JohnsonJones

This is an interesting perspective to think about. Adding: A Little humor. So I had several children, and they would argue and fight at times. There are certain points I think my oldest would absolutely have stated they were damaged by the second one being born (I don't understand why, but the oldest and the second oldest seemed to have the most vile conflicts. They were constantly at each other's throats, but when the other was not there, they were the most pleasant to be about). My second oldest would have stated they were absolutely diminished because their older sibling took the limelight. As for the Father's side of it...I tried my best to tell each one that they were both loved. Each felt that they were my favorite (and they all were my favorite, each one was my favorite for a different reason though), and I tried to help them to know that they WERE loved. Today as they have children of their own, and tell me of similar instances where they face the same things we faced, I sometimes inwardly laugh. It seems to me at times that the challenges we give our parents as children, are things that we may end up facing later as parents when our children inherit the same tendencies and give us the same problems right back. I was BLESSED as a child. I was the oldest, but I was several years older than my next brother. It may be this age gap, but we got along fabulously. The only time we truly had a vengeance was a growing experience for me. I left the house after High School and had packed a box of things. Within hours, I got a call from my mother telling me that my brothers had opened that box and separated out all I had left between themselves. I was ready to go back and murder them all. Luckily, my parents talked sense in to me. At that time I had to learn whether I valued my brothers more than my stuff. So, I made the choice that if I left it at home, what was mine was theirs. It was a decision to share with them. I credit that this decision made it so me and my brothers got closer. They took the stuff I left behind and thus we had common interests between us. These interests helped to grow our common bond through the years.

There is nothing preventing a member from discussing their situation with anyone they want in North America. In North America, almost all the nations allow individuals the freedom to do so. If they want to discuss it with someone in the Stake Presidency and the Stake Presidency member is willing to listen, they can do so. Probably NOT the specific answer you are looking for though. What state or nation does the OP live in?

In regards to the Temple, I probably would be more constrictive on what I say in that regards...personally speaking. That is your choice however. The United Order is different then the Law of Consecration. I posted what the Law of consecration is composed of as defined in the LDS Scripture of the D&C, Gospel Principles, and research. They all agree on how it is done. We DO NOT live that currently. Instead we live under the Law of the Tithing and offerings. Under the Law of Consecration there is no need to pay tithes and offerings as EVERYTHING you have has already been given. You then have a stewardship. Annually, ALL surplus (not just 10%) above what you have been given as stewardship and that you do not need to live is given to the church again. The United Order, as posted above and per the Gospel Principles, is an organization that was made in order to administer the Law of Consecration. It is NOT the Law of Consecration itself. The church currently does NOT take your property deeds and other property (as deeded LEGALLY to the church, one of the requirements for living under the Law of Consecration) today and then let you have stewardship over what they deem is what you actually need (rather than want). In addition, even if one views their promises to live under the Law of Consecration and believes that this means (even though they have not followed it by deeding their property to the church) they have now consecrated all they own and thus have stewardship (even though this property is NOT recorded on the books in the church, which is also a part of the items regarding things, they are to be recorded here on Earth as well as in Heaven), Most do NOT then give their entire surplus (- their actual NEEDs, not WAnts) to the church. It is not done. The church does not require it. Instead, we are told to give only 10% of our annual increase. This is the Law of the Tithe. We are also told to give generous fast offerings. Tithing is an eternal principle, but is a lesser principle in relation to the Law of Consecration. One is of a lower degree than the other. Even if we are not under the fullness of the Law of Consecration currently, we can still have it applied to our lives and live principles of it. We can pay a generous tithe and more generous fast offerings. We can be willing to give all that we have if we were ever asked (and it is asked of some, but then they do live under that law, whereas for most of us, we do not). When asked to do callings, we can be willing to give our all in that calling (and if we really want to be helpful, one can go and clean the church every week!!!). Living the principles of the Law of Consecration can be an important thing for members to do, but currently, and of today, most of us do NOT live under the Law of Consecration (unless one, of course, is part of the first quorum of the seventy or the twelve apostles or the First Presidency, and to a more limited degree, a young Missionary). That does not mean we cannot live it's principles though. I think this is the difference in what your perception is. You CAN live the principles, but we, as a church, are not living the Law currently. We do not even have the United Order to administer the Law presently for most of us.

The Law of Consecration, when practiced is different than what you suppose, in my opinion. You may have promised something, but that does not MEAN you are LIVING the Law of consecration today. Part of Living the Law of Consecration is that ANYTHING you have above what you need (and that is NEED, not want or desire or possess) is given to the church to be redistributed among the needy as necessary. People were unable to live this law, and thus today we practice the law of TITHING and Offerings instead. When the Living under the Law of Consecration, there is no need for tithing. This is why Missionaries should not be expected to tithe on the missionary monies they are given, nor the General Authorities expected to tithe on their living expenses or stipends. We as a people are expected to live with the spirit of Consecration, but we are not expected to live UNDER the Law of Consecration today. It is very fortunate, because I expect that almost no one gives all of their surplus to the church to redistribute to the poor as the Law of Consecration dictates we do, and how it was practiced and dictated to be done. Consecration This does not mean we cannot apply the principles of Consecration in our lives, or try to live these principles, but the church today is NOT under the Law of Consecration for the most part unless you are living within the funds the church provides...which is VERY limited. A basic rundown of Consecration This means that we can apply these principles, and be willing to live under it, but today, we do NOT live under the fullness of the Law. It has not yet been asked of us again. The Law of Consecration as directed in the D&C Today, rather than living under the Law of Consecration, we live the Law of the Tithe. It is not as complete as the Law of Consecration, but by living it and preparing ourselves to live under the Law of Consecration by applying those principles in our life, we can be better prepared to live the Law of Consecration in it's fullness if it is ever restored for us to live under it completely in our time.

