JohnsonJones

I think you'll be resting at least 1/7 of the time...but I could be wrong. I have been before. The work may also differ from what one thinks of work here. Perhaps you'll be given the job of heavenly messageboard moderator/call center technical wizard where you get everyone's complaints about their work schedules in written form... Or, perhaps you'll have to raise children after you keep having these spiritual offspring, which may be a type of work you want to do...and after that you may have to create worlds and build ecosystems and habitats where they can live in a physical body and follow in your footsteps and such. Who knows, but I suspect some of the work may include some items like that in the eternities.

This is an interesting thing to follow and one which I have looked at in the past to see what a solution would be. Let's take a worse case scenario (not stating this is the case, this is a let's pretend instance). Let's say it IS a scam and everyone is in it for the money in the leadership. Afterall, almost no one get's an income of 120K or more a year when they are in their 80s doing what General Authorities do, at least typically. No one has the benefits they get these days either for the most part. At best, if they were wealthy, they are living off investments in old age rather than being paid by an organization. What happens if it IS a scam? Let's look at the New Testament. The Church of Christ did not start until AFTER his death and was initially led by the apostles. Prior to this, the Lord in his mortal life was subject to the laws of the religion as imposed by his church. He may have noticed hypocrisy, taught where they could not, but he always recognized who the authority was (his Father, and those who were under him). At that time, the Jews were THE CHOSEN PEOPLE. It did not suddenly go away because there was corruption at the top. It did not suddenly disappear because those in the high positions were basically abusing the system. If Zachariah was still alive, the Lord would have gone to him to be Baptised as he had he authority, even in the middle of Jerusalem and the corruption that dwelt there. As it was, the son and holder of that authority was not in Jerusalem at the time, but recognizing the authority, the Lord was baptized by John the Baptist. The Lord cricized many practices that were not scriptural but still imposed upon the people by the religious leaders, but he also showed deference while in his mortal ministry to their authority. At that time, even though he was the Lord, he still recognized the chosen people and their leaders and it's religion. What does that mean to me. EVEN if the leaders of the church are the most wicked, the church is STILL the chosen vessel of the Lord on this Earth. This was true in the time of the Judges of Israel, this was true in the time of Samuel (and part of the reason Samuel became prophet was due to the corruption of the sons of the leader before Samuel, but even after them the true church remained), this was true during the House of David (even with all the wickedness that ensued, the Jews were still the Chosen people, and their religion and religious leaders still the church of the Lord, even if the kings were inspiring people to do therwise), this was true during the time of the Macabees. Thus, it does not matter to me what is occurring, that does not change what the church is or it's purpose. Now, that said about the pretend situation, let's talk about the reality of today. The history of the usage of tithing and the paying of General Authorities is not what I really want to go in depth here (probably because I'm supposed to be doing some research right now and instead am goofing off writing this which is probably not particularly good, means I may be working later tonight and won't get off till around 7 or later...so I need to make this shorter than a good examination of the topic would be). It probably would surprise MANY people about who was paid during the early days of the church and how General Authorities got funds at times. However, what many have problems with these days is that the church no longer discloses it's funds and how it spends them. Part of this some attribute to financial problems that arose in the first half of the twentieth century and continued to the mid-twentieth century. Some of these problems, when known by the General membership caused undue alarm and difficulties that should not have existed...hence the current situation. For some, this means there is a lack of transparency in what the tithing funds are being spent on. The problems arise because people feel that they should know what "their" money is spent on, rather than realize it is the Lord's money. Tithing is NOT unique to the LDS church. A good answer of why we pay tithing can be found from what I believe is a NON-LDS site here Tithe: What the Bible Says I'd like to go more in depth, but as I said, time is not my ally right now. In a nutshell, tithing was originally given to support the priests. It was still a way to support the ministry and those who worked for the Lord as per the New Testament. It never says that those servants of the Lord would give us an accounting of everything that it was spent on. In truth, the Bible itself doesn't really say they couldn't spend it on huge houses and Lamborghini's if they wanted to (but I think overall, it would be implied they'd do something better with the tithing). The LDS take is that the tithing is spent to build the Kingdom of the Lord on this Earth. How that is done is really up to those who are the appointed servants of the Lord to administer over those funds in our church. It is their best judgment. Tithing is not ours to say what to do with, but the Lords, and his servants use their judgement on how to best utilize it. If it is to build a large shopping mall because they feel that builds the kingdom up the best in showing the church to the outside world and building up the economic base of the Church, then so be it. If they feel it is to build a firm economic foundation as well as a place for food and welfare in case of terrible things happening such as making a ranch...then that is their guidance. If it is to build themselves homes that they can live comfortably in, well, then at least it is fulfilling the first commandment in regards to tithing found in the Old testament that tithing be used to support the priests (and in this case, the head high priests of our religion). It isn't really our place to dictate to them what the Lord's money is to be spent on. It is something that they themselves are accountable for before the Lord, and in that way, just like the tithes and how they were used were between the Levite Priests and the Lord in the Olden times, the way the tithes are spent today are between our High Priests that lead the church and the Lord today.

Maybe I am in regards to what you are saying. I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I hope you the best.

