Capitalist_Oinker

I’m not trying to throw cold water on your sentiment, Chaplin, because I understand what you're saying and I agree with you.I just want to address the last sentence in your post. Satan's pronouncement to Eve that "Ye shall not surely die” was obviously a lie, but his pronouncement that "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" can hardly be described as a ruse. According to God Himself, in verse 22, that is precisely what took place. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…" Just thought I'd point this out.

Double time and a half.

I believe you may be reading more into the announcement than what was intended. Ward councils will not be "planning" Sacrament meetings, although they will (should) certainly have more input. In a training meeting for Stake Presidents and Bishoprics I attended over a month ago, bishops were instructed to "counsel with ward councils about their proposed plans for future sacrament meetings." At least one bishop who attended either wasn't paying attention or simply saw an opportunity to relieve himself of some responsibility, because according to one of my co-workers who sits on that bishop's ward council, the very next week the bishop informed the council that they would now be responsible for planning Sacrament meetings. While speaking with the Stake President regarding another matter, I mentioned this to him and he was aghast to say the least. He said he intended on contacting the bishop immediately to put the kibosh on THAT! Bishoprics will continue to be responsible for planning and approving Sacrament meetings, while at the same time receiving input by ward council members regarding speaking subjects, possible speakers, hymns, etc.

Thanks so much, counselor. How much do I owe you for the session? As an aside, I find it curious that you accuse me of being judgmental while at the same time using the words "uptight" and "self-righteous" to describe me. Hypocritical much? You wrote: "Im sure those men left church that day feeling that much more closer to each other as they continued to bond, but you were an outsider and know nothing about their camaraderie. Im not saying that they were in the right, im just disagreeing with you saying that they were in the wrong." Hmmm?? I've read and re-read my post and for some odd reason I can't find the part where I said they were "in the wrong." Would you be so kind as to provide the quote? You wrote: "In 1999 I was serving a mission and the inspired word coming from church headquarters was for us missionaries to teach the discussions word for word, lesson by lesson. That has since changed into gospel conversations that cater to things that are relevant to the investigator. Why? because our investigators are not robots that all think the same and they are not babys that need to be force fed the gospel the way we want them too hear it. Rather to teach them the gospel from the angles that they need to hear it." Wonderful. So tell us some stories of investigators asking questions about the Holy Ghost while you and your companion steered the conversation toward home repairs and John Wayne movies.I imagine your baptismal rate rose significantly when you implemented the new program. You wrote: "Our missionaries started teaching this way, our youth program has incorporated this method and soon our adult programs will." Soon? Nothing like getting ahead of the brethren is there? I can picture it now. Good afternoon brothers and sisters. Today we'll be discussing "The Sons of Katie Elder" and how it relates to eternal families. You wrote: "So those topics that are important, interesting and relevant in our day-to-day lives will soon be discussed in our church classrooms, not as topics of debate or controversy but from a hollistic approach as it pertains to the gospel." Again with the "soon"? I wonder why I've heard nothing about this holistic approach in our bishop training meetings? Perhaps this new program is confidential and only being disseminated to Sunday School presidents, or perhaps you read more into the new curriculum than is actually there. You wrote: "You are correct according to the current curriculum for adults (EQ/HP/RS classes). But for the new 2013 youth curriculum it does allow for hot topics to be discussed and tied into a gospel lesson. Read my #29 post to anatess." I read your post to anatess and I actually didn't find much to take issue with. However, TYING "hot topics" into a gospel lesson is a far cry from TURNING a "hot topic" into a gospel lesson. Maybe I've misunderstood you but it seems to me that you're advocating the latter rather than the former. The two approaches are NOT synonymous. I'm sorry this has turned into a p***ing match between the two of us. I never imagined my original post would generate any sort of enmity. I was merely curious if anyone else here had similar class experiences, and if they were common. As I said previously, based upon the responses it appears not to be common and for that I am grateful. I never once questioned the character or righteousness of the men in that class. For all I know that particular lesson was an anomaly and they did a complete 180° the following Sunday. What I do know, however, is that the Lord expects those who have been called to be instructors to teach the doctrines of the kingdom in purity and in truth. There is no place for substituting lessons for "current events" or "hot topics", unless of course the Spirit directs otherwise, and I'm confident the Spirit won't often direct a discussion about John Wayne movies.

