f1lbr

Nice strawman. Of course, God's physical height is not an example of what I was talking about and isn't a gospel principle. Look, let me give it to you another way. When we tell children that they'll live with mommy and daddy forever, you and I both know that what they understand that to mean is not what it really means. But we teach it to them and let them understand it in a simplified manner because that's what they're capable of understanding. The broader truth of that principle is something they will figure out as they mature. The gospel is similar. We understand things with a limited capacity. The spirit teaches us as our capacity grows. The "mysteries" is nothing more than the deeper and more profound knowledge of the "basics". That's part of the reason for the danger is seeking out the "mysteries" while ignoring the "basics"; you're likely to find something that is not founded on the "basics". Now let me give you a clear example of this. D&C 19 reveals a "mystery" (and even calls it that). Namely that there is no eternal torment or eternal damnation. This isn't "faith, repentance, baptism, gothg". It's a bit deeper than the "basics". One can argue that that little tidbit of knowledge isn't relevant to our eternal salvation. Yet apparently the Lord felt it was worth revealing.

While I agree with your first statement, I believe the portion highlighted is erroneous. I believe it would be more correct to state, 'Those who concentrate on any gospel principle to the exclusion of the "basics" of the gospel are looking beyond the mark and are in danger of losing their exaltation.' Consider, for example, this quote by Joseph Smith: There are numerous others that are also of relevance to which we are encouraged to gain knowledge. However, in none of these are we command to only gain knowledge of the "basics" of the gospel. Spoken of in another way, if there are "basics" of the gospel then there are "non-basics" of the gospel and if they are true principles of the gospel then are they not worthy of study and understanding? The area where many people have gotten into trouble in "advanced" topics comes from two places: 1) Advanced topics are generally taught through personal revelation and not through a person's own personal reasoning. Reasoning may be involved in the process, but ultimately revelation is the governing principle. Advanced topics are not taught in Sunday School or through General Conference. They are to be received through personal revelation. As personal revelation, these things are not to be shared. They're personal. And once shared the spirit is grieved and withdraws and opens the person up to false revelation. When you hear someone "sharing" so-called "mysteries" you know that invariably they are on the wrong course: either they have not received revelation on the subject or they have and are in error for sharing personal revelation. 2) Leaving behind the basics of the gospel. This invariably causes troubles for those who are seeking, shall I say "too hard", after mysteries. The basics of the gospel are the fundamentals and the foundation and when one leaves those safe foundations for the sandy ones, they invariably open themselves up to false doctrines. For the "advanced" doctrines will never conflict with the "basic" doctrines. Now that being said, I will give a word of advice: the "mysteries" or the "advanced" gospel topics are readily available. But don't force the process. The easiest way to be taught those things is to study the basics, frequent the temple, be open to revelation and you will be taught the advanced things line upon line. Always guard those things sacredly in your heart. When the Lord can trust you with his secrets, He will give you more. The true "mysteries" are not "esoteric things of no worth", but are truths which will deepen your understanding, strengthen your relationship with the Savior and bless you in your confidence before the Lord.

:) I hear ya. I wish we could all just be saints together instead of "Utah Mormons" or "Mission Field Mormons". It's almost as if we are dividing up into '-ites'. Although that would be a mouthful. utahmormonites. missionfieldites. This is how we should be (with editorial liberty):

Actually you did imply it was OK: The implication in your statements "everyones been cool with it", that "it's all in good fun" is that it is OK. That is exactly my point. You keep addressing why everyone else should ignore it instead of addressing whether or not you should be saying it. It's really easy for the person giving offense to encourage the other person to turn the other cheek. Look I get you may not have know that some people find the term derogatory. But now you do know. The question should really be: now what? Do I keep using the term and darned be anyone who gets offended or do I respect that it offends others and change? Because a lot of you posts feel like you're taking the former position.

The thing that rubs people the wrong way is that you won't accept that labeling people, "Utah Mormons" is unkind and you keep coming up with justification for why it's OK. It was "in good humor". Saying things like: 'YOU shouldn't let them bother you. YOU should ignore them.' You seem to want other people to change their response to bad behavior instead of stopping the bad behavior. You've been told it is rude and bad behavior. Why do you insist on justifying it? The real crux of the problem here is that we as saints should be "one". This kind of divisiveness serves no purpose. There shouldn't be "Utah Mormons" and whatever the implied opposite is ("Non-Utah Mormons?"). It reminds me of 4 Nephi when they began to divide among themselves and started calling themselves "Nephites" and "Lamanites" and such.

