Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/20/19 in all areas

  1. 12 points
    dprh

    Membership in the Church

    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/04/the-gospel-in-our-lives?lang=eng I just finished listening to this talk. It is often true that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. Since I've been excommunicated, I've begun to realize all the things I took for granted as a member. I wait with anticipation until I can take the sacrament, pay tithing, serve in a calling, even say prayers in church. If you are able, please participate and enjoy these blessings.
  2. 9 points
    This is my point as well. I don't care, nor should I care, whether women wear pants, it's none of my business and it's trivial. I do care if someone brings a protest movement into church, and drags the spirit of contention in disrupting my worship to make a point. Church is for worship not protest.
  3. 8 points
    JohnsonJones

    Ezra Taft Benson was right.

    Many Decades ago Ezra Taft Benson was our Prophet. He pushed for us to read the Book of Mormon more. We had multiple lessons on the importance of the Book of Mormon and how it was the keystone to our religion. He told us that we need to make it a focus of our lives. The Book of Mormon Keystone of Our religion - Ezra Taft Benson Octo 1986 Conf I've noticed all sorts of commentary by those who have fallen away from the church pertaining to leaders, policies and church history that creates doubts and confusion with people. However, when it comes to the Book of Mormon they normally attack the sources of translation (Joseph Smiths Character) or try to mock it in relation to history, but the eternal truths that are found within are normally not the targets (with one exception that they focus on the wording) of their derision. It seems to me that those who have a sound testimony of the Book of Mormon and an unwavering faith that it is true are not going to be dissuaded by many of the other obstacles tossed at us today. When people bring up (normally from questionable sources, though most ironically don't question sources these days) so called facts to tear down the church, it's history, or it's founding leaders (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or other prophets and apostles in Church history), I find that a stout testimony of the Book of Mormon is a strong fortress against the winds of those who would tear one away from the gospel. This summer I travelled and did not bring a Book of Mormon with me. It was a time when I had many discussions about the Church with those who were not members. Some of them were a little antagonistic at times, and I truly missed the opportunity to read the Book of Mormon regularly. From that I can say that the Book of Mormon is absolutely necessary for us today, and that even a little reading is something that can bolster us up against the storms far more than many other resources we may think of. I can say I am very grateful to be able to read the Book of Mormon today and feel it truly helps out testimonies. Even when we feel we are solid and strong with our testimonies, I feel the reading of the Book of Mormon bolsters it even more strongly than if we weren't. I think today there is a lack of emphasis of the Book of Mormon in the Church. As members have gotten side tracked on other things in their lives, including many various things dealing with various items at church, that the Book of Mormon has been neglected in many instances. I've found that many who fall away were not reading the Book of Mormon regularly, or when crisis came with their faith, they fell to reading other things rather than the Book of Mormon. Perhaps not all, but many of them may have found the sweet whisperings of the Spirit if they had but turned more fervently to the Book of Mormon and prayed for a restoration of their testimony. I think there is a lack among many of our young people today in studying the Book of Mormon and I think that could be hurting many of them in keeping those testimonies in the face of an ever increasing hostile world. The thing that sparked this post is in reference to this summer and now, I notice a difference in my life between when I am reading and studying the Book of Mormon and when I am not. It has convinced me even more strongly of it's importance in our lives. I think that in light of the many things being tossed at the church and it's members today, a reinvigorated focus on keeping the Book of Mormon in our daily lives could be an important step in trying to keep our younger members, those who are troubled, and those who are in the midst of confusion to retain their testimonies, or gain a testimony of the Gospel in the face of a very hostile world.
  4. 8 points
    Vort

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    She specifically says she wasn't offended. Sure, she said that. Here's what else she said: His perspective proves no such thing. It proves that Sister Coppersmith doesn't understand what a bishop is supposed to do. Yes. The question was, "Do you look differently than everybody else because you're rebelling?" That is a perfectly appropriate question for a bishop to ask someone in a temple recommend interview. Why doesn't Sister Coppersmith (or you, for that matter) realize this fact? Here, Coppersmith goes well beyond talking about principles. She is clearly cheerleading what happened seven years ago, portraying it as a worthy, righteous thing. This, despite the clear evidence (as referenced by JAG) that the principal organizers and participants were antagonistic toward the Church. The more I read Coppersmith's column, the less likely I feel to give her the benefit of any doubt. I rather suspect Coppersmith knew full well what the whole stupid "pants" thing was about, and that she simply agrees with such public desecration of sacred activities in order to pursue a sociopolitical end.
  5. 8 points
    Vort

