spamlds

Interesting questions! Here are my opinions (not necessarily doctrine, but informed by years of study of Church history and doctrine). 1. I've never heard any authoritative source in the Church try to mark the year or even decade of the Second Coming using generations or any other event, save for the scriptural signs in Matthew 24 and the various sections of the D&C that describe the signs of the times. The Old Testament does follow a pattern showing how many generations from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses to David, and David to Jesus. Perhaps the Great Apostasy disrupted that pattern or perhaps it's just that we have lost the "place markers" that would identify which generation. Anyhow, nothing I've ever read since the Restoration began identifies a generation in that manner. 2. Food storage: I wrote a book called "Building the Ark: Preparing Today to Live in the United Order." I made the case, using many general authority quotes as well as scripture, that a time will come when we will enter into what Lorenzo Snow called "principles of union" whereby we will share what we can consecrate and survive a desperate time. He said the United Order would be like Noah's Ark for us. Food storage is a part of that prophetic plan. We will have the privilege of sharing what we have in order to preserve our loved ones and neighbors. It will be like our "loaves and fishes" whereby the Lord fed thousands. In my own household, we maintain a pantry with our long-term storage and we shop to re-fill the pantry as we use what we have. It's the way our grandparents used to live. It's a prudent way to have plenty and keep it freshly stocked. You have a buffer against need and can shop when things go on sale. It's not a bad way to live. 3. Regarding the two witnesses or prophets that will be martyred in Jerusalem. It's interesting to note that the area presidency over the Middle East has two co-presidents who are general authorities. It's the only one in the Church structured that way. Perhaps the two witnesses will be whoever is in that presidency when the prophecy is to be fulfilled. 4. The Lord has used significant days on the Hebrew calendar to bring about important events of the Restoration. We know the Lord's crucifixion coincided with the Passover anciently. The day that Joseph was given the plates in 1827 was the Feast of Trumpets that year. It's significant that Moroni is depicted with a trumpet on our temples. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon was the call to the whole world to repent and believe the gospel. Likewise, the appearance of Moses, Elias, and Elijah in the Kirtland Temple was on April 3rd, 1836--Passover in that year. I think it's possible to make a case that the Lord appeared to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon on the Feast of Tabernacles. That appearance is a type and shadow of things to come. The Lord appeared after war, the collapse of government caused by secret combinations, and great natural disasters. In the scriptures, it says the Lord will descend with a "shout." The Feast of Tabernacles includes a shout, the Hallel, an invocation for God to come and save the people. We sing a hymn at temple dedications where we "sing and shout" with the armies of heaven and we do the Hosanna shout, inviting the Lord to come suddenly to his temple. Perhaps that ordinance is a rehearsal for how the Lord will return. The Book of Mormon came forth on the Feast of Trumpets. Perhaps there are key events that will coincide with Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement, where Israel humbles itself and repents. Then the Feast of Tabernacles celebrates the return of Jehovah to his temple (the cleansed earth and Zion), followed by Rosh Hashanna, the head of the new year (Millennium). Like most symbolism in the gospel, it points to Christ and his glory.

LeSellers makes a good point. Long hair and beards are often seen as either acts of rebellion or as signs of elite status. I live in a university town and many of the university profs and their students wear beards as a sign of class and status. When I was in the military, I knew several families where the wife was the service member and the husband was a civilian. Very often, the husbands wore beards and longer hair to distinguish themselves from the other men on the base who were service members. It was as if, since they didn't wear the outward signs of masculinity--viz., the uniform--they used the facial hair to project manliness. Working men, particularly in the social classes that enlist in our military, tend toward short hair and being clean shaven. I'm a martial arts instructor. Longer hair gives an adversary something with which to grab you. Many of my teen students start out with long hair and they end up cutting it after they practice the art for a while. It's just a practical thing. Policemen, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines wear short hair as a sign of conformity to a high standard of selflessness and discipline. Our missionaries do likewise. It's a cultural thing, to be sure, but there is a definite relation between class, conformity, and the wearing of long hair and facial hair.

