Midwest LDS

Agreed, although I think it's a matter of degree rather than the sin being exactly the same, just as pornography abuse is treated differently from a husband sleeping with someone other than his wife.

I'm good now. I was struggling because my initial reading had lead me to believe they were moving towards an open recognition of sin, but after some thought, study, and prayer I can see that it's not really that big of a change. See my earlier post with President Oaks quote.

Thanks, I appreciate it and we are of the same mind on this now. After some thought, study, and prayer I'm feeling better than earlier.

Okay I dug a little deeper and read the whole press release. There is not a change of doctrine going on here, just a change in a small specific policy. President Oaks: "Previously, our Handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way." The sin is still serious, it's just going to be treated the same as any other sexual sin. I have to admit, though this is my first experience of not having a testimony of something the church does right away and I don't like it. Hopefully conference will clarify things a little bit. I don't have to believe this immediately, I can take my time with it as it does not affect the testimony I've had my entire life in Christ and his church.

That's what I'm feeling too.

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

It's true. I only like to back a winner. I also voted for Stassen once😉

Yep the 2004 election was the first time I was able to vote. Despite his flaws, I'm still glad I voted for W, he was a really good man.

Yep exactly, those of us who want to keep Russia from dominating Europe. The thing is I do like some of the things Trump is doing (recognizing Israeli control of the Golan Heights is something I 100% support) but I don't like that unless I am a huge Trump Fanboy that has MAGA tattooed across my chest, that I get plastered as ignorant by people who are on my own side.

Geopolitical trust is the basis of all alliance based systems. And it doesn't matter that they "used" us it was and still is in our political best interest to oppose the Russians. We used the NATO nations as much as they used us. We knew that a Russian attack in Europe was going to hit them hard while we shifted our troops to Europe in that eventuality, and we needed them to believe their sacrifice in that case was worth it. To think we weren't using them as much as they were using us is extremely naive. And, drumroll please, I am ok with that. Political relations are always about how much you can get for your country, and it was in our interest to have a group of nations to support us against the Soviet Union and now Russia. But we have to convince them still that we are better than Russia. They need to pay their fair share, but we need to keep them onside politically or Russia is going to gain diplomatic and political victories over us.

No I don't. You didn't read my answer at all. I said I agreed they needed to pay their fair share. I said the President's ham fisted diplomatic efforts made a good idea, getting them to increase defense spending, turn out poorly and damaged their trust in us.

Cost plus 50 was a crazy idea and it damaged relations with South Korea. Even though the Pentagon quickly walked that idea back, political damage was done. That's not even getting into the fact that NATO has been severely damaged through the president's ham fisted attempt to get them to pay their share of defense spending. Believe it or not I actually do believe they need to live up to their defense spending obligations, but the way Trump went about it has done nothing but embolden Russia. I may not agree with your political viewpoint, but please don't call me ignorant just because I see things differently from you.

I agree with you about the impeachment idea especially. It's almost as if many on the far left seem to have forgotten that having to impeach a president is a horrendous thing for the country to go through (see Nixon), and act like it would be something to celebrate. Plus it's amazing that many in the country who should understand how the government works, don't seem to understand that you need the House and 2/3 of the Senate to remove a president. The Republicans were unable to get a supermajority to remove President Andrew Johnson, one of the worst presidents in history, even with extremely favorable political conditions, and you are not going to get 2/3 of the Senate on board in this climate.

I appreciate you posting the article. I was a Never Trumper. I still don't like him, and doubt that I ever will. He is crass, dishonest, and has done serious damage to alliances I think are vital to our security (NATO, South Korea, etc.). Yet the media's blatant bias against him and honestly anyone to the right of Trotsky has left me in the same position as @Vort. I am starting to not trust anything they say about him at all, and I'm seriously considering voting for him next November (I voted third party last election for the first and so far only time in my life). I've dropped all major news publications that I used to at least somewhat trust, and have focused on gleaning what truth I can from the AP. Maybe that's a good thing, I'm more vigilant about what I hear than ever before in my life, but I want the press to do their job. I don't want misleading clickbait articles and gleeful jumping onto whatever they call the next big scandal. While I am right wing, I appreciate this article and hope that someday the press can get back to being the 4th branch of the government they are supposed to be. I don't believe they will, but hey I try to be somewhat optimistic. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

In addition having a child is hard. My wife and I have struggled from lack of sleep, depression, loss of certain social activities, high costs for child care etc. I don't say this to discourage others from having children, my daughter means the world to me, but trying to do all these things by myself without my wife would be 10 times harder. I'm not saying it's impossible, many good brothers and sisters find the strength they need to rise to the occasion, but why would you purposely make yourself a single parent? And just to satisfy a whim at that? I feel for her, a lot actually, I know what it's like to want a child and not be able to have one (infertility for years) but she needs to stay within the bounds the Lord has set.