It would be a very interesting thing to discuss it with the Bishop of my ward TBH. I can almost guarantee that he would agree 100% with anything and everything I state or say. Talking with the Stake President could be a little bit more interesting. In more seriousness though, I am aware of what we have pledged and stated. I am VERY cautious of stating certain things, fully, out in the open in regards to specific ideas we discuss elsewhere. That said, when I say live under the law of consecration, even if one has given an oath to do so, we have not yet been called to do such by the church. We have not yet been given the same commandment the Lord gave to the rich man to give all that we own to the church, and then have it taken BY the church from us to be redistributed among the Poor. The only ones that live close to this idea currently are those who are part of the 1st quorum of the 70, the Twelve apostles and the First Presidency, and to a certain degree, the missionaries around the world. We, of ourselves, may have made promises, but we have not been called on by the church to be collected upon those promises as of yet. When we do, if it is like when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young instituted it, not only will we LOSE all that we have as we give it to the church for redistribution, we will also be told what our occupation will be, what work we will be doing, and where we should go or live. This full participation in the Law of Consecration is not something that I, nor most of the Saints live under today. I have a feeling that this principle may be harder than many would anticipate in regards to following it. I especially may have a hard time, speaking personally, because though I value my history books, I have a feeling that most who handle them would have no idea of their value, or even consider them, and some books which are worth hundreds of dollars would go for 50 cents at a church yard sale or something similar. Plus, the enjoyment I have in that book would be something I could not re-experience, but only have it for memories. When we look at living under the Law of Consecration, I look at how it was implemented previously in the LDS church. Thus far, most members are NOT living under that law, even if they have made promises to live it.

I'm not certain it is selfish. It probably has a little bit of jealousy. My personal thoughts is that, between a man and a wife, it is okay to be jealous in a way that makes you want your spouse to be loyal to you and only to you. When you trust that your spouse will be yours and only yours, regardless of whether it is for time, for eternity, or for both, that can create a special bond between the two. In this life, when an individual breaks that bond in whatever fashion (pornography, emotional affairs, adultery, etc) it creates a great deal of pain, hurt, and anguish for the other spouse in most cases. They feel betrayed and mortified. It is no surprise that many would feel this way when thinking about their spouse and a situation where their spouse might ever be married or sealed to another individual without them. It may be selfishness. I know that, because the church decided to let women be sealed in the temple after death to any man they had ever been married to, that has not sat well with me. In the same light, my wife did not feel comfortable with the idea of me ever being married to another woman if she died first. Thus, we saw how this idea could hurt the other. She has said she will not marry another if I die first, out of respect for me, and I likewise said I am more than happy to spend my time among my books and history library. For us (and this doesn't have to apply to anyone else), this assurance that we are ours, and only ours, is a great assurance currently. I am also glad to know that I and my wife are not alone in this feeling. If we turn the pages back in the history of the church we find that there are many who also felt similarly. Of course there were those who gladly ran with the idea of polygamy, but we also read multiple accounts where those who were called to be in polygamous marriages found the idea revolting and very difficult to participate in. In fact, many felt almost like Abraham when he was called to sacrifice Issac. These were righteous men and women who held chastity and marriage high in their ideals. They were very loyal to the church. If they had a great difficulty accepting it, even when commanded to do so, I do not feel so bad that I and others may have difficulties if we think about it in a modern sense. I am blessed and I am lucky in that thus far, I do not have to be brought to the same trial as many of the early members of the church. In our modern time, I am not given the choice of following the commandment of this or not. Instead, my wife, who hates the idea of polygamy probably more than @jewels8 has expressed, does not have to also suffer the sadness and torment of this idea. Likewise, I do not have to suffer the great pain it would be if I had to share my wife with someone else. It is not evil to have these feelings, and I think it to be quite common. It may mean I am not ready or as righteous as others who are willing to sacrifice all they have in an instant no matter what the Lord asks. I admit that in many areas I am still quite uncharitable. The Law of Consecration is another where, though I understand the concept, I am probably glad I have not been called to participate in it as of yet. Not all of us are ready to give all we have in this very moment. I may be older, but I also admit I have a very long way to go. However, these feelings of hardness towards the idea of polygamy, I think, are common among many in the LDS church. It was not an easy principle back when it was instituted in the church, and it is not an easy thing to think about today when we ponder it. There are some that may be ready to leap feet first back into it, or would be ready if asked, but for me, right now I am glad that it is not something I or my wife are asked to do. Luckily, currently, we have no commandment that we must do these things in the church, and I am happy it is not something that I must make a choice about or not at this time in our modern world.

Related, but not the exact same topic... Remains show that ancient horses were hunted for their meat Hard Evidence of Ancient American Horses (and I add, the wheel is tossed into that article i think). Horses and Chariots Heads up though, for those who are seeking purely unbiased articles, none of them are totally unbiased, but the top one at least is from a magazine that is seeking to try to be non-biased, nevertheless, the other two from BYU studies are interesting to think about.

