xenic101

Given the training opportunities and manuals, the wealth of assistance available, the well established program and support structure, you say your local ward's Scouting program is poorly run, yet you seem to think those same leaders could do better with a different program?

Seeing the 'Family Stickers" on the backs of cars, I was talking to my wife about getting some for our car. After some discussions about why I couldn't cut the stickers in half for my two kids from a previous marriage, I decided that I wanted more stickers and should get enough to fill a row across my neon's back window. The wife informed me that she didn't want people looking at her funny when she got out, thinking she'd had all 20 kids. So I came up with the obvious solution. I should also get extra women stickers and do a little family chart on the back of the window. The wife then informed me (very informative person I married) that I wasn't allowed to feed stereotypes. (I assume she meant false ones). Sorry for interrupting the fascinating discussion on Joseph Smith's sex life. I just wanted to throw that out there.

Your Bishop has a private beach? Like a secluded cove in the Florida Keys or a little bay on the coast of Northern California? You live somewhere with a beach at all? And the scouts were going camping on it? It's 20 degrees here and they canceled church this morning because of the snow on the ground and you get a beach. I was annoyed when I first returned to church about much the same thing. It only took me several years to mostly get over it...I suppose it's possible things got better as leaders rotated out. But I assure you, it's not just your ward, nor is it personal. Imperfect people are called to lead. You can do like I did and grumble to yourself about how you'd do it better, and why can't so and so learn to read a clock/calendar or realize they might need transportation before there's a handful of scouts standing around in the parking lot. Or, knowing that the leader has an issue in areas, you can fill in the gap to make sure he's covered. That's how we are supposed to treat people in general, not to point out what we see as flaws, but to support them by making sure they're covered. Every week in Priesthood, when an activity is announced for the youth or adults, half a dozen people are asking about location, time, rides, refreshments, ect in order to make sure everything is taken care of instead of assuming the person in charge has thought of everything. The church runs entirely on volunteer leadership, seldom do we have leaders who were trained to their calling. While it's possible the leader is a complete incompetent oaf, I've found it's better for my attitude to assume they've had a horrible week at work, the kids have been acting up all week, the dog died and their house burned down. I've found that really reduces my stress over other people's administrative abilities.

I am.

Janet Thomas, "What Did Joseph Smith Really Look Like?", New Era, Dec. 2005, 28 To everybody he was known as ‘Young Joe Smith,’ to distinguish him from his father, who was ‘Old Joe Smith.’”(John Henry Evans, Joseph Smith: An American Prophet (1946), 37. (what I could find of this book online begins at page 40ish...)) October 1979 Sessions, The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith, N. Eldon Tanner New York Sun of 4 September 1843 stated: “‘This Joe Smith must be set down as an extraordinary character, a prophet-hero, as Carlyle might call him. He is one of the great men of this age, and in future history will rank with those who, in one way or another, have stamped their impress strongly on society’” (History of the Church, 6:3). April 1984 Sessions, The Magnificent Vision Near Palmyra, James E. Faust The New York Sun in the late summer of 1843 said: “That Joe Smith, the founder of the Mormons, is a man of great talent, a deep thinker, an eloquent speaker, an able writer, and a man of great mental power, no one can doubt who has watched his career. That his followers are deceived, we all believe … “Few in this age have done such deeds, and performed such apparent miracles. It is no small thing, in the blaze of this nineteenth century, to give to men a new revelation, found a new religion, establish new forms of worship, to build a city, with new laws, institutions, and orders of architecture,—to establish ecclesiastic, civil and military jurisdiction, found colleges, send out missionaries, and make proselytes in two hemispheres: yet all this has been done by Joe Smith, and that against every sort of opposition, ridicule and persecution.” (History of the Church, 6:3.) Although I'm not sure those count as primary sources. I know I've read dozens of time non-hostile references to him as "Joe", but looking now with google, I'm not able to locate any. For the most part those who believed he was a prophet of God gave and give him the respect of using his full name and most of the 'history' we have has been passed through the church which followed suit, "correcting" it to Joseph where needed. "Joe Smith" was often used by those hostile to him or the church, and those instances abound, however "Joe" is a perfectly acceptable substitute for "Joseph" and was used often enough in informal conversation. Probably because of the church's early persecution complex, derogatory use of "Joe" was left intact, where as familial use of Joe was corrected, because we respect him by using his full name. I suspect the places I've read "Joe Smith" are on the bookshelf in the other room, and that most online search results are either hostile or neutral because those are the ones used most often. Regardless, "Joe" is not innately a derogatory form of "Joseph" and I will not seek out offense over something so idle as someone who doesn't believe him to have been a prophet of God not giving him the respect I do. Had his name been Richard Smith, I might feel differently.

Joseph Smith's friends and family called him Joe all the time.

We were given some collections of them at various times. Now we have a large box of them and my kid, after reading a few, has decided they are dumb and isn't interested in them. I believe the box is in the Goodwill pile.

