MarginOfError

It was I who made the comment about the change from intercourse to relations 30 years ago. The change was made long before I was able to go to the temple. My statement was based on a conversation with my parents who, somewhat casually, said it happened "sometime around 1980." It was clearly one of those things they remembered happening, but they really couldn't put a specific date on it and were guessing. My apologies for presenting such information as fact. I'll take your time frame more seriously if you remember hearing the transition. The last time I did an endowment session I didn't notice this part at all. The whole covenant was cut out. Either that or I had fallen asleep. That's happened more times than I can count.

I was thinking the same thing! Shouldn't he have brushed his teeth at least 732 times the past year alone?

No you're not! I want to report pam. I'm filing a complaint that she is prejudiced against me because I tried to eat Gingy.

and seductive feather dusters! I guess that's the consolation prize for not being a hot catholic.

Have you ever seen Disney's Beauty and the Beast? This site is a lot like that movie. At some point we all start dancing around, grabbing pitch forks and torches, all the while singing very merrily the song "Kill the Catholic". And then we get to the Catholic castle and all the little gadgets (various items representing common sense) beat us up. After a little while we then discover that inside every Catholic is a beautiful human being who is much more attractive than any other man we've seen in the movie so far. So if you ever feel like we're picking on you, it just means that we're jealous of how beautiful you are. Welcome to the site! May silliness ensue!

--backing away from Justice-- Did you just make a cow joke immediately following the mention of a pregnant woman!? but really...I almost did laugh out loud...that would have been fun to explain to my boss.

I can totally see how a pregnant woman would forget to take her skirt off, and that's utterly hysterical. But frightening that the ordinance workers responded the way they did. Pull the stick out already. It almost reminds me of people that question whether an ordinance is valid if we mispronounce the name. What's next...the ordinance is only complete if the lines on your socks are parallel to the ground when you stand?

It's funny how differently the temple workers might respond based on how they've been trained. In the training I received (the lack thereof, actually...the temple worker training never seemed to fit into my class schedule), I was instructed that we should discourage people from passing family file names to strangers. This was twofold: 1) to preserve reverence in the changing rooms, and 2) to prevent disruptions in the Celestial room when the member went to get them all back. At the same time, there was an unspoken agreement that in small sessions, we would overlook this rule and tell the member that the officiator would collect the family file names and return them to the member (we were lucky to have 5 people in a session on my shift).

So, if I currently have the highest score, does that mean I'm the least ignorant person on the board? <---- that's me crowning myself king!

I'm wondering why they didn't just look up the recommend number to see if it had been activated and if it were still activated. That's supposed to be the beauty of a computer system is multiple checks. Sounds like a training issue to me.

regarding soul mates--I once asked a girl if she would be interested in marrying me, seeing as I was very interested in marrying her. I had prayed about it and felt good about discussing it with her and the answer to my prayer was that I would be very happy married to her. She said she had thought and prayed about it, but felt strongly that she hadn't yet met the guy that she would marry. So, the Lord did have someone in mind for her to marry, but didn't have anyone specific in mind for me to marry. Some people have a 'soul-mate' and some people don't. The comment "God does not do random"--as a statistician, I have to say that is entirely false. God is the originator of random. Set the system in motion and let it go...that's the definition of random. Ben, the second husband that was physically abusive--is he still alive? I can tell you, I wouldn't want to be the guy to meet your rage after hitting your daughter. The thought makes me want to soil my pants.

You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 % I should have had 32 out of 33. For question 26 I said Business profit is Cost minus Revenue. That mathematician in me should have realized that it's the other way around. I also missed #31. International economics was never my strong suit.

Just make sure the shoulders are covered and her midriff doesn't show.

If I were to see you walk into the Temple with a service dog, I'd do a double take, look a little cross-eyed, then smile, welcome you to the temple, and ask if you needed any additional assistance (since at this point I really don't know anything more about you than that you need a service dog). I don't think it's necessary to sew a white vest for the dog, but if you do I guarantee all the old ladies at the temple will think it's the cutest thing ever. by the way, have your bishop and stake president interviewed the dog? Has he put his paw print on a recommend? EDIT: Oh, and I would definitely call ahead to the temple. They will likely have better instruction, etc. Also, if they know you're coming, and if they know when you're coming, they will probably mention it to the workers in their prayer meeting before the shift starts. That way, there would be no surprises or awkward moments of "what do we do now" when you get there.

