Timpman

I don't know what to say about non-Levites and the priesthood. I'll think about that one. The issue with Jewish people is not racial at all - it has to do with survivors of the deceased objecting to the church performing ordinances for them. I don't see how the information in the church's statement about President McKay lends any support for the ban, but I will let that one go. It's not an important point to me. When Woodruff says the Church President won't lead the Church astray, he isn't saying that the Church President won't ever say anything that is wrong. He's saying that the Church President won't do anything that separates the Church from "the oracles of God" (revelation) or from "their duty" (lead them to actually do things that are contrary to the will of the Lord). That's why I can swallow Young, et al being wrong re the justifications for the ban, but I still gag when it is suggested that the ban itself was a violation of God's will for the Church. The only way to present the priesthood ban as an instance of the Church going "astray" in light of Woodruff's statement, is by suggesting that either a) the ban did not separate Church members from revelation or b) that the Church had no underlying "duty" to extend the priesthood and temple ordinances to people of African descent. I would be very much surprised to see our progressive wing make either argument. Most of 'em don't want Woodruff reconciled--they want him gone. Teaching members of the church that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain was an action done “contrary to the will of the Lord.” Church members could still have had access to revelation, but I suppose they were led away from their duty regarding temple work. It is a fact that church leaders at all levels presented their theories as doctrine over and over again. These theories have now been disavowed. Therefore, members of the church were led astray to some extent. At what point would the church really be off course? I don't know, but I do believe the church will not get to that point. A ship can stay on its appointed course even when there are problems within the ship - problems not in line with the captain's will. There can be problems within the church even as it moves along toward fulfilling its divine destiny.

It is not known why President McKay didn't receive an answer. I think there are some assumptions in your conclusion. To me, it is simple and obvious that a restriction based on race alone is a form of racism, and that "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form"; therefore, they would be condemning the Lord if "the Lord wanted 'the ban' in place at that time." I believe: -It was mistake to ever implement the restriction -God probably suffered his foolish children to have their way, as he sighed and shook his head -The restriction could have been lifted at any time without revelation ("it is not meet that I should command in all things") -In 1978, the brethren were finally of a mind and spirit to hear the Lord's will

What Suzie pointed out is interesting. That black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, are the seed of Cain, cannot hold the priesthood and will not until everyone else has had a chance to have it, were absolutely taught as doctrine over and over again by various leaders. Don't let this get you down! Our prophets are right 95% of the time. We should not expect them to be right 100% of the time. The Holy Ghost tells me the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the Lord's church, having the authority of the Priesthood. The Lord gave prophets a perfect blueprint to build the church, but mankind is not capable of building it perfectly.

Yeah, it can be interpreted in different ways. I don't think it can be said that this information about Pres. McKay bolsters the ban, and it also doesn't condemn it. It's just some neutral information.

I'm not sure if the prophet led the people astray by instituting the priesthood ban. It is clear, however, that the people were led astray by being taught theories that have now been disavowed. The possibility that current prophets may lead us astray should not be the issue. The problem is people do not believe it’s possible. When someone falsely believes a prophet will never lead them astray, then there is great disappointment when they find it has actually happened. If someone actually does "give in to that notion that 'so and so got this wrong, hence others could also be wrong'," then they embrace reality and learn to rely more on the Spirit. They will not be as disappointed and disgruntled when they find a prophet, or a local leader, has been wrong about something. They will maintain the faith. I know, I know, some may be thinking I am being blasphemous. Just think about it more. We have been taught that prophets are fallible, yet we don't seem to believe it, or we think they cannot commit any serious transgression or error. Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent; Moses killed an Egyptian and hid him in the sand, and he later smote a rock to bring out water (when he was commanded only to speak to the rock) and did not give God the glory; Abraham said Sarah was his sister and let Abimelech take her; Jacob demanded his older brother's birthright before he would feed him and lied to his father, telling him that he was actually Esau; David committed adultery and had Uriah killed, and later wrote some great scriptures (though I don't know if he was a prophet). God is very patient and merciful with his prophets. I sustain the brethren as prophets. This does not mean I follow them blindly all the time. That is not asked of me. If a prophet makes a mistake - even a big one - the priesthood was still restored, families are still forever, and Jesus is still the Christ. The church is still true.

