Leaderboard

I think it does everyone a disservice to hold a leader to be automatically always perfectly infallible in everything he says or does. That's not how the Gospel works. Rather, look into every matter with study and prayer.

They have? Who?

I’m a little overly feisty, maybe; but I would simply send an email to the bishop and cc the SP and the second counselor. Let them know that you have been the sole member of the bishopric at church for the last ___ Sundays; and the next time you find yourself as the sole bishopric member at church you will call a third counselor to the bishopric without further notice. If they want to stop you, they can come to church themselves (for a change!), or else reorganize the bishopric without further delay.

Somewhat. I read the chapters available on the LDS Library app. It’s engaging and overall well done, but is most assuredly “faith-promoting”—not a bad thing per se; but by ignoring the existence of alternate versions of events (e.g. Joseph Smith’s 1826 trial and Anthon’s account of his meeting with Harris) its usefulness as an “inoculation” tool leaves some things to be desired. This book seems likely to be an improvement, but probably not the definitive, academically-rigorous-yet-popularly-readable Church-produced history I’ve been hoping for (then again, I may well be hoping for too much). By the way, the LDS Church History channel on YouTube has also been churning out a lot of great content lately.

You may be right about those who formally leave the Church. For those of us who stay, our analysis of the data tends to reveal massive gaps in ourselves, which gives added meaning to, and reveals the real intents and purposes, of the Church, and the chief cornerstone thereof. It makes sense, then, regardless of presumed or projected compartmentalizing and rationalization, that different conclusions would result from different directions to which the analytical magnifying glass is faced. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Have you never look up Packer's date of birth? He was old enough to be my grandfather (just barely) and I'm pretty sure I'm old enough to be your mother. Once upon a time, "civilized" people didn't use certain words, particularly in writing, and even more particularly in writing that might be seen by women (and perhaps children). Once upon a time, there was such a thing as "polite society" - but I'm pretty sure that's not only gone, but a foreign, confusing concept. 2018 slang and euphemisms that were obvious to us will be obscure as all get out to people in 2100.

Am I really the only person who thinks the For the Strength of Youth wording is the complete opposite of what @BJ64 calls it (confusing, "beating around the bush", representing a changed perspective toward acceptance)? Under the law of Moses, the rule was not to commit adultery. Under the higher law, it was not to even lust after a person - a higher standard. Under the old law, the rule was "don't masturbate". Under the higher law, it is "don't do anything which causes you to feel sexually aroused". The latter can happen before and without masturbation (as well as during). And it seems pretty obvious from the full text, as opposed to one mocked sentence, that the intent is to stop more than just masturbation, but any and all thoughts and feelings which lead up to that and other sexual sins (emphases mine): Just seems obvious to me - this is not a lessening or slackening of standards. It's not giving up a losing battle. It's fear of being called foolish - as if a prophet of God would fear such a thing. It's raising the bar, inviting to embrace a higher standard.

Anyone else looking forward to the new volumes of Church History coming out on Sept 4?

I don’t have ice cream but my wife made a layered pudding dessert so I’ll eat an extra serving for you.

In his defense, he is asking and not just throwing prophetic counsel out the window. These are great questions and when someone dives into church history and reads quotes from prophets throughout time... it can be confusing cause often times the counsel is contradictory. (Ie cola drinks being counseled against in the past, but being served in temple cafeterias today). I have noticed that prophets pre-President Hunter were very open with their opinions and often time made specific declarations on specific applications. I haven’t seen much of that since. I sometimes wonder if that is on purpose.

Allow me to start off with a conversation you might be vaguely familiar with: Me (eagerly): "Yeah, Joseph Smith translated these really cool ancient gold-colored plates into what we call The Book of Mormon!" Them (inquisitively): "Sweet! Can I see a picture of the plates? Or do I have to go to Utah to see them?" Me (matter-of-factly): "Actually there aren't any pictures, and they're not even on display in Utah." Them (confusedly): "So you've never seen them?" Me (less-eagerly): "Um, no. God commanded Joseph to keep them private. But a dozen or so other people did see them." Them (suspiciously): "Well where are the plates now?" Me (grinning painfully): "The angel who gave Joseph the plates took them back after Joseph finished translating." Them (skeptically): "Oh ... how ... convenient. Why'd he do that?" Me (kicking myself): "Uhh ... because Joseph didn't need them anymore? Moroni wanted them for his bookshelf? I have no idea." This article (forcing itself into the conversation): "Well let me tell you!" Stuff you should know via bookofmormoncentral.org Theft attempts It's a common argument from modern... View the full article

@BJ64 I think what is also important is that every action comes with its own consequence. The more we take care of our body and avoid damaging substances, they’re blessings we will have. Obedience to the literal words of the Prophet will not be enough to dictate how we live our life.

