john doe

I think Brigham was a great Prophet. He was definitely an inspired and inspiring man, who held the Church together during one of its most difficult times following the death of Joseph and the forced removal across the plains. One of the problems we run into is that many fundamentalists seem to think that revelation stopped with Brigham or shortly thereafter. Those same fundamentalists like to point to the mainstream church, the one that most likely excommunicated them or their fathers, and claim that this is not the same church that Brigham presided over.
 
But that 'criticism' is somewhat true. We aren't the same. That does not mean that our doctrine or tenets have changed. Truth has not changed. Yes, we do some things differently now than we did then. But just as Brigham did some things differently than Joseph, successive Prophets have done and said things differently than Brigham. That's why we we have living Prophets, so that we can constantly receive 'course corrections', and remain on the path laid out by Jesus Christ. We receive revelation from our current Prophets to help us deal with today's issues and problems, so that we don't remain stuck in the 1850's mindset. We live in 2015, not 1865. I for one, am glad that we get those things, those renewed focuses, those 'course corrections' so that we can deal with today's world, not the world of our ancestors.

Perhaps you haven't noticed it before, but thousands of dead people in Chicago vote every election.

I think Brigham was a great Prophet. He was definitely an inspired and inspiring man, who held the Church together during one of its most difficult times following the death of Joseph and the forced removal across the plains. One of the problems we run into is that many fundamentalists seem to think that revelation stopped with Brigham or shortly thereafter. Those same fundamentalists like to point to the mainstream church, the one that most likely excommunicated them or their fathers, and claim that this is not the same church that Brigham presided over.
 
But that 'criticism' is somewhat true. We aren't the same. That does not mean that our doctrine or tenets have changed. Truth has not changed. Yes, we do some things differently now than we did then. But just as Brigham did some things differently than Joseph, successive Prophets have done and said things differently than Brigham. That's why we we have living Prophets, so that we can constantly receive 'course corrections', and remain on the path laid out by Jesus Christ. We receive revelation from our current Prophets to help us deal with today's issues and problems, so that we don't remain stuck in the 1850's mindset. We live in 2015, not 1865. I for one, am glad that we get those things, those renewed focuses, those 'course corrections' so that we can deal with today's world, not the world of our ancestors.

I think Brigham was a great Prophet. He was definitely an inspired and inspiring man, who held the Church together during one of its most difficult times following the death of Joseph and the forced removal across the plains. One of the problems we run into is that many fundamentalists seem to think that revelation stopped with Brigham or shortly thereafter. Those same fundamentalists like to point to the mainstream church, the one that most likely excommunicated them or their fathers, and claim that this is not the same church that Brigham presided over.
 
But that 'criticism' is somewhat true. We aren't the same. That does not mean that our doctrine or tenets have changed. Truth has not changed. Yes, we do some things differently now than we did then. But just as Brigham did some things differently than Joseph, successive Prophets have done and said things differently than Brigham. That's why we we have living Prophets, so that we can constantly receive 'course corrections', and remain on the path laid out by Jesus Christ. We receive revelation from our current Prophets to help us deal with today's issues and problems, so that we don't remain stuck in the 1850's mindset. We live in 2015, not 1865. I for one, am glad that we get those things, those renewed focuses, those 'course corrections' so that we can deal with today's world, not the world of our ancestors.

I think that (a) no one would ever lose his temple recommend over drinking Diet Coke, and (b) if we honestly strove to live the Word of Wisdom in spirit and not merely in letter, we would give up sugared or caffeinated soda pop completely, whether or not it affected our temple recommend status.

You'll notice that the song doesn't say "Take from the Little Stream, Take, oh take". The idea of the song is that we should be sharing and doing things for others of our own free will. It's about the mindset of performing unexpected service for others. And that's a great concept. It's called being unselfish and lifting others.
 
It's when others think or expect that you should give or donate your talents to them that the problems begin. When they expect you to do something for them for free merely because they don't want to pay for it, or that you go to the same church, or that you are family or friends, then they are the ones who are being selfish.
 
I work in the automotive service repair industry. I make my living working on cars. I also work part time selling auto parts. Some people think that that means I should have no problem after a long day of working and talking to people about cars, to come home and work on their stuff for free. But my sweet wife has made sure to let anyone who approaches me about their car know right up front to expect to pay me for my services if they ask for my help. Setting that boundary from the outset gets the relationship going off on the right foot. People who come up to me now expect that they will be paying me for my services if I help them. Occasionally, depending on the problem and the person, and their personal situation, I may finish a job and refuse payment. But that's my choice, not theirs. That's where 'Give said the Little Stream' comes into play for me. It's about giving, not taking. 'Taking' removes my ability to grow by giving service, and the recipient's ability to grow by thankfully receiving service they fully expected to pay for.
 
