Saguaro

Unfortunately those manuals haven't been updated in the last 20 years or so. Someone pointed out the fact that the quotes I posted from the Aaronic priesthood manual about serving a mission are out of date, as in before the bar was raised, and I have to agree on that point. I highly doubt a bishop or any priesthood leader would say to someone's face that they recommend they not marry outside of their race.

So you didn't serve a mission yourself, you don't think it's a commandment, you don't expect everyone to serve, yet you put enormous pressure on a young man by telling him he has to serve a mission or he can forget about dating your daughter??? Sorry, but I just don't understand you line of reasoning. I think it's pretty clear that it's a commandment: "The question is frequently asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer has been given by the Lord. It is ‘Yes.’ Every young man should fill a mission" (Spencer W Kimball, “When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, p. 8). “The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission" (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1986, pp. 44–45) “If I could speak separately to each of you young men, … I would say with all the power of speech I could generate, ‘Just who do you think you are? What right do you have to match your wisdom with that of God, who through His prophets has issued a firm decree, a solemn mandate, that the restored gospel must be declared to all the world by the voice of His disciples? This means you!’ ” (Elder William R. Bradford of the Seventy in Conference Report, Oct. 1981, p. 72; or Ensign, Nov. 1981, p. 50). Those are just what I found in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, lesson "Every Young Man Should Serve a Mission", I'm sure there are many more similar quotes out there. However, I don't agree that we should put such enormous pressure on young men to serve and we shouldn't put a stigma or social restrictions on anyone who decides not to serve. Serving a mission is not a guarantee that a young man will go on to provide a "Christ centered home". I know many faithful men who did not serve missions, and I know probably more who did serve missions who ended up falling away from the church.

Mormon Church will lower height of Phoenix temple Good news. This means that the temple will fit under existing zoning laws, so the application and approval process that the Church went through in the last year or so is irrelevant, the church can proceed with the temple and no opposition can stop it. It will be interesting though to see how much more this will delay the temple and I'm sure it will cost more as well to redesign it. I wonder too what the opposition thinks of this, as it does nothing to allay their primary concerns about traffic, the environment, lighting, etc. Ten feet will be little consolation to them as well as they complained about the 78 foot spire on top of the 40 ft building (now to be 30 foot building).

I don't think it would the "the end" of the church, but it would never be the same. The original question asked if plural marriage were reainstated TODAY, the first problem with that is that plural marriage is illegal today, so bringing it back would violate the law which would go against the 12th Article of Faith and would bring the wrath of the law down onto the church and its members. Secondly, a lot of members would have a hard time accepting it. This thread is evidence of that, many people have said they would not do it, others have said they would have to pray long and hard about it. I think a lot of members would reject it and would logically conclude that the prophet was no longer acting 'prophetic'. There would a schism in the church not unlike when Joseph Smith died and the there were splinter groups (RLDS, etc.), and also not unlike when polygamy was officially ended (FLDS and other fundamentalists). New group(s) would form on the assumption that the Church had lost its way and needed a reformation or a return to a new fundamentalism. This is all just my opinion of course and very speculative.

Absolutely not. One wife is plenty, besides if polygamy came back my wife would leave the Church in a heartbeat and she would leave me if I tried to practice it. I think if the Church did this it would be the end of the LDS church as we know it. Older generations may have been open to the idea of polygamy, but I have never spoken to anybody my age or younger who is open to the idea.

If D&C 132 has been superseded and is not doctrinal why hasn't it been removed from the D&C? The D&C has been added to and had things removed in the past (for example, the Lectures on Faith were part of the D&C and removed in 1921).

To answer the original question, would I give him a temple recommend? If he answers all the interview questions properly, yes, I would. Some meeting, I would have been tempted to walk out. Berating the men and making them feel guilty and ashamed for not doing their home teaching does not motivate. As Elders Quorum President I've given many lessons on Home Teaching, done PPIs, even had guys say straight to my face that they're going to do it, and then don't. I'm convinced there are three kinds of home teachers, those who do it, those who do it sometimes, and those who never do it. Most fall into the first and third categories and rarely change.

I would have avoided the fight altogether and said "Yes, dear" and let her have her way. Is it really worth fighting over? But then we don't have any LDS pictures or art of any kind hanging in our house, and the wife and I are both fine with that.

