SpiritDragon

If the church pushes to revert BYU Idaho back to Ricks college or even Ricks University or decides to rename the other schools bearing his name to some other than I would be more inclined to believe that the church was trying to distance itself from Brigham Young. However I agree with TFP that it is the so called "progressives" who want to distance themselves from anything in church history that isn't warm and fuzzy. The church itself is actually striving to make our history more transparent than ever in my opinion in what I believe is an effort to squelch the idea that they've been hiding the truth. It has never been the church's responsibility to teach history, but to teach the gospel. If they choose to use heroic stories from church history to strengthen testimonies - power to them. Sunday school is not the place to be talking about the mountain meadow massacre or the adam god theory or how many women married whom at what age - or whatever else is supposedly being covered up. Now with the use of media such as the internet the church is making a better effort to make our history available. Will it be biased as told by the church? Of course because bias is inevitable, especially when the history will be largely gathered from journals of faithful members... but I think they are trying hard to limit the bias and it is certainly less biased than the anti-mormon pseudo-history.

Secret combinations are running the world behind the scenes. It doesn't matter who you vote for in any given election because the secret combinations will ensure that only the policies they want to see put forth will happen anyway. I do absolutely believe that there are corrupt secret combinations at work in powerful places that have a lot of political and economic clout. How much power? I don't know. Are many of them working together to create a new world order... the illuminati and the Bilderbergs and Rockefellers? I really don't know. Does the idea of Danites (a secret band of Mormon assassins/enforcers) count as a conspiracy theory? Some purport that Brigham Young had a band of men that would secretly eliminate threats to the church and murder sinners and so on. Others even claim that the band still exists. If it does exist it isn't terribly effective in my opinion. As for whether Danites existed in Brigham's time, I think there is perhaps something to it, but it gets greatly exaggerated and over-hyped into some kind of more exciting lore than the truth ever was. Something akin to suggesting that we plot world conquest in the secrecy of the temple.

Pearl Harbor was known about and allowed to happen anyway to get the US involved in the war... I don't really buy it. Fluoride is actually added to the water supply to make us stupid so that the population is easier to control as they'll lack higher brain function and critical thinking... I don't buy it. The catholic church has hidden volumes of alien visitations in a vault under the vatican... I believe they have vaults under the Vatican, but the alien thing - come on.

I always grew up with and prefer Sacrament meeting last. I'm sad it is no longer going to happen anywhere. Especially from the perspective of Sacrament preparation it always made sense for Sacrament to be last to allow the Aaronic priesthood the opportunity to make assignments for Sacrament based on who is actually there and to have time to get Melchizidek priesthood back-up if needed without running around asking everyone right before Sacrament if they can fill in. I also liked it better for family events when people are traveling to baby blessings, home comings and so on because it gives more time to travel to the main event and can save checking into hotels, cramming in someone's basement or waking up at four in the morning to be ready. That's not to say that the other meetings aren't important, but a lot of times after making it to the Sacrament meeting where the reason for the visit occurs after traveling people can tend to check out... they have hungry kids etc. The only plus I see to having Sacrament first is that it starts on the hour, and visitors (especially non-lds) know to be in the chapel at that time and then they can be directed to other classes from there, whereas if you start with other meetings first it is hard to know where to go for the first to meetings of the block.

