omegaseamaster75
-
Posts
2163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by omegaseamaster75
-
-
Has anyone ever seen pictures from WWII concentration camps run by the Germans?
Ever see any fat people?
eat less and exercise more don't complicate it.
-
The sexual abuse thread got me thinking.
I believe when converts are interviewed for baptism they have to answer questions about serious criminal convictions. If they answered honestly that they were a convicted pedophile but had served their time and are obviously now free. Will they be given callings with children?
Also if the bishop knows a member is a convicted sex offender can they be restricted in their callings? I trust the leadership but when it comes to the safety of my son I will never trust any one 100%. Are there background checks on youth leaders etc?
1. No, the church must comply with local law regardless of an individualsr standing in the church. They should not be given callings that conflict with any legal issues.
2. Yes a bishop can restrict callings and in fact may be required to do so by law, to my knowledge the church does not conduct background checks on youth leaders...I think that it would be a good practice to start.
-
That is sick and wrong. To blame her for her past??? Are you condemning her to a life of being single because of the misfortune of not being born into an "ideal home"?
In other words you would condemn her for someone else's sin? Sick and wrong.
* I'm off to find the "ignore" button
Sick and wrong? To be selective in who you choose to make your eternal companion?
Life in general is very difficult, family issues are and should be a HUGE red flag. If you know about it why would you not choose to avoid it? Just like driving down the road if you see a pot hole you go around it if you can no one says "I'm going to aim for that pot hole and see what kind of damage I can do to my car"
No I am not condemning her to a life of being single I am sure there are plenty of guys out there who will want to marry into a problem. Maybe SHE can resolve her family issues and not involve a boyfriend who has to "save" her from her terrible life. She has a responsibility to herself and future relationships to get this worked out.
The OP has been given good advice on how to deal with the FIL, I gave my opinion and what I would do he is free to choose his path.
-
Age shouldn't matter, find out the going rate for the type of work you want done. For 5 hours a week worth of gardening etc, I'd say $50-60/week
-
how comfortable would you be facing the lord at his judgement bar when he asks you what youhave done to your fellow man, knowing you've helped contribute to others drug addictions and health problems, while you knew what you did ultimately would end up harming people?
that's who you are going to face ultimately. not us.
And quite frankly thats probably something more you should ask the god about in prayer, fervently until you do get an answer.
Do you really think that he will be judged based on this line of work? The guy is not in the porn industry...
If a card carrying LDS member is a bartender to provide for his family will the Lord put that in the negative column on Judgement day?
-
"After decades of studying LDS doctrine concerning women (and carefully distinguishing it from LDS cultural understandings and practices, which in quite a few cases contradict that doctrine)"
I wonder what cultural understanding and practices she is referring to?
She lays heavily into equality and while I agree that fundamentally the gospel teaches this principle sometimes it is not always obvious. I think that her view on the fall is acceptable, sure she sugar coats it but the point of the article is not an indepth discussion of the fall.
-
Form handbook 1
Observing Sealings of Living Brothers and Sisters
To observe their living brothers and sisters being sealed to their parents, children under the age of 21 must be born in the covenant or sealed to their parents. In addition, children ages 8 and older must be baptized, and males ages 12 and older must hold the Aaronic Priesthood. If children do not live the majority of the time in the same house as those who are being sealed, First Presidency approval is required for them to observe the sealing.
Members who are married or are 21 or older must be endowed to observe such sealings.
I assume this includes adopted children as they by law are leagally brothers and sisters in the new family
Adopted or Foster Children Who Are Living
Living children who are born in the covenant or have been sealed to parents cannot be sealed to any other parents unless approval is given by the First Presidency.
Living children who are legally adopted and were neither born in the covenant nor sealed to former parents may be sealed to their adoptive parents after the adoption is final. A copy of the final adoption decree should be presented at the temple; a court decree granting legal custody is not sufficient clearance for a sealing. There is no obligation to identify the natural parents of these children.
