Three girls?

[JessicaHarper]

My understanding and someone can correct me if I am wrong, with the sisters being single females they prefer when meeting with a man that either they meet somewhere else (such as another members home etc) or a married sister from the ward accompany them.

I've heard more that they prefer either having Elders teach a male if the wife won't be present though.

I took the lessons from two Elder's and a married woman was brought into the mix...I suppose since I was married.

[MarginOfError]

I took the lessons from two Elder's and a married woman was brought into the mix...I suppose since I was married.

or the elders just didn't care to follow the rules. I wonder where I've seen that happen before. hmmmmmmm.

[Maureen]

Yes they can be but there is a huge difference in the meaning of this verse. Abstaining from all appearance of evil compared to abstaining from all form of evil are not speaking of the same thing or at least can be construed to have more than one meaning....

...This is also why you will see priesthood holders drinking milk at dinner parties. Ice water could be mistaken for other things, but milk is milk. :)

Curtis, your point is true, but what's more important? Abstaining from what in reality is actually evil or abstaining from something that may appear to be evil but in actuality is not evil. Like jayanna's example: To be seen drinking water is not in actuality evil, no matter what crazy thoughts others may think, missionaries drinking water is not evil.

In actuality the KJV translation is not the best translation for 1Thess. 5:22.

M.

[curtishouse]

Curtis, your point is true, but what's more important? Abstaining from what in reality is actually evil or abstaining from something that may appear to be evil but in actuality is not evil. Like jayanna's example: To be seen drinking water is not in actuality evil, no matter what crazy thoughts others may think, missionaries drinking water is not evil.

In actuality the KJV translation is not the best translation for 1Thess. 5:22.

M.

I don't think that the two have to be mutually exclusive. You can both abstain from all form of evil as well as abstain from doing things that be construed as evil. I'm really not thinking about drinks. If I have a cup of water and they think its vodka, I couldn't really read their mind. If one asks what I'm drinking, I would be sure to tell them it was water but, other than that, you really can't tell whats going through somebodys mind. It is much different than living with someone of the opposite sex when both are not married which could easily be viewed as having a sexual relationship even if that isn't so. But, to be truthful, when two people of the opposite sex are living together, that's just a powderkeg waiting to explode and would just end in disaster. I'm sure there are exceptions to this out there but its just playing with fire, Scarecrow.

In your opinion, the KJV translation is not the best translation for 1Thes 5:22. It is all up to interpretation and this is a prime example why God left Prophets. There are so many ways to understand this and this is just dealing with one verse! No wonder there is mass confusion in the thousands of denominations of Christianity. Without God's Prophets helping to explain the Word of God to us, we are basically just fumbling in the dark and reaching our own conclusions regarding Scripture.

[Faded]

Maybe somebody can explain this to me. I was talking to somebody from my local ward yesterday and we were discussing meeting with the missionaries. I guess both the missionaries available are female and he asked if my wife was going to be home and, if not, they were going to need to get another girl from the church to accompany them. What is the point behind this? I understand if they are just being cautious for safety sake but it seems it would make more sense for a man to accompany them if this was the case. Why another girl?

The missionary handbook is filled with rules. There's a ton of them. You can't go swimming, boating, ride a motorcycle, give a ride to members or non-members in your Church-owned vehicle, no horseback riding, no contact sports, just to mention a few. Many of the rules exist because there has been problems relating to it in the past and the Church has decided to forego having the same problem repeat itself by creating the rule. Many of the rules are there to keep the Missionaries safe. But at the end of the day, the rules are sometihng you obey because the Lord asked you to. I'd love to share some of the contents of the Missionary Handbook, but I don't have a copy onhand. The one from my mission is in storage somewhere.

Being alone as a companionship with a member of the opposite sex is above all else simply a rule, like one of the ten commandments. Like I said, the reason you obey the rules because the Lord asks you to. All of the reasons for the rule and benefits therefrom are secondary in importance, and nice extras to go with it.

