scottyg

True. Permanent/long-term homeschooling is no small task. It is much different than a temporary 1-2 week switch to online learning due to high covid numbers.

Ammon went to serve King Lamoni, and stated that he intended to live amongst his people until the day he died. That would obviously necessitate knowing the Lamanite culture. The church will continue to grow, and will be expanding in other Muslim dominant countries in the coming years. Dubai / U.A.E. as exhibit A. Knowing their backgrounds and religious/cultural views will reduce suspicion, help us minister to them in the right way, and in turn help their hearts become softened to the message of the Gospel. Don't be surprised to see another pamphlet like this on Hinduism and/or Buddhism as the church continues to make its way into India and China.

Kids thrive off of stability and structure. Arguably the best choice we have ever made for our family is having my wife stay home. She has plenty of time to teach them the basics of ABC's and counting before enrolling them in the online upstart program. Every one of our kids has been able to read basic 3-4 letter words before Kindergarten. It also makes helping the older kids with homework much easier. Switching to online was not a problem for us as she was home and fully able to teach them. The second best decision may be staying away from unnecessary debt. Our home is not lavish and quite small compared to our other ward members, but our life is so much simpler than theirs. We are out of debt and have no need for more money. Less anxiety, less comparisons, less stress, less arguments, etc... We also have plenty of time to do activities as a family as we aren't trying to juggle 2 different work schedules. I don't know anyone who likes inflation, but it affects us less as our time and money aren't tied up in other things. The lack of gratitude and constant need for "more" in the lives of everyday americans has actually led to them having less.

I think each theory likely has some parts of truth to it in varying degrees. Many things that we view or perceive as "laws" are really not so. In his time, Isaac Newton blew so many firmly held "truths" out of the water as he made discovery after discovery. Then, along comes a guy named Albert Einstein who shows that many of Newton's "truths" about physics are actually false and/or only half true. Newton was a victim of his time, and although he was incorrect on some things, I personally believe him to be the smarter individual. Einstein had more to work with in his later years...but that is a debate for another time. Something that really gets my goat is all of the blindly devoted followers of Stephen Hawking we see nowadays. Yes, the guy was smart...but he was just a person. Many of Stephen Hawking's theories are just that...theories, and yet we see so many in the science community take them as gospel, and they write one research paper after another using his theories as the basis for their truth and fact. They seem to forget what the definition of a theory is. I see no reason why we as a very young civilization of people should continually pat ourselves on the back for discovering new "truths" when an honest assessment of our current knowledge and intelligence would barley register on the scale when compared to the truth of things. Why, just 2 weeks ago doctors discovered a new muscle in the human body. If we don't even know everything there is to know about our own anatomy, then claiming truth about the universe is folly. God obeys laws, but many of them are unknown to us, and are likely impossible for us to comprehend at this time. Some of them, like gravity, may also be able to be bent for a time when certain conditions are met. The power and effects of the Priesthood are far greater reaching than any scientist can currently measure.

I think the wife in particular is currently in "mama bear" mode. She just wants to help her kids as best she can, and feels hurt that they are hurting. It wouldn't surprise me to learn of mental health issues and or suicidal thoughts on the part of her kids. Because of her aggressive drive to try and remove some of that pain and "preserve" her family, she isn't thinking about the real consequences right now... Your other remarks were helpful, and give me a bit more insight on how to counsel my Bishop. Thank you.

So, I have a couple in my ward who are contemplating leaving the church over this speech by Elder Holland. They have some children active in the church, but also have multiple gay children that have distanced themselves, and want to show those ones that they love and support them, and feel that "leaving a church that is not supportive of the gay community" is one of the best ways to do that. What I find odd is that this particular speech really says nothing new...it has all been said before. I do think that there are more underlying issues in their marriage/family that haven't been revealed yet, but this speech is the reason they are giving. They have both been raised in the church, both served missions, both served in multiple leadership positions over the past 25 years, and have been married/sealed. They both state that they believe in the Lord, and that the church is true. However, they don't just want to be inactive and not contacted, but want to openly leave the church to make a statement to their kids and community. In my mind this makes no sense, and will do nothing but harm their family in the long-term. Leaving the church to "help" their children would cause them to forfeit the sealing that has taken place, along with all of the other covenant blessings they are currently entitled to. Far better I believe to stand faithful in their testimony of the Lord and be an example to their children, rather than be led along by them. I am meeting with them this Sunday with the Bishop and his other counselor to go over things, provide guidance, and hopefully convince them to not make such a hasty and rash decision. Any thoughts or counsel?

