sixpacktr

Served for almost 2 years on a High Council. One of the best days of my life was when I was released and assigned to the YSA Branch in our stake as the ExecSec to the BP. The men serving on the HC were great men and I enjoyed meeting with them, but I'm a doer and details, make it happen guy. And our SP had the HC speak only every other month, so technically, I could have been inactive 7 out of 8 weeks and no one would have known, as long as I showed up to my speaking assignments. Some folks like serving on the HC. My dad did for years and years. It just wasn't my cup of herbal tea....

4 movies over the last two days: Major League. 'just a bit outside' The King's Speech. Great, great movie. Very moving. Ichi. Japanese samurai movie Fine, Totally Fine. Japanese movie. Extremely hilarious. Watched Patton again for like the 10th time the other day. And am watching 'Anatomy of a Murder' starring Jimmy Stewart while I work out, so it will take me a couple of days to finish. Anything with Jimmy Stewart in it I will watch.

I too remember spending all day at church. My father was my Bishop when I was a teen and he would spend from 6ish in the morning until 8 or so at night at church on Sundays. I remember being at PH by 8, then SS, then going home (usually we spent time at a friends home, or they at ours, then back to church for a 1.5 hour Sacrament meeting. I also remember going to Primary on Thursday nights for several hours, and MIA was at least 2 hours (not that I remember much, I played basketball more than I did anything else!). The 3 hour block was implemented to reduce the burden of time upon church members so that they'd spend more time with their families teaching the gospel. It wasn't meant as a 'break' per se, but rather put the burden back more on the parents to raise up righteous children. But how many of us really do (did) that? I would bet that most filled their time with worldly pursuits rather than spiritual, family oriented ones. I like the 3 hour block, and when I was serving in some leadership positions regularly spent 8 hours or so on Sunday in meetings, etc. And those days NEVER felt like the 8 hours of drudgery that work felt like. I was on the Lord's time, not mine. But if they announced on Saturday or Sunday that the Saints haven't used the reduced time as they had hoped and that we're going back to the old blocks of meetings, that too would be fine with me.

What does Sarah Palin have to do with the fact that you got caught up in trotting out trite little phrases? Where did that come from?

If I remember right, Christ didn't ask the Father why he must drink of this cup. He asked if there was no other way to do it, but if not, he'd submit. That's isn't murmuring. That is hoping there is another way of fulfilling his mission. Big difference. Christ didn't murmer.

I applaud this mother for being a mother and hopefully shaming her son with a lesson he won't ever forget. There it too little of this nowadays and people think that actions don't have consequences. Several lives ago when we lived in Kentucky I took my daughters for some 'serve yourself' ice cream cones. They filled up, I paid, and they began to eat. On the way out, they took some more, and I happened to see them. I became very upset, asked them what they thought they were doing, and marched them up to the cashier. They objected the entire time, saying that everyone did it and it was no big deal. The cashier said that it was okay, no big deal, but I told her it was, that they stole the ice cream, and that if they'd have asked first then it is one thing, but to simply take it is stealing, and I then paid for the extra ice cream. My daughters both were upset, and wouldn't eat the ice cream afterwards. They still remember that incident and I believe it helped them understand something about taking something that isn't yours.

HoI to Bishops tells you very plainly that unless a young woman (or young man, for that matter) is either going to be married or go on a mission then they should wait until their 25th Birthday to make sure that there is some spiritual maturity. And even then the Bishop may not give them a recommend if he feels they are not ready for the covenants that they will make. Bishops have a lot of leeway, but for the most part this is pretty strict policy, because the SP then has to do the interview as well and may ixnay the whole thing.

The point of Job is that bad things happen to good people. Job never questioned that he was a wicked person, even though his own wife told him to 'curse God and die', or his friends continually questioned his righteousness. Job never lost sight of the fact that he had done everything that God told him to do. What Job had to learn, apparently, was that even though he was righteous he needed to learn sorrow and endurance. I don't think he was murmuring, per se, but simply confused (much as we are when we do right and yet somehow bad things happen or continue to happen). In the end the Lord enlightens him and tells him, basically, I am God and I know the beginning from the end, and all things work for your good...

When I lived in Japan I took my 5 year old daughter to a concert of Whitney Houston's. What a set of pipes! She was so talented and had such a wonderful voice. Unfortunately, she married Bobbie Brown and it went downhill from there, so much so that she became a regular feature on 'The Soup' because she had gotten so weird and hostile. The world glorifies drug use, treating it as a right of passage that everyone needs to do in order to fully understand the human experience. But the music world is littered with unbelievable talent that succumbed to drugs and self-destructed. Whitney is just the latest in a long line...

When you gotta explain it, it means you probably shouldn't have ventured into 'humor' in the first place....