But it's not an LDS thing, it's a societal thing. Look at how much more certain segments of society want to take from those of us who work hard without putting in any effort of their own to better themselves. The governmental welfare system is broken. We now have people who feel they are owed something for not working, or because their ancestors may have been abused by someone else's ancestors. Or because they belong to a 'minority' group, race, or class. The end story is generally the same: they want something for free without putting in any effort to earn it for themselves. That's not me 'giving', that's someone else deciding to 'take' from me.

You'll notice that the song doesn't say "Take from the Little Stream, Take, oh take". The idea of the song is that we should be sharing and doing things for others of our own free will. It's about the mindset of performing unexpected service for others. And that's a great concept. It's called being unselfish and lifting others.
 
It's when others think or expect that you should give or donate your talents to them that the problems begin. When they expect you to do something for them for free merely because they don't want to pay for it, or that you go to the same church, or that you are family or friends, then they are the ones who are being selfish.
 
I work in the automotive service repair industry. I make my living working on cars. I also work part time selling auto parts. Some people think that that means I should have no problem after a long day of working and talking to people about cars, to come home and work on their stuff for free. But my sweet wife has made sure to let anyone who approaches me about their car know right up front to expect to pay me for my services if they ask for my help. Setting that boundary from the outset gets the relationship going off on the right foot. People who come up to me now expect that they will be paying me for my services if I help them. Occasionally, depending on the problem and the person, and their personal situation, I may finish a job and refuse payment. But that's my choice, not theirs. That's where 'Give said the Little Stream' comes into play for me. It's about giving, not taking. 'Taking' removes my ability to grow by giving service, and the recipient's ability to grow by thankfully receiving service they fully expected to pay for.
 
But it's not an LDS thing, it's a societal thing. Look at how much more certain segments of society want to take from those of us who work hard without putting in any effort of their own to better themselves. The governmental welfare system is broken. We now have people who feel they are owed something for not working, or because their ancestors may have been abused by someone else's ancestors. Or because they belong to a 'minority' group, race, or class. The end story is generally the same: they want something for free without putting in any effort to earn it for themselves. That's not me 'giving', that's someone else deciding to 'take' from me.

You'll notice that the song doesn't say "Take from the Little Stream, Take, oh take". The idea of the song is that we should be sharing and doing things for others of our own free will. It's about the mindset of performing unexpected service for others. And that's a great concept. It's called being unselfish and lifting others.
 
It's when others think or expect that you should give or donate your talents to them that the problems begin. When they expect you to do something for them for free merely because they don't want to pay for it, or that you go to the same church, or that you are family or friends, then they are the ones who are being selfish.
 
I work in the automotive service repair industry. I make my living working on cars. I also work part time selling auto parts. Some people think that that means I should have no problem after a long day of working and talking to people about cars, to come home and work on their stuff for free. But my sweet wife has made sure to let anyone who approaches me about their car know right up front to expect to pay me for my services if they ask for my help. Setting that boundary from the outset gets the relationship going off on the right foot. People who come up to me now expect that they will be paying me for my services if I help them. Occasionally, depending on the problem and the person, and their personal situation, I may finish a job and refuse payment. But that's my choice, not theirs. That's where 'Give said the Little Stream' comes into play for me. It's about giving, not taking. 'Taking' removes my ability to grow by giving service, and the recipient's ability to grow by thankfully receiving service they fully expected to pay for.
 
But it's not an LDS thing, it's a societal thing. Look at how much more certain segments of society want to take from those of us who work hard without putting in any effort of their own to better themselves. The governmental welfare system is broken. We now have people who feel they are owed something for not working, or because their ancestors may have been abused by someone else's ancestors. Or because they belong to a 'minority' group, race, or class. The end story is generally the same: they want something for free without putting in any effort to earn it for themselves. That's not me 'giving', that's someone else deciding to 'take' from me.

You'll notice that the song doesn't say "Take from the Little Stream, Take, oh take". The idea of the song is that we should be sharing and doing things for others of our own free will. It's about the mindset of performing unexpected service for others. And that's a great concept. It's called being unselfish and lifting others.
 
It's when others think or expect that you should give or donate your talents to them that the problems begin. When they expect you to do something for them for free merely because they don't want to pay for it, or that you go to the same church, or that you are family or friends, then they are the ones who are being selfish.
 
