• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by omegaseamaster75

  1. Just now, Grunt said:


    I believe we should all err on the side of following the Prophet in all things.   I see no downside to doing so and potential issues with not doing so.  That said, I don't think the consequences for not following the Prophet are the same for all things.

    Do you think the prophet has inside knowledge about the long term side effects of the vaccine? He didn't mention it. 

  2. 4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    I have a hard time believing that President Nelson does anything as the prophet and President of the Church without petitioning the Lord for revelation. I'm not saying there aren't still good reasons to make the personal decision that a vaccine isn't for oneself. But to write off any official communiqué as "speaking as men" seems a bit spurious. And to assume President Nelson prayed whether he should get the vaccine, received confirmation he should, and then thought, "Well, that means the whole church should too!" without taking the matter of the church's best interest to the Lord as well.....  I dunno. Seems like pretty iffy reasoning to me. At best one might be able to argue (in my opinion) that the answer he received from the Lord on the matter was something akin to "make your best personal judgement on behalf of the church". But the idea that he didn't take it to the Lord first for confirmation would seem really odd to me considering the way he's spoken about revelation and the importance of it in the past. And the idea that the Lord would say something akin to "It doesn't matter. Prescribe to My people whatever you think is best", while well within the realms of possibility, doesn't seem (to my thinking) to be likely.

    I'm not arguing that everyone should interpret what the letter says to mean that everyone must get the vaccine or they're not following the prophet. But I, personally, don't believe the "speaking as men" point of view holds a ton of merit.

    I think that President Nelson did take this to the Lord, I am sure that he contemplated, and studied the matter out in his mind.  That said, why was the message worded the way that it was? Was it his opinion and counsel about what we as members should do?  There was no "thus saith the Lord" moment. They "urge" face masks and "urge" vaccination. 

    Probably no harm in following this counsel, everyone one should make their own decision. 


  3. 2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

    I think there's the surface and a deeper idea behind it.

    Today, in the cemetery you see many gravestones and crosses.  When a loved one dies we go to visit their grave at the cemetery.  Their gravestone marks where they lie.  We can remember them there. Normally they do not mark the way the individual died.

    However, in general we do not wear the marks of how they were died or were killed.  If you had a relative that was killed by a 1969 black mustang running over them would you wear a copy of that mustang around your neck, post it on the wall, and put it everywhere to remind you of that black mustang?

    What about if it was with a Remington .44 Revolver.  They were shot and killed.  Would you wear pictures and carvings of that revolver everywhere.  Would you put it up on your wall and say you remember them by posting pictures of that revolver?

    Some see the cross in the same way.  The Cross was not how he completed the atonement, nor was it the purpose behind it.  It was the cause of his death which was an instrument along the way, but the atonement and his resurrection were composed of something far greater which we remember.  Instead of worshipping and wearing the instruments which were utilized to try to cause his death and to kill him we celebrate his name, his resurrection, and his triumph over sin and death.

    We kind of miss the point, you say the cross was not how he completed the atonement. I disagree. His death completed the atonement.


    Helaman 14:14-15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.


    Lots of people died on crosses but only one was our redeemer and savior. To many the cross represents his last and ultimate sacrifice. 


  4. It heartens me to hear the terms used “Good Friday”and “Palm Sunday” when was the last time you heard those used in a sacrament meeting, my limited experience has shown me that we gloss over the Holy Week in our meetings. I am excited for this to be the new normal. To celebrate these holy days as other Christ centric church’s do. 

    We have been letting this slip, I remember once I had to go to a mass at my daughters school. It was Palm Sunday there services occurred before ours so it was no big deal, I would go to mass @ 9am then our normal services @ 1130. 

    I’ll tell you what they had a great sermon focused on Christ’s triumphant return. They even handed out crosses made out of palm leafs. I went to our  meeting and they had talks about family history and temple work. I don’t even think it was on anyone’s radar that it was Palm Sunday.

  5. 3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I don’t believe that’s accurate.  He confessed for the first time, to his mission president; and was immediately sent home.

    So it would seem. We are likely not in possession of all of the facts related to this case. 

    I know they really put the screws to you on the mission field, but he had to have felt some sort of pressure to make it through his bishop, stake president and MTC. 

    I'll assume that the news story is accurate and he did not confess until he was on his mission. 

  6. 3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

    Indeed.  He implies that the church broke the law... When any understanding of church policy and even @Just_A_Guy clarification of what the law really is makes this very doubtful.  But instead of letting the actual facts and actual law apply to inform his opinion his to busy trying to twist the laws and facts to support his opinion.  This is a clear demonstration that the truth is not with him

    @mrmarket May not be aware of the clerical privilege laws in Utah. I know I am not and at first glance you might legitimately ask "what the heck".

    What I do know is that somehow a  pedo was allowed to enter the mission field. Someone has some explaining to do. 


