Just_A_Guy

Too often, we do put Joseph Smith on a pedestal and are then shocked to find that he was made of flesh, not marble. Read Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling before you do anything rash. The book is a biography of Joseph Smith--perhaps the definitive one--wherein Bushman addresses many of the same topics in a candid-yet-sympathetic manner (Bushman is a stake patriarch, as well as a respected academic specializing in 18th and 19th century New England).

Have you considered being a paralegal? I work with a couple who earn between 45 and 55K/year. I'm in a government office, so you'd probably do a little better in private practice.

Bem vindo!

I should also clarify that what's going on in California has *nothing* to do with the Church's tax-exempt status. It's a state-law issue; and even if they found wrongdoing all they could do is impose a fine. Questions of the Church's tax-exempt status are addressed by the IRS, which as far as I know hasn't even publicly announced an investigation. The underlying issue of tax-exempt status isn't whether expenditures were reported in a timely manner; it's whether the Church's effort to pass Prop 8 constituted a "significant portion" of its overall activities. A recent law review article evaluated the question and basically answered "we're not sure". My own view, based on somewhat cursory research, is that the Church has nothing to worry about from an IRS standpoint--it's hard to make a straight-faced argument that expenditures of less than $200K constitute a "significant portion" of the activities of an organization whose annual budget (as far as we know) is in the billions of dollars. It's the California proceeding where the Church may face some legal penalties, and then only if either a) the Church really did breach the law (unlikely, IMHO) or b) if Karger and his ilk succeed in converting a fact-finding investigation into a political witch-hunt. It's b) that worries me most.

The thing to remember is that this report is *not* a result of the investigation. The final reports for all California ballot measure committees are due on February 2 (the Church submitted theirs three days early, I suspect because spokesman Scott Trotter got confused in a November press release and promised to release the report by its "due date" of January 30). As I understand it (and I should qualify this by saying that a) I'm not licensed to practice law in California, and b) the law in this field appears terribly complex), there are special categories of expenditures that have to be reported immediately but others can wait until the final report. I wouldn't venture to guess which expenditures fall into which category, but the Church has had some pretty sharp legal minds working on this issue both in Utah and in California. I'm doubtful that they made any major mistakes.

Maxel, the Bee now has a better article on its home page. It appears they're getting their coverage from the San Francisco Chronicle and the Salt Lake Tribune, both of which have an obvious interest in milking the story for all it's worth.

Apparently the Church just filed its final disclosure statement with the California Secretary of State. The price tag is significantly higher than most previously believed--apparently on the order of $190,000, per the Sacramento Bee.

I would be really, really, really, really careful. It's possible that the feelings you're having are indeed from the Spirit--but then again, it's possible that they aren't. One of the reasons God gave us bishops is so that we have a relatively impartial third party who can (as needed) receive revelation on our behalf on topics where our own desires may lead us to ignore or misinterpret the promptings of the Spirit. I suggest you talk to yours. Best of luck.

From what I gather, a rather detailed First Presidency letter was circulated back in the early 80's when Spencer W. Kimball was the prophet. But the Church hasn't really said anything about the topic since then. You'll have to seek the Spirit and determine whether President Kimball's counsel is applicable to your marriage.

From the Ensign: Agency and Love in Marriage An excerpt:

Sorry; Lost One; I edited my post after you responded. The image comes from the Communities of Christ Archives. If you read the link I provided, I think that's about all anyone really knows for certain about it. EDIT: Hey--where'd your post go?

There's no proof either way.

Apparently, they were Baptists.

She's upset because he doesn't tell her he loves her in every single letter? Obviously there's a lot here that I don't know, but if forced to make a snap judgment I'd say she's overly needy. That won't necessarily just go away when he comes home--and while it's fun to play "knight in shining armor" to a "damsel in distress" for a little while, it gets old pretty fast. When your son gets home, I think he needs to engage in lengthy and prayerful deliberations before proposing to this girl. He may be setting himself up for a very unhappy marriage.

I've not heard that an IRS investigation is even going forward. From what I understand of the case law, I think it most unlikely that the Church's Prop 8 activities will be deemed to have arisen to the level of "substantial involvement". I'm unfamiliar with much of the California Fair Political Practices Act, but I understand the underlying investigation was instigated at Fred Karger's request. Several of his allegations (busloads of Mormons brought in from Utah; missionaries set to campaigning) are outright lies, and as for his under-reporting allegation my understanding is that the Church has until the end of this month to make its final report anyways. Liberal Mormons are hoping the LDS leadership is finally going to get its comeuppance for daring to disagree with them. I don't think it's gonna happen.

What was the practical solution offered to the primitive Church when all the apostles disappeared?

I concur that in such a case, one has to listen to the Spirit. Still, perhaps we could put this twist on the hypothetical: Let us say that the group of members includes a sizeable number of high priests. The group collectively knows the temple ceremonies backwards and forwards; they have resources to build a "temple" of sorts and make the necessary ceremonial items; and they have a healthy supply of names whose work has not been done. Would it be proper for this marooned group to build their own temple and administer proxy baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, initiatories, endowments, and sealings? Why or why not?

