rubondfan2

No, I'm not referring to what that website you provided the link for speculates upon. Interesting ideas on that site, though... No, I'm referring only to the sealing ordinance itself, for which the language is readily accessible... able to be heard and understood by tens of thousands of temple goers throughout the world.

Absolutely! I echo Suzie's comment when I say that there is no reason to wait for some computerized transfer of membership information to begin the repentance process with your Bishop. Whatever Ward boundary you are living in, that is the Bishop you should be working with. The Bishop holds the keys over all the people residing within his Ward boundaries... whether members of the Church or not, or whether records are in the system or not. Now, while your records are moving over, your current "geographical" Bishop may consult with (and most certainly will, I am sure) your former "non-geographical-yet-that's-who-your-Bishop-was-before" Bishop. And all that is perfectly normal, acceptable and proper... and hey... isn't it great to have TWO Bishops working together to help you through your repentance process? :) Another poster earlier mentioned also that you can be diving into the scriptures, praying and spending all kinds of one-on-one time with the Lord right now. That is super advice as well. Repentance is a process of complete change of heart and life and does not begin and end with a conversation with your "Bishop of record". Best of luck and may the Lord bless you as you open your heart to him through sincere repentance. Way to go!

A great question, and one that is difficult (at least for me in my mind) to answer here on the forum due to the sacred nature of the language used. I suggest that the next time you visit the temple to perform work, that you opt for sealings and listen super, duper closely to the words spoken. Listen for 4 separate "sealing" promises that are given. If you are fortunate like I was, you will have a sealer who will take some time and stop periodically to explain the wording and the doctrine associated therewith. I had the privilege of sitting in for about 1 1/2 hours worth of sealings with the former Temple President in the Columbus, Ohio temple and former member of the Seventy, D. Lee Tobler. He stopped several times during our session and gave us direct teaching regarding the sealing ordinance and it was very powerful and enlightening. In short, the sealing blessings can only come to children who have been "sealed" to parents as though they had been born into the new and everlasting covenant, or to individuals who are getting married. I don't think I can say much more than that... you'll just have to make a trip to the temple yourself. (We could all use a little extra excuse to go, eh? :) )

Here's my take on the "sealing" ordinance... a position that I did not state in the other thread you mentioned because I didn't want to derail that thread with a larger discussion about how I look at the sealing ordinance in the temple. First, however, I will state again that it has been my experience in recent years that "sealing clearances" are being granted BOTH to women AND men now and that the action of a sealing cancellation is seen less and less often. My speculation for the reasons why this is the case are two-fold. One, with the high rate of divorce, the sheer number of requests for sealing clearances and cancellations with a membership body approaching 14 million must be nearly overwhelming. I would guess that the US rate is higher than in most other areas of the world, but that's another discussion for another thread. Perhaps some "efficiencies" have been looked for to contend with the numbers. Second, is the Church's overall modification of policies and procedures related to temple ordinances over the years. Remember when you had to have all kinds of information on a deceased person before you could take their name through the temple? Now, all you need is pretty much their name and a best guess as to a death date (that's a slight exaggeration, but not much). Why is that? Well... I've heard different reasons from Priesthood leaders, which generally fall within the realm of, "There's so much work to be done and it's more important to just get the work done because in the end, the Lord and each individual will work out the details in the hereafter." That makes sense to me and I do subscribe to that general belief. Now, on the subject of sealings. Many of us in the church misunderstand what the sealing is all about. It is NOT spiritually chaining or handcuffing family members together to form one big giant chain of people. This is the image that I've seen so many have and I myself conjured up this image in my mind when I was a youth and into my early adulthood even. Then I received some great counsel from a Bishop once and had this confirmed by a sealer in the temple; and that is this: The "sealing" is just an ordinance... like baptism or confirmation or Priesthood conferrence. When you are sealed in the temple, you are not actually "sealed together", but rather are "sealed" with great promises based on your agreement with the terms of the ordinance and your faithfulness to temple covenants. The whole wording is quite individualistic if you listen closely the next time you perform proxy work. When you are "sealed" in the temple, think of it as one more "checkmark" on your list of saving ordinances that you need personally to receive exaltation. Now, when this life is over, we will have the choice to remain with our spouse who also received that sealing ordinance right along with us and covenanted to be married for time and for all eternity. If you both spent a life together building, loving, working, sweating, crying, bleeding and serving together and grew closer together, then clearly when presented with the decision to remain a forever couple, you're probably going to say "yep! sign us up!". If, however, in this life your marriage was filled with strife, trouble, abuse, distance, or any number of other negative factors, then you might say at that day to the Lord, "nope... no thanks, I think I'll look around for another option". The Lord is not going to say, "Well, you're stuck in this marriage forever because, by golly, you were sealed in the temple... you gave up your agency when you did that, so buck up little campers." This is why a "sealing cancellation" is really not even necessary. Besides why would you want to "cancel" that ordinance that you received in the first place? You don't want to cancel the ordinance, you just don't want to have to be stuck with your ex spouse in the eternities, which if you think about it and given what I said above, is really a silly thing to believe the Lord would even require of us. I hope that others weigh in on this one as well. This is just my "take" based on my own experiences (I've been divorced and so has my wife and so have members of her family) and my own conversations with Priesthood leaders inside and outside of the temple.

