Magus

I watched Cinderella today with my wife, actually. We loved it. Much better than I thought it would be. Very nice, pleasant and wholesome, beautiful scenery and special effects. And the men were respectable and strong men, and the women weren't trite feminist caricatures - a rarity in Disney films these days. Refreshing.

Doesn't the Book of Mormon refer to people like this as "dissenters?" It's mildly funny, because while "dissent" in itself doesn't have a negative connotation, and this group might describe themselves as such, the Book of Mormon gives a pretty see-through evaluation of what their real intents are, and it does have a negative connotation - to sow dissent and discord.

Hey guys, I just read this article from the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?_r=0 ) about Joseph Smith and polygamy, and a lot of other controversial issues from early Church history, and I just want to say....I am ECSTATIC that the Church is finally addressing all of this in a straight-forward and official way, and in a way that stands by the truth and promotes faith for members. Seriously, this is a big deal for me, because there are people close to me who have had testimony issues over this stuff, and it just really makes me happy that obscure sources on the internet aren't the only way to read about this anymore. It is now totally, completely out and in the open in a way that people who aren't internet scholars can find, read and digest in an official context. And I have read over the material and find it faithful to the truth. As the NY Times article also suggests, this is also indicative of maturity and understanding from Church leaders. Finding piece-meal info on all of these topics scattered all over the internet, often very negatively biased and/or confusing, has been a growing problem for the Church and now they are finally getting ahead of the curve on it. I am very pleased. Hats off to this very bold and positive decision by the Church!! No more hiding, no more shame - embrace it, own it and believe!

I'm not sure I understand your question. Why would a psychic incident, whose source is a natural ability instead of the Holy Ghost, fall under any jurisdictions of stewardship as pertaining to revelation from the Holy Ghost?

I guess I can always start with wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

I can agree with the concept that everyone, on some official level, has stewardship over them in terms of ward boundaries, mission boundaries, etc. But realistically speaking - the bishop, the home teachers, the missionaries, etc, are not going to be able to reach everyone in need within those boundaries which cover millions of people. The Lord isn't going to just say "tough luck" to people in need who are seeking him and who do not have access to those who, although are official stewards, are also very distant and uncapable stewards over them. But that seems to be the reality you think exists, and that the Lord has his hands tied because of logistics. I don't believe the Lord has his hands tied by his own system of order. In lack of its presence, he will do what he will, how he will. I'm confident the Lord works with people, through the Holy Ghost, as he sees fit. I'm not making a strident claim that yes, people get huge, earth-shattering revelation for other people all the time outside of the Church - but I'm saying that the Lord will work as he sees fit under the circumstances for individuals, and if that means someone being prompted by the Holy Ghost to do something for an individual, or to have an insight about them that is valuable, then so be it. And those things qualify as getting revelation on behalf of another. Sometimes a person doesn't know how to listen to the Holy Ghost, but is in need and seeking help all the same, and it's not outside of the realm of possibilities that the Lord could prompt someone who is in tune enough and give them insight to help that person. A very simple, real life example: A non-member neighbor of mine was once in a very difficult situation and needed help. I had watched over her cats and garden while she was out of town and needed to return her the key to her house, but I had put it off. Out of the blue, I finally decided I should just go do it. When I came to her door, I saw she was in distress and needed help. I personally didn't want to volunteer, but something compelled me to ask if she needed my help. So I did. She got this surprised look on her face and agreed to let me help. For the next few hours, I was helping this lady with her needs. She later told me that just before I came over, she had prayed and asked the Lord for some kind of help. It turns out that me coming over was the direct answer to her prayer. So I was prompted, through the Holy Ghost, to go over there and assist this lady. Prompting is a form of revelation, albeit a small one. I was no official steward over this lady. Just a neighbor who God figured would probably heed the call. So in essence, it boils down to this: I received prompting(revelation) on behalf of this individual - and I was not her official, church-sanctioned steward. If God can prompt and/or reveal in such a manner as I've described for non-members, he can do it in more dramatic or personal ways as well. The Lord will work how he will with what means he has available. The D&C doesn't say that people outside of the Church are totally out of luck for lack of the presence of the Church. It simply describes that within the framework of the Church, as effectively operating, the system of order is etc, etc, etc. And all of the above is strictly speaking about revelation through the Holy Ghost. But clairvoyant psychic ability is something altogether different, and has nothing to do with Satan or the Holy Ghost, but a natural ability - and it exists - and it has nothing to do with LDS rules of stewardship. I've had some experience with this as well. I've gotten distinct impressions about things that are to come, and they have happened, and I have no distinct reason to believe these things were either from Satan or the Holy Ghost, per se. Just flashes of knowing and realization that something will be, that I would not have been able to know any other way. I can only conclude that this is manifestation of a latent clairvoyant ability that exists in everyone, but that I've been blessed to have some inclination for.

