carlimac

Interesting that I've never heard of a man wishing he could be Relief Society president.

Hmm...Amish? I love their simple lifestyle but their 3 hour church services would be brutal (Oh wait...3 hour meetings? Sounds familiar) I guess I would probably do some kind of independent worship as I spent oodles of time out in nature. I'd pray to the God of the mountains and trees and sun and clouds and flowers. I'd visit a cathedral now and then with beautiful architecture and awesome acoustics with interesting light patterns coming through stained glass windows. I'd never dress up on Sundays. I'm sure I'd be a coffee or tea drinker and probably an alcoholic so it's a good thing I'm LDS.

Maybe some of us are simply balking at the terms which are hot ones in the political arena right now and are related to so much contention. I personally just can't (don't want to ) use polarizing labels in relation to belief in Christ. That's all.

I agree. What did that have to do with women and the priesthood anyway?

NO I didn't skim over that part. I caught it. I would call myself feminist in that I think women should strive to develop the best in themselves. They should get equal pay for equal work and all that. If a woman isn't married and doesn't have a family (her family SHOULD be her top priority if she has the opportunity to have one) I think it's great if a woman can rise to great heights in the world. She should be able to do anything she aspires to that's righteous and productive and good. President and CEO of companies, President of nations, climb the highest mountain in the world, whatever. If she can do it- more power to her. But that's talking about the earthly world. In matters of the spirit and the Lord's kingdom, He has created specific responsibilites that are different for men and women. EQUAL but different. Men are not called upon to do certain women's duties and women aren't called upon to take on men's. But both genders are blessed equally by the work of the other. It's when women desire the power or whatever it is that they want from holding the priesthood, that they start going against God's plan. I don't know why God made it the way it is. I do know that His plan is there to bring to pass all the happiness and eternal riches possible to both genders in the world to come. So I'll just trust that He knew what He was doing when He set it up. That's how I see it.

Where do you get that there were two Adams and then one was made into an Eve? I think I prefer to go with the temple version of the creation. Animals, then one man was placed on the earth, then Eve. Adam only named her. He didn't define her role.

"Even the Garden of Eden, there was no true definition of Eve in the beginning but considered an Adam. They were both called Adams. It was afterward, that Adam declared who she was when the roles become evident" Huh??

Moe, it looks like we posted at roughly the same time. I asked the very question you were making light of. "why would a woman want the responsibility of the priesthood?" (why wouldn't you want to take on an fulfill covenants that give you access to God's power and great blessings) My response to that is - I don't feel any less access to God's power and blessings because of not holding the priesthood. I have prayer to access His power and am abundantly blessed because of the priesthood through those that hold it. It is very nearby and I have instant access to it through the men in my life- not just men in my household (of which there are precious few) but through my leaders. I don't even feel they always need to be physically present for me to access those blessings. I just asked my husband whether he felt any superior to women because of his ability to hold the priesthood. His immediate answer was - Absolutely not! If I ever even think of it that way- guess what? poof! the power leaves. (Doctrine and Covenants 121:36-42) The power of the priesthood is only to be used in total righteousness and submission to God's will. Using the priesthood to lord over women (like even asssuming the males species is superior) is UN-righteous and the power is then null and void.

Questions- Why would she want women to hold the priesthood? How does she see the concept as flawed? How does she feel about the role of womanhood today? I suggest perhaps she read some of the conference talks that revere women. (Russell Ballard is a big advocate of women in the church.) Also talks by President Hinckley about the importance of women in the church. Sure, women aren't able to hold the priesthood, but there are things men can't do either. That's the way the Lord made it to be. Women and men have different roles in the Lord's kingdom. He has set it up so that there is an equal division of labor. When it's needed we do have access to priesthood blessings through our husbands or other church leaders. As a woman I don't feel the least bit deprived because I can't hold the priesthood. I have enough responsibility as it is. Nor do I feel one iota less imprtant than the men in the church. It might be something she has to experience- being a member and having callings and being a mother (do you have children?) to realize there is plenty to keep us busy without having priesthood responsibilities, too. Best wishes for you and her. I hope she can overcome this hang-up because I have no doubt the Lord will bless you both for her becoming a member.

