cougarfan

Wow no visits from members or hometeachers... never heard of that problem before. How come my ward won't leave me alone? ;-)

I recently heard that the church was changing the threefold mission of the church to the fourfold mission of the church. Is there any truth to that? I also heard that they were coming out with a new handbook. Is this just rumor or does anybody know? If they are changing the emphasis on the mission of the church what is the fourth category? Thanks.

What do you do for someone like me? I think I've said this before, but I've read the book of mormon at least 20 times, prayed about it hundreds of times, have studied it inside and out, even read it in more than one language. I've never had a genuine spiritual experience revealing to me that the book of mormon is really true. If anything, I would say I have had more the "stupor of thought" experience. I am 100% serious. I get way more out of the bible than the book of mormon. Maybe for some of us the promise doesn't work.

Amen. I was told once that Joseph Smith had a gun with him and actually got off a few shots as the mob was coming in. Somewhere I read that two people died from his shots. But I'm not sure if that is true or not. I wish I could remember the source. Seems to me if they did die it would be a big deal and pretty easy to confirm. Anyway, it is pretty much not a matter of dispute that he did go down fighting though.

I kind of thought the same thing. But I didn't find his argument very persuasive. There are a lot of people who die for the Quran all the time, does that prove it is true? Not really. Muhammad went to his grave testifyng that the Quran was divine. I don't think that proves it is true. The other thought I had when Elder Holland was speaking was that Joseph Smith denied that he was practicing plural marriage just before he was killed. Does that mean he didn't really practice plural marriage? Of course not. With regard to your second point, I'm afraid that Islam has gone on to flourish since the death of Muhammed. Is that a witness of its truthfulness? Not so sure.

True. I'm not going to try and argue one way or the other because people tend to believe whatever they want to believe when it comes to religion. I just threw out the book for consideration in reponse to the initial question about Rigdon. You can read it and make your own judgment call about whether the dots are connected or not. I think it is far more plausible that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, and led him to an ancient lost record written on gold plates recorded in a lost language. Then gave him some ancient spectacle-like device to look into to translate it from behind a curtain while someone else wrote down his dictation. Then, when the angel took the translating device back due to his disobedience, allowed him to finish translating the record by peering at a stone placed inside his hat and dictating what he saw in the stone. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

I kind of like the Spanish Fork temple http://www.utahkrishnas.com

Actually there is a book that recently came out called "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon." It updates the Spalding issue. Uncle Dale wrote the preface to the book and agreed with the authors that Rigdon was probably involved in writing the book of Mormon. With some of the additional evidence that has come to light in the last 10 years or so, some historians are reassessing their former position discounting the Spalding theory. For example, even though Rigdon denied being in Pittsburgh prior to 1822 they now have postal records of him receiving his mail there at the same time as Spalding in 1816 or so and other times. It has also been shown that he was friends with one of the employees of the publisher who had the Spalding manuscript when it disappeared. There are other interesting factoids that have come to light recently such as where Rigdon and Cowdery were from 1827-1830 but you will have to read the book and decide for yourselves.

I think it has something to do with falling in love.

I agree. Statements like that are ridiculous and don't accomplish anything. Whenever I hear someone say something like, "Don't let a small thing such as a cup of coffee keep you out of heaven" I usually reply with something like, "Isn't it sad that your concept of God is so small that he would keep someone out of heaven because of a cup of coffee."

Now there is the answer. I knew it didn't have to be that hard. That way all family members can be present for the wedding, and the temple sealing can be done with those present who have a recommend. If they are already doing it in UK, then surely it can be done here. Pretty simple. :) Of course I don't expect anybody here to agree with me but...

Yeah I think years ago it was not as big of a deal as it is now. My grandparents on both sides drank coffee but my parents never did. It wasn't until Heber J. Grant's era that it was made part of the temple recommend interview questions. And as you probably already know, coffee was one of those items on the list of things the pioneers brought across the plains. I think that there was always a bit of tension between whether it was "a principle with a promise" not given as a commandment as opposed to an actual commandment. I'm not sure when it became a "commandment" officially, because the way section 89 reads it was not originally given as a commandment but as a principle with a promise. And we haven't even discussed the part about eating meat sparingly (which nobody follows any more). :) But that is off topic anyway.

It doesn't sound to me as though you are ready to commit to baptism. If I were you I would still read the book of Mormon even if you don't commit to baptism. At the very least, you will be more knowledgeable about the church and its teachings and understand some of the reasons why people do what they do or say what they say in the church. I'm a big believer in learning. I really don't see any harm in at least reading the book of Mormon whether you commit to join or not. You will at least be better informed about your decision. And you will have an easier time making your decision with the extra knowledge. I have investigated a lot of religions over the years and have found that it is hard to really understand people's beliefs unless you become familiar with what they call scripture. Recently I read the Quran and engaged in give and take with some Muslims. It was extremely enlightening. I didn't switch religions (I'm still LDS) but at least reading their scripture and asking them why they believed what they do really opened my eyes. I found it interesting that they kept telling me to just keep reading the Quran and Allah would draw me to Islam. It didn't work on me and they were not able to answer my questions with satisfaction. But I now have a really strong appreciation for Islam. And I understand why people convert to Islam. I did not understand that before i actually read and studied their text. The book of Mormon doesn't say anything about coffee and tea though which is one of your stumbling blocks. Frankly, i don't understand that either anymore. Science has come down on the side of all the benefits of tea (polyphenols) and there are also studies out on the benefits of coffee. Tobacco and alcohol are bad and are a no brainer. But coffee and tea? The word of wisdom actually only says "hot drinks" and in the early years of the church that was literally the way it was interpreted. So maybe we are wrong in associating "hot drinks" with coffee and tea. Maybe you will find the answer on that one because I haven't been able to so far. Right now I think it is just obedience more than anything else. And if you join you will be expected to be obedient to the rules, just like any religion. :)

Beefche...oops, sorry sister. Didn't realize you were a sister. My apologies. I didn't think what I said was anything close to "anti" but I will be more careful if you think I am out of line. I was just being honest. This is so frustrating.

I don't think you are paying attention to me. My sister who is 26 could easily pass the temple recommend interview. She is not just "anyone." I'm not asking God to pitch his standards. She can already be allowed in the temple to do baptisms for the dead. What is so wrong with allowing her to see her sister get married if she passes a temple recommend interview? I wasn't talking about allowing people to come in and watch the endowment session (although I guess if they are really curious they can always find something on the internet). If it is only Jesus setting the standards for a temple recommend then he must be changing his mind from time to time. Loosen up brother. Don't you think there is a little bit of human influence too? The questions for a recommend have continued to change and evolve and sometimes reflect LDS culture. For example, it wasn't until the late 1920s that they added anything about the word of wisdom. Before that, they just made the statement that it wasn't in keeping with the spirit to enter the temple smelling of cigarettes or alcohol. There are lots of other changes that have been made over the years. These are policy decisions set by the leadership. The questions have changed just in my lifetime, as has the endowment itself. Last time I went through, there were no penalties mentioned. They were a big deal the first time I went through. So, can I see the principle behind excluding worthy family members from witnessing a family member's wedding? No. I really can't. I really wouldn't be surprised if they allow worthy adult family members who have not been endowed to witness the wedding ceremony in the future. I guess time will tell.