NeuroTypical

You mean back into Iraq the 2nd time? President Bush's claims were:* Saadam is failing to comply with the agreement he made that ended the first gulf war. Namely, not allowing weapons inspectors to go where they needed to go, not opening his WMD destruction process to UN supervision, and not meeting other various terms. * Iraq remains a threat to peace, due to Saadam's regime remaining a state sponsor of terror, a funder of suicide bombers in Israel, and a country that continues to threaten it's neighbors with violence. * Iraq has WMD. Of course, the third claim turned out to be largely untrue. 200 old leaky sarin shells here, a part of a uranium centerfuge buried in a flower garden there, does not equal what the world believed in 2003. I do not believe Bush lied about WMD. The main intelligence services of the planet earth all believed Saadam had much more than he ended up having. (I suppose there's a tiny fraction of a chance that we'll stumble on his massive stockpiles of WMD at some point in the future, but nobody's counting on it.) And there was plenty of concrete evidence that he was seeking to stay in the game and improve his poker hand. The first two points are quite valid. Valid enough for the UN to re-authorize the use of force. Numerous bomb-vest factories and terrorist training camps are no longer in operation. I'm looking forward to hearing your response to my opinion then. Of course. Every nation, group, and individual makes mistakes. I don't know enough about it to have a relevant opinion. Certainly, English speaking peoples (especially England) have had a large hand in creating the mess in the middle east over the centuries. Certainly it is a mess. Certainly oil is a major, major factor in why and how we involve ourselves in that area of the world, using justifications that are not advanced in other less oil-rich areas of the world. But when it comes to geopolitics, decisions made in the '50's may have shaped the current reality, but they should not dictate current decisions. So, you're claiming you want to talk about wars, and interested in my opinion. Could I ask you to reply to my post here? I know lots of people are interacting with you, but I'd like to evaluate my response to your attempt to 'LDSify' your positions on war in general. LM

The gift of discerning of spirits does appear in the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 That's a different question alltogether. To discern merely means to perceive or recognize. It doesn't say anything about receiving information from.The way I see it, put 1000 people who claim to get info from the afterlife in a room, and maybe 995 of them are frauds, hallucinating, mentally ill, misinterpreting their own emotional state, etc. etc. Her advice to 'confirm it through prayer' certainly belongs with her claim. Fortune tellers, astrologers, mind readers, palmists, etc can have a skillset to read body language and speak generally. I wonder - is there anyone on this board (or on this planet) that has absolutely nothing to fix within their families? How many people do you know, that DON'T want to hear that a departed relative hopes they don't worry?LM

So what you are saying is that you buy the Bush Administration's explanation of what is going on?You gotta love it folks. Remember, a-train isn't judging or insulting me. It's just that he's right, and anyone with a different viewpoint is a flawed dupe of da man. There's no room for middle ground, or differences of opinions.Phooey. LM

