[Steve-o]

Quote:

Anyway, I was talking to a Bishop in my stake yesterday, and he told me that the “sending unspent money back to SLC is not in place anymore”.

I don’t believe this is correct. There is an option for a ward to retain some unspent funds but, at least in our stake, the ward must justify the purpose for holding the funds for use in the next year. Maybe it’s for a camp or a special youth activity etc. So it can be done, but unless they have stake authorization, I believe most stakes will pull excess funds back.

They also do this with Fast Offerings to be reappropriated to poorer areas.

[Steve-o]

Quote:

There are children being abused right now. There are children starving right now. And God helped you find a boat? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? God didn’t save the Jews from the Holocaust but he directed you to a boat? Really? REALLY?”

Yeah. Exactly.

God is either a capricious God, choosing to help someone purchase a boat while not saving millions of lives, OR he is simply hands off to let us work through our lives to the best of our abilities. Personally, I think viewing him as hands off is more faithful than believing he is a respecter of persons helping one person find a spool of thread while refusing to save a child and his family from still birth. A capricious God is an unloving, unknowable, inconsistent, changing God. For me, that view doesn’t inspire much faith.

[Steve-o]

Thanks GBSmith,

It seems like it would be just as easy to get rid of other historical oddities by removing sections or the Book of Abraham etc instead of doubling down on accepting them as scriptures. Obviously it’s up to church leadership but even among the most devout members I can’t think of anyone who would miss the BofA facimilies, for example. Instead of proposing theories like the “repackaging” of the meaning of the facimilies. Clearly it’s up to the brethren how they treat these things but it would appear to be much simpler to get rid of the false teachings or documents

[Steve-o]

Quote:

I could be wrong, but I would be willing to bet that the very large majority of converts to the LDS Church in the past 30 years or so would say they were not taught actively that God once was a mortal – and certainly that it wasn’t emphasized.”.

I agree, but there are many things the church doesn’t “emphasize”, especially to new or prospective members. To name a few.

-Second Annointing

-Polygamy/polyandry

-Multiple first vision accounts

-BofM translation (true version)

etc. etc. etc. The list would be exceedingly long. The church distances itself from many controversial topics but that doesn’t mean the teaching doesn’t still exist.

I would love if someone could justify the need for the 2nd Annointing. I see no reason for it in the mortal life (unless Christ administers it personally), and it reeks of personal agrandizement. It’s not taught anywhere, in any official church publication I’ve ever seen. It is a gnostic, exclusive practice with no basis in doctrine that I’ve ever seen.

[Steve-o]

Thank you.

Since I was listening to it, it sounded like 3 separate things. An assumed comma in the wrong place was my problem.

[Steve-o]

Be patient. I expect that soon the temple will do sealings only, which means weddings will happen outside the temple beforehand. That will leave the wedding festivities open for all to participate and the sealing can be a small, personal ceremony. Family will no longer be excluded from the wedding and they likely won’t care about the sealing.

[Steve-o]

Thanks for the welcome and comments

[Steve-o]

Quote:

It’s no skin off my nose, so I pretty much ignore it.

Yeah, I kind of get that but I guess my pride may be getting the best of me. It irritates me that there is a super special VIP Mormon that I’m not included in or even told about. The arrogance of granting exaltation bothers me but also the exclusion as though I’m the swine they don’t want to cast their pearls before.

[Steve-o]

Quote:

From a worthiness perspective, I wonder how JS would answer a couple of the temple recommend questions

If JS lived today he would have been excommunicated long ago.

Quote:

Also, just to put it out there, the concept and principle of worthiness is good and necessary – and part of every aspect of our lives, inside and outside church. It’s keeping it in perspective as only one part of the picture, under-girded and resting on a foundation of love, mercy, grace, etc. that I think is the key.][/

Well said.

[Steve-o]

Quote:

Yes, it does – especially for those who see it purely symbolic and not binding in a literal way (like me). I wouldn’t mind if it disappeared, but it means a lot to those who participate, so I’m okay with it for them.

The problem is, the 2A isn’t granted to some as a “symbol” of something to come. It is quite literally a guarantee of exaltation, forfeited only by the shedding of innocent blood.

Like anything else we can accept the literal teaching or choose to consider it metaphorically, but the church claims the ability to annoint and grant exaltation. This is the problem.

[Steve-o]

Are you asking who we worship and who is the final authority? God, Christ or the prophet?

Clearly it’s not the prophet. God the Father and Jesus Christ are so often thought of interchangeably I think I may understand the confusion. God the father and Jesus Christ are “one” so I don’t know there would be much distinction in the issue of final authority.

Past prophets and apostles have differed on whether or not Christ should be worshipped at all. Some claim that he is essentially the vehicle to draw people to God and is not worthy of worship himself. Other leaders claim that he is also a God and worthy of worship.

If for some reason we had to rate them in a heirarchy mine would look something like this.

God= The Father

Christ= The Brother/mediator with the Father

Prophet= Butler

There is an inherent heirarchy there but all have value and play an essential role

[Steve-o]

Thanks, Ray. I’ve reviewed those threads as suggested.

Quote:

1 – Because they don’t want everyone requesting it, or resentment over people not getting it. Also, if someone who gets it defaults, they can disclaim it. Apparently it’s very difficult to be excommunicated if you have it.

2 – It is considered to available in the next life.

SamBee, thanks for your comments.

1-I agree they view it is somewhat unmanageable if everyone were to seek it but that problem is easily solved. The ordinances is performed via delegated priesthood keys. All that would be required to make it more available is to delegate to more people, ie temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents etc.

2- I have no problem with a calling and election being made sure with a visitation from Christ or it happening in the next life as part of final judgement but it seems very presumptuous to claim the authority to afford someone their FINAL judgement in this life.

The ordinance used to be much more common and I imagine there were issues with people failing to live worthily (in a visible way) that created many problems.

There is a story about Pres. Kimball’s wife standing in the circle and laying her hands on his head during a priesthood blessing. To me this certainly sounds like women, at least those who have received the 2A, are ordained priesthood holders.

[Steve-o]

Quote:

The mods aren’t really bad guys here.

Thanks JD. I didn’t think they were. I just wasn’t sure I wanted to go through the effort of rewriting the post. The suggestions were good, but I wasn’t feeling that motivated. I may go ahead and post it again.

[Steve-o]

I don’t think the other post is going to be published but thanks for the welcome.

[Author]

Posts