All Activity

I now see the references to "we" in a representative capacity. But still, no "we are sorry" and/or "we apologize". I am glad that we cleared that up. I don't think there is a dispute about whether he used particularized words ("we are sorry" and/or "we apologize"). Rather, I think the dispute is whether he or the President of the Church should apologize, and if so how and to whom. Well, I wonder if this is down to an issue of semantics. I think comments from Elder Bednar (previously summarized here) help provide some framework: I think it is fair to say that we cannot presently state with clarity and confidence that the ban was revelatory. Ipso facto, I likewise think we cannot state with clarity and confidence that the ban was "doctrine." As Edward Kimball put it: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'" I think the same must be said about the 1969 item. Let's review a bit. What the Church says now: The heading to Official Declaration 2 (2013 scriptures) and the Gospel Topics essay Race and the Priesthood are the controlling texts. They say Church records “offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice,” that Black men were ordained in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and that Brigham Young publicly announced the restriction in 1852. Past explanations (curse of Cain, premortal unworthiness, racial inferiority) are disavowed. Elder Holland’s 2018 statement is the pastoral version of the same point: the old explanations were “folklore”; “we simply do not know why that practice was in place.” Thus, the Church's current position is effectively an institutional retreat from and disavowal of both mid-century First Presidency letters. It does not say “Brigham invented it and God had nothing to do with it.” It says the documentary origin is Brigham’s public articulation, the earlier justifications are rejected, and no revelation instituting the ban is in the record. 1949 Edward Kimball’s statement above is accurate. The 1949 circular claimed: “not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord” “the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization” the curse-of-Cain framework premortal conduct as the theodicy There is no text in the canon or in Joseph’s papers that is a “direct commandment” instituting a race ban. Elijah Abel and other Black men were ordained with Joseph’s knowledge. Further, the Church History Department has since described 1949 as standard language in private correspondence, not a public proclamation—but the wording is still the wording. Kimball is right: those two clauses go beyond the evidence. 1969 The December 15, 1969 letter (Brown and Tanner to local leaders; published in the Church News 10 January 1970) is more careful on rationale and less careful on origin. It drops the curse-of-Cain language and the 1949 claim of a “direct commandment.” It says the reasons “we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man,” and it flags continuing revelation as the way the practice could change. That is a real shift. It does not drop the historical claim that is the problem. The operative sentence is: That is the same "beyond the evidence" error as 1949’s “from the days of its organization,” only in different clothes. The surviving record does not show Joseph teaching a race-based priesthood ban, and it shows the opposite on ordination. The first clear presidential articulation is Brigham Young (1849 privately, 1852 publicly). So Kimball’s critique—this statement goes beyond the evidence on origin—does apply to 1969, even though 1969 is more modest about why. 1969 also still treats the restriction as having a divine source (“not something which originated with man”), which is a theological claim, not a documentary one. That is a different kind of assertion from “Joseph taught it from 1830.” The first could have previously been held as as a matter of faith (not now, though); the second is a historical statement that does not hold up. The Church no longer defends the 1949 claim of a recorded “direct commandment,” nor the claim that the restriction was doctrine “from the days of [the Church’s] organization.” The 1969 letter already softened the justifications, but it repeated the Joseph-from-the-beginning origin story. That origin story is what later official materials walked away from. Calling the ban “doctrine” in those decades was common speech among leaders; it was never backed by a canonized revelation instituting it. Official Declaration 2 is a revelation ending the practice. It does not contain, and the archives have not produced, a revelation that began it. What the current essay does not do is take the next step some critics, and some members, want: declare that the restriction was only Brigham’s policy and therefore never binding. It leaves the “why” unanswered and treats 1978 as the revelatory event that matters. That is a narrower claim than 1949 or 1969, is the one that better reflects our knowledge and understanding, and it is the one the Church is actually standing on right now. I addressed some of this earlier. Their position continues to say it was a theory, but we know it was not. Actually, I think we do know it was a theory. We know that because we have no recorded revelation for it. I think that sentence bundles three different claims, and only one of them is clean. If you mean the Church now understates how authoritatively the restriction was taught—commandment, doctrine, the Lord’s policy, from Joseph on down—I agree the current essay could be more comprehensive. The 1949 and 1969 First Presidency statements, and President Kimball in 1973, did not talk the way the essay talks, and the essay does not specifically address them. A member who only reads the essay will not see how hard those claims were driven. If you mean the Church is hiding that leaders offered racial explanations, I respectfully disagree. The essay names those explanations and repudiates them. Elders McConkie, Oaks, and Holland already said the old reasons were wrong or folklore. The live question is not whether those teachings existed. It is whether we are still bound by them. Officially, we are not. If you mean the current claim about origins—no clear originating revelation, Black men ordained under Joseph, Brigham announcing the restriction in 1852—that claim is what the documents support. The part of the old teaching that does not survive contact with the record is “Joseph taught this from 1830 as a direct commandment.” That is the sentence Edward Kimball said went beyond the evidence in 1949. The same problem is