Vort is right on in this. We have nearly no information, yet most are willing to say that the Bishop was wrong here. If he was trying to cover something up and didn't follow the guidelines, then there will be consequences. But how often have we heard of someone cry 'foul' and then, after a short investigation, find out that there was no foul but that the person either made it up or was an active participant? The whole thing stinks to me because the girl didn't go to her folks first, but did only AFTER being told something she didn't want to hear. It almost sounds like a set up. And pls don't think that because it was a young lady that somehow she is immune from lying or making up 'truth'. She goes in, says one thing to her Bishop, who may want to investigate a tad before the young man's name is dragged thru the mud and before he takes any actions, and then she goes home to tell her folks that she was assaulted. Why is she hesitant in the first instance but gets some counsel from her Bishop and THEN tells her folks? I don't know, and that is the point. I don't know what happened. But to assume that the Bishop is the culprit here is wrong. But sadly, par for the course for many on this board....

1. Yes, I do believe that. Either thru direct revelation or because the person called was the best available at that time. I don't believe in callings by desperation. I believe that God is in the details and puts us where we're needed when we are.2. Yes, and if YOU'D read my reply to him, I told him that he has a duty to share his feelings/concerns with his Bishop so that he is aware of it. I never said that Bishops are psychic. Lord knows I'm not. But I also know that agonizing over who to put where, after talking with counselors and praying about it, and coming to a decision, leads me to know that God does work thru His Bishops. And Bishops need information in order to do their callings (not jobs, not volunteer positions, but CALLINGS) right, so that they can pray and ponder over these things with as much info as possible. And sometimes the Bishop won't release someone when they come and say that they want to be released or that it is too hard. Because they know that that person needs that calling at that time. Learn to trust your Bishop or any other line leader. If you can't, then maybe you should rethink the question in the TR interview asking if you support your local leaders?

I guess that is where you and I will always disagree. I am not a volunteer. I made sacred covenants when I was baptized, when I rec'd the PH, when I was endowed in the temple, to turn my life over to building up the kingdom and standing as a witness at all times. I don't consider myself a volunteer. That is too easy. That implies that whenever I get tired of it I can just say 'I'm done'. Again, that is not in the program. My covenants prohibit me from just 'quitting' a calling because I don't think that the call was inspired, or that I'm tired of doing it, etc. Either you believe the call is from God or you don't. It is that simple. If you don't, then church is nothing more than 3 hours of people being hypocrites stating we believe in modern revelation, which includes the callings given to people. But if you do believe the calling is from God, then to fight it and say that God 'doesn't understand how hard it is' is not a very safe area to be in. I choose to support my leaders. I choose to accept that the positions I have been called to were because that was where the Lord wanted me to be at the time. And you know why I believe that? Because I asked Him, and He told me that was where I needed to be and what I needed to be doing at the time. And when those times happened that I didn't have that feeling I supported my Bishop because he has the keys to that revelation for the ward and that he put me there for whatever reason he needed. The time is short, and you are either committed to living the gospel completely or you aren't. I choose the former...

You don't release yourself from a calling. Not in the program. Now, you have every right (and duty, BTW) to go and speak to your Bishop and lay out your concerns. But don't just 'quit' as a couple of people have advised here. It will do nothing for you except make you feel guilty. And who knows but that this is exactly what the Lord wants you to learn at this time? The Lord puts us in the positions He does in order to help us grow and become more like Him. Now, I don't pretend to know what you are going thru with your illness, but I do know that your Bishop will welcome talking to you about it and helping you thru this time in your life. And if you are released, then you can do so with a clear conscience. Good luck.

And to me, it seems that you are easily offended. Slamjet's sentiment is exactly right. Why is it that we always have to see how close to the edge we can get without 'breaking' a commandment or offending God? When we participate in that most sacred of ordinances (and think of it, the Deacons and Priests, by officiating in this ordinance, are allowing an ENTIRE CONGREGATION to be completely clean, just as on their baptismal day! What a beautiful bit of doctrine!), why would we want anything WE want to interfere with doing our duty? When passing or blessing or preparing the sacrament, you are standing in Christ's place. You are the agent thru which a congregation receives remission of their sins. Dress accordingly. Think how you will answer to your Heavenly Father when you account for your life. If you feel that this is appropriate, then by all means go for it (don't know if your Bishop will allow it, but nevertheless). But remember, remember that one day you will be accountable for your actions. I read in another post that someone's son went inactive because he had a mohawk and the other priest was looking at porn. That definitely happens. Bishop's aren't perfect nor are they omniscient. If the other boy didn't confess, the Bishop's hands are tied. Again, he will have to answer for it, not the Bishop. Or, perhaps, the Bishop was aware and was working thru things with the other boy. Probably wouldn't know anything about that, so to assume the Bishop just let it slide while punishing the boy with the mohawk is judgemental at best. Best bet? Just take care of your own issues, and make sure you are right before the Lord and don't worry what others are doing. Believe me: you'll make the Bishop's life SO much easier...