Agreed... however in the case of this particular person in my family circle (my mother in-law), she sought for a cancelation but was told that a cancellation's were now being granted only granted under certain circumstances and that even for a female, a sealing clearance was now being given instead of cancelation. The policy certainly was exactly as you state for females, but this has changed in recent years. In any case... the OP should have no problems receiving what she needs to press forward and be sealed to her current husband. About 7 to 10 years ago and further back, I had heard of a lot of cases where the female wasn't able to get a cancelation and was stuck with only being able to be married for "time only" for years and years. Thankfully, the policies and procedures appear to have changed a bit... most likely due to the sheer numbers of divorced members of the church in this age.

Outstanding. All great choices and you are to be commended for your courage. I am sure that the Lord is very pleased with you taking accountability for your part in the marriage decaying and for your willingness to rid yourself of the serious transgressions keeping you from enjoying the full blessings of the Gospel. Awesome to hear that your husband embraced the Gospel within his own life and is endowed. What a wonderful success story! Not necessarily. Absolutely speak with your Bishop on this one as the rules and procedures around sealing cancellations for female, endowed, sealed members have changed over the years. My most recent experience with this (a female family member) is that the Church won't grant a cancellation, but will grant a "sealing clearance". This means you are clear to get sealed, but that your original one is not formally "canceled". Don't stress about this, because a "sealing" doesn't force one or the other party to be with someone they don't want to be in the eternities... everyone still has their agency. I could say a lot more on the sealing ordinance, but it's really not germaine to your question. The long and the short of it is, that you will very likely be able to be sealed to your current husband and even if a cancellation from your former one is not granted, you are in no way "sealed" to him if you don't want to be. This doesn't matter. Your ex will likely be given an opportunity to write a letter as part of the whole review process that goes along with a request for cancellation or a request for sealing clearance. As long as you have been completely forthright throughout your repentance process, nothing that your ex says about you in that letter will hold any merit. The purpose of the "ex spouse letter" is more of a protection for the Church as they evaluate someone's request to have blessings restored, receive a sealing clearance, etc. The Church has an interest in whether or not you chopped people up and buried them in your backyard in the 80's, didn't bother to share that little tidbit with your Bishop, and only your ex spouse happens to be privy to that information. In the end, it is the First Presidency who decides to grant a sealing cancellation or a clearance or both... NOT your ex. (Thank goodness for that!) :) And by the way... a lot of ex's don't even respond to the letter request that the Bishop/Stake President sends out. You may just end up being pleasantly surprised that your ex doesn't even take the time to put pen to paper. I'm pretty sure the Priesthood leader is counseled to only wait for a couple of weeks for a letter from the ex and if they don't get it, they just move on with the process. Former or current Bishops on the forum here can confirm or clarify that. Yep, this letter is just part of the overall process. Try not to fret about your past... if you've truly repented of all of it with sincerity and diligence, then "I the Lord remember them no more"... you should try to do the same. We humans have a tougher time forgiving and letting go than the Lord does... but the exercise in forgiving yourself is a valuable one indeed. I think I ended up covering this with my previous statements above. The bottom line here is that it's time for your and your husband to go and visit with the Bishop to get this whole process started. It's a very good experience and while there may be some emotional bumps along the way because of the ex coming into the picture again, the entire effort is very well spelled out in the handbook of instructions and your leadership will help you through it all with love and support. Best of luck to you and may the Lord bless you and your husband to receive all the blessings of being sealed for time and for all eternity.

