ReubenDunn

In your opinion, which I sadly note is geared more towards the personal insult/put down rather then focus on the issue I was raising, e.g., that if one is going to demonstrate/produce some sort of secular proof as to the validity of the Book of Mormon, using a source that is not qualify checked, nor looked favorabily upon by most if not all scholars, is not going to advance the cause, or perhaps be taken as seriously as it should be. We are in a cut and paste society, the ease of the internet means that we can stumble upon any web site, this one included, and, upon reading something that sounds rational and creditable, use it without much concern as to the accuracy of the subject matter. The information may, and I use that term on purpose, may be valid, but given the ease with which you or I could alter an entry on Wikipedia, it casts a rather long shadow upon what is posted already. As I noted, FAIR/FARMS/ High School Teacher would look at a reliance on a Wikipedia entry with caution, to the point of not allowing such a reference to be included in any report/thesis at all. Carping? Nope. Don't like that particular fish. Suggesting that if one is going to use secular material to advance the case for the validity of the Book of Mormon, then there are far better resourses to use, that are more widely accepted as "fact" than a high school debating team, or, as it appears, in this particular forum. I'm a Cod/Halabit kind of guy anyway. Never did develop the tase for carp.

The"problem" as I see it is that if anyone is going to present information in support of the Restoration, and if they want to be taken seriously, then something other than Wikipedia needs to be used, given that it is rather well known for having material that is, to be charitable, not always reliable. It does mean something. Try getting into a discussion with FARMS/FAIR, or any other heavy duty LDS apoligitics forum, with information from Wikiopedia, and see how seriously your taken. The error, is in relying on a source that is hardly creditable. How many high school teachers mark down an essay based on Wikipedia?

I would suggest taking a look at the model the the Jehovah Witnessess use in their missionary activity. They far excell the LDS church insofar as member involvement is concerned. If that pattern could be examed, modified and adapted to fit in the LDS gospel message, I would suspect that we'd see an increase in covert baptisms, rather than the slowing down of the numbers of convert baptisms we presently see.

I have the honour of being the only member of our High Council, when I was living in the UK, of actually ending his talks early. Some of the wards in our stake had their sacrament meetings at the end of the three hour block. I ended my talk about five minutes early, there were only two of us speaking at the time, and I had simply said all I wanted to say. It was a bit weird. The talk ended five minutes early, the closing prayer was given, then, for some some reason, most of the congregation remained in their seats. I don't think it sunk into them at that point that the meeting was over and they could go home early. Some times getting in the last word at sacrament meetings does have its advantages.

I lived in the UK for 19 years, and have been sealed in the London Temple. UK law, at the moment, states that marriage services be open to the public and held in a public arena, i.e., church, etc. Temples are considered to be closed to the public. Church policy states that in countries where the temple marriage is not recognised as being valid, then a civil marriage can be performed, the couple is encouraged to have their bishop/branch president perform the service. The couple have at that point 24 hours to have that marriage sealed in the temple. After that deadline, they will have to wait for a year before being sealed. As far as marrying outside of the temple, in countries, like the United States, church policy states that 12 months have to pass before a sealing can be done.

Let me provide a bit of clarification here. Concerning the original question: "I was inactive for a number of years and have recently returned to church. I stopped wearing my garments during my inactivity. Do I need permission to start wearing them again?" Were I in your position I would seek council from your bishop/branch president. Garments are worn, among other reasons, as a reminder of the sacred covenants that are made in the temple. If one has been away from the Church, and has not been keeping those covenants in mind, then I would suggest that getting ones life in suitable order would be one of the first things to do. Second: "And, I just learned that now I need a current temple recommned to purchase them. When I first joined the church, this was not the case. Does this mean I can't purchase new garments? Can someone else, like the Relief society president, purchase them for me? Thanks in advance for your help. " Current Church policy is for endowed members of the Church to present a current temple recommend when buying garments. These are sad times in which we live in, and, thanks to the internet, and other reasons, the decision was made by the Brethren that those who wanted to buy, not only temple robes etc., but the garments themselves, had to present their recommends as proof of membership in the LDS Church, as well as being temple worthy. Simply put, no recommend, no garments. Signs are clearly posted in each distribution center concerning this. As far as getting someone else to buy them for you, then this could be done. In your specific case however, my first suggestion is that you seek council from your bishop/branch president and let him work with you.

I knew a missionary who, when asked by a total stranger while standing in line in a bank, about his "funny underwear", said in a loud voice; "What kind of person would ask a total stranger about his underwear?" The bank got kind of silent, and the matter was dropped.

I would strongly suggest that if you are going to be supporting this line of thought, that you consider using something a tad more accurate and acceptable than Wikipedia. Given the ease of which one can add, subtract, and modify things on that site, there might be, and are, better resourses for you to use and cite. KBYU for example has produced a rather excellent DVD on the Meso-American relationship to BoM events that you might find interesting.

Most Temples will have an open house. When I lived in the United Kingdom, the London temple had some estensive remodeling done to it, essentially the inside was gutted and rebuilt. An open house was done prior to the rededication. I would suggest however that having such an open house is not a requirement, and can be subject to individual circumstances.

