NateHowe

As with many things, the problem does not come from the existence of computers or video games or any specific technology - the problem comes when children (and adults) consume these media in excess. As parents, we need to turn off the TV and talk to our kids. This is corroborated in brain research as well as the teachings of Church leaders. And it's not just for mothers - fathers also need to take responsibility in this issue.

Malcolm, that is the spirit in which all of our pleas should be made. Thank you. Digital, I can only echo what Malcolm has said. The past is the past, and it cannot be reclaimed. Although the people of the Church are imperfect, the love of Christ is perfect and inexhaustible. Reach out to Him.

I can't give any answers, but I can give a few suggestions. 1. Have a very frank discussion with him. Don't hold back your feelings, but try to present yourself in a spirit of love and concern. 2. Have a frank discussion on the subject with your bishop. He can hook you up with some counseling, possibly through LDS family services. He can also give your husband some counsel as his priesthood leader. 3. Have a frank discussion with his parents. Express your appreciation for everything they are doing for you, but also express your concern about their son and ask for suggestions to help him. 4. Go to professional counseling. If he is unwilling to go, go yourself a time or two to get advice on how to help him get there.

That said, were the six creative periods days in the sense that we understand? Unlikely, since when the creation began, the light was not yet separated from the darkness. This terminology may not be literal, but it does not discredit the rest of the account.

Adam is not allegorical. Genesis is not allegorical. All standard works of the Church agree on the importance of Adam, the Fall, and the resulting need for the Atonement of Christ. If there was no creation, there would be no Fall. If there was no fall, there was no reason for an Atonement. Literal creation and the literal Fall were essential.

Abide With Me, 'Tis Eventide is a nice alternative to the standard Abide With Me. They are on facing pages - 165 and 166. Each Life that Touches Ours for Good (293) is beautiful and effective, and it has a nice, singable melody that will drive home some of the basic messages an LDS funeral should convey. I Believe in Christ (134) mentions resurrection and reinforces the Church's belief in the Savior. Good luck!

I'm not willing to get into the fray here, but let me address this: It is true that members of the Church have varying opinions on certain doctrines, but Protestantism and other religions have no single, official source of doctrine. You may say that the Bible fills this function, but I am speaking in terms of revelatory leadership. All differences of doctrinal opinion in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stem from two sources: 1. People misunderstand, misinterpret, manipulate, ignore, or otherwise misuse the words of prophets, past and present. 2. On certain issues, the Lord has not seen fit to give specific revelation. In this case, it really is not ours to speculate where He has not chosen to speak explicitly. Neither is an indication of an untrue Church or an incomplete doctrine. The Lord has revealed anew all things that a man or woman must do to be saved. He has restored the authority to perform saving ordinances. He has laid out the plan of salvation. He has provided living Prophets to direct the Church. This is enough. Differences of opinion are signs of weakness and imperfection in individuals, not cracks in the foundation of the Church.

The words of the current Prophet are intended for our day specifically. New revelation can overrule the policies of the past, even those accepted by previous prophets. If we are to believe in Jesus Christ, this is not difficult to believe, because His words overruled Moses and previous Prophets. Similarly, the law God gave Moses was different from the revelations given to Adam and Noah. A good example in modern times is the 1978 revelation that encouraged ordination of all worthy men to the Priesthood. It was granted for the time when it came. It was not the policy of previous Prophets, but it was given for a specific reason in the Lord.

True. Well put. It is true that the Lord is the one who provides the companion, but as with all blessings, we also must seek and accept them. The burden of provision falls on Him for all things, but the burden of acting on that provided blessing is squarely OURS. And in this case, men have additional responsibilities.

I recently wrote the following brief article for another use, and I think it's quite pertinent to the discussion: We constantly argue "Books of Mormon or Book of Mormons?" First, neither is correct, because “The” is a part of the title, and both mentioned collective versions leave it out. However, if for fun we applied the same argued principles to other titles, we would realize that the argument itself is nonsensical and we should say "Copies of The Book of Mormon." Here is the argument applied to some classic titles: Catchers in the Rye or Catcher in the Ryes? Ones Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nests? Judes the Obscure or Jude the Obscures? The Turns of the Screw or The Turn of the Screws? The Pictures of Dorian Gray or The Picture of Dorian Grays? The Autobiographies of Malcolm X or The Autobiography of Malcolm Xes? Deaths of a Salesman or Death of a Salesmans? Madames Bovary or Madame Bovarys? (Or would it be Bovaries?) The Counts of Monte Cristo or The Count of Monte Cristos? Alices in Wonderland or Alice in Wonderlands? Paradises Lost or Paradise Losts? Atlases Shrugged or Atlas Shruggeds? Wrinkles in Time or A Wrinkle in Times? The Suns Also Rise or The Sun Also Riseses? We, Claudius or I, Claudiuses? Curious Georges Learn the Alphabet or Curious George Learns the Alphabets? Dons Quixote or Don Quixotes? Now can we say “Copies of The Book of Mormon” with confidence?

Honestly, the responsibility to be married in this life is more heavily placed on the men than the women. If you look around at the ratio of righteous priesthood holders to righteous women, this makes sense. However, this does not mean women shouldn't pursue marriage - it just means that it's definitely a guy's responsibility to seek eternal marriage to the right person.

Several missions (at least in the U.S.) were circulating this list with copies of the Book of Mormon well into the 90s. I am not sure of the original source, but it has been available in several languages over the years.

