Smeagums

First, I know many may not agree with me here but a women can lay here hands upon her child's head and offer them a blessing. Blessings are fulfilled by faith. We have examples of some of the prophet's wives laying their hands on the heads of the sick. That's a side note that I know most will disagree with me. Power of the priesthood: Comes from Heaven alone and is not controlled by man. (Alma 13) Authority of the priesthood: The ordinance that authorizes a man to act in God's name. The ordinance does not mean that he will then have power in the priesthood. Priesthood power is acquired from Heaven by living righteously. Blessings of the priesthood: I think these are pretty self explanatory.

Pray for him. You don't have to pray for those specific things but you can pray that the Lord will bless him to do what is right and for what is best for him. All people, even the wicked, need prayers. I am not saying your friend is wicked. Satan and the world is just fighting for his soul.

A tenth of what is the question.

classylady - I think your husband has more of a reason now to be upset at you for sharing a personal letter he created for you. JMHO

Mesa, Arizona.

In response to the two posters above, everyone has needs and wants them to be met. If two people truly love each other they would support each other NO MATTER the circumstances. A man wants a steady income no more or less than a women. In fact what man doesn't want to provide for his family with a steady income? If you are meeting the needs, not wants, you are fulfilling your obligation as a man. That aside, I hope for one she just gets nervous and isn't money hungry. I find that many LDS people believe if they aren't wealthy or if a wife's husband isn't a doctor or some other prestigious profession than they aren't blessed. I can relate though to your wife being nervous about finances. My wife and I do pretty well in that we have extra income to help pay down debt each month. She will be working less as our first baby comes in August which does make me a little nervous. To summarize, if she is just nervous tell her to relax. You guys are newlyweds! Someone will always be there to help. You have too many good days ahead of you to be worrying each day. Tell her that it is normal to struggle at first. :) If she just wants more money because she wants things, I can't help you. Happiness will never come from a dollar bill (paper promises). Happiness comes in loving, family relationships and helping others. Best of luck to you and your wife.

I would say to avoid the doctor because all they will do is give you meds and nothing more. There are naturally ways of dealing with anxieties. Sometimes anxieties come from parents fighting or other factors at home. Exercising is supposed to be a great way to help deal with anxieties. I had bad anxiety shortly after getting married and honestly just dealt with it. At the time I was working 40+ hours a week and attending upper level divisions classes at a university full time while sharing a car with my wife and/or borrowing my mom's!!!!!!!!!!! I prayed that the Lord would help me and just repeatedly told myself that everything is fine and not to worry. I know the feeling at it isn't fun at all! My little brother suffered anxiety for years and was put on meds. This made him act like a zombie. It wasn't until after he stopped taking meds that he was able to exercise faith, trust in the Lord and conquer his anxieties. Again, all a doctor will do is prescribe you pills and if you want to take harmful pills for the rest of your life than go that route.

Of course it is okay. Why we spend so much time pondering about soda will never make sense to me. What you should be asking is should we be eating so much meat? The Doctrine and Covenants said we shouldn't be.

I want to revisit verse 22. 22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. It seems as if that we are supposed to choose the presiding high priest and he should be someone who is like unto Moses. I think simply choosing the most senior apostle, as skalenfehl mentioned, is a tradition and not according to scripture.

This is part of what I was looking for. Sorry I didn't recognize it from your previous post.

Could you please show me the reference where the presiding high priest(s) are prophets? My questions are sincere.

@ skalenfehl Thanks Coach.

I guess this is what I'm trying to get at. We know for certain that Joseph Smith was a prophet according to the scriptures but the others have room for debate. In Doctrine and Covenants 107 much of the priesthood and their offices are explained in detail. 8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things. This makes sense to me. 18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church— 19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. This includes anyone who truly receives the priesthood mentioned. 22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. This is the verse that I think we contradict as a Church. Before President McKay, the quorum of the first presidency was nothing more than the presiding high priests. (I'm not taking away from this calling but just having to point at the difference). I see no indication of them being prophets over the Church but rather men who preside and rely upon the prayers of the Saints. Why did we change presiding high priests to prophets?

