Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Anddenex

  1. This has always been an interesting discussion. I, personally, don't have any problems with people texting, listening to the radio, talking on their phone, etc... while driving. Heck, my sister just talking while driving is more dangerous than the majority of the people who are texting while driving. I remember having this conversation at work, a few years back, and one employee was so adamant that texting is the worse action someone can do while driving and is the main reason for car accidents. So, we took the challenge, looked up statistics, and here is what we found: Number one cause for accidents on the freeway: Listening to the radio, or better said, people playing with their radio while driving. This resulted in 11% of all the accidents, according to this statistic. Next was talking on your phone, with about 6% of the accidents. Texting was actually at the bottom, with only 2%. To be fair, this was 3 years or so back, and statistics tend to change. I am amazed at how people feel about texting, but have no problems with a radio in the car, which 3 years back was the number one source for accidents. I used to text, all the time while driving, never had a problem with. I never swerved into any other lane. Once, it became a law, I don't do it anymore. I think it is a dumb law, because at the time when seeking to make it a law in Utah, it was 9% lower than the number one cause, and yet no law was made or has been made regarding our radio, or stereo systems in our cars.
  2. This is a very interesting question seeing that I just read in this mornings news about a 6 year old girl who was killed, sexually assaulted and left in a canal. I have asked myself this question, many times, since 2 years ago when I was fired from a job by those who are supposed to be my brother's in Christ. It was difficult to hear them make up excuses as to why they were letting me go, while pretending to understand and know how I felt. I believe the answer is more easily understood however, when reading 2 Nephi 2: 11 - 17. It is also easier understood when we understand the first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is faith. If God, intervened with every aspect of our lives, even the most hideous, then faith would eventually be destroyed. I noticed in scripture there are times God has intervened, and times he has not, and it has usually been a result of: 1. The faith of the individual 2. Obedience vs. Disobedience 3. God allows men to face their own consequences as a result of their own choices 4. To save God's purpose 5. To allow a righteous judgement in the end 6. We need to learn to trust I have noticed in scripture when faith was evident, when a promise was made, if there was no other person to intervene, God would intervene to fulfill individual promises. For example, Nephi and Sam being beaten by their brothers. At this time, my feeling is if the Angel did not interfere then Nephi probably would have been killed by Laman and Lemuel, however, if so then God would not have been able to fulfill a promise made to an honest and faithful servant. In order for righteousness to be brought to pass, opposition must be allowed, even the most hideous of all crimes, otherwise we would be living laws as designed by Satan. All would be saved, all would live, yet agency the ability to choose ourselves to be Godlike would have been lost. I also believe the statement is incorrect that "God looks away", heavens NO, I believe the tears Enos saw God shed, are because God is very much aware and is constantly looking. In closing (ha, like am giving a talk) I will share a personal experience with regard to an answer prayer and trust. When I knelt down regarding my temporal affairs I said, "I am not as strong as you think, and this is more than I can bear." I received one word, clear and distinct, "Trust." I at that time thought I understood the word "trust" and realized how little I understood this word, and am still trying to understand it, in application, not just because it sounds good.
  3. That is simply how the Lord through Brigham Young taught it: "If he has only ten dollars he can pay one; if he has only one dollar he can pay ten cents...if he has a hundred dollars he can possibly pay ten." Teaching of the Prophets: Brigham Young As already stated by Modorbund: "The First Presidency has explained that 'one-tenth of all their interest annually' refers to our income." Gospel Principles Chapter 32. So if my income annually is $300, then the math is simple, I pay $30 in tithing. This is not how I define it; this is how the Lord defined it through his prophets. My comment mentions nothing of gross or net, or by some other method. I am reminded of President Hinckley's words regarding the law of tithing and comparing it to the income tax we pay as Americans. He simply stated, "One need only compare it [tithing] with the income tax to recognize the simplicity that comes of the wisdom of God in contrast with the complexity that comes of the wisdom of men." He further states, when as a boy meeting with Bishop John C. Duncan, "The amount may have been only twenty-five cents, but it was an honest 10 percent as we had figured it in our childish way, based on the little couplet that we would recite in Sunday School, 'What is tithing? I will tell you every time. Ten cents from a dollar, and a penny from a dime." From this it would be easy to gather the 25 cents resulted from an earned income of $2.50. Tithing is a simple mathematical equation, and the more complex we make this simple equation the less likely we will fall under a "honest tithe" when the Lord requires an accounting at our hands.
