ztodd

Haha, I left this chatzy for a while but started going back in once a week. it's still not visited often but drop in if you want...

I sure appreciate Elder Oaks for this also. And thank you also for posting it. What I got from it is that although standing for truth is important, there are other ways sometimes to love God. Elder Oaks talked about balance, and also talked about trying to have a perspective of being able to find ways to both stand for truth, as well as show compassion to those we disagree with, at the same time. This is downright hard a lot of times, but after hearing Elder Oaks answer that letter, I feel that I could definitely be trying harder to do a better job. Also, when he paused after saying something about seeing things from a longer lasting perspective, I felt that. I recalled that the people I love most, who I disagree with in belief in these matters, most definitely already know my beliefs. It's not necessary for me to remind them. What's more necessary is for me to demonstrate that I'm trying to understand where their hurt and pain in their life has come from, and that I will always be there to listen and love. Thank you again. I love the prophets and apostles, and can feel of their love for all of us. They reflect the love of Christ, who did not condemn sinners, but showed them the way to peace, sometimes by simply inviting them to partake of his love.

Source? (re 20% vs 2%) Also, food for thought : https://www.facebook.com/notes/joy-m-fritz-the-untrivial-pursuit/a-humbling-exposé-into-the-creation-of-mortality-rates-and-its-impact-on-our-pub/583399998743658/ Also, hello- haven't been back here in a while.

Triple posted- can I delete this one somehow?

Triple posted- can I delete this one somehow?

That artcle says that in England, Wales, and Australia, "about one in every five women has experienced sexual violence at least once in their lifetime", and that in the U.S., it's estimated that "one in five women" have been raped... but something that's kind of funny (given that this is a very serious subject) is that right after that, they show a picture of women holding signs that say "My mentor stuck his hand down my shirt", and "my boss asked me to put on a bikini". I want to assume that picture has nothing to do with the definition of "rape" that the previous statistic is referencing. Sure hope that's a safe assumption. But the label of the picture talks about "sexual assault"-- so it appears they're trying to say those things have to do with the definition of "assault" at least. In the case of the boss asking an employee to put on a bikini- not sure I'd agree with that. Maybe if he threatened to fire her if she didn't? and it's a credible threat? perhaps, but still might should only reach the level of "harassment". Anyway, I was just looking for something to pick on in the article, to play devil's advocate. Heh I better go on record at this point to say, all forms of harassment or assault are very wrong. All are evil acts.

Hiya brothers and sisters, come join this chatzy room- we have couple of people coming in there, about once a day... you can leave a chat message in there- maybe just share a brief testimony or experience about something, or whatever you want. It keeps the chat and never erases it, kinda like this forum... so it can be like a little mini forum, or like a real chat if anyone else happens to join in when you're there.

Bump-ity-doo-dah... Hey everyone, come on in and leave a message in this chatzy chat room...

I still am not always clear on what people mean when they use the term "homosexual". Does it mean 1. one with homosexual feelings, or 2. one who engages in homosexual activity? I always wish people took the time to make that clear. It's already been stated that definition #1 is not considered wrong or sinful, in and of itself. But when it leads to definition #2 then it becomes wrong. What I want to address is the a different kind of activity one might engage in, which might be just as serious, or close to it- which is, the active promoting of the LGBTQ agenda. This type of sin is the harder kind for a bishop to make good judgments about. It's similar to trying to judge a person's level of fighting against the church in other ways - or leading people away from the church. A person might not be a practicing LGBTQ themselves, but if they are actively leading others away from the Church and the Gospel of Christ, the way I understand it, that could possibly be a serious enough offense to disqualify them from a temple recommend. But like I said, it is the harder thing to judge. It might also be the thing that makes us more often appear to some people as being hateful. I sure wish it were not so.

I'm curious about another thread where the lady got offended when she was wearing pants and the bishopric member told her that the sisters usually wear dresses -- I didn't see where she ever quoted him verbatim, or told much about what tone he used, or whatever... but I guess she took it badly. It seems that women are all pretty unified in thinking that nobody should ever say anything like that, for any reason- and that the lady had good reason to be offended. It's still kind of hard for me to understand why that's such a sensitive subject... What would go through a woman's mind if someone were to say that to her? Does she think, oh this person is most definitely judging me? Judging her in what way? I just want to gain more understanding about this...

Cool... I'm trying it out. Everyone join the new group I created on there for General Chat!

Dunno if there's a good mormon chat already that people use- I kind of like chatzy.com - I created a room there, if anyone wants to try it out. http://us21.chatzy.com/53767037555458

It seems so simple and obvious, yet it seems so hard for us to do sometimes. Does "having tolerance for" something or someone mean the same thing as "tolerating" that thing or that person? I know it seems a silly question, but just saying it in that slightly different way, to me, seems to give it a very slight change in connotation. It also seems to have a different connotation when one speaks of having tolerance for a person, versus having tolerance for an idea. Would it be right to say we should have tolerance for people we don't agree with, but perhaps it's ok to not have tolerance for their ideas? I agree we should always (or almost always? keep reading) have compassion and kindness toward others... but here's another interesting question-- is it possible to be kind and compassionate while expressing "righteous anger" at the same time? I think of "tolerance" as meaning more than just being compassionate and kind -- to me, it seems to also imply that we "allow" whatever it is we tolerate, to exist, without any confrontation... or maybe just without a lot of confrontation. I'm actually not a confrontational person-- I like to avoid contention, at almost any cost. But perhaps it actually is not always right to avoid it at ALL costs.