Do you mean the Temple President, or one of the GA's that serve on the church temple committee? It is very unlikely that either one would even try go outside of the keys held by her Stake President and Bishop to try and get her temporal assistance. Could they as her employer give her a "severance package" or something like that to help out...possibly, but unlikely. Because then they would have to do that for everyone who failed to thoroughly plan out their finances, and many more folks would simply not do it knowing that the church would bail them out. Wouldn't it be a great thing if the church gave all of it's income (every single penny) to the poor and homeless next year? Many, many people would be helped...it would largely be the greatest single financial donation the world has ever seen. However, that would be the end of the church's giving. They would be giving zero dollars in the following years while they replenished their storehouses. If the church didn't invest their income, and save for a rainy day, then all of the charity would cease. If your aunt has truly been so selfless her entire life then that is to be commended, and she will very likely have great treasures in the next life. But, that does not mean that my tithing and fast offerings are now meant to support her until she dies. That first comes from family, or continuing to work until retirement is a financial option. The love of money is obviously not a temptation for her...but managing it is also not a talent she seems to have developed. I do hope everything works out.

My remarks are only based off of what has been written in the question, so there are things I may be missing. I am also aware that they may seem harsh. The church does have a retirement program, and a very generous one at that. It is not a traditional pension. Some parts of it the church may have set up for her automatically. Others, she would have needed to participate in or lose out on the funds. For example, a 401k plan requires employees to set things up in order to get automatic withdrawals and an employer match in place. As JJ mentioned, there is a separate plan of approximately 8% that some of the church entities contribute to whether or not you open a 401k, but it depends on which entity you work for. She should contact her HR dept ASAP. Sadly, your Aunt should not be thinking about retirement at age 75...that begins when you start employment. Everyone, including recent college grads, should be, right now, contributing a good portion of their income towards retirement. If you are not, then you do not get a retirement. Such a concept is very, very young in the world, but a concept is all it is, not a right or given circumstance. No one deserves retirement. No one is entitled to retirement. You work, save, and plan for it. Many people in the world still do not get a retirement - they work in some form or fashion until they die. That was the norm for thousands of years all across the world. Covering funeral expenses is a noble and important thing to do with one's money, however, it does not entitle her to additional income from her employer for the rest of her life. Ultimately, she chose to spend her money in that fashion. She cannot except others to solve problems that she has chose to kick down the road. Although it isn't much, she will get some Social Security benefits. Hopefully she is also out of debt. The welfare program is only meant to be temporary - a safety net to catch us when we fall. It is not, and should not be used, for permanent long-term assistance. The church does not support anyone indefinitely for any reason. Now, if she is truly going to starve, her ward can put in a food order from time to time, but as MM above me said, her family needs to be the first line of defense. Off topic a bit, but I have seen a troubling trend the last 18 months or so of people thinking that they do not need food storage or to be prepared in any way for future events because they falsely believe the church will be there for them. Not true. The church's plan is for people to be self-sufficient...to properly exercise their agency. Five of the Ten virgins had oil in their lamps, while the other five did not. All 10 of them were worthy to be at the supper of the Bridegroom, but only 5 were physically prepared for the long haul. The bulk of that parable is spiritual in nature, but it holds many temporal truths as well.

We start by teaching our kids the ABC's. Once they can identify each big and small letter by sight (between age 2 and 3) we then teach them the basic sounds each letter makes. Once they have this down (sometime in their 4th year) we then start having them piece together sounds from 2 letters, and then progress to short 3 letter words. My 8 and 6 year old were each able to read small books at age 5 before entering kindergarten. Learning to read is definitely a marathon, not a sprint, but being able to read well sets them up for success in pretty much every other school subject, as well as bringing elevated confidence. Reading to them also helps their progression by leaps and bounds. I read 4 stories every night - each kiddo gets to pick a book. We end our day by also reading a scripture.

