Anddenex

Thank you. When I first read these words from an anti-Mormon, I felt the same way. However, I have never experienced or been in a sacrament meeting when this has happened. I also have never come across any statement in Handbook 2, specifying how this is handled. Without finding or reading any official statement I assumed what Just_A_Guy and Heber13 shared. This is good to know people who have experienced, or new someone personal, to provide knowledge now, verses living off my opinion. I must say though, your father-in-law's experience brings up some other questions of mine.

It is roughly under the same idea. Anti-Mormon, never a member, but he was told by a member who is now in their congregation, and was a LDS member at some point.

When I venture to communicate with people on Youtube, I read a statement that once said, "The LDS church is controlling, for example, if you ever try to oppose someone who is called to the Bishopric you will be disfellowshipped or excommunicated." At the time, I was thinking, that is probably never going to happen, however I have been thinking: If a person opposes the calling a Bishopric member, or a Stake Presidency member, and they find the accusation to be faulty, what happens to the individual who opposed the member? Has anybody here been in a ward where this has happened? If so, what is the doctrine or guidelines the church follows. I have never read anything on this subject.

Bini, It has been a few days since my last post. I just wanted to remind you, because sometimes we forget, never to do it again. :)

Well, it appears I will be in with the group who are stuffed and displayed in a waxworks show.

I wish now I was listening more closely to my father-in-law who does this all the time. I only remember him saying, first you must have your blue-tooth or wi-fi on and connected, then you connect your tablet by way of the blue-tooth or via a network connection. He showed me last Sunday, however I obviously wasn't paying attention all that well.

Very interesting question which reminds me of a dialogue the two of us had in a previous post. At what point did I think you were dishonest or thick headed? Never dishonest. Never thick headed, definitely strong minded. At what point did I think it was my inability to write eloquently enough to explain my view properly? The whole way through. My personal opinion, a person becomes dishonest or thick headed when they begin to use ad-hominems to prove their point, either attacking the character of the person they are speaking with, or attacking the character of an entity a person is involved with. For example, when you are trying to explain to an anti-Mormon the difference between cannon scripture and a prophets opinion and they ultimately end up saying, "You're a Mormon, like you would ever tell the truth." Or, "The truth, from a Mormon, that's laughable." This type of person is both dishonest and thick headed. Cheers Vort! :)

Opposition in all things so righteousness can be brought to pass. :)

I second beefche's statement.

Previously I only asked the question of what people thought gratitude without sharing my thoughts. The purpose is that I wanted to read what others felt it was without having my own words interfere with what a person might say. Now I will share what I believe gratitude is. Before this, however, thank you to those who shared their thoughts on gratitude and how they defined it. Gratitude, in my minds eyes, is a soul filled with the love of life. Gratitude is not a comparison between the prevailing thoughts of "my life could be worse" or "my life could be better". I am reminded of Elder Eyring's words who said comparisons will either make a person vain or bitter. Thus gratitude is the absence of a comparing mind. Gratitude is a recognition, a heart felt joy, stemming from an appreciation for what is, and not what ifs. As such a mind or soul filled with gratitude is an absence of a selfish mind, or an absence of entitlement for what a person does now enjoy, or what a person feels they should be enjoying. Well, I would like to write more, however I have tried a couple more sentences, but due to my weakness in writing, nothing is coming out right. Thanks again to those who have posted their thoughts.

Thank you for sharing this Vort. I agree an honest article. I did notice this, I am assuming this was meant to say 2011: "Walter Kirn is the National Correspondent at The New Republic. This article appeared in the August 2, 2012 issue of the magazine."

I would enjoy others thoughts on how they would describe gratitude. Thank you in advance.

Prepare for anthing that could happen in your life. The death of a loved one. A loss of job. I know of a lady who received a similar revelation and prompting, and within 5 years both her parents and her youngest brother passed away due to a car crash. Because they had been preparing all this time, it wasn't as difficult. The sad thing about this is that they were on there way down to surprise her with the good news that her father either was just baptized or he was going to be baptized. Not trying to be doom or gloom, I am just saying prepare all things and for anything. I agree with Skalenhefl who said the first thing is obedience. As pertaining to divorce from my understanding it is church policy regarding divorce, however your husband could be in a different boat since he wasn't a member previously.

1) I have always appreciated Elder Richards G. Scott's definition he provided to us when he visited our mission, "The spirit of the law is living the letter of the law in the right spirit." I have come to understand through this definition and through personal study that the spirit of the law is actually a higher obedience to the letter of the laws which do exist, or provision within principles that allow a person to not be compelled in all things. Thus I agree with Dravin who quoted Vort saying, " the spirit of the law is stricter or more demanding than the letter, if you find it letting you get away with something you'd rather do you need to make sure you've thought it through." 2) I agree with other members who have provided the 10 commandments are letters of the law. I would also venture to say myself the "ox in the mire" is actually someone living the letter of the law, verses the spirit of the law. As the Lord saw fit to say, "Is it lawful to good..." I don't think someone needs a spiritual manifestation to help another brother or sister in a minor or major predicament. 3) I believe Nephi is an example of how the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are complementary and not contradictory, although at times it may appear as if they do. We have to remember the first and great commandment, a letter of the law, is to love God with all our heart, might, mind and strength. When Nephi was lead by the spirit, he found Laban passed out. Nephi then felt the spirit tell him to kill Laban. He shirked and would not do so. Then an Angel visited him declaring to him how the Lord had "delivered" Laban into his hands. Within the law of Moses the letter of the law provided a provision: Exodus 21: 13 We know Nephi did not lie in wait. We know the Lord delivered Laban into Nephi's hands. We know Nephi had a place to flee after he smote Laban and obtained the plates. However, this scripture wasn't authentication for anybody to kill somebody just because the letter of the law provided this provision. The condition, "but God deliver", as with Nephi God delivered Laban into his hands. It wasn't a whim of thought which passed through Nephi's mind, but an obedience to the first and great commandment. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac at the alter in another example of living letters of the law in the right spirit. 4) I personally don't believe they aren't in harmony, only the appearance of. However, I like Dravin post:

Would you mind if I change the coffee to hot chocolate, while keeping it free?

