askandanswer

Could somebody please clarify for me please, I've never quite understood the difference between making a judgement and forming an opinion. The distinction may be important because making a judgement can be a sin, but forming an opinion is almost a daily necessity.

Pay me and I'll tell you

Hi Pam, sorrry, I won't be able to make April, but don't worry, there's no need to cancel the event, because I might be able to make it for May. Perhaps you could use your mod. powers to shift General Conference back by a month?

Many important elements of the gospel were known, taught and practised by many different organisations, mostly Protestant churches, usually in an incomplete and corrupted form, prior to the full restoration of the Gospel beginning in 1820. These practices and teachings had been around in one form or another since at least the time of Christ. I don't see why its hard to believe that the practices of Masons could fall into this same category. The idea that they date back to the building of Solomon's temple seems to be a bit hard to swallow, but I can see that they could date back to the building of the great Cathedrals in Europe during the renaissance. Perhaps they date back to the same period, and have the same roots, as that period of religious upheaval and the moving of the Spirit on certain key individuals when the bible first started to be made available to the ordinary people.

lol, you're a much better person than me - I'm here mostly for selfish reasons; for what I can learn. However, I will contribute to a post where it looks like the poster is needing assistance and I have something that I think might be helpful

Me too! Watching and learning the thought patterns and how to put a good argument together and how to respond in the same way are some of the things I hope to learn from here.

Question Answer

I thought there was a plan to keep you hidden under the table?

This is probably stretching an analogy past breaking point but its an amusing thought to play with. I just did a quick search on the word savour in the scriptures. There are quite a few that make references to burnt offerings creating a sweet savour for the Lord. There are some for whom the smell of barbecue lamb chops might be a sweet savour, but I don't think this is what the Lord is referring to here. I think He's talking more about the sweetness of the people's obedience and sacrifice. I see some analogies here with the burnt toast. Both the Lord's comment on the smell of the burnt offerings and the husband's comment on the toast are probably not indicative of how they feel about the actual offering that is being presented to them, but is more a response to the act of offering.

How often has a sincerely held belief, or strong opinion that you held been changed as a result of discussions on this site? What was belief or opinion and what was the posting that changed it? Do some posters have a greater impact on our understandings and beliefs than other posters? I'm just curious. To answer part of my own question, I can't say that I've had a sincerely held belief changed yet as a result of my participation on this site, but then I'm only a relatively new user. I think for me the main benefit that I have gained from using this site is an increasing awareness of the need to be very specific in how to word a post, the inadequacy of language, and the examples shown of the sometimes impressive depth of knowledge and ability to structure an argument that some of the users of this site display. I'm continuing to watch the lessons that occasionally take place on how to disagree without being disagreeable as how to deal with strongly opposing views is something that I think I will be able to learn from this site.

Sorry, you're right, I should have done this in my first post. Joseph Fielding Smith (Quorum of the Twelve) The Lord, of necessity, has kept authorized servants on the earth bearing the priesthood from the days of Adam to the present time; in fact, there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.) Even in the days of apostasy, and apostasy has occurred several times, the Lord never surrendered this earth and permitted Satan to have complete control. Even when the great apostasy occurred following the death of the Savior's apostles, our Father in heaven held control and had duly authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers. These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, but they did check the advances of evil as far as the Lord deemed it necessary. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:45) And The apostasy refers to the absence of the kingdom (i.e, Church) of Jesus Christ on the earth. This is not to say that there may not be some who hold the priesthood, but they have no authority or authorization to establish the Church or perform its ordinances. Presidents J. Reuben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee went so far as to teach that the presence of such priesthood holders during periods of apostasy were, in their opinion, a necessity: President [J. Reuben] Clark said something that startled some folks years ago. He said, "It is my faith that the gospel plan has always been here, that his priesthood has always been here on the earth, and that it will continue to be so until the end comes" (in Conference Report, October 1953, p. 39). When that conference session was over there were many who said, "My goodness, doesn't President Clark realize that there have been periods of apostasy following each dispensation of the gospel?" I walked over to the Church Office Building with President Joseph Fielding Smith and he said, "I believe there has never been a moment of time since the creation that God has abandoned the earth to Satan. There has always been someone holding the priesthood on the earth to hold Satan in check." And then I thought of Enoch's city with perhaps thousands who were taken into heaven and were translated. They must have been translated for a purpose and may have sojourned with those living on the earth ever since that time. I have thought of Elijah—and perhaps Moses; for all we know they were translated beings, as was John the Revelator. I have thought of the Three Nephites. Why were they translated and permitted to tarry? For what purpose? An answer was suggested when I heard President Smith make the above statement. Now, that doesn't mean that the kingdom of God has always been present, because these men did not have the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to the world. But these individuals were translated for a purpose known to the Lord. There is no question but what they were here.[1] ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 486 By way of interest,while searching for other sources to support the idea that the Priesthood has always been on the earth I came across this from the ask gramps site. While it is certainly note definitive, and seems to be unsourced, I found it interesting. http://askgramps.org/3967/if-there-are-still-3-nephites-walking-earth-today-this

This quote is interesting and informative but for me it raises many questions which I will respond to when I have a bit more time. All I can say at this moment is that the above conclusion might not be totally reliable as, if it is the case that the Priesthood has always existed on the earth, as taught by President Joseph Fielding Smith and others, then the restoration of the Priesthood in 1829 does not constitute proof of its total absence so a restoration of the church, or of the gospel, would not constitute proof of their absence.