Just chiming in with some thoughts for the debate side of the thread - In LDS belief the temple sealing is God's way of uniting family, and civil marriage is simply an acceptable substitute in the absence of the temple sealing. One could even speculate that the civil marriage is mostly only acceptable as a means to promote family without living in sin in areas where temple sealings are not readily available and as an aid to missionary work otherwise every non-member married or not would breaking the law of chastity and need to abstain from marital relations in preparation for baptism - but it is ultimately just that - Speculation. So I digress. But the fact holds that it (civil marriage) is not the lord's ideal according to LDS teaching. Now my understanding of most other faiths (Christian in particular) is that marriage is also held up as a "requirement" for making a family without fornicating (sexual relations between unwed persons). As such I imagine they hold to the ideal of a legally binding union possibly performed by clerical figures deemed to have authority to perform such a union. While I'm sure it's extremely less common (because it's less restrictive) there must be some kind of rule surrounding what is to be done in the event a priest/ clerical leader / justice of the peace cannot be found in a certain area. Perhaps it's just an area left to personal interpretation where some will choose to remain celibate due to missing out on a proper ceremony, others may feel that so long as they are committed to each other that having a family out-weighs lack of access to an authoritative marriage official as recognized by the faith. Should said couple decide to unite with-out the proper procedure they might very well be looked on as living in sin... but I won't judge them because that is for the Lord to decide. For all I know they have prayed fervently about it and have felt acted on by the spirit to have a family and raise them according to the light and knowledge they possess. Should such a couple later have the opportunity to get married properly I'm sure they'd jump at the chance. My point in all this is to give a perspective or frame of reference to think about things in. Would anyone agree that there might be instances where the Lord in His mercy understands the need for family and the lack of authorized officials? The LDS belief is open to the idea that any marriage recognized as legal (and I even believe some tribal/traditional marriages that aren't necessarily considered legal?) are acceptable to remove the condition of sin from marital relations, but it doesn't come with the promised blessings of the sealing. Going back to the hypothetical couple above that are non-LDS Christians who have decided to make a formal commitment amongst themselves but haven't been legally married... is there any possibility of understanding what they've done? I hope so, because (assuming they felt commanded to marry - to multiply and replenish the earth) they didn't have an appropriate marriage option available. But if the same couple had the opportunity to be married legally by a clerical officer of their congregation and simply chose to live common-law instead, it is harder to imagine how that can be reconciled. Even if the plan is to get married later, the ideal is not being met as that commitment is supposed to take place first, not later. Although I realize there are likely problems with this particular line of thought, I do hope it can offer some perspective.

First of all I just want to say I'm happy for you at this exciting although uncertain time of your life. I wish you and your potential suitor all the best and hope that with prayerful consideration you'll find a method that does not compromise your standards and keeps your family content. It sounds to me like you know that you want the sealing first and foremost, but wonder how to involve family. I'd say the ideas about getting sealed and then having a ceremony sound like a decent option. I would caution against advice to have a civil union first and get sealed a year later. In doing so I fear you'd set the stage for the rest of your life that making covenants with God is second to temporal things. There are blessings from the temple sealing that surpass a civil marriage. The closest analogy I can think of off the top of my head would be to compare church attendance with church membership entered into via baptismal covenant.Sure you could have enjoyed the fellowship of the saints and being uplifted by the word of God simply by attending church all this time, but you chose to be baptized and receive the gift of the holy ghost. The latter not only is essential to salvation, but it blesses you in the here and now by giving you a greater capacity to have the spirit with you and the confidence of knowing that you have done things in the lord's way. Perhaps more importantly altogether is the increased commitment to the gospel you enjoy from baptism whereas while just attending you can always back out, by entering into covenant you know you're committed. From my perspective the civil union is akin to attending church without baptism, and the sealing is entering into matrimony through covenant like being baptized into the church. My other thought is to say take the time you feel you need to get to know each-other before marriage, but don't postpone simply because others think you haven't known each other long enough. If you've thought it out carefully against your understanding of yourself and your partner and you've received that witness from the spirit that it is right, I am a firm believer in moving forward. Maybe we're the exception, I don't know, but my wife and I went from first date to sealed within a six-month time frame and have been happily married over seven years. That's not to say that we've never had any challenges, but we overcome them together with the Lord's help and because we can trust in the commitment the other has made. I fear if we'd waited that I would have decided not to go through with it and would have missed out on a fantastic journey together... and there's always those concerns that the law of chastity can become an issue when you're that close. My youth leaders always stressed that even the strongest of God's followers have a breaking point - no need to flirt with it longer than necessary. Wishing you well.

