JohnsonJones

Unlike some, I come directly from a nobility line. They are well aware of the LDS tendency and have locked up all records at this point (as far as I know) that are not already known to the public to only the direct family (aka, those currently in rule and their direct children...not even grandchildren, cousins, etc. have access anymore as far as I know). This means, it is just about impossible to get those records, or at least I have no idea how to obtain them at this point. The other side has never been done, and it is all in a foreign language which I do not speak. I know the area they are from, but even if I got the records I wouldn't know what I was looking at. Hence why it's kind of a dead end for me in genealogy right now. For the work that was done that we didn't do, none of my kids own up to it, and my parents did not do it. That means someone outside the family did it, and no one beyond those I talked about are members. On my wife's side, the temple patrons told me for those I have already, the reservations only last for one or two years and then it's open game/season on them for anyone else. I was not aware that you could renew a name. They didn't mention it when I was verifying the names I had with me currently were still good.

Interesting article

In another thread recently I was told that other people need to ask me to do my family temple work. Unfortunately, for my personal line, someone else unrelated to us did ALL our temple work already. There is none left for the family. Of note, my grandparents were born in the 1800s. My parents are still alive, but they were younger ones in their families (for example, my mother's brothers were old enough to be her father). My mother was the youngest on her side, and my father has several older than him. Temple work has been done for these people without our permission for any who were born prior to 1905. They weren't even done by family members. Luckily, my wife's family has genealogy that is still able to be done (mine is somewhat of a dead end right now, with no idea how to get past the block). I haven't been the most speedy on it, as we had a ton of names that I've slowly been going through. I have around 5 names left, but was told by the temple recently I have to get them done within the next 2 months or others will do them. These names are also from the mid-1800s. They are the personal family names for my wife's side (actually more specifically, my brother in law who has a huge non-member family genealogy apparently). I know what their statements would be in regards to people asking permission since I have the names. If they need my permission (or more specifically, my brother in law's permission who would leave it with me, especially since I'm so close to finishing the names up), why did the temple say I only have like 2 more months to finish the work? PS: So the temple work was started, we did a TON of Baptisms for the dead almost a year ago. I've slowly been working my way through the names till only five are left. At about one a month at the temple, that means I won't have them all done by the year mark when the temple patrons said they had to be done or I'd lose any rights to do the names, if that helps with the background at all.

I'm not sure I see the difference. It basically makes it free game for them to do any genealogy in there without any permission from the member families. If they had asked any family member on regards of my uncle, we would have told them about his temple work and everything else, but they just decided to go and do stuff without asking any family member. I HAD some temple work which I could have done for my relatives (otherwise my genealogy is a dead end right now, no idea how to get it further without translators in other nations, etc), but people outside the family did it all in the past two years without any choice (or permission if people want) from me or anyone else in our family. In fact, it was done by people we have no idea who they are, it was just done. We had no choice in the matter. If asked, I'd have preferred to be able to do my own family's temple work, or had my kids do it. Now, it's all been done by people who gave us no choice in the timing or who or where it was done. So, I'm not sure I see the difference.

It's due to the children not being able to be sealed (apparently that's a thing with their system) unless the parents are sealed together. I think the genealogy part is up to the individual inputting the information however. If you have children from a couple, whether married or not, it counts them as being able to be sealed or something like that. If you never put the information or the children in (and children need parents and a line from what I can tell) it doesn't show anything in regards to temple work. Once it's in the system though, it's up for grabs. Proxy sealings (or temple work in general), after 110 years from their birth is no longer a choice for member families. It is an automatic thing. My grandparents were born in the 1800s, so that should tell you a thing or two about who our family has a choice or no choice about in regards to proxy sealings. What's ironic is my grandmother has had her temple work done at least 4 times over (her name that shows I'm related to her has four listings...each with temple work done on different dates, most recently as of 2015), with a fifth one seemingly having been input over the past two years and being processed currently. When I tried to clear it up all sorts of havoc was raised about it. I wanted to merge the files, but some seemingly liked it how it is. I'm puzzled over it.