in the 1969 letter. So I would not say the Church is fabricating a past. I would say it has narrowed what it will defend: the 1978 revelation stands; the old justifications do not; the originating commandment is not in the file. What it has not done well is describe, in the same breath, how confidently those justifications were once taught. Those are different failures. One is a historical correction. The other is an incomplete account of our own prior voice. I can appreciate the sentiment behind “get the skeleton out of the closet and bury it.” If it means: stop treating the priesthood/temple restriction as unmentionable, stop recycling the old justifications, and be honest about the pain it caused—then that work is already largely done. The Church published the Race and the Priesthood essay, disavowed the theories that Black skin was a curse or a premortal penalty, and leaders have condemned racism past and present. Elder McConkie said to forget the old explanations. President Oaks has said he never received a spiritual confirmation of those explanations and that the Lord rarely gives reasons for the directions He gives His servants. That is not a locked closet. That said, if “bury it” means a formal institutional apology that treats the Church as a single moral person who can confess, atone, and be absolved, I think that is a philosophical preference more than a moral necessity given what we actually believe about sin and accountability. “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (AoF 1:2). The Church as an institution is not a soul. It exists only as living people who join it, lead it, and comprise it. The men who announced or defended the restriction are dead. They will answer for their own actions, words, motives, sins and errors. Current members and current leaders did not impose it. Collective guilt and collective apology are both theologically awkward in a faith that is as individualistic and this covenantal as we are. An institution can correct course, disavow false teachings, and change practice—which it did in 1978 by revelation and has continued to do in how it teaches the history. That is not the same thing as a living body of Saints inheriting someone else’s sin as a transferable moral debt. I also have reservations about some of the demands for an apology. Not all of them. Some people who are hurt and offended want acknowledgment, and acknowledgment matters. But some of the demands are, I think, pretextual: it is less about burying a skeleton than about requiring the Church to accept a particular narrative of its own origins and authority—that the restriction was only racism and never anything the Lord permitted or withheld reasons for—and then to perform a ritual of submission to that narrative. If the demand is really “concede that prophets were merely products of their culture here, and therefore here, and therefore here,” it is not mainly about healing Black Saints. It is about leverage for opponents of the Church, who I don't think give two figs about the welfare of the Church. Ulterior motives may well be in play that have nothing to do with righting a moral wrong. I can mourn the restriction, reject the folk theology that grew up around it, and still not think that a corporate/institutional apology from people who were not there is the moral hinge on which the legitimacy of the Restored Gospel turns. The hinge is still Jesus Christ, individual faith in Him, individual repentance, individual efforts, all combined in the service of the same God who “denieth none that come unto him.” Nothing to add regarding the FAIR article or the one by Gregory Prince other than to say they tried to reverse the ban which was a doctrine as taught by former LDS leaders. Not sure what you mean here. As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. And the reason for the ban was considered a doctrine back then. But these days, it has become a theory. The differentiation is whether there was a revelation. Not only do we now have any such revelation, Brigham Young didn't even claim to have had one. He did not dictate a revelation in the Joseph Smith pattern (scribe, “thus saith the Lord” text, presented to the Church for sustaining as scripture). The 1852 statements were political-legislative speeches, not a temple-received or conference-canonized document. There is no contemporary record of a specific revelatory event that originated the policy, which is why the Church’s current history topics essay and Gospel Topics essay put the public origin with Brigham in 1852 and say records “offer no clear insights into the origins” of the practice. You seem to be leaning rather heavily on speculation along the lines of "Hey, there may have been a revelation that was either lost or never recorded." Could you elaborate? I would like to understand your perspective here. The Muslim verse of Jesus is only a prophet. The JW version of Jesus is Michael the Archangel. The Hindu version of Jesus is only a great teacher. The LDS version of Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Another Jesus is the Eternal God. These are examples of different Christs. I still don't understand. If I say "When Clinton was in the White House...," I may be referring to Bill or Hillary, depending on the context. Bill is a numerically distinct "Clinton" from Hillary, and vice versa. Bill is a "different" Clinton from Hillary, and vice versa. However, if I were to say "Bill Clinton was a great president," and if another person were to say "Bill Clinton was a horrible president," are they speaking of "different," numerically-distinct-from-each-other persons, both of which just happen to have the same name? Nope. They are speaking about different perspectives and opinions about the one person: Bill Clinton. When Muslims speak of Jesus, are you claiming that they are speaking of a numerically distinct Jesus wholly differentiated from the Jesus of the New Testament? Or is it that Muslims have different perspectives and opinions about the Jesus of the New Testament? Person A makes this statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were of God". Person B makes the opposite statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but from man". Entity C (the institutional Church) makes this statement: "The records of the Church 'offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice,' that Black men were ordained in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and that Brigham Young publicly announced the restriction in 1852." Which of these is, in your view, the most accurate? Thanks, -Smac