Should there have been any question about where the church stands on moral issues, one need only to listen to this great oration by President Boyd K. Packer, delivered with power and authority. A great message of the Lord's position on questions and issues of morality... all done without once using the words "homosexuality" or "gay marriage"; yet... the message was very, very clear. May the Lord continue to bless this great prophet. May we listen and follow his counsel.

Thanks threepercent for posting that recording of (then) Elder Ezra Taft Benson's "14 fundamentals" talk. I had to google it myself earlier to read it over again. I find it very interesting that TWO separate General Authorities not only made mention of Elder Benson's remarks, but quoted all of the 14 fundamentals. Could it be that this was a wake up call to we as members of the church to return to the "fundamentals" concerning our living prophets? Without calling out any particular posters here on the forum specifically, it has been my observation, as a relative "outsider" to the forum (I've only been a member for a couple of months) that many threads, and comments within those threads, debate and even at times discount the words of the prophets, both living and dead. This is, in my opinion, walking dangerously close to that raging river spoken of in 1 Nephi chapter 8. I have also observed, again, as a newbie to the forum, the diverging off into deep and complex ideas and concepts about spirituality, the Gospel and the way we are to live within the world and our lives. The theme was clear in today's session... hold fast to the foundational elements of truth... the living prophets... the fundamentals of the Gospel. Return to the basics, for these are indeed "turbulent" times in which we live. Our marching orders for the next 6 months are being given... are we listening? And more importantly... are we going to follow them?

I would largely agree with your assessment Hordak. Often, when I speak with those not of our faith who ask questions or express curiosities, the subject of "church attendance" comes up. So many of our Christian neigbors, in my experience, are very much "CINO's" (Christians In Name Only) and like you alluded to, either rarely attend worship services, or ONLY attend worship services and then the rest of the week are out living very much "of" the world. True study of even their own faith, much less that of other faiths is virtually non-existent. Here's a recent example of a dialogue that I had with my "roomate" (I am traveling on business currently and rent a room with a single man with a house in my work area). I had returned from church and he was in his usual place on the couch taking in the games when he asked, "well, did you get your Mormon fix for today?"... to which I replied, "nope... Mormonism is a way of life, my friend; today was just a chance to attend services and partake of our Sacrament". We then talked a little more until it was obvious that he was bored and I headed up to my space to read scriptures and chat with my wife and family back home. Yes, being a Latter-Day Saint (an active one, anyway) is a lifestyle choice. It is difficult to simply be a "Sunday Mormon" and many of us are engaged in constant study, prayer and activity. And as I write this at this moment, I am also thinking that our general level of "religious" knowledge could be related to the "lay ministry" nature of our faith. Instead of being led by a paid ministry who does all the thinking, planning, teaching and leading on our behalf, we ourselves do it and therefore are actively engaged in some kind of thought around our faith on a regular basis.

Yeah, I travel a lot and have been able to visit several different temples over the past 5 years or so... It seems that the "small" temples... (there's probably a better term to be used here) do not have chapels, but rather, have you going straight to the session room. A couple off the top of my head that I can think of are: Columbus, OH Edmonton, Alberta Nashville, TN I saw a couple of others point out other examples in recent posts. These "smaller" temples also don't usually have clothing rental available and require an appointment to attend a session... at least that is what I have found in my experience.