When I go shopping for books (the only thing I 'shop' for as opposed to simple go buy) I always go straight to DeseretBook.com, once I've decided on a book to get, I Google it and get it from the cheapest online store, often Barnes and Noble. I also favor FranklinCovey for a time management system and leadership books. I was introduced to that brand by a non-member well before I discovered that Stephen Covey was LDS, and reading though 7 Habits and the little guide that came with the planner, I felt the 'rightness' of the ideas he presents. As for any other shopping I do or services I use, I have no idea who owns what.

My wife was confused on that when she was preparing the lesson. She didn't understand why Jonah was all "Kill me now!" when the Lord didn't destroy Ninveh. I pointed out to her that Jonah also ran the opposite direction from what the Lord had told him, and as soon sailors asked him how to appease his God in order to avert the storm, Jonah's answer was to toss him into the sea, essentially "kill me now!". In response to which Jonah was swallowed by a whale for 3 days, then after repenting he runs to Nineveh crying out that the Lord would destroy the city in 40 days. When the people immediately repented and the Lord spared them, Jonah went right back to "just kill me now!", his whole story is filled with drama, then I made my mistake. I told her he was just a drama queen, using one of our children as an example.... Yes, there's now a group of 15 year old's secure in the knowledge that Jonah was a 'drama queen'.

Last week we had an older gentleman talk in Sacrament meeting. In his talk he referred to a couple that had visited with them a few weeks prior. They had 'prepared' the visiting couple by letting them know that they we not expected to take the sacrament and so did not need to feel obligated to do so or uncomfortable by not partaking. On the ride home, the couple had asked about this topic, having heard the purpose of the sacrament was to renew baptismal covenants, they asked why the children partook, not having yet entered into the covenant. There is no was I can do his talk justice, but he proceeded to explain that children take the sacrament because as their parents, we are tasked with preparing them to join the stakes of Zion. We teach them its meaning, its significance, and instill in them its importance, so that when they reach the age of accountability and enter into the covenant, they have an understanding of what and why the renewal of that covenant means to them. My wife had a similar question when she joined the church. I once, briefly, felt the way mrbob does, however after pondering on it, I came to understand. Having explained my 'new' understanding to my wife when she asked, and having spent some years now striving at preparing myself, wife and children to 'join the stakes of Zion', I have a much deeper understanding of the importance of a parents role in leading the children to the Lord.

My wife and I just started teaching the 15 year olds a few weeks ago. We got past the glassy eyed stage pretty quickly, but thanks to two of the girls in class, seem to be stuck with irreverent giggles regardless of the subject. I get to teach the lesson on Hosea next week, but I never knew Jonah was such a funny story until today.

I assure you I have not a biased cell in me, if you'd provide links to your funny/hilarious posts, I'll be more than happy to evaluate their humor content for myself and react appropriately.

wait, what? There's a conflict with the Bible? Is this one of those "my book's bigger than your book" threads?

It's my understanding that Holocaust victims can still be baptized by proxy, just that the Church now has the ability to make sure the existing policy is met: And that Holocaust victims are now officially exempt from needing Temple work done at this time. That's what I understand anyway. I think the main problem is members who failed to pay attention to the existing policy submitting names they shouldn't have. By exempting this group, and making the Policy clearer at the time of submission, hopefully those people will stop submitting names improperly. I'd like to think, based on statements about the new system reducing duplicate temple work, that the system can now cross check submitted names against a database of performed work and against a list of Holocaust victims and deal with the submission appropriately.

On a very similar note... My family recently went historical site seeing (details removed to protect the guilty, or innocent, I'm not judging) While at one certain site owned and maintained by the LDS church, we arrived as the site 'caretakers' were just finishing a round of cleaning off the picnic tables. As I was dragging the cooler with our lunch to a table, I saw the expected missionary name tag, so they were a senior missionary couple watching over the site. (there is a landmark, building with restrooms and a utility room and several picnic tables, lovely place. No tours or anything though, just a stroll around and look kind of place) At some point while we were eating, the guy of the couple climbed onto a riding lawnmower and proceeded to cut the grass in the surrounding field. Later that day while driving, the wife asked me about the word of wisdom...she said the guy was smoking while he was cutting the grass. He wasn't 'hiding' it but was being discreet. The odds of her mistaking some other activity for smoking are pretty small. I don't know, it's not between me and him. I'd much rather overlook someone having a vice, struggling with a commandment, or otherwise not being a perfect Mormon than get uppity about it and let it affect me, I have enough trouble worrying about those in my stewardship. Everyone else falls under "love one another" and that's where I draw the line.

...is OK. Please do so. And if you feel differently, I'm not interested in hearing how your week was.

I think it's vitally important for both parties involved to get each others last names before getting anywhere close to thinking about marriage.