I work in the automotive service repair industry. I make my living working on cars. I also work part time selling auto parts. Some people think that that means I should have no problem after a long day of working and talking to people about cars, to come home and work on their stuff for free. But my sweet wife has made sure to let anyone who approaches me about their car know right up front to expect to pay me for my services if they ask for my help. Setting that boundary from the outset gets the relationship going off on the right foot. People who come up to me now expect that they will be paying me for my services if I help them. Occasionally, depending on the problem and the person, and their personal situation, I may finish a job and refuse payment. But that's my choice, not theirs. That's where 'Give said the Little Stream' comes into play for me. It's about giving, not taking. 'Taking' removes my ability to grow by giving service, and the recipient's ability to grow by thankfully receiving service they fully expected to pay for.
 
But it's not an LDS thing, it's a societal thing. Look at how much more certain segments of society want to take from those of us who work hard without putting in any effort of their own to better themselves. The governmental welfare system is broken. We now have people who feel they are owed something for not working, or because their ancestors may have been abused by someone else's ancestors. Or because they belong to a 'minority' group, race, or class. The end story is generally the same: they want something for free without putting in any effort to earn it for themselves. That's not me 'giving', that's someone else deciding to 'take' from me.

You'll notice that the song doesn't say "Take from the Little Stream, Take, oh take". The idea of the song is that we should be sharing and doing things for others of our own free will. It's about the mindset of performing unexpected service for others. And that's a great concept. It's called being unselfish and lifting others.
 
It's when others think or expect that you should give or donate your talents to them that the problems begin. When they expect you to do something for them for free merely because they don't want to pay for it, or that you go to the same church, or that you are family or friends, then they are the ones who are being selfish.
 
I work in the automotive service repair industry. I make my living working on cars. I also work part time selling auto parts. Some people think that that means I should have no problem after a long day of working and talking to people about cars, to come home and work on their stuff for free. But my sweet wife has made sure to let anyone who approaches me about their car know right up front to expect to pay me for my services if they ask for my help. Setting that boundary from the outset gets the relationship going off on the right foot. People who come up to me now expect that they will be paying me for my services if I help them. Occasionally, depending on the problem and the person, and their personal situation, I may finish a job and refuse payment. But that's my choice, not theirs. That's where 'Give said the Little Stream' comes into play for me. It's about giving, not taking. 'Taking' removes my ability to grow by giving service, and the recipient's ability to grow by thankfully receiving service they fully expected to pay for.
 
But it's not an LDS thing, it's a societal thing. Look at how much more certain segments of society want to take from those of us who work hard without putting in any effort of their own to better themselves. The governmental welfare system is broken. We now have people who feel they are owed something for not working, or because their ancestors may have been abused by someone else's ancestors. Or because they belong to a 'minority' group, race, or class. The end story is generally the same: they want something for free without putting in any effort to earn it for themselves. That's not me 'giving', that's someone else deciding to 'take' from me.

No, wealth is a sign of having a lot of money. True, when the people of the Lord live righteously, he prospers them -- as a people. But wealth is not any sort of sign of individual righteousness. Any such teaching is a pernicious lie, and shame on the person who claims it as LDS doctrine.

So, do you think she'll grow out of this 'religion thing' she's got going on and hope she'll return to normal when she gets back? Or will you be her 'project'? People go on missions to convert non-believers into believers. Do you expect that she will just give up on the values she will be espousing for the next 18 months when she gets back, just to be with you?
 
Unfortunately, I've seen these kinds of situations where a missionary comes home and gets married to a person who is not a member of the church or is not as committed to living it as much as they are. Quite frankly, in many instances the former missionary ends up a few years later regretting the decision to marry the non-believer, even though they may still love that person very much. There are ordinances and experiences that they wish they could share with their spouse that they will never experience in this life. If there are children, the non-believer spouse will not be able to fully engage in baptisms, confirmations, endowments, sealings, etc., or will not be able to participate in at all. Does the non-believer expect the believer to give those things up for him/her? Is it fair to the believer to have a spouse who is never 'evenly-yoked' to them for the rest of their lives?
 
I know this comes across as pretty harsh, but sometimes reality is not what we fantacized about before we enter into these kinds of things. Most non-believers don't realize the pain they put the believing spouse through when they think that their love is bigger than deeply-held spiritual beliefs, and that everything will end up rosy. A deeply religious person who ends up being married to a not-so-religious person or one whose beliefs differ from their own generally winds up being hurt by the failure of the spouse to choose to live the same life as they desire to have. So I ask again: is it fair to her to ask her to give up her deeply-held beliefs just to be with you? Or do you think that maybe you could put a little effort into seeing if her religion is something you might enjoy being a part of?