Javajot, Thanks for pointing that out, but to me it isn't what the OP was asking. He was asking why the resurrection was necessary in order to not be subject to Satan. My opinion is that our body protects us. Adam and Eve, by transgressing the law, were subject to the consequences of their actions. I never said (or at least never meant) that if you have a body you won't be subject to Satan. Obviously the sons of perdition, etc., are under his power. However, because they have a body they actually rule over him (remember the promise made to Cain). The atonement led to the resurrection. By welding spirit and body together where they act as one instead of the body telling the spirit what it wants when it wants it. Go to verse 9, which states exactly what I'm saying: we would become like him, his angels. Our body gives us tremendous power over Satan. The Prophet Joseph stated as much when he said that Satan only has power over us as we let him. I imagine a resurrected body, no matter the degree of glory it attains (since those that are thrust down to hell to pay for their own sins for a while are subject to him with no protection whatsoever), is so unbelievably powerful that Satan cannot do anything to it. Also, Cain will be immortal. Adam will be exalted. Huge difference. Immortality has nothing to do with our power over Satan.

I wish I were going with you. I lived in the Atlanta area for 6 years. We will retire there. It IS God's country. There are 8 or 9 stakes in the Atlanta area, so quite a few members. And Duluth wasn't that bad, as I remember it. If you want a good commute, and you're working in Duluth, there is no such thing unless you live in Duluth. Atlanta traffic is horrendous. The 285 loops the city, with 5-6 lanes in some areas, and it is a parking lot from 3-7 in the afternoon and in the morning rush. And the thing about the South that you will find, and may be the biggest culture shock for you from Utah, is that there aren't many alternate routes to places. If there is construction, you can't just jog over 1 block, drive a couple of blocks and then jog back over to your street. The roads meander and often the 'shortcut' takes you a lot longer. I lived 35 miles or so east of Atlanta in Walton county, and you could take the 78 into Atlanta (the most direct route, but also congested) or meander all the way up and around to get to the 85 and down into Atlanta (also congested). My personal opinion (and that is just what it is) is to live east of the city and go in. It will be more affordable. Snellville is a good place, but more expensive than say Walton County, or up around Winder, etc. But you'll pay in time to get to things. But you get used to it. I envy you. You're going to love it there.

I suggest you look at all of the taxes and fees that the airlines pay to the various airports and yes, to Uncle Sam, and see how 'profitable' they are. We are taxed to death in this country, and not one company has ever paid a single penny in taxes. Why? Because they pass those costs along to the consumer. So when all the lib dolts shout we need to tax businesses more in order to 'get them', all they are saying is 'tax everyman more'. That is the problem right now. We have too many that don't understand how businesses operate and think that they can tax them or regulate them to be 'fair'. I'm not a fan of businesses, to be honest with you. They chew people up and spit them out too much in my opinion. Once they have milked the last drop of blood from the turnip, they cut you lose without so much as a thank you. But they are operating out of fear right now. Who knows what the clown in the WH is going to do next. Want to reduce rates in the airline industry? DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW. Instead of $100/barrel (or more) oil, we'd get back down to $30 or $40/barrel. Which would reduce their costs tremendously. But no, that would be too logical. Let's keep paying terrorist regimes for the life blood of our economy...

It has to do with the fact that we have a body and Satan doesn't. Joseph Smith taught that Satan cannot have any control over us except as we give it to him, that those with bodies are more powerful that he is. My opinion is that one reason we needed to receive a body was for that very fact: without one we could not resist him, he would be too powerful for us to contend with. With a body, however, we have the upper hand on him. The atonement gives us the opportunity to be permanently 'welded' together, body and spirit, and thus we are more powerful than he is.

