All Activity

The mockups I've seen online make it look like the plan would be to orient the sacrament table to the front / center of the congregation. I suppose that is supposed to symbolically put Christ at the center of the meeting, but if it's below the rostrum then that's going to make the speakers look like they are 'above' the sacrament - probably not the look we are going for. Also, pragmatically, if the table is in front of the presiding authority, so how is the bishop going to signal to the Priests when they mess up the prayers? Oh, and if there are really only going to be two rows of benches, like in many Catholic churches, I see that cramping a lot of families' style. There's also the bit about spending all the money it would take to renovate buildings that are already perfectly functional to begin with. I personally think the negatives outweigh the positives, but hopefully they will test it out in a few places before trying to do anything more widespread.

As a stay at home parent, I was usually home watching the news when these horrific episodes happened in real time and they felt so surreal. First was the Space Shuttle Challenger and then 9/11. So sad and devastating.

I played pickleball with active members this morning and one is a Gospel Doctrine teacher. She didn't teach yesterday but mentioned the technique the teacher had and that was by writing 5 topic sentences and letting the class pick out which they wanted to discuss. He mentioned the first and there were no takers and erased it until they all agreed on one of the 5 and it took the whole time discussing one of the five. Thought you teachers out there might be interested in trying it.

We played the song for our 8 year old primary class, but somehow they haven't learned yet to appreciate good music. I guess this means we still have work to do.

It does seem that the church is de-emphasizing Sunday School as meeting of primary instruction, and making it a meeting of secondary instruction, in that class members are expected to spend independent time with the scripture passages under study, and then come together to contribute and discuss what we have gleaned from that independent study. The teacher's job is to facilitate this discussion, and to moderate it as needed. One of the things that I have been especially concerned for is that old thing called "borrowed light." Heber C. Kimball once said “The time will come when no man nor woman will be able to endure on borrowed light. Each will have to be guided by the light within himself. If you do not have it, how can you stand? … “… If you don’t have it you will not stand; therefore seek for the testimony of Jesus and cleave to it, that when the trying time comes you may not stumble and fall.” I have always felt that Sunday School was the place to borrow light, but that true conversion and a strong testimony of the gospel was normally only to be had in one's personal study and prayer. And thus it seems to me that the present shortened Sunday School is where one both borrows light from others who share the light they have received, and where one shares the light one has received.

Our sacrament meeting speakers yesterday were our stake president and one of his sons. This son just returned from his mission to Italy a couple of months ago, and attended his younger brother's mission farewell just after he got home. His brother went to Netherlands. The elder brother gave a fantastic talk, by the way, and told about how he was never interested in serving a mission, but had a spiritual awakening. One wonders sometimes about bishop's and stake president's children feeling especially pressured to serve a mission, but from his talk and from speaking with him afterwards it was definitely not that. Here in the UK, large families are unusual, and the stake president's family only has three children, I think. So, it doesn't seem like a "pass the baton" thing. It seems to be more of a "it's my turn" thing.

I’m the Gospel Doctrine teacher in my ward and during my lesson preparation I considered playing the Byrds masterpiece ‘Turn! Turn! Turn!’ as part of the lesson, but rejected the idea due to the new time constraints.. There were seven specific interesting bullet points I was hoping we could discuss as a class, but due to the new 25 minute time limitation we were only were able to touch on one of them. Frustrating! Going forward, I’m seriously considering simply choosing some interesting quotes from that week’s scripture reading and offer them to the class members for discussion. Other than reading and pondering that week’s assigned chapters, there will likely be minimal lesson preparation on my part. We’ll see…

That would make you a god right now if you believe you have a divine nature.

