Leaderboard

During the night on January 21st, an update will be done to lds.net. This includes the article side and the forum side. We're updating to another software. Same company currently being used but a different software. So the forums will once again look different. Hopefully not as drastic as the last time. Due to the update, the site will be down during the night on the 21st. Once it is back up, you will probably be notified that you need to reset your password/change your password. I just wanted to make people aware as far in advance as I could. I realize the last time we did this there was no notification and the site was down for 3 days. It's anticipated that the down time will be 6-8 hours. *fingers crossed* That's all of the information that I have as of right now. As I learn more during the coming week, I'll let you all know.

SALT LAKE CITY — The public is invited to visit the newly completed Sapporo Japan and Philadelphia Pennsylvania temples and the recently renovated Freiberg Germany Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this summer. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/open-house-dedication-dates-sapporo-frieberg-philadelphia?cid=social_20160121_57477646&adbid=10153643088572013&adbpl=fb&adbpr=53305042012 I can't imagine anyone other than President Uchtdorf dedicating the Frieberg temple.

I have never considered the idea that agency and stewardship are synonyms. This is food for thought, indeed. It's beyond dispute that an agent and a steward are similar ideas; in both cases, they are a person acting in an official capacity in behalf of another. I will have to mull this over. Thank you for the insight, TFP.

It looks like Barry Soetoro is barreling ahead with his socialist strategies; one being crashing the welfare system. For those who don't know what it is, the Cloward-Piven strategy is: Barry's “Work to Welfare” is his latest scam on Americans. http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/obamas-work-to-welfare-scheme-to-create-new-economy/ Essentially, if you lose a job and get one that pays less, Barry wants to pay part of the difference between the old and new job. He's calling it “wage insurance.” As of 2012, he's increased welfare spending by 32%. He is going full speed ahead in destroying this country.

To let you in on the secret, it's not your breasts that make the men uncomfortable, we just hate it when we're hungry (and we're usually hungry) and someone else is eating right in front of us. Bring tuna salad sandwiches and grape soda for everybody else and it will all be fine.

This thread has me confused.

This may be an aside, but it is interesting to me that, as a non-member, with no LDS roots or history, I have encountered very little personal "quarrel" here. "Things that make you stop and go ... "

I just disagree with the definition. Self-sufficient means one can take care of his own needs. It does not mean there are no wants, or no desire to strive--for example, to create.

Honestly, I would approach each person involved in the "joke" separately and privately and let them know that the joke offended you. I wouldn't get angry or respond in a harsh way. "Hey, Jack, something happened that has bothered me since. Last week, you joked about Starship Troopers and how it would be funny to have a couple of missionaries dead. I'm a Mormon and I take my faith seriously. I didn't say anything then because frankly I was taken aback. But I wanted you to know that while I can joke about my religion some jokes are just offensive. Please don't do that in the future." If he apologizes, then just say thank you and move on. If he responds in a negative way, keep your cool and just reiterate what you said. I think their response after this exchange will show more of their character and disposition. Sometimes, we get caught up in things and don't realize how we sound to others. By keeping it private and congenial, I think shows him you are serious and is a kinder way of confronting it.

Hi, Classylady! Thank you for thinking about me and checking up. This time around has been a dream! My little boy is such an easygoing little guy which is the polar opposite from my daughter who was super colicky. On top of this, I am not dealing with depression this go around, so life has been much much easier all together :)