First Presidency approval is necessary for a living member to be sealed to foster parents. This requirement applies even if the natural parents of the foster child are unknown and cannot be identified by reasonable effort. Such requests are made by the stake president.
-
-
I wouldn't stress over it, these things do happen for a reason, but there is no divine purpose behind it. Bureaucracy and government efficiency are the reasons, politics plays a large roll also.
You are not unworthy, it's not because you lack knowledge, it just is. Relax, serve locally if you want to and be patient
-
Why even tell your wife, Emma didn't know about half of Josephs wives, easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
-
TFP we are going to have to agree to disagree, I have made extreme statements in a effort to get my point across. If they have come across as offensive to anyone I apologize.
You like me have made up your mind as to the direction you want to live your life in accordance with your beliefs in the gospel, I have also done so (mine don't happen to include wearing a white shirt).
I can argue your points back but I will not.
I have no "agenda" only that when we look at a person it is not based on what he is wearing or by what sins/ baggage he/she carries with them as many in the church are prone to do.
-
Yeah, you're all right. Forget I posted this. I have to be myself and if that means I follow a different path than the church, then so be it. There are other ponds out there for me to swim in.
It's a good church and I am glad to see so many good people come from it.
Toodle pip and cheerio, my good chums.
You don't have to follow a different path, you can still be yourself in the gospel. Friendships are developed over years, If you believe the church to be the one true church you need to stick it out. develop friendships outside of church. This will provide excellent missionary opportunities for you. Develop a hobby or skill, people leave the church because they don't feel socially accepted. Don't be that person be your own person.
-
I honestly don't know how to respond to you two. If you both hate the General Authorities so much, think they're uninspired, foolish, old, culturally biased men, then what are you doing here? Is your objective just to tear the church down and start an uprising? If you have no sense that these men are lead by God then move on. I have no interest in arguing with people who just don't believe. Your belief is your own business. I'm not going to argue with you on it.
As for me, I believe the General Authorities are led by the Spirit.
Neither one of you seem capable of understanding sarcasm. And mrmarklin, my cultural bias is irrelevant. We're talking about whether you believe the General Authorities to be culturally biased. Your bringing up my cultural bias is a nice dig. Way to go.
Not really relevant though.So, go ahead. Pierce your ears and other body parts, wear your pink and blue shirts to church, get tatoos, go into debt, don't store any food, down all the addictive substances you want, and don't do your hometeaching. Who's stopping you?
1. I clearly understand sarcasm "from your mouth to Gods ears" sounds like a pretty sarcastic remark that I made which you took to heart......honestly I'm surprised that someone who understands sarcasm as well as you didn't pick up on that.
2. For the record I never said I do not think that the GA's are not inspired men. I believe that they are led by the spirit that the prophet leads and guides our church through direct revelation from Christ. I am a believer.
3. It is the holier than thou attitude that I take issue with. It demonstrates a key issue with poor retention numbers and why people fall away from the church, or come to church and feel judged. Somehow my not wearing a white shirt makes me less worthy? or if i choose to get a tattoo, or pierce body parts it makes me less eligible to participate in the church? Yes we have been counseled against these things but people are free to make their own decisions. What if I have a smoking problem or drinking problem? what if I do drugs? Should I not be welcome? Who is the church for if not these people?
4. Cultural Bias is relevant how could it not be? Unlike you I choose not to stick my head in the sand and deify our leadership. Our prophet pulls his pants on one leg at a time, when he goes to the bathroom it stinks. Is he the leader of our church? YES do I try to follow his teachings sure I do, and when he says all members must wear a white shirt to be members in good standing guess what....I'll probably wear a white shirt.
-
Right. Cultural bias. They aren't led by the spirit or anything. Just a bunch of rich white guys in suits who don't understand.
From your mouth to Gods ears.....
I can, I suppose list the number of times a GA has put his foot in his mouth, or given poor or incorrect council but what would be the point. The church does not offer apologies or retractions. I am fine with this, as we are also taught to use and exercise our own free agency to humbly pray for our own answers and to seek out our own personal revelation.