An interesting point regarding the Byrd’s rendition of Turn! Turn! Turn: When listening to the song’s instrumental interlude one might mistakenly think that Roger McGuinn is simply plucking the individual notes of the song’s melody on his Rickenbacker 12 string guitar, but what he’s actually doing is playing an intricate double-time finger picking banjo solo on a guitar (he’s an excellent banjo player). On the following tutorial video, McGuinn’s famous 12 string guitar solo starts at 2:00. https://youtu.be/ZAejkh4rTjs?is=syJeD0trdF7kvxv8

Hi 3DOP The altar in Liverpool RC Metropolitan Cathedral is situated in a central position within the cathedral. With the laity benches positioned around the altar. The only place where there could be two benches, are in the sanctuary are near to the alter. Normally used by altar servers, other ministers. The positioning may differ from various church to church.

Several AI data centers are planned for Utah: Stratos Project (Box Elder County): Backed by celebrity investor Kevin O'Leary. Delta Gigasite / Project Oasis (Millard County): Proposed by Creekstone Energy Nine Mile Data Center (Duchesne County): Planned near Myton by Energence Utah The last link provides others: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2026/0901/utah-data-centers-stratos-project https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/09/09/delta-gigasite-worlds-largest-data/ https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tracking-where-ai-data-centers-224122248.html

Hi Amulek. No harm done but... Are you thinking that it is customary for a Catholic priest to celebrate Mass in the middle of the building? I am not saying it is never done. I have never seen it. Above you describe Catholics as having "two rows of benches" in many churches. Benches with no backs to them? Only two rows? I guess those are for folks who aren't able to stand? Maybe I am misunderstanding the picture you were trying to describe? Most of our churches have pews with backs and kneelers and enough of them for the ordinary capacity of the Sunday Masses. I think maybe some of the Eastern liturgies worship standing? Benches would make it especially difficult for many of us older folks. I know I could not kneel longer than about five minutes without being able to support myself from the back of the pew in front of me. This is just a practical thing too. No one is required to, but most of us WANT to kneel at certain times during the liturgy, and perhaps for an extended time after communion, before our Savior (as we believe) is placed in the tabernacle. Carry on with the subject. I find it very interesting to see how different church architecture reflects different beliefs and worship forms...and as you are wisely suggesting, practical logistics. I have enough trouble with distractions at Mass, when we are all facing the same direction. I would be concerned that it would be hard not to be looking at our neighbors if the liturgy was provided while we were all facing each other in a circle. The kids would have to be taught not to wave at their friends. The center of the building can sound like a good idea. You all do well to consider practical problems.

Yesterday's doctrine and direct commandment from God became tomorrow's theory. Already addressed previously. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng And the church's "Religion 324-325 - Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual" says there were "some revelations still in possession of the Church which were not included" in the Book of Commandments. I am not privy to all the records of the LDS Church so I don't know what all is there or not. It was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. One thing we know for sure – it was taught as doctrine. This won't change no matter how many times the current LDS Church tries to disavow them as theories instead. Then we have all the teachings recorded by President George Cannon in the book "Gospel Truth", mentioned at the start of the thread "The Red Men are the Indians" https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/113467-the-indians-are-the-red-men/ I wonder if the LDS Church has disavowed those LDS "truths" as theories too. Recorded teachings from past LDS leaders refer to it as doctrine and a direct commandment from God. That's sufficient preservation. Doctrine back then, but theory today. That doctrine was of God or it was of man. This explains why the LDS Church cannot issue a simple "We are sorry, we apologize" statement. I suspect The Family – Proclamation to the World "doctrine" will become a theory in the LDS Church some day. Considered theory today, taught as doctrine back then. The Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses publish/teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that he returned invisibly in 1914 and made them (members of that body) the faithful and discreet slave to dispense spiritual food to the world. Only 144,000 belong to the Bride of Christ. Are they leading people astray? Erring in teachings sounds more appropriate as some people don't consider all teachings to be doctrines. "But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians that someone can present a different Jesus while still using Christian-sounding language.

