RMGuy

Just my own personal thoughts. I find the WoW fascinating. The historical perspective regarding it, teh subsequent clarifications, and the way we apply it. I think that you bring up a good point. We do tend to spend significantly greater amounts of time focusing on the "don't" than on the "do". I put those in quotes for the following reason. Doctrine and Covenants section 89 is a direct revelation from the Lord in response to an inquiry from the Prophet Joseph. For me personally, I believe that the Lord can say what he would like. He doesn't need us to change or modify what he said. So, let's see what he did say. Verse 1: Tells us that this is for the High Priests and also the saints in Zion. 2: This a revelation, but not a commandment (we don't begin to treat it as such until the 1930's), and it is for temporal salvation - (we then make it a requirement for temple attendance in the early-mid twentieth century). 3: A principle with a promise. 5: Wine and strong drink is not good, except for sacraments. We used wine in sacrament until the 1920's. 6: What wine we do use should be of your own make 7: Strong drinks are not to be taken internally 8: Tobacco is not good for man 9: Hot drinks are not for the body or belly (interesting, I'm sure both the Lord and Joseph knew the words for Coffee and Tea, but they chose not to use them here). These leads to the questions regarding hot chocolate, postum, iced tea, etc. It seems to me that the Lord was pretty clear here. 10: Wholesome herbs are good. 11: Herbs and fruit should be used with prudence and thanksgiving 12: Flesh of animals to be used sparingly, but with thanksgiving - Again, he can say what he wants...I think this is pretty clear. I don't know how we write of meat with every meal, or with most meals as sparingly 13: They should not be used only in times of winter, cold, or famine. - Even clearer. 14: Grain is for the use of man as the staff of life and for the animals 15: The Lord reiterates the prohibition on eating animals except in times of famine and excess hunger. 16: Grain and fruits of the vine are good for man 17: Specifically wheat for man, Barley for useful animals and for mild drinks (beer). We really don't follow the last part of that. 18: The promise: if you do these things and are obedient you shall have health, 19: Wisdom, and knowledge. 20: Run and not be weary, walk and not faint. 21: Destroying angel shall pass by them. There is a lot there that we ignore, some that we have interpreted different than it was written, and some that we follow quite closely. Just calling them as I see them. -RM

You're just trying to hard to make it make sense...lol! -RM

Welcome. Confused about? -RM

Chrissy, BYUI is a good school, but not for all things. The same could be said for Utah State, Yale, UNC, etc. The important part to decide is what you want to get out of the collegiate experience. It sounds like you have some interest in culinary schools. If that is true you will probably want to look for a school with ACF accreditation. In the same region SLCC has a good program. Albany Tech in Georgia is one of the highest rated programs around. BUYI is pretty lacking in this regard. If you are more concerned about being around LDS culture, then you have some other good options as well, including both church owned/operated schools and public schools with solid institute programs and a good LDSSA. BYUI certainly qualifies here. My point, for what it is worth, is to select a college based on your needs. Select more than one. It is great that you feel good about BYUI, but it isn't going to help you in your selected field of endeavor. Only you can know how important that is to you. As a final thought, my daughter loves a particular school. She has rooted for them in sports, loves the campus, layout and people...but they don't offer engineering, her chosen field, so she will be applying elsewhere. As she as looked at other schools, she has found others that not only offer enginering, but that as she got to know more about them she realized she likes a few of them more than her 'favorite school'. Keep your mind open to a lot of possibilities. Explore the programs, both academic and spiritual...consider factors like location, cost, ranking, campus layout, friendliness, etc. You'll find one that works well for you. Trust me, there are a lot of good ones to choose from. Good luck! -RM

Ram and Slam had great answers. You could also do home study seminary instead of early morning. Our daughter this year considered home study due to some other commitments. In the end she ended up doing early morning, however, home study is an option. -RM