I see your effort to characterize the way things are, but I disagree with your characterization and your mindset. First of all, I don't think I've ever felt 'perfectly at ease' with anything that happens on the global scale, whether bloodshed is involved or not. The geopolitical game involves all sorts of amoral cunning and dirty hardball tricks, favoring those who can apply the right lever at the right time. As the undeniable truth goes: "Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force." It won't be governed by Christ until the millenium. Therefore, there will be good and bad governments and everything in between, but the use of force is a tool in every government's toolbag. Second of all, God seems to sanction this truth in some ways. Consider the bloody cleansing of the opposition when the righteous Pahoran was restored to his judgement seat in Alma 62. Consider the spy network of Captain Moroni in Alma 43 and 44, which allowed his armies to shape the battlefield such that Lehi could rain death and destruction down upon the Lamanites, forcing them to run across a river into a valley, where Moroni rained even more death and destruction. And he didn't stop until the army was completely routed. The whole thing reads like the history of the first gulf war, and our justification for going back in. Third of all, capitalist profits can be a result of doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Just identifying that capitalists are making money does nothing to demonstrate the moral wrongness of the action. Nor does it demonstrate that the profit making was the main reason for taking the action. Again, you attempt to characterize our policies and actions in the middle east as "murderous robbery". Again, I ain't convinced. According to the people of Ammon, it was Helaman leading their own sons into battle. From where I'm standing, the LDS lens is that God will help you kill the bad guys, as long as they're bad and you are good and righteous. And Alma 52 tells us that we got to do our own hard work - he's not going to keep us safe while we sit there on our rear ends and talk about how cool it is to never have to kill people. According to Moses 4 and 5, Genesis 3, and D&C 42, we get our daily bread through our own hard work. God gave us the earth and everything in it to work on - he expects us to act in our own self-interest, not sit there and wait for manna to fall from the heaven. Maybe not stability, but he sure offers agency to them. And we all know that one group can exercise their agency such that another group suffers.I find the whole notion that we should not actively be acting in our nations self-interest anti-common sense and anti-scriptural. You do not persuade me. I reject your mindset. (I'm not insulting you either - just giving you an honest response.) You say you're not trying to "demonstrate a superiority", and yet you claim that you are right and I am wrong because you have dug deeper, while I am ignorant of things because I have not. You are judging me. According to your judgement, I'm wrong because you obviously possess the only right there is to be had, and I disagree with you. Truth of the matter is, I've dug just like you've dug - I just come to a different conclusion. Well, I don't judge you as a person either, but I'm perfectly happy judging your arguement. I judge it lacking, insufficient, and wrong-headed. Taken to extremes, it would be dangerous and suicidal. Interesting thing about 98:34, is that it's followed by 98:35 and 98:36 - the steps we should follow before crushing them into a bloody pulp. Another interesting thing is that 98 is directed towards the Saints in their relationship to their government. It is not talking about foreign policy, it's talking about how we should react to domestic policies. I find the interactions between the Nephites and Lamanites to be much more illustrative of how we should shape our foreign policy. And God talks quite a bit about defending the weak by killing their oppressors, trying diplomacy first - but resorting to the work of death when it fails, and killing to defend liberty.You asked if I feel perfectly at ease. Most certainly not. But neither do I tremble and faint when hard decisions need to be made. LM (none of this post is to be considered a call to attack Iran, btw.)

I think the most common scenarios involve someone acting against Iran first, and Iran responding by shutting down the strait of Hormuz, thus cutting off 30% of the world's oil supply.But either way, I'm glad to hear you're not in favor of just blowing up all the oil to force your own preferred vision of the new world order. Well, if you define "too idealistic" as "ain't ever gonna happen, no way, no how", then yes - you are being too idealistic. The US will stop consuming half eventually, not because it reduces it's consumption, but because China muscles it's way onto the global stage and starts consuming more than the US. If by "corporate gains", you mean "increased chances for global economic stability", or "a stabalizing presence in an oil-rich area of the world", then again, the answer is probably yes - you are being too idealistic. Because the world wants economic stability, and wants the free flow of oil. I understand you consider that black stuff a poison that we could do better without, but there are very few people that agree with you. This is a bit more realistic bit of idealism than your other two. Yes, there are ways to fuel consumption growth in ways other than using military force. I predict you won't be able to buy an incandescant light bulb anywhere within 10 years. I predict our cars will run on something different than straight gasoline or diesel within 20. We might get ANWR opened up sometime in our lifetime. But if you mean to imply that consumption growth is an evil that must be stopped, you're back into the "too idealistic" realm again. LM

Yeesh a-train. Are you sure you want to advocate violence, global economic disaster, and the resultant deaths of millions of people so cavalierly?How far will you take your idealism? LM (by the way, I'm still waiting for your response to this post.

In addition to the advise people would give you on this thread, I'd suggest you get a lawyer too. Unrepentant sinners of this stripe could do more than wreck a marriage, they can also rob you blind and dump you into poverty. Are there children involved? If so, think of their best interests as well. Good luck - let us know how things go. LM

Confessing is an important step, and a way to compelte the repentance process. Here are the steps - sounds to me like you've got a good start on them:1. Recognize Our Sins 2. Feel Sorrow for Our Sins 3. Forsake Our Sins 4. Confess Our Sins 5. Make Restitution 6. Forgive Others 7. Keep the Commandments of God The Bishop's sole job here is to help you remove the burden of sin from your soul - to help you place checkboxes next to everything on that list. He is your earthly representative of Jesus Christ. The scriptures tell us that Christ never yelled at repentant sinners - he helped them and loved them. You can expect the same treatment from your Bishop if you are humble and repentant. Expect to make good use of his box of kleenex. (I sure did when I sat in "the hot seat".) This process can be one of the most freeing, spiritual, maturing times of your life. LM

