MustardSeed

Maybe it's just easier to touch those realities than it is to touch spirituality. So that's the definition people lead by. But I understand what you're saying. Then again, I'm white and cis, we both are, so It's easier I think to say "hey lets just drop the identifier and simply identify as one." I wish we all could.

I'm sure that women's rights and increased equity (we have a long way to go still) contributes to divorce being more acceptable socially within the church. IMO, no facts to back that up.

It is not our policy to be ecumenical.

Thank you for all your thoughts, I was prepping for seminary and needed additional discussion points, very helpful. Yes, obvious typo in header. Thank you for your patience.

I suppose I'm more interested in the apostle's definition, though we can no longer ask him. However since you asked me, I'll go by the Webster definition which is to say unity among all religions. In his talk he refers to more specifics around that. I'm wondering if his talk would be given today. It seems that greater efforts have been made to connect with other religions and to show our christianity through our similarities rather than to separate ourselves as much as he purports in his talk.

Elder Packer spoke in Fall 1985 conference about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as being the only true church, and while he acknowledged that this was at times harsh to the ears of investigators, that it is accurate and must be taught. "We do not join associations of clergy or councils of churches. We keep our distance from the ecumenical movements. The restored gospel is the means by which Christians must ultimately be united." If this quote interests you enough to comment, I'll encourage you to read the talk, as it provides complete context. http

I think charity requires that attitude and I think it also feeds it. IMO-

Oh boy, What a dull night it was. It would be a shame if I'm damned for sitting through all that. 🤫 If watching a football game quietly with my husband next to me is a sin, well then, Id hate to think what the Lord will have to say about all the other things I've adopted in my life that probably are worth examining. To be sure, I'm not worried about it.

I'll send you a PM, I don't want to derail too far off topic

I should say the women who lead in the church.

I certainly hope we don't have to follow all directions of all prior prophets. I'm pretty sure ol Brigham had some things to say about the way he wanted his womenfolk to dress and behave that I'd prefer not to ascribe to. PS when I turn 60 I'm getting a tattoo. If the brethren's women can get plastic surgery without any issue I think I'm safe

I've been corrected several times here. I tend to assume that either the corrector is OCD, that they are trying to make me look foolish, or that they are trying to feel more important than they do. It usually doesn't bother me because I am a good writer and speller, I'm simply a sloppy typist and I don't care about my errors on a forum like this. That said, I can see why it would be annoying and distracting to have spelling police always at the ready.

Strongly assert my opinion that people struggle to believe that someone they know could sexually abuse a child. I’ve seen it time and again.

Ive never had a bishop look at my payment sheet during settlement. A bishops job is to bring all who live in his zone to Christ, that’s it. If inquiring is now called a shakedown, maybe there’s sensitivity. Or pride, or whatever. I’m sure if you have a wad of money, you’re expecting some type of conversation about that. Youre entitled to privacy but at least you have to admit that it’s unconventional and will be met with curiosity if not a check in.

I'm constantly there.

Just an opinion.

I recognize the semantics issue here. I delineate the two for the purpose of helping other people "see themselves" in my explanation of where NICE can be problematic. Often, people are terrified that if they set boundaries, they will become "mean". I always explain that if someone has always been nice, and suddenly they start setting boundaries, they will be inevitably accused of being mean. This terrifies people. So I say, let's toss nice, and replace it with kind. Kind has boundaries, nice doesn't. For whatever reason, this resonates with folks, and gives them permission to set

That makes sense in most contexts, imo. For my purposes, it has helped me and several other women and a few men as well to delineate artificially between the two to create a new relationship with the concept of niceness. To reject it. To replace the need to please (because so much of our training in being nice is motivated by pleasing others) with a need to care for others more authentically, from a more genuine christlike place.

Gently I would add that girls have extra pressure in the world to be "nice" as I described earlier. I reject this notion, but I am but one. It's not always apparent to others when a woman is being nice. She has been trained her whole life to suppress her self for the benefit of others so that she will be likable.

You lost me there. I am not worried about the church. The Church will see itself through. People will leave, that's predicted. The three big temptations, lust pride and greed are and always have been a problem. But the prophets will teach us to repent, they always have, they always do, and they will warn of our destruction if we don't. They will warn of us losing the Spirit. They will warn of us chosing evil. They have always been right, and they will always be right. They have been right for thousands of years, and it's not going to suddenly change just because you and I are alive

Perhaps, but personally for me, knowing these folks fairly well, I am shaken up by it and reminded that none of us are exempt from pride being a threat.

I'm late to this party, but I DO like to differentiate between "nice" and "kind" in the following way - I hear the word "nice" as a four letter word - it's milquetoast, it's without boundaries, it's manipulative and pleasing. Its the absence of self and it's the root of much depression. It robs partnership and is false. Kind is boundaried. It's authentic. It's trusting others. It's trusting the self. It's healthy and it's loving others in the truest sense. I'm not always kind but when I am I feel it, and so do others.

yet some how, folks are critical of Renlund's statements, suggesting he is being political. We have solid folks leaving the church from our ward because they think the prophets have lost it over this issue. It's tragic.

We just picked up 100 gifts to give out in the parking lot bishopric drive through .