Leaderboard

I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can. My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him. My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women? You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.

Some of them are just badly done and seem to say more about the skill of the Photoshopper and less about 'national' standards of beauty.

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng&cid=facebook-shared The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 June 28, 2014 In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth. We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them. Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine. The Council of The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I believe so, yes. Jesus Christ is both a Father and a Son. Abindi does a very good job explaining this. Anyway, our change in status has to do with our evolving covenant relationship with the Lord. As such, each time we are reborn, we ascend to a new rung on Isaiah's ladder. And like Jacob's ladder, where when we were born into a probationary state, our status changes each time we are justified in the law pertaining to that rung. (Thou shalt not kill is one law on one level, yet Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, demonstrating another law on a higher level). For example, one status is exalted to having our calling and election made sure. Joseph Smith spent a lot of time emphasizing this principle. Our status changes each time we ascend (D&C 76 reveals to us our potential status as Kings and Priests and Queens and Priestesses. I agree with you that when we sin, we descend. This typifies descending in covenant curses. For example, Adam fell and so the Lord cursed the earth for his sake, bringing forth thorns and thistles to torment man. Eve was to bring forth children in sorrow. The further we descend in this manner, the greater the curse. When man descends to despotism and tyranny, we see the curses that accompany these chaotic levels as evidenced in the book of Isaiah. Nebuchadnezzar is a prime example of this. But descending in a covenant relationship with the Lord isn't always sin. Christ was sinless and descended below us all. In the book of Job, the Lord allowed Satan to harm Job. This type of descent typifies ruin/rebirth and humiliation/exaltation. We read about the manner, which the Lord blessed Job for his firmness of faith.

I don't know about making things worse. There have been far worse things that have happened to/in/about/by the church and it's still here. I wouldn't hang the disposition of a worldwide church on one person and their action. Look at the Catholic church, they're still around and they've had scandal after scandal after scandal. Besides, I would surmise that the total number of members who let themselves be affected by this is a pretty small number. As for those who go to their church leadership and demand a disciplinary hearing, well, I dunno, it seems they let the beauty of the gospel be defined by one person. I don't know about you folks, but I never and will never hang my fortunes on one, mortal person, especially the likes of Kate Kelly or John Dehlin. I've said it before and I reiterate it here - I've listened to both and read what they have to say and I can come to only one conclusion - they are both wolves in sheep's clothing that will do nothing but devour for their own aggrandizement and conceit. Been there, done that so I know their type and I know their slick methods. Their fruits are not good. If you're having a faith crisis, go listen to Bill Reel who runs mormondiscussionpodcast.org and the Fair Mormon Blog. He had a faith crisis when he was a Bishop. There may be nothing flashy or dramatic about his work, but that's how the Lord works, not by creating conflict, distention, and disharmony but by acknowledging and helping. If the church survived the death of a prophet, an extermination order, the priesthood ban, the September 6 (which I believe some have come back into the church), the salamander letter, ERA, polygamy, Prop 8, ect, then I do believe the church will go on just fine after the excommunication of Kate Kelly and potentially John Dehlin.

I think that all separation, wheat and chaff style, will be done by the individual being separated. We remove ourselves from God, not the other way around, right?

If you have been sustained in Sacrament meeting...you should be set apart. I am curious if you have called someone to be a Primary Teacher or Sunday School Teacher or Youth Teacher and never felt they needed to be set apart?? They need to be set apart, for guidance and inspiration and perhaps to help them overcome their fears. That Sunbeam teacher and Nursery leader calling is just as important if not more so than the Elders Q Pres.

This whole topic amuses me because of how backwards it seems. When I went through the temple for the first time the temple president talked to me about propriety with the garments and how it is important to respect them and keep them sacred by keeping them covered... even when no one is watching. Of course this is not to be taken to the extreme that one could not put the garments on without another layer of clothing to cover or anything like that, I really feel that it comes down to your personal relationship with the Lord and covenants made. In any event my temple president did say that I should not lounge around in garments, but to cover up. I guess the short version is that in my opinion it is disrespecting the garment to hang out without covering them up.