I grew up outside of Utah (Alaska) but have lived in Utah since college/marriage. You are right there are great families in Utah, and outside of Utah in the church. However, to be honest after a while of culturally becoming a "Utah Mormon", I have to say the playful (snide) remarks got to be rather annoying. You know how many times I've visited a non-Utah ward, told people I'm from Utah and been told, to my face, "Oh, that's a shame", "Oh that's too bad", "Oh you seem like such a good Mormon". Yes, those are direct quotes and I've been told those and similar things many times. "All the Utah Mormons I've met chuckle at it, because they know it's all in good fun." This, of course, is the absolutely worst kind of justification. Nobody likes being labeled. Nobody likes being made fun of. Nobody likes snide remarks. Your comment is the kind of statement used to justify unkind behavior. So I'll add my $.02 that I also hate the "Utah Mormon" label. To the OP: I'm sorry your experience at your Utah ward wasn't better. Regardless of whether it happens solely here in Utah or occurs elsewhere, it is still unfortunate. Our ward does pretty good at welcoming people, but then we have a near constant turnover of people moving into and out of the ward so I guess we are a bit more used to it. I can see a ward that isn't used to new people not handling things overly well. Although I would like to share this. We had a couple move in a while ago who was older (we also have a small retirement community). The husband came 20 minutes early to church every week for a couple of months, stood at the door and greeted everyone as they arrived for church. He introduced himself to everyone, telling him he was new to the ward. Now I am a bit introverted and so that would be a bit outside of my comfort zone, but I have to admit everyone knew who he was.

Favorite way to save money? Learn to live on a Budget! I cannot tell you how freeing it is to stop living paycheck to paycheck. It is so liberating. It requires discipline but it is so (financially) rewarding. I almost don't remember the days of getting to the end of a pay period and having to stop spending money because the checking account was getting close to zero. Overdraft? Haven't used it YEARS. First we started budgeting, then we paid off all credit cards, then we started saving money. It also helps to budget for the expected and unexpected. We save a little bit each paycheck to go towards christmas and birthdays. My youngest son's birthday is Monday and we don't even have to think about how we're going to pay for it. The money is already there. We put a little aside each paycheck for our annual family vacation (usually visiting grandparents). We also put a little aside for the inevitable car repairs. We also have a budget for unexpected expenses. These are emergency things that can't be planned for. A few months ago our sink disposal developed a huge crack in it and needed to be replaced. That's what the emergency fund is for. The nice thing about these budgets is that it takes the stress out of unexpected or unplanned expenses.

I met Elder Scott once. It was a memorable experience. Prayers for his family.

Well stated. OK. I'm not sure what part we are disagreeing on, but I guess we can agree that we don't agree on something in the mix. :)

ye = you. Who is the Lord speaking to in verse 16? Verse 10 begins the quotation from the Lord: So verse 16 is seems to be talking about the righteous Nephites/Lamanites gathered at Bountiful, or at least their surviving remnant in our day. It should be noted that "you" can be either a second person or third person address. Here I'm assuming a second person address and then inferring the descendants to whom the Lord was directly addressing. It could be that "you" is a third person address in which the Nephites/Lamanites are not being directly addressed and that "you" is just addressing some other remnant of the House of Israel, but I don't put a whole lot on this viewpoint. The problem comes from verse 15: Who are the gentiles? I believe that this causes confusion because of the liberal way in which the term is seemingly applied. Some, especially those who use this prophecy as justification that the church has gone astray, apply the term "gentile" to the members of the church. And this confusion comes from, I believe, a misunderstanding of the term "gentile". The Guide to the Scriptures is pertinent to understanding this: This is especially important to keep in mind in the context in 3 Nephi 21 wherein it talks about the Gospel going forth "from the Gentiles". The gospel is going forth "from the Gentiles" in the context of the latter-days because Israel is not gathered as a nation. However it is very important to keep in mind that once converted, we as individuals cease to be gentiles and become part of the House of Israel, pursuant to the covenant thereof. Whereas many point to 3 Nephi 21 for justification that we are the "Gentiles" (because the Gospel is to go forth "from the Gentiles"), a careful reading indicates that the term "gentile" cannot be so constrained (3 Nephi 21:6): Thus, upon repentance and baptism gentiles become numbered among "[his] people". His people are the house of Israel. And they cease being gentiles even though we are still among the Gentile nations. Now let's go back and apply this the Chapter 20: What is the covenant made unto "his people", which are the house of Israel? It is that although they are scattered, they shall be gathered. This gathering seems to occur before the fulfillment of verses 15 and 16 (inline comments mine): Now following on into verses 18 and 19. Note that these verses seem to be addressing yet a third group of people than those discussed in verses 15 and 16. Verses 15 and 16 address two groups of people, "the Gentiles" and "a remnant of the house of Jacob". Now verses 18 and 19 seem to be addressing a third group. This third group the Lord refers to as "[his] people". Again this reinforces the idea that "the Gentiles" are not "[his] people". So in reading chapters 20 and 21, to me the terms "the Gentiles" refers to the gentile nations of which America is prominently among (since the gospel primarily is going forth from America). The "remnant of the house of Jacob" most likely refers to descendants of Lehi still alive. And "my people" refers to those who accept the Gospel and are converted. I do not equate "the Gentiles" as referring in any way to some imagined church apostasy. Although I would accept those who have apostatized individually to be back in "the Gentiles" category. Clear as mud? Now to answer the OP's comments. If by "us" and "ourselves" you mean us as a nation, I would agree with your interpretation. I believe fulfillment is forthcoming and will occur when the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

