Midwest LDS

Fair enough. If that's the case I would say: Star Wars Episode V Lion King Jumanji Top Gun The Sound of Music

It's not taboo, but we are encouraged to try and say yes to all callings. President Ezra Taft Benson said “The Lord expects each of us to have a calling in His Church so that others may be blessed by our talents and influence.” I believe the Lord truly desires us to accept all callings outside of potential extenuating circumstances (health problems with you and your family including mental health issues, moving soon etc.) If you have a genuine concern outside of those ones, you should absolutely let your Bishop or Branch President know about them. It's possible they were unaware of your situation (say you were called to teach early morning seminary, but your job starts too early to fulfill that calling). However, if you are feeling more that you are just busy or that you would not enjoy the calling itself, try serving anyways. My two least favorite callings were as a Cub Scout leader and as the Ward Clerk. I'm not an outdoorsy, hands on person and I've never been organized, and forget small details constantly. These two callings were difficult for me and I won't tell you I ever came to love them, but I'm glad I said yes. My wife and I were able to assist the poor sister who was leading the cub scout den. I believe a number of other people had turned down the calling previously to us and, while we were far from ideal candidates, just having some extra bodies to watch the kids while she taught helped ease that sisters burden. As Ward Clerk, I never became better organized, but I was able to gain a strong testimony of how sacred tithing funds were. I received powerful impressions of how the Lord still sees the Widow casting in her mite, and how special he views even the tiny donations of children. That was worth some time spent feeling overwhelmed by something I had no experience in. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Universally loved? I have my favorites (some are on your list, mine are the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars trilogies) but I don't think there is any movie where you won't find at least a few people who don't like it.

So if the sisters will be gone, that means we can talk about whatever we want right? The joys of polygamy, maybe set up a tutorial on how to get your wife to make you a sandwich, how much harder it is to be a priesthood holder than a mom stuff like that 😉😉😃😃😁😁? (Sarcasm just in case it's misunderstood)

That's great. I have a new daughter, so I appreciate the fact they are providing these materials to support my wife and I. I've got to make sure my daughter grows up with a strong testimony of Christ.

Agreed I'm glad they were thinking of single brothers and sisters too. We are all in this together☺.

You're not the only one. I used to live in Arlington and I loved going to the Smithsonian when I was a kid (yep I was the one who begged his dad to take him to the air and space museum regularly☺). I would say it's some of the people who dwell there, more than the city itself, that are problamatic.

The city of Washington was built on a stagnant swamp some 200 years ago, and very little has changed. It stank then, and it stinks now. Lisa Simspon

That's what always happens. The same thing occured when Chief Justice Roberts found Obamacare consitutional. It was actually kind of funny to watch the Democrats suddenly admiting the thing they'd been denying the whole trial after Roberts voted for their view (that the individual mandate was a tax). I'd never seen President Obama back up so quickly. The rage on the Right was apopletic. Politics as usual. Friends are never permanent in Washington.

That's it, Joe Manchin from West Virginia jumped party lines and Murkowski from Alaska abstained (due to Steve Daines from Montana being absent). https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-confirmed-to-supreme-court-after-bitter-fight-securing-rightward-shift

Wow it actually happened. I'm excited to try out the new home study Come Follow Me!

Usually at home. I don't think I have a particular favorite snack, although since it came out I usually have a Coke Zero in my hand. And, of course, Ice Cream on Saturday night (even though Priesthood is only once a year now)

You know I don't think you and I are as far off as it might seem. Actually, especially since we seem to agree on my primary cause of concern in this thread, mislabeling the sin, I think we are closer than you may think. I did not intend to say that we should sugar coat or say a sin is not a sin. Hearkening back to my original post, I said that someone struggling with pornography needs to focus on fixing it as their number 1 priority. I just believe that along with teaching the seriousness of sin, we need to not overshoot the mark in an attempt to hedge up the law. I would tend to agree with you that it is common sense that pornography abuse is not as serious as full blown adultery, but I found that not to be the way this problem was tackled. Due to it's addictive nature, it's better, in my opinion, to do our best to focus on the hope of overcoming the sin that Christ provides, than of the hellfire awaiting unrepentant sinners in the next world. But my personal experience may color it some. For what it's worth, I appreciate the conversation brother.

Fair enough and agreed (hence my statement that it is sin and must be repented of). All of my statements were made considering someone who is actively repenting, and does not apply to someone who doesn't care, isn't trying. I'm not trying to play word games, but I am trying to say that referring to this particular sin as cheating is unhelpful. It takes a serious, but manageable sin and turns it into one that requires the full aspects of church discipline to fix. I find that unhelpful personally, and I believe that it drives people to hide their sin until it bursts forth in horrifically bad ways rather than catching it early and fixing it before its an all consuming obsession. In this case, I believe that compassion and understanding wins these sinners back to Christ far easier than judgement and a flaming sword. I'm speaking from personal experience. I don't blame the church (far from it) but the way members talked about pornography at church when I was a kid caused me to shrink in shame and hide my sin rather then get it taken care of. I was exposed to pornography as a child, and it got me hook, line, and sinker. But the discussion about how no good Latter Day Saint boy would be involved in this sin, that only perverts would enjoy it and that breaking the law of chastity is the worst thing a normal person can do convinced me that I was a freak who would be shunned if anyone ever knew. That was interpreted falsely (very falsely) by me but that's what my teenaged brain heard and so I buried it. I thought if I just hated myself enough, punished myself enough, I could stop this sin. That only made it worse. By the time I heard some compassionate and loving teaching on the subject, I couldn't stop and it's taken over a decade (and a loving wife who knew about my problems before I married her and stuck by me anyways) to get where I am today. I'm saying the reason the Lord changed how His church discussed this issue is because we were talking about it wrong and, in our zeal to root up the tares, we were rooting up the wheat too. Far better to show men and women (this is very much a problem for both sexes now) that Christ loves them, even though this sin is bad it can be overcome, and offer the hope and salvation that comes from the Grace of Christ so we can save them when it's not a full blown obsession.

