Dravin

You could always 'cheat' and just wash your own clothes.

This should get interesting. sgallen if you want a preview of what might be to come check out this thread.

Then they lied when they were baptised and every time they took the sacrament or bore testimony (which I doubt is the case for most ex-members). If they had a testimony at some point then they do (or did) know that God wants them to keep the covenants they made, they were told, they acknowledged it when they entered into covenants such as baptism or they partook of the sacrament, you can of course not believe anymore but that doesn't change the fact that you were told and acknowledged, even made covenants about what God wants you to do, doesn't mean you weren't made aware just because you now believe its all bunk. If your Mom tells you to clean your room and you say, "Okay I hear you, I will" and then tell her later, "I'm not going to clean it, I'm not rebelling, I just don't believe anymore that you told me to." don't expect it to fly. I'm not saying such people are beyond hope or what have you (I'm in open rebellion against God every time I break a commandment, this isn't some super elite descriptor), just they are going against the will of God, and they were taught (and all of them at some point acknowledged, unless of course they lied) what that will was. Helaman 8:25 says this, "But behold, ye have rejected the truth, and rebelled against your holy God" I think its safe to say that the Judges that Helaman was talking to didn't have a burning testimony that what they were doing was wrong at the time they did it. What they did have was having been taught what they should be doing in the past. Rejecting the truth, aka not believing anymore does not mean you can't rebel. I know that this doesn't prove the concept in an objective way, I'm just saying it isn't a new one and it isn't something I'm making up. Its kinda like saying Israel when they apostatized never actually rebelled against God because if they believed in Baal they didn't believe in Jehovah. Also remember we are talking about people who are, or at least at some point were members of the church and thus where taught God's will, little Timmy in the heart of the Amazon is a whole different story.

Impoliteness or societal norms are irelevant. Its not a question as to wether it is polite, but wether I am pushing my beleifs on them and I still maintain no more so than they are doing it to me (how my refusal to provide X is somehow worse than their demand to provide X I don't know). However you've made your point, if somebody wants to do something and I don't help them I'm pushing my beliefs on them, fine. I beleive that insisting that I provide you with something I'm morally opposed to is pushing your beliefs on me. I guess we're at an impasse. *shrug* Doesn't matter what X is, from bacon, coffee to pornography and everything in between. I doubt you'd maintain if there existed a country where it was impolite not to watch pornography with your guests that not doing so is pushing your beliefs off on somebody else, or maybe you would and say that's perfectly fine (to push your beliefs). *shrug* I wasn't exactly going into it either, it's called a disclaimer, you say a store owner can sell what ever they want and somebody pops up and says, "He can't sell heroin and slaves!" Either not wanting to be involved in selling or distrubuting something one is morally opposed to is forcing your beleifs on somebody or it isn't. Doesn't matter if its the CEO or the clerk. Doesn't matter if its cigerettes or slaves or a PG-13 movie you think is inappropriate. Preventing them from obtaining it is, but not providing is not the same as preventing. I'm probably driving you batty because I won't stick to just coffee or what have you, but in my mind we are discussing principles and principles are something that can be applied to a variety of situations. Silly != pushing beliefs off on others. For the record I'd think he'd be silly as well, I just don't think he would be pushing his beliefs off on anyone.

I'm not sure about simply, but yes it is. At least I can't see any reason to renounce them unless you changed your mind from when you made them, if you hadn't changed your mind you'd still be holding to them wouldn't you? I suppose the wait would have better been left out, like I said that wasn't my intent. Whether one thinks it has the authority or not is irelevant. It does or it doesn't, it either has the authority granted from God (not granted from people's belief) or it doesn't. This is like saying a cop only has authority to pull me over if I believe he does, a cop either has the authority granted it by the law or it doesn't, belief has no bearing on the matter same with the Church except as mentioned the authority comes from God not the government. Said people, as far as I know, were not commanded by God where aware of said commandment then make a covenant with God by sacred ordinaces performed by the proper priesthood authority to listen to the missionaries, if they had then yes they would be rebelling against God. If the telemarketer was God and I had made a covenant with him to remain interested for eternity then yes I would. It isn't a hard concept. God tells you to do X, you knowing that he has told you to do X and you don't do so, you are rebelling against him just as if your parents told you to clean up your room, you heard them and then didn't do so except the consequences are a little more significant.

