HiJolly

In Europe, Asia and northern India, mostly. I'm sorry, but these opinions are false doctrine, my friend. You've got to give up those mistaken beliefs, I'm afraid. I'm unsure as to whether to engage in a blow-by-blow rebuttal, somehow I'm thinking it wouldn't help this situation. I'll repent if I'm wrong. HiJolly

I disagree that the 10 tribes are not on the earth. I think we have considerable evidence pointing to where they are, but I don't think there's much value in us knowing where they are until they acknowledge who they are themselves. HiJolly

I can relate to that, in regard to "organized religion". A lot of non-denominational Christian churches vilify 'religion' and say that they are a part of the body of Christ, sans an organized 'church'. And there's no doubt at all in my mind that the power that comes to people in the heirarchy of 'religion' is a corrupting influence, even in our own beloved Church. It's not common, mind you, but it does happen. And when it does, it damages faith and causes pain in individual lives, many who were there in the first place in order to relieve pain. So I totally sympathize with the 'anti-controlling, anti-hypocritical, anti-anti-good' views that surface when one is caught in a situation where those in whom we have placed our trust, violate that trust. But I know that eliminating 'religion', or the Church, is not the answer. Rather, the answer is to *know* God lives, and that He would have us associate in the Church, supporting and sustaining its leaders, and its purposes. Faith is, as always, THE key. Note how faith can follow knowledge. HiJolly

blackcat, That's a good answer from an LDS perspective, because of our belief that angels are pre-mortal or post-mortal people. Problem is, most creedal Christians don't believe that -- they believe that angels are not 'creatures' as we are, but are a different order or type of being. I suppose that's why its easier for them to picture angels with wings... Just FYI. HiJolly

You would not have to pay his tithing. You would only have to pay tithing on what you earn. At least that is my understanding. HiJolly

