NeuroTypical

Well, as a representative of the "intelligent people who read the BoM and spent a portion of their lives seeing it as a thing of naught" club, let me just say that we are trying our best to not take it personally. I think that's good advice for both of us.

He also is on record for supporting polygamy: The man was a brilliant humorist. LM

Sounds like you've got a story to tell us?

woot!

Sin stinks. It's not about other people forgiving, it's about you accepting the consequences of your actions. Yes, it stinks a lot to have everybody and their dog knowing something's up with you. If people gossip, it hurts. And it's useless, that's why gossip is a sin. One reason sin stinks, is when people hear about it, they might think differently about you. Especially if you've violated their trust. Once trust is lost, it can take a long time to get back. You can't make someone trust you, you can only live life as someone trustworthy, and hope people see it and give you back their trust. Some people might never do that. However, having trust does not equal having control. You have as much control over your life right now, that you did before sinning. You're just enduring consequences. These are the things that we all go through. You don't sound like a horrible person. You sound like someone who just wants to put past sins behind him. So endure your consequences, and then move on with life. Sorry it'll take longer than you were originally expecting. LM

Clarification there - living prophets don't "trump" dead prophets. Gospel truth is unchanging and eternal. The way God deals with His kids changes, because His kids change. So OT prophets asked the people to give burnt offerings, and these days we are asked to give a broken heart and contrite spirit. That isn't a case of the rules changing, just the way God deals with very different cultures. Oh, I do! "Great opinion! I might accept it as my own if I see the value in it!" And then if I don't, I walk away, with a spring in my step and a current temple recommend card in my pocket.I can give you a good example: Back in 1998, Pres Hinckley introduced a subject in the Priesthood session of gen Conf by saying this: "Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order." He went on to talk about the things that worried him about our levels of debt, and he talked about what he considered to be sound principles of personal finance, and urged us strongly to give heed to his words. Not revalation. Explicitly not revelation. He did quote some prior revalation on the matter, and talked about how it applied. So, I followed his advice, and my family has enjoyed blessings in times of financial hardship ever since. It was good advice. If I thought his advice stank, I wouldn't have heeded it. But I didn't, and I followed it, and it worked out, and hooray. From my perspective, most church leaders have been pretty good at identifying which is the inspiration and which is the advice. It seems to me like a big hefty chunk of church members couldn't tell the difference if their lives depended on it though. But it can usually be done though. No reason for you to be stuck here: IMO, I draw the line at what they actually say. If they are claiming revelation, I take it they're giving revelation. If they don't, I take it that they're doing the best they can to pass on principles they believe in. Well, I don't really have much to say to any of that, other than 'welcome to the club'. I don't think you have an apostate attitude, I think you're following Brigham Young's advice:I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150 Does any of this help? LM (p.s. - learn how to use the quote function!)

My general take on things: If he finds miracles and blessings and truth coming from the Catholic church - then hooray. Miracles and blessings and truth are all good things. The world owes the Catholics an unpayable debt for preserving the Bible as well as they did. They're good people. It's just that we're Christ's church. I got no arguments or proofs to offer, I got no way to convince him. The only way he'll ever be convinced is when he's on his knees and the Holy Ghost lets him know the truth. We don't win converts through superior mastery of the facts or better ways of letting people know they're wrong. Christ wins converts who seek Him in earnest, following that section of the BoM. LM

Keep your head down in Afghanistan! Thanks for your service. The third happiest day of my life, was when Netflix made 3 seasons of Futurama available free to stream to the computer. LM

So, how's your relationship with your stepson? Is it close and loving, or a bit more difficult? You can use whatever influence you have to get him to seriously consider what God wants of him, but you can't make him do anything. Basically - you don't get to convert anyone. Individuals choose to become converted. There's no magic formula of words you can say that will get him to do anything. You might be able to apply enough pressure on him so he gets baptized just to shut you up. But that's a pretty horrible solution if you ask me. If he's intent on living life, there are about two real things you can do. First, you can make all the info available to him about how babies come from, birth control, STDs, consequences, etc. The other is let him put this plan of his into action - on his own dime. You weren't going to pay for him to go be a party animal, were you? LM

I'm afraid you'll have to add the Church in general to that list. We teach it as part of our doctrine. Here's the relevant part of the Gospel Principles manual:

Tell the FAIR people to remember us saints off in Colorado Springs!