The rule about having a minimum of one female present for sister missionaries is particularly important because if they obey that one rule without fail, it can potentially save them from dangerous or otherwise problematic circumstances that didn't actually seem dangerous or inappropriate at the time. In essence, you don't have the circumstance you never saw coming if you're never in a position for it to happen to begin with.

But to your point of confusion, according to The Rules, it is considered more ideal to teach either with a couple from the ward (so bringing both a man and a woman) along or even better yet at a member family's home. This covers all the safety concerns, keeps the rules and offers a chance for an investigator to get to know people in the local congregation. You might surprise the sister missionaries by asking if you can have your lessons at a member family's home. It might be fun to see them scramble to arrange it. Might be entertaining to see how it plays out, if you're not uncomfortable asking of course.

The biggest reason for not suggesting this outright is because they don't want to make you uncomfortable or leave you feeling intimidated. Sometimes you worry that by having two extras along for the lesson, that you're intimidating the person by overwhelming numerical superiority or some such. In many cases, people really are intimidated or overwhelmed by the idea. Just do whatever you're comfortable with. But if I were in your shoes, I'd really take advantage of the chance to stun the sister missionaries into silence. Way too fun!

Edited October 12, 2010 by Faded

[curtishouse]

Being alone as a companionship with a member of the opposite sex is above all else simply a rule, like one of the ten commandments. Like I said, the reason you obey the rules because the Lord asks you to. All of the reasons for the rule and benefits therefrom are secondary in importance, and nice extras to go with it.

How does abiding the rules in the Missionary Handbook correlate with things the Lord asks you to do? The handbook is not Scripture or inspired text (or do you feel it is?). How could you possibly compare the rulebook of Missionary conduct with the Ten Commandments? I'm not trying to come off stern but I'm just trying to get this new information to sink in. How is the Missionary Handbook on the same level as the Ten Commandments?

[Blackmarch]

How does abiding the rules in the Missionary Handbook correlate with things the Lord asks you to do? The handbook is not Scripture or inspired text (or do you feel it is?). How could you possibly compare the rulebook of Missionary conduct with the Ten Commandments? I'm not trying to come off stern but I'm just trying to get this new information to sink in. How is the Missionary Handbook on the same level as the Ten Commandments?

no the rule book is not technically scriptures.. however the rules have come to be from both past experiences and from inspiration from leaders. As missionaries when we are obedient we reap the blessings there-of, and if we are disobedient then we reap the consequences.

[JessicaHarper]

or the elders just didn't care to follow the rules. I wonder where I've seen that happen before. hmmmmmmm.

I did take my lessons on-line, that may have made a difference. The lady and I actually became very good friends. The Sister did teach the chastity lesson, which in my opinion, may have been a bit awkward if the Elders had taught (to me, a married woman).

[Faded]

How does abiding the rules in the Missionary Handbook correlate with things the Lord asks you to do? The handbook is not Scripture or inspired text (or do you feel it is?). How could you possibly compare the rulebook of Missionary conduct with the Ten Commandments? I'm not trying to come off stern but I'm just trying to get this new information to sink in. How is the Missionary Handbook on the same level as the Ten Commandments?

I'm not calling it equal, I'm saying that the reasoning for obedience is the same.

Why do you not covet?

Why do you not tell lies?

Why do you keep the Sabbath day holy?

Above all other reasons, you do it because you love God, you know he commanded it, so you obey it. The fact that society is healthier when people are not robbing and envying each other is just the nature of all of God's commandments in general. The fact that taking a day to rest between your days of labor is a nice bonus as well. But the reason you obey is because God commanded it. The principal of why you obey the mission rules is the same.

[JessicaHarper]

I remember coming across that verse in the Bible before.

The strange thing is that the KJV is the only version that states that...No wonder the LDS church only sticks with the KJV. Just check out the discrepancy of 1Thes 5:22 in the different translations.

New International Version (©1984)

Avoid every kind of evil.

New Living Translation (©2007)

Stay away from every kind of evil.

English Standard Version (©2001)

Abstain from every form of evil.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

abstain from every form of evil.

International Standard Version (©2008)

Keep away from every kind of evil.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

Keep away from every kind of evil.

King James Bible

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

American King James Version

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

American Standard Version

abstain from every form of evil.

