just as modern prophets do, only when he was acting in his office as prophet, seer, and revalator. In the case of Joseph Smith, many of his revelations can be found in one of our books of Scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants. God has always worked through mortal and imperfect servants. Moses was scared of public speaking, Elijiah had a tendancey to be sarcastic, Peter denied Christ, Paul was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion. The Lord always has and always will work through weak and foolish mortals, and Joseph Smith had his fair share of weaknesses and foibles. But what a mighty work Christ has made through his very human servant!

Like I said we believe the teachings of our prophets are the direct teachings of Christ. Just how Moses spoke face to face with God and received his commandments, so too do our modern day prophets and apostles receive God's word and give them to us. By the way I appreciate the fact that you are a man of faith yourself, and I don't expect to convince you in a single conversation online, but that's the Latter-day Saint position and understanding that will help you understand us better even if you disagree.

Not really a dillema. Jesus Christ commanded us not to drink wine, not Joseph Smith. We believe in continuing revelation, and we strongly believe the Lord when he said "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same". Just because it was through the mouth of his prophet Joseph Smith, does not mean it was not the voice of Christ. FYI I know you aren't a member, and I appreciate the question. But that's what we believe and why a dilemma for you doesn't bother us in the least.

And that's great, I'm glad that works for you. But if you ever want to truly understand the way Latter-day Saints think, you need to understand that this is not just "some rule" we follow out of a desire to emulate the past. This is a direct command from the mouth of God to his people. By following it, we obey the will of God, and not the ideas of the world. I imagine if you asked a believing Jew or Muslim, they would say the same of their dietary restrictions. To truly get where religious people are coming from, you have to understand that basic truth.

Well in your experience it works in mine it doesn't so there you go. We are probably both right depending on the person we are talking too☺.

That doesn't work as well as you think it will. Speaking from personal experience, you (generic) say no thanks, then they ask why, then you say you don't drink (using alcohol as an example), they ask why again. So then you explain it to them simply, and that's when the lectures start, because by saying it's religious (no speech needed trust me) they immediately assume you are judging them and want to prove their way of doing things is correct. I'm not saying there aren't people who accept a simple no thanks when given, I've had those conversations as well, but there are a lot of people on this Earth who fit into @unixknight description.

Fair point. It is a good idea, so I don't know if forced is correct. Maybe more that they pointed out a serious issue and the administration agreed with them, but I think you have a good point.

I like these changes. If you are accused of violating the Honor Code, you should absolutely be told why you are being called in, who reported you, and what resources are available to you in order to potentially defend yourself. I thnk this was a useful and neccessary change.

What a beautiful picture. Congratulations my friend, what an awesome day for you and your family.

Agreed, that's what I was pointing out.