Anddenex

Highly unlikely, however anything within doctrine is possible. The church has evolved in many practices, but I wouldn't put much credence in this rumor being shared. It could be another Quorum of the Seventy being added, or a temple being built in a historic place.

Here is my results: 7 Words of Affirmation 6 Quality Time 0 Receiving Gifts 5 Acts of Service 12 Physical Touch

I will take the test later today, however I am pretty sure I will score high on touch and affirmations, but we will see how well I know myself.

That is a great question. This is where it really depends on the laws within the land that the members are in. I believe it was JAG who mentioned, or someone else in this thread, as LDS we really don't believe God intended for any civil marriages. If all of Adams and Eves children followed and obeyed counsel, there would be only temple marriages, or temple sealings. However, this has not been the case. It is the day and age that we live in that allows for civil marriages. The doctrine, is get married in the temple. The flexibility is the laws we abide by in the lands we make our dwelling. If the law requires they be accomplished at the same time, then that is how the church would function in that land. In America, we are counseled to be married in the Temples first. In Switzerland, where my wife's family is from, I believe they have to be married civilly first, and then they have to wait a year by law anyways before they can be married. If am remembering my wife's words correctly regarding two of her cousins. Either way great question. I believe this is the doctrine backing this. I honestly, could be wrong.

As Backroads had specified, this is a great question. Doctrines are really never in jeopardy, only the ability to practice them, however the work continues. We have doctrine, to honor the laws of the lands wherever the church is practicing. For example, before the East Berlin Wall was brought down, there were church members within the wall. One of the laws was that no published material could be brought into the area. President Monson, at this time Elder Monson, was given assignment to memorize a manual or the Book of Mormon, and when he arrived, to sit down and write the whole manual or Book of Mormon. When he arrived and sat down, he looked up and fortunately a copy of the manual was there. Also, there were no temples in East Berlin, yet there were people who wanted to be married in the temples. They married civilly first, because Temples at that time were not accessible to members. The doctrine didn't change, and the doctrine still stood, however as a result of the Church honoring the communist laws there, the government begin to give permission to church members to leave and be married in temples. The government trusted the Church that if members of the communist society were permitted to leave, then the church would make sure they returned and the church did. As a result, of the Church and its honoring of the laws, if I am remembering correctly, a temple was able to built giving access to the temple for the members. Without the church honoring the laws of this land to begin with, other members would have never had the opportunity. The doctrines are never at jeopardy, the ability for some members to live those doctrines may be for a short time, however, the Lord provided.

Traveler: This is a very intriguing thought.

This is a very interesting question. I believe it was Brigham Young who taught a very interesting insight to Judas, however, this is within the JoD, and not all is doctrine. He mentioned, something to the nature, that Judas actually went through a process of repentance and through that process he was forgiven, but death was ultimately the way of forgiveness. I am paraphrasing a lot, because I don't remember all of the details. We know that the only sin which cannot be forgiven is denying the Holy Ghost. Did Judas deny the Holy Ghost? I would see Judas's fate no different than any of the Pharisees who put Christ to the cross.

Thank you for sharing these words.

I really like PCs comment. I am reminded of the scripture in the Book of Mormon, which specifies, "when men are learned they think they are wise and hearken not unto the counsels of God." The Jews, were studied in their scriptures, yet Christ, their God, despite their studies became a stumbling block to further progression. As some in the New Testament from Nazareth would say, "Isn't this the carpenters son?" The Greeks were philosophers, studied and well educated. The wisdom is God is faith based, but through our faith the Lord provides evidences to increase our faith, if we are humble. The Greeks today would be Scientist and Philosophers who say, "Show me proof..." Richard Dawkins is a perfect example of what 1 Corinthians is speaking about. Yet, a child, who has received witness, is more wise and honest of hear than all the learned and educated put together. This is one of the reasons why the first vision of Joseph Smith is so important. The moment Joseph Smith was visited by both God the Father and Jesus Christ he became smarter and more wise than anybody else on the planet, yet when he spoke what he saw, many esteemed, and many still do esteem his wisdom as a thing of naught. Thus in our day, Joseph has become a stumbling block to many, as Christ was with the Jews. These are some of my thoughts JosephP.

