Sometimes we learn more from day-to-day life than we might think.
One of the most poignant conversations I had during my mission was only a few sentences. We had been invited at someone's home for dinner. This family was great. They all were wonderful to be around. However, they were also somewhat different from most other families that we visited. I believe the father was a NASCAR pit-stop mechanic of some kind, I never talked with him. He seemed very quiet, probably because  we seemed reluctant to talk with him as well. Anyway, as we were getting ready to have dinner one night we were setting the table, and I guess the mother drank sweet tea with her meals, so she brought out a bottle. I knew that this was against the teachings of the prophet of our church, but I wasn't going to say anything at that time. If you read in the New Testament, the Savior doesn't go around correcting people. In fact, sometimes he takes the opposite approach from that which the religious people of that time thought he should. Anyway, I was acting completely normal, and then I guess this sister looked at me in a way that told me that she saw me as one who would judge her and correct her for her bad habit, so she said "Elder, please just let me have this one thing. It is my one thing." She said something along those lines. And I was surprised, because in the first place I wasn't going to say anything, and secondly the manner in which she acknowledged it showed that there was a large amount of guilt she felt by doing this "one thing". Did she see me as some sort of moral authority over her home? Anyway, it didn't make any amount of sense to me why she did not give it up if she felt so incredibly guilty doing it, to the point that she had to directly ask me to let it alone without me so much as looking at her funny. Sin in the lives of everyday people can be a very interesting thing to observe.

Take what lesson you will from this.

I found through that experience that following the Spirit is the best way to fulfill what God sends you to people to do. The Spirit is the measure for us of "how close am I to doing what God wants?". We can't make one ourselves.

The key is not being afraid to speak up, because that will sometimes be required and also because fear interferes with our spiritual "antennae" and prevents us from knowing what it is that we do need to do. Whether we are to call someone out verbally, or just by our silent spiritual presence prompt some healthy introspection, is not our decision but the Father's. He will let us know through the Holy Spirit what we are to do. But we should keep our minds open to the idea that sometimes just our being there is enough to make people think. Sometimes we don't even have to know the person well, but they recognize something different about us. They see that we hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe that spiritual power is a tangible result of righteous living and you don't always need to consciously choose to use it in a specific way, but you do have to work hard to develop it and to keep it.

