Capitalist_Oinker

"Haven't been very involved in scouts", you say?? Well, let's see. I crunched the numbers and (not counting actually BEING a scout) I have been involved in scouting for almost 30 years. I have served as a scoutmaster, cubmaster, multiple merit badge counselors, unit commissioner; and COR for the past 14+ years. I have received the Second Miler Award and the District Award of Merit, along with a couple of honor awards. I've also been through almost all of the BSE training including Wood Badge. Contrary to your assertion, I've "been involved in scouts". As far as making the claim that "the Church has a program ready to go that will replace BSA", I never made it. But (with the exception of cubscouts) I do believe the void CAN be filled by the current YM program. As for this... "One of the really excellent things about scouting is that it gives boys challenging goals to achieve. It was one of the last vestiges of the "not everyone is a winner" mentality. Not every LDS boy got to be an Eagle-it had hard measurable objects that had specific goals in mind." ...your experience with scouting is a far cry from mine. While this may be the ideal, it’s hardly reality; at least it isn't in all of the LDS sponsored units that I'm familiar with. I won't question your expertise with community based scouting because I have no experience with it. But with few exceptions, LDS scouts are pretty much either dragged or hand-held through the program. NightSG's post is spot on. The advancement requirements are watered down or flat out ignored, and any scout leader who insisted on strict adherence would be run out of scouting on a rail. I was the ONLY merit badge counselor in the district for backpacking and wilderness survival for quite a few years, and yet I saw numerous boys receive those awards who had never even spoken with me. I once questioned the district commissioner about this and was advised to "not rock the boat". At one time I flat out refused to sit on any more board of reviews because they had become what I called a "conveyor belt operation". The LDS/BSA culture is what it is, and isn't going to change. Whatever BSA "was about" in the past, is beside the point. We deal with the here-and-now, and I maintain that it's time to leave and we can survive and even thrive without it.

You put it in a MUCH better light, and I apologize for being a bit snippy. Thanks.

I don’t feel at liberty to say right now, and if the Church leaves BSA behind it won’t matter anyway. I'll be honest and say that I am personally excited about the possibility of the Church leaving BSA behind. Not that I think BSA hasn't been worthwhile in the past (tremendously worthwhile), and not that I think it will all be sunshine and roses if we do walk away; but I am personally tired of the BSA bureaucracy. The current rules and regulations have been a thorn in my side for some time. Do any of you know how difficult it is to fill positions in a ward now when they have any connection with scouting?Every individual has to undergo a background check before they are allowed to serve. The check can take anywhere from two weeks to a month. So someone moves, someone dies, or someone just decides he/she wants to be released.As a result we need a new YM counselor or a new Den leader or a new counselor in the Primary presidency, etc. We go through the process of finding someone to fill the calling, we issue the call and the individual accepts.The individual then fills out an adult application and we wait for BSA to run the background check. Like I said, this can take anywhere from two weeks to a month. The position remains unfilled while we wait. The Webelos have no leader.The Deacons are without an advisor.The Primary president is short a counselor.According to Church policy we cannot sustain or set apart the individual we have called until we receive word from BSA that the background check is complete.Several weeks later we receive word and the process is completed by a sustaining and setting apart. The individual is then required to complete YPT, which is supposedly available on line, 24/7.Unfortunately IT HARDLY EVER WORKS! Ahem, sorry for yelling. One person's computer has a JAVA problem, another has a problem with their FLASH player, and another has a problem with their browser.Anyway, about the time we finally get the person legally good to go, the Stake shows up and yanks them away to fill some stake calling and we're obliged to start the whole process over again. It really is amazing how much of an impediment the BSA bureaucracy can be when it comes to running Church programs in a ward. For that reason alone I won't shed any tears if the Church decides to cut the ties.

God is certainly hastening His work, but sometimes it appears that Satan is matching Him stride for stride.