It's a situation that has changed in recent years from what I understand. Originally, a woman was sealed to the man that she married. If she married more than once, it was the first husband. In this situation, the children would go with the father and whoever he was sealed to. Now, they do it differently. If I understand it correctly. Woman can be sealed to multiple men. In this instance, in order for the children to be sealed to their mother, their mother would be sealed to the father (even if they were never married, or divorced). The idea now days is to seal everyone together and let the Lord sort it out later. A LOT more work for those in the millennium. This has created a rift in our family to a small degree. An ancestor of mine (close actually) stated that they were NEVER to be sealed to her first husband. He was abusive (in multiple ways) and she divorced him. She married again to the individual she wished to be sealed to. She stated that under no condition whatsoever was she to EVER be sealed to her first husband. Guess what... The church sealed her to the first husband (actually, to both husbands). I suppose part of that is on my family's side of blame. We put her and that husband together on ancestory/family tree so that the children could also be shown. The course the church took from there (and it may be another family member did more than I did in that regard and took an active role, not sure on that part) was to seal her to the husband. Not such good feelings at that course of action in some of the family. So, even if a couple are not married, these days, they will seal them together (this is only done after death). The idea is that this will all be sorted out later.

Of interest, Peter nor James nor one of the John's (but the other) chose to stay and teach the gospel. Just because one is in the first presidency at that time, does not mean they were the ones who stayed as one of those who did not taste of death at the end of their natural span. This is an old thread. Which is more important, the name of the Three Nephites, or the names of the dozens of inactives in the ward that no one remembers? I think in the context of the world, we have important things to worry about, and perhaps the reason we do not have the names given in the Book of Mormon is because it would distract from more important things that we have to do. In addition, who knows what names they go by. Even if they had names previously, it does not mean they will always go by those names in today's world. Just recall, that if we do it to the least of these, we have done it to the Lord. You never know who you may help or assist (or who helps or assists you) when interacting with strangers who need help (or offer help when you most need it). How much better if we were angels from the Lord and helped those who needed it most, and then who knows, perhaps people would swear that an angel visited them, even if it was you or I.

Not the armpits, but there were several things that caused problems in regards to new wearer's of garments. There were some that had what appeared severe rashes on their shoulders, upper arms, and thighs. A lot of this was caused by hair. For some reason, the way the garments were designed, they were pulling at the hair in those areas constantly. This irritated those areas and caused what appeared to be rash. I think a doctor can prescribe a cream for that in those instances, but I am not sure how those individuals deal with it long term (totally shaving off any sign of the hair and waxing those areas every day? I have no idea). Others had the material cause a greater problem in regards to bumps being formed in the upper arm area which was a lot like a rash. The solution to this was for them to take Vitamin D. Finally, I had a child that was especially sensitive to heat and thus extra clothing and other elements in many of the under garments would cause a bad rash. The only solution was to give it time to air out, reduce the heat of the area, and other such solutions. There was some sort of really loose and very holy type garment they wore, but I can't recall what the actual material was. However, the best solution was to give it time to rest as it was a medical issue. Those are the only one's I've dealt with, I hope you can find a solution.

It's not smoking, it's inhaling vapors. Ironically, originally, it was created to help people stop smoking. It would give them the nicotine kick, but without the other chemicals in the cigarette (though ironically as well, some of the vapor inserts also had chemicals which had an unknown effect). It's seen as cleaner and safer than smoking by the younger crowd. It is NOT smoking anymore than inhaling steam from a boiling pot of water is smoking. Just like that pot of smoking water, you can add flavors, scents, etc that combine with the steam to give them interesting scents/tastes. You have some that have tobacco extracts these days, but as I said, the original idea, ironically, was to help people utilize it as a way to stop smoking. It works, I think, by having a small heating element inside it. This element in turn heats up the liquid into a steam (or vapor form, if you want) which the user can then inhale. It's at an odd crossroads in regards to the Word of Wisdom. One could say one should not present the appearance of evil, but more likely, people utilize the idea that is also used in regards to drug use in regards to vaping. Personally, something does feel off, as it seems to use the same culture that cigarettes used to have, but at the same time, it also can feel like a way that people are using to try to skirt around the boundaries of the Word of Wisdom. So far, without any official words from Salt Lake, I think the opinions on it may vary from church leader to church leader. Once again, it was originally a way for people to stop smoking and thus was seen as sort of a medicine or balm to help them. That makes this a very tricky thing to really decide on how it fits in.