2 stories: A guy in my ward gave this story. He was trying to support his family on the salary of a private in the military. Hard to do. But they paid their tithing. One month, they looked at their bank account, and it pretty much equalled the amount of tithing they needed to pay. So they took stock of the food in the house, and figured out if they only ate one meal a day, they could pay tithing and live to the end of the month. After they paid the tithing, their neighbor called and said "I'm getting deployed - I need to get rid of a bunch of food or it'll spoil. Can I give it to you?" Six or seven trips back and forth between the houses later, their house was full of food. There wasn't enough room in the refrigerator and cabinets. They had grocery bags full of cans lined up in the hallway. The scripture says Bring ye all the tithes ... and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it. Story 2: I got laid off back in the '90's. I then proceeded to discover I had figured our tithing wrong, and we owed several hundred dollars. We wrote out the check out of our precious shrinking savings. The very next day, I got a check in the mail from my old employer for about the same amount. They had mis-reported the amount of severence pay, and this made up the balance. I'm a fan of tithing. LM

Perhaps the root of disagreement between me and thee: I believe pride (or any other sin you wish to attribute to the problem) will find a way to cause problems no matter what we base our economy on.In other words, let's assume I agree with you completely about everything you're saying. Should you get your wish and we return to the gold standard, next decade's version of Pres. Bush and his illuminati/CFR/masonic/alien/communist/secret combination puppetmasters will still plot to control the gold, and succeed or not succeed as they do today. The tools in their toolbox will change, but the nature of power, and the satanic tactics used to get and keep it, will still be there working away. Right? LM

Random thoughts: * There is no such thing as "A right to be in the military". We often confuse stuff we want, with stuff we have a right to do. But the two are often different. * Every society since the dawn of time has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The openly accepted homosexuality of ancient Greece was practiced outside of marriage. In polygamous societies like those found in Africa and certain muslim countries, as well as our own church's limited experience, the bond is still between the man and the woman. Now, umpteen thousands of years since humans have been having societies on this planet, people want to change the definition of marriage. I say no. Pursue whatever relationships you desire. Shack up all you want. Make your relationship as formal or informal, binding or nonbinding, as you desire. Ensure whatever rights of visitation and property transfer you wish through the legal recognition of alternative unions. But don't try to redefine the word 'marriage'. Two members of the same sex have no more right to marry each other, than I have to call red orange, and force everyone else to call red orange also. Attempts to redefine the word marriage is not about equal rights. It's not about being 'allowed to do your own thing'. It's about forcing societal change. Some societal change is good and needs to be forced, some doesn't. We look to our morals and values to say which is which. LM

Quite true - and President Hinckley has gone out of his way to hammer the point home. Here's what he had to say in 1998 - about a year before the telecom bubble burst (and I was unemployed for 6 months as a result). I'm glad I heeded his warning then, and his conuncil is just as relevant today.Given in the Priesthood session of General Conference, Oct 1998:

No country, no government, until America went off the gold standard - ever had house prices fluctuate, a slowing economy, homes that lose value, people who couldn't pay their debts or became broke? Am I hearing you right, or do you want to clarify a little? According to repeal17thamendment, "they" have already "utterly killed the dollar". Doesn't that mean that "it" has already been "blown"? From where I'm standing, the economic cycle isn't about to be "blown" (such that there is no recovery at the end of the downturn), nor should it be. Time to buy stock! LM

Let me clarify my position a little. Nothing in my post was meant as a response or counter arguement, or even an alternative viewpoint. I'm merely stating that I don't find your argument or worldview persuasive, I reject many of your sources, and I reject your suggestions. Not sure what you mean by "singular". Are you claiming the BoM says all of the SC's mentioned are 'the same'? Surely, they've been with us from time to time since Cain. The Jaredites had them, they were active 50-ish years before Christ's birth, and 80 years later right before Christ's arrival in the Americas. Nephi and Moroni both make prophecies that SC's will be around. 2 Nephi 9 discusses SC's as one of the things Satan tries to stir us up into doing. I don't see anything about how they're all the same SC though. Is that what you're saying, or am I missing your question? Regardless, I'm not denying the existence (former or current) of sc's. I am rejecting Joel Skousen's claim that I need to sell my property. I'm rejecting your advice that I need to buy silver coins and "the end is near". I do not believe that "bush and his handlers in combination with the secret combination that controls the banking system have utterly killed the dollar." It's obviously not true, because the dollar has not been "utterly killed". I'm not angry, and I'm not in denial about the works of darkness. I'm just rejecting your opinion about how they're organized, and what I need to do about it. In the two decades I've been rejecting your message of impending doom and conspiracies at the highest levels of government, here's the list of insults leveled at me: Ostrich with head buried in the sand. In denial. I chose to wear blinders. Blind idiot who can't see my own hand in front of my face in broad daylight. Dupe of [whatever term is being used to describe the current conspirators]. I'll add your insults (and A-Train's) to the list: I focus on the MESSENGER instead of the subject. I consider myself "super tough" . I use emotion instead of logical reasoning. I'm rude. I get angry when someone mentions the existence of secret combinations. My posts make me look bad. I "troll for sincere people". I'm prideful, heading for destruction. I have a haughty spirit, and I'm heading for a fall. Again, color me unimpressed. LM