These are very difficult questions, and I sympathize with you. My wife could have written the exact same thing. When she found out Joseph practiced polygamy, and the way in which he practiced it, she was very upset and her testimony took a big hit (it's not like we talk bout these things in Primary/YM/YW/Sunday School). I don't have a good answer for you. Joseph was a great but imperfect man. In order to retain a belief in his role as a prophet you may just have to consider polygamy one of his "imperfections" and focus on the good things that you see in him and his teachings. The way I look at it is, am I willing to reject the good things about him because of the few things I don't like? Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Looks like it's not over yet. The opposition submitted 16,000 signatures to the city in an effort to force a ballot referendum. People continue opposition against construction of LDS temple Residents in N Phoenix protest proposed Mormon temple...again

I saw it with my 15 year old son, we both really liked it, the 3D was really impressive without being too in your face. The story line reminded me of Dances with Wolves (soldier infiltrates the enemy to find their weaknesses, etc., etc.,) The overt political and environmental messages didn't bother me, it's not like it's the first time a movie has had a message, I can look past that stuff and just enjoy it for what it is, an entertaining story that may (or may not) provoke you to think. Kind of like Wall-e, a lot of people got bent out of shape over that one.

I heard stuff like that all the time growing up in the 80's in seminary and church, but notice you don't hear GAs or the prophet saying that kind of stuff anymore. That's becuase they don't know when Christ is coming, so it's best not to speculate.

I don't know now "famous" this is, but it's one of my favorites. Concern for the One - Joseph B Wirthlin

I thought it was very funny and clever. The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien - A Song for the Mormons

Pam's right, you'll get every conceivable answer on this subject. So I'll give mine too. I like the "study it over in your mind for yourself and make a decision" approach. If you consider it "increase" then pay tithing on it, if you don't consider it "increase" then, don't pay tithing. I know what I would do, but it's your decision. Why bring the Bishop in on this one? All he can do is give you his opinion as there is no official church position on what is increase and what is not. Poor guy should be left to worry about more serious issues.

There are members of the church that don't believe dinosaurs existed. The earth is only 6,000 years old, so God must have created dinosaur bones and put them in the earth just to confuse and test us. My wife's friend believes this. Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this one about garments, that you have to keep them on while having marital relations.

The efforts of the opposition to force a referendum are in full swing. Foes seek referendum on approval of temple Here's the opposition's website. Little Deer Valley Homeowners

Correct me if I am misunderstanding here, but are you saying that quorum leaders refuse to help people move from one place to another within your ward, or help people moving out of the ward? What could possibly be the justification for such a policy? If people need help the quorum should be there to help them. I just don't get it. Regarding the original question, is service just free labor, I've helped with some eagle scout projects that sure seemed that way. Once we moved rocks and raked debris along a dry riverbed that nobody would want to visit. I have no problem helping PEOPLE, like helping them move, caring for the elderly and sick, tutoring, etc., but rocks and dirt, no thank you (unless there was some direct impact to people, like a park or something).

I think it had something to do with the temple lights causing the cancer, which makes no sense because the church has agreed to turn the lights off at 10:00, so in the winter they would only be on for four or five hours and only one or two in the summer.

This was the third meeting I attended, I also went to the Deer Valley Village planning meeting and the Phoenix Planning Commission meeting. With each successive meeting the opposition seems to have grown more desperate. All of their arguments have been addressed and the only thing they are left with is their simple desire to keep the temple out, eventhough they have no legal leg to stand on. I loved it when Mayor Gordon read a list of other church building projects throughout the city that all worked with the city to attain proper zoning and variances, it showed that the city is sincere in working with all faiths to allow them to build their places of worship. The Mayor also talked about how he has worked with the Church in the past on projects and has confidence that the temple will be a good neighbor and the Church will continue to work with the neighbors during and after construction. The "what the heck?" moment for me at the meeting was when the lady representing Thunderbird Park (a large park just down the street from the temple site with lots of open space and hiking trails) said that the temple would be an eye sore to those at the park, that the environmental impact from the temple would cause the extinction of four animal species, and would cause breast cancer in the women who live in the neighborhood. I think she did more harm to the opposition's credibility than good.

You're right, there's no stipulation that it has to be virgin, but, in the Family Guidebook under ordinances it states "One man (or more) who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood consecrates pure olive oil for its holy purpose of anointing the sick or afflicted" So it should be pure, the definition of virgin as relating to olive oil is "Virgin means the oil was produced by the use of physical means and no chemical treatment." So in my mind virgin olive oil should be pure as it has no chemical treatment.

Hasn't Pres Monson spent most of his life in church service? Someone mentioned retirement income but I doubt he would have much of a retirement account if he spent most of his working years as a GA. Law of consecreation? I doubt it. He and all GAs get a stipend to my understanding. Regarding his living quarters, he may still own a house, but I know from a sourse at the COB that the church owned apartment that Pres Hinckley lived in for many years is going through a significant remodel at Pres Monson's request.

You can use the same virgin olive oil from the grocery store that you cook with.

The Phoenix city council voted unanimously to approve the temple zoning request. City council OKs addition to Phoenix LDS Temple City Council votes on proposed Mormon temple in Phoenix

I won't touch Pepsi, I'll stick with my Diet Coke, thank you very much.