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    Here's an example of a great article to skip. "I think it's a wonderful idea to use a sacred communal worship service in memory and recognition of our Savior and his Restored Kingdom as a platform to air my social opinions." If Sister Coppersmith's managing editor activities have been for TH, that would explain a lot.
  6. 7 points
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1983/01/russell-m-nelson-a-study-in-obedience?lang=eng “The Lord has a tremendous work yet to accomplish in the Church,” he insists. “He’s going to need every faithful soul; there won’t be one prepared, qualified Latter-day Saint who won’t have all the responsibility to shoulder that he or she can bear.” Sobering.
  7. 7 points
    Just_A_Guy

    So sick of the peeping stone story

    I think there’s another option: that the Church received roughly the information and policies that it needed to carry it through the challenges of the day. There was a time and a place where the priesthood ban was necessary and appropriate, and then it passed. There was a time and a place where certain elements of the older temple liturgy were necessary and appropriate, and then it passed. We live in a time where the Church’s tactful silence on certain less-critical things things we still know to be true is rapidly becoming necessary and appropriate, and that time too will pass. There was, I submit, a time and a place where David Whitmer and Emma Smith needed to be regarded with extreme suspicion . . . and then it passed. This may seem silly, but remember—RLDS and Whitmer’s followers recruited heavily in early-20th-century Utah. If we take our church’s soteriology at all seriously, then one can’t escape the conclusion that people lost their exaltations by giving too much credence to Whitmer and Emma. Counter-intuitively, now that history has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Emma was not an infallible source (e.g., Joseph Smith’s polygamy) and that the RLDS Church’s competing institutional claims to exclusive truth, authority, and/or priesthood have pretty evaporated (they can no longer claim to be led by lineal descendants of Joseph Smith); Church members can begin engaging in a more serious way with sources previously labeled “apostate” in a way that separates bathwater from baby.
  8. 7 points
  9. 7 points
    Vort

    So sick of the peeping stone story

    Here's an addendum I added to my first response on this thread: Several have pointed out that a transcription of remarks uttered by Emma Smith don't count as "first-person testimony". They are right, of course. But I have no reason to believe that her remarks were changed or recorded incorrectly, and they are direct and clear enough to dispel any argument about Joseph's translating methods as witnessed by his wife, unless you claim that Emma was some combination of senile, psychotic, and duplicitous. I don't believe she was any of those things, though her remarks absolutely denying Joseph's practice of polygamy don't square with the otherwise-known historical record and do suggest that her testimony, at least regarding polyandry, is not reliable. But plural marriage was always a sore point with Emma; she was arguably psychotic or at least self-deluded regarding that specific topic. But I don't see why I should suppose that would carry over to her memories and understanding of her husband's translation efforts and activities. Emma was not the only one to talk about Joseph using his seerstone in a hat; both Martin Harris and David Whitmer gave the same testimony. I think his brother William said something about it, too. I don't actually have a dog in this fight. The foundation of my testimony of the Restored Church isn't based on whether Joseph put a seerstone in a hat to translate the gold plates. But my understanding of the historical record is that the stone-in-a-hat idea is basically true. And since I don't see how the idea impacts the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims, I think it's an irrelevant detail and that it's better simply to acknowledge it and move on rather than pick at it and spend endless hours either denying it ever happened or worriedly striving to contextualize it so people don't think we're weird. Let them think what they think. No skin off our collective noses.
  10. 7 points
    Vort

    So sick of the peeping stone story

    Emma's testimony is not hearsay. It's a first-hand account. She said, "I know 'Mormonism' to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." As I stated, not hearsay, but first-person testimony. And not a one-time or short occurrence, but "frequently" and "hour after hour with nothing between us". I share your frustration with antiMormon duplicity, but Emma's testimony is no such example. Joseph did what he did, and I am not ashamed of it. He used the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the Nephite interpreters, but apparently also to his goose-egg-sized "seer stone". The only reason this bothers us is because we have not been exposed to it from our childhood, and because antiMormons use it to ridicule us. As well might the antiMormons ridicule Christ for spitting in clay to heal a man's vision. EDIT: Several have pointed out that a transcription of remarks uttered by Emma Smith don't count as "first-person testimony". They are right, of course. But I have no reason to believe that her remarks were changed or recorded incorrectly, and they are direct and clear enough to dispel any argument about Joseph's translating methods as witnessed by his wife, unless you claim that Emma was some combination of senile, psychotic, and duplicitous. I don't believe she was any of those things, though her remarks absolutely denying Joseph's practice of polygamy don't square with the otherwise-known historical record and do suggest that her testimony, at least regarding polyandry, is not reliable. But plural marriage was always a sore point with Emma; she was arguably psychotic or at least self-deluded regarding that specific topic. But I don't see why I should suppose that would carry over to her memories and understanding of her husband's translation efforts and activities. Emma was not the only one to talk about Joseph using his seerstone in a hat; both Martin Harris and David Whitmer gave the same testimony. I think his brother William said something about it, too. I don't actually have a dog in this fight. The foundation of my testimony of the Restored Church isn't based on whether Joseph put a seerstone in a hat to translate the gold plates. But my understanding of the historical record is that the stone-in-a-hat idea is basically true. And since I don't see how the idea impacts the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims, I think it's an irrelevant detail and that it's better simply to acknowledge it and move on rather than pick at it and spend endless hours either denying it ever happened or worriedly striving to contextualize it so people don't think we're weird. Let them think what they think. No skin off our collective noses.
  11. 7 points
    Grunt