I recognize that Internet forums don't facilitate deep reading. I believe some have misconstrued my remarks. I didn't say that God does not hear anyone's sincere prayers. I said that the Being to whom those prayers are directed doesn't exist, at least not as they perceive Him. On the contrary, it is the sectarian Christians who tell us that our God does not exist because our understanding contradicts their creed. Let me refer to President Hinckley's statement from April 2002 General Conference: This citation has been widely disseminated by anti-Mormon sites in an out-of-context way, but President Hinckley is clear. Revelation teaches us that the God of the sectarians does not exist. There is no three-in-one Trinity to hear their prayers. However, because God is filled with mercy for his children, he hears our prayers and seeks to direct us toward light and truth. In "Lectures on Faith," Joseph Smith stated that having the correct understanding of God's nature is essential to being saved eternally. I believe that it is for this reason that our current gospel dispensation had to begin with a theophany in which the members of the Godhead were manifest to correct the old sectarian creeds and put mankind on track to inherit eternal life.

Gosh I really hate these kinds of discussions. Find a church in the last 2000 years that had real angels minister and appear to people as they did in the New Testament. Catholics believe in angels and apparitions, but they only accept them after the people who were the recipients have long been dead. After all, they don't want any living oracles who might expose their dogma to be false. Protestants went so far as to reject revelation, angelic ministrations, etc. as unnecessary since they have the Bible. They went so far as to assign to a book almost God-like power. Then they use the Bible to quarrel about the Bible among themselves. The exclusive acceptance of the Bible and the rejection of revelation of any kind is the very source of Christian disunity and confusion. How ironic it is that churches and religionists, who would never believe a recipient of a true angelic ministration, use the Bible to reject the testimonies of those who testified of angelic ministrations. Latter-day saints have had (and continue to have, I might add) living witnesses who have seen, spoken with, and communed with angels. We have more experience with angels in the last two centuries than all of Christendom has had since the loss of the keys and the Great Apostasy took hold of the ancient Church. It is pointless to bicker over biblical interpretations, Greek translations, etc. From Moroni's appearance to Joseph Smith to the present day, angels are not unknown to us. Even some of us have, as Paul said, "entertained angels unawares" (Hebrews 13:2). We haven't followed "cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16). The book of Acts tells us that angels were actively involved with the 1st century Church. They are just as active in today's restored Church. The true Church is still connected to the "home office" in heaven.

Anti-Mormons love to make "list attacks." They pile up a bunch of seemingly innocent questions that are intended to become un-answerable. It's just a twist on the same insincere questions the Pharisees used on the Savior. The premise of this thread sounds like one of those "list attacks" broken into small pieces. Beware. This smells fishy. You may discover your answers cited on CARM.org or some other anti-Mormon web site.

Like many of you, my life has had lots of ups and downs. We've had illnesses, layoffs, bad decisions, etc. that brought us into trials and unpleasant situations. Several years ago, I was reading about Joseph Smith's early life and something really struck me. Maybe it will be of help to someone who is currently undergoing trials right now. Joseph Smith's father, Joseph Smith, Senior, was a farmer in Vermont. His only ambition was to be a simple farmer and provide for his family. He was a man of meager means. He struggled to pay for land and raise a crop. Two years prior to 1816, Joseph Senior had experienced crop failures. The weather in Vermont wasn't cooperating. Trying to make payments on land was a challenge. Then, 1816 came. That was known in history as the "Year Without a Summer." In 1815, Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted. The volcano threw so much ash into the atmosphere that it changed weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. In the summer of 1816, it snowed in Vermont. Father Smith sold the property (or had his land repossessed--it doesn't say which) and went down to Palmyra in New York to look for a place to start fresh. We've all heard the stories about young Joseph's leg surgery, which happened in 1815. Joseph Senior had to leave his family behind and, once he found a property, he sent a hired man to pick them up and bring them to Palmyra. The unpleasant fellow made Joseph Junior hobble along from Vermont to New York on the bad leg. If you've been to the Smiith Farm in Palmyra, which has historical reproductions of the original cabin and the frame home in which the family lived, you'll see evidence of a time of prosperity. The family began to prosper, but we learn that an unscrupulous lender swindled the nice frame house from the Smith family just as the sons finished building it for them. It seems that bad financial luck followed the Smith family. Again, I reiterate that all Father Smith wanted was to be a farmer. That was the extent of his ambitions. We know in hindsight, the Lord had different plans. Would Joseph Senior have moved from Vermont to New York if his farm had been successful? Did God tell him that he needed to move his family there so his youngest son would be near some ancient gold plates buried near the town of Palmyra? The Lord didn't tell him anything. Instead, he let failure and pain be the impetus to get him to move to New York. Likewise, had finances gone well at the Palmyra farm, how would things have gone when it came time to uproot and move to Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo? The Lord used hardships to direct Joseph Smith, Senior to his foreordained role--to become the first patriarch of this dispensation. He was called to be a prophet in his own right, to declare the lineage of the saints and bless them. Would that have ever come to pass if he had been a success at farming? Trials and hardships are never enjoyable. However, we should look at them and ask, "Is the Lord directing me to a new path?" Some trials are meant to be endured well. Others are meant to cause us to act. When we act, the Lord may be directing us onto a new path. In that case, rest assured that he has you in the "palm of his hand." He will not let you fail in any eternally important way. He has placed a frame around you and the limits will not exceed his designs. God has a plan. Trust in him. Remember Joseph Smith, Senior--the aspiring farmer who became the Patriarch of the Church in the latter-days.