I am curious as to how this wording causes a discrepancy? Is the wording exactly the same? No, it isn't. But, the phrases used do not disagree with one another (what discrepancy means).

Abstain from all appearnce of evil (KJV) and Abstain from every form of evil (ASV) bring forth the same sentiment...Yo, bro, stay away from evil!!!

[Maureen]

...There are so many ways to understand this and this is just dealing with one verse! No wonder there is mass confusion in the thousands of denominations of Christianity....

Curtis, you may perceive that there is mass confusion, but there is not. Catholics and Protestants agree on the essential doctrines. You may not see it yourself but to say that there is mass confusion is not true.

M.

[Faded]

I am curious as to how this wording causes a discrepancy? Is the wording exactly the same? No, it isn't. But, the phrases used do not disagree with one another (what discrepancy means).

Abstain from all appearnce of evil (KJV) and Abstain from every form of evil (ASV) bring forth the same sentiment...Yo, bro, stay away from evil!!!

I think it's because the KJV directly states to not only stay away from evil, but to avoid the appearance. Knowingly doing something is benign but that offers people the opportunity to falsely accuse you -- that too is to be avoided. Seems that the other translations render it "form" instead of "appearance".

[Faded]

Curtis, you may perceive that there is mass confusion, but there is not. Catholics and Protestants agree on the essential doctrines. You may not see it yourself but to say that there is mass confusion is not true.

M.

Yes it's a good thing that Protestants and Catholics are no longer massacring each other over their minor differences. There is general agreement on the basics, this is mostly true. But is recognition of the divinity of Mary a basic belief? In Catholic practice, it certainly seems that way. Mary apparently plays a significant role in the repentance process for Catholics. Protestants do not consider her to be divine at all, but just a good woman who gave birth to Christ and nothing more. That would be a clear example where the two groups just don't see eye to eye.

Religious wars fought between Protestant and Catholic absolutely devastated Europe in the 30 Years War. What later became Germany was centuries recovering. More Anabaptists were tortured and killed by both Protestant and Catholic alike than Christians killed in the persecutions of Rome. I'm grateful that Christianity as a whole has grown out of this violently intolerant phase of its existence.

There is still a giant chasm separating Protestant and Catholic practices and beliefs. The two still snipe at one another quite a bit actually, but they keep the war to words only these days for the most part. Catholicism is relatively united, but there's a lot of liberties taken by some regional leaders in various parts of the world. It's not all "follow the Pope no matter what" there's a lot of other forces that move things within Catholicism -- sometimes in an opposite direction from where the Pope is trying to steer the ship. Protestantism is all over the map and without any kind of central leadership for Protestantism as a whole.

One thing that pretty much all Christian denominations have in common is zealously pointing out why they're right and everyone else is wrong. This never seems to change. It's truly puzzling to look at the feuding mass of denominations and then call it "The Body of Christ" described in the New Testament. I fail to see how any of it is united and whole and complete and organized as Christ intended. It really is a big chaotic mess. Catholicism is less chaotic than Protestantism but still chaotic.

[Maureen]

Yes it's a good thing that Protestants and Catholics are no longer massacring each other over their minor differences. There is general agreement on the basics, this is mostly true. But is recognition of the divinity of Mary a basic belief? In Catholic practice, it certainly seems that way. Mary apparently plays a significant role in the repentance process for Catholics. Protestants do not consider her to be divine at all, but just a good woman who gave birth to Christ and nothing more. That would be a clear example where the two groups just don't see eye to eye.

Faded, I said we agree on our essential doctrines. Protestants do not view Mary, the mother of Jesus, the same as Catholics but Catholics do not see Mary as divine either. I would say Catholics venerate Mary very similar to how LDS venerate Joseph Smith.

Yes it's a good thing that Protestants and Catholics are no longer massacring each other over their minor differences. There is general agreement on the basics, this is mostly true....