SS, I don't know that I specifically addressed whether or not all laws/commandments given in this life will need to continue into the next. However, in the case of polygamy I think this one is pretty clear. We continue to practice polygamy today in an eternal form. Elder Oaks is sealed to multiple spouses for time and FOR ALL ETERNITY. So are many, many other brethren of the church. So do we believe what the sealing says and promises? Do we believe that he will be with both spouses for eternity, or don't we? -RM

I guess I am legitimately confused. I'm troubled to hear that we feel we have no revealed words on this matter: What about Joseph, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruf, etc. Do they not count? On what basis are we concluding that this is not doctrine, or that we don't know these things? Currently if a sister in the church has been married and sealed in the temple and her spouse dies, she is eligible to be remarried in the temple, but NOT sealed to the second husband. If a brother in the church is married and sealed in the temple and his spouse dies, he is eligible to be remarried AND sealed to the second spouse. In the latter example are we claiming that one of those sealings is not valid? I think this is one of the hard questions that we in the church have to answer: What is doctrine? That probably deserves its own thread, but: If we look for examples from our own time: Elder Oaks refers to both June Dixon and Kristen McMain as his eternal companion. Is he wrong? If we look at the scriptures: D&C 132:15-20. Elder Oaks and many others like him were married and sealed by this Holy Spirit of promise. Will those individuals not be sealed in the world to come? Are the scriptures wrong? If we look at the words of a prophet: "Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false... Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith,... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected" - Joseph F. Smith Now we understand that according to the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. I get that, but in the absence of new or continuing revelation on a subject, then would we not keep with the last information that we received. Up until second manifesto in 1904, the church still sanctioned some plural marriages, and up until that time it was taught that not only was polygamy a practice, but that it was required for exaltation. It wasn't until 1933, that the first presidency issued an official letter detailing that polygamy was not REQUIRED (emphasis added) for exaltation. So it would seem to me, that whether doctrine is established through scripture, prophetic voice in conference, practice, or official letters from the 1st presidency we have some good indications here that polygamy will be practiced in the next life. Perhaps not by everyone, and perhaps our feelings from this world will play a part in that, after all Alma 34:34 says that same spirit will have power to possess our bodies in that eternal world. Of course, if there is still confusion, you can always pray about it. -RM

Well, we did fight a war in heaven so that you would have the right to be inactive, if that is what you choose. -RM

This sounds like the beginning of the Epicurian Trilemna: If God is willing to prevent evil, then he his not omnipotent. If God is able to prevent evil, but unwilling to, then he is malevolent If He is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? An interesting question, but I personally think the problem lies in the second part of the question, not the first, AND the answer is given by our understanding of the purpose of life...to be tested and tried. I find the answer proposed by a young farm boy, through first hand knowledge and experience to be the best answer possible to this centuries old question. Yet there are many that have gone with your answer as well. -RM

Only in the same way that loaning a temple recommend is analogous to raping and dismembering an Afghan woman. <wink> -RM

The quote above was Vort's. -RM

Not an insult, clever or otherwise. I just knew that you would get the reference, as you knew I would as well when you posted it. :-) I usually respect your opinions Vort, even if I frequently disagree with them. We are brothers in the gospel. I might raze my siblings from time-to-time, but not insult them. I too love President Packer (though I wish we would refer to each other like we used to back in Nauvoo times....I love the sound of Brother Boyd, Brother Deiter, etc., but I digress), I'm not a particular fan of that quote of his, but I get why he made it in the context he did. -RM

Well let's try this advice: It seemed pretty good when I read it: "one of the lessons we learn in Church is that we leave judgment to those whose duty it is to judge... Similarly, on a ward level, discipline is left to the bishop, not to us. In general, I think bishops do remarkably -- perhaps miraculously -- well, but there are probably mistakes made on this level, too. Not our problem...Please do not let the weaknesses of the members, or even of the leaders, diminish your desire. " Seemed like good advice in the situation in which it was given...probably good advice here too. -RM

