SpiritDragon

It's canonized scripture... 3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated

Obviously, the average latter day saint does not view this song as worshiping Joseph Smith in any way shape or form on par with worshiping deity. A song of praise is nothing more than that - a song of praise. It's not like we pray to Joseph smith or anything like that. However, I can concede that it may cause people who aren't familiar with our doctrine some strife - even if I don't really understand it. I would like some perspective from @anatess2 on the following comparison. When I first encountered Catholics on my mission praying to the Virgin Mary and other Patron Saints, I found it strange to say the least, and blasphemous at worst. I mean, if there is a place to draw the line of worship, it would seem to me it would be at praying to a being other than god, no? Anyhow, some of my Catholic associates have told me that these prayers to Mary and other Saints is no different than praying for a friend who is sick and has nothing to do with worshiping them. I, personally, still find it odd because it seems praying -for- and praying -to- are very different things to me. If you don't mind sharing your take on this anatess, I'd appreciate it. That being said I think we should do away with a perfectly good hymn no more than I think Catholicism should give up there traditions.

That's a very fascinating link.

Welcome to the forums, Hannah! What part of Wyoming are you from? I served in Star Valley on my mission. Beautiful country.

@dsnell I would vote to keep it myself. I find it to be one of the most powerful hymns of the restoration and I often feel the spirit when singing it, listening to it, or even just reading the lyrics right now. I would also agree with @Just_A_Guy's point and state that it is not just a hymn but an anthem that unites members in the faith. It would be an unfortunate day to see the church distancing itself from a past that is crucial to understanding the church today. Out of curiosity, what do you see as the issues with the hymn? Is it seeming like we worship Joseph and not God? Is it the line about mingling with gods... suggesting polytheism? There is nothing wrong with remembering and honouring prophets. As for mingling with gods, I suppose that does create a potential conversation that isn't most easily understood as many conversations in these forums about the nature of god and whether or not lds are monotheistic or not will attest to. Nonetheless, there is no sense hiding what we believe either. People need to eventually be converted and willing to accept true doctrine for what it is or they will leave the church anyway. If the idea of becoming gods doesn't come up while investigating the church or singing hymns in church it will certainly come up in scritpure study and at the temple. Perhaps, the argument could be made that when a testimony is more mature it can handle this better. On the flip side I would have concerns that people would feel deceived (not simply by removing the hymn, but by making efforts to eliminate anything potentially confusing as a rule) as though this was a hidden from them to "trick" them into the church. I know with a lot of church history that is less savoury people tend to feel like the church has been covering up or lying to keep people in the church. So transparency is a good thing. If the hymns instigate conversation or questions, I think that's a good thing.

Thanks, I guess I didn't look closely enough.

It's true. It's hard to know what sources are trustworthy. There is so much deception in the world. With that said, if it can be trusted, this recent study suggests there is indeed a link between glyphosate and bee die-off. I've only read the abstract and can't speak to the quality of scientific evaluation drawing these conclusions. http://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10305 Of course, on the other side it seems the argument has shifted to the honey bees being overpopulated and now endangering other pollinators. If this means they crowd out wasps and hornets, I'd admittedly prefer the bees... especially since I've been dealing with more and more wasps every year.

That sounds very inclusive

I feel very strongly about the prophets ability to receive revelation, but I also feel very strongly about consistency of doctrine throughout the ages. My personal feelings on what the prophet teaches are somewhat irrelevant to whether or not the teachings are true. For instance, if I don't like ministering, it doesn't change the fact that ministering is the current church-endorsed program of looking after our ward family. If I don't like the idea that sleeping around isn't okay, it doesn't change the fact that it's not okay and has never been an accepted doctrine. However, what does matter is the tripod @Carborendum has brought up. Is the teaching consistent with past teachings found in the scriptures? Consistent with prophetic teachings? Does the spirit bear witness now? So what to do, whether the teaching aligns or not with personal beliefs, is to study the words of scripture and prophetic counsel and pray for an answer.

As I was reading I could hear Herman's Hermits singing it, but then a back-up singer's, "No Sam" was missing so I fixed it for my liking

If you can't see how absurd this statement is I don't think there is much hope for you.

I generally differentiate the two as SSA or homosexuality. What I'm saying is that the standards of morality have been set forth. The Church is as likely to say pornography is now okay as it is to say homosexuality (the act) is okay. The prophet can receive revelations regarding the direction of the church, but the core principles of the gospel are unchanging. We believe the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. Second repentance. Third, baptism by immersion. Fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. A change to the homosexuality issue (or the murder issue, or theft issue, or chastity in general...) strikes at the heart of these fundamentals. A god who flip flops on what His commandments are is not a God we can exercise faith in with confidence. What is the point of repentance if the rules change, why not just complain on the other side, "if I lived in this or that time my sin would have been righteous" there is no balance of justice and mercy there, just inconsistency which again takes away the faith necessary to call upon God to help in the process of repentance. By changing what needs to be repented of, the requirements of baptism are changed and apparently what the Holy Ghost could never abide previously will now be sanctified... The very nature of what constitutes sin is not negotiable, if flies in the face of the balance between mercy and justice. God would cease to be God. 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

I can only speak for myself personally. If the church leadership proclaims that homosexuality is righteous, it is my belief that the church will have apostatized, not me or anyone else who leaves. Having spent much of my life exploring other faiths and finding the LDS teachings to be the only faith I can fully accept, I would likely wind up agnostic after a renewed search for truth elsewhere. There are core principles that God cannot excuse Himself from. The very definition of what is sin is one of them. Changes to "how" we go about the work of salvation are not that big a deal, the underlying message is still the same. Changing the "requirements" of salvation is an entirely different story. Whether we ward teach, home teach, or minister is really not critical, but whether we keep the law of chastity or not - the commandments can't change and God be a consistent God we can put our trust in.

