Senator

You lost me with these couple of statements. If you care to elaborate.. How does the, "tendency to focus on the purpose of earth life being to choose to follow the Gospel of Christ", "caused us to misunderstand some stuff"?

I thank you for sharing this as you did. It was very meaningful to me.

Absolutely

Why does this need to be thought of in polygamous terms? My mother is directly responsible for my existence, my grandmother directly/indirectly, great-grandmother the same, and so on and so on. I look backwards in time to a vast, linked chain of women I call mother.

So, you are saying if my AGI is $100k, I must give at least $501 in order to be able to deduct it?

Am I understanding it correctly that the "big, beautiful, bill" reduces the charitable deduction of the first .5% of AGI for itemizers?

I don't think I can say that this board has strengthened my testimony. In fact, in the earlier days it had a deleterious effect on many of my long held beliefs and understanding of faith, testimony, church, gospel. But in the long run, that was a good thing, because those things needed to be challenged and informed. So, did it strengthen? No. Change? Yes.

How then do you differentiate?

Personally, red flags go a flyin whenever I'm presented with the ideology that something is wickedness, except when God tells me to do it.

This "mostly" apologetic cracks me up! Honey, there's nothing to worry about. Nearly all my relationships with other women are non-sexual. Relax

The early church was a hoot. 😅 Fun times!

Wait, what??

So now everyone that experiences doubt, questions their beliefs, or steps away from the church, is a Korihor? That is such a myopic and ignorant statement. How can you possibly know their hearts? I'm just glad I cannot find likeminded statements from the leadership of the church. If there was, I might find myself joining the ranks of the disaffected.

Ok

That's curious as to the need to make to him look contemporary.

Why crop his hair?

I don't know what point you are meaning to make with this response.

Oh man, a parallel just washed over me. I'm thinking of one other couple that transgressed, chose to leave, yet ultimately filled and indispensable role in accomplishing God's work and glory.

I think you are in the right direction. I'm having a hard time articulating what it is that is bothering me. But something about the messaging rubs me wrong. Look, I get that one of the jobs of the messengers of God is to call people to repentance, and for that reason it is not my intent, nor wish, to shoot the messenger. But being as it is that neither the messenger nor the message is infallible, I must weight it, and digest it through my own spiritual filters Of all the myriad examples of behaviors that would render us unprepared to meet the Savior, he isolated out these particular individuals who are not toeing the pristine LDS prescribed path, and has, in a sense, branded then as exemplars of the foolish virgin. Like a good ol' scarlet letter on their chest, a "FV" instead of an "A". Are we not all unprepared to meet Jesus in some fashion? Does he give any consideration as to what is transpiring in their lives, that might give meaning to their current state? Life's grist that actually cries for a meeting with Jesus, instead of a rebuff? I don't know, maybe I'm totally wrong. But I don't see this as helpful.

From Elder Oaks most recent GC address "Divine Helps for Mortality": "With so many powerful helps to guide us in our mortal journeys, it is disappointing that so many remain unprepared for their appointed meeting with our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. His parable of the ten virgins, spoken of so frequently in this conference, suggests that of those invited to meet Him, only half will be prepared. We all know examples of the unprepared: returned missionaries who have interrupted their spiritual growth by periods of inactivity, youth who have jeopardized their spiritual growth by separating themselves from Church teaching and activities, men who have postponed their ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood, men and women—sometimes the posterity of noble pioneers or worthy parents—who have departed the covenant path short of making and keeping covenants in the holy temple." I read this to mean, we now have an official church sanctioned naming of who our contemporary "foolish virgins" are. They've been identified! And here we have been mulling over better ways to talk/approach those who have stepped away from the church. We are way off the mark!

How is your response relevant to MrShorty’s comments?

I have never heard of that admission before. That astounds me!