Ram... in your studies, the giants mentioned of, is it more understood that they were possibly genetically altered, or is there possible evidence, from other sources of writing, that they were a different race altogether? Also, pertaining to the flood and giants. I thought it was interesting that the flood mentioning only Noah and his sons surviving, however later on in the Bible is mentions, after the flood, one of the people being a last descendant of the giants. I will have to look further, as to the scriptures I read. As pertaining to the OPs question about animals, I have wondered the same thing and have come to no good conclusion.

Thank you for sharing this experience. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. My father was an atheist before he joined the LDS faith, so I can understand the need for a humbling, but then again, we all need a good humbling every so often.

As pertaining to number 1, remember we have the individual here quoting the Book of Psalms. There were no Bishops mentioned in the old testament. The term bishoprick is in reference to responsibility, not a particular office within the priesthood. It could be easily said within the LDS church, in connection to this verse, the Apostles have a bishoprick and the Seventies have a bishoprick and the Stake President has a bishiprick, and the Bishop has a bishoprick, but none of the offices are transferrable except within that particular priesthoods office. As such, an Apostles office, bishoprick, is not bestowed upon a Bishop. When ordained the Bishop becomes an Apostles, a Stake President, a Seventy, not vice-versa. I would agree with number 2, which leaves us in a quandary. Titus 1:7. When Paul, addresses himself as an Apostle, not a Bishop, and is addressing Titus, which I am in understanding that Titus was a Bishop. We know Titus was not an Apostle. The New Testament gives evidence to the Bishop as a separate calling than an Apostle, otherwise, why give counsel about a Bishop and what a Bishop is. 1 Timothy 3: Again we see an Apostle directing words toward Bishop and deacons. Not correlating the two offices as one, but an Apostle is directing Bishops and deacons their responsibilities. Phillipians 1: 1, Paul calls the Bishops and deacons to gather. No reference again that a Bishop and Apostle are one in the same office, but rather we have an Apostle calling the Bishops and deacons. Now, where in scripture do you have evidence that the office of an Apostle and Bishop are the same?

There are too many variables to a miscarriage, and a lot of the answers given are surely people's opinion. We know that prayer has a powerful effect on people's lives. Could a prayer have been said regarding having a physically developed child that would be technically "normal" in this life? My wife went through 5 miscarriages, and she believes one of the miscarriages we lost twins. This is a great verse when things happen out of our control 2 Nephi 2: 24. I am in understanding with Anatess. It really depends on whether or not the spirit entered the body, or not. The church has no official declaration pertaining to when the spirit enters, just that it enters sometime between conception and birth. The only record we have in scripture is John the Baptist who leaped in his mother's womb. Joseph Smith once declared that maybe children who die so young, or at birth, is because they only needed a body, there time was up, and we have consolation that the Lord will never take any of us before our time, assuming we don't made a really dumb decision.

I honestly have never had any other thought, then to be married in the Temple, sealed. I don't see any reason why to be married civilly first. If I am remembering the conversation correctly I had with my mother, who was married civilly first, she would take it back and be married in the temple first. She saw no point in two wedding ceremonies. This type of choice has never bothered me. If I were unable to attend a friends wedding due to a person's religious beliefs, it wouldn't bother me. I would accept their religious beliefs.

Maureen, As non-LDS, does it enter into the minds of nonmembers that not all LDS are able to see their family get married? For example, when my older brother was married, non of my younger siblings were able to attend the Wedding. My sister, who I am closest with, would have loved to see me get married, but she had not gone through the temple yet. Is this understood by non-members?

