RMGuy

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would imagine that it will generate some interest among members and current investigators. Outside of that I can't imagine it will create much interest at all. I am sure there will be some, but I would imagine it to be minimal. I just can't imagine my wife and I deciding to go out to a movie and upon arrival at the theatre getting to excited to see "Meet the Scientologists." I also don't imagine many teens or college students that are out for a friday show deciding to lay down their $10 for "Meet the Jehovah's Witnesses" or "Meet the Methodists" either. Time will tell.

We had a similar problem here at our univeristy with regards to institute. The universities guidelines on student organizations are that they must be non-discriminatory and leadership must be elected by a vote of their peers (members of the group). So when the bishop selected the president of the organization it ran afoul of the universities guidelines. Here's how I see it. We believe that we should have the freedom to set the membership rules of the organization because it is affiliated with the church. The university believes it should be free to establish the membership rules for the organization because it is affiliated with the university. I ended up facilitiating a meeting between the stake presidency and CES rep and university officials here. The result was that institute still exists here, BUT it is not a registered organization, it may not utilize campus resources to promote itself, and it is not given university funds. Campus Crusade for Christ however runs under the universities guidelines and is entitled to all of those benefits including building use on campus and funds for activities derived from the university general fund. Their approach was slightly different in that they didn't figure many individuals would want to join a group they didn't agree with, and that even if those members did there would never be enough interest to vote in someone opposed to their beliefs.

Luckily we've outlawed burning at the stake. Many of my fellow brothers and sisters are so filled with the light of Christ that they would gladly strike the match if that was an option. Sad really.

John did not creat the CES letter. That was Jeremy Runnells.

Nope, that is only for Christians...

What about the 3 nephites and John?

Wow! I thread in wish not everyone agrees, but everyone is civically and respectfully listening to others and seeking understanding. Color me impressed!

I wouldn't harass you Anatess. In fact,I would congratulate you. It sounds like you are doing a great job as a parent. Please note that I didn't saw all or every Ym gets the priesthood this way, just that very many do, and that I believe is a problem for those individuals, the ones they are supposed to serve, and the church.

Interesting thoughts JAG. I think it should be optional, at least from the position that I think many, many, many men and boys are ordained because that is what you do at 12 or 18 instead of that is I want to do to serve The Lord. If the standard was such that the individual had to independently ask for it and explain why they wanted it, and how they would use it (and we expected really good answers to those questions before we just "gave" them the priesthood, I think we would have a much more dynamic if a considerably smaller group of priesthood holders. Now I think many take that obligation without a serious thought. Not saying that this is right, but rather just how I see it.

Ok, I'll play. Why would ordination of women lead to an abolition of relief society? If I were to support ordination of women, then I think it should be a choice. If supported by leadership, the I think it should be up to the individual if the want to have the priesthood or not. Hence, you would still have priesthood meeting (for men & women together), and relief society (fr unordained women & men together). But, if I were going to lobby for anything it would be to drop priesthood, relief society, and Sunday school to introduce the one hour block.

Excellent response Pepper!

I guess I misunderstood your "I wish God would just say checkmate and deal with things like the good old days." I thought you meant that you wished God would handle these people the same way as in olden times by saying checkmate and having the earth swallow them whole. Huh. I wonder were I got that impression?!?!

I think what he is referring to is that if an investigator prays about the church and gets no answer or an answers that it is not true, the general response is for them to a) keep trying, a la Martin Harris, or that b) the answer that it is not true didn't come from God. I believe what the author was saying, is that if you want to rely on an answer to prayer to individuals as your standard of truth, then you live and die by that standard. Many times leaders want to play heads I'm right and tails your wrong. That isn't internally consistent. At least I think that's what the major premise is.

I have seen a lot of things on here over time. Wishing death on others because you disagree with their viewpoint probably tops it all though. Wow.

Couldn't agree more Pam

My understanding was paying direct was set up primarily for wealthy members to avoid discussion of earnings in the ward, or in cases where there may be conflicts. It was not INTENDED for general use, but MAY be used by anyone. I highly recommend it for many reasons. Easy, doesn't keep bishoprics away from their families, no gossip, etc.

Regardless of which side you are on, yep! LOL!

My take. If the prophet receives revelation or instruction from The Lord that the ordination of women is acceptable, the I will welcome them to priesthood meeting with open arms. Until that time the existing order stands. However, I also believe in allowing others agency to petition The Lord and His prophet as they see fit. Both in support of or opposition to female ordination.

I am temple endowed, and unless something has changed that I am not aware of, I NEVER Covenanter to wear garments. It was placed upon me. I was promised some very impressive blessings so long as I wear it throughout my life. I was instructed to wear it. I never Covenanted to do so. I had this conversation recently with my bishop, stake president, regional rep, and temple president who all conceded that this was indeed then case. Claiming that this was a covenant is to miscast the case.

So don't wear them. Before everybody screams at me for this one. I think you are better off feeling mentally healthy and not wearing them than the reverse.

I like JCSS, but I love Godspell.

A federal judge today ruled Michigans prohibition against gay arrange as unconstitutional.

Lol!

DaddyB, I'm happy to try to clarify as best I can. Please note that my original statement is that these accounts are not consistent not that they are contradictory. While that may be a fine line to draw, I believe it is an important one. Perhaps an example. If I made a statement to a police officer about an accident I had observed and said for example that I saw Car A hit Car B, and then later made a statement saying that I saw Car A hit Car B because Car C had caused Car B to swerve that story is not consistent. In other words, one may rightfully ask why I neglected to mention Car C in the first statement. If I made an original statement along the lines of there were only two cars present and Car A hit Car B, and then later stated that I saw Car A hit Car B because Car C had caused Car B to swerve that statement is contradictory. In the first instance it is inconsistent because I neglected to mention Car C the first time around. The second example is contradictory because I said there were only two cars present, so where did car C come from? Both statements in the second example cannot be true. I think the former is what we are dealing with in the first vision accounts. They are inconsistent. It is not that they cannot be reconciled. I think that there are many faithful members of the church that are aware of the different versions of the story and have, for themselves, seen how those stories can work together. There are numerous examples in this thread alone testifying to that. However I can see where others see those same stories and question how could Joseph have had this experience and then neglected to mention various aspects of the story. I believe this is exactly why they church has written the essays available on LDS.org about this issue. They recognize the cognitive dissonance that this can cause for members. While I have no desire to add fuel to that particular fire there are numbers of inconsistencies between the various accounts more than just the year being off including number of personages, whether they were spirits or not, and the years in which it occurred (not to mention ages). Additionally, I can see why people wonder why this was not taught for many years after. As an aside, if anyone can provide a documented account of this story prior to 1831 then I have a $1000 for you. Doesn't exist as far as we know and I think people wonder why. As for the second question, it is simply illustrative. It is why some individuals feel as though they have been lied to. Please note I'm not saying that they have, rather that is how they feel. They have been told their entire lives (for those BIC), that this is the Joseph Smith story. Many times when they first learn about various other accounts and ask about it, they are told they are anti-mormon lies, only to find out later that they are in fact true. They begin to feel as though they were lied to, and I would go so far as to counter that if they have asked a legitimate question and have not been given full and complete information that this perhaps borders on the fraudulent yes. -RM