My perspective is that the Saviour was not always well received by those who should've been His followers because they didn't want to hear what he had to say. It threatened their position of power, or didn't fit their interpretation of scripture. In this scenario we have a young man who is upset because he didn't want to hear he was supposed to go on a mission. I felt the same way until I humbled myself and let the spirit tell me to go. When I read the article I felt like the idea of the public shaming was being misinterpreted (but it's been a while since I read it and I'm not re-reading it now) - it seemed like the stake president asked for a show of hands to get an idea of who was planning to go on a mission. I think he was teaching a principle of choosing to serve the Lord whether it's convenient or not and that the show of hands wasn't meant to single anyone out, but to get the young men involved in the discussion a little and hopefully internalize the teachings more. How many times have you felt like a talk was targeted directly to you? I know I have on occasion and it's always been because I felt guilty and I didn't have to be singled out, I just plain felt like everyone knew and the speaker was looking at me. Here is an example from 1 Nephi 16 likened unto the situation: 1 And now it came to pass that after [the stake president], had made an end of speaking to [his] brethren, behold [some] said unto [him - or even whined to others without telling him]: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear. 2 And it came to pass that [the stake president could be justified in having] said unto them that [he] knew that [he] had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous [has he] justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. 3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us. 4 And it came to pass that [the stake president] did exhort [his] brethren, with all diligence, to keep the commandments of the Lord Absolutely everyone has individual agency to make decisions and act for themselves, but let us not cower behind blaming others for "our" actions. The stake president didn't force anyone out the church. He didn't stop the meeting and excommunicate anyone. He simply expressed the true principle that while we always have choices there are fundamentally always two paths - one that leads to God and one that doesn't. Was it hard to hear? I'm sure it was, but let's not blame the stake president for someone else's exercise of agency.

I think the crux of the matter is the ever ubiquitous attribute of pride. There should be no need to dispute doctrines because they should be clear. Not only because they are clearly presented through both ancient prophetic teachings and modern prophetic teachings and clarifications, but because we are to seek spiritual confirmations of truth. This is largely the state I believe Christianity was in during Joseph Smith's time (and continues to be in general) where wars of words and interpretations create rifts between people trying to follow God. What a victory for Satan when he can have people fighting amongst themselves over opinions steeped in pride as correct because it is the one "I" came to and "your" interpretation is false. I think this is why I was taught as a missionary not to engage in Bible bashing and so on, but to simply bear testimony. Contention chases the spirit away, but testifying of truth invites the spirit. There is a subtle difference in my opinion between testifying of truth and inviting others to embrace it or contending that a certain point is true. In the first case you simply share what the spirit has witnessed to you through study and prayer, in the latter you go out of your way to make a case for something that can only be accepted by faith anyway. As I think this out while I'm typing this I realize that I'm terribly guilty of the latter on many occasions. It's as though proving a point will save face or make me superior somehow, but the reality is it just stirs up contention. I believe firmly that the only way to have unity of the faith and be a zion people will require us to all develop such a powerful personal relationship with our Saviour that we can know His mind. I also think of the parable of the five virgins being a reference to those who are clean (virgins) as to not doing heinous crimes, but only half of them are prepared with oil in the lamp to attend the feast with the bridegroom. So while it is important to have civil discourse and be one in the faith, remember there are those around who simply are not also going to be of one mind. To these I suggest we bear testimony, but engaging in arguments is a waste of time as it generally only further entrenches a view point, right or wrong because of the pride factor that goes into defending a position. It's amazing what people will defend even when they know it's wrong simply because of pride.

While I agree with the idea that this way of teaching is desirable and effective, it seems to me one-sided to say it is the only way the Saviour taught. Those whose hearts burned within them were receptive to the spirit, others were not. Jesus wasn't one to pull punches on false teachings and hypocrisy. He is the same who made a whip and cleansed the temple.