As an addendum, I have something from a NON-LDS site, but it explains the actual wording and verse translation well enough that it can present the point of view commonly held by many scholars in regards to Paul's marital status. Was the Apostle Paul Married? It's not LDS, but in general, I agree with the author's assessment. There is more that the author wrote on the subject, this is merely the conclusion of the author's statements.

The context is normally that Paul was either single or widowered. Considering his calling and testimony (as well as Roman culture and Julian law at the time) it is HIGHLY unlikely that Paul was ever divorced either prior to his conversion (in which case he would have lost all authority and never had the power he needed to persecute the Christians as he did), or after (which runs into all sorts of problems in regards to Judaic adherence, Christian adherence, and Roman law). It also brings up a horde of issues that would weaken Pauls position and ability to teach as he did in his epistles...or...in regards to certain subjects he would not be considered having the authority nor reputation to be able to speak upon such things due to the way divorce was seen and viewed in those days. There are entire books written on Old Roman Law (basically death penalty for adultery) and Julian Law (death could be administered by the Father, but he would have the pay the lesser penalty of doing such, the wife would forfeit a large amount of the dowry and go into exile) as well as the customs, but this is probably not the place to write about it at such length. In Jewish customs, divorce was something that is seen to automatically disallow someone to be a high religious leader (apostle in general for our Christian minds). If a religious leader had been divorced, it would be seen a delegitimizing their authority, especially one among the upstart Christians who had far less tolerance towards divorce than the Jews or the Romans. Paul would probably need to address THAT issue before anything else he said would be accepted. Divorce among Christians was not acceptable for ANY reason, however, for the weakness of some, it was ALLOWABLE if the spouse had committed adultery (note that this is due to weakness and allowable...). In general, just as it was more likely that Paul was married (as we know for the Jewish hierarchy, to have the power and authority he did among Jews, he would have needed to have been married) but not a definite (it does not state this anywhere in the New Testament about Paul's specific marital status), it is also most probable that if he had been married, he would NOT have been divorced. Hence, he was either single or a widower. However, as it is your interpretation of those scripture, it is what it is. in my opinion, I think the general consensus (in light of the historical aspects) do not agree with that interpretation. There may be some modern religions that are trying to justify the HIGH divorce rates today that are trying to shove that type of interpretation into the Bible, but in general, I'm not of the opinion of many of the new school ideas in that regards (as there are many other aspects that they also try to rewrite in biblical interpretation to justify sins of all sorts). (not that you are of that type of school, but perhaps you heard a broadcast from one of them, or read something of theirs in some location which gave rise to the idea?).

The problem is on both sides. There is some evidence, but the problem is that there is also IGNORED evidence. Many point to sea levels rising as evidence...Miami has installed pumps to supposedly deal with this. An island chain that is an inch above sea level 30 years ago...well, that Island chain still exist and is STILL an inch above sea water. It is an uncomfortable fact that is pushed aside and ignored. A rising ocean should have that island or at least those portions, under water at this point. Manhattan harbor has less then 10 years to be under water (according to Al Gore, though the original timeline said it could happen as soon as 2014 I believe...and...what do you know...it's not underwater presently). The Artic Circle has had it's ice melt EVERY YEAR for the past...well...since we started recording...so people using that as evidence is actually relying on people's ignorance of history. There are data points that show Global warming, but unfortunately, many ignore the OTHER data points which show something else may be happening. A Majority of Scientist feel that human activity has some influence on what is occurring with Climate Change (and the change of the term itself was due to some being uncomfortable with people constantly claiming Global Warming when that may not even be accurate, hence ONE reason for the name change). I think that percentage is 97%. HOWEVER, that percentage does NOT equate how many feel it is DUE to human activity, or is being CAUSED mostly by human activity...merely that humans have some sort of influence on what is happening to the climate and environment around us. The reality is we do not really know what is going on, or even if it's a causation effect or merely a coincidence (something that has been brought up in the past) in regards to certain things happening when other things happen. Like many things in politics (and Climate Change is more a political tool these days than a scientific one...unfortunately), rarely is it one side or the other. Normally more truth is found somewhere in between the two extremes, rather than at one pole or the other.