I am very interested in learning more about the Kabbalah and understanding its teachings in a comprehensive way. But I kind of don't know where to start. There's much written on the subject, but I get lost on it kind of easily. Anyone have any insight on this?

Not being a Scot (though having, as many do, Scottish heritage) I'm on the fence with this one. I might listen to my heart and my sense of wanting to defy the odds and the powers that be and vote "Yes" for independence. But rationally, I know there would (and will be) trials that come with it, and I certainly understand and agree with the sensibility of the island of Britain being united as one kingdom - on all practical levels. So, I don't know. On the one hand, I'd be happy for Scotland if they leave, but on the other, I'd miss the union and brotherhood that the United Kingdom and its flag represents. I can see both sides.

Well, I think the world is certainly ripening for the destructive calamaties foretold to happen shortly before the Second Coming. The fact that Israel has been established again as a nation is a really big deal, even if it was over half a century ago. The fact that a temple has been built in Kiev, and the gospel is spreading and growing in Russia and the Slavic world is a big deal, if you consider some of the prophecies of Joseph Smith and others regarding the gathering of Israel in the last days. The fact that, at an increasing rate, good is being called evil and evil is being called good, is highly significant. The widespread disintegration of families and what a family means. The plague of pornography growing dramatically worse through the usage of the internet. The increasing inter-connectedness of the world through globalism and especially the internet and modes of travel. The dramatic increase in temple building that we have seen, beginning during the years of Gordon B. Hinckley and continuing through today. The current economic troubles of the world may also be an indication, and of course the continuing wars and rumors of wars. And, I might add, the current weakness of the USA in all of this. So there are lots of signs and things to notice. I couldn't put a number estimate on it. Could it happen in our lifetimes? Sure. No reason why not. But there's also no reason why it wouldln't take longer, and events would just gradually play out, as they have since 1830. A temple still has to be built in Jerusalem. Maybe that's just around the corner? A number of things still need to happen....but the list is getting shorter and those things could really happen very quickly. In the grand scheme, we're certainly "at the doors," but in terms of our understanding of time....who knows. It could be any time though, and after all, for all of us - every day is "judgment day" as we work out our personal salvation in our lives. The best advice is to just be prepared, spiritually and temporally.

