Leaderboard

Ok, well, TFP reiterated what one of my stake presidents said once "there are many people in this stake who are walking around thinking they have the gift of the Holy Ghost, but they don't." So, let me speak from experience having been excommunicated for over 9 years and rebaptised last year, the Gift of the Holy Ghost may be taken away, but one still has the Light of Christ and wow, the wonders and miracles that have happened to me with "only" the Light of Christ really changed my perception of it. It's immensely more powerful than we give it credit. And regardless of what anyone says, it doesn't take much at all to have the Grace of God bless one's life. So to say that everything is taken away is a falacy, only the ordinances and blessings that eminate from them that come with church membership are removed. An excommunicant can still attend church, can still attend activities, can still fellowship with the saints, can still counsel and have the support of the Bishop and the Stake Presidency and the Relief Society President, and can still reap enormous blessings from reaching for the Light of Christ. So anyone that says that an excommunicant is banished from the church by the church not only is wrong, they don't know what they're talking about so anything more they have to say on the subject should be looked at with suspicion. Any banishment exercised is self imposed. And, as I posted before, to return to the fold through rebaptism is difficult, but that's because there will be a lot of pride and behavior that will need to be stripped out before one can once again accept that ordinance.

Alma chapter 1 24 For the hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also manywithdrew themselves from among them. 25 Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with patience the persecution which was heaped upon them.

One thing you-all should realize is that to come back into the fold after an excommunication is not the easiest because it takes a huge about of introspective and shedding of a lot of pride. There were times I thought it was way to high a bar because I had to be "perfect" to get back in. It was a slow climb but I made it and looking back, the bar wasn't sky high, it was set at the same level of expectation expected of all members starting with learning to live what is the first three steps of the 12 step program: I can't, He can, I choose to let Him. Kind-of says a lot of where one is when that severe of a disipline is imposed.

I always wear a white shirt and a tie with my suit. I personally have done this since returning home from my mission. My final interview with Mission President he challenged me to maintain a missionary image upon my return home. I accepted the challenge and have done so ever since. This is my choice.

Handbook 2 20.4.1: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

The Church allows a widower to be sealed to more than one wife. Would that be considered serial polygamy, lol? And divorced couples don't necessarily get their sealing cancelled unless the woman remarries and is sealed to her subsequent husband/s. Even, women are able to be sealed by proxy to all husbands that she has had during her lifetime once she is dead. So, is polygamy still part of the Church? If polygamy is reinstated, and my husband took another wife, it would be very difficult for me to feel that I'm number one in his life. I would question his devotion to me. Many marriages fail because the wife doesn't feel she is number one in her husband's life. And that is a "need" that most women require in their marriage. And what about the 2nd wife? How does she feel like she is number one in her husband's life. These are basic needs that women need in a marriage. A wife needs emotional security just as she needs financial security. And then of course, there are these questions. What if the husband had a favorite wife? What if he negatively compares one wife over the other? What if finances were strained because of the subsequent wife? How do you have transparency in a marriage when there is more than one wife? How do wives have their privacy if their husband repeats back to the other what is going on with the other wife? And, honesty is required in marriage. Is the husband going to lie if his wife asks questions about what is going on with his relationship with the other wife? How does a husband meet the emotional needs of each wife, especially if the need is exclusivity? Isn't that what marriage is? We promise to be exclusive to one another. I think many men forget how important that is to a woman. All these questions would come into play with polygamy. In reading my great-grandmother's journals these were questions that were buried. Polygamy was hard. It would still be hard if reinstated today. But, if required it could be done. To quote my great grandmother, who was a second wife, and her mother was a third wife "I am grateful that as a heritage it seemed easy for me to accept and live happily in polygamy as one of my father's numerous posterity. And I leave my testimony as to its power in developing Christian ideals of unselfishness and its marvelous experiencing of live and deep consideration of the feelings of others, which we must all learn if we obtain Eternal Salvation."

Openly flouting an apostle's (or a group of apostles') recommended course of action based on nothing more than "you're not authoritative, and I don' wanna, and I don' haveta, and I'm not gonna" may not be rebellion. But it's kinda snotty, if you ask me.

Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?

*yawn* just another apostate looking for 15 minutes.

I pull mine from the 6.7% I pay in tithing (on my net income, of course, after deducting my mortgage, food expenses, payments on my BMW, and my semi-annual vacations to Bora Bora), leaving 93.3%, which--incidentally--is the same number TFP just gave, which I take as divine confirmation that my position is correct.

