WillowTheWhisp

I may have got this wrong but I don't believe the church is asking you to do things better. The church is asking you to do 'the better things'. And in the particular illustration you gave the message isn't being directed towards you. In other words those people who were so busy concentrating on the lesson were doing a good thing, but if one or more of them had chosen to help you they would have been doing a better thing. Does that make any more sense to you? It's not the church that's the problem it's just the way some people don't seem to understand what matters most. Like my late husband said, some people are so Heavenly minded they are no earthly use.

There seems to have been some adverse publicity in the press today regarding black LDS so this movie really needs to be shown to the world.

I would say you need more than practical suggestions - you need practical help and I'm quite saddened that you do not find it amongst your Relief Society sisters. Surely someone else could take your children for a little while and give you chance to relax and enjoy the lessons. I know it's difficult to be fed by the spirit when you are constantly concerned about keeping your children under control, amused and quiet. My eldest (now 16) was very difficult as a toddler and my lifesavers at the time were two older boys in the branch who kept her quietly amused during sacrament meeting. I didn't see Sister Beck telling us to do more and work ourselves to a frazzle. What I heard was that she was telling us not to try to do the impossible but instead of trying to do everything, to choose the best things, the most important things. That was how it locked in so well with the talk by Dallin H Oaks. Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with sitting the kids down in front of the TV for half an hour whilst you just put your feet up. We are not supposed to work 24 hours a day. Joseph Smith told people that when he himself was ridiculed for relaxing. I know some RS Presidencies (ours being one) still don't seem to have got the message and are organising MORE enrichment meetings and MORE activities rather than less as we have been instructed but I use my own common sense and choose to follow the direction of Elder Oaks by simply not going and if they don't like it it is their problem not mine. I'm really baffled as to how the guidance to do less but do those things to our best ability rather than try to do everything and fail to do everything seems to have caused such an adverse reaction when I'd have expected to hear sisters saying 'thank goodness we don't have to try to be 3 different people all at the same time'

I find it quite quick and painless. In fact I doubt it takes any more time than doing it the other way. Both involve highlighting text and clicking on buttons. Most forums I'm familiar with operate as this one.

Ah but when it is said "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." then it's about 3 names.

Think of eternity - do you want to live in the celestial kingdom sealed for all eternity to your spouse and your children? If the answer is yes then you need to be married to a temple worthy priesthood holder, so that is the person you should be dating. There are also many temporal advantages in being married to a priesthood holder which I took for granted when I was married to my first husband, things like him being able to give the children a blessing whenever they were ill or troubled. I miss that now.

I've noticed that when someone has a wonderful spiritual experience and is feeling particularly close to the Lord and experiencing many blessings this is when Satan seems to tempt them most. He doesn't have to worry about people who are lukewarm or disinterested as they aren't much of a threat to him. BTW I hope all this talk of church courts and being judged by a panel of people who know you isn't frightening the life out of you. As far as I am aware as this transgression has only involved your boyfriend and yourself and has not affected anyone else then it's highly unlikely that anyone but your Bishop will be involved.

Well going off what President Hinckley said there "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it" I don't see anything contradictory in that. We don't actually teach it as such. I mean it never comes up in any of the Sunday lessons and it isn't considered as necessary for our salvation to know that. The important things to know are about the Atonement and Resurrection. He admits that although he understands what it's about he doesn't know much about the subject and doesn't think anyone else does either. I would say the same about our Heavenly Mother. I believe we have a mother in Heaven just as we have a Father, but we don't know much about her. Nothing is specifically taught about her and knowing about her isn't necessary to our salvation. But that doesn't mean she doesn't exist.

Now you have thoroughly confused me there Wanderer.

I doubt we'll get the opportunity to see it here which is so frustrating.

I've never seen it but I imagine it's quite posh.

Yes. You just click 'quote' to pick up the whole post and then go into the quotation, highlight and cut the bits you don't want to quote. On the subject of callings - you could rename them 'allocated positions within the structure of the church' if it makes you feel any better about them. Before I joined the LDS church I attended the Baptist church where I was a Sunday School teacher. I was asked to be a Sunday School teacher by the Baptist Minister because he said he had prayed about who might make a good teacher for the 3-5 year olds and he was impressed to think of me. I see callings from our Bishop in much the same way - except we have far more of them because we have a far more active church with classes for adults as well as children. There's only one calling I dread and that's Sunday School teacher to the teenagers. Every time I have had that calling it has driven me to distraction. I just know I'll end up doing it again one day. When I was first baptised back in 'nineteen hundred and frozen to death' as Uncle Jack says I was called to Young Women as 2nd Counselor. I had no idea what the calling involved as I hadn't been brought up in the church. The First Counselor went inactive the same week and took the manuals with her and the president was ill and bedridden for months. Talk about being thrown in at the deep end! The Bishop said, "There's a room. There are some Young Women. Teach them something!" So I did. Little did I know that he was in the next room and heard everything that went on. If I'd known that in advance I'd have been really nervous but he came in at the end of the lesson to say he needn't have worried because there were obviously two people teaching there - me and the Holy Ghost.

