mrmarklin

Totally untrue. Manasseh is traditionally thought of in the church as the tribe of "adoption". But all of us will eventually be assimilated into some tribe of Israel because of he promise made to Abraham that through his house all the world will be saved.I'm from Ephraim, my wife is from Dan, even though she is from an area of the world where Manasseh dominates in Patriarchal blessings. All our children are from Ephraim.

When people of two different races marry, the characteristics of each race can be represented in different ways in the children. I'm sure most of us have seen this.

There are really only two churches with any sort of legitimate claim to being the "real" Christian church. Us and the Catholics. All the protestants are breakaways from the original Catholic church, and were repudiated by that church. It's difficult to see how they would have any authority of priesthood at all. In every Catholic church, one can see a chart tracing the Popes in sucession from Peter. That continuity is essentially the Catholic claim to authority and legitimacy. Like the breakaway churches, the LDS claim that the true gospel was corupted, and that authority was lost along the way. We differ in that we claim (uniquely at the time) that Jesus Himself restored the true and only church as well as the authority from God to manage its affairs. There are some scriptures that forecast this restoration. In other words, we are a new dispensation, and not a breakaway. Our beliefs were restored to the true doctrines of the ancients as well, since they had been so corrupted by the arts of man. There's a long list, beginning with the name of the church!

People are the same. People didn't believe then, and its no way that people today would believe if they were somehow magically transported back in time.

You don't state how long you were employed, but most states in the US have an "at will" provision as to hiring and firing. In some retail situations if there is any stealing going on the whole staff will be fired, even those who had nothing to do with it. The owner wants a clean slate. This happened to a friend of mine.

You did have some positive experiences on your mission, and I think over time you will be able to understand the personal growth you had and help you gave to others. I served a mission and had many of the ups and downs you had. I certainly didn't get along with every companion I had, but I did with most of them. Unfortunately the mission president you had at first sounds like a real pistol, and adjusting to people like this is a good life skill. Hopefully, you will be able to apply what you learned to the occasional bad boss you get. I too found that tracting was a total waste of time, and certainly wish I had done much less of it. Toward the end of my mission, I did none and that was the most productive time I had meeting and teaching people. I'm glad you had one experience of a person who was "golden". I had several, and it seemed that yes, they were always served on a platter. There is a reason for that! They are ready to be taught, so it seems "easy". I served my mission a long time ago, and with the rule set you have now don't think I would have a very good experience either.

Thanks Jbdf for this exposition. I still don't understand it, but that's not your fault.

It's a bunch of Greek gobbledygook, and cannot be explained. The closest I've ever heard is to compare the Godhead to an egg, with three separate parts(yolk, white, and shell) but still the same essence. Does that make sense?? I thought not.

There seems to be some sense here that what Brigham Young did in denying blacks the priesthood was somehow some sort of personal prejudice. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a scrupture that clearly states that the descendants of Ham cannot hold the priesthood. Abr 1:23-26. It is commonly understood that Ham was married to a black woman, and his descendants could not therefore hold the priesthood. So there was no prejudice with Brigham Young or any of the early church leaders in denying blacks the priesthood. Once the scriptural basis was understood, the ban began IMNSHO. Also I think the idea that the ban was somehow only a "policy" and not doctrine is an equivocation as well. The prophet does not need to receive a revelation to change policy.

South America.

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the exclusion of black people from the priesthood was more or less formalized between 1847 and 1852. No statement is made of the specifics of how the exclusion came about. There is a scripture on the subject: Abr.1:23-26. I do know that when I was on my mission in the late 1960s, we were instructed to not teach anyone who was obviously black, unless they asked specifically to be taught. In other words, if we tracted someone up we were to do a 'meet and greet' only! At the time I didn't think it was discriminatory, but now..................................................................................

Frankly I'm a little dissappointed by the answer Elder Holland gives in your quotation. I grew up in the church at a time when this ban was very much in place, and a lot of speeches were given by the General Authorities about why the priesthood ban was in place. While not necessarily hard scriptural doctrine, I find it disingenuous of Holland to not posit some possible reasons of why the ban was in place. Sorry, but "I wasn't there" and "it was a long time ago", just don't cut it IMHO. In the best of my recollection it was in place because of the "curse" of Cain and his descendants. And that they were not allowed to hold the priesthood. This may or may not have had anything to do with pre-mortal councils. I agree that no hard fast doctrine was given on that point. But at the time it was crystal clear that descendants of Cain could not hold the priesthood.

My understanding is that Brigham Young did not revoke any priesthood that had previously been granted to black members of the church. But it was revealed to him that in the future black people were not in the future to receive the priesthood. This was church doctrine until 1978. A black priesthood holder died on a mission to Canada after the saints had migrated to Utah (I don't recall his name). So privileges were not revoked AFAIK. Blacks were never responsible for the actions of Cain, but rather were descendents of Cain and could not hold the priesthood. Apparently this doctrine was ancient, but imperfectly understood by Joseph Smith, under whose tutelage black members obtained the priesthood.