The problem can be in the research done. If one consults the scripture as naturally written as a witness in the physical elements of this earth there are DNA traces of the human species that go back in time over 50,000 years. There is overwhelming evidence that humans with our specific DNA existed well over 12,000 years ago. We can create all kinds of mitigation for the physical evidence but in the end in such a effort we are forced to believe in a G-d that is somewhat deceptive and misleading in regards to doctrine or empirical evidence. Ether to prevaricate the exactness of doctrine or in the preponderance of empirical evidence deliberately left behind to testify of the reality of what really happened. Somewhere critical evidence is missing - either in the scripture witness or in the empirical record. I can understand somewhat if we think of the scriptures as symbolic but there were humans long before the time that scripture tells us that Adam existed and there is a preponderance of evidence that there was death taking place for hundreds of thousands of years on earth before the scriptures tell us that Adam fell and initially brought death for the first time. Obviously something is wrong somewhere and only one of the record possibilities even remotely allows for a possibility of humans tampering with and changing the evidence.

Are you saying that while wearing a white shirt?

My great-grandmother was not "given" to her husband. My great-grandfather met his second wife, and courted her. My great-grandmother insisted that she meet the first wife, and that they had a good relationship before she would consent to marry my great grandfather. My great-great grandfather, when he married his third wife (my 2nd great grandmother), also met her at some point, courted her, and then married her. I do believe though, that my great grandfather's would have needed permission from the First Presidency to be sealed to subsequent wives.

Remaining true to oneself is not a gospel principle. And yet there is clear evidence of dishonesty driven by agenda. This is not a constitutional or legal issue in any way. The comparison makes no sense. Of course she has the legal right to it. And no one is throwing her in jail, beheading her, or proposing such should be done. And no one should ever revere fighting against God and His kingdom. Ever. This is false. The tools, gifts, and blessings she needed to stay afloat are already gone. The gift of the Holy Ghost is contingent on righteousness and obedience. You don't just get these things by virtue of membership. As with all covenants, If you don't keep up your end, you have no promise. Where? Seriously? Since when does excommunication keep her from going to church, keep her from counseling with her bishop? Keep her from praying? Keep her from reading scriptures? Nothing she needs for repentance has been taken from her. She has access to all the counselling, guidance, and mercy that she is willing to receive. She is unwilling! That is on her. You really think comparing a sports organization to the church is valid? Or that what some random analyst thinks defines truth and right? It is NOT your place to say if it was too harsh. This is the stewardship and prerogative of others. How can it be considered too harsh when she continued to openly rebel? Refusal to meet conditions, Refusal to humble herself. Refusal to accept doctrine and guidance. Refusal to even attend the counsel with a phone call. As the thread title states, what did she expect?! Uh....what? Wait...so you're interpreting, "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith" as it being a trial because they did not think it was fair that those who were blotted out got blotted out? You think the " persecution which was heaped upon them" that caused them to bear with much patience was from the church?

Why do we need to keep these ideas exclusive? John, who's gospel is filled with thematic elements (Judas leaves the supper to betray his Master, "and it was night" - cue thunder, lightning) sees the blood, water, and spirit elements of birth and rebirth in the Atonement. He clearly sees it as carrying an allegorical message. Elder Talmage, relying on the testimony of physicians, sees it as a literal elements witnessed at His death that testify to the manner of his death (a broken heart - which leads others to apply their own allegorical teachings to it). I'm not going to tell you to exclusively sit in either the allegory or literal camp here. I don't think you necessarily have to for other Bible stories.

Living in England, I have to listen to the endless talks of football. It's on TV, the radio, in newsprint. Because of this, I have to support someone. But picking the wrong team will get you beaten up. So I have learned the best way to win: Support a team no one likes. I am very pro-Luxembourg. They have never made it to the World Cup - Never even qualified. Because of this, everyone assumes I am related to someone from Luxembourg. They also have no rivalries because they lose all the time. It is the safest thing ever. And if you ever have a conversation about it, here is what you need to do pre-emptively: Say, "Hey! Are you watching the World Cup? What a buncha bozos, huh? Yeesh." This is a safe thing to say. Either the referees are blind or they hate the other team, or the team they like lost(In which case they're the bozos) or the team they like won(In which case the opposing team were bozos). Someone, somewhere, was a bozo. I have never failed with that line.

It is never a happy thing when someone is excommunicated, but in this case I feel it is for the best. I am sympathetic for Kate's cause, and even agree with a few points, but her methods repulse me. I hate to use stereotypes, but she is such a lawyer!! Talking about twisting words, using the press and popularity as weapons. It's extremely unChristlike. I do wish her the best still though, and hope her heart will be softened.