To extrapolate more, it is CLEAR in Genesis 4 that Seth was the REPLACEMENT for Abel. It is through that lineage or line that the Savior of the world would come, as was noted by Eve in her statement of getting that replacement. Also, Cain knew FAR more than most of us about the Plan of Salvation and who and what. In LDS doctrine he even walked and talked with the Lord PRIOR to his choice to murder Abel and was given a clear choice (PoGP 5). I found one LDS reference to Seth being Abel's replacement and why it is mentioned in Priesthood lineage here... this idea here I have a question Though What and how you interpret it is up to you.

Okay...Genesis 4. Pearl of Great Price 5. If you know Hebrew and the translations of the names and why they are such (though they also give a pretty clear explanation in the chapter itself) it brings it as a much clearer explanation. If you want me to go over them in depth, I can when I have the time (it is possible it may be rather long). There are several non-lds sites at least that explain it on the internet, don't know if I have an LDS one off the top of my head though.

It is the common interpretation in regards to WHY Abel was the appointed seed, and why there was then a new appointed one, Seth. The pearl of price goes into even more detail of Cain's knowing and marked rebellion after chasetisement and him making a deliberate and purposeful choice. Ironically, interpreted in the Bible, many read that Adam and Eve at first felt that the lineage would go through Cain, but through his choices it was obvious Cain was not possible for that lineage. It then indicates that Abel was the chosen one, which is why it is particularly focused on Seth as his replacement (and why these three are of special notation in the Bible among all the sons of Adam, it's not just chance). It is thus through Seth that the lineage of the Lord came. If one wants a TRULY LONG explanation of the words and their meanings in Genesis 4, and why the story is commonly interpreted as happening as such (and as I said, though non-LDS do not subscribe to it, the Pearl of Great Price makes it more explicit of Cain's open rebellion, and indicates that what we already know about the Lineage and plan of Salvation, Cain knew even better, as well as personally walking and talking with the Lord), I suppose I could go into it. There are some NON-LDS places on the internet that explain it I suppose, but if one wishes, I could do that if I have the time.

Some of you must live in angelic wards. Unfortunately, I have never been in a ward where there has not been a vicious gossip vine that extends to every corner (even inactives will seem to know the gossip) for all those in the "good ole boys" network (even though its says good ole boys, it's actually just a term, it includes many woman as well). Unfortunately, many times those who are NOT part of that network are the ones who are gossiped about the most. It's a very terrible thing that happens and seems to be something that ostrasizes a LOT of members when they find out. There are some inactives that are inactive because of this tendency, who were not part of this network (or sometimes even were) that found out what was said and thought of them and were so offended they left (and, in all honesty, anyone who thinks some of these things are a little thing to leave about...many of these rumors and gossips are excessively viscious and I couldn't really find fault with any who would leave any organization if they were treated that way, trying to say a church should be an exception when one would leave any other organization if the same treatment was done...is a rather cruel thought in and of itself). That said, I'd rather they stay. It is VERY hard to convince people to come back to church after that type of treatment, and in many cases it starts them down the road to apostasy (they start looking up things to support their dislike of how they were treated, get bad opinions of the church and it just goes downhill from there). My mother is a horrendous gossip, and one I have no idea how to correct (we are supposed to honor our parents, fifth commandment if I recall right) her. It's all she shares with me when I call her. I dislike having it told me, but I don't want to be harsh to her in her (now very) old age. In that light, I would NOT share the information of church punishments with anyone unless you absolutely HAVE too. There are MANY people that do not wish to pray (or give talks on Sunday, finding people to give a talk sometimes is harder than some may imagine, it can be something you dread trying to find, there's a reason the family members of the bishopric end up being on the stand more often than others in some wards!) or other participation in ward meetings. They don't have to give a reason. There's no reason to divulge anything in that regards UNLESS part of the repentance process involves a public apology or admittance of some sort.