Is that not what you've been saying all along. My posts have been in regards to my own failings (which people have leapt upon) which dealt with those in my situation. I clarified that if they were not in my situation then go in peace...you responded which indicated that you are either in a similar situation or did NOT like my other point of discussion which centered around WHY government aid is necessary...and that is because the charity provided otherwise does not cover that, which I clarified in the posts you responded to in regards to the LDS church utilizing government aid these days because we simply do not get enough in offerings and donations. You tried to break off of my point in saying it was necessary by expanding it to say it was a long term solution (which is not part of my discussion). I was saying it is necessary, especially as it is now utilized in conjunction with Church welfare in many wards and stakes (which is a very compacted way of what I stated). You objected to it. You stated in response to why the government aid is necessary as it is being utilized by the LDS church with the following items This is a system descended from the Law of Consecration (which tithing COULD be seen as a descendant of as well) and hence the connection. Most, outside the church see the Law of Consecration similarly to socialism (though it would be religious socialism) and the ULTIMATE form of welfare or government (in this instance, theocratic) intrusion into others financial situations. In response that the government aid IS part of the system the church welfare is currently utilizing you also used this item Where as the Law of Consecration and sequentially those systems that arose when it was no longer used by those or lived upon anymore part of which was the Bishop's Warehouse and Church Welfare ARE part of the solution actually given by God BY his prophets and currently administered overall by General Authorities. Yes, we need to try to be self reliant (and you suppose that those who are ON church welfare are not trying, which is actually incredibly insultive to those that I know that are hardworking and still have those difficulties), but there are times when other needs are required...which is where the entire system of the Church Welfare comes into play. Unfortunately, at this point, there is so much need we do not have the adequate funds to deal with it all.

So I take it you are a rather HIGH earner in life. Do you feel you donate enough of your 150K + income each year? If so, that is between you and the LORD. As far as the church goes, it seems you have a problem with the church resorting to using government aid in assisting people. Since you DO make that much, you probably have around 90K left after taxes (unless you are smart in dealing with taxes in which case you probably have somewhere between 100 and 125K or more). You realize you have people living off of 30K or less without church assistance. You have people that are working full time and making less than 16K a year (sometimes working two or three jobs) and having two, three, four or sometimes more mouths to feed. And of course, as a high earner, 150K is on the low end of the scale. It could be that you make considerably higher than that. Self reliance is one item in the church, but the church has had the Bishop's Warehouse, and what many call Church Welfare (though it is basically a descendant of the Law of Consecration, which I suppose you are also against?) since...well...near the beginning of the church. Currently, the church utilizes the government assistance in helping out with the needy in the church when the offerings do not cover what is needed. If you do NOT like this aspect of the church, I'm certain you can try living as those who live off the 30K a year and donate the other 60K to the ward in fast offerings. That would go a LONG way to helping the problem, at least in your ward. You might find referring others to use government assistance a tad cheaper though. PS: If I recall, the question wasn't whether government aid was a long term solution to poverty, but whether we felt government aid is needed. I would that it was NOT and we would truly live in a society where such measures were NOT needed, but as the society we live in is full of wickedness, evil, selfishness, pride, lust, and every other sort of evil and vice...right now, it sort of takes up the slack while other resources do not. In that light, my answer, especially as the church has it as a solution to problems right now, is that yes, government aid IS needed currently.

Some people get rather close when asking if something is allowed or not allowed (question that was posed earlier in the thread).

That's a cool thought. Related but different. It could be he knows everything, but not necessarily everything. AKA...I am a historian. If I were to refer to me in that way, it would be if I knew every single detail that occurred in history. I knew it like the back of my hand (figure of speech). However, despite knowing everything, and though I could make an educated guess that probably would be correct based upon what's happened historically and based upon what people have done in the past, I do NOT actually know (though I might be able to predict with 99.99% accuracy) what exactly will happen tomorrow.

There are MANY things in this life that I have strong feelings towards. There are things I am of the opinion which should be more heavily weighted and more thought pondered than normally is given (one of my big peeves in what people sometimes treat far too flippantly would be divorce, for example). However, when dealing with things in church matters, it is best to rely on what is actually written rather than personal opinion. There are MANY things people take lightly that I would rather they think far more heavily upon before making an decision. However, personal opinion on such items is no reason to say something is allowed or not allowed or is going to make someone a good member or not a good member. Otherwise I'd condemn everyone in the ward who has gotten a divorce for a reason other than adultery or criminal abuse. Not a good thing. In these matters, it is best to stick with what is actually there. Some things are best left between the individual and the Lord.