Many of us are very leery of using our military as a tool of social change. Anything that makes the military's job harder will reduce it's effectiveness, and can get people killed.

Color me unimpressed. I'm unimpressed with the survivalist Joel Skousen, and his outdated fallout shelter advocacy. I'm unimpressed with the faulty, hole-ridden attempts to paint impending financial doom. I'm unimpressed with your grasp on what the billions spent on Iraq supposedly mean to our economic system. I'm unimpressed with this conspiracy-theory mentality of how "they" are all out to get "you", but "they" can't hide any more, because you're here to tell us about it. I've been personally hearing this tune for two decades from folks of your stripe. And always, the illuminati, the one world order, the global administrative districting, the secret combinations, the communists never manage to show up, even though you eventually type in ALL CAPS to emphasize your point, and insult Canadian currency. I do not find your rhetoric persuasive. I do not buy your doomsday scnarios. I will not be buying gold at record high prices. I will continue to contentedly slave away as a tool of The Man , pleased with the ability to invest in my 401K with company match, like I've done for the last 10 years, against the passionate ravings of the tinfoil hat brigade. Please feel free to reply with insults like "blinder-wearing", "ostritch", or whatever strikes your fancy. I'm not impressed. LM

A slightly more direct and useful link is here: Gospel Library - Media Formats

Here's a common experience: "Hi there, I'm bro so-and-so from the church. We see that you're still listed on our records, but we haven't seen you around lately, so we're stopping by to see how you are doing." "Oh, um... yeah... Um, ... we've been kinda busy lately..." [eyes shift around, as if looking for an escape] "Oh yeah - I sure know how that is. But don't worry, we're not here to give you a hard sales pitch. We'd just like to invite you out to church. Do you know where the building is?" "Oh yeahyeahyeah." [Thinks hard for a minute] "Actually, we don't like... really go anymore... So you can like take us off your, um, list..." "Oh - well, I'm sorry to hear that. And I respect your choice in the matter. I don't have the authority to remove your name from church records, but our Bishop does. There's a process we have to follow. You could write him a letter, or even come and see him..." "Yeah, I'll do that, thanks. Well, thanks for your time. Thanks for the visit, but I've got to get back to... you know... this thing I got going." [He gestures towards the TV, and then looks embarassed as it dawns on him how lame that looks.] "Sure - thanks for your time. And if you ever change your mind, just remember, our door is always open. Sacrament meeting is at 9." [6 months go by - no letter, no mtg with the bishop, and the next set of mormons stop by to see how he's doing.] Basically, you don't need to feel uncomfortable. You're NOT a salesman, and you're NOT a missionary. By their own choice, they keep their names on the records of the church. At one point in time, they entered the waters of baptism, and entered into covenants. And until such time they remove their name, they're part of the flock, and the Bishop is commanded to watch over the flock, and he is getting help from you to do it. At another point, they were ordained to whatever office they were ordained to. That may not mean anything to them right now, but it means something to God. Your job is to just maintain contact. To let them know there's an open door and a friendly handshake waiting for them. There are endless reasons why people don't go to church. They don't believe. They're lazy. They're sinning. They're afraid of being judged. They're apathetic. It's not your job to fix any of that, or even figure out what it is, unless they mention it and ask for help. It's your job to let a little of Christ's love shine through you, and extend a hand of fellowship. Then again, there's the other tactic: "Hi there. I'm from the church. Here's a request for name removal form, and a tithing envelope. We don't really care what you send back, just send something." LM