I understand that line of reasoning - but I personally feel the truth is between the hard-line dogmatic approach and a more open-minded one. I, for one, an open to potential caveats in the realm of possibilities. Just because the specific dogma says one thing does not mean that there are not other possibilities, and likewise, the existence of other possibilities does not necessarily invalidate the principle of the dogma. For example - yes, it is true that within the Church, we are to receive "revelation through the Holy Ghost" for those which we have stewardship over, and anyone claiming revelation "through the Holy Ghost" outside of that should be questioned. I agree with this, and I believe that this is also important to setting up order in God's kingdom, especially concerning the order of Priesthood authority and stewardship. HOWEVER.... What about "revelation" that is not necessarily the Holy Ghost, and not of the devil? What about an innate clairvoyant ability that naturally exists within everyone, but just is mostly untapped? Many people who claim to have psychic abilities are not claiming to be getting revelation from God or from any other source - they are just saying that they have a "sixth sense" which is a natural ability, and either they were born with a particular knack for it or they have worked on it and honed it themselves. It has nothing to do with spirits, demons or angels, but everything to do with the miraculous power of the brain that God has given all of us, and the way that it works. I, myself, have some personal experience with this. The possibility of this does not contradict or negate the concept of revelation through the Holy Ghost through the proper channels of stewardship. A great book on this is "Clairvoyance and Occult Powers" which is a classic on the subject. And by "occult," it is not meant anything to do with spirits, incantations or ouija boards - it just means "occult" as in hidden, mysterious, obscure, not understood. I do not agree with everything the author writes in the book (theories about reincarnation, etc) but when it comes to explaining the theories behind clairvoyance and other psychic abilities, it's quite thorough, very interesting, scientific-minded, and in fact makes a lot of sense. http://www.amazon.com/Swami-Panchadasis-Clairvoyance-Occult-Powers/dp/1578635004 Another possibility is that sometimes, there isn't a steward assigned to someone, or the proper, official stewards are being negligent. Non-members don't necesssarily have a priesthood steward over them. Or a member in the Church who is being ignored by the Bishop and ignored (or just plain not helped) by the home teachers or visiting teachers. What then? Is that person to be left helpless? If the proper stewards are not in tune or not paying attention, does that mean they're just out of luck? My opinion is no. The Holy Ghost will communicate with who he will, and move or inspire people to help others how he will. My opinion is that there can be an unofficial type of stewardship that can occur, and while official stewardship should always be emphasized and promoted, if a person is of a mind to help a brother or sister in need and the Holy Ghost inspires them, then so be it. And what about revelation between non-members on behalf of other non-members? God will deal with who he will deal with, regardless of their membership. True, being a member of the Church makes things official and gives one actual entitlement to things - but that doesn't mean that people outside of the Church are never aided by the Holy Ghost in one form or another. Joseph Smith wasn't a member of any restored Church, or baptized by any authority, when he had the First Vision, or when Moroni appeared to him and he began translating the plates. Consider what that means. Sure, he was Joseph Smith and had a great mission in store for him - but the concept of the principle applies. Receiving revelation about how best to help another person, or what to say to them, or being prompted to just go and do something that in the end answers another's prayers, is all a form of unofficial stewardship that can come about - and I'm sure many of us have experience with that ourselves. I know I have. Now if it comes to getting revelation about someone's future or something very personal like that - be careful - but don't forget that the Gift of Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and is applicable through the principles of stewardship, and it's not limited to men alone as a priesthood function. it's a Gift of the Spirit and is available to all, and will be applied as God sees fit. If someone has the Gift of Prophecy and makes a general prophecy that is applicable to all, is in tune with the Gospel and is validated by the confirmation of the Spirit to those who are in authority and were present - is that a violation of stewardship? Because that has happened in Church history, so I'm inclined to say it's not.