Honestly, the last few Father's Days in our ward only mentioned fathers in passing. Whereas on Mother's Days mothers are extolled extensively (as well they should be). Our ward has a lot of divorced sisters. I sometimes wonder if the lack of Father's Day comments about fathers is simply because it is too sensitive of an issue for too many people in our ward.

Very true and a worthy reminder. Satan is a master at distraction and our entire world is carefully cultivated to distract us from what is most important, our relationship with God. Thanks for your thoughts.

Certainly not. We just need to make certain that our discussion does not move into the area of generating doubt. To me, true religion and true science are the same thing. But some things simply cannot be figured out by man's reasoning alone. For those things, I have a "bookshelf" in the back of my head of things I would (mostly out of curiosity) like to have and answer but for which I accept that answers are not forthcoming.

Well whether you consider it a different definition or a different sphere or a different perspective isn't really relevant. The point is that if you rely on external things, accomplishments, worldly praise or whatever it may be, your self esteem will always eventually fail you. Those are things you have limited control over. Yes, I did read the article. Yes, "fake accomplishments" don't instill lasting self worth. But then again, the difference between "fake accomplishments" and "real accomplishments" is only a difference of degree. Look at the people who have worldly "real accomplishments". Does it gain them lasting happiness? If not, then they don't really have real self esteem. From another perspective, the article comparing something that is a 1 against something that is a 10 on a scale of 10,000. From the perspective of the 1, the 10 looks nice. From the 10, the 1 looks terrible. Especially if you don't realize the scale goes up to 10,000. But from the perspective of 10,000 both look rather meaningless. And that's why I say it. Real, lasting self esteem comes from knowing that the life one is pursuing is pleasing to the Lord. That kind of self esteem anchors one against the constantly shifting winds of the world's metrics for self esteem.

Let me give you a different definition of self esteem. True and lasting self esteem comes from knowing that the life one is pursuing is pleasing to God. One can and should seek revelation and receive confirmation that their life is one that pleases God. When they receive that revelation, they understand their worth to God and experience true self esteem. The article in the OP is discussing different types of worldly self esteem. Worldly self esteem is always transient and is never permanent.

I can't speak for others but I am in no way angry or frustrated for at our prophet or apostles for a supposed lack of pulpit pounding. I find that every conference I find talks that speak to me on ways that I can improve myself and to me those are calls to repentance. So to me I find every conference full of calls to repentance. To me I wonder if the frustration that some have comes from knowing that we support true tenets (eg opposition to same sex marriage or whatever issue) and finding a disturbing number of saints supporting counter positions. It is understandable to want to feel justified in our beliefs and to want more vocal support from the brethren supporting our positions. However, while the brethren do support our positions (assuming we are in alignment with the brethren, of course) we have to always bear in mind that the church isn't a club just for the righteous but is for all who are at least striving for righteousness irregardless of whatever level they are currently at. For me it is sufficient alone that my beliefs are in harmony with the brethren and the Gospel of Jesus Christ and are supported by the Holy Ghost. I don't need pulpit pounding to convince others that my beliefs are correct. As do I.