Unless the Lord comes down and commands someone personally to practice polygamy, or his servant, the prophet tells someone personally to do it, I don't think there really is any doctrinal basis that says a necessity of salvation is to practice polygamy as in marrying more than one wife or husband. (as far as I know, I am always learning new things, but right now I do not know of any doctrine that commands it specifically in order to attain salvation). We do know that the eternal aspect of marriage, as in what we term the celestial marriage is necessary for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, but we do this and continue to do this with each sealing of a married couple in a temple every day. However, I do not know of any commandment saying that all men must, of necessity, be required to be married to multiple women. In fact, Jacob condemns men assuming this idea without the Lord's commandment. If it is in accordance with the Lord, who are we to question though? In regard to the Lord, I do not understand all that the Lord understands or does. I do know that marriage was a completely different thing 500 years ago, much less 1000 years ago, and even more so 2000 and 3000 years ago. Their concept of what marriage was and is could very well be a very foreign idea to many people living today. I expect our understanding of marriage, it's purpose, and reasons for the marriage covenants to be expanded by the Lord when we are able (most likely in the next life) and our understanding of various principles from the Lord will then be understood and probably accepted. Until then, I think sometimes it is best just to say, we don't understand his way of thinking or how he operates, we just understand that he has stated he loves all men (meaning mankind...aka...that includes MEN and WOMEN) and desires them to come to him.

True story. I was going off with the young men for once recently on one of their campouts. They started to talk about their D&D stuff, and I recalled the conversations we had about this in one of the threads a while back. While I could not really relate, I did sort of understand what they were discussing occasionally. I learned that they play the D&D 5th edition, and that they like to use a lot of 20 sided dice. They talked a lot about doing their own campaigns and whether they should start at level one or continue with other characters they had already made. They did not mention that they could play Nephi and his brothers, but if that is one of the things people play in D&D that is interesting.

I've been a member of the Church for 20 years. Never heard such a thing. I've have heard of this, and yes, it has been taught at various times by some as an opinion. One of the first to start on this opinion was, I believe, Brigham Young himself. There is a LOT more to it than what jewels8 stated, and it is something that is speculative. Even being speculative, it is definitely a meat type of speculation rather than a milk type speculation. If one wants to PM me for more information, and give me a good reason to expound upon it, I can. It follows down the line of the Brigham to Joseph F, to Joseph Fielding, to Mckonkie line of speculative theories. (Adding: In answer to one asking about it...I'd first point out that this is not doctrine, but their opinion, and would even go so far as to say it is in my opinion a speculative opinion. That said, even then...) In regards to the things of the Lord, we do not understand all the things the Lord does or states. Ironically, though many Mormons may have a problem with Polygamy, I think there are many other things people have serious difficulties understanding how a loving Father would condone. One of the biggest difficulties people have is the ordered Genocide of those who lived in the Land of Israel before the Hebrews/Israelites came and conquered it. He also ordered genocide done via other prophets to his military leaders at various times in the Old Testament. When confronted with things like this, as he normally does not expound upon his reasons for doing so to us directly, at times the best we can do is to admit we do not understand everything that the Lord understands. That we do not understand all things, but with the hope that some day it may be explained to us and that we can understand. The big thing to realize is that the Lord is Just and Merciful, and as such, no injustice will prevail upon us in the hereafter, that mercy and justice will both play their parts and that by such we can know that we will be happy with the why's and hows in the hereafter, even if we do not understand them here.

Polygamy is a sensitive topic to bring up and can be difficult to discuss at times. I know many women who have problems with how they perceive polygamy to be and how they think it is or was practiced. When you stated that it should be something that is dealt with sensitivity, I think you are absolutely correct. My wife is one who has been greatly disturbed by the idea of polygamy and polygamous marriages. Luckily, seeing at the ages we are, and the likelihood of men to die first, I don't think the issue of a second wife or anything like that will ever become something She and I would ever deal with. I, for one, with the volumes of history and other works am more than happy to spend the rest of my days among my books if she passes before me. Polygamy is ONLY to be practiced WHEN and WHERE the Lord commands, not as a common place occurrence. I cannot speak for all men, and some may feel inspired to be remarried when a spouse passes away. This is something they are allowed to do. The big thing I know is that the Lord is just. In the life to come, if things that are unjust have occurred, justice will be done. He is also merciful, and if one has lost or lacked certain privileges in this life, somehow, and someway through the Lord he will make it so no one looses out on blessings. I do not know how it is to be done. For now, and in our place, I think we can take Jacob's words to heart. Adam and Eve as our fore parents are good examples. Adam cared enough about the Lord and about Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, even though he knew that in doing so, he would be cast out of the garden of Eden with Eve. He chose to stay with his wife despite great challenges, and with her he knew joy with their family. We are to stick to our spouses in marriage, and when our children know that we love each other, I personally believe that this makes them have a greater chance at a spiritual and emotional well being. Carol Lynn Pearson has had a hard life in love and marriage. She had a husband that she loved, and still loves. Unfortunately, her husband felt that he had desires that he wanted to deal with in ways that are not in accordance with the church (from what I understand, I may be wrong). When one falls to physical lust and emotional attraction rather than the things of the LORD, marriage and the family are some of the first things to suffer. This is not just something that applies to homosexually attracted individuals, but ANY individual that feels the draw of lust and denies the greater joys of family and children. When a man or woman in a heterosexual relationship feels that they need to feed their lust and go after a younger, or more energetic, or more physically fit, or any other type of worldly desire and abandon the family that they have already established...it is a tragic circumstance. Sister Pearson still tries to support the husband she married to the best she can. Who are we to fault her for this? Maybe those who are better than I, but I cannot AT THIS MOMENT (who knows what the future holds?). If anyone is to judge it would be her church leaders. I know that she has apparently had a very hard time. IN addition, the idea of polygamy in the way it is portrayed by the world is something that bothers MANY sisters in the church when they talk about it. It disturbs them and makes them unhappy. I think a lot of this is because we see it portrayed as the world portrays it, and not as it would be done when commanded of the Lord. Luckily, I have never had to deal with this trial, and so cannot expound much upon it. I do understand (as I said, my wife is also one that is disturbed by it, and she is one I would never willingly hurt or want to bring anger or sadness to in any way) why it brings so much unhappiness. In fact, turning to Jacob again, he encapsulates this in his verses where he condemns those men who are trying to practice this fallen idea where they have a polygamous relationship without the Lord's approval. He states it brings a great deal of sadness and he hears the complaints of the children and spouses of these evil men. We know the Lord commands it at times. I do not know the answers to all things though. I think we can sympathize with those who are hurt by it, and be sensitive to the feelings of the men and women who are disturbed. I think it has it's time and place, and as the Lord wills, We should be willing to obey. Right now, I think no one should start out with the goal to be in a polygamous marriage, and as you state, the Lord is pleased when we are in a monogamous marriage. He is pleased with a marriage between one man and one woman, sealed for eternity in a celestial marriage. If we aim to be righteous and be faithful to our husband or wife (depending of course on what you were born as), I do not think the Lord will ever fault us for that and in fact will be well pleased if we are loyal to the one we are married to from the beginning.