The first half of your response....I'm sorry, I don't know what you're getting at. The second half - I think you're missing my points. A lot of people think that all sin is something eternal in nature. But if you critically examine certain sins, and critically examine the definition of sin, the concept of all sin being sin, for every being, for all time, starts to unravel. Sin, as defined by leaders of the Church, is simply defined as doing that which is contrary to the will of God. And what is the will of God? One minute He says thou shalt not kill, and the next he tells the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman and child of the Canaanites. Which is it? On a surface level, it appears to be a contradiction, and this is the type of fodder people who are against religion use to try and attack it - but they do so in error, because they don't understand the over-arching context. God has an over-arching will for mankind and for us individually, and what is sin and what is not sin has to be put into the context of "what is God's will at this given moment, under these sets of circumstances, for me and for mankind in general?" The example of "thou shalt not kill" is a general commandment not to go around murdering each other - but the caveat is that if God tells you to kill, you do it. So in other words, for us mortals who are in a training wheels stage of existence, being tested, learning to overcome certain obstacles, etc....the over-arching rule is "Thy will be done," as opposed to "my will be done" when it comes to the application of morality and obedience to any set of principles. So in a nutshell - what is sin and what is not sin is going to depend on the context of what God's will is for us mortals at any given time, under any given circumstance. There are a lot of sins that are rather trivial in nature and pertain to mortality. At a certain point in time, it was against God's will (sinful) for his people to eat pork. This is no longer the case. There was a time when it was not considered sinful to enjoy a glass of wine with your evening meal, and Joseph Smith even did so on occasion - and after the Word of Wisdom was revealed. But this is no longer the case. So you can see that some of the standards of what is "sin" and what is not "sin" have changed over time as God has dealt with us. You have to keep in mind that all of this is God dealing with mortal children of severely limited understanding and capability, who are in a state of existence that is probationary - in other words, we are supposed to be tried and tested, and certain things that are considered "sins" in this lifetime may possibly not be considered sinful in the next lifetime after we have passed the required tests. If you critically examine certain sins of sexual nature, for example, and why those certain sins are sinful, you'll find that a lot of the reasons you come up with have to do with the circumstantial nature of our mortal existence. The same goes for many of the sins of the flesh. Gluttony, etc. Much of it applies to the weaknesses and frailties of the mortal body and mind, as well as to the nature and circumstances of our probationary existence. But when you pass through the veil, and the nature of your existence changes, and the nature of your body changes, the nature of what is going to be against the will of God ("sinful") will likely also be altered. It is all about context. Furthermore, the parameters of the test of this mortal lifetime are that we are assigned to a kingdom of glory based upon our actions in this lifetime, and this lifetime alone. So say you pass the test and you receive your crown of exaltation. Great. Now what? Are you at that point just like the Father, or even Jesus Christ? Not anywhere close. It will be an eternal progression to obtain glory. And how is that glory to be obtained? Work. Will that work be done for us? No. In the process of that work, is there potential for mistakes? Why not? We are "perfected" in terms of our mortal understanding, but if you define "perfection" as the absence of the need for improvement (i.e, the capacity to make mistakes), then there would be no need for "progression," would there? Are mistakes against the will of God? Technically speaking - yes. Would that make it a "sin" then, defining sin as "being against the will of God?" Yes, technically speaking. But does that mean the mistake would necesssarily be something of an eternally evil nature in and of itself? No. What about the nature of Evil? Where does it come from? Is Lucifer the originator of it? No. Lucifer himself was an angel of light - but he found something within himself that brought him down. His agency was always his, and he used it to fulfill an evil nature he discovered within himself that was built upon Pride, which then likely evolved into Hate. So I posit that Evil is always ever-present. Now could a Celestial being, such as a god, do something evil or wicked in nature? I theorize that, based upon the concept of agency, that it is at least possible, but what the consequences of that might be, I can only guess. You have to again recall that a person can have their calling and election made sure in this lifetime and still sin, and then pay for that sin be being delivered up to the buffetings of Satan, but that once it has been paid for, they will obtain the crown. The implications of this, as a principle, are of enormous magnitude. But it requires critical thinking, and this isn't something you're likely to find any Church leaders speaking in depth on. At some point, your understanding of the gospel, and the depth of it, depends entirely upon you. And that's just how it should be.

