ldsguy422

Brazil doesn't have any converts? I don't believe that to be true for a second. According to this article from the Church's website, there are more than 35,000 converts a year in Brazil. I served a mission in Brazil, and we routinely baptized multiple people each transfer (every six weeks). You can look at the church stats for Brazil, and see that there are 2,142 congregations in the country. That comes out to 16.3 convert baptisms per congregation in the country. That is significant. I can't imagine a typical ward in the U.S. having more than 3-4 converts per year. It's possible that the girls you associate with are all life-long members. That is a very real possibility. But, Brazil is flooding with new converts. I promise you that there are dozens of recent converts in each stake. And recent converts tend to be on the younger side, as they are typically much more open than an older person. Perhaps you need to venture out into the other wards in the stake - or even visit another stake altogether. It's not unusual at all to see Elders Quorum Presidents or Ward Mission Leaders that have only been a member for a year or two. Overall, I would say listen to the counsel that others have given. Be confident. Be interesting. Be engaged. If you feel like you're not making any progress, I would ask for advice from those close to you, or perhaps from the women themselves. They can make observations and give valid suggestions where they think you might need to refine your approach.

Okay, I'll concede. You live in California, which is a vastly different world. Even still, why would you even pass off the idea of abortion as a possibility? Is that a serious option for a practicing member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I'm guessing most everyone on here would be against that option, so why even bring it up? If you were talking to regular citizens of California, it might be something that people would realistically consider. But that is clearly against the doctrines of the church. And maybe some members don't think abortion is a grave sin, but do any of the local leaders believe this? Surely not any of the General Authorities. Here are some excerpts Russell M. Nelson that he delivered in a GC talk a few years ago. In World War I, more than 8 million military fatalities occurred. In World War II, more than 22 million servicemen and women died. Together, these two wars, covering portions of 14 years, cost the lives of at least 30 million soldiers worldwide. That figure does not include the millions of civilian casualties. These data, however, are dwarfed by the toll of another war that claims more casualties annually than did World War I and World War II combined. Worldwide reports indicate that more than 40 million abortions are performed per year. This matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Then He added, “Nor do anything like unto it.” Relatively few abortions are performed for the special circumstances to which I have referred. Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control. When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.” When I said abortion doesn't happen in the church, I meant it doesn't happen to active members with a strong testimony (at least it shouldn't). I don't doubt that it happens. Just have a hard time imagining it being normal for someone to have an abortion and to continue in a calling for a long period. You seem to suggest that it is relatively normal. How many people do you know that fall under this umbrella? As in, they had an abortion and continued on with attending church meetings and fulfilling their calling as though nothing happened. As far as the family situation, If a mom is staying home and the father is working, they're both working for the greater good of the family. If the wife really wants to pursue a career, that's fine. I'm not against that. My wife was in nursing school when she was pregnant with our first child. She decided to drop out because she thought it was too stressful dealing with pregnancy stuff, going to class all day, and studying all night. She willingly left school on her own accord. I would have supported her in any direction. She wants to stay home with the kids while they're young - and probably will return once they're all in school. I've even told her previously that I could be a stay home dad and she could work full-time, if that's something she really wanted. At the end of the day, families are more important than careers. Would love for all kids to have a stay-home mom, if that's a possibility. But not all circumstances allow that. And if a career is what the wife really wants, go for it.

Yes, abortion happens, but not in the church. You really think that statement is laughable? Please. I don't doubt that people refrain from telling their bishops about some sins - pornography, fornication, alcohol, probably even adultery. But we're talking about freaking abortion. Abortion is a euphemism for murder; there's no way around that. It's terminating the life of someone who has a beating heart, a brain, a circulatory system, and its own unique DNA code. Could people not disclose abortion details to their Bishop? Sure. But, I'm quite certain the guilt would get to them, they would stay away from church, and it would essentially be a self-imposed form of church discipline. And yes, the solutions I provided were from the wife's POV because you said the husband was in law school. Could he give up his position and watch the child? Sure, absolutely. That's perfectly fine. More than likely, though, it sounds like your hypothetical involves placing the baby in the hands of someone else during the day. Like I said, I don't think it's preferable to have someone else watch your kids for extended periods of time. But if the wife and husband both want to pursue careers, that's often what happens.

