KitCarson

Jeepers, that is inappropriate. I said they were DEAR FRIENDS of mine and they STILL ARE. When I joined the church, they were the family that fellowshipped and cared about me. They had me over for family home evenings especially when they had the missionaries over for dinner. The oldest son asked me to talk at his baptism less than a year ago. We do not live anywhere near "Mormon Territory" so the wards (and mostly branches) are small and families are mostly transplants from Utah. My friends were the ones that told me they hadn't been to Sunday services for seven months when I mentioned I didn't see the kids singing on father's day with the primary. We have not discussed what the doctrinal issues are that made them decide the leave the church as those do not matter to me. I do not consider them EVIL. There's nothing inherently EVIL about wanting nice things and living a comfortable life (many faithful Mormons have those things). They are good, kind people. I shared my observations of how they are NOW as it is such as sharp contrast to what they were just a few months ago. Yes, I was a bit embarrassed to be in the mall with the wife the way she was dressed because it was age-inappropriate, but I respect everyone's free agency. We are still good friends. They have me over to barbeque, ask me for favors (drive to car dealer to get car after servicing, pick up son at day camp, pick 'em up at the airport)--the things any friend would do for another. They brought me a piece of the 3-year-old's birthday cake last month. I love them and that is why I asked "What happens when a member leaves the church?" I'm too new to know how these things work in the LDS church. Maybe I should be more concerned about how the "faithful" treat members that leave the church. If they are anything like you, I'm worried.

The specifc role of an Apostle is "special witness of Jesus Christ", his divinity, death, and resurrection. Virtually every General Authority and President have said "Apostle Paul" in their talks (and published in church papers). I take this to mean that the Apostleship of Paul is not in doubt by church authorities. Paul clearly claimed it and if the church Presidents call him an Apostle, who are we to question the matter?

“Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? … For the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 9:1–2.)

I suspect my friends will live a SECULAR life for a while, not seeking affiliation with any church. Their closest nonLDS friends are ISLAMIC neighbors. They feel their TITHE money is better spent on themselves. They can buy better cars, upgrade to a bigger, more expensive house. They purchased HDTVs and Video games for each child's room (didn't even have a TV before). The kids spend hours watching TV or playing games, essentially unsupervised. They are trying to sell their food storage cans. The wife is also looking for a career job (husband makes a good living). She doesn't want to be a "stay-at-home" mom anymore and is happy to leave her 3-year-old in daycare. She's dressing age-inappropriately with VERY short shorts and spaghetti-strap tank top with revealing midriff to the mall (like a teenie-bopper instead of 34-year-old woman). This looks like REBELLION to me, not "doctrinal issues." Either way, everyone has FREE AGENCY. Just hope they'll be willing to reachout for help when the storms of life come--those come whether you're active or inactive in the church. They'll soon find out that money and the secular life doesn't bring much happiness or peace.

No, Christ did NOT put children "before adults" as you say. Yes, He loved and loves children. The vast majority of His time on earth was spent teaching ADULTS. There are only 3-4 occasions where scriptures record that He specifically focused on the children present. But on those occasions, He did not have the children speak to or testify to the adults. He taught the adults about becoming like children (trusting with childlike faith), not hurting children, and gave the children blessings. The mockery I referred to is having a mother hold her 3-year-old toddler up to the microphone for her to perform. Most of her memorized statement was unintelligible. Following the baby's words, the mother launched into her own testimony about a chronic ear problem and her husband's priesthood blessing that cured it when specialists couldn't. During the mother's talk, the baby was constantly grabbing the microphone, trying to do her memorized talk again on top of her mother's, and ended up throwing a terrible-3's tantrum because she wasn't allowed to have the mic. Does this encourage the presence of the Holy Spirit? This is the mockery I was talking about.

The Church has always emphasized that financial help comes from FAMILY FIRST. Then the Bishop can be asked for church help. However, the LDS welfare system is very specific about how it is to be administered. It is meant to be a temporary solution and recipients are expected to DO something to receive it. In Utah, they have Deseret Industries where even disabled people and teens in wheelchairs are able to work. In places away from Utah it's a bit harder to find "work" for church welfare recipients. But LDS Welfare is NOT intended to be a "hand out". Just because a family NEEDS doesn't mean they qualify for church help. If the individual is permanently and totally disabled, then Social Security Disability is available to him. If Social Security has determined he does not qualify, the government has determined he can work. So obviously the church will also feel that he should be able to work. The wife lost her job. Is she looking for a new job? How long has this situation been going on? Take any job, menial or not, and the church is more likely to help the family get back on its feet financially.

Why do we teach children to go forward in Fast and Testimony Meeting and recite a memorized statement? Primary-aged children get up each Fast and Testimony Meeting and recite the same memorized phrases: "I know this is the True Church; I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet; I know the Book of Mormon is true; I know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet; and I love my family." They don't KNOW any of the things of which they testify. They know that they have been taught those phrases by parents and primary teachers, but they have no frame of reference to even understand what they are saying. Rarely do any of these "testimonies" mention Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father. How can they honestly state that they know the BOM is true when they can barely read and haven't read it for themselves? A few weeks ago a mother proudly held her 3-year-old up to the mic to recite this memorized testimony. Most of what she said was unintelligible. I feel this is totally inappropriate and a mockery to God. It might make their parents proud of them and the kids might feel good about "performing", but I am totally uninspired by these repititions. I would rather see children repeating a memorized scripture that is meaningful to them or stating simple gospel truths that they understand than have them parrot identical "testimonies" one after another. One member of my ward complained that too much of testimony meeting is a "thankathon." That people should stick to the "church's approved format" of a testimony. SAY WHAT? The church has outlined for members what a testimony should be? Testimonies should come from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and from the heart of the believer. Anything that brings comfort, builds faith, and edifies others should be the content of testimonies. Why limit the content of testimony meetings to repetitive recitals of beliefs?