Elder Nelson said, “In order to accomplish this team effort more effectively ... we announce four adjustments to the teaching process, designed to offer more help for our new members. 1. Missionaries will teach “Lesson 5: Laws and Ordinances” in Chapter 3 of Preach My Gospel both before and after baptism. 2. Mission presidents will actively teach and re-teach the Lord’s standard for baptism, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants, section 20, verse 37. "Two phrases are particularly important in preparing the investigator for the covenant of baptism: "having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins..." 3. "When possible, missionaries will work closely with each new member for at least three to four months after baptism and continue to keep close to them for at least a year and hopefully for many years and even generations. …" 4. “Missionaries will take the lead in re-teaching all five of the lessons in Preach My Gospel after baptism. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605731/Adjustments-made-for-more-effective-team-work-between-missionaries-and-local-leaders.html?pg=all IMO, #3 is a good change. M.

There are no scriptures which downright say "Only men can be ordained because XYZ". The church admits this. However, men-only ordination to priesthood administrative offices is current practice (not doctrine). Theoretically this could change in the future, not that is not now. I think Kate Kelly's problem lies much more with actions than beliefs. Namely, marching on General Conference demanding a change in church policy, dragging the press into it, and prostloyzing these views to others. The 1st Pres letter says: "Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine." (An example) Say you openly go against Church teachings (say a major sexual sin) and are consoled against it. You don't feel remorse for you actions, publicly and loudly demand the church change it's policy, and try to convince others of this position. Yeah, I believe that such a person should undergo church discipline. Now for another example, say "Bob" struggles with a certain doctrine (say major sexual sin). He's really stumbling with it, but still trying to follow the Lord's ways. No, I don't think "Bob" should be excommunicated. For a third example: say "Jan" doesn't believe every current policy is optimal. Or doesn't believe some doctrines. But she doesn't campaign to convince people to change. I think she's chill

I only mentioned age because if it was a young person doing it for pocket money I would pay less than I would to some one who did this as their career.

I think President Hinckley said it as plainly as it can be said. This is on mormon.org: Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said: “Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. http://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church If the prophet takes it to prayer and inquires of the Lord and the Lord tells him no through personal revelation...does it have to be written down or some kind of scripture? Ir we truly believe that President Hinckley or President Monson or any of those great men before them aren't prophets and don't receive answers to their prayers...then...I don't know. The why's of so many things hasn't been revealed to us. Sometimes we have to be satisfied and have faith that we'll have answers in due time. Right now I'm satisfied with what President Hinckley said..."The Lord has put it that way."

So you have this group of sisters who believe women should be ordained to the Priesthood. The reasoning behind it is that there is no scriptural basis that states women cannot. The statement of the First Presidency states: "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices". Okay, I think the obvious follow up question is: "Where does it say that?" or "Is there a revelation where it states that only men are allowed to hold the Priesthood" and the answer that seems to be given over and over is "Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, only men can". Yeah, I get that. So this groups says "Okay, but we saw X and X here and there that it is possible for them to hold it, etc". One would think, a thorough answer will be given to clarify once and for all what the Church believes to be misleading thoughts or opinions or even facts..but no...the answer and tone remain the same: "Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, only men can". It seems to me that this sort of approach is unhelpful and doesn't lead to a proper dialogue and understanding of both sides.

Wow. I suppose if you feel so strongly about the matter you just can't handle officially being in the Church anymore... Hey, why wait to be separated, wheat and chaff style, when you can do it yourself? Sad.

I don't know that it should be viewed in such black and white terms as worse/better - good/bad. To say that Kate Kelly's excommunication was bad is incomplete. To say that it was good is also incomplete. It is good and bad. It is tragic for her. It is bound to cause troubles. It is also good though. It draws a line, sets the standard, protects the church and it's doctrine, and hopefully, if she humbles herself, will lead her back to the fold someday. That's just off the top of my head. There are certainly other good and bad things to it. So it is with better/worse. Will it be worse for some? Yes. Is it overall, universally going to be worse? No. In some ways it will be better. There will be those driven away from the church because of it and there will be those who are protected from being driven away. We all react differently to different things. It's way to complicated to view as an overreaching improvement or setback. Moreover, and more importantly, the forces of evil will continue to gather. In that regard, things WILL get worse...pretty much continually until the second coming. Standing for truth and right will, inevitably, in many instances make things worse. Failure to stand for truth and right won't help though.