Luke 12 has this gem I'm not certain how this justifies the complaints against Government aid. In general, I've found those against government aid are NOT those who would actually make up the difference in the case that it disappeared (and yes, that IS a generality). Normally they are just angry that they pay money to the government and can't spend it themselves, they WANT that money, it's NOT necessarily money that they then would give out to the poor. Now, I should point out, before you continue reading, it MAY be that you are taking offense of what I stated in regards to myself and those like me when it is NOT even applicable to you. I will explain a few paragraphs down. If it does NOT apply to you when I am referring to my own difficulties, then go in peace and realize, what I said was about MY difficulties and not necessarily YOURS or have anything to do with you. My statement in the preceding paragraph was about those in MY situation, not necessarily those who are NOT in the same class or category as myself. The question is WHY do we feel government aid is needed? That's what I've been answering. My answer is, because our charity is not enough. My thoughts is simply because of selfishness and pride. In reality, that's my reason I don't give more. Overall, considering the size of houses of me and others like me, I'm pretty certain it applies to everyone in my income class. You may NOT be in that same category, and you can simply say...I'm not like Johnson there. In that instance, go in peace and mind your way. Chances are that you are taking offense when you are those that I am trying to defend in some way. Arguments such as, churches or other charities will take up the slack may satisfy you. However, it isn't enough in the LDS church, and me and others in it help people gain government aid. If you are against government aid, then provide me and others a way to HELP others without having to resort to it. NOT ONE person has given any solution other than...well...we just hate it. I don't mean a hypothetical solution, I mean a solid solution I can use TODAY to help someone in need. If you want to donate 100K to our ward offerings, that would solve it for our ward for the next few months. However, simply saying...it's not justified because...doesn't help solve the church's problems nor it's involvement in helping members use government aid, nor does it help. I think many here do NOT realize that the LDS church currently heavily relies on the government programs to help those in need in many of the wards and stakes in the LDS church. If you think this is WRONG, then you need to actually provide a solution that WORKS rather than simply saying you hate something and then offer NOTHING that actually solves the problem. Otherwise, then yes, I am going to read it as simply angry that the poor are getting help in some way, and that you are actually rich enough that you pay taxes that are paying for that welfare (aka...an income over 150K a year normally) rather than simply supplementing the government benefits one already receives (roads, lights, police, fire, administrative, etc). If one is rich enough that their taxes are paying into these funds for government aid, I have YET to see anyone (and once again, that would include myself) who is actually not selfish in some way that they could not pay more if they would put the needs of others over themselves (Not saying it's not happening, but I have not seen anyone in that situation that actually is or has). 90% of the US simply is subsistence and do NOT pay the taxes that cover what they use. It's mostly the top 10% that pay for these items, and if you are in that top 10%, well, as I stated in the prior paragraph, I have yet to see anyone of them that could not pay more if they put other things over their own desires. I'm not their judge though, but we will all have to answer to the Lord at some point (and if one couldn't tell, I'm not particularly comfortable with what I will be able to tell him, I'm not sure what will be the result of the conversation, I hope somewhat good, but I fear it may not be as I have not always followed those scriptures as found in Mosiah or Luke or Matthew. If anything, the chapter in Luke you mentioned condemns me even more for piling up savings in hope that I have enough to cover my lifestyle into my deep old age). Now if you are part of the 90% that are using more benefits from the government than you pay in taxes...well, part of this isn't just dealing with the welfare part, but any government aid (And there is a lot of it, much of it many don't even realize they are using). As I said above, you can go your way in peace, you have taken offense at me implying you aren't giving enough to charity when my comments really have nothing to do with you or your income or your ability to donate. A LOT of the supposition is that those who are on aid don't need it, or lazy, or other ridiculous, judgmental, and incredibly insulting to many of those who ARE hardworking and ARE striving to provide for their families but are falling short in our society today. There's a REASON the church has this program to try to help those in need. It is NOT as strict as it used to be (100 years ago, you were expected to donate everything you had in some communities, and then it was on the bishop to determine your needs and provide the necessities). This can be an issue where Bishops take different slants. I've seen some stingy enough that their members are getting food from the Catholic Charities (how horrible is that, LDS members relying on OTHER churches rather than us to get basics like food) and food banks, while there are those that also burn through their budget for helping the poor in the first week and then are giving out money from their own pockets for the rest of the month. In either way, this is perhaps one of the TOUGHEST parts of leadership and a headache for many a Bishop out there, simply because in general, the difficulty is that there is NOT enough given in offerings each month and the aid the church can give falls far short of the goalpost. It's not due to a lack of ability in my opinion, but a lack of something else. THIS is why we need government aid right now, because we don't have the resources in the church (and probably other charities) to actually provide the needs of people in need, much less anything else. Even in the church leaders are helping people sign up for government aid in various categories because there is NO OTHER CHOICE really, right now. Either that or we let people die in the streets. That seems rather unchristian to me.

Obviously.

Even the church uses the government aid programs because we don't have enough from Offerings. Without government aid, the church would be in bad shape with it's poor. There's not enough money in the "coffers" from charity to actually DO everything to help them with their needs (much less anything else). I and another end up paying hundreds of dollars on the spot and out of pocket each month to try to fill this need and it still isn't enough. I have quoted scriptures above, and I KNOW we don't fulfill our duties as a church (collectively speaking) in that regards, and that DOES include me. I also see a LOT of the luxuries I and others have, and KNOW that we are choosing these things over other areas. If you have a PROBLEM with these things, then ask yourself why you are offended by Matthew 25 and Mosiah 4, or if you are not, what do you feel the LDS church should do these days. There is NOT enough money to help the poor and without government aid, many would be in very bad situations.

No, I'm not taking condemnation as that, but I DO know WHY it was put into place. We have had people starve in the US. We have had some very terrible things happen in the US, and it was particularly bad in the Depression era. During that time period people were FAR more generous then we were. It was not uncommon for people to knock on others doors and be given meals (they'd stand a chance of getting shot these days, or the police being called to cart them off, ironic that it is more likely they get a meal in jail than from their fellow men). However, even at that time they had some terrible tragedies going on. Social Security, Welfare, and other social nets were created because our charity WAS NOT working in these instances. It is even worse today. However, if one feels they are following Matthew 25 and Mosiah 4 and can stand before the Lord with a clear conscience, more power to them. Normally I hear (and I have heard in this thread) the exact opposite of what King Benjamin is telling us I Mosiah 4, and especially people reasoning why the poor deserve what they get rather than why we should share with them. I know for me it can be particularly hard at times when we walk down Main in Salt Lake City. You wonder if these people have a nice car right around the corner where they go to after that, OR if they are really in need. However, in Mosiah 4, which pricks my conscience uncomfortably, I realize that is NOT my place to ask these questions, and it makes me feel even more guilty. However, I DO know in regards to the fast offerings situation in the church, if we even are just talking about Mormons, we are not even 1/10 as generous as people are implying in this thread. If it we were hit by another great depression and there was no government aid, the church could not help all the poor out there and help them survive. We would literally have Mormons in the streets and starving. Thus, even as I feel guilt, I know it is a WE situation because it is not just I who has a lack of charity. I know for me, it is due to pride and selfishness, and considering what the Scriptures say, and the situation the church is finding itself in, I'd say I'm not alone in that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't change that there is not enough offerings given out there to help support the poor in the church each month, much less help the poor in general if there was no government aid. I don't know how many times we've tried to help those who ask for help in the ward, and we do as we can with the Bishops Warehouse, DI, and otherwise, and yet fall extremely short and have to refer people to government aid and at times even help them fill out the forms.