I could understand that assessment if I were here as a representative of some Anti-LDS group, or if I had a history here of antagonistic postings. But, I'm not and I don't, so not sure why anyone would smell a trap Sorry. I haven't been around long enough to know you. I have to admit to getting jumpy and defensive about this topic. Or at the very least, confounded by the mere question. I would bet that most LDS members take a much more simplistic approach to the term "Christian" than other Christians do. We believe in Jesus Christ as our savior so we are Christians and that's about it. If we believed in Buddha, we'd be Buddhists. If we believed Scooby Doo were our savior and founder of our church, we'd be Scooby Dooians. Maybe it's just me that's simple minded. But Being A Christian doesn't have to be all that complicated.

"IMHO, LDS cannot be pidgeon-holed as liberal or conservative. I've already said that. My intention is to vision-cast a bit. So much energy goes in to the "We ARE Christians!" discussions, that it seemed forward-thinking to ask, "OK...if so, what kind?" We believe in Christ, we follow His teachings, we try to emmulate His compassion and care for humankind, we believe in His atonement and His ability to make up for our weaknesses. What other kind of Christian can or should there be anyway? Diligent or lazy? True to beliefs or hypocrite? Somehow "liberal" or "conservative" are adjectives that just don't seem to jive with Christianity anyway. They are terms used for politics - right or left, or quantitative - as in how much mustard you put in your potato salad. For me, they don't work with being Christian. Either you are or you are not.

I "felt" communication from my mother after her passing a couple of times. It was so strong! I could have sworn she was right there with me although I didn't "hear" her voice. I don't know with a certainty that she was actually there in spirit and observing all that was going on. It may have just been that I knew her so well while she was alive that I knew exactly how she'd want me to act and what to do in these two situations. Same thing happened after my father passed away. My sisters have talked about sensing their "essence"- not seeing them with physical eyes or feeling their touch on our skin but just about feeling them in a spiritual way. Also, we've had some remarkable experiences with physical signs appearing at certain times as if they were sent by my mother. I don't want to tell what that sign is here on this forum because it's too special to my family. But I would guess that a mother who has passed on would have special interest and concern for her children and be allowed to watch over them from heaven at times. I've been to several temple weddings where the temple sealer has said that deceased members of the family who were close to the ones getting married are able to visit and be present at the ceremony. My brother got married after my mother died. When the sealer mentioned this we all burst into tears (as if it wasn't emotional enough that he was finally getting married at 36) ;-) No one said afterward that they saw her but it was so comforting to know she was actually there with us. A book that I have read and really enjoyed, "Beyond Knowing" was written by someone who isn't LDS but works very closely with deceased and their families. She is a forensic pathologist named Janis Amatuzio. I recommend you google her and look into reading her books. They are fascinating and heart warming.

I don't know if anything has changed but my first companion in the mission field in the early 1980s was a 27 yr old divorced woman from the US. She didn't tell me anything about it for a long time (either right before she got transferred or even after our missions- can't remember). She was a great missionary and eventually got married again in her 30s.

I know many who call themselves Christian who would say liberal=bad and conservative=good. So to use those labels will most likely make some people defensive or at least confused - those who think of themselves good through and through but having some qualities you've described in the liberal category. Aren't you fudging a little on the Bilical literalist when you put "mostly" in parenthesis? Are there some stories or events in the Bible that conservative Christians DON'T take literally? I always thought they took everything completely the way they read it in the bible. Anyway, I don't think your definitions of conservative or liberal labels are going to serve anyone but you. It seems to be a question that is attempting to trap or make someone look foolish or inconsistent. LDS are what they are, niether one or the other in my mind. But the doctrines and admonitions are good. If good = conservative in your mind, then so be it. ;-)

Just an observation. It's probably better to pose this question in hypothetical form if you want straight answers than to start it with "I have these two friend-families..." Aside from that, honesty is always the best policy. One of the temple recommend questions is " Are you totally honest in your dealings with your fellow men." Hopefully being totally honest means being totally honest with ourselves, too. Perhaps they think they are being honest and ethical. MY opinion is that I don't think it's honest or ethical to walk away from a debt with no intention of ever paying it back. But I don't understand the financial world at all. So my approach to situations like this will be pretty simplistic.

