Leaderboard

I think there’s another option: that the Church received roughly the information and policies that it needed to carry it through the challenges of the day. There was a time and a place where the priesthood ban was necessary and appropriate, and then it passed. There was a time and a place where certain elements of the older temple liturgy were necessary and appropriate, and then it passed. We live in a time where the Church’s tactful silence on certain less-critical things things we still know to be true is rapidly becoming necessary and appropriate, and that time too will pass. There was, I submit, a time and a place where David Whitmer and Emma Smith needed to be regarded with extreme suspicion . . . and then it passed. This may seem silly, but remember—RLDS and Whitmer’s followers recruited heavily in early-20th-century Utah. If we take our church’s soteriology at all seriously, then one can’t escape the conclusion that people lost their exaltations by giving too much credence to Whitmer and Emma. Counter-intuitively, now that history has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Emma was not an infallible source (e.g., Joseph Smith’s polygamy) and that the RLDS Church’s competing institutional claims to exclusive truth, authority, and/or priesthood have pretty evaporated (they can no longer claim to be led by lineal descendants of Joseph Smith); Church members can begin engaging in a more serious way with sources previously labeled “apostate” in a way that separates bathwater from baby.

I would have to agree with that. What is even more alarming is this: As a Financial Advisor who regularly sees LDS clients (I don't market to them - high LDS population here) I often find they save significantly less than their non-member neighbors. This according to those I meet with is because of a lot less disposable income. A faithful member has many more expenses than most other people - Tithing, Fast Offerings, a mission or two or three etc. These expenses consume a huge amount of money which if invested instead of spending it on these categories can/would have compounded to very larger sums. I am not advocating people avoid these expenses, but rather we need to live significantly below our means and save even more money if we want to enjoy retirement (be able to afford it- you define enjoy) because our expenses are permanently higher than the non-members around us. The concept of living below our means has been taught for a long time, but from my perspective it is rarely followed. Some may think the non-members just spend all their money at Vegas, drinking or on their boat. Truth is for the average person, Mormons spend more than the non-member does on tithing alone if one is actually paying 10%. I Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but from the people I am visiting with and judging by the numbers they are giving me I am confident I am not too far off the mark. Those who save for the future (Mormon or not) will not be out blowing their money. When you take two people who have different permanent built-in expenses then the result down the road will be significantly different. I witness this all the time. I pay enough in tithing to max out a 401K, yet my savings rate is very low relative to my peers. I even live in a neighborhood where the median income is probably about 70K because after all my expenses, savings, church obligations, kids on missions, I frankly don't have much left. I know for a fact I will not have enough saved to go abroad on a senior mission with my wife and I am a very aggressive saver. When trying to determine what you will need to save for retirement here is a tip: Figure out approximately how much Social Security you will get, factor in any pensions if applicable and finally Subtract that from what you feel is a decent annual income. Whatever that figure is, multiply by 25 and you have your minimum savings goal. Example: after expenses I need $25K in annual income. $25,000 x 25 = $625,000 $625K to produce about $25K per year in income. That is considering you only will need income for 25 years. If your death is not already planned one would be wise to be invested in the stock market so your nest egg can grow and keep your source of income producing a stream of money indefinitely which can be increased or indexed for inflation as well. Save lots, live way below your means and stay in the market. Play the long game.

So when my wife and I got sealed this year, I gave her this gift, which I'd been working on assembling and painting for about a year prior. It's about 12" high total. Just finally got around to adding the shrunk down copy of our sealing certificate to the base. Just thought I'd share, since you guys know what a big deal getting sealed is...

In many ways what needs to be in your bugout bag depends on your plan for bugging out. For example if you plan to bugout on foot... then you are limited to what you can carry and still get out... That is not as much as many would hope for. If you have a transport then you can carry more.. but you have to be sure the transport can make it through if everyone else is trying to bug out at the same time. Then you also have to factor in what the longer term plan is. Is it just to keep you alive until you can transition (and if so transition to what) or is it to help you start over? Once you know what you want to accomplish with your bugout bag then you can look through all the resources online and make your own call... Saying yes I need that... No I do not need this, and Oh I did not even think of that. One of the biggest factor of preparedness success is not in having 'stuff' it is in having a plan. Once you have plan what stuff you need answers itself with a little bit of research