Guy ends up shot in the park, twice in the chest, once in the head.

And with losing 75% of our Young Adults as they go from Young Men to YSA, and retaining a 25-30% activity rate among YSA...the failure rate that we experience running our Priest quorums is actually pretty spectacular. The biggest problems with Venture scouts is the SAME we are having with our Priest quorums. It starts with the primary age kids. Scouting was always supposed to be a family activity, or at least a father/son activity. Father's (and parents in general if one reads the Scout handbooks on such) are supposed to actually compose the committee members (how many times have we seen where a father with only girls is appointed to Young Men's while the Father of 4 or 5 young men is never called?), which is actually not in accordance with how the Scouts (and in my opinion, Young Men and Woman's programs) are supposed to be run. Instead, we see parents drop off their kids for Cub Scouts, continue this trend of using the Scoutmaster as a babysitter for Boy Scouts, and by the time the boys hit Varsity the families wonder why the boys have little interest in Church, Young Men's activities, or Scouts in general. The interest parents show and invest in their children is the interest that will be reflected back. It doesn't matter whether it is scouts, or the Priesthood Quorums themselves. The difference I see is that parents can actually interject themselves into the scouting program, even if leaders objected. It is THEIR sons. On the otherhand, we don't have this same ability with the Priesthood quorums. NOW, if we ran these programs like we should, it would be a moot point. Fathers would be in the Young Men's presidency, advisors, etc. But as it is run in the church, in many wards we actively discourage parental participation. As I said, when you do not have parental buy in, this will eventually be reflected by their children (Young men and Young Woman) in many instances (so, we have many outstanding youth that have excellent homes and stay active and participatory regardless of how the program is run). As I said, the interest parents show and invest in their children is the interest that will be reflected back. A parent that has no interest in the Young Men's program (or Young womans) will, in a majority of cases, eventually reflect a Young Man or Young Woman who is also not as interested or involved.

I have seen a few Venturing teams outside the LDS church. Many of them seem to be composed of Girls, ironically. I think many of the Young Men's programs did not use the Venture or Varsity ideas. Ironically, the young men's program basically mirrors the Venturing program already, the boys just were not being given any awards for anything they did that might actually earn them something in Venture scouts. In the LDS church, this doesn't change most Young Men's programs. I think Venture scouts will continue outside the LDS church...I think this kills and destroys any Varsity teams out there. I think Monson may be one of the big reasons the LDS church is still in scouting at all at this point. It could be in 5 years the LDS church exits boy scouts entirely. That will kill the scouting councils in Utah, Southern Idaho and parts of Arizona. Personally, I don't know how I feel about the LDS church leaving scouts. On one hand, with the changes the Scouts have made recently, and the failing moral decay, I would see it as an excellent decision. It is time to send a CLEAR message on what is right and what is wrong rather than waffling between the lines. On the otherhand, tradition is a STRONG thing to fight down in my heart. I love having Boy Scouts as part of the Young Men's program. As someone mentioned above though, this move guts our Scouting Committees. It is much harder to have the Varsity and Venture (aka, Young Men's presidency and Teacher's quorum/Priest Quorum advisors) on the Committee if we don't have Varsity teams or Venture Crews as an automatic thing. It will prove a little easier on the ward budgets though. Wondering if this means if a young man does not get his Eagle by 14, he is out of luck beginning in 2018.