I did say we. You can feel that speaks to you. Once again, why do you feel that way? What causes you to take offense at it? Is it due to humility? I DID include Matthew 25 which IS for us all in my last post. If one has problems with what the Lord says, perhaps one should reflect on why they feel that way. ARE we following what the Lord states there? If I were to talk about the actual truth, it would probably be that 99% of Americans do NOT follow what the Lord states, and yes, that is probably due to pride and selfishness. However, I realize that when I am looking at this perspective, it isn't really seeing what others are doing, but realizing what I have done and what I am like. It is how one feels others are like them and do as they do. I realize that it is I putting my perspectives out there in reflection of what I do and have done. Now many would say they feel this way, and it IS scripture from Mosiah 2 in the Book of Mormon This is true, and I'm not contesting this at all. However, I think too often we may focus on one part, but not on some other parts. But it is this scripture that he states a little later that always reminds me and makes me worried about the actions I've taken in life, especially on the corner of the Temple at Temple Square where I'm almost always finding people asking for money and aid. How often do we look at one part, and then forget about the next. It is in Mosiah 4. As you can see, I don't ever see in the scriptures it saying...condemn those that are poor and do not share your money or wealth, but the exact opposite...and that worries me. To me it is continually harping on us that we recognize the poor and needy. Maybe it's just highlighting my own weaknesses and they were only written for me. From what I've seen outside the US in some other nations, I have a feeling that what I'm talking about in regards to me is actually quite common in regards to our selfishness and pride. We (yes, I used we, because it is I, and I note it is among my fellow Americans) want to follow the prosperity gospel as taught by those like Joel Olsteen and others rather than what we find in the Scriptures which continually adheres us to look after our fellow men (and women of course).

I can't really say I read romance novels, the closest probably would be either the Work and the Glory series, or the Yorganson's Bishop's Horse Race series (The Bishop's Horse Race, Brother Brigham's Gold, Seven Days for Ruby). My wife's favorite romances are all Jane Austin stories (I think she favors Emma more than the others though). I think it's awesome that you are getting a book out. It looks like it takes a LOT of effort and dedication to get a book written. Congratulations on writing it and getting it out there to be bought! I am curious as to what all you did to get published on Amazon. What are the steps. Does one fill out a form, are there costs, what is involved with it? I would like to write a book someday (but not a romance book, more like a children's book) and am curious how one would go about getting it out there, published, advertised and all the rest, along with what options are available.

That can be tough to hear that and to decide what to do in that situation. Sometimes we do not know all the reasons things happen or why we were warned (unless we choose to do them anyways and then we find out that way). I know an individual that had a similar situation. In this instance they needed a job extremely badly. They got an interview, but had a very bad feeling about the job itself. They felt that they shouldn't take the job, even though they needed it. Talk about a TOUGH choice. I wish I could say it was wonderful and awesome afterwards, but it wasn't. It was actually very hard. They eventually had to go on church welfare for food, and we helped them filled out an application for the government for heating assistance (there wasn't enough funds to pay for everything, that was the best that could be done in this instance, not a choice,the ward couldn't pay the bills, because there was no money left to do so, which is where the government came in because that's all that was left for the best possible solution). A few months later they found a dream job, one that they absolutely loved, and still love. They are self sufficient and truly enjoy what they are doing. It is the best possible outcome for them possible. I don't know why they had all the challenges they went through, but there are suspicions on why the first job was a bad fit. The person that eventually filled it quit within a few weeks, and their replacement also quite from what I understand. Hard bosses and other stresses. Though the pathway was hard, the final result of it has been a blessing to that family. I don't know all the answers or reasons things happen. I can't even say when someone has really made the best decision or not. Though the times in my life when I have gotten a No is rare, I know a few stories of those who received a similar answer and the results of it. I don't know how it will turn out for you, I can only hope that you will be blessed for your decision. Having had jobs that worked Sundays, I can tell you, it can be HARD at times. It's hard on the soul, and for a faithful LDS member, on the emotions. It doesn't matter the pay or the benefits at times, because the drain can be harder than some may expect (and for others it may be easy, but for me, it was hard at the time). As I said, I don't know what the future holds and can't promise it will be good or bad, but, I hope you find your dream job with great benefits and health insurance and once again, hope you are blessed for your decision.

