Fether

The outrage as we all know comes from this line and nothing else: “It was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ. “Our retention rates will dramatically increase when people desire to be baptized because of the spiritual experiences they are having rather than feeling pressured into being baptized by our missionaries.” on my mission, I was one of those missionaries that stalwartly, faithfully, and unapologetically invites every person i taught to be baptized on the first lesson, and every lesson after that if they rejected it. Why? Because I was taught that at every mission and zone conference. It’s written down everywhere in my mission study journals. I was considered by many to be a good leader and a very faithful missionary because I did and taught this so well. While all this was happening, there were tons of disobedient missionaries that were refusing to invite on the first lesson for the very same reasons Elder Ballard lists in the second paragraph. Often times they were indirectly called out in meetings for their “lack of faith” in the spirit and In the leaders of the church who told us we need to invite on first lessons. We were all taught to do this in the MTC, in fact I remember very clearly being given a challenge to invite our faux-investigator to be baptized in the first lesson. The whole class went in and only my companion and I successfully invited the faux-investigator. When we got back I , we got tons of praise for our apparent success. On my mission. Elder Cardon of the 70 taught us to invite on the first lesson, as did Elder Zwick a year later Side note: Elder Kapische came too but he gave us the best advice. “Stop knocking in trailer parks” and “drop all your investigators that don't keep commitments for 2 lessons in a row”. And later Elder Christofferson came and taught us that we always win bible bashes because our quads are thicker than their bibles x) I baptized an above average amount of people, but none of them are active today. Personally, I am not upset by this at all. I welcome the change and am happy to see the shift. But for the people who fought it for so long on their missions, were taught this by 70s, and were accused of having a lack of faith or being disobedient, it must be super frustrating to hear President Ballard say these words starting with “it was never our intention”. To many that sounds like he is shifting the blame away from the church leadership and saying “you misinterpreted us”.

When I read this, I was also reminded of another change that happened quietly while I was on my mission. I know in MANY missions, it is tradition to have a big transfer meeting where all the missionaries being transferred get together at a central location and get their new area and companion Harry-Potter-sorting-hat style. Well word reaches the GA long after it became an ingrained tradition and elder Oaks came and made a statement to all mission presidents that seemed a lot like the statement made above. My first thought “how did you not know till now that this was happening?” I have similar thoughts about this statement.

This is true, I’m looking for a viable reference but so far I can only find statements from non-Latter-day Saint sources. Also, I haven’t found any non-Latter-day Saint source that says you can get sealed to just one parent.

You should go see a marriage and family therapist. They are amazing. My wife had an incredible relationship before hand but had some minor issues. We started seeing one once a month and it has made our marriage even better

Couple thoughts and suggestions. 1) look up fairmormon. They are a great source to go to with your questions. 2) look up ex-ex-Mormon by saints unscripted in YouTube. Very interesting 3) I think we as saints put Joseph Smith on too high of a Pedestal.

Also, @Queolby, props to you for reading the book and setting about the history of the church. books like that and Mormon Enigma are fantastic ways for us to get to know the church a little bit more. There are A lot of gems and what Paul would call “meat” found in those books. They also help us see Joseph Smith and the restoration as what really was, a bunch of saints doing the best they can but nevertheless bringing forth truth God proclaimed. Always remember that you were never the first person asking a question. There are answers to all these out there, we just have to look for them.

So I’m not 100% positive of the context of when this event happened so I can’t give a specific detailed explanation of what is happening, but here are some little factual tidbits that may help 1. The church as it was in its infancy was not what it is today. Joseph and Oliver were given the Aaronic priesthood before they were baptized, then used that priesthood to baptize each other. Today we have policy’s in place that change this to make the process more streamlined. Does not mean that it is impossible for it happen the way it did above. Additionally, Joseph’s title was originally only an elder. Essentially as the restoration went on it got more and more organized. Like all things, the church had to be built line upon line precept upon precept. Nothing was done out of order, just not done in the same way we do today. 2. The priesthood was restored before the church was organized. So Joseph and Oliver both got the priesthood before they could be ordained to any office in the church. Similarly, I remember being taught that Joseph had to be baptized twice once After receiving the aaronic priesthood, and a second time when the church was actually organized.

Yes, but don’t teach anything unless it’s grounded in doctrine. For example. There is a theory by Cleon Skousen that explains how the atonement, intelligence and matter all work together and are obedient to God. I find it very compelling and I mostly believe it. But I will never teach it cause there is no stamp of authority to it.

But no one is saying you are responsible for their thoughts. Only to be aware that your appearance can effect their thoughts. Nobody is saying that boys are innocent of lust because it’s the girls fault.

