Mamas_Girl

This is not what I was looking for, but here's a talk given by Elder Robert D. Hales during General Conference April 2006. I was looking for something from an earlier conference that I remember watching on TV, and I remember the living room where I viewed it. With that in mind what I was looking for had to be in the April or October conference of 1981 or 1982 or April 1983. Unfortunately I don't think the talk had a title that is helpful in this case. Anyway, here's Elder Hales comments. I can't tell if this really helps or not, but here it is anyway. To Act for Ourselves: The Gift and Blessings of Agency

Yeah, I was hoping for some far off exotic land, but they sent me to the neighboring mission. Seriously at one point I was only about 352 miles from Mom and Dad. So close and yet so far away. It really was a bit of a distraction, but the Lord had his reasons for sending me there.

I remember mine being very extensive at least the medical part. A trip to the ob/gyn, regular doctor, dentist... When I completed my health exams I figured I was the healthiest person in my community. I can tell you that it was extensive because I still remember it after 20+ years.

May I ask why you set December 3 as your endowment date? Is there going to be a big church trip to the temple on that date, or does it have some sort of special significance? From what I've seen you aren't planning on getting married in the temple, and you're not planning on going on a mission, you just want your endowments, so why the rush? As I said, it's not true that nobody has to wait for their endowments. I had to wait almost 2 full years and would not have been allowed to have it then, except I was getting ready to leave for my mission. We didn't live close enough to a temple so I had to go when the branch took their trip a *week* before I was to leave for my mission! Well, today's Monday, how'd it go? From your statement that "there's no way I am going to go through another hour and a half..." I'm assuming you were considering cancelling? I hope not, because you and your bishop have a lot to talk about. Forget about December 3 and focus on your relationship with your bishop at this point in time. If you harbor the kind of anger you're demonstrating on this board toward your bishop you're not ready for the temple. You guys need to talk...

I've been thinking that all day. We don't decide when we're ready, the Lord does. Trust me, I've learned about setting down rules with God... The old I'll do this if God does that. It just doesn't work that way. God has taught me the meaning of patience and humility a few too many times. And I mean a few too many only because I should have learned the first time. Thank God he's patient and forgiving.

Sorry, I spent some of the time researching out this answer. There has always been speculation regarding how God came to be. I think we've all been curious about this, I know I was long before I ever heard of Mormons. Joseph Smith, and several of the 19th century prophets have taught regarding Heavenly Father having once been a man with a body of flesh and bones. Their scriptorial reference was John 5:19, where it read: This has lead to speculation for many years, and for the famous As man is God once was debate. However, Latter-day Prophets of the 20th century basically have said that we don't know and we should basically leave it alone. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: From this remark [John 5:19] we gather that the Son was doing what the Father had done before him. However, so far as the Father is concerned, we will leave that until we receive further knowledge, when and if we become glorified in his kingdom. (Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 2). I did not actually see the Larry King episode, but I read in one of the forums here, that President Hinckley was addressed on the topic (thank you mormonmusic for posting this on the "God Once Was..." thread) I went back to check my old Gospel Principles book and was unable to find anything regarding "As man is..." and I did a google search and found a website that lists changes in the book over the years starting in 1978, and I was surprised that it wasn't in there. I would have sworn it was. The site was to minister to us poor LDS, so if it was in the GP book, I'd think they'd have found it and made special mention of it. So you can see that it is not an easy answer. Do we believe it? Dunno. Is it official doctrine? Dunno. I'm assuming that this is what you were referring to when you asked if God was always all-knowing, etc.

YEA! BTW, you'll have a lot of opportunities to attend the temple in Provo while at the MTC, I was actually able to do quite a number of female ancestors (as an only member I had a lot of names!). Just watch out for those sprinkler systems on your way back to the training center -- I got a couple of good dousings going from the temple back to the MTC. Timing is everything.

FWIW, I was told the same thing back in the 80s. I was every missionary's dream -- I called a number in the phone book and asked how to join. I'd heard about the church years before, but knew little. The elder who answered the phone was a zone leader and was saddened by the fact he had to hand me over to the campus elders. After having been a member for about a year a friend was getting married in the temple and I wanted to attend so I talked to my branch president who told me that I had to either be getting married or going on a mission. Exactly the same as Sister In Faith. Young men are expected to go on missions when they turn 19, young ladies if they're not married by the age of 21 are permitted to go on missions. Apparently as sisters we're expected to focus more on marriage than missions. I chose to serve a mission at 21 and got my endowments then, but even then my branch president was slow on getting me to the temple. I seem to recall that it was about a week before I was to enter the MTC that I got my endowments. I'm not sorry that there was a wait to go through the ceremony. It gave me more time for reflecting on the scriptures, and for prayer, and all the other preparation that goes along with it. Due to my inactivity over the last 25 years, I was planning to go to the temple again in August of 2012 (my parent's wedding anniversary), figuring that I would have to be a member for a little over a year but my bishop decided that 6 months was all that was required since my inactivity had nothing to do with the church. Now I plan to go in a few months and give myself the great birthday present of having me sealed to my parents for time and all eternity. What a birthday that will be! Now to track down my stake president to get my recommend completed.