Now Eowyn . . . my parental guidance to my kids is far more explicit than anyone has brought up on this topic so far. Who's PG rating are we using? I have this little analogy that has bounced around in my head for a decade or so that helps me frame, and express, the mental anguish I go though at times. Perhaps it's silly to others, but it is meaningful to me. You know how when you play in the snow without gloves (or sometimes even with gloves that get wet), when your fingers start to get cold and they hurt? But after a while, your fingers become numb, and you can tolerate making and throwing a couple more snowballs with little breaks between to keep the frostbite at bay. But then . . . when you start to warm your hands back up . . . owww! It hurts to thaw out! You are ok being warm, and you are sort of ok when numb, but that transition period from one state to the other is a bugger. That's what the mental anguish is like to go from warm and well, to being cold and alone. There is a period of time there when the pain is almost unbearable. But finally it becomes numb. Thankfully, I've become pretty much numb lately. I don't look forward to trying to rewarm. That hurts too. I'd rather remain numb the rest of my life, thank you, and not go through the freeze/thaw cycle any more. I've been through it too many times, and have no interest in more of the same pain. The exercise of posting here and receiving feedback has been a fruitful one. I'm not sure I've actually learned anything new, but I do believe I understand some things on deeper levels, and with greater clarity. Having become numb, I'm also not so myopically focused on the tree trunk right in front of me, but can step to the side and see more of the forest. My internal responses to some posts were an unexpected surprise to me. I used to participate in forums. I used to have friends online and offline. I used to be recognized as a leader in one of my hobbies. All of that changed about 4.5 years ago, shortly after remarrying. I was cut off from those sources that used to fill my bucket, at least some. I thought I was ok, self-sufficient enough, and honestly am not one that needs much if any recognition. But, with those sources of fulfillment forcefully cut off, and then the cessation of the primary way I felt accepted and loved in marriage, my bucket ran dry. It had been dry for some time now. It took a few drops of compassion and caring from posters to wet the bucket bottom for me to clearly see how parched and dry it was. I'm in the process of making sure to put my oxygen mask back on before continuing to help others get theirs on. Ladies, it isn't the act itself, or the pleasure derived that is nearly so important to the stereotypical man than it is about feeling loved. It's just that many men (esp worldly men) don't comprehend it is all rooted in attempts to find meaning and love. I'm sure those versed in reading have heard complaints of unwillingness, or begrudged giving making it bad. The "just lie there" or "get it over with" dilemma. For this man, it is the act of giving herself to me, willingly, wanting to give to me (even if not wanting the act) that tells me in no uncertain terms that I and my feelings are important to her. That I am wanted, valued, and she cares about my happiness. The withdrawal of that love (or worse - demeaning because of the desire to feel love that way), combined with physical drives, can really cause extreme mental anguish. Just like you want (need) your SO to give compliments and show appreciation out of genuine concern and love for you, he wants (needs) you to give yourself to him. You don't have to want it. You don't have to pretend anything. You simply have to be totally sincere that you want him happy and feeling loved. If you don't fill his bucket that way, don't be too surprised when he tries finding surrogate feelings of worth through power, control, or other ways the typically emotionally unaware male flails about to find some feeling of value.

I knew someone would object (this is lds.net, after all), but yes, the use of "Mohamedan" was never the polite term. It was so widely used, however, there were many people without formal education who may not have known any other term, just as, in antebellum USmerica, a lot of people didn't know that Blacks were not N******s. Lehi

Or you could just go REALLY old school and call them "Mohammedans."

"Being" baggage, and "having" baggage are not the same thing. I did not go back to read the offending messages, but as I recall, the writers said she had baggage. Whatever you may think of her (based on your own experiences), she has a lot of baggage. No, she didn't ask for it. No, she is not responsible for having it. She may be responsible for keeping it: we can't know what she's done to get rid of it, and it's none of our business. And, you are the best expert on this, she has been damaged, cruelly. No, she is not responsible for her damage. No, she did not ask for it. The OP is concerned about what to do with his own life. Neither he nor we know how long it will take her to jettison her baggage, how long to heal. It is his right to be concerned: this woman would be the mother of his children if they married. This woman would be his eternal companion if they married. But, if it takes her ten years more to heal, he will not have those children, and he will not have that companion for a decade. The question is, should he wait for her? Should he wait for her or find someone who is truly available now? I can't see how we can answer that for him: it depends on how much he loves her and how much he is willing to sacrifice the time he will lose as a husband and father to wait for that healing so they can marry. It also depends on what he learns from the Holy Ghost. And that is something not even he can know without asking. Lehi

