gruden

ClassyLady's post is all you need. The person who runs the website linked before me tends to think that going into the details of the occult practice in question somehow helps. I tend to agree with the Pres. Faust quote, which is not to focus on that stuff at all. Going into detail about occultic practices can be counter-productive, because sometimes it arouses interest in things that should be left alone, even if the intent is to say it's bad. But I suppose leaving things simply at a stern warning doesn't sell books or bring web site visitors.

Phoenix, For most of my life, I've been the outsider in many wards, sometimes given a hard time and not included in things. There are different reasons, many of them I can't control, but I do treasure the friendships I have had in the past and hope they will come again. In any case, my suggestion for you is to find the Lord's will for you and do it. This will give you purpose, increased spirituality, and draw your attention away from things that are slowing you down. Whatever members may or may not do, the Lord is there. You can always count on Him. And that's the point, isn't it? We get so wrapped up in the Church and all the busy work and the meetings and the he-said-she-said that we lose the big picture. Your salvation does not depend on what anyone else does. What it depends on is your ability to draw close to the Lord. We have been promised that if we seek Him earnestly, we will find Him. So what are you waiting for?! Go do it and God bless.

This is the government model for 'creating' jobs: dump a bunch of money into the economy and hope a miracle happens. This - and what you put forth - is not the model of a self-sustaining economy. Just because someone chopped down some trees and sent lumber to SLC doesn't mean you've done anything long-term for the economy. After that's done, people are standing around hoping for more orders to come through. Since the Church invested in retail business, not production, there's no guarantee of anything when the dust settles. What I proposed, on the other hand, was a way in which self-sustaining industry can be kick-started. I remember reading of Brigham Young and other early church leaders speaking many times of the need to be industrious and production-oriented as the means of creating a vibrant, self-sustaining economy that would be good for the Saints. My, how things have changed. Check out what Hugh Nibley said in Approaching Zion. The answer would be 'yes', and I tend to agree with him.

I would direct you to D&C 24:9 speaking to Joseph Smith: And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling... How a person fares in business has nothing to do with how smart they are. There are brilliant people who do poorly and idiots who are very rich. Joseph Smith was a spiritual giant, yet the church was perpetually broke during his ministry, and the Lord told us why. The notion of people amassing wealth purely by hard work and playing it smart echoes the philosophies written of in the Book of Mormon by the name of Korihor. We have to be careful of internalizing these philosophies without understanding what they mean. It is not our spiritual birthright to have great material blessings - though it can happen. If it does, it is because God permitted it. And, as the other poster pointed out, the Church almost went bankrupt in the 50s, so no, things have been financially precarious for the Church on more than one occasion. I'm sure there's a lesson for us in there somewhere. And if any of us know nothing, it's because we haven't made much effort. One can learn about most anything if one puts the requisite effort forth...

Not that I care what the critics say, but why not? The Church company is out to make money on this - everyone knows it - and it could turn out disastrous. I won't gloat, I will mourn. Can you show me a family of four (or more) where the father works as a salesclerk at Nordstroms and earns sufficient so that his wife can remain at home with the kids (and put food on the table and a roof overhead)? Without going on the dole? That is, unless everyone is abandoning church traditional values completely and give in to the Babylonian way, in which case I will cede the point. That's a fair question, but there's another way to look at it. The Church sunk $3 Billion into this project. I've searched around the net and the estimates I found were that it would create 1,700 jobs. Divide that out, that means the Church spent 1.7 million dollars per job. Are you telling me that's the most efficient way to create jobs? That's worse than the government! Small business is the job creation engine of the economy. If they really wanted to bless the lives of church members, they could setup a venture capital firm to fund startups, and I can pretty much guarantee if they put $3 Billion into it they could've come up with FAR more than 1,700 jobs. Is that a good enough idea? The effects of an organization sinking that amount of money into small business creation would be massive, and would truly be a blessing to members throughout the valley and beyond. And, it's not a dole. Businesses would have to pay the loan back, which would be on good terms to benefit both the lender and borrower. Maybe mine isn't the best idea, but sinking gobs of money into a confined retail/condo project is far worse in regard to job creation. Again, there are other ways to look at this. First, even if the Church could scrape together $3 billion, that puts a serious hurt on the cash flow. Even multi-billion dollar conglomerates have to be careful putting deals like this together. Most get loans, which preserves cash and cash flow. If the Church expended most of its cash reserves to outright pay for this, that puts it in a precarious position if there are shortfalls below revenue projections. In other words, just because you can buy something outright doesn't mean you can afford to keep it. If revenues from the project falls short, that's going to put the Church in a serious fiscal bind. What I find amazing that in our current economic climate where unoccupied commercial real estate is at all-time highs, and foreclosures continue unabated, how any member can feel comfortable with this project. The Church has a major exposure in sections of the economy at greatest risk. If revenues are low, the Church is forced to cover and re-allocate, and that's where things start to get hairy. Sure, we might not have to cover shortfalls, but shortfalls mean funds coming into the ecclesiastic side of the church dry up, which removes the point for which the enterprise side exists! At the end we come to an agreeable point. Again, my point isn't that the Church shouldn't have profitable enterprises, the point is the Church is still a church, even if it operates businesses, and these businesses should have the aim of promoting the most good for its members and community. The Church has sunk enormous sums into a project that will benefit few at-large, and carries large ramifications should it fail. The Church is a pearl of great price, and its fortunes need to be protected carefully. This deeply concerns me, it really does, and to get back to the OP, I can see why it concerns the inactive brother. Nevertheless, I carry on, and I hope the OP can help him come to the realization that his salvation doesn't depend on the Church's balance sheet.

