selek

No one is assuming a "vast anti-Mormonism conspiracy", Little. Kindly resist the urge to beat up on strawmen. No conspiracy has been suggested- nor is one required. Trends and fads do not require leadership or direction to take hold of the popular imagination: only the sense that such things are fashionable. The fact remains that anti-Christian dogma and prejudices are on the rise in our society, and that we, as Christians, represent an easy and acceptable target for prejudice. Unless we resist this particularly noxious tide (and perhaps whether or not we resist it) we shall see more of it- to the detriment of our faith, our society, and our personal liberties.

Maureen, I would remind you, ever so gently, of Rule #6 of the forum guidelines, and ask that you not attempt to tempt me more than I can bear. The moderators made their decision, I will leave it at that. Gwen, I flatly disagree with your argument. While I, too, understand what the lesson plan was meant to convey and the sort of "thought processes" it was intended to stir up, the bottom line is the inescapable fact that the authors went straight for the nuclear option- insisting that the students face and perhaps commit what is widely considered an act of blasphemy. There were no half-measures here- no middle ground. Their "opening act" was a gesture guaranteed to be offensive to a specific segment of the population: believing Christians. By your own admission (and theirs), this was a deliberate, premeditated provocation. It is not excused because they "hoped it would fail". The fact is that it was targeted at a specific audience for one reason only: because that audience is an acceptable target. Imagine- if only for a moment, the howls of outrage that would have erupted had the students been instead asked to write and then stomp on the words "Gay Marriage". There would be protests in the streets, riots, destruction of property and violent assaults. The press would be having a field day and the school would be falling all over itself to apologize..and no one would care a whit that the point of the lesson was to make people "stop and think". The same thing would be true if the students had written "Muhammed", "Obama", "Martin Luther King" or any of a host of other protected a/o politically correct slogans and names. No- whatever the author's "intent"- this was a lesson in acceptable prejudices and in who constitutes legitimate targets for mockery and bigotry. Your idea that this lesson was somehow intended to get the students to think outside the box is given the lie by the fact that this student was punished for his lack of conformity and his failure to genuflect upon command.

To quote a friend of mine: "Pictures or it didn't happen.":p

Yeah- I caught that part. You also said you woke up to a headline/caption on the subject, so I was wondering what/where you saw it. My take on the issue is the same as Anatess's: a reporter taking the then-Cardinal's statement as some sort of sooth-saying about the future.That's not reporting- that's editorializing and attempting to wag-the-dog. Still, assuming the policy does change, it might be a good thing, or not: As I understand it (and StephenVR or others may correct me at their leisure), the Catholic Church has had a hard time recruiting a new generation of priests, which has led to the laity assuming a more involved role. In theory, at least, an easing of the celibacy requirements might help alleviate that problem. On the other hand, it might also fundamentally alter the nature of the Catholic priesthood. As any leader (military or civilian) can attest, those who are "married to their job" (in this case, priests and nuns who are "married to the Church") tend to be more focused, more mission-oriented, and less distracted than their counterparts with flesh-and-blood wives and children. For my own "expert" opinion (no refunds given), I think the only real negative effect would be among those who assumed that their agitation spurred the change, rather than inspiration from On High. IMNSHO, the appearance/perception that the Church caved on this matter would be just as damaging, IMO, as an actual capitulation.

Citation? Unless/until we hear something official from the Vatican, it sounds to me either like wishful thinking or a clueless press type trying to strong-arm the Vatican into yielding to modern "sensibilities". There's been a lot of that in the press lately, mostly from lapsed-Catholics who have placed their politics ahead of their faith. From Peggy Fletcher Stack to the BSA "policy change" to E.J. Dionne demanding that the Church elect a female "pope", there have been a lot of self-indulgent idiots out their trying to create headlines in order to "create" the sort of changes they'd like to see. They seem to have forgotten that their job is to report the news, rather than create it.