I might use a few terms that are unfamiliar to you. I'll try to explain them at the end of the post. My dad serves on the High Council in his stake. He rides a Harley, and yes, his entrances are very indiscrete. He loves it. So do the youth and most of the other men, for that matter. A lot of the women just kind of shake their heads and smile. So anyway, on Sundays when my dad has to travel to other wards to speak, he often rides the Harley. If the Stake leaders feel comfortable riding a Harley to Church, I think you should too. In fact, the way my dad decided to buy a Harley was pretty amusing. He was having a conversation with the Stake President and my dad mentioned he was thinking about buying a Corvette. The Stake President said, "No, I really think you should buy a Harley instead. You'll love it so much more." My dad wasn't about to ignore the counsel of his leaders. Earlier this year, my dad was interviewed by a leader from Salt Lake as a potential candidate for the new Stake President. We tried really hard to get him to ride the Harley to the interview, but he just couldn't bring himself to do it. So, in my opinion, you should definitely ride the Harley to church, and wear as much leather on your entrance as you can. A shirt and tie with nice pants under the chaps and jacket will be sufficient. But really, be you, and be true to yourself when you go. We conservative dressed and groomed mormons could really use a bit of non-conformity! Ward--the primary unit of the church. Generally a congregation of 125 - 250 members Stake--a group of wards, usually about 12, within a geographical area. Stake leadership is responsible for training and supporting ward leaders and programs. High Council--the Stake Presidency is made up of three men, and they may call 12 additional men to the High Council to help them fulfill their duties. High Councilmen generally travel to different wards to speak, meet with local leaders, perform training, and handle situations that do not require the direct involvement of the Stake Presidency Did I use any other funny words?

You might be able to make a case that this isn't strictly true. For instance, about 30 years ago, the covenant in the endowment related to chastity said that men and women would not have "sexual intercourse" except with their spouse. This was changed to "sexual relations." I'm sure most of us can imagine why that change was necessary. In the future we may actually see another change to the wording of this covenant. If same sex marriage passes, the current wording of the Temple Covenant for chastity could be construed to say that sexual relations between married homosexual partners is not a violations of the covenant. I have a suspicion that "loophole" would get closed pretty quick. But in spirit, what you said was true. While the language of the covenant may change from time to time, the spirit of the covenants is constant. This applies to all of the covenants in the temple, not just those made in the Endowment.

A lot of the recent changes that have taken place in the Temple Ordinances have more to do with comfort and privacy than anything else. I know this is kind of cliche to say now, but people in our society are living longer than ever. It is getting harder for them to do the ups and downs that were required previously. Some changes were prompted by privacy. Yes, in today's political climate, privacy is a big issue and I imagine the Church didn't want to put itself in a position where it would be vulnerable to claims of violation of privacy. Also, people are more likely not to attend the Temple at all if they feel that their privacy is not going to be maintained, and there's no point in having a Temple if people aren't comfortable attending. The primary thing to remember is this: the teachings of the Temple are symbolic. The form and procedure of the ordinances are intended to reflect the symbolism. Sometimes, changes may need to be made to accommodate social tolerances, but when these changes are made, the symbolism of the ordinance will be untouched, and the lessons taught will be no different than before.

My ward could use you! Please come! But it's true, you should be documenting everything and having a detailed, candid conversation with your Bishop and Stake President. You may even be able to attend a different ward to ease the tensions. In a situation like this, it is likely you'd get permission from the Stake President to do this.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square A Latter-day Saint is a Christian, but a Christian is not necessarily a Latter-day Saint.