I've read and re-read this thread and would like to add my thoughts here. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The president and his counselors are stake callings, and, should the president be released, only the counselors are informed of this and are released. As you know, secretaries are not part of the presidency in that regard. In fact, many consider secretaries, either quorum/group/ or exec. secretaries, to be the foundation of the whole thing. They insure continuity. Have you heard of J. Reuben Clarke Jr.? In the early 1930s President Heber J Grant called him to serve as Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church. The only thing was, Brother Clarke wasn't an Apostle, or a member of the First Council of the Seventy, which were the only two presiding counsels in the Church. Brother Clarke was a career diplomat. He ended serving under Presidents Grant, Smith, McKay, bi-passing those brethren of the Twelve and the Seventy who were better known, and who, on paper at least, had better qualifications. The point here my friend is that President Grant, as well as your Stake President, according to the doctrines of the Church, prayed for and received Revelation to call these two men to their callings. I'd also mention the comments of President Clarke, who, after being passed over as First Counselor in the First Presidency, said that "In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines." Perhaps you might want to take this to heart. Have you considered that perhaps he’s catching the vision of his calling? There’s nothing wrong with you suggesting that he call earlier than he is. Have you considered that he might not be able to call earlier due to his work commitments? Have you considered giving him your email address so he can give you these assignments> You might want to suggest to him that the brethren have counseled against holding additional meetings on a Sunday? As far as computer passwords are concerned, changing the passwords makes sense, given the change-over in leadership. It’s also good security for him not to give you that pass word over the phone. The bishop has nothing to do with the selection or with the calling of an Elders’ Quorum President. May I make an additional observation here? “Singles never hold office in the Church’? Really? Tell that to Sister Dew, former General President of the Relief Society, or to Elder Mark E. Peterson, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who never remarried after the death of his wife, despite being counseled to do so by the President of the Church. How about that 23 year old man I knew personally who, while being a member of the Singles Ward, was called to serve in the Palos Verdes Stake High Council. Your feelings of discrimination, and feelings of being passed over, “despite all the work” that you’ve done for the ward, are also very telling, they show a spiritual immaturity that can, and in all likelihood, be matured at some point. Ask yourself this question. Would YOU want such a man as yourself presiding over your quorum? Those who are called to preside are also called to teach, to nurture, and to lead others to higher spiritual ground. Can you honestly say that, given your stated attitude, you are ready for such a calling? Are you really the man to lead your quorum; to help those brethren who are having some of the most profound spiritual and temporal struggles in their lives? If you feel that your skills could be better used with the Masons, Elks, Goodwill, Salvation Army,YMCA, or the Red Cross, then perhaps you should go ahead. After all they’re good organisations, who are always looking out for dedicated volunteers. However, your service in the Church is not “volunteer”, nor is it a “service job”. You’ve been called by revelation, prayed over, and, had hands laid on your head by those who hold the Keys of the Holy Priesthood, to serve. You’ve been called by the Lord Jesus Christ. You didn’t volunteer for this. You were called. If you are not able to, or are willing to, understand this basic tenet of the Church, then perhaps you aren’t ready to preside over a quorum of men who need to be led by one who has that testimony. You’re young, both physically, and spiritually. Advice? How about considering this: Find some time to get by yourself, get down on your knees and ask for forgiveness for these unworthy feelings. “Not My Will, But THY Will Be Done” are eight of the hardest words to both say and mean. You need to re-examine your testimony. Is it based on the type of calling you get, or is it based on something of greater importance? Is it a status thing that you desire, or are your desires more Christ oriented? Based on what you’ve read, I suspect that you’re a bit miffed at missing out on the title, rather than have the gratitude to serve in your present capacity. By the way, if it’s status that you’re after, consider this. There are over 13 million men, women, and children in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Out of those 13 million people, you are part of a select group of over two hundred and fifty thousand men who have been given similar callings in the Church. Not too bad I would say. The counsel from the First Presidency is that quorum priesthood leaders meet with their quorum members, both active and inactive. How else is he going to know these families that he has been given responsibility for?

Grandma Mary went to the veterinarians office one morning, carrying her pet parrot ‘Polly’ in her cage. Polly was lying on her back, beak up, stiff as a board. “Well, Mary,” the vet. said. “What seems to be the problem?” “Dr., it’s Polly, I woke up this morning and found her like this. She won’t move. What’s wrong with her?” The vet, knowing full well what was wrong with Polly, and knowing how devoted Grandma Mary was to the bird, took the caged bird, and Grandma into the examination room. He opened the cage, took the bird out and laid it on the examining table. He took his stethoscope and placed it on the birds chest for a few seconds. Afterwards, he turned to Grandma and said, “Mary, I’m sorry to have to tell you this but Polly is dead. But be comforted, it looks like there was no pain.” “Dead?!!” Mary exclaimed? “I don’t believe it!” “I refuse to believe it!” “I want a second opinon!” The vet. tried to calm Mary down, but Mary continued to insist on getting a second opinion. Heaving a small sigh, the Vet. left Mary and walked out of the examining room. A few minutes later he came back into the room, carrying a cat in one hand, and, holding a leash that was attached to the collar of a golden Labrador Retriever. Approaching the table the vet let go of the cat who ran and jumped onto the table, sniffed the still parrot from beak to tail. The cat looked at both the Dr. and at Mary, shook its head from side to side, then jumped off of the table, and ran through a small cat flap in the door leading out of the examination room. The vet. let go of the leash. The dog trotted up to the table, stood on its hind legs, and, with the front paws leaning on the table, also sniffed the bird from beak to tail. The dog likewise looked at Mary and the Vet, and also shook her head from side to side, pushed her paws off of the table, and went through a dog flap in the same doorway leading out of the room. “Mary, I’m sorry to say, it’s been confirmed. The bird sadly has died.” Grandma began to quietly cry, she really was going to miss that bird. As they were gathering the remains and the cage and were walking out of the room, Mary turned to toward the Vet. and asked how much he was going to charge for the exam. “$500.00.” was the reply! “What!??!!” “$500.00 just to tell me that my bird has died?” “THAT”S outrageous!” “Well Mary,” the vet. said. “Normally the fee for this would be $20.00, but with the Cat scan, and the Lab Tests thrown in.....”