Satan is a god-but-not-a-deity. I am not aware of God assigning one god-not-a-deity to rule over England and other respective gods-not-deities to rule over other countries. The Bible teaches there are gods are there who are not really deities. A few especially clear passages: 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 - "we know that an idol has no real existence,” and that although there may be "so-called gods” in heaven or on earth, "for us there is one God, the Father". Notice Paul's wording: "so-called gods". Galatians 4:8 - before knowing God, people were enslaved to those who "by nature are not gods". Jeremiah 2:11 - God asks, "Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods?” 1 Corinthians 10:19–20 - idols themselves are nothing, but pagan sacrifices are offered to demons, not to God. Psalm 96:5 - "For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the Lord made the heavens". There is also Deuteronomy 32:17, which says Israel's rebellious sacrifices were made to "demons, not God, to gods they had never known". So Scripture can use the language of "gods” while simultaneously denying that these beings are gods in the same sense that Yahweh is God. So, biblically speaking, you can have: "gods” as a title/reference to other beings? Yes. other gods who are equal to or independent rivals of the true God? No. "gods” who are "by nature” not God? Yes.

Yesterday, the first Sunday of the new schedule actually taking place, after sacrament meeting bishop asked me who's teaching in Sunday School, and I was "Heck, I don't know. I'll find out." I had assumed that this one sister was "it" but she said "No, it's you on the schedule." So there I was, having not even thought about the lesson, already a bit late getting started. So, I dragged in the whiteboard (which I hardly used) and I winged it. It went pretty well, I thought, and there was very decent participation. The topic of discussion (which I will not call a "lesson") was of course several chapters of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Of course, I had to bring up Ecclesiastes chapter 3 by way of The Byrds "Turn, Turn, Turn"! Although when I mentioned The Byrds, one sister volunteered the song "Mr. Tambourine Man"! If you're wondering why I was blindsided about the Sunday School lesson assignment, it's because I'm not an "official" Sunday School teacher, but the bishopric member advisor to the Sunday School. I get asked to substitute if nobody else is available (it's a small ward), but got on the actual schedule this time because availability problems with the other teachers. And of course I forgot to look at the schedule.

Me being the ward technology specialist, who has to connect the laptop playing the videos to the chapel PA system and the projector, we definitely did not forget!

We all are incomplete in some ways even if we have all the ordinances and full participation in the LDS faith. That is the cost of mortality and living in a fallen world. Joseph Smith taught it would be a long while after our death till we comprehend these ordinances and principles we received in mortality. Without actual full comprehension, how can we make full use of what God gives us to be transformed into the completeness he will welcome us into? We are little children playing with God’s tools. Of course, we are therefore incapable of using them as God uses them yet, but we still can practice and learn and become more familiar with what God has places before us. You may be more complete in areas that are more meaningful at this point to our ultimate purification and elevation by Christ than all the experiences ordinances provide. The first and greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love others. We should not elevate the commandments to seek God’s ordinances above those, forgetting that the purpose of all that he gives us is to align our ability to love as he does so that not only we may have joy, but his other children will as well. Given the vast majority of humanity will be given the ordinances in the next life without their salvation suffering in the least, seems like the purpose of mortality is less about receiving ordinances and more about learning to love and serve others. Should I feel less than because you have had spiritual experiences or the opportunities to serve others in much greater ways than myself, to show others God’s love…opportunities I have not been able to access because of my own good choices (it is good to be a mother, but that has limited what else I can do due to its cost to my health; it is good to be LDS, but there are only limited opportunities to devote one’s entire existence to pastoral service of others in our faith)? Or should I be grateful that others have opportunities that I don’t so more of God’s work can be done even while I do the little bit he has given me the chance to participate with him in?

I hope you will be able to move through your grief with the most support possible. Please feel free to update us going forward.

