LittleWyvern

I mention this because I think we tend to assume too much about people if we disagree (the other person is stupid, is apostate, etc.) In nearly all cases it's just two people that are perfectly reasonable and rational people (and here I would add both find members of the Church), they just happen to disagree. That's it.

Remembering that two perfectly good and rational people can often disagree with each other.

Other than not having the \\\"New Posts\\\" button (I really really miss that), I like the new forums. :) EDIT: Ah, it looks like quotes are mangled. It keeps on putting a \\ before the double quote character.

I'm slightly disappointed that you didn't thank your own post. And I suppose that's what "leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families" is for. Culture may vary around the world, and some things are done just to be practical. On my mission I saw one instance where a mom was holding her baby in a baby blessing because otherwise the baby would be crying like crazy during the whole thing. It was clear, though, that she wasn't participating in the blessing or becoming a part of it in any way. Perhaps having a tradition where the mom participates in all baby blessing blurs that "participating" line too much.

Oh, ok, I got confused for a minute. I decided not to be lazy and look it up, and there is a section in Handbook 2 about it. I've been in a student ward so long I hardly remembered what a baby blessing was. EDIT: Ok, who hacked JaG's account and made him thank every single post in the past 2 pages?

Is a baby blessing an official Priesthood ordinance where we've been given specific revelation on exactly how we're supposed to do it? I would have answered "no" to that question, but now that you're comparing it to baptism I'm honestly not sure anymore.

I can't believe I just read that.

If someone were to destroy the Salt Lake Temple (God forbid!), would that be the end of Mormonism?

There is no "nation of Islam." Islam is far too decentralized for such a concept to exist. The caliphate hasn't existed for hundreds of years, and perhaps never will again. As I've posted before, because of the decentralized nature of Islam (think of how the Church would be if the highest authority was a Bishop, and all wards were run independently), Islam as a religion cannot do something collectively about terrorism. While is is the responsibility of Muslims everywhere to oppose terrorism and extremism, this battle must necessarily be fought in individual mosques and by unofficial Muslim groups (like CAIR). Because there is no unified body of believers, there's nothing to excommunicate an extremist from, and thus there is no concept of excommunication (or anything of the sort) in Islam. Not only is that terribly insensitive, it would do more to promote anti-Americanism and extremism in Islam than a million crazy imams ever could. The Ka'ba or Mecca is not the cause of extremism in Islam: it is ignorance and illiteracy. Think about it: if you were living in Pakistan, couldn't read Arabic, your brother was killed by a drone, and your imam told you that you must fight against those that killed your brother by suicide bombing yourself, what would you think?

I didn't mention this at first because the OP mentioned Utah, but the no beards thing is mostly a Utah and Idaho church culture thing. As far as I've been able to tell, beards became associated with some counterculture movements in the 1950's, and thus beards were strongly discouraged by the Church back then. Those counterculture movements no longer exist, but in some areas of the Church this tradition stuck around and became so enmeshed in the culture that some have difficulty distinguishing it from doctrine. Outside of Utah and Idaho, you'll hardly find any objection to beards. Several people in my home ward in Oregon, for instance, had beards and nobody minded.

Unless this job is in the Church or related to the Church in some way, probably not.

Maybe it's just different perspectives. When you're a missionary, you quickly learn to not have a negative reaction towards pants. "Our investigator didn't wear shorts to Church! Hooray!"

This, to me, is really weird. When I set up a bank account at the Wells Fargo at BYU, I was told specifically that the Church prefers wire transfers for tithing because it reduces overhead at the ward level. I was even coached through setting it up by one of the Wells Fargo employees before leaving. It makes sense: each ward counts up their tithing funds after each Sunday and sends it to Church HQ anyway. If your Bishop wants proof, you could always send him copies of the donation receipts that Church HQ sends you when you do a wire transfer.

I don't understand why this case had to be such a big deal. The case was obviously frivolous and without foundation, so I think we'd all be better off if the case was just dismissed without fanfare. All we're doing is giving this guy the attention he probably wanted out of all this anyway.

What I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that the LGBT movement isn't just a fad. Sure, the timescale might be different (I used "flavor of the week" as a phrase, not a length of time), but societal fads, especially those associated with a certain generation, come and go. Understandably, to an organization that's been around much longer than you or I have been alive, these fads aren't something worth chasing.