skippy740

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.” (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173). Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.) “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8–9.)

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. “Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,” complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.” (1 Ne. 16:1–2.) Said President Harold B. Lee: “You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152–153.) But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. “Even in the Church,” said President Kimball, “many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Instructor, 95:527.) Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on. How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness. Said President Marion G. Romney, “It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.” And then he gives this illustration: “One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ “Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’ “Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.” (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.)

bing004, I don't have advice to give. I wish I had some 'magic words' that would make it all go away. I'm sure you've read this blog posting before. But if not, here it is. There might be something in there that could be helpful for both you and your husband. http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

That's the Lord's justice being shown. As for how the Church deals with its members, we can turn to D&C 134:10 10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

How is this not an answer? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

This really fits here:

Scriptures on how it is only men to hold the priesthood: D&C 20 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20?lang=eng 38 The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize; 48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons. 49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present; 50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, 56 And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest— 60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him. 64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference. Notice the contrast in verse 73: 73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water. I find it curious that up until that point, the Lord emphasized He, His, or Him. Then later, it was Him or her, and himself or herself. Resuming with verse 76: 76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying: 78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say: Just in looking at Section 20, and seeing how it is written for baptism - including himself or herself - and the rest of it is he, his, or him... it appears pretty clear to me. Abraham 1 3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. 31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me. Now Pharoah sought to IMITATE the priesthood: 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. The Priesthood has always been a Patriarchal order, from these few scriptures that I've posted.

Having been involved in this discussion in a few formats, here's the bottom line that I see: This policy of women not holding the priesthood does not exclude anyone from entering the Celestial Kingdom, as we understand the Plan of Salvation. As far as I can tell, the only reason that people cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom is in personal worthiness as we now understand. Even those with same-sex attraction, while they must not act on their attraction, they can still partake of all the ordinances, live worthily, and enter the Celestial Kingdom. If they don't have a spouse that they married in the temple, they are promised that they will have a worthy spouse in the next life. Unless there are any policies, procedures, or doctrines that unfairly target anyone from attaining the highest blessings that have been revealed... I think we're okay.

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

The reason people say "there's a reason"... is not because of anything negative. (Okay, it shouldn't be.) Sometimes it isn't until after events have happened that you see there was a divine purpose behind these things. Would you meet a family that responds better to you than another missionary that you would not have met if you had begun your service asap? Sometimes, things just happen and we'll see how much better things are after the trial of our faith. So hold on, and keep reading and applying your scripture study. The best you can do is be close to the spirit, so you can share that spirit with others whom you serve and teach.

One bishop's account on how an excommunication decision is reached: http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/excommunication/

I wonder who controls the website? I would doubt that re-baptism could happen while the website is still up, attracting a following. It'll be a long road ahead for her.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/find-the-lambs-feed-the-sheep?lang=eng

Beware of affinity fraud - within or outside your faith or other organizations: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/affinity-fraud Here's a couple of examples: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47881681 http://utahsecuritiesfraud.wordpress.com/tag/ponzi-scheme/ I am not an attorney, but if you're assuming that just because someone is (supposedly) a member of our church in good standing, and that means that he's supposed to act in a certain way... then you are assuming that his affiliation is a good character check. I used that word 'assume' on purpose. And somehow, I doubt he was "flaunting his lds credentials" in order to possibly 'con' you out of your money. BTW, I re-read the original post and I have edited my previous response. Paragraphs and quotation marks would've helped my reading comprehension. Walls of text are hard to read.

Getting back on topic... I would be curious as to the real ROOT reason as to why there are long discussions going on. Ineffective meetings = ineffective leadership & stewardship. Perhaps this Bishop is more of a "how is everyone feeling" versus "we gotta get this done" leadership style. Perhaps this Bishop has had to participate in other Stake Leadership meetings and needs to spend more time on more important priorities. All these things can be legitimate. However, as part of stewardship, we must practice the principle of setting priorities and then "return and report". But until the leader of the WC (Bishop) can conduct a concise meeting... it's going to be the same. Has someone met with the Bishop and talked about the number of meetings and the amount of time being spent in them? The nicer thing to do is to set an appointment to beep your smartphone, and then to leave. "Where are you going?" "Gotta go. I've been paged (or I'm late to another appointment). If someone could email me whatever you volunteer me for, that would be great." Ever notice that when you miss a meeting, that someone else can summarize it for you in 5 minutes? You won't miss much by leaving early.

I keep forgetting to ask in the advice forum: "Do you want sympathy or advice?" I'm convinced that some of these posters would want to hear something like: "Oh no! That's terrible! You poor thing you! I can't believe that happened to you from one of OUR members! Let's form a riot and give him exactly what he deserves! We'll call his Bishop and he'll make sure he pays up or else!"

Then it's definitely ambiguous as to "who said what" per the OP. The first line - who knows? The second line (for comparison) shows that he clearly stated these things to her. EDIT: I understand now and have edited the quoted post. Paragraphs and quotation marks would've helped for us to understand better.

There's this little thing called small claims court. Sue him. That's what people do. LDS members are not exempt from the law. However, be prepared to show documentation and agreements. The burden of proof is on you to show that you are owed this money. BTW, being a "goodhearted Christian woman" and hoping that people "rot in hell" and "glad they're dead"... are contradictory statements. Oh, and using paragraphs would certainly make it easier to read your "wall of text" to get input from other posters.

Remember this: Don't try to "rescue" her. This is primarily HER problem that she admits that she does not want any future contact with him. One of the "Top Ten Things Men Do To Mess Up Their Lives" (by Dr. Laura Schlessinger) is "stupid rescuing". You can't make it better. You can't make it all right. You can't necessarily heal her. Yes, you can marry her and she can leave that environment. Here's the hard part: Are you SURE she's choosing to marry you? Or is she trying to get out of there? Only you can judge that. From your posts, it seems she is telling you the right things, but also is set on getting away and staying away from her father.

Glad to see you!

BTW, my grandparent's other two boys... were both married and divorced twice and finally married a 3rd time - each. So here's to staying together and uniting against a "common enemy"! :)

This is the BEST thing he could say!!! :) :) :) How can I say that? My step-grandfather said the same thing to my parents when they got sealed in the temple. TODAY, they are celebrating 38 years of marriage! So, you can wish for everything to be "bliss and glory"... or you can bask in the adversity and grow stronger together as a couple... just in SPITE of him. :) It's your choice on how you respond to this.

I eloped. That meant I paid for everything. There was no reception or honeymoon. You are not entitled to someone else's assets, money, or anything else - regardless of what "cultural tradition" or anyone else says. It's the entitlement mentality that's the problem here. He told you what he's going to do. You can both either: a. accept it, b. whine and complain about it. I recommend that you take the situation as it is, make the best of it. Life is a series of adjustments. How you handle them, shows the kind of man you are, and will continue to become.

Uh... good luck finding the perfect child who was raised in a perfect family with no 'scars' whatsoever. If you find one... would YOU be good enough for her? It goes both ways.