Nope, we are comparing the same argument you provided for civil marriage then to a sealing marriage, with what those who cohabitate first, and then get married later, or never get married. We are comparing arguments. If you can compare a sealing to a civil marriage, then we can use the same argument with cohabitation then to marriage. This argument you provide, as quoted below: Is the same argument cohabiters use to not get married civilly. This quote is also used by cohabiters: The only difference in the argument is verbage. For example, "What's wrong with being a couple first, living together, learning what it means to be committed, before we tie the knot?" EDIT: To be clear Maureen. I agree with you that a civil marriage and a cohabitating couple are not the same thing. I am only providing how cohabiters use the same argument. Hope that clarifies.

:) I would agree. If the policy change wasn't used as a "test" for marriage compatibility, then no harm. Unfortunately, some relationships would. I also don't agree with snubbing civil marriages, however, a civil marriage is not binding eternally, thus a sealing is of higher importance to those of the LDS faith. My parents are converts, they both converted and decided to marry civilly first. IMHO, I don't believe any LDS member should marry civilly first, especially if they claim to have a testimony. If they do, up to them. All my relatives, except for one of my father's brothers are non-LDS. Non of them have been able to attend any of our weddings. I still, however, don't believe the church needs to change any of it's policies to suit disagreements from non-members. In answer to the question presented by Maureen, if the church changed it's policy, it wouldn't bother me, however I am inline with Vort's response.

Maureen, Where did you find that members in the UK have to get sealed the same day?

I believe Leah was actually responding to this part of Maureen's statement, not her original statement: This statement implies "trying out" marriage civilly before being sealed, by which Leah responded, and her statement takes weight, that the same argument is being said by those who don't want to be married civilly first, they would rather cohabitate before marrying.

I was 7 or 8 years old. It was a little disappointing, but it didn't bother me. A friend I had told me Santa Claus isn't real. I went home, asked my mom, and she confirmed Santa Claus the story, wasn't real. However, Santa Claus, the truth, was my mom and dad. Nothing changed. Parents agreed never to tell us a lie. Yes, we have be celebrating Santa Claus since our children were young. As with my parents, if our children ask, we will tell them the truth, Mom and Dad are Santa Claus. Our oldest was 10 years old when he finally asked, but we think he knew before then, he was needing it confirmed.

Hmm...so what you are saying is don't listen to people who speak a TRUTH about life and the world? I am sure, while Peter was being hung upside down on the cross, he was thinking, "I am only experiencing this wickedness because I was looking for this wickedness." When you read on the news about someone being killed, raped, or beaten, yes, from now on I will take your counsel, "It is because they were looking for wickedness that wickedness happened upon them." Your language reminds me of Pauls words, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." It appears from your language, you may well be still "speak[ing] as a child." As for me, however, I will pay attention to the warnings from well seasoned men/women who help guide people, without being naive.

Are your church leaders actually "counseling" you to remain married, or are they seeking to honor the church leader counsels provided in the church Handbook, that they are not supposed to steer any relationship towards divorce. Divorce is between you, the Lord and your current spouse. The Lord recognizes times where divorce is necessary. I, like others, am surprised women would allow themselves to remain in a abusive relationship. I am sorry to hear about your current trials and the Lord bless you to continue faithful in reading and praying.

If you have ever read President Eyring's book, "To Draw Closer to God", he mentions this in that book.

This site answers the question you are requesting: Which is inline with Vort's response. The Advancement Trail You will need to let the Cub Scout Coordinator, the Bishopric member know, or the person you are currently speaking with that a child doesn't join "cub scouts" at 7, they are able to join "Tiger Scouts" However, it appears at age 7, if in 2nd grade they can actually begin earning their Wolf rank. But they are not 8 year old Cub Scouts, they are still Tiger Scouts. I believe Vort is correct, the Church doesn't sponsor Tiger Scouts, so the letter from the Stake President would be moot. They as a family could join, independent of the Church.

Found this on: FAQ: Joining Cub Scouting