Daniel2020
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Daniel2020
-
-
Does socialism lead to a decline in religion?
No. Just look at First Century Christians in both the Old World and New World who "had all things in common."
What leads to a decline in religion today is the culture of 20th/21st Century.
BTW, speaking as one with a MBA the true meaning of words such as socialism and communism are not well understood by many in the Church. A "Zion people" who have "all things in common," a people who are living the United Order, etc. are practicing economic socialism, economic communism, etc. Call it what you will its common denominator is the de facto communal ownership of goods and services where the "haves" support the "have nots."
-
An unsolicited comment: It would seem that a couple that can have a rational discussion about tithing should be able to reconcile their marital differences.
-
As a former Bishop with a MBA let me address both the letter and the spirit of the law:
The letter of the law is that tithing is something that needs to be paid once, not twice. A child receiving an allowance, a college student support by parents, etc. is not required to pay tithing on money received if the parents have already paid tithing.
I see two easy solutions:
1. The spouse paying the alimony can "deduct" it when computing gross income as strictly speaking it's not part of his increase.
2. The spouse receiving the alimony does not need to pay tithing if the money has already been tithed.
Now for the spirit of the law: Be as generous in calculating your tithing as you want the Lord to be in calculating your blessings.
-
Members are supposed to attend the ward which corresponds to their residence. Most Stake Presidencies have had to deal with members who refuse to attend the ward they belong to; they are denied temple recommends and callings.If you tell me that you all go to the same ward, then just switch to another ward. Simple as that. There's no church 'law' that says you can't and I've never heard of anybody being 'church disciplined' because of it.
Permission to attend another ward cannot by granted by the Bishop; only the First Presidency can grant such permission. (I suspect they would grant it in this situation--but that's only my guess.)
-
Luke 8:2 indicates that Christ cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene.
Most churches believe she a prostitute or the woman taken in adultery where Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There is no scriptural basis for such beliefs.
There is no scriptural record stating Mary Magdalene was Christ's wife. However, the scriptural record indicates Christ appeared to her--and to her alone--before ascending to his Father in Heaven. Can you think of any reason/relationship other than that of husband and wife that would account for such an act? Or for any reason/relationship she could have with Christ other than that of marriage that would make recording her testimony of his resurrection so important. Finally, don't forget that women are seldom named in the Bible and when mentioned in the Bible it is usually in the role of a wife or mother.
-
Report any offenses to law enforcement. Contact his parole agent about violations if he's on parole.
I'd talk to the mother. It probably won't do much good, but she should know (1) what her son did and (2) how it has hurt your daughter and others.
Talk to the Bishop. Gossiping is un-Christian behavior and he should counsel the mother. If that doesn't work then talk to the Stake President. And if that doesn't work write a letter to the First Presidency.
If you can prove slander then bring a civil suit against the mother.
I doubt you can get a restraining order against the mother, although that would be great if she doesn't stop gossiping. You should be able to get a restraining order against the offender.
Moving--if possible--would probably help.
Good luck.
-
Within the past half century or more, the Church has remained neutral in political contests. It limits its political comments to what it considers moral issues (such as when it has opposed various proposals to create lotteries.) During these years the Church as issued many statements similar to the one that follows.
The First Presidency issued the following on October 28, 2003, which was read in sacrament meeting.
To: General Authorities and the following priesthood leaders in the United States:
Area Authority Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops; and Branch Presidents
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
Statement of Political Neutrality
(To be read in sacrament meeting)
As we have done in recent years, we reaffirm the policy of strict political neutrality for the Church. The Church does not endorse political candidates or parties in elections, nor does it advise its members on how to vote. Likewise, Church facilities are not to be used for political purposes.
Church members should study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully and then vote for those they believe will act with integrity and will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government.
Members are encouraged to participate as responsible citizens in supporting measures and candidates that strengthen society morally, economically, and culturally. They are urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them more wholesome places in which to live and rear families.
Political candidates should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders. Church directories or mailing lists should not be used for political purposes.
Sincerely your brethren,
/s Gorden B. Hickley
/s Thomas S. Monson
/s James E. Faust
[The First Presidency]
-
Yes, I'm sure of that. His fax pau was was very much a cause celebre in its day. (It was very much a slap in the face of Hugh B. Brown, a Democrat and member of the First Presidency.)I know Benson was on-record saying this about communism/socialism; I've not heard any statement he made regarding the Democratic party per se. Did Benson really state that there was no such thing as a good Democrat, Dan?
I'd love to see the source on that.My copy of it was lost by movers. If you do some digging in The Salt Lake Tribune archives (towards the end of David O. MaKay's presidency) you'll find articles about it. I doubt, however, you'll find anything about it in biographies about Ezra Taft Benson, as it was one of his fax paus his supporters conveniently overlook. (More than once he made a political remarks that embarrassed the Church.)