  4. I would definitely agree with the posts provided by Vort and Modorbund. I think tithing is a simple mathematical equation: If person A makes $300, and tithing is 10%, how much does this person pay in tithing? $30. Tithing is so simple I can teach my 3 year old, and he even knows, if I make $10 dollars we pay $1 dollar to tithing. If I have 10 pennies we give one penny to the Lord. Now, I truly have compassion for people who own their own business, they need to keep better records than I do to pay a full-tithe. Mine is really simple. I make "X" amount of dollars, every month, and I pay 10% of that "X" amount of dollars. The story I remember of paying tithing is from a member back home who is now the Patriarch. He and his wife were inactive, and they started to come back to church. They knew tithing was a part of the law of the gospel, they also knew that if they paid tithing they would be in the hole every month. They ended up paying tithing and they to this day have no clue how they were able to survive except by the grace of God. He would always say, "We ran the numbers." If I were, or they accepted, the idea presented by this guy, then they would not have had to pay tithing at all, because they needed all their income to sustain their living, and their was no interest afterwards.
  5. I believe this is the whole goal of sealing, that we are one huge family, and more evidence that in the gospel we refer to each other as Brother and Sister _________. Yet, I don't refer to my own children as Brother Exon or Sister Exon. No, I don't believe the sealing is more powerful than another. I also do not believe there will be a difference between grand-father and grand-son relationship as with mine. This is a parental relationship. I don't see how the sealing power would weaken or loose it's strength in comparison to relationships developed on earth. I agree, we will all be one big happy family, including those who chose not to live a life worthy of the Celestial Kingdom. I, myself, do not see the sealing power and relationships as one. The sealing power is just as strong for you and I, and in the end, and now, we are brothers and sisters. However, the relationship I have with my children is not the same relationship I have with another person's children. I find more evidence to the relationship of posterity within the temple, otherwise, if the relaionship of father/mother and children are no different than the power of sealing for all of us, the final covenant we make and receive at the veil is moot. If you draw your mind to the covenant, and the words regarding posterity... I think this speaks more about relationships which will also exist, even though we are one big family, due to the power of the sealing, which is like our priesthood, endless and incorruptible. I don't see much difference between the relationships which will exist in the eternities, as it does exist in a ward. One of my previous wards, we all being brothers and sisters, had four generations of family. The Bishop saw me as his brother, and did not treat me any different than his own son, yet for me to deny that relatioship, though we are brothers, I think would be inappropriate, at least to me. Great questions, and thank you for a thoughtful discussion.
  6. Well, Seminary... you are one deep thinker and I like it . First, I hope that I am understanding your question correctly such that my answers actually answer your question. I would assume we would distinguish one Celestial family from another the same we we distinguish one temporal family from another. Although I am one member of a huge temporal family, my brothers children are not mine, and mine are not his. I would assume, the same way people are able to distinguish my brothers children from mine will be the same way a Celestial family will distinguish my children from theirs. Otherwise, I see no point to the sealing of children, if in the end their is no distingushing factor since we are all one big Celestial family. My mind draws to the words provided by Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, where he mentions that the righteousness of a parent may have the ability to draw a wayward child, after death, to live in the Celestial Kingdom, even though the life they lived on earth was telestial or terrestial (Note: he didn't mention a kingdom, except that the child was not in the Celestial Kingdom). This points to a connection between father, mother, and offspring even though we are all connected as one Celestial Family. I don't ever remember suggesting that a child would only be with his or her mother/father. Although my children are mine, it does not exclude them from being my father's and mother's grandchildren, or my brothers and sister's nephew's and nieces. Might I ask, where this conclusion was drawn from my words? I see the "value" in the sealing, and even more so in the sealing of a child that is adopted. One of my dearest friends, had the unfortunate experience of burying their 4 year old son. They tried for 5 years to have an additional baby. The day their other child was baptized was the same day they received a call that a child was available for adoption. I had the opportunity to be at the sealing of their new daughter. I have a hard time believing, or even seeing, that this child will just be another child in the Celestial Kingdom. It is more convincing to me, that a sealing seals on earth as well as in Heaven. If so, then this sealing that took place signifies that their daughter will not only be theirs in this life, but will be a sealed daughter "as in Heaven". Or better said, binds on earth as it is bound in heaven. To me, the sealing makes the whole difference. As to your analogy, I apologize, I think am totally missing it and I am not seeing the correlation. However, in what I am understanding and if this is correct, my brothers children will be just as special as they are to me right now, but for me to say I do not love my own children more, would be a lie. My own children are more special to me, but this does not negate my love for my nephews and nieces, which belong to another family or another kindergarten.