Amen, brother! HiJolly

I thought that this review might be helpful, at this point: History of the Official Position of the LDS Church on Evolution David H. Bailey 14 August 2006 With regards to the Church's "official" stance on evolution and related scientific matters, I have prepared the following summary of this history, which as far as I am aware covers the important facts. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from this information. In 1909, the first presidency published a lengthy statement on the "Origin of Man," which dealt with several topics including, for instance, the existence of a Heavenly Mother. The following text appeared in this statement: "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race." A few months later, the April 1910 issue of the Improvement Era commented as follows: "Origin of Man. 'In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?' This question comes from several High Priests' quorums. ... Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere .; whether they were born here in mortality, . are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God." Pres. Joseph F. Smith (with Edward H. Anderson) was listed as editor of the Era, so it is highly likely that he personally reviewed this doctrinal comment, which appeared in the Priesthood Quorums Table (a forum for official instructions to local Priesthood leaders), although there is no way to know for certain. In December 1910, the First Presidency wrote, as part of their annual Christmas message: "Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found." In an April 1911 article in the Juvenile Instructor, Pres. Joseph F. Smith addressed the controversy that arisen at BYU regarding the teaching of evolution. While Pres. Smith thought it unwise for BYU instructors "to introduce controversies relative to evolution" at the time, he added "The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world." In 1925, during the period of the Scopes Trial, a national news organization requested the LDS Church's position on evolution. The First Presidency chose to send a shortened version of the 1909 statement as "Mormon View of Evolution." In this version, the above-mentioned passage ("It is held by some that Adam.") was dropped. Evolution, pre-Adamic life and related issues continued to be a source of controversy among general authorities. Elder B. H. Roberts, for instance, argued that we should accept the reality of life and death on earth for millions of years, including a race of "pre-Adamites" (see for example his book "The Way, the Truth, the Life"). Elder James E. Talmage taught that simple forms of plant and animal life were succeeded by others more complicated over eons of time, in accordance with the findings of geology (see for example his article "The Earth and Man," published by the Church in 1931). On the other hand, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith argued against the possibility of evolution or any pre-Adamic life (see for example his book "Man: His Origin and Destiny"). Details of this debate are given in Richard Sherlock's article, "'We Can See No Advantage to a Continuation of the Discussion': The Roberts/Smith/ Talmage Affair," Dialogue, vol. 13 (Fall 1980), pg 63. This debate was ended in 1931, when the First Presidency sent a letter to all general authorities stating that none of the competing points of view was to be taken as the Church's doctrine, and concluding: "Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church." In 1954, in the wake of the publication of Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Man: His Origin and Destiny," Pres. David O. McKay sent letters to several private individuals who had inquired, saying (in one typical letter): "On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book 'Man, His Origin and Destiny' was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church. The book contains expressions of the author's views for which he alone is responsible." In 1959, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his book "Mormon Doctrine," concluded at the end of a lengthy discussion that there was "no harmony" between evolution and revealed religion. However, this material was specifically listed among examples of controversial material by Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Marion G. Romney, two apostles whom Pres. McKay assigned to review the book after its publication. They recommended that the book not be republished due to these problems (although a few years later it was republished). In 1988, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk at BYU on the creation that was openly critical of evolution. However, when this talk was finally published by BYU (in 1990), it was preceded by a strongly worded disclaimer, including the text: "The author alone is responsible for the views set forth therein. They do not necessarily represent the Church." In 1992, when the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being compiled, three drafts of an article on evolution had been proposed, one of which was 4500 words long. These drafts disagreed markedly on how the topic should be approached. The oversight committee, consisting of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, referred the matter to the First Presidency. After some consideration, Pres. Hinckley personally sent to the editorial committee the excerpt mentioned above from the 1931 First Presidency letter, together with a few items highlighted from one of the drafts, which he wanted in the final article. The resulting EOM article thus briefly mentions the 1909 and 1925 statements, and then concludes with the passage from the 1931 letter: "Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research ..." At about the same time (in 1992), there was debate among BYU faculty and officials as to what material should be given to students at BYU who inquired about the Church's official view regarding evolution. After much discussion, a number of statements were included. This packet was then reviewed by the BYU Board of Trustees (including the First Presidency). They decided to limit the packet to four items from the First Presidency: (1) the 1909 statement, (2) the December 1910 statement, (3) the 1925 statement, and (4) the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on evolution. The Encyclopedia article was included because of its quotation from the 1931 First Presidency letter. The packet is available online at either of these URLs: http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolutio...ustees1992.html http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf Subsequently the packet was distributed to all teachers in the Church Education System, with the instruction that they were to refer students to this material when questions were raised as to the Church's official view on evolution. The general topic of the creation and/or evolution has been mentioned occasionally in articles and talks by various LDS Church leaders in the past two or three decades, but usually only in brief references of a sentence or two. A more detailed recent treatment was in the April 2000 general conference, where Elder Russell M. Nelson declared "Whether termed a day, a time, or an age, each phase was a period between two identifiable events -- a division of eternity." Nelson added, "The Creation did not happen by chance. It did not come ex nihilo (out of nothing)." In 2000, the Priesthood/Relief Society manual mentioned the 1909 statement, and quoted the passage ("It is held by some that Adam.") mentioned above. In 2002, the Ensign published the entire 1909 statement, as "the Church's doctrinal position on these matters." In neither case was there any mention of the more recent statements. However, I have learned that in both instances, the material was prepared by staffers and editors with minimal oversight by general authorities, certainly not by anyone in the Quorum of the Twelve and/or the First Presidency, and so it is not clear that either of these articles, as they stand, had official imprimatur. In 2005, during the debate in Utah over proposed legislation for high school biology instruction, the Church again referred to the BYU packet, specifically mentioning both the 1909 statement and the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism article: "According to Randy Hall, assistant superintendent of the LDS Church Educational System, seminary teachers are told to refer to church statements included in what is known as the 'BYU packet,' a collection of four official statements on evolution made between 1909 and 1992. The statements are somewhat vague but do include sentences such as 'Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes,' and 'Adam is the primal parent of our race.' The packet does not include more clearly anti-evolution -- and oft-quoted -- unofficial statements such as those made by Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1988. 'We ask our teachers not to go beyond those (official) statements,' Hall says, 'because then it gets into private interpretation, and that could as easily be misunderstood as understood.'" [Deseret News, 19 March 2005].