If you want, I personally wouldn't make somebody a cup of coffee at home, I've been required on the job to do so ( however if I didn't want to be in that situation I didn't have to take the job and there is nothing wrong with that), but make your own dang cup. Furthermore, insisting that I make you something in the comfort of my own home that I am morally opposed to makes you an insensitive cad. I'm curious, would have have qualms with insiting a Rabbi make you a BLT in his own home? I would. If he refuses he's forcing his beliefs on you? Heck I wouldn't be a jerk and bring the bacon into his home in the first place, he isn't depriving me of agency, I'm still free eat a BLT in my own home, or insist and get kicked out. Agency means choosing for yourself, not selecting your consequences (generally people will select none negative) or demanding that people enable you to choose certain things. So your agency to eat a BLT is intact as is the Rabbi's to not make you one. I don't either, if you look back in the thread you'll see this particular sentiment coming from me. I also see nothing wrong with somebody not working a job that has them doing something they don't want to do. What I do take issue with is the idea that if I refuse to work a job that would put me in a position to do something I don't want to do is forcing my beliefs on other people that I have a problem with. You didn't answer the question. If I open a store and don't sell tabacco am I forcing people to keep the Word of Wisdom, am I forcing my beleifs on them? A store owner is free to sell or not sell what ever he wants (within the constraints of the law). Nobody is required to do a job (just as not business is required to provide a particular service), if I think cars are evil and so I don't work for GM I'm not forcing people to not manufacture or purchase and use cars nor am I making them believe they are evil, I'm simply not contributing to what I consider to be a problem. There is a huge gap between, "I don't want to sell cigerettes and as such won't work a job that puts me in that position" and, "You aren't allowed to smoke and I'm gonna prevent you from doing so."

OtterPop, you're arguing the premise, which is fine but irrelevant to the question I quoted. Obviously if it isn't God's will that you be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints than not being so isn't going contrary to his will (aka rebelling), in fact if it is God's will that you be Catholic than every Catholic convert to the LDS Church (and possibly every non-Catholic) is rebelling against God's will. Of course the people making the comments you are refering to aren't operating from that premise. It's pretty simple, if God's will is X and you aren't doing X and you know you should be doing X then you are in open rebellion against God. If what you think X is and if it is in fact what X truly is, is a whole 'nother animal. I never said you were. I never touched why one would change one's mind whether such reason are flippant or extended emotional, spiritual and mental energy went into the decision. When you are baptized you state you beleived the Church was true and agree to follow its tenants forever, when you remove your name from the records you are stating such is no longer the case, or in other words you are changing your mind as to whether you believe it true and whether you are going to follow its tenants forever. I was trying to be brief which may have communicated something I wasn't intending, I didn't (still don't) have the time or patience to write an internal dialog categorizing every reason why one might have changed their mind flippant or agonized over so I didn't and included them all under changing ones mind. No I didn't. Because whether one beleives the church is true is completely independant of wether it is true*. If its true its rebellion, if it isn't it isn't. Obviously those who have a testimoney of the church are going to be arguing from the position that it is just like those who don't aren't. See my first comment in this post to OtterPop. The Pope considers I'm a poor wayward soul who isn't a member of the true church, I don't agree with that but I can certainly understand why he thinks so, it isn't mystifying why. I really don't understand the confusion. * I'm assuming you mean to ask, "How can you accuse somebody who doesn't believe the Church is true of rebellion?" because I don't see anyone who doesn't believe the Church is true arguing that its rebellion to leave.

I don't agree with that. If say George opens up a grocery store and doesn't sell tobacco or what not is he forcing others to keep the Word of Wisdom? If Bob opens a porn shop and calls a temp company and the temp hire (when called by the agency he works for) refuses to man the store is he forcing his beliefs on other people? Now if he prevents somebody else from maintaining the servers that would be a problem.

I'm now having mental images of a Stake President getting up to the podium and flashing gang signs.

Well its Christ's Church (you may or may not believe it but the people making the comments do) so severing your connections with it, saying, "I no longer want to be baptized by proper priesthood authority" or "I don't want to follow the council of the Prophet of God and others duly called" when Christ has commanded one to (once again you may or may not believe this but the people making the comments do) so I'm not gonna and I don't care if I covenanted to do so is rebellion. Christ, "Come, join my church and live these commandments." Person, "Okay, I covenant to do so." Person, "Wait, I change my mind, I'm not gonna do what you have commanded me and invited me and which I furthermore covenanted to do." Its rebellion. You can argue the premise (that God wants to you be LDS and keep your covenants) but the conclusion is sound within its paradigm* [aside]There are lots of ways to rebel, a member watching pornography is in open rebellion to God's revealed will as well. Or one who decided to go watch a movie on Sunday, or who smokes/drinks or what have you.[/aside]

You can also just dump their clothes on their bed, this might not work depending on the ages involved. I'm a whites and colors washer I've never had reds washed in cold bleed unto other stuff, this includes beige and yellow towels being washed with red ones. As far as everyone going through towels so much I think its because most bathrooms don't have room to hang more than one or two towels so if 4 people use the bathroom that means three end up in the hamper. If you had enough hanging space you could assign towels and tell them they have to use them 3 days in a row or what have you before they get a clean one, good luck with that. If your couch is comfortable you can suggest if she loves the variety so much she can wash, fold and store the extra.

Just what is it exactly she's trying to avoid, the holding of the council or the attending of it? If its the latter all she has to do is not go, of course that shows a certain lack of a repentant spirit but less so than getting ones named removed.

I dunno about that, the money is a handout, in no way is GM entitled to it and I'd say the government can attach restrictions (now whether those restrictions make sense is another matter), if they want to say no money until the company name is changed to "We can't stay in business to save our lives" its still up the GM as to whether they meet the conditions or not so it is up to to GM as to whether the CEO steps down. Now if Obama was writing Executive Orders that GM's CEO step down or face the wrath of the US Government or some such that would be something else entirely.

