Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/03/15 in all areas

  1. No boast here... My son-in-law has been sick, and he came by to pick of my daughter and my grandchildren. He has been feeling very bad for a number of days. While here my daughter went into the bathroom to check on him. He was balled up in the floor and hurting ver badly. My daughter asked if we could give him a blessing. So myself and my son blessed him. During the blessing he began to cry, when I asked why he was crying he said because he was healed and repeated a number of time "the Priesthood is real" (he said it about three times with tears flowing. I told him; of course it was, having served a mission you know it's true and real. It was great!
    8 points
  2. A few clarifications. This is the oft-told story, the one I grew up with and believed, but it's only approximately true. To be clear: At some point during our premortal life, the Father presented THE plan of salvation. There was only one. That plan required a Savior to redeem mankind. The First, whom we know today as Jesus the Christ, responded "Here am I. Send me, and the honor be Thine [that is, the Father's]." The Father did so. At least one other responded, "Here am I. Send me. I will redeem all, that none shall be lost. Since my plan is superior, give me the honor." He was rejected. He and those who followed him then rebelled and were cast out, having failed to keep their first estate. Nowhere in scripture is mentioned any idea of "competing plans" or (as I have often heard in my life) that we "voted". Our only "vote" was to decide whether we championed the Father's plan or Satan's rebellion. And it is crystal clear, at least to me, that Satan's only "plan" was to usurp the Father's honor and glory. He, Satan, had no "plan" to bring all to exaltation. Such is impossible, a defiance of the very meaning of the word "exalt". Satan's only "plan", if you care to call it that, was to usurp the Father's honor and destroy the agency of mankind. That is the selfsame "plan" he pursues today. I would say our main point of decision was whether we loved and sought to follow the Father (or equivalently, his Only Begotten), or whether we loved and sought to follow other voices. Same point of decision we have now.
    6 points
  3. iamkari

    A Little 'Bout Me

    I am a long-time "investigator" but I think the time has come to make the change. I've been interested in the LDS way since I was a kid growing up among a large number of LDS families. I never met a member who wasn't the nicest around. Of course I wanted to be more like them. I am married to someone who is not interested in becoming involved with the LDS church which is OK with me but maybe someday he will be. I've met with missionaries on numerous occasions and have taken the lessons at least three times. I'm meeting with them again after wondering if they ever venture into my neighborhood. They sure do. After avoiding a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses not two weeks prior to the sister missionaries visiting, I was glad to see them. I have no children and have recently moved into the neighborhood.
    3 points
  4. Average Joe

    Just sayin' hello

    Since this is the to do thing (and I don't want to come out in open rebellion just yet ), hi, I'm the newbie. I'm nothing to write home about, just your average Joe. I'm LDS, redneck, blue collar, and living in the south...but enough about me, who the heck are you?
    1 point
  5. In church today, the Stake Presidency circulated a letter and lesson guide they have prepared. They have asked that the members of the stake focus their personal and family scripture studies and lessons on the atonement for the next six months and have given us a reading guide for every week. I think it’s a good idea and it got me thinking. All the important stuff you need to know about the atonement you learn before you finish Primary and I think that one of the main purposes of further study is not so much to increase understanding, but to increase appreciation. However, if we were to study the atonement for the purpose of gaining additional knowledge, it raises the question of what it is about the atonement that we do not know. What are the known unknowns about the atonement and what role might a study of existing materials play in helping us to reduce the number of known unknowns about the atonement? To partially answer my own question, one of the known unknowns that I’ve sometimes thought about is who/what determines the price of sin, ie, who, and by how, is it determined how much sin will generate, or result in, how much suffering? I’d be interested in hearing of any other “known unknowns” or unanswered questions about the atonement that people have thought about as well as responses to the question about how the sin to suffering ratio has been determined.
    1 point
  6. mirkwood

    How bad is it?

    Everything has it's opposite. Even the Q12 and First Presidency.
    1 point
  7. Inded, thankyou for sharing.
    1 point
  8. Awesome story .... Thanks for sharing
    1 point
  9. askandanswer

    Matt. 16: 17-18

    I think that the hundreds of millions, or maybe even billions, who were born, lived and died during the almost 1,500 hundred years when the church was not on the earth might not agree that the period of apostasy "means little."
    1 point
  10. Thank you for clearing that up. So many members think two plans were presented.
    1 point
  11. 1 point
  12. Jane_Doe

    A Little 'Bout Me

    Howdy howdy! Sidenote: It is 100% possible to be Mormon and have a spouse who is not (I know from 1st hand experience )
    1 point
  13. My church's nomenclature has changed in the last few years. The "District Superintendent" is now the "Network Leader." Our top fellow is still the General Superintendent. In private conversations will usually use the full name. In a public setting, even a church class, we'd probably say, "Our Network Leader." Then again, I was THAT GUY, back in the 80s, when all the profs invited us to call them by first name, who'd still say, "Dr. Last Name." I just couldn't bring myself to address them that casually. Ironically, I was never chastised for that. So, when in doubt, go formal. Even if you are wrong, you'll never be rude.
    1 point
  14. I would say the exact same thing about homosexuality -- except for replace theocratic with secular.
    1 point
  15. bytor2112

    Baltimore riots

    You again are accusing them of being abusive, renegade and murderer all in one statement. Perhaps, you shoud state that the police officers in question have been charged in connection with the man's death. If they are guilty of murder and it can be proven then they should receive the harshest sentence available. The news media uses convicting and inflamatory language that is unnecessary and creates much of the high tensions that occur. "Cop shoots and kills unarmed teenager" When it should have been accurately described " Man assault police officer and officer shoots the assailant in the line of duty." (Furgeson)
    1 point
  16. I can't even imagine calling any of the general authorities by their first name even in a casual conversation with a friend or a spouse. For some reason that just seems disrespectful to me. It would have to be President Monson or Elder Perry for example.
    1 point