I believe I stated it above. While it may be discouraged, there is nothing that actually condemns it. There are many things that are discouraged or not encouraged, but you can still be a worthy member with a temple recommend if you have been a party to them. If I look at a historical similarity, we could look at the Word of Wisdom when it was originally issued. It was not something that prevented you from being a member in full standing back then if you did not adhere to the word of wisdom. That came later. Originally, you could drink coffee and other things, and still be a member in good standing. It was advised that you do not do certain things, but nothing in it said that you would be a member in bad standing if you did such things (and we even know an apostle or two and even a prophet or two on occasion that did it rather openly). Discouraged is not the same as whether one is allowed or not to allow someone to do something. I do not agree it is only "allowed" in certain circumstances. We should not write more into what is already written, lest we become tyrants and practice our authority unrighteously.

Awesome Post LDS person.

Does it sound like I'm talking about someone other than me? Interesting... On Zil's comments, I agree. IF we could actually be charitable enough to care for the poor and needy among us, there would be no need for government welfare. In fact, it would be seen as highly redundant. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I know I am far from perfect, and am not any better than the rest of you. I cant' say I'm actually incredibly proud of it, but what you take as incrimination may simply mean that you are more like me, than you would think, for the incrimination I laid was upon myself and not necessarily anyone here. In regards to us as a society? I've unfortunately seen instances of terrible things that happen BECAUSE we, as a people are NOT that charitable (and this refers to me definitely). When we consider what we are discussing, remember that the LORD himself appears to have been one of those homeless wanderers that was given food and drink at various times and places. Are we better than he, are we to judge him? Or is he our judge? When we consider what we should do, the Lord has told us... He literally says in Matthew 25

Better counterpoint...name ONE NON-LDS scholar (credentials and university preferred) that actually supports a family wandering the Arabian peninsula around 600 BC and actually having enough of an effect that the people's would name villages, locations, and towns after that families members... Most scholars disregard the Book of Mormon...period. That makes it easy to say, hey, that name you think was inspired by the Book of Mormon...actually, there's a history to that village and it either predates/came a long time after...etc...than what you Book of Mormon guys think. Much of the LDS Book of Mormon guesses are more of simple supposition rather than anything based on any strong evidence from what I've seen. It's like the entire wandering the Arabian peninsula for 8 years. Ever actually been there...I have...multiple times. It's one of the areas I HAVE studied with history in a little more depth than others. In all reality, the tribes would have killed Lehi over water. Point blank and period. Unless he was from their tribe (there were FIERCE wars over water in that area...dating as far back as we can record, and they were VERY protective over water) there is a high probability if he spent all that time in that peninsula wandering, he and his family would all be dead. HOWEVER...let's assume they did spend all that time there, how was it possible? They would have to have joined into some sort of tribe (mysteriously absent from the Book of Mormon), NOT wandering in the wilderness (being with a tribe isn't really wandering, more like dwelling with a tribe as they go through their seasonal routes), AND, more like wandering in the desert rather than an actual wilderness. 8 Years is a LOOOONG time. I don't think many think about how long that is for someone who is travelling (obviously people know how long 8 years is), nor how realistic it is for them to be wandering in the Arabian Peninsula for 8 years unless they were suffering the same type of exile that the tribes of Israel did during their 40 years of wandering. A family is FAR smaller than the tribes of Israel as well. Let me ask you, from a secular scholar's point of view, which is more likely when one states they traveled East for 8 yearsas it is stated in the Book of Mormon...that they actually travelled East covering all of Asia...or went East into the Saudi Arabian desert, possibly also then went west, and finally back up North, and took so long traveling that any tribe that wished to could have massacred them along the way, yet we have no record of such a battle (and they would have had to be fierce warriors or had a LARGE tribe themselves to survive this, and if they were a large tribe, why send the sons back to Jerusalem for wives when they would already have enough people there with them if they were that big of a band) and yet we have NO histories of their persistent wanderings from that time period while we actually DO have records occasionally of other groups and encounters? I'm not anti-Mormon, but I don't sequester myself to limited theories that try to narrow down the range of where the Book of Mormon may cover, because I feel it limits them to other options that might be possible. We are actually on the same side, but there are times when some ideas should be vetted far more than they are in LDS communities. I think this is a BIG reason their are those who are so flustered about discoveries in the Tehuantepec Peninsula that prove that the ideas Mormons have about the inhabitants there do not really mesh with the history discovered there. They have closed themselves off so strongly to other ideas...that when evidence comes up they are actually wrong...they can't deal with it. Do you even know where the current Arabian peninsula theory comes from? My research seems to indicate it started in 1950 with the Eastern Arabian coastal descent theory from Hugh Nibley (before that was the Western Arabian coastal descent theory which Nibley himself was attempting to refute I believe), and then has been refined over the years. Having been there... I HIGHLY doubt Lehi travelled that route for 8 years. 2 years...MAYBE...but 8 years...he'd have dwelt too long in a location and gotten killed. However, let's assume that the absurd is possible. Then we come across the next challenge and why Asia is much more reasonable than Arabia. Currents and wind patterns make it so that they would have been far more likely to end up elsewhere, even if they managed to get to the Americas. we are talking about a voyage over ~580 days at best, possibly up to 2 years! Do you know how much food and water you need to store for 2 years!? in theory, they would all starve to death if they didn't die of thirst first (the ocean, though filled with water, is NOT palatable to drink). Do you know how many terrible storms they would have encountered (similar to what was recorded in 1st Nephi, but it wouldn't have been just one, they would have spent at least 2 seasons in the monsoon season). It does NOT correlate to what the Book of Mormon indicates. You can find these conclusions on the internet without my help, in fact, if you want to go simple science you can even refer to a documentary made about it just a few years ago! (And FAIR tries to address this, but jumps to conclusions themselves with the idea that the ship could have stopped for supplies and other ideas). So, once again is it more likely Lehi spent 8 years travelling a trek that normally would take less than a year to travel, dawdling along the way where there were hostile tribes that may allow a passing trader but someone who spent a reasonable time would be viewed as a threat and killed, made such an impact that towns that were supposedly named 1000 years prior are now named after Lehi and followers instead despite there being a history of the place in some locations with no reference to Lehi and company otherwise, and there IS NO hunting really available (so, say good bye to that steel bow story) overall unless you are approved by the tribes (and would need a LOT of money...easier to actually just buy it from the tribes themselves) in the few locations where it might be reasonable, and then after all this, build a boat (even with technology several hundred years into the future, the boat would STILL take almost 2 years to get to the Americas) that can store two years worth of food and water, and then go on a 2 year voyage during which you would be in the water for at least 2 monsoon seasons, but only ever experience on encounter that was severe enough to nearly sink your ship that entire time? OR, that it takes 8 years to travel from Jerusalem to the Eastern Edge of Asia, and then take a boat for a few weeks to a few months (if they went North, which isn't recorded in the book of Mormon, it actually could have been a few days voyage even) and get to the Americas that way? Still encountering hostile tribes and peoples, but being able to have enough room to be able to flee away from them and out of their territory if necessary (not possible in the spend 8 years dawdling down the eastern Edge of Arabia theory). I'm not discounting the Arabian theory, but I'm saying to me it is far more logical to me they went across Asia or some other route that actually TAKES 8 years rather than either dawdling so slowly in the Arabian Peninsula it defies belief for the dangers it would incur, or wandering aimlessly through the Arabian peninsula (once again the BoM never indicates they wandered aimlessly like the Children of Israel did for 40 years) for no reason at all. It also makes more sense that the Lord, in his wisdom, would send them on a more reasonably short ocean voyage than one that covers that far of a distance for that long of a period. Far easier to have them travel across the wilderness of Asia where there is FOOD AND WATER available rather than an ocean where you might be able to fish, but water is going to be in short supply eventually. I would like to emphasize, we are on the same side in regards to our belief in the Book of Mormon. We have different OPINIONS on where things may have occurred and where they occurred. Overall, the belief is more important, but historically speaking, I am of a different opinion than you in regards to where certain events may occur. We still probably support very similar ideas in other areas.

