scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in How can I be a good neighbor to a racist?
Will a member of the general relief society presidency do a joint seminar with an avowed racist who proclaims that “being racist is how God made me, and of course I won’t act on it [yet], but I’m not going to change either because the Holy Spirit has revealed that God likes me this way”?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
scottyg reacted to Grunt in Encouraging Temple recommend renewals?
In my current calling, I see a real mix. Some don't care at all about renewing their recommend while others will kick your door in for an interview with the Bishop. Personally, I feel I must have a current recommend regardless of my temple visitation.
scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Full and complete lesson on modesty?
Not at all.
My roommate just played lout music ALL THE TIME. And when I asked him to turn it down, he said,"That's just how I play my music, dude. I'm not doing it to irritate you." It seemed to make no difference that he'd do it at 1:00 am while most people try to sleep.
Just because they aren't doing it to tempt, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect those around them.
It's the same for mask wearing (I wasn't the first one to bring it up). I really do have a breathing problem. It is difficult for me to wear a mask. But if someone I'm dealing with feels uncomfortable and asks politely, I am going to do my best to wear a mask in their presence out of courtesy. And there really is no reason for me to wear one when I'm already immune. But they still feel uncomfortable.
I love kim chee. So does my family. So we're good. But when my wife was pregnant, she couldn't stand the smell. So, during those times, I made an effort to not indulge. And most guests don't like it either. So, I make an effort to not have kim chee when guests are over.
We all NEED to go to the bathroom. We have to expose ourselves to do so. But we're not trying to flash anyone. We just need to do it. Does that mean that there shouldn't be privies to do the deed? Can't we just have a toilet in the middle of the office?
I want to have sex with my wife. One could say that we're SUPPOSED to have sex. But do we do it in front of people? We're not trying to be provocative. We're just doing what married people do.
A certain young woman in an old ward decided to dress as Black Widow for Halloween. The costume was of thinner material than ScarJo's outfit. It made it cheaper, and more available to the masses. It also made the outfit extremely form fitting and... you get the idea.
She was just wearing it because it was a "cool costume". Do you think the YM in the ward simply said,"Hey, cool outfit." and then moved on? No, nearly every young man in the ward was gathered around her wherever she went.
Remember, I still think it is 100% the young men's fault for not controlling themselves. They should have done the decent thing and simply said, "Hey, cool outfit," then moved on. That was on them. But did she really do nothing wrong? I'd say she did. She was being immodest.
The thing here is that there seems to be undue "blame" on the boys for not controlling themselves. And, again, they should be blamed for THEIR actions and maybe even REactions. But your position seems to be of one that says that the "standards of modest dress" is something we shouldn't be teaching. It is as if this is NOT a sin at all. There is NOTHING wrong with being immodest in one's dress while in public. I disagree.
There is something wrong with the boys not being able to control their reactions. So, we DO teach that principle to the YM. Trust me, we teach it a LOT. And there seems to be NO push back on the need to teach it.
There is also something wrong with women who like to dress sexy and provocative only to hide behind the notion of "freedom of dress" (for lack of another term). Should we not be teaching this principle?
No, girls, go ahead and walk around in a mono-kini to school and it is totally the boys' fault for looking at you while at school. (And I'd dare say, most of the girls would be looking too... albeit for a different reason.)
scottyg reacted to NeuroTypical in David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community
Yay! I'm not failing as a Christian! (It can't be satire unless it has a foundation in truth - that's sort of the point of satire.)
The world has always been full of two types of people: Those who worry about things getting worse, and those who are emboldened at things getting better. Human history is merely a large book with chapter after chapter of one side or the other being right. Yes, my John Birch buddies saw the fall of the USSR as a ploy to disguise the commie's end game. Yes, the citizens of Rome laughed and ate grapes while the empire fell. Yes, right after Christ's ascension into heaven, many Christians began preparing for the 2nd coming and the end of all things. Yes, the French court was chock full of people who were blindsided and surprised when Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette's heads hit the baskets - thinking things were on the brink of settling back down to normal.
I figure the millennium will come when it comes. I'm not invested in accurately predicting it. That said, empires last no more than a couple of centuries, and the US has lasted almost 250. That said, it's not like you can't still find Turks, Spaniards, Chinese, and Brits, even though all their empires have fallen (sometimes numerous times).