I think this can be a good question. As noted, it shouldn't be just about caffeine. As another example, (for those of us in Utah), if we choose to vote for prop 2, will that be a sin? Was it a sin for those in '33 who voted for the repeal of prohibition?

But teachers don’t impede all that young, disease-free teen-flesh from entering the sexual marketplace where it can be freely exploited and groomed for another decade or two of promiscuity. (In fact, in many jurisdictions teachers are prohibited from encouraging abstinence at all.) Catholic and LDS clergy, by contrast, tend to do precisely that; and so they must be stopped at all costs. There is a guiding intelligence and plan behind all this. Whether Young and some of his acolytes are active co-conspirators in this plan, or mere pawns, remains to be seen.

Not at all. First off - I believe there is great confusion as to what constitutes a historical document. It is my understanding that all sacred scripture is not so much about a past history as it is intended to be prophetic rather than historic. To be honest - the deceitful teachers blinded by the devil are those that refuse to move beyond looking backward into the past to be enlightened by the future and what will be. The Traveler

The typical human emotions - have you raised any children from birth? I do not think I would classify a creature incapable of emotions as something divinely enlightened. Would you? I believe the official label of an intelligent creature without emotions is a psychopath. Usually more associated with something demonic than divine. The Traveler

Trouble is, even without those non-Christians, pretty much every denomination is only willing to unite on their own often-incompatible terms. Just watching the childish actions of some in situations where the only needed action is something everyone who recognizes the teachings of Christ should be in full agreement on, like helping disaster victims, makes it clear that hubris is more of a motivator than love for many. And for those of you thinking "yeah, all those other denominations are so immature" I'd recommend re-watching this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/lord-is-it-i?lang=eng

Perhaps that "unwelcome change" is simply the removal of the trinitarian requirement. LDS don't have a monopoly on nontrinitarian Christianity, so it's possible there could be substantial support for such a move that's been keeping quiet so far. Exactly; we keep hearing how athletic programs are "self supporting," and yet they always have a line in the school budget. If you don't want to take orders, get off the payroll.

If interested: Here is the text version with references: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending-mountain-lord-temple-praise-and-worship-old-testament/tree-knowledge-veil Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I just moved into a new apartment about a month ago, and still haven't retrieved all my clothes (including dress shirts and ties) from my folks' residence. I hope my ward won't care, but due to those circumstances, I may be casual in the morning...lol.

Thank you, everyone for the wonderful replies! Not trying to sound needy or anything, but I often struggle with loneliness and depression as well. It's nice to know that my struggles ade understood and somewhat appreciated, even if from a distance. If you can, please keep me in your prayers as I navigate this. I just had a talk with the missionaries today. I'm actually venturing into Sacrament Meeting tomorrow.

PSA: Do NOT play this around a pregnant woman unless you are fully prepared to make bacon pancakes.

That's only cuz of how short I am.

I know, but in the words of Reuben J Clark The youth of the Church are hungry for things of the Spirit; they are eager to learn the gospel, and they want it straight, undiluted.” I also don’t think that a time where people refused to say the true and simplistic form of a word is a superior time. I don’t understand that at all. It’s one thing to speak in parables, but another to refuse to say the simplest form of a word because it has a dirty sound. Im open to the idea that I may be wrong, maybe we shouldn’t use the ‘M’ word... but I can’t fathom why not

@OhThatMatty So pleased to have you back! We love you! Celibacy is hard. Being single is tough. When you are single it is like driving a crappy car, you feel every bump in the road. But there are things worse than being single, like being trapped in a loveless marriage, being married to an irresponsible or spiteful person. Buck up, go to activities and make friends. So glad to have you back! ❤️

I agree Zil!! I personally don’t think clarification on terminology is needed xD. But what I personally don’t get is this. Packer has an entire booklet focused on masturbation, the evils of it, how to not get trapped in it and so on. He does not once use the word masturbation but rather uses words like manipulation, self stimulating and other euphemisms. I first read it when I was 18 and on my mission. By this point I had overcome such sins and knewnof their evils. Even with my background it took me probably a dayb after reading it to finally be 100% sure about what it was he was talking about. I was so confused by the terminology, and afterwards I was pondering on “what the heck does x euphemism’ even mean!?!? I assumed it meant masturbation, but I couldn’t 100% say for sure. It would be SO easy to just say the word and I am still confused as to why he didn’t... not even once.