Another thought I had on the subject. My thoughts in relation to myself and my own fallen tendencies, not as a reflection of those in this thread necessarily. I think many object to government aid for two reasons, we are selfish, and we are prideful. Once again, this is more SELF Reflection than any commentary on what others have stated in this thread. The church does not lean one way or another in regards to temple worthiness or otherwise. We think that WE deserve what we get. That because we are lucky enough to have good paying jobs, that we earned what we have. Instead of saying the Lord has given us everything we have gotten in this life, we see it as something WE worked for and WE earned. When we see others without, we say WE got what WE worked for and may blame them for various reasons, instead of being thankful that the Lord has seen to bless us with what we receive. I know of a married couple (not I) who differed on their opinion on what they should or should not do with their children as they grew up. The Father felt they should simply kick the children out at the age of 18 and force the children to "grow up" and work for a living. The Mother felt they should pay for college and help the children as they grew older. They had four children, so they divided them up with the Mother helping two, and two basically being kicked out. Both of those who went to college have better paying jobs, and are doing better, despite being dependent as adults for 4-6 years as they went to college. Of the other two, one has had a hard time finding employment, though is lucky enough to finally have gotten a job that I tried to promote them for, and the other, though working, doesn't have as high an income as their other two college educated siblings. This isn't true for EVERY child (there are those who earn more who never even graduated from high school, and of course you have Bill Gates stories and such of those who never graduate college), but I find that when we decide that people must learn the law of the world and kick them out to fend for themselves or other such thoughts, it isn't necessarily beneficial for them or society. As I said, people tend to look at themselves in a prideful way, and say what they have is because THEY deserve it. If they have more than another, it is because THEY earned it. They do not feel the Lord is actually the one responsible in any way, and thus, in their own selfish way, feel that THEY are the ones that own it. In this way, in my opinion, we sometimes place ourselves over others for no good reason. I think it is much like salvation in some ways. NO MAN (or woman) can earn their way to heaven (besides the Lord, of course, who was perfect and without sin). No one is counted as better than the other simply due to our "works" in this life. All works can do is show that we have faith, but are nothing in regards to actually getting us to heaven. It is completely on the mercy and judgement of the LORD that we either get salvation or not. It is ironic that many can remember that in spiritual needs, we are all reliant completely upon the Lord, but forget it in regards to our physical needs as well, and instead feel that we are better than another simply because we have been blessed with more. The Lord stated that it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to get through an eye of a needle. There have been SOME rich men that have tried to explain it away with a rather absurd explanation of the gates of Jerusalem (which ignores a lot of the context and historical setting that the parable was actually told in), but in truth, I think it is more literal in some ways than many would like. As I said, this is in regards to me, and not specifically those in the thread, I have been very blessed in this life. Sometimes I wonder (and no, I do NOT want the challenges of being poor. In fact, I would say I am afraid of that challenge and probably why I am so deficient in the charge of charity at times, or because I am selfish and would rather have that new laptop or other such ridiculous wants in this life. I pray that I do not have to suffer from the challenges of me and my family being in need, it really does scare me in that thought) how much my chances of obtaining salvation are in regards to that parable. In relation to the world, we, in the US are very rich. I don't know what my chances are and I have no idea if I am humble enough, or if in regards to the truly poor in this life, if I am righteous enough to get to heaven. (The Lord in the New Testament speaks FAR more highly of the poor more often than of the rich or of the powerful).