It is a plan, because of the fall of the morals and values of yesteryear. YES...young people SHOULD not delay and start having children...IN MY OPINION. It used to be that they may be as young as 13 or 14 when this started. However, it also used to be that families were a LOT closer. Families would have multi-generational homes with all of them living under the same roof, OR, in some instances where they had lots of property build small homes, multiple homes built on the same property which they all worked. Parents took care of children and eventually grandchildren but in return, when the parents were old, the children took care of the parents. Something happened...families did not take care of each other anymore. People starved. People died. Religions didn't offer the charity the did previously. Welfare and SS came into being BECAUSE of the great wickedness. People were selfish. They did NOT want to share. They did NOT want to give to the poor. They felt that what they had was THEIRS. What they worked for was THEIRS. The idea that everything they had was given to them by the Lord was a foreign concept. They did not believe the Lord gave them anything, and instead everything they had in this life was earned by themselves. Thus, they did not help the poor or needy. This was amplified in the Great Depression in the US, and this is when many of these social systems came into being. They were different when they originated (for example, they'd give you work for receiving welfare originally, even if it was simply digging a ditch in the front of the office and filling it up again). Later this changed and evolved until in the 60s we got an entirely different type of program for many of these social systems. This does not mean they are evil, or those who are needy or poor are evil. In fact, it is more of the thing that as society itself has become evil, we have forgotten the great commands of the Lord. 4th Nephi vs. 2-3 D&C 104: 11-18 But as we have not been righteous enough or loving enough to fulfill these commandments, other things have come into being. Even the LDS church these days have instances where the LEADERS are advised to help individuals in need seek government assistance. These are programs to help those in need as there is a distinct lack of charity from our fellow men. Even fast offerings and other items that the church leaders use to help the poor and needy in the ward are NOT enough to help and satisfy all the needs within a ward these days. This is the reason at times when church leaders have been given advice (and in some instances, instructions on how to do this if they need to) on having members turn to government assistance. Even without that, the Lord instructed us in regards to the church and the government... Matthew 22:17-21

Sorry, I had a hard time reading the original post so I separated it out into paragraphs and made a small grammatical change in one or two locations.

@anatess2 said The apples and oranges were the comparison of Abortion laws to gun laws. That is what you were asking about how someone who could be for more restrictive gun laws would not be for more restrictive Abortion laws. These are two different things. For example, if someone said...we should restrict guns and this equals the same thing as restricting people from changing their lightbulbs...many would scratch their heads. These are two different things. We could use excuses and say...LFL's and mercury content are broken often and contribute to long term ailments and death. In addition, people occasionally electrocute themselves in changing lightbulbs, and electrocution sometimes causes death. Thus, anyone who wants to reduce the death rate must be against changing light bulbs. The comparison is not really apt because the two items are so vastly different in practice, reason, and purpose that laws restricting or not restricting them really are apples and oranges. Same goes for Abortion and Gun Laws, which is why one can be for the restrictions of one, but not for as many restrictions on the other. Even many LDS are pro-abortion, just not as pro-abortion as many others. The normal statement is that they are anti-abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger. This does not mean that they are for more restrictive gun laws, or against gun laws, it means that they have this opinion on abortion. Their opinions on gun laws are separate because these are two different things which are very different in application and the reasons for the laws to exist.

Well, this is an entirely different item. I'm an American...you know one of the things that got our nation started was when some individuals threw a fit about some taxes and threw a bunch of tea overboard? Right? I'd enjoy it not to pay income taxes at all, and that they raise taxes on imports/exports (just like it clarifies in the Constitution originally), but as I said, that's a completely different conversation. (PS: That said, as we DO have taxes, I am one who IS in favor of most of the social programs currently in the US, but mostly because they came about due to the depression and many of the so called church charities not doing enough to stop people from dying in the streets from starvation or exposure at times. Also the little known thing among Mormons called the Law of Consecration and the idea that we have no poor among us...)