  7. Great question Seminary, I revert to Scenario 1 and my answer there: "However, in this situation, I believe that agency is more important and the decision of which family the child will belong to, will probably be given to the child (or the adult). At least this is what makes sense to me." A choice to the child to choose which family he/she chooses to be with. If I had a child switched at birth, I would want my child in the eternities, however, if this child was raised in a loving home, loved his/her parents, and in the next life wanted to be with the family who raised him/her; then as a loving father I would accept the decision of that child. I believe, agency is one of the most important gifts we have, as such, I don't see the Lord forcing one of his children to be with a family who didn't raise him/her. I believe the decision will be left unto the child. So, a choice between the actual birth family, or the family he/she was switched at birth, but thoroughly loved and would still call them mother and father. Cheers.
  8. This is definitely a difficult situation, and I see two positives (if they can really been seen this way) that you are not sealed and that their are no children. Although, I understand others have mentioned giving a specific time period, and then decide. I have rarely heard or seen an ultimatum regarding a length of time actually be beneficial. I understand, for some men, this is all it takes, however for probably a greater number, I believe most people will change during that time period and then once it is over, or they have received their reward, back to their old self again and the cycle continues. I agree with others who have mentioned sitting down with your husband and having a detailed discussion about goals and objectives. I must say, I have a hard time having compassion towards your husband. Kristi and I have been married for 12 years. In our first six months of marriage we both worked part-time. As a suggestion, if there are no children, then you have a responsibility to work also, if that is what is needed to make bills, even if that means working full-time while going to school. After six months, Kristi was pregnant, and as a result, I begin working full-time. We put the money she earned from her part time job into savings, while we practiced living on my income (which wasn't much). By the time our first child was born, we both were full-time students. She quit her job, and in order to pay the bills because we couldn't live on one income, I worked a part-time graveyard on top of my full-time work, while going to school full-time. Yes, my grades suffered, yet I was still able to pull off an overall GPA of 2.9, which was fine with me having to work on average around 55 hours weekly to support our little family at the time. I think So_Cal provided some good advice in visiting with a neutral therapist, and others pertaining to counsel with your husband. Myself personally, would have a time by which he would need to change, unknown to him. I would be patient, explaining to him and encouraging him. If by the time there was no change, then it would be a difficult decision. Either way, I wish you the best.
  9. First, I am sorry you and your children will be going through such a great trial. It appears you have received some good advice regarding the situation. I would add one thing to FunkyTown's response regarding visiting this young lady and being as polite as you can, however, I am not sure this will be very polite, but it will be frank. After you say this, "Tell her that you thought you'd want to know if you were in that position, then nod and leave." Before you leave her house then say, "I also want you to know, men have a tendency not to change and repeat similar behaviors. Should you need a shoulder to cry on, when this happens to you, I am there for you." But then again, that probably isn't good to say, even though I would really want to say it. Maybe you can pull a Ms. Lorena Bobbit??? NO, NO, forget I even said it. I am sorry. Our prayers are with you and may your soul be comforted during this hard time in Christ.
  10. Scenario 1: First I would like to say this, thank goodness God is perfect and He knows best! The sealing is definitely a sealing guaranteeing, if we are faithful, your children will be yours in the eternities. Yes, children become adults, however just because I am an adult it does not mean I am no longer my father's and mother's son. I would like to believe that the sealing of my children is no different than the sealing of my wife. Just as she will be, and I will be hers, mine --- our children will be ours as a part of the Heavenly family. Otherwise, I see no point in the promise made in the temple, and as spoken by prophets, that the righteousness of the parent has an ability, in the next life, to bring salvation to their children (Both Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith spoke regarding these things, and it was mentioned in General Conference). However, in this situation, I believe that agency is more important and the decision of which family the child will belong to, will probably be given to the child (or the adult). At least this is what makes sense to me. Scenario 2: The sealing never took place with regard to the baby switched to the couple who are members. There is no guarantee that this child will be sealed to the parents, however this is why we do work in the temple, and probably one of those things that will be solved during the millennium. The sealed child, or BiC, as with scenario 1 will probably be given a choice. In this scenario though, my heart goes out to the child who was born in the covenant and then had to experience a life outside of the covenant. However, in saying this, I wonder if the Lord happened to put the "wrong" spirit in the beginning with the BiC family, knowing that the child would be switched anyway. Thus, the intended baby either way ended up with the right family. He does know all things, and is able to see all things, thus it definitely is plausible, however not saying it is, just random thought.