I'm kind of inclined to disagree with this idea that people who have made it to the highest degree of glory in the Celesital kingdom will never do any wrong because they are just so perfected they simply won't. I kind of find that to be precarious position to place eternal exaltation on....because I feel like *wrong* is so easy to do. And eternity is a long time....to never, ever make a mistake - ever again? Forever? Just because you got an A+ on mortality's test? I still find that highly doubtful, if not possibly a bit naive (no offense to anyone). My personal view is that exaltation is a staus whose achievement is based upon passing a set of tests in this mortal lifetime. Nowhere in the scriptures does exaltation demand absolute, sinless perfection in this lifetime (that I'm aware of). I think it demands pretty close to it - but I think that as mere mortals, it's in fact impossible for us to attain that level of moral perfection in exactly the same way the Savior did. I think we can come close to it - but realisitcally, I think the Savior may have had a few things going for him that we did not to help him out along the way in completing his mission. Such as being half-mortal, and such as having privileged access to the Father from the moment of his birth. (Not trying in any way to lessen the magnitude or difficulty of his trials, here. Just saying, he was a bit different from us.) I also don't think that exaltation necessarily demands complete, utter, uncompromising perfection in the next life, either. Remember the words of Brigham Young and other prophets in regards to exaltation...the achievement of it alone is the successful completion of a set of tests, and thereby, the acheivement of a certain natural level of being...but it will still be an eternal journey of "eternal progression" to become even close to what Christ is in his glory, or what the Father is in His. We don't automatically become *just like them* once we pass through the veil and are crowned. And in fact we'll never catch up, as their glory is always progressing and expanding as is ours.So the thought goes that by the time, aeons down the road, we get to the level of glory they are at now, they would still be aeons ahead. But I digress.. In a nutshell, I think that many things that are "right" and "wrong" are definitions and parameters that are specific to this mortal probation. So many of the things we aren't supposed to do are set there as guardrails for mere mortal beings who have a limited understanding, and who are placed in a state of existence in which they are supposed to do without, supposed to be tried and tested, supposed to restrain themselves and prove themselves that they can do "all that is commanded of them." That they have that mettle. But once the test is passed, once the higher nature is achieved, once the mettle has been tried and tested and the crown is given - the nature of existence and your state of being changes completely - and so naturally, the rules would also change, because the application has changed. Recall that Lucifer had all kinds of pride in his heart and evil aspirations long before he was actually kicked out of heaven. He was allowed to retain his status as one of the highest ranking sons of God. He was only kicked out until it was absolutely necessary. Yet all that time he was in the presence of God in a Celestial sphere. Recall also that, according to the D&C, one can have their calling and election made sure - and still sin/do that which is contrary to the will of God - in the which case they will be offered up to the buffetings of Satan until they have paid for it - but then will enter into their exaltation and stil receive their crown. So...it seems as if the the passing of mortal lifetime's tests does not necessarily mean it is impossible for you to do something terribly wrong and out of line with God's will. Another important thing to consider...I think a big part of having your calling election made sure in this lifetime, or receiving it in the next, has to do with where your heart is, and not necessarily with the specifics of individual sins/mistakes. This perspective is a personal one, for me. I've struggled with sins in my life, but I have always felt a close connection to God and have felt his mercy, love, support and forgiveness because I feel He knows (and I know) that my heart is still close to Him, regardless of my weaknesses. I truly do deeply love God and Jesus Christ, despite my sins. I have felt the Lord's presence around me even in times when I would consider myself greatly unworthy of it. He continues to persist with me, and I manage to continue to still, often enough, be in tune enough to hear His whispering to my heart and His expressions of love. I feel this probably has something to do with where my heart is. Sin does not always reflect the deepest depths of your heart. Sin can be a mindless, even a thoughtless action. Sin can be done even if you hate it. Wicked actions can be done robotically, against the consent of the heart and soul. The mind can be its own creature and operate contrary to the truest wishes of your heart, and we are eternal beings in a house of imperfect, mortal flesh that is subject to frailty and compulsion. This is not to excuse it, but it is to put things in context. God sees this and takes it into account, and I have a personal testimony of this. So, I feel like there is room for mistakes in the exalted realm. The mistakes, however, would be on a level entirely not of our mortal understanding/comprehension. After all, how do you explain adult mistakes to a 1 year old? But nevertheless - I think the point of mistakes is to learn from them and progress, and so in that sense, I feel like exalted beings likely progress in the same way mortals do - just on a much higher level. So anyway, just my thoughts.