I'm noticing a slow slide towards hostility towards children in the world at large. It used to be that people had kids, they went everywhere with them, and people adapted and put up with it. Maybe kids were a tad better behaved then or not (I don't know, I'm an older codger and just want my peace and quiet uninterrupted). Then, abortion was ruled constitutional, and the unborn were ruled to be a choice and not a viable human (I'm not trying to start a war here, just my perception of things. This is not in any chronological order either, as lots of these overlap). Then women began to enter the workforce in more and more numbers because of convenience, bills, a desire to not have to deal with kids all day, etc. (again, pls hold the darts!) and families started to shrink because of cost or convenience, etc. And as parents spent more time being away from the kids, who they put in daycare to raise their kids instead of them, they started to feel more and more guilty for not spending more time with them, so they started indulging them more with material things to compensate. And kids began acting out more, it seemed, with little discipline from their parents because they didn't want to hurt little Johnny or Suzie's ego. Now we have companies (restaurants, theatres, airlines) banning kids from certain times, or sections, or altogether. I remember reading an article not too long ago written by a person talking about the not too distant future, in which hearing the laugh of a child will be a rare thing when you're out in public. He was talking of these types of laws that ban children so that they don't 'bother' us adults. I used to travel a lot. 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of miles per year on planes both domestic and overseas. Have had my share of crying children. Worst was a flight from Korea to Atlanta (16 hours, if I remember right). I landed in Seoul from Sydney Australia (10 hours) at 5 a.m. for a 10 a.m. flight to Atlanta, and when I got to the gate, there were 2 kids screaming their guts out. Let's just say I tried to crash but couldn't. I sat about 7 or 8 rows behind them on the flight, and they screamed for most of the flight. NO ONE was happy about that! But blame the kids? Nope. I blamed the brain-dead mothers for that. Didn't do a darn thing to quiet the kids. Those kids needed some Dimetapp or Benadryl or something to take the edge off and sleep. I've rambled long enough. I fear that Satan is winning in his war to destroy the family by making those with kids outcasts. I read somewhere that David Beckham is being ridiculed for having 4 kids. I listened to a talk show host yesterday talk about penalizing those with more kids with more taxes. And there are those in the 'green' movement that say that having kids destroys the planet. I remember sitting in a church meeting when I lived in Japan in the 80s when our Bishop said that he had read that the Prophet Joseph said that the day would come when only LDS women would be willing to have kids. That may be a faith-promoting rumor, I never had had a chance to check up on it, and I'm sure that there are lots of other men and women out there that love kids and will have them no matter what, but aren't we as a society edging towards that now?

I have started instituting more activities by giving them out to the auxiliaries to head up. I plan on having every one head something up, including the Bishopric. We need Sunday's to learn the gospel together. We need activities to learn to love each other and want to be together. I am hoping to have something at least every 6 weeks or so. I have asked the Scouts and EQ to head up a 'mens campout' in early Oct (so that a campfire will feel good) that only our ward will do. Our AP commemoration campout is run by the Stake and is at a site 2 hours away, which is too far. We're also going to do some Adult game nights (for everyone 18 and older), a night where we all take a very simply personality test so that we all understand people's types (I'm hoping this will cut down on gossip and taking/giving offense, since if we know someone is more blunt or someone doesn't take suggestions well we will give them the benefit of the doubt instead of being hurt or mad or talk about how terrible that person is). And of course, we will eat. Because that is what Mormons do. We eat. A lot.

Joseph approved of killing flies and mosquitoes. They are mutants from hell! I think the quote you are looking for (at least the one I'm aware of) is about the Elders during the march of Zion's Camp trying to kill a rattler or two in the camp, and Joseph told them not to, that until men lost their bloodlust that the animals wouldn't (severely paraphrased). As for animals talking, who knows for sure, but I'm looking forward to speaking to my animals afterwards. The dog will have good things to say to me--the cat, I'm not so sure. But then again, I don't expect the cat to attain a kingdom of glory.....

Sorry to keep throwing things in here, but I seem to remember that President Kimball also taught that since sin moves us backwards, it is wrong to think you can sin and then expect to be on the same level as those that didn't sin. Doesn't mean you will never reach where they WERE, but by the time you get there, they will have progressed further yet. So in effect, though you repent and are forgiven, you have damned yourself for either a long or short period of time, and those that didn't subject themselves to sin have progressed further on....

And to add to that, I would have to say that those that RESIST evil and stay true are much stronger than those that give in and then learn not to do it. I was listening to some of the roundtable discussions on BYU TV (either D&C or BoM, can't remember which now) and it was brought up that only the person that resists evil to the end, never succumbing, actually knows how tough it actually is to do that. If you give in, then you don't know how tough it was to resist because eventually you DIDN'T resist. This type of heresy was what led to some thinking they could sow their wild oats before a mission (IOW, willfully rebel) and then repent for 4-6 months and either serve a mission or get married in the temple. The Prophet Joseph taught that to willfully rebel, thinking that you'll repent later, makes the sin that much worse (paraphrasing a lot here). Yes, we can be forgiven, but to not do the sin is always, always much better than to do it.

The idea that that somehow sinning and repenting makes someone 'better off' than not doing it is, quite frankly, an apostate belief (not saying you are you, mind you, but the teaching itself). Never, in any circumstance, is it better for us to subject ourselves to Satan and be in his power than to stay on the Lord's side.