Leaderboard

This just showed me your character. What's the saying... Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice...shame on me.

I keep forgetting to ask in the advice forum: "Do you want sympathy or advice?" I'm convinced that some of these posters would want to hear something like: "Oh no! That's terrible! You poor thing you! I can't believe that happened to you from one of OUR members! Let's form a riot and give him exactly what he deserves! We'll call his Bishop and he'll make sure he pays up or else!"

I'm going to be brutally honest here. You made the decision to "loan" this person money. A lot of money. Somehow this person heard about your settlement I'm guessing and used you and a past friendship to their advantage. Someone you hadn't heard from in 4 years. And you just loan money like that? And wasn't one time enough? I'm sorry you are going through some tough times with medical issues..but at the same time I can't feel much sympathy for the lending of the money.

My two previous Bishops are family friends and I always called them by their first name outside Church and in Church "Brother..." I call my present Bishop "Brother..." as well. No particular reason (in case someone thinks Suzie is just trying to be difficult lol). It just cames natural to me and he is okay with it. As a matter of fact, if he calls and leaves a message he says "Hi, I am brother...please give me a call whenever you get a chance".

I am very careful about doing business with members....why....several are close friends .....makes me uneasy....unfortunately the way some members act on Sunday is not the way they behave the rest of the week.

Sounds like the Stake Leaders need to provide training on running an effective Ward Council

There are dimensions to the prodigal son I find interesting a worthy of extended study and consideration. From our LDS scripture study helps we learn that repentance is a change of heart or attitude adjustment. Also many are sure we will inherit all the Father has or in other words the Father will give us all he has. There is however, quite a difference from a parent willing to do anything and everything for their children and children utilizing what they receive from their parents and not “wasting” the efforts of their parents. Many times I have tried to imply that it really is not that important to consider what the Father is willing to do for us and give us. What is important is what we do with what we are given and receive. Focusing of what we get is what the two sons both do in the parable of the prodigal son. The one difference is that one of the sons come to their senses and no longer desired to be given anything from the father but rather desires to serve their father – knowing the father to be just. It is obvious from the discussion that the oldest son did not make this most important transformation. In both cases the father gave all he had to each son – one came to understand the value of his father and his father’s willingness to give and forgive and the other did not. Thus the prodigal son was the only son to actually received all the father had – which included the understanding and ability to give and forgive others. I believe the parable is given that we come to identify ourselves with the repentant son that having lost all then found joy and value in “returning” to the Father not for his father’s wealth, glory power or gifts but to be like him.

Thank you DHK. Sorry about the nonparagraphs. The thing is, he DID use his faith as a bait. It wasn't like we reconnected and two minutes later he was asking for the money .We reconnected a few months earlier, and then our/my friend died. I had no idea he and this man had a falling out years ago. He didn't mention that in our stroll down Memory Lane . He INSISTED on coming home to take me to the funeral because I had expressed a sadness at not being able to go due to being in a wheelchair from my car accident, and not having anyone who could come out and get me . It wasn't just about my dead friend. He said he also wanted to spend time with me. Every time I called , he still hadn't made any arrangements to fly out and then finally he dropped that hate bomb on me and told me he had no intention of coming back for our friend and he used the money for his own personal needs! And yes , I was definitely a fool to lend to him a second time . You get no defense from me on that . But I DID believe we were genuine friends still , so forgiveness and understanding are supposed to run deep , especially when he kept promising that all would be repaid. He talked constantly about the church in those months prior .. so YES... I did expect him to behave in a morally upright fashion. To that poster who asked if I came here to bash Mormons..... where in any of these lines have you seen anything even resembling that ? That's absurd. You seem to be implying I believe this man did this because he's Mormon.... I'm saying this man did this and is hiding behind a veil, claiming to act as a Man of God when he's being a hypocrite ! If he was Catholic, Jewish or worshipped Star Trek Klingons would make no difference ..... using a love of God, espousing it constantly and then bilking people is not cool. I have always been a Spiritual person, there was no secret to that EVER in my life. He used my Love For God and manipulated an injured person. Going to read those links now. And thank you Suzie and NeuroTypical . Thank you for those articles DHK. They are very enlightening, indeed. Of course, this isn't a ponzi scheme, but the spirit of the articles completely relates on a microcosmic level what has happened to me . I believe I have been given good information from you and will now think, pray and meditate upon the situation in a brighter light. Thank you everyone for your contribution to my query and may God Bless You and keep you safe always. Take care. ~~ Della Marie