  11. "You can't separate when you use the bishop's office for the conversation." I would definitely agree with Wingnut, the moment he stepped into the Bishop's office it was a Bishop's meeting. The young boy isn't going to separate the two positions of status: father and Bishop. If acting as a Bishop, he should, in my opinion, address the mother and father first of the young boy and then invite the young boy into his office. If acting as a father, he should refrain from the Bishop's office, and speak with the boy privately. "In my ward the bishop has established that he will (and has) rebuke(d) any young man that insults any young woman." Thank you for sharing this Estrada, I believe, when within the bounds of stewardship, this should stand for any priesthood holder.
  12. I'm sorry beefche but I can not resist the temptation regarding your wording as you say, "My favorite husband..." How many husbands do you have that you have a favorite?? I don't think "my favorite" beloved will allow me to get away with this statement, she keeps telling me "only one wife". Have fun in St. Louis!
  13. To answer your first statement/question? Yes, I believe I have similar thoughts and feelings about prayer as you do. My patriarchal blessing has a few promises by which I have yet to see unfolded, and I am not sure they will. Let me be point blank, I don't think this is due to the Lord, but due to a lack of understanding to some doctrine I have not yet learned. Here are some thoughts I have been having as I have tried to understand why prayer is so difficult, and yet at times so easy. For example, one time at work there was a raffle, the name drawn would win a combo DVD/VHS player. I silently prayed in my heart, "Father, I am not a rich man, and this would be nice to have in my home. Will though provide it for me?" I kid you not, within moments of saying "In the name of Jesus Christ, A-men." I received confirmation that my name would be drawn. When my name was called it wasn't a surprise. At another time, I worked for what I thought good men and a great company. I prayed every night with as much sincerity and earnest desire as I could for success. Our manager at the time said, he had specific goals, and if we didn't reach a certain monetary goal, in order for him to fulfill his goal he would need to fire one person. This is the same person who on facebook a week or two before he fired me (a father of 4 children), said, "Unfortunately, I will not be able to pay off my house in 5 years, it will now be six." Obviously, we barely missed our monetary goal by $50,000. I say barely because we sold around $375K that quarter. The goal was around $425K. I have thought many times since then, all the prayers I said. I have thought many times since then, how is it that the Lord will answer my prayer for a DVD/VHS player, but would not soften the heart of a greedy man, that I would not be fired, as I was trying to provide for a family now of 4 kids. I had trouble finding a job afterwards. I am sharing this not for anybody to feel pity or compassion for me, only to set up these main points I have been thinking about. I recently reread these words from Joseph Smith, "My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of being He is... "Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us." (Teaching of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 2) I am constantly reminded of the words given by a General Authority, within the first Quorum of the Seventy, "Prayer is so simple that we should remember, a child of 8 years old will be able to receive an answer." I paraphrased his words since I don't remember them perfectly. This though, pricks my heart. I wonder brother, if it is that I have not yet come to the knowledge I need regarding the character of God? Yet, I believe Joseph Smith prayed many times that he and his family would be kept safe. I bet he prayed many times, that the cup of "martyrdom" would pass over him and that he would be able to raise his children and live a long life with Emma (And his other wives I would imagine). Yet, the cup, as was His Savior's given, and he freely drank --- but I highly doubt it did not happen without tears, without the potential fear, of the fate of his family when he was gone. Yet, Joseph Smith, a man of mighty faith (definitely more than mine), trusted. In my experience, and not sure if I am learning it well enough, one of the most important lessons in life we need to learn is simply "Trust." Maybe you have felt, as I have at times, why pray about this, because if it isn't in God's will --- like me not getting fired --- it won't be answered anyways. Either way, I do think that I have understood a simple doctrine regarding the character of God, which at times, makes prayer a more difficult task, then talking on a cell phone. Best ZionsRodeVos!
  14. When I read this type of statement, the word that typically enters into my mind is "irony." Truth, in and of itself, is alienating to those who cannot accept it. The Lord in scripture taught specific truths by which some no longer followed him, thus they alienated themselves. An example would be the young rich men. I don't think an absolute statement of "Truth [HAS ALWAYS]..." is correctly stated. The truth, with regard to principles, is relative to our positions, which is why so many Bishops apply the gospel principles, truth, differently. However, fornication, is an absolute and is not relative to our positions. However, the word of wisdom, is a relative truth to our day and time (Then again, is it?). I have discussed with others that would specify that a person bearing testimony of the truths they know, is arrogance as well, because it is alienating to others who don't believe the same way. Truth will always alienate those who can not accept it. This is evidence when a member chooses no longer to be a member of the church. They say, the church members are unfriendly, however in my experience with some people in our ward. It is not us alienating, but they no longer are willing to participate in the activities we do. Thus, they have alienated themselves. In saying this though, I do agree, if we are overbearing in our methods and approach in explaining truth, or sharing truth, then unfortunately, we ourselves fall under the category you suggested, and we alienate, verses bring souls to Christ. To those who love the truth, the truth will not alienate, but will draw people closer together and unify our faith. I have always liked the words of Joseph Smith, as shared by Truman G. Madsen, (I am going to paraphrase because I don't remember the exact words) --- It is not a disciple to draw a line, and expect everyone to live up to your line, or else they are wicked and you are righteous --- Sometimes, when we get involved into personal interpretation we can tend to draw a line, and expect others to live by our word, and not by the word they receive. It is a danger to anybody who studies the gospel.
