dprh

Jesus the Christ - see Luke 16:26
 
The Traveler

I had the same questions, but recently found this in my studies of the work of the dead.
““Before the crucifixion of the Lord there was a great gulf fixed separating the righteous dead from those who had not received the Gospel, and across this gulf no man could pass. (Luke 16:26.) Christ bridged that gulf and made it possible for the word of salvation to be taken to all corners of the kingdom of darkness. In this way the realms of hell were invaded and the dead prepared for the ordinances of the Gospel which must be performed on earth since they pertain to the mortal probation” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 165).”

To me there is a difference between being right and choosing the right.  I've found that sometimes when people talk about "being right" they mean that they want others to know or acknowledge that they are right.  Personally, I think sometimes winning an argument is not as important as keeping a relationship.  

Have you ever thought of Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ as having vulnerability? When we think of our celestial relatives, we often speak of their power over death, sin, and other ailments that plague us in our mortal existence. The word "vulnerability" means to be susceptible to physical or mental harm. Although we view our Heavenly Father as being very powerful (because He is), He too suffers. How is our Father, a being so powerful, susceptible to harm? God, an example of vulnerability Simply stated, God's vulnerability is in His love for us. His love (and the fact that we too should love) is outlined in 1 John 4:8. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. The most painful experience for Him and for Christ was the Atonement. Although They knew it was for a great purpose, the Atonement was a cause for great suffering. Christ's love for us was the reason why He was willing to be susceptible to suffering. In Ephesians 2 it explains this. But God, who...
View the full article

My favorite Dwight clip

That was why I started my post with explaining what "being right" seems to mean some of the time and put it in quotes.  I think the quote in the OP uses this meaning when they say that being kind is more important than being right.  It seems to refer to interactions between people, not a state of being. 
I recall the many conversations I had as a missionary in the South with evangelical Christians about being 'saved' and other doctrines and concepts.  I was 'right' but some of the conversations got fairly heated and I did no good by continuing to be contentious in my stance and Bible-bashing.
 

That was why I started my post with explaining what "being right" seems to mean some of the time and put it in quotes.  I think the quote in the OP uses this meaning when they say that being kind is more important than being right.  It seems to refer to interactions between people, not a state of being. 
I recall the many conversations I had as a missionary in the South with evangelical Christians about being 'saved' and other doctrines and concepts.  I was 'right' but some of the conversations got fairly heated and I did no good by continuing to be contentious in my stance and Bible-bashing.
 

I guess Fridays are good days to put words under microscopes.
"Be honest".  If I can be honest as I stand there quietly, not making any particular eye contact with anybody, with neutral body language not meant to say much of anything, communicating nothing to anybody, then I agree.  Sometimes shutting up is best.  Not all the time, but sometimes.
So if the admonition to "always be honest" means that there are zero cases where I should shut up, that I must always actively advocate for something from a position of honesty, then I must decline to adopt that phrase into my big pile of good life quotes.
For whatever reason, the older I get, the more situations I find myself in that seem best handled by just standing there with a dumb look on my face. 

To me there is a difference between being right and choosing the right.  I've found that sometimes when people talk about "being right" they mean that they want others to know or acknowledge that they are right.  Personally, I think sometimes winning an argument is not as important as keeping a relationship.  

To me there is a difference between being right and choosing the right.  I've found that sometimes when people talk about "being right" they mean that they want others to know or acknowledge that they are right.  Personally, I think sometimes winning an argument is not as important as keeping a relationship.  

Not sure when there's ever actually an either/or situation where you can only pick one and not the other.    I can see that sometimes it's not productive to argue your point, but you don't always have to argue your point to be right.

That would be a good question to ask your Bishop.
Unlike anyone here, your Bishop has the Keys and the Authority to make that call.  Random posters on this (or any other forum) do not.  Therefore anyone's opinion here should be viewed in that light.

When my daughters were younger, we nicknamed them Trauma and Drama.  I suppose we'll have to wait a bit longer to see if either needs therapy or ends up addicted to something.

I think this thread is getting caught up on the word 'trauma'.  I re-read the article.  It says a couple times that addiction originates from a person's attempt to solve a problem.  That problem is often something traumatic, but it doesn't say it always is.  That was what I was alluding to regarding your caffeinated soda addiction.  Your 'problem' was probably feeling tired, lacking energy, and you knew a chemical means to fix that problem, a way to feel better than 'good.' 