Sounds more like the IRS than the LDS. Wonder if they had a senior moment there. There was only one time that I've ever been asked anything about my financial condition other than "Are you a full tithe payer?" It was when I wanted to go on my mission. My branch president and I sat down and discussed my finances. I was 21 years old, didn't have enough money to pay for my own mission and was asking for church assistance. I found this totally within reason as I was asking for the church to invest in me for 18 months, and they needed to know whether or not they could financially do it (there were three of us leaving in one month's time). Sadly, they were unable to cover my whole bill, so my branch president found some wonderful anonymous guy out in Utah who offered to cover whatever I and my branch were unable to do. I have never found the church to be invasive.

What teaching of President Smith are you referring to, there were so many.

Sorry Saintmichaeldefendthem that's LDS belief. I'll quote from the church's webpage God, Godhead : Our Sunday School manual "Gospel Principles" on page 6 states that And finally, I might as well add this in here, just found this on the internet... Nope, I pretty much know what my church teaches.

You know, when I've studied the writings of John Wesley I came to the conclusion that he believed that faith was not anything that was experienced by the natural senses (i.e. sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch) that sense is the evidence of things seen. I have evidence, for example, that there are stars in the sky, not because of faith, but because of sense -- I see them therefore I know. Once one has evidence they no longer have faith concerning the object as they have advanced to the stage of knowledge. But Wesley taught that faith is the evidence of things not seen, and it comes through the study of scriptures, obedience to the law, and prayer. Some of those things include the spirit of man, angels, and more importantly the resurrected Christ. I've never actually seen the Lord, nor have I heard him, or touched him. Yet I know he exists not through any of my senses, but by faith from reading and praying. This is how I define faith. Faith is not something I can see, touch, smell, etc., it is something that comes from the Spirit. To me, we cannot base our faith in the sciences. There's plenty of evidence against the traditional view of Creationism, and the creation of man, at what point do we say this science is true, but that science is wrong, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary? I solve it all by keeping my faith and my science apart, putting them together only causes chaos.

As am I. As for the comment about inactives within the LDS Church, back when I was a kid growing up Methodist we used to have a standard joke that I believe all churches do -- He [or she] is a Christmas Christian. Meaning they come out only for Christmas and/or Easter, or if lucky both. There are inactives in all churches. I can also tell you that in the last 6 months there's now one less inactive. :) BTW, my inactivity had nothing to do with the church. Though I can tell you this, my return to the church is due to one bishop determining he was gonna get me back before he left office, so he kept me in his prayers. He was just released a few weeks ago after 7 years! I guess the Lord had him wait for me to come back before he could be released. I'm grateful to my former bishop because I'm back and stronger than I've EVER been.

As long as there is no official church doctrine I see no problem with your believing the things you've discussed. All I'd say, and I'd say this to anyone, is don't teach it as church doctrine. But we're all quirky -- I'm a Big Bang and evolutionist, and that hasn't gotten me kicked out, though I'm pretty sure it's not mainstream LDS doctrine.

I wonder if rather than saying God progresses we should say his plan progresses. The Father is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

He was the son of God and mortal Mary. His mortal body gave him the ability to die. We do not believe in the Trinity like most churches, but we believe in the Godhead. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three distinct personages who are one in purpose. We believe that the Word was Jesus Christ. He was the Word, in that it was he whom the scriptures foretold of his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. We believe that in the beginning he was with the Father as a spirit. While I don't agree with the 19th century attitude on racism; I also do not believe that we can judge the past by today's standards. That being said, yes the church was racist, but so were most Americans at that time. I do not believe that the Church was as strongly into slavery as many other Protestant religions were. The Methodists had a big schism over slavery in 1844 splitting into the Methodist Episcopal South, pro-slavery and the MEN anti-slavery, the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptist church in 1845, again pro-slavery, and even the Presbyterians split on the issue the New School in 1857 and the Old School in 1861. I'm not saying this to justify what the LDS Church did, but I'm just saying that the 19th century was an entirely different place than the world we live in today. And most churches don't dwell on this issue, as we've all moved on. Do you mean like the Doctrine and Covenants? We also have the Teachings of Joseph Smith.

Okay, I was gonna leave it with a thanks, but this post is so good I have to actually say it. Thank you.

