dreiko

That's what I meant. So we agree. When I said nondoctrinal currently, I meant it is not in practice. Sorry, I should have made myself more clear.

Book of Mormon... 1. It's an easier read. 2. It's shorter. 3. It helps explain the Bible 4. It really packs a spiritual kick.

It's a blessing that instead of being a healing blessing or commanding the elements with in the body to be healed, it is given when the priesthood holder is impressed upon to instruct the body to give up the spirit. Or in other words, it authorizes the spirit to return home. A similar action was when the Savior gave up His spirit when upon the cross. Or when Abinadi prayed "Oh God receive my soul." And thereafter died. Mosiah 17:19-20. It is a right of priesthood to command the spirit as well as the body. In the case of the Savior, it was the perfect example of the fullness of priesthood.

I would have trouble memorizing all their names. Well... maybe if they wore name tags.

It just means that it is doctrine that is currently not in use. The doctrine in 132 still stands... it's just that we are in a time that the official declaration is in use. Just like the law of consecration, instead we are living the law of tithing currently (D&C 119:4-5). Does the law of tithing negate the law of consecration? No, just that the mandate of the Church is for the law of tithing, not upon the Law of Consecration. The mandate of the Church currently is not to practice the Law of Plural Marriage, but does that mean that the doctrine of that law plural marriage is nullified? No. Just not currently adhered to.

It was actually a loose reference to the fact that the practice of plural marriage (practice of polygamy) occurred prior to aprox. 1891, but was "ended" in the church after the First Presidency's manifesto on plural marriage by President Wilford Woodruff. But the law of plural marriage has always remained doctrine, hence D&C 132. So by that reasoning, "polygamy is not current doctrine" or in other words, doctrine that is in current usage. A similar example would be for the Law of Consecration... (except in the case of the Law of Consecration, we are given to make a covenant in the temple concerning it..).. but the Church as a whole is not commanded to live it because we have taken upon us its lesser law counterpart, which is the Law of Tithing. The Law of plural marriage used to reside in the Law of Chastity, or in other words, the Law of Chastity used to carry a component of the law of plural marriage, but once Prophet Woodruff's manifesto came, that element was removed from the temple ordinance. According to Joseph Smith, both the Law of Plural Marriage and Law of Consecration are laws of the Celestial Kingdom, or in other words are higher laws. They are doctrine, but not currently enforced or utilized doctrine. The Law of Moses is the another example of this, but from a lesser law standpoint.... Say, for instance the blood atonement portion of the Law of Moses, (the portion of animal sacrifice): It is still doctrine, but not currently in use, because we have the higher law... the Law of Sacrifice which is part of the Law of Christ.

Nondoctrinal currently.

Depends on the Spirit. Home teaching: doesn't matter. Priesthood callings don't matter to holding a recommend. Think about the questions that are asked: those matter.

Hang it up. In the field of medicine, I am around gays all the time and they fully know my beliefs and I theirs. If she feels that her "friends" are more important than her belief or your family... then perhaps, she should spend a few days reflecting on who she really is and what she really stands for. The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary - LDS Newsroom

1. What is your favorite color? PINK 2. Where were you born? Las Vegas Nevada 3. Did you serve a mission and if so where? Nope 4. Married or single? single 5. What is your favorite food? Sushi 6. What is your favorite movie? Pride and Prejudice, with a second being, Sky High 7. Who is your favorite band? Uhh.... Celtic Woman 8. Do you have children? Nope 9. Who is your favorite author? Obert Skye and Kevin Clawson 10. What is your hobby? Playing the Harp and painting 11. What is your idea of the perfect vacation? Going to Europe and seeing all of the castles, and staying in one of the castles turned into hotels 12. What is your favorite city? Christmas Cove, Maine 13. What is your favorite sports team? Sports???? Uhhhh... can I say the one my family loves: Denver Broncos 14. What kind of car do you drive? Mercury Mariner 15. What was the first car you owned? Honda CRX 16. What calling do you hold in church? none at the moment 17. If you could travel anywhere in the world that you have not been to before, where would it be? Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales 18. What is your favorite tv show? O'Reilly Factor, I really don't watch a lot of TV, but I do watch Wizards of Waverly place 19. What is your current favorite restaurant? Oh, now, I've been to some five stars so I better not say. 20. What event in your life gave you the biggest rush? Saving a patient's life