What's to win? The church's purpose is to guide souls back to Christ. What else matters?

He has some valid concerns that do concern me. For me, I never go to tithing settlement. The question is covered in the temple interview and that's good enough for me. People who don't pay their tithing usually don't go anyway. A lot of people have used the pat answer that the mall project doesn't use tithing money for the project, which is technically true, yet doesn't cover many financial realities, such as how the Church has raised money (ie. gotten loans) in the past and how it guarantees any loans it may currently get. The point is, at some time along the way, the Church has had to use church property (including temples) as collateral for business loans. And the fact is, there are serious questions in my mind why the church - even its business arm - would invest such incredible sums of money in a confined project which does little good for church members. The lasting impact is merely a relatively small number of retail jobs which don't pay the best. Can a man support his family solely from a job selling shoes at Nordstroms? In the past the Church has used its funds to by lands for raising food to feed its members via welfare. This project benefits relatively few - major construction firms, bankers, and the investor(s). If this project goes sour, where does the money come from to pay for it? Many didn't notice that one of the Church's insurance companies had to cover a major loss of $500M last year. How many times can it afford to do that? More importantly, what happens if it no longer can? Meanwhile our ward budget gets cut every year. So, I have similar concerns, yet I still believe and remain active. The simple answer is that my faith neither depends on what the church does nor what its members do. My faith comes from a testimony that Jesus lives, that Joseph Smith restored His gospel, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Christian record, and that the ordinances performed in this church are necessary for the salvation of all people. That's it. The church is a vehicle for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, organizing the practice of important ordinances for the living and dead, and providing service opportunities. If one focuses on Christ, he can take all the strange and nonsensical things that happen in stride. I have striven to make my testimony completely independent of any human. Christ is the foundation. If the Church chooses to act increasingly like a corporation, it still doesn't affect my ability to grow closer to God, nor your friend. Tell him to get going and focus on what's important!

How much do you trust God?

As a missionary years ago, there was a member who had previously been a Jehovah's Witness. He told me of a conversation he had with the Stake Pres. shortly after he joined where he expressed regret for 'wasting his time' with the JW's. The Stake Pres. informed him he had not wasted his time, but was a necessary part of his spiritual progression. Many churches stress certain doctrines, and the JW church had what he needed at the time to further his spiritual progression to the point where he was ready to move on. Everything is line-by-line, precept upon precept. Other churches can help fill in certain holes to get us ready for greater light and knowledge. The trick is not to stop, but keep pressing forward.

Of course. Which do you think Nephi was referring to in that verse? Which of those was Nephi repeatedly delivered from in his story?

Yet some were not delivered, like Abinadi, the Apostle Steven, John the Baptist, or even Joseph Smith. As Alma told Amulek in Alma 14:13: And Alma said: Be it according to the will of the Lord. But, behold, our work is not finished; therefore they burn us not. Some are called to seal their testimony with their blood, others are not.

Right. In those cases the next best thing was a mountain. Moses, Elijah and Nephi (and possibly the Bro. of Jared) were called up to a mountain for important communications. Jesus went to a mountain for the Transfiguration. The Israelites hauled around a big tent for 40 years as the center of religious service. Clearly God will make do when the situation calls for it. Ideally we ourselves should be a temple - we can be made holy the same way. The Spirit of God then lives in us and we are one with God.