There is nothing wrong with having a career. I know women who have careers. I also know women who stay at home full time and look after home and children. I saw the talk as more of an uplifting encouragement to those 'stay at home mums' who put their careers on hold whilst they devote time and energy to bringing up their children. There has been a tendency for women to describe themselves as 'just a housewife' as if that somehow makes them a second class citizen when being a wife and mother is probably the most important thing a woman can do. It involves so many talents and women have long sold themselves short by not even realising their own worth. I also know women who try to do everything, home, children, career ...... and try to fit 48 hours into a 24 hour day. If you can fit your working life around your children and your husband does the same and you share the housework between you then it can work. Unfortunately in many cases it doesn't because the mother ends up doing far more than she should and wearing herself to a frazzle, or the career takes precedence and someone else brings up her children for her. How sad when the one a child turns to for a hug when they have a scraped knee is the nanny and not the mother. For me no amount of financial recompense can replace a child's cuddle. How do working mothers cope with children's illnesses? Do they take time off when their child is ill or has an accident? My daughter was involved in a very serious accident a few years ago and I spent most of the day at her hospital bedside when the other daughter was at school. It was hard enough for me then that someone else collected my youngest daughter from school and fed her before I came home from hospital. I was torn between the two of them. What about school holidays? Are there employers who accommodate their employees taking time off for school holidays? You may have noticed that I only have 2 children. We were never fortunate enough to have more. I did lose some and I was an 'older mother' before my first daughter was born. Perhaps that's why they seem so precious to me. However I didn't take offence at any implication I may have perceived in Sister Beck's talk that I am somehow a failure for not having produced more children. In fact I didn't see her talk as offensive at all and find it very sad how so many people seem to have done so. As I said, to me she was encouraging and praising mothers, mothers who know and understand the Gospel and who teach those principles to their children. That's another point. If you hand your small children over to day care how do you know what they are being taught in their most formative years? It's bad enough having to send them out into the big bad world when they start school but at least by then they can have had a solid grounding in the gospel from a stable upbringing at home to give then an anchor.

I suppose it would make a significant difference if 'lots' was used to translate different words. The OT would of course not have been written in the same language as the NT either so that immediately throws a spanner in the works. I shall look out for 'The Alchemist' - sounds like it could be an interesting read. The gravitational pull of Kolob, now there's a thought. Maybe if the moon can be responsible for the tides Kolob could be responsible for a whole lot more than we ever imagine! I wonder if Russell Grant should be notified. ( little joke for the Brits amongst us)

So how come then we have the verse of scripture where Jesus says, "Nevertheless not my will but thine"? If they are both the same entity then there wouldn't be a 'my will' and 'thy will' would there?

I've always understood it to mean they voted and he got the most votes.

Now why didn't I think of that? Thanks USN. :) All the other posts after the first one are large enough print. Oh Winnie that does sound like such a worry for you. I know it's easy enough for an outsider to say try not to worry but my late husband always used to tell me not to worry about anything, not in the sense of being blase that it will all come out right in the end but he used to say that worry uses up energy and weakens us when we most need strength and that worry can never change anything. Somehow even though I knew he made sense I never quite managed it though but he was brilliant at it. A bit like the oft quoted serenity prayer, "Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the strength to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference." Despite that fact that I am now remarried, I still miss him. He was very wise. I pray you'll have strength enough to be able to help your daughter where you can.

There may have been times when new revelation has been required because things 'out there' have changed. That doesn't mean the Gospel has changed. It just means Heavenly Father is saying "Right now I want you to do it this way because they are doing that, that way."

Some of the best advice I have ever heard. The closer we get to the Lord by scripture study and prayer the easier it is to recognise truth against error.

So far I've been fortunate enough not to be too ill this winter, just a few sniffles. As I'm diabetic I am considered 'at risk' when it comes to flu so I get a flu jab before the season starts. There has been a horrendous tummy bug going around here though and I had more than a passing aquaintance with that.

I've noticed in a lot of lessons and talks recently there seems to be a sort of sense of urgency, an example being regarding storage where I know personally I fall far short. Perhaps it's the people who really need to accept the teachings who are the ones who are doing the most complaining about it. I've also noticed on a local scale that if we've ever had an optional meeting (ie not a Sunday one) where, for example, Visiting Teaching is the subject matter the ones who attend are the ones who are already doing it 100% - preaching to the converted. The ones who don't show up are the ones we are really trying to get the message across to. I suspect that the people who are most vociferous in condemnation of Sister Beck are the ones who don't want to face up to their own shortcomings. Now I know I'm way lacking when it comes to my storage (for reasons I do not wish to go into here) but I'm not going to start ranting and raving at the people who give talks on the subject and telling them to 'get real'. I've never known such contention amongst church members as I have seen on another forum discussing this topic. I'm so thankful that it hasn't split our Ward. I'm not aware of anyone I know personally having said anything negative about Sister Beck and her talk. She came to Chorley not long ago and many of us were able to attend and hear her speak in person. That was a terrific meeting and everyone I spoke to afterwards had only praise for her and the words she spoke.

So it follows, does it not, that if the talk was approved by the First Presidency then all the people who are saying she was wrong and they refuse to ever listen to her again are in actuality disputing with the Prophet himself? That seems very dangerous ground.

I was just wondering that too. I find myself agreeing with his posts and so wonder if that means I'm due to be banned. I'm also a little puzzled about the reference to what Joseph really did with the gold plates. Is there something I'm missing here?

Chorley, England Stake must not be in the Universe then because I haven't heard anyone here raising any objections to it at all. Are conference talks not approved by the First Presidency?

A Catholic priest once explained it to me like a shamrock with the three leaflets being part of one leaf - I still don't think that explains God though because I believe they are individuals like us and there is no way we can be joined and be part of a greater whole with 2 other people. I am me. I'm a member of a family and we are all the one family but we are still seperate people and that to me is a better analogy of the relationship between Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.