Vort - I see what you are pointing out and I don't disagree. I did find two other similar quotations that may or may not be of interest: Alma 49:1616 And behold, Moroni had appointed Lehi to be chief captain over the men of that city; and it was that same Lehi who fought with the Lamanites in the valley on the east of the river Sidon. Helaman 5:2121 And it came to pass that they were taken by an army of the Lamanites and cast into prison; yea, even in that same prison in which Ammon and his brethren were cast by the servants of Limhi. We do see the same language and we know what is being referred to in the two above mentioned cases; not a slam dunk though. One other musing as you say. The fact that Aminidi interpreted the writing on the wall may indicate that Aminidi was the king because we most often find in the Book of Mormon that it is the king who has the Nephite interrupters, and curiously the interrupters just show up in early Nephite writings without explanation from whence they came; unless I missed it. I am guessing that it was explained in the 116 pages. And, yes, we find out later that they were originally Jaridite interrupters.

There is truth in this statement; however, taken to an absolute it appears to become a falsehood. Truth in this statement I do find is that I "lack" riches, and I "desire" riches. My desire truly comes from a lacking standpoint. I desire to bless my kids. As a human, finite, I am only able to bless according to my abilities, knowledge, and power. Thus, indeed my desire to bless may come from a lack. Other times my desire to bless doesn't come from a lack, because I can bless and either choose not to, or choose to do so. Either way, I am not lacking in that thing that I desire to bless. The desire to bless, totality, does not introduce a lack from one that is infinite and has the capability to bless in all things. God truly desires, wants, to bless all of us, but it doesn't come from a lacking standpoint (he has everything). He can bless. He does bless, not because he lacks.

I agree that the extremists don't represent all of Islam; but King Abdullah is deceiving himself if he thinks Islamists represent only 0.1% of Muslims. Eleven percent of Muslims globally are okay with perpetuating violence against civilians in order to further their religious aims. That's not from a conservative/isolationist fringe group; that's from the Pew Forum. In my book, Abdullah gets a pass on his mis-quantification of the problem because he's willing to actually climb into an airplane and go kill the extremists; and because Jordan is a culturally homogeneous nation that seems to be far more wary of its "war refugee" immigrants than our government thinks the United States should be. But in a nation like ours that claims to celebrate pluralism and welcome immigrants--it is imperative that we have accurate information about the potential security problems that our immigration policies may create. The assertion that "the extremists don't represent all Muslims" should be the beginning of a discussion about American immigration and security policy that goes on to acknowledge that the extremists do, unfortunately, represent a sizeable number of Muslims. Unfortunately, many in the western world seem to insist that the assertion should actually be the end of the discussion, and that our security apparatus should treat nonagenarian English women the same as it treats adolescent Arab men--hoping that ultimately karma will reward our open-minded benevolence. That perspective is, frankly, starting to get people killed.

Ah, I see, you are just a watcher of the word, not a doer

Agency has two meanings and one is spiritual and one is temporal. Here is the temporal definition of agency: an office, organization, government entity that is responsible or accountable for particular activities. This is agency as defined through gospel standards (spiritual). Agency is our freedom to choose between opposites, we know what those opposites are, and we have the freedom to choose either but not the consequences (accountability). If you are defining agency as the former, then yes steward == agent, and stewardship == agency. If you are defining agency as the latter (as given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson), then no they cannot be the same. @Traveler, what you are describing is the former definition of agency. The agent honors his stewardship/agency (an organization) that is responsible to honor their given specification they agreed upon when I paid them money. They are not honoring agency (as defined as the freedom to choose) by exercising stewardship. @TheFolkProphet -- What stewardship does a child of 4 years old have that equates with agency (latter definition, not former)? This is what I am hearing/reading, the elements of a stewardship/agency: 1) Alternatives among which to choose 2) Knowledge of those alternatives 3) Freedom to make choices..not to alter their consequences (which by the way is accountability, which wasn't left out as suggested previously). Yet, lds.org (apostles/prophets) doesn't appear to give the same definitions for both as I am being told. They are different, at least the gospel definitions of agency, not agency specifying an institution. I suppose my request, is where in scripture, words of the prophets, am I able to confirm the thoughts provided? All I have searched do not equate stewardship with agency (the freedom to choose, the knowledge of opposites, and the inability to alter consequences). EDIT: @TheFolkProphet, as I once specified I believe I agree with about 85% of what you have shared on lds.net. This appears to be falling into the %15; however, I do agree with what Vort said. More to ponder.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was responding mainly to the couple people that just referred to her as "baggage" and "damaged" and to move on etc...... I know not everyone said that. It just made me cringe, for obvious reasons. Yes, it is good that she at least is being honest with herself, and him as well regarding what her limits are at this point ( that is a good starting point). It is also helpful to know what the cause and situation is, because if he does decide to stick it out, he can know better how to help and support her on her journey. Its also still possible that she won't be "deadlocked" as long as she currently thinks. Victims say that because it can seem overwhelming and impossible, but often people find once they do face things, and have support etc.... that things resolve in ways they had not expected to be possible previously. As for affecting a person when it comes to perspectives, and personal inner-wiring etc.... yes, abuse does make people "different". Even once someone has overcome things ( as I have), there can still be differences and quirks etc.... BUT, that is not always a bad thing. I have found having had my experiences has given me insight, awareness to others, appreciation, strengths etc.... that I would not have gained in any other way. I have been able to help people in unique ways, and to me that is a blessing, and helps me to view my past with greater understanding. So there truly are positive "differences" that people gain. Adversity is what often results in the greatest wisdom, strength of character, and compassion for others. So though someone may be struggling now, they could blossom into something truly special later once they work their way through things. It is just something to consider when rushing to label someone as "baggage" etc.....