Me neither. I thought it started out rather spooky. I didn't get a good feeling about it from the get-go. And didn't like them spending so much time on modern day polygamy when it isn't even part of our church anymore and hasn't been for so long. That part was just distracting from the true message of the church. I thought it portrayed much more controversy than was necessary. For me, a typical life long member, my life and activity in the church have very little to do with all the deep, dark questioning and negativity they showed. I think they only followed one typical, happy LDS family through a day or week, whatever, I can't remember the details. Here's a small sampling of what they didn't show- The joy I or anyone can get out of teaching little kids in Primary each week. All th funny comments and the cute prayers they offer and the beautiful singing voices they develop from singing so much in Primary The strength and fortitude our teenagers get from seminary every morning. The quiet (well depending on how many toddlers there are in the ward LOL) peace of renewing our faith and committment to Jesus Christ every week while taking the sacrament. The moments of pure guidance and inspiration from the Holy Ghost All the cool things our 8-12 yr old daughters learn in Activity Days All the cool things our 12-18 yr old daughters and sons do on youth nights The rigorous goals our kids reach The protection they and we get from living a high moral standard The blessing of being sealed together as a family for eternity Generations of righteous, productive, fun loving, clean, wholesome family members enjoying each other's company at a family reunion I could go on and on. Too bad they felt the need to focus so much on the ones who have intellectualized themselves out of the church and out of the warmth and protection of the Holy Ghost. Just sad.

Well, I didn't take the time to read all the posts. But glancing over them it seems there is a lot of hair splitting going on. But in any case... I know many couples who met while one or the other of them were serving a mission. My MTC companion and my cousin got married. They met while he was teaching in the MTC. Re-met at my own wedding. OK maybe that one doesn't count. But I know so many very happy secure couples with children who first met when one was teaching the other the gospel. Whether or not those feelings and attractions were present while the one was in full time missionary service- I don't know. But I can't imagine that it's wrong to marry someone you met while on your mission. Real live experience. I was distracted by a young man I met on my mission. We never discussed feelings for each other in person but it was pretty obvious the attraction was mutual. I discussed it with my MP and was transferred within a week. My heart broke. The young man's did, too, I found out later through letters. But it was the best thing. 4 months later at the end of my mission, I discussed the situation with my MP again. He smiled and said that when we are serving the Lord, it's easy to "fall in love" with just about anyone or anything. We fall in love with the country, the people, the children, even the trees and flowers and the dusty road we are walking on. He told me to not write to this young man for 3 months and see what happens. So after three months we wrote some. This young man told me he wanted to marry me, but the cultural differences became so clear that I knew it would be foolish to try to pursue the relationship. I prayed about it. The answer was no. It was so sad. We would have made the perfect couple. We would have had beautiful children. I don't think I have ever been as physically attracted to any other man as I was to him, (not even my eternal companion [husband] that I've been married to for 25 years.) When I first saw him it was like an electric buzz and a warmth spread over me. And he had the perfect personality for me. We talked and laughed together so easily (with my companion right next to me of course.) He was so great with kids. Everyone loved him. He was a returned missionary. I loved his family, I loved his generous but humble spirit. He was athletic and musical and a great dancer. (I never danced with him, obviously, but I watched him dance with his sister at a stake YA function.) BUT...we lived in completely different parts of the world. He hadn't even a high school education , but I had a college degree. He lived in a shack without any running water or electricity. We spoke different primary languages. We came from totally different life experiences. If there was ever a man in my life who felt like a soul mate, it would have been this young man from my mission. I haven't communicated with him or his family since sending them my wedding announcement. But occasionally I think about him and that warmth and fluttery heart feeling spreads through me again. Even now 26 years later. So I think it's possible to *think* we have met our one and only. But during the time we have committed to serve our Father in Heaven with all our hearts and minds on a full time mission is NOT the time to be thinking about making a match with someone. My one regret is having wasted any time, emotional energy or even possibly teaching opportunities by being distracted by this sweet wonderful young man. I was miserable my last 4 months of my mission not being able to see him. Not good!! I would suggest your cousin get on top of her thoughts and re- commit herself to the work till she's done with her mission. If it was meant to be, it will work out.

