Saguaro

Source please? I've never heard that idea attributed to JS.

Sounds very suspicious. If it's news in Canada can you provide a source? Link to a news article?

I think some Utahn's do have a distinct accent. I grew up in Utah and have lived in Arizona for some time, and I can tell when I hear a native Utahn speak. As a recent example, on the radio here they had audio of a lady in N. Utah describing the recent earthquake, and she totally sounded like a Utahn. I'm not sure if Arizonans have a distinct accent, maybe in some rural areas, but in the metro areas like Pheonix you have to look hard to find a native Arizonan, most people are transplants, a lot from the midwest. I served my misison in Spain, and members there claimed they could pick out Utah missionaries just by their accent.

I think you need to read this: The Mormon Ethic of Civility - LDS Newsroom and this: Elder Quentin L. Cook: 'We follow Jesus Christ' | Deseret News

Funny you should mention that, our YW president was complaining to my wife recently that one of the girls brought her ipod touch to class and was following along in the lesson and kept pointing out things she was missing.

MOE, thanks for the background on the manuals. I wasn't aware of the supplemental resource guide, that's good to know. While I'm sure the guide helps add newer material to the lessons, it doesn't do anything about the old dated stuff. I agree that it costs a lot of money to produce new manuals, but if these were approved in 1992 that makes them nearly 20 years old, yet we've had a new manual in RS/PH for nearly each of the last 10 years. I've heard the YW manuals are equally dated. It seems to be an issue of priority, and unforuantely the youth of our church are not being given a very high priority. But I'll remain optimistic and hope there are new manuals in the works.

Here's the quote: “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144)." You can find it here: LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Choosing an Eternal Companion In my opinion the quote is dated and should be removed from the lesson manual. If I was giving this lesson I would skip over it. It's from 1976, before the priesthood ban on blacks was lifted. One could argue it's just good advice, but when a prophet says something is "preferred" it carries a lot of weight. You can teach principles such as compatability and harmony in a relationshiop without playing the race card.

Organ donation is encouraged. The CHI states, "The donation or organs and tissues is a selfless act that often results in great benefit to individuals with medical conditions." I don't have an answer regarding embalming.

To me cremation seems like a clean and efficient way to dispose of one's remains. Embalming only puts off the inevitable, which is the slow process of decomposition. Allowing a body to slowly decompose and putrify in the ground, though natural, seems more desecrating to our "temple" than quickly burning it up. I'm currently reading "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" by Mary Roach, though it focuses on cadavers, there are a couple of chapters about how we as a society deal with death, bodies, and burial, it's a fascinating read about a subject we don't normally discuss around the water cooler.

I think it's purely cultural. If the church had started in India instead of the United States cremation would be the normally accepted practice.

The CHI says, "Normally, cremation is not encouraged. However, in some countries the law requires it. The family of the deceased must decide whether to cremate the body, taking into acccount any laws governing burial or cremation." I know of no doctrinal reason to discourage cremation. It seems that cremation is becoming more common as burial costs keep going up.

Have you been here? Stay LDS / Mormon There are some articles and essays under "Additional Support Resources" that may interest you, there is also a forum where you can discuss your issues with others who have been or are in the same boat as you.

Check out this article: LDS.org July 2009 Ensign - The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books It discusses the revelation process and changes and corrections that were made, specifically to the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants.

This quote is currently in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3. IMHO, those manuals along with the YW manuals desperately need to be updated, they can start by throwing this quote out the window. “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

I'm amazed that some of you guys plan on sitting down with potential fiances of your children and basically have a priesthood worthiness interview with them. In my opinion the only person that has the right to do that is their priesthood leader. If my father-in-law had done such a thing I would have been horrified, not because I had anything to hide but because I don't think it's any of his business. His daugher chose me, I chose her, end of story. As a father of three I try to teach my kids good principles, I try to be a good example, and I will try to steer them toward good, worthy, potential mates. But I have to have faith that I have taught them well, and I have to have faith in my kids that they'll make good decisions, but I cannot pick their spouses for them. Do I want them dating drug dealers? Of course not. But if my daugher finds a good man that loves her, will take care of her, lives his life the best he can, but didn't serve a mission, I won't hold it against him.