Talk to your bishop. He has constraints on what he can do. For example, he can't use Church funds to pay off consumer debt, but he can provide food and pay rent/mortgage payments so you can direct your available means to pay for car repairs, etc. There may even be a ward member who can assist with the repairs at a reduced cost. The Church has resources. Bishops are to seek out those who need help. Make the contact as soon as you can.

This topic kind of has ties to another active thread in the forum about whether we worship the same God as the Evangelicals. A common anti-Mormon trope is that Mormons believe in a "different Jesus." When that one gets tossed out I reply that I worship the same God that Jesus did. He prayed to the Father, thus I pray to the Father. He told Mary when she saw him after his resurrection that he was going to ascend to "my Father and your Father, my God and your God" (John 20:17). Standard practice, then, is to worship and pray to the God whom Jesus worships: the Father. That said, there have been times when prayers have been recorded that, in part, invoked the Son's blessings or pardon, such as in the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland, Temple (D&C 109:34). According to the heading for this section, the Prophet indicated that the prayer had been given to him by revelation. Thus, when moved upon by the Spirit, follow the Spirit.

Couldn't have said it better!

We can't simplify the decision for her. This is a personal test from God. Which does she love more? Show her Matthew 10:37. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Ask her if she believes these words of Jesus. Ask her if she truly believes the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. It doesn't make the decision any easier, but it defines the test. Once she knows what the test is about, it's between her and God. The outcome of her eternal life hangs in the balance. Don't minimize or rationalize away the consequences.

I think we take too long beating around the bush on this topic with Evangelicals, trying to avoid offending them. The thing is, that the truth will offend any of them who sincerely believe in their Trinitarian doctrine, especially those who have spent time and money becoming "educated" in it. Our early Mormon apostles were not so diplomatic. They went right for the truth. Our knowledge and understanding of the Godhead are based on modern prophets who have seen the Lord. His nature is not a mystery to us. We know from revelation, not some man's interpretation of scripture, who and what the members of the Godhead are. The message of the First Vision is that Protestants and Catholics are wrong. What they teach about God is an abomination to God himself. In answer to the question about whether we believe in a different God than Evangelicals, the answer is YES because the God their theology teaches does not exist. Apostle Parley P. Pratt stated that there are two types of atheists. One of them believes that NOTHING is God and the other believes that God is NOTHING. Sectarian Christians are the latter of the two. Their abominable creeds teach that God is without body, parts, or passions and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same insubstantial substance. Fortunately, most Evangelicals do not believe in the God presented in their creeds. Any missionary will tell you that most Christians believe in the same God we do. Ask a Christian who he prays to, he'll describe to you what we know to be true. He'll tell you he believes in a Heavenly Father that has a Son. The Son obeyed the Father and submitted himself to the Father's will. Thus they believe in praying to the Father in the name of Jesus. They serve the same Jesus as us. They DON'T BELIEVE in what their theologians teach when it comes to personal faith. The only ones who do are their clergy, who have been educated to teach a false, Trinitarian nature of God. We latter-day saints spend too much time pussyfooting around the issue. What we need to do is take every single seeker and drag them (metaphorically speaking) to the Sacred Grove and tell them what happened there. If they reject it, they are not the elect of God. If they are moved by it, God's voice is calling them and they are his chosen. The Lord's sheep hear his voice. The ones that don't hear it will not be convinced by anything we have to say to them.