While I can't speak for the Church as a whole, I can speak for a couple of wards, and these two wards will have no problem filling the BSA void. Our YM program is robust and working well as I mentioned in my previous post, and I see no logical reason why the other 29000+ wards or branches could not duplicate what we've done.I do have one concern, however, and that is for the cub scout age boys. I’ll admit we don't have a program in place that can fill that void.

You know, sometimes I have a difficult time determining whether you're joking or serious. The above appears to be serious, but I have a hard time believing it's not a joke. Are you actually claiming that the numerous scriptures declaring we are agents unto ourselves are nothing more than sarcasm on the Savior’s part??That agency is a false concept that Satan uses to rule over us?? 2 Nephi 9:28 comes to mind here as I shake my head and marvel.

Well, I blessed a cow not too many hours ago. Of course I blessed it that it would "nourish and strengthen us", but hey.... Seriously, there isn't any Church teaching or policy that I'm aware of that prohibits it, but I would certainly be judicious in performing such a thing.

If we eliminate what we call "saving ordinances" (baptism, confirmation, Melchizedek Priesthood ordination (for men), the temple endowment, and temple sealing), along with a number of non-saving ordinances (naming and blessing a child, dedicating a grave, giving a patriarchal blessing, and preparing, blessing, and passing the sacrament, etc), which most assuredly do need authorization from a priesthood leader who holds the keys; then we are left with such ordinances as administering to the sick, giving father's blessings, and giving other blessings of comfort and counsel. As for these types of blessings your argument has merit. The woman (with the "issue of blood") who merely touched Jesus' cloak never received a priesthood blessing, and yet her own faith was sufficient to heal her. It's certainly plausible that a faithful child (or adult for that matter) could enjoy the same blessing despite a lack of worthiness on the part of one who performs the ordinance, and even apart from one who holds no legitimate authority to perform the ordinance in the first place.

True, but perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to these "blessings" as prayers of faith, since no priesthood was invoked. As to the many instances in history where women gave "blessings", it was almost always because there was no priesthood available at the time.These "blessings" were fairly common at one time, but in 1946, Joseph Fielding Smith circulated a letter to Relief Societies which said:"While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better to follow the plan the Lord has given us [D&C 42:43] and send for the Elders of the Church to come and minister to the sick and afflicted." "And there has been official counsel during the last ten years that fathers who are otherwise unworthy should be doing and/or participating in their children's ordinances." That would depend on the definition of "unworthy", and whether or not he acts as voice. And regardless, the man MUST hold the necessary priesthood in order to participate. The current Handbook 2 spells it out clearly: "As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins. A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice." "I dont know what you mean about can't use the priesthood" I gather from what askandanswer said, the man currently has NO priesthood to use. "And there is no reason he cannot pray for his child in every case." Absolutely.

For many years the Church has stated that BSA is the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. They obviously used the term to denote an organization rather than an office. That is the way I used it. I believe our YM organization is fully capable of transitioning from BSA, and in fact (under current circumstances) I believe we will be better for it. "One of the greatest organizations in American history that stood for moral principles is being destroyed." We agree.

You and me both! It's as though the Church has two different committees issuing statements and neither is talking to the other. And I've already received info from other channels that makes things even more curious. Right now I’m about as confused as I ever hope to be.

I've been involved in the scouting program for longer than I can remember, and am currently acting as the COR in our ward. And I would be happy to walk away from BSA---the sooner the better. I believe the current YM program with an emphasis on "Duty to God" would satisfactorily replace BSA, and in point of fact, for varsity age boys in our stake it already has. We have just three Deacons (in the two wards in town) out of a dozen eligible, who are attending scout camp this week. For a number of different reasons we have seen interest in BSA decline substantially over the past two years. There is absolutely ZERO interest among our varsity age boys. And yet our YM program is thriving. We have regular service projects and activities with the boys planning and conducting them through the Deacon,Teacher and Priest Quorum Presidencies, and we spend a good deal of time focusing on "Duty to God". In the last year we have carried out at least one service project per month, hiked to the top of Wheeler Peak in Nevada, made four temple trips for baptisms, had two trap shoots, held a birthday party for a man who turned 100 but had no family, cooked and served a Thanksgiving dinner to widows and widowers in town, and held numerous smaller activities on Mutual night and some Saturdays. We are currently planning a hike down Hole-In-The-Rock (made famous by Mormon Pioneers crossing the Colorado). I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that at least as far as two Mormon wards in the Utah desert go; we won't miss BSA in the least.