Yeah. It seems to mostly be a commonwealth thing.

I see that you slipped in a similar thought process to mine between when I started my post which was interrupted and when I posted. Now my thoughts appear a touch redundant.

@Alia I understand what @anatess2 is suggesting is scary, but she may very well be on to something. You might try setting some money aside to work within the smaller budget before dropping your job or investigating if there is something part time in your field that would allow you to be home more often, but still working within the smaller budget. This way your husband still wouldn't have the extra money to buy toys as he wants, and you'd have more time with your little one. The hope would be that your husband would realize how serious you are about being home and that the money isn't as important. Then maybe he would step up and provide so you could come home, but you wouldn't tear away the safety net entirely. Possibly a compromise could be reached as well, where you continue to work part-time or casually while your husband also works full time and on the days you are both working your little guy visits grandma. If you work 12-20 hours a week, that should be 20-28 more hours a week at home with your child assuming you are working 40 hours - I realize when my uncle was working in the legal arena it was more like 60-80 hours a week. I can't give you any answers, just ideas.

I thought this 23 was going to be some Michael Jordan nostalgia I didn't even have the right sport.

Where is the outrage. Why aren't men and women marching on temple square holding hands while listening to their anthem, "Love Child" ... wait that song actually speaks against having a love child. I'll have to work on an anthem

Not to mention premarital heterosexual sex has been popular for a long time as well. With the homosexual population making up around 2% of the population compared to the other 98% if the idea was to cater to popular ideas wouldn't the church start by making immorality okay to the larger group or everyone. The thing is, of course, that such a teaching would let people know the church is no longer true, if it ever was (at that point).

I should have known better than to be concerned about posting here. I also should probably have thicker skin, but I must admit that being ridiculed over something so dear to me (I imagaine a large part of my respect for the day comes from my grandfather fighting in Europe during the second world war) was really hurtful and left me gun shy of sharing that side of myself again with others that I wasn't confident felt the same way. This year marked 100 years since the signing of the armistice to end the Great War. Too bad it hasn't been 100 years since war was fought.

Remind me. You're in Florida, right?

I had actually thought about posting about Remembrance Day (what we renamed armistice day as opposed to what you renamed armistice day), but I wasn't sure how it would be received. On my mission in the States I was sent a poppy in the mail that I could wear as I have always done for Remembrance Day. I wore it naively thinking that people would be okay with me honouring heroes in my way that day, instead I was met with great ridicule for wearing a "gay little flower" as my companion put it, and he wasn't the only to disrespect me and my custom. I still haven't figured out that reaction and decided since we Canadians are such a minority here, I'd just do my thing and not ruffle any feathers. Thank you for putting something up to keep in remembrance those who have fought for our freedoms.

I think the fact that I reacted to your post is indicative of the fact that I played Magic: The Gathering as a child as well.

There are other options available. One would be that the members of the church are stalwart and recognize evil for what it is and the church continues to prosper, even if growth slows. Another is that the Saviour sees the world is ripe in iniquity and the second coming is ushered in to protect children from being raised in such an evil culture where they don't have a good chance at ever having the gospel take root in their hearts.

It may not fully answer your question, but I believe the following may help. The prophet Joseph Smith taught on the authority of succession belonging to the twelve by teaching: ‘I will give you a key that will never rust. If you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray’” We also have what is sometimes termed the last charge given to the apostles wherein Joseph rolls the kingdom off his shoulders and onto the brethren. Concerning Brigham Young in particular, I was listening to the dramatized church history audio recordings and heard them relay a story of Brigham speaking in tongues and the members feeling that Brother Joseph would set him straight soon enough, as he had done with others who were not acting on the spirit of the lord when doing so. In this instance Joseph, instead, defended Brigham's gift of the spirit and declared he had spoken in the pure Adamic language and would one day preside over the church. I wondered if this could be verified or if it was a bit of artistic licence taken in the dramatization of the narrative. I was pleased when I was able to later find that there is a record of this event in the 25th volume of the millenial star on page 439 under the heading of History of Brigham. The link I had doesn't seem to be working, but I can give you a screen shot of the PDF version I have on my computer. I'm not sure what impression the early saints were under. I do know that in the vacuum created by the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum who would have succeeded him that there was a push to grab power by various factions. Sidney Rigdon felt to take charge as the surviving member of the First Presidency. Brigham Young became the president of the quorum of the twelve and explained the position that in the absence of the president, the first presidency dissolved and Sidney's claim to leadership wasn't correct. It seems the bid to have Joseph the third take leadership was perhaps Emma's doing and she wanted to put an end to polygamy by guiding the young leader. Joseph did teach sufficiently to help the young church know what to do, but it took time because they were all so used to asking Joseph everything. I hope any of that helps.