To Evangelicals and other creed-based Christians, this whole topic is akin to blasphemy because, as the Pharisees said of Jesus, we think to make ourselves God's equal (in some future time). The belief in the Trinity came about to resolve controversies over God's nature. Was there one God or three? They chose (with some degree of intrigue) to go for the answer that there could only be one God who necessarily must possess all power and none other. Latter-day saints know from modern revelation that the Trinity is a false doctrine and that there are indeed three Gods who are organized into one Godhead. Thus, the example for us regarding our eternal relationship with God is Jesus Christ. We follow his path. He lived before he was born into mortality. Jesus prayed to his Father. He did the Father's will in submission. He honored the Father's authority. He was baptized. He submitted himself to the Father in all things and received ALL that the Father hath. Was there any power or authority that God did not confer upon his Beloved Son? Was there any good thing he withheld from Jesus that he alone might be Sovereign? In all things, the Son glorifies the Father and the Father glorified him. We cannot imagine that they would ever be contrary to one another. For what my opinion is worth, if God can do that with one of his children, he can do it with all those who follow Jesus. Therein is the "abomination" that is contained in the creeds--that God's nature is obscured and prevents mankind from learning its true potential in God's purposes. The heavens are filled with more infinite light and glory that we can possibly imagine from an entire race of glorified, exalted beings, who call God their Father.

This OP's question gives each of us a little reason to squirm. We know ourselves, with all our shortcomings and personal failings, and we rely upon Christ's grace to save us. I've never known a serious latter-day saint who walks around saying, "When I become a god, I'm going to do things like this and this." We don't really think about what exaltation will be like, except perhaps having our family relations forever. We don't tend to dwell upon what our relationship with future spirit children and what our knowledge, power, and character will be like in a million years or a billion years into eternal life. We anticipate that we will be like our Heavenly Parents, but it seems unimaginable that our mortal spirit children will look up to us worshipfully. Nevertheless, that's how it may be. I imagine that my earthly relationship with my own father could be a likeness. I looked up to my father when I was a child and eventually he treated me like I was his peer when I became an adult. Nevertheless, my admiration and devotion to him never diminished, even when I was grown up. I suppose, a zillion years from now, our Father will regard us as "adult" children who can do everything he can do now, but I expect that our devotion and worship of him will be even greater and more perfect than now. It's just too overwhelmingly glorious to contemplate for long. The celestial heavens are likely filled with exalted beings that are bound in eternal families, working together to exalt us lower beings. It's a more glorious heaven than we can imagine. It makes heaven all the more personal and connected. Meanwhile, we tend to focus on the day-to-day challenges of living life in faith, seeking grace, and trying to love one another.

Your question suggests this to me: Since God already knows the outcome of our test, why bother testing us to begin with? The question goes to the subject of what God's omniscience means vis-a-vis our agency. Is the outcome pre-destined? If not, does that mean that we could make a choice that would surprise God? Here's how I think it works. In a quantum universe, physicists tell us, all possibilities exist simultaneously. When we choose we are connecting points in an infinite continuum of choices. That process seems linear to us because we live in time. Time is not the environment in which God lives. He says "all things are present" before him. He sees past, present, and future as one. In other words, his quantum view allows him to see all possible outcomes of our choices, no matter what they are. In that way, he has perfect foreknowledge, but we have full agency to choose. Our testing allows us to be proven. Our true nature will determine our choices. The theoretical has to become practical. When Jesus prayed in Gethsemane that there might be some other way and when he expressed astonishment on the cross when Father withdrew His presence from him, that he might face death like the rest of us, alone and in fear, Jesus' own nature was what gave him strength to overcome the test. He understood theoretically what it was to make an atonement for mankind. When he actually had to work out the atonement, the actual deed was beyond even his own expectations. The test had to be real for him, just as our tests are for us.