Most who use this idea would probably say you are comparing apples and oranges. Just because you cut down the number of apple trees in Washington State does not mean that if you cut down the orange trees in Washington state that you will reduce both in the same percentages nation wide. The ideas may be similar, but the items they address are so different as to be as different as apples and oranges. (I think I'm ending up playing the opposing Advocate here...these are not necessarily the views I espouse, but I think I have a handle on understanding much of it). Of course, utilizing this idea you presented above, the idea would be that as less criminals would have guns (for example, many of the shooters in the US got their guns legally, even though in some cases if the system worked correctly they should NOT have been able to), there is less need for others to have guns to stop them. Not all legal citizens will turn in their guns unless they are forced to by armed government agents taking them, so there will still be many with that deterrent if they really want their guns. I think many with the idea are looking more at nations like Japan where the outlaw of guns is associated with the extremely low rate of murders by guns (as opposed to Mexico where the draconian gun laws may not have helped with the huge amount of gun and gang violence).

I actually agree with your comment...but I did want to toss a little item in there... The US Women's team actually has won the World cup 3 times, including, I believe, the most recent one. They've alsocurrently won the most women's world cups followed by Germany and then Norway and Japan.

I suppose, if you like candid photos, when you have family reunions and everyone is just sitting around eating or talking, take a TON of pictures.

The logic goes that. yes, if you outlaw abortion you will lower the number of women getting abortion, however you will still have women who go to back alleys and get one. Normally these back alley affairs are much more unsafe than in a clean and readied medical environment and so the mortality rate skyrockets. This is NOT the primary reason for pro-abortion individuals these days, but it is a minor reason that they will state. The difference when using this type of excuse is that by allowing abortion, the idea is to at least save the woman's life if possible, and have more women who have their lives saved than who die in back alleys due to bad medical practices in said alleys. On the otherhand, the same could be said of guns. Outlawing guns (or even high capacity magazines) is NOT going to make it so that there are no guns in America. The idea is to decrease the number of guns and hence, the number of individuals that are shot by these guns. Using some statistics, they see a correlation at times between outlawing guns and a decrease in murders (with the exclusion of Mexico...obviously). This too helps to save lives. This is the liberal logic. Both are focused on saving lives, one by increasing the number of facilities, while the other by banning the instrument utilized to bring about death. This does not mean I condone the ideas, but I think I understand this logic. Normally, today, this logic is not the highest idea that many use in saying we need abortions. They now prefer the idea that a woman should have control over her body. They do not take the Catholic view of pregnancy, and thus do not view the fetus as a living creature. Instead they see it more like one would see a tumor, or a growth inside a body. They would argue it does not have it's own consciousness. Therefore, just as a woman can choose to have other growths removed from her body, she should also be allowed to do this with any growth inside her body. It is her right to choose. I, on the otherhand, am highly anti-abortion. (I just wanted to make that clear in case someone made the mistake of thinking that since I was listing the logic behind why some are in favor of abortions, that meant I was in favor of abortions, which I am not. I understand the WHY's, or try to at least).

Glad you are taking it kindly.

I understand you said that. HOWEVER...by your example you condemned EVERY RIGHTEOUS MAN who was an older Elder whether you intended to or not. You stated, flat out, that the reason he did not become a HP was because he was sinning in your eyes. Thus, you implied right there that ANY MAN who was not a HP and was older was a sinner. IT is THIS attitude that is detrimental. This is also why I say, it occurs constantly in the church, people do it and do not even realize what they are doing. People, just like you did, ASSUME the worst. In this, any Older Elder is treated to a grave injustice by MANY people. You want to justify the sinner by giving out injustice to the righteous. My desire is to justify the righteous so that the sinners cannot use their pride to toss unjust blame. Mandatory ordination with quorums based on age, rather than being an Elder or HP would go FAR to change this attitude. I'm afraid though, with how imbedded this attitude is in the church, that it still might not be enough to stop the bragging and inferences (just like you did in your example). I was judged, condemned and crucified NOT for any sin I did, but because of my age. I experienced this personally, and have found many others who have gone through this. My words to them...YOU ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS. There are MANY who are righteous who suffer the same unjust and unrighteous judgement in the church. The LORD loves you. I was blessed in that all these rumors have been put to rest in my old age, but I also know there are many out there that are NEVER justified. I would that the church would seek a system to justify the righteous in the face of their accusers, rather than making the HPG a place where it is seen that discrimination, nepotism and favoritism for the "in-crowd" vs. those who are not in this crowd remain on the outside. It is a huge discouragement to many. I was fortunate in that I remained faithful and did not let such accusations and thoughts drive me from the church, but I also know that there are some that are not so fortunate. However, my personal opinion is that if the LORD is just, many of those will have far higher rewards in the hereafter than I or many others, because if they were given the same opportunities we had, they would have been far more faithful and strong than we could even have imagined ourselves to be. The question then, is not whether these people are righteous despite our unjust condemnations, but rather how we can bring this justice to live in our church today, as we are supposed to be the Church of Jesus Christ...not the church of those who are popular among men vs. those who are not. I can say, that I KNOW many of those out there who are like me, who were or are Older elders in their Elder's quorum are very righteous and loved by the LORD. He loves you JUST as much (and perhaps more in some cases...who knows) as any young whippersnapper who is called to be a HP in their young age. In the LORD you will be justified if you remain faithful and true to his church and his gospel. Edit: I just want to say, I am NOT trying to say anything BAD about you personally, but you gave an example that is easy to use. I think you ARE a great guy Vort, and probably someone that shares a great many of the same views I do. I think in some ways we may be closer in thought than you think in this matter, but the way we view the way to resolve it is different. Both ways we discuss are done in the church. I am more in favor of the old way where stakes took the option at times to set a mandatory age and utilized it, as well as what some wards do in that they combine the HP and Elders. You favor the other way which many do it. That said, don't read what I wrote wrong. It may sound a bit strong in my wording so I want to guarantee you that I do not actually have something against you and think you are a good person, and that any implications that this is not so, is an unfortunate weakness of my writing and a fault on me rather than you.