No. Note the exact opposite response above me. We can be of opposite opinions and still be good people I think. The church teaches us to try to be self sufficient, but there are times when people are not or cannot be. I think the commands of the Lord are to Love him with all our heart, might, mind and strength and the second is like to it, to love our neighbor like our selves. If we were living the true higher law, there would be NO poor (and NO RICH) among us. Obviously we are not charitable enough to do this. Instead of being charitable enough (and this includes me) we blame the poor for the problems instead of seeing that it may be something that is there to test us, to see if WE will be valiant and many of them perhaps already were...it is not their test...but ours. Others (and this really applies to me) are too selfish and are afraid of the future. WE want to make sure we have enough stored up or ready for retirement, future payments, safety net...etc. to give as much as we probably could to the poor. This means that we do not live in a Terrestrial society where all have enough for their needs. However, as we do have rich and poor among us, we are fortunate in many nations which have a system to help those in need in various ways. Why anyone would want the poor to suffer or starve, or die in our streets, or say every man for themselves is sort of puzzling to me. I've been to nations that are that way, and it really is NOT PRETTY. It makes one appreciate modern western society far more in many ways, especially that we don't have the poor sitting themselves to die because there is no food, or others are dying in their 50s and sometimes 40s (or earlier) in larger numbers because the medical treatments are not for everyone are where they live. I do not see how it is Christlike to try to ignore the poor or to blame them and say we are more deserving children simply because...rather than do what is more Christian. The Lord stated that if we do it to the least of these, we do it unto him. We should remember that during his ministry, he himself in some ways might be technically considered homeless and wandering. How would we have treated him? Anyways, that's personal opinion. Luckily, the church does not force one way of thought or another. It does not condemn someone for being poor, or receiving government aid (and, at times, leaders are told to try to help members in need any way they can with the resources available. Despite what some may think, NOT a ton of Fast Offerings are there to help every ward, and some wards do NOT have the resources to pay everything for everyone in need...at times government resources ARE the route that is the best suggestion) nor does it condemn someone who is against government aid. It is largely up to the opinion and desires of each member in that regard, and thus you can have those who have entirely different opinions from each other who are both members in good standing with temple recommends.

Perhaps, but still does not make a ton of sense (and if they were slaves, they should have never been able to leave) for them to have stayed that entire time in the Arabian Peninsula. If they left by ship, the currents should have taken them to multiple other locations. The timing would make a LOT more sense if they actually travelled east (even a East-South East direction from Jerusalem does not necessarily take them into Saudi, but more towards Asia proper in line with Persia and those areas) like it states in the Book of Mormon. Saudi is more towards the South, though if you aim for the Eastern edge of the peninsula you can sort of say it's the East-Southeast direction. The timing and the currents would indicate to me that it is more likely they went through Asia during that time than spending the entire time in the Arabian Peninsula. I know the Arabian Peninsulait is a popular opinion among many LDS scholars (along with the Central American Theory in regards to where the Nephite and Lamanite civilization dwelt which I think is also torn to shreds by non-LDS scholars...I'm more partial to the opinion of either an entire North American Continent theory or the Great Lakes Theory myself) but I think most of them are looking at too localized of an area (in my opinion, of course).