Nobody Is advocating for this. We are just such bad teachers that it comes off this way.

Well I think we all agree that what the church says is true: ”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.” where the argument comes is the idea of it being the girls fault if men have bad thoughts. Which we all agree is false, but we’re often times taught in a way that suggests that. here is where the sins lie in a generic situation of a man listing after an Latter-day Saint woman who is dressed immodestly (and I am very confident in this). 1) the dozens of men who lust after her sin in their own lustful thoughts. The woman is clean of all their sins. 2) the Latter-day Saint woman sins because she is more worried about comfort, style, or social norms than she is about the struggles of the men around her and the commandments from the prophet. 3) a third potential occurs later when/if she says “I can wear what I want, these men need to deal with their own thoughts”. Which is just another way of saying “am i my brother’s keeper?” As spoken by the Man called perdition.

I’ll wear all mine too and we will see who is more uncomfortable

If you were to ask me, having PINK on a shirt seems fine, however, if I see “Victoria Secret” my mind is going straight to hot blond models in underwear that I lust after. Not ok. I would argue this would be most people’s first thought. But this isn’t about making a list of what to wear and not to wear. Modesty is about the principle questions “what am I trying to say with my clothing” AND “is what I’m wearing making it difficult for others to have pure thoughts” additionally, I would include the about statements to clarify more that no, woman are not responsible for man’s thoughts. But are also not innocent when they spitefully wear immodest clothing. Yes, if a person is dressing modestly and male/female is aroused -- practice self-control. Just because I look good in a suit doesn't mean I am going to stop wearing one if someone besides Ms. Anddenex is aroused.

It’s the difference between a word and a logo. having the word “thoroughbred” written on my shirt is fine, but having the “thoroughbred” strip club logo is not. I used an extreme example only to make the point. I don’t know what the “pink” logo is or what kind Victoria secret product it is (nor do I feel inclined to google it). Words paint immediate pictures in our mind. You advertise woman’s underwear, bikinis, or lingerie and everyone who sees it will think it. again, if I found out that every time I wore my red t-shirt that it caused women around me to lust after me, it would be very un-Christlike for me to continue to spitefully wear it. We are now talking about charity. Why would I do something that makes it difficult for others to have pure thoughts? Do you believe that it is ok for me to do something that does not effect my salvation but makes it difficult for others?

So much “woke” feminist garbage in this article. The progressive woman have become a huge thorn in teaching doctrine now-a-days due to the feminist movement. Just like testifying of the roll of men and woman in the home and the innate value of a baby fetus, Talking about the truth of modesty is social suicide. But here I go cause there is no society I am worried about here. claim 1: women were taught not to wear scandalous attire so men wouldn’t be tempted. Yes young women were taught this. As found in the gospel topics section on churchofjesuschrist.org: ”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.” clearly there is a problem here. Clearly immodesty can lead to temptation and I don’t know anyone that would argue that. Lindsey’s (the author) approach to this is an “every man/woman” for his/herself approach. As long as what she is doing is not affecting her, than everything is ok. It is so frustratingly un-Christlike and has only fed to the raging feminist fire that has spread into our church. Yes. ONE reason to dress modestly is so not to arouse sexual feelings in others. Men should do the same. If I find out that something I am doing or wearing causes lustful feelings in women or homosexual men, the I better stop right away. I know what it is like to struggle with thoughts and I don’t want to be the source of any one else’s evil thoughts. That is the Christlike way. claim 2: modesty is a woman’s issue No one is teaching this, it’s just a harder thing to do if you are a woman. I definitely had modesty lessons, but it was more about appearing clean and acting appropriately. This is another feminist situation where because it is more difficult for woman, they see it as oppressive and evil. Claim 3: we can tell people what to wear This is just an extension of claim 1 and 2 I can agree with her at point here. If the story she tells about her “pink” shirt is true, I wouldn’t have worried to much about it. But If I wore a Trojan shirt, that would definitely be considered immodest and I would not wear it. It’s different levels of the same principle. If you are worried someone might look at your t-shirt with a Victoria secret logo and feel aroused, dont wear it. claim 4: priesthood leaders are attracted to young woman This whole section she has is completely idiotic. She tells the story of when she was at girls camp and the young woman leaders forced the young woman To dress modestly for when the bishopric comes and speaks. In the mornings and evenings, my wife does not wear a bra under her shirt. However, If we have guests coming over she goes and puts one on so her nipples are poking through her shirt. Additionally, I have a pair of shorts that are short, tight, and “revealing”. I like wearing them to bed, but if I’m having company over in the morning or evening, I’m going to change out of them, especially if one of them coming over is female. Other nonsensical statements 1. “If a claim cannot be supported by scripture, or perhaps a recent general conference talk: don’t teach it.“ The irony here is so thick I can’t even cut it with my metaphorical lightsaber. She says this in her explanation of a quote from a 70 from 1974. Additionally, giving prophetic direction an expiration date is what leads to apostasy. 2. “The claim that women have stewardship over another man’s thoughts is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. In Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s talk To Young Women, there was no mention of young men depending on the women to keep them clean.” Jeffery R Holland also taught “although I am not my brother’s keeper, I am my brothers brother”. Stop making this mortal life a free-for-all. When I’m with my friends, we make fun of each other and laugh at our mistakes together. But If one of my friends struggles with depression, I’m going to be more careful about the things I say.