Pam cited (without attribution) the following statement in this thread: This is no idle warning, as the following demonstrates: Professor Makes Students “Stomp on Jesus†- Todd Starnes - Page 1 Unless we stand up and resist this particular tide, this is the future: a society in which religious belief and religious integrity are mocked, belittled, and dismissed simply because they are religious in nature. While it masquerades under the banners of "reason" and "tolerance", it is- at its core- the very epitome of unreasoning intolerance and bigotry. Faith and religion are being redefined as the unacceptable "other"- the alien and foreign which are acceptable targets for mockery, derision, scorn, and abuse. This new movement does not seek to evaluate ideas based on their merits, but to reject and dismiss them based solely upon their origin. It seeks not to judge ideas by their results, but by their ideological purity. Although it is championed by those who profess love and tolerance, this is exactly the same strain of intolerance and derision which leads to book-bannings and book-burnings. It is the same vein of intolerance and self-righteous tribalism that saw Mormons, Native Americans, African-Americans, and a hundred host of others disenfranchised, deprived of their rights, and driven and abused by torchlight and at the hands of mobocrats and demagogues. This is the battle we face, and the choice that we make. When we tolerate the intolerable, and look the other way at the unacceptable, we become agents in its spread.

It may seem off-topic, but I saw the following and was inspired to link it for you. Courage also means having the strength to remember that you are a daughter of God, just as was Esther. Yes- you have erred badly. Yet you have also displayed the courage and integrity to begin making it right with the Lord. If HE will forgive you, who then can condemn you?

Kloud, you miss the point: whether with the sort of ark-steadying under discussion in this thread, or with one's adherence to the coming State religion, to choose between that which is of God and that which is not. Far too many Christians- and far too many Latter-day Saints in particular- are more worried about the praise and approval of the fallen world than about what is right in the Lord's sight. The quote was not being used to define arksteadying as paganism, but to illustrate that more and more, we will be called upon to choose between Heavenly Father and his servants, and those who serve Babylon. This is as it has always been: but things are coming to a head in our generation (and perhaps dispensation). The phrase "Choose this day whom you will serve" is not an empty challenge. It is the crucible within which our mettle is tested, and the fulcrum upon which our salvation will pivot.

Sounds like the glitch in H&R's software resulted in their refund being delayed. Because the refund was not deposited, the automatic payments defaulted, resulting in the electronic version of bounced checks (and the associated fees and penalties) which drained their accounts further. It's H&R Block's fault because their software error caused the delay, but the couple's fault for spending money they were expecting, intead of having in-hand.

For the record, I was going to say, "Wait! You have sides!?!" But when I did that to my MIL she and my ex took it as a crack about her weight. ... Thank God for the Witness Protection Program...

MINE are.... (...except for the cookie list. When I get REALLY ticked off, I stop baking...)

Wait! There's a difference? Why aren't I told these things in advance?

Whooaaa!!!! Duuude!!!! DO NOT scroll past that previous image too quickly!

<Channelling my inner optometrist> Better? Or Worse?

Melissa, I don't want you or Kristin/Keyoshi to get the wrong idea. Not to rain on your parade, or to pull the bloom off the rose, but Latter-day Saints are sinners- and we can be every bit as pretentious, boring, abstract, and obtuse as any other denomination. Yes, we try to keep our services short-and-to-the-point, and we try especially hard to focus on the basics. That having been said, you've yet to sit through the twenty-minute travelogue from the good sister who's family just finished vacationing in France, Italy, Spain, and Arkansas. You've yet to sit through the forty minute talk by the Stake High Councilman who uses his battle with bunions as an analogy to illustrate Gospel truths. We won't even get into the idiot who babbled for fifteen minutes about how the Temple was like his grandmother's house (muddy boots and dirty faces need not apply)....gotta revise that talk one of these days. There are also those who complain that our focus on the basics- the milk, as it were, prevents us from exploring the loftier concepts (the meat of the Gospel, to continue the analogy). I, for one, have never found that to be true- but the complaints are there nonetheless. Yes- there is much beauty, great simplicity, and eternal Pearls of Great Price to be found amidst an LDS congregation. You will also find the venal, the pedantic, the clueless, and the thoughtless amongst our ranks. Be prepared to take the good with the bad, and keep your focus on the Savior and upon HIS will for you, rather than what Sister Such-and-such believes about hemlines, or that Brother So-and-so believes that rooting for any team other than BYU is a sin tantamount to denying the Holy Ghost. The bottom line is that you will take home from Church what you put into it, and perhaps a bit more. I promise you- if the seeds you sow are those of earnest worship of the Lord, of forgiveness, meekness, long-suffering patience, and charity unfeigned, your harvest will be bountiful beyond all measure.

A new one? How thoughtful! The old one was getting kinda tatty.... Taken- one trusts- in the spirit in which it was intended....

