Suzie

I don't think the point here is whether or not it matters the exact date. The point here (IMO) is whether or not as Church believed (doctrinally speaking) that He was born indeed on April 6th, teach about it from the pulpit, to each other, in general conference through the voice of our leaders, and even Institute manuals and what we make out of all this after reading the article that was presented on this thread. That's the issue here.

Exactly. Hence the issue of the Blacks and the Priesthood is such a controversial topic within the LDS doctrine since no revelation was presented for vote in general conference even though blacks held the Priesthood prior to the ban. Again, one of those topics people either don't know much about or rather not talk about it because the possibility of prejudice coming from Church leaders make some people uncomfortable. So I think the possibility is there, however if that ever happens I hope we (as members) get the possibility to decide by common consent.

I think this attitude maybe is purely psychological, a need to self-convince that it truly can "never" happen because if it does we will surely be in hot water. I think topics such as this that opens the possibility of the unthinkable make people very uncomfortable (hence the reply of "never..."). I believe it is very possible that it won't happen, however I cannot say what the Lord will think or do in the future. If we just take time to analyze some of the things He has done or instructed in the Old Testament, we will know that we don't always understand his purposes.

Exactly my thoughts.

Hiddentreasures, please keep in mind is pretty hard to give any sort of advise with such little information, you mentioned concerns that are affecting the child and the question is where is the stepmother in this picture?

Ooops. Too late! Sorry Pam! Anyhow, did you have a good time?

Do you have any safety concerns with regards to your kid's stepmother taking care of them while your ex-husband works? If you do not, the right of first refusal doesn't apply here, IMO.

I don't know what's the "sniff" test however I was thinking you may have been interested in reading the sources presented rather than Brother Quinn's conclusions. They are well documented. If you read it, you would have seen that said the "highest order of the Priesthood". I don't think this is a matter of LDS Femenists or scholars, it's a matter of whether or not those sources are accurate and so far, it doesn't seem to be the problem. Of course, you are free to believe as you wish (like everyone) however doesn't undermine what has been recorded. There is an explanation to it. If you have read early journals you will have seen that the word "Confer" is hardly used (if used at all). Usually their ordinations have been recorded, I believe with the assumption that we (those who read the journals) would understand that the Priesthood was given to them. Before the 1900's it was understood that a person being "ordained" was being given the Priesthood. It was then Joseph F. Smith who as Church President in 1901 said that conferring should precede ordination and after him Heber J. Grant made a few changes himself....(but that's for another thread) Why we didn't vote in general conference when the ban on black men holding the Priesthood was put in place? After all several black men at the time of Joseph Smith held the Priesthood and he even ordained at least one of them. Why the change? Who put it in place and Why we didn't vote? You may think there are two completely different scenarios but they are not. If women hold the Priesthood in the past, what happened? If black men hold the Priesthood in the past why then they were banned after Joseph Smith's death and until 1978? Many questions, few answers and even fewer that make sense to me. However, going back to to the topic I think the quotes and sources of Brother Quinn are valid and well documented, we may or may not agree with his conclusions but what has been recorded is very clear concerning women and the Priesthood.

More: Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Manual: Elder Tanner and others as well shared similar statements.

Adding to the one of Margin: President Hinckley, 1997: News of the Church

Just curious, how do you take when for instance President Hinckley said it was by revelation that we know he was born on April 6th?

You need to read D. Michael Quinn "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843" as well as study more (if you haven't) about the "Anointed Quorum" as well as references of Joseph Smith in his diary and in the history of JS that mentions Emma Hale Smith becoming the first woman to receive priesthood and its fullness. But just a couple of quotes: I hope this can just be just a jump start to your research, Church history is fascinating and complex at times that's why I try my best not to make absolutes such as "never...". You just never know. (no pun intended)

Kurt, I heard of similar accounts. I'm glad it has been a powerful experience in your life.

That's my point.

Traveler, my point is that I don't think I could say in surety that the Church will never change its stance on homosexual marriage (I am not for or against it, just to clarify). My main point being that the church has changed certain issues in the past despite the controversy so even though I think there is a big probability they won't, I don't think I could say that they will not.

Can we at this point of time with SURETY say so? Personally and seeing the CHANGE on certain issues in the past (that at time were thought as "unchangeable) I would say no, we cannot. My opinion of course.

If we have to accept ALL the teachings then we are all doomed.

Sure. However, we are talking about a book of scripture here.

Interesting idea.

Thanks. Maybe it's me but it makes me uncomfortable to think we make changes based on how we are perceived in the world. I know not everyone agrees with my view but concerns me.

I hope I didn't offend you with my comment. If I did, I apologize. I just thought it was funny that we were discussing (once again) breasts. It doesn't bother me in the least, I just found it amusing because in the other one we had a similar issue.

You know, I could tell you how sorry I am you are going through this, pat your back and tell you the Lord loves you more than you think of and He will always will...but I think you know that already so what about stopping for a minute and use that sadness/frustration you may feel inside change as you bless the lives of others? I don't know where your live but I could tell you there are many soup kitchens out there ready to feed the homeless this season that would appreciate your help. :)

I don't understand the purpose of the changes...anyone would like to share their thoughts?

Nah...not another "breast" discussion!

I didn't hear the story, do you mind sharing a link? Thanks.