Leaderboard

An answer that I was just given is that 1 presides over the tabernacle overflow congregation and the other presides over the overflow congregation in the assembly hall.

Out loud. It helps others in the room to point at who you're laughing at too.

I had another thought so I'm quoting the same post twice here. I wanted to clarify -- I believe that presidencies should be run more like marriages, rather than the reverse. I also did some digging and came up with this, which implies an intended equality in presidencies. D&C 90:6 And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom; (emphasis added). Joseph F Smith interpreted it thus: And so with the high priest who has been called to officiate in the First Presidency, in which case he is "accounted equal" with the President of the Church in holding the keys of the Presidency (section 90:6) as long as the President remains. When he dies, the calling of his counselors ends, and the responsibility of Presidency falls upon the quorum of Twelve Apostles, because they hold the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood and are the next quorum in authority.

Assembly Hall--that's the name of the building I couldn't remember. And yes, that's what I understood. I remember back in the olden days when conference was held in the Tabernacle that they would show the 2 Apostles in the Assembly Hall as they read their name to be sustained.

I was told by an Elder that live baptisms by proxy can be performed if given permission by the 1st Presidency and the person being baptized is present.

I'm disinclined to call the actions of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve paranoia. I can see the argument but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Taste the wine before cooking with it. It's easy to say 'red goes with meat and white goes with poultry and fish' but there are many many types and brands of wine in both categories. I assume they don't all taste the same, which is why you might want to taste before cooking. As to bias - yes, I think you see a lot of Italian and French dishes on the shows. If it's more American slanted, you might get some beer thrown in there. No matter what they are cooking, you see a lot of the better chefs talk about their 'French training,' so yeah, there's probably some bias, no matter what they are cooking. We don't get a lot of Muslim inspired dishes on US cooking shows. Maybe something with couscous every once in a while, but not often.

That's ok with me. I know I am funny without people hitting a button to tell me.

As functional is this IP.Boards theme is, it's also quite plain and generic. Are there plans to eventually lds.netify it? (or base a more lds.net looking theme off of it)

From everything I have learned of the gospel, I feel the opposite is true. We are fooling ourselves into thinking we don't want to live eternally with our Heavenly Father. For what other purpose did we come to this earth, if not to progress, become like, and return to our Heavenly Father?

Poor Pale Rider

Same here. I stay on the IP board.

I don't even see the main page anymore now that I changed the theme. But the site works better on the IP board so this is where I stay.

All 7 seasons of Burn Notice is on Netflix. The Mentalist has been a good show, but they're struggling with their new identity since ending the "Red John" story line.

Is the question would you taste the wine before cooking with it, or would you taste the food prepared with the wine?

It's because they haven't paid me their tax dues .....pay up my friend.

Had such a great response and then my text editor did something screwy! Ugh. To Dahlia... To the question of whether it's okay to make a vegetarian cook meat, I would say that I'm pretty sure participation in the TV show was optional, and not mandatory. A vegetarian/vegan would have to be naïve to believe that a cooking show wouldn't challenge their lifestyle at some point, and require them to cook and or eat meat product. As a vegetarian myself, I wouldn't opt for such a show, but I still prepare (though seldom) meat dishes for my husband and daughter.

Palerider doesn't know much of anything.

I wonder if Palerider knows it's 5 O'clock somewhere.

From Handbook 1. I'm not sure it answers our question on father's and keys related to their homes. 2.1.1 Priesthood Keys Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see D&C 65:2; 81:2;124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction. Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys (see D&C 43:1–4; 81:2; 107:64–67, 91–92; 132:7). Seventies act by assignment and by the delegation of authority from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Area Presidents are assigned to administer areas under the authorization of the First Presidency and the Twelve. The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy. The President of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders so they can preside in their areas of responsibility. Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. This presiding authority is valid only for the designated responsibilities and within the geographic jurisdiction of each leader’s calling. When priesthood leaders are released from their callings, they no longer hold the associated keys. Counselors to priesthood leaders do not receive keys. They are set apart and function in their callings by assignment and delegated authority. All ward and stake auxiliary organizations operate under the direction of the bishop or stake president, who holds the keys to preside. Auxiliary presidents and their counselors do not receive keys. They receive delegated authority to function in their callings.