Considering some of the 'prophecy' associated with Y2K (while not ascending some did talk like the world would descend into a different state) my imaginary future still has a possibility, though admittedly small. Thanks for the heads up on the prophecy though, I honestly wasn't aware of that bit.

I recall a letter read from the pulpit where we were told that parents shouldn't drag their children up and tell them what to say just so they could bear their 'testimony', if such kids of their own volition want to get up and bear their testimony without coaching that's fine however. That kinds sums up my thoughts on the matter as well even if I'm misremembering the letter.

Oh good, its actually funny. When Pam asked for clarification I started worrying I was passing on misinformation about Buddhism and telling a unfunny joke to boot. I like the vacuum cleaner one. :)

Is your position the following, I have forgiven, but the pain still lingers and are asking what you can do about it? Are you asking why did this happen to me? Something else entirely? Am I being obtuse?

To give some context to Pam's question it was my attempt to explain the joke: A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and say, "Make me one with everything." The way you are describing karma to my mind makes me think of electrons, one picks them up and they are part of what we are and positive electrons (aka positrons) combined with electrons kinda cancel each other out.

The whole 2012 is based on it being the latest the Mayan calander goes isn't it? At least that's one explanation I've heard. I wonder if some people far in the future are going to dig up a computer from the 90s, find that internal calendar stops at 1999 and assume that is when we thought the world was gonna end. Or that we thought we would time travel to 1900 on New Years 1999.

I don't see why not, music is music doesn't matter if its from a piano or a pile of electronics. Leadership may balk at the idea of it for Sacrament but you could definitely get away with it for classes (As they are a lot less formal). Of course in the end there isn't anything wrong with A capella.

Or they aren't recognizing the answer, or their trial of faith is not over. My council would be to keep trying. Also knowing and knowing that you know are two different things. (See Elder Callister's talk Knowing That We Know).

Most certainly if one was truly Molly Mormon. [Aside]Of course one can appear one way and be another. The gal who acts goody two-shoes but NCMOs like there is no tomorrow (or would that be an infinite amount of tomorrows?).[/aside] Well, the thing is kids can comprehend, "Cover up your body its sacred." at lot sooner than they can comprehend, "Don't act the whore/show off." Of course part of being a modest person is wearing modest clothing, so its kinda like saying teach them A+B=C not B+A=C. *shrug* You point is taken though, don't neglect all of what makes one modest in exclusive focus on 1/2 (or what ever fraction you prefer) of it.

What you need is a player organ/piano. Actually it'd probably be funny to see the reaction on everyone's faces if you busted out a boom box for accompaniment.

Oh, I didn't think you were. I almost put in an aside to my post about how I think you get misconstrued due to how you present yourself, I guess I shouldn't have opted not to. I think the issue is that people talk about modesty you pipe up with, "It isn't just about clothing!" and people see, "It isn't about clothing!" before you know it everyone has been pigeonholed and everyone is arguing against each other's strawmen. Them screaming, "Clothing does matter!" and you, "Behavior can make something otherwise modest immodest!" Well, the thing is swimming suits are considered inmodest if you aren't swimming in them. My understanding of modest clothing is that it covers your garments or would do so should you be wearing them. Now obviously the church has voiced that clothing in one situation since it is suited to the performance of a task is exempt from the usual standards nobody thinks twice when somebody duffs their garments and puts on a sleeveless jersey or a wifebeater to play basketball but such would otherwise fall into the immodest category, same with just being in swimming trunks. So the question is all about just what is considered acceptable for dance. As for what I would do, I think part would have to do with the dance but my gut reaction is no. That said if it was truly that imporant to my child I'd be willing to pray about it. Of course a *bad* girl assuming she didn't assume a suggestive demeanor would be just as immodest/modest. If good LDS girl went out and slept with the football team and thought dirty thoughts all day long it wouldn't change the effect the outfit had on her modesty (either neutral or negative depending on how you view it), what would do it is if either of them gave an immitation lap dance during the play which would adjust the modesty 'quotient'. I'm not sure I'm communicating things very well. Lets say action A is a modesty quotient of 5, lets say the suit is -1, so doing action A with suit leaves one at 4. Now lets say action B is modesty quotient -5 and lets say a nice dress is +2 the end result is -3. That having been said people have different views of just where the line is drawn, a burka is more modest than a t-shirt and jeans but nobody (outside of some fundementalist) is going to call the t-shirt and jeans immodest (assuming they aren't skin tight). Hopefully this is fairly recent or there is some hyperbole at work here. Change heart to actions/behavior and I'm with you, a hooker in the same dress as Molly Mormon walking down the street in the exact same manor (i.e. not trying to poledance without a pole) as aforementioned Molly Mormon is equally modest. Yes I'm aware there are aspects of modesty in thought but that's an internal matter, Bubba thinking of porn walking down the street doesn't effect whether his outfit is modest in the slightest.