[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

Do you have a source for this?

 

M.

 Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10:206.

 

The guy built a distillery, never sold a drop or produced any so he claims. Have you ever been to the beehive house in Utah? It's been 20 years since I went and the number of wine decanters decorating the place went well beyond recreational usage. Things may have changed since.

 

Is it so hard to believe that our prophets were fallible and made mistakes, that they we encumbered by the plague of a mortal body with mortal weaknesses like we are?

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

So then what did he do to David O Mckay??  The prophet and leader of the Church asked to remove it and God said no...  And for Kimball he said yes...  That is strong evidence (such as it is) for God not remaining silent, and if Brigham ignored God, God had a perfect opportunity to be listened to.

 

Basically  President McKay's account poses serious issues with your claims

Does God change? was it once a good idea and then a bad one?

 

I believe in President McKay's account, I also think that the political climate of the time did not allow for it to take place

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

I have heard this a lot and know many other members believe it, too. But, I have also heard bishops and stake presidents says that many members will be very suprised to learn one day just how much Heavenly Father sat back and let us run the show. I haven't passed judgment on the issue myself yet. I just know how dearly I loved those men who told me that and how much I trusted and respected them.

I am a believer, and I do have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, but I also believe that God lets us choose our path, we have the building blocks, the foundation, the tools necessary to find our way back to him. Those that think that God is involved in our everyday decision making process may be disillusioned to find out that he is not. 

 

If you think that he truly is then ask yourself this: why is there disease? why do people turn from the truth when they hear it? why is there famine, death, murder etc, etc.... the list can go on and on. He "God" lets us work 99% of things out for ourselves

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

I think Brigham Young's personal opinions irrelevant to the question of was Ban fulfilling God's will or running counter to it

I say the ban neither fulfilled God's will nor ran counter to it. I think he either :

 

A: Remained silent on the subject 

 

or 

 

B: Gave Brigham Young direction which was ignored

 

Even the Prophet has free will.

 

Would it shock you if I said that Brigham Young was also an alcoholic?

[Joseph Smith]

Ours is a religion of faith, if the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith was/is a prophet of God. He restored the gospel to this dispensation and with it the authority, keys and power of the priesthood. Through him and only him we find these things. We cannot "prove" anything that however does not make it untrue.

[Which stars are (or were ) Mormon?]

Johnny Miller- Pro Golfer

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

This is God's church and God runs it in spite of the fallibility of men. It doesn't matter how imperfect or perfect men are. It is entirely mistaken, in my opinion, to argue from as stand point that men are leading the church. They are not. God is.

 

Regardless of fallibility, racism, ignorance, weaknesses, etc., etc., this is God's church and it will move forward in the manner that He intends it to.

 

To imply that a serious mistake was made in the policies of the church that was entirely against God's will is a ridiculous idea to me. Is God in charge or not? Is He running things or not?

 

Whatever the political or ethical motivations behind the ban, I have no doubt whatsoever that God intended things to be just as they were.

Does God let us as mortal men make mistakes and allow us to correct them later? Yes

 

Do mortal men lead the church? Yes

 

Was the church led astray from its divine purpose as a result of the ban? No

 

So if the church was not led astray as a result of the ban, is it not possible that God let Brigham Young make a mistake? Or is it not possible that Brigham did not heed the counsel of God? I'm sure that has never happened to a prophet before. Some mistakes are hard to undo and once they become policy are even harder to rectify. 

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

Well lets make sure we are not talking past each other.

 

Saying the ban was put in place because Brigham Young was a racist... Is different then saying the Ban put in place because of the racism in Brigham Young's time.  Both are speculative, but one attacks the character of Brigham Young the other does not.

 

If you want to say the Ban was a mistake done by flawed humans then the burden of showing why God did not correct it belongs to you.  David O Mckay is an example of the Church being ready to correct it and being told to wait.  A case many find unlikely if it was a mistake in the first place.  The idea that we as society became more racist or more intolerant between Brigham Young and David O Mckay is going to be a very hard sell.

do you really think that Brigham Young was not a racist?

 

hmmm...

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

I haven't made a project of reading all twenty-six volumes cover-to-cover as you imply you have; but I am familiar with the sermon you cite.

You may be interested to know that we can date the policy's origin to an eighteen-month-ish period between late 1846 (when Young expressed support for a black elder) and mid-1848. Maybe instead of pointing to sermons given fifteen years later, you should take a closer look to what was happening in Church history at that particular period.

And while Young's racism is pretty low-hanging fruit, I still would be interested in your thoughts as to why David McKay apparently did get a revelation to leave the ban in place at a time when he, of himself would have ended it and had the requisite position in the Church to make it happen.

