szorgalmasan

We don't think with our hearts though, we think with our brains, and we do have the ability to scan the brain and decipher which parts of the brain are being used at any given moment. Perhaps one day we really will be able to measure and test whether or not "as a man thinketh in his brain, so is he."

I think that this is a concept that is easy for members to understand, but can be difficult for someone on the outside to wrap their head around. Using the most obvious example: When someone sees a book called "Mormon Doctrine" and written by a person who is sustained as an Apostle, I think the natural reaction is to assume that everything in the book is an actual doctrine of the church, and then members come off seeming uneducated at best and disingenuous at worst when they say it is just opinion. Also on January 2, 1870 Brigham Young stated: "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." A non-member, who has not been raised on the correlated church materials is liable to read that, and then conclude that every utterance that President Young ever made must be doctrine, while person raised in the church would think that conclusion is preposterous. I think that LDS Doctrines are best measured by what is actually taught in church on Sunday, and that's why I generally refer people to the Gospel Principals manual. It's easy to just say "read the scriptures," but those can be interpreted different ways by different people, whereas the manuals instruct members on how the scriptures should be interpreted.

I had a similar question from a student when I was a seminary teacher. I referred them to: D&C 101:78 - That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. According to LDS doctrine, Heavenly Father is a righteous judge, and therefore will not hold people accountable for sins that they have not committed, even if he knew that they would have committed them. We could not be judged for our actions without being sent to Earth to act according to our own agency...that would be like arresting a person for drunk driving on his way to the bar and before he got drunk. Also refer to Alma and Amulek being restrained from stopping the wicked from throwing the righteous into a pit of flames. God allowed it specifically so that he could judge them righteously.

Personally I think that Texting is more respectful than a phone call...not less. A text allows the recipient to respond in his or her own time instead of being pulled away from whatever they were doing to have a chat. I liken it to my paralegal walking into my office with a message on a sticky note and walking out as opposed to sitting in my office and interrupting what I am doing to give me a verbal message. When I was a seminary teacher I would text my students when class had to be cancelled on short notice...so much more efficient than a phone call to each individual. Our branch pres. used to text quite a bit too. "Bro. Can you bring sacrament bread this morning?" I agree with the above post though that a texting interview is wrong. I think that interviews are (in theory) supposed to involve the bishop "feeling" things about the person they are interviewing, and that's probably easier when the meeting is face to face.

I think that is up to the mission president. If not, we sinned repeatedly in my mission under the direction of our President.

The Church Handbook of Instructions vol. 1 2010 states in section 3.3.3 that "interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book." The only thing that the Bishop might have been basing the denial on is the "Do you sustain your church leaders" question. I have never heard of someone being able to go through "other channels" to get a recommend, as it needs both the Bishop's signature in addition to the Stake Presidents. (Or their counselors) That particular bishop, love him or not, is his assigned "judge," so it's odd to me that the volunteer still ended up with a recommend somehow. So to answer your question, a "higher authority" shouldn't really ever question a bishop's decision to withhold a recommend as long as he doesn't deviate from the standard interview questions. The Stake Presidents duties enumerated in the Handbook also include "common judge," but a recommend needs two signatures and if the bishop wont sign, then I don't know where they are getting the other signature from.

Speaking in the Tabernacle on April 7th 1876 Brigham Young had this to say about tobacco: "I used it for toothache; now I am free from that pain, and my mouth is never stained with tobacco. It is not my privilege to drink liquor nor strong tea and coffee, although I am naturally a great lover of tea. Brethren and sisters, it is not our privilege to indulge in these things, but it is our right and privilege to set an example worthy of imitation." Substances used for medicinal purposes are not necessarily against the word of wisdom, but note that once the ailment was resolved, he quit using tobacco. Green Tea can be used as a weight loss aid, but just as we don't use tobacco for toothaches anymore, I wonder if there isn't a better way to supplement weight loss than green tea extract. Are you in Asia by any chance? The only place that I have heard a big debate over green tea being for/against the WOW was in Taiwan, where many member still drink it regularly.

I think that it is usually a safe bet that anything said during a General Conference address would be considered doctrinal, and in the past General Authorities have gone out of their way to say that they are speaking as a man if they don't want what they say to be construed as doctrine. Do you have a particular teaching that you are wondering about?

The Standard Works, and Official Church Publications are considered doctrinal. Here is a link to a manual called "Gospel Principles." Everything contained therein is considered doctrine, and by reading it, all of your questions should be answered. It is a manual that is used every week in LDS congregations around the world. Gospel Principles

As long as you are not asking specifics about the temple and things like that, I don't understand why they would be evasive. It's possible that they simply don't know the answer, or have never heard the teaching that you are asking about. The "milk" as you call it, is mostly what is taught in church on Sundays, because those are considered the doctrines necessary for salvation. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the End. What exactly are you asking about, and maybe people here can help without getting offended or being judgmental.

I don't think you would have any problems. The last branch I attended had a guy get re-baptized 8 years after excommunication. We were all just happy to have someone else to share the calling load. No one judged him negatively.

Yes, it was part of the reason that I quit going to church, but not the only reason. I don't think that the Book of Abraham alone would have been enough for me to lose my testimony, but it was definitely another rung on the ladder.

Will your online friend not take your word for it? Seems like you could answer questions about mormonism just as well as any website, and they would have the advantage of being able to ask direct questions instead of just reading prepared statements and dogmas.

No, it wasn't a set up. I live in an area with a small branch, and most people here have two callings. My intention for posting was to get advice from members of the church, which I did. Some people were nice and some were judgmental and leaped to bold conclusions, but I appreciated hearing all points of view. I honestly never imagined that this thread would generate the discussion that it did, which should be apparent by the minimal amount of posting that I have done on it, but if you choose to believe that I made up a story to set people up, then I can't change your mind. I know you are a good person at heart, and I was touched by your previous two posts.

This is an update on my situation for anyone who is interested. I appreciate all of the advice that was offered up by you guys. I did sit down with my wife and talk about two months ago, and was shocked to find that she had some of the same concerns with the church that I did. (Not adultery, whoever mentioned that earlier in the thread...grow up) Long story short, we have both decided to end our relationship with the LDS church, although we harbor no ill feelings toward anyone. I understand that this news might come as a disappointment to many of you here, but just know that it wasn't a decision that we took lightly. Thanks again for everyone that responded to my OP, I really do appreciate your help.