I'm confused...why is anyone making any valuative statement about someone's feelings toward the Garment based on how they like to lounge around? To me, those seem like entirely distinct concepts.

I go to the gym. I wear my garments all day, change out of them into gym clothes, work out, take everything off and go use the gym shower, then put my garments back on with my regular clothing. I'm not aware of any reason to hide garments from the eyes of the unendowed, and it's never been an issue. I've gathered a couple comments from doctors at physicals when I was asked to "strip down to your underwear". Harmless enough. "Oh - you're mormon? My cousin's friend is a mormon." That sort of thing. Handy rule of thumb I've heard over the years that bishops seem ok with: The four "S"'es of not wearing your garments: Swimmings, sports, showers, and sex. Sacred, not secret. We treat them with respect. But they're articles of clothing.

I must resist. I must resist. I must resist.

It did come across as if you were stating it's not that big a deal and it was like you were using a Sunbeam teacher as an example. I took iissue with it as having been on the leadership side setting people apart in their callings over the years.

Except those who require keys, who literally cannot do their calling without it, the above agrees with my view.

I feel it's important that every person no matter the calling from Sunbeam teachers to Elders Quorum Presidents should have the opportunity to be set apart. No calling is more important than another. All callings have a purpose and a responsibility attached to them.

I wonder how I stuffed that much lobster and steak into my tummy!

You said most callings.....just trying to figure out which people I set apart for their calling was not correct according to your statement.

It was very special when my two step children were able to witness the sealing of their half brother to my husband and me.

Victoria's Secret and Old Navy are two brands that don't show my garments...

They're not exactly designed to be attractive. Comfort is a matter of opinion, of course. Liking them in those regards isn't very meaningful. That's not why they are worn. I guess if one loves them as underwear then it's a bonus. Loving something is not a simple black and white. Do I love reading scriptures? Yes...and no. In some ways it's a labor and a burden. But it draws me closer to the Lord, so I love it, but I don't. The same can be true of church attendance, home and visiting teaching, going to the temple, service, etc., etc... We do the Lord's will in spite of our mortal imperfections and any natural issues we may have with that which we ought to be doing. Over time, we grow spiritually, and we grow up and realize what's truly important in life. I expect that there comes a point where any difficult thing, if we persist in faith long enough, grows to be very precious to us and any negatives fade away to nothingness.

First I must admit I did not read the entire article - but I plan to. Second I will put forth some of my ideas about the Adam - Eve saga. Ideas: I see nothing in any choice or decision made by Adam and Eve that were not part of the decisions and choices we all made in the pre-existence. Thus I am not sure if I believe that the garden epoch in scripture is not symbolic of something far more reaching in the saga of all mankind. I do not believe that anyone is “stuck” with a lot in life because something done by individuals (Adam and Eve) to which they would have no input. Next I think that because of the power of political correctness and some misguided feministic overreaching that almost everybody is ignoring the “elephant in the room”. I know what some mean in saying men and women are equal. But the simple and obvious truth is that men and women are not equal. This is because men and women are different. Most assume that if we realize that two things are not equal then one must be greater than the other and I simply do not believe this logic applies. What I believe is that we assume men and women are equal because one is not greater than the other. That is what I see as a great mistake in the logic of feminism. Trying to make and prove men and women are equal a foolish exercise in stupidity that in the end will accomplish very little of benefit and cause more problems than what our misguided prejudice can realize. I tend to think that men and women are both completely different by themselves and that only together can they be completed. And that since the whole of their completeness is much greater than the sum of all their parts – it is foolish and stupid to think one is greater than the other. One without the other is by them self unsustainable and thus an inevitable failure in the long run. A man that does not honor and respect the role his wife and what she is capable of bringing to their partnership ruins himself and the best of his potential and likewise a woman that despises or does not appreciate and respect the role of her husband ruins herself and the best of her potential. The one point I agree with the feminists is that in general men have been less appreciative and respectful. What I disagree with is with any diminishing a man or the role of men by feminists that think they can do whatever a man does – just as well because the two are “equal”. The final point for now is that the greatest accomplishment of the partnership of men and women is children. As women assume their role of carrying a child they are vulnerable on many levels and are best served by a responsible father that cares for and provides for the mother and the child’s needs during this time. In this role women are dependent on men and men are responsible for the pregnant woman. I also do not believe humanity is best served by large shifts in rolls or in the preparation of individual to their most important roll. As with many things in life – if one is going to be a wide receiver I do not believe they should put forth a lot of effort in to being a running back. The team needs both in order to have that winning combination.

