Just_A_Guy

You're thinking of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith) (Young). The IGI has her sealed to Joseph Smith on January 17, 1842--most certainly during his lifetime.

I've done research there, and can vouch for the authenticity of my claim that Go there yourself, if you don't believe me. At any rate, your original claim was that This is manifestly false. Arrington and Todd Compton, among others, have found ample material with which to put together an excellent picture of 19th century Mormon marital attitudes and practices.

Whoknowswhat, with all due respect, I think you're asking to be spoon-fed here. You seem to be saying "but, it's different!!!!" as if that were the beginning and the end of the inquiry. Maybe you should undertake an analysis of 3 Nephi and Matthew and identify exactly what the differences are, and then try to explain the differences one-by-one. You'll find that explanations differ. Sometimes, as has been pointed out, it's just a matter of perspective--the Sermon on the Mount was before the Atonement; the sermon to the Nephites was after. Other times, it's merely grammatical differences that, frankly, will seem less significant as you study more about what we really know (and don't know) about the translation process. Also, if you haven't done so already, you might consult the Institute Study Manuals (available online). I believe that the BoM manual discusses the similarities between 2 Nephi and the KJV Isaiah (portions of which were also later altered by the JST).

I've heard this, but no one seems to ever be able to point to a primary or even a secondary source. It has the stuff of urban legend. Young's actual practice with respect to divorce can be read about in Arrington's Brigham Young: American Moses, pages 318-319 of the Google Books version. Incorrect. LDS Archives are full of such documents, including Brigham Young's personal letterbooks. The vast majority of these documents are accessible under the same conditions you'd find in any professionally-maintained archives.

Scroll down the list. After listing the "nearest congregations", it should list your "assigned congregation".

I know it's horrible to think about money at a time like this, but if you're not careful you may wind up suffering financially as well as emotionally. See a family lawyer. There are steps you can take now to protect yourself in case things don't improve between you and your wife. I'm not talking about trying to take advantage of her; I'm just talking about making sure that you don't get taken advantage of.

Not wanting to get too specific, Hemidakota, but are you basing that answer on the temple ceremony? Or on something else? DYC 128:20 refers in passing to a confrontation between Michael and Satan in the middle of a chronological list of events that have all taken place: --Moroni's visits at Cumorah --The revelation to the 3 witnesses --The confrontation between Michael and Satan on the banks of the Susquehanna River --The restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood (and going on to v. 21) --The formation of the Church at the Whitmer home --Sundry revelations from various heavenly beings, probably including the events surrounding the dedication of the Kirtland Temple Why would an event that hasn't happened yet (and may not happen for centuries) be listed among five other events which all took place within a period of fifteen years? If you base your position on your interpretation of the temple ceremony, I certainly have no desire to dissect that. But if there are other sources that have led you to this conclusion, I'd be interested to learn more about them.

Based on D&C 128:20, I had always assumed that it already happened.

It would have been in the last six months or so, but I dont' remember the precise dates. By the way, I think it really has had a wonderful impact on him, and I think he'll be a better missionary for his service in the Marines. I just wish he'd known at the outset what kind of timeframe he was looking at.

Yes, the GAs are not Jim Bakker. But, no, they are not part of the Church's "unpaid ministry". And, with all due respect, you're going above and beyond anything the Church has explained when you try to narrowly define "living expenses". In the 1985 Conference, President Hinckely explained, To my knowledge, no additional clarification has been given. Indeed, your strict definition would seem to exclude providing an additional residence to a General Authority who was already a Salt Lake resident prior to his call (as President Hinckley was). Yet, we know that this was the case. (A strict definition of "living allowance" also contradicts the anecdotal data that we have, which admittedly is of dubious origin as it tends to show up primarily on anti-Mormon sites.) Moreover, as I implied earlier, there's no doctrinal need to impose such a narrow definition because the D&C explicitly permits church leaders to support their families out of Church funds. I would venture to say that at its root, our aversion to a paid ministry is not primarily doctrinal; it is merely a byproduct of our innate cultural antipathy to the mainstream Christian ministry (present company excepted, Prisonchaplain! ).