I wrote a book several years ago titled, "Building the Ark: Preparing Today to Live in the United Order." I was interested in a quote I read by Pres. Lorenzo Snow, who said that living in that inspired economic system would be as necessary to our survival one day as the Ark was for Noah and his family. As I did research on that book, I found a lot of information about food storage and preparedness. It made me think of food storage differently. Consider that Noah and his family spent slightly over a year on the ark--they had to have a year's supply of food, not only for themselves, but the animals, too. Regardless of however literal of figurative the Ark story is, there is a clear message that obedience to principles of temporal salvation helped Noah survive and deliver his family into a new dispensation. In our family, the first time we had our "year's supply" of food, we built it up gradually using the "pantry" concept. Like our great-grandparents had done, we set up a pantry and, when we went to the store, we stocked it up over time. After a while, we ate what we stored and restocked the pantry when we shopped. Adding just a little extra each time, we had a nice reserve built up with very little effort. We ordered some wheat from the storehouse, learned how to grind it and use it. Additionally, we learned how to garden and cultivate fruit trees. In short, we learned to live like regular people did almost a century ago. If there was a crisis of some kind, like a hurricane, loss of a job, or a civil emergency, we were prepared. It gave us a lot of peace. Some time later, we relocated to a different state for a job change. We knew we'd be living in an apartment and we wouldn't have room for everything. We gave away most of what we had and downsized to a smaller pantry. A few years later, we bought a new home and now we're building up the pantry again. We are on track to have most of of a year's worth of staple items by year's end. This mode of having a year's supply doesn't make you feel like you're preparing for the end of the world. It's just a provident way of living so you can be secure when life's challenges pop up from time to time. If you're prepared, you don't fear (as much). Instead of preparing for the end of the world, I think the Lord wants us to live in a way that will help us have as much security and peace as possible.

For what it's worth, when I was a young missionary in France in the 1980s, we were instructed to include blood products in the Word of Wisdom when we taught it. The French had several traditional dishes that were made using animal blood as the main ingredient. The basis of that instruction was the New Testament's admonitions against consuming blood. Interestingly, that New Testament prohibition was mentioned alongside a probition against eating things that were sacrificed to idols. This was a practice of idolatrous feasts in Roman times and Christians were admonished to avoid even the trappings of idolatry. In the end, the Church went into apostasy and idolatry took over the ancient Church in the form of the mass. It's not often that it would happen, but if you have friends with some "New Age" beliefs, that's something tht you might encounter. For example, people who practice Transcendental Meditation undergo a ceremony where a "sacrificial offering" is made to an image of Guru Dev. In Asian cultures and in Africa, it is common to offer meals, plates of foods, etc, to dead ancestors as part of a meal. Modern revelation doesn't address those situations specifically, but latter-day saints are bound to keep the commandments and counsel of the early apostles as well as the living ones. We just dont run into those situations very often in our culture, but in other culture, additional guidance is often given by local leaders under the supervision of the General Authorities.