I am not going to do a lot of research, but the church is governed by men, granted inspired men of God but men, do I think that David O Mckay wanted to over turn the ban yes probably, but if you look at the political climate of the times it was probably a bad move politically for the church to do so, so no removal.

 

You can defend Brigham Young all you want, for me he was a prophet of God but also a man. Men make mistakes and many times when you are in a position of power a mistake is made and a policy is enacted and it takes years or decades to correct that mistake. 

 

I see nothing wrong with admitting that our leaders are fallible, history supports this not everything that the prophet does is inspired of God. 

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

Of course he did. The big question is whether he (or the Lord) thereafter determined that circumstances warranted a change in practice.

And again, the Church's position is we don't know the reason. In this context, a person who claims the policy was "certainly" due to racism is just as out-of-line as someone who attributes the policy to the "curse of Cain" or some such theory. We do know that David McKay, as president of the Church, prayed for permission to rescind the policy and received an expressly negative response; which suggests that the Lord had more of a role in the institution of the policy than many of us are prepared to admit.

Ever read the journal of discourses? I have read it, and when I read it I try to put myself in an 1860's mind set. The country was racist in general and not accepting of our fellow man which lead to this terrible policy. We are derailing the thread but here is a small quote  

 

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” – JoD: vol.10 p. 110: (March 8, 1863)

 

This was extreme thought even for the time period. He certainly could not have been speaking as a prophet when he wrote this.

 

Once you make a policy how hard is it to retract that policy? Especially when you make that policy under auspice of being a prophet of God.....

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

 

The official Church position, of course, is that we don't know why it happened.  We don't know means "we don't know".  It does not mean so-and-so hijacked the Church in order to fit his own sociological prejudices; and while there's no direct and reliable record of Joseph Smith encouraging such a policy, asserting a negative as a "certainty" is often a dangerous proposition.  :)

Joseph Smith ordained Black Elders, this is documented fact. Brigham Young was the president of the church and in charge of policy. It's ok...he was a racist (this is my opinion only) and I am OK with that.

[If you were not LDS what religion would you be?]

Just for fun....I'm not switching or changing anything, but I would be Catholic.

 

 

[Question About Unpaid Clergy]

Right, and my point was that being paid or not paid doesn't seem to be relevant. 

Not when it comes to bad behavior it doesn't, but the level of preparedness shows.

[Question About Unpaid Clergy]

If you consider President Monson and the Apostles and your full-time missionaries as paid clergy because they get a stipend, then Catholic Priests are paid clergy.  What you posted here as salary is synonymous to what you call stipend in the LDS Church.  The basic difference is that, LDS clergy have secular lives (they have the opportunity to gain resources prior to them being called to be full-time clergy) whereas Catholic Priests are called to full-time services the minute they get ordained until they die - which, in most cases, are people who have never set foot in the secular workforce before ordination.  But even if they have money (such as inheritance, etc.) before they get ordained, the ordination requires them to pledge the vow of poverty which means that they release their claim on any treasures they held before ordination.  So that, ALL Catholic Priests do not have a dime to their name when they start full-time priesthood service and are fully supported by the congregation.

 

But, there is a basic difference between what we are talking about as a paid clergy to Pres. Monson and the Catholic Priests who receive a stipend/salary from the congregation for their temporal sustenance (the way the Levites were set up and the way the Jesus' 12 Apostles supported themselves).

 

Paid clergy is payment for services rendered.  What Pres. Monson and the Catholic Priests get is not payment for services rendered.  It is for their temporal sustenance so that they can concentrate on service instead of taking time out of service to provide for their basic necessities.

I agree 100%, my belief is that our leaders should get the essential training to LEAD and GUIDE then if they want to dedicate their lives to the church we provide a living wage similar to the stipend system used for Pres. Monson.

 

I am not saying that our bishops/stake presidents are bad or that they do not call qualified people, however very often it is amateur hour, not their fault but a consequence of not being able to dedicate the time necessary to the calling.

[Official church resources for those who have doubts?]

I will address your other questions when I have time, but on Blacks and the priesthood. As far as I know it was never church doctrine, but rather church policy to not give them the priesthood. There is a difference. 

 

I think it was a travesty and a blight on the church during the period in which it happened, a lot of close mindedness started by Brigham Young. It was certainly never taught by Joseph Smith that the priesthood should be restricted.

 

Were we as members get into trouble, and outside observers as well is that we put our leaders on pedestals. Big high tall ones. When we discover that they were normal people like you and me we become disillusioned. 

 

Joseph Smith was a normal guy just like you and me, he put his pants on one leg at a time, he practiced polyandry, lied to his wife, believed in magic and was a treasure hunter in his youth, swore, and drank. The list goes on and on. 

 

The fundamental question is: Was he a prophet of God? Yes with out a doubt!!