I wonder if Palerider is having a good time at Nauvoo.

Last time I looked, there were criminals and charlatans of all faiths - or at least the claim to have a faith. Maybe that's the first indication that they are not what they say they are. Lemme see - I'm a good Mormon, I haven't seen you for years, and the first thing I do is ask you for money to go to a funeral. Why didn't your radar go off then? You probably don't know me, OP, but I was a lawyer in a past life. I can't tell you how many times clients' problems were caused by their own poor choices in life. You let this person use you by giving in the first time. The 'friend' then knew exactly what kind of person s/he was dealing with and had no issue with asking you for more money. And you, having not learned your lesson, provided even more money. What is your purpose in coming here - to say all LDS are liars and cheats? For us to get up a collection for you? Some people enjoy getting used, and then playing the martyr when things go wrong. I'm sorry these things happened to you, but you openend the door.

Getting back on topic... I would be curious as to the real ROOT reason as to why there are long discussions going on. Ineffective meetings = ineffective leadership & stewardship. Perhaps this Bishop is more of a "how is everyone feeling" versus "we gotta get this done" leadership style. Perhaps this Bishop has had to participate in other Stake Leadership meetings and needs to spend more time on more important priorities. All these things can be legitimate. However, as part of stewardship, we must practice the principle of setting priorities and then "return and report". But until the leader of the WC (Bishop) can conduct a concise meeting... it's going to be the same. Has someone met with the Bishop and talked about the number of meetings and the amount of time being spent in them? The nicer thing to do is to set an appointment to beep your smartphone, and then to leave. "Where are you going?" "Gotta go. I've been paged (or I'm late to another appointment). If someone could email me whatever you volunteer me for, that would be great." Ever notice that when you miss a meeting, that someone else can summarize it for you in 5 minutes? You won't miss much by leaving early.

