mdfxdb
-
Posts
712 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by mdfxdb
-
-
Why even tell your wife, Emma didn't know about half of Josephs wives, easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Lol...funny. I would probably roll just like Joseph did. Young and often... J/K
-
-
But the idea that somehow they're not influenced by their life experiences in what they say is a little silly because it's so obvious.
I agree. Everyone is influenced by their life experiences. It is what makes us who we are. It shapes our perception of others, and our outlook on life. Based on experience. The GA's are people just like us and are subject to those life events/influences.
-
I happen to know for a fact that if you are not wearing a white shirt and a tie that my bishop will pass you up to assist on a blessing. I guess Harley Davidson T-shirts aren't appropriate wear for blessings.....
-
deleted because I was being redundant.
-
What if someone has a white shirt. For example my EQ President. However, it looks like it is the white shirt that bleach forgot.
At some point it was white. But now it is yellowish....
Is he more in compliance because his shirt is technically "white". I don't wear white shirts on the regular because I think a white shirt should be white. Look around the ward this Sunday. How many men are actually wearing a "white" shirt?
I submit that very few are wearing white shirts. They are shades of white. I think in conjunction with wearing a white shirt it should actually be white, and not sweat stained yellow.
I will wear my blue shirt/striped shirt, whatever, and I wont be asked to pass the sacrament, but if I show up in a used to be white short sleeve shirt I can pass the sacrament? weird...
-
I would do it, but my wife would not have veto power.....
-
It is a prophet's opinion and/or suggestion. Not just some guy off the street's. We are constantly taught to follow the prophet -- a principle that is, decidedly, doctrine -- and that going against the living prophet's counsel will surely bring us to ruin.
I think the doctrinal point is what is important here. Wearing earrings/how we wear them/length/# of piercings....none of these things keep us from salvation.
Are there consequences to being overly ostentatious, flashy, prideful? Of course. Is the council given to us by the Prophets and Apostles good council? Of course. Do I want to hear from my fellow church member that I am "sinning" because I have a double piercing on my ear? NO. Because it is not a commandment.
-
The only references to this are from some conference talks....some take it as absolute doctrine.
-
The ebb and flow of dress in the church has changed over the years. There was a time when in many parts of the church the sacrament was overly ritualized. Dress was mandatory, and the manner of passing the sacrament was regimented.
Unfortunately certain things have become ingrained in the LDS culture. If I were called to be a member of the 70, or stake president I would probably wear a white shirt. A member of the Bishopric.... probably not.
-
Handbook 2 20.4.1: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.
-
Update. I spoke with the Bishop this morning about the meetings. He agreed with me that we should be more respectful of others time. He also said we would see how things went. To which I responded that he was the one with total control over the meeting. I also had the ex sec change up the agenda a little bit to leave of the calendar items.
WC took 1 hour 15 min
-
No, I don't call off a wedding for that. I remove the kids from them. My husband is a good dad to them.
You should apologize to your in-laws for subjecting them to your kids for 5 years then. Because you obviously didn't remove them.
Bottom line is you should apologize because no one in this situation is leaving. You are not going to leave your husband or your kids, they are not going to stop being the parents of your husband. Someone has to be the bigger person. If you want it can be you. If not then you get to have feelings of contention and contempt every time you see them.
-
So you wouldn't call off a wedding to protect your children from a toxic situation?
You should apologize because you thought they should change to conform to your expectations. You married their son, and now you think you're entitled to a behavior change when in fact you are not. It is clear from what you have written that they don't like your kids, yet you keep bringing them around. Some how this is their fault?
You made them cakes, you were generous with one of them in your home...and somehow this entitles you to something?
-
What I mean is even before we were married they treated us that way, and STILL DO! five years later. We have been married now for 5 years. And he has kids from a previous as well, so they understand that. In fact his first marriage his wife had kids from a previous. So they should get it by now.
My family does not treat him like that at al. They love him dearly.
So BEFORE you were married they treated you poorly, but you decided to get married anyways?
Your family doesn't treat him like that. You do realize they are different people right?