One thing that pretty much all Christian denominations have in common is zealously pointing out why they're right and everyone else is wrong. This never seems to change. It's truly puzzling to look at the feuding mass of denominations and then call it "The Body of Christ" described in the New Testament. I fail to see how any of it is united and whole and complete and organized as Christ intended. It really is a big chaotic mess. Catholicism is less chaotic than Protestantism but still chaotic.

LOL, which is it Faded? Do we agree or do we feud?

M.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Maureen

[JessicaHarper]

I think it's because the KJV directly states to not only stay away from evil, but to avoid the appearance. Knowingly doing something is benign but that offers people the opportunity to falsely accuse you -- that too is to be avoided. Seems that the other translations render it "form" instead of "appearance".

Form, appearance, kind...there is still no discrepancy in the meaning of the verse.

[Faded]

Faded, I said we agree on our essential doctrines. Protestants do not view Mary, the mother of Jesus, the same as Catholics but Catholics do not see Mary as divine either. I would say Catholics venerate Mary very similar to how LDS venerate Joseph Smith.

I've heard of doing X number of "Hail Mary's" as perscribed by a priest that you confessed to. I've never heard of a "Hail Joseph" in the same context. It's likely that I simply don't understand how Catholics view Mary, but from the outside looking in, she is just one step short of deity in Catholic observance.

There are hymns about Joseph Smith just as there are hymns about Moses, Elijah, Jacob, Abraham, Paul, Peter, etc. We go no further with our "veneration" of Joseph Smith (as you choose to call it) than that. We do not pray to him, nor do we look to him for salvation in any fashion. We are simply grateful to him for what the Lord wrought through him. Beyond that, he is a pivotal point. If he's a true prophet then our message is true. If not then it is not. The same has been true of many other prophets in history.

LOL, which is it Faded? Do we agree or do we feud?

M.

At the end of the day, the bigger question is this: Did the Church and Kingdom of Christ survive from the time of Jesus and the apostles until today?

Both Protestants and Catholics alike have a vested interest in defending the position that it did indeed survive. Latter Day Saints say that it didn't and needed to be restored to the earth.

Christendom as we know it has a bloody history of massacring its own and waging one theocratic war after another -- against itself -- in the name of God. Christendom as we know it is constantly feuding and it's leaders are frequently pounding the pulpit telling members why "denomination X" is wrong and why they're "all going to hell." Recent improvement in these areas do not erase the long bloody centuries. And inter-denominational feuding hasn't ceased. (Curtis isn't pointing to history, but to recent personal experience.) Latter Day Saints would say that history makes the case for us and that our belief in The Great Apostasy is demonstrated by the fruits of the overall body of Christendom. Conceiving of the Church and Kingdom of God behaving in such barbaric fashion just doesn't make any kind of sense. Reading Ephesians 4:1-16 and then looking at Christendom today and then trying to equate "one faith, one Lord, one baptism ... unity in the faith ... the whole body fitly joined together ... maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." Anyone would come to the same conclusion that Curtis has: The scripture can't possibly be talking about the same entity. Christianity today is the very antithesis of all of those things.

Maureen, you have a vested interest in seeing things differently. I understand that. But can you see where somebody might come to such conclusions?

[spamlds]

In my mission in France, many years ago, the sister missionaries complained that they didn't get the benefit of the training that came from working with zone leaders that the elders benefited from. So our mission president decided that he would OK for a zone leader to go work with a pair of sister missionaries for a day every now and then.

It was a bad idea. With the history of polygamy, it just sent the wrong message for a Mormon elder and two sisters to show up at the door. People invariably thought the sisters were our wives. The president's innovation quickly died after we complained. He later addressed the sister's requests for more training by calling a pair of more experienced sisters to be trainers for the less experienced ones.

[Wingnut]

In my mission in France, many years ago, the sister missionaries complained that they didn't get the benefit of the training that came from working with zone leaders that the elders benefited from. So our mission president decided that he would OK for a zone leader to go work with a pair of sister missionaries for a day every now and then.

It was a bad idea. With the history of polygamy, it just sent the wrong message for a Mormon elder and two sisters to show up at the door. People invariably thought the sisters were our wives. The president's innovation quickly died after we complained. He later addressed the sister's requests for more training by calling a pair of more experienced sisters to be trainers for the less experienced ones.

