Vort

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that I would refuse them or that I announced how much I disliked them. On the contrary, I would gladly serve in any position, and I enjoyed the years I spent as a counselor in various elders quorum presidencies. The point is that the callings themselves are unimportant for eternal life and spiritual progression. Until about eight or so years ago, one over-50 quorum member came every week and even sat in quorum with his oldest son. Today, I think the oldest elder that attends the elders quorum is in his mid-40s, a few years younger than me. Yes. A couple of years ago, the stake president instructed me (through a bishopric counselor) to attend the high priest group. I was prepared to politely decline an invitation, but I was not willing to refuse a direct request. So now I attend the high priest group. This is at the discretion of the stake president. He holds the keys of leadership over all the Melchizedek priesthood holders in his stake, and he decides how he wants them attending their meetings. I have been told that there is no formal decision procedure for such things. I have never spoken with my stake president about my own case -- indeed, I have not spoken with the stake president at all since he was called except to say hello as we pass in the halls or briefly chat about my oldest son's mission preparation -- so I don't know what his decision criteria are. But I'm not worried about it. Just as I enjoyed meeting with my quorum, I enjoy meeting with the high priests; they are a great group of men.

woundedknee, this is what I'm talking about. One does not "make" the calling of apostle. It's not an achievement. It's not a prize to be won. If the Lord offers you the same gift of eternal life, then it makes no difference to what station you are called in the kingdom. It is possible that certain transgressions or actions, including excommunication, result in the inability to be called to certain positions in the kingdom of God for this life. Again, so what? If I accidentally kill my neighbor by my thoughtless foolishness, then even if I successfully repent of that foolishness and gain forgiveness, my neighbor is still dead. I can't bring him back. The consequences of my actions will follow me for the rest of my life, even if the moral stain is completely removed. Similarly, if I lose an arm or a leg because of some childhood irresponsibility, repentance from that irresponsibility and growing into a responsible man doesn't magically grow me back my missing limb. Repentance doesn't mean that everything is exactly as it was before. Repentance means the stain is removed and we can again progress toward God.

To clarify: I have never desired or sought after a "high calling". I am just fine holding more "menial" callings, and do not begrudge the bishop his respected calling and the numerous headaches accompanying it. But many Saints mistakently use the world's measuring stick in the kingdom of God. A "successful" man, they think, is one who holds "high" station. Thus, to be a successful Latter-day Saint, a man must be a bishop. This attitude extends even to some in the highest leadership positions; witness how often a General Conference speaker illustrates the sincerity of someone's repentance or the good effects of a hard choice made by citing that person's or his children's Church callings ("...and of his six children, three became bishops, one served as a stake president, two were Relief Society presidents, and all six married in the temple..."). This attitude must be recognized and acknowledged, but it does not have to be accepted. We can recognize that leadership callings neither define nor indicate spiritual worthiness. If you are coming back into the Church from excommunication and you find (or think) that such callings are not available to you in this life, then what of it? Your intent in coming back is to become a Saint and join the body of Christ, not to impress your friends and relatives with your callings.

I agree with the above, especially applepansy. If you're 27, you should still respect your father and listen closely to him, but it's time to be a man and live your life (which probably includes moving out of Dad's basement if at all possible). If you're only 19, you may legally be considered an adult, but you are barely more than a high schooler. Do as your father advises. In the adult world, and especially as a missionary, you need to learn adult negotiating skills and how to talk with other grown-ups. This is a wonderful time for you to practice such skills with your father.

Pshaw. My ancestors are mentioned in the Bible!