Right at the end you can see the ref shake his head and say "No, no."

It is the same drug, so yes, it is safe for human consumption...if the proper amount is taken. All it takes is a simple math conversion, yet folks don't even bother to think that an animal dose may be different than a human one. Cut up the large tablet into smaller pieces. Don't squirt an entire syringe into your mouth...take it in smaller amounts. No one is forcing them take the entire thing all at once. Taking a large dose meant for a horse = stupid.

Some folks are just plain stupid. They are taking an entire syringe of the stuff meant for a 1,200 pound horse...a dose 6-8 times higher than the upper limit should be. Something that is odd about all of this is that when new treatments for any type of condition arise, there are studies done to judge the efficacy of said treatments. This happens all the time with new medications. They are found to have beneficial side effects, studies are done, and then new indications for prescribing those medications are recommended. Sometimes drugs that are meant to originally treat one condition are found to more effectively treat another. Does Ivermectin work against Covid-19...the truth is that nobody really knows for sure. Why doesn't anyone really know...because large and legitimate studies are not being done on it. Anytime anyone in the medical profession beings it up they are labeled as a crazy person. Given the attention it has received, one would think that several unbiased studies would have already been done, but thorough studies are not being done on it because of money and politics. And, as petty as it may sound, one root of this is due to the left's hatred of President Trump. Because he brought it up once upon a time, it has to be roundly and soundly defeated for all time without the necessity of any evidence to support that conclusion. Anything he has ever been for has to be untrue by default. Does Ivermectin work...maybe. It might be a great tool in fighting the virus. Or, it might be a waste of time. But, until the medical community moves the bulk of it's research away from the university setting, as well as away from politics, we will begin to see greater forms of lackluster healthcare in the future.

My wife got the shot after being pressured into it...and started bleeding the very next day. She was only on day 11 of her cycle. We are done having kids, so she wasn't/isn't too worried, but regretted her decision immediately. She is always very regular, so it seems too odd to just be a coincidence.

So I assume you believe that a baby is a baby right at conception, and that the plan B pill is abortion correct? A large amount of people do not believe that, and are just fine with the pill. Yet I rarely hear plan B brought up in the topic of rape by the pro-choice camp. The abortion defenders always bring up the need to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet fail to acknowledge that taking a simple pill after the traumatic event will prevent the pregnancy. I am trying to understand why, outside of just being evil, why they would rather have a more expensive procedure weeks/months later that terminates the life of an almost fully developed person, when the pregnancy could just be avoided in the first place for around $40. Walmart sells the darn pill for just $12. I believe this is really all about money, politics, and influence/power. Also, the more the adversary can get people to care less about human life, the faster his plans take shape.

Honest question here. If a woman was raped, why in the world would she not go out and take a plan B pill at the soonest opportunity? They are readily available and not expensive. I would recommend it even if it was near the end of her cycle and chance of pregnancy was slim to none. Far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then to end an actual life several months later.

Well, now that I think about it, I have heard it a few times myself.

This is taken out of context. This verse is part of the introduction of this principle (plural marriage) to the early saints in Nauvoo. It was meant specifically for them, a select few...not the church at large. They needed reassurance that they were not entering into sin, but that the practice was allowed by the Lord at that time. The practice, which was an exception, is no longer taking place. Could it return...maybe. But, not every man in the church will one day be asked to take more then 1 wife. The standard is 1 man and 1 woman.

When I think of the word principle, I think of something that applies to everyone - kind of like doctrine. I guess some folks can interpret that a different way. Of course more of God's daughters will be saved than His sons. The concept wouldn't make any sense otherwise as many of His sons would be left without the ability to progress. However, plural marriage is not, and will not be, required of anyone. There will be single couples exalted just as plural ones.

Correct. But as I said, it is better to make assumptions based off of the standards in place...not the exceptions. Even better is not making assumptions on matters that have no impact in our lives. This matter is of no real importance, and is in fact a slippery slope. There is a reason why such references are few and far between (and usually come from the odd member in the ward who secretly thinks he knows more about the eternities than the rest of the group). God holds Her in very high esteem, and does not want Her image disrespected in the way that He and His Son are in the world. He also wants us to concentrate on what is essential here and now...our progression and relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ.