It's easy to make snap judgments and consider the actions of others a certain way, but only the officer himself, who does appear to be overly aggressive, knows what was going on in his own mind. Maybe he's a bad cop with a racist agenda and this was an opportunity for him to act out. Maybe he is an average cop having a bad day. Maybe he's a hero being targeted as a villain. The teens didn't seem too cooperative in many cases and while I think they may have responded better if he'd kept his cool they also need to own up to the fact that they were completely refusing to acknowledge an officer of the law and were showing no respect. I couldn't see very well just what was going on when he engaged the girl and took her down. She did seem like she was being quite mouthy (which does not justify him in anyway) but also may have tried to slap him or something... I really found it out of focus and off in the corner to see what instigated this particular moment. I guess there will be an investigation that will hopefully determine what really happened. If he is found to be too unstable for police work then I imagine he'll be re-assigned or given anger management training or something. Perhaps he has ptsd and the whole thing triggered him. Any way I suppose my point is the same as what most here have already said that it's hard to really form an opinion based on partial evidence from a one-sided perspective. The video offers no context as to why the police were even there or anything. I've seen more than one account on the internet where people in the neighbourhood found that the pool was randomly the gathering place for a large party that turned into a flash-mob where a security guard had already been accosted and property was being vandalized before the police arrived. Again I don't know what the truth is, but hopefully the investigation of the suspended officer turns some truth up. As for pulling a gun on unarmed teens - I feel like they were moving in on him from an angle that would make it difficult to tell if they were armed or not. One of the boys even had his hand come back to his pocket which could have appeared to the officer as reaching for a weapon. Even without weapons he was faced with the possibility of multiple assailants at extremely close range, why was everyone getting so close were they trying to intervene or just get a better view? I can see how from the officer's perspective he was outnumbered by a group of people that were not responding to verbal warnings to stay back, so he decided to up the ante to get their attention. I can also see how to onlookers it appears that he is on a powertrip and a bit out of control. Although he may not have appeared to many to be in any danger the fact is that if things did suddenly turn violent he could have been seriously injured or killed before the other officers would've been able to run up. I'm not in law enforcement and never have been, so I don't know if he acted outside of his training or not in drawing his weapon. I do know from self defense study that he was in a potentially dangerous situation and had someone been armed he would've had real trouble. Perhaps some of you have heard of the Tueller drill - the idea is to practice drawing and firing before a training partner can run 21 feet. It is based on the finding that most people can cover this distance in close to 1 1/2 seconds which works out to be about a 50/50 toss-up between someone with a knife against a holstered gun from that distance. I share this mainly to point out that if he felt like he needed his weapon for his own personal safety he didn't have anytime to think about it, he needed to act and sort out the details after he established that his weapon was ready if needed. Again he was faced by multiple possible assailants in extremely close proximity. Not saying he was right or wrong, just looking at some perspective. Food for thought.

I probably wouldn't have got married thinking I'd play the field and not be tied down to one woman. And I wouldn't have likely realized that the getting married option is the better of the two. Otherwise I think I'd be pretty similar, certainly in my lack of desire to harm my body with drugs and alcohol - and yet I might just have got tied up in them anyway because outside of meeting girls at church it seems the bar is the default place to go. One sip could've been enough to change my attitude forever.

Now we just need to wait for the animal rights activists to cry foul and say that this reporting (even if true) is not bearable to the kittens of the world and should never be spoken of. The kitties didn't choose to be this way and no loving god would make them this way and it is unfair to make any assumptions about kittens being inferior to any other animal (especially dogs). Any further mention of this to anyone is to be exposed as felinephobia and the perpetrator of sharing this malicious information is to be blasted as a bigoted cat hater :)

I'm sorry to hear you're having a tough time right now. In answer to your question about leaving due to imperfection the answer has to be no. No one in the church is perfect..... the only reason to leave the church that I can think of is if you determine it to be untrue, any other reason doesn't hold up in my opinion (which you may not care for, but it seems to me like you solicited feedback from strangers so here I am sharing my thoughts). Now should you be reconsidering whether or not the church is true let me share my simple testimony that I believe it is true.I believe the Saviour loves you and wants you to partake of the joy of the gospel, and I'm willing to bet there are members in your ward who care a great deal about you as well. My birthday is often forgotten if I don't remind people and I'm just as guilty of forgetting others' b-days too (except my wife's as that is an unforgivable sin :) )