I'm not sure I understand the fuss. I am an active Latter-day Saint, born and raised in the Church and from pioneer stock on both sides of my family. I served a mission, I have been active my whole life, I have paid tithing on every penny I ever earned, I have never been subject to any Church discipline, I have held a temple recommend continuously since receiving my endowment at 19 (except for short periods after my recommend expired and I hadn't gotten it renewed). I and my wife were virgins when we married and have never been with any others. I have held numerous callings, have never refused a calling, and have endeavored to fulfill my callings. I am a reasonably regular and diligent home teacher. In short, I am a run-of-the-mill, never-got-in-trouble, active Latter-day Saint. Yet I have never held any significant leadership position. I am approaching 50 and am an elder, not a high priest. At this point, it looks very likely that I never will hold any leadership position and there is no indication that I will ever be ordained a high priest. Does Salt Lake have some deep, dark dirt on me from my forgotten childhood that has gotten me blacklisted? Am I handicapped from progressing in the gospel or receiving the blessings God has in store for me, just because my leaders have deemed me somehow unfit for leadership positions? Or should I just be grateful that the Lord allows me to walk into the chapel each Sunday, worship with my fellow Saints, and even hold a calling that allows me to contribute to the kingdom in some small way? If those who have been excommunicated and then come back never get called to leadership positions, they can join all the rest of us down in the congregation and just be thankful to be a part of the kingdom, figuring out how best to sustain and uplift those who are called to such positions.

True. What has this to do with divinely revealed religion? Incorrect. "We guys" didn't ban anyone. The leadership of the kingdom of God barred men of African ancestry from holding the Priesthood. It took a revelation from God to make a religious impact in that. So we just accept your say-so? An attitude that you can't specifically reference but that you infer in a religious community of which you are not a part. I think we are well aware of the "reputation" we have among many ignorant non-Latter-day Saints. Those who insist of thinking the worst of people they don't know are not liable to changing their minds. Clearly, you are of the group who thinks our children should be reading Mein Kampf. I disagree. What kind of small plant (and in this case a seedling tree) is so weak that a stomp can destroy it or somehow kill it? Clearly, your generalization is false at specific times. When you receive a battlefield command from your superior, questioning it is generally wrong. More specifically for this conversation, when "questioning" is a cover word for "tearing down", then it's no longer questioning. Pretending it is mere questioning is dishonest.

...something fishy about her...

For baptism, a child of record is interviewed by the bishop. A convert, even a child convert, is interviewed by the missionaries. I agree with what's been said. It's likely the bishop is concerned about an eight-year-old making a covenant she doesn't adequately understand and won't have the support at home to keep. The OP should talk with his bishop about the whys and wherefores.

Nah, pretty sure I suggested no such thing. Please do. That's a bait-and-switch, saintish. Ecclesiastical comportment is much different from social comportment. Agitating for societal change is acceptable; indeed, in a free society, it is vital. Agitating for doctrinal change is despicable in a revealed religion.

Agreed. But the point is, "murder" is a legal term. It is not well-defined in a theological sense. In the more distant past, you could legally kill your slave, or even your child, with no legal repercussions. It wasn't "murder", even if polite society didn't approve. In the recent past, taking someone off life support might be considered euthanasia, a form of murder. Today, in some places it is "murder" to kill someone invading your home; you are required by law to retreat, and lethal force is allowed only if retreat is impossible. Yet some states allow you to assist in another person's suicide, under protection of the law. Killing fetuses is perfectly legal up to a certain point; after that, it might be considered murder. Given that the term "murder" and the nature of the "murderous" act are not universally defined or even agreed on by reasonable members of society, we cannot know perfectly what God considers "murder". So I think it's wise to avoid taking a strong religious or spiritual opinion on the matter of what may and may not be forgiven.

