sixpacktr

Let me clarify what I meant. Once we have an opportunity to meet with our HF and KNOW, beyond all doubt, that we didn't live up to our potential and that we rejected the offering of the Savior to stand in our place, I believe that is what King Benjamin was speaking of when he talked of the 'worm that dieth not' and 'eternal flame' of shame. Our HF is all knowing, perfectly kind and loving, but WE would be so savaged by our short-sightedness and laziness while here in doing what we knew to be right (and I'm not speaking simply of church members, but all members of the human race. We are judged according to the light we had, remember), that we would feel so bad that we DISAPPOINTED our HF and that it would be too uncomfortable to live with him. He wants us there, but WE will be the ones that will shy away because we will know then we don't belong. It is kind of like (and this is a very loose analogy, granted, but it kind of works) when we have said something nasty about someone, that person finds out about it, and we run into that person somewhere. If you have any type of conscience, you feel about 1" high and wish you could get away as quickly as possible, especially if that person treats you kindly. To me, it would be the same type of discomfort, multiplied a google times...

agreed. Think of your own life now. To me, there is no greater hell on earth than to be living in a crowded city, with people everywhere all the time. My own version of heaven would be somewhere in Montana where my closest neighbor was a mile or so away so they'd leave me the heck alone.My wife is the EXACT opposite of that, although I have brought her more to my side...I don't know how we are going to handle eternity together! Maybe a winter and summer home (or something akin to that??)? Sometimes in church you can see people that are very uncomfortable, for whatever reason. I'm not judging them, but if being in the presence of hypocrites and sinners (which we all are!) bothers them, just think how bad it would be under 'the all-seeing eye of a just God' that knows every last sinful tendency and thought we have...

I am so sorry to hear of your plight. I urge you to see your Bishop, not to confess, but to get 'plugged in' to the resources for support the church has. You don't need to fight this alone.The beauty of the atonement is that your past deeds don't matter. You have repented, and are therefore clean. Your Bishop won't judge you, or condemn you. He will help you. See him and share this burden. That is a big part of his calling.

I don't often agree with Six but this is a great post and I agree with it all as humans we can't know all that God has to teach us we are going to get contradictions and misunderstanding, even a prophet is only mortal and cannot truly understand the immortal, all we can do is grow in our understand generation by generation. I think it was Joseph Smith that said if we could stare into heaven for 5 minutes we would understand more than a lifetime reading the Book of Mormon would teach us. I have found our prophets remarkably anti-racist for their age in comparison to the majrity of the American population of their time. Even Peter showed racist tendencies concerning gentile/non gentile and if the Gospel of Mary is to be believed he was sexist too. I am sure in modern context even Jesus would have been seen as racist or sexist - look at the comment to the Canaanite Woman about her being a dog. For me what matter is I know I am doing what Heavenly Father wants and that is more important than anything a prophet has to say. -Charley Thanks Charley. I have recently revisited some thoughts by Bro Nibley and one that I am trying, more than anything to incorporate into my life, is "if you don't accuse me, I won't accuse you", a statement by JS when speaking to the brethren early on. Bro Nibley goes on to explain that the meaning of one of Satan's many names is "the accuser of the brethren", and that his role is to come before God and tell him why we aren't worthy of anything (and he is completely right). Christ's role, on the other hand is "but his/her heart was right. S/he tried their best, yes s/he made mistakes, but I love them and want them with me." It lends a much deeper meaning to the proscription in the beatitudes "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and not worrying about another's mote when our eye has a beam in it. Both BY and JS spoke of being only concerned with our own welfare and spirituality (true we must work with our families, as we aspire to be saved together), and give everyone the biggest 'benefit of the doubt' in that we don't know a person's heart, only God does, and to reserve judgment to him. The prophets were men as much as any of us. But their calling....my, their calling. What a burden, and what a blessing. JS was a man of passions. I love that man and can't wait to meet him. The story is told of him assaulting a mean spirited man that had thrown a rock at him. As soon as he did it (in front of witnesses, no less) he turned to the sheriff and said "you fine me the $100 fine for this". Those in the crowd, the sheriff included, said that Joseph was perfectly justified in what he did, but Joseph would have none of it, and insisted, stating that IN HIS OFFICE he should know better. What a man...

I find it interesting that some cry 'we've left the gospel that Joseph taught' citing teachings of JS or BY and saying we no longer preach that, and that is why the church is on the wrong track. Then, there are others that say 'look at what Joseph and Brigham taught, how could God ever teach anything like that?' thus stating that the church has been mislead from the very beginning. And sometimes, we get those that believe both of those POVs. Must be confusing... The simple fact is that if you have a testimony of the church, and believe it to be God's only true and living church, directed by Jesus Christ, you can accept what is taught and move on, without fixating on something that 'just doesn't seem to have come from God'. It is also a very simple fact that we humans are just not that bright. We can cite all the 'evidence' we want that for this and this reason the prophets were not speaking 'from God' but as men, but then, interestingly, things change, and our POV changes. The promise was that the Lamanites would blossom as a rose. The BOM speaks of the Lamanites becoming a 'white and delightsome' people. Hugh Nibley stated that that had not so much to do with skin color as much as with their conversion and attitudes. Which is it? I don't know. Does it matter to me and affect my testimony? No. Did Spencer Kimball know more of the mind and will of God concerning things than I do? Most definitely. And with that, I'm content.