I certainly wouldnt' be lending them anything else soon for sure... dunno i'f i'd go so far to stick em on a hate list tho, or a don't visit again list. Also it seems from the info here that its someone else and not the friend that's causing the grief. personally i think the route of mercy is a higher road than the route of justice. you may want some time to cool off but ultimately its probably best if you forget about the washer and dryer.

Thanks for the clarification. As I stated "someone can correct me." :)

Form handbook 1 Observing Sealings of Living Brothers and Sisters To observe their living brothers and sisters being sealed to their parents, children under the age of 21 must be born in the covenant or sealed to their parents. In addition, children ages 8 and older must be baptized, and males ages 12 and older must hold the Aaronic Priesthood. If children do not live the majority of the time in the same house as those who are being sealed, First Presidency approval is required for them to observe the sealing. Members who are married or are 21 or older must be endowed to observe such sealings. I assume this includes adopted children as they by law are leagally brothers and sisters in the new family Adopted or Foster Children Who Are Living Living children who are born in the covenant or have been sealed to parents cannot be sealed to any other parents unless approval is given by the First Presidency. Living children who are legally adopted and were neither born in the covenant nor sealed to former parents may be sealed to their adoptive parents after the adoption is final. A copy of the final adoption decree should be presented at the temple; a court decree granting legal custody is not sufficient clearance for a sealing. There is no obligation to identify the natural parents of these children. First Presidency approval is necessary for a living member to be sealed to foster parents. This requirement applies even if the natural parents of the foster child are unknown and cannot be identified by reasonable effort. Such requests are made by the stake president.

My bisop told us that sibling CAN watch siblings be sealed. I don't know if adoption is different, I don't see why it would be, but I have personally seen it happen with half siblings...so a second marraige happens. That couple is waiting to be sealed due to previous sealings need cancelled. They have another child in the meantime. Then when they finally all get sealed, the older children from previous marriage get to see the new baby sealed to parents. They do not get to see the parents sealed, they are brought in at the time of the baby and get to see that part. I don't see why it would be different for adoption, but maybe??

I may be off in my thinking but I can't help thinking that the days of separating the wheat from the chaff have begun or is accelerating.

I wouldn't stress over it, these things do happen for a reason, but there is no divine purpose behind it. Bureaucracy and government efficiency are the reasons, politics plays a large roll also. You are not unworthy, it's not because you lack knowledge, it just is. Relax, serve locally if you want to and be patient

Re-read your letter. Your call is to be a missionary. Your assignment is to serve in Adelaide. Assignments can change. I would encourage you to start your service ASAP, even if it's not in the area you first thought you'd be going to. If they are offering you a temporary assignment, I would say "take it".

I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels. 1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman). I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy. So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal). What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.

Be honest, there is no empirical evidence against the Book of Mormon, only a list of *haven't found that's* which is actually very slowly, kind of being checked off. Even the BofA stuff isn't comparable to what we know of the history of our Earth and what is written in our holy books of the history of the earth.

Tell me, what was Jesus' most frequent method of teaching? Was it not allegory? There are tons of them throughout the NT. I don't think it's a stretch to say that just maybe that was his preferred method of instruction before he came here too.

Well Urstadt let's take a closer look again. A pattern of behavior that she has been told by her leaders is not harmonious with the Gospel. Having an agenda. Making sure that agenda is in the media. Making sure that agenda remains in the media. Lying about her behavior in the media. Hmmmm...sounds like someone getting their 15+ minutes to me.