Jacob have I loved Slightly different tone than the last one I wrote. So, tonight my wife flipped on the light switch so she could read. She couldn't get to sleep, and unfortunately I can't sleep with the light on. So, since she was awake, I was awake. She's reading Jacob have I loved, which is one of her favorite books. My wife always said she related to Louise growing up. Her sister was talented and played the violin, drew artwork that everyone seemed to love, and made straight A's in school. My wife didn't do so well in art, couldn't play the violin, and was an A and B student. My wife always felt like her sister was the favored one growing up and thus felt like she related to the Character of Louise in the book. In the book you have two sisters, Louise and Caroline. Caroline is beautiful and talented and everyone seems to love her while Louise is left in the shadows of her sister, or so she feels. It isn't till near the end where she is told she (Louise) who is the one to decide what to be that she changes, goes to school and then medical school, becomes a doctor, and eventually married. However, I noticed something when we were first married, and I told my wife, I think she was mistaken about which sister she was. My wife was absolutely gorgeous. She was modeling type gorgeous, with the classic blonde hair and blue eyes. She had a ton of friends and was popular, while her sister was not and tagged along with my wife's crowd of friends. My wife sang beautifully and did choir growing up. I noted that while my wife was getting married at a young age, her sister still was not married nor dating someone seriously. I realized at that point, though I do not know how much, that even though my wife was jealous of her sister, the opposite was true as well. Her sister was also jealous of my wife. In looking at it, it seemed more that her sister would fit Louise and my wife would fit the role of Caroline. Her sister has done wonderfully in life, deciding to go to graduate school and while there finding the love of her life and finally getting married. However, when I look at the roles of the book, and the roles of these two sisters, I think my wife, though wanting to see herself through Louise's eyes, truly fit the role of Caroline far more aptly. I wonder how much others feel that way in our families at times. How often do we feel our brothers or sisters are favored over us, or are looked upon more favorably and we are the outcast. I wonder if at times, we feel that way because that's who we want to relate to, even if we are the ones who are not. I noted to my wife about the scripture reference. Supposedly the scripture is in reference to Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:13 Which is interesting when one knows the story of Jacob and Esau. Though the Lord favored Jacob, if I remember the story right, Issac actually favored Esau as the firstborn. Jacob eventually leaves and has the conflict of his own story with two sisters (which in some ways also reflects the story in Jacob I have loved). It's an interesting dynamic. Now, I was told that I was incredibly popular when I was younger. I know my wife seemed pretty popular. What I find interesting is if you asked us each about what we thought we were, we probably would have said we were not the popular people, but just normal, everyday individuals. That there were points that we wondered if people actually liked us or cared for us. In my wife's case, I know she always had friends there that are friends with her to this day. In that instance, I wonder if it doesn't matter how popular you may seem, or how well you are liked, that everyone at some point in life may feel like they are alone, or no one is there for them. That everyone at some point may feel like a Louise, (or Jacob as Esau threatens him, or Esau as he feels Jacob is favored over him, or Rachel as Leah has all the sons, or Leah as it seems Jacob always favors Rachel over her no matter what) in their lives. I think one of the great comforts we can have as Mormons, though not all of us realize it is that we can all have at least one constant companion. We, when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as long as we remain worthy can always have the comfort of the Holy Ghost with us, and know that our Lord is with us as well and cares for each and everyone of us. Louise may have been Methodist in the book (I believe that was her religion) and married a Catholic, but I think her story also can pertain to us Mormons as well. Maybe that is why the book "Jacob have I Loved" appeals to so many through the years, because many of us, no matter who we are, sometimes feel that way. However, the great thing is that we can all hopefully know that we are all loved by our Father, and also by the Lord, and that we can have constant companionship. I have several children and some of them do not seem as talented as others on the surface. There are little girls, but the one I want to talk about briefly is my second oldest son. His older brother is very coordinated in hand and eye, athletic, and very outgoing. He, in contrast, is extremely shy, and not very coordinated. While his brother was winning trophys and events, which made me very proud, I was equally proud of this little boy for something entirely different. He got up and gave a talk on his own in primary. To put this into perspective, he wouldn't even talk to other kids he was so shy, and though could say prayers at home, up until this point always had to be helped to say them in primary due to his shyness. That Sunday we had practiced his talk over and over and over again. He knew it from memory, and when he got up and after a pause, gave the talk, I was just as proud as I was of his brother at any event that his brother had won. This was a major victory for this little boy. When this little boy went to second grade I challenged him to make 30 friends, with the hope that he at least would make at least one. It wasn't until the third quarter when he finally came home to say he finally made his first friend ever. I was so proud of him. In regards to the book, I would have always felt my second son would be the one that would be most like Louise, especially considering how much and how talented his brother was. However, imagine my surprise when one day, my kids all voted to show who they thought I loved the most (hint, I love them all, they are all my favorites), and they listed my second son as my favorite. In some way, the others, though very talented in their own ways, felt that my attention to the second son made them all feel a little like Louise. I've tried since then to take time for each of them and tell them each how important and special they are to me. I don't know where exactly I was going to conclude on this, just that the different perspectives I've thought of as I watched my wife read the book again for the umpteenth time. However, she's finally clicking off the light, but as I've thought about my family, I know that I want them all to know how much I love each of them and how special I think every single one of them are. I think in relation to the book we are all Louise's sometimes, and all Caroline's sometimes, but no matter how alone we may feel, I think our Father also feels in some ways how I feel towards my children, but far more. That he loves each and every one of us far more than we can realize, that we are all extremely special to him and that if he could, he would want us all to know just how special and loved we are.

People are of different opinions. I am glad for the medical doctors that were there when my wife gave birth to our first child. Without them it is possible there would be no wife and no child today. Personally, I would hope that everyone could have their child's births funded, but I know that is a highly unpopular opinion among the haves vs. the have nots. To me, everyone should not have to worry about the health of the mother or the baby, or worry about their children when their children get sick. I know this is very unpopular with some people. We were blessed at the time to have full medical coverage (something no longer possible now that the ACA has occurred, which changed our plan from then which covered things at 100% though we paid a high cost in insurance bills each month, to now where it will not cover everything 100%).

Sometimes we do not know the answers. A Long time ago (ancient history unless you're an old geezer I suppose) I dated a girl (me, dated a girl? other than the one I married? is this something that actually ever happened?). I kept getting the feeling that I shouldn't marry her. It was the strongest feeling I ever puzzled about. It even disturbed me to a degree. I did not know why the answer was no. Long story short, I didn't marry her. I eventually married the perfect woman, which is my wife. I would have never married her if I had married the other gal. However, I found out later that the girl I used to date was unable to have children. I do NOT know if that was why at the time, but I was not aware that this was something that I might have to deal with later in life. I do not know if she did either at the time. I just know that MAY have been a reason why I kept on being told, NO, in that specific instance. It might not have been. I still do not know completely. It is the only time I can truly say I was actually being forcefully told...NO. It was something I just could not shake off. I have several wonderful children today that I am very grateful for, a wonderful wife, and wonderful companion. I don't know all the answers, and rarely have I ever been given the answer no to a question. Sometimes our paths lead us in very different directions than what others would tell us to do or have us act. I can't give you advice in your situation, as we have no idea what it is for or in answer to. I can only tell you on this my experience in it and what the results were.