That's right.You do your job and let me do mine.

As someone else has in their tag line, "Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car". "Active" is a very broad category- the only qualification is having one's butt in a pew two Sundays out of four... ...but you're quite right; one should expect a certain decorum, a certain level of integrity and of character from those who profess to take upon them the name of Christ. ...until one considers that Christ himself was betrayed by those disciples closest to him: betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter, and doubted by Thomas. Even as Latter-day Saints, we are still fallen and imperfect. We WILL fall short of the glory of God, and we WILL disappoint, wound, and even betray those closest to us. Our only hope lies not in our attaining perfection- but in struggling towards redemption. God does not EXPECT me to be perfect: but he DOES expect me to TRY. If you look at the Gospel as a whole, there is no provision for those who keep the law perfectly. Neither the Law, nor the Atonement, nor Mercy have any claim on such a person. He or she is alien to the reality in which we dwell. The Gospel of Christ, the Atonement, Our entire faith is geared towards those who have- and who will- fall short of the perfection demanded by Eternal Law. I would wager that none of those Latter-day Saints who are now incarcerated awoke one morning with the intent to do evil. I sincerely doubt that any of them took a single leap from "Saint" to "sinner"- their corruption was invariably slow and incremental- like rust or mold. It started small, and inch-by-inch, finger-by-finger, compromise-by-compromise, they slowly loosened their grip on the iron rod. Once they found themselves "in the hole" they kept digging in the hopes of digging themselves out- until the pit collapsed on them. Even this, of course, is a mercy. Having ripened in iniquity- and having been called to atone for their crimes- they now have the opportunity to truly repent and forsake their sins.

Honest answer? Start showing up regularly. The rest will take care of itself. There was a period of roughly 36 months following my divorce in which I was very angry with the Church and with God. While I did not renounce or denounce the Church, neither did I attend or work to teach or proclaim the Gospel. It was a very dark period of my life. When I began to relent and repent- and to let go of my anger- I returned to a new ward and to new people. I was welcomed just like any other visitor or new member, and forged new friendships and fellowships from there. So, too, will it be with you. As someone who has been in your shoes, I offer the following: The Church is a hospital for the afllicted, not a resort for the perfected. Everyone you will meet has their own regrets, their own might-have-beens, and their own I-shoulda-done-that-differentlies. The members of your ward will see you and accept you as a fellow supplicant- a guest at Christ's table- every bit as beloved and as welcome as they are. Please try to offer them the same grace and patience as Christ has extended to you unto your new brethren and sisters (I know, it's harder sometime than others), but it will be worth it. Welcome back!

Short answer? Yes. This is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, it is largely myth centered around a few scraps of truth.Yes- you will be taking on certain obligations and duties- but they are not the overwhelming burden critics and alarmists are wont to pretend. The numbers below are off-the-top-of-my-head guesstimates, but they should be fairly close. In the worst case- in which you get called to the Bishopric (which ain't likely)- you can double the numbers. These numbers assume a thirty-one day month and some fairly rigorous study. Your numbers will vary (of course), and these are high-end. Personal study and prayer: 31 hours (assuming one hour per day).Family Home Evening: 12 hours (3 hours per week X 4 weeks)Home Teaching: 4 hours (3 familes, one hour per family, plus travel time).Sunday Morning Meeting Bloc: 12 hours (3 hours per week X 4 weeks)Preparation for Teaching a class: 8 hours (two hours per week X 4 weeks)Other meetings 2 hours per week (again, this assumes a calling such as Elder's Quorum Presidency).Total 69 hours per monthThat sounds like an awful lot: until one considers that there are 744 hours in our 31 day month.69/744= 0.092741935 or just over 9% of the time we're given. We are asked to return 10% of our increase as tithing. Should that not also apply to our daily breaths- especially when we consider that we are not promised even a single breath more? Those numbers also tend to stack up well when one also considers the following: Daily Commuting: 31 hours/month (assuming the American average of one hour per day).Television watching: 151 hrs/mo (per the Neilsen Ratings organization)Sleeping: (assuming seven hrs/night) 217 hrs/monthCooking 31 hrs/month (assuming an average of one hour per day, which is probably high for the fast food generation).Leisure and sports activities: 77.5 hrs/mo. (assuming the BLS average of 2.5 hours per day)A lot of these assumptions can also be examined here: Charts from the American Time Use SurveyTo be blunt, membership in the LDS Church is about service: service to ourselves, to others, and to our God. And even then, not that much is asked of us. The numbers I gave you are all high- in some cases as much as twice as high as what most LDS of my acquaintance actually do. Something to consider in your travels, no? In any event, I wish you the best of luck on your journey.