On Abortion

Anyone who supports abortion without reservation has lost their grip on reality and their eternal soul.
Why do we always define abortion as ending a pregnancy? Are we afraid to acknowledge the bigger picture that we are in reality ending a life?
I recently saw a post on Facebook from someone that read "women's bodies are not political battlefields". But politics is exactly that- a way to delineate what rights one person has against another. Does age matter? Does the unborn child have rights like other humans, or is he on animal terms?
If you live in a 3rd world country and your parents are aged will you leave them in the wilderness because no one can tell you what to do with your house? That is the same argument!
This is a deeply spiritual argument. You are not your body. Your body is a gift from God (or however you want to describe that concept). It is not your prerogative to use as you wish. Your free will is will to resist the right choice and be happy, or choose the wrong and in this case spend time behind bars. To believe otherwise is simply not the truth.
In what kind of upside-down worldview does the process of killing a fetus being safe have any bearing at all on whether it is right or wrong? That is merely an attempt to distract.
Bill Nye's video was a joke. Probably one of the least intelligent things I have ever heard from the lips of an "educated" human. He essentially claimed that he was going to derail the pro-life argument through science- and then only brought up one scientific fact in the rest of the video. A fact that was- the egg and sperm have to attach to the wall of the placenta to make a baby. That has NOTHING to do with the pro-life argument. If the egg and sperm don't make a baby in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, would we?! But some of them do, and some of those are murdered. That is the issue. Bill, you officially brought nothing to the conversation but your condescending intellect. Thank you for showing us the real you. I liked the "Science Guy" better.
It seems like the only way to have a popular argument nowadays is to insult the intelligence of the other side and say that they hold their opinions out of ignorance.
Mr. Nye should watch this video for a reality check from someone who seems to be much more up-to-speed with the "science" of abortion http://video.dailycaller.com/Pastor-Is-Asked-Is-Abortion-Murder-His-Response-Gave-Me-Chills-29536565
More civil rights vs. less murder of innocent humans- how is there even a question?
As a society we often have to deny people rights in order to protect other people! We have to give EVERYONE as many rights as possible, not just you! This is a basic principle of law. In a democratic society, you can't do whatever you want. You can do what the majority and their representatives think is fair for you to do, according to how it affects others. And at times you can't even do something that only affects you- For example, I don't have the right to do crystal meth- even though I would possibly be the only one affected (assuming I had no family or friend ties). So why should you be able to get an abortion, which is as destructive spiritually as hard drugs are mentally and physically?
A scripture in the Bible comes to mind, which I know many of you won't value but here it is-
"Will a mother forget her sucking child? Nay, she may forget, but I will not forget thee." I used to think that was an extreme example for God to use, thinking that it would never happen. I used to say "of course no woman with a conscience is going to forget her newborn baby, who depends so strongly on her that it literally becomes a parasitical relationship"- she knows that the baby needs her! Yet this is exactly what's happening with abortion.
People who have had abortions often think "now I have to turn around and support other people doing the same." If you say that you are also saying through deductive reasoning that you would get another abortion again if you were in the same situation. Therefore why should pro-life people accept you? If you hold this opinion you are NOT a victim of judgment by bigoted Christians and other pro-life people- you are an advocate of the slaughter of humans. By maintaining your support of abortion you are asking for our criticism, which we feel duty-bound to give!
Some who have abortions later recognize that it was regrettable and unfortunate and therefore you discourage others from having one to spare them the same pain- that is a completely different thing. It absolutely is very different for someone to continue supporting this evil practice!
One common viewpoint in my church is that abortions are only a valid option if the mother was impregnated through rape. If God were here I think that in the majority if cases He would promise these mothers that the baby will be a blessing to them, that they will receive strength, and to go through with the pregnancy and birth. As horrific as rape is there is a reason behind everything. Perhaps one good thing can come from something so horrible. God works in mysterious ways. One thing is for sure- nothing good will come out of an abortion.
Maybe God tests people to see how much you value the life He places inside of you and what kind of sacrifice you are willing to make.
It's not just about believing in God, however- it is about valuing human life.
Another exception is if the mother's life is at stake. To me that is the point where it becomes the woman's decision. I can understand getting an abortion in that scenario. However anything short of  life-threatening pregnancies should never be aborted. Ever.
I can see this issue going on for a while... but when our kids are learning history 100 years from now will they honor the pro-choice, or the pro-life? Which side do you think they will sympathize with? Something to think about.
I am glad we have a government to stop crazy ladies from killing their unborn children. That is what they should be doing. If women want to avoid these consequences, they can take steps to avoid pregnancy.
Those of us who value the lives of the unborn need to be more vocal and active in advocating for them in intelligent ways, but never compromise on the right of an unborn child to their life.

A Comment for Chelsea Shield's TED talk- Women and the Priesthood

Spiritual and religious ignorance are pervasive, destructive seeds of unnecessary conflict. Of course no one needs to be silenced or feel guilty for expressing themselves. But if we want solutions rather than dialogue, we need to understand true information.

1) The worth of a soul is absolutely independent from gender, race, sexual orientation, values/beliefs, religious affiliation, choice of lifestyle, and anything else you can fill in the blank with. This is the stance of the LDS Church.

2) Mormons believe that no individual's worth is tied to their choices. I believe that misconception comes from a strict moral code that the devout adhere to out of pure love for God and disdain for sin because of its consequences, but that unfortunately often comes off as a "holier-than-thou" lifestyle. That is unfortunate, but it is not an issue of having high standards. High standards help people. Rather, it's an issue of people's personal problems- We have them, just like everyone else in this world. However, because we are the ones "claiming moral authority" in a sense, we are expected to back it up by our actions. That's not an unrealistic expectation by society, in fact it's probably a healthy one because it aligns with God's expectations. It would be helpful to those involved on both sides, however, if there were a little more patience and love. In any organization, man's self-gratifying nature will be to twist a "better" life into a "better-than-you" life, turning everything into a battle about who is following God more closely. This is the whole problem.