Yeah, I'm pretty positive that in 100 years, people will read the chapter about how stupid US culture and politics were becoming in the 20's. Transgender women calling gay men transphobic, because they preferred biological males? Corporate America lining up to instruct people on how to include their preferred pronouns in their emails, even though nobody can find an employee that has a weird one? The black rights activists abandoning 50 years of progress and growth, to demand a return to segregation and discrimination based on race? Portland and Seattle burning night after night for year after year is ignored, while a less violent mob at the capitol building is spotlighted? The next chapter in those history books will say something like "but then X got elected, and Y happened, and Z laws were passed." Will it then say "and that saw the end of things", or will it say "and that ushered in a constitutional and social renaissance that preserved the nation for another 200 years"?
scottyg reacted to The Folk Prophet in David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community
Regardless of the semantics and meaning of what it is to be loved by God, I'm not sure what that has to do with our being good enough or not. If God's love is unconditional then speaking of goodness in terms of "enough for God's love" is like if I asked if someone is healthy enough, and they take it to mean I was asking if they were going to live forever. That's not really within the scope or point of asking the question. When asking whether we, individually, are good enough or not, God's love for us isn't the criterion we ought to be considering.
Am I good enough to qualify for God's love? That question, itself, seems to be based on some Luciferian lie. No, I'm not. Fortunately that doesn't matter. He loves me anyway. In fact, He loves me so much that He provided a way for me in the Atonement to be saved despite the fact that I will never be good enough on my own.
Maybe that's what NeuroTypical is saying. I'm not sure.
scottyg reacted to Vort in David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community
I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.
scottyg reacted to The Folk Prophet in David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community
Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong?
scottyg reacted to Vort in David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community
I do not understand why people share such intimacies with the world. On an anonymous discussion list, I can understand. But to broadcast it as if it were newsworthy? What on earth are people thinking?
But this observation probably belongs in the modesty thread.
scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community
On a personal note, I certainly wish Archuleta the best.
On a broader cultural note: I wonder whether we will ever see the day when men who publicly commit to chastity while maintaining that their attraction to children was God-created and God-approved, can get the same degree of sympathy and support and acceptance as men like Archuleta who publicly commit to chastity while maintaining that their attraction to other men was God-created and God-approved.
I rather don’t think we will.
Because I think that in our heart of hearts we all know that when someone says “this is how I was created and God doesn’t mind”—they are, consciously or not, laying the foundation to justify a future course of tangible action.
scottyg reacted to Traveler in Encouraging Temple recommend renewals?
Anciently the concept and expression of righteousness is someone that makes and kept covenants with G-d. Thus we should understand that the righteous are the worthy temple recommend holders. As one reads the sacred scriptures I believe that they can better understand warning and blessing with this understanding of maintaining a current temple recommend. Without any doubt - I believe that in the parable of the 10 virgins that all of those that had oil for their lamps (in our modern age) are worthy temple recommend holders. That for sure those 5 without oil - not one was a "worthy" current temple recommend holder.
scottyg reacted to mordorbund in Full and complete lesson on modesty?
You mean like after a man has enter his 30's or has gotten married and has had decades of experience keeping his appetites and passions within the bounds the Lord has set? Sure. This goes back to what I wrote earlier. These lessons are generally aimed at teenagers or people in their early 20's who are learning to control their sexuality, not abuse it, and courting and wooing. For the latter case (the older young people), we've been taught that there are wheat and tares in the Church. Which are you attracting?
For teenagers, responsible mentors (parents, leaders, etc) should come right out and say "There's a lot of power in the engine of a car. It will kill you. It will kill your friends. Any time your friends are driving I want you to live by this rule: You will do nothing that will distract the driver! -- You do not touch the radio unless the driver says you can. You do not control the temperature, the driver does. Pranks, surprises, and tomfoolery are all kinds of fun at home and in the parking lot, but on the road there is none of that." Each family may draw the line at a different place, but there will be a line drawn and it will be bright.
I don't see why it should be any different for teenagers learning to steer through relationships and sexual power. Clear lines should be drawn and saints help each other, even in their youth.
scottyg reacted to Traveler in Full and complete lesson on modesty?