"It would seem that eternal law would return the results of what we initiate. In essence the garden of our blessings will not produce fruit that we do not plant and cultivate." This is well taught within the Book of Mormon -- restoration (Alma 41: 3-5). The state of our intelligence will be determined by our works and our personal desires for good or evil. This is also the reason why I love this verse delivered by Isaiah (2 Nephi 13: 9), "The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom." Our works, our desires, will either increase our intelligence (light and truth) or it will be decreased. Thus, I enjoy the analogy of a garden in relation to the blessings of heaven. We reap what we have cultivated. Repentance is a "change of mind." Without a change from evil to good, there is no repentance. I agree with the sentiment. Criminals for a time while in jail stop and feel bad for their behaviors, but when they are free again they have not repented and return to the mire. It seems to me that many expect blessing beyond that which we develop. Does repentance entitle individuals to blessing? I would agree with the sentiment that many people expect blessings by which they have not earned or deserve. We see this within the Church, within our government, and within educational system. Within our Church we observe individuals who sincerely believe they are worthy of all the Father hath, but do nothing to serve in the Church. They want all the Father hath without serving the Father. They want fruit to grow in their garden without cultivating the soil. Heck some don't even care to plant. It appears to me that repentance removes the stain of sin – but is that enough in the eternal scheme of things? Excellent question, especially when a person ponders the analogy of the prodigal son; however, is there a possibility repentance isn't enough? Yes, depending on the sins committed and the level of knowledge one has. King David is known to have sought repentance and repented -- recognized his evil -- sought the Lord. We also know that David lost his exaltation. He lost all the father hath. I guess another question one might ask then David really repent? He appears to have tried. Mercy cannot rob justice, and justice cannot rob mercy, they both must have their claim. Does being innocent and pure qualify someone for the Celestial Kingdom or is that just a qualification for the resurrection to some kingdom of glory? In the case of children, yes. In the case of some autistic, down syndrome, and other mentally challenged sons/daughters of God -- yes. When I taught seminary to children with special needs one of the most important lessons I was taught is that they are learning, IF, a person teaches by the spirit; physically they may not be able to explain what they learn, but when the spirit speaks to their spirit they are learning. They are innocent and pure in this life. Their spirits are however learning. I can see no reason, nor would it be just, to deny such the Celestial kingdom. As to my knowledge as it currently stands. Is an attitude change enough for the Celestial Kingdom or are deeds necessary? We are saved according by the grace of God after all we can do. We are judged according to our works and the desires of our heart. The parable of the talents is a good analogy of how the Lord feels about our works and how he feels about increasing our talents -- gifts. The parable of the prodigal son has been highlighted. I find this parable most interesting in that “prodigal” does not mean sinful – it means extravagant. Some may argue that extravagance (prodigal) is sin. But it is not the sin of rebellion as it is a sin of not appreciating and keeping sacred the blessings we have. But there is another thought about the prodigal son. This is that Jesus uses parables to teach of divine things. In the parable of the prodigal son – which son most presents an example of Jesus? Is the prodigal son an example of Jesus’ devotion to the Father? Does Jesus feel obligation to keep all the Father’s commands and to do the Father’s will? Does Jesus have reason to be obedient? Has he, like the prodigal son returned to the Father not so much thinking to inherit everything but willing to do whatever the Father asks so that he can be with him? If my love were perfect for my wife, obligation would definitely be apart of my life. Obligation though would be influenced by my love. Due to my love the obligation to obey, to serve, would not result from compulsion. Compulsion would be out of the equation. The more we love the more we recognize our responsibilities and that we need to honor and keep them. Our sin is a result of not having a perfect love for God. As God moved with love for us in delivering his only begotten son, Jesus moved with love of God and his fellowmen such that he paid the ultimate price. Yes, he had reason to be obedient, however, even without the need to save us, he still would have been perfect because that is his nature -- Godly (intelligence = light and truth). As pertaining to the prodigal son, I once read a statement which distinguished the righteous son from the prodigal. The father says to the righteous son, paraphrased, I have given him a fatted calf and a party but you I have given all that I have. What is the reason for the distinction, because wouldn't the prodigal also receive all the father has also since he returned -- repented? The statement is moot if so and the distinction is pointless. Then why the statement. The individual presented it is because the son wasted away his days of probation and despite his return he still would not receive all the father hath. This appears to be true, the circumstance as to which is true, I don't know. Could this be the son, who wasted his days of probation, but due to the righteousness of his father is able to be received in the Celestial kingdom but not be exalted, in other words, he/she is with the Father but will not receive all the Father hath. Three degrees in the Celestial kingdom tend to provide evidence to this. @Seminary--define for me what you mean to be with God? Because we have three degrees of glory by which people will be with the Father but will not have all that he hath.

au contraire. I'm pretty sure my marriage certificate and temple sealing paperwork only includes two names. I'm also pretty sure the scriptures say to cleave unto my wife (spouse) and none other. I have a pernicious in law...and I'm certainly not married to that individual. Yes, they are an issue in our life and not in a good way.

Foghat

I would say disagreements are a normal part of a relationship. However, the way people chooses to express those disagreements can or cannot be considered normal.

I'm actually in agreement with the bill. The bill keeps those from being discriminated based on sexual orientation. If someone is qualified, they are qualified. What I don't like about the whole Harry Reid thing is he doesn't speak for the church nor does he speak for its members.