I remember as a young man being extremely annoyed by all the "old people" always asking me if I was going on a mission. It felt like I didn't matter as a human being if I didn't go. I felt quite strongly that I had a different kind of mission to serve than the traditional full time mission. I remember certain phrases standing out to me in conference furthering my feelings that I wasn't supposed to go on such a mission, but that the Lord had a different plan for me. I can really appreciate where young men not feeling like full time missionary service is for them are coming from. Whether they feel like I did that they are meant for a different kind of service or they feel like they aren't up to the task... maybe they feel the church is sexist (against men) in only "requiring" it of the men :) (sorry I had to throw it in there based on the name of the blog) A funny thing happened to me when I prayed about it though - I was told to go - I couldn't believe it, why the strong feelings otherwise, was I deceived? Fast forward a decade and I realize that I do indeed have another mission to serve, but it wasn't meant to replace my time as a full time missionary and the experiences I gained out there have certainly helped to shape the rest of my life. One thing I find interesting however is discussions of worthiness to serve. Sometimes I feel like we do culturally miss the mark on what constitutes worthiness to serve. I think we look at it simply as living 'the for strength of youth' standards. Essentially one is considered worthy to serve if they dress modestly, obey the word of wisdom, keep the law of chastity etc. While this is clearly important it does not meet the criteria set out by the Lord in and of itself. In addition to being temple worthy the lord lays out qualifications in section 4 of the doctrine and covenants; 3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work; 4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul; 5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work. It is my opinion that if someone does not desire to serve, they are not to be called based on verse three. I further believe that if they lack the faith in Jesus Christ to make preaching the gospel a priority, they lack the hope that their brothers and sisters can be saved, they lack the charity and love to try, and put there own interests above the purposes of God than they clearly aren't qualified (worthy) of the work. This isn't to say they can't become so later, and I think many who exercise a particle of faith to go develop the rest while out there, but it's what I thought when I read in the article about the mother expressing how her son was worthy of missionary service but chose not to - and I just don't see it working that way. Before I have everyone jumping on this comment and saying I'm being judgmental please understand that I'm not making a judgment about this person who i don't know and I'm not speculating about other areas of temple worthiness or personal righteousness. I'm simply expressing my opinion and observation that the scriptures suggest to me that if I or anyone else chooses not to serve we simply lack those attributes that qualify us for the work.

This video sheds some interesting light on the mysterious genetic marker X found to exist in the native americans ranging from small percentages around 3% and having high concentrations up to 50%. The cool thing of course is that this genetic marker is thought to be from the near east... I think you can see how this goes along with the Book of Mormon narrative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3_yZXNdpRo4

I wish her success in forming a strong case for women without undermining family. I am glad to see that there are like-minded people who wish to support her cause. I have never liked the term feminist personally because it always comes with baggage and pushing agendas designed to destroy the family in the name of women's rights. I know Anatess and others here have stated that the term has been hi-jacked - which it may well have been - so thoroughly infact that from my perspective the idea of defining feminism as anything other than a plot to destroy the family by various tactics such as aligning with lgbtq* agendas, taking women from the home (so the government has more influence over our children's thoughts and development than parents do) and making men appear irrelevant and undesirable seems to be wishful thinking because that's generally all I've ever known feminism to be. I think it will be a long hard fight to un-hi-jack it if it can be done at all. Good luck Carolina - I sincerely mean it (I'm told you're aware of our thread). On the other hand I've had the opportunity to work with some very strong feminists who despise this "dark-side" of feminism and claim that the title femi-nazi applies to this camp, but true feminists are not that way. Perhaps the drops of water are forming around the world to fill Carolina's ocean.

Excellent reference.

