omegaseamaster75
-
Posts
2163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by omegaseamaster75
-
-
Of course not. But it is certainly, as we've discussed many times, a duty, and not wanting to fulfill it is a clear indication of a lack of interest in serving according to the Lord's will. Part of the priesthood duty is to be willing to go and do what the Lord would have us do, no matter what that may be, despite out personal feelings. As priesthood holders we represent the Lord by oath and covenant. To take upon that oath means a commitment to do as the Lord wants us to. To have a specific and clear desire to do otherwise would be distinctly and blatantly contrary to that oath. So why take the oath if one is unwilling to live by it?
Why are you so anti-mission anyhow? I've never put my finger on that. Are you just defensive because you chose not to serve one or something?
We do not know that the OPs BF is a Melchizedek priesthood holder so we cannot assume that the oath and covenant applies to him at this point.
I did serve, I am not anti mission, I am anti going on one if your heart is not in to it. I was in a position on my mission were I got to see Elders have to leave early and go home in shame. Either by way of sins committed or a lack of desire to be there. Either way they had one thing in common, they never really wanted to be there in the first place. So now instead of the guy who simply didn't want to serve and went because of peer/family pressure we produced and inactive "return" missionary.
So I stand by what I said. He should not go, no one should go if they are not 100% committed. It is not the only way to serve.
-
So the only way to minister is by serving a mission?
-
Nor do I, I think it is great that this information is being put forth and available to the general public of the church. I think that it is good that the church recognizes that the sources quoted are "reliable".
There is a cloud of mystery surrounding who Joseph Smith was, this pulls back the curtain just a little bit.
-
What is wrong with pro-LDS spin?
Nothing, I think this article has a very pro LDS "spin" to it and that's a good thing for the general body of the membership.
-
The church has no responsibility to full disclosure. The question isn't whether they've disclosed everything. It's whether they are consciously hiding things.
Do you think that they are not consciously hiding things?
-
190 of the 358 hymns in our hymnal come from non Mormon sources
I'd say more than half....that's 53%
-
there was a time when the LDS church worked quite hard to separate themselves from anything that seemed too Catholic (and any other Christian denomination). Some of those things remain cultural, and some remain standards of good practice. Who knows where a song like Ave Maria falls into that.
That can't be true because over half of the hymns in our book are from other christian denominations
-
It's not specifically about whether or not he serves a mission. It's about how he views his priesthood responsibilities, and what that says about how he'll handle the responsibilities of being a husband and father later in life.
I couldn't agree more. I find it refreshing that he is self aware enough to know where the desires of his heart lay. He may grow to desire to serve he may not, it has no bearing on his worthiness as a priesthood holder
-
Nobody is arguing on this thread as I understand that there is something wrong with the song itself. We are arguing why it isn't in the Hymn Book.
This
-
How are any of those spin? Are you suggesting that many details are known that the church is hiding?
Are you suggesting that we as a body of members have received full disclosure from the church about everything?
-
Why can't it just be what it is? The church is within it's rights to sugar coat it a little bit, I agree documentation is sparse there is a lot of hearsay and 2nd hand accounts, this should be and was wisely left out.
I did not say or allude to Joseph Smiths marriages being sexual in nature at all. I did say that the wording of the authors has left reason to think that "some" were.
I personally think that most were not sexual in nature largely due to the lack of issue that would have been produced as a result. There is no record that I am aware of a bunch of Smith jrs running around. That said lets not kid ourselves.
-
Sorry
-
# 23 We ever pray for thee
#114 secret prayer
#145 prayer is the souls sincere desire
190 of the 358 hymns come from non-Lds sources.
-
By asking someone to pray for us are we not asking them to intercede for us? This happens all the time, we believe that the accumulation of prayers will have greater impact than one solo prayer...is this not so?
As far as Mary being dead......our church is ripe with a history of past prophets and angels visiting and offering guidance and direction to our leaders......those guys are all dead too.
-
Some pro LDS spin:
"Many details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown."