First, thanks so very much for all the time you took to write these posts and in that sense, minister to me. I recognize that and appreciate it. I also recognize that of all LDS doctrines, this particular one is the most personally painful for me, so it is the hardest for me to "get over," "let go," or "ignore." To me, this doctrine of incompleteness is as or more symbolically violent as was the priesthood ban. I am incomplete; therefore, I am less than. I need to be made whole (complete). How does that happen? Baptism and confirmation into the LDS church and no other manner. The most basic and important tools of the Christian life are denied me. This past year I have very much needed the gifts of the Spirit. It has been an emotionally challenging time. I don't believe God has withheld them from me, waiting for me to become LDS. When I was a pastor and in desperate need of wisdom, I don't believe God withheld that from me, waiting for me to become LDS. I have often wondered what I would be like in the moments, hours, days, and months after being rebaptized and confirmed in the LDS Church. How would I be existentially spiritually different (more complete) than I am now? In pragmatic reality. It is my personal truth that I observe and sense no difference between the average LDS Christian and the average non-LDS Christian in terms of evidence of fruit or gifts of the Spirit. How would the wonderfully godly Catholics on this forum be existentially and spiritually different as LDS Christians than they are now as they minister to each of us (LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians) via their wisdom? I have no doubt that Elder Uchtdorf is a wonderful and godly man. I enjoy his teachings and spirit, just like I did that of John R. W. Stott. Yet, like me, he has his own blind spots. I read through his talk several times. It seemed to me that in each case his belief is that the Faith of our Fathers is important because it leads people to become LDS, and therein to find fullness or completeness. Its purpose is singular in that regard: to make non-LDS Christians like me complete via baptism and confirmation in the LDS church. I am aware I bother you all with this "you are less than" and "you are incomplete" pain I feel from my LDS friends—far too often. I will do my best to simply be quiet about it. I don't want to lose the good will of my friends here. I have enough of my own blind spots to deal with. I certainly am not a "complete" Christian; probably far from it. I simply have an idea that as an LDS Christian I would most likely be just as "incomplete" as I am now. Thanks for your faithfulness.

Thanks bluebell

We teach faith is a gift of the Spirit. We also teach that faith as a principle must come before the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost (AoF 4) Logically this means that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not the only gift of the Spirit. https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1CO.12

In scripture…examples of people who were unlikely to have been baptized and received the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost (even if you assume they had an identical or even just comparable ordinance at the time), but are recognized by LDS as having some, if not many gifts of the Spirit: The magi are recognized as having been inspired to seek out Christ. Balaam, while not always in line with the Spirit I am guessing, still received revelation at times. Cornelius was not a Christian and yet was considered devout towards God, prayed to him and had an angel visit him before he was baptized. Samuel the Lamanite was called as a prophet directly by God, but may not have been a member of the Nephite Church, which would explain why they hadn’t bothered to record his prophecies. The Lamanites were said to be striving to live the law of Moses and some of them had been baptized in Helaman 5. I am not sure we should assume they then set up the Church fully among the Lamanites, so that those converted could then baptize with authority. I may be missing where it says that though. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/23?lang=eng Joseph Smith received much revelation concerning multiple subjects prior to baptism and confirmation covenants. It’s a popular doctrinal point that the Constitution is an inspired document and none of those involved had been confirmed or were in their lifetime. God even speaks of raising up those involved in section 101. ”80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose,” Apostles and prophets have quoted CS Lewis to explain doctrine many times. If they don’t believe he was inspired by the Spirit, given spiritual knowledge, why would they do that when they have numerous quotes on tap from our own leaders and members? We teach that God answers prayers of nonmembers just as he does members. Surely there are many, many nonLDS who have prayed for personal revelation and for the presence of the Spirit. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/faith-of-our-father?lang=eng Incomplete (lacking fullness) does not mean absent.

