Suzie

As I type this, there is one in action.

Thanks. I love it because it is so gooey and delicious like a great mac and cheese should be! A couple of countries and areas for your future consideration: 1. Christmas Island 2. Papua New Guinea 3. Maldives 4. San Marino I have a long list eh and I did not particularly travel to any of these areas but would be cool to find out what you guys can come up with.

I love cornbread! But I am not good at making it. Do you have a good recipe for it?

Dravin, that's very cool. I am curious, are you or Beefche chefs? How do you all come up with all these great international dishes? Do you prepare some of the dishes in advance and taste to know you are doing it right?

What about mini-empanadas?

Meatballs should be prohibited by law.

How to respond if they tell me they are getting married? I assume the couple in question are close friends or relatives? I would respond like I usually do "Really?! I wish you the best!".

I am hungry people . Please post here what you will be making/preparing/let others prepare for Christmas. I will be making ham, mash potatoes and gravy, beefche's mac and cheese (it is a classic now for Thanksgiving and Christmas), perhaps a green bean casserole, some rolls and a salad. Cheesecake perhaps? I don't know yet.

If that's the fear, how long can we keep the "we do don't know" response? McConkie stated in his famous speech called "All are like unto God": "There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things..." I agree. I didn't know I have "compatriots" . My point in mentioning Uchtdorf's message was certainly not to proclaim that he was making reference to the ban, but rather the fact that in almost 200 something years in Church history, mistakes have been committed by Church leaders and as he said there may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I can live with that in the sense that I do understand that our leaders are men, good, well-intentioned men and in the case of Pratt, Lee, Young, and the rest products of their time and within the correct context, it shouldn't be surprising why they said the things they did which were common beliefs of their time. All this may be obvious to you or me, but I met many members who still think Church leaders cannot commit mistakes when in leadership because they are supposed to be inspired men so in their zeal to be obedient they equal being inspired with being infallible. I love Darius and his work but in this particular case I think as we previously discussed, we are all just trying to explain something that just doesn't make sense to us, a human trait (the need to have answers for everything, right here and right now) and well if such theory of "not a curse, but a calling"(that according to him has been approved by the Brethren) makes sense for some I welcome it but I am not sure if I personally share it. JAG, I really appreciate a lot you joining this discussion. It is great to know that there are members online as interested as me on this topic (I admit I am a little obsessed with Church history). I research and write a lot but I do not get involved in online discussions too much because there is only a handful of people interested in discussing this and other topics through a historical point of view. I'm grateful I can do this with you.

Thank you. It is not hard really, no sense to get all upset or personal when discussing these sort of topics. Everyone is entitled to their views and once we really understand and accept that, I believe everything will remain civil and peaceful. I respect JAG a lot, he is knowledgeable about the topic and for this Mormon history junkie that's just plain cool. :)