It is quite ironic, isn't it? Thanks for your comment. I do wonder however, after reading through a handful of the rapidly growing number of comments on MSN related to that article, just how many of the folks who claim to be "Atheist" are in fact, actually Agnostic. I've found in my experience that many folks like to put on the badge of Atheism, while still having an innate belief in or the existence of a Supreme Being... they're just not convinced in any particular organized faith. Just because one rejects organized religion or spiritual teachings does not an Atheist one make. As for beating J_A_G to the thread forming punch by 4 minutes... well... as a newbie, I take a special sense of pride in that! :)

Just spotted this on MSN.com... interesting... relatively unsurprising. Anyone's thoughts? Survey: Americans don't know much about religion

Let me first echo the words of others that seeking professional help would be a wise course of action. That help could come first in the form of a counselor and not necessarily a medical doctor. I suggest the counselor route first... my opinion of course, and you need to be the one who ultimately and prayerfully makes the decision whose, if any of our various perspectives and thoughts you will follow. Now, I'm going to depart from the general theme of the majority of the posts given here so far. It is not my intent to discount or dismiss any particular poster's advice, thoughts, opinions or advice. I too, am about to give my own opinion based on my own life experiences... but like the anecdote I've heard many times in the past about taking and giving advice, just because a particular "prescription" works for my "bad vision" doesn't mean that I can just simply give you my glasses and everything will be wonderful for you. We, each of us are different, we come from different life experiences and therefore, each of us require our own unique "prescription" for dealing with whatever ails us... be it a spiritual, emotional, physical or psychological dillema. Finally... my disclaimer... I am not a medical professional. I am not your Bishop, parent, sibling or anyone who is entitled to receive revelation on your behalf. I certainly encourage you to give what I have to say some thought and more importantly prayer. Ok... here goes. The first thing that I noticed about your original post is that aside from a very brief mention about needing to read your scriptures more often, I did not see any reference to any kind of church activity, visits with your Bishop, association with other LDS peers (making a big assumption here that you are LDS) or anything having to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This could certainly be the result of your having a difficult time communicating on a forum such as this and you're mind was focused more on getting your symptoms out on the table to all of us in an effort to get some relevant advice. But I am concerned about the absence of things spiritual from your original post. I also noticed that you made a couple of references to what may be some trauma that has occurred in your life... specifically around that of your father. I understand your reluctance to not share intimate details on a public forum and I applaud you for that. I only offer the advice that you check in with yourself about any events in your early childhood or teenage years where some kind of traumatic event may have occurred for which you have not adequately dealt with. Again, a qualified counselor can help you tremendously with these types of things. Now, a word about medications. I am fairly new to the forum and no one as yet has heard me voice my opinion in this area, and I hope that the thread does not become derailed as others seek to "correct me" of my "ignorance" or some other such thing. I'm going to speak frankly here... Our western society has become FAR, FAR too reliant upon medications to "solve" or "manage" our illnesses and problems. Are there some valid exceptions to this? Sure. But in my opinion, the medications our society consumes in such vast quantities are pure poison and are causing far worse consequences to our bodies than the supposed relief of symptoms they propose to address. No "disease" has ever been cured by a man-made medication. Man-made medications have yet to prove that they can "cure" anything. They are designed to treat symptoms. The pharmaceutical industry would love nothing more than to convince us all that we need a pill to "fix" us. And if they can convince us that we need that pill for the rest of our lives... even better. At the end of the day, doctors (many, not all) and pharmaceutical firms (all) are in business to make money. If they aren't selling their product, then they go out of business. I applaud your desire to avoid medications. Even if that desire to avoid is based on nothing more than feeling like "you can take care of this on your own". That very well could be the Spirit speaking to your heart that you need to look within yourself AND IN PARTNERSHIP WITH YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR to find the root of what is causing your depression and to work through it through the process of repentance (if needed), change, spiritual growth, faith and testimony. The Atonment of the Savior is NOT just about overcoming sin. The Savior took upon Himself your infirmities as well. He knows exactly how to succor you and to heal you and to take your hand and guide you. Please, please avoid jumping at the first pill offered you... with all the examples I've heard so far in the previous posts about how a little medication helped their particular situation, I can respond with a greater number of nightmare scenarios where the medication actually made things much, much worse for the individual. The keys, in my opinion: 1) Seek the Father in earnest prayer. I'm not talking about the mindless recitations of "I'm thankful for this day... please bless me... I'm thankful for the scriptures"... I'm talking about a conversation; a heartfelt no holds barred talk with your Father in Heaven. You can receive no better advice than what you will receive from Him through the Spirit. 2) Reach out to your Bishop. He has the keys and the gift of discernment to offer relevant words of counsel. Don't be afraid to ask him to refer you to a qualified counselor. Whether LDS Social Services has a presence in the area you are in or not, your Bishop most assuredly has at least a few professionals to which he can refer you for help. (Don't let lack of money hold you back either... talk with your Bishop if you feel that you cannot afford counseling.) 3) Reach out to a trusted Priesthood holder for a blessing of healing. The power of the Priesthood is absolutely real and absolutely will make a difference based on your faith and faithfullnes. 4) Based on your Bishop's and/or counselor's recommendations, you may then need to seek qualified medical assistance, which MAY lead to the prescription of medications. I would recommend seeking out holistic, naturopathic resources BEFORE jumping into the medical system conveyor belt that nearly always leads to some "diagnosis" for which medications are "required"... remember... its usually always about the money in the western medical/pharmaceutical world. (Now, you're over in Europe which is a different medical model, however there are still many, many incentives for doctors to write prescriptions over there... so please be careful and most importantly PRAYERFUL.) The Gospel of Jesus Christ is an amazing thing. It has the power to heal like no other. As YOU take accountability for your own health, spiritual and physical, and offer your heart fully to Him and to the Spirit, I personally believe you will find the answers you seek. Good luck and may the Lord bless you.