I hated having my kids go to early morning seminary the first few years. I felt bone tired for them, watching them stay up late to complete assignments after spending literally 12 hours at school with after school sports and activities- then Young Women's and Young Mens activities. It was all too much. BUT all three of my kids have/ are graduating with high GPA's (one kid never got less than an A, even in honors and AP classes) and have gotten scholarships to college. I think the Lord first blessed my chldren with bright minds (they all know there is much reqired of them because of it), but then helped them out also because of their seminary attendance. I know it hasn't been this way for all their friends. Some have struggled much more with grades. But it truely is amazing how many LDS kids have graduated with honors from our town. So seminary must not be hurting them academically too much. So now we are moving to a town with released time seminary and I've done a complete 180 over this. We'll miss early morning seminary so much. Not only that but school doesn't even start till almost 9 AM in our future high schools. It will be interesting to see how it affects the younger four kids. Will they become too lazy? Stay up too late and end up with poor grades because they aren't being challenged enough? Time will tell.

That's what I thought, too. All humans (most anyway,) have flesh and bones, blood, arms, legs, brains, etc. I always thought that was what was meant by those scriptures. I'm sure there are parts of God's image in us that we can't even comprehend at this stage of the game. But I feel pretty safe in saying that being both male and female aren't part of it. My husband has emotions. He relates to and understands womens emotions pretty well. (WE have five daughters so I think God eqipped him that way.) But he is most definitely not part female. We also have to remember how much symbolism is in the scriptures, temple ceremony, etc. Everything can't be taken literally- within the limits of our human minds. If we try to do that, we'll be badly led astray.

I understand this. I said I agreed we need to teach them. And if we don't teach them, then we as parents are at fault. But I'm posing a different scenario. I'm talking about when we DO teach and they STILL mess up. (Which is more likely the case than not. No matter how much you tell a kid not to lie or steal, some of them are going to do it anyway. ) How are we then still responsible for their actions? Like I said before, we can't FORCE kids to behave. That's Satans way. Sometimes kids just have to learn the hard way- by making mistakes, making poor choices and then learning the consequences. So say we have done all the teaching possible, kid messes up anyway, kid never quite learns what we're trying to teach, Kid dies tragically somehow before turning 8 and being baptized. Are the parents still supposed to carry the kid's mistakes into eternity? I don't think it's that cut and dried. I think our Father in Heaven is much more compassionate than that. There are still unpaid dues when the kid dies- parents may not even know what they are. The only one to take them on would be Jesus Christ, in my viewpoint. LIke I said, mind games. All we can do is our best. I don't think it's a good idea to heap guilt on kids or parents. Life is a learning process and lots and lots of mistakes will be made, sins committed, even by well meaning parents. I think the Lord will take our individual cases into consideration on judgement day and I think He will be loving and fair. Back to my OP- I just don't like the image that might be in some kids heads on baptism day that they have done all these bad things for 8 years and now they have to be washed away. I think a better approach with children is downplay the "washing away sins" part , but to teach them that they are following the Savior's example by being baptized and that baptism is necessary to enter God's kingdom(to become a member of His church) And from that point on, they need to repent after committing sins and help them to understand how the atonement can work for them. Also teach them the pro-active approach of reaching out to people who need help and comfort. That will come more naturally to some than others. But if it's part of our baptismal covenant, and kids realize the seriousness of covenants in the first place, maybe it would help with problems like bullying, cheating, oh- the list is so long of all the rotten stuff kids are capable of doing. Maybe it would help, maybe not.