I can't really improve on what livy111us said. Rest assured that the Church does not teach that or even think it. Is this what started the whole thing? This is from the Deseret News about a BYU professor placed on paid leave while the university investigates his actions. BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave | Deseret News

I don't see it as tearing down the Bible. We were asked specifically about archealogical evidence and the Book of Mormon. My comment was that the Book of Mormon has only been known to man for 181 years, that's quite young in comparison to the Bible. The mere fact that the early Christians knew about the existance of Rome, Egypt, the Red Sea, etc. is not evidence that the Bible is true. That does not prove, or disprove, the Exodus, the Creation, Evolution, the Flood, or the fact that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years. While it is true that there's no solid evidence yet concerning the Book of Mormon, we do know that there were ancient civilizations that lived in Central and South America, and that they did have a belief in a great white God who was to return. Thus the Aztecs met with ruin when Cortez came. To me, a good read is Dr. Sorenson's book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon," or something to that effect. Of course it's BYU/LDS so... Science is based on evidence, faith is based on, well... faith. I have a corner where I keep my faith, and a corner where I keep science. I let science rule too long and fell away from God entirely having declared myself atheist. I've since returned due to a personal miracle that I witnessed. The problem with many Christians (and I include Mormons in there), is that they pick and choose the science that "proves" their point while ignoring the greater picture. To me when things become overwhelming on one side of the scale, we have to quit believing the earth is flat.

For hundreds of years early Christians did not have archealogical evidence for the Bible, but yet they believed it was true. So were they wrong to believe in the Bible before the evidence came forth? Obviously not. I'm not concerned about whether or not evidence comes forth in my lifetime concerning the Book of Mormon, my evidence is based on faith, which "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I do believe, however, that BYU has been making some terrific steps in both Central and South America.

I just got my new recommend on the 13th, and I do not recall that being asked. I paid very close attention to the questions, and all I recall was being asked if I affiliate or sympathize with any groups who oppose the church. Not sure of the exact wording, but there was nothing about any proposition in my interview. I know nothing like that was asked because I never heard of the proposition until I read this thread -- I take it from context that it has something to do with gay marriage? BTW, I am a citizen of the U.S.A.

I agree that the Book of Mormon has some metaphors in it. As to the changes in the Book of Mormon, I thank the Lord a lot for the paragraphs and verses. I have a facimile of the original on my lap and it reads like a novel. For example, each book gives a title and gives chapter, but there are no verses. I can't take it to church as a substitute for the current BOM because it just says 2nd Book of Nephi chapter I, II, III, etc. The first 27 verses of 2nd Nephi are all one long paragraph! Yikes! It certainly is much easier to find passages in verse rather than scanning 3 pages of one long paragraph to find what we're looking for.

I accept your examples. But again, this just shows that those who have money take huge risks while providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Again, not all of them, but a lot of them.

And to think, all I wanted was my internet restored, we've been down for three days. While I am in a lower income bracket, I appreciate those who have more. Those who have more tend to also give more and tend to take more risk. For example Sam Walton's heirs, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Donald Trump and others like them take daily risks running huge corporations that provide thousands of jobs, and often impact people in positive ways. They have to take risks with their money, they have the headaches of deciding what to do next --they're not just living in those luxury homes, with all the trimmings. I think the biggest problem is when CEOs and other high up executives receive bonuses when they're running businesses that are in the red, and/or who have received government bailout money and have not paid it back. I respect people who have money, for the most part they're giving back to society whether it's running businesses, working for people running businesses (i.e. pro athletes, or entertainers), giving to charities, funding schools and colleges. Sure you're gonna find your Scrooge, but they're found in all social classes. The American Dream is still alive, we're just in a recession (whether the government wants to actually call it that), and I believe we'll come out strong on the other side. Though some call me a hopeless romantic.

The problem with relying solely upon the Bible is that it can be interpreted in so many different ways, both for good and for bad. The mere fact that there are so many differing religions each having different creeds and doctrines. Some believe in baptism by immersion, while others believe in sprinkling. Some profess Christ died for all men, while others for only the chosen few. That seems like some pretty important differences right there. In the 19th century there were schisms within various denominations the southern membership justifying slavery by using the Bible, while their northern counterparts argued that the Bible did not approve of the practice. This caused the Methodist Church to split into the ME North and the ME South in 1844, The Southern Baptists split off the Baptist Church in 1845, and the Presbyterian New School split in 1857 and Old School in 1861. The point being that the Bible is capable of being interpreted to permit a vast number of beliefs. And yes, it can even be interpreted to prove LDS beliefs. So to a certain extent whether or not it was translated without error, the same passages can often be read to prove the same points.