What's the matter, PP, did someone push your trike in the ditch? For whatever reason you seem to have worked yourself into a frenzy over what I consider an innocuous post. First off, I'm not judging anyone. I have no ill feelings toward HPs in Alaska (or anywhere else for that matter), and as far as being "in the boonies" and "slow and laid back" my home ward would give anyone in Alaska a run for their money. Second, your verbal tantrum about my screen name, my standards, Utah being the "true Zion", and hypothetical problems I would have in Japan is just pitiful. You should look up the definition of "cheap shot". I can assure you I have no standards I "expect" everyone else to live up to. My observation had NOTHING to do with the character or righteousness of the men in the class. My amusement and disappointment stemmed solely from the fact that the lesson evolved into discussions of things which provided NO edification whatsoever! I have since looked up and read the lesson (Chapter 12: "Seek the Spirit in All You Do") and I can't find a single reference to tools, home repairs, or disciplining children, much less John Wayne movies. The lesson on the Holy Ghost was established and recommended by inspired men, and I seriously doubt they would consider it acceptable to discuss John Wayne as a substitute. And finally, regarding your post to Gator about the curriculum being "geared more toward open discussion, spur of the moment, hot topic type of teaching"; you would do well to read the introduction to the current MP/RS manual (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson) wherein it reads: "If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare a lesson from other materials. Prayerfully select from the chapter those teachings that you feel will be most helpful to those you teach." You would also do well to read the "Teaching No Greater Call" manual, particularly lesson 14, wherein it reads: "Many topics are interesting, important, and even relevant to life and yet not nourishing to the soul. It is not our commission to teach such topics. Instead, we are to edify others and teach them principles that pertain to the kingdom of God and the salvation of mankind." NOWHERE does the Church recommend or advocate the substitution of manual lessons for current events or "hot topics". Even with the new "Come Follow Me" curriculum for youth with its less structured lesson outlines there is NO advocacy for ignoring the listed lesson to give preference to current events or "hot topics". If in the future your ward substitutes an approved lesson for a discussion about the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, I'll make a prediction--- The Spirit will not be there.

Okay, where did the old "reply" interface go? When I click on the "quote" button it doesn't actually include the quote in my reply, nor are there any of the normal options (fonts, color, bold, italics, emoticons, etc.) Nothing but the option to upload a file. What gives?

"No offense but I think you might be a little uptight..." Well no offense, but I think you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. First off, my 15 year absence has been due to callings which have prevented me from attending HP class, and it will be another two to three years before that possibly changes. Consequently I cannot "get back into the groove of things." Second, I didn't experience a "shock" from attending the class, and your two arguments aren't the least bit illustrative of the problem. It had nothing to do with my not listening or paying attention. I've been around long enough to recognize when the Spirit is present, and if He was present in that class He was certainly keeping a low profile. As I said, 15+ years ago when I attended the last HP class I remember it much the same way. My concern was that the problem may be wide spread, but after reading the previous posts I'm happy to say that it appears not to be the case.

I recently returned from a two week fishing trip in Alaska, and while the rest of you are at church (and I'm unfortunately at work) I thought I'd relate a little story about my visit to a ward while I was there. Because of the Church callings I've had for the past 15+ years I haven't attended a HP group class during that time. Last Sunday I did, and if my memory hasn't failed, not much has changed. The subject of the lesson was the Holy Ghost, and with the exception of an opening statement by the instructor I don't recall the Holy Ghost being mentioned during the next hour. The discussion began with a note about Father's Day, followed by a discussion of Father's Day gifts, which transitioned into a discussion of tools and home repairs, which somehow morphed into a discussion about old John Wayne movies, which mysteriously evolved into a debate about disciplining children. It might sound contradictory, but I found myself amused and depressed at the same time. I should have tried to steer the conversation back to the lesson subject but instead I just kept my mouth shut and watched the clock. Like I said, it's been 15+ years since I sat in a High Priest class, and it seems like it was much the same back then. How does it go for those of you who attend regularly in your own wards?

And on a side note, the question indicates that the Sadducees (while they didn’t believe it) recognized the belief in eternal marriage; otherwise there would be no reason to ask whose wife she would be in the resurrection.

Here is the quote: "When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth."

The Bible, BOM and D&C to be precise.

He was referring to the scriptures.

The problem is that "my settings" only shows up when you're already logged in. I've learned to just keep trying until the log-in finally works. It happens sooner or later; most often later. What's really annoying is to finally get logged in, type out a post, click on the post button, and then discover that sometime during the typing phase I got un-logged in.