Hmmm. The way you worded that doesn't quite jive for me. How can parents absorb their children's sins? Does it work retroactively? I fully agree that we are responsible for teaching them while they are young. But even with the best, most concientious teaching, little kids still mess up. Sometimes the teaching just doesn't "take". This is probably where the atonement comes in. Parents can only do so much teaching and exemplifying. We can't force our kids to do the right thing all the time. Does the agency principle not kick in till they are eight? So my original point was that if little chldren truely are incapable of sin, why do we teach them that their sins are washed away at baptism? They wouldn't have any sins to be washed away. Older people would have plenty but not barely 8 yr olds. It's all a mind game anyway. We could make ourselves crazy trying to figure it all out. I just want to be sure I'm teaching my kids the right principle and not make them feel the heavy weight of sin where it's not necessary. Nor do I want them to feel like they have been bad little persons before their baptism. I think it's just that song that bugs me. I always have a hard time singing the second verse- so I usually just dont.

Well if we waited that long, there would cetainly be more sins to be washed away.

Well, yours is probably an unusual circumstance (your wife's condition). I'm sure we're all impressed you stayed true to her. I hope things have gotten better. But it sounds as if the consternation on the part of some of us posting here lies in the practice of people worrying too much and trying too hard to appease the non-member family. Yes we understand you ultimately didn't. Kudos to you for going ahead with your temple marriage. But your parent's reaction to completely abandon you on your wedding day and to continue to use it as a reason to turn their backs on any interest in the church, AND for you to continue to feel guilty about it is a sorry state to be in. Do you think they were justified? If so, this will probably always be an issue for you. I doubt there will be any policy changes any time soon. But if you can see that maybe they were over-reacting just a tad and that they are holding onto their grudge for whatever reason, it may help you to approach the whole memory of your wedding a little differently, yank that blight out of it and remember your wedding as the blessed event it was. YOU tried to involve them with a ring ceremony, but they rejected your offer. You tried to reach a middle ground and compromise but they wouldn't go for it. Sounds like it was "their way or the highway". That said, from what you've described, they sound like good generous people. But they have hurt you with their close minded attitude. Somehow you'll need to come to terms of peace about your decision. Sometimes there are church policies or work policies or school policies that we don't agree with. Often it takes a little more digging to understand the reason for the policy. This policy isn't just a result of controlling sargeant-like leaders of the church with no compassion (as would be the case with many annoying school and work policies) It's probably a policy that has been thought and prayed about sincerely by those who set it in place. All we can do is trust that they have come to their conclusion for a reason. And then pray our non-member families will have their broken hearts consoled and softened. But heaven forbid we say anything negative about it to our families. The long lasting results of that may be far worse than just humbly accepting the policy and doing the best we can with it.

You're right. We can't fully understand. What I should have said was that I wasn't really aware that Mosiah 18: 8-10 was part of the baptismal covenant till I was an adult. 8 ...", as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; 9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life— 10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?" That's a pretty big commitment to be making at age 8. I think kids can understand it in a very elementary way. But it really isn't emphasized in Primary or any of the songs they sing about baptism. They sing generally about "trying to be like Jesus" but not in relation to an actual covenant we are making to do these specific things after being baptized. I honestly heard nothing about this prior to my baptism. I felt sort of stupid (having been a life long member) when I did learn about it in terms of it being "what we promise at baptism". I thought...I promised that? Not that I wouldn't gladly do those things anyway, but I honeslty had never heard of that particular aspect of baptism before. (Sheesh- what else don't I know? ) Maybe it's a relatively new emphasis in the church. The scripture reference has always been there but not taught in such specifics as it is now. Ever since I learned about these promises I've wondered why we don't teach this to kids more as part of a rigorous baptismal preparation. If it's such a serious covenant, we shouldn't be treating it so casually - or at least approaching it as something we just do in the church almost without thinking about it- getting baptized automatically at age eight just because everyone else does.