I feel bad for her. I truly think she just doesn't understand. I believe she has honest and good intent. She's merely deceived and blinded by the wisdom of men (or...uh...women, in this case). I actually really respect that in her statement she plead with others not to leave because of this. It's too bad her views (and others supporting her) are misguided because her passion and good will could be put to positive use instead. It is sad.

Greetings from the land of the living and the blessed! After spending some time reading and adding a few posts late Thurdsday evening and battling what I believed to be some severe heart burn, I finally went to bed about 11:30 central time for some shut eye. About 4:30 AM the heartburn returned with a vengeance and included profuse sweating and after self diagnosing and debating with my wife over the merits of seeing a doctor she took control and ordered me into her car and raced to the emergency room. The short version is I had a heart attack and passed away briefly after being admitted..had I not listeded to my wife I would no doubt be mingling with Spirits. More of the story to come.....

I used stronger language than I intended before, I am okay with that, I'm not rock solid that it is an allegory. Just my leaning.

Think of the Prophet as your daddy and yourself as a rebellious child looking for any excuse to mitigate their advice. I don't mean to be insulting but that's what your post comes across to me as. The rebellious child accusing daddy of not understanding and being an old stuffy guy with no connection to how things work these days.

I have to ask again. Why? Why is this clear in your mind? What makes you so confident in your understanding of the eternities that this sort of thing is so unlikely to be reality? Do you relegate all things you don't understand to "certainly allegorical"? What about Jesus's miracles? The water to wine? The walking on water? The raising of the dead? Just because it is not something our puny mortal minds can comprehend does not in any way argue for the fact that it must therefore be allegorical.

Urstadt, I understand that this is difficult for you, it has been difficult for me as well. The last thing anyone wants this to turn into a witch hunt. No one want Kelly (or anyone else) to quit attending church, quit praying, quit scripture reading, or to loose her testimony. We all want to heal, we all want to be embraced by the Lord. What has happened this weekend is a tragedy, even if necessary. I've thought/prayed about this a lot. It has caused a serious prolonged study for me on what "Priesthood" is. I am sympathetic to many of Kelly's points. But when one has questions, the proper course of action is to pray & knock, not to submit things to the New York Times. We must follow the Lord's model of behavior, not the American political one. -Jane

There is one challenge that I see in accepting Adam only as a figurative character. The heart of Christian theology -- in spite of all the differences in details -- is that Christ came to redeem a fallen mankind. I'm not enough of a theologian or philosopher to understand the full logic behind these things, but it often seems to me that, if Adam and his fall are merely story, then are Christ's ministry and atonement likewise merely story or allegory? As I must reject the latter, I also want to find some way to make Adam and his fall real events, too. I don't fully know how to reconcile this with what science teaches, though I believe they can be reconciled. If nothing else, it is a good question.

Except we, unquestionably, preach of and believe in a literal Adam. The amount of material in support of this is so overwhelming that even a suggestion of otherwise is... well...I don't want to insult. Do some research.

Why does there have to be a literal Adam? Hopefully without saying too much here, certain ceremonies make it clear that Adam and Eve are repesentative of us all (at least in some parts). Things don't need to be "either-or," and most aren't. In the New Testament Jesus taught mostly in parables. He may well have done the same in the Old Testament.

And that you had the sense to listen to her. Yes, please keep us updated.

There are no "marrying keys" to be removed from the Bishops. Each Bishop/Branch President has to register with his local civilian authority so that he has the legal (law of the land) authority to perform marriages. When my husband and I got married, the Branch President married us in a civilian ceremony. He could do so by the authority given to him by the State of Oregon,and it was given the seal of the Lincoln County Clerk. Later, when we had followed the conditions required by the LDS church, we were then sealed to each other at the Mesa Temple. No matter where you live, what country - the civilian laws do NOT recognize our Temple Marriages/Sealings to spouses. The gay couples if they are LDS, know that their union is not approved by the church or by God. They know that no Bishop/Branch President is ever going to marry them. If they are actively intimate, they will not be issued a Temple Recommend, thus it is a moot subject regarding the temple marriage/sealing. As for the new law in Denmark, as was pointed out in an earlier post - refers NOT to TCOJCOLdS.