My thoughts:
#1 is not all that new. I find it interesting that it is gaining traction from the oldest article in Dialogue (1999) to Ash's article at Sunstone (2006) which most conservative members seems to treat with disdain to now being published by Book of Mormon Central which is considered more mainstream.
Ultimately, I think it illustrates some of the hazards of trying to rank sins. One, as noted by these articles, the Book of Mormon does not detail Corianton's sin -- only that his dad described it as forsaking the ministry to chase after the harlot Isabel. We don't really know how far he got in the chase or anything about Isabel's side of the story. One challenge in ranking sin is defining exactly which sin we are ranking. I have long felt that one problem with the typical ranking is that it ranks consensual sexual activity at the same level as assault and rape. In my opinion, rape must be somewhere between murder and consensual sex, but the standard interpretation doesn't acknowledge that -- perhaps because it wasn't on Alma's radar and he's the source for the ranking. Exactly what sin is next to murder in seriousness? Two, all sin keeps us out of God's presence, so it doesn't matter what sins you are guilty of.
Another thing that has recently crossed my mind on this one is whether or not this is simply an exaggerated expression from a very frustrated dad. Alma is obviously frustrated with Corianton. How many frustrated dads (when the object of the frustration is the son's girlfriend) will compare her to a prostitute? Could Alma be exaggerating the seriousness of the sin out of frustration rather than an expression of doctrinal truth?
#2 In many ways, I like the interpretation presented, but dislike that the entire argument seems to hinge on the presence/absence of a comma. We don't know exactly what was on the plates, but many ancient texts did not use much punctuation at all, and to a relatively uneducated youth like Joseph Smith, detailed rules of punctuation may not have been well understood or always followed exactly. Presence/absence/misplacement of commas can provide some interesting ideas to consider in reading and interpreting a text, but I don't think I would want to hinge my final declaration of truth on commas.
#3 is interesting. I recall somewhere reading that, when John Taylor originally translated the BoM into German (and other languages), he rendered the English "after" in this verse with word(s) that meant "in spite of" or "despite", so I don't think this is a new thing. As others have noted, because of our troubled relationship with other Christians (including Protestants and Evangelicals), I think we sometimes struggle with our ideas and understanding of grace and faith and works and salvation. As @The Folk Prophet notes, we maybe need to be careful that we don't become too Sola Fide/Sola Gratia Protestant in our views, because we are not Protestants. At the same time, we believe that "justification through the grace of our .. Savior is just and true." (D&C 20:30) It sometimes seems to me that we have swung between wanting to appear less Protestant then appear more Protestant without ever clearly and simply stating where we stand. I have noted before that I see us as having a "Sola Gratia" type but not a "Sola Fide". Protestants seem to tend to conflate the two, and it seems to me that, if we could tease the two apart, that our belief could be very well expressed as by grace alone but not by faith alone.

Pump the brakes, One relapse since full repentance over a year ago? I'd put this on the home repentance plan and not get super wound up about it. You are now an adult, if you can identify what led to the relapse and ensure there are no further issues I would get on my knees ask for forgiveness and go about my business.
However if you really feel like you need to confess in the flesh to a Bishop by all means please do so. 

I would add this in hopes to give you a better view on him.
Alma 48:17 is a very popular verse, it reads
“17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”
but go ahead and read one more verse.

“18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.”
We like to think of Moroni as this great man, yet he was still compared to the righteousness of all the sins of Alma, including Corianton. There was about a 4 year difference between Corianton’s rebuke and this verse describing Moroni. I like to think Corianton did some major repenting, and like Zeezrom, became a mighty man of God.

I think this thread is getting caught up on the word 'trauma'.  I re-read the article.  It says a couple times that addiction originates from a person's attempt to solve a problem.  That problem is often something traumatic, but it doesn't say it always is.  That was what I was alluding to regarding your caffeinated soda addiction.  Your 'problem' was probably feeling tired, lacking energy, and you knew a chemical means to fix that problem, a way to feel better than 'good.' 