Apex, when I looks at this scripture excerpt, what I read is not Peter talking about how the earth was created/reformed, but speaking to what kinds of attitudes people will have in the latter days and how it compares to the past. In vv 3-4 he's talking about how people in the last days will scoff at the idea of Christ returning. In verse 4 he specifically says how people will say that the earth will continue on like it always has been and nothing will ever change (ie. Christ will never come again, life as we know it will just go on). Then in vv 5-7 what Peter first does is remind them that the earth has in the past undergone very dramatic changes that upset the status quo, and likens the destruction by water (the Flood) to the fire that will engulf the earth during the second coming. He's basically contradicting this attitude by making the point that things have changed violently before and will change again in similar fashion. Things will not continue on as they seemingly have from humans' very limited perspective. He then goes on in vv. 8-9 to make the point that what seems like a long time to us is a short time to the Lord, so we shouldn't mistake the passage of centuries without dramatic events for inattention by the Lord or that the events of the second Coming won't be fulfilled. He's saying what happened once will happen again, so watch it! BTW, be sure to read the JST of these verses which make it a bit more clear.

Hmmm, I'm reading that verse I and don't see how your comment matches what Alma said. I think you're basing that on the idea that destruction is an escape from punishment. How often have we read in the scriptures where destruction is the punishment? I can't think of a greater destruction than to cease to exist. You can't destroy an intelligence because it cannot be made (D&C 93:29). I've yet to find anything that says a soul cannot be destroyed. When I read things like Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow were threatened with spiritual destruction if they didn't accept polygamy, that makes me sit up and take notice, as I'm sure they did. Yikes!

I also found this interesting quote by Brigham Young that might shed some additional light on the subject: We can, at the present time, go into the Endowment House and be baptized for the dead, receive our washings and anointing, etc., for there we have a font that has been erected, dedicated expressly for baptizing people for the remission of sins, for their health and for their dead friends; in this the Saints have the privilege of being baptized for their friends. We also have the privilege of sealing women to men, without a Temple. This we can do in the Endowment House; but when we come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to the holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from father Adam until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a Temple. But we can seal women to men, but not men to men, without a Temple. When the ordinances are carried out in the Temples that will be erected, men will be sealed to their fathers, and those who have slept clear up to father Adam. JD 16:187, Brigham Young, September 4, 1873

I'm a little surprised that no one has quoted D&C 124 in this discussion. I think it pretty much answers the original question. 28For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and estore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood. 29For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead— 30For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me. 31But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. 32But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God. 33For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me; 34For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory. 35And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.

Brigham Young had something interesting to say regarding this scenario: For the time being we have our wives, children, farms and other possessions, but unless we prove ourselves worthy, what we seem to have will be taken from us and given to those who are worthy, consequently we need not worry with regard to the defects, you need not have the least concern in the world about meeting a man in the celestial kingdom that you, if you are worthy and are so happy as to get into the celestial kingdom, can not fellowship; and if you should happen to be the one that is in fault and you cannot pass the sentinel, and your neighbor or brother does, he will not see you there, you need not be concerned in the least about being joined to any person by the holy sealing power, that will not do right in the next world. I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, "We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here" - there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and prove yourself unworthy of celestial glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them. JD 17:120, Brigham Young, June 28, 1874

According to Joseph Smith there have been others (ToPJS p.358).

That's the key right there. In a live sealing, is the woman brought to the man or vice-versa? In this we also see the reason for the law of chastity, because genealogy needs to be preserved in order so that posterity can be kept in order (among other reasons). I know this is an emotional issue so I'm not going to press it too much. If you wish to hunt through the Journal of Discourses I'm sure those who look will find more on this. One important thing to remember is that the man must be righteous to keep his posterity and have it expanded. I realize that the patriarchal order has been used all too frequently by some to justify unrighteous dominion. Those men will be sadly disappointed in the last day when they have nothing. Heaven is very flexible in these things, and dead links can be replaced with good ones.

Go to the temple.