I'm embarrassed to say this, but I'd probably be in prison; no doubt for doing bodily harm to a few of God's more bothersome children.

Yeah, what yjacket said. Of course it's easier to feel that way when you live in small town where the weekly police report consists of a couple of dog fights and old man Osborn throwing a pie plate at Mrs. Osborn.

I pretty much agree with Gator on this. As a whole (with individual exceptions) I have positive feelings toward them whether they like Mormons or not.

It appears that once again there are those here who simply refuse to take Joseph Smith at his word. I can't help but marvel at this. When a person believes that Joseph shouldn't be taken seriously regarding the aboriginal Indians being the "remnant" of Lehi's seed, why should anything else he ever said be taken seriously? The standard for some seems to be, "Joseph was a prophet only when he was acting as such, and he was acting as such only when he agrees with me." In a letter to John Wentworth, Joseph described the rise of the Church and a proclamation of the basic beliefs that would distinguish it from other religious factions. It is from this letter that the Thirteen Articles of Faith are canonized, as well as parts of the First Vision and the Joseph Smith History. It was written in his own words and signed by him personally. In it he wrote: "On the evening of the 21st of September, A.D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of Scripture, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance and brightness, burst into the room…in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God, sent to bring the joyful tidings... ...I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of His purposes in this glorious dispensation. I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me. I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country." In 1833 Joseph sent a letter to N.C. Saxton, the editor of a Rochester, New York newspaper, which was written (as Joseph later indicated) "by the commandment of God". In the letter he wrote: "The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians...By it we lean that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them...” In this letter Joseph made it just as clear as he did in the Wentworth letter that the remnant of Lehi were the western tribes of Indians in America. By what measure (aside from being a professor at BYU) can any faithful member of the Church dismiss what he said?

Okay, not so much, now. I am once again having all kinds of log-in problems, and I AM using Chrome. It usually takes several attempts to log in; once logged in I get logged back off for no apparent reason; and many times I seem to be just "half" logged in. My name appears at the top right hand corner as though I'm logged in, but I can't post, "like" a post, or do anything else. At other times my name doesn't appear at the top right hand corner as if I'm NOT logged in, but I can post, "like" a post, or do those things that prove I am. It's all just really goofy again, and exceptionally annoying. Any help would be appreciated.

What's really unsettling to me is that so many "constitutional conservatives" are ready and willing to ignore the document in order to "insure" our safety and security. I'm more afraid of do-gooders in my own government than I am of evil-doers outside of it.

And is this logical? Does it make any sense in regards to "truth". Mormons believe in Christ right along with Catholics, Baptists and Lutherans, but it would be ludicrous to claim that we are all the same religion, and that one of us is as good as the other. Only one of us is "true" or we are all false together.

Hmmm? I state that I don't understand someone, and you clarify my statement be saying that I don't understand someone. Thanks for clearing that up. You wrote: "Despite what so many (in the Mormon Church particularly but others as well) claim about certainty and certain knowledge, there are many who don't feel they may honestly echo the claim--and not for a lack of trying, sometimes over the period of an entire lifetime of seeking to know as it is suggested they ought to." How do you know it's "not for a lack of trying". Simply because they say so? I would argue that when God says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him", He means it. And I believe when he says, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened", He means it. And when he says (regarding the BOM), "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost", He means it. These aren't just "spin the lucky wheel" offers. (Step right up; spin the wheel; see if you get an answer; lots of winners here; step right up). These are promises from a God who cannot lie.

1. I assume you mean “Hagoth” rather than “Hagar”. 2. What evidence is there that Hagoth had to be a Nephite? There were probably hundreds of thousands of full blooded Lamanites living among the Nephites by 55 B.C. Who knows, perhaps Hagoth was one of them? P.S. I agree with you regarding the Jaradites.

But the covenant is CLEARLY attached to the dirt and rocks. (2 Nephi 1:5-7) 5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. 7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes… (Ether 2:7-12) 7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people. 8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. 9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. 10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. 11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. 12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. I could list many, many more like verses. The restrictions and blessings on the "promised land" are NOT specific for a particular people or a particular time in history, but are CONNECTED TO THE LAND ITSELF.

I'll do my best to stick around. And believe it or not, I hope I end up being wrong.

Me too. I love the way he talks along in a measured tone, and then all of a sudden his voice will BOOM when he wants to emphasize a particular point.