Odd thing for the chap to think...but many missionaries are impressionable and like to research "deep doctrine", some of which is false. The word Restoration means returning something back to what it originally was. The first and standard marriage relationship is 1 man and 1 woman. Plural marriage will never be required of anyone...it is not something that is 100% coming back to the church someday. And, even if it does, no one will be required to enter into multiple marriage covenants...as one is all you need to qualify for exaltation.

I have never heard anyone ever mention anything like that in or out of the church. It is better to make assumptions based off of the standards in place...not the exceptions. Plural marriage has been authorized by the Lord at various times for various reasons, but the standard is one man and 1 woman. Maybe God does, but it is much more likely that He doesn't. Show me one scripture that says plural marriage is an "eternal principle". You will be searching a long time, because it is not. It is a special additional/optional blessing given to only a select few who have been prepared to enter into more than one marriage covenant. In no way will it be ever required of anyone.

I said it that way because not everyone would be asked to participate...very likey a smell few. And of course some would be expected to fail. All those who were not asked, but kept their faith in the church nonetheless, would also be blessed.

That would be a travesty, as it would not be done after the manner of God. It would be abused greatly, and our younger generations would see much more filth and be exposed to much more dysfunction than they are today. As for the church, I doubt anything would change. Although the people of God have practiced the principle of plural marriage (more properly named plural families) over thousands of years, it was always for a wise and specific purpose. Plural marriage is not a requirement. The standard is 1 man and 1 woman, and I highly doubt the Lord would just allow anyone in His church to marry multuple persons without need or authorization. Hypothetically, if it was reinstituted in the church, that would be a great blessing for a few, and a great test of faith for many.

1. Only Elder Holland knows why Elder Holland said what he said. My guess is that he, and/or other church leaders, did reprove the dean of the Family, Home, and Social Sciences College for allowing him to give this speech...they simply reproved in private. We don't need to know all the juicy details. To me, Elder Holland's words indicate that something was said. 2. Not necessarily. However, if one speaks about personal growth stories and/or their trials, yet fail to explain how they overcame such trials, it gives the impression that either the trial was never overcome, or that the trial was in fact, not a trial at all, but something acceptable. This kid never once said that he overcame his temptations (he didn't even use that word). He did not explain that through the Atonement he has been able to become a better person, or the person that the Lord ultimately wants Him to be. Instead, he simply said he was a proud gay man. Sins are personal, and should be treated as such. It takes a very difficult balance to make mentioning something so personal in a public speech appropriate, and he botched it by making a meeting about everyone in attendance all about himself, while at the same time implying that those who suffer from the same trial have no need to change. He also implied that BYU helped him come to this conclusion, which is disturbing. The favorite oft quoted lie of the lbgtxyz crowd is "God loves me just the way I am." It is a wicked lie because it is only half truth that also implies sin is acceptable in God's eyes. Yes, God loves you, but He does not love the way you are. He does not love the way any of us are really, and the hope is that we can better ourselves so that we can become the people He ultimately wants us to be...like Him. Participating in homosexuality is nothing short of a damning wall for individuals and families. Lastly, this kid was the valedictorian of the Family, Home, and Social Sciences College. What a slap in the face. When it comes to families, homosexuality is directly against what God has intended for His children. It does not paint a true picture of what BYU should be trying to stand for. Methinks that church leaders will, unfortunately, need to start being more involved in the school, and having more direct say in the day to day goings on. They should be able to trust their hired staff and appointed committees, but this has proven to not be the case multiple times. The school has been too lax when it comes to hiring staff whose beliefs align with church doctrine, because many of them do not. Instead, they have their own personal agenda, and prove Paul's words to be true... "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

I do think something great/major will be required of each of us at some point, but what that is will vary form person to person. Abraham was much farther along in his spiritual growth than most of (if not all of) us, so he was more prepared for a more difficult test of faith. Speaking for myself, I don't really see how I could warrant a place in the Celestial Kindgom next to a prophet like him without going through a similar test, or actually having to make some kind of great sacrifice. That being said, we were all at different stages of growth before coming to Earth, and are all at different stages now. The Lord knows best what we need to grow, and will do all He can to prepare us accordingly.