  15. I have a nook, and haven't used it since I got my pad, it just sits in my desk drawer. If your budget can afford another few months of payment, at $399, instead of $249, you will be able to get an iPad, with many more features and capabilities. I am only saying this because I wasted $200 in getting my nook. However, if you are sold on the nook, then get it. Either way, they definitely are better than holding scriptures and lighter as has already been said.
  16. Private Interpretation? The statement is factually correct. The Prophet is the only person on this earth who is able to receive direct revelation which affects the whole body of the church. An individual, is not able to receive "private revelation" and then act according to his/her private interpretation, if it contradicts current doctrine. Example, Branch President on my mission who begin allowing women to conduct a sacrament meeting and pass the sacrament. Another example, is when polygamy was no longer authorized to practice, yet some members thinking, a private interpretation, moved to Mexico to continue practicing polygamy. As a result of private interpretatio, the Church, has had to deal with the repetuation of break off groups which are and have been a result of "private interpretation." I believe, correct if wrong, the RLDS church was a result of "private interpretation" that the next prophet should be one of Joseph Smith's sons. I believe in relation to Acts 17:11, it definitely is commendable that we search out answers to questions within scriptures as long as we stay within our stewardships. The moment we step out of our stewardships, with private interpretation, then we have crossed specific bounds established by the Lord, for our guidance and happiness. As pertaining to some comments, with God commanding us to murder, one must be very careful that they don't condemn the idea all together. In scriptures, we know of accounts where the Lord did command his children to kill "innocents." Or, to kill a person, if not innocent. Examples: Nephi & Laban. Abraham & Isaac. The children of Israel and how they were commanded not only to kill the men, they were commanded to kill women and children, and to kill the baby within the womb. I would hope, if I every came to a "more sure word of prophecy" and the Lord commanded me to kill someone, even an innocent, as with Abraham, that my reaction would be like Nephi's, "Nay Lord, I have never shed innocent blood" (This is paraphrased for all you sticklers). Nephi, was provided an angelic visitation and was again commanded to kill Laban. And we know according to record, Laban's head was no longer attached to his body. We also know according to record the children of Israel did kill the men, women, and children. One of the very purposes as specified in Ephesians is to bring everyone to a unity of faith. This can only be accomplished if there is organization, and within that organization, guidelines and rules that everyone follows. We have thousands of Christian churches today due to "private interpretation." When we have one head who is authorized by God to interpret scripture for the church collecively, then if people are obedient, all can come to the unity of faith. I also, wonder if this is a result of doctrine, verses the application of doctrine. We all have the doctrine, and every family is unique and different, in how they interpret or apply that doctrine within their home. My father tells me of a story when we lived in Germany about a member of the Church who was very close to the spirit and had the spirit of prophecy. This individual would begin to prophesy and it amazed many members when they would come true. Unfortunately, this person became arrogant, and received a prophecy to begin another church. Unfortunately, many members within this ward followed. This is another example of one ability to come close to the spirit, and then step the guidelines established. If the members would have understood the organization, and the Lord would never step out of His bounds, pertaining to leadership, none of these members would have followed but they did. Great question.
