selek

Classylady ain't the only one. I put between 20 and fifty thousand words a month on the page (mostly for sci-fi). I gotta get started again- and stick with the journal this time.

Hyena, My ex-wife's granparents served three separate missions: to Germany, New Zealand, and Australia once they (he) retired from the Air Force. So, contrary to what you might be assuming, you are not forbidden from serving a mission- but the Church feels (as a general rule) that our priorities between a certain age should be more domestic in nature (job, home, family, etc.). I, too, converted at a point too late to be able to serve a mission: moreover, I married my way out of the opportunity (picking an LDS girl with three kids to make my wife). The impulse is not uncommon among new converts- but the advice you've been given thus far is sound: this is a matter of policy, not doctrine. Go talk to your Bishop (the First Presidency has been known to make exception where the Spirit warrants). If the Lord truly wants you in the mission field, then he will make that will known to his servants.

All teasing aside- what is your concern, Hyena? I don't mean to belittle your thoughts, only to express my concern that you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

We knew you'd be back. After all the Prophet John once sang, "Strawberry Fields forever".

Freak. Everyone knows ducks should be made out of chocolate- just like easter bunnies.

If they're like the ones we see on DesNews and the SaltLakeTribulation, I would say not.

I would suggest that it really doesn't matter- though that is hands-down the most unique question I've seen in nearly a decade of amatuer apologetics. Bravo Zulu! The only reason to do so would be to acknowledge that this is indeed a prayer- a sacred communication between the servants of Christ and their Lord. So long as you are aware of and respectful of the significance of the moment, then that is sufficient in my book. A somewhat extreme example of the phenomenon would be to ask if you also bow your head when Charlton Heston prays in the Ten Commandments? Or is it enough to know what that moment represents- both within the context of the movie and within the context of filmmaking?

I am torn between agreeing with you and decrying the utter futility of such a conversation. There has been not a single instance in the history of the Church (in this dispensation or any other) in which doctrine has been changed. Policy, on occasion. Internal guidelines, certainly- but the wish/hope/desire that doctrine be changed to suit our whims is akin to wishing that ducks were made out of bacon. It just ain't gonna happen- not so long as the Church is what it claims to be.

Thank you Eowyn. Your response was far productive than my initial impulse to suggest asbestos underwear and lightning proof boots.

Government math? I counted nine instances of the phrase- each linked to a separate point.

These statements are contradictory. You would not be seeking to avoid the Church if you didn't believe it was having a negative effect in your life. People don't avoid chocolate because they think it tastes too good- they avoid it because they believe it clings to their hips like spackle. People don't avoid excess sunlight because they think it will help their hair grow, they avoid it because they don't want to burn (short-term) or get skin cancer (long-term). So- what are the negative effects you believe the Church is having/causing in your life? For the record, I can find people who believe that short-term oxygen deprivation, and short-term bleeding (with leeches) are also therapuetic.As a general rule, we call these people "quacks". These words are famous.They rank right up there with such memorable phrases as "The check is the the mail", "All I want is one kiss", "Sure I'll respect you in the morning", and "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Don't delude yourself: we are creatures of inertia. If you make excuses to neglect your covenants now, you will make similar excuses in the future (I know- I'm currently working on the 487th edition of my litany of excuses). Wow! Hadn't heard that one since the seventies (when "finding yourself" generally meant consequence free sex in a common near Bezerkely). If I had to guess, I'd suspect it's probably the same reason why most of us avoid green vegetables, healthy exercise, and moderation on the topic of hot fudge sundaes."Because it's good for us". It's hard to get up every day and make the right decisions. It's hard to spend your time and energy denying yourself that extra Ding-Dong, the 486 oz Doctor Pepper, and that romp with the gigolo who looks Taylor Lautner's cute brother. It's hard to spend three hours of your day in an uncomfortable pew, on uncomfortable chairs, in crowded chapels with too many people all talking about the same thing. I mean- there's a Jerry Springer re-run on somewhere. And that's surely more entertaining than listening to a tale about some woman who crossed the plains with a handcart, eleven kids below the age of ten, and no husband to do his share of the work. Not to put too fine a point on this, but it sounds to me like you're suffering from both depression and from the aches and pains of the natural man.The former can be treated (and I suggest you talk to both your Relief Society President and to your Bishop), as well as your family doctor (if you have one). If it is depression, they can put you on the right path to a proper diagnosis and treatment. If it is not, they can provide you the support you need to muddle through. As noted above, change is hard. Sloth (and sinking back into our old habits) is much easier. But that temptation will not advance us within the kingdom. We will not achieve Christ's image in our countenance, nor will we achieve the fulness of the Gospel and of our talents which he desires for us. The only other advice I can offer is that which I have offered before: find someone to serve. Help out at the DI, at the Bishop's Storehouse, at the Cannery. Help out at a soup kitchen. Visit an invalid or shut-in, babysit for another sister who's about to go out of her mind with stress. There is nothing which helps us shoulder our own loads quite like bearing the burdens of another. I cannot reject this notion with enough vehemence without resorting to German (which I do not speak).God is always there- and always listening- for the penitent heart, the questing soul, and the earnest seeker of his love and his truth. Leaving the Church would be a fundamental and wholly avoidable mistake, but it is NOT "turning your back on God". He WILL listen, and he WILL speak to you (even if it's not what you want to hear). I will keep you in my prayers that you find the peace and the comfort of the Spirit which you need. Know that other sisters (and even brothers such as myself) have faced- and will face- similar struggles.

