Leaderboard

I was concerned at the offset of this thread that sacred things could be cast as pearls before swine. Some posters have already touched on this. However, for the record, I will clearly state that I personally have several encounters – both with the clean and unclean personages. In some cases I knew the personage as I recognized my brother that drowned shortly (within a few months) after returning from his mission. As a general rule I would bring to light that a visitation of an angel is as likely or more likely to be for the reason of calling someone to repentance as it is to comfort, testify of something important or bring one’s righteousness to account. In short – such a thing is highly unlikely to be something to brag about or share with others; for whatever the reason.

Are we twins? I'm 2 months now

I have not seen an angel. But I have felt them around me. I have had impressions about who they were, and felt their comforting words/thoughts conveyed to me. I have also felt negative beings. To a greater or lesser extent I have felt them regularly over the last few years. Angels are of course all around us. The problem is we are not in tune. We often talk about receiving spiritual promptings. This is the first step. But there is obviously much more. We need to continue down that path. Calming our mind and learning to sense and understand on the spiritual plane. After being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost one of the first blessings and directions Nephi gives us is to speak with the tongue of angels. He says, "then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue [ie. in the language] of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel" (2 Ne 31:13). What is the language of angels? Nothing more nor less then spirit to spirit communication, as Nephi further states, "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost" (2 Ne 32:3). Communication comes directly to our spirit in the form of impressions, thoughts, and ultimately words. I have not experienced, but believe, that seeing angels on a regular basis is simply a further refinement of that process. I also believe there are rare occasions where angels communicate with those unprepared. But these are for specific purposes and with specific assignments.

According to the linked article, the group that is most hostile towards conservative Christians are progressive, white, and educated. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march-web-only/what-christianophobia-looks-like-in-america.html?share=UeA%2fAEk8MwjqKHOrUtb1jGM%2fzl2TiyOl The attitudes expressed, put kindly, are that conservative Christians are fine, if they keep their religion in their houses of worship, and in their homes. Keep it out of the public square, and out of our faces. We don't want to discriminate against you per se. However, we support California's public university "all-comers" policy--that prohibits clubs from restricting membership or leadership positions based on religion. They also support restrictions on religious freedom, if doing so seems to mean an overall good for society (yeah, it's okay to bankrupt the baker that won't serve a gay wedding). The article seems spot on to me. I just hate to give into the same feeling of victimhood that ends up making us appear weak and oppressed. Thought the facts are true, does this kind of thinking drive us towards a bunker mentality? I still believe engaging the culture is preferable to circling the wagons.

No big deal. My friends and I have "tea" all the time, as one of them is british and one of them is romanian. We just call it tea, but usually it's say, a late lunch or a get together. The second you start ripping too deep into things is when situations can get dangerous and "judgy". Just live! You aren't breaking the word of wisdom by putting a bit of orange juice in a teacup, and it's a good, enriching activity to gather in a calm and social setting. Worrying "oh it's called a tea party that could look bad", just makes it look bad, no?

The first time you do anything -- pushups, running a mile, walking up a flight of stairs -- it's uncomfortable. If you do it for a while, your body adapts. Same is true with fasting. Almost everyone who has never (or rarely) fasted gets sick when they try. But if you fast every month, very soon you don't get sick any more. The fasting quits feeling like punishment, and your body quits giving you a headache in demand for more blood sugar. You adapt. This is why it's very useful to become a good faster (i.e. to fast a few times until it doesn't feel horrible to fast) BEFORE you get pregnant. Then, when you fast when pregnant, you can tell whether you're just feeling the normal feelings of fasting -- which after you get used to them are not painful or even unpleasant -- or whether your pregnant body is telling you that you really ought to eat or drink something.

I think we're going about this the wrong way. The situation doesn't need to be dangerous or life threatening to validate an expecting mother to hydrate or snack. Dizziness and nausea brought on by pregnancy can literally make a woman non-functional, or at the very least, unable to participate in meetings or activities. She needn't be on her deathbed for a good reason to sip a bottle of water or have a snack. With my last pregnancy, I'd get dizzy spells and nausea where I couldn't see well or concentrate on anything, and often needed a snack of some sort which helped but didn't cure. If sipping a bottle of water or having a modest snack will help you attend your meetings and participate in activities, do it, and know that you're human like everyone else. It beats calling it quits on the whole day, skipping all your meetings and activities, because you're so uncomfortable otherwise. Common sense. I don't think this is a righteous or unrighteous situation, at all. Like with other similar topics, if you take MEDS that require some sort of snack accompaniment, I'm sure God gets that.