  17. Yes, I know an ordinance or an ordination an Elder is not able to participate in. You know this also, is an Elder able to participate in the ordination of a high priest? This year, one of my best friends asked me to "participate in" his ordination to a high priest. As an Elder, I had to tell him no, because I have not the ability to participate in such an ordinance. I can only participate in offices of my equal authority or of lesser authority. Yet, you know this. Please note my own words, clarifying I didn't change my stance, and confirming the request that you read my comments slower. I quote myself, "The office of an Elder is not sufficient to perform sealings within the Temple, but the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings." Please notice the words, "officiate in", thus my stance has not changed. I am also, as an Elder unable to officiate, or participate, in a sealing ordinance. If I were called to be a sealer, as an Elder, I must first be ordained to the office of a high priest. I just previously provided two examples. If you did not know of these before, now you do. If you read my comment slower, you would have noticed my own words, "officiate in." I never said anything was inaccurate, false, or untrue pertaining to this section of quotes. If you were not being sarcastic, then I misinterpreted the intent behind the words. Then I apologize. However, I know I am not the only who misinterprets your sincere sarcasm, or what appears as very sarcastic language. This is a play on semantics, and using rhetoric to benefit your stance. Yes, and we both know your last part of this statement is blatantly false, and in no way correlates with, "And if your response to that is that patriarchs, seventies, and apostles ARE high priests..." We also both know, it isn't "picky definitional logic", and that you again, are using semantics to verify your stance. Thus again, I ask, "How many Elders do you know who can officiate or participate in a sealing ordinance." We both know, I am not speaking about being a "witness" but actually participating as the sealer? We both know, a Priesthood holder, who only holds the office of an Elder, can not participate or officiate in the ordinance of a sealing. The only Elders who can hold this sealing power are those who have been ordained to the office of a high priest. Thus this reverts back to the originally statement, and confirms it, that only a high priest holds this power. Your emphasis is similar to a deacon arguing that he has the power to baptize, because he is an Aaronic priesthood holder, and then trying to confirm it by saying since a priest is also a deacon, thus deacons can baptize. Really? Why use semantics and rhetoric to make a point, when you know the point you are making is easily proven false. For emphasis, to repeat myself, your debate of an Elder holding the power is no different than saying a deacon holds the power to baptize, when he does not, just because a priest is also a deacon. Yes, I never said otherwise. It is clear in my posts, of clarification, that I never said a high priest can automatically officiate in a sealing. I did say it is conferred upon a high priest, not an Elder. So these three paragraphs are moot. Now your playing naive, pertaining to "common knowledge". If you are a high priest, then you know, and is common knowledge, that a high priest officiates in sealing after they have been set apart. We both also know, my statement isn't false. Are you trying to tell me the sealer isn't a high priest, and a high priest isn't officiating in the sealing ordinance? Really? By the way, a Patriarch is a deacon, as is a high priest an Elder, and a priest a deacon. However, we both know a deacon does not have the ability to participate in the blessing of the sacrament, as we both know, common knowledge, a priest can not confirm a member of the church, as we both know the office of an Elder is not able to be set apart as a sealer, until he is ordained a high priest. Yes, common knowledge. As is common knowledge, that becoming a sealer is within the office of a high priest. As it is within the office of seventies and apostles. Or else, will you try and prove to me an Elder can be set apart as a sealer, without first being ordained to the office of a high priest? or must, the Elder first be ordained a high priest, and then set apart as a sealer? We both know the answer. No, you haven't taken me at my own words, as was verified in the beginning of this dialogue, and which is why I am responding. Best, as in short for "Best Regards" at the end of a letter. Best, as saying, I have no animosity. Best, as in thanks for the discussion. Best as saying, "we are brothers." Best, as in saying, have a great day. So I say it again, Best Vort.
  18. Greater responsibility. Let me see if I can put it this way: A deacon has specific responsibilities. When a deacon becomes a teacher, the duty of home teaching is now a part of their responsibilities. Thus, a teacher has more responsibilities than a deacon, and as such has a greater responsibility of righteousness. An Elder isn't able to participate in every ordinance a High Priest is able to do so. Thus a High Priest, has a greater responsibility of righteousness, due to the fact that they have more responsibilities. I couldn't agree more, we should all be aspiring to be as righteous as the Savior, regardless of the office. I never said otherwise. As pertaining to the office of an Apostle and this being the highest office, let me share this verse to clarify my statement as to why the high priest is the highest office. D&C 107: 22, "Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three "Presiding High Priests" and the Apostles are under the authority, or presiding authority, of three High Priests. Also read D&C 107: 64-66, "Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church." I note, that the doctrine does not specify the Presiding Elder, but the Presiding High Priest. My authority and responsibilities as an Elder, are not the same as an Apostle whose title is Elder. Which title emphasizes full time missionary. Note, I no longer go by Elder Exon, as I did on my mission. I am simply Brother Exon. "As for Elder's looking to HP's as examples, I can only assume you mean because of the typical younger age of the EQ." No, not in the least, whether younger or older, an Elder should be able to look up to a High Priest for a better example of living the Priesthood. Just as any deacon should be able to look up to any teacher, despite their age, as an example of righteousness in their office.