That is how some members interpret it if they choose to ignore what scriptures teach, but not having the constant guaranteed companionship is not the same as having no companionship at all nor does it exclude you from having it with you at all times because you seek it in other ways and are worthy in those ways. Think of the difference between having the marriage contract with your wife vs having a non contractual friendship with someone or a different form of contract even. That someone could even move in to be a roommate, so with you as often or even more than a wife might be. They might even have a contract based on something besides marriage. They will never be your spouse, but they may have a very deep, different type of intimate relationship with you, correct? And I believe that is where most people get hung up through lack of understanding what this means. Even with the ordinance, if we sin, we lose this form of companionship until we repent. It is not a vending machine type of relationship nor is it exclusive rights. Listing blessings received through the ordinance does not mean that the ordinance is the only way to receive those blessings just as many blessings received through marriage or parenthood are not exclusive to those, even if a few are. “the website isn't as kind as you are, is it” While I recognize that some members, perhaps many though in my own experience they are definitely not the majority, and even some leaders tend to have black and white, rigid, or even all or nothing type of thinking, that does not require our actual doctrine to be so rigid. We have examples of leaders correcting past leaders (for example the Priesthood Ban and Adam-God) even if they are at times overly careful out of respect not to call out particular leaders when disavowing certain beliefs, so I don’t see a need to treat past leaders as authoritative when they contradict current teachings and/or scripture or even just logic.

I appreciate you saying that on more than one occasion. I believe that is your teaching, and while I appreciate it very much. Here is what I read on the Church website in the article on the Gift of the Holy Spirit: "Have you ever considered all the ways you’ve been blessed through the gift of the Holy Ghost? All of God’s children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His gospel. But the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. This gift is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost—a member of the Godhead. It is no ordinary gift—it can’t be seen—but its power is undeniable when you choose to receive it through righteous living. Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation, and enjoy the blessings known as “the gifts of the Spirit.” Let's go down through that. 1. All of God's children can experience the influence of the Holy Ghost guiding them to Jesus Christ and His Gospel. - In other words I can experience the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding me to the LDS Church. That's a pretty limited influence for me since I already have accepted Jesus Christ and His Gospel - just not in the LDS Church. Not much benefit for me there, right? 2. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who, through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance, make covenants with Jesus Christ through baptism. That of course means no Gift of the Holy Ghost without LDS baptism and covenants. My baptism and covenants don't count. So there is no benefit there for me, right? 3. This gift (the one available in 2. is the promise that you can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. So this one isn't available to me, is it? No constant companionship. Maybe sometimes, once-in-a while companionship? I have no idea what this one even means. 4. This is the big one!!! "Those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are cleansed from sin, receive personal revelation and enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." This is a doozy (as my mother used to say). So. . . I haven't received the gift of the Holy Ghost, therefore I have not been cleansed from sin, I cannot receive personal revelation and by far, worst of all, I cannot enjoy the blessings known as "the gifts of the Spirit." What does this mean except that I have no access to enjoy: Wisdom, Understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, Fear of the Lord, Faith, Healing, Miracles, prophecy, discerning Spirits, tongues, administrations and helps. Also, what about the fruits of the spirit? Without the Gift of the Spirit, how do I enjoy the fruits of the Spirit? That eliminates: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These four items are devastating exclusions for me as a non-LDS Christian. As a non-LDS Christian, I clearly am less than. Over the last few months I have never felt more less than when it comes to our local LDS friends. So now I have to say I have experienced most all of these things to one degree or another, so of course my personal truth is that I reject this LDS doctrinal exclusion of all of this in the lives of non-LDS Christians. So your thinking seems to me to be non-orthodox on this issue. You are kind so you state the Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence of God in my life, not the only kind. So what are the other kinds of direct influences of God in my life? Certainly you can't mean the Light of Christ that is available to everyone on earth????? As a non-LDS Christian, what are the direct (to use your word) influences of the Holy Spirit I have available to me, given the exclusions listed in: Gift of the Holy Ghost ? Thanks so much. I own that I get really frustrated on this one. It seems to me to be one of the principal doctrines of the LDS Church that when discussed with kind LDS Christians, I am told, "Well, we don't really mean that . . . . . . oh and its not something personal! Huh? No personal revelation isn't personal? I would rather not hijack this thread, but it is pretty related to the concept of a great apostasy. Anyway, I do appreciate your kindness as always, but the website isn't as kind as you are, is it?

Again, not having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not not having any direct influence of the Holy Spirit. That is not authoritative doctrine of the Church. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is one kind of direct influence, not the only kind.