You have, they were just using euphemisms as you stated above. It is so obvious that Packer spoke of it, Spencer W Kimball did, as did many others. The issue I have with your question is that you are using what may or may not have been said against what IS being said today. Even if you don’t identify it as having been discussed in the past, the church does. One would have to separate themselves from the church to disagree

Hannah Cornaby must have been looking into a crystal ball or something when she wrote the text for "Who's on the Lord's Side?" (or, I guess a little more likely, received revelation) because her words have never been more applicable than they are today. For years, news outlets have reported that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is on the wrong side of everything — history, current events, even laws. Latter-day Saints, they claim, are disturbingly anti-social justice and equality. And you know what? Judging by the world's views, they're probably right. In a world that is increasingly "accepting," Latter-day Saints are becoming less and less accepted — all because the Church will not conform to society's standards of morality. While the world's laws are ever-changing, God's laws remain the same "yesterday, today, and forever" (1 Nephi 10:18). In April of 2013, Elder L. Tom Perry said, "The world changes constantly and dramatically, but God, His commandments, and promised blessings do not change. They are immutable and unchanging" (L. Tom... View the full article

Our last General Conference had a good example of this. Not only did an apostle give an "attaboy" to the world finally coming around, but encouraged them to continue swinging the pendulum until they line up with Christ's standard of chastity.

Oh, thank you, thank you sooooooo much JAG - If I could only give your a 1,000 thank you emoji's. Well said, young man!

No, you cannot honestly say that there is "no mention of masturbation in the handbook or FTSOY or any general conference talk 38 years". That's three lies in one. The only way you can get close to being there is by a) making a legalistic distinction between the word versus the practice the word denotes; or b) deliberately creating confusion where there was none, by insisting on explicit use of the M-word and splitting hairs over terminology that 98% of the active, believing Church membership understands. And it's pretty ironic for you to complain that the numerous statements the Church and/or its leaders have made in the issue are somehow lacking in clarity, authority, and/or accessibility; while also hanging your hat on an off-the-cuff quotation from an obscure interview with a Seventy in Time Magazine that is absent from any Church-related publication (whether official or unofficial) and suggesting that said quotation is somehow making the hoi polloi of the Church unsure as to where the Church truly stands on the issue. The Church Handbook of Instructions doesn't say it's not a reason for disciplinary action; it says it's not a reason for a disciplinary council. Informal probation is still an option for masturbation. That, by the way, is the same guidance the CHI gives regarding pornography use. You didn't refer to "THE" prophet. You said "the only prophet in recorded history to speak out against masturbation called it a rather common indiscretion." You know very well that in the Church we consider all members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to be prophets; yet you tried to remove at least seven of them from the discussion in one fell swoop. You failed to mention Elders Wells, Clark, McConkie, Petersen, Packer, Stapley, and Scott; failed to mention President Benson; failed to mention the numerous other Church publications that have gone out over the imprimatur of the entire First Presidency under the administrations of Presidents Kimball, Benson, Hunter, Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson; and failed to even provide the full text of Kimball's own comments to which you cite. Except that you know it exists, I know it exists, God knows it exists, and God knows you know it exists. So . . . good luck with that excuse at the last day. You mean to tell me that over seven or eight years, you never once saw either of Benson's sermons to which I linked earlier? O-kaaaay, then . . . Whatever went into your research, your activities in this forum have been far from sincere. To the contrary, they represent a one-sided attempt to conceal, de-legitimize, or obfuscate every statement made under the auspices of LDS authority that conflicts with your preferred worldview.