No offense, but that's easier said than done. If they don't feel the spirit going to the ward just because of "ward boundaries" and people are treating them bad, it most likely isn't them. Yes, a person can change, but there is only so much one can do when a ward refuses to change. I, personally, have a great ward, but I have friends who are in wards that there isn't a Sunday where they don't come home crying from Church because of how they are treated or their children are treated. And this was even after trying everything they could to reach out... Wards or I should say congregations, are just people some are better than others. They are not the Gospel, with some promoting its teachings wonderfully, while others for some reason feel that Church and temple attendance is all that they need in order to make it to the Celestial Kingdom... But they forget one tiny detail: Love one another. So yes, one should try to change themselves, but if the ward continues to be unkind and its unbearable then leave. The Lord will take care of that ward Himself.

A good daughter-in-law: Someone who wants to be part of your family. Who is friendly and warm, and polite. Who tries to learn the traditions of your family, even though she doesn't have to adopt them. Who is appreciative and wants her children to love you Who doesn't talk bad about you to your son Who is not selfish and supports your son in his dreams. Yet, the biggest things that a good daughter-in-law can do are more geared towards her treatment of your son. Those are the most important: treats him with love, treats their kids with love, admires and honors him, encourages him to be the best he can be, and makes him feel like he can achieve anything.

Yeah. Go ahead, but I'd go to your old ward's sacrament meeting so that you can maintain your record status. Go and be filled then when you're full, turn around and reach out to the others in your old ward. I guarantee that if you are suffering that others are too.

You know what, I agree with you. But there are circumstances that causes us to have vocations outside the home. I don't know whether you are LDS or not, but we LDS have patriarchal blessings that help guide us through our lives... My patriarchal blessing has instructed me to go into medicine because of what the Lord needs me to do in the future. I love baking, and sewing, and even cleaning... I love 50s style aprons and wearing pink dresses and decorating with feminine things. Yet, I am meant to become a doctor so that I can save lives. I think feminism has destroyed our society, but I believe that it has had some good effects. I wouldn't have been able to do what the Lord asked for me to do, if there were not women whom had paved the way before me. Also, I believe all women should have a vocation... because no one knows what might happen to their husbands: divorce, car accident, medical decline, or war, etc.

First of all, congrats on your son's wedding... and kudos to you for trying to become the best mother-in-law that you can. Second, I think the best example of a wonderful mother-in-law is Lucy Mack Smith in my opinion. That and if you always bring the Lord in your relationship and pray for your daughter-in-law you can't go wrong. But here are some "Try Not to Do's" that a lot of my friends and I agree on: 1. Please don't criticize us... we're trying. (Note: Advice is good... criticism is bad. Comparisons are bad.) 2. Your family's ways are not the only ways... We are trying to establish a new family together so let us learn by trial and error. 3. If our husbands complain about us, which they will because we are human, please listen, but don't join in on the complaints. Instead encourage your sons to fight for us.... to make up with us... to maybe consider our side. 4. Don't take what we do as offensive... we're just different, we show our love differently, we raise children differently... we buy gifts differently. Instead, give us a chance and ask us about what we have done and give us a chance to explain. 5. Expect us to be like your daughters or other daughter-in-laws... No body is the same and no body reacts the same. 6. Don't compete with us. He will always be your son, but we need to establish ourselves as his wife... We are not competing for his attention, we are trying to create a new life with our husbands. As for me personally, I would love to have a loving mother-in-law, someone who hugs and makes me feel included in family gatherings... someone who I can learn from and bake with... someone who would teach me my husband's favorite dishes. Someone whom I can trust with my children. Someone whom I can pray with and go to the temple with. Someone who understands that I want to be part of her family. But most of all... someone who loves me and likes me for who I am, because she knows that I only want what best for my husband.