What your suggesting is your idea. If the wife agrees, then it's a happy equal decision, but if the wife doesn't agree. How can there be unity in the relationship? I asked for a solution that would meet the requirements of unity and equality and you have given me the misogynist view of the woman's role. I don't believe the proclamation is that narrow, though many leaders in the church have taught that the woman's role is that narrow. That's the reason, I think, for some of the uproar. Personally, I don't think the priesthood is coveted by a lot of LDS women. That, IMO, is something that goes too far for most LDS women, not sure. But the idea that the woman's role is in the home raising children because the proclamation says that our responsibility is to our children is really going too far. The easy fix for all of that is don't have any children. That, unfortunately, may call for an occasional abortion. I'm not preaching this route, but it is a common route. The idea is that what the church authorities don't know about, won't affect our options in the church. And, unfortunately, that is also very true (though I don't know what is confessed behind closed doors but the impediments just don't seem to exist). So, is the right way to work together or to insist that the wife give up her career using the proclamation to shame her into giving in? First of all, I said, "If it is possible." I never said it had to be that way. And in the very same sentence, I proceeded to say that I believed the benefits of having a stay home mom are far more influential than having double income. Kids perform at higher rates in school, they're better behaved, and you get to have a bigger impact on rearing your kids. And certainly the mom can always re-enter the workforce when the kids are in school. I don't believe for one minute that what I posted is misogynistic. Again, I said if it's possible. The question that has to be asked, for families who can realistically afford to have one parent at home, do the rewards of having two incomes outweigh the cost of spending more time away from the children? I don't think they do. Yes, that's my opinion. But, I think most church leaders would agree - investing time in your family is more important than double income. If we re-visit your scenario, the couple actually has several options. 1. The could hold off on having kids for a little bit. 2. The wife could stay home with the kids. (she could work again when the kids are a little older) 3. The wife could work part-time and stay with the kids the rest of the time. 4. Wife could work full-time and have a family member watch the baby. Or use a child-care service. You seem to suggest that having children is a great burden. If it's that big of a chore/responsibility for a couple, they probably need to hold off on having kids for a while. And the whole abortion talk? That's ludicrous. Straight crazy talk. If you believe in the teachings of the Church, you would never suggest that. I don't think any active person with a strong testimony could go through an abortion and hide it for any extended period of time. If someone is able to keep their secret away from their Bishop, odds are they'd probably be overwhelmed with guilt and just stay away from church altogether. Children are not lost opportunities. They are blessings. Stressful, yes, but blessings.

Read through most of this thread today. Lots of good discussion. Your point on the hypothetical needs more attention, I do believe. I mean, in The Family: A Proclamation To The World, it clearly outlines the expectations of parents: Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations. THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. So much in there. First, it's our duty to raise, nurture, love, teach, and correct our children. If it is possible to have a stay-home mom, I think the benefits are far more influential than having double income. Would you rather raise your kids - or would you rather a day-care center raise them? Perhaps some might think that's a little hyperbolic, but think about it for a second. If BOTH parents are working full-time, how much time do you have with your kids? A child between the ages of 3-5 is supposed to average roughly 12 hours of sleep a day. If you factor in 40 hour work weeks, plus one hour a day for commute, you're away from the child 45 hours a week. 7 * 12 = 84.... 84 - 45 = 39. A child in full-time day care spends more time (awake) at the day-care than at the home. Sorry, but I'd rather my wife or I have more say in the matter. Children should not represent lost opportunity. They are the greatest investment we'll ever have.

That seems to be the case for some members. I'd like to think some people catch the meaning and purpose of F&T, eventually. I've heard this excerpt read from President Oaks multiple times in different wards. A testimony of the gospel is a personal witness borne to our souls by the Holy Ghost that certain facts of eternal significance are true and that we know them to be true. Such facts include the nature of the Godhead and our relationship to its three members, the effectiveness of the Atonement, and the reality of the Restoration. A testimony of the gospel is not a travelogue, a health log, or an expression of love for family members. It is not a sermon. President Kimball taught that the moment we begin preaching to others, our testimony is ended. After hearing those words, I sense that many members are very cautious how they approach the meeting and what they say. Over time, we revert back to our natural tendencies - storytelling, medical reports, preaching, and travelogues. Having this read over the pulpit before a member of the bishopric gives their testimony is a great reminder - and I think it generally helps the members focus on the gospel truths really well for a few months. We forget so quickly, though, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have a reminder like this every 3 months or so. And just this last GC, President Ballard said the following: Testimonies of faith in our fast and testimony meetings are led by a member of the bishopric, who shares a brief testimony focused on the plan of happiness and the true, pure, and simple gospel of Christ. All others should follow that example. We need to remember that there are other appropriate places to tell stories or share travel adventures. As we keep our testimonies simple and focused on the gospel of Christ, He will provide spiritual renewal as we share our testimonies with one another.

Remember John 8 where the woman was caught in the very act of adultery? The scribes and Pharisees brought her to Jesus, trying to trick him. He told the lady straight up, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." I don't believe Jesus was condoning the woman's act. He wasn't forgiving her. But I do believe he was encouraging her to reform her life. "Go, and sin no more." I believe bishops are much, much more concerned with healing than chastising/punishing. It's possible you might have a disciplinary council, but that is okay. Christ died for everyone. You, me, and everyone alike. And guess what? Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. He wants you back. Your bishop is essentially a spiritual doctor and he will help provide council for getting you back on the pathway to Christ. This is a great step.