Peripherally related to yesterday's thread, "Retired Generals say - Kids Not Fit to Fight", for which I levied a comment; we have another article today on MSNBC enticing us to enact further legislation around food. Salmonella-sickened grandma pleads for food safety It appears that our buddy Rupert is keen on expanding the role of government in our dietary lives. We've got the attack coming on two fronts... on one end, we've got the fear tactic of "National Security" as in the Retired Generals article yesterday... and on the other end, if that doesn't get you, then we'll use your sick grandma to pull at your heart strings. Despicable. Obvious. Blatant. The sprint to socialism continues on... and in fact the pace appears to be quickening. We know that it is all going to get so much worse before it gets any better and articles like these are painfully obvious to me. But I am just as sure there are many who will read these articles and say to themselves, "Yes! Please help us Congress! Please help us FDA! We cannot bear to take personal responsibility for our own actions anymore... we need you to save us from ourselves!" And then write their congressman and beg them to take action. I for one will be writing mine and telling him/her to leave my food alone... I can take care of myself and my kids quite well on my own, thank you very much.

Precisely. I like to think about all of the significant gospel events as fitting into the model we see demonstrated every day in the church here on earth... such as... Perhaps, (and this is pure speculation "gospel according to rubondfan2" kind of talk here), the Savior and His mission was a "calling" for which he was set apart by the Father at some point... and the Atonement and Resurrection are actually "ordinances" for which there are rules and procedures... much like "dusting of feet", "baptism", "washing and annointing", etc. Until the Savior's "calling" had been fulfilled and the necessary "ordinances" completed (like Atonement and Resurrection) he could not be touched or do anything more than have a brief conversation before going back to the Father to "return and report"... sit before a Celestial High Council of sorts and be formally "released" from his mortal calling and extended a new one. (Kind of like happens when you are a missionary... until you actually have that meeting with the Stake President and High Council -- as was the case for me back in the early 90's -- and are then formally "released", you are still under all the same mission rules like not being without a Priesthood holder companion, not swimming, etc.) This is how I like to envision it all. Again, it's pure speculation on my part and I haven't read anything authoritative to back any of this up. (By the way, if anyone DOES HAVE any sources they can cite by members of the "first 15" along these lines, then please PM me... I'd love to see them.) rubondfan2