Before I begin, I want to say I have enjoyed your previous posts very much, p_a. I'm sure it IS true. The door is open. Correct in what way, exactly? As far as I know, the only such 'correction' is a direct emphasis on the teaching that man is literally and absolutely the direct offspring of God, in His/Her image. Which I and most other scientifically minded LDS agree with. The FP statements do not state that the physical tabernacle of man could not have been developed through evolution. And the GA(Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R McConkie, Boyd K Packer) statements that evolution and atonement cannot co-exist is personal opinon, not doctrine, even though stated from the pulpit. We know this thanks to the Church's statement on Doctrine of the Church of May 4th, 2007 (see on www.lds.org, newsroom, commentary). No, it wouldn't. Mankind does not come through the Neanderthal, according to current scientific theory. See above. No. Bad logic, I'm afraid. The Bibles does NOT say that Adam was not formed through the Neanderthals. OTOH, it's clear to me that the scientific theory and the Bible do agree, insofar as your speculation regarding the Neanderthal goes. Nothing of the kind happened. Do you see how you may not understand just what science DOES say, regarding Neanderthals? It is sometimes hard to respect opinion when it does not understand the actual beliefs of the opposing viewpoint. But congenial conversation is important, I agree. HiJolly

I agree. We should not think so ill of so many good people. HiJolly

Yes, bert10's posts are very good. As for opening doors, as the Hindus say, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." HiJolly

Yes, I pop into another ward to take the Sacrament, and then after the Sacrament I slip out & go to my HP Group. We have an old-folks home in the Stake too, that sometimes I go to because they are the ONLY unit in our Stake to meet after 12:00 noon. HiJolly

My Church meetings will start at 9:00 next year. I am a Church service missionary, and my Church calling requires that I be in Salt Lake City (20 miles away) until 10:00am or sometimes 11:00am every Sunday. So every other year, I miss all but about 30 minutes of Priesthood meeting. (Every other year because we have two wards in my building). Next year is my "inactive" year. This year was my "inactive" year until October, due to our Ward changing buildings. So I have been able to attend most of my meetings last month and this month. I am sad, for I truly enjoy our Sunday meetings. HiJolly

From www.lds.org: During general conference of October 2002, President Gordon B. Hinckley stressed the importance of consistent family home evening. “We are fearful that this very important program is fading in too many areas,” he said. “This program was begun back in 1915, 87 years ago, when President Joseph F. Smith urged the Latter-day Saints to set aside one evening a week devoted specifically to the family. It was to be a time of teaching, of reading the scriptures, of cultivating talents, of discussing family matters. … In the increasingly frantic rush of our lives it is so important that fathers and mothers sit down with their children, pray together, instruct them in the ways of the Lord, consider their family problems, and let the children express their talents. I am satisfied that this program came under the revelations of the Lord in response to a need among the families of the Church. “If there was a need 87 years ago, that need is certainly much greater today” (“To Men of the Priesthood,” Ensign, Nov. 2002, 58). HiJolly

Wonderful! HiJolly

Cherisalorraine, thanks for posting your comments. I am so glad you are finding spiritual food for your soul. I usually bear my testimony when I am able to attend my Fast & Testimony meeting, because normally speaking I usually can't be there for it. So today, I knew that I probably wouldn't be able to bear my testimony for a long time to come (possibly 2009) and I kinda thought that once again, I should share my testimony. Yet, I enjoyed the other member's testimonies so much that I made the conscious decision to not bear my own, since I didn't feel compelled to do so by the spirit. It was most rewarding, as I listened to the testimonies of my neighbors and fellow Saints. I will miss those testimonies this coming year. HiJolly

Thanks for posting! It's what being a 'seeker' is all about... HiJolly

Welcome! I hope you enjoy it here! HiJolly

Last Sunday I subbed for the 14 year-old Sunday School teacher, and then taught the High Priest Group & Elder's Quorum (combined) lesson. I love teaching. My favorite calling (current calling excepted, that's not fair) was Nursery. I LOVED that calling, and I served in there for at least 6 years. I'd do it again in a heartbeat! I fear being called as Bishop. It's practically the only calling that I can be given now, since I'm 'protected' in my current calling. I served in a bishopbric where the Bishop had bleeding ulcers and he went inactive when he was released. It was not 'fun', but I loved it all the same, for a couple of reasons. HiJolly

