Saguaro

You don't have to go to a meeting house to see the broadcast, it also will be live streamed on lds.org, the Mormon Channel app, and on Mormon Radio. The details are in the document linked by MOE.

Some of you need to do a little more research on the topic of plural marriage. RipplecutBuddha said “Yes Joseph practiced polygamy, but it wasn't in secret at all. Most, if not all, of the saints then knew about it. Also important to remember is that Joseph was told to practice it for more than ten years before he began to.” Not true, very few people, mostly church leaders, practiced and knew about polygamy in its early days, Joseph actually preached against it publicly while practicing it in private. Regarding the time line, read the introduction to D&C 132, it states that the principles therein were known to the prophet as early as 1831, yet conserative estimates put his relationship with Fannie Alger at 1836, that's only five years (others claim his relationship with Fannie started as early as 1832). Traveler said “There are claims that Joseph married various numbers of individuals but there is a lack of evidence.” Lack of evidence? Many well documented books have been written on the subject, the latest is 3 volumes long and was written by a faithful member of the church. Amazon.com: Joseph Smith's Polygamy, Volume 1 History (9781589581890): Brian C. Hales, Don Bradley: Books

For years my employer has penalized smokers by making them pay significanly higher health insurance premiums, so the concept of what CVS is doing is nothing new. With the constantly increasing costs of health care you can't blame companies for trying to make their employees take more responsibility for their health and in turn reduce the costs for both empoloyees and employers.

As a bishop's counselor I understand there are certain meetings we have every week that I am to participate in, and I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is how ineffective and time wasting those meetings are. Between Bishopric, PEC, and Ward Council it seems we we talk about the same things, and the same people, every week, and nothing ever changes. We spend an hour and a half doing what should ony take 15 minutes. Part of the problem is that the Bishop does not "lead" the meeting, he barely follows the agenda and lets everyone go off on tangents that can lead to discussions about things that are not important or relevant. Sometimes I want to pull my hair out. Our sunday school president never comes to ward council because it drives him bonkers to sit there and watch his time be wasted while nothing gets accomplished. Regarding the first post and the comment being out 3 nights a week and seeing your family in the millennium, I would have raised my hand and called him on it. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and contrary to anything I've ever heard in leadership meetings.

The personal information that is made available in LDS Tools and on LDS.org is no different than information that has always been available, just in paper form. I remember growing up in the 70s and 80s our stake produced a directory in book form every couple of years and distributed it to every members house. Today, the data you can see when you log in to LDS Tools or LDS.org is only for your ward and stake, and the stake information doesn't include children, only adults. The type of data you have access to depends on your calling. For example, I am a counselor in the bishopric, on my LDS Tools app I can see things that the average ward member cannot, such as people's full birthdays, membershiop record number, temple recommend status, etc. This information is very helpful at times when fulfilling my calling, but the average member has no need for it. The same information is available to me on the computer in the clerk's office, but it's a huge convenience to be able to have it on my phone. My Bishop carries nothing on Sunday but his iPad, anything he needs to do or any information he needs is at his fingertips.

Don't know about that, I didn't have any notes in my Gospel Library scriptures.

I removed all the scriptures then downloaded them again and then I had the updated versions. There is no update function in Gospel Library that I know of.

I think it's great the church produced this side by side comparison. When I first heard about the new scriptures this morning the first thing I thought of was all the bloggers, church critics, etc. who would be making their own comparisons of previous to new, but the fact that the church produced it on their own shows that they don't have anything to hide and want to be 100% transparent about the changes. I particularly like the added introductions to the official declarations.

My daughter recently asked to have a single blue streak in her hair. She has a friend who regularly colors her hair all kinds of colors and I'm sure she was an influence. But my daugher understands that we are rather conservative, given no boundaries she would probably color all her hair, but she just asked for one small streak on the inside on the side of her head so it wouldn't be as obvious, I think she referred to it as "peek-a-boo" streak. Though I had reservations I let her do it, her request seemed reasonable considering other more radical alternatives, I think it's good to give kids a little lattitude on things like this as it gives them a chance to be individuals but without going to the extreme. She was still worried what the other young women and YW leaders would say, none of the other girls in our ward have different colored hari, but nobody has said anything, but I'm sure they noticed.

From the handbook: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. How do we reconcile these two statements? If priesthood holders are not asked to pass the sacrament just becuase they are not wearing white shirts, isn't that contrary to the handbook's instructions? By only asking those wearing white shirts, don't white shirts become a requirement?

Good point, and sometimes that's true, but the problem is that the "rules" aren't always clear and are often driven by the culture. For example, wearing white shirts to pass the sacrament. When did this become the norm? Is it a rule that a young man must wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament no matter where in world he is? No. The church handbook recommends that white shirts be worn but they are not required and that a priesthood holder should not be denied the opportunity to pass the sacrament just because he is not wearing a white shirt.

Perhaps the lack of any authoratative statement from church leaders on what is acceptable or not within the confines of marriage speaks volumes itself. I don't think the church wants to dictate to consenting adults what they should or should not do. What do we want, a list? I think a couple should talk things out and determine what they are or are not comfortable with, pray about it if needed, and decide where to draw the line. If a couple were to go to their bishop and ask, "Is it OK if we do this or that?" the bishop would probably plug his hears and say he doesn't want to hear any details and doesn't want to get involved in their sex life.

I understand that most people in the church feel the same way you do. However, I would like to see a statement from the Church that specifically prohibits masturbation between married couples.

I once heard of a couple that has Skype sex when they are apart. Exactly what you do or how far you go while video chatting with each other is up to you and what you are both comfortable with. The church has made no statement about what is appropriate or not appropriate between married couples, that is between you and God.

