How can members have confidence in such a leader if he micromanages his flock to that extent? HE IS NOT GOD; he is simply someone who refuses to respect the inherent God-given right of agency, nor in teaching agency, does he remind the faithful that agency is a two-sided coin with the flip-side being the consequences that accompany unwise choices.

It is apparent that someone such as this that he trusts absolutely nobody. If he says it, it is of God. if anyone dares to have a different, yet equally scripturally valid opinion, then such a leader brands them as a ‘spiritual heretic’, denies them the chance to serve and does all he can within the rules to discredit them within the eyes of the sheople within the ward or stake, It is leaders like this and actions like theirs that personify the verse ‘amen to the priesthood or authority of that man.’ Would it kill these guys to re-read the 121st section of the Doctrine & Covenants?

Found this on an old Times and Seasons discussion:

“Heber C. Kimball on December 27, 1857:

I am opposed to your nasty fashions and everything you wear for the sake of fashion. Did you ever see me with hermaphrodite pantaloons on? [Voice: "Fornication pantaloons."] Our boys are weakening their backs and their kidneys by girting themselves up as they do; they are destroying the strength of their loins and taking a course to injure their posterity.

Now, just look at me. I have no hips projecting out; they are straight down with my sides. I am serious myself, although I can smile and laugh when I am serious; but these ridiculous fashions I despise, and God knows I despise anything that will tend to destroy the lives of my sisters. What is your existence worth to you? It is worth everything to your posterity; and you ought to consider their interest as well as your own.

There is not a woman in this congregation but would be as straight as I am, if she did not destroy her shape.Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.191″

In their discussion, it was stated that while BY has this attributed to him in 1830, no source is cited and 1830 is too early for BY anyway.

Glad you mentioned it, AdamF. Good one.

“it’s all at our fingertips now”
Reminds me of a Brigham Young quote criticizing zippers on pants (as opposed to buttons) because they would make adultery more likely. I should find the source for that one…

My husband isn’t even on FB but he has a stalker ex who worked FB for over a year to get one of his friends to give her my hubby’s personal info. Once the friend did so she emailed my husband naked photos of herself and sent him explicit text messages. He deleted the photos but flirted back for literally a minute via text (he liked the attention – who doesn’t?) before cutting off all contact. He’s ignored her for over a month now but she still texts him (and it’s his work phone so he can’t change the number)

My FB message made my hubby feel insecure and his returning his ex’s text really hurt my feelings. I think our instant contact, instant gratification makes every passing thought, every bad day an opportunity to cheat emotionally or hurt someone because it’s all at our fingertips now.

I expect divorce rates to skyrocket

Actually, the biggest trust issue we have with FB is when one of us accidentally stays logged in on the shared computer and the other one writes a ridiculous status update in our name.

This is the Facebook equivalent to the secular admonishment not to “dial drunk.”

This one made me chortle. We have a member of our family who regularly indicates their level of intoxicatedness with what they post (or attempt to post) on their facebook wall. On Sunday afternoon, when the hangover has finally wained, he gets back on FB and frantically deletes everything.

My wife doesn’t care about FB and isn’t on it. She knows my password, but only because I use the same password for everything I can. She’s free to log on to my account, but she never would, as she has zero interest and doesn’t care about it.

I have lots of female FB friends, and it would never occur to me to somehow try to start an affair with one of them. I’m not even sure how that would work. The level of discourse is so superficial, I can’t see getting all steamy with someone in that venue. Others may have different sensibilities about it, but I view it as harmless.

I agree with most comments here that Facebook affairs are more the symptom than the actual crime. One of my friends wife had an internet affair from meeting someone in a chatroom before Facebook started out. It’s just the person’s choice in the matter. I do know the wife in this situation felt her husband was not spending enough time with her, so when he was away at work (he mainly worked nights in the mines) she was on the computer, met someone, and took it further. Someone showed interest in her at a time she felt lonely. I can understand that, but I disagree with her further decisions. The same thing happens with Facebook.

The internet makes it easier to ‘meet’ other people without going outside the home. In most cases the wife has less opportunity than the husband to go out and meet people, unless both spouses are working and/or they have no dependent children. Spending more time on the internet chatting with a friend than with a spouse becomes easier to do while the other is at work. This forms close bonds and an emotional intmacy which can lead on to other things. So the big thing is to spend more time talking with your spouse than you do on facebook (or a chatroom) to all your friends, so the emotional bond remains where it should be. This goes for men as well if they are like me and tend to stay up late at night because they are not tired (I need 4 hours a night), but their wife is in bed asleep.

The church’s guidelines about the internet are to have the computer in a public area, not in a bedroom or study, so that anyone can walk past whenever and see what the user is doing; use a netnanny; and not to have the computer on late at night when everyone else is in bed. This stops the potential for someone to look at the wrong things.

The main points are choice and accountability and mostly discipline.

Or do you mean Christian religions believe that we are all sinners? Because if that’s what you’re saying, you’re right, but its still not really mechanized: although I may sin, I can avoid any sin I want to avoid.

Mostly, though, saying, “Not according to Christianity” is way too broad to have any meaning, because I can’t think of a single principle on which all Christians would agree.

As for friending opposite sex – I am simply selective. Why exactly would I want to know so much about those people’s daily lives and their minute by minute thoughts? And I don’t like the idea of my friend’s husbands or weird old guys in the ward hovering over my life, caring about what I am doing each day? I simply imagine having the conversations in real life and since I am far more likely to speak to my female friends and acquaintances than male friends and acquaintances, then my facebook life reflects that.

Not according to Christianity.

“I’m fairly certain that the word “friend” is not used as a verb anywhere on lds.org…”

I hate it when nouns get verbed.

I haven’t yet heard “Facebook made me do it….” But I expect to.

The presence of Facebook in our home does not undermine our marriage at all, anymore than having a telephone number of someone of the opposite sex in an address book next to my phone would encourage me to have extra-marital affairs with that person.

Also, we don’t consistently log out of our emails at home when we’re done, and because of a really annoying couple weeks on Safari, our passwords autofill on our home computers.

But mostly, it is way more convenient if your spouse can get into your email. (Heck, I’ve called my sister a couple times to have her retrieve emails for me; I don’t know if she remembers my password, but she certainly could if she wanted.) There is no trust implication about it.