Ruthiechan, just because a 16-year-old can bless the Sacrament, doesn't mean he can do it in his high school locker room for his football buddies if he so chooses. As I understand it, the keys to the Sacrament--the authority to determine whether, when, where, and how it is administered--lie with the local presiding authority. The issue is, on a hypothetical desert island, whether the "ranking priesthood holder" may step up and claim the right, usually reserved for the Bishop, to authorize the administration of the Sacrament. Hemi seems to argue in the affirmative; I in the negative.

Priesthood-holding members of the military may do this because they have been authorized to do so by members of the Church leadership who hold the keys to the ordinance. The CHI makes it clear that ordinary priesthood-holding members, whatever their office, may not hold their own sacrament services independently of the local bishop.

What, like, if they decided to have a church meeting? I'd say that they can get together, sing, pray, etc., but barring re-establishment of contact with Church authorities or a restoration of keys in situ they cannot administer the sacrament. I would venture to surmise that the meeting, such as it is, should be conducted by the ranking priesthood-holder there as per D&C 20.

I don't see how the above substantiates your earlier claim that If I read you correctly, you have not disputed that the Bishop (or President of the Aaronic Priesthood, if you will) still holds the keys to the ordinance. And D&C 68:14-21 does not stand for the preposition that a man may set himself up as a bishop merely by virtue of the absence of proper authority in conjunction with either his Melchizedek Priesthood office or his lineal descent from Aaron: in either case, he must go through proper channels (the First Presidency). If you wish to bypass the role of bishops entirely and argue that the keys to the ordinance of the sacrament actually pertain to the Stake President in his calling as President of the Melchizedek Priesthood, I might be persuaded. But then, the Stake President isn't on the island either.

I would agree with Ben Raines vis a vis marriage. As to the sacrament, I would respectfully disagree with Hemidakota. The essence of the Great Apostasy was the loss of priesthood keys. As I understand it, merely being ordained to a particular office in a particular priesthood does not give you the keys to the ordinance of the sacrament. You cannot claim a priesthood key merely because you are now isolated from the last person to have properly exercised that key. The primitive Church learned that by painful experience.

Hi Hidden. There's not much I can say beyond what others have said--especially, that you should talk to a licensed professional--but I do want to take issue with the above statement. Many Mormons believe that life begins at conception, but there is no conclusive doctrine on this point. Zero. Zilch. None. We just don't know. Yes, you improperly toyed with the power to create life. But that doesn't necessarily mean you've killed anyone, and it would be a silly thing to beat yourself up for a "murder" that you quite possibly didn't even commit. Yes, I saw your first post about the dreams that you've had. But remember that not all revelations come from God--and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. For example, D&C 50 came after some church elders in Kirtland misread their spiritual experiences, attributing to God manifestations that had actually come from other spirits. Yet, two months after Joseph Smith receives this revelation, at a meeting in Kirtland he again gets confused and assumes a spiritual manifestation is of God when in fact it is not. Levi Hancock related, If Joseph Smith, after receiving direct how-to instructions from the Lord, can still misread a spiritual manifestation--isn't it possible that maybe you have, too? God holds Himself accountable for the way true revelations are received and interpreted (that's doctrine. You can look it up). He wouldn't have given you a revelation that would lead you act against His will--and giving up and committing suicide is most definitely against His will. Read Galatians 5:22-23. That's what you'd be feeling right now, if the revelation were a true one. Talk to a medical professional about this. If you have to, go on medication. It'll be a rough ride for a while, but you'll make it through. I promise.

From what I understand, while the notebook itself is new, the content is pretty much a rehash of McLellin's other published writings.

I don't want to get into this too much, because I don't want to make this about Whoknowswhat individually. Suffice it to say that there's something very powerful about an independently-acquired knowledge of the truth that comes only after a lengthy and exacting struggle. I think there's a reason that the Church's temple prep seminar doesn't include a detailed explanation of what everything means. None of us can resolve Whoknowswhat's concerns the way the Spirit can. (The old commitment pattern used by missionaries was very big on this. Not sure about the degree to which the new program incorporates it.) None taken, and I was probably too strident in my tone. Nevertheless, I must confess that I find the blanket explanations heretofore offered to be unconvincing. --Change in perspective/time frame accounts for some differences, but not all of them. --Viewing the BOM account as a "literal translation" and the JST as a "clarification" begs the question of why JS couldn't have done both at the same time (at least with the passages in question), and thus strikes me as unsatisfying. --The idea of Joseph Smith simply writing the 3 Nephi account based on his (flawed) recollection of the text of Matthew, I think, attributes to him an intellectual capacity that (based on statements of Lucy and Emma Smith) I'm unconvinced he actually enjoyed at that stage of his life. It also displays an extraordinarily cavalier attitude for such a monumental undertaking ("Heck, I won't bother actually getting a Bible out. I think I have this stuff mostly down.") More importantly, it fails to address the thrust of the original question which is why even parts of the BoM that are identical to the original KJV differ from the JST. I suppose it's possible that there's some simple, elegant theory that explains everything. But I have yet to see such a theory. Given a complex, particularized approach that generally holds water and a simple blanket-answer that doesn't, I'll choose the former.