Yes I know. As I said above, I don’t believe (and never have) they are MLM scams. My purpose for the question was not out of misunderstanding, it was more to gage how everyone else sees them and to question whether the fact that most of these sales companies with MLMesk structures reside in Utah/Idaho is effecting the statistic that says Utah s fall for this stuff all the time.

They are MLM in the sense that I get money from my sales, but also if I recruit a team of people, I make money from their sales. And the. If the people I’m over recruit teams, I get a small residual from them. And so forth. I don’t believe it is, but sometimes I wonder if RM’s draw toward door to door sales in companies that have an MLMesk structure is what leads to statistics saying Utahns are commonly scammed by MLM. When really we are just joining sales companies.

The reason I ask the question is because you look at companies like Vivint SmartHome (who owns the SmartHome Arena in SLC where the Jazz play). They are immensely successful, they virtually birthed the door to door sales industry we have in the US today. They sell real products that people want, but have an underlying MLM build in their sales team. And as I mentioned above, most successful sales companies (primarily pest control, TV, alarm, and solar) fashion their companies after that. And if you look at the make up of those that work at these companies I would guess 50%+ are Latter-day Saints. And what more, they love it (or at least the ones that are good at it do). So I always wonder when people are saying Utah is known for falling for MLM schemes, do they lump in all these successful sales companies as part of the statistics? To me, this is similar to saying “Utahns are renown for fallowing cults” while also considering The Restored Church a cult.

Same. Emphasis on how not to fall from them even with other members of the Church. Sad, but necessary to say too. what were they considering as multi-level marketing scams as I haven’t gotten this lesson yet)? Just stuff like Amway? were they also bunching in essential oil and Herbalife salesmen I’m there? And were they going as far as to say companies like Vivint SmartHome and other multilevel sales companies ought to be avoided?

And that did cross my mind too so I am open to agree. I also see Pres. Young’s description of the spirit world in how we can travel through space in an instance and see how things were at different points of time (chap 39 of Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young) and it makes me think that their isn’t much of a “physical” anything. Just states of being. So it does make sense that there would be NO “physical” barrier, but some state of existence where the righteous and the unrighteous do no come in contact of each other. but I really don’t have a strong enough opinion on either to argue about it

Says who? I had the same questions, but recently found this in my studies of the work of the dead. ““Before the crucifixion of the Lord there was a great gulf fixed separating the righteous dead from those who had not received the Gospel, and across this gulf no man could pass. (Luke 16:26.) Christ bridged that gulf and made it possible for the word of salvation to be taken to all corners of the kingdom of darkness. In this way the realms of hell were invaded and the dead prepared for the ordinances of the Gospel which must be performed on earth since they pertain to the mortal probation” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 165).”

I think much like the Sabbath day, it’s more about the principle than it is the actual check-list to-dos and to-donts. I think the line shared by The Folk Prophet is very clear about hanging clothes, and I can’t think of any situation where one would hand their clothes publicly other than doing so to air dry. So much like how the person who works to prevent needing to do menial chores on the sabbath (like doing dishes, de-cluttering their room, etc.) is more blessed than those who don’t, so is the person that strives to keep the garments sacred and out of sight of those that don’t understand.

Looks like we got a jack Mormon here fellas. You should only take 10 steps. Stop trying to stretch the commandments.

Doctrine and Covenants 138 was a revelation received by President Joseph F Smith. It is all about the missionary work in the spirit world. What in this was new or not understood? Did the saints prior to this not know there was missionary work going on in the spirit world?

My reaction these situations probably won’t help. In fact I deleted my whole post I was about to make cause it really wasn’t too helpful. Here is shortened and less ... crude... summary of what I want to say. If you are in high school or this is pre-mission, don’t worry about it. If you are looking for an eternal companion, look elsewhere. Im sorry but there really is no point in stressing over any girl until you are married.