3) Therefore, no members of the Church are justified in hating Sister Shields for wearing a sleeveless dress, even if it does indicate that she is not wearing a garment. I do find it interesting, at the least, to see someone who has taken this "side road" attempt to now suddenly be a representative for our faith and a hopeful leader. But her value as a person and divine potential are not diminished. The conditions of her salvation are not somehow changed. They are the same conditions as rest upon the entire human family, and they aren't conditions that the Church "made up". They are eternal realities revealed to prophets and evidenced to me through spiritual moments and every day experience. I know that they are true in the most accurate sense of that word.

Some extra reading for those inclined

Mormons have been women's rights champions from the beginning- Utah was actually the second state after Wyoming to adopt women's suffrage in 1870. For every women who chooses to take Sister Shield's position, there will be more who feel nothing but enabled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, even discounting the lower 80% of the social strata (Not to be a social Darwinist, but to anticipate the following counter-argument- educated people aren't worth more either).

As others in this thread have commented, there is not simply a dumb or uninformed majority of women in the Church- they excel in the world. There is no army waiting to back Shields up when they become enlightened and realize that they are being stifled. Rather, most LDS women understand that in no way is the simple reality of not bearing the priesthood restricting in and of itself. Not spiritually, not physically, and not socially. If women are below men today in LDS culture, that is not a Church organization issue, that is a cultural issue rooted in sin. The cure is Christ, not reform to a divinely established institution.

There is so much more to leading Mormons and Mormon communities than administering the few Priesthood ordinances and functions given to men. Of the pie of service opportunities, only the most extreme dieter would limit themselves to the slice for which bearing the priesthood is required to eat.

Though it does appear paradoxical, my argument is different than the argument that holding the priesthood is "only a formality and that's why women don't need it". I am saying that it should be obvious to all faithful persons that God will more than compensate everyone for any opportunities to serve that they may miss out on by virtue of not holding the priesthood. If you believe in the Plan of Salvation, you will recognize that there can never be a shortage of good to do. And I am also saying that service done in the priesthood does not put the doer of that service on a higher level of worth to God that only worthy priesthood holders can reach. There's no "bonus level".


The root of this entire issue is men for generations believing or acting the opposite of the above paragraph, using the priesthood to levy themselves above their families, their congregations, and their real spiritual selves. That is unfortunate, and that is not likely to change. It is a separate issue that can be addressed through dialogue about how we can eradicate pride among our male leaders. Ironically, this dialogue takes place every six months, in a meeting for men only that some of the comments in this thread seem to indicate is one of the grievances Shields and her crowd are railing against. Complex, complex...

But also, at the end of the day, let's face the facts and acknowledge that we tend to overemphasize the influence of priesthood leaders in our personal lives. Their leadership is greater than 99 percent through example and teaching. In other words, if a bishop is bigoted, usually the worst thing he will do is gloat at the podium and tell us how much better his kids are at making tin-foil dinners or pinewood derby cars. Maybe some exaggerated mission stories will follow... That is a problem, but gratefully that's where it ends, largely because he has two councilors and a ward council to keep him in line, as well as the entire membership to answer to. So the answer isn't "reform the Church", perhaps it is "reform the leaders". Although they rotate frequently and their issues may be deep and difficult to address, helping our leaders lead us may be the best thing we can do. Is that not part of sustaining them?

Another topic that I do not have room or time to comment on is how to have faith that these leaders are called of God when they sometimes seem so incompetent, or at least "less-competent" than Brother business-executive or whoever seems to be the man for the job.

Finally, we are all beggars to God and ultimately nothing more than the "dust of the Earth". The spiteful dialogue found in this thread makes all of us look like the spoiled children of a very indulgent parent who is now apt to regret indulging us. Issues need to be addressed, but the underlying issue here is not a religion problem or a gender problem, it's a side effect of humanity's generally overinflated ego.  I believe that the debate on how to best work through this should be framed on that acknowledgement. Let's be accountable.

I also believe that Sister Shield's talk would not exist if local leaders were more aware of the feelings and needs of their members and were willing to work with them while continuing to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ. That will be my screeching halt to this lengthy disquisition.