I've met 3 people who have. 2 were LDS, 1 was not, but the experience caused him to leave the christian sects he was attending before then, and investigate the LDS- due to how angels are represented in popular mainstream christian culture was significantly different than his experience.

A few years after my dad died, I was visiting with an old family friend who asked me, "Do you think your dad ever visits your mom? Does she talk with him often?" I was floored at the question and replied, "If he has been ministering to her, she recognizes the sacredness of such visits and has kept them to herself." I can understand sharing such experiences when prompted by the Spirit, or even when "induced" (to use Joseph Smith's word), but I cannot relate to asking fellow saints to share extremely sacred experiences especially when we don't even tell each other of the common sacred experience we have in the temple.

Oh I forgot to chime in on this. I don't think there's a one-fit-answer for everyone, in fact, I'm 100% certain there isn't. If you are a high risk pregnancy, follow your OBGYN's orders, and anything you're iffy about - ask for clarification. Otherwise, it's true that pregnant women are not delicate flowers, having been one and now one again, I think we're built pretty dang sturdy and are more than capable BUT common sense is important. Unnecessary stresses (physical or psychological) can be upsetting to pregnancy, and sometimes no matter how much preparation you do, there are just some things you'll find that end up out of your control. If you start feeling light-headed and dizzy, for goodness sake, drink some water or have a nibble - fast or no fast.

Well, theoretically it would be a capitalist since no lawyer ever advanced beyond the heathen stage.

I choose to NOT have a cell phone. If others want it fine. BUT........can I say how totally rude it is when we are out to lunch and person with phone spends the entire time reading and answering texts????? Talk about rude.

I'm sorry but did you just call me an anti-Semite? You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried! Disagreeing with Israeli policy towards the peace talks and the establishment of a Palestinian state does not in any way shape or form make you anti-Semitic. If it did then there are plenty of Jewish Israeli's who disagree as well, are they anti-Semitic as well? Let me be clear, I fully support the idea of a Jewish state, that Israel has a right to exist. But I also support the right of Palestinians to also have a homeland to call their own. I think you may have been duped by that so called high ranking official, as over the many years of the peace process the amount of land that the Palestinians have asked for has shrunk considerably from the 1948 partition to the current proposed 22% of said partition. Clearly the Israeli's are getting the better deal. But then their true intent is to wipe the Palestinians of the face of the map, which they have been doing since they took control of the occupied territories in their dreams of creating greater Israel.

I think a lot of people detest guns because they fear guns. And they fear guns because they know nothing about guns. So even if anyone doesn't buy a gun, they can rent a gun at a gun range, usually only with another person. And I would encourage them to do so, to get out and find out what it really is. And isn't. They can come out to an event like we had yesterday. BBQ and all day shooting at the outdoor range. Free instruction available, and everyone is willing to let you try their gun, in fact many offer. All under very controlled conditions. Most of the people there are well experienced with guns, ex military, NRA Range Security Officers, or Instructors. And everyone able to watch others to be sure that they are safe for themselves and for their neighbor. But also some young people who were able to have some fun trying various guns. And conquering any fears they may have had. dc But if you do buy a gun, get training, and practice.

Congrats! Here we go again

Bini, we must be! I'm also 2 months in. Thanks for the thoughts, everyone. Vort, I agree with you. I'm feeling mostly healthy and thought I could handle a fast this early on if I were sensible. I did get a bit sickly and have eaten a small sandwich.