This is a difficult subject for many, but I think we need to be careful when we say pornography is the same as cheating. It's not. It's bad, unwholesome, sinful, and overcoming it's use by someone who is addicted to it should be a number 1 priority. But it is not cheating. If it was the same as cheating, the punishment would be a church disciplinary council, followed by the probable excommunication of the offender. The fact that the Lord does not punish this sin, and it is a sin, this way leads me to believe that is an over statement. When we overstate these sins, we drive people further away from Christ by causing more people to hide their sins rather than confess them. After all, technically everyone who has ever lusted after a woman or man in their heart would be guilty of adultery by that definition. I don't think that was the Savior's point. We are not trying to hang a huge Scarlet Letter on a person, we are trying to get them to come back too, or more fully too, Christ. However, I completely understand why a wife would be devastated to learn of this after it was kept secret. That is a betrayel of the marriage covenant, the promise to be honest and true with each other, and claiming that a woman "just doesn't understand" how a man feels when their trust has been violated is disingenuous.Any man who is trying to overcome this needs to be fully honest with his wife throughout his repentance process if he wants to have his wife on his side and if he wants to be fully forgiven.

That's actually not so uncommon here in the US either. Usually, there are only YSA wards in big college towns and if there are enough members to have multiple wards (here in Indiana, that's probably only 1 or 2 I'd have to check). We only have 50,000 members or so in this state. Generally, YSA's attend their local ward if they are far from where the YSA one meets. The exceptions are states with high Latter Day Saint populations such as Utah, Arizona, California, Idaho where you get dozens or hundreds of these wards but that's rather unique even here in the States.

I like going to church. There are some days it can be rough, especially since I have a baby and I am in a permanent morning (9 AM) ward(definitly not a morning person), but I need church. There are many weeks I am so spiritually exhausted or I've made so many mistakes I look forward to the Sacrament like a thirsty man for water. But whether it's 2, or 3, or 10 hours is truly irrelavant to me. I'm sure whatever the Lord decides to do through the brethren will be right, so personally I'm not concerned either way as long as I still receive my spiritual healing and refreshment from worshipping the Lord.

That seems reasonable to me considering the lack of evidence. I'm just not sure that's what's going to happen, I've read enough articles from left leaning sources (Huff post, salon etc.) to know they've already pronounced him guilty. That's business as usual for the MSM, but I don't have a lot of faith in the Senate to ignore the shrill voices on the left, especially after they chickened out over repealing Obamacare. I hope I'm wrong though.

The question I have is how do we settle this issue? It will never go beyond he said she said. He vehemently denies assaulting her and has character witnesses to back him up. She vehemently argues that it was absolutely him and has character witnesses to back her up. There will never be any physical evidence and, since she can't even remember the location or exact year of this supposed assault, there probabbly won't be any more witnesses either (I could be wrong, but that's my impression.) So the question for me is, since guilt will never be able to be proven in this kind of case, where do we go from here? Have we really become a society where a single, unprovable accusation from 35 years ago is enough to destroy a man's reputation and deny him a spot on the court? My opinion may change if they could show me some kind of evidence beyond her word (maybe proof that he regularly drank to excess as a teenager, or someone who can remember the actual place and time of this supposed event) but until that happens I fully support continuing on with the nomination. I do, however, agree with what was said earlier. If, and I use this word on purpose, if it can be shown he did this than I would argue in favor of finding another candidate. But only if.

Heck 30? We can easily get it down to less. I envision a day when we can just drive up to a window for our service. Goal time 30 seconds. Let's McDonaldize Church!😉😃

It's not a sin for Latter Day Saints to marry non-members, but we are highly encouraged to marry within the faith to avoid a lot of the problems associated with interfaith marriage. Not only are you prevented from marrying in the temple for eternity, but there is no gurantee that they will ever join the faith or will support you in continuing either. I'm not saying it's always wrong or that it can't work, my mom joined the church after marrying my stepdad and Latter Day Saints strongly believe in individual revelation so sometimes it absolutely can be right, but generally we are counseled to marry within the faith.

Wow that's huge. I never even considered that they would change the block schedule. I know that's not official till we hear it from the top, but that really shakes things up.

He is a bold but kind hearted man who has a towering faith in Jesus Christ. The message will be inspirational. He will also make you feel tired, especially when you remember he is 94. I'm 33 and I don't have half the energy he does☺.

You're welcome!

The problem with voting third party in the United States is, outside of some local elections, they are guranteed to lose. They just don't have enough popular support. In addition, many won't vote for a third party because of the spoiler effect. Here is a link to our good friend wikipedia if you are interested https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect. Suffice it to say though, if you vote for a third party, it actually allows the party most ideologically different from you to win (speaking of group's voting not just as an individual). For example, in 1992 Ross Perot ran a strong 3rd party challenge for president. While he attracted voters from both parties, most of his suport came from more conservative voters, traditionally suoporters of the Republican party here who would have voted for George Bush Sr., and split the vote enough to allow Bill Clinton, the Democrat to win (I'll also point out Ralph Nader who did the same thing to the Democrats in Florida in 2000). All strong third parties do here in the States is let the guy you like the least win if you vote for them. Which is why many times people will "hold their nose" while they are voting for someone they don't like, in this case Trump, to avoid someone they like even less, this time around Clinton.