Bullying is just one of the bazillions of trials and adversities we may encounter in life. Like any other trial or adversity, we work to avoid, evade, mitigate, minimize, and eliminate them. When they arrive anyway, we work to endure them and emerge stronger. To the segment of society who is worked into a lather about the subject: If you think you can eliminate trials or adversities, you're fooling yourself. And all this casting aspersions on people who aren't as melodramatically passionate about bullying as you are, is unrighteous and uncharitable. If you want to make stopping bullying a focus of your existence, go for it. Inform, persuade, act, do whatever you like. But when you start looking down your nose at me for not placing bullying on the same pedestal you do, that's when you lose my interest. Put simply - life is full of adversity. I'll handle this fact in my way, and it may not be your way. My way involves teaching my kids that being bullied isn't a crime against existence - it's something that will just probably happen. Your choices in reaction to such things, help define your character - so make good choices. I'm teaching them to understand bullies, and that they may or may not be bad guys. I'm teaching them the difference between enduring something and tolerating something. And yeah, they get in trouble when they do any of it themselves. LM

When grandma died, we busted into her 30+ yr old five gallon can of honey. About half of it had crystalized, the other half was still honey. If it's oozing, maybe you want to open it, salvage the good stuff by putting it in jars or whatever. I would guess it would be a good idea to boil the heck out of it before you taste any. They found 5000 yr old honey, yes. It had turned black, and I can't find a single source of someone tasting it.

Well, society produces a finite amount of "help". That "help" is spread across prevention efforts, treatment, education, etc. Also, since open socialism and central planning is still frowned on in most circles in this country, there's not really any central authority with the ability to implement whatever "focus" gets decided. For example - if some government body told my wife to stop doing work with kids on drugs, and focus solely on gay kids in crisis - she'd tell them to get bent. It's important to keep reality in mind, when asking the "shouldn't the focus be"-type questions. But now that we're keeping it in mind, I still don't know how to answer it. Whos focus are you talking about? The government's? The school's? The parent's? The Church's? You use the term "we" - but who do you mean? Are you saying my wife should stop helping meth addicts on the verge of liver failure, so she can go and talk in schools about not doing drugs? Do you judge her somehow less righteous if she prefers to stick with the liver failure guy? LM

Thanks for the link, GaySaint. I must say (and I have to carefully say it), that there is a difference between attempting suicide and committing suicide. People who are at risk of falling into one or the other group, are very very different people, with very different things going on with them. I am not attempting to just wave away the needs of those who attempt it, I'm just saying that their needs are different, and the end result of them going through with their plans are different. Someone who attempts suicide, and goes through with their plans, is still alive after their plans have reached fruition. Not true for someone who plans to commit suicide. Another way to look at it, when thinking about who to help and how urgent it is, it's more urgent to help someone intent on ending their own life, than it is to help someone merely intent on a dangerous and harmful cry for help. Because of that stark reality, I am a little less concerned about people who may attempt, than I am about people who may commit. It can be a vague distinction for a lot of people, especially those who have not considered the matter closely. A suicide attempt is a cry for help. It's an indication of a problem. Usually a serious problem that needs addressing. But in the end, the vast majority of people who make an attempt, end up living on earth as long as the rest of us. People at risk of actually going through with it, by definition, are a very different group. So, I'll ask again - does anyone have any statistics about actual deaths? Are gays really more likely to commit suicide? Or are they just much more likely to attempt suicide? See, in my own personal life, my wife and I help kids on drugs. My wife excells at it. She has indeed saved lives that would otherwise be ended. If my wife knew that 3/1000 druggie kids commit suicide, but 20/1000 gay kids kill themselves, she'd change her focus. But she doesn't know that, and I don't know it, and GaySaint's link doesn't address it either. LM

I keep hearing about this, but haven't seen any statistics.Got link? Anecdotes like "there have been five gay suicides last month alone" are useless. Here's what good statistics look like: Rate of suicide (measured in X out of 1000) for GLBT folks over a period of time. Compared against the rate for a different demographic over the same period of time. You look to see if the rates are increasing. If the rate for gays is higher, or increasing while the other group is stable, then we have grounds for worry. Otherwise, we're falling prey to emotional hype, likely brought on by someone trying to toy with our emotions to forward an agenda. LM

A few years ago, I heard about an anonymous service that would send someone a politely-worded email, letting them know that someone had noticed [insert bad habit here], and wanted to gently inform you in a nonconfrontational way about it. I have not showered since that day, so I guess it means that service isn't around any more, or I just am too perfect to have BO. It's probably the latter. LM (why do people keep moving out of my aisle?)