Thanks for all of the responses. I am going to digest some of them and respond later. I just get concerned that sometimes we'd quickly follow the prophet before we'd follow the Savior. I do think we should follow no man but Christ and naturally we should "receive" any man who is truly a prophet of God. This was actually my first question and I'm not sure how I skipped it. I was wondering when it was that a prophet was to lead the Church. From my understanding, around David O'McKay's presidency the title of prophet was advanced from presiding high priest. Meaning those after Joseph, such as Brigham, weren't the prophet necessarily but the presiding high priest. When someone talked of the prophet it was specifically Joseph Smith. President O'McKay changed it from presiding high priest to prophet. Has anyone ever heard of this change before?

I have been discovering, reading and searching some new material that for many Mormons would seem to be apostate teachings. I don't in anyway believe that they are but I don't really want to get into that right now. I believe in apostles and prophets and believe that they hold all of the keys. I believe that through Joseph Smith the Lord restored all former rights and blessings to the Earth. What I am wondering is where in the scriptures, not from latter day prophets or apostles, does it say to "follow the prophet"? I have found references in the Doctrine and Covenants to receive Joseph Smith's counsel but not Brigham Young's, John Taylor's or even President Monson's. I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ and am trying to follow it as best as possible. What I am trying to do is sincerely distinguish between the arm of the flesh and the doctrine of Christ. Thanks.

Be happy!

Women can also lay their hands upon their husbands' heads.

Getting a Temple marriage doesn't guarantee an eternal marriage. The inhabitants of Heaven recognize marriages in mortality that mirror those where they dwell. They allow those Heavenly like marriages to endure into eternity. This statement here "stick it out because it will all be better in the eternities" is false. Simply enduring a loveless or terrible marriage will not guarantee happiness in the next life. I am not stating that your marriage is loveless or terrible but just trying to help people realize the misconceptions that people have about Temple marriage.

Yes you are correct but you must understand what I meant. Penalizing me for not buying insurance is just thievery.

Thomas Jefferson : First Inaugural Address Wednesday, March 4, 1801 ...If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men,of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. Again ...If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

The truth is democracy's always fail because they are horrible government systems. Democracy equates to mob rule. 51% FORCE the 49% to do their will. That's why the Constitution formed a Republic where the rule of law was enforced and minorities weren't obligated to follow suit. To sum up the Constitution, I can do whatever I want on my land and to my own person as long as I don't hurt your person or property. That's a very, very short version of what the Constitution intended. In a Republic, if everyone wanted Obamacare except for little ole me, I would not be forced to participate in it. That is what the Constitution was about. It wasn't about the government running our lives. Unfortunately most people, including members, have no clue what was intended by the Constitution.

The Constitution wasn't inspired?! Doctrine and Covenants 101: 80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

LOL @ what you said! The states always maintained the right to succeed until evil Lincoln made war over it. The war had little to do with slavery. Slavery was easily fixed and stopped by other countries without any violence. Lincoln centralized power because of the Civil war. In summary, you are incorrect. States can succeed. Of course you can quote some supreme court case. The supreme court was never intended to defile the Constitution like they have been.

I can't believe some people here. Physical is way worse! You allowed what came into your mind first to be acted out physically. This is why we came to Earth. To allow good or bad thoughts into our minds and then to freely act accordingly. David didn't REALLY mess up until he had sex with Bethsheba and then sent Uriah to be killed in battle.

I think your husband, no offense, is foolish for not wanting to know details. This could "tempt" you to do something like this again with a different man. The feelings of excitement you had make sense to the "natural man" but spiritually they are very, very wrong. They are making "light" of it most likely because they don't know about the sexting. The sexting is kind of a big deal IMO. I'd be angry if my wife was being flirtatious with someone else and I'd be livid if she was sexting someone because clearly there is something wrong! Sexting with someone who isn't your spouse is going to cause feelings inside 1) because it is sexual and 2) the thought of being with another can/will cause excitement to some. Don't let any of this creep into your mind. Purge it out right away! You're not talking about doing something immoral with a single person being single yourself and fact that you served a mission or came from a leadership family doesn't provide you any protection, IMO, from the temptations of the devil.