I hope that the Church isn't always on the "wrong" side of EVERY issue. I hope our discernment is more nuanced than "the World (TM) says X so the Church must say the opposite". When the World takes up a rallying cry against sexual assault and abuse, I hope the Church has and will take up the same cry, for example. Perhaps the main problem I have with something like this, that I think my example illustrates, is that we always talk about "the World" without ever really defining who or what the World is (other than some idea that the World is those who are opposed to us). Of course, that kind of tautological "we are always on the wrong side of the World's issues because we define the World as those who are on the opposite side of our issues" may be true, but it doesn't help with discernment. In the end, I hope the Church is always on the right side of what God wants. The real challenge is the discernment part -- knowing what God wants. And, accepting the fallibility of prophets and other Church leaders, is the Church always in every detail on the side that God wants?

We built a home for a burned out family. LoL this is my point traveling two separate stakes for 6 years I saw a drastic difference between bishops, and some avoided the poor and needy some went overboard. At judgement I would rather be the one that helped too much. My comments are just factual observation. Nothing to do with my finances. I have been blessed to be self reliant. I am extremely familiar with actual Church policy and it seems you have a great bishop.

It has not been that long since the last fight over this. If Christianity doesn't unite we are heading for bad times and I don't doubt non Christians keep pushing everybody's buttons to keep us divided

I think it has to do with expectations. They didn't expect He would come back, and since resurrections had never happened before. That, combined with their preoccupations (life was generally very hard in those days and required a good deal of focus; compound that with their mourning and the dangers they faced as followers of an enemy of the powers that be) it was the furthest thing from their minds.

IMO, it's highly probably that Mary didn't look up at the face of the person who spoke to her. Also, her sight was likely blurred by tears. In the Road to Emmaus event, I always figured Christ intentionally kept them from recognizing him - verse 16 "their eyes were holden that they should not know him" - deliberate act. As for the fishing event - it was just dawn, and distance.

Not sure, but once again it could be multiple things. I think some of it may have to do with the differences between our mortal bodies (which are imperfect and have imperfections) and a perfected immortal body. I suppose an example could be, imagine the kid that had a lot of acne when they were a teenager. That's how you remember them. 20 years later at the High School Reunion you see them again, but you don't recognize them. They have gained (or lost) a little weight, maybe lost some hair (in the resurrection more likely one would have GAINED some hair), and no longer suffer from acne. Another thing that people have postulated is that it is the cloaking of the spirit. Unless one is attuned perfectly with the spirit (and many times we are not) they cannot recognize beings of the spirit until that being allows them to recognize them. However, of course, this is all just postulation without a true knowledge of what it really was.

I don't really know, but there could be several reasons. One that comes to mind is distance. At 100 yards, how often do you miss someone that you might know. No, imagine that you are hard at work fishing and you might see a glance of someone on the shore, you might even yell to them or they at you and unless your mind is in the mental state to recognize them, you may not. If they were fishing in a boat more than likely they were even further out from shore than 100 yards, perhaps even to the distance where they could only shout at each other (several hundred yards). It could be many other reasons, but this is one that could be pretty obvious as well. Another one is that they were used to seeing the Savior in his mortal body. Upon resurrection we attain a perfect body, our imperfections being made perfect. It seems that he could revert or at least still had the wounds in his hands, feet, and side, but it is also possible that in his perfect form he appeared slightly different than in his mortal life and thus was not as easily recognized.

I have read all of the posts here, I followed just a few of the inks. I have just finished perusing through Sam Young's blog. What I am curious about is he was a Bishop - certainly he interviewed youth for limited us Temple Recommends, did he ask if these youth masturbated? Or did he ask if they obeyed the Law of Chastity? Did he have an adult in the next room or in the hallway? Did he have a parent in the room during these interviews? Did he do the annual interviews? Did he molest youth during any of these interviews? How old was his daughter when she finally told him of the questions asked of her during an interview with their Bishop? Why, as a father, he is afraid to ask his daughters any personal questions of themselves, or what was said during Bishop interviews? I am greatly impressed by the guest post article in the Millennial Star online magazine. I have always found the articles there to be well researched, thought out, written. My take is this: Sam Young is seriously mentally deranged! He waffles from one end of the spectrum to the end and then across the middle. He claims that he got an *Excommunication* letter from his stake president, he lies - and he has posted the entire original letter on his blog - silly man - that in itself proves he lies. To quote from the original *Disciplinary* Letter Quote: This letter is a formal notice that the stake presidency will convene a formal disciplinary council in your behalf, the result of which includes the possibility of excommunication, disfellowshipment, formal probation, or no action. To me that says to me he is guilty and he knows it. To publicly state and encourage investigators and newly baptized adult converts to leave the church, THAT alone is why the council has been convened. Back in 2006 when I was Young Women's Secretary, I would set up the Personal Progress interviews with the Bishop. When his Ex.Sec confirmed the date, BOTH of us also sent out a letter to the parents telling them of the date of the PP interview, and asking if the date worked for them too. Always the parents came with their daughters. Now I don't know if they sat in on the interview or sat in the waiting area, but they were there. I also know that the Ex. Sec sent the list of questions that would be asked, and in the letter they were asked to council with their daughter regarding the questions. This was back in 2006! Now I am assuming that this procedure was to be done CHURCH WIDE. Again, I repeat, my personal opinion is this man is Stark Raving Nuts! He needs mental health care.