I say do it. I was 21 when I had mine, and it occurred under the same conditions, that I felt strongly urged to get it. I was about to have heart surgery rather than go on a mission or be married, but even my Bishop felt strongly that I was to take out my endowment. So I was 21 and not married and not going on a mission. There really is no set rule, it is all up to your Bishop and Stake President. Pray and fast for what is right and the Lord will touch your Bishop's heart... But keep in mind one important thing: Those covenants that you will make, if broken, bring about serious consequences. Be aware of that when you pray concerning your endowment.

Okay, some of those things may come across as superficial, because I definitely know the second one is. But as for the first, perhaps should be considered 'not the fact that the man didn't go on a mission,' but rather that, women are more interested in the reasons why he didn't go in the first place. I may be different in my opinions than most LDS women, because I tend to prefer probing deeper into causes of actions. I personally do look more at RMs, because they made a commitment to God to give up 2 years of their life to do His work. On the other hand, the men who decide not to go on missions lack that essential trait. Yet, I have heard from many of my friends that they leave the interest in a man being an RM just to that level. I want to take it a step further... because personally, I would rather date a man who had converted and was unable to go on a mission, yet was dedicated to obtaining further light and knowledge from the Lord than a RM whom went on a mission because everyone told him to do it... and hence ended his seeking after the face of the Lord. So is it wrong that LDS women seek RMs? No, that is if they are trying to find someone that shares the same commitment that they have to the Lord. If they are seeking RMs only for the sake of the fact that they are RMs, so they can say to the world that their husband is an RM then they are foolish and superficial. Because the point of the mission is not a status symbol, it instead is about their dedication to the Lord.

Please refer to: Alma 34: "17 Therefore may God grant unto you, my brethren, that ye may begin to exercise your faith unto repentance, that ye begin to call upon his holy name, that he would have mercy upon you; 18 Yea, cry unto him for mercy; for he is mighty to save. 19 Yea, humble yourselves, and continue in aprayer unto him. 20 Cry unto him when ye are in your fields, yea, over all your flocks. 21 Cry unto him in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day, and evening. 22 Yea, cry unto him against the power of your enemies. 23 Yea, cry unto him against the devil, who is an enemy to all righteousness. 24 Cry unto him over the crops of your fields, that ye may prosper in them. 25 Cry over the flocks of your fields, that they may increase. 26 But this is not all; ye must pour out your souls in your closets, and your secret places, and in your wilderness. 27 Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your hearts be full, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your welfare, and also for the welfare of those who are around you." So why not have someone pray over your beloved animal? Mary Fielding Smith prayed that her oxen would be healed so that she could make it to the Salt Lake Valley and it was healed. All prayers whether they be made at home or in the temple turn to the same source and the scriptures are His words. So if He says that it's okay to pray over animals, then why not? Just as long it is a true cause and of heartfelt measure rather than a mockery of the temple ordinance.

Exactly!

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as well.

Sheez, that's up to the inspiration of your gospel doctrine teacher. Some are inspired to research science and the seminary manuals, others are so stringent and feel that they should never bring in anything extra even if that means quotes from the prophets that are not included in the teacher's manual.

Wasn't Oliver Huntington a really loyal friend of Joseph's?

I think he's referring to whether or not the account of Joseph pointing at a particular star and saying that the ten tribes were living there, was true or not. It is a true a account. He was stating that the ten tribes are not here on earth, they're like the City of Enoch.

Yeah... Neil Armstrong.

Thank you! I just asked that question of the Lord today and you gave me a second witness.