Yes, I would agree that the Savior's church was removed from the earth. Did the gospel go with it, which would seem to constitute a breaking of the promise, or decree, made in Moses 5:59, or did it stay, even in the absence of the church?

I've thought carefully about whether I should make this comment as I don't want to get involved in any kind of arguement about how infertile couples should feel and what they should do, and how fertile couples should respond or not to the feelings of infertile couples. However, after thinking about it carefully, the above part of Char's comment, and I realise its only a part, continues to bother me. I am absolutely opposed to any suggestion that mother's should be given any less honour, respect and recognition than is currently the case. When I see how much work and time and effort and caring my wife gives to our children, I am filled with gratitude and delight that she is so giving and caring and it is obvious to all that as a mother, she is deserving of great respect. My problem with celebrating Mother's Day at church is that it only happens once a year. I cannot imagine a mother, or anyone with intimate knowledge and experience of parenting, supporting the idea that mothers are deserving of any less recognition than they currently receive, or should receive. It doesn't make sense to me that the many mothers in a ward, who spend almost every hour of their waking day, every day of the year, thinking about the well-being of their family and children, should receive less respect than they deserve in order to assuage the feelings of the 8% who have problems with fertility.

I think its a sweet sign of a mature marriage that a couple will often have developed their own sort of language that they only use with each other, and that will only be understood by them. I suspect that many of us, if we think about it, will see such examples of this type of communication in our marriages. Eating the burnt toast is one example of a couple-specific language. Sometimes a simple glance can contain a whole volume of meaning that no one else who sees it will understand.

I think the exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is a clear example of a known unknown. Now that we’ve made some progress towards narrowing down the likely timeframe in which the Priesthood was restored, thanks to ratbag, let’s return to the OP – was it already on the earth when it was restored (and the presence on the earth of John and the 3 Nephites suggests it was, as pointed out by Classylady) and if so, was the church “restored” in the same way that the Priesthood was, ie, was it already here, as suggested by Moses 5:59, although perhaps in the same kind of limited, or secretive kind of way that the Priesthood was. Any answer suggesting that the church was in no way present before 1830 or even 1820 will need to take into account the fact that God promised Adam in Moses 5:59 that the Gospel “should be in the world until the end thereof.” The only way around it that I can see, and maybe this is the right answer, is that the church and the gospel are two separate things and while the gospel may have always been here, perhaps the church has not. Any thoughts anyone?

so additional functions get added as we advance? sort of like speeded up evolution? is this approach consistent with the belief that our resurrected bodies, to which these functions will be added, is pretty much the same as our present bodies, except that our resurrected bodies will be glorified?

Ratbag, thank you for drawing my attention to archive.org, its a resource that I was previously unaware of. I think I will enjoy exploring it.

This is a bit of a side track, but your comment makes me reflect on the question of whether, or how much, agency, evil spirits have. They surely have intelligence, but they fought against the idea of having agency.

A Christian, and therefore LDS teaching given by Christ in Matthew 7:20 states that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” I agree with the other posters who have suggested that you introduce to your family the many good works of the LDS church. You can read up on them here. http://ldscharities.org/pages/annual-report-2013?lang=eng I might even go so far as to suggest that the good works of the LDS church are more numerous, and more beneficial to more people than a whole range of good societal outcomes that organisations committed to a socially progressive agenda might have helped to bring about. When it comes to arguing about who has done the most good, I think that the LDS church would come out ahead of many other organisations or philosophies. As also indicated by some of the other posters, YOU are the fruit that they will see the most of, and will therefore have the most influence on their opinions. They will be watching you and what they see will shape their views. And kudos and congratulations to you for having the faith and courage to so completely change your thinking and outlook. That really takes a lot of humility and faith. I respect you for that and for persisting in the face of such strong opposition. I pray that you can continue to do so.

And Jane, I'm pretty annoyed about the floods we had in Brisbane, Australia in 2012! Try to be a little more punctual please. :)

We teach that the Priesthood was restored to the Earth in 1829 but Joseph Fielding Smith (and others) taught that, “there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.)” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:45). So it would seem that the Priesthood was “restored” to a place where it already existed. We teach that the church and the gospel were restored in 1830. Was the gospel restored in the same way that the Priesthood was restored, that is, was it brought back to a place where it already existed? Or is the word restored being used in two different ways here? The verse referred to here by President Smith, to me, seems to support the idea that it is the Gospel, rather than the Priesthood which was promised to always be on the Earth. Moses 5:59 And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was. Amen.

perhaps try listening to the still small voice, its the best advisor you'll every hear from (sorry, couldn't resist) :)

I think that if an evil spirit, or group of evil spirits can take possession of a person, as occasionally seems to happen, then it would be far easier for them to take control of a few germs, or to influence a group of germs to behave in a certain way. Again, I'm not supporting this idea, I'm just speculating out loud.

After experiencing how unreliable our eyes/perceptions can be now I'm going to have my kids tell me that there room is not really messy, it just looks that way.