I am always a bit dismayed when it takes two pages of discussions before we actually turn to the scriptures for a plain answer. The real question to be answered is this: "Has God revealed the requirements to enter the celestial kingdom of heaven." The answer to that is that he did, in Section 76 of the D&C, specifically verses 50 through 70. To enter the celestial kingdom the following are required: --Baptism by proper authority (including proxy baptism in a temple) and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (confiirmation). It also requires remaining faithful and overcoming trials of faith. For males, ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood (which can also done by proxy for the dead) is needed: And of course, all these things are dependent wholly upon the grace of Christ through his atonement. Of course, none of us wish to judge another person's standing before God. The Lord is clear about the requirements for each kingdom. We don't know the hearts of others, but we also know from the scripture that he works according to our desires. If a person desires the most glorious gospel blessings, the Holy Spirit will prepare his heart to receive them in this life or in the spirit world before the resurrection and judgment (D&C 137:9. I think this is where the differences between the celestial and terrestrial kingdom emerges among Mormons and sectarian Christians. Their desires are shaped by what they are taught is possible. Their creeds teach them that the best they can expect is to not burn in hell and to live in a place where they can see Jesus, living eternally in a resurrected state. That is a good description of the terrestrial kingdom. When they are taught the doctrines of the Restoration--which include restoration of priesthood, celestial marriage, etc., they will either accept it or reject it. When they accept it, these aspirations become part of their desires. God grants them according to their desires and they receive the opportunity to receive the ordinances necessary to receive those blessings. Those who reject the Restoration, reject those teachings and ordinances. Those aspirations do not become part of their desires. Since they disbelieve it or don't desire it, they won't seek those blessings and won't receive the necessary ordinances. They will get what they desired and not one thing more. They desired the conditions that exist in the terrestrial kingdom. They will count themselves blessed to be there because they receive that which they desired. What we believe and what we desire determines what we DO. That's why our works have a role in our destiny as well as faith and grace. I encourage everyone to read D&C 76 with that in mind--how does what we desire interact with what is truly possible?

1. I'll second the Sermon on the Mount. It's simple, profound, and thirty years in the Church, I still have to struggle with almost each item in it. 2. Boy Scouts.

I don't mean to toss a wrench in the machinery, but I have some notions that might lead to a different level of understanding. As background, let me say that I've been dirt poor, lost a business, and struggled with finances for years. I've also had periods of comfort and relative prosperity. In the process, I learned some things. I wrote a book about preparing to live in the united order. When it comes to money, it's a stewardship. Our attitude about money largely determines whether we have enough or not. Our attitude ultimately leads us to make decisions about sacrifice, giving, taking risk, availing ourselves of opportunities, etc. Some people call it your "vision" for your life. Scriptures condemn "idlers." D&C 42:42 says "Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer." There are idle poor people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. They take their bread and garments from those who labor for their own support. Likewise, there are idle rich, who make their living exploiting the laborer, obtaining their bread and garments from those who work while they manipulate markets and use their money to influence lawmakers. If you're not an idler and, if you work with a vision of what you want to achieve, God will bring to pass spiritual creation in your life. In other words, when we work with our "heart, might, mind, and strength," the goals we have in our minds will come to fruition in time. "Heart"--our desires--is the most important factor because it influences all the others. In the French version of the D&C, the word for "might" is pouvoir, which means "to be able." It's opportunity. Desire leads us to opportunity. Then "mind" is our ability to visualize what we desiire. Finally, "strength" is the actual labor we exert. If we follow this pattern, we will be successful in achieving whatever desires we have. When it comes to money, we need to realize that "...the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare..." (D&C 104:17). The perception that we live in a finite world and universe is a telestial illusion. From that illusion springs greed, envy, and all sorts of other evils. When it came to money, Jesus had what he needed, when he needed it. He had the ability to perfectly envision what resources he needed and create them in perfection. I believe he wants us to become like him in that regard, just like all of his other attributes. Consider when Peter ran afoul of the tribute collectors in Capernaum, as recorded in Matthew 17. They were collecting a tax that was used to maintain the temple. The collectors asked Peter if Jesus paid the tribute. He answered that Jesus did. Then Jesus called him on it. Should the Lord, to whom the temple was built to honor, pay a tribute to his own house? Peter realized the quandary he had put his Master in. To rectify the situation, Jesus sent him fishing. He told Peter to look in the mouth of the first fish he'd catch and there would be money. The money would be a sufficient amount to pay the tribute. As for the collectors, they'd have no quarrel with Jesus and Peter would know that the money had been provided by miraculous means. I ponder that passage frequently. It shows that Jesus had the ability to respond to a need, envision a solution, and manifest it with sufficient power as to make it almost instantaneous. That's what a Creator does. That's one of the things we're supposed to learn. Now, Jesus didn't live in luxury on earth. He suffered fatigue and at times, privation. Nevertheless, he had what he needed. He could take a few loaves and fish and feed thousands. That's the example for us. We can take the little that we have and multiply it with heart, might, mind, and strength. It can become enough to take care of others' needs as well. God provides when we need it. Mary and Joseph received gold, frankincense, and myrrh before having to take their child to Egypt. Peter, James, and John caught a boatload of fish to finance their first missions in Jesus' service. When Jesus needed a colt to ride into Jerusalem and a place for the Passover, they were provided in the moment he needed them. When his mother and sisters needed a place to lay his crucified body, Joseph of Arimethea provided one. Since I've come to understand these things, money doesn't stress me nearly as much. It has been easier to provide for my family. I understand the importance of goals and having a clear vision of what I desire. Somehow, when I work with that kind of intention, the Lord opens up the way. Sometimes it takes longer than I hope, but it just seems to happen eventually. How much is the Lord willing to give us? I think it depends on our faith and how strong our desires and vision are. When we realize that the power is in us, by virtue of our relation to our Heavenly Parents, to create what we need, just like they do, suddenly wealth and riches become a means, not an end. He that hath eternal life is rich (D&C 11:7).