What surprises me, Anatess, is that you would be surprised.From about 1910 to about 1939, there was a surprising amount of political energy expended in celebrating the wonderful new ideas and social theories coming out of places like Russia, Italy, and Germany (and Margaret Sanger's head). Members of this movement- from Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh to the Kennedy clan and Franklin Roosevelt were lavish in their fulsome praise of the ideas being tried out in Berlin, Tokyo, Leningrad, and Rome. Even into 1942 and '43, there were major American players who insisted that we were fighting the wrong people. That having been established, I cannot help but wonder why you feel the ideological heirs of Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy, and Roosevelt might not make the same mistake as regards to Castro, Guevara, Chavez, and Ahminejad. The times change- but the rhetoric and the dance of moths to the flame remains the same.

Wise words. Perhaps YOU should consider them with the emphasis above. For all your words, for all your attempt to drown out and ignore the very real criticisms and flaws in your mantra, you have yet to address one fundamental truth. For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that the problem you are so busily decrying is endemic to the Church. For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a people, actually deny compassion to the penitent. For six pages now, you have yet to demonstrate that we, as a faith, are NOT compassionate and understanding. Your "say-so" is not good enough. Your claims to hold a Temple recommend carry no weight. Your (often contradictory) pretensions to high military rank are meaningless. (I personally don't care if you're the second coming of George S. Patton, you're still wrong). You are an anonymous critic on a message board, citing anti-Mormon propaganda in order to attack and belittle the Church as a whole. For six pages now, you have engaged in fault-finding, back-biting, and made blanket (and bigoted) claims against the Church and Mormon people as a whole- but you've provided zero evidence to support your claims. We don't know you from Adam- and you've given us no reason to take your shrill claims at face value. For six pages now, you have come here, offering us back-biting, gossip, rumor-mongering, and hysteria. For six pages now, you have ignored serious and substantive responses in favor of repeating your mantra. For six pages now, you have answered reason with shrill hyperbole. You have attacked our brethren viciously, and offered no proof to substantiate your claims. For six pages now, you have accused us- solely for the crime of not agreeing with you- of supporting and condoning brutality. For six pages now, you have accused us- simply because we will not bow and scrape before your idol- of turning our backs on the Lord and upon our brothers and sisters. And you have offered not a single shred of verifiable evidence to back up your claims. No names. No dates. No citations. Only the vague handwaing of "well, the critics say..." You have demonized us as a people, and as a faith, with bitter and hateful caricatures- and steadfastly ignored who we really are. We, as Latter-day Saints- we, as a people and a faith- are dedicated to bringing all men (and women) to God. It is our calling and commission to weep with those who mourn, to comfort the afflicted, and lift the downtrodden. We try very hard to do our best by our brothers and sisters. And yes- sometimes we fail. That does not- not for a moment- justify your shrill and hyperbolic rhetoric that the Church as a whole is in need of your correction. It does not- not for a moment- justify your implication that we as a people have failed to serve those who need our love and compassion. It does not- not for a moment- justify your hateful screed against the Brethren who are "on the frontlines" everyday trying to minister to their wards to the best of their abilities. You claim that there is a problem- but you have yet to demonstrate that it is so. You claim to have a solution- but ignore the very real reasons why "your solution" is both antithetical to the Gospel and might very well be worse than the condition you purport to be treating. And that is why we do not (and cannot) take you seriously.