Really?? I surely hope that your argument is not in favor of government administering social services... the same entity that takes my tax dollars to support programs for which I am opposed to morally, ethically, culturally, and every other "ally" that I can think of? Of course they (churches) tend to favor those who align with their beliefs... isn't that the point? Your statement "and would thus admister social services with inequality" sounds an awful lot like a purely socialistic and dare I say, communistic rationale coming through. I for one want no part of such a system (and I sure as h-ll am not thrilled with what we have today). Aren't we broken enough as a nation through so-called "equal" administration of services? If Catholics decided to exclude Mormons, I would be perfectly fine with that. What exactly is wrong with an organization establishing guidelines and ground rules for the distribution of services to those who have their hands outstretched to receive them? I'm trying to stay with your arguments, GaySaint, but in this one I just can't do it.

Sadly, I wouldn't have even needed to see a "study" to tell me what is already quite obvious and pervasive throughout our 1st and 2nd world societies. The use, misuse and abuse of easy credit is destroying our economy and our families. The prophets counsel over many years not only rings but now screams within our ears about the dangers of carrying debt. However, we should not be surprised. The central bankers formulated this strategy many years ago and they are seeing the fruits of their labors... a collapsing, emploding economy which will need "rescuing". Thanks, J_A_G for keeping your finger on the pulse of these economic stories. We're going to see many more of them and the astute and "in tune" will be able to see the writing on the wall more clearly as the end times draw nearer.

I first want to thank each of you for your very useful comments and insights. And certainly not to imply that MOE's comment was any better than anyone else's, but it hit right at the heart of what I was looking for. Also, to be clear, I would certainly not have been wanting to read during the ceremony. I was thinking mostly Celestial room and while waiting for other ceremonies... there's a certain amount of "sitting" time, especially when you're doing a full day of service. I do completely agree however, that simply being in the temple and performing the service is, in it's own way, personal study. And I now see the larger view of why personal scriptures are discouraged. Thanks again to each of you for your thoughts!!

I have been attending the temple for many years and today I attended just like normal, only I had an idea come to my mind that I would take my scriptures with me into the session. I realize that there are scriptures all throughout the temple and even in the Celestial room for patrons to read. However, none of those are ones "personal" scriptures and I like to read my own so that I can mark verses that speak to me and/or make notations as I receive personal revelation for me and my family. Now, I've never actually seen anyone carry their scriptures with them into a session, so I did feel a bit like I was some kind of a non-conformist when I walked up to the first step there in the dressing room and one of the guys says, "do you want to put those in your locker?", to which I replied, "well, I actually wanted to take them with me"... to which the other worker says, "I've never seen anyone do that." I ended up feeling a little uncomfortable in that moment so I just went and put them back in my locker and gave up what I had felt pretty passionate about doing, which was to carry my scriptures with me and refer to them (at appropriate times) and record impressions that I may have received as I performed my service. I'm not offended or anything like that. I'm not bitter that I "couldn't" take my scriptures with me. (I actually believe that I could have, because neither of the workers was saying that I "couldn't" take them, only that they had "never seen" anyone do that before.) I'm not one of those who does or doesn't do something just because no one has ever done it before. I also am not an openly rebellious kind of person either. In this instance, I had what I felt was a good idea for me, but then when a couple of workers seemed stumped/concerned, I found myself feeling like maybe my idea was silly and I didn't want to be a potential distraction along the way (like with the officiator and then the veil workers, etc.) Now... after all that... here's my question. And I would be thrilled if there were any temple workers here on the forum who would weigh in on this. My question is, is there any kind of guideline or "policy" on taking ones scriptures with them into a temple session? Thanks for any insights, opinions, or more important, authoritative counsel. Rubondfan2

