Suzie

Movie? I will be eating like CRAZY!

"Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Our Own Liahona - general-conference

Yes, he did but he was a counselor at the time and the statement was a private letter. There were a few leaders who also gave similar statements. However, the first official statement by the Church on the topic was done by Kimball in 1976 General Conference (according to my limited knowledge).

Good example eh but you will get a lot of "He never taught that" "That's not what he meant" "People misunderstood his message" "Was it doctrinal?" and so on.

Actually, one of the first statements Young gave on the topic was around 1852. Around 1900 there were a couple of leaders who made statements rejecting the theory but an official one came by the hand of Kimball in 1976 General Conference. You do the math.

tumbledquartz, are you seeking counseling for yourself?. I think you would benefit greatly. You seem like a good woman trying to do what is right and I think developing your self esteem is vital for everything else in your life. Nobody is perfect but definitely I believe you shouldn't go back to someone who doesn't respect you and who isn't serious about changing. It would be very sad if you go back just because you don't want to be alone, you would be very unhappy and unhappy marriages create unhappy children. I suggest that you can focus on YOU at the moment and of course your children but YOU particularly. Find time to seek counseling, exercise, feel good about yourself, realize how wonderful and great you are and then...only then you would realize what you deserve and trust me, it isn't someone who cheats on you, calls you names, disrespect you and doesn't seem to be seriously willing to change. All the best.

Official source? It's a First Presidency letter from August 17th, 1949. There are many sources where they quote the letter but let me just mention two, one is FAIR and the other source is a classic book in Black LDS history called "Neither White nor Black" by Lester E. Bush and Armand L. Mauss. Both are not Anti-Mormon sources.

The explanation is that in some scriptures they use both curse and mark as the same but in others there is a clear distinction between the two, making the whole thing not as black or white (no pun intended). I agree with what you are saying. I think we can manipulate the scriptures or any statement to make it sound the way we want them to sound, sometimes we do it consciously and sometimes unconsciously as a desperate attempt of making sense of the things that just do not make sense at all to us. We do it with Polygamy, we do it with Blacks and the Priesthood, we do it with most uncomfortable topics.

The Book of Mormon sometimes does indeed refers to the mark as the "curse" and uses both terms interchangeably however, I cannot ignore other scriptures that to me makes sense. I do not believe the "dark skin" was the curse. The curse was them being cut off from the presence of the Lord, the dark skin was the "mark". Two different things as illustrated in the following passage. The curse preceded the "mark". "Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, AND I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. " (Alma 3:14)

Then you disagree with the Church statement? They are the ones who used the term "theories". Race and the Priesthood

JAG, I do not know who you refer to as "quite a few" but as a history junkie myself, I think it is imperative for people to remember both the pleasant and the unpleasant in history (not just LDS). We do it about slavery, we do it with 9/11, we do it with the Holocaust why not about this very sensitive topic? I'm thrilled with the statement about the Church disavowing the theories that Brigham Young and others shared in the past such as black skin being a curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life, mixed-race marriages being a sin or that blacks are inferior. Then read that the Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form is just great. I want to carry this statement everywhere so every time someone repeats one of these statements by Brigham Young or others such as Pratt I can show them.

I think often times we think that "going the extra mile" it is always the right thing to do under all circumstances and even though I agree that a lot of times doing more than we are expected to do can bring along great results and blessings, it can also cause the opposite effect than the one intended and I think that's what Joseph Smith tried to state when he made that change. In my view, going the extra mile isn't always the wisest thing to do. Should we run faster than we have strength and jeopardize our health or financial stability? Should we become religious over-zealots and miss the point entirely often times leading to becoming judgmental when others do not do as much as we do in the Church? Like any other scripture, we should also analyze it historically. What was the audience of Christ and the audience of Joseph Smith? In the time of Jesus, people like you and I were mandated by law to carry the armor (along with other things) of Roman soldiers if they wanted us to do so. It wasn't a choice you or I could make. It makes sense why would Jesus asked them to 1) fulfill the law by carrying it for one mile and then bringing along the point of doing more than we are expected. The thing is, doing more doesn't always equal doing "better". Perhaps, some of us can really go that extra mile and be blessed for it...we have the strength to do so, we have the means and the spiritual maturity to accomplish it however, among us are also people who haven't reach that stage quite yet, they still trying to catch up a quarter or half of a mile... and that's what makes Joseph Smith change in that scripture so brilliant because it helps us to understand that ALL of us are in different parts in our spiritual journey called life. What is better? Someone killing themselves trying to reach that second mile that seems so far away from their own personal story and terribly fail in the process because they are just not ready yet or someone who can see that one mile more clearly, more reachable and get a sense of accomplishment when they actually are able to be there? Heavenly Father asks us to do our best, of course it doesn't mean we will slack and be satisfied with mediocrity. The best for some maybe the second mile because they are spiritually ready for that, but for others their best is simply reaching that one mile Joseph brilliantly wrote about.