If it's too hot, take the jacket off! It's just common sense. Now, that being said, missionaries tend to work under certain restrictions because, at their young age, common sense is sometimes lacking (like the Canadian elder who went out on P-day wearing checkered Converse sneakers and a faux leather jacket adorned with punk rock band buttons.) They are given "uniform" requirements to match the "marketing" image the Church wishes to project and the cultures in which they serve. When I was a missionary in Southwest France in the early 1980s, EVERY respectable man wore a sport coat or suit jacket if he was out in the evening--even if it was nearly 100 degrees. It was an expectation in the culture. Seriously, if it was possible to land people on Venus, where it's 800 degrees, it would be old Frenchmen they'd send. There would be these old guys sitting out on the park benches in wool blazers and a beret when it was well over 90 degrees! Because of the culture, the mission president insisted we follow the custom. It was often a trial of our obedience to mission rules to ride out to a proselyting area on bicycles in the evening heat and then have to put on a jacket--which leads me to an anecdote about obedience. One of my companions had really severe scars all over him from where he was attacked by a vicious German shepherd dog one hot, steamy evening. He and his companion discussed not wearing jackets, but then they decided they'd keep the rules and do as the mission president had directed. Later, after the dog attack, the doctor at the hospital told him that the fact that he had been wearing a jacket probably saved his arm. Keeping the rules gave him protection he wouldn't have had otherwise in that situation. Obedience brings blessings. However, if you're not a missionary having to keep mission rules, take the jacket off if you get hot in sacrament meeting!

Before I joined the Church or even knew anything about Mormons at all, I had a conversation with my mother. I had been reading the New Testament and, in particular, the Acts of the Apostles. I remember asking her, "Wouldn't it be amazing if the Church today was all one like it was back then and had apostles and prophets in it?" I was really inspired and prepared by reading that. When I found the Restored Gospel, I understood that it was that same Church. Miracles happen in the Church, big ones and small ones. Revelations happen, big ones and small ones. Healings happen, big ones and small ones. Every temple built is a revelation. Every patriarchal blessing given is one. Every mission call is one. There are men who hold the keys of the kingdom. What an amazing thing! When I read in the New Testament, not only about Peter, James, John, and Paul, I also think of the lower-level officers like Ananias, Cleopas, Timothy, and others, some of whom were bishops and Seventies. It thrills me to think that we have men of that very same power and office who lead us today. When you look at your bishop, you should see an "Ananias" who the Holy Spirit could call to restore someone's sight. When you have a Seventy at stake conference, imagine that you are listening to Phillip or Timothy, who were companions to the Twelve. Their messages are being given by the same authority and Spirit. It's a marvelous thing!

The OP lost my interest with the use of the word "salvific." That was a big flag that this is one of those spiritless intellectual discussions that doesn't edify or bring one closer to Christ. It's like those bright guys who used big words to justify taking the Church into apostasy back in the 3rd century. I'm not anti-intellectual. I love history. It's just, when it comes to making comparisons and analyzing Aquinas, Luther, Zwingli, and the rest, I don't see much value. They got it wrong. They lived in a time when the fullness of light wasn't available. I would rather feast at the table with Joseph, Brigham, and those who pierced the veil and looked into the heavens. They brought heaven down to earth so farmers could understand it. That's where my heart will always be.