Didn't Pres Monson help to get the Frieberg temple established originally? It seems that my memory is niggling at me that Pres Monson has a strong affinity for the Frieberg Temple.

Yeah. What ever happened to "You bring enough for one, you bring enough for everyone"?

And in German, no less. (One would hope.)

Vort – Your illumination of the book of Lehi reminded me of something I read somewhere. (Sorry if I am a little off topic as to ponderizing, but I would like to add to what Vort said, but then really only geeks like what I will attempt) If you look at Alma 10: 1 Now these are the words which Amulek preached unto the people who were in the land of Ammonihah, saying: 2 I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was that same Aminadi who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God. 3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, Now if you look at the estimated date either at the top of the page in the new heading or at the bottom of the page if you have the old scriptures you will see 82 BC Now go back to Mosiah 1 and look at the dates (130 - 124 BC). Hang in there with me for a moment; it will be geeky if you like that kind of stuff. So any date before 130 BC will be back into the Book of Lehi. OK so we have to account for 48 years from 130 BC to 82 BC . Now if you will accept that there are approximately 25 years between generations then we can compute Amulek (82 BC) to his father Giddonah (82 + 25 = 107 BC) to his father Ishmael (107 BC + 25 = 132 BC) to Aminadi (132 + ???) Don’t know but it will be at least 25 so go 132 + 25 = 157 BC. That right there puts us back into the Book of Lehi (the lost 116 pages) Now when Mormon writes in verse 2 “it was that same Aminadi” He is assuming we know the story of the writing on the temple wall by the finger of God because he already included it in the Book of Lehi. And a quick search on Aminidai will reveal there is no such story in our current BoM. OK, now let’s take it out of the realm of geeky and push it to something more meaningful as to understanding Amulek. From verse 3 we learn that Amulek is a direct descendant of Nephi through his ancestor Aminadi. That smells like royal blood to me. It was the kings who, until the rein of judges, held the Melchizedek Priesthood and were the custodians’ of the relics and scriptures on plates. This could means that Amulek had access to the scriptures because of his lineage or some other means. This could also sheds light why Amulek, a citizen of Ammonihah, of all places, knew so much deep doctrine. This is a stretch, but the reason Amulek stressed that fact that he was royal may be because there were others in Ammonihah who were not Nephites by blood, but were pre-existing natives adopted in to the Nephite culture. So we went from geeky to unsupported interesting.