What ever happened to the whole not using the term "Mormon" thing that was encouraged during the days of President Hinckley? I remember being specifically encouraged by Church leadership during that time to use the term "Latter Day Saint." And it wasn't that long ago....Hinckley only passed away in 2008. I guess the world insists we are Mormons, huh.

^ Was gonna go see that, but we ended up seeing Let's Be Cops instead. Funny movie, if you can tolerate the language. I haven't laughed that much at a movie in quite awhile.

I'm not at all encouraging a divorce, but I feel like stressedout deserves a little more credit. It IS a divorceable offense to refuse sex from your spouse to such an extreme degree. It's another form of INFIDELITY. Rhetorical question - in that context, who was guilty of infidelity first? Who was thinking only of themselves first? Obviously two wrongs do not make a right and by no means am I attempting to defend stressedout's actions. But I do think he deserves a little more sympathy and tenderness than I see coming from some. And yes, ultimately, I agree about talking with the bishop. Whether or not he will require that he come clean about it to his wife, I don't know (though I imagine he will). But sometimes I wonder if that type of pre-requisite for repentance might depend on the person. For example, my wife has told me repeatedly that if I ever cheated on her, she DOES NOT want to know about it, ever. The reason being that she doesn't want me to put her through that type of pain over a mistake that I made, just so I can have some kind of selfish "relief" in telling her. It would not be relief for her. She'd rather remain blissfully ignorant while I suffer a guilty conscience and take it up with the Lord myself. I can understand her view, and so I'm not sure that if I ever cheated on her that telling her, AGAINST her specific wishes, and giving her completely unnecessary pain, would be the necessary thing for repentance and forgiveness from God. Anyway.

also Egyptian.

sorry, what don't you agree with?