Concerning fast and testimony meeting, I know that many of the brethren speak against travelogues, medical reports, or expressing love/thanks towards others. That's not really a testimony. Our testimonies need to be our own personal witness of the Gospel, of the Savior, of the priesthood, of the plan of salvation, of the scriptures, etc. It should be based on what we know and what we believe - why we believe it and how it has blessed us. But, how do you reconcile stories that helped someone learn a principle? A story that promoted faith? Is that a testimony or is that simply a talk/sermon? Certainly detailed travel stories are missing the mark. Is there any ground, however, for tying in a story with your testimony? I assume most members tell stories because they believe they're directly related to their testimony (albeit most of the time the story takes up 80-90% of the content). Thoughts?

Not sure we'll have any temples announced after having 12 just last October, but how is that the Columbus Ohio Temple District, one of the super-small temples (10,700 sq feet) from 1999, includes Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh? That's four major cities all feeding into one of the smallest temples. Akron, Dayton, and Charleston (WV) also feed into that district. That blows my mind. Also, there are 10 stakes alone in the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia. They're a part of the Cochabama Bolivia Temple District, which has 36 stakes and 8 districts. Next time we have temples announced, I'd say there's a good chance one of those two areas gets the nod.

We're too passive with how we regard spiritual matters. Many come to church with the mindset of, "Well, I'm here, now inspire me." We get constant reinforcement from the world. We need to counterbalance that with the spiritual. I mean, the average person is awake for 112 hours in the span of a week. There's quite in an imbalance between the temporal and spiritual if 110 hours is devoted to work, chores, errands, recreation, etc - and just 2 hours is dedicated towards God. Two hours of church is not enough to sustain us through the week. Frequently you hear people say, "Well, I just don't have time to read my scriptures every day. Life is busy." Nonsense. Let's crossout, "I don't have time" and say what it really means: It's not a priority. I love watching my favorite sports team. Am I going to miss a single game they play? Absolutely not. I watch them because I make it a priority. Let's stop with the excuses and actually make gospel learning a priority. Mosiah 5:13 "For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?"

"It never crossed my mind to find them attractive." Like I said, if you don't find them attractive you're hardly fitting the criteria that I mentioned. Of course I still talk to attractive females on a semi-regular basis - work, church, double dates, moms of play dates for our kids, social gatherings, etc. But I don't ever go out of my way to have an extended conversation with an attractive female, go to lunch together, or anything else where it's a one-on-one situation. I would still consider many of these females my friends. But, they're not friends I'm spending one-on-one time with, which is essentially a date. Our conversations are mostly on a superficial level, which certainly helps reduce any sort of emotional bond. It's not a commandment. I mentioned that it was simply solid counsel. If you don't allow yourself to be tempted, you can't allow sin to enter. Simple as that.

If you don't find her attractive, then I don't think it should be much a problem, honestly. That is why I said you can be friends provided 1. You don't hang out one-on-one or 2. You're not attracted to each other. You follow under criteria 2 Mercy. Calm down. My basic point, is that you can't be friends and hangout one-on-one if there is an attraction on either side. Of course you can still be friends with anyone and everyone. But one-on-one meetups with an attractive person of the opposite gender, especially when you're committed to someone else, is essentially a date. I'm pretty sure I could meet up with some female friends from college on a weekly basis and not break the law of chastity, or kiss, or hold hands, or even hug. But... I'm thinking I might start to develop some feelings. That is the pathway that should never start.

Do you think she's attractive at all? And like I said, I didn't say it's impossible. I simply said it's solid counsel. Most people go down the wrong path when they develop an emotional tie to someone else. The odds of being emotionally tied to someone are astronomically low if you don't spend one-on-one time with them.

Like I said in my initial post, you can be friends with the opposite gender provided 1. You don't hang out together or 2. There's no attraction on either side. Of course you can be friends with everyone. But the example the OP provided was regarding his girlfriend, who valued the friendship of a guy who she finds attractive - and who she began to develop feelings for. I am talking about friendships where you're actually spending time together. I was explicit in my post. No need to twist my words. And my temple comparison, I think relates very well. In both instances, you take out the temptation altogether. Married people don't spend one-on-one time with those of the opposite gender. Lockers in the temple have keys. Certainly we CAN control irrational thoughts and behaviors, but when you take out the temptation altogether, there's no room for sin to enter.