The short answer is: it depends. The general guideline is that activities in church buildings should be "worship, religious instruction and other church-related activities" and that other usage is discouraged. They do list specific things such as things that affect tax-exempt status are not allowed. Namely this means political things. Dances, for example, are allowed as long as they are church sponsored. Wedding receptions and funerals are allowed but have secondary priority after the building's primary usage (i.e. no wedding reception during church hours, etc). Fees may not be collected for usage of building too, or for persons rendering service (i.e. a bishop performing a wedding). In terms of whether the person(s) involved are active/inactive/non-member rarely plays into consideration. I've known of both funerals and wedding receptions held for non-members. Ultimately it will fall to either Bishop or Stake President approval for the church building to be used for non church related activities.

Your quote presupposes that those conditions have not already been met. And such presupposition is then used for justification. The "goal" is not to support one another a little better. Yes it is true that we as saints are supposed to do that. But that is not the point here. The "goal" is that people are to repent. And telling someone that they need to repent is sometimes a necessary part of that process.

Forgiveness comes through the atonement. Repentance is made possible because of the atonement. For lesser sins, yes, repentance can be a completely personal process. For more serious sins, it involves priesthood assistance. What you say is true but is kinda like saying life is a personal journey. Of course it is. So Alma the younger never cried repentance because he could only "wish" he could? The thing is you make big statements like this that are wholly contradicted by precedence in scripture. Earlier you stated that in order to be "qualified" to declare "repentance" one must first have "personal experience" in that area. Your current statement conflicts your last statement because now you are saying that a person who has "personal experience" and has "repented" can only "wish" to cry repentance because it is impossible to do. Either way it sounds like you are stretching the blanket thinner and thinner in order to come up with a rationale why people can't declare repentance. You base your argument on the supposition that repentance being a personal process, which it is, automatically excludes anyone else from being involved in the process of repentance. You cite not precedence or other basis for you argument. You merely present it as if the statement itself is proof sufficient. Let's look at this from another perspective. Conversion, a process closely related to repentance, is also a personal journey. Ask anyone who has gone through the process and they will tell you it is personal. The time spent praying and gaining a witness is personal. Yet the personal nature of the journey does not exclude outside assistance in the process. Before they can become converted to the gospel, they must first hear the gospel. Hearing that gospel comes through missionaries, through reading the scriptures, etc. In other words, the Lord doesn't expect us to one day say, "Hey I'm going to convert to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't know anything about it, don't know where to find it, don't know what it is but I'm going to convert right now." He puts those in our path who will help us get to that critical point of praying about the gospel and receiving the witness. Repentance is, for obvious reasons, a similar process. Sometimes we forget or don't know that our actions or beliefs are sin. Sometimes we delude ourselves into believing our actions or beliefs aren't sin. Whatever the reason, sometimes we need to be reminded that the path we are on is not the Lord's path. This is where crying repentance comes in. Sometimes the crying repentance is done through the Holy Ghost if we are still in tune enough to listen. Sometimes we are too far off the path for the Holy Ghost to be the medium through which repentance is declared. In such cases, the Lord uses chosen individuals to carry that message. It is analogous to the missionary declaring the gospel. It is a part of the process that brings a person to the critical moment. If the person to whom repentance is declared is humble, the repentance process can begin, and yes, it is personal. But whether through the Holy Ghost or through prophets because people aren't listening to the Holy Ghost, it is the same. Most often we need that nudge to get us on the process of repentance.

I think it certainly may help but surely it is hardly a prerequisite. When the Lord calls a prophet to declare repentance unto a people do you really believe that the prophet had "personal experience" with the area of sin? Certainly not. Must a prophet have repented of committing adultery before he can be "qualified" to declare repentance of such? By your logic would you imply that every prophet that has called upon men who struggle with pornography to repent, also have once struggled with pornography? The church does organize counselling groups to help with addiction. But repentance does not come through those groups. Working through repentance is done through priesthood authority.

This comment causes me some consternation. The implication is that the methodology is judged on the merits of its success without thought or consideration of the wickedness of the recipients who receive the prophets' messages or that they may have been commanded to declare repentance in such a manner. Comparing one prophet's success (converts) against another's supposed failure by being (or attempts thereto) stoned just seems unjust. Yes some prophets were stoned. Does that mean their methodologies were flawed? Perhaps their trial was to declare repentance to those more wicked. Irregardless, it strikes my as a bit self righteous to assume a lack of love or to judge their methodologies as flawed because of the measure or the wicked response of the people. Consider the example of Jesus Christ whom the unrighteous rulers of the Jews intended to stone on more than one occasion because of his message to them. Was his methodology inappropriate?