I concur that it's potentially problematic whenever you have people whose material support depends on their ministry. On the other hand, I think you need to read the BoM in light of the D&C passage I quoted above. At least in certain circumstances, the Lord has permitted ecclesiastical leaders to support their families out of Church funds. The Church has done so in the past, even at the local level (it's a matter of historical record--see the extracts of Quinn that I linked to earlier). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism acknowledges the continuance of this practice with regard to the Apostles; as did President Hinckley (though both sources stress that the funds are drawn from the Church's business investments). If you want to engage in semantics games about "well, define 'payment'" or "well, what are they being paid to do?", feel free. But the bottom line is that the Apostles receive money from the Church that they would not otherwise receive if they were not Apostles. To the vast majority of speakers of the english language, that constitutes a paid ministry.

I want to say it was Camp Pendleton, but I'm not positive.

Hemi and Great Daines, a family member of mine went into the Marine Reserve after his recruiter swore up and down that he could serve a mission immediately after getting out of boot camp. He's going to Afghanistan in June. You're right that I have no idea what the Marine Corps' internal procedures are. All I know is, what he was promised would happen, isn't happening.

Wait--so, you're saying suicides go to outer darkness?

I served my mission in a country with compulsory missionary service. The native missionaries (and the Americans who had done military service) were almost uniformly excellent missionaries. That said, bear in mind this simple truth: Recruiters lie. Maybe you'll get to submit your mission papers as soon as you come out of boot camp. Or maybe they'll put you on the first plane to Afghanistan. My understanding (based wholly on hearsay) is that the recruiter doesn't know, and more than likely doesn't care. Just keep that in mind.

As an addendum to my #58 above, see also Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Chapter 6, available online here.

As I've said before, Hemidakota, I'm not denying the difference between the Apostles and the highly-paid leaders of some mega-churches. To quote my post from last Friday, Because we have one, too. And at some points in our history, it was relatively extensive.

D&C 42:71: And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; See also the CES Institute study manual commentary on this verse, quoting Smith and Sjodahl: And my point, Justice, is that that just isn't true. The Twelve get paid by the Church, and "lower" members of the LDS ministry have been in the past. It may not be very much, and you can play semantics games denoting it "living expenses" rather than "salary", but they get (or got, in the case of Bishops) paid.

Lyle, just to clarify: I am active LDS, and I daresay I'm as familiar with the church's financial procedures as most members; generally speaking I am very comfortable with them. I was responding to a claim about the evils of a paid ministry by pointing out that "The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership". Which is true. I was not suggesting that funds are mismanaged. I was not suggesting that church leaders are growing rich off the labors of the membership. I was just trying to counteract the implication (all-too-common within Mormonism) that the bulk of Protestant ministers are only in it for the money. I would also note that the following extract from your post just isn't true: Listen closely at the next Conference. What they're really saying is that the Church has audited itself (or that it has been audited by an independent firm--I don't remember the specifics) and that everything is in order. They do not provide specifics as to how church funds have been spent. Haven't done it for fifty years now.

OK Out of curiosity, what are your sources on that?

An even more plausible idea if one accepts the (arguable) theory that Melchizedek and Shem (son of Noah) were one and the same person--Shem/Melchizedek would have getting on in years by the time of their first meeting, and may not have lingered on earth much longer than that.

I think it's the Book of Jude that alludes to Michael disputing with Satan about the body of Moses, which I believe alludes to an old story that when Moses was about to be translated Satan stepped in and objected (because Moses had killed a man). I don't look at the Final Judgment as an extremely formal process. But if it is, I think it's conceivable that Satan might serve some kind of accusatory role.

Do we know that for certain? I've not seen anything on it one way or the other. Which, I'm sure, is how adherents of other religions would characterize the pay of their own clergy. As you say, I look forward to hearing from them. My understanding is that, barring a few well-publicized cases, becoming a clergyman is a remarkably ineffective way to become wealthy. I just think we need to be careful when we make smug assertions about the evils of a "paid clergy". We have one, too--and IIRC, in the late 19th century even LDS bishops received some remuneration.

Let's not get carried away here. The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership.

There are some great resources coming down the pipes (new Family Search, digitization of the FHL collections), but it'll take a few years. (Not to mention the fact that hopefully in a little while you may be more financially stable and able to afford subscription services or searches at public records offices). My wife's grandmother was once hassled by someone in her ward for not doing enough family history work. Her response was, "You take care of the dead, and I'll take care of the living." I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but maybe you should ask the Lord whether He'd rather you focus on the living for the time being, and turn your attention to the dead when you have the resources to do so?