Noted. But he never said "we are sorry" or "we apologize". Let's again focus on part of what he said: "Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse. We are brothers and sisters and I consider you friends". But black or dark skin being a sign of a curse was taught as a truth, not a theory. "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012, President Joseph Fielding Smith) "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites' skin was only a mark or sign of the curse" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017). "The Lamanites remained in the land and rebelled against the Lord. They "were cut off from his presence" (2 Nephi 5:20). The curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God (see 2 Nephi 5:20-24). The changing of the Lamanites' skin was a mark or sign of the curse. The nature of this mark is not fully understood" (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2024). I now see the references to "we" in a representative capacity. But still, no "we are sorry" and/or "we apologize". And the LDS Church still continues to propagate that what former LDS leaders taught were theories in regards to the priesthood ban. It's time to end this mantra. It was doctrine. "It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible. However, in the Pearl of Great Price, we find the following statement written by Abraham: "Now this first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.' Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:25-26" (Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Negro and the Priesthood," Improvement Era, April 1924, p. 565). "The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers' rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to'" (Official statement of the First Presidency, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 89-90). Then there's the First Presidency letter of 1969. I addressed some of this earlier. Their position continues to say it was a theory, but we know it was not. But still, no admitting "we are sorry", "we apologize", and "we taught a false doctrine". The LDS Church is not accurately depicting how it was taught in their past. History shows otherwise. It's time to get that skeleton out of the closet and finally bury it. I already addressed this earlier. Lot's of flip-flopping. Then you have Kimball's statement in the 1960 General Conference: "The work is unfolding, and blinded eyes begin to see, and scattered people begin to gather. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing de- lightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated". Nothing to add regarding the FAIR article or the one by Gregory Prince other than to say they tried to reverse the ban which was a doctrine as taught by former LDS leaders. As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. And the reason for the ban was considered a doctrine back then. But these days, it has become a theory. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng The Muslim verse of Jesus is only a prophet. The JW version of Jesus is Michael the Archangel. The Hindu version of Jesus is only a great teacher. The LDS version of Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Another Jesus is the Eternal God. These are examples of different Christs. As I mentioned before, not all revelations were recorded. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/appendix2?lang=eng As shown earlier, it was called a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. Person A makes this statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were of God". Person B makes the opposite statement: "The priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but from man". It isn't a question of who (Person A or B) said it or when. The question is whether a statement is true.

Do you believe Baal, Asherah, Molech, Chemosh, Dagon, and Satan are real gods? If yes, how?

There were meetinghouses in the 1800's that were designed that way - largely, I suspect, because that's basically how everyone else did it, and it was what the early Saints were used to. But if you go here and jump to the section on The Bountiful Standard Plan (1969-72), you'll see a more recent style that has it set up that way as well. Personally, I like the fact that our chapels differ from the layout used in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or other traditional liturgical churches. Moving the sacrament table to the center would make us look a bit more like other churches - which isn't inherently bad, but it's a cultural shift that I don't really see the need for. And, if I'm being completely honest, this all just feels very "Utah" to me. It feels like the sort of thing some pious LDS leader - perhaps not unlike the one in Bountiful - might propose as a visible way of signaling that we really understand the true meaning of sacrament meeting - "If the sacrament is the center of our worship, shouldn't the table literally be at the center?" - and then everyone immediately thinks, "Well, of course." Once you frame it that way, the symbolism is so compelling that the pragmatic questions can almost start to feel beside the point. Realistically though, most of my objections are largely pragmatic. In addition to the ones I listed previously, I think moving it to the front would create visual congestion. Now you've got a layout that's more like: speaker -> giant table -> congregation, which isn't necessarily better, IMO. And how are they going to deal with things like wheelchair access, little children approaching the front whenever they break free of their parents, and all of the other practical issues that would now have to be considered when using the chapel for something other than sacrament meeting. I mean, are they going to plop caskets right on top of it during funerals? Are they going to be able to remove it when using the building for orchestra / large choral performances, like the one our stake holds each Christmas? A well-meaning theological idea can become a frustrating architectural solution if those kinds of things aren't taken into consideration and solved elegantly at the outset.