Just a personal observation, personal experience. The Holy Ghost is NOT taken away, when we do not follow the Gospel Principles, do not obey the commandments of God, do not seek the light of Christ. When we actively and ardently search for and follow the Adversary - then WE chase away the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost cannot dwell among evil, the adversary. The person, Kate Kelly in this case, invited the adversary into her life and the resulting consequences was the Holy Ghost left her. Being excommunicated from the Church is NOT the same as being found guilty in a court of the land and being sent to prison. The above quote is from: The Principles and Purposes of Church Courts Lesson 41: Section 102Doctrine and Covenants Instructor’s Guide: Religion 324-325, (1981), 81–82

The quotes are still included in the current online teachers manual for the Old Testament (and, what's more, the video supplement contains the disavowed teaching applied generally (where it's safe I guess) and not specifically). https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2130-foreordained?category=new-testament/acts-revelation&〈=eng&order=chronological

In spite of the incredible trauma of it, I would obey, though I expect I would fail miserably. The fact that I was even able to get one wife is a miracle beyond description.

It would be a hard sell to Mrs Palerider

Something that can be shared with their hubby, like, you know, ahm, COOKIES, FUDGE, CANDIES! Nothing more is needed

Not changing my avatar .....:)

I like this. And I'm one who most if not always takes into consideration what GAs say. But, I believe, technically, it's pretty much advice. Good advice, perhaps even inspired advice. But still just advice. We ought to consider it, but not at the level of gospel doctrine.

Well, she was apparently on formal probation since early May, but neglected to inform her following about it until she got her notice of hearing earlier this month. She has (or her supporters have) also claimed that her local leaders never discussed OW with her until April or May; whereas today's letter confirms that discussions were happening as early as last December. The Church could never go straight to the press with a detail like that. But by putting it into Kelly's letter--which they knew darned well Kelly would feed to the press--they were able to get the story out regardless.

I prefer to shampoo my beard in Pepsi

Well, regardless of my disagreement with her views and methods, my heart goes out to her because I am quite aquainted with what she's going to now go through. From my experience, there is now only two roads she will need to personally decide to trod when it comes to the church: decide to do what it takes to come back into the fold or decide to fight against the church. Rarely, if ever, will a middle road be able to be taken by an exommunicant. The buffeting of the adversary will be real, palpable and intense. Those were very dark days for me, it has been very dark days for other excommunicants I've spoken with, it will be very dark days for her. I can only hope that she doesn't give in and spiritually drown.

I'm certainly not advocating fellow members telling other's they are sinning because they have double piercings. But following the counsel of the prophets is a commandment. I quote D&C 1:14 and vs 38 and D&C 21;4-6 and D&C 112:20 That's just some of the scriptures that say this. There are more. I could also give hundreds of conference talk quotes on it too...of course you don't seem to accept those as "doctrine"...just people's opinions...so.....

I think the doctrinal point is what is important here. Wearing earrings/how we wear them/length/# of piercings....none of these things keep us from salvation. Are there consequences to being overly ostentatious, flashy, prideful? Of course. Is the council given to us by the Prophets and Apostles good council? Of course. Do I want to hear from my fellow church member that I am "sinning" because I have a double piercing on my ear? NO. Because it is not a commandment.

So that would mean they get married in a civil ceremony and then can get sealed right? Basically the way the UK does it now.

The Church also has the option to stop all marriages in the temples and just do sealings... So no I don't see it happening

So this is out?

I agree religion is not the issue here, the guy is a dirt bag and he took advantage of the OP

I remember that letter! Except is wasn't sister's earrings - it was high priests' ear lobes. They weren't supposed to droop more than an inch below the ear hole. Pretty sure I got that right.

Update. I spoke with the Bishop this morning about the meetings. He agreed with me that we should be more respectful of others time. He also said we would see how things went. To which I responded that he was the one with total control over the meeting. I also had the ex sec change up the agenda a little bit to leave of the calendar items. WC took 1 hour 15 min

I also know living here in the Bible Belt these same type of issues exist in other Churches in our area with their membership. I also am quite sure all churches of all faiths have this issue as well.

Mine is a brilliant study in the manipulation of negative space. In artistic terms, the subject is in sharp relief with color-shifting charcoal grey as the background. It's a gestalt of minimalism and post-modern angst, touching on the thematic items of isolationism and urban apathy. Or I was just too lazy to change the default settings. It's definitely one of those two things.

I used to teach sexual harrassment classes to the military. For a male boss to comment on a pretty blouse or a dress to a female is actually not against the law. Unless he puts it in a way like "wow the style of that dress really brings out those curves and makes you sexy." If he is simply complimenting her on her dress or blouse is another thing. Or if she has been losing weight and he makes mention of it and congratulates her on her accomplishment is not against the law. It becomes a sexual harrassment issue if that female employee tells her boss that she is uncomfortable with those types of comments and he continues to do so after being told. Should he do it? That's the fine line. A sincere compliment that is nothing more than a compliment can be taken in so many different ways.

...because then, you know, you just have...beer... ...it's always so embarrassing to have to explain your jokes...well, at least Wingnut laughed...