40 days and 40 nights appears to be the limit.

I don't have time to delve into the main discussion here, but I do want to address one aspect of it---- The Adam/God Theory. First, it should be pointed out that in President Kimball’s conference talk he used the word "alleged" when referring to the Adam/God theory having been taught by some General Authorities. Second, let's get a couple of things straight about the J of D from where the Brigham quote was lifted. The Journal of Discourses is NOT a source for official Church teachings and most Latter-day Saints don't study it for doctrinal understanding. It is NOT considered part of the Church curriculum and it is NOT used in Sunday School classes or any other LDS instructional venues. Third, quotes from the Journal of Discourses and other journals from that time period are simply NOT reliable (which is why we don't rely on it for instruction). There were no recording devises back then. The talks given in the J of D are nothing more than what the recorder claimed was said. Some of those doing the recording had training in shorthand, others did not, and in many instances they got things wrong. Many of the entries were even based on second hand reports. Brigham Young corrected numerous entries when they were brought to his attention, but it would have been impossible for him to correct them all since many were never brought to his attention, and many more weren't published until after his death. Also, almost everyone has had the experience of saying something that was misunderstood by those who heard it. The words "that's not what I meant" have most likely been said by every adult in the entire world at one time or another. It's deceptive at best when someone takes an isolated quote by Brigham Young and then ignores a hundred quotes that contradict the first. Considering the number, isn't it a reasonable possibility that the one isolated quote was either misquoted or misunderstood? Point of fact: Here are a several other quotes by Brigham Young in the J of D regarding Adam. "So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." "Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?” "The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here." "The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." So, from above quotations, we learn several important things regarding Brigham Young's views on Adam. First, God created Adam. Second, since Adam did not understand the works of God and received revelation from him, then God has superior knowledge to him. Finally, Adam was one of God's children It should be obvious that Brigham Young believed Adam and God are not only separate and distinct personages, but that Adam has a lower station than his Father in Heaven. I could quote a great many more statements just like these by Brigham Young regarding Adam, while there is only one quote by him referencing Adam and God as the same being. In a ministry lasting over forty years, he only talks that way once (possibly twice, but that quote was third hand); so isn't it entirely possible that: A. He was misquoted Or B. We just don't understand what he was trying to say? It seems obvious to me that weighed against scores of other quotes similar to the ones I mentioned, the isolated Adam/God statement falls into one of the above categories.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe the issue here isn't one of unworthiness, but rather a lack of authority. This is apparently the case based upon the statement: "This brother cannot use his Priesthood at this time." I assume (and askandanswer can correct me if I'm wrong) that this brother is under some sort of disciplinary measure which deprives him of exercising his priesthood, hence he has no authority to do so. Under conditions of unworthiness an ordinance may still be valid, but lack of authority makes ANY ordinance invalid. This appears to be the case here.

They call it the Aaronic Priesthood, and it's been around a lot longer than BSA. The Church and its youth will be fine.

TFP is correct. A father's blessing is a priesthood ordinance, and as such it has to be invoked by the authority of the priesthood. The principle is laid out in "Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part B". Speaking of the ordinance it reads: "...giving father's blessings do not need to be authorized by the presiding authority. A man is authorized to perform [this] ordinance if he holds the Melchizedek Priesthood and is worthy. In addition it reads: "Fathers and others who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood may give blessings of comfort and counsel. Fathers may give their children blessings on special occasions such as when the children enter military service or leave home to go to school or on missions. A family may record a father’s blessing in family records, but it is not preserved in Church records. To give a father's blessing or other blessings of comfort and counsel, one or more worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders place their hands lightly on the person's head. Then the priesthood leader who gives the blessing: 1. Calls the person by his or her full name. 2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. 3. Blesses the person as the Spirit directs. 4. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ. Obviously he can do what he chooses, but as far as the ordinance being recognized by God and ratified by the Holy Spirit, the blessing would have no validity.