As easy to annoy as I am, I seldom have an issue with children bearing their testimonies. Even though it often means their parents have to help them. Though I can see that a mother letting her 2 year old babble into the microphone would probably annoy me, I'm certain I'd get over it. My ward doesn't see an abundance of 'children' bearing testimonies, though I think we do have a high number of the youth doing so. And that certainly lightens the heart. Even with the critical claim I've heard regarding 'a parade of youth marking it off their Faith in God requirements'. That's not what I hear from them. I hear peer pressure at it's greatest, I hear our youth standing up for their beliefs, I hear them having the courage to share their personal testimonies, and I hear them doing so frequently. A few months ago, after what very well may have been every youth in the ward bearing their testimonies, some starting with a comment about how they had to get up, since they couldn't be the only one in class who hadn't..the last person to get up to bear their testimony was an elderly gentleman, who true to form began with, "I'd like to bear my testimony, because I don't want to be the only youth who hasn't..."

I think it's cool that you read the Book of Mormon, I think it's cool that you prayed for wisdom, I think it's cool you found some points of interest to you, I think you should dig into those things that caught your attention. I think it's not so cool that when sharing your thoughts and feelings on it, you were told you'd done it wrong.

I think, as someone who has a vague recollection of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, that the Book of Mormon is more distinct in establishing that pattern. I think it draws a clearer picture of the pattern the Lord's people follow, and a clearer picture in general. That comes from it's source and being a purpose driven 'compilation'. Funny how that's not a questions the missionaries usually ask....

I think you are referring to the claim that the Book of Mormon could only have come about as Joseph claims because of it's length or depth. I am not referring to that alone, but to everything Joseph taught, including the Book of Mormon. Though a thread looking at correlations in the Book of Mormon to what we know now that Joseph most likely wouldn't have known would be interesting.

I have no answer for you. But I understand. We meet from 11:35-2:35, so we run into a lunch issue as well as the kids getting rowdy because it's nap time. Best advise I can give? Endure to the end! (there are 3 wards in our building, 9-12, 11:35-2:35, and 2-4 (or something, it's the singles ward, so I don't pay attention, I just know they're having sacrament meeting when we're done) so there's always a shuffle for about 10 minutes after our sacrament meeting while we wait for their classes to let out so we can move in.)

This honestly doesn't touch the depth of intricacy of what Joseph restored. Considering the doctrine, the information, the revelations he brought forth, and looking at what has since been discovered that correlates with things he wouldn't have had an outside source for, it would have taken nothing short of a divine miracle for him to have made it up.

I saw that thread, and your response to it. I think that is one major point that is overlooked when non-LDS try to understand LDS belief. It ties together so much, eternal progression, the nature of God and our relation to him, Christ and his role, ect. Every intelligent being that has any bearing, relationship or part in this mortal existence (all of reality as far as it pertains to us now) are the literal spirit children of God the Father. We are his children sent to earth to learn, angels are also his children, most often after they have had their mortal existence, satan was his child 'disowned' for his rebellion, 'demons' were his children who were cast down with satan because of their rebellion. So we are all related as His literal spiritual children. Not in a 'created' sense, but in a very real sense. We all have 'existed forever' though not as we are now. Similar to how a new born baby is created, the atoms of his body already existed, but are organized into a human being. I think it help understand most concepts to remember that we are the Father's children, every analogy that you could make relating to a perfect family (not a tv sitcom family, not even perfect as our limited understanding paints it) applies. Angels are also His children, they are on the same path as us, they are in fact, us. Sent to earth outside of mortality to fulfill a role in God's plan. Satan and his demons, started on the same path as us as God's spiritual children, however their choices prior to this mortal existence have placed them on a different path. You may want to look up and review the Plan of Salvation with that perspective. It has a much deeper meaning when viewed that way. Reading claims and insinuations that my view of God somehow belittles Him by making Him the same species as us, has gotten me thinking recently, and I've come to the conclusion that my view in fact exalts both Him and ourselves higher. He is our Father, not just our creator, we are his children and he loves us as such, not simply as his creation. He created the universe, but it's us he loves. He seeks our exhalation, because that is what a perfect Father does, seeks to raise his children to his level. This is his plan because he's seen it work, having been in our place before. The plan of salvation isn't something He wants to try to see how it turns out, He very much knows that this path provides for eternal progression, because he's seen it.

President Hinckley's statement in that interview was printed not entirely in context... Nature of God/Hinckley downplaying the King Follett Discourse - FAIRMormon This link doesn't do the best of explaining it, but I can't locate the one that included the full text provided by Times magazine as opposed to the printed text. I'm not claiming that it was intentionally twisted or pulled from context, but Hinckley is responding more to the King Follett discourse in general, it having been the topic for a few paragraphs before the actual question. That link does quote Hinckley's response later to the concern over his remarks in that interview. As far as the statement itself. "As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be." It means what it says. And that's about all that's been revealed. Various General Authorities have commented on it, and countless people have speculated on it. However it's never been explained in depth and endorsed from the First Presidency. So we don't know exactly, other than what it says. The fair page I linked to explains that LDS teaching typically focuses on the second half, "As God is now, man may be" because it's what is relevant to us in this mortality. I was going to add my own observations and feelings, but I'm begin pulled away....