Nothing wrong with being friendly towards everyone. What I was saying, and what most will agree on, is that men and women probably shouldn't hang out together, at least not one-on-one. And we are advised to minister alongside a companion. One of the main reasons why we do this, of course, is for our own protection. If we go into someone's house, and per chance someone made an accusation, you're on less than solid ground when you don't have someone else to corroborate your story. Whenever a Bishop is interviewing someone, he's also advised to have another priesthood holder in the building - same reason, they protect you. Now I don't have any issue with "just friends" hanging out one-on-one, provided neither one is engaged or married. This is a solid counsel. It protects you from developing any sort of emotional feelings towards someone who isn't your spouse. It's not say that we're not capable of controlling our thoughts and feelings, it's just better protection. Why do we have keys for all of the lockers in the temple? Not to say most endowed members would actually want to steal something, but it's much safer to remove the temptation completely.

Men and women can be "just friends" provided: 1. They never hang out together or 2. Neither party is attracted to the other Both scenarios are unlikely. If you are attracted to someone, the likelihood of you being friends, spending time together, and not having feelings for them is about as likely as me nailing jello to a tree. And as such, I have only one female friend, my wife.

The Hebrew word for create, bara, does not mean to create out of nothing. It is merely forming or organizing something that already exists, the same way a person can organize raw materials to "create" a finished product, like a car. This seems to be in alignment with the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. God was not a magician, creating something out of nothing; he was simply organizing matter. Now, on to the evolution topic. I believe in evolution in the sense that things change over time. But there are clear and obvious limitations within every species. Micro+Micro+Miro+Micro, no matter how many times you do it, will never equal macroevolution. I have a hard time reconciling this belief, especially considering macroevolution isn't observable, testable, or repeatable. Also, I would note that the excerpt below appears in Genesis 1-2 of the Old Testament Institute Manual. Hardly seems like the Church was taking a neutral stance. But maybe that's just how I was interpreting it... There's much, much more said in the link I provided. But hopefully this suffices for now:

It will make conversations with Antis a little easier. Would be funny to hear some say, "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't believe in Christ... Reply: Yes, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) actually hate animals. The Band-Aid company no longer provides band-aids. Burger King is discontinuing operations on all burger items. That makes sense, right?

Is there a website for that?

Hi all, I'm teaching a temple prep class for 5-6 individuals in my ward. I've never participated in it before myself - never a student or a teacher for this one. Looks like I have a solid 7 weeks of teaching for the course. Just looking for suggestions on what you all think should be emphasized in this class. What would you want your potential students to know before going into the temple. Thanks!

And if they're not talking?

Hi all, I have a relatively new calling and I've been teaching the youth (ages 12-14) for the last month or so. Just looking for tips or suggestions on how you go about teaching the youth. How do you get them excited? A good portion of the class is coming from part-member families, and I sense that most of them aren't being taught in the home. One of the youth, for example, didn't realize that Mormons are Christians. I've heard from a YW leader that two of them don't really like Church at all. But, if they're in class, that's at least a start, right? Even if they're not excited about class, I still have a chance to maybe inspire, encourage, or help them in some way. FWIW, I feel very confident in my ability to teach. But I'm used to teaching adults. I worry that I can easily teach doctrine that will go over their head, so I'm worried 1. that it's simply enough to understand and 2. that the class can be exciting and rewarding... Let me know if you have any thoughts on this matter. Thanks!

Well, Father's Day is coming up. What are some of your general thoughts on fatherhood? Lessons learned by your father? Ideals that should be taught? We are told that fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness. What do you think that means - or what does it mean to you, personally? Any other general thoughts on this subject? My feelings about fatherhood can be summed up pretty quickly in a quote by Joseph F. Smith: “Those things which we call extraordinary, remarkable, or unusual may make history, but they do not make real life. “After all, to do well those things which God ordained to be the common lot of all mankind, is the truest greatness. To be a successful father or a successful mother is greater than to be a successful general or a successful statesman.”

It's inevitable that we will all have moments where members of the Church will press our buttons in an upsetting manner. But I seriously doubt the majority of these people are trying to make us feel bad about ourselves. I'm sure a few of the culprits are lacking a bit of introspection, but my guess is that we're probably offended by our interpretation of what people say and do more than anything else. Sometimes members can come across as judgmental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, pushy, insensitive, and cliquish. It's human nature. And you know, we all say an do dumb things. I'm sure we've all had multiple encounters with people in the Church that have rubbed us the wrong way. But is it really that important that we're all consumed by it to the point that we're willing to lose out on eternal blessings? Hopefully not. I love the counsel given by Elder Bednar several years ago: When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else. In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.

I don't really care for big classes, personally. But yes, a class of 30+ is a little much, IMO. That's what happens sometimes when we have a combined Priesthood. It's probably closer to 30 than 50... Just couldn't peg down an exact number in my mind. I know EQ is roughly around 20.