Agreed.For my two-bits, it was that triumphal procession and the week which brought matters to a head. Jerusalem was the seat of Jewish religious and political power. The temple was the center of their cultural identity. That upstart Nazarene was defying them not in some backwater burg on the Sea of Galilee, but in the seat of their power. He was upstaging them where they lived- and the crowds were eating it up. It'd be like Navy hosting a pep rally on the green at Falcon Stadium (the Air Force Academy field) and having the AF cadets (and cheerleaders) rally to the party. The AF football team would go absolutely ape and the game the following night would be brutal. Jesus cleansing the Temple, preaching to the crowds, and receiving the adoration of the masses was something the Pharisees and other religious leaders could not countenance- not in their own living room. At that point (and in their own minds), they simply had nothing to lose.

I converted to the Church at roughly the same age as you- soI am inclined to agree with dahlia that these questions have little to do with age, but are more a matter of nature and nurture.I, too, have always been a rationale person with a strong tendency to seek out the nuts-and-bolts of how and why rather than just accepting things "as they are" or "as "the way they've always been". Short answers? Yes and yes.To be blunt, however, this isn't a dichotomy between those "born in covenant" and "those who converted later" or even between "the magical mind" and the "rational thinker". Those are false dichotomies. You complain that being asked to believe that God created the universe is aking to being asked to believe that it "just blinked into existence one day". Save for the noise and fireworks, how is that any different than believing that "nothing suddenly exploded into an infinite number of worlds, stars, and galaxies"? What you are dealing with can best be described (IMNSHO) as theological parallax- the dichotomy of trying to reconcile two different viewpoints of the same object. The bottom line is that whether you are talking about LDS theology or secular cosmology, you are inevitably going to have to take certain things on faith. Both Thomas S. Monson and Steven Hawking operate on unproven assumptions about the universe. For each man, their assumptions coincide with their overall philosophies and world-views. Each believes that their assumptions are perfectly reasonable given their past experiences and understanding of "how the universe works". When the question is asked, "Which of them is wrong?", the answer is "Yes". Each man can be justly accused of error- depending upon one's point of view. Modern philosophers and secular humanists would have you believe that religious faith and rationale thought are incompatible. That's rubbish. It is sectarian gate keeping- no different than the Protestants saying that the Catholics are the root of all evil, than the Catholics saying the Hindu's have no enlightenment to offer the seeking mind, or UofU graduates talking about women at BYU. You are not required to choose between "your faith" and "rationale thought"- but you will be required to "reorder your toybox" and to prioritize your assumptions. It's the same process you would face when confronting any new ideas or learning any new discipline. In the short term, you might find the following link of interest: Mormon Scholars Testify One final thought: For me, experience (and fact) trump theory every time they're tried. We have both experimented upon the "mustard seed" of faith, and seen our experiment blossom into a testimony that God lives. That result- that evidence/fact/experience/proof now trumps all mere theories to the contrary. It therefore becomes the foundation on which we must build the rest of our premise- weighing each new idea against what we now know to be true. Good luck in your journey.