JAG, the point I was trying to make was to show that I do not think everything should be taken as it written on stone . As I quoted, a few First Presidency messages contained statements that the present day Church has now disavowed, we may not agree on that but to me is quite clear. Even Mc Conkie stated in the past that we should forget "everything everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." Does it mean we should trash everything that has been said in the past about the topic? Of course not, but we should be aware that there are certain things written on them that do not match the views of the present day Church. To be honest my friend, I just wish there is a 2013 First Presidency statement stating clear as water that the ban was instituted by God or that it wasn't instituted by God and end the speculation. The 1951 First Presidency statement cite a specific revelation "it is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of a direct commandment from the Lord", as I illustrated previously they rather quote a Brigham Young discourse on the curse of Cain which is not longer considered within the views of Mormonism. However, you would agree with me that we come a long way from previous statements such as "Blacks will never receive the Priesthood in this mortal life" (paraphrasing) to the 1978 lifting of the ban. Heck, we come a long way from calling it doctrine to now call it a policy or a practice. So what do we really make of these statements? Are part revelation, part personal opinion, part doctrine, part policy? Honestly JAG, I think we are doing the best with what we are given and that is, ambiguous statements left to personal interpretation. If the issue was clear as a glass, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. As we previously discussed, statements with regards to Blacks have dramatically changed over the years and the theories regarding the ban as well. From "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence...." (Young) to “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.” (Hinckley)From the seed of Cain, to fence-sitters in the pre-existence, less valiant in the pre-mortal life to the present renunciation of such statements in the present time. Whether we like it or not, we are affected tremendously by our culture and times. The issue seems to be that when we now try to bring those cultural influences and thoughts into the Church and try to fit it dogmatically somehow and spread the word as doctrine or at least authoritative statements. I am sure you think the "left wing of the Church" (as you like to call them) is trying to do that with regards to Gay Marriage, women holding the Priesthood, etc. I think there is no major risk involved if people believe those things as long as they clearly state it is their personal opinion, nevertheless the issue with this particular topic comes from the fact that authoritative statements were said in the past by people in high ranking Church leadership positions, some things that the modern day Church is now clearly disavowing. That's why Uchtdorf's message in General Conference was such a breath of fresh air. Another point I would like your thoughts on: If Mc Kay was right and indeed the only scriptural support for the ban was the interpretation of Abraham (1:26), what we made of this verse now? Is such interpretation of this verse now considered wrong? Was it ever doctrinal or was it just a personal interpretation? What ramifications does it have with regards to the 1978 revelation?

Isn't he entitled to his opinion? (even though you disagree)

Welcome Natalie :)

I was pointing out that the First Presidency statement in 1949 includes a quote by Brigham Young with regards to the "curse", a theory that the present modern Church just disavowed. The 1969 First Presidency letter to Church leaders also give an idea about what I am talking about: When did Smith taught that? He was even the first Prophet to extend the Priesthood to Abel, a black man. What revelation? The one that stated that Blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence? The one the Church just disavowed? I thought the statements of the modern day Church take precedence over other statements on the same issue by past leaders?

And in this particular scenario, what He would do? Are we talking about your high school friend or your nephew? If we are talking about your nephew, what do you intent to accomplish by telling him what you really think?

Just like you rushed into this marriage and you are now regretting, do not rush into getting a divorce and regret again, it will be a very foolish thing to do. If you think getting a divorce will solve whatever issues you are having right now, you are very mistaken and you run the risk of bringing all those issues back into your next relationship. This is why you have to deal with the problems right now before you take any major decisions.

You gotta love Bini!

Spammers are zombies, they never rest.

I have a super sensitive skin and I'm allergic to most soaps. I don't think I ever tried Dial, I will give it a shot. Thanks.

Thanks Eowyn, I read a little bit about stress rashes last night and for what I read "it causes your body to produce cortisol and other hormones, which tells your sebaceous glands to produce more oil. Oily skin is more prone to acne and other skin problems." This rash goes on and off, right now is very much active, perhaps I should consider doing Yoga but I'm not sure how helpful it will be.

Because of the thread about Blacks and the Priesthood? Nah, we just have two different styles of discussion and I don't take online debates that personal unless someone is insulting me directly and I choose to take offense so no need to say sorry Vort, you are not the cause of my stress.

Wait until someone seriously take issue with that statement or ask for more clarification. PR will move at the speed of light!

The problem with the 1949 First Presidency statement is that they also included Young's explanation about the"curse"... a "curse" that a few days ago, the Church clearly disavowed.

I have a bad stress rash by one of my ankles. I had it for years, there are times where I do not feel to scratch it at all but other times it seems like impossible. Of course, the dermatologist says the cure is to be "less stressed" and it will go away on its own, however that's not a possibility at the moment. What can I do? It's driving me bananas.

Someone can express something completely false and yet do it in a respectful manner. Nobody has to agree with how I think about it, this is how I see it. Having said that, I would love to go back to the topic if there is anything else to discuss that haven't been discussed as yet.