I have a hard time understanding your complaint. You are complaining about something you knew existed before you got married and you got married anyways......
Apologize to the In-laws.
-
I'm not quite ready to quit yet, but we have some fundamental problems. Ideally I don't care if the meeting lasts 3 hours, but we need to get things done, and set goals/objectives which need to be met and discussed. After 3 hours of meeting I leave confused about what we discussed, what action has been taken, and what action is going to be taken.....
Our Bishop has an agenda, he refuses to stick to it. He lets others go off on tangents, and he lets the auxiliaries make excuses when they haven't completed their assignments from the previous meeting.
The missionaries are there, and they do go through every single investigator..........I have publicly questioned their presence. The result has been that they are not present during the whole meeting, only for their portion. Still, this hasn't fixed the time they waste while they're there. (this is another area the handbook addresses that isn't being followed).
Friendship, getting to know people, socializing...Bottom line is I'm not there to braid hair, or swap recipes...I like the people I serve with, I would like to get to know them better, but we need to get the meetings under control because after 1.5 hours all I feel is resentment......I actually don't like going to church on the days we have ward council, which in my ward is TWICE A MONTH
-
-
I have raised the issue, proposed a new agenda, implemented a new agenda, and it still has made no difference. I am at the point of staging a walk-out protest.
Oh, and sometimes we start late......
-
Our ward council meets twice a month, those meetings generally go from 2 to 2.5 hrs at a time. This seems excessive.
What has been the experience of others when it comes to these meetings? I am ready to leave after about an hour. I don't see why these should take almost as long as church.
-
D&C 130: 20-21
-
I read a little bit on it. Nothing to substantiate it from the church. Not scripture at all.
-
No one has the same role in this life. That's a ridiculous notion. Not everyone has the opportunity for marriage or parenthood. So if I don't understand it they way you do, I am automatically wrong?
That's a pretty broad brush of judgement. What if the man has a disfigurement that makes him less attractive, so he has a hard time finding someone to marry? Is he less worthy? Or he has problems with depression? That doesn't make him less worthy, but might make being married difficult.
+..
Everyone has the opportunity for marriage or the priesthood (either in this life or the next). Do you think those two items make a person whole? I know a lot of "priesthood" holders who I would not trust to babysit my dog....I know a whole lot of parents who aren't fit to take care of a cat. What's your point?
I think the church is pretty clear on the roles men have, and the roles women have. If someone is less attractive maybe that might make it difficult for him to marry. You point is? If he is less worthy, then he should be more worthy. If he has problems with depression he should overcome them.
How do these problems justify not following the teachings of the prophets? I have lots of problems. I choose to overcome them as best I can. I am not exempt from commandments that are harder to keep because I have problems directly relating to accomplishing them. nobody is...
-
I would say they need to learn to be unselfish. What happens in the bedroom, or doesn't happen is many times a manifestation of what is happening in the relationship. Like I previously stated. There are probably other problems, or manifestations of selfishness in the relationship, this just happens to be the one that hurts the most...
-
Okay, but doesn't then the priesthood take fathers out of the homes and make them less effective? And really, do you believe someone who has no desire to be a parent should in fact be a parent? How horrible for the child who is unwanted.
Life isn't one size fits all. It can't be - and doesn't have anything to do with humility. You could have legitimate reasons for not marrying. Perhaps there just was no one you met that you were compatible with, or you realize you have personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you. And having children has a lot to do with biology, not going with God's will. I know women who have a difficult time because they can't easily concieve.
People are imperfect at best, both men and women. They are given distinct roles to fulfill in this life, regardless of exceptions. Your reasons for why women have exceptions, and therefore should have the priesthood demonstrate a lack of understanding of the fundamental role of women in the church, and in Gods plan.
One of the reasons you cite is "personal difficulties that would make marriage and parenthood impossible for you".....In my experience a man who has those type of personal difficulties shouldn't exercise, or even receive the priesthood. So how does this somehow qualify a woman to receive the priesthood?
Are you more likely to employ a church member?
in General Discussion
Posted
Most qualified gets the job. In my experience member or not it doesn't matter one bit.