  7. On 3/24/2020 at 7:53 AM, NeedleinA said:

    Probably many of the same takeaways that you might have too. A couple:
    1. Share and train each other in finances (even if you are the mother of 7 kids, you should know the household finances well enough to take over).
    2. Have a death plan in place, in advance (where, what, how, etc.)
    3. Have a designated appointee, not suffering from the sudden trauma, step in to help guide and make sound decisions.

    well said. I wonder if any of these items were ever mentioned as a cautionary tale for other members of the ward?

  8. On 3/24/2020 at 7:58 AM, dprh said:

    From the handbook



    The Church does not normally encourage cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.

    Where possible, the body of a deceased member who has been endowed should be dressed in temple clothing when it is cremated. A funeral service may be held (see 29.6).

    See highlighted parts, you can cremate.

    In the example given cremation needed to have been a valid option. While not encouraged it should have been part of the conversations especially with a mortgage and 7 small children at home. 

  9. 7 minutes ago, dprh said:

    Great suggestions. 

    You could also encourage him to set up boundaries to keep him safe.  Some examples are

    1. Not taking the phone into the bathroom

    2. Not using it after a certain time at night. 

    3. There are apps that can track time and app usage on the phone.  This can help him realize how he spends his time.

    4. Create a list of 'fire drills' that he can do in moments of stress or triggers like:

         a. Reach out to someone he can trust and talk to.

         b. Physically move, whether jog, or do push ups, or walk into another room.

         c. Look at a picture that reminds him of his values.  Like of Jesus, the temple or his family.

         d. Work on memorizing a scripture, a poem or something to get his mind working on something else.

    5.  Have a daily checklist of things to do.  Mine includes exercise, listen to 2 or 3 conference talks or a recovery podcast, study scriptures, morning and evening prayer, journal writing or other recover work like 12 steps.

    Good ideas but they need to be his ideas, not his girlfriends or wife's ideas. 

  10. 43 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    If his use has been compulsive for that long, there's probably underlying triggers.  Like (for one possible example) he's feeling down about himself, so indulging in this served as a pick-me-up.  To break such a long-term thing, he needs to find a healthy way of dealing with that trigger instead of just white-knuckle-not-doing-that-bad-thing.  For example, he's feeling down about himself, so he instead goes on a jog, gets his mind off of it, endorphins pumping, and taking good care of himself.

    I agree with the underlying issues. HE needs professional help. Has this been sought out? When I say professional help I mean that you pay money to someone to find out what is the root cause of his addictive behavior. 

  11. 13 hours ago, mrmarket said:

    I meet with potential clients every day and about half are out to get themselves financially rescued. Average person I see has maybe between $500-$1000 in savings and $40-50 in a 401K/IRA at best. I do my best to help them with a plan of sorts but there is nothing there to manage. Mormons/non-mormons both suck at managing money so yea I can believe the old woman now widowed who has paid her tithes every month is one mortgage payment away from homelessness. I cannot speak to all the mistakes made along the way, but I know of several many faithful members make (because I see them) make which are absolute wealth destroyers. The heathens just do other things with money which are not fiscally smart.

    I see this also, individuals want help making a budget and saving money, but its hard to squeeze blood out of a rock without taking drastic measures. If people are serious about digging themselves out of a financial mess very, very hard decisions need to be made. They really need to ask themselves can I afford to live in the house I live in? do we need two car payments? or even one car payment? maybe I can't afford to live where I want to live and need to move. Do I really need a smart phone? Cable TV? Netflix? Eating out? Vacations? 

    When you break it down to the essentials you can save. Most are unwilling to take the steps necessary to dig themselves out of their hole.

  12. 4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

    Side note: It is interesting to see how, in our minds, "A recent widow" easily turns into "poor little old widow". We all make these mental jumps from time to time. 

    You are correct however you did not provide any context.

    4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

    Yes, my scenario comes from a similar type indecent. Anyone is welcome to insert themselves into this situation and ask, "What would you have done?". Rather, "What do you think the Spirit would have directed you to do?". About 5-6 years ago, the Bishop in a neighboring ward went from conducting meetings one week to deceased the next. He, in his mid-40s, left behind his wife and 7 kids. She was not a little old widow, simply a very recent widow. She apparently had left finances up to her husband. How all the nuts and bolts played out between her and the Stake President is between them. As an ultimate result she was given financial assistance, mortgage being part of it.

    Was she a fool with her money? Was she fiscally irresponsible? I guess one could argue one way or another if they had all the facts and if they cared to. I guess one could argue that the SP was or wasn't inspired to help relieve some immediate suffering on her part through financial assistance, if they cared to. Educating her to the ways of finance, delving into her spending habits, etc., while definitely helpful at a later date, probably wasn't what she needed or was even mentally capable* of absorbing in that exact moment of financial need.

    *She shares about this time in her life fairly openly.

    While I am certain that this was a very difficult time for her, and I am sure that the Stake president followed the spirit and did what was best. There are lessons to be learned. Which I suspect most people can't see. What is your takeaway from her experience? 

  13. 13 hours ago, mrmarket said:

    I see this all the time and you probably also do with the "go fund me" pleas on FB for people who had a sudden death of a family member esp Dad who was the bread winner. At the going rate of about $18K to bury someone on the cheap it isnt a far stretch to say most Americans cannot cover that with any money they have much less what is in their checking/savings. 