-
And while we're talking about Pepsi and beards, I will also declare each and everyone of you to have a wrong understanding of the WoW.
98.9% of members do not understand WoW
-
Handbook 2 20.4.1: Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.
In reading the whole section this particular part is in reference to the administration and blessing of the sacrament. We can argue about the requirement and should's and shouldn'ts regarding wearing white shirts for this particular portion of our meetings but we have beat that horse to death.
I think what I really am asking is why the pressure for a "regular" member to wear one? Let's say for the sake of argument that I agree that white shirts should be worn to pass and administer the sacrament (I don't but lets pretend I do so we can further the discussion). What about giving a priesthood blessing? Confirming the Holy Ghost? Giving a talk in church? Teaching a class? Home teaching? If your a Bishop of stake president is it a requirement?
-
Omegaseamaster... if it doesn't matter what color shirt you're wearing in the administration of the sacrament, etc., it wouldn't be in the handbook AT ALL.
The overriding point is that it does not matter at all. It is in the handbook because there are members that think that it does matter.
I served my mission in Mexico the only people with white shirts and ties were the missionaries, sacrament was passed, priesthood ordinances were performed with the same affect as if a white shirt had been worn. While recommended it is not required.
For the record I work in a place were dress shirts and nice slacks and shoes are mandatory. I personally own many nice dress shirts and can say that white shirts are cheaper than colored shirts.
-
Really? "Ties and white shirts are recommended" does not mean "should be worn"? You think reading it that way is bias, huh?
O...kay.....
It either says it or it doesn't you tell me
-
Clearly your reading it according to your interpretation, it does not say "recommended unless there is a good reason not to" it does not say "SHOULD" be worn. In fact it says they SHOULD not be required as a mandatory prerequisite to participate.
Your point is not clear it is clouded in a cultural bias.
I don't have to have a reason righteous or otherwise because it is not a requirement.
-
Openly flouting an apostle's (or a group of apostles') recommended course of action based on nothing more than "you're not authoritative, and I don' wanna, and I don' haveta, and I'm not gonna" may not be rebellion. But it's kinda snotty, if you ask me.
"Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate." Maybe you read the quote from handbook 2 differently than I do? Does it seem odd to anyone they they even had to mention the topic?
My Priesthood is not diminished, I am not less worthy, I am not less eligible to participate in the church because I won't wear a white shirt. It's not snotty, it's not rebellious. It's I'm tired of hearing that it's a requirement.
-
I would do it. A difficult law to be sure, I would allow my wife veto power I guess over who I married.
-
Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?
sure but it's all hearsay :)
-
I can us the topical guide also what you are missing is Context
Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.”15 This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for
the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”1715 Brent L. Top, Larry E. Dahl, and Walter D. Bowen, Follow theLiving Prophets (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1993), 118. 16 Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: DeseretBook Company., 1974), 162.17 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers toTough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company,1998), 213–214. -
It is a prophet's opinion and/or suggestion. Not just some guy off the street's. We are constantly taught to follow the prophet -- a principle that is, decidedly, doctrine -- and that going against the living prophet's counsel will surely bring us to ruin.
Not every word uttered in General conference should be taken as doctrine. I do not think our prophets want to have "follow the leader" mentality in the church. I believe that the gifts held by our Prophet, those of being a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator are manifest under under special conditions. I think that many members of the church give to much credence to the talks given in Conference, and are to quick to claim that since a GA said it, it must be doctrine or something that we must do.
Not really relevant though.
What to do about future father in law
in Advice Board
Posted
Why would you take this so personally? This is not an attack against you or your life or your troubles or issues, everyone has choices to make in life. Who you decide to marry is one of them. You can argue one of the most important and biggest ones. Did you marry the first guy who came along? Heck no you were selective and so was he.
All I am saying is that when making such an important life decision you need to choose what is important to you for eternity.
The OP is going to marry this girl and that's fine its his choice and his life. I think I am the only one who thinks its a bad idea to marry her, so I guess may be mistaken.......I