I would completely abstain.

It's been fairly clearly taught that abstaining from liquor includes even tastes. I also think it would set a pretty bad example for a member of the church who is temporarily in the public's eye to be consuming liquor in any degree. No one expects a devout Jew to partake of pork. No one should expect a devout Mormon to partake of liquor. If a cooking show requires the use of liquor, a Mormon simply shouldn't be a part of it. A devout Jew would be likewise unwise to join a cooking show called Cooking with Bacon. :)

I think people can make salvation more complicated than it needs to be. Protestant churches teach that we should rely entirely on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith alone as the ground of God being 100% for us after which necessary sanctification comes. That\\\'s it. So do you believe that faith alone saves(is the only thing that makes us right before God) but the saving faith is not alone(good works come about as a result of Christ transforming the believer)? The Christian doesn\\\'t do good works to be saved but Good works come forth and fruits of the spirit are evident because the Christian is already saved through faith. Do you agree with that? The word religion in that context was meant to show how many people rely on their own effort to be made right before God whereas the Bible says only Faith in Jesus can make us right before God-after which comes necessary sanctification. The cleansing or sanctification justifies the saving faith or shows that you have it. Religion in its traditional definition is fine. I think many evangelicals have always said that The Bible talks about having a relationship with God and that\\\'s the most important thing. So if people ask me if I\\\'m religious I tell them I\\\'m a follower of Jesus and that it\\\'s about a daily walk with God-a relationship with God. I don\\\'t think religion is a bad word per se but I do want to give people a clear idea about what Christianity is really about. The Bible says good works can\\\'t save you, going to church can\\\'t make you right before God, only faith in Jesus makes you right before God. As one has God in their heart and surrenders, that\\\'s when transformation takes place. This is a really good passage it\\\'s Romans 4:1-6 New American Standard Bible: 4 What then shall we say that Abraham, [a]our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not [c]before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

I think this thread illustrates it well. Take away what President Smith said, and think about what you would do in that scenario. I might continue to conduct meetings, instruct priests, teachers, and deacons, organize a quorum if there were other elders, but I wouldn't have thought to ordain a high priest. The other thing to consider with the apostasy is the classic argument we use as evidence: you only need to look as far as the epistles to see that there was already a mutiny in the church. And while Paul contends against false doctrine, the next generation of Clementine epistles emphasize and reiterate the importance of following the elders in the church. So at best, from the picture I see painted at the time, the best they could hope for was an elite band of elders and bishops who would root out the poison and from their small group ordain a new head. Historically, new leadership was chosen but he held the same office. And additionally, the heresies remained as the "itching ears" listened to false teachers and wolves in priests' clothes.

You'll have to go to the first volume of the Church Handbook of Instruction (CHI) to see if something's there. CHI 2:20.1.4:

as I am reading this post In my mind comes the thought very intersting, now that I come to the end of it and have read most of it but not all. ANd I hope to research more into it when time allows I amgetting tired and need to prepair for the 2nd conf of the day. I see back in dec 2008 I said the very thing I am saying to day intersting post. No one knows the day or time of these wonderful events. Some of us are really intelligent some are more simple like myself. But I want to bear a little of my testimony: I want you all to know that I am from the tribe of Judah, a Jewish Girl or should I say women. I am so grateful for our Loving Heavenly Father and all that he does for us all...I am so grateful for Jesus The Christ and His love for His Father and for all of us. Yes he had a mission but like us He didnt have to fulfill it, but out of His Love for His Father and for all of us He did. And for this I am so grateful!! I am also grateful for the Holy Ghost and I now know how important it is to get close to Him. That's our Godhead!!! Fathers plan is totally thought out for us all, it is awesome and for this I am grateful. I am greatful for the gospel, and for His church and my membership in His Church. So grateful for the atonement which I hope to even learn more about it that I know at this time. So grateful for the Temples and to have one now so close to feel like its in my backyard. Looking at angel Moroni on the Temples now means so much more to me then before. So greatfull that H.F. give us time to learn. Im sure we knew so much more in the premortallife, and this mortal life is so much harder then I ever thought it would be!! I can not be like others who say I am grateful for my trails, but I am grateful for what Iv'e learned and will continue to learn. I am also grateful for each of you, and what some of you have taught me and shown me. I am not greatful for contention I do not like it. I look forward to my growth. I know the things of the world are not so important as I or we think they are!! The Sprirtual things are the most important!!!! And there seems to be a fight bewteen the human part of us and the Spiritual part of us. I hope I will be prepaired to meet the God Head some day. I hope I can stand on the side of truth for ever I know this is not an easy thing to do..... In Jesus Christ name Amen.

I am thinking that without a clear precise and accurate understanding of the Celestial Kingdom - we are fooling ourselves (perhaps even deceiving ourselves) in thinking we want to be there for all eternity.

I am having second thought about this post - thinking that we are disconnected and talking about two different things or ideas. So I want to apologize and see if I can get on the same page with your thinking. Can you give me any examples where there has been a preponderance of overwhelming empirical evidence of human discovery that is contrary to revealed divine truths? It has been my observation that the caution given concerning human theories is more related to manmade religious theories and not so much divine criticism intended to direct seekers of truth towards rejecting empirical evidence.

There is one other element. It seems to me that the Articles of Faith are more than just a statement of LDS beliefs. Rather than a comprehensive indication of our beliefs it appears to me that the Articles are intended to be more centered in distinguishing our understanding of truths restored, that were lost in the Traditional Christian landscape. Thus the particular wording is more intended to differentiate rather than identify common ground with other Christian sects stand on doctrine.

Cool I can do a boonie hat avatar!!

Not sure this makes a difference but here's a woman's perspective... The LOC is not broken if you choose to be intimate with your spouse, regardless of if the marriage is crappy, in a state of separation, or pending divorce - you're still married - but that doesn't mean continuing intimate relations is a good idea... If there is a wedge in the marriage that has driven it to the latter two aforementioned, I would be very careful about making the decision to sleep with my estranged husband, and for several reasons. One, assuming the whole downfall of the marriage is due to broken trust, I would question whether he has remained chaste (from other women) during our separation/pending divorce. I would be concerned of contracting an STD (or worse) if he's sleeping with other women. I can't control what he does but I can control what I do with my body and I would opt to protect it. Second, emotionally and psychologically, I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to remain intimate with someone I no longer trusted. Sure, it might fulfil a physical need but that's where better judgement comes into play. Third, if there are children in the picture, I would be careful what message I'm sending to them. Marital affairs can be confusing to those outside of it, and children might have a good idea of what's going on, but in the end they're left with a lot of questions. I think having the mind set of "friends with benefits" with a spouse you are separated from or pending divorce isn't the thought process the Lord would want us to have. So for me it's either (i) work through your marriage and enjoy the benefits that come with it, or (ii) get out of your marriage and live without the benefits that came with it.

I think the shift toward less-blunt speech indicates a growing Church population, an international mixed culture in the Church, and a greater diversity in general of circumstance and background.

And I think it's high time we get a "groan" button too!

ABSOLUTELY appropriate to be intimate during a "separation", if it is a part of a healthy, loving interaction I would suggest as often as both of you enjoy it too. HOWEVER, I am concerned and I would suggest there are some bigger issues going on here that you might want to explore and soul search other than the sexual part. As a therapist, when I hear "separate but involved", a week maybe a month which is too long, but a year? The intimacy, although very important, might be insignificant compared to you needed to understand what you want (as appose to what he wants) and pursuing it.

I think once anyone starts to recognize sin and it's seriousness (and have any desire to return to God) I think there will always be fear at some point.

