let’s roll

Lawyers are advocates. As such they are required to make the best arguments for their clients. In that context, the formula you describe is accurate to a degree. Doctors are duty-bound to treat patients regardless of the patient’s moral standings. Is a doctor who provides medical treatment that saves the life of a murderer any less worthy of praise then the doctor that provides medical treatment that saves the life of a child? Both deserve the best efforts of the doctor. In a similar manner all clients deserve the best efforts of a lawyer to use their knowledge of the law and skills in advocacy and negotiation to further the purposes of the client, as long as that purpose isn’t illegal. There’s nothing backwards, wrong or dishonest about it. Yes I’m a lawyer and that’s what I was taught at JRCLS.

@Jane_Doe you’ve demonstrated the love, patience, and compassion you invite us all to have in the post above in responding to those trying to deconstruct your invitation or claim that it’s something that it’s not. I commend you for that. To your point, young children are neither familiar with, nor interested in, others’ determination to define families to their own liking regardless of how well-founded that definition is in a theology that young child also knows little or nothing about. In that context your invitation is thoughtful and well-founded. To declare to a young child that the loving support structure he or she lives in isn’t a family, labelling the child among all his/her peers as the only one without a family can’t be described as anything but unnecessarily cruel.

School of Rock A Knight’s Tale

Simba, you are more than you’ve become. You’ve forgotten me...remember.

Amen.

No worries. And I hope my reply didn’t come across as being caustic (it wasn’t meant as such) but rather my characterization of the goal of being a seeker with a hunger for Divine guidance and a heart willing to embrace and follow that guidance, even if it means leaving behind some things we have in the past enjoyed or valued.

And I suppose my knee jerk reaction to those who choose to second guess prophetic guidance is that 13 hours apparently wasn’t enough.

Rather than look at the change as a loss, I choose to view it as a gain. We’ve been reminded that in order to navigate mortality we need to be able to receive personal revelation. Another hour to spend each Sabbath day in study, prayer, pondering in order to foster personal revelation. I am grateful for that gift.

I found some wisdom here. One thought. We aren’t asked to become so that we’ll be “comfortable” in the presence of Deity. We are invited to become so that when we’re invited by Deity to join them in their work (which is difficult and often thankless), what we have become will allow us to accept that invitation.

Have any of you established any personal limits or guidelines regarding how often you’re on this site and how long you stay on once you’re on? I’m new to the site and getting up to speed on both the breadth of topics and the names and personalities of different posters. I’ve found many threads to be thought-provoking and helpful. I usually check in two or three times during the day for 10-15 minutes when there’s a lull in my work schedule and then maybe in the evening for another 30-45 minutes. When I get on, I typically use the Activity function to identify new comments on the 3 to 4 threads I’m following. And then take a minute to browse for new threads that might be interesting. As I do so, I note that there are a number of posters who make posts, seemingly uninterrupted, over as much as a 7 to 8 hour period. I’m curious as to whether folks plan to be on the site for that long or just get caught up in the dialogue. I reiterate the question I posed at the beginning of this post: Would those who have established personal limits or guidelines regarding how often you’re on the site and how long you stay on be willing to share those with us?

My troll alarm rang loud and clear for this one. My practice is to respond to a troll directly only once, and indicate that I’ve identified them as such and never again engage them directly...no feeding of the trolls. That said, I wouldn’t refuse to attempt to have an honest conversation with anyone, but on-line is never a forum I’d use for such an attempt with someone who’s demonstrated they’re more interested in disturbing others than in serious, thoughtful discussion. I hope such posters aren’t common-place on this site. I’m new, and for the most part have found the comments to be sincere and, thankfully, thought-provoking.

I can’t really interpret the above as anything but trolling.

Prophets disagree. It’s a basic tenet of LDS theology. There is no more testing. They have qualified for the Celestial Kingdom. Mortality has a purpose for them, to obtain a body. And as Jesus taught, through them the glory of God is made manifest.

No. I echo Zil’s good thoughts and add a few of my own. A hearty amen to your concluding statement that the atonement is a gift which, as we come to understand it, will transform our soul and cause us to want to follow the Savior. I invite you to continue to search President Kimball’s writings. I’m confident you’ll find he taught that principle as well. As to how to understand how faith and works intertwine, i invite you to ponder the Savior’s response to the man who asked what he needed to do to gain eternal life. The initial response was confirmation by Jesus of the man’s recitation of commandments/works listed in the scriptures. When the man asserted he had done all those works since his youth and asked “what lack I yet” Jesus gave him an invitation to do a work of faith which the man was unable, at that time, to do. Was his ability a lack of faith or of works? I trust you’ll agree is was a lack of both. As to the feeling of being crushed, I guess if I were to feel that way, I’d feel like I was discounting the power of the Atonement. I invite you to read The Infinite Atonement by Bro. Callister. It’s revelatory and while you may find it different in tone from how you found Miracle of Forgiveness, I believe the books are harmonious. Finally there have been a few recent talks on how best to understand the invitation to be perfect. One by Elder Holland and another by Pres. Eyeing. I think you’ll find both empowering rather than crushing. Godspeed to you in what are clearly sincere efforts to follow the Savior.

Wholeheartedly agree. I’m not saying such anxiety is any more well-founded than anxiety some feel when someone comes to Church who looks different (e.g. tattoos, piercings) than some are comfortable with. We should all look forward to, and work for, the day where no one feels such anxieties but, unfortunately, we’re not there yet and claiming there’s no one who feels such anxiety about guns in Church just misstates reality.

You are much more patient than I, and I applaud you for that. I certainly wouldn’t concede it’s unobtrusive and non-distracting in all cases. I’ve been told by a number of saints that it has created anxiety for them. And, of course, if the Brethren believed the 2nd Amendment trumps Church policy, then bringing your gun to Church would per se be appropriate. Instead, it’s been deemed the opposite.

I’m with Just_A_Guy on this one. His post seems prescient in light of your reply.

Torts are civil claims. Assault can be tort, but it can also be a crime.

Frankly, Carb’s response to Styln didn’t address the content of her post. Styln’s post didn’t say anything about being a conscientious objector, only that she would be uncomfortable worshipping surrounded by people carrying guns. She was on topic, I was on topic, Carb was the only one trying to make it about more than leaving your gun home when you go to Church, .i guess I was a bit too subtle.

I, for one, can’t see a justification for taking a gun into church in either of your examples. IMHO, trying to make an analogy between the treatment of the Missouri saints and any danger Church members face today in a chapel is melodramatic, at best. As for the Nephites, they had every reason to follow revelation from God. Our current direction from God, through his chosen servants is to leave guns at home when we go to Church.

Beautifully stated, and clearly deeply felt. I both admire and share your sentiments.

Like most companies, the content and tone of Nike’s advertising is designed to appeal to its target market. It’s unlikely anyone on this thread fits squarely in that target market, we’re all too old. Having worked for a few Fortune 100 companies, I can tell you that while some people may interpret ads from those companies as making a purely political statement, at the end of the day, no ad gets run that’s not designed to increase brand loyalty among the company’s core demographic. This ad was no different.

It’s not his company. It’s a public company. The SEC doesn’t care what owners of companies that are not publically traded say (unless, of course they’re in the process of an IPO). And saying funding is in place when it isn’t is a lie, plain and simple.

A floating temple? I’m on board with that idea.

Prophets disagree. It’s a basic tenet of LDS theology. There is no more testing. They have qualified for the Celestial Kingdom. Mortality has a purpose for them, to obtain a body. And as Jesus taught, through them the glory of God is made manifest.