It is currently 6.41 AM on Sunday morning. Check back later today for an update to this post. I will check the handbooks when I get to Church. However, I'm only going to check the handbooks for my own curiosity. I'll share what I find, but in my opinion, this is a question you should be discussing with your Bishop. As I recall, the details on marriage outside of the Temple are fairly scarce. At least for the United States. In the US, the government permits certain religious leaders to perform marriages. Which persons in a church may marry varies from church to church. In the LDS Church, bishops are authorized to perform civil marriages. I seem to recall that Stake Presidents and General Authorities may as well, but I am unsure of that. I am fairly certain that the Church does not authorize missionaries to perform weddings. I also seem to recall some Church imposed restrictions on who may perform weddings where. It was either that bishops could not perform weddings outside of their ward boundaries, or bishops could not marry people who did not reside within their ward boundaries. My memory is fuzzy, which is why I'll check the handbooks. The legal requirements for authorized clergy to perform weddings varies from state to state. Where I was married, all the clergyman had to do was sign the marriage certificate and return it to the Town Hall within 90 days of its issue. There was absolutely no ceremony required. Your bishop may need to contact civil authorities for instruction on how to complete the requirements for your marriage (I'm not sure we do a good job at training local leaders for this). I don't recall reading much specific instruction on how Bishops were to conduct marriages, and it may be quite open ended. Again, you want to talk to your Bishop about a format you, your fiance, and him all feel is appropriate and satisfies your vision for the day. Depending on what you decide, you may write your own vows, or he may administer some. He might also preach a sermon on the importance of marriage and family, or the LDS view on marriage and family. If you want, you might be able to arrange it so you march down the aisle, he says, "I pronounce you man and wife, let the refreshments begin" and you're done. :) Since you are already Sealed, your sealing will remain in effect and you will still have all of the rights and privileges granted you in order to take care of your children (although it sounds like they may be grown). Whereas you are marrying someone who is not sealed, you might have an easier time getting your sealing cancelled. If your ex-husband cooperates, it could be quite fast. I wish you well in this matter and hope it is a smooth and easy process for you. I would advise that you and your fiance work toward being sealed as soon as possible. It sounds like you are already working toward this, and I commend you for that. I just give the caution that being sealed will provide you with added benefits and blessings in your marriage that will make it so much more enriching than just a civil marriage, just because of the covenants made through the sealing ordinance. I don't say this to imply your civil marriage would be sub-standard, or to discourage it. I just think you should be sealed as soon as you can so you can take advantage of those blessings. Congratulations on your marriage. I hope it's as wonderful as you imagine it to be and then some. Okay, here's the edit. I checked the handbooks while I was at Church today. Bishop's may perform civil marriages as long as at least one of the partners lives within his ward boundaries. The actual ceremony may take place anywhere, but photographs and video may not be taken inside the chapel. Members are encouraged to have marriage ceremonies in a place in which the sanctity of and reverence for the marriage covenants may be observed. I was wrong about the vows. The handbooks do proscribe what the Bishop is supposed to say for the ceremony. My apologies for my misstatements.

Because of the priesthood keys he holds, the Bishop also receives direct inspiration for You, Yourself, and You. In fact, your Bishop, Stake President, and any authorized General Authority (all the General Authorities hold the keys, but they aren't always authorized to use them in certain areas) may receive direct inspiration for you. You have every right to ask and every right to say no. The flip side of that is you will never know what blessings and healing were available to you had you accepted. Calling you to the Primary Presidency after having "just reactivated" is a pretty bold move. You're completely right, it either was entirely desperate, or it was entirely inspired. I've received callings from leaders that didn't know me at all. About two weeks before I moved away from the first college I attended I received a phone call from the Stake Executive Secretary. The Stake Presidency--whom I had never even met--wanted to extend me a calling. I informed them that I would not be part of their stake for more than two weeks and respectfully declined. That Sunday, the entire Stake Presidency met with me to try to convince me to stay; they felt very strongly that I should be a stake missionary. They offered to help me find a job, a place to stay, everything that a college student would need, but I informed them that I just couldn't stay and had to move back home. The first Sunday after I got back home, the Stake President in my parents' stake came to visit our ward and called me as a stake missionary. Believe me, you don't have to know the person to receive inspiration for them. This is a sign of a great Bishop. His inspiration was correct, and he knew it. So he grew you into the position he knew you needed to be in. I hope you still send him Christmas cards. This goes two ways. And remember, the Bishop is authorized to receive revelation for the members of his ward. And she'll go to the grave never having known the blessings and healing she could have received had she been willing to serve as asked. I have actually found this to be a rare occurrence. In fact, every bishopric I've known has taken people's concerns about callings very seriously. When I first moved into my current ward, it became known that I was interested in Scouting and would likely get involved with a community troop, since our ward didn't sponsor a troop. The bishopric soon became interested in teaming with another ward to start a troop and asked me to consult with them on how to make this happen. I looked at the situation and for a number of reasons advised them that a Church sponsored troop in their situation would be difficult to maintain, taxing on those called to it, and highly unlikely to succeed. When they asked me if I would like to be involved (they didn't officially extend a calling, but they hinted), I said as politely as I could that I thought that starting such a troop would result in a sour experience for the boys involved and that if I were considering a troop for my son, the troop they had in mind would be eliminated very early. At the same time, I told them that if they called me, I would accept. They never called me. Since then, I have been called into positions where I work very closely with the bishopric and have learned how seriously they consider member objections to callings. Another example I might share concerns my wife. When we first moved into our ward we filled out questionnaires about what our skills and talents were. On hers, she wrote that she could lead music. The following Sunday she was called as Relief Society chorister. In this case, she truly felt it was a calling lacking inspiration, and one that offered very little room for growth. She was later called to serve on the enrichment committee coordinating meals for mothers following delivery, but again felt like she was called because someone was needed and they knew she'd say yes. Then, after a few months, she was called as the Ward Music Director. When the bishopric extended the calling, months of frustration let loose and she broke down crying. She explained to the bishopric that she felt she was being called because she was convenient and not because it was inspired. The bishopric advised her to take a week to think about it, and that they would do the same. A week later, the bishopric spoke with her and said that they did feel that the call was inspired. They also said quite bluntly, that this calling may not be for her growth, but that she had the skills to develop the ward's music program in a way that would help many in the ward grow. Again, callings--and how members feel about callings--are taken very seriously by bishoprics. Baggage and the person enter the situation when no inspiration comes. If the Lord does not inspire a bishop, that's when background and baggage get thrown into the equation. But if the Lord tells the Bishop who to call, nothing else matters. This is not necessarily true. As mentioned before, Bishops and Stake Presidents hold keys that authorize them to receive revelation for and/or in behalf of those over whom they preside. In fact, there's a body of evidence that your husband may as well (if you are sealed to him). If he was inspired to call her, then her spiritual gifts are irrelevant to the situation. Like saying when a calling issued by another bishop was or wasn't appropriate? To flat out say no negates your sustaining of your bishop. I have no problem with you doing this if you are willing to accept it for what it is. The wiser course of action is to discuss with the Bishop what your concerns are. If he still feels the call is right and inspired after this discussion, then you might need to rethink your position. In my experience, it isn't uncommon for bishoprics to change callings based on candid, honest, and civil conversations with members. But bishoprics don't make changes when members ask--they make them when they feel confirmation for what the member is asking. It's quite a difference from what you're proposing.