    So sick of the peeping stone story

    It bothered me as an investigator. Once I received a testimony of the Book of Mormon I stopped caring. There are so many things I don't understand and need to learn. It's scripture. Whether it was dropped off by aliens or translated through a rock in a hat is irrelevant to me at this point. There are so many things that I need to do and learn for myself and my family. I may never have time to get to things lower on my list.
  12. 7 points
    pam

    Third Hour forum get together

    Here ya go:
  13. 7 points
    Vort

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    In this and every other Christian church that has been around for more than a century or so, the tradition was that people come to communal Sunday worship services wearing what they called their "Sunday best". In a historical context, people living, say, 150 years ago typically owned several sets of clothing, including work clothing that got muddy and wet, warm clothing and a coat for cold weather, possibly lighter and more comfortable wear for relaxing at home or outdoors, and usually a set of "nice" clothes to wear to important social events (and to church). If you were wealthy and owned e.g. a ball gown or a smoking jacket, it would be considered ostentatious and in very poor taste to wear such an outfit to church. Similarly, if you could not be bothered to kick the pig manure off your boots before coming to church, that would be considered disrespectful. This was a basic societal convention understood by all: When you go to church, you wear your Sunday best. In a more modern context, textiles have become so amazingly inexpensive that even poor people usually own many sets of clothing, perhaps a closetful (or more). But along with this bounty has come, strangely enough, a coarsening of standards of dress, such that many (dare I say, most) churches today have few or no expectations for how their congregation dresses, except maybe that they DO dress. (I'm sure there are California congregations where even this is optional, perhaps frowned upon.) T-shirts and demin jeans with holes are de rigeur. You would not attend your sister's wedding reception dressed in rags, but apparently it's fine to attend a communal worship service of the Savior dressed like that. Women wearing pants is something that has come about largely in my lifetime. I'm sure women did wear pants before I was born—I've seen enough '50s movies to confirm that the idea was not utterly alien to them—but it seems like it was the '70s when the women's pantsuit carved out its niche. So at this point, it's hardly new, but also hardly traditional. I'm sure there are some people, probably mostly women, who insist that a woman wear a dress to church, and that anything else is unacceptable, even sacrilege. But I don't know any of them, or if I do, I don't know that I know any of them. In general, few people seem to care much what women wear to church; as others have pointed out, men are expected to follow a far stricter dress and grooming code (official or otherwise) than women So here's the complaint. It's not that a woman DARE to wear PANTS to Church—how awful! No. It's fundamentally that the women involved are doing their best to stick their metaphorical middle finger at Church conventions and those Saints who find them valuable. It's like a four-year-old's tantrums, but carried out by adults who are supposed to be helping carry the load and move the work along. And when, on top of that, they proclaim that this is all about letting women have their choice—they're lying (or incredibly foolish). No one believes them except for children who don't know any better and those who already share their beliefs. tl;dr—No one cares if women wear pants to Church, but the Purple Pants People are looking to sow discord. That's the problem.
  14. 7 points
    Sister Coppersmith was probably fifteen (or younger) when the whole “wear pants to church” thing was going on. I’m not going to call her a brazen liar; but I don’t see how I can avoid describing this column as “staggeringly, stupendously ignorant; especially for a BYU English major and a published author”. A simple Google search would have taken her to a New York Times article confirming that the stunt was not a general, innocuous call for inclusiveness; it was a premeditated protest against Church policy, practice, and doctrine. When you do the same crap that highly-visible rebels deliberately do as an outward token of their rebellion, you get associated with rebels. It’s why men still can’t wear beards at BYU fifty years after Woodstock, for Pete’s sake. I will also note that Sister Smith’s slap at the women of this Church who choose to wear dresses to Sunday services, is likely not the sort of thing she’d dare to say to any of their faces in a Relief Society meeting or any other real-life interpersonal encounter. As far as MGF’s publishing slant goes: I will merely note that AskGramps is still recruiting authors who actually love and understand (or sincerely want to understand) LDS teaching, practice, and culture and are willing to speak in the Church’s defense. PM @pam if you’re interested in helping out.
  15. 6 points
    So . . . The fact that Grunt isn’t going to be the aggressor in a mass shooting event, is the reason why Grunt *shouldn’t* carry a gun?
  16. 6 points
    I stole this from a poster named Amulek at another website:
  17. 6 points
    That's nice of them, but the inherent flaw in this is that a mass shooter doesn't obey the rules. So....
  18. 6 points
    estradling75