I've been on both ends of the spectrum. For me it largely depends on what my job requirement is. If work starts at 6:00 am then I'll be up at 4:30 am to be ready for the day. If work starts at 9:00 am then I tend to wake up at 7:30 - 7:45 am. Interestingly after having needed to be up for work early several times over several years, I find that I always drift back to a later wake-up time when early rising isn't required. My solution to early rising is to make it required. Set up an early morning walk with some other early risers to keep you accountable and you'll likely be getting up to meet them, at least it works for me. Another option that supposedly works is to back into early rising 15 minutes at a time over a few weeks to take the edge off the time change so you're not in zombie mode. Unfortunately for me I find I just need to jump in and work through the tired spell.

Fair question PV. My feeling is that the scriptures have several accounts of "bad" activities that under the circumstances are "good" or at least acceptable. The most glaring example off the top of my head being Nephi slaying Laban. Nephi didn't need to figure out a way to make killing Laban acceptable, in fact he didn't want to do it, but when commanded by God to do so he followed through. I think personal revelation is a powerful and under-utilized tool in the church. The point is not to be looking for private justification to do activities that we want to do, but not to preclude the possibility of such exceptions either. If a Dad decides he wants extra money from taking a week-end job that makes him work Sundays It doesn't really matter how he outwardly explains it away. Perhaps it is being contributed to his son's mission fund, or some other noble seeming cause, it doesn't matter... however, if he firmly believes that he was guided to / blessed with a job that requires him to work Sundays via divine inspiration and he does everything in his power to still set the Sabbath apart from the week as a holy day/day of rest - he has no reason to justify it outwardly to anyone else because he is doing right by the Lord to the best of his understanding. I certainly am in no position to judge that I know better than he does when it comes to what he has received through personal revelation. Thus motives matter. If the motive is to draw closer to Heavenly Father and act on the guidance you've been given than great. If the motive is really anything else with other reasoning given to make it sound angelic it is simply not the right motive.

I second Vort's suggestion that if you can justify it before God as part of keeping the Sabbath then you're good to go. If you're hoping that someone here can authoritatively argue to the effect of how it is keeping with the Sabbath, I feel you're hope is in vain. For me this is because there is a subtle difference between true justification of an act and rationalizing to make an act appear just. So if you adopt working out on Sundays as part of your Sabbath routine because while you were sitting in sacrament meeting you felt prompted by the spirit to do so, power to you - go for it. If however you sincerely feel it is not really in keeping with the law of the Sabbath but are looking for a Pharisaical way to "justify" (incorrect usage imho, as i believe this is really rationalization - semantics is a problem with me) the action than it seems to me that is clearly not really good. It kind of reminds me of people getting married in vegas so as to "legally" break the law of chastity and then getting the union annulled/absolved... I can see how the argument fits the law in legal squirmery (JaG might like that term) but clearly does not meet the purpose of the law. Now lest you think I'm saying you shouldn't work out on Sunday, hear me clearly -I'm not. I'm just saying being careful with your motives.

Countries = Canada and USA Provinces = British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan States = Montana, Idaho, Utah and Minnesota Temples = Calgary, Alberta; Cardston, Alberta; Logan, Utah; Provo, Utah; Ogden Utah; Bountiful, Utah; Salt Lake City, Utah. I drove past the Edmonton, Alberta temple every day for four months but never made it inside.

Very well articulated MOE. I can get behind the not killing from a vengeance point of view. However, I personally am for the death penalty, not as a tool of vengeance but as a way to ensure that the guilty party cannot re-offend and a huge deterrent to committing acts worthy of death. I've arrived at this conclusion based on personal feelings and scriptural references, but one of the biggest is that whether guilty or innocent I would rather be summarily executed than spend 25 years with the most corrupt elements of society as my companions. I would also rather be dead than have my unborn child see me behind bars.

Just to throw a "monkey" (haha) into the discussion of pre-Adamites and the idea of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men - doesn't the idea of Adam being the first man insinuate that all sons and or daughters of man are descendants of Adam and therefore not from pre-Adamites?

Scriptural support for capital punishment. Perhaps this shows how a guy would interpret the view as basically favourable.

Well done! I forgot to mention the F and U (not meaning to be expletive) are the for the names in NIV and not KJV. What is your question askandanswer?