The Church has been wrestling with this decision for at least a decade because it was an almost certainty that the State would eventually, either through collusion or coercion, acquire the land and develop it.When I visited the ranch in 2008, Erik (the ranch manager) took me on a tour of the land now in question. He explained that the land had little value as far as ranching or farming (in fact there wasn't any of either going on at the time), but that it had tremendous value as far as residential and commercial development. He said the State was determined to see it developed one way or the other, and the Church was determined to maintain some level of control so as to minimize the impact to its ranching and farming operations. As he said in the recent Tribune article: "Population estimates for central Florida through 2080 project expansive growth — and that growth will likely include ranch property and resources. As ranchers, we know how important it is to plan ahead. We're not developers, but we expect to be fully involved in what the ranch will look like over the next 50-60 years.”“Our plan is to maintain our agricultural operation for the long term. Generations from now, Deseret Ranches will still be doing what we love – growing food and caring for the land. But, as a major property owner in this region, we also feel a responsibility to work with local governments and other stakeholders in the area to understand and shape how the property will fit into the larger context of expected growth. As growth heads our way, it's important we identify and deal with forces that will impact the property to ensure the ranch can meet its long-term objectives, while assisting the region in dealing with pressure on resources like land and water." In other words he was just reiterating what he told me seven years ago. We see the writing on the wall; The State will eventually win out;Since development is inevitable we plan on being a player so as to minimize any adverse impacts to our ranching operations. It was a gorgeous chunk of land supporting a tremendous amount of wildlife, and I find it extremely sad that it will all be lost to concrete and asphalt.But that's the world we live in.

If you’ll re-read two posts in this thread (estradling's and Daybreak's) you’ll have all the correct info and necessary advice you need. To reiterate what they said:1. You must receive approval from the bishop in order to have the ordinance recorded.2. There is no "requirement" to have more than one man bless and name a child any more than there is a "requirement" to have more than one man anoint and bless a sick person; but that is the way it is done unless circumstances preclude it.3. One reason it is done that way is because (as Daybreak pointed out) it is wise to have an experienced priesthood holder present who can offer corrections in wording should the need arise, which, I might add, happens regularly. Take estradling's advice--- "express your concerns/desires to your Bishop and then follow his counsel."

In order for a man to serve as a bishop he must be married. If a man is divorced or widowed while serving as a bishop he will be released as soon as it is feasible to do so. The First Presidency always has the option of making exceptions but I know of no credible examples. As for a gay man serving as a bishop, I believe the above answers that question.

The scripture ("And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...") is unambiguous. In addition, there are several Church manuals which expressly state that only half of Satan's claim (you shall not surely die) was a lie; the other half (ye shall be as the Gods, knowing good and evil) was true. I stand by my statement.

I understand your meaning. Thanks.

JAG, can you provide a reference? I know of no such policy and I cannot find it in any Church publication including the "recommendation for new bishop" form. I'm not suggesting your claim is false, I'm just wondering if you have a reference? Sometimes these things fall under the category of what President Packer used to describe as the "unwritten order of things".

This of course would only apply in the absence of repentance. "The other reason is because of the Church's policy that no person who has been divorced can hold a leadership calling, nor can he be ordained as a High Priest after being divorced." There is no such Church policy.

I believe the words of Elijah apply here. "How long halt ye between two opinions?" Do you want an answer or don't you? Make up your mind, because until ALL of you wants one, you'll never get it. I don't mean to sound harsh, but until you SINCERELY want to know; until your motivation is to discover the truth NO MATTER the consequences; until you pray with REAL intent; God isn't going to give you an answer. Except in very unusual circumstances, It just doesn’t work that way.