Here in the US many worker's compensation is very low, and they depend on tips to earn enough for the job to be worthwhile. There is a sort of unwritten contract here in the US especially in restaurants. In a lot of European countries, service is included in the check at a restaurant, and tipping is only "rounding up" the check. I understand that in some Asian countries tipping is not even on the radar screen for many services.

Truly rational discussion will ALWAYS agree with the doctrine!:)

No question but that social interaction is a very important part of the church experience. This is the internet, and I think that you can get a lot of your questions answered right here! There is a lot of knowledge on this forum, and while I certainly haven't agreed with all opinions, there's enough here that is thought provoking and non-judgemental that it can be very useful to bounce ideas off of.

Clearly there is a social element to the Church that you would like to reach out to, but doesn't seem to be there. I've had this problem all my life as well, and in fact can state that ALL my friends with whom I socialize are non-members. For some reason I have never connected with any church members. I'm a little bit of a maverick and iconoclast, and conforming is very big in the church circles that I have known. I am married, and my wife is the opposite. All her friends were met in the church. Before I ws married (but I married young) I just kept going to church, and met my wife in church. Even then however, I felt the same as you do. One of the reasons I married my wife is that she was more social than me, but it really hasn't helped me with friendships in the church. The church is true, so you owe it to yourself to keep trying.

One hand of course is random. But pros play over a lifetime, and that is the long run. I don't really equate Blackjack with poker, although one can win if one is allowed to card count. That's not luck, but simple mathematics. Otherwise with perfect play, the odds are on the House's side. Actually, even lotteries can be investments. The megamillions here in CA is currently $240MM. Since the odds are 40MM to 1 against, it would make sense to invest up to $6, since that's ($6) a breakeven proposition. At less than $6, the odds are actually in the investor's favor. In fact it would theoretically make sense to buy every possible number, with an expected profit of $200MM. I'll let one of you smarties out there figure out why this is not happening. Don't know anything about Mah Jong.

The stock market is certainly not gambling as a value is received on one's investment. Of course this is predicated on people making actual investments. Most people in the market don't understand it, nor the companies that they invest in. So they lose money, and call it "gambling". Likewise those who trade in commodities and derivitives and understand the purposes of these tools are also not gambling. These can be useful tools to LOWER risk, not increase it. But since the average investor does not understand the fundamentals of trading in this area it is also called gambling. By anatess: Okay, so let's say there are 3 people playing against each other on a game of poker. All 3 put in say, $100 to the pot overall. All 3 are highly skilled, professional level card players. In a game, eventually, 1 person will win, the other 2 will loose. So, money moves from 2 people to 1 person - 1 person ends up with $300, the other 2 ends up with -$100. This is simply a completely false statement that I cannot let stand. Poker is a zero sum game. Three equally skilled professionals would play "forever" and eventually come out equal. A professional poker player plays against people that are not at his skill levels in understanding the mathematics or psychology of the game. His superior understanding of these areas are his profit margin. Over time, this is a mathematical certainty, there is no luck involved. The random dealing of the cards can appear to have the effect of luck, but a professional player understands how to minimize the effects of "bad" cards and maximize the outcome of "good" cards. I realize you probably don't play poker, but this is the kind of thinking that allows the pros to make money!

I took the test and I'm a Mormon. There is another test (tests any religion) that I have taken, and in that one I'm Orthodox Jew. Wow! Just did Belief O Matic and I'm 100% Mormon!!!!!!!

I always thought that the Lord was born in the spring due to the fact that the "shepards were tending their flocks", normally associated with a spring activity, at least here in the northern hemisphere. Assuming that to be true, then the Lord could have been born in the spring. Due to Herod's death date, however, it would seem that He would have had to have been born prior to 1BC. Of course that assumes that the Herod spoken of was "the Great" and not the Herod that reigned at the time of Christ's death. Who really knows? It was a very interesting article. Different scholars can even disagree as to what the "facts" are, so we can certainly have a lot of interesting speculation. I personally always assumed that the revelation was correct in every way, but as I have studied the scriptures more and more I have come to realize that everything needs to be taken in context. Not only in the literal sense of the scripture itself, but of the times in which it was written. I came to my own independent conclusiion that the date in Sec 20 was probably a little dogmatic, and I'm certainly open to not taking it literally. It may be 100% correct, but if proven not, it would not affect my testimony of the truth.

Doesn't sound very normal to me. I'd view all this as a big time red flag.

This simplistic argument might cut it in the shallow Bible discussions you have somewhere, but it reflects an ignorance of how the Bible was compiled at the most, and a further ignorance of Book of Mormon teachings at the least.

Her attitude in deferring to her parents all the time is a very big red flag. This won't end after you're married unless there is a lot of distance. Also the fact that you are confused and miserable is another red flag. When the Lord has put His seal of approval on something, there is no misery. I think you have your answers, you just don't know how to back out gracefully.

Personally I think at least a year to get to know one another is a minimum. That gives both of you a "life cycle" in seeing each others attitude during holidays, vacations, work habits and times of stress. It also allows eaach person a chance to get to know the family of the other, assuming reasonable proximity. Actually if there is no reasonable proximity, it should be made. I did this, an so far almost 40 years, and we still had a lot of teething problems so to speak.