Indeed... Part of believing in a True and Living Church. Is that living things grow and respond and adapt to their surrounding. Such growth, responses, and adaptations do not make the church false when they happen... neither do they make it false when they are no longer needful it simply means the context it is living in changed

So how are we suppose to see these changes in teachings? To me it seems we only have a few choices. 1) the church today is falling into apostasy 2) the church today is is growing in light and understanding and so somethings past leaders have taught just don’t matter (hence the lack of discussion on certain topics). 3) the saints are becoming less saintly and so the church is teaching (AND BACKING in the case of the seer stone) easier and less strict doctrines for us to live and leaving the “higher law” for the elect to discover on their own. to me #2 seems to coincide with what the prophet is saying. Like how our the youth today are the strongest and have been prepared for this day, and how the lord is expecting more of us so we are changing to home centered church. how else can we take this (and I ask honestly)

I’m going to respectfully take a different tack than @scottyg seems to express. The quotation in full comes from D&C 1:38: What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. This verse is often cited to suggest that whatever a prophet/apostle/general authority says, is automatically tantamount to the Lord’s own words. That interpretation strikes me as an over-simplification. In fact, the statement sets up a prerequisite: If a thing is truly the Lord’s will, then the means of communication—whether an audible voice from on High, or a vision, or a dream, or a a prophetic statement—is irrelevant. But it is still our responsibility to verify through the Holy Spirit that the thing being revealed is, in fact, the Lord’s will. Modern general conferences are such tightly planned and controlled environments, that I daresay we can be fairly confident that the words being spoken there have been chosen very carefully indeed; so they might be said to offer a higher modicum of reliability than off-the-cuff statements made by church authorities that are given in less-formal venues. But, the confirmation of the Holy Spirit remains the key. A church made up of people a) who are willing to accept and do whatever the Lord asks them to do, and b) to whom the Lord actually does speak, is not going to be able to make any absolute promises as to what the Lord will or won’t ever do or say or instruct or require in the future. You wouldn’t guarantee to Moses in Egypt, what the Lord might or might not or say to Moses later at Sinai. As humans, we have no right to try to bind or muzzle God in such a way. Certainly we can look at His past revelations and actions as well as the teachings of inspired servants, to try to divine certain aspects of God’s character and plan; from which we can then try to extrapolate what is or is not likely to happen in the future. Based on that, I don’t think it’s *likely* that future LDS leaders are going to denounce the teaching of exaltation/deification. Just as I don’t think it *likely* that they’ll deny Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Just as I don’t think it *likely* that my wife will be overcome by the Spirit, become pregnant, and in nine months’ time give birth to a three-headed lizard-person. But no, if you’re going to press the matter I’ll happily concede that I can’t guarantee anything. I can’t do that if I sincerely believe God to be all-powerful and simultaneously acknowledge that He knows things that I don’t know. But what really matters, and what we focus on, is what God is telling us on the here-and-now. Our love for and faith in Him persuades us that the rest will work itself out.

Count me as #2 of 5! Although, I actually have an account, one just wont find any posts. Regardless, this is a problematic sign for society at large. Consider how many moderators have potentially been given the opportunity to review the banned link, and yet have intentionally passed upon the opportunity to reverse the block.

Great question. We can see from the record that the answer is both. If not for the wickedness of those who were seeking to take his life the Lord wouldn't have commanded him to leave. So, in this light, I would call this, a combining of two events. 1) The people of Jerusalem sought to take his life 2) The Lord knew this and forewarned Lehi and commanded him to leave with a promise of a promised land. Thus, the wickedness of the people drove him out of the land.

Yep. As to my current knowledge and memory I know of three accounts: 1) Urim and Thummim (scripture) 2) Emma with peep stone and hat 3) Records @Fether has pointed out that it has been said he came to a point where none of this was needed All three still work.