Hi TheLutheran! My random thoughts: So your daughter is dating someone who may go on a mission? Well, if he goes, you can expect him to be fully devoted to his work for 2 years. Missionaries are allowed to write letters, but that's about all the contact they would have. There are umpteen million "waiting for a missionary" jokes in our church. I sometimes think we've got the majority share of the "dear John" letter market because of our missionaries. What I'm trying to say is, if he goes, and if she decides to wait for him, with the intent of dating him on his return, you can expect that arrangement to last about as long you might expect a 16 yr old girl could make it work. This is not a bad thing, this is a "moving through a period of maturing and rapid growth and important decisions" thing. But hey, stranger things have happened. I suppose it's not completely impossible that he goes and she waits and they both want to continue a relationship when he returns. The different faith issue will probably eventually come up. Someone might convert to the other's faith, or they might break up, or they might keep going with their religion differences intact. My own personal belief (and you'll get different beliefs from different mormons), is that it's a mistake to date other faiths, when you're looking for a spouse. Because you marry who you date, and if you date someone with a different set of religious beliefs, your kids end up as the rope in an eternal tug-of-war. But at 16, they're probably not too serious about looking for their eternal companion. Mahonri's "Strength of Youth" pamplet is indeed good reading material if you want to know the standards mormon kids are SUPPOSED to hold themselves to. From one daddy of girls to another, you need to be aware: our kids have the exact same hormone levels as non-mormon kids, and their teenage brains mature at the same rate as non-mormon brains. Welcome! LM

I think I see what President Benson was trying to get at with these 14 points, but I must say I don't like the presentation very much. Too easily taken out of context and used to support notions that we LDS all march in unthinking lockstep to the beat of whatever whim comes from the prophet, or that we buy whatever newspeak contradicts last year's newspeak.Of course his talk does none of these things, but unfortunately, a quote out of context here, a little stretch there, and it becomes what it isn't. I much prefer quotes like these: ------------------- 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 ----- Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and "under this head are [we] made free." (Mosiah 5: 8 ) Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see. Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66 ----- Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do. If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992) ----- It is a mistaken idea, prevalent in the world, that the perpetuity of this work depends upon the authorities keeping the masses of the people in ignorance. The truth is the direct reverse, else why have we all these auxiliary organizations and quorums of priesthood in the church, for the education of the rising generation. Their being established in the faith depends upon their knowledge of the Gospel. Our greatest fear concerning our children in Zion is the possibility of their growing up in ignorance of the everlasting Gospel...As a matter of intelligent obedience--not blind obedience--we should observe to keep the word of wisdom. For the same reason we should observe to keep holy the Sabbath day, and the name of our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and intelligently yield obedience to every requirement that is made at our hands George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1907, Afternoon Session, 15-17 LM

Hi Proposing, I can't really comment on your eternal progression questions, because it makes my head hurt, and at the end of the day, any answer I could give would just be my best guess. We just don't know. But I did want to comment on the rest of your post: The answer to your question is no - Muslims can't (and don't) claim to be Christian. A Christian is one who accepts Christ as savior and redeemer - muslims do not do this. As you mentioned, Islam rejects the divinity of Christ and His atoning sacrifice for our sake, preferring to look on Him as a prophet only. I don't know what muslims believe about salvation through works. But if you're implying that Mormons believe we're saved through our works, you are incorrect. I've been taught, ever since I was a teeny tiny little mormon boy, that the only way to be saved is to accept Christ as savior. Yes, we believe that God gave us commandments, and we're supposed to keep them. But yes, as we all fall short, as none measure up, we all require Christ to take our sins from us, because we can't do it by ourself. The New Testament is big on "repent and be baptized" and "keep my commandments" - and we Mormons listen. What is the definition of "Christian"? Is it not "Someone who follows Christ"? I follow Christ. Therefore, I'm a Christian. I don't deny the Christianity of people who subscribe to the trinitarian belief, please don't deny me my Christianity because I believe in a Godhead. Hope this helps.LM

Love and Logic. Absolutely. I love that philosophy. There's just something so cool about watching my kids put themselves in time out until they calm down enough to behave.

I've highlighted the parts that critics of our church continually fail to understand.Prophets are human. You don't become perfect or infallible when God picks you as prophet. Nor is everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet, put there by God. Prophets have opinions and beliefs like anyone else. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Here are some quotes from President Hinckley that help clarify a bit: "We encourage you again to read the talks in your family home evenings and discuss them together as families. They are the products of much prayer and meditation and are well worthy of careful consideration." - October '07 General Conference Report (Please note - several Apostles and President Hinckley himself gave talks) "We hope that you will use the May edition of the Church magazines as a text for your family home evenings, to review that which has been spoken in this conference. What has been said by each of the speakers represents his or her prayerful attempt to impart knowledge that will inspire and cause all who have heard it to stand a little taller and be a little better." - April '07 General conference Report (Sounds different than "We've revealed new scripture here") Here's another one, from October 1998 Conference: "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..." (So tell me, if everything a prophet says is prophecying, how do you handle it when he says he's not prophecying?) LM