Dahlia, this goes to one fundamental and inescapable truth about the Church (which far too many people forget):"The Church is a hospital for the fallen, not a resort for the perfected." We, as Latter-day Saints, are every bit as fallible, foolish, fallen, and flawed as any other person. The only difference is that we have "taken hold of the iron rod" and are struggling (in varying degrees and varying levels of effort) to attain forgiveness, redemption, and perfection. None of us here have reached it- and none of the wise among us truly expect to in this lifetime. It really is more a matter of direction and movement than of destination.

They key words of course, are "through the proper channels" and "properly". The bottom line is this: The moment you seek to compel the Church to conform to your notions of propriety, you become an ark steadier. Even when done with the very best and noblest of intentions, this is playing with fire. The moment we begin (even in our own minds) to aggrandize ourselves and our judgement over those of the Brethren, we are on the short bus to apostacy. The moment we seek to use outside influence to compel the Church, we have- deliberately and unavoidably separated ourselves from the body of the Church. By allying ourselves with those foreign to the body of believers, we not only alienate ourselves from our brothers and sisters and from the Holy Ghost, we become a cancer of disunity, pride, and faithlessness. Even the supposed war "on the culture of the Church" is a deliberate and prideful division of the brethren and sisters. It is irrretrievably and inescapably a distinction between "those who know better" and "those who do not". It is a means by which we adjudge and annoint ourselves as better and "more enlightened" than those naive rubes who simply go along with tide... The moment that we adjudge ourselves better than our brethren and sisters, we are becoming prideful and lifted up in our hearts. These are the very sorts of divisions that we are warned about repeatedly in Scripture. The presumption that "fairness" and "justice" can only come to the Church through our actions- or that of outside agitators- is to deny that Christ stands at the head of his Church. It is the (unwarranted) assumption (and presumption) that Christ cannot or will not bring about that same "justice" or "fairness" unless we are there to jog his elbow. That is arrogance. That is presumption. That is hubris. It is NOT the spirit of the humble disciple that we as followers of Christ are supposed to cultivate in our countenance. The moment that our pretensions and predilections become more important to us than obedience and unity in Christ, we cease to be his disciples. When we preach our own prejudices and presumptions over the counsel of the Brethren annointed by Christ, we cease to be his servants and become our own. To cling to such a gospel is to reveal a deep and fundamental lack of faith in Christ's guidance, his judgment, and his justice. It is an intrinsic assumption that our wisdom, our "timing", or our sense of propriety is superior to that of the Savior. To preach such a gospel is to undermine the very foundations of this Church, and to attempt to bring shame and discredit upon those whom God has chosen. And that makes us an enemy not only to the Church, but to the God who has established, guides, and claims it as his own.

For my own two-bits, StephenVH, I read your post as you intended, but it had at least the potential to come across as "my church is better than your church" and as a direct challenge to the authenticity claims of the CoJCoLDS.I wouldn't sweat it too much, just try to be more cognizant of how people might try to misinterpret you in the future.

Ayep.

This is called "a tautology". The reason low-information voters believe that the Church has "a problem" is because the media tells them so. So long as the media continue to tell them so, low information voters will continue to believe it. But you're right- the actual facts of the matter are irrelevant so long as people continue to refuse to educate themselves and continue to traffic in the stereotype. And yet despite all our "outreach", the LDS Church continues to be blasted, lambasted, demonized, and attacked in the radical warrens of SSM agitation.Unless and until we abjectly surrender our values and humbly begin to celebrate theirs, we will continue to be objects of scorn and ridicule. The same is true of the Catholic Church. So long as the Pope and his faith stand opposed to modern sexual dogmatism and libertinism, they will continue to be attacked as hopelessly antiquated- which is precisely why NBC and so many other outlets published so many idiotic puff pieces about female priests, celibacy, and contraception. Your statement assumes- without evidence- that they have not been "[dealing] with these issues in a proactive way." Refer back to your own tautology.So long as it serves the media agenda to make the Catholic Church a whipping post, the media will continue to treat them as one- no matter what the Catholic leadership does or does not do.