Don't know if this will make any difference or not, since I'm just a username on this forum (and a fairly new one), but I can vouch for Connor. He is a superb young man, and I know him through his mother, Merrilee Boyack, who is a published LDS author and regularly circuits the U.S. for events like "Time Out for Women". Connor is also a political activist and very active in not only his community there in Lehi, UT, but also in Southern California where I believe he is from originally and also nationwide. The family may come up with their own donation channel over time, but if anyone is hesitating to give to the fund that Connor Boyack has set up, then maybe my "endorsement" will help you feel more comfortable doing so. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this headline. What a tragedy. I can only have hope and find some comfort in knowing (as do the vast majority on this forum, I would imagine) that this good Bishop is now beginning to fulfill his calling on the other side and must have been needed by the Lord. My heart and my prayers go out to his wife, children and family. rubondfan2

Ah, thank you for this more current view of things. I was indeed dating myself, wasn't I? :) And yes, I echo these sentiments. Policies and procedures are only secondary to the greater blessing and beauty of the repentance process. I too, give my encouragement and hope to the OP to push forward and embrace all that the Lord has to give her both directly and through His servants exercising their Priesthood authority.

First to bl8tant, a wonderfully stated post. Thank you for that. carlimac, to provide some additional insight into your question and for the benefit of the OP and others who might be fuzzy on this as well, I will offer up what I have seen in my experience having served closely with Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies over the years. (I have seen the formal disciplinary process multiple times in great detail and do have some "unofficial" insight.) The OP is female, which actually makes a difference in many cases. Depending upon whether or not she was (is) endowed or not will also be a large determining factor in whether or not she will be part of a Bishopric disciplinary counsel or a Stake disciplinary one. (Assuming one is even needed... based on her allusion to sexual transgressions, it most likely will be... which is a gloriously cleansing, learning and growing opportunity, I might add.) Female members who are not endowed, in general will only be required to undergo formal church discipline through the Bishopric. Stake Councils are utilized for Melchizedek Priesthood holders and endowed members and excommunication is the most far reaching consequence that can be imposed by a Stake council. In the case of a Stake disciplinary council, the ENTIRE Stake Presidency and a "quorum" of High Councilmen are in attendance with half the room advocating for "the church" and the other half advocating for "the member"... it is quite an interesting and profoundly spiritual experience. A Bishopric disciplinary council is just that... the members of the Bishopric and the Ward Clerk (to take minutes) are involved. The "highest" consequence that can come out of this type of council is Disfellowshipment, I believe. The bottom line takeaway from all of this, in my opinion, is that for those needing to experience the process of church discipline, it is the most loving, supportive and cleansing process that one could ever experience in the Kingdom of God on the earth. Clearly NOT having to go through one is better, but for those who do for whatever specific individual reasons, they receive such a magnificent opportunity to feel the full love and support of their leaders and learn how to reconnect on a much stronger level with their Lord and Savior. (There are many more members who have experienced these types of proceedings than most of us realize.) Finally, they come away with (in the cases I have seen where the individual is truly repentant and serious about the process) a powerful testimony and understanding of the gift, power and miracle of repentance and forgiveness. To the OP... without even knowing you, I can say that I for one am extremely proud of you for taking this step in your life. Go forward with NO FEAR of this process... whether or not you end up seeing your boss or not. Good luck to you and may the Lord bless you on your journey "home". rubondfan2

Excellent choice. This is one of the roles ideally suited to a Bishop. They are called and set apart with specific keys to minister to the individual members of the ward over whom they have been called to officiate. Unfortunately, this was not the right thing to do. I will assume that you are fairly new to the church and in that case, I will say "shame on the counselor" for meeting with you. The counselor should have known better and clearly some training is needed within the Bishopric in your particular ward over what is and is not within the purview of counselors to the Bishop. The fact that the counselor went on to not hold your discussion in confidence is further disturbing to me, but we are in fact, all of us human and mortal and we do make mistakes and make choices that hurt others. You will need to find forgiveness within your own heart for this individual's actions. And they do have a responsibility, in my opinion, to repent for their breach of confidence. On a more general level of discussion of church organization and government; the Bishop is the ONLY person within the ward leadership who holds the keys to be able to counsel members regarding worthiness, personal or financial matters. All other leaders (Relief Society Presidents, Elders Quorum Presidents, etc.) should all be counseled not to enter into discussions of a personal nature with members of the ward regarding personal worthiness or financial matters. These topics WILL certainly come up as ward leaders and home and visiting teachers are being diligent in their duties, but thier responsibility is only to get basic information and then carry that information to the Bishop through the committee meetings or direct communication with him. The bottom line is not to shut someone off when they feel the spirit prompting them to reach out for help... but when they do and they begin to open up detail to someone other than the Bishop, then the correct step is to provide a supportive and understanding heart and to indicate that this conversation is more appropriate for the Bishop and that you will help them to get in touch with him to get the spiritual/financial/personal counsel and guidance they need.

I can imagine one of the following scenarios likely took place: 1) The complainant said to the workers, "I think I need to switch out... can I do that now?" To which the worker says, "Well, we sure have a lot to get through, can you do a few more?" To which the complainant replies, "Well, Ok" (and meanwhile in his mind he starts to feel pressured to continue). This may have been repeated multiple times with the workers not taking the complainants wishes seriously and the complainant not taking control over his own body and needs. 2) The complainant said to the workers, "Gosh guys, I'm hurting here... I need to switch out." To which the worker says (feeling perhaps his own sense of pressure at the lack of available workers, sheer number of partipants, etc.), "I hear you brother... just keep going a bit longer if you can". To which the complainant says, "Ok, if you say so." (And in his mind says to himself, "Gosh I wish these guys would listen to me... I'm really hurting here... but I'll keep going.") Again, this may have been repeated multiple times with all parties not listening to one another and not taking responsibility for thier own bodies and needs. 3) The complainant says to the worker, "I'm done, I'm not doing any more. I have to switch out now." And he then proceeds to leave the font... at which point the worker stands at the top of the stairs with his arm outstretched and says, "NO, you will not leave the font, you must continue or risk everlasting damnation to your soul." And to the "others" offering to switch out with him the worker turns and says, "Silence to you... I am in charge here and I demand that he continue." In this 3rd scenario, I think there is potential culpability on the part of the worker and by extension, the church. I think there would be sufficient standing to sue at this point. The other two scenarios, while certainly a potential cause of angst and frustration, could very well be the result of the complainant simply not standing up for himself and taking responsibility for his own feelings, choices and actions. I have a super hard time believing that the complainant was "forced" to continue. He may have felt pressure... much of it may have been brought on himself... especially if he was new to the temple. I suspect that if an extreme version of scenario two above or certainly some version of scenario three above took place, then the church will likely settle this out of court for an undisclosed amount and proceed to draft some new training procedures for temple workers.

In the bolded section above, Madison received close to what he was looking for in that the Constitution originally established that Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures and the Representatives by the vote of the people. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, in my opinion, took us in the completely opposite direction the Founders intended by establishing that Senators also be elected by the people. Further to this, the Founders never had in mind a federal income tax and the 16th Amendment is on some very shaky ground. I actually have a much stronger opinion relative to federal income tax than this, but... maybe later. I echo the sentiments of a couple of others who have posted on this thread as well... the tying of votes to dollars spent in taxes is a horrific idea. Perhaps instead of seeking ways to further divide this country into the "have's" and the "have not's", we should be looking at ways to eliminate the federal income tax altogether and to repealing the 17th Amendment to strengthen the rights of the individual states in the Union.