Often the problem is in understanding definitions of terms. When we explorer a particular term we find that there are two very important considerations. First is the intent and second is extent of definition. The intent is a very narrow definition that the user intends to have understood for a specific purpose and circumstance. The extent of definition is every possible understanding a term can but used to portray. One mistake you, Anddenex are making, is specific to this statement of yours "Other given definitions of stewardship, "A steward is a person [agency isn't a person]."" The mistake you are making is that term stewardship is not a person but the term steward is a person. Likewise agency is not a person but an agent is a person. Thus the similarities are between stewardship and agency on a conceptual basis and on a person basis the similarities are between steward and agent. Every "agent" is given a stewardship and that stewardship is called agency. The essence of agency and stewardship is assignment or something that is done according to the particular task that has been given. If you are called into a court of law it would be wise for you to heir an agent to represent you. That agent is called a lawyer. And while that lawyer is acting as your agent - they are given a specific stewardship where by they can act in your behalf. This stewardship or agency allows your lawyer to say things before the court to represent you - but is likely limited and does not allow them to represent you at your bank - thus he cannot sign your checks and cash them. If you have a will for when you die then there will be an agent that represents you after you die - their agency and stewardship is appointed by your will and gives them power over your estate according to the specifications you have made - in other words your legal agent is given a stewardship to deal with your estate. This agent is thus called the executor of the estate. In scripture we are told that those that exercise their agency as given them by G-d for their own benefit or purpose are "agents unto themselves". But we are also given understanding that being an agent unto one's self is a bit of a misnomer because in essence we are either agents of good (G-d) or agents of evil (Satan). Clearly there are differences between between being a agent of G-d and an agent of Satan. Thus we act in our agency as appointed by G-d or Satan. For me the understanding of the war in heaven was not because Satan wanted to do away with agency but rather Satan opposed the Father and wanted to take away the agency given to man by the Father and make man agents to him (Satan)- to do what he appointed to them in the stewardship he allowed.

This was the statement. Not agent and steward. Agency and stewardship aren't the same thing. A four year old still has agency without having any stewardship. Edit: Agency is exercised to honor stewardships. Once cannot exercise stewardships in order to honor agency.

That link isn't available. It may be due to the privacy settings on that facebook account.

True, yes. However, there are still some important thoughts in the inspired heading (vv 1~3). It seems that knowing that the Word of Wisdom was given to match the abilities of the least of those who could be called saints remains important. Lehi

I would like to understand the reasons why some believe stewardship and agency are the same. I am inline with the thoughts from LeSellers. Agency is a gift from God given to all his sons and daughters otherwise there would be no God. How we use our agency often will determine our stewardships. Stewardships are what we have been given by God that we use our agency to magnify. The office and calling of a Bishop is a stewardship. How the bishop uses his agency will determine the honoring of his stewardship, as with the stewardship of father and mother, brother and sister, etc... I am unable to comprehend how they are the "same."

Disagreement can be different than just being contentious, it can come from differing perspective, experience, feelings, culture, upbringing, and knowledge. There is nothing wrong with differing world views. (I will admit there are limits to this though)

My church has leaders too. We view them with a lot of respect, though not with the same spiritual callings LDS perceive theirs to have. Nevertheless, I can imagine that if a member chose to quote words from one of our pioneer leaders and use them as an accusation against current leadership...well, as they say in Georgia, "That dog don't hunt!" Yikes

Even though it is called stainless, they still do stain. At the same web site it tells how to clean your stainless steel. Also one thing I learned from working in a restaurant (back in the 70's - 90's), cheap stainless steel has more steel, the best quality stainless steel has less steel. So put a magnet in your pocket when you shop for a pot. The magnet will not stick to the best quality. Also as the dishwasher in the restaurant in the late 70's - they had me clean the pots with baking soda inside, and with either Bon Ami or Bar Keepers Friend on the outside every time. Not once a month or once a week - but every time they were washed. I much prefer my enameled cast iron dutch ovens. Both the inside and out. Love them on the stove for making my stews, chili, and Husbands Mexican Chix Tomato Soup (if I am just making a small batch, like for dinner when I feed the Missionaries). I use my 16 & 20 quart good quality stainless stock pots when I am making 24 to 36 serving batches. They hold WAY more, and are much lighter to tip with my left hand when I am filling up the Rubbermaid containers to put in the freezer.

You're misunderstanding. I agree that God is self-sufficient, and so should every member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - it's what we teach. My whole post was to argue in favor of that point and _against_ the idea that God is NOT self-sufficient.