So, do you think she'll grow out of this 'religion thing' she's got going on and hope she'll return to normal when she gets back? Or will you be her 'project'? People go on missions to convert non-believers into believers. Do you expect that she will just give up on the values she will be espousing for the next 18 months when she gets back, just to be with you?
 
Unfortunately, I've seen these kinds of situations where a missionary comes home and gets married to a person who is not a member of the church or is not as committed to living it as much as they are. Quite frankly, in many instances the former missionary ends up a few years later regretting the decision to marry the non-believer, even though they may still love that person very much. There are ordinances and experiences that they wish they could share with their spouse that they will never experience in this life. If there are children, the non-believer spouse will not be able to fully engage in baptisms, confirmations, endowments, sealings, etc., or will not be able to participate in at all. Does the non-believer expect the believer to give those things up for him/her? Is it fair to the believer to have a spouse who is never 'evenly-yoked' to them for the rest of their lives?
 
I know this comes across as pretty harsh, but sometimes reality is not what we fantacized about before we enter into these kinds of things. Most non-believers don't realize the pain they put the believing spouse through when they think that their love is bigger than deeply-held spiritual beliefs, and that everything will end up rosy. A deeply religious person who ends up being married to a not-so-religious person or one whose beliefs differ from their own generally winds up being hurt by the failure of the spouse to choose to live the same life as they desire to have. So I ask again: is it fair to her to ask her to give up her deeply-held beliefs just to be with you? Or do you think that maybe you could put a little effort into seeing if her religion is something you might enjoy being a part of?

So, do you think she'll grow out of this 'religion thing' she's got going on and hope she'll return to normal when she gets back? Or will you be her 'project'? People go on missions to convert non-believers into believers. Do you expect that she will just give up on the values she will be espousing for the next 18 months when she gets back, just to be with you?
 
Unfortunately, I've seen these kinds of situations where a missionary comes home and gets married to a person who is not a member of the church or is not as committed to living it as much as they are. Quite frankly, in many instances the former missionary ends up a few years later regretting the decision to marry the non-believer, even though they may still love that person very much. There are ordinances and experiences that they wish they could share with their spouse that they will never experience in this life. If there are children, the non-believer spouse will not be able to fully engage in baptisms, confirmations, endowments, sealings, etc., or will not be able to participate in at all. Does the non-believer expect the believer to give those things up for him/her? Is it fair to the believer to have a spouse who is never 'evenly-yoked' to them for the rest of their lives?
 
I know this comes across as pretty harsh, but sometimes reality is not what we fantacized about before we enter into these kinds of things. Most non-believers don't realize the pain they put the believing spouse through when they think that their love is bigger than deeply-held spiritual beliefs, and that everything will end up rosy. A deeply religious person who ends up being married to a not-so-religious person or one whose beliefs differ from their own generally winds up being hurt by the failure of the spouse to choose to live the same life as they desire to have. So I ask again: is it fair to her to ask her to give up her deeply-held beliefs just to be with you? Or do you think that maybe you could put a little effort into seeing if her religion is something you might enjoy being a part of?

So, do you think she'll grow out of this 'religion thing' she's got going on and hope she'll return to normal when she gets back? Or will you be her 'project'? People go on missions to convert non-believers into believers. Do you expect that she will just give up on the values she will be espousing for the next 18 months when she gets back, just to be with you?
 
Unfortunately, I've seen these kinds of situations where a missionary comes home and gets married to a person who is not a member of the church or is not as committed to living it as much as they are. Quite frankly, in many instances the former missionary ends up a few years later regretting the decision to marry the non-believer, even though they may still love that person very much. There are ordinances and experiences that they wish they could share with their spouse that they will never experience in this life. If there are children, the non-believer spouse will not be able to fully engage in baptisms, confirmations, endowments, sealings, etc., or will not be able to participate in at all. Does the non-believer expect the believer to give those things up for him/her? Is it fair to the believer to have a spouse who is never 'evenly-yoked' to them for the rest of their lives?
 
I know this comes across as pretty harsh, but sometimes reality is not what we fantacized about before we enter into these kinds of things. Most non-believers don't realize the pain they put the believing spouse through when they think that their love is bigger than deeply-held spiritual beliefs, and that everything will end up rosy. A deeply religious person who ends up being married to a not-so-religious person or one whose beliefs differ from their own generally winds up being hurt by the failure of the spouse to choose to live the same life as they desire to have. So I ask again: is it fair to her to ask her to give up her deeply-held beliefs just to be with you? Or do you think that maybe you could put a little effort into seeing if her religion is something you might enjoy being a part of?