I think we have discussed this before, but can’t remember any details.

I tried the search feature to see if it had an older discussion of putting pictures of Christ in the chapel. Do any of you posters remember this. I vaguely remember discussing it and how some thought it shouldn't happen, for some or other reason.

I agree! I think where the Sacrament table is now is a great spot. But do remember an old picture of the early church's Sacrament table in the center. But you make good points about the cost of renovating chapels, if that's the route they'd take. Maybe they'll start doing it in new buildings. And the point about the bishop signaling to the young men that they said the prayer wrong is something to think about. I think putting in stained glass or a Christ portrait of some kind might help focus better perhaps. And thinking a little cheaper?

I think you are conflating two different ideas. Different denominations exist (generally) because people disagree about doctrinal or theological issues. Not because they believe (again, in general) that they must be a member of that specific church to be saved. For most Protestants, salvation is not connected to authority or doctrinal accuracy. That’s why a methodist and Baptist might completely disagree about certain doctoral issues, but still consider each other saved.

I would agree. Fortunately, I've been attending the same building for the last 15 years, where the sacrament table sits on the rostrum, stage left, and Christ has been at the center of our worship the entire time.

This video, a BYU Forum speech, was given in 2025. I post this just because it's interesting.

I think most children growing up in active LDS families, especially boys, know very well that the expectation is there, because it's talked about. It's almost as if it were a "rite of passage" or a cultural norm. Like when I was finishing my first hitch in the Army, I was expecting to be contacted by the re-enlistment sergeant to sign up for another term. I was going to tell him "Thanks, but no thanks," but my mouth rebelled against me and had me signing up for another, what turned out to be four more years. My ward's previous last full-time missionary came home about five years ago. We're a small ward so it happened that there weren't any more active children in the pipeline until this year. But the pipeline has progressed to the point that we're sending out three this year. The first flew to the Provo MTC last week. He's going to the Philippines. The next is one of my nieces, who is leaving for Provo in October, and she will be serving in American Fork, of all places. Number three has only just put in his papers and we don't know where he might be going yet. I know these kids, and also know they are going on their own initiative because they want to. We have one more in the same age cohort, but he's going to attend university for the time being. His parents hope he'll choose to serve, but they're not pressuring him. I myself had no pressure at all, because I was a convert at age 14, the only member in my family. I wasn't really active until I turned 17. I figured I had no business serving a mission since I hadn't grown up in the church and didn't have an adequate background for it. I didn't even know the song "Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree"! But I changed my mind as I became more spiritually awake.

Perhaps it varies with wards or regions, but I have seen social pressure…questions like when are you turning in your papers or are you taking a year of college before your mission…this assumption one is going. I have also heard of bishops calling young men in to help them plan for their mission, see if the bishop or the ward can help support them in some way. I am not saying this is wrong or unhealthy, just relaying experiences. I don’t think my son felt he received undue pressure. I will have to ask my grandson if he has (he’s 21)

The rearranging of furniture, especially in a place of worship, has the potential to cause more concern than being of a benefit. I get that impression from a few of the posts. Maybe if things have worked reasonably well as they are, then just leave things as they are, and just make necessary improvements where and as needed.

And so virtue gets signaled. I really don't know how you wrote this particular gem as if whining about things totally out of Utah's control is going to contribute to somehow fixing the problem. If we talk about it more than it's been talked about in the past decade this will help, right? I have news for you: Utah can't fix climate change. The most Utah can do is deal with it. Shouting "Climate change!" is a lot like the disingenuous "stolen land acknowledgement" that certain people like to signal their virtue about. As if this somehow fixes something -- which it doesn't because it's a "Hey! Look at me!" applause stimulator that does nothing more than emotionally reward the virtue signaler. As if the 75 viewers of this topic so far would have been better enlightened if @Pyreaux had written "because of climate change" somewhere in the OP. Would it have made the slightest difference? Do you know what I thought of, first thing, while reading it? Climate change! He didn't need to write it, because we've all been propagandized to death about the subject. It's become Pavlovian conditioning at this stage, and both advocates and deniers instantly know what's up. And then grumble to themselves according to their particular persuasion. May the Green New Deal be with you.

Strawman indeed (same as what Pyreaux said). The other thing that will never make sense under your dichotomy are how the Hebrew superlatives work. The Bible speaks of the Holy of holies, Heaven of heavens, Sabbath of sabbaths, servant of servants, vanity of vanities, song of songs, King