Here's an article I wrote for the Examiner that got picked up by Mormon Times, Deseret News, and some other sites. I think the only surviving version of it now is on this site: http://www.ldsliberty.org/partisans-and-the-saints-choosing-a-side-or-choosing-the-right/ Using politics to divide the Church is dangerous. The Lord will take care of dividing the sheep from the goats. There are people on the extreme right and left in the Church who have the spirit of apostasy. Both sides criticize the General Authorities. The left criticizes them for their stands on same-sex marriage, etc. The right says that the General Authorities aren't telling us about the "Illuminati" or other conspiracies. Both of these extremes will take themselves out of the Church eventually. In the middle, where there are liberals and conservatives who believe and follow the leaders of the Church, they will find common ground and build Zion. The partisanship and rancor lead us away from Zion. I figured out a long time ago that the Church thrives in the tension that exists between the two sides. If either side gained dominance, left or right, it would destroy the Church. The sectarian Christians already tried to do this in the 19th century. If they held complete political power without opposition, we'd never get approval to build another temple. They would use their political clout to block the work. Likewise, if the left had all the power without effective opposition, we'd face similar efforts to hinder the kingdom's progress. We benefit from the tension between both sides keeping each other at bay so that neither gets a monopoly on power.

I have a radical position when it comes to these issues. The solution is to preach the Restoration. I think it was President Hinckley who told the story about feeling ineffective as a missionary. He became discouraged and thought about giving up and going home. He and his companion were getting a lot of persecution and not having much success. They decided that they would avoid controversy and contention by preaching from the Bible and just testifying of Christ until they could build a bridge to people of other faith. When he prayed about the opposition they received and the lack of success, the answer came to him said that he should be preaching the Book of Mormon, testifying of Joseph Smith and the Restoration. He and his companion returned to doing this and the Spirit infused their mission and they had success. A lot of well-meaning saints seek to join with other denominations to solve the world's problems. They fail to realize that one of the chief causes of the problems is the world's rejection of the Restoration. God has imbued the Restoration with everything we need to save the world from its troubles and establish a place of safety and refuge to which the righteous may gather. There is no power in ecumenism. Here's what the world needs to discover from us: The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith.They told Joseph to "go not after" the other churches; they were all in error.An angel was sent by God to deliver the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith.Heavenly messengers restored the keys of he kingdom to Joseph Smith.Revelation and the keys continue in the Church today.The Church of Jesus Christ is the kingdom of God on the earth today.No one else but latter-day saints can testify of this. This is the saving message that God committed to our charge. Of course, we wish for goodwill from other denominations, but they truly have no power to save the world. The points above are the saving points of unity. We love others, but our love can't save them if they reject our testimony. There is no more effective effort that can be made than to preach the gospel. Letter-writing and road-shows aren't going to cut it. Here's what history has shown us. In the 19th century, before secular progressivism began to corrupt the foundations of civilization, the man-made, creed-based churches tried their best to destroy us. It was they who could not bear the message of a newly called prophet and felt compelled to destroy him. The Church has thrived in the tenuous balance between liberal secularism and conservative religionists. If the pendulum swings too far one way or the other, persecution comes upon us from the side that has the temporary advantage. Today, that pressure is coming primarily from the left. Previously, it came from the right. Personally, I don't have any faith that joining with other churches will accomplish anything. However, it buys us time to preach the Restoration and save souls. The restored kingdom of God is what ultimately saves civilization from total destruction.

We don't have "Danites" today, but the Lord did command the Church in Section 123 to gather up all the libelous information published against the Church and preserve it, noting the authors, and publishers in the process. This "evidence" is to be presented to the heads of governments in a final plea for redress and justice for the persecuted saints. This will be one of the last steps be done before the Lord judges the nations for their persecution of the Church. You can be sure that, since the Lord commanded this, that there is some department at Church headquarters that is involved in doing this. Records are kept and they will be part of "the books" from which the world will be judged.