I agree, I was pointing out that after all the things they went through I believe any average woman would probably react by pulling herself out of the situation.

Yes, you are.

Refuse? It takes two to tango and the things you guys went through can literally destroy a marriage and a whole family. We are not talking about an emotional affair, heck...we are not even talking about adultery which is a very serious thing... we are talking about being convicted of sexual abuse against a minor, your own stepdaughter. You was really expecting a different reaction from her? I don't have much advise to give sorry other than seek counseling for yourself.

Graduation= "Glad is over" Wedding= "Yes, dear" (reminder for my husband) Mother's ring= "No, you cannot follow me to the bathroom".

I don't understand what is the big deal about the picture. She was probably happy that her body was looking so amazing after giving birth and yes she was probably showing off a little and to be honest I do not see anything wrong with that. Also, this lady isn't just "slim", she is an athlete and you can see by her pictures that even when she was pregnant she looked amazingly fit so I have no doubt that the picture was taken after she gave birth. If you happen to be just slim/thin but not athletic the skin will stretch no matter what but if a person eats right, exercises, etc then it won't. Sure, genes are involved but I am confident that there is a lot of determination and hard work involved.

Maureen, I enjoy your posts a lot :). Wishing you a great birthday!

One thing to consider is that she really wants to go but she doesn't know how to act around your group of friends. I know it may sound weird but if she is obese and sensitive around her weight, one could understand why she chooses not to go. On top of that, if you and your friends happen to be thin/slim, she probably feels like she is the only "big" girl in the group and makes her feel even bigger than she already feels. Of course, there is nothing really you can do about it other than talk with her privately and make her feel appreciated.

No, she wasn't mistaken. They moved to Randolph in 1802 but Joseph Smith Sr. during that same year lost all the money he invested on a new business venture (he was a victim of fraud and was left literally penniless and forced to sell his farm) so he had no choice but to move back his family to Tunbridge sometime before May of 1803, when Sophronia was born.

Lucy's own words in the book "History of Joseph Smith by his mother".

Those verses are there for a reason and they are very clear. Prophets are human. However, keep in mind that a Prophet these days (thank goodness)doesn't get up to preach or talk or write about any particular "new" doctrine to the Church unless the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles approves it and agrees unanimously, so even if he might try to do anything contrary to what the Lord wants him to do or tries to give us some crazy doctrine, you have a bunch of sweet old men ready to stop him.

They were married on January 24, 1796 in Tunbridge (Lucy's own words) Stillborn, unnamed baby boy (according to Joseph Smith Sr's patriarchal blessing book). Alvin was born in 1798 and Hyrum in 1800. Lucy and Joseph Smith Sr. lived in Tunbridge for six years then they moved to Randolph in 1802.

No but I wonder if perhaps are Amish in Mormon's "clothing".

I have no problem with Church culture. You want to wear a nice white shirt on Sundays? Beautiful. Want to be clean-shaven? Great as well. Want to wear a nice skirt or dress? Very nice too. However, are you going to deny me the privilege to pray because I am not wearing a skirt but instead I am wearing dress pants?. I have a problem with that, and yes it happened to me when I was a teenager, it was embarrassing to say the least because it happened during a Stake Seminary graduation ceremony. MOE said once... (holy macaroni! I am quoting him like he's a GA!) that "the way we've always done it" gets associated with "the way it has to be". And that's exactly how I see it.