Well done, Brother @dsnell.
The reason such alternate* interpretations are not often discussed is that many (dare I say, most) members assume that if you're putting forward a non-standard interpretation, you are rejecting the traditional interpretation. As Brother Snell points out, this is not necessarily so. Snell brings up Alma's conversation with Corianton. His supposedly alternate interpretation is really just reading what's there. Corianton's great sin** was forsaking the ministry to go after his lusts. That—the forsaking of one's covenants—is the sin next to murder in seriousness. Does that mean sex sin isn't? Not necessarily. All who have received their endowment in the temple have specifically covenanted to avoid all extramarital sex. So such sex sin is indeed a forsaking of covenant. This is exactly why Israel is called "adulterous" when it forsakes its covenants with God. Christ pointed out that "a wicked and adulterous generation" seeks for a sign. This is clearly because such a sign-seeking generation is always a covenant-breaking generation, with no exceptions. Sign-seeking as practiced by the corrupt Jews in ancient Israel is a sure indication of breaking one's covenants. That is as true today as it was then.
*The so-called alternate interpretation is not really necessarily an alternate to the traditional reading. In many cases, as discussed above, it's simply a less biased and more text-based interpretation, often comprising the traditional interpretation as well as giving more insight—again, as discussed above.
**By the way, I have long believed that Isabel was no mere prostitute. Seriously, how many guys in ancient times who are in search of a prostitute are going to go three towns over to find The Really Great Prostitute, because she's just so fine? Seriously, that is just absurd. Isabel "stole away the hearts" of men, not merely their lustful desires. It seems much more likely to me that Isabel was a leader (something like a "high priestess") of a sex cult, something extremely common in ancient times and frankly not that uncommon today. All the so-called fertility rites might just as accurately (or more accurately) be described as the rites of a sex cult. I think this public forsaking of the ministry to go after Satanic "fertility" cult practices is much more likely to be a father's cause of severe condemnation and comparison to murder than going privately to seek out a prostitute. I'm not declaring the latter to be no big deal; it is a very big deal indeed. But publicly embracing the practices of a fertility cult is a whole 'nother degree of perversion.

Here's the thing about interpretations: They're subjective. There's probably a conclusive, correct answer in each of the cases we'll be looking at below, but unfortunately Mormon isn't here to give us the thumbs-up. That said, take a look at the following examples and give the alternate interpretations some serious consideration. Who knows, you might like them. 1. Is sexual sin really almost as bad as murder? The idea that sexual sin is akin to murder comes straight from Alma's encounter with his missionary son, Corianton, in Alma 39:3-5: And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above...
View the full article

I think visiting the local bishop is a great idea if you'll be there more than 3-4 weeks.  He doesn't have your records, but he is the steward of everyone living in his boundaries, not just members of the church.  While you are staying there, he is your shepherd. 
I also agree with @estradling75.  Since you're on this forum, you have internet access, so you should be able to email your home ward bishop, or even call him.  There are plenty of cheap or free ways to make international phone calls now.
Glad to hear you made it a year with no slips and that you're working on cleaning up quickly.  

In this day and age.... I don't see why one could not reach out to their "real bishop" and get help/advice/council... No matter how far away one might be geographically.

For those that pay attention to current events (beyond Macbeth):
Corduroy pillows are making headlines!
and
if you are thinking about getting a yardstick you better get one now because they aren't going to make them any longer. 
 
The Traveler

It's the sort of joke that your kids, once they hit a certain age, cease to find funny. For example, this conversation with my 14-year-old daughter:
*Sigh*

This is another of these articles where, after reading it, I say to myself, "Self, that was a pretty good article, and I mostly agreed with it, but I wouldn't have put it that way."
One of my Muslim friend's articles of faith was that Allah could do anything. Literally anything. He was I Dream of Jeannie God. You name it, he can do it. In contrast, our scriptures leave no doubt that there are things God cannot do. Not merely chooses not to do, but cannot do, like save people in their sins. My Muslim friend would undoubtedly have said that God can save whomever he wants, including infidels, but that for the most part, he chooses not to. Allah could save the sinful people into a wonderful paradise if he chose to do so.
But orthodox Latter-day Saints simply do not believe such things. God is indeed limited, not by a deficiency of power or of knowledge, but by our agency and by the simple meaning of words. Thus, God CANNOT "save" a sinful, unrepentant man, because the term "salvation" implies sinlessness—it's sin we are being saved from.
Far from being a deficiency in God's power, it's just a word game: God "can't" create a rock so big that he "can't" lift it, because if he did, it would mean there's a rock too big for an All-Powerful God to lift. So either God is deficient in lifting power of sufficiently huge rocks, or else God is deficient in his ability to create such sufficiently huge rocks.
Baloney. This is no longer a discussion of God's abilities, but of how we choose to define and parse words. There are plenty of meaningless "things" that God can't "do". One of those "things" might be "do something for someone that he can do for himself but refuses to do." One non-existent thing that God for sure cannot do is give us a blessing from heaven without our having fulfilled the divine law attached to that blessing.
Bottom line: God isn't I Dream of Jeannie. We would do well to come to grips with that simple fact.

(Not God)