Sometimes you can tell the truth, but NOT THE REASON of why someone asks another to do something. In regards to your question, I do not, but I DO know the instructions we have received on these situations from time to time. It would be ODD that he would be asking you to do that, as opposed to actually following the suggestions from higher ups in the church that suggest that when an Elder is older in general, that the age differences can make them uncomfortable. Hence, we ask them to go to the meetings with the High Priests. This does not occur in every ward, but it is pretty standard. The age varies anywhere between 40 to 55, depending on the Stake. It is FAR more likely your HPGL was following the suggestions of leadership and trying to make you feel at ease with the decision. From what you stated, you were already uncomfortable and upset with the request...if he had told you that he was doing this because of this type of perception or instruction, it is likely due to former experiences that you may have become even more upset. I have seen this happen. It is precisely because people feel this type of discrimination already, and realize that they are asked to remain an Elder, but go to High Priests as an Elder. If they have been righteous, at times this feels incredibly insulting. To further inform someone that, we are going to keep you an elder, but we realize that you are not as young as the other elders and think you would feel more comfortable with people more in your age range...generally will ONLY make someone angrier. This happens more often than you may realize across the church. Experience has taught that telling the individual the exact reason sometimes when they come back and asks why...is not the wisest course of action. Thus, the true reason you were told to go to the HPG was probably simply due to the instructions we have received on this matter (but as in my case, not all wards follow that idea). When you questioned why, one finds secondary reasons for encouraging someone to go. To tell someone that they can add to the discussion is actually an honest answer, it's just not the ENTIRE answer. Thus he finds something that is truth, but is not the actual reason. Let me give you an example of a situation which is extremely similar. There is was a young man I was trying to reactivate. He felt incredibly hostile to the ward and to the church. I felt that he should come to church. He had left with his family a while ago, and still had not become a priest or an Elder. We were trying to raise the number of inactives in our ward to actives, and raise the number of Elders by ordaining many of the unordained adult Aaronic Priesthood holders to become Elders in our ward. These were part of the ward goals that we had set. This was under the inspiration of the Stake leadership. When I went to this family, did I tell them, these are our ward goals and we need you to do this? Did I tell them that I knew they were inactive and that we wanted to activate them? No. I did not. They had children, one of whom soon would be 8 years old. I talked to the Father about his experiences in the church and found he still had a testimony. I then talked about his children and how wonderful it would be if he could baptize that child in the church. That I would do everything I could to help him be the one that baptized her if he so wished. My reasons may not have been the most purest I suppose, as I did this out of duty rather than something I would have done on my free time (and yes, I admit that, visiting members is not something that I actually truly love to do...I'm selfish like that). However, rather than flat out say the reasons of my being there, as that would go over about as well as a rotting fish in the middle of a small enclosed space in the middle of the summer heat...I told him a secondary truth that was still the truth and still had bearing. It was this truth that was more important to him to hear at the time, rather than the real reason for my visit (which, yes, was probably selfish and inspired by the goals that we had set. I am FAR from perfect). Sometimes relating to someone who is angry or upset the entire truth is not the best approach. To say something equally as truthful, but perhaps not the real reason, can be a better approach.

Or you need to work on your explanation. You stated that you had an Elderly gentleman that was not called to be a High Priest. You then stated you found out the reason, and it was because he was not paying tithing. Thus you imply right there, that those who are older Elders are sinners. This is a GRAVE insult to all those who are righteous and yet are Older Elders. THIS is the culture that I speak of that is highly discriminatory and makes people unhappy. Thus, you state that to be fair, discrimination and favoritism is needed in order to justify the sinner. To do this, you bring injustice to those who are righteous. My idea is NOT to justify the sinner, but to justify the righteous from those who judge like that.