    Ramblings

    Welcome @Jekar You are always welcome to come and join us at church. (The sign says visitors welcome for a reason) You can always read the scriptures. You can always pray. You can always talk to the missionaries. As for coming back... You have already effectively excommunicated yourself even if the paperwork was not done. If coming back is what you want then that is a clear sign of repentance and changing of behavior which is exactly what Bishop want to see.
  19. 6 points
    Russell M. Nelson is obedient to the president of the Church, and he is baffled when he hears people ask questions like, “Is it really the will of the Lord that we do everything that President Kimball says?” “The Lord said, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,’” Dr. Nelson reminds us. “My experience is that once you stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead, and do it, the blessings just pour. “I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?”
  20. 6 points
    Here is it... I dislike white shirts... they stain and discolor too easily. (and ties... who thought tying an noose around ones neck to start the day was a good idea?) From various leaders both local and general it seems clear that white shirts and ties are what is expected from priesthood holders (barring some local exception) Therefore I express my self and exercise my agency to follow and meet the expectation. I also realize that not everyone agrees with me, and it is not my place to make any kind of judgment. (Unless some leader delegates to me [like find worthy priesthood holders in white shirts and ties to help with the sacrament]). So I totally get the idea of not likening what you are expected to wear, but for me I will try to meet the expectation place on me by those I trust and respect... because that is the kind of person I am, and the kind of person I want to be.
  21. 6 points
    The author frankly wants it both ways. She insists to her bishop that her pants aren’t making a statement; but then she insists to her readers that they are making a statement about herself (and goes on to hint that any LDS woman who isn’t wearing pants to church, is consciously declining to express herself). It seems to me that one of the divisions this discussion exposes, is between the subset of people who dress primarily as a reflection of their opinions of themselves; versus the subset of people who dress primarily as a reflection of their respect for others. Saints who insist on the suit-or-dress Sunday getup often get hectored by their more progressive brethren over those BoM verses about people who became puffed-up in their fashion choices—but which subset are those verses really directed towards?
  22. 6 points
    I thought to respond with some example - changed my mind and will go a different direction. I wear a white shirt and tie - not just for church but for the full Sabbath day (though there have been some exceptions). This is not a casual thing nor is it a public display - what it is - is a Sabbath day covenant I have personally made. Rather than argue any points - it is my covenant. I have never heard anyone talk about wearing something that might be in question and say that it is because of a sacred covenant with G-d that they do so. If I were to give any advice - it would be to keep the Sabbath holy by personal covenant and if you must be "commanded" of all that you think appropriate or not appropriate for the Sabbath - you are not close to keeping the Sabbath holy. Be anxious to do all you can to draw closer to G-d. If you are interested in doing the minimum possible - I feel you have missed something important but that is up to you to work out with the G-d you worship. So if anyone asks you why you do something on the Sabbath or at church - you can say it is because of my personal covenant with G-d (rather than make up excuses). The Traveler
  23. 6 points
    By the way, in case the writer of the article or somebody at MGF is lurking here reading my comments: This is not about Pants. This is about the cancer called Modern Feminists.
  24. 6 points
    SJW agendas have no place at church. If you are engaging in SJW moments at church, all you are doing is thumbing your nose at the church. Doing that puts you on a path that eventually results in no longer accepting church leadership. That is a path that eventually takes you down the road of apostasy. In my opinion, if you go there (apostasy), you deserve to lose your membership. You are a cancer that should be excised. If you get your act together, you are welcome to come back. Or you can stop the SJW games at church and you are probably fine. Political activism has no place at church. Before anyone goes into histrionics. That is a general you and not a specific you.
  25. 6 points
    You know what's sad to me. This is such a pointless hill to die on. Maybe it's because I'm in the Midwest, but this isn't even an issue in the church where I live. No one pays attention to the type of clothing someone wears out here, unless it's obvious they may need some help because they are new or struggling. You wear your Sunday best, and that's enough. It's just so hard for me to understand why anyone cares so much about whether a woman wears pants or a skirt. Every Saint I've ever met is happy to see someone at church, no matter their clothing (within reason obviously). Is there someone, somewhere who gave a sister a hard time for wearing pants? Undoubtedly, but those are certainly few and far between and this whole dumb issue seems like the poster child of making a mountain out of a molehill just so you can seem "woke". Now as a caveat, I think joining in any protest day at church is dumb and reeks of apostasy. Church is for worshipping the Lord, not pushing some agenda so please don't misunderstand this as a post supporting that pants movement.