Since no one else seems to be here to answer your question, I will violate my own resolution and do so. Those who repent- truly and sincerely, will be put on the path to repentance and forgiveness. There was an article in the Ensign (I cannot remember which GA authored it, nor the edition, nor even the title of the article), but the author testified about being called to counsel a couple who had sinned- as I recall, they slept together the night before their Temple sealing. They had carried that shame and guilt with them for decades- and yet had served honorable callings, (IIRC) raised sons who had served honorable missions, and children who were married in the Temple. They, too, were put on the path of repentance and forgiveness. It was not enough that they had lived decent and honorable lives of Christ-like service. They had to confess their sins before they could receive the assurance of forgiveness which they sought. But what an awful gamble they had taken! As the Scriptures clearly state, we are NOT to procrastinate the day of our repentance, nor to seek to justify or excuse our sins. Repentance, sincerely forsaking and abandoning our sins, and walking uprightly before the Lord are the only way that true repentance can be achieved. Any other path will lead only to disappointment, disillusionment, and spiritual death. As I recall, this couple was disfellowshipped for a time- but they had already borne that unnecessary burden for all those years.That was a punishment harsher than any their Bishop might have laid upon them had they confessed earlier. As has already been stated, THAT is where the path of repentance and forgiveness begins.Any other answer would mislead you. Finally, for the record, I apologize for my angry words above. It is very frustrating to see someone cling to their perceptions and refuse to address any of the arguments and statements which contradict their preconceptions. Your sin, however, does not justify mine- a point I have taken great pains to emphasize. Nor did I threaten you- (look up the word "rhetorical" and then contrast it with "literal"), nor did I deliberately insult you. You came here seeking validation for your position, not discussion. We cannot give it to you. You came here to "enligten" us, not to learn why your position might be wrong. I am heartily sorry that we cannot give you what you seek. Your premises are still wrong: - The Bishop is not there to mete out punishment, retribution, or justice, but to encourage true and sincere repentance. It is not his calling to excuse sin when convenient or politically correct, but to bring people (according to the best of his ability and judgement) into harmony with God. That a tiny minority might err or abuse their authority does not inavlidate the system, which was laid down by the Lord himself. HIS Church, HIS rules. - Discipline does not automagically equate to punishment. As a military man, you should be well acquainted with the difference between the two. You argued above that discipline should go hand-in-hand with counseling (where needed). In point of fact, I happen to agree. Yet the only evidence you have provided that this is NOT the case, is the hear-say testimony of avowed and open enemies of the Church. In point of fact, you have offered NO evidence whatsoever that the current system is, in fact, the problem. - Ignoring sins will not lead to redemption, nor to true healing and forgiveness. We are all sinners- myself no less so than any other. But pointing the fingers at our attackers, at the Church, or at some nameless faceless authority who didn't do things the way you wanted him to doesn't absolve us of responsibility for our sins. If you truly want to encourage people to find forgiveness for their sins and develop a real and lasting relationship with their Savior, then spreading anti-Mormon horror stories, and lowering the bar on sin are not the way to go about it. Better to teach them meekness, humility, patience, penitence and charity towards their brethren than that their sins are justified, or that they are somehow owed forgiveness because of wrongs done to them by others. We do our brothers and sisters no favors when we preach them any Gospel other than Christ's- and that means teaching them to repent and forsake their sins through the proper channels and in the proper way.