    Does no one cremate anymore? You can get someone cremated for around 1k. 

  14. 1 minute ago, NeedleinA said:

    Correct. It depends.

    It depends on how the Bishop, who holds the keys and is the judge (like you mentioned), decides to define short-term shelter.
    Short-term "rent" shelter? Short-term "mortgage" shelter? If there is a distinction between shelters, great, what is it? If there is a policy, official doctrine, that excludes a mortgage payment, as a short-term option please provide it and lets put this debate to rest.

    Let's put it to bed. it is my OPINION that paying someone mortgage is not a good usage of church funds. As I have previously stated I am not nor want to be a Bishop and have to make these very difficult decisions. I do know that missing a mortgage payment will not make you homeless. I think this defines clearly that it is not a short term shelter problem if a member fails to meet this particular financial obligation

    4 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

    Perhaps it is easy to envision a flashy member who needs help paying their mortgage to maintain a lifestyle vs. a recent widow who just used the rest of her liquid funds to pay for a funeral. All the canned goods at the Bishop's store house isn't going to pay her mortgage this month.

    Let's use your example. A recent widow who uses all of her liquid funds to pay for a funeral instead of paying her mortgage. You can't be serious with this can you? Who would be so fiscally irresponsible? The poor little old widow was a fool with her money and now you want to trust her with the Lords?

    7 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

    Like @NeuroTypical, many of us have been clerks and auditors before and our findings tend to harmonize with those Bishops that have met the short-term needs of a member by paying a mortgage payment.

    Like many here I have held those positions as previously stated.  I have seen these items paid and when "asked" offered my opinion/counsel. Sometimes taken sometimes not. Never once have I voiced an unsolicited opinion as a ward clerk or finance clerk at the end of the day the Bishop should heed his own counsel and do as the spirit dictates.

    As a stake auditor I often had very frank discussions with bishops and clerks about the handling of fast offerings. 


  15. 3 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

    Does common sense tell you that paying someone's rent is not a good usage of church funds?

    The short answer is it depends. 

    I can foresee a circumstance where paying someones rent MIGHT rise to the level of good usage of fast offerings. 

    To be clear I am not a judge in Israel nor to I want to be. 

    Questions might be asked. 

    1. When did you know you weren't going to make rent?

    2. Have you depleted your savings (because we should all have a savings account for this kind of thing). 

    3. Have you asked for help from friends and family?

    4. Have you asked for govt. assistance?

    5. What bills did you pay that precluded you from paying rent?

    6. Are you gainfully employed?

          a. Maybe you can't afford to live where you live?

          b. Maybe you are under employed?

         c. Have you taken a second job?

    7. Do you track your monthly expenses? see question 5

    8. What steps are you taking to prevent this from occurring again?

    I am sure there are others but then it is for the Bishop to decide knowing that he is the steward of the funds that his ward doles out (better him than me). 


  16. 1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

    “The Welfare Responsibilities of the Bishop,” Basic Principles of Welfare and Self-Reliance (2009), 7–10


    Paying a mortgage for someone does not solve a short term need because there is no short term disaster impending.  Ergo not an appropriate usage of fast offerings.  Your citation while also dated is also not official doctrine of the church nor best practice.

    I have been a ward clerk, finance clerk and stake auditor. Training or not a simple reading of the handbook and common sense tells you this is not a good usage of church funds.


    Someone prove me wrong.

  17. 1 minute ago, mrmarket said:

    I personally know at least a dozen people who had mortgage payments and power bills paid for by the church. Part of my profession is to help budget. This info was from my clients when determining how to survive the next recession. Also my brother who was a ward clerk in the Midwest wrote dozens of checks for the same thing. Probably not what it was meant for but it is what happened.

    I believe that it is happening, however that is not the intended usage of those funds. Unless you are in an industry and understand how our the  financial system in the United States works I can see how easy it is for bishops to make this error (be taken advantage of), a our clergy receives no formal training so unless someone tells them how things work they might assume that this is a perfectly good usage of church funds. Every time I hear about someone getting their mortgage paid by the church my stomach turns.

  18. 11 hours ago, mrmarket said:

    You should see ypur bishop. In my ward they have made mortgage and health insurance payments for people several times out of fast offerings. That is what it is for.

    That is not what it is for. Your bishop should not be making house payments for anyone. What happens when you miss a house payment in the USA? NOTHING you are not kicked out. Sure the bank is breathing down your neck but that is not your bishops problem.  As Bishop my first question would be what bill did you pay that impeded with your ability to make your mortgage? Same for health insurance. If someone came to me and said they needed help with a health insurance bill I'd have the same issue. If you need help making an insurance payment you obviously can't afford that insurance and need to find a different plan.

    "The bishop provides basic life-sustaining necessities. He does not provide assistance to maintain an affluent living standard."

    "Members who are temporarily unable to provide for themselves may need to alter their standard of living until they are self-reliant. They should not rely on Church welfare to insure them against temporary hardship or to allow them to continue their present standard of living without interruption."