yeah, i've been a bit dismayed at the level of thinly veiled disdain that seems to have been directed toward me from some members here for daring to question the Church leadership on this. I don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church developed a property that flagrantly displayed the fashions of the world (anti-temple code) and the ways of worldly life (anti-word of wisdom). I realize an argument can be made to neutralize that concern - which would be that "oh, well, the Church has to operate in the world and the owners of the individual businesses residing at City Creek are not all necessarily LDS and they are free to advertise as they see fit" and yadda yadda. But I'm not sure that argument really effectively neutralizes the concern, it feels, to an extent, like excuse making. I mean, who was in charge of advertising for this?? The Church just let them get away with portraying such anti-LDS ways of life by a Church owned property? Why?? [On a side note - Maybe it says something about the nature of the law. I personally don't think we're gonna have to wear the uber-modest temple garments FOREVER, and I would have no problem with those "worldly" fashions being allowed by God in the Millenium/next life (in fact, I honestly hope they do, they're beautiful) and I am not so sure other health code items might be "forbidden" at some future point as well...but I digress....] I also don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church doesn't put more money toward actual, financial charitable contributions in needed areas of the world. The Church, as a financial organization, toots its horn very loudly about its charitable contributions (which are done largely by members out of faith and on their own accord) and then doesn't have a problem taking credit for that favorable image which can suggest large financial involvement, when in reality, it's the members that of the Church that deserve the spotlight as faithful Christians of a Christian church, as opposed to the supposed financial generosity of the Church. It was certainly news to me that the Church doesn't contribute as much financially as I would have thought - and that is a false perception the Church has willingly allowed to work in its favor. (Though, granted, contributions in terms of food and other aid, as opposed to just pure $$$ should definitely be taken into account, and I am proud of the Church's record on that, though still think there could be room for improvement.) And yes - while I realize that the members of the Church and the Church leadership, etc, are all "one Church" and the same, it's also unrealistic to not differentiate between what each of us are responsible for. I am not responsible for the finances of the Church and where they go. I am only responsible for myself. But some group of people, somewhere, IS responsible for the finances of the Church - and to so willingly take full credit for what individual members do, when they are independent of that and have vast capabilities of their own, is a bit dishonest. Granted, the Church doesn't need to go and proclaim to the world "OH BY THE WAY WE DIDN'T GIVE ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO CHARITY AS YOU MIGHT THINK", and indeed that would be foolish and unwise, but some tweaking in how they portray where the charity comes from might be nice. And the thing about members tearing out their gold fillings to contribute to the building of a temple in South America bugs me also. The Church is more than capable of building a temple with its own finances. I am really hoping that someone just dropped the ball on this and that there was a misunderstanding of some kind where members thought, or felt, like they needed to sacrifice like that....and that it wasn't actively encouraged to sacrifice like that by any higher ups. Because while of course it is blessed to sacrifice for a great cause - that kind of stuff is just unnecessary for poor members of a rich Church to do. Anyway.......By all means, spotlight the members to glorify the Church, but let there be credit where credit is due - and maybe don't be so stingy with the money. I can't help but think that Jesus Christ himself might be more charitable with such vast sums of money the Church possesses when there is such need in the world. And yes, I agree that we need to teach self-reliance...but Christ also taught mercy and generosity. That would make me happy. And yes, while I'm being critical of a few things, I do think it is wise for the Church to invest in properties, ranches, and whatever else. The kingdom does need to be built up, and after all - one of these days we are going to return to Missouri and literally build the city of Zion. And that will take money, and money doesn't come from nowhere, and it will take more than the tithing of members to make it happen. So I'm cool with that. Anyway. The Church is still true, obviously. But I think it's possible someone, somewhere, might be fudging up a bit in realizing the full breadth of their responsibilities.

You can take pretty much any symbolism and turn it into something "Satanic", because Satanic symbolism uses and overlays symbolism of everything else. It borrows heavily from Christian symbolism and others, and attempts to use it for its own purpose. Symbols are just symbols. They all have their own origins. How those symbols get used is up to the person using them. I do not believe Freemasonry is Satanic. Due to the "secret" nature of the fraternity, and the influence it wielded in older times, there was a backlash and a lot of scared, resentful people actually formed an "Anti-Masonic Party" here in the US to try and combat them politically. All of this stuff about them being Satanic is about as true as Southern Baptists saying that Mormons worship Lucifer and have orgies in our temples. It's just a bunch of ignorant, scared people who are afraid of symbolism and don't understand the concept of keeping sacred things reserved from the world, or keeping pearls from the swine, so to speak. You have nothing to be concerned about. Joseph Smith was a Mason. Much of our temple ceremony derives from the true teachings of Masonry which were truly the echoes of the ancient temple of Solomon, which Joseph Smith, as a Restorer and Seer, was inspired to pick up on and convert into a truer form in our temples. Freemasonry, like the original mimicked priesthood instituted by the righteous Pharaoh, is just another organization that existed through the ages and preserved valuable remnants of those sacred teachings so that they could be restored in a fullness one day. It is a great, beneficial organization that is full of valuable insights and service.

on further looking, this is the church's response The Church and Its Financial Independence