This is a clearer statement of the same proposal, not a different one. "Identity" still governs entry in the first instance (and allows anyone into what was created as a sex-segregated space), and conduct governs expulsion after entry. Sincerity is, somehow, supposed to function as the eligibility test. Stalls and “private options” are the consolation prize given to women, on the condition that they surrender sex-segregated spaces and silence themselves about it. "Birth-sex" exclusion is treated as a stipulated taste rather than the very purpose for which women's spaces are created and maintained. The model is honest enough to say the evidence does not show this uniquely minimizes harm to biological females, but then recommends it anyway. Let's start with the definition of “optimal.” It says the objective is lowest expected harm, with particular priority to biological females’ safety, privacy, dignity, and practical access. It then says existing evidence does not establish that identity access does that. The recommendation is therefore not the policy that won on the stated criterion. It is the policy that survives after sex exclusivity is redescribed as an extra preference and after “do not assume a transgender woman’s presence is inherently harmful” is loaded into the prompt’s scoring. If female-only occupancy is what privacy and dignity are in a shared toilet, that is not a silent expansion of the population. It is the content of the interest. And self-ID, "sincere" or otherwise, is still not administrable. The model admits a quiet liar with no visible misconduct gets in. Staff may not use appearance or status alone. There is no showing, no official, and no moment of refusal except a separate offense. That is Question 2 unanswered. Calling it a “hybrid” does not add a gate. It just adds a lock on the stall and a training memo. Women and girls still get the short end of the stick. The Massachusetts paper is still the load-bearing study, and it still doesn't bear the load you are putting on it. To its credit, the model lists the right caveats: a tiny treated sample, police logs, mixed facility types, no female-specific total experience, weak causal desig, etc., and then lets “no detected increase in those charges” do work those caveats forbid. It does not measure avoidance, dignity, HR discipline, or the usable sex line. Again, a 2026 methodological critique in Theory and Society is why that paper should not be treated as the empirical floor for a statewide rule. “Predictions of a crime wave are overstated” is not the same as “the institutional effects are imaginary.” Women who "identify" as men are used again as the symmetry that makes sex rules look cruel (when we all know the elephant in the room is men in the bathroom). A sex rule places females in the women’s room. If that is “compelled placement,” every sex-separated space is compelled placement. The comparison only works if the harm of a masculine female in a female room is treated as equal to admitting males as a class. Those are not equal. One is an edge of a female category. The other is the end of the category. You are still not acknowledging that your proposal eradicates sex-segregated spaces. On spillover the model is careful and still too neat, by a long shot. Bostock reserved bathrooms. Lower courts, agencies, and advocates did not. The 2016 "Dear Colleague" letter put restrooms and locker rooms in one sentence. Public-accommodations clauses do not contain a “toilets only” proviso. You can write a narrow statute. This recommendation does not. It says the same rule need not govern showers, sport, or prison, then offers no legal distinction that would stop the next complaint from quoting the restroom policy as the meaning of “sex.” That was Question 1. The steelman is the right objection: a preventive sex line is what the space is; identity access asks - requires - women to detect danger after the male is already inside. Small studies cannot certify the trade. The model answers that birth-sex rules also have costs, and that current evidence does not “establish that balance in their favor.” That shifts the burden. The status quo to be justified is the demolition of exclusivity, not the existence of a women’s room. If the evidence gap is “we have not measured females’ total experience under competing rules,” the recommendation should be: do not change the eligibility rule until you have. As it is, the gap is used to keep identity at the door and to call stalls an adequate substitute for a female-only room. What would change my mind is the inverse of the model’s last paragraph. That is, show a limiting principle that a clerk can apply without a lawsuit. Show why "identity-as-sex" in a restroom policy will not be cited in the locker-room brief (and good luck with that). Show that women who object will not be the ones disciplined. Show that the policy will not eradicate, de facto and/or de jure, sex-segregates spaces. Until then, all this is still just a "self-ID" plus conduct law, with better partitions. That may be a building code, it it is not a women’s facility. Thanks, -Smac

Prayers for you Pyreaux. I think you can still talk to him.