  19. Thank you for the question, and comment explaining your question. I will clarify my statement, because after writing this one I realized others may not completely understand what I said. However, if you read the last part of my statement about following doctrine and the calling of an High Priest, then I believe, it would have been more clear. Agreed, same Priesthood covenant with the same requirements for Exaltation. The EQP remember is the President of the quorum who holds keys. The President of the high priest quorum is the Stake President, who holds keys. As Vort explained in a latter comment, and which was explained well. As pertaining to a greater responsibility of righteousness here are some verses of scripture that may clarify my statement. Alma 13: 3 "on account of their exceeding faith and good works" Alma 13: 5, "in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren...for such as would not harden their hearts." In connection read all of verse 10. I would also lead you to Abraham 1: 2, "Having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge...I became a rightful heir, a High Priest..." The scripture we are all familiar with, "many are called, but few are chosen." I believe, you might be reading my statement as saying a high priest is more righteous, automatically because they are a high priest. This is not so. They hold a "greater responsibility" of righteousness, not that they are more righteous. To be really lame, I am going to quote Spiderman, "with great power there must also come great responsibility." (ha, ya, I know I just quoted Spiderman---the Star Wars quotes have been used to much :) ) As such with the call of a high priest, there comes a greater responsibility, with that responsibility a desire should follow to be more righteous. It is the highest office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and one that should not be taken lightly. An Elder, should be able to look up to every High Priest as an example, unfortunately as with other time periods, this has and is not the case. I hope that clarifies my statement.
  20. Well, yes it is true, and it is apparent you read a little to deep into my statement. Also, an Elder, who does not hold the office of an High Priest, is not able to officiate or perform the sealing ordinance. Thus, the following statement, "an elder...may participate in [ANY] ordinance, would not be correct. Unless you can provide doctrinal or specific evidence an Elder, who has not been ordained to the office of a High Priest, has performed and does now perform sealing ordinances? Really...no kidding, you mean you need to be an Elder before you become a High Priest? If you would actually read my comment you would recognize I never said otherwise, and you would not need to sarcastically "venture to say" anything. Hmm...yes it is so, and I never said the office of a high priest "confers" any authority. The authority was already conferred upon the individual, a high priest, who received the sealing authority to perform the sealing. If an individual, and Elder, wants to be one who performs sealings, then he must first be ordained to the office of an high priest, after he is ordained to the office of an high priest, then the sealing power is conferred or given to the individual. Please read my statement slower. I never said anything about conferring anything. I clearly stated an Elder is unable to officiate or perform a sealing. Whereas a high priest is able to do so. I assumed it was common knowledge that the sealing power or authority needed to be conferred. However, I guess not. Again, I never said it wasn't distinct. I said it is within the office of an high priest, not that it is a high priest. Or let me be more clear, how many Patriarchs do you know that only hold the office of an Elder? Any, I will venture to say this time, you know of none. I will also venture to say, how many seventies, apostles, and prophets, do you know who only hold the office of an Elder? Either way Vort...please ask questions of clarification next time, instead of assuming I said something, or wrote something, I did not. Best.
  21. This is a really easy question if you think about it. An Elder is an office in the Melchizedek priesthood as is the High Priest. Within the Aaronic Priesthood, we have (as you know), deacon, teacher, and priest. As the priest office is higher than a deacon and teacher, so is the office of a High Priest higher than the office of an Elder. Each office holds responsibilities and duties. The higher up the office the greater the responsibility of righteousness and what one may participate in. The office of an Elder is not sufficient to perform sealings within the Temple, but the office of a high priest may officiate in sealings. The priest may now perform the ordinance of baptism, while the deacon and teacher are unable to do so, because they hold an office, which is unable to participate or perform this responsibility. A Patriarch is within the office of a High Priest, thus signifying again that the office of an High Priest is higher than the office of an Elder. This does not induce that the High Priest is more important than the Elder. As the Priesthoods form a body. Each body part is important to the function of the whole body, yet in function, certain parts of the body require more attention, or else the whole body will shut down. Loose a limb, the body keeps moving, yet the body misses that part. Take out the brain or heart, and the body ceases its function and life. If we are following doctrine the calling of a High Priest should follow: 1. Righteousness and Worthiness (Abraham 1:2, Elder Bednar's talk this past G.C., many called but few are chosen) 2. Revelation (Think of Aaron being called the first High Priest in the law of Moses) 3. Willingness (Some are worthy, but not willing)