I've been reading up about the Church's finances, and speculation about where exactly our tithing goes. Basically, it seems as though most of the Church's finances do not go to charity. Not that I expected that, but from things I've been reading, it seems like a microscopically small portion of the Church's wealth goes to humanitarian aid. Instead, a lot seems to be going to investments and other money-making ventures. Like the City Creek mall in SLC. Now, I know that when we give our 10%, it is to "the Church" and whatever it wants to use it for, not specifically for charity (as there is a separate spot for that on the tithing form) and I am basically okay with that, but I am a bit troubled about how, apparently, such a small portion of the Church funds go to humanitarian aid, and I am also troubled with how certain aspects of the City Creek mall venture directly conflict with LDS values. Posting billboards of glamorous women in non-garment friendly dresses and drinking wine.......seems very worldly. Unlike some outspoken critics of the project, I am okay with the Church making money-making investments like this, because I see it as building up the Church. The more money the Church has, the stronger a foundation it will have as God's kingdom. I'm okay with that. And when all the world goes to crap, and the Church has a huge wad of cash it has wisely built up in investments, maybe we'll all be glad. So by no means am I feeling apostate on this matter. But...I am troubled by aspects of it. This youtube video I came across kind of sums up the contrasts and glaring inconsistencies. The Church also seems to kind of take a lot of credit for the charity work that INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS do on a VOLUNTEER BASIS, but in terms of actual monetary contribution...well....that seems to be another story. Not posting this youtube video to be "anti" - just it shows some of the source of my concern. This was posted underneath the video as commentary. "Over a 22-year timespan, the LDS Church says it spent $750 million on humanitarian aid. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/63.... The LDS Church says that it spent $1 million per day building City Creek Center, and the total cost was $3 billion. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70.... Do the math and see where the Church's priorities are. Here's another wonderful story about how the Church prioritizes humanitarian aid over business interests: http://www.standard.net/topics/lds-ch.... Although the LDS Church has plenty of money for a multibillion dollar luxury mall, it did not hesitate to have some of its members in South America sell the fillings from their teeth to help pay for a temple." Porto Alegre Brazil LDS (Mormon) Temple Also, this article sought to defend the Church on its charitable contributions, but some of the discussion is really interesting. Post #36 in the responses is particularly interesting/troublesome. I don't agree with every sentiment in it, but I definitely understand and feel for many of the feelings the author of that post expressed..... Business Week’s erroneous claim about LDS charitable giving | Times & Seasons What are your thoughts and feelings on this? I'm just looking for some insight here.

Last movie I watched was Resident Evil: Extinction. Thanks to Netflix. I'm going to watch Resident Evil: Afterlife, probably tonight. Kinda dumb movies, but I like Milla Jovovich and I'm a fan of watching her kick butt. I'm actually glad they are making a 6th movie with her in it. Also, I take the "no R rated movies" thing in about the same way I take the "no caffeine" thing. As in, I watch R rated movies judiciously and with some degree of desensitization already. I try to weigh cost vs. benefit beforehand. Gore normally doesn't get to me...and I hear profanity every day due to my job and also just dealing with life, so I'm pretty desensitized to it already...the biggest factor for whether or not I see a film is usually if there's a lot of gratuitous nudity in it or something.

...what about a mission?

well, like i've said before....for me, sustaining is a way of saying "i recognize the mantle of authority given to you and your entitlement to receive revelation on behalf of the ward", and not "i agree with every decision you make and sustain it unquestionably as the Lord's mind and will." I think the best and most direct route would be to just straight up ask your Stake President if he actually received revelation on this. It's "okay" of course to talk about it with other members, but you gotta be mindful that a lot of that kind of talk going on can undermine a bishop, and what if he WAS actually the one meant to be? So I would just go right up to the Stake Prez and ask him. Let him know that people are having doubts about this, including the bishop. Then let him chew on that for awhile. Of course be respectful and courteous and stuff, but there's nothing wrong in communicating doubts or concerns. If nothing happens, either a.) it was meant to be, b.) the stake prez blew you off, lol. Either way, the caravan roles on, as you say. Any mistake on his part as a priesthood leader is something he will be accountable for. Just do your best to fill your role and lift up others in serving the cause of Zion, and pray for your leaders to be inspired as well. Actually, to take it a step further, you could always just pray yourself and ask God if the stake president's decision was inspired or not. I don't see why that wouldn't be okay. If any of you lack wisdom...