According to one woman with a demonstrable conflict of interest. As someone else pointed out, you have professed no first hand knowledge of these events. In other words, you are operating from the undemonstrated assumption (and we, as military men, both know the dangers of assumptions) that the only difference in these two cases was the threat of Church discipline.That assumption isn't thin ice- it's quicksand. As I (and others) have already stated- it's not your questions that are problematic- it's the underlying assumptions and agenda. There are three immediate problems with this statement (aside from the inflammatory rhetoric and judgemental and accusatory tone):1) you have no evidence that this was, in fact, what she received. Only her characterization of the process as such. 2) whether her behavior was a cry for help or not, she still knew it was wrong when she engaged in it. She CHOSE to sin- however she chooses to justify it now. 3) "well-served" is an entirely subjective standard and far too subject to opinion and back-biting. It is an attempt to shift the blame and responsibility for her decisions onto others. As was stated before, unless she was mentally incompetent at the time, she chose repeatedly to engage in actions she knew were sinful. Based solely upon her conduct, she was an "unrepentant serial fornicator" (your rhetoric, not mine). Sugar-coating it and pointing fingers at others won't change that ugly truth. In other words, you are blameless in this regard- and we'd all be having a kumbaya moment if all those darn Mormons would just agree with you.You know- playing the victim doesn't seem becoming for an Army Ranger- silly beret not withstanding. Except that you are arbitrarily defining our disagreement with your proposition as "indifference".The only standard by which we can be adjudged "compassionate" is to adopt your new found wisdom and go forth proclaiming the Gospel According to Gree0232. Sorry, but that's not discussion and it's not compassion. It's demagoguery- and we are under no compunction to play along. I might suggest that you do the same.The keywords in the Scripture you cited are "IF HE REPENT". Not "unconditional forgiveness", not "get out of jail free", not "blame everyone else for your choices". IF HE REPENT. You would have us arbitrarily and prejudicially grant anyone who has sinned a free pass if they can prove they had a trauma in their lives. Unless its a severe trauma to the head that leaves them mentally incompetent, it just doesn't work that way. In point of fact, I DO know the courage it takes to repent of serious sin.I DO know the shame and embarrassment of not being able to pass the Sacrament, or offer blessings upon my childrens heads, and I DO know just how hard it can be to face down and disapppoint someone you respect and whose good opinions you seek. I DO know the terror of confessing sins that might lead to excommunication. I've BEEN there. But arbitrarily and unlawfully excusing sin will not redeem us in the eyes of the Lord, nor will it allow us, as sinners, to become the Saints God would have us be. Then perhaps you ought to be working on your own testimony instead of lecturing us about all that is "wrong" with the current processes.Because if you cannot tell this woman that she is a beloved daughter of God, and that despite whatever sins she has committed or wrongs were done to her, she is precious both in his sight and in ours, then you are unworthy of your Priesthood Commission. If there is nothing that you can offer this sister except justification for her pride and resentment, then there is nothing you can offer us, either. And with that, I am done in this thread. I have been asked to watch my tone, and I'm coming perilously close (even in my own mind) to braiding a rhetorical cord and overturning the moneychangers tables.

Gree- you seem to be laboring under a lot of false impressions- and a LOT of unjustified hostility- about what "counseling with one's Bishop" means and what it does not. Several times now, you have leapt to the assumption that going to the Bishop will AUTOMAGICALLY result in shame, denigration, and castigation. You have also insisted- despite repeated warnings to the contrary- on equating discipline (and by extension, repentance) with punishment. No faithful LDS on these boards would suggest that "just seeing the Bishop" is "the" solution, let alone that it represenents the entirety of the solution. As was pointed out at least once already, the Bishop is there to facilitate the repentance process, not provide absolution. So long as you persist in cartoon-caricature descriptions of the process, and upon painting the Bishop as some sort of Lord-High-Chamberlain interested only in meteing out vengeance upon the guilty, you are going to be less-than-satisfied with the results you get. Get serious about what is under discussion- and get the chip off your shoulder- and you'll get a far different response. There are three things you need to come to grips with before this conversation will be profitable: 1) Seeing the Bishop is the first step in a process of repentance, not punishment. The Bishop has the means and the resources to get people the help they need, both temporally and spiritually. But they have to want that help, and they have to be prepared to see it through. 2) Being a victim of abuse does NOT deprive a person of the responsibility for their actions, decisions, or the consequences of their own behavior. The fact that I was abused and have suffered tragedies in my life does not obviate my responsibility for my own choices. Victimhood might mitigate some of the factors in our decision-making, but it does not serve as a "get out of responsibility free card". Best get that notion out of your mind right now. Even if we accept the premise that her promiscuity was a "coping mechanism" which allowed her to deal (however ineffectively) with the trauma she suffered, she still chose to engage in acts which she knew were sinful and contary to the commandments and the covenants she made. Unless you are arguing that she was clinically insane and no longer knew "right" from "wrong", she chose to commit those acts. Part of her repentance process must then include acknowledging her own agency, repenting of, and forsaking that behavior. It would be inappropriate- and contrary to both eternal law and our calling and commission to simply absolve her of actions she knew were wrong even as she committed them. 3) Your friend's decision to leave the Church is her own responsibility. She made that decision, however she chooses to justify it. Not her attackers, not her Bishop, and not the members. If the road she travels "leads to Hell" as you put it above, it was NOT because she "went to the Bishop" or did not- but because she has chosen to allow these trials stand between her and the Church, and between her and the Gospel. I wish your friend well, and I hope and pray that she receives the help that she needs. But it is an inescapable principle of eternal law that mercy cannot rob justice- nor can our sorrow for her suffering absolve her of actions she freely chose to commit.