I have really enjoyed the answers so far. As you can no doubt see, there is a variety of opinion and a diversity of viewpoints among the Latter-day Saints. So, here's my version of answers: 1. As we take the covenants of the Temple upon ourselves, we are given the sacred garments to wear as a symbol of those covenants. I think of it as similar to the wedding ring I have worn for 25 years now, that is a symbol of my covenant to my wife that I made before God in the Temple. 2. I can't tell you all of them, as we are expected to understand the principle, and apply it in our own lives. Some items have been specified by the Church, as has been mentioned. These are coffee, tea (herbal teas are mostly OK), tobacco, alcohol and addictive substances. Except chocolate, that one's OK. 3. They should be treated in every way as equals. If they are not, then the Saints need to repent! 4. That's pretty much it. 5. Not at all. 6. That opens a can of worms. The Gospel and the Church are two different things, as will become quite evident to you as you begin to participate more and more. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is why the Church exists. The Church is the authorized vehicle or guardian of the Gospel, and its mission is to keep it pure and administer the ordinances in righteousness, to the benefit of all mankind. It was established for that purpose in 1830, and it does a FANTASTIC job, overall. But... The Church is run by people, most of whom do their very best to follow the spirit of god in all that they do. But being people, sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes, they are BIG mistakes. Most times, though, they are just stupidity or ignorance types of things. Some people are hypocrites, and that causes a lot of damage, especially if they are Bishops, Releif Society presidents, or such. But as I say, most LDS are truly sincere and try really hard to follow the spirit. The Church membership tends to be politically conservative. We also tend to put the leaders (especially the Apostles and such) on an impossibly high pedistal. I like this little ditty: We tend to believe faith-promoting rumors more than we should. We have a list of policies a mile long, that have little to do with the Gospel (white shirts, brethren!). But it's all good. I hope this is helpful, and doesn't send you running for the hills... HiJolly

"it's a matter of faith" is the answer, indeed. We do know some things, though, that assist our understanding, even though they don't provide firm or complete answers. First, those people still exist. They are in the spirit world, and they know who they are. Better still, *Heavenly Father* knows who they are. Second, the Gospel of Jesus Christ exists in the spirit world as well, and many, many saints are engaged in 'missionary work' there. Third, the second group can 'talk' with the first group. Fourth, as a part of continuing revelation, the names and other necessary info concerning the first group can be communicated to members of the Church here in mortality. Perhaps in the millennium this will be more commonplace, but even now we know that the veil is sometimes quite thin, and people's temple ordinances can be performed. That's my shot at the question. Anyone else? HiJolly

Reasons I participate on LDSforums.com: 1. I like to learn all I can about the Church. 2. To support those people who seek information about, and answers to questions about, the LDS Church. 3. If the occasion arises, I desire to share my testimony of God, Jesus Christ and the Church. HiJolly

One more thought: 1 Cor. 13: 1-4, 8, 13 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, • • • 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. HiJolly

True that. Jesus = God, right? Or are you just being open minded? The 'right' way is to feel the Spirit and follow it. If it leads you to Mormonism, then that's great. If it leads you elsewhere, then that's great too. If you're already LDS and you think it may be leading you elsewhere, then you should pray and fast about it, and take council of your Bishop. 99.99% of the time, in this situation there is a problem that needs to be addressed before making the choice to leave. In my experience, anyway. Yes, I do leave open the possibility that someone may legitimately be led out of the Church. Amazingly unlikely, IMO, but possible. You don't have to agree with any man (or woman), but you do need to be sure it is truly the Spirit who is leading you. If you can't tell, that's a matter to address right away. Prov. 3: 5-6 HiJolly

Interesting. I served a mission in the 'bible belt' of the USA, and meeting these kinds of folks can be quite a harrowing experience. There is no love there, none. His behavior is not justified by the scriptures he quotes, not in the least. He was there to embarrass the missionaries, and he made sure that he did it. Sad. HiJolly

Mormon Apologist & Discussion Board. It is the rough-and-tumble anti-mormons blast-away-at-us along with ex-mormons and TBMs and evangelicals trying to 'save' us and literalists and relativists and everything else site. Not for the faint of heart. HiJolly