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

I rest my case.

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.

As it was practiced only by a very few, I would guess I would not be affected. Huzzah.

I would hardly call a conference talk authoritative evidence

Hello! I wanted to let you know that I know how you feel. I very directly have experience with panic attacks and anxiety. Now, thanks to the wonders of modern medication, my anxiety is under control. But for years, I had issues with 'Night Terrors' - Waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, heart racing. In fact, I once went 7 days without sleep because I'd start to feel fear the moment I closed my eyes. I was okay during the day, except that I'd get irritable and confrontational when my anxiety levels started to rise. I guess that'd be a 'Fight or Flight' thing. I chose fight. I also understand how hard it can be to talk about. I was pretty much a stalwart guy. Very few people would have guessed I struggled with anxiety. I grew up in a military household, so I had good posture. I joked with people. I was a bit of a social butterfly. I was always worried someone would think that my anxiety was 'All that I was'. I'd stop being the funny, generally empathetic, fun to be around guy and be 'That guy with anxiety'. I didn't want to be defined by a single thing, so I didn't share that with anyone up until about a few years ago when I started to get more confident. I tell you this just so you know that I can absolutely see where you're coming from, and so you understand that I understand how despairing it can be to suffer from anxiety - How it feels like an insurmountable mountain and how you just want to crawl under the covers some days and not come out. And because of this, I want you to know absolutely that what I'm about to tell you is true. You're not really mad at your Bishop. You're feeling lost and lonely and afraid. Your Bishop did something against your wishes in an attempt to help you. This has let you latch on to that as a means to push him away and the church, because the church is very hard for someone with anxiety. You feel betrayed and angry, yes, but that makes it easier to push him away because it's so hard to confront things. You don't have to be afraid. The church is here to help. You're loved and you're not alone. Lemme know if you want to talk. I really do get it.

It might depend upon the nature of what you told him. There are certain things that are under the stewardship of the Relief Society President, such as church welfare among a few others, It may have been an error in judgement on his part, and it may have been a necessary action to getting you the help you need or requested. Without more information it would be impossible to speculate with any accuracy as to what exactly might have happened.