"later reminiscences are not always reliable. Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue. Like the participants, we “see through a glass, darkly” and are asked to walk by faith.3"
"Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone." Leaving open the idea that there "may" have been sexual relations, but not admitting it
Tons of Pro LDS spin.
They have addressed the matter leaving big wide open holes in the complete story. I understand this. I really do get it, but lets not pretend that this article has not been combed over with a very fine toothed comb.
-
You keep harping on this, but you're missing the point. It already IS a prayer to Mary as per Catholicism. Therefore, we do not include it.
It's not that complicated.
I read the lyrics like most Catholic prayers they are asking Mary to pray for them to the Father. As a song it is beautiful. We ask others to pray on our behalf all of the time.
I fail to see how Ave Mary should be excluded....
-
As a "hymn" it would not be a prayer to Mary by our definitionHail Mary, full of grace,Mary, full of grace,Mary, full of grace,Hail, Hail, the LordThe Lord is with thee.Blessed art thou among women, and blessed,Blessed is the fruit of thy womb,Thy womb, Jesus.Hail Mary!Holy Mary, Mother of God,Pray for us sinners,Pray, pray for us;Pray for us sinners,Now, and at the hour of our death,The hour of our death.The hour, the hour of our death,The hour of our death.Hail Mary!
-
Ave Maria as a "Hymn" would also be a prayer to Heavenly Father as well by your definition
-
Well, yeah. It's a Catholic prayer to the virgin Mary.
Funny you should mention that since our church considers our hymns prayers as well.....so it's OK if it's Joseph Smith, but not if it's the mother of Christ? -
I guess we can just throw D&C 131 out the window then.
I wouldn't go that far, but how will a sexless, unhappy marriage be judged?
-
I mentioned this in another thread, but I suspect if Ave Marie were in our hymn book people would have a problem with that........
-
What's wrong with celebrating his birthday? We haven't been doing it but I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't mean we worship him. It doesn't mean his birth is anywhere near as important as Christ's birth.
I guess since it is two days before Christmas, we should probably make it especially low-key if we did celebrate it, because we don't want to take anything away from Christmas. But that's all I can see that would be wrong with celebrating it.
We would still celebrate our own or someone in our family's birthday if it's on Dec 23, so what's wrong with celebrating Brother Joseph's?
To those against it, I'm curious if you are also uncomfortable with the hymn "Praise to the Man"?
Not really wanting to debate or cause controversy- but I don't understand the need to hold back our admiration and respect for the prophet of the last dispensation.
Why don't we include Ave Maria in our hymn books?
we exclude this and many other beautiful traditional hymns, but some how "praise to the man" is OK?
-
... maybe i can rule there with a pitch spoon.
I think it's called a Spork
- Wingnut, Blackmarch and Backroads
-
3
-
I would not consider someone for marriage that used serving a mission as a marriage acceptability filter.
There is more to righteousness than if someone serves a mission or not. Are they the type of person striving to progress and improve upon themselves, their faith, and live closer to the commandments of God?
A mission is only one act of many, Certainly a good one, if other actions line up.
If I felt prompted to go on a mission, and marry later (as it sounds you are), I would follow that prompting.
I would not ask him to wait, but to stay in contact, people change, they grow apart or grow together.
You have prayed for him, which is wonderful. Have you tried fasting and praying that you may be guided and comforted in making the best decisions for your life? Seek to follow the spirit. :-)
I would say pray and fast for a confirmation of the decision that you have made. Our agency guides us and we can get confirmation through prayer.
What if you pray sincerely for something, receive it and then change your mind?
in Advice Board
Posted
So I pray for the winning lottery numbers, and I actively play the state lottery. Lets say I win. Did God answer my prayers? Or did I get lucky and chose the correct numbers?
What if I need a new job, and I pray for the Lords guidance and help in getting one. I dust off the resume and hit the streets. In a couple of weeks I get a job offer.
Were my prayers answered? Or did my hard work pay off?
When does "he" step in?