Often what is thought or believed to be modest or immodest is a part of our culture and traditions. One of the blessings of being from a family with ancestral roots dating back to the first generation of the restoration is, as a young boy hearing stories from my grandparents that remember being children and listening to their grandparents that talked personally with Joseph Smith and were part of the Westward movement to Utah. Some of these stories are recorded but some are preserved by word of mouth. As a youth I was closets to my grandmother Abby. She was an amazing lady that raised 14 children in a 3 bedroom house without running water (a hand pump in the kitchen) or electricity. The kitchen stove was wood fired and a free standing coal stove as heat in the winter. She still lived in that house when I knew her - and I remember when her home was upgraded to running water, electricity and a standing gas heater that stood exposed in the front room where the coal stove use to stand. My grandparents were not considered poor but rather were pillars of their community. Abby wrote regular articles for the Desert News and was Utah Mother of the year (during my lifetime)
Why am I telling you this bit of family history? Because my dear grandmother lived most of her life in an era when temple garments covered to ankles and wrists. As styles changed she did not - for personal modesty sake she wore dresses that did not even show here ankles and she never wore something in public that did not cover to her wrists. She also never wore red, which she considered a color devoted to Satan and deliberate immodesty. I recall her telling (teaching) me that in the temple legs and arms were covered as an example of the divine standard of modesty.
I have personally witnessed stalwart Saints (ladies) arguing and upset because their chosen wedding dress was not allowed for their temple sealing - which required that they were sealed wearing a different dress than what they wore for the formal pictures after words on the temple grounds. My grandmother would be hart broken that standards of modesty have shifted so.
For whatever reason - men's formal wear have not changed so much (with the exception of Hollywood). Men's formal wear still remains the tux - which covers arms and legs.
But here is another thought. In my youth the church built our meeting houses with a stand for the bishopric, choir and speakers and all that was between them was the podium and stairs to the stand. I remember when women sitting on the stand became a problem as the dress length was shortened to the knees and women on the stand were often unaware (I think they were unaware). Ladies were encouraged to wear longer dresses when sitting on the stand - but for whatever reason the warnings were not headed by all. Finely a new standard was adopted and a wall was built at the edge of the stand that prevented anyone sitting on the stand from an "immodest" display.
I do not know why women seem to be the primary problem of immodesty. It seems that in our modern society that any suggestion why women are the primary problem is received as "sexism" - especially if coming from any priesthood holder. Somewhere there is a major disconnect and misunderstanding. And that disconnect and misunderstanding prevents a honest discussion - at least among some - concerning this subject.
scottyg reacted to CV75 in Full and complete lesson on modesty?
I think modesty entails an unassuming, moderate, proper and decent spirit in dress, grooming, language, arts and media, and most of the five senses -- what we perform, listen to, watch, touch, and even how we use perfume. I think the Church curriculum covers this.
scottyg reacted to laronius in Full and complete lesson on modesty?
Modesty is not often addressed when teaching young men because when it comes to the law of chastity there are a half dozen other topics that are of greater importance to address in terms of what they may actually be struggling with. Where as for young women modesty is more likely to be an issue some struggle with and thus more likely to be addressed. It's as simple as that. The whole idea of trying to make things "fair" is one of Satan's tricks for distracting us from what matters most.
scottyg reacted to Colirio in No more Priesthood/RS General Session
You will have to train them how to endure boredom another way unfortunately.
Seriously, as a teenager that went with his dad, two hours was a long time. My spiritual cup (thimble-sized at the time) was full in about 3 minutes at most and the rest of the time I was looking for ways to pass the boredom.
To be fair, I also lament not being able to take my son to general priesthood meetings. My guess is that the Lord has other ways He wants to edify His young men preparing to serve missions.
scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Encouraging Temple recommend renewals?
I had a fun exchange a couple of months ago. My wife and I were trying to get our recommends renewed. We had already gotten with the bishopric. We now needed to meet with the Stake Presidency.
It happened to be ward conference one week, so all three of them were there instead of the one counselor that often visits.
As they found out we were trying to renew our recommends, one of the counselors came to us and said he only had a minute. He asked if we could do our interview together (in the room at the same time). My wife looked at me because she knew there was something that might make me say no. I was able to confidently look her in the eyes and say, "You know everything about me."
She gave me a kiss and we went into the interview room. He only asked the questions once. We both answered "yes" or "no" as appropriate. And at our age & experience, we really didn't have any questions. So, he signed and we were off.
scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in Encouraging Temple recommend renewals?
Frankly, I’ve been trying to have as little face time with my bishop as possible lately; because we are returning to in-person 2nd hour meetings and I’ve just assumed he’s swamped putting out fires, starting callings that have gone vacant, and handling priesthood ordinations or things like that. My TR isn’t expiring anytime soon—but if it were, I’d probably put it off a couple of months (with the temples being closed anyways and all) unless or until my bishop announced “no, guys, really, I do have time for this—please come get your recommend renewed”.
scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in No more Priesthood/RS General Session
Also, it cuts down on the media photo-ops for gender based agitators trying to draw attention to their cause by storming into (or visibly being denied entry to) priesthood meetings—Ordain Women, transgender folk, that kind of thing.
scottyg reacted to Carborendum in No more Priesthood/RS General Session
Yes, it does. It makes sense that they will no longer be labeled as PH/RS, while maintaining the fifth (third) session. But to eliminate one of the five sessions because anyone can watch it would mean we should eliminate all sessions because anyone can listen to it.