This is very powerful. Well said. This is compelling. Well said. I was on the pastoral staff of at least six different churches (in varying capacities) including as senior pastor. In those capacities, I prepared teachings, sermons, instruction for two Sunday morning teachings, two Sunday evening teachings, and a Wednesday and/or Thursday evening Bible study. Every week. Every year, except perhaps when we had special speakers or I was on vacation. During those years no one ever told me what to teach or preach. There was no curriculum, no calendared formal schedule of lexicon to follow. For all those sermons/presentations/teachings, I prayed, studied, taught, and interpreted the gospel as I learned (I was always learning) it to be. It was quite a full-time job with visiting hospitals, shut-ins, administering the church, etc. In all of those situations, I was teaching in some form. I was telling the folks something in some way new every presentation. I prayed diligently for wisdom and guidance from the Holy Spirit as I prepared and then delivered each talk. At least over one thousand times at the very least. In some ways my teachings were authoritative for my congregations. Were they dogma? I don't know. I never thought of it that way. Were they canonical? Perhaps for some in my congregations who had an overly high estimate of me. Were they a revelation? Yes, I think so - at least, to @webbles point using my definition of the word. I never once consulted a creed, unless I was doing a series of teachings on creeds. In the same way, but to a much much much lesser degree and with no authority, except that which anyone has giving a LDS Sacrament talk, I took my turn (as did my wife) giving sacrament talks. I prepared in the same way. No one told me what to teach. I think I did it occasionally more often than "my turn" because if someone got sick, the bishop could count on me at the last minute. So, do I believe in new revelation from the Holy Spirit? Yes, every week as I taught. No, if you mean as authoritative for some church beyond my own. I preached in churches with bishops, in the case of Mennonite churches (and LDS chapels - if you will accept a Sacrament talk as a preaching - I do, because I really didn't do anything differerent, except make the talks a whole lot shorter. My "sermons" and Bible teachings in my full-time service were never less than an hour. I bet that doesn't surprise any of you! Ha! I just offer all of this up to you to suggest that even when we speak of teaching, preaching, revelation, inspiration, explaining, or whatever we call it, we, who were in full-time ministry were always, often five times a week teaching and interpreting new stuff for our congregations from the sacred desk of the pulpit. Perhaps, no more than five times in all those efforts did I preach a sermon I heard someone else give or that I got from a book written by someone else. Was I a revelator? Yes and No. Now of course, and you can imagine I can't resist saying this, I am told that I don't even have the Gift of the Holy Spirit because I am not LDS. I guess I was deceiving myself all those times I believed I did what I did under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. So no, I can't agree with that onlyism of my LDS friends in that regard. Perhaps it is at best my personal truth. I would ask you all to accept that even if it runs counter to your doctrine which is your own corporate truth. I think that fits into what @webbleswas trying to say in the above quote. Anyway I love you all in Christ. I treasure this forum as a place where the vast majority of posters honor and respect each other. I think that makes Christ smile. Best to all Navidad.

And a believer of the Nicaean Creed could easily say that God inspired the argument between Arius and Alexander so that it would reach Constantine so that he would then call a council and so that the correct understanding of God would be revealed to the world. What I'm trying to argue is that just because Catholics don't talk about continued revelation in the same terminology that we use doesn't mean that they don't believe in continued revelation. For us, we call inspiration that is clarification of beliefs as "continued revelation". For Catholics, they call it differently but it is pretty much the same thing. For them, the "public revelation" is finished but God still inspires and directs the Pope and the bishops to clarify understanding of the public revelation. We say revelation is ongoing but then we also seem to have a closed cannon at this point. Sure, we believe that it is possible to add to the cannon, but will we? It feels like you are trying to argue semantics and show how we are more correct because our terminology makes more sense, but that only works if everyone accepts our definitions. But they don't. I think it is more useful to understand the definitions of others and work with those definitions vs trying to just say that they are wrong because their definition isn't ours.

Prayers for comfort and strength Pyreaux, I’m so sorry.