Son of Perditions need to see the light and declare it is not shining while standing in it's full brightness. Some think they are unredeemable, NOT because they cannot be forgiven, but because they REFUSE to be forgiven. They choose to fight against the Lamb, and do so with full knowledge of what they do and who they are fighting against. They know both sides and KNOWINGLY choose the side that fights against the Lord. Hence why being called one is such a heavy and drastic term with a very heavy meaning. They take their precedence from Cain, who, knowing what lineage would come from Abel, chose to kill Abel in order to try to destroy the Plan of Salvation before it ever had a chance to come to fruition. That by slaying Abel, and that entire lineage, that he could prevent the birth of the Messiah and hence win the war for his evil and dark master. It was knowingly done. This is the precedence and shows the great evil that they choose. Yes, they got through the pre-existence, but, when without their foreknowledge and being left to their naked souls of their true being, show their true selves and true desires in this life. Hence, they get to keep their first estate or their body after the resurrection, but will be cast out into outer darkness. Dark topic and not a fun one to discuss. In regards to transgression in regards to the Plan of Salvation, I'd say the choices in the garden of Eden would probably be a better illustration of such a paradox or idea.

Paul was divorced???? Source? I've read that those who felt he was married at some point (due to requirements of his position he had formerly among the Jews) felt that if anything made him single, it was his wife most likely dying. Other religions have had the belief at times that he was never married. I haven't heard of this idea of him being divorced before. Source?

Not a very long thought this time. It is more of a short thought. We had a lesson on Elder Anderson's General Conference talk and something struck me. At the beginning of his talk he relates the following... Some question whether Prophets see the Lord in our modern days. I think the answer is yes, but they do not share it as much with many because they do not throw their pearls before swine. I also recall recently that Elder Haight (who has passed away) also saw a vision of the Lord. I believe our prophets and apostles today still are special witnesses of Christ and that many receive these visions and visitations in our modern day. PS: And yes, this means my mind wandered a little during the lesson. I'm not perfect yet.

I believe that NDE's occur and happen. I think it is something that the deceiver is strongly attacking and putting up false ones to also deceive us. The problem with NDE's these days are there are those who are part of a New Age religion that teaches that people can leave their body at will and go galavanting around the heavens. MANY OF THESE claim to have had an NDE. I DO NOT BELIEVE most of these people are being honest in regards to a true Near Death Experience. However, I think there are those who truly have had an NDE, and if you can find those who are reliable and truthful, it may be enlightening if you also have the spirit to help you discern truth and knowledge.

This is a tricky question and relies upon one's definitions in order to really consider what answers could be considered. First, having the second comforter is NOT the same as having a calling and election made sure from my understanding. Secondly, every ordinance will need to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. If one considers that the calling and election is to ensure that one is going to receive EXALTATION, this is impossible without a spouse. You cannot receive exaltation without your spouse. If one considers the calling and election as to ensuring that you will go to the Celestial Kingdom, but not necessarily Exaltation (though it could be up to Exaltation if one has a worthy spouse), that could be a different matter. From Personal experience, I believe the latter condition to be possible. I believe it has occurred to many people. I am of the personal opinion that for this to occur, one must already have been blessed with the second comforter, but that IS ONLY an OPINION. In regards to the former, or first situation, where one is guaranteed Exaltation (unless they commit the sin against the Holy Ghost...etc), that's a much tougher one to discuss. There are those among us who have received this blessing, but I believe that all of them are married and sealed prior to this promise. There is some reading in the Doctrine and Covenants that deal with this to a degree, though there is much more in regards to this than a simple read through of those sections may indicate...In my opinion, once again, of course.

An interesting thought in regards to questions people have about where the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms will be. It is possible that this world and the Spirit World are both here. This means that this world has different places or existences (dimensions, not sure how one would phrase it). In that light, perhaps a world can exist in every state it has previously existed, up to the highest existence it contains. Thus, our world, having already had the spiritual existence, also has that existence still. In that light, when it is Celestial and rules over the Terrestrial and Telestial, perhaps it is possible both will also be in the same world, but just as the Spirit world and Our Physical world are on different planes of existence, so to will they be. Just a thought, not an opinion or anything else, just something that I thought of when reading through the thread.