Worldly morality is dizzying to me. One day we should all "love"(be permissive) everyone and respect them, but the next day we are filled with hatred towards someone who said or did something "offensive" and calling for their head on a block. We are all special snowflakes, beautiful and majestic and perfect just the way we are, but don't forget to realize that the universe is huge and we are therefore insignificant beings. Faith in God is ridiculous. Why believe in something you can't prove. God doesn't exist. Definitely can't prove it but I believe it anyway.( That's what reason looks like apparently) I've seen a person go through all this in a week. Literally contradicting themselves from day to day posting their opinions and sharing others they "agree" with.

Pro tip: be wary of anyone who unironically says that they're on the "right" side of something.

if its a gov school then yes, she could do that justifiably. otherwise no. whether one would want to as an LDS member on the other hand i don't know ( I wouldn't).

Thank you @estradling75. It's nice to know my communication skills is not absolutely horrendous.

I prefer it when Catholic popes espouse traditional and conservative values: pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-responsibility, and pro-morality. It's disappointing when they lean progressive, contending for socialism-sounding policies, opposing the death penalty, and promoting more national and international government control to check climate change. HOWEVER, I agree with @Traveler that in today's political environment, successful attacks by media and secular society upon Catholic hierarchy will become a broad brush against all Christians. I well imagine that the Chinese government is already using the scandal as an excuse for its current resurrection of anti-church policies (demolishing churches, removing crosses, and recriminalizing the underground church).

Ok, I shouldn't have said "Accomplice". He failed to report a crime, he concealed the crime. He, or anyone, could be charged with accessory after the fact, if he wasn't actually present during the commission of a crime, but took actions to conceal the crime or help the perpetrators avoid capture. So yes, he is guilty of a crime.

Excellent point. While we know there have been actual videos out there at times, who's to say there aren't false videos as well? While a faithful, endowed member would know the difference, someone who was not endowed, or who had forgotten the endowment wouldn't (or might not) know that they were looking at a fake. (And while it might seem improbable for people to put out fakes, I've heard enough other true stories about the extremes some people have gone to, to believe they might well do this if they thought they could pull it off.)

I feel like my opinion is being waved off as something I shouldn't worry about, when I worry greatly about it, this is my eternal soul we are talking about, this is a big deal to me. And I was just expressing my opinion, I wasn't looking for input or insights from anyone, I was just expressing my opinion. It would be nice if that could just be acknowledged like @MormonGator did, he was very supportive and just acknowledged that my feelings were valid and understandable.

I am an investigator and in defence of the OP I have been asked repeatedly by very nice, well meaning missionaries to be baptised, in what I believe is too short a time to agree to commit my life to a belief system that I don't know enough about yet. When I expressed this to the missionaries they say 'as long as you know the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then you know enough to join". I found this strange (and to be completely honest a bit unethical) so I asked the bishop at my local ward about it and he said it is normal practice and if I believe in the Book of Mormon and Jospeh Smith then I should be baptised ASAP. While I will not be joining the church anytime soon, (I am the kind of person who wants to know everything before committing to something), I can completely understand how others do join very quickly, the missionaries DO ask you to join after only a couple of lessons. If the OP did in fact follow and trust in the missionaries to join the church after only a few weeks of investigating, it is completely understandable that they would not know enough about the church to know exactly what they are agreeing to join. If this is the case you can't really put all the blame and responsibility on the OP when this is the standard practice of the church.

Because God said so, he didn't mention Coke

Because tea and coffee is not the same as Coke.