Let's look at this...1/3 of the HP when I was an elder have left the church, some due to apostasy, some due to excommunication. WHY were they called? Why were they even ever HP when many of those FAR more righteous, FAR more faithful, were NOT? Your example is FLAWED. Why? In it, you imply the REASON people like me were NOT called as a HP was due to some personal sin. I was always a faithful temple goer...while I knew some of those who WERE HP who fell away (well, those who were eventually exed) did some pretty BAD things. Your example itself tries to explain right there that anyone who is not a HIGH PRIEST has some sin. THAT IS THE CULTURE I am talking about right there. This attitude is saying that those who are righteous get to be HP at younger ages and if you are NOT one...well...it's because you are a sinner...the members just have to figure it out already. This policy would not be so much as to justify those who are in sin (but would be going to HP quorum if they are old enough for cultural purposes below), but to JUSTIFY those who are NOT in sin. It would negate the rumors and other foolish things we do in this regards. It would justify those who are just as righteous as those who are favored to be in HP callings, by showing that by being faithful, NOTHING can be held against them. A HP calling is NOT a popularity contest...and hence anyone who is righteous is equal to everyone else. If you look at the mandatory HP item, it is for those who are faithful and active and temple going. Thus, about 50% of those that I talk to if they had remained active would be HP today. No if's...no ands...no buts. No complaining to me that I'm part of the problem (because, even though I had the age thing...I eventually became a HP at least...while a Hispanic in the area could be the returned Lord himself...as per at least one of their statements...and not be ordained a HP...ever) because I am not part of the minority population. The system NOW encourages nepotism, discrimination, and favoritism. I believe that callings come from the LORD, but I also know at times it is influenced a lot by WHO we know and what we think of the individual at times. This idea that the office of High priest is more virtuous or powerful than an Elder is ALREADY firmly rooted in the CULTURE of the LDS church. You yourself just used an example of it in your items above. This is one reason why some wards "invite" older elders to go to HP. This serves to do what it did to you at first. It is in NO way because you could contribute to the conversation, more likely it was specifically due to how we are instructed to get older Elders to go to HP due to the age differences. It is supposed to make it so that those who are older do not feel so isolated. The invite IS EMBARRASSING...but it is deemed to be LESS EMBARRASSING to the Elder than being forced to go long term with younger Elders. In addition, you were not an OLD Elder in many ways...try being 60 and still being an Elder despite doing all you can, going to the temple monthly, having sent 5 kids on missions and had them return, and being active in the church. I REMAINED faithful...but 48 is still much younger than 60. Then be in a ward that does not integrate HP and Elders...or even invite the older Elders to HP group. People get quite cruel in their assumptions about you. In truth, a better system is to simply say ALL HP and Elders meet together...and if it is an age thing...then divide the Priesthood into age groups rather than by Who has been favorited in LDS society and those who have not been. No one should KNOW whether one is actually a HP or Elder unless the calling needs for it to be specified. As for the HP's getting Prideful, I have NEVER seen ANYONE dress any of them down...EVER. That would start to get ridiculous. Even I, with my sympathy to those who feel ostracized due to this way of doing things would probably not do that. If there was a call to bring them to church discipline and basically demote them from HP to Elder (if it were even possible), I might do it in an instant if I could have a zero tolerance policy. Why? Because after 3 or 4 of these...I can almost guarantee the entire culture of this type of bragging would cease. The ends would not justify the means for ones who want to brag. However, right now...dressing someone down? Seriously...without something in the handbook to back me for that, it would be called unrighteous dominion...and I would be seen MORE in the wrong than anyone else because the culture of bragging is that prevalent. The same would apply to any Bishop. It occurs in subtle and miscellaneous ways constantly. When parents brag about their kid in the Bishopric at a young age, when a new young individual comes to a ward and is called as a counselor in the Bishopric despite half of the Older gentlemen who are there not being called as a HP (especially when the young individual is white and all the older gentlemen are NOT, one could say that is the sin that some hold against me to a degree), when a wife talks about how hard it is that her husband is in the HP council at 38 years of age, or when a wife says she misses the Elders quorum activities but because her husband is now a HP at the age of 30 they cannot go. How about when the old Stake president talks about how priesthood responsibilities rely on how righteous one is, how he was blessed even though it was so hard by being a Stake President, and how his sons are learning the same lessons in their 30s by being a Bishop and one is now also following in his footsteps as a Counselor in the Stake Presidency. To most that sounds like Nepotism in the stake rather than someone actually being righteous. No one's going to dress him down. You know that...I know that. Everyone knows that. Unless there is a church policy against it, nothing is going to change this culture. Of course, the reason they were probably called is that the old Stake President KNEW his sons and if they were good or bad and felt he could call them. He prayed about it and was told that these would be okay choices. On the otherhand, he didn't know half the Hispanics, because he isn't Hispanic...he doesn't know the society or most of those who are part of this minority. He chose from those he knew. That still shows an appearance of favoritism. It gives the appearance of Nepotism. That does not preclude revelation and a calling being from the LORD, but it is a HUGE factor in having those who are popular or well liked be the ones that seemingly are "called" while those who may be righteous, but are NOT popular, are seen as outcasts for no other reason than they are not part of the "in-crowd." It is EXTREMELY High School like...and I am convinced there has to be a better way of doing things than how we are handling this in our church today. I'm certain the twelve KNOW about this. Uchtdorf has talked about welcoming those who have been offended or ostracized to come back. It normally isn't the ONLY reason (it seems to be one of the first stepping stones though, offended individuals seem to start looking for other reasons against the church eventually), but it is something that I think we can quell if we take the right steps. I have stated, in the end it did turn out that it was a blessing for ME. There was a reason behind it that I see now. It is so that I can sympathize with the VAST numbers of people in my area who feel this way, that feel that they are discriminated against, and who I can use myself as an example of one. I used to feel very alone, but I have found out that there are MANY who are older elders ostracized and ignored through no fault of their own. I am NOT in charge of church Policy, but we NEED something that stops this ostracization between calling those who are in the "in-crowd" to being HP and those who are not to remain Elders. Those who are righteous need to be justified. There is nothing that can be done under current church policy to stop the culture of bragging or feeling one is more righteous than another due to being called as a HP at a young age or not. HOWEVER...JUSTICE can be served better if this culture has less legs to stand on by making it so that those who ARE righteous cannot be accused in the ways they are currently being accused in the church today behind their backs in gossip and other means. Addendum: The Lord works in mysterious ways. For ME, it WAS a blessing, though at the time I surely didn't think of it as being like that. I can see in hindsight how the Lord blessed me in this way to humble me and make me so that I can at least partially understand and sympathize with many of those in my ward. It is highly possible that I would not be able to do so if I had not had this blessing...odd as that may sound. However, this difficulty that I brought up in this thread is something that I deal with a LOT these days. It is normally more encapsulated between discrimination against minorities in my area rather than age...but in many ways it comes from those who point out that there is NO leadership from the minorities in the LDS church in the area, despite have a large number of them as members of the church. As such, it is something I wrestle with on a weekly basis. I may sound as if I have an answer in my posts above, but in truth, this is merely my hypothesizing on answers. I do not have the answer to their questions, but I fervently hope that the LDS church, which has many wiser leaders than I do, can come to some sort of answer to the many people in their situation which are hurting and praying for just such an answer.