Sorry - I'm missing what it is that "we can all agree on". Your post makes seven statements and one recommendation - I'm not sure I agree with any of them. If you're saying that we must love our neighbor, and that means taking extra care when dealing with mentally unstable or potentially suicidal folks with different agendas than us, then ok - I can agree with that. Is that what you're saying?

If I were you, I'd ask him one last time "Ted, do you ever think there can be anything between us?" If he says no, then do everything you can to stop obsessing on him. Ok - you have "strong impressions". They'll never amount to anything without his choosing you. And if he doesn't chose you, there's nothing you can do. Let's be very clear - you cannot force someone to fall in love. You can't force someone to want a relationship. You can't force Ted to walk this path you figure is the right path for both of you. If he ever chooses to walk it, then hooray - both of you go dancing off hand in hand. But if he doesn't choose it, it's not about you persuading him or making him or forcing him. LM

A very popular and important topic involving the church, its policies, and its members, is the topic of same-sex attraction. There is much to discuss, and much discussion going around. Several posters have provided links to the website of a group called Affirmation, which advocates what it considers to be the interests of gay Mormons. The moderating team has carefully reviewed this website, and discussed it at some length. We share Affirmation's stated concerns about the difficulties and tragedies in the lives of those who struggle with same-sex attraction; and discussion along these lines continues to be welcome at lds.net. However, Affirmation has launched broadside attacks on Church doctrine (such as "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"), encourages its audience to disregard such basic Church teachings as the law of chastity, and routinely takes actions that appear calculated to divide rather than unite the Church. We cannot endorse Affirmation, and will no longer allow links to its site on lds.net. Effective immediately the posting of any links to the Affirmation website will be viewed as violations of site rule #1. We recommend the following websites: Mormons and Gays Evergreen International (found here) as a supportive and constructive environment for gay Mormons to confront the many challenges they face, and as a resource for those who seek to help their gay brothers and sisters in the Gospel. The mission of lds.net is all about taking advantage of technology in order to aid faithful Latter-day Saints in their efforts to touch lives. This site is a place where you can come to learn about Mormons, our history, our church, our scriptures and doctrine. You can learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ and how it can bind us all together. It is not to be considered a platform for attempts to create social or doctrinal change in the church or its members, via the use of materials that directly oppose the church and its doctrine. Sincerely, The moderating team

God built our bodies to work the way they do. It's no offense to Him, when they work the way they're designed to.

Fair enough. When I go to dictionary.com, I find: Edify: to instruct or benefit, esp. morally or spiritually; uplift: religious paintings that edify the viewer. Entertain: to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse. So, edification is a way to grow and be more than we were yesterday. Being edified brings us closer to God. Entertainment is a way to relax and recharge batteries, and not much else. Here in the church, we're explicitly conseled to avoid violence as entertainment. We're explicitly counseled to seek out edification and instruction. Those of us who find value in MA, are talking about how it edifies us. Your main complaint about MA involves how people seek it out for entertainment. Does this help? LM

Because you're supposed to seek it. I don't understand the question. We're also supposed to avoid violent entertainment. It's almost like you don't understand the claim many of us are making. Again - here it is: Can you give us some indication that you're grasping the difference between being entertained by violence, and being edified by it?

Very well said.

I haven't answered that question, because I think it's an invalid question. I don't see the Savior endorsing any particular activity, any more than I can see Him endorsing any particular brand of detergent, or little-league, or what have you. There is a scripture saying we are to defend our families even unto bloodshed. God has taken sides and helped or hindered various people in violent conflicts, on both individual and collective levels. The D&C tells us we can be justified in dealing out harm or death "in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded", should lesser means not be effecacious. From what I can tell, the intents of our heart are a big part of how we're judged. Also from what I can tell, scripture and the church both advocate having our heart's compass pointed in the right direction. So, violent bloody entertainment is not good for us and should be avoided. Studying violence and blood as a way to carry out our stewardships may be appropriate in some situations. LM