There's no new rule that I know of, in fact Handbook 2 allows it and even refers to the hymn book. "As appropriate, a priesthood leader may ask a congregation to stand for an intermediate hymn or a national anthem (see “Hymns for Congregations,” Hymns, 380–81)." Music

Keep in mind that even if you get married in the temple without first getting married civilly, there is still a civil and a religious component. On my wedding day before the sealing ceremony we went into a room and sat at a desk with a temple worker, we signed our wedding paperwork and at that moment we were legally and lawfully married. Then, we went to the sealing room and were sealed together for eternity in a religious ceremony. There's no reason, doctrinal or legal, why the two could not happen the same day at different times and places, or a week apart, a month, or a year apart.

I would be in favor of such a policy change. It's just a policy, no doctrine would change and the sanctity of both marriage and sealing would not change, and more non-LDS as well as LDS family would be able to participate in the actual wedding, while keeping the sacredness of the temple sealing intact.

The lessons are available on LDS.org https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/?lang=eng It looks like there's more flexibility in the way the lessons are presented, rather than specific lessons each week there is a theme for each month and several outlines per month that the teachers can choose from. This PDF gives a good overview of the new sctructure. https://www.lds.org/youth/bc/youth/content/english/learn/train/introduction/pdf/PD50045282_000_Introduction_Web.pdf?lang=eng

I've been hearing rumors for some time that they were working on new lesson manuals for the youth, but it looks like it's finally happening, there's a letter from the first presidency dated September 12 making the announcement that there are new manuals for 2013. It's interesting this is coming out now because on September 1 there was the usual annual announcement regarding next year's curriculum and it said nothing about new manuals, just the usual rotation of the current manuals. I personally am very glad to see this happen, I think the old lesson manuals are very outdated and new ones are long over due. Hopefully these will be a great improvement. I have PDF of the letter from lds.org but I don't think I can attach it, so below is the text of the letter. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Office of the First Presidency 47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150-1200 September 12, 2012 To: General Authorities, General Auxiliary Presidencies, Area Seventies, Stake Mission, and District Presidents, Bishops and Branch Presidents Dear Brothers and Sisters: We are pleased to announce a new curriculum for Young Men and Young Women, and for youth Sunday School classes. The new curriculum integrates basic gospel doctrines, as well as principles for teaching in the Savior's way that are also being introduced into the Seminary curriculum. The focus is on strengthening and building faith, conversion, and testimony, using the most current teachings of the General Authorities and General Auxiliary Presidencies. The curriculum initially will be available online in 23 languages, beginning in January 2013, and will replace the existing manuals. Additional information will be provided in upcoming Area Council, Coordinating Council, and local stake and ward training meetings. We are confident the new curriculum will bless youth in their efforts to become fully converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sincerely yours, Thomas S Monson Henry B Eyring Dieter F Uchtdorf

Mine and my wife's experiences with lessons is usually the opposite of the OP. The RS lessons are usually highly scripted, straight from the manual with no variation, and little discussion, in other words, boring. In Elder's quorum we often had interesting and interactive discussions. I've been a HP for two years now but due to callings haven't actually attended a HP lesson yet.

The Bishop and Stake President do not have to do the interview if the recommend is expired, a bishop's counselor or stake counselor can do them as well. According to handbook 1 the only cases in which a bishop must do the interview is if the person is doing their own endowment, getting married or sealed, or the person has not lived in the same ward/branch for a full year.

Wouldn't surprise me, it's no secret that most conservative evangelical christian types are anti-LDS. I think this whole Chick-fil-a thing is ridiculous. Was anyone really surprised that they contribute to traditional marriage/against gay marriage? I think both sides of the equation are over reacting. If you care what the owners/management of Chick-fil-a do with their money and you base your purchasing decisions solely on that, then you should check out every other business you spend your money at. Think of all the products and services you buy and the businesses you go to, do you know if their personal philosophies are aligned with yours? And are you prepared to change your buying habits based on that? (annewandering, these questions are not directed at you specifically, just asking generally.)

Personally I don't rely on the MPAA ratings, they may be a basic guide, but the only way to know what kind of content a movie is going to have is to do a little research, which is very easy on the internet. IMDB.com has a section for each movie that tells you exactly what the content is in the areas of sex, profanity, violence, etc. I am constantly surprised when friends say they went to see a certain movie, thinking it was OK because it as PG or PG-13, and then are horrified by what they see. It's nobody's fault but your own for not checking out the movies ahead of time. Two examples of why I don't trust the ratings sytems are the movies The King's Speech and The Social Network. The Social Network has several scenes of partial nudity, implied sex, heavy drinking and illegal drug use, two F words and many other profanities. The King's Speech has no sex, no nudity, no violence, but it does have many F words and other profanities. So which movie has the stronger rating? The King's Speech of course simply based on the profanities. Yet after seeing both I consider the King's Speech to be the far better movie from a moral stand point. And the profanities are not gratuitious, they served a purpose in speech therapy.

It used to be that you could group couples together as one donor, but a change in church financial software no longer allows that, each donor is treated as an individual. The past year's tithing settlement was the first one with the changes, if I recall correctly all statements were printed with just one name. (That's the case in my ward anyway, maybe not all units have the updated software.)

Actually, I do see harm in it. A branch president making ridiculous requests and expecting you to comply could be a case of exercising unrightous dominion. Hopefully the guy just doesn't understand and needs to be gently corrected, but church leaders shouldn't go around making up rules and making nonsensical requests that have no purpose.