I love Isaiah Decoded by Avraham Gileadi. For those unfamiliar, decades ago, a professor named William Brownlee discovered in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah a seven part division of Isaiah's book in two parallel blocks of chapters. At that time scholars barely determined that biblical books even had literary structures. So Brownlee's discovery was mostly passed over. Another professor, a colleague of Brownlee by the name of Roland Harrison, Gileadi's mentor, suggested that Gileadi explore this structure for his doctoral thesis. And so a chiasm of history was examined that became what Gileadi describes as Seven Spiritual Categories or Isaiah's Ladder. The seven part division is patterned so: Isaiah 1-331a-2a-3a-4a-5a-6a-7a Isaiah 34-661b-2b-3b-4b-5b-6b-7b In the book of Genesis 28:12-17, we read about Jacob's ladder that reached from earth to heaven, which he called the "gate of heaven." Jehovah was visible at the top. Isaiah built a theology around this idea as a way to define our relationship to God, or rather His role toward us and our role toward Him. In this literary pattern, Isaiah describes his own ladder, which symbolizes the different ways of living that people choose, which either move them up the ladder to God or down the ladder toward destruction. So using the code above (1a corresponding with 1b, etc) we have the following structure in categories corresponding with chapters: -Ruin and Rebirth (1-5, 34-35)--Rebellion and Compliance (6-8, 36-40)---Punishment and Deliverance (9-12, 41-46)----Humiliation and Exaltation (13-23, 47)---Suffering and Salvation (24-27,48-54)--Disloyalty and Loyalty (28-31, 55-59)-Disinheritance and Inheritance (32-33, 60-66) There are distinctions within each level or set of choices we make that brings covenant blessings or covenant cursings. A ladder appears when we recognize these categories of people as an ascending order, from the lowest (or farthest from being like God) to the highest (most like Him). John made it clear in one of his epistles when we obtain the highest rung: We find ourselves at any given time on one rung or another depending on the choices we make, or in other words, what spiritual laws we live or choose not to live. We are either ascending or descending. And if we are idle, well that isn't good either. You gotta climb. We qualify for God's presence (D&C 76: 51-58) when we enter heaven. Some people attain this state in this life. Others fail even after death. This seven part structure presents models on each level, or on each rung. We participate in the role of each model as we ascend or descend. Isaiah's "ladder" to heaven looks like this: Jehovah-God of IsraelSeraphim-Angelic EmissariesSons/Daughters-Servants of GodZion/Jerusalem-God's Covenant PeopleJacob/Israel-Believers in a Creator-GodBabylon-The Wicked of the WorldKing of Assyria/Babylon-Perdition At the bottom is depicted the archtyrant who conquers and destroys. People on the lowest rungs resemble the archtyrant as they follow his example of despotism. The more we resemble him, the lower we descend. Most of us are on the Jacob/Israel rung until we have experienced the baptism of fire. Conversely, the more we become like Jesus Christ, the higher we ascend. By looking at Israels' history and its people we can compare ourselves to them and see where we are on the ladder. Isaiah provides that yardstick for us. We don't need to wait until we die to ascend or descend. Knowing exactly where we stand NOW puts to rest any false "notions of grandeur" that we have about ourselves. It is entirely possible to ascend multiple rungs during this mortal life according to our desires, diligence and the Lord's will and timing. Joseph Smith continually urged the saints to seek their calling and election. Our Savior personally invites us through the Bible, the BoM and the D&C to seek Him, thus receiving the "Other Comforter." The City of Enoch ascended beyond what we normally have as a covenant people. We do not need to wait until some future time beyond mortal death to begin climbing. By having overcome that great gulf, Christ enabled us to progress in this manner. p.s. -- Throughout scripture we read about the descent and ascent of various prophets and people. Isaiah is a primary example. So is Abraham and Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Job is yet another. Moses, Lehi, Alma, and many more are on display, each representing a "type" of ascension. And of course, Jesus Christ descended below us all and so likewise, He ascended above all. Indeed we must descend before we can ascend. This principle is found throughout nature, even the universe. A tree must lose all its leaves and it becomes dormant through a period of descent (winter) before it is blossoms with life again. It is how the tree grows. Each season it is reborn.

The principle is not complicated. In order to ascend we need to be humble and have genuine appreciation and gratitude - for blessings, for others that help us and for those struggling with difficulty. It would appear that even G-d (in the example of Jesus Christ) would condescend and endure the worse prior to being justly and honestly able to stand in the light of glory. I have come to believe that this necessity to descend was the single failure of Lucifer as well as the litmus test between all that is good and evil.

This is why.

A couple of observations: 1) The essay disavows the *explanations* for the ban, but not the ban itself. I wonder whether DesNews is authorized to go further than that, as they do in this article by approvingly quoting Armand Mauss' incorrect allegation that the essay openly denies a revelatory basis for the ban? 2) Records of private correspondence dating to 1848 suggest that Young had changed his mind on ordination of blacks (as of 1846, he had spoken approvingly of the ministry of Walker Lewis, a black elder in Massachusetts) by that date. But in 1847-48, Young was either on the trail, living in a hut in Winter Quarters, or else living in a shack in Salt Lake Valley. Church records are hardly complete for this period--George D. Watt, who transcribed most of the sermons in the early volumes of the Journal of Discourses, was abroad on a mission from 1846 to 1850. It's one thing to say that there's no record of a revelation giving rise to the priesthood ban. It's quite another to say that no such revelation ever happened. By 1852, Young was certainly comfortable invoking his prophetic status to defend the policy. 3) President McKay's experience was much stronger than simply not getting permission to rescind the ban. He was, per two or three different acquaintances, very emphatically told "no". 4) I've said it before and I'll argue it again: If you think God would never authorize withholding of Gospel ordinances due to race, then logically you should be moving heaven and earth to get the Church to change its current policy of withholding temple ordinances from Jewish holocaust victims who aren't fortunate enough to have living progeny.