This is true, and it is doctrine. It is also something that we may think we teach and act like it is true, but the reality is one that many who get to be HP when they were younger than I do not realize. For some reason, people may be nice, but they automatically assume that someone who is a HP is more righteous if they become one when they were younger, and that one who is older when they become a HP is by default the greater sinner. It is VERY painful. It is a dynamic that is a TERRIBLE thing that occurs in the LDS church, and it something that I had to go through. It is prideful, hateful, and one of the worst things that we do in the LDS church. I have often wondered if in my area, because I am the convert and do not have this huge church background, if that's one of the reasons I was considered an "outcast" in this way. We preach one thing, but we PRACTICE another in our LDS culture. There is a blessing though. Because of this experience, when called to leadership finally, I can sympathize with the many Hispanics in our ward (and even our stake). When they talk about the blatant discrimination in the LDS church and point out to the fact that almost NO Hispanics are High Priests in our area, despite around 1/3 of the membership being Hispanic, or that the entire High Council and Stake Leadership is white...and to add insult to injury, that even the Bishop of the Spanish Branch is now white...I can understand a little bit of the pain and anguish they feel when it appears that others are being placed in positions...NOT because of righteousness or any other item (as I said, probably 1/3 of those or more who were High Priests during my time as an Elder are either inactive or out of the church completely...as in apostasy...great call on those with strong testimonies...NOT)...but because of who they are related to, or how much people like them, or any other reason with the added inclusion that they are WHITE...yes...I can now sympathize with them. It is possible that the entire reason it took so long for me to be called in the HP was so I could understand these humble individuals that feel persecuted and abused in the LDS church. Perhaps it was so that I could relate to them in some small manner when I visit and encourage them to come to church. However, that does NOT hide the pain that I felt, or the anguish and under representation that these members who are just as loved by the Lord feel in regards to how we conduct ourselves in the LDS church. To destroy this appearance of favoritism and prejudice, my thoughts are that if possible, elders and HP SHOULD be combined to eliminate this idea. In addition, we SHOULD do as some Stakes did in the past...if one has been worthy, active, and temple going for five years...then at a certain age (40, 45, 50) one SHOULD become a HP. In addition...and this would be scandalous...IF one does become a HP at a younger age and is seen bragging about it, there should be some form of punishment to automatically humble them and bring them back to being an elder until they learn humility and patience, rather than making anyone who hasn't been feel guilty of not being so "righteous" as the one bragging (or their spouse or their family). (Addendum: Just so one can understand what went on when I was an older Elder...there were woman in relief society that dealt with my wife that constantly compared what positions their husbands had or had in the past in comparison to how righteous one must be, regardless of how righteous that individual was. Caused great grief for my wife occasionally. In addition, there were other gentlemen in our ward which had sons younger than me that would point out that their son was now a Bishop, or counselor in the Stake Presidency and other things as if it were something that was commendable on them...all the while when I was right there and they KNEW my age in relation to their sons. This among various other things showed just how much they felt the calling and HP really WAS representative of how righteous or good one was, and how they actually viewed me...and yes, it was not a happy experience for me. It has happened a lot in my life, and I'm certain it probably happens frequently in the church overall. It is this division that we need to do away with, and as the personal pride doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon, I would have it so that policy changes were made in the LDS church to make it a non-issue and one that cannot be used or be seen as discriminatory, favoritism, or nepotism. To be clear, I still think that the LORD IS behind church callings, but there are times when the appearance seems otherwise, and the way we ACT portrays it in a very different light). Lucky for everyone though, and this is probably a good thing to teach me humility, I am not one able to make decisions like that. I'm okay (despite what it may appear in my post) with what happened. It does NOT affect my testimony, and I know this is the Lord's church and it carries the true Gospel. I have five RM's in our family, and many grandchildren that are also raised in the church. As I said, in hindsight, I can see WHY it was a blessing for me (the Lord prepares us for callings we may not realize), and it prepared me to try to help others. However, I know it also is somewhat of a problem in some areas of the church and it SHOULD be a concern to people because it portrays us as a people that we should not be. It is also of little comfort, even when people like me assure others of blessings when they are suffering through this type of affliction themselves currently.