Going back a few months, I saw this post from Annabelli. She strikes me as someone who finds great value in the public school system, which is fine with me. She also seems to find homeschooling inferior, which is where we have a disagreement. I'm not sure if she's valuing public school here, or devaluing homeschooling. If the former, we got no problem. But if she feels these things are absent from a homeschooling environment, or that they're always best, I would disagree. Children vary in the type and quantity of structure/planning/expectations/rules they need. They vary by age, and also individual children of the same age have different needs. Yes indeed, many kids do need a lot of structure and expectation setting. My 2 kids are good examples. We can provide them just fine in our homeschool environment. I understand the issue here: "Teachers are trained to teach. Most homeschool parents aren't, therefore, homeschool parents can't do as good of a job as teachers." It sure sounds convincing on it's face. The problem with it is, it doesn't seem to be a relevant issue. How can we tell? Well, if teachers do better than non-teacher mommies, you'd think the children of the non-teacher mommies would have inferior performance on standardized tests. Turns out, the exact opposite is true. Homeschooled kids have superior test results in every age group, from every demographic. In some cases, vastly superior results. Does this not completely kill the argument that teachers can educate better than parents? I'll post a bunch of links at the bottom of this post for those who want to do extra research. I'd like a little clarification on what this means. I suspect it means that there are times when a parent will change a plan, or abandon an expected rule of behavior, or even do a major switch in curriculum halfway through it. Sounds like Annabelli thinks this is not good for kids. I'd ask her to consider what kind of measure we could apply to see if this is correct or not. Again, homeschooled kids have superior academic performance at every level. This may very well be true. And if it is true, it is evidence for what kids need to be well educated. I would suggest "education level of the teacher" isn't near as important as Annabelli (and many others) might assume. Tongue in cheek here - but yes indeed, that's pretty much the definition of homeschooling. Your parent is your private instructor. Well, a big reason people go to them, is to evaluate or purchase next year's curriculum, it would seem kind of silly if nobody had anything to sell at them... Why is this a bad thing?My basic response is this: You don't need to attack homeschooling and tear it down, in order to have good reasons to send your kids to public school. The existence of a thriving successful, growing homeschool movement is not necessarily an attack on public schools. Can't we all just get along? You do what's best for your kid, I'll do what's best for mine, and we'll both release healthy, well-rounded, well-educated, mature adults into society. LM (the links I promised:) Rudner Study 20,760 homeschooled kids across America took the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS; grades K-8) or the Tests of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP; grades 9-12). Results: CATO/Fraser Institute Analysis These guys look at the history, recent growth, academic performance, and socialization aspects of homeschooling. Results: US Department of Education Study The National Center for Education Statistics looks at demographics such as number of HEK's in the US, their characteristics, parent's reasons for homeschooling, and public school support. Results: The study doesn't look at academic performance, but is very interesting to see who we all are. A similar study is found here. National Home Education Research Institute This organization's mission is to: * Produce high-quality research (e.g., statistics, facts, findings) on home-based education (homeschooling). * Serve as a clearinghouse of research for the public, researchers, homeschoolers, the media, and policy makers. * Educate the public concerning the findings of all research on home education. Here is a state-by-state breakdown of homeschooling laws.

Hi Anwar, Just out of curiosity, what sort of demonizing do you think went on in the church? You may have been given some incorrect information.Here's something from our Book of Mormon: For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. - 2 Nephi 26:32-33 And here's a quote from a past church leader, at a time when the civil rights debate was rocking America: ...he is not denied entrance into the Church. He may be baptized for the remission of his sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and if true and faithful to the end, he may enter the celestial kingdom. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds out more for the Negro than any other religious denomination. Salvation in the Kingdom of God is open to him, with the promise that in the due time of the Lord, if he receives the gospel, all restrictions will be removed. No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to ""life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."" They should be equal in the matter of education. They should not be barred from obtaining knowledge and becoming proficient in any field of science, art or mechanical occupation. They should be free to choose any kind of employment, to go into business in any field they may choose and to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source. In their defense of these privileges the members of the Church will stand. - Joseph Fielding Smith, 1957, Answers to Gospel Questions I've met a few racist mormons in my travels, but for the vast, vast majority, the answer is no.Welcome! LM