Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I had to miss my cleaning assignment this past Saturday because I had to work. The person in charge today did not want to let me off the hook and wanted me to do it next Saturday but again I have to work. The Saturday after that I’ll be out of town on vacation then the Saturday after that I have a Taekwondo tournament to go to. Then our quarter for cleaning is over. Assigning people do do something against their schedule is not a good workable solution to building cleaning. As far as saying the name Mormon, a great prophet and compiler of The Book of Mormon, rather than the full name is concerned I’ve had a thought. This is from Doctrine and Covenants 107:
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Why do we still call the priesthood after Melchizedek rather than by its correct name?
There has been so much talk recently of change in the church with statements to the effect that we have just seen the beginning, that I was actually a little disappointed in the last conference. I was expecting some big new announcement. I’d heard many rumors of changes to the length of missions, but nothing happened. It was Conference as usual. President Nelson, then Elder Nelson, first spoke about the correct name of the church at the April 1990 general conference. He essentially said the same thing then as now. I remember it causing a stir back then but I think it was quickly forgotten. Then in October 1990 General Conference then Elder Hinkley while praising Elder Nelson’s April talk went on to say that it was pretty much impossible to get people to use the correct name of the church therefore we should add luster to the name Mormon. He went on to say want a great man Mormon was and how The Book of Mormon bears his name and that you couldn’t find a better nick name for the church. After this President Hinkley and President Monson lead the church through a period of unprecedented use of the name Mormon. Including Mormon messages, Mormon.org, I’m a Mormon, Mormonandgay.lds.org, Mormon Helping Hands and probably others.
Fast forward twenty eight and a half years after his April 1990 address President Nelson finally has the authority to change church policy and end any and all use of Mormon and LDS in the church including the 171 year old Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Makes me wonder if theses changes will stick when he no longer here.
This whole Mormon thing started with The Book of Mormon so maybe they should change that name too.
SilentDawning wrote:
If I were a prophet, and I didn’t have an actual visitation commanding me to write a revelation (or a compelling vision), I would be reluctant to publish anything.First, it’s weird in current society for a prophet to say they had a revelation and put it into scripture. We’re already marginalized enough. it’s way easier to believe in old revelation than new revelation when given formally like this.
Second, I’d feel this great responsibility to make sure what I eventually end for publication was internally consistent with the scriptures as a whole.
Third, I’d be concerned about unintended consequences of people going off the deep end with the scripture by taking parts literally, or justifying bad things with it. We already see the FLDS church and what they have done with some of our scripture.
Those are just a few reasons I wouldn’t do it — and I wonder how current prophets would be influenced by such practical concerns.
The prophet doesn’t just decide to add revelations to our scriptures. Here is the process by which revelations are added to our standard works of scripture as outlined on lds.orgIn the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.
The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:
“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.
“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:
“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’
“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.
I think this statement by Brigham Young deals with what you are getting at when you say blinded by faith. “What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.”
Perhaps the reason for the members cleaning the church buildings is to see who is valiant and who is not. nibbler wrote:
I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can’t help but think:How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?
As the “living gospel” with a “living prophet” there should be change as often as needed. What concerns me is that after having a living prophets for 175 years since Joseph Smith’s death and only three sections and two declarations have been added of the Doctrine and Covenants that we’re not written by Joseph Smith.
I answered the hymn book survey. Three songs that I suggested be taken out are song I really like but I don’t believe they are appropriate for the hymn book. One is Called to Serve. To me it sounds like an irreverent rally song more appropriate for the MTC than for sacrament meeting. Two others are We Ever Pray For Thee (Our Prophet Dear), and Praise To The Man. Both are singing praises to the prophet rather than praises to God. Again, great songs but not in my view appropriate for sacrament meeting.
In my opinion the whole building cleaning thing comes down to saving money. When you consider the thousands of buildings the church has it must save millions of dollars per year. Now they are moving to the members cleaning the temples as well. Old Timer wrote:
There also is the view that someone can’t apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did.I don’t accept that view fully, but I understand and can’t condemn it.
While I believe it’s true that you can’t apologize for someone else, I also believe leaders of an organization can apologize on behalf of the organization for past mistakes the organization has made.
From lds.org Priestcraft
Men preaching and setting themselves up for a light to the world that they may get gain and praise of the world; they do not seek the welfare of Zion (2 Ne. 26:29).
The family approach you describe is what is done in my ward. As much as I’d rather not do it I still do. I have a key to every door in the stake so when I help clean I clean the stake offices, bishops offices and clerk offices because usually nobody has a key to get into them to clean them so they tend to be in need of a good cleaning. I asked a councilor in the stake presidency whether or no it was okay to dump the garbage in the stake presidency offices. He said it was okay to dump the garbage in his office and that of the other councilor but that I should go through the president’s garbage to make sure there weren’t things which should be shredded. I thought to myself that I’m not going to sort through the stake president’s garbage. He can get rid of it himself. What does irk my is getting a phone call the night before asking my to help. Last time I told the organizer that I wanted to know at the beginning of the quarter when I was expected to help. Well this time I got two weeks notice.
I think for practical reasons the church moved a few years ago from suggesting a years supply to suggesting starting with three months supply. In some parts if the world regulations prohibit hoarding food and for many in poor countries it’s simply impossible.
Our ward had a preparedness meeting a few years back where we were given a list of what food was needed per person and how it would fit in so many five gallon buckets to stack for storage. I added up the buckets and calculated how much space it would take and came to the conclusion that most people wouldn’t have room in their house to store so much food.
Also, recommendations on many things were a bit crazy. Like needing say 1200 pounds of sugar. No family is going to eat that much sugar.
I think leadership is becoming more practical.
In most instances of disaster I’ve seen the food storage is lost anyway such as fire, flood, hurricane, tornado and earthquake.
The best use of food storage is for your individual needs if for some reason money gets scarce. However I think the best preparedness is a years supply of money