Boyd is that you? -RM

Vort, you make me smile. I don't think you can demonstrate wherein I stated that entering the House of the Lord under false pretenses is nothing, and your Afghan woman argument is a straw man. What I did say, at the very beginning, was that the thread was much ado about nothing...unless you believe that the Lord needs you to help steady the ark? No one was impacted by these individuals choice (however poor, or in poor taste they might be), except themselves. I think the Lord can handle that perfectly well on his own, and we probably have better things to do with our time. You know like serve the poor and the needy, to name just a couple. -RM

In the interest of openness and honesty, I have sat in on some councils where I was overwhelmed by the feelings of love and support that was shown to the individuals by the leaders in attendance, and I have also been in councils where I did not feel the Spirit at all because individuals that were on the council were out to extract a pound of flesh and they could smell blood in the water. Remember that leaders aren't perfect, and they aren't always inspired either. Good leaders (by far the majority) should be there to love you, support you, and help. All the best! -RM

Procedure will depend on if it is a ward disciplinary council or a stake version, though they are similar. You will be invited in. There should be an opening prayer. You will have the opportunity to express/confess what has happened to get to this point. The bishopric or stake presidency/HC will have the opportunity to ask any questions that they deem appropriate. You get to answer those. Generally at this point you are excused from the meeting, and the brethren then have an opportunity to discuss what they feel should be done by way of punishment/requirements/council. They should then pray for confirmation. Once they feel they know what should be done, you are generally invited back in, and they share the results of the deliberation. There is then a closing prayer and you are again excused. Depending on the sin, the severity, and any mitigating circumstances this is all considered when deciding the punishment: nothing, informal probation, formal probation, disfellowship, excommunication. It also plays a role in conditions: can you participate in meetings, can you partake of sacrament, hold a calling, etc., and any advice: read your scriptures, say prayers, meet with bishop regularly, get rid of the computer, etc. -RM

Not at all what I expected...but you know that by now. -RM

Yes Leah. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Your life, and mine is in no way different before this event than after it. People lie everyday to get into the temple and it does not change the efficacy of those ordinances. The only difference now, is that you "know" about it. It is the Lord's house, right? Let him sort it out. If these individuals leaders are prompted to act...great. If not, that is fine too. Would I ask to loan a recommend? No. Would I loan my recommend? No. Have I sat in sessions with people that weren't worthy to be there in the past? Probably. Did I sit in sessions were individuals lied or were deceitful in order to there. Yep. Does it change the ordinance? Nope. Is my salvation impacted by their choices? Nope. Beatrice and Benedick...Much Ado about Nothing. -RM

My opinion? Beatrice and Benedick -RM

Try the memory hole? -RM

He is not required to tell them, nor would I assume that he would tell them or anyone else for that matter. But I would also NOT assume that he might tell someone. As with anything else, if you don't want someone to know, don't tell anyone. -RM

It has been my experience that when we denigrate others ideas, perspectives, and beliefs with rhetoric such as 'uncontrollable sobbing', that we shouldn't be to surprised when they fail to respect us. I guess I just always assumed, that as professed followers of the Saviour, that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Perhaps a thought from Brother Joseph, "How will the serpent ever lose its venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition, and continue to make war upon it?" That has been my experience, of course you may have had a different one. -RM

Here's hoping it gets better Apple. But look on the bright side, it sounds like you have a very fun young man to spend time with. -RM

Very good point Eowyn, That is why it is always important to check the original source material. Why even in GC a few years ago there was a quote taken out of Documented History of the Church that included an ellipsis that left out a very significant part of the story. It appeared online with the ellipsis on LDS.org. If you go back and read the full quote, there is a lot more to the story. I use this example specifically for our new friend. It is things like this that could be a cause of her husbands faith crisis. She needs to understand that this was conscious decision to not share part of that story with the members of the church either during conference or subsequent publishing online and in the Ensign. If the church itself, sometimes manipulates the information to present only one side of the story, then how much more careful do we need to be with non-church sources that may choose to present only one side of the story to cast the church in a good light. I wholeheartedly endorse your recommendation. ALWAYS go back to primary source material where possible to confirm what you are being told. No matter who is doing the telling, and especially when it is leading you away from what you intuitively perceive to be the truth. -RM