Here's an addendum I added to my first response on this thread: Several have pointed out that a transcription of remarks uttered by Emma Smith don't count as "first-person testimony". They are right, of course. But I have no reason to believe that her remarks were changed or recorded incorrectly, and they are direct and clear enough to dispel any argument about Joseph's translating methods as witnessed by his wife, unless you claim that Emma was some combination of senile, psychotic, and duplicitous. I don't believe she was any of those things, though her remarks absolutely denying Joseph's practice of polygamy don't square with the otherwise-known historical record and do suggest that her testimony, at least regarding polyandry, is not reliable. But plural marriage was always a sore point with Emma; she was arguably psychotic or at least self-deluded regarding that specific topic. But I don't see why I should suppose that would carry over to her memories and understanding of her husband's translation efforts and activities. Emma was not the only one to talk about Joseph using his seerstone in a hat; both Martin Harris and David Whitmer gave the same testimony. I think his brother William said something about it, too. I don't actually have a dog in this fight. The foundation of my testimony of the Restored Church isn't based on whether Joseph put a seerstone in a hat to translate the gold plates. But my understanding of the historical record is that the stone-in-a-hat idea is basically true. And since I don't see how the idea impacts the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims, I think it's an irrelevant detail and that it's better simply to acknowledge it and move on rather than pick at it and spend endless hours either denying it ever happened or worriedly striving to contextualize it so people don't think we're weird. Let them think what they think. No skin off our collective noses.

I, personally, think the Church is taking the opportunity to look at "sources" that are available, and to follow those sources. As a Church we are technically receiving the consequence of not having good record keeping. The Church is taking the opportunity to follow what sources we have and to teach those sources. Personally, I would say translations occurred through multiple avenues. If the statement of Emma is accurate and has not be meddled with, then we know that is one source. @JohnsonJones does provide a valid point regarding the authenticity of this source, but others say this is authentic and so the Church must keep with what witnesses (although from a different source than the Restored Church). I am OK with this. I mean, in correlation with all the ex-members, anti-Mormons, and the simple fact our first leaders didn't keep the best records have caused our modern day leaders to figure out what really happened according to what is known (what is written). I mean, we don't even have the revelation written down regarding a priesthood ban, right. None of this changes the witness from the Spirit of Truth. None of this changes that we are lead by apostles and prophets with the same authority who are called/chosen by God -- not by themselves. So, I am good with the peep stone translation, because the Church is doing its best with what sources we have to authenticate this. Honestly, if the Church doesn't follow what has been written I think it would give more ammo to ex-members, anti-Mormons, and atheists in general, "You see, we have the source, and the Church is unwilling to accept it"! With the struggles of our Millennials (not all of course -- just thinking of articles on Thirdhour), it would appear to someone who is not strong/firm in their testimony as if the Church is truly misleading its people. It would be nice if the Father and the Son appeared to President Nelson and laid everything out before him. But, the Lord doesn't always work that way and many in our day would even call that a convenient truth, "Oh, the Church just received another visit from heavenly angels disregarding actual written history"!

While true... You are forgetting the fact that the RLDS where not and are not hostile to Joseph Smith. While they might be more then happy to call out Brigham Young as wrong and apostate. To do so at the expense of the character of Joseph Smith or truthfulness of the Book of Mormon would be to slit their own throats. Therefore any interview with an elderly Emma by the RLDS church had every reason to get the best possible spin on the character of Joseph Smith and the translation process. Because they also believed in it. It is not until the subject of later church events (like polygamy) do the RLDS have any reason to spin truth in a way that is hostile the 'Utah Mormons'

Indeed lots of people do not have plans for retirement. This is not a new problem... It is a old problem... so old that and so scary that the voters empowered the government to "fix it". This is how we got Social Security. All the government did was get a death grip on our wallets... It did not solve the problem it is still scary. Yet people still call on the government to fix it. When those of us who remember our history, who understand how government really works say no to this idea. We are called uncharitable and greedy.

Unless you have student loans or have cosigned on a student loan. The Traveler

One of the major advantages of 401Ks (and 403Bs) is that they are protected. If an person goes through a bankruptcy or foreclosure, all of their assets can be gleaned over by creditors, except for retirement accounts. Not even the IRS can touch your retirement accounts. That reason alone is a good reason to make use of a retirement savings plan. Should you come on hard times, it doesn't decimate your retirement savings.

I am not one to talk about saving money. I did not, and it looks like I'll work until I die. On the otherhand, I once looked at how much I spent on raising kids. Without them it looks like I might have actually made the multi-millionaire status. The question then is...would I have saved or spent that money? Hard question to answer. Having children has probably made more wealthy in other ways than riches and money, and far better in the long run.