She's a cat alright. Scarediest cat you ever met. I need to snap a shot of the expression she gets every time she hears any little click anywhere in the house. But it's too hard to get near her with my scary phone. Are we off tangent enough yet?

To clarify, are you saying the standards should be the same for getting baptized, as it is for entering the temple?

Definitely sounds like we could learn some things from you. Welcome!

I believe it is understood that Moroni is the angel spoken of in Revelation 14:6 flying in the midst of heaven, having "the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth". So maybe it really is a P.R. thing. (public relations)

Don't look beyond the mark. Don't get caught up in any "gospel hobby" to the point that it harms you spiritually. Obey those pieces of counsel from the Lord's servants, and you'll likely be ok. Be humble. Realize that you'll never (in this life) come close close to having the knowledge or wisdom that God has. About anything. Always be open to learning something new about the plain and simple truths of the gospel. Faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, atonement, etc. Always have a purpose and plan in using the things you learn to change your life. Always seek repentance as you learn. Always ask, for what purpose am I seeking this knowledge? Hunger and thirst after righteousness. Seek to be strictly obedient. Think of these "riches" in these verses from Jacob 2 as being treasures of knowledge. This was kind of enlightening for me- I hope it can be for others as well... 18 But abefore ye seek for briches, seek ye for the ckingdom of God. 19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

I haven't been on the forum in a long while, at least since it went to mormonhub.com. Hello all old and new people. In order for a person to be baptized, the church has made a requirement that the person sustain the current living prophet. It's a little unclear as to whether that is still a specific requirement. What does everyone think of this requirement? There are some who feel that this should not be a requirement for a person to be baptized. I personally am fine with it being a requirement - it makes sense to me - but I wonder if it ultimately up to the missionary doing the interview, or the mission president, or the person being baptized? The Preach My Gospel manual, in chapter 12, lists some requirements, under "Qualifications for Baptism"-- but does not have sustaining the living Prophet specifically listed there... however, it has a "Baptismal Interview Questions" section a little after that, which shows the candidate for baptism is specifically asked "Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?" A little before that, it says that "If a candidate does not qualify according to the baptismal interview questions, the baptism and confirmation should be postponed." But it's still not clear to me if that means that the person has to answer all the interview questions 100% the right way, or if not, if there is still room for the Spirit to guide the person and the interviewing missionary in making the determination in whether they should be baptized.

This at least seems to say to me that they will be resurrected : Doctrine and Covenants 29:24 For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; Also found this-- https://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/03/to-the-point/do-animals-have-spirits-what-happens-to-them-after-they-die?lang=eng Do animals have spirits? What happens to them after they die? Yes, animals have spirits (see D&C 77:2–3). Of course, there is a major difference between animals’ spirits and our spirits—we are begotten sons and daughters of Heavenly Father, and they are not. And according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, there are at least some animals in heaven. He said: “John saw curious looking beasts in heaven; … actually there, giving glory to God. … (See Rev. 5:13.) … “I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this,—strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them” (in History of the Church, 5:343). So, although we don’t have a complete understanding of what happens to animals after they die, we believe that they will enjoy some kind of salvation and immortality.

All of them. :) Actually, I think it would be different for everyone. One thing I think is that a great many people probably ought to ponder more over verses 12 to 13-- myself included. I probably like 18 through 20 the most. Thanks for the reminder. :) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng

Regarding the principle of everyone being connected and affecting each other's lives... I started thinking about the seemingly unfair circumstances that many are born into- some of which are due to the actions of others, and which are very devastating, and could permanently stunt their future growth and potential. To be clear, I'm thinking mostly of spiritual and emotional growth and potential. For some, their whole mortal life is unquestionably affected by what happens to them in their childhood. That got me thinking about the question of whether it's possible that things like that in this mortal life could forever change the course of our eternity? Or do you all think we will be able to more easily forget the tramatizing things that happened to us in this life, after we have died? If so, I wonder at what point we will be able to most easily shed those types of things from our souls. Perhaps not until the final judgment and resurrection? Perhaps not even immediately after that? At what point will the atonement be able to have the full effect upon us, in regard to those things that happen that can deeply scar a person for their entire mortal life? My wife made the point to me that we know that nobody gets by on their own actions alone, because there is always at least one other person who we must rely on, whose actions paved the way for us. So, if you consider our relationship with Jesus Christ, and what he did to save us, to be part of what you call the "Avatar principle", then I would say that of course that is the dominant principle that will affect our eternal destiny.

Hey ya'll, just popping in after a couple years :) ... I don't know anything about herbal coffee- didn't know it existed- but we like herbal tea. There should be nothing wrong with an herbal tea.

Where and when did Neal A Maxwell give this quote? It's a good one to keep track of.

From Pres. Monson in the most recent general conference: We reaffirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty, and we encourage all worthy and able young men to serve. We are very grateful for the young women who also serve. They make a significant contribution, although they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men.