 

We are imperfect individuals, and so was he and so are our current leaders, our religion is a religion of faith. If you can wrap your head around the idea that God communicates with imperfect beings in an effort to bring forth his work and glory none of the extra stuff really matters because it is temporal. Imperfect. Of man.  

[Tons of bad decisions]

Is it against the WoW to smoke an E cig? I am going to say no, so your in the clear on that. The other stuff you may want to discuss with your Bishop.

[Question About Unpaid Clergy]

Because they haven't had any problems with their clergy?

We haven't had any problems with ours? Bad people come in all shapes forms sizes and religions, yes even ours.

[Question About Unpaid Clergy]

Note:  The Catholic Priest is not paid clergy.

OK call it remuneration, they still draw a "salary"

 

Old info, but relevant to the conversation, no one becomes a priest because they want to get rich, they do it because they want to serve.

 

 PRIEST REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS PACKAGE 

EFFECTIVE 1 JULY 2009 THROUGH 30 JUNE 2010 

1. The base salary for active Diocesan or religious priests serving in Diocesan 

parishes and institutions is to be $2,095.00 per month ($25,140 per year). 

2. $10.00 per month for each year of ordination is to be added to the base pay 

beginning with the completion of the first year of ordination. Upon completion of 

the 20th year of ordination, $15.00 per month is to be added to the base pay for 

each year of ordination. 

EXAMPLES: 

A newly ordained priest receives the base pay for the first 12 months of active 

ministry. 

Priests completing 1 year through 19 years of ordination: 

(Number of years ordained) X $10.00 per month. 

This means if a priest has been ordained 19 years, multiply the number of years by the 

$10.00 per month. You would multiply 19 times 10, resulting in an addition to the 

base pay of $190.00 per month. 

Priests completing 20 years or greater of ordination: 

(Number of years ordained) X $15.00 per month. 

This means if a priest has been ordained 20 years, multiply the total number of years 

of ordination by the $15.00 per month. You would multiply 20 times 15, resulting in 

an addition to the base pay of $300.00 per month.

3. The traditional Mass stipend ($10.00 per Mass) shall continue to be offered to 

each priest as has been the long standing custom. 

4. Stole fees for weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc., shall be disbursed at the 

discretion of the priests of the parish. 

5. The monthly amount for living costs is $424.00 per month for priests living at a 

parish, but not assigned to the parish. The department or entity where the priest 

is assigned is to pay this amount to the parish where the priest lives. 

6. The entire amount of the annual contribution per priest to the Priests’ Retirement 

Fund is to be paid by the parish or institution to which a priest is assigned. The 

annual contribution for each priest to the Retirement Fund is $10,250 for 2010, 

up from the 2009 contribution of $9,850. Beyond 2010, however, this amount is 

subject to change after annual review by the Priests’ Retirement Board and 

approval by the Bishop. 

MORE INFORMATION PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET 7. The option of each priest to join the health insurance plan of his choice from the 

options provided by the Diocese of Cleveland Employee Benefits Office remains 

in effect. The parish or institution to which the priest is assigned is responsible 

for the cost of medical insurance less any required contributions or co-payments 

by the priest. 

8. $2,000.00 per year is to be available (on a voucher system) for active priests’ 

continuing education allotment. This money should be used solely for the annual 

retreat, professional books and periodicals, tuition payments in conjunction with 

higher educational pursuits, and internet/electronic technology that is used for 

priestly ministry. $2,000.00 per year is available (on a voucher system) to 

retired priests from the parish or institution from which the priest retired. This 

money is to be used solely for the annual retreat, professional books and 

periodicals, tuition payments in conjunction with higher educational pursuits, and 

internet/electronic technology that is used for priestly ministry. If the continuing 

education allotment is given to a priest for reimbursement of an actual cost 

incurred for continuing education, it is generally not taxable income to the priest. 

The continuing education allotment is to be given to any priest (active or retired) 

who submits the appropriate documentation. 

9. Usual offerings for those who provide extra pastoral assistance: 

 1 Weekday Mass $10.00 + stipend 

 1 Mass on Sunday or Holyday $50.00 + stipend 

 2 Masses on a Sunday or Holyday 

 (on the same day) $75.00 + stipend 

 Confessions $25.00 each session 

 Reimbursement should be made for travel beyond 20 miles (one way). 

10. All other expenses incurred by a priest (for example, car payments, car 

maintenance, auto insurance, personal property insurance, renters insurance, 

fuel for automobile, clothing and other personal items, recreation, Federal tax, 

State tax, and local tax liabilities, family and personal financial obligations, etc.) 

are the responsibility of the individual priest. The parish must not pay or 

reimburse the priest for car payments, lease payments, automobile insurance, 

mileage, or any other personal expense. The parish is not permitted to withhold 

or match Social Security or Medicare tax for any cleric. Diocesan clergy are dual 

status taxpayers. The individual priest is responsible for 100% of his Social 

Security payments. It is a violation of current tax law for the parish to pay or 

reimburse any Social Security expenses. 