Inlaws and Outlaws....gotta love them. Lol

More of Vort's opinion: I think we view pregnancy as an illness, and I think that's wrong. Women who are pregnant are not "delicate". Some women are "ordered" by their doctors to bed rest, and in a few situations I expect that's the best way to save the pregnancy. But medical doctors are notoriously conservative, sometimes (often, IMO) absurdly so. I would think that common sense is enough to see one's way through a normal pregnancy. Work as usual. If you think you're getting overworked, then stop. Fast just like normal. If you think the fast is causing undue stress, then stop. Anyway, that's my view. I wish we would quit treating pregnancy as a disease and quit viewing pregnant women as handicapped. (Except women whose pregnancies are genuinely in peril, and the vast majority of women more than eight months along.) I don't think we do pregnant women any favors by telling them, both explicitly and implicitly, that they're in bad shape and must be feeling awful. Our young women's president and our Cubmaster (shouldn't that really be a Cubmistress?) have been full term while doing their callings, and they have soldiered on and done great work. Most women I have seen, my wife included, function well (despite discomfort) right up until delivery. I have loads of admiration for expecting mothers and what they put up with, and I think it's unnecessarily condescending to tell them how fragile they are. In most cases, that really is not even true. There ya go. More opinion than you ever wanted.

In a roundabout way! There's a family fast tomorrow I'd like to participate in and didn't know how that's religiously viewed.

The current season of Grimm is great! Some big things in store but I won't mention them... Spoilers!!

Well done! As and aside, speaking of Tamar and Rahab, I think it bears noting that Jesus Christ also descended from David and Bathsheba (Matt 1:6). I think Bathsheba gets a bad rap sometimes, but in that instance, it was David who was a very bad boy, and an anointed king, no less.

I've never seen it in one article, but the articles I see in health magazines are either for coffee or advise against it. Not in the same article. Some articles are for coffee, others say it's best to drink only a little or not at all.

Does watching the NCAA tourney count ?? Lol

I'm sick to death of all these you should drink coffee for your health/coffee is bad for your health scientific articles. Seems they are just coming from different angles. You'd think the medical community could come up with a definitive coffee is bad/good status and stick to it. I'm with anatess. Outside the WoW, approach it holistically.

I'm curious as to WHY you feel better about it? Do you actually believe that someone bent on murder and mayhem is going to care one whit about a sign prohibiting firearms?

Someone is bored

I don't disagree with you but I think we need to make something clear for those who might misunderstand your post. It could lead someone to assume that unless a disciplinary council is held there will be NO discipline at all. There's a difference between "formal" discipline and "informal" discipline. Formal discipline occurs after a disciplinary council is held and the bishop or the stake president decides that some form of discipline should be meted out. Informal discipline occurs when an individual meets with a bishop and confesses to some infraction that doesn't require a disciplinary council (e.g. use of pornography, self abuse, word of wisdom violation, etc.)While no disciplinary council is necessary for these infractions, the bishop has the right to confer "informal" discipline (e.g. restrictions on preparing, passing or partaking the Sacrament, holding a church calling, speaking in Church, exercising the priesthood, etc.) Just thought we should make that clear. :)

You are correct. anatess---you wrote: "Sure. But that still falls within the bounds of my answer that... Use of Pornography can get you sent to a disciplinary council." Personal addiction and use of pornography will not result in a disciplinary council. However, it may very well result in informal Church discipline such as restrictions on partaking the Sacrament, holding a Church position, exercising the Priesthood, etc. You also wrote: Omega also said something about drinking coffee. Not finding anything wrong with drinking coffee... you can't get baptized with that. But for those baptized and then developed the thinking that there's nothing wrong with coffee, then drinks it... that could lead to the bishop having a talk. Then you start encouraging others to have coffee with you... I can see that going to disciplinary council if the person persists. WOW violations will not result in a disciplinary council either. I suppose if someone opposed the restrictions and actively encouraged other members to violate them it could result in a disciplinary council, but the case would then fall under the definition of apostasy. askandanswer wrote: "But then we are still left with the seemingly odd situation where breaching some temple covenants can result in an excommunication, and breaching other covenants seemingly has not impact on the breaker's church standing." Regarding disciplinary councils I think you're overly fixated on temple covenants (particularly the sealing covenants), which are in no way the be-all and end-all when it comes to Church discipline. Remember, the three-fold purpose of Church discipline is to: Save the Souls of Transgressors Protect the Innocent Safeguard the Integrity of the Church. In regards to two people deciding they no longer wish to be married (absent sins that could get one or both excommunicated) it's difficult to argue that excommunication or other punishment would satisfy any of the three.