Don't have a solid opinion on the new site, yet. I appreciate the splash of colour that's been added but I agree that there's too much white space, and that can be a bit heavy on the eyes... The navigation is easy enough so far. I have noticed that all my "friends" are now just "one friend"... Does this mean that we will have to reconnect with everyone again? I just have MormonMama now, which is cool, but I miss some of my other friends

If you are legally married then you aren't technically breaking the law of chastity -- letter of the law wise. Spirit of the law...??? Well, that's more difficult. It's an interesting question. Part of the reason sexual relations are reserved for marriage is because marriage is a commitment, and that commitment ties into the ultimate point of sexual relations, which is child bearing. But, of course, that is not the only reason sexual relations are reserved for marriage. So it's not entirely cut and dry.

I like the thread preview function, so you can go to the first post... or the last post. As for changing usernames... I was kinda getting tired of "skippy" and the 740 was in reference to an address I was at that didn't have a lot of fond memories. So I changed it to my moniker that I use on other forums, and now I can't change it again. Oh well. I snuck it in! :)

I held my daughter when she was blessed. She was nine months old at the time, and wouldn\'t have sat still otherwise. Placing hands under the baby is likely only because a baby\'s head tends to be too small to accommodate many hands, and the baby needs holding anyway (in my daughter\'s case, my husband, our bishop, and the two grandfathers were the only ones in the circle, and they took care to mostly use fingertips instead of whole hands on her head). But the ordinance of \"naming and blessing\" isn\'t exclusive to infants. A five-year-old who is named and blessed in Sacrament meeting isn\'t held by the Priesthood brethren in the circle. Most women who bring up the baby blessing example aren\'t looking to participate in the Priesthood circle, but rather to simply have the privilege and ability to hold the infant that they carried and gave birth to, as it receives the first Priesthood ordinance of its life. It\'s not an unreasonable request.

They can be compared because the LDS church is a religious organization, just like the Catholic Church and the multiple Protestant churches are. All have their own rituals that are important and sacred to each religion. You may feel that LDS rituals are far superior than non-LDS rituals, but you take up space on the same Earth and therefore the beliefs and rituals of other religions are just as important to them as yours are to you. M.

Hi all, I just got baptized..along with my daughter and husband. It was an overall great experience. Ironically, all this things I had nerves about ended up just fine. Although, just like life, the unexpected happened: Like my youngest kiddos (5 & 3) running around the room..during prayer and hymns. My 5 yr. old kept going in and out of the little hallway entering the water before one of the Elders intelligently locked the door before he was able to run back in. When they both ran into the hallway, I started talking to my 5 yr. old and as soon as a lady came out to assist me, I couldn't hold back my tears. She was so sweet about it though...told me not to worry and ended up being with the kiddos along with a couple of other nice women. During the baptism my daughter went first. She was awesome. Then as I went into the water, I overheard my son yelling "Mom!! Theres Mom!" so excitedly . I felt so great after coming up from the water.. until I heard my older daughter laugh and started to worry my thin jumper that was clinging to my body was exposing a not visually appealing belly . She later said she was just happy the whole time...and she finally expressed it at that moment (although she said my boyshorts showed..which was fine..since I had double undies on 'just in case'). My husband was next..he did awesome too. He told me later when he saw me go into the water he wished he could have gone in there with me...aww so sweet. So that was our baptism. I got pictures thanks to one of the elders (the one I really wish baptized my daughter). Since he reminded us to take one before and after the baptism; My mind was thinking too much of the kids and their activity levels. Everyone was so great and sweet. I'm so grateful to have such a great extended family. Thank you everyone for the previous advice as well :).

I dunno, as another poster here noted, they've been told to pretty much go to the 'anti-Mormon protest' area. That's a pretty clear message. It's not too much of a leap to see they are on the path to being labelled as apostate and possibly facing church discipline. I do agree that they should choose a more appropriate way to have their voices heard - crashing any kind of religious meeting considered sacred by those attending is just plain disrespectful and tacky.