You should be careful with your language. You cannot show one official pronouncement that supports your statement that "Green tea is out." There are statements supporting both sides of the issue and there are many members who drink green tea who have TR's. Then go ahead a drink it. But it is out. You can bicker all you want, tell me how healthful it is, but it is verboten. In the States we equate only 'Lipton' as tea. In the orient there are tons of different teas, and green was one that you are not supposed to drink. But if it floats yer boat, go ahead. While you're at it, try a little wine for the belly. It too is supposed to be healthful for you.

Green tea is out. Same as drinking Lipton. I lived in Japan after my mission as well, and if you drank green tea you didn't get a TR. Oolong tea is the same, in my opinion. My wife and I made the decision early on that if the tea came from a tea leaf of any kind we wouldn't drink it. In Japan they drank barley tea and other types as well, and those are okay.

LOL!!

I do know that once they have both passed on they are both sealed to one another by proxy . Thus, she is sealed to both husbands, and it is my understand the choice is hers as to whom she will have for her eternal companion.I'm not sure what happens with the children. Elphaba We had couples in my college ward in this situation - they received special counselling before their marriages. Their understanding was children born to a second husband were sealed to the first husband. They just had faith it would work out somehow in the eternities but the standard doctrine does not make it an easy or cosy situation -Charley If I remember right, that was the way in ancient Israel as well, only it was one of the deceased husband's brothers that was to marry his wife and then any children from that union were to be the 1st brother's kids. I think that would be hard and take a lot of faith in our HF to make things right later. So much we still don't understand, that requires we live by faith... It would be tough for me, I know, if I were in that situation...

All in favour, please indicate by the raising of your right hand. All opposed? *right hand up after the first request* *looking around after the second question, and seeing no one*

Not necessarily. Most of the world is not directly descended from the 12 tribes of Isreal. It is a pronouncement of tribal assignment, not direct lineage. Hey JD, Can you clarify that for me? I always thought that it was direct descendancy, even though most of us are mutts and probably have more than one tribe in our lineage... Thanks.

Reminds me of when I was a teen, I called our Stake YM Pres Alma the Younger (before his repentance) and he called me Korihor. We'd go around saying the most off the wall things like "Adam is Eloheim", "Women ought to hold the PH", etc. Ahh, Good times, good times...

Oh, are you finished?? Really, Gaia, I know you feel that you have lots of lots of information, but... you need to quit bloviating. Brevity, brevity, brevity...

I was able to see all 5 sessions, and this conference was fantastic! There seemed to be a level of urgency in this conference that I hadn't sensed before, but I may have been more brain dead then, I don't know. Sis Beck's talk was so good, and when my wife and I left the church this afternoon after the session, I said, "you know, there are some women in the church that are going to be very upset with her for saying that", and my wife agreed. She absolutely loves Sis Beck, and could feel her almost PLEADING with the sisters to honor motherhood and worry less about material goods. The choir was great. Their rendition of "How Firm a Foundation" made me teary eyed. I love that last verse (I believe it is the last verse): I'll never, NO NEVER, forsake you. It is a shame we don't sing that more. I am taking up Pres Eyring's admonition to write every night what I have seen the Lord do for me this day. My kids are all out of the house, but it is never too late to start, right?

We had a potluck. Someone brought venison stew, someone some Italian dish. I brought some burn-all-night-in-your-gut chili (that's how you know it was good!) that made everyone that had it sweat like a hog.I like getting together with the brethren of the church. There is a comraderie among PH holders that is unique.

Well, 3/5ths of Conference is over and I have yet to hear a talk on Adam-God, the Divine Feminine, Women holding the PH, nothing at all like that. Seemed strange to me, seeing how that is all that has been on the boards lately, I figured that someone had the inside scoop. Well, there are still 2 more sessions, I'm sure that something will come up. The news conference today introducing Pres Eyring and Elder Cook was interesting, and the way that Pres Eyring handled the question about same sex attraction and marriage was, I think, brilliant. I don't know who the reporter was, what his purpose was, etc., but Pres Eyring's answer of 'the church has issued statements regarding that and I couldn't add anything more to it' was spot on. I also appreciated the way he was generous to that reporter, and made sure to show his appreciation for his question, but then answer with, basically, 'we've already stated this'. Maybe that would work well here? Seems that there has been a lot of dead horse beating going on here regarding things that have already been answered, and who are we to add to what the church's official stance is? This conference has been teh best yet. The talks have been wonderful, the spirit just as great.