Do you really want to know the answers to these questions...? Remember, curiosity killed the cat... Remember what King Benjamin said, that we owe our lives and sustenance to God - literally every breath we take is because we are granted support from Him (Mosiah 2:21-25). We usually read stuff like this on a superficial level, but maybe we should pause to think more deeply what this means. It may mean that Lucifer and his minions also rely on sustenance from God to exist - as well as anyone/anything else. After the final battle and they're shut out in outer darkness, where will this sustenance come from? There will be none - that's why it's outer darkness. What will become of a spiritual entity deprived of sustaining light from Father? What happens to us if the light were turned off permanently? Care to join them to find out? Secondly, I do recall reading recently that Lorenzo Snow was visited by Joseph Smith and warned that he would be destroyed in the hereafter if he refused to accept the law of plural marriage. I have no idea if that meant literal destruction of the soul or something else. Strangely enough, this is something I pondered, and I personally do believe that a soul can be literally destroyed. What are we but a collection of intelligences combined in some way to make one, cohesive intelligence - a soul? Can something that was made be un-made? I believe so. The Book of Mormon tells us we choose between life and death all the time (Alma 29:5) and people often choose death. It must be some strange quality we possess to do something like that, but it is our choice to make (Jacob 6:6-8). It may go even further than that, but those are just my opinions.

As another poster said, it really depends on the bishop. I remember many years ago a friend of mine (did not have MP) who became inactive was having relations with a young woman who had also gone inactive. They excommunicated both of them. On the other hand, I know of cases with endowed members who had sexual relations before marriage - some were ex'd, some not (different bishops). In this particular case I'm not sure what a bishop can do. Ex'ing the guy isn't going to stop the abuse problems, especially if he's already inactive. It might only sever the link that could possibly be used to help bring the guy to his senses. And, as others have pointed out, there are legal issues that might need to be followed in this case. Many critics have pointed out that leaders in our church tend to sweep abuse issues under the rug or simply dismiss them, as happened to my wife when she was young. Sad but true.

Just to clarify, posterity goes to the husband in sealing/covenant matters, not the mother. If the man remains righteous, the priesthood bonds to the children belong to him in the eternities, despite what judges in earthly courts rule. In this particular case, that might be different. The most important thing is that the boy has the blessings of sealing covenants, and everything else is secondary. Our hearts should break for those that have never had this. The boy will be all right because he has the blessings, one way or another. If the OP's brother endures to the end, I have no doubt it will be fine for him and his son. I myself was not born in the covenant and never sealed to anyone but my wife. In my case this is probably not important, but there may very well be cases where righteous parents may be able to retrieve wayward children because of those priesthood bonds.

Reading this it seems like you're practicing rhetoric - is there something else you're after? I do agree with you, however, that discerning is NOT the same as judging. Elder Bednar once told us to "listen, observe, discern." This is what I think you're getting at. And let me tell you, I once looked directly into Elder Bednar's eyes and he looked directly back at me, and I can tell you he has the power of discernment. I have no doubt of that whatsoever. It might be helpful though, to not speak in terms of wheats and tares. I believe it is possible, in the course of a lifetime, to shift back and forth, depending on the obedience being practiced at a given time. At some point we will each have to ultimately choose what we are, and that's our final state. Even if you discern someone as a tare, that may not be their ultimate fate - they may come around - and this is why the Lord told the avenging angels to hold off. Some will come back. My suggestion is to cultivate the gift of discernment. It is my personal belief that this is one of the greatest spiritual gifts of our time (and the most ignored) because there are so many cleverly disguised lies that even many well-meaning and sincere Saints fall for them. The gift of discernment is one of those great utilitarian spiritual gifts that can help one circumnavigate the dangerous rocks in the sea of scripture mingled with the philosophies of men. I will tell you this: many wards have wolves in sheep's clothing in them. I have observed this myself. Our church has been infiltrated. I think it is a wise thing to be able to discern, because there are those who walk among us and rub shoulders with us and talk the talk very well, and are good in keeping up appearances, but have very different ideas about how things will turn out. It is not wise to confront or antagonize them, but good to be aware of them and wary. Be friendly, but do not follow them. We should be as wise as serpents but as harmless as lambs. To judge, of course we shouldn't do that, but we should discern - and be very good at it. I know from personal experience there are/have been church leaders that have keen discernment; there's no reason we can't be like that. If we don't, we could be deceived, and we ourselves may end up with the tares despite our best intentions.

Here's a thought: if the old church means so much to you, why don't you form a local committee to save the building? If the local saints could make a sacrifice a 100 years ago to build it, is it important enough to the saints of today to sacrifice to keep it? Everybody wants 'the Church' or 'the Government' to do something. Maybe instead of relying on the larger organization to do something, the Saints there could practice some self-reliance and do it themselves. Just a thought. It's up to you.