So if the family remains inactive, not excommunicated, and they don't ask for their names to be removed, their temple ordinances and sealings remain intact? Their eternal marriage remains valid even if they never reactivate? Their children born under the covenant remain sealed to them for eternity whether or not they are even baptized and confirmed as members. (The oldest child was baptized at age 8 but the younger two are only 6 and 3). Before I recently became a member of the LDS church, I had been a member of several different protestant churches throughout my adult life. I find it humorous that all of them have me as a member "on the books". So I am being counted as a member by FOUR different denominations including the religion I was raised in. In fact, my childhood religion refuses to remove my name despite my requests. My name is being held "hostage" :) So don't be so critical of the LDS keeping names on the books. Seems all religions do that. I once read a statistic about the number of "unchurched" in America. Seems that number is far from accurate if many people are being counted as members by multiple churches.

Very dear friends of mine have decided to LEAVE the LDS church. The parents have quit wearing their garments and they no longer bring their children to Sunday Services (7 months now). The wife told me they will not be "coming back" and the issues are "doctrinal." Does the LDS church just treat them as "inactive" from here on? My understanding is that as long as they do not join another church or are not baptized by another denomination, they aren't excummunicated. This allows them a chance to reconsider and "reactivate" at a later date. Is this what happens?

You find it CURIOUS that I feel ANGST and CONFUSION about this? Others feel it is a NON-ISSUE. Maybe not to you. The very foundation of accepting The Book of Mormon, the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and modern revelation DEPEND on a person's belief in the First Vision and subsequent visions received by JS. I feel DUPED!!!!

All of you who grew up in the gospel and have a specific interpretation about the First Vision since childhood cannot understand the confusion and angst a new convert experiences when they find that what was taught by the missionaries IS NOT what everyone else in the church believes. By very definition, a VISION is a supernatural, spiritual event. Study all the accounts in the Bible. Reread all the accounts of JS's later visions. You'll find no evidence to support the interpretation that visions are physical, "in-this-world" experiences. I've studied this extensively since I realized the difference in my beliefs about the First Vision and those of most church members. Non-LDS have an interpretation of what a vision is based on scriptural evidence. If somebody says an experience was a vision, that is how it will be interpreted. Maybe the missionaries should teach investigators: "Oh, BTW. The LDS believe a vision is not a vision but a real, physical-world experience.

If a vision was literal "seeing", others present or near could also see and experience it. Something supernatural needs to happen to allow a person to see heavenly beings. If the bright light JS saw was literally physical, then the whole town, people working in their fields, JS's father in nearby field, would have all seen the bright light. JS describes finding himself laying on his back looking up. He was totally unaware of when his posture changed from kneeling to laying on his back. This is a typical reaction to somebody coming out of a spiritual trance or vision. The Vision about the Three Degress of Glory: This vision is described in Doctrine and Covenants 76. About twelve other men were in the room and witnessed Joseph and Sidney receiving this vision, but they did not see the vision themselves. Apostle Paul: He saw a great light and heard the voice of Christ. None of those with them saw or heard anything. Stephen, the Martyr: He saw Christ at the right hand of God while he was being stoned to death. Nobody else saw what he saw.

I'm a recent convert and have understood that Joseph Smith's vision of the Father and Jesus Christ was a spiritual experience. Alot like the brother of Jared's vision of the Finger of the Lord and then His image. Ether 3:6 says, "And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord;" I have been very surprised by the number of long-time church members that truly believe that the First Vision was a literal, "with human eyes", human-to-God experience. Every testimony meeting members state, "I believe Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father." I hear Stake Presidents, Bishops, Seventies, Apostles, and even the church Presidency use those words. When I shared my beliefs about the First Vision later, a sister in my ward was very aggressive that my belief was incorrect and that all LDS believed it was a literal "seeing". Later, I talked to a long-time seminary teacher and was told that my understanding was corrrect. That it was a "vision" seen through spiritual eyes. So if it was a spiritual "unveiling" to allow JS to see them, why do church members and leaders routinely say that he "SAW THEM" instead of "SAW THEM IN A VISION?" Obviously, everyone's understanding of the event is not the same. Has the abbreviated testimony "SAW" instead of "SAW IN VISION" confused alot of people? Joseph Smith himself NEVER claimed to have a literal sighting but a VISION, at least, in all I've read in my short time as a church member. Would love to hear some of you more seasoned members comment on this.

I never heard anything like that. All I've been taught is that Heavenly Father is our literal Father and the Son (Jesus Christ/Jehovah) is literally our older brother. One scripture (can't remember where right now) indicated that Jesus is called our "Father" since he was the Creator of all things; i.e. the Father of our earth and all that is in it. What is the reasoning behind baptism making us a child of Jesus Christ? Is it a spritual child, literal child, figurative child? Can you explain more?

I'm a recent convert. While reading the story of the brother of Jared in the Book of Ether, I found a confusing verse: Ether 3:14 says "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." What did Jesus mean when He said He was the Father AND the Son? Can somebody help me out with an explanation?