The Church Educational System manual on the Book of Mormon is pretty good. I know you're on dial-up, so try the html version: Book of Mormon Student Manual

When beginning a load of laundry (or a job on the copier at the office, or a microwave lasagna), your responsibility is to select the settings you desire. I would make the same argument about resetting the toilet seat. You have the option to leave it set in a way you think the next person may prefer, but the obligation to ensure correct settings lies squarely on the shoulders of the person setting it up for his or her own use.

I am quite disillusioned with the two-party system, but there is one party toward which I tend to lean as the lesser evil. Neither party represents my views in practice, although many among them enjoy talking about those things I see as necessary in a government.

There is a significant difference between the Law of Consecration and Socialism. The Law of Consecration occurred (and will occur again) among people who covenanted to live it. They were active participants who sacrificed greatly to make it work. Because we as a people could not live it, the Lord has given us a temporary lower law. Socialism, on the other hand, is generally imposed upon the people. We have not seen any socialist government work in the long term. This is because when people have too much of a "safety net," they cease working to support the system. There is no covenant involved, and the administrators of the system generally take the loaf and leave the crumbs for the people. I trust myself to benevolently bestow my excess funds through the Church and other charitable organizations to those in need. The government has not proven worthy of my trust or my money in the care of those who need help. So-called "redistribution of wealth" is a "something for nothing" approach - the Church's welfare program in stark contrast requires effort on the part of the recipient, which removes the humiliation of a handout and teaches skills to escape poverty.

I like the phrase which Elder Ballard and others have used: We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. If you take the approach that you love her madly AND ALSO believe that the Church is true and thus you want to join, what can she say? Love is about making the other person truly happy. If you actually believe the doctrines of the Church, you will feel unsatisfied until you become an active member of it. She does not have to believe the same things you do, but she should respect your feelings for the sake of your happiness. Again, don't make it a choice between the Church and her - be very open and honest, and tell her (because it's true) that you can love her and the Gospel, and the closer you are with Christ, the better a husband you'll be. And be sure to pray for patience, strength, and insight before you have the conversation. This may also be an appropriate cause for fasting.

Rachelle, it might be good to approach the Bishop and say something like this with kindness (no malice, or it will come off all wrong): "Bishop, what can we as ward members do to improve the spirituality of our Sacrament meetings? I feel like we aren't listening, we aren't singing, and we need to do better. How can I help?" Watch out - a speaking assignment may come your way! But seriously, an honest expression of your concern may bring the problem back into focus for him.

Faith is a huge subject. If you are serious about your study of it, and since you are an analytical person, it's probably worth acquiring a copy of Lectures on Faith. The lectures were delivered by Joseph Smith. You can buy a used copy on Amazon for less than four bucks. Or, if you prefer, you can read them on a website with a distracting background that makes the text difficult to make out: Lectures On Faith One teaching within these lectures which I appreciate is the following from the third Lecture: I cannot define or advise on faith better than these lectures. In the early Doctrine and Covenants, the Lectures on Faith were the Doctrine and the revelations which make up our current D&C were the Covenants. Later, they were removed from canonized Scripture because they were doctrinal expositions rather than direct revelations.

It comes down to the purpose of the meeting: To partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is a solemn event. It should be treated with much more reverence than we as Latter-day Saints give it. The rest of the meeting should be in keeping with that spirit. Now, some among us have moved from reverence and respect to non-reverent semi-quiet activity, like chatting in whispers, doing crossword puzzles, or whatever else. This is not right. But the problem is not solemnity - it is actually a lack of solemnity among us. Solemnity does not mean somberness or sadness. We should worship the Lord with glad hearts and vigorous singing of the hymns, with active participation in the learning that takes place in Sacrament Meeting. However, we must not lose sight of the solemn Sacrament as the focal point of the meeting.

FYI, I just posted a new Why Am I a Mormon? podcast today. Still open to contributions from any of you - let me know you're interested and I can give some tips.

Thanks, LdsNana! I hope others who read this forum will also join your group about sharing the Gospel. United, we can do more.

I would have been happy about any organization of the First Presidency, but I am especially excited about Elder Uchtdorf's appointment as second counselor. It's good to hear voices with various accents preaching the Gospel, and I believe he will open doors which may be closed to some Utah-born Church leaders.

I sound like a broken record on these forums, but this is the simple truth: We as a Church are not BASED on the Bible. We are based on the process by which the Bible and all other scripture is given: revelation from God. We can interpret the scriptures to say many things, and many of the doctrines mentioned by the OP are fairly reasonable interpretations of those verses without the beneficial light of the Restoration. However, the simple fact remains that we must do something in this life to obtain salvation, or God's commandments would be a null point, and He would be a liar for perpetuating them through centuries of prophets. Revelation is the key. There is no other way to know what is true.

Perpetuating anti-LDS sentiments by calling into question documents like the Book of Abraham demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the process of revelation. The real question is this: Is Joseph Smith a prophet of God? If so, that which he spoke and wrote in the name of the Lord is of value to the children of God. We learn of his prophetic calling by reading, pondering, and praying about the Book of Mormon, which is the first written fruit of his prophetic work. It is true, as is the Book of Abraham. We can cast all scripture as of dubious origin, but it does not profit us. Rather, we should follow that which is revealed from Heaven.