When Dravin (who is still floating on his honeymoon high) and MoE (who doesn't even like me) are the only two to laugh at my comment, it's clear that most participants are far too invested in this thread to see obvious, broad humor. Or maybe I'm just not funny. Nah. Can't be that. All right. If that's really what you want, here you go. Is it wrong to question things you don’t understand or seem to be incongruent? No. It is wrong to criticize, to ridicule, to eschew, to fail to value the words and teachings of the prophets. But questioning is expected. I encourage my children to question things. But that is a far cry from encouraging them to disbelieve, and is a world removed from teaching them the damnable attitude that they have no obligation to obey -- indeed, they ought not obey -- unless and until they receive a personal revelation that whatever principle being taught applies personally to them. Some have suggested that to question any facet associated with the church is tantamount to treason and hypocrisy. On this board? Can you cite examples? I have never seen any such thing here. When is it ok to question and when isn’t it? It is okay to question when you don't know the answer and you are sincerely seeking it. It is not okay to question when you are actually agitating for change and your questions are designed not to provide enlightenment to yourself, but to raise doubts and destroy belief in the minds of others. Joseph Smith Questioned which religion was right, was that ok? Yes. Brigham Young questioned who should be the successor of the church, was he a hypocrite? No. Members in the twenties questioned wearing full length (ankle and wrist) garments, were they wrong? If they refused to wear the authorized garment, then of course they were wrong. They were in violation of their covenants. Many more members questioned the priesthood ban before it was lifted, were they disloyal? If they acted disloyally, then yes. If they agitated for change, they were loathsome hypocrites. If they simply sought information and understanding and insight into the Priesthood ban, they were part of a sizable throng of Saints seeking such knowledge. How different would the world be if no one had the intestinal fortitude to question what is established? Quantitatively speaking, way different.

I would mention my titanium crowbar, but it's not ironic.

I can't believe you would even ask that.

The audiobook is almost useless. The readers clearly don't understand much of what they are reading. It has many mistakes that were not edited out. Many times, the readers cannot even get through a long, convoluted sentence in an understandable manner. I appreciate the Church's effort in making it available, but it would be nice if they got readers who could do a comprehensible job of the task. OP: There is no replacement for the scriptures. No other books or combinations of books will adequately replace them.

Dress like you're going to Church. If you aren't in a position to dress as for Church, do what you would do if you had to go to Church dressed less nicely than normal: Clean up as best you can and just go. The bishop is not likely to care much what you're wearing.

Yet Nephi killed. So did Captain Moroni, and Mormon, and Moroni. Joseph Smith fired off a pistol at his assassination in an attempt to kill. Soldiers in armed conflicts kill each other all the time. Odds are you know people who have killed others.

I'll do my best. No promises. Frankly, I don't know for sure that this musical can be recommended wholeheartedly. Rumor has it that the tunes are occasionally pulchritudinous and the lyrics literally risible. By all accounts, the authors are both functionally literate. And to those who question whether the musical promotes the "right kind" of actions and attitude: Attendees at the Broadway staging have been seen in the audience openly masticating during the performance -- and I think we all know what the scriptures have to say about that, don't we? I don't mean to be negative. Not at all. But it had to be said.

For you fanboiz and fangurlz, .

Dang. This song was writter for Amy Lee. Even better if she sang it solo.

Aka Jew jitsu. (How many times have you heard that?)

Being critical of Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I mostly disagree with the anti-Israel, pro-Palestine rhetoric, but not all those who use it are anti-Semites. I think it's counterproductive to label anyone who disagrees with you an anti-Semite, just as it's counterproductive to label those who disagree with you Nazis or idiots or Communists or Democrats or whatever.

No. I am saying that your assertion, at least as I understood it in context, is incorrect. You wrote: as a matter of fact the final resurrection will take place after the millenium and BEFORE the final judgment. It's important to understand that ALL must be resurrected for the final judgment with Christ. I see two ways of interpreting this: All must be resurrected before anyone will be judged.Everyone who is judged must first be resurrected.The second possible interpretation is trivially obvious and doesn't fit with the thread, so I discarded it, leaving the first as the only interpretation I could make. My example of Abraham was intended to demonstrate that the first interpretation is also problematic. If there is a third interpretation that you meant but that I missed, sorry about that.

Methinks you don't know what an assertion is. I suspect they meant that they would see God in their flesh. Has the resurrection ended yet? Has Abraham received his "final judgment" and entered into his exaltation? How do you reconcile your assertion with your answers to the above two questions? Whether or not this is true is not relevant. The scripture I cited does not teach that Abraham has his calling and election made sure. It teaches that Abraham "hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne." Present perfect and present tenses, not future. Thanks for your kind concern. I'm still waiting for you to address the issues I have brought up, though.

Not really. The point is that as of this moment, not everyone has been resurrected -- indeed, not everyone has even been born -- yet Abraham has already received his final judgment. This contradicts your assertion that all will be resurrected before anyone receives a final judgment.