If you are in a conversation to say something like, "Thank God Mary's health came back" then you're probably okay, so long as you are actually praising God for Mary's health. If you're worried about someone showing up for a presentation and when they finally walk in the room 5 minutes late you say, "Oh Thank God!" this might be more questionable. It's a circumstantial thing that you might need some getting used to.

I would encourage anyone having these feelings to talk to the Bishop, but only on one condition: that you're prepared for nothing to change. The Bishop may take what you have to say and determine that a change needs to be made, or he may determine that things need to stay exactly as they are. You have a right to voice your concerns, but if you support and sustain your Bishop, you should accept whatever decision he makes afterward. Georgia, no offense, but biding your time? I know I don't know the whole situation, so do what you will with this comment and I won't be think the worse of you, but 'biding your time' never helps a situation like this. Perhaps you need to improve as much as this other person, just in different areas? Anyway, your comment sounded odd to me. I apologize if I'm off base.

If you want to do a literal interpretation of the text, the continents did not shift until after the flood. Shem begat Arphaxad, who begat Salah, who begat Eber, who begat Peleg. Peleg received his name because he lived in the days when the earth was divided. (Gen 10:25; Gen 11:16-19; 1 Chr 1:19, 25) I'm not sure how literally we can take this, but it's a thought. Others believing it had to do with a division of races across the world (or a patriarchal division)

During a YSA Conference in 2005 I attended a talk given by a young woman pursuing her graduate degree at Harvard Divinity School. Her talk was about women in the Bible, and in her talk, she shared some interesting insights into the Adam and Eve story. One of the more interesting points she shared was about the name Adam itself. The name Adam translates to "mankind." But the Hebrews also used Adam as a placeholder...a generic reference into which an individual could place him or herself. The message was that when Moses was teaching the Israelites--and especially when he was teaching those who led the Israelites--about the Creation and the Fall, he would us the word Adam and the people would know to insert themselves into the situation, to learn to apply the lessons to themselves. Adam also had another use, similar to the use of Eve. Adam, meaning "mankind," was a representation of our ancestry (and in some cases, can be interpreted to be our posterity). In this case, using the word Adam indicated that the lessons being taught could be extended to the entire human race (and Eve, being the first woman, could be extended to all women). There are some religious scholars who like to take up the debate of whether there was an individual named Adam, or if Adam refers to the initial progenitors of our species. It's an interesting debate, but as far as I can tell, the LDS revelations indicate that there was indeed a single father of mankind. I seem to remember the young lady at the YSA conference confirming that this was her belief, but she wasn't ready to say that our first father's name was in fact Adam. She suggested it was possible that the name Adam was applied to him later for instructive purposes. But in the end, it doesn't really matter whether our first father's name was Adam or not, as the history and the message for us are unchanged. Listening to her talk was rather enlightening for me. It helped me stop interpreting the Endowment so literally. In fact, if you pay attention in the Endowment, you might notice a point at which Adam and Eve are specifically our First Parents, and a point at which the representation becomes more generic, and applied to the entire race. There's a point in the ordinance where the presentation seems to cease being historical and become primarily symbolic. So, the short answer to your question, bytor, is that these two accounts in Genesis may very well have been written by two authors, but were both the authors trying to convey the same message? Perhaps one was seeking historical context while the other was presenting a more symbolic message. Disclaimer: I don't have any sources to back up any of this, other than personal experience and opinion. As such, my knowledge here may benefit from refining if anyone has other input to offer. Great discussion starter, bytor!