So, do you think she'll grow out of this 'religion thing' she's got going on and hope she'll return to normal when she gets back? Or will you be her 'project'? People go on missions to convert non-believers into believers. Do you expect that she will just give up on the values she will be espousing for the next 18 months when she gets back, just to be with you?
 
Unfortunately, I've seen these kinds of situations where a missionary comes home and gets married to a person who is not a member of the church or is not as committed to living it as much as they are. Quite frankly, in many instances the former missionary ends up a few years later regretting the decision to marry the non-believer, even though they may still love that person very much. There are ordinances and experiences that they wish they could share with their spouse that they will never experience in this life. If there are children, the non-believer spouse will not be able to fully engage in baptisms, confirmations, endowments, sealings, etc., or will not be able to participate in at all. Does the non-believer expect the believer to give those things up for him/her? Is it fair to the believer to have a spouse who is never 'evenly-yoked' to them for the rest of their lives?
 
I know this comes across as pretty harsh, but sometimes reality is not what we fantacized about before we enter into these kinds of things. Most non-believers don't realize the pain they put the believing spouse through when they think that their love is bigger than deeply-held spiritual beliefs, and that everything will end up rosy. A deeply religious person who ends up being married to a not-so-religious person or one whose beliefs differ from their own generally winds up being hurt by the failure of the spouse to choose to live the same life as they desire to have. So I ask again: is it fair to her to ask her to give up her deeply-held beliefs just to be with you? Or do you think that maybe you could put a little effort into seeing if her religion is something you might enjoy being a part of?

So, do you think she'll grow out of this 'religion thing' she's got going on and hope she'll return to normal when she gets back? Or will you be her 'project'? People go on missions to convert non-believers into believers. Do you expect that she will just give up on the values she will be espousing for the next 18 months when she gets back, just to be with you?
 
Unfortunately, I've seen these kinds of situations where a missionary comes home and gets married to a person who is not a member of the church or is not as committed to living it as much as they are. Quite frankly, in many instances the former missionary ends up a few years later regretting the decision to marry the non-believer, even though they may still love that person very much. There are ordinances and experiences that they wish they could share with their spouse that they will never experience in this life. If there are children, the non-believer spouse will not be able to fully engage in baptisms, confirmations, endowments, sealings, etc., or will not be able to participate in at all. Does the non-believer expect the believer to give those things up for him/her? Is it fair to the believer to have a spouse who is never 'evenly-yoked' to them for the rest of their lives?
 
I know this comes across as pretty harsh, but sometimes reality is not what we fantacized about before we enter into these kinds of things. Most non-believers don't realize the pain they put the believing spouse through when they think that their love is bigger than deeply-held spiritual beliefs, and that everything will end up rosy. A deeply religious person who ends up being married to a not-so-religious person or one whose beliefs differ from their own generally winds up being hurt by the failure of the spouse to choose to live the same life as they desire to have. So I ask again: is it fair to her to ask her to give up her deeply-held beliefs just to be with you? Or do you think that maybe you could put a little effort into seeing if her religion is something you might enjoy being a part of?

The best self-help book I've read is the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you've heard of it?

I went broke trying to get my self-help business book published. Sorry.

I still don't have a definitive answer as to why Stairway to Heaven isn't in the hymnbook.

I'm going to repeat a Mormon Urban Legend here. I have a co-worker who told me that the people who created the Green Tea HP that is sold in SLC area malls live in his stake and are current temple recommend holders. He takes that to infer that green tea (or some forms of it) is probably okay under the Word of Wisdom. Also, my bishop spoke about this a couple months ago and basically said that this is one of those gray areas where each individual should make the decision for themselves.
That's the way I choose to deal with this situation. Since there is no commandment for this, study it out in your own mind, pray about it, and if you feel that it is okay for you to partake in it, then you are free do so. If not, then don't. But don't condemn someone else who may choose differently. If the church comes out and makes an official statement later, you can adjust your behavior accordingly then.

I still don't have a definitive answer as to why Stairway to Heaven isn't in the hymnbook.

I still don't have a definitive answer as to why Stairway to Heaven isn't in the hymnbook.

I still don't have a definitive answer as to why Stairway to Heaven isn't in the hymnbook.

I don't like the crew neck top, either, and I AM a pencil-necked geek.