I have to admit, homerun for Senator Lee. What an awesome rejection of the Green New Deal. I like him even more now than I did before.

That's so ridiculous. I really hate when someone can't admit that they contributed (or in this case caused) a situation and apologize for it. You have my sympathies for having to deal with this.

I am sorry you are going through this, it's really frustrating. But I don't think you have a reason to feel guilty @unixknight. At the end of the day, you did not create the problem. You've given them chance after chance to fix this situation and provided Penny and others with plenty of opportunities to act like adults again and rejoin the group. They've shown they care more about being "right" than being friends. It's an unfortunate situation, and I don't blame you in the slightest for feeling bad about it, but you have no need to feel guilty. Friendship is all about mutual respect and people with different beliefs can be friends only if they can admit that the other side has a right to exist. My group is a mix of Latter-day Saints and Baptists. Other than ribbing each other occasionally about which one of us is right about religion, we all have a great time together because we respect each other too much to level attacks at one another.

I've seen it. When I was a teenager, my Bishop's daughter married a recent convert. He was waiting tables when one of the people sitting there explained to him that the only people truly following the WOW abstained from ice cubes and certain kinds of bread. When I ordered a Coke my MIL explained to my nephew that I was drinking an adult beverage when he asked what it was (I found that one more funny than insulting because I love my inlaws dearly but still), another brother in one of my wards would go on and on about the proper way to pass the Sacrament but refused to pay his income taxes and left the church when he had his temple recommend taken from him. These are all very different examples and some are very minor. I don't think they are widespread or more of a problem then not living the Gospel enough, but we members do still struggle with straining at a gnat and trying to swallow a camel at times

I've been following this thread for some time and while you and I disagree on several important issues, there is one thing where I am 100% on your side. You want to marry a woman of a similiar faith to your own. While interfaith marriages can work, as @Jane_Doe and others demonstrate, it can also lead to a lot of stress and unhappiness in marriage which I have also seen. Especially when kids come along. I know that for myself, I wanted to be married in a Holy Temple of God for eternity. I wanted a wife who would strengthen me when I had moments of doubt and help raise our children in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A wife of another faith, or one who converted solely because I insisted that it was a requirement to marry me, would never have given me those things. I don't pretend to know your girlfriend, but from what you've said about her it seems as if her faith is at least somewhat important to her. That being the case I think you have three options 1. Marry her and accept that she will always be a Latter-day Saint and that she will want to teach your kids about her faith at some point. 2. Insist that she convert for your sake, which she may do if she loves you, and accept the fact that she will be unhappy and may grow resentful of you for doing that. 3. Realize that this is a dealbreaker for you and move on. Honestly my friend I believe your best options are 1 or 3. You need to decide if you can handle her belief in a church you disagree with or not. And, honestly, I think it's ok if the answer is not. After all, that was the same criteria I used when I was looking for a wife.

1. I took the missionary lessons with my mom. She had originally agreed to meet with them so she could prove to my stepdad, who was inactive at the time, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was false. Instead, we both felt the power of the Holy Ghost testifying of the truthfulness of what the missionaries were teaching us. That feeling has only grown stronger for both of us as we got older. 2. Many direct and personal experiences that have made it imposssible to believe he is not there.

Yep he sure did. But like you said that ridiculous Super Delegate system they use ensured he won anyways (not that Hillary can complain, she took advantage of it in 2016). Its actually amusing to me that those complaining loudest about the EC have the least democratic nomination process.

Interestingly only Republicans (and one Democratic-Republican way back in 1824 where the winner lost both) have lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. Rutheford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. It's especially interesting because twice during that period Republicans were supported by the more heavily populated Northern States, and twice by the less populated rural states. John Quincy Adams actually lost both the popular vote and the electoral college, but was selected as President by the House of Representatives (the only time the 12th Amendment has been used) because Andrew Jackson only won a plurality of electoral votes not a majority. Can you imagine the storm that would erupt if that happened today? Anyways, there is your random history lesson for the day from your friendly neighborhood high school history teacher☺.

Oh I'm a strong believer in Federalism. There is no question that each individual state should have the right to choose how they select their electors. While I favor a proportional Elector selection in each state, the only way I would approve of it being instituted is either individually by the states, or through a Constitutional Amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states. It would be inappropriate for the Federal government to mandate anything about the Electoral College outside of sponsoring a Constutional Amendment. And my ancestors left Europe for good reasons a few hundred years ago, so we should strive to avoid doing anything the same way they do.

Absolutely. BFF's until the last obtacle falls. Then cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!😁