-
It is to help us reach the Celestial Kingdom. Which comes from obeying the commandments and strengthening one another.What is the point of Conference if it does not teach Church doctrines? Why are we told to listen to the ordained mouthpieces of God if what they say does not matter?
I did not say not to listen to General Authorities. What I'm trying to help you understand is that not every single word they utter is doctrine and they are not infallible. (As when Joseph Fielding Smith said man wouldn't land on the moon.)
If you think "they can do/say no wrong" you're setting yourself up for a spiritual fall. What happens to your testimony when you find general authorities disagreeing with each other. See my above example regarding evolution. Or how Talmage and McKonkie disagree about who appeared to Nephi.
General Authorities are indeed prophet, seers, and revelators--when speaking in that capacity. But most of their comments are those of counsel made by very righteous men.
Also, as I said above, the Church has adopted a procedure so that members can be sure what is official doctrine. It is announced by the entire First Presidency and often with the concurrence of the Quorum of the Twelve.
As a final example, don't forget Sidney Rigdon (the First Counselor in the First Presidency) who said in General Conference that he was supposed to lead the Church following the death of Joseph Smith. He wasn't. Thanks to the Holy Spirit the membership understood he was wrong--even though he said it in General Conference.
-
Correct! One of these days I'll get stronger reading glasses.You did mean expectations correct?
-
No. Nor should we have unrealistically high expectations.should [we] have low expectations of people we serve with.
We are all human, with failings and imperfections. The demands in raising a family and financially providing for a family create obligations that come ahead of serving in Church callings. As well as limiting the time and resources a person has to devote to a calling.
Our exceptions should be reasonable. Neither too low or high.
-
Your understanding is incorrect. See my above post, especially the part about how Church Doctrine is promulgated.Thank you. This is my understanding as well.
--------------
BTW, I'm a member in good standing. I've held many callings in the Church, including one in a Stake Presidency.
-
Not true.I would like to point out is that all talks in conference are written then approved before hand by the First Presidency. Therefore we do not have to second guess if an Apostle is stating something incorrectly for it has been pre-approved by those with authority...We are safe to say what is said at conference is the Churches position on any given matter.
Under the rules of logic to disprove this statement I need only cite a single example. I'll cite three:
--LeGrand Richards was instructed not to prepared remarks. He spoke extemporaneously and without a time limit.
--When LeGrand Richards invaded the time Dalin Oaks to speak Oaks offered impromptu remarks beginning with, "As I fold my notes..."
--Do you really think the First Presidency approved J. Golden Kimball's famous remark in General Conference, "Heber, I can't see a damn thing?" Or the other profanities that escaped his lips for which he was so well known?
At a more substantive level you'll find remarks made by in General Conference by James E. Talmage and John A. Widsow regarding evolution to be at odds with those made in later years in General Conference by subsequent Apostles.
Statements made by a single General Authority--even in General Conference--are not official Church Doctrine. When the Church makes a doctrinal statement it comes in the forum of a statement--often a letter read in Sacrament Meeting--that is issued by (and signed by) the entire First Presidency. Often--as in the case of the Priesthood and temple ordinances being available to Blacks--it will also be signed by all members of the Quorum of the Twelve.
-
There are numerous superficial similarities. However, the primary focus of the Nation of Islam is political whereas that of the Church is spiritual. One primarily seeks to improve man's lot in this world, the other in the next world.
-
Ezra Taft Benson (a member of the John Birch Society) was a ultra right wing, conservative Republican who had trouble separating his political beliefs from Church Doctrine. On more than one occasion the First Presidency had to issue statements correcting him. (Many church members believed he was send to preside over European missions to keep him out of the political spotlight.)
To cite a single example: at a Republican fund raiser he made a comment to the effect that a person could not be a Democrat and member of the Church in good standing. The following day the First Presidency issued a statement that members of the Church could indeed be Democrats and members in good standing; they further noted that members of the First Presidency belonged to both the Republican and Democratic parties.
While President of the Church he did a masterful job of refraining from making political comments. Notice how his Conference talks had themes such as reading the book of Mormon instead political themes.
Melchizedek, who was he?
in Jewish Beliefs Board
Posted · Edited by Daniel2020
Do you really think Paul was saying Melchizedek was a person without a birth and death? Or that he didn't have a father, ancestors, etc?
Paul is contrasting the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood. Linage determined who could and could not hold the Aaronic priesthood (descendants of Aaron and the tribe of Levi). In contrast, there is no linage requirement to who can hold the higher, Melchizedek priesthood. He does this to show that now that they are living under the Melchizedek priesthood--not the Aaronic priesthood--they no longer have to observe the Law of Moses.