  22. I think, feel, I have always had a testimony regarding Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. That always made sense to me. I wasn't sure though if Joseph Smith was a prophet though until I was 17. I went to a Private Christian school in the 7th and 8th grade, and earned some friendships, which friendships lead me to other friends who would condemn me to hell because I was a Mormon. I thought hard and pondered a lot. I remember, when I was walking 17 years old, as I was walking through the halls the spirit witnessed to my heart, "Andrew, why are you not praying like your mom taught you to pray." I, to this day, am shocked how easily I listened and begin praying every night before I went to bed. This action obviously helped me to have the Spirit with me, but yet I still lacked a testimony of Joseph Smith. I was given a Home Teaching companion who was a convert. He noticed one day while we were out that I was pondering something deeply. He then asked me, "Would you like to share with me your thoughts?" I then shared with him my dilemma about Joseph Smith, and I thought he would respond like everybody else, telling me to believe and that he knew. But he didn't. He didn't even address the question, he simply asked, 'And what have you come to realize?" I thought for a moment and then answered, "I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet." He then bore testimony and said, "I feel the same way." However, the solidity of my testimony blossomed on my mission in a strange way, at least strange to me. In the MTC I read D&C 8:9. My world, my testimony, was almost broken when I read the words for the first time (or I should say when I understood these words for the first time) that I had never experienced a "burning in your bosom." I realized, then and there, I had never felt a burning in the bosom, and to hear one of the members of the Branch Presidency speak about his burning in the bosom verified my thoughts, my fear, that I did not really have a testimony, I only felt I had a testimony. I begin fasting and praying once every week, and on fast Sunday I would have fasted 2 times that week. So within 2 months on my mission, I had fasted 10 times in hopes the Lord would reveal the truth to me by the burning in the bosom. I had prayed every night, with no success, and was really thinking about returning home because I did not have a "proper" testimony, or at least I thought I did not. One Wednesday night after fasting, which was probably the last night, before I would have decided to return home while kneeling, I didn't receive a burning in the bosom, but the Lord spoke to me by His still small voice saying these words, "Andrew, stop asking me something you already know. Live what you know and build upon it." Since then, that is what I have been doing. The gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored, what a glorious day and age we live in.
  23. I am with John Doe. We just had a Stake Primary training where they provided us with the password, and told us to take advantage of the Churches programs available on the internet. However, at our ward we have an old building and the internet isn't very good in the building, and in some rooms you can't even receive a signal, which really stinks. I have been downloading videos to my iPad, however this takes up a lot of space on my iPad. The Stake Center internet access was blazing fast compared to our wards (ok, blazing maybe an exaggeration). I would be less concerned with people using the internet unless they are using it inappropriately.
  24. No, however should a member come out in open rebellion and try to force the hand of the Prophets, as some have, then yes, the member is subject to their covenant. If they have broken their covenant, then they are subject to the consequences of their decisions. I am not sure why people complain about being subject to their covenant, both the blessings and the consequences when disobeyed. People even now believe missionary work is forcing people to believe your belief system. Some people suggest, that if you even try to talk to someone about your belief, that wasn't elicited, then you are forcing them to believe your way. The right course is to stand our ground in truth, not a societal plea, that has and will continue to have the Lord's disapproval on our nation. You need not fear loosing your recommend if you are grounded in truth, and if you are keeping your temple covenants. If you are not grounded in truth, and you are not keeping your temple covenants, it shouldn't surprise anyone if a temple recommended is returned, however with technology today, they don't need to take your recommend away, they only need to send an alert on your record attached to the bar-code on your recommend, and it is flagged.
  25. The idea of accepting this doctrine, if true, would not turn your eye from the true vine and the source of our salvation and exaltation. A parents righteousness is only possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. There is no Salvation without Christ, as such, "Parental Salvation" is an incorrect place of words. Some, have incorrectly, interpreted these passages, focusing on the parents. The focus is not the parents, but the focus is the "sealing" and the sealing performed by the "priesthood" which is only granted through Christ. Without the "sealing", without the "priesthood", a parent's righteousness is futile. This is no different than the covenant God made with Abraham. Through the righteousness of Abraham, all of his children receive specific blessings. Or, one can say, through the righteousness of a parent, the children have been blessed. This doesn't turn a eye, from the true giver of the gift, but it does provide me as one of the children, great-great-great grandchildren of Abraham, to be thankful to a parent who lived such a life, that I would receive a blessing from. In your case, should your parents continue to live a righteous life, sufficient for redemption and exaltation, you will receive a blessing from your parents as we receive blessings from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Yet, as with these men, we all know these promised blessings, due to the righteousness of these men, is not possible without turning our eye to Christ, as they did, and as they still do. I agree with a previous post, there is a difference between "Salvation" and "Exaltation", and Joseph Fielding Smith explained in the Doctrines of Salvation, that due to a parent righteousness, children who are sealed, by the priesthood will have the opportunity, after they have suffered for their sins, to be allowed entrance into the Celestial kingdom. I would agree with this interpretation. The children still receive their consequence, yet the family is not separated.