My friend, true repentance means turning away from sin. It is inappropriate to live with someone of the opposite sex that you aren't married to, and the fact that you moved in with her, despite the fact that you had good intentions, is not the proper course of action. Perhaps no continuing sexual relationship exists between the two of you, but the Bishop cannot know that for certain. It is a great thing that you came to him, and have a desire to go to the temple...but the covenants we make inside are not something to be taken lightly. The Bishop holds Priesthood keys, and if you were to go to the temple unworthily he would be at fault as well. He does care about you, but also has an entire ward to look after. The load he carries is heavy. He is looking out for you, and it sounds like you aren't ready to go just yet. Fornication is a big deal, but once a child is born out of wedlock to unmarried parents there are even more obligations you would have to meet as a father before being found worthy. You have made several mistakes and bad choices, and that is not the Bishop's fault. Being able to take the sacrament again doesn't mean you are done repenting and forgiven...true repentance is not just a change in behavior for a set period of time, but a true change of character. It lasts a lifetime. Best of luck to you moving forward, and don't give up. The effort it takes is worth it.

One more thought, Junior: If you find yourself in this predicament despite having "enjoyed" attending the temple with your mother in the past, we have a major disconnect going on. Methinks you have never actually listened to the covenants you make in the temple, or else you just don't care about them. Repent. Humble yourself. Bring yourself down into the dust. Beg your bishop for help, then do whatever he says. Stop with the pridefulness. That's my best possible advice to you.

It's not bad to want to go to the Temple. Usually, by the time you're around 8 years old, you realize you can't always have what you want just because you want it. You have to work hard to QUALIFY for it or even deserve it. Go repent some more.

If a person stops drinking alcohol, is it wise to hang out in a bar? So you're telling us that you lived with a woman you were still romantically involved with, and find it confusing why that's sinful? Speak for yourself... Some guys think there's nothing more attractive to them than a woman who is carrying his baby. Then why are you even still romantically involved? Good. Nothing you've written so far leads me to believe that this is true, brother. Because you're not worthy to go, according to the Priesthood authority you're refusing to listen to.

Hi Junior. I'm going to reply to your post point for point because I think there's a lot worth mentioning. I'm going to be blunt because I want to be clear. Please do not take offense. I'll tell you right now I agree with what @NeuroTypical said, I just want to add my own comments to his. It was, assuming that you had truly stopped sleeping with your girlfriend. If you did, then all is well up to this point. Of course he was. You're having a child and don't want to form a family unit with the child's mother. Had you broken up with her by this point? Well, this isn't enough information to be sure, but my guess is that at this point it looked like you were abandoning this child. That's not okay, and you won't get a Temple Recommend in such a case. He probably said that because it sure looks like you were being prideful and selfish. The very fact that you're telling us how insulted you were confirms it. Brother, look at it this way: You walked into the Bishop's office, you told him you were gong to be having a child out of wedlock and had no intention of changing that. Then you wanted a Temple recommend on the grounds that you wanted to go with your mom. So far, nothing in this story shows you were willing to be humble and repentant, and obey instructions by your Priesthood leader. You say you let it go out of respect for him, as if it was you doing him a favor. Brother, you've got this backwards. Ok so you confess that you're living with this woman, outside of marriage, and you disagree that this is sinful? Dude, seriously. This is a very prideful statement. Of course he told you to stop taking the Sacrament. You were living in a sinful situation and showing no signs of remorse or repentance. You didn't agree with him so you ignored his instructions and did whatever you wanted. Good that you moved out, but your demand for a recommend interview so quickly leads me to believe you don't understand the seriousness of this situation. And he is correct. No, brother. It is you who do not understand. You repented of the fornication and completed the repentance process. You then went on to: Refuse to marry the woman once you discovered she was pregnant. (Are you taking responsibility for any of her medical expenses? Will you pay child support if you don't marry her? Move in with her in a sinful living arrangement. Did you sleep with her? Ignore the Bishop's instructions and took the Sacrament even after being told not to. And you think you're not in another repentance process? You think you're worthy to enter the Temple? Honestly? Complain to the Stake President. Maybe you'll listen to his counsel. He's not being harsh, though I bet he's exasperated with you. He's trying to get through that prideful attitude you seem to have. I really think you need to spend some time thinking about how you've been approaching this. Pray, fast, and really think about it. If you were in my ward I'm positive my Bishop would have been the exact same way, and he's one of the finest people to ever walk the Earth.

My eldest turned 18 recently and he thought now he can just come and go without even a by your leave... he found out wrong in a quickness. @askandanswer can relate...

Thread title demands cat picture.

Im rich in children.