It's easy to second-guess and offer hindsight advice. In reality, your non-reaction may have been the best course. Who's to say the Holy Spirit was not moving you to bite your tongue? I agree that it's too late to revisit the incident. However, if you anticipate it happening again--or something similar--then perhaps, cutting it off near the beginning and saying something like, "Hey...I know lots of those missionary-types. If you want, I can have a couple call on you?" :::wink::: :::nod::: They'll probably laugh, but get the message.

"To rat out" is a phrase that originates in organized crime, like calling someone a "stool pigeon". If the despicable Gadianton robbers don't like an action, that's an indication that it might be a very good action.

U.S. Honor Flag to arrive in Utah for Officer Douglas Barney Funeral Who: Unified Police Department and Office of the Sheriff What: Receiving of the U.S. Honor Flag for Officer Doug Barney’s Funeral Where: Utah State Capitol/Fallen Officer Memorial to Larkin Mortuary/260 E. S. Temple When: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at approximately 2000 hours (8:00 pm) The Office of the Sheriff is honored to be receiving this tribute for our beloved fallen officer, Doug Barney. “Shortly after the September 11. 2011 attacks, a flag was gifted to Chris Heisler by the Texas House of Representatives. A hand written note thanked Chris for his efforts; signed, the Texas House of Representatives. Like many Americans, Heisler felt compelled to take action during a horrific time for the United States, and with this flag in tow, he set out for Ground Zero. Along the way, Heisler helped to organize one of the longest police motorcades in the history of the United States, bound for Ground Zero, to our nation’s Heroes. Since 2001, the United States Honor Flag has paid tribute to those who have lost their lives in the line of duty protecting our lives, our homes and our country, and also those who currently serve our communities and our nation.” http://www.ushonorflag.org/index.html Please join us in receiving the U.S. Honor Flag as it enters the State of Utah and is escorted to the Utah State Capitol where it will be received by Sheriff James Winder and his Administration in honor of our fallen comrade. Members from police agencies across the state will escort the flag from the Utah State line, to the Utah State Capitol Fallen Officer Memorial where we will pay tribute to Officer Barney and all those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice before him. From there, Sheriff Winder will personally deliver the flag to Larkin Mortuary where it will stay with Officer Barney throughout his services. We anticipate the motorcade arriving at the State Capitol at approximately 2000 hours (8 pm); we will post location updates via the @UPD_Media Twitter page.

Wear your big armor suit and tell them not to say that again. That should do the trick.

Or "My sons served missions, wearing those white shirts with black nametags. So did many of my other relatives and closest friends."

So it's good for a child to suffer daily at the hands or words of his parent because said parent only has to be around to be an okay parent? How does this scenario better the child? Have you compared stats of children in fatherless homes to children in abusive homes? This seems to come down to a simple situation: if you have the power to remove a child from an abusive home... don't.

Eowyn, where do you think the line should be drawn? How "regular" must "regular behavior" of calling a child "stupid" be before the father's important presence is better done without? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? What's the magic number? Do you apply the same standards to imperfect mothers who do stupid and hurtful things to their children? Does "She's doing the best she knows how" have any application at all? Because bad is bad, even if it's someone's best. If it matters, how about "He's doing the best he can"? Even if his "best" is calling his own children "stupid"? The obvious gap in how we treat men vs. how we treat women rankles, I admit. But the bottom-line question is: How bad is too bad? And who is to make that judgment?

Nephi 15:8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? It's a small verse but to me has a lot of power to it. How often do we see people posting in forums and on social media trying to find answers? When really, "Have ye inquired of the Lord?"

Alma 48:17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

Send her to this link and tell her to search the page for that phrase. No more kicking allowed. :)

It looks platinum blonde but it's not really. It's more of that cotton candy hue. And thank you! As for the pumping situation, long story super short, I ended up exclusively breastfeeding shortly after I made this thread. (No more pumping or bottles.) So post my son's 2.5 week milestone, he's only had mama's breast, and while I thought it'd be super challenging to commit to - it's been a great experience for us :)

I have a powerful testimony of the promise contained in this scripture.

Methinks this thread gives whole new meaning to the term "cafeteria Mormon".