The statement says "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The ban was based solely on race, so how could it not have been some form of racism? (Yes, there is the argument that the ban was based on being of African descent and not black skin, but that is mincing words.) If the ban was a form of racism and is unequivocally condemned, could it be that it was part of God's plan for the church? Or was Brigham wrong? Did President McKay say he felt impressed that the ban was of God? The statement says he "did not feel impressed to lift the ban." Maybe he received no impression at all. The paper "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," written by Edward L. Kimball, sheds some light on this: It sounds like he didn't get an answer at all, so "the inclusion of the tidbit re President McKay" does not bolster the policy.

Thanks, Dravin. That is what I meant. Performing only sealings for those who are already married civilly would not constitute a legal procedure so the dang government couldn't mess with it. But I suppose this is quite a tangent from the topic of this thread so that's all I will say about it.

There's a simple solution to that: all we have to do is stop performing marriages. We could perform dealings ONLY as is done in some countries already.

Yes, context is very important. I still respectfully disagree with the talk. Even a talk "given as an Apostle and in a forum such as a BYU Fireside" is not necessarily doctrine. I think it was "A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion" that "represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church." It doesn't seem to qualify as something following this pattern: "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." Approaching Mormon Doctrine This concept is very important to me. Without it, we have to consider some troubling things to be current or past doctrine.

I can find only one reference to not worshipping Christ. In a March 02, 1982 BYU Devotional, Elder McConkie said: Frankly, I don't believe this is doctrine. It was said at BYU, not in General Conference, and has not been taught generally, as far as I know. The words of Elder McConkie that we hear and speak far more frequently are: He is also better known for these words, spoken shortly before his death: I also want to point out what is included in The Living Christ:

Hey Swiper. I'm ashamed about some of the things people have said here. I am sorry for the harsh and judgmental comments. I commend you for not wanting to hurt your wife and her belief system. I suppose you could start by recounting your history of why you got baptized and how you have not had a testimony for a long time. Then explain to her why you don't want to be LDS anymore. Tell you you love her and are dedicated to your family. Maybe you could attend sacrament meeting just to sit with her. That would be very cool of you, in my opinion.

A bishop MUST report child abuse. I think that's it. He will NOT report marijuana use. No way.

If it's really to the point where it is an addiction, I hope you will attend the church's 12 step meetings.

Some RPGs have also been re-released for the Game Boy Advance. My favorites were Tales of Phantasia and Treasure Hunter G. Neither were released in the US on the SNES

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church. That should not be said with any degree of haughtiness, but it is true nonetheless. I don't like this nom stuff.

I think it asks if we rip people off.

Also, my wife studied psychology and I go nuts when she tries to be my therapist. If your husband is anything like me, he needs love and support from you, NOT therapy (especially in the form of probing questions).

Hi Elegreen! So toward the end of your first post, you wrote "Did i completly screw my entire life over my basing my decisions soley on faith"? First, you might need to remember that you really didn't base the decision on faith alone. You wrote: -"I felt really good about being in a relationship with him" -"But after praying about these diffrences i felt like i should still stay with him becuase he was so overly sweet" -"I did love him" -"he would litteraly treat me like a queen" -"when i would pray about marrying him i truely felt good about it" So besides faith, the Spirit made you feel good about it, you loved him, and he treats you like a queen. That's awesome! The following things caused me some concern about your husband: -"my husband comes off as a rude husband because he says nothing to them or to me" -"he just has severe insecurities about him self and how he handles himself" -"his spending habits have been bad" -"he is irresponsible sometimes" -"He has a very tough time with school" -"He has extremley bad self esteem and little confidence in himself" That was me exactly! I was eventually diagnosed with Adult ADD and I have improved a lot. I think you should read THIS. It's cool that he still treats you like a queen. I think it can work out. For what it's worth, I made a thread on this forum called "I wish I had never married". I eventually wrote:

Gah! I seem to come in when the conversation is over. Anyway, I need to apologize. Though the "Law of Chastity" might be referring to only sexual intercourse outside of marriage, we are clearly and consistently taught about what it takes me be sexually pure. K, bye.

This is very awesome. I want to use some phones that are sold through AT&T, like the Nokia Lumia 900.

How frequently do you do this?

Sounds like the bishop is already going above and beyond. Do you know if your husband views pornography? Do you know if he has a testimony?

From "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet in the section on "Sexual Purity": "Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression." (emphasis added) The Law of Chastity "means not having any sexual relations before marriage." It used to specifically say "sexual intercourse" and that is still what it means. Other activities can "lead to" that. Are we sure that those other activities are part of the Law of Chastity?

Wow, I've never heard of this option! Can I just email ePub files to my Kindle?

Maybe there's a good reason for Adderall being prescribed. I don't see what damage it could have done. Anyway, if there is something that was diagnosed, you could always try different meds.