I’ve been following this thread for the past week or so, and having quite a bit of personal experience with disciplinary councils (both bishop and stake) I've wanted to participate. But I've been reluctant due to the fact that I couldn't see a way to do the subject justice without a lengthy post. I've decided to give it a shot, and while long, hopefully my post won’t be a waste of space. I don't have an exact count, but I'm guessing I've been involved in somewhere around 18 (front end) disciplinary councils. None resulted in probation, one resulted in no action (temporarily), two resulted in disfellowshipment, and the rest resulted in excommunication. Certain sins require a mandatory disciplinary council, but for the most part the decision is left up to the Bishop or Stake Presidency based upon various conditions and circumstances. The bishop and his counselors normally handle cases involving women and non-Melchizedek Priesthood holders. If the case may result in the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood (particularly if he has been endowed) the case is transferred to the Stake. Palerider wrote: “Another thing....there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them.” This is true. In fact I have seen bishops bend over backwards to avoid holding a disciplinary council; ignoring egregious situations until a Stake President literally had to say "do it or else!" It's been my experience that the most difficult cases, and the ones most bishops try to avoid, are those that involve women who have committed fornication or adultery. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why. Three men sitting in a room alone with a woman who is confessing to such things is extremely uncomfortable for all involved. Been there, done that, and don't wish to ever do it again. The thing I really wanted to touch on though is the concept of the "double standard" that a few here have postured. In regards to that I'll note what priesthoodpower wrote: "I would think that the church DC is the same thing and the Bishop/Stake Pres/council members are listening to the spirit as their guiding factor." Listening to the Spirit SHOULD, and I believe in most cases IS the guiding factor. And sometimes that results in actions that appear to be unfair (or a double standard) in the eyes of those who see things only through a "glass darkly" so to speak. I'll give you an example. While I was serving on a Stake High Council we had a case before us respecting a gentleman who at the time was serving as a bishop’s counselor. The man had been in an adulterous relationship for quite some time before it was discovered, whereupon he was released from his position in the bishopric and subsequently a disciplinary council was convened. The man refused to appear before the council, but he did send a letter, which was read by the Stake President (minus the 4-letter words). The letter informed us that he no longer believed in the Church, no longer wanted to be a part of it, had no plans to leave his adulterous relationship, and that all 15 of us were more than welcome to do something anatomically impossible. After reading the letter the Stake president opened the meeting up to comments and concerns. Those who wished to speak did so, it was determined that the case was a "simple one", numbers were drawn to determine who would speak in behalf of the Church and the accused, the two men who drew the numbers had their say, and the Stake Presidency retired to an office to pray about a decision. While they were gone the members of the High Council discussed the case among themselves and it was clear we were all in agreement---the man HAD to be excommunicated. After quite some time the Stake President and his counselors returned to the room. The Stake President then said words to this effect: "Brethren, we have supplicated our Father in Heaven for His guidance in this matter and we want only to do his will. And the three of us agree that it is NOT the will of our father in Heaven that Bro. _____________ be excommunicated at this time. Therefore we propose that no action be taken against him until we receive further instructions." You could have heard a gnat burp in that room at that moment. All twelve of us were dumbfounded. None of us could believe what we had just heard. The Stake President then went on to say words to this effect: "Brethren, we understand this decision doesn't make much sense to you, and honestly it doesn't make much sense to us, but we believe the Lord has spoken and we ask for your sustaining vote." The vote was unanimous to sustain the decision, and we all left the meeting in complete bewilderment. What was even more bewildering is that the woman who Bro._________ was having the adulterous relationship with WAS excommunicated! Fast forward about four months later. Another disciplinary council is convened. We arrive not knowing what it will be about. We find out soon enough that it pertains to Bro. __________ who sent us the nasty letter four months previous. This time, however, he is present at the meeting with his bishop in tow. His bishop relates the story about Bro. ___________ receiving notice (from him) that the decision was NOT to excommunicate him. He tells us that when Bro______________ received that information he proceeded to break down and bawl like a little child. The bishop tells us that his entire demeanor changed and he suddenly became humble and penitent. Over the next four months Bro.________ made further changes until he was finally ready to appear willingly before another disciplinary council. And there he was; standing before us a changed man. And the story he told was heart wrenching. And his closing remarks were humbling to all of us. He said: "Brethren, I just want you to know that I know that you were following God’s will when you declined to excommunicate me four months ago. I was angry and bitter and hateful and I couldn't wait to be free from God and this Church. And had you excommunicated me I do not believe I would be standing here right now. When the bishop told me that you had decided not to excommunicate me something changed within me. I don't really understand it and I don't know how to describe it, but all of the hurt and hate and anger just melted away and I no longer wanted to be without God and the Church in my life. I am here today to tell you that I am now ready to be excommunicated if that is what needs to take place for me to come back, and as a matter of fact, I believe it does.” And he was excommunicated. And he did come back and was rebaptized. And as far as I know he is still in full fellowship with God and the Church. The point I want to make with this story is that there were many people in his ward and within the Stake who knew of this man, knew his circumstances, and were extremely put out when his girlfriend was excommunicated while he wasn't. For four months we endured wholesale carping and murmuring from members who decried the "double standard". Now I'm not going to claim that every decision to excommunicate or not to excommunicate comes from God. Obviously Bishops and Stake Presidents aren't infallible. But what I will say is that all of us need to be careful before pronouncing a "double standard" when it comes to disciplinary councils. We should remember that God's ways are higher than our ways; and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. And since none of us knows what goes on in a disciplinary council that we have no part in, we should be willing to give a bishopric or a stake presidency and high council the benefit of the doubt.