An update: University Apologizes for Stomping Jesus - Todd Starnes - A small victory for religious liberty and for genuine tolerance and respect- but a victory nonetheless.

Dahlia, the problem is that the request itself is a deliberate and inappropriate provocation.There are a thousand ways in which they could have triggered this sort of discussion- none of which involve blaspheming or profaning the name of Christ. Despite BadWolf's claims to the contrary (and until he provides references for his claims they remain speculation), it is simply unthinkable that modern Academia would perform a similar thought experiment using the name "Mohammed", "Obama", or even "Sotomayor". By their own admission, this was a deliberate attempt to get "a rise out of people"- supposedly with the intent of "fostering discussion". They were looking for a reaction- and are now they are unhappy with the reaction they got. They claimed to have been "fostering discussion"- but when the student opened one, he was arbitrarily shut down and summarily suspended from the class. This is prima facia evidence that- if they ever DID want a discussion- they only wanted a specific outcome. One has to ask: what is the point of having "a conversation" if only one conclusion is acceptable? Is it really "a dialogue", if only one opinion can be held as "valid"? As would I. I am a firm believer in the old axiom that sunlight is the best disinfectant.It would be interesting to turn a spotlight on this course and this methodology and see what- and who- goes scurrying for the cracks and the dark spaces. I agree. But to me this is a binary solution set: 1) either the student was suspended because he engaged in (heretofore unreported) disruptive, violent, or abusive behavior as a result of the lesson. --OR-- 2) he was suspended in a deliberate act of viewpoint censorship, which gives the lie to the university's professed interest in diversity and academic freedom. It is possible that the reality lies somewhere between the two, but I'm not holding my breath. I agree- but in the interim, it never hurts to make people aware of the incident, of the trend, and of the danger.Martin Niemöller was a very sharp cookie. Also for the record (and I've already stated this clearly once before), I do not believe that this is part of "a big anti-Mormon conspiracy". That particular phrase was introduced into this thread as a bit of well-poisoning; an attempt to dismiss a serious incident and a serious discussion as a bit of "Chicken-little, the-sky-is-falling-hysteria". When one has no recourse to facts, mockery and derision are easy (if somewhat more cumbersome) substitutes.

Call For References, please. Please provide a citation, course guideline, or lesson plan in which students are asked/taught/required to mock belittle or denigrate "Gay Marriage", "Martin Luther King" or any of the other leftist hobby horses in a comparable manner. I don't believe for a moment that you can. Your say-so isn't good enough. The article which I cited in the OP not only references and quotes from the specific lesson plan, we also have a statement from the University confirming and reaffirming it. Only an equivalent source will be sufficient to affirm your claims.

Taking this event in isolation, I would agree. Unfortunately, this event does not exist "in isolation"- it is part of a far larger pattern.

How do you eat an entire elephant? One bite at a time. If the laborer is truly worthy of his hire, he labors diligently, regardless of the enormity of the task...

Because the system is rather stingy in only allowing you to either "laugh" or "thank" a particular post, I chose to go with the former.I would have much preferred an "all of the above" option. Welcome to the boards. I appreciate your thoughts and insights here.

You are correct- it wasn't stated explicitly.The fact that they expected the bills to be paid in their absence at least suggests that appropriate arrangements (such as automatic deductions from their account) had been made. On the other points and particulars, I agree with you completely. This is a non-story that doesn't particularly merit the interest- or the sympathy- afforded it.