Then when we eliminate it, no one will be able to listen to it. So, we will have to re-institute it again.
Yes, it is a non-sequitur. I think we get the intended meaning even if it was poorly worded.
There were separate men's and women's meetings because they used to talk to men about treating our wives better. They'd tell the women don't be so hard on yourselves. And it was done in a gathering of largely the intended audience. Now that there is no such gathering anymore, they're just going to say the same stuff in general meetings.
scottyg got a reaction from NeedleinA in Encouraging Temple recommend renewals?
Yes, you should always have one current.
Yes, they have always been lazy as well as disinterested. Covid increased the numbers a bit, but people are lazy with all kinds of things both in and out of church. I can't tell you how many requests for interviews I have had from people who have had theirs expired for some time...and only need it to attend a wedding they have the following day. They usually call me last minute as I am eating dinner with my family, or even the morning of the temple event as I am starting work.
A sad truth is that many people don't ever attend the temple on their own. They only go to family fuctions to save face and look like they are good card carrying members to their family members. Our bishop used to allow people to renew their recommends even if they never attended church. This is no longer the case since the questions have been revised. We also have many folks who just don't keep the commandments. An example is tithing...lots just choose not to pay it. Even a former bishop of our ward around 11-12 years ago is currently in this category.
We have not been able to increase our numbers despite multiple requests.
scottyg got a reaction from classylady in Faith vs Knowledge
Faith should eventually lead to perfect knowledge in something...whether the results are good or bad. However, in terms of spiritual things, once that knowledge is obtained the need for faith still exists...it does not just disappear or become irrelevant.
Example 1: in the premortal existence, all knew that our Heavenly Father was God, and that His plan centered around a Savior. Amongst other reasons, undoubtedly there were some who (even though they had knowledge) lacked the faith to accept the plan laid out before them. They knowingly chose another voice over the Father's, many likely due to having little faith in Him, or the Christ that would come. Knowledge alone did them no good.
Example 2: I, and many others, know that keeping the law of tithing brings blessings, but it still takes faith to keep this commandment throughout our lives. Even though we may pay it due to our knowledge, we are still exercising faith. Losing faith will eventually allow the natural man to take over, and a myriad of reasons (excuses) not to keep it, or any other commandment, will overpower your past knowledge.
Once we enter in at the gate, all is not done. Enduring to the end requires faith. Contrary to what many believe, knowledge is not permanent - it can be lost when you do not use it. Spiritual knowledge usually becomes lost when faith is lost.
scottyg got a reaction from Carborendum in Faith vs Knowledge
Although a bit off topic, this is one reason why a separation (paradise/prison) and missionary work is needed in the spirit world. Just because people die, and are taught the truth on the other side of the veil, doesn't mean that they will automatically accept it and all will be fine and dandy. Folks will still think and behave in pretty much the same manner there as they do here.
"Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."
Even if the Lord appeared to us right now, and we knew exactly who He was, we would not have a desire to repent or change without having faith in Him. Repentance comes of faith, otherwise it is of no effect/not genuine.
scottyg got a reaction from Traveler in Faith vs Knowledge
Alma's remarks that you mentioned answer this question. If you have tested your faith by planting a seed, and it grows and bears fruit, then you have faith no longer...for you now know it was a good seed. There is no way you can doubt it when you are eating the good fruit. The Lord has also said that a good fountain cannot bring forth bitter water.
Sight can bring perfect knowledge, and it can enhance faith, but, it does not guarantee faith...Laman, Lemuel, Judas, and the 3 book of Mormon witnesses are examples of this.
I have never seen an oxygen atom, but I have studied about it from books and those who have worked with it. I am also a recipient of it's benefits every day. I know it is a real element despite never having seen it.
I have never seen God in the flesh, but, a combination of many things (blessings that have come from keeping commandments, spiritual testimony of the Holy Ghost, fulfilled scripture and other prophecies, multiple series of crazy events that I'll just call "too much to be coincidences", answered prayers, miraculous priesthood blessings, etc...) lets me know there is a God.