I largely agree with your post and its analysis (though I would point out that char never actually explained what was either condescending or insensitive about that phrase or any other part of my post, but just asserted without further explanation that it was condescending and insensitive). But it goes a great deal deeper than this. Take the "Daddy's Homecoming" song as an example. To a child, the face of God is most obviously seen in the faces of his or her parents. We all know that the mother is irreplaceably important in the first years of a child's life, in fact throughout his life. But the fact is that the father is also irreplaceable, and in the long run just as important as the mother. We have a sick, mentally diseased society that wants to denigrate the importance and sacred character of parenthood, including fatherhood. Many elements of our society actively encourage men to take positive steps to avoid the awful entanglements of fatherhood. We are already a full generation into the teaching that men should avoid marriage altotgether. The very concept of family is under direct attack, from without by those who denigrate parenthood and family relations, and from within by those who insist that any set of relationships that anyone cares to call "family" is therefore, by definition, a real family, exactly as much as any other. Songs like "I'm So Glad When Daddy Comes Home" are more needed today than they ever have been. Those children who might get upset because their daddy doesn't come home are likely the children who most need to have that idea fixed in their heads, so that they can begin to correct the screw-ups that their parents (and perhaps earlier generations) introduced into their ancestral line. Maybe the evil, disease, and insanity can stop with their generation, rather than be perpetuated ad infinitum. Similarly, motherhood (and fatherhood) should be celebrated at every turn. Even the childless have mothers and fathers, and so can join in the celebration. In fact, their status as non-parents can make their open and joyful celebration of parenthood even more striking and meaningful, when children (and others) see that these people who do not and cannot have children still insist that parenthood is among the greatest of goods, rather than shrinking into their bitter shells and cursing both their bad luck and their neighbors' boorish insensitivity.

This is what I was looking for. I appreciate that you took the time (or already had available) references for me to look through (and I did read each one). In each case, the phrase "black tea" was always used as conjecture. In fact, in your third reference, the author states: She gives the exact quote from Joseph Smith, and then interprets it. I don't know about you, but I don't usually take conjecture from single-named-otherwise-anonymous-online people as doctrine, but I do appreciate that she acknowledged that it is her own opinion. This and the above quote (also found in Witdsoe, Word of Wisdom, pp. 85-86) are what I have always been taught and what I daresay are most widely known among the general populace of the Church:

I'm going to repeat a Mormon Urban Legend here. I have a co-worker who told me that the people who created the Green Tea HP that is sold in SLC area malls live in his stake and are current temple recommend holders. He takes that to infer that green tea (or some forms of it) is probably okay under the Word of Wisdom. Also, my bishop spoke about this a couple months ago and basically said that this is one of those gray areas where each individual should make the decision for themselves. That's the way I choose to deal with this situation. Since there is no commandment for this, study it out in your own mind, pray about it, and if you feel that it is okay for you to partake in it, then you are free do so. If not, then don't. But don't condemn someone else who may choose differently. If the church comes out and makes an official statement later, you can adjust your behavior accordingly then.