 

11.POLICY: There will be an annual adjustment (up or down) to the base salary and 

housing allowance in accordance with the transportation, recreation, other goods 

and services and housing categories of the local Consumer Price Index, All Urban 

Consumers. This shall be computed by the Finance Office and communicated by 

the Chancery after approval by the Bishop. 

[Am I Justified to Leave for Lack of Love?]

 

I agree with the rest of your post, but am a little uncomfortable with this.  Porn use/masturbation by husband and withholding sex by wife is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario.  Yeah, a man who isn't "getting it" from his wife will be sorely tempted to go elsewhere.  On the other hand . . . knowing the way women perceive sex, what woman would want to have intercourse with a man who's been engaging in that kind of crap?

The OP should not engage in those activities, in fact I pointedly asked if he was because it is a turn off and an acceptable reason for being cut off.

[Am I Justified to Leave for Lack of Love?]

Men and women view love form entirely different points of view. A woman wants compassion, trust, understanding, someone to talk to and confide in. Men do not need these things the display of love is in the act it's self. We are wired this way, it's physiological. We need different things from the relationship, my wife needs someone to take out the trash, cut the grass, change the oil, and I need sex....frequently.

 

Sex is a vital part of a healthy relationship, not a bargaining tool, not a "prize" but something that should be shared frequently. The OP counted 3x in one year? UNACCEPTABLE. It's unacceptable bottom line. 

 

Pretty soon we will see a post from the OP's wife about how he is masturbating all of the time, watching porn and having sex outside of marriage, and what a good and dutiful wife she has been and how could this happen how she never saw it coming, we've never seen posts like that before have we?.....I CAN'T WAIT!!

[Struggling with the teaching that there will be polygamy in heaven]

I think that it is well documented that Joseph Smith lied to his wife about many of his marriages, and Emma went to great lengths to prove after his death that he did not practice polygamy, conversely the church at the same time went to great lengths to prove that he did. Did he practice polyandry I think that there is enough evidence to say that yes he did. It would be foolish to think that some of these marriages were not consummated. 

 

He married women as young as 14 and some much older, he was married about 34 times, he was married to Eliza Snow, which stands out as a notable to me. 11 of these women had living husbands. 

 

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that everything was on the up and up in these relationships, he was a man of great power temporally and spiritually. 

 

This should not alter in any way your testimony of Joseph Smith, he still was who he was and accomplished great things in his short life. What we lose sight of as members is that he was still a man, he put his pants on one legs at a time just like me and you. He was susceptible to sin and clearly fell victim to it. We have scriptural references of him being scolded by God for being weak.

 

We fall into the same trap with all of our ordained leaders, they are put on a pedestal and when we actually find out that they are fallible our faith gets rocked..

 

To the OP I do not think that it has ever been "doctrine" that you "must" practice polygamy in the celestial kingdom. There are writing of our leaders were they offer opinions and such but certainly not doctrine.

[Question About Unpaid Clergy]

I think that we should trend towards paid clergy. If and only if for the need to have trained individuals to lead us. In the Catholic church a priest must go to years and years of schooling before he is qualified to lead a flock. This not only includes theological training but temporal training as well. 

 

If our Bishops were as well trained as other paid clergy we would have fewer issues in general. Less turnover, a true commitment to the work not "oh I was called so I guess I better do it". Scripture supports paid clergy so I am a little vague on as to why we do not go this route....

[Severity of Adultery]

Maybe she needs to know that there are other "auditions" and she will take her role a a little more seriously. Just like in work, they bring in the young buck and all of the sudden everyone starts to work a little harder...because EVERYONE can be replaced.

[Severity of Adultery]

First you didn't commit adultery, did you make poor decisions yes!! will you be excommunicated no way.

 

It is obvious to the outside observer that the church still holds sway in your decision making process, go to church it's not hard and after a few weeks it will be a habit. Ignore the people who stare or say things like "long time no see". You still have a testimony deep down inside, grow it. If you have an addiction go to the church addiction recovery program. Don't make excuses just do it. Decide now what is important to you your wife and family or the bottle and poor decisions.

 

Continue in therapy, I am one of those people who wouldn't tell your wife about your indiscretion, but that's me you have to make your own decision on that one.

[Views on non-BSA Scouting?]

The church is involved with scouting as a way to prepare youth to serve a mission. Earning Eagle Scout is secondary to them, do many of our youth earn the rank of Eagle yes, but that it a topic for another thread. The scouting program in the church is an extension of the YM program who's sole purpose is the indoctrination of they youth. LDS scouting and non LDS scouting are two totally different animals.