That's why my mission president got special permission from the area president to call traveling training missionaries, like in the old days. There were 2 sets of traveling elders, and 2 set of traveling sisters.

[Maureen]

I've heard of doing X number of "Hail Mary's" as perscribed by a priest that you confessed to. I've never heard of a "Hail Joseph" in the same context. It's likely that I simply don't understand how Catholics view Mary, but from the outside looking in, she is just one step short of deity in Catholic observance.

There are hymns about Joseph Smith just as there are hymns about Moses, Elijah, Jacob, Abraham, Paul, Peter, etc. We go no further with our "veneration" of Joseph Smith (as you choose to call it) than that. We do not pray to him, nor do we look to him for salvation in any fashion. We are simply grateful to him for what the Lord wrought through him. Beyond that, he is a pivotal point. If he's a true prophet then our message is true. If not then it is not. The same has been true of many other prophets in history.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.

Blessed to open the last dispensation,

Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Chorus

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!

Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.

Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;

Death cannot conquer the hero again.

Praise to his mem'ry, he died as a martyr;

Honored and blest be his ever great name!

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assasins,

Plead unto heav'n while the earth lauds his fame.

Chorus

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.

Ever and ever the keys he will hold.

Faithful and true he will enter his kingdom,

Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Chorus

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;

Earth must atone for the blood of that man.

Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.

Millions shall know 'Brother Joseph' again.

Since I'm not Catholic, I'm not familiar with the importance of Hail Mary, but my understanding is that it is a prayer asking for intercession of Mary. It paints a picture that for Catholics, Mary is esteemed, possibly put on a pedestal so to speak. The hymn "Praise to the Man", paints a picture that puts Joseph Smith on a similar pedestal. Through my Protestant point of view, I see a similar regard for both Mary and JS from their respective admirers. I’ve been to LDS Sacrament meetings and Fast Testimony meetings and know that LDS esteem Joseph Smith in a more significant way than they do Moses or Jacob.

At the end of the day, the bigger question is this: Did the Church and Kingdom of Christ survive from the time of Jesus and the apostles until today?

Both Protestants and Catholics alike have a vested interest in defending the position that it did indeed survive. Latter Day Saints say that it didn't and needed to be restored to the earth.

Christendom as we know it has a bloody history of massacring its own and waging one theocratic war after another -- against itself -- in the name of God. Christendom as we know it is constantly feuding and it's leaders are frequently pounding the pulpit telling members why "denomination X" is wrong and why they're "all going to hell." Recent improvement in these areas do not erase the long bloody centuries. And inter-denominational feuding hasn't ceased. (Curtis isn't pointing to history, but to recent personal experience.) Latter Day Saints would say that history makes the case for us and that our belief in The Great Apostasy is demonstrated by the fruits of the overall body of Christendom. Conceiving of the Church and Kingdom of God behaving in such barbaric fashion just doesn't make any kind of sense. Reading Ephesians 4:1-16 and then looking at Christendom today and then trying to equate "one faith, one Lord, one baptism ... unity in the faith ... the whole body fitly joined together ... maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." Anyone would come to the same conclusion that Curtis has: The scripture can't possibly be talking about the same entity. Christianity today is the very antithesis of all of those things.

Maureen, you have a vested interest in seeing things differently. I understand that. But can you see where somebody might come to such conclusions?

Churches (denominations) are made up of sinners. We have many faults and you will not find one church that does not have problems, skeletons in their own closets. While terrible things have happened throughout all “Church” history, good things happen too. Good things happen today and will continue to happen as long as we sinners make a sincere, loving, caring effort to proclaim that God is good and that he loves and cares about us and that we should do the same. Having an “us verses them” attitude when trying to fit into a “Christian” environment doesn’t really benefit anyone. Keeping track of past wrongs, does not build bridges for the future. Working together for good is the only way “Christianity” will overcome the problems of living in an imperfect world. Even if the other guy refuses to play nice or believes his version of “saving souls” is legit. If we can find a better way to share the good message of God’s love without pointing fingers than that’s what we should do.

M.