Great book, I highly recommend it. David O McKay called the ban a 'policy' rather than doctrine, but he still felt that he needed a revelation to overturn it. According to the book he prayed for permission to lift the ban but did not receive it. Not to be nit picky, but i don't think Gregory Prince was related to Clare Middlemiss, McKay's secretary, I believe she was an Aunt to Robert Wright, the co-author of the book, and she left him her extensive collection of journals and scrapbooks she collected over her many years of service to McKay. (IIRC, she was the only female secretary to a president of the church.)

The idea that there were more women than men is a false justification for polygamy. Apostle John A Widstoe said: “Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints. The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church... The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law - a slight excess of males... The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence... The principle of plural marriage came by revelation from the Lord. That is the reason why the Church practiced it.” (Widtsoe, John A., “Evidences And Reconciliation”, pgs 307 – 310, The Bookcraft Company, 1943, Salt Lake City, Utah)

What don't we believe? It's historical fact that the church acknowledges. Polygamy (Plual Marraige) - LDS.org Here's a quote from the above link: "After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church." I'm sorry if this is new to you or you find it disturbing, but it is a fact that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, and we gain nothing by denying or avoiding our own history. Of course the church discontinued the practice of plural marriage over 100 years ago.

I'm no expert, but I believe when a woman is married to more than one man it is called polyandry.

Perhaps you didn't see the link to the website, here it is again: The Wives of Joseph Smith There are many references on the front page of this website under Bilbliography, including the Church's own familysearch.org (look up Joseph Smith, you can see him married/sealed to multiple women in his lifetime), as well as books including Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith". And at the bottom of the list of wives there's a link called "References" which lists each wife and corresponding references.

Most historians agree it was in the low 30's. Yes, some were already married, but they remained married to their first husbands. The Wives of Joseph Smith

Regardless of what the CHI says or how one interprets it, I agree with your Bishop and I personally would never question anyone's person decision on such a matter. My point in my last post was merely to show what the CHI says on the subject.

I didn't intend to start a discussion about birth control, I was merely using it as an example. But, since we're here, I think the church looks on sterilization a little stronger than just regular birth control. The CHI says on page 188, "The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control." It goes on to say that it should only be considered if life or health are seriously jeopardized, or the person is mentally incompetent and not responsible for their own actions, even then they should consult with their Bishop and receive divine confirmation of their decision. Pam, you helped prove my point, not everyone knows church policies and may have inaccurate assumptions that can be resolved with information found in the CHI.

MOE, you make some great points, but I want to address the issue of doctrine and policy. The problem is that there is not always a clear cut line between doctrine and policy, and sometimes I think it's important to be educated about both. A case in point is abortion. Doctrine says 'thou shalt not kill' so abortion is a sin, however church policy as outlined in the CHI gives three exceptions, in cases of rape or incest, health of the mother is in jeopardy, and severe birth defects that will cause the baby to not live beyond birth. So the policy is necessary in order to understand the full picture. Another example is the priesthood ban for blacks. For many years it was taught as doctrine that blacks were less valiant fence sitters in the pre-existence and bore the curse of Cain and therefore could not hold the priesthood. David O McKay said the ban wasn't doctrine but rather policy that was subject to change, and eventually under Spencer W Kimball the ban was lifted and all previous policies and/or doctrines were nullified. In my experience what the average member sees as policy is as good as doctrine or commandment from their perspective. As an example, a friend of mine got a vasectomy a few years ago, he prayed about it, discussed it with his wife, and felt good about the decision. Afterwards, he found out that the church (as discussed in the CHI) discourages sterilization and that anyone considering it should talk to their bishop. He's a very faithful member and would have discussed it with his Bishop had he known about the church's stance and probably would not have had it done. But the average member may not know the church's stance on that issue because it is buried in the CHI and is not generally talked about in our regular church meetings.

I'm no lawyer, but just because something is coprighted doesn't mean you can't quote it or even link to it. It does mean you can't claim it as your own or try to sell it. I know of no reason why it should not be permitted to be quoted here (I have to admit I have quoted or at least referred to it here before.) There's nothing in it that the church is trying to hide, it's mostly administrative stuff. If you want to know what's in the CHI or have a question that may be answered by it you can simply ask your Bishop and I'm sure he'll be glad to help you. I think it would be beneficial for members of the church to have more access to it. On a couple of occasions the bishop in my ward has held a 5th Sunday combined PH/RS meeting in which all he did was address topics of interest in the CHI, stuff that the members would not normally hear but would be of great interest. Those have been some of the best and informative meetings I've attended.