With regards "trying my best", sometimes I wonder if what we think is our best and what the Lord thinks is our best might be a little different. On this subject, Nephi states (1 Nephi 3:7), "...for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them". Sometimes I get the sense from people that instead of "the Lord requires me to do X therefore I can" they think something along the lines of "I can't do X therefore the Lord doesn't require it of me". Because I almost never (anymore) hear the former but hear the latter all the time.

In being bluntly honest, my instinctual response is to trust men less than women wrt children. That being said, I do get the OP concerns, which have nothing to do with requiring the two deep leadership but with the gender assignation. Despite our society's "claim" about gender equality, things aren't actually so. If there were a hypothetical situation in which women were passively called out as presupposed guilt, would it not create an outcry? As an example of something (of attitudes) I struggle with. I know a Stake President who gave counsel to the single sisters of his stake to ask the men they date, "when was the last time you looked at pornography?" Not, "have you looked at pornography and if so, when was the last time?" The presupposition of guilt really makes me frustrated and, yes, sometimes angry. Believe it or not, some men have no interest in porn. It equally makes me frustrated when people pull out the same old, proven flawed statistics stating that porn addiction is higher among LDS than the national average. Yes, we have problems among LDS men. But when most legitimate studies show that porn usage among LDS men is either slightly lower or on par with national average, why do so many people, even on this forum, yank out the same old myths? Why the compulsion to beat down LDS men? Frustrated...

The primary exception that I have with your comment is that it "doesn't represent a literal reality". I disagree a bit with that statement. It does represent a literal reality. It does not literally represent reality. Some aspects are certainly figurative. But that does not necessarily mean all aspects are figurative. Taken too far with that argument, one might begin to argue that the whole GoE thing was figurative. Certainly there are figurative elements in the temple ceremony. But I'm cautious not to throw everything into the figurative category. Since there are no authoritative statements on which elements in the endowment are literal and which are figurative, then my interpretation of Michael being in the "literal" presence of the Father is as valid as any interpretation otherwise. Since we are taught over and over again by prophets that we were in the presence of the Father in the premortal existence and have never been taught that those statements are figurative instead of literal, it's easier for me to accept the literal interpretation. How that would obviate the need for a mortal existence, though, is not clear to me. But then, this really isn't germane to the actual conversation... Allow me to clarify, then. By God I mean the God or Godhead which are relevant and worshipful to us. By god, I refer to all others who have obtained likewise exaltation who are not relevant to us. I do not differentiate between exalted beings in terms of glory, power or intelligence. Clearly. I point out both interpretations in order to clarify that later prophets and apostles took the latter interpretation. What would we do without it? :) Again, I agree. I agree with McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith on this that God grows in dominion not in intelligence. Since intelligence is glory, then I also agree that God does not grow in glory. Thus I interpret the OP's scripture when referencing the "higher kingdoms" as kingdoms of dominion not kingdoms of glory. I think overall we're in agreement.

"or in the Celestial Kingdom" Doesn't the temple instruct otherwise? Or when Jehovah and Michael returned to report that wasn't in the Celestial Kingdom? And if they had the ability to return and report in the Celestial kingdom wouldn't that also mandate that they had already received in some measure Celestial glory? Not that I'm particularly disagreeing with you. I think that there is an important distinction to "God" and "god". But back to the subject of exaltation and hierarchy and gods... According to Joseph Smith, God an exalted being will take a higher exaltation as Christ takes His place becoming exalted himself. What does this mean? I don't entirely know. A literal interpretation would suggest that there are grades or levels of exaltation. A less literal interpretation might mean that the "higher" exaltation is having a greater domain or dominion or some other such thing. Also, although BY and some other early brethren certainly favored the "eternally progressing" godhood, it should also be pointed out that later authorities took a more conservative view that God does not "progress eternally" in knowledge, only in dominion. Irregardless if we set aside a purely monotheistic, or perhaps more accurately a mono-polytheism where we believe in multiple literal gods, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but only believe in one Godhead, and instead entertain the notion of multiple or an infinite chain or hierarchy of Gods then it would seem apparent that, per the OP's quote, there are indeed at least dominions greater to that which we will initially achieve once exalted. As whose would undoubtedly all be "Celestial", it may be that the term "kingdom" may not be referring to a higher kingdom of glory but rather a higher kingdom of dominion.