I would propose exactly what this brother has done with his life. The Weed: Club Unicorn: In which I come out of the closet on our ten year anniversary This is great article signifying the difference between homosexual attractions verses giving in to ones desires which are contrary to the Lord's purposes. This is a "Gay" man, who, as with anybody else, if he proves faithful in keeping the commandments of God and endures to the end will be exhalted. There is no church doctrine which specifies a "Gay" man/woman will go to hell. Members, may have their own opinion, but that is all it is. This we do know, that if a person (e.g. Male, Female, Lesbian, Homosexual), act against the commandments of the Lord, with an unrepentant heart, then they will find themselves unclean at the judgement bar, and no unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God.

The importance of scripture, the informatin it provides, depends on which looking glass a person is filtering their knowledge through. If the looking glass is "intelligence" as defined within D&C 93: 36, Then, the knowledge obtained via scripture study, is the only source by which we understand the Glory of God, or light and truth --- light because it is discernable --- truth because it is eternal. A man or woman will not be able to gain "intelligence" as defined in D&C 93: 36, unless, they open the pages which introduce humankind to the glory of God. If the looking glass is "historically", as pertaining to the origin of man, I would personally say there is some relevance, however due to the phantasmagoric transition from one important person to the next there is a lot of information left out and people are left to their own devices to understand what really happened (Yet, this is why we have a prophet, to fill in the gaps within certain time periods). For example, in a previous post an individual mentioned "The Watchers", their fallen state, etc... Yet, the information provided surely doesn't provide a detailed description of who they are, why they fell, etc... Thus trying to give an accurate history lesson on "The Watchers" will be left to interpretation by historians or theologians. Then the questions will be asked, "How accurate is their interpretation regarding the evidences they present as factual?" I am reminded of a quote I once read, "Religion and Science do not disagree, it is the theories of religion and the theories of science which disagree (paraphrased)." The city of Enoch were a people who held to scripture above all other sources, and their enlightenment was beyond what we know today. Yet, I don't believe they were a nation which feared other types of knowledge. Those who hold only onto the scriptures though while fearing other methods to gain knowlede, will always be holding up the rear. Example, the Christian sect, which likes to picket and hold up signs at a military personel's funeral. Their is no innovation their except for deciding which color to use on their next sign. If a person's looking glass is "intelligence" then historically they will always be a people with more enlightenment, more innovation, and expansion for the human race. For example, people who hold onto the scripture will embrace all forms of learning, i.e. scientific method, especially if this method leads to truth. A good idea would be the TV, which was engineered or patented by a LDS member. As a result of the TV, we now have computers, mobile devices, etc... This is of course written via my "looking glass".

I have now officially been assigned, or titled, as a "Senior Member" on LDS.net. Well, in light of me being an opportunist, does this now mean I qualify for the senior citizen discount? Or do I still need to wait another 30 years, or maybe 40, the time period when you begin to show your I.D. and the hostess says, "No need sir, your tab has already provided the discount."

In this question I am reminded of the verse in Matthew 6: 21, God not only judges us according to our deeds; He also judges us according to our hearts and the intent of our hearts. I believe a person is able to be outwardly active, while inwardly their hearts are far from being active, or near to the Lord. The Zoramites were outwardly active on Sunday and attended their worship service every Sunday, with a loud and vocal prayer. However, as we know in scripture, they then forgot about the Lord throughout the week until Sunday worship again. I am also reminded of the verse in connection to giving with Mosiah 4: 24, As with your husband, duty calls him other places on Sunday, yet within his heart and intents, it appears he is with the Lord. Active. Or in other words he says within his heart, "I would attend each week if my Sundays were open, however they are not open so I cannot attend." I think this sentiment is very different than a person who could attend and chooses not to, or person like the Zoramites who do attend but God is far from their heart.

Unless I misunderstood Mordorbund, I believe "my boss" was the Lord. If the Temple represents the Celestial Kingdom, and the only person who pleads our cause before our Father in Heaven is our Lord and Savior. I interpreted his meaning, as the Lord needs to sign off on my recommend. I could be wrong, but that is the way I understood "boss".

If the woman is not working, and is expected to write out a tithing slip specifying ZERO, seems to me a waste of paper, and a waste of a good tree.

First - Thank you everyone for sharing their thoughts on this subject. I understand this is a sensitive topic and appreciate the sincere posts. Second - Thank you for not making or any assumed presumption regarding my heart and the intention behind this question. Note: I have a few personal experiences with regard to this question, which has sunk me into, for a lack of better words, a low valley concerning this topic. Third - Mordorbund - "my boss has yet to sign my recommend also", but as with everyone else I am hoping myself and my family qualify for that signature also. Thank you.

Yes. In my mind, I was replacing honest with just.

For about two years I have been thinking about this question, and have not come to any good conclusion. Why does our temple recommend ask if we are just (honest in our dealings), when it appears as if it doesn't really matter, as long as we perceive we are just? It is a subjective question, by which, those who aren't just, say they are. Would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.