estradling75

Its a balancing act. You don't want to be the guy on his roof during a flood that turns down the chances of rescue because 'God would Save him' only to find out in the after life that god sent the rescuers and he didn't take the chance that he had to be rescued. On the other hand you also don't want to be the person who reads everything that happens as a sign that you need to do something to fulfill the blessing, because not everything that looks like an opportunity is going to be one or the one the Lord has planned for you. You need to walk the middle road between the two extremes. You need to be living in harmony with the gospel so that the spirit can be with you to guide your path on when you should act in the fulfilling of the blessings

We will have a 1000 years (give or take) to finish up between the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Which will include direct revelation for those that need it but we don't have the information for

It seems nice and having a dedicated room seems like a good idea. The only problem I see with it is the slippery slope potential. Basically the gradual replacement in the hearts of the people using it of the need to go to the temple. Or worst the idea that if you have a 'Celestial Room' in your home what about other temple rooms and then the how about ordinance work? Admittedly that is far down the slope but it would be a slow slide of gradual acceptance. People would need to on watch and guard for that.

Well lets take a look at how this breaks down time line wise. October 09 The boy's parents and Susan Brock meet with LDS Stake President Mitch Jones. Why a Stake President? Most likely reason is that they didn't have a Bishop in common. The boy's parents had issues with how Brock was interacting with their son. The boy's father directly accuses Sister Brock of having sex with his son which she denies. This is the first time the church learns about it and what does the President Jones have? He has an accusation. No proof, no confession, just the worry of a parents that something is off. The article makes a big deal that the church should have reported it. At this point I ask report what? The parents had the concerns, and the worries. They were also clearly trying to work out the issue. Responsibility stays with the parents with the church supporting them as it can. The article also plays a what if. It says that if President Jones would have called in and talk to the boy they would have caught this a year earlier... Say what? Really that is quite a leap. First the worst case possibly (which turned out to be true) is that the young man has been groomed to lie and protect the relationship, and has been lying to his parents. Why would he suddenly tell the Stake President the truth? Most likely the President would have to push pretty hard to get anything. And the President has to consider the possibility that there is nothing. How hard do you push a kid if the lying answer and a potentially true answer are the same? The article makes it a given that the boy would have confessed, facts as presented and experience tells me its not a given, and the pursuit of it could have alienated the boy from church leaders entirely. So we move along The article reports that On Oct. 9-10, 2010: Susan Brock confesses to Bishop Matthew Meyers. Church instructions have Bishop Meyers calling the help line. I would guess that the law is read and understood. (ie he did not have to call police) and that the child needs to be protected. So Sister Brock's bishop (Meyers) calls the The boy's bishop (Hansen) that day and tells him what is going on. This happens on the 10th or 12th according to the article. Worst case is it took 2 days. Given that a Bishop can't just leave this information on a voice mail some phone tag might have happened. Bishop Hansen calls The boy's father and the boy in to his office to tell them.(Oct 19) For some reason this takes 7-9 days. We are not told why? Did the Bishop Hansen have problem getting an appointment for some reason? where they out of town or too busy to meet? The article is interestingly blank on this. The father knew on Oct 19, he reported on the 22 saying he was tired of waiting. Waiting for whom? Waiting for what? Someone else to take over his parental responsibility to protect his son? To me it looks like the church did everything it could to support and assist the family in it time of trouble based on what it knew and when it knew it. Technically the Bishop could have called the police after the confession. (October 9-10) But according to the facts found out later it would change nothing about what happened to the boy. Total time between confession (and the Church knowing) and jail time was 12 to 14 days depending on exact date of confession. Clearly there is room for improvement but thinking the church is some how protecting or sheltering child abusers simply is not there.

For those that were wondering what the law was in this case... (and missed in on the side bar) Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3620 (Edited for clarity [removing legalese redundancy]) "A member of the clergy, who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, in the course of the discipline enjoyed by the church to which the member of the clergy, belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, may otherwise make of the minor."

What I love is in the very first link the point they make about the Church knowing about the abuse was when the parents of the boy approached and had a meeting with the Stake President... In other words the boy parents had reason to believe their son was being abused... But some how it is the Church's fault that nothing was done. It would be different if the Church leaders knew while the parents did not. But the parents did and they are the first line of protection, not the church.

Here is something else that was only briefly brought up but never really looked at. What if the bishop did report it to the proper legal authorities? Tempe is pretty close to my local stomping grounds. And CPS (Child Protective Services) in this area has been in the news quite a bit for their failure to act. Of course the only newsworthy stories are the ones were the kid ends up dead. I am not entirely sure of the time frame but it seems like it is pretty close..