I assumed it would be saturday morning session...... I should be good then. I am not scheduled until 12:30. I will be tuned in for that reason I thought that (for the most part) the 'business' session was the 2nd session. It seems that when they have extended callings it has been in the 2nd session. I'm sure that that is more tradition than anything else. I guess we'll see...

I cannot wait. I love conference. It gives me an opportunity to hear doctrine taught straight from those that are special witnesses of Christ. Of course, the big thing this conference is the guessing game of who the new counselor will be. It is the great 'game' within the church, trying to figure out who the new Bishop, SP, Apostle, etc., will be. I have 3 picks: Dallin Oaks, Henry Eyring, or Jeffrey Holland. I haven't a clue on the new Apostle, although the church schools have been kind of a training ground as well (so Pres Samuelson?). Who do you think will fill these offices?

Lecture Seven mentions this in an indirect way: it says that 'the whole visible creation, as it now exists, is the effect of faith.' Joseph also states that faith is not a physical, but rather a mental exertion, and it enacted by words, not brute strength. Faith IS power, the ultimate form of power, IMO.I recently acquired the 'Lectures on Faith' from a bookstore close by (in Palmyra) and have only had the chance to read it 2 times so far. Faith is much, much more than a 'feeling'...

Let's ask if women hold the priesthood and whether the Adam-God theory is scriptural. If the Church doesn't know the answer, we have some folks that know better. I was thinking the same thing... I think it is a good idea. It would allow people to get the questions answered that they want answered without having to wait for their 'turn' because of some 'chatty Cathy' that hogs the Q&A time, or, perhaps keep things from becoming a news conference like at other forums, where someone might want to show off in front of their peers and ask questions that aren't aimed at getting information but are aimed at embarrassing or putting the church/speaker on the defensive. It would also eliminate the parsed 'sound bite' that can make things sound silly if done right, since, if the writer elected to do that in print, the church could then have a paper trail showing the actual question and then their full answer.

Yes, yes, the rules of the church, the rules of our HF are meant to cause pain and grief. We are trying to exclude everyone else, in a kind of 'go to hell' attitude... I'm am truly appalled at the very thought that some have that the temple just doesn't mean that much to them, that a civil marriage is just a good so that you don't offend someone. My wife's parents weren't members. Was it sad? Yes, it was for her--she wanted to have her parents there. But she also knew that a marriage in the temple was the only way to do it right. As for having a ceremony after the temple marriage, no one would stop you, but again, it shows a complete lack of respect for what the temple represents, and it shows an attitude of regarding the thoughts and attitudes of men above those of what it right. I'm not sure that a Bishop could do the ceremony. But again, have at it. You're right: the 'brethren' didn't think of that 'loophole'. Good thinking, Moksha! You really got one over on them, didn't you?! I'm not saying it is easy. I'm not saying that it is necessarily fair. What I am saying is that a temple wedding should be the goal of every worthy LDS. Again, right place, right time, right authority. Our kids learned from their mother, and will settle for nothing less.

There is a one year wait as a matter of course because you made a choice. You decided to please others rather than the Lord. When my wife and I were 'married' in Japan (so that she could get the green card and come back to the states) we went to the Bishop after we got back so that we could see if we could still be married in the temple. There was no JOP, no Priest, or Bishop, or anything. It was simply a paperwork thing stating that we were married. The Bishop asked us if we'd consummated the marriage, which we hadn't, because we didn't consider it a marriage. He said that if we had, then we'd have to wait a year, simply because we had decided that temple marriage wasn't important enough. As the Brethren say a lot: in the right place, at the right time, to the right person, under the right authority. The lies of Satan that say that you must please others first are just that--lies. We must do things in the Lord's way. You can justify it any way you wish, but it is still wrong. Moksha, make up as many scenarios as you wish and claim that the church doesn't get it. You'll find out, one day, that you were wrong. That's gotta (the 's' word)...

Yes, as I stated in the OP, I know that the office of Prophet is a MP office, and that the MP was not held generally (or at all, except for the prophets) up until the time of Christ, who restored it to his church. So you would agree that thru Lehi then Nephi the MP was available to the Nephites? It is an interesting point about keys. Since the world was not as it is today, where travel was much more burdensome and obviously going from the New World to the Old was very difficult at best, do you think that several people could hold keys at the same time? I know that it happens all the time today (many Bishops, EQPs, etc), but there is only 1 person that holds all keys, being the President of the Church. IOW, perhaps Peter and Nephi (of 3 Nephi fame) held the same keys, just at different places (and maybe some leader among the 'lost tribes')?

I have been to both LDS and non-LDS weddings. They were nice, but there was no spirit in them. And I'm not saying that because I'm a member, etc. There is a spirit of sealing that is part of the temple ceremony that cannot be denied. It is simple, it is unpretentious, and it is forever. I have watched people spend 10s of 1000s of dollars for the perfect day, and like I said, it was nice, but all I could think was 'where is the spirit'? My daughter's temple wedding was absolutely wonderful. The spirit there was great, and we all knew it was forever...