Seanroberts, I have read your posts and seen your 'enthusiasm' in posting. If it was my daughter you were focused on I would have a shotgun and a restraining order ready to put in your face every time you tried to contact her. Why? Because you are unbalanced, obsessive, fixated, on a singular event to the point that you can't have a healthy relationship. It seem that you think if you can be with her then she would 'fix' all your problems. This is simply not true. You make claim to personal revelation and that is fine, but it is just that, personal. No one is obliged to accept or otherwise change according to your personal beliefs. And you appear to be using that belief as a proxy for the relationship you should have with Christ, this will not work. Step back from the obsession to have this girl 'now.' Fix your life, get right with Christ, then and only then will any blessing the Lord has promised you come your way.

The Bishop does not have the authority to cancel it... He can only initiate the process. I have never heard of a Sealing actually being canceled for something like this.

Interesting... I also heard the same thing as UtahDave. I filed it under interesting bit of trivia at the time. If I am remembering correctly it came up during a discussion about resurrection and perfect bodies. I will be interested to see if it can be clearly sourced one way or the other

Silly Backroads... You are suppose to be drinking the Kool Aid... Not wearing it

Alright if you go on a mission you will not spend the rest of your life feeling regret every time the subject comes up at church

Which is why you list it as Volunteer Work when you have skills you want to make sure the employeer knows about while down playing the religious aspects.

That is the official question yes... However if the person doing the interview is in tune with the spirit and the spirit prompts them to ask other questions they can. And if they get prompted that the question wasn't answered in a way that the Lord agrees with, they are fully empowered to say no..

Please quote where I ever said that... Because to rephrase what I said... if People found it funny and tolerable when other people where getting mocked... They are hypocritical to expect different treatment for their own beliefs.

Abuse is a hot button topic and I know the Bishops are told to be very watchful for it. As to what the Bishop will do that is still up in the air, but I would expect him to address the issue as much at the individual members will allow. That being said that the higher level disciplinary actions for a priesthood holder get bumped up to the Stake President.

There are a lot of factors to be considered here. Endowments is one. Also if the law is being broken then there are legal requirements to consider. With them being inactive then there is the repentance process to think about. Most likely its not really going to happen no matter what, but they might be able to trigger something. Finally there is the impact the persons action is having on the Church as a whole. But most people aren't going to effect it much, but others might due to popularity or something. The Church might need to distance itself from them in an official manner (Please note this is rare)

South Park and its creators mock everyone... If people watch the shows and find them funny, then suddenly take offense because show targets their particular brand of 'sacred.' after laughing at all the other mockings. Well then they are being a hypocrite

How you and your Husband choose to raise your kids is your business and your business only. Ultimately grandparents don't get a vote. That being said there is a lot of wisdom in bringing the grandparents in so they understand your position. (even if they don't agree with it) Especially if they are going to be watching(babysitting) them for you. Personally I'd let it come up naturally, because if you make a huge deal of it then they will take it as a huge deal, with all the judgmental rebuking baggage you are trying to avoid.

After reading the Skousen's talk and Cooles's counter I find the Skousen idea to leave a bad taste in my mouth. To me it almost as if he is saying that God the Father is running a giant con on the lesser intelligences. Tricking the universe to get his way and maintain power. That simply doesn't match with how I understand that God the Father operates.

Interesting I see alot of things about the wife's flaws and very little about husband's flaws (except what we read between the lines of his posts) Problem is that a marriage doesn't get to this point without their being flaws and missteps on both sides. Without acknowledging those missteps and working to correct them, he will repeat them. The next step should be serious martial counciling. It might help them pull the marriage back together, at the very least it could show him were he went wrong (if he is willing to man up and face them)

No they are not all necessarily bad. However there are plenty of bad ones out there. The righteous ones will be working things the Lord's way, all the others will be doing things their own way.. So a living person can choose to open themselves up to 'whatever' but they take the risk in doing so. The Lord has given counsel on how we should be handling it, and like usual it is the best way.

They could also do a temple ceremony in the morning and then do whatever else they wish to help the parents feel included later that day with no problem.

From the Current Gospel Principles manual Chapter 41 the Postmortal Spirit World Where Is the Postmortal Spirit World? Latter-day prophets have said that the spirits of those who have died are not far from us. President Ezra Taft Benson said: “Sometimes the veil between this life and the life beyond becomes very thin. Our loved ones who have passed on are not far from us” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1971, 18; or Ensign, June 1971, 33). President Brigham Young taught that the postmortal spirit world is on the earth, around us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 279).

The part that stands out to me is when you say you have very little control over it. You need to get control over it, and yes it will be difficult. Are you at a stage in your life were you can master one of the bodies most powerful drives (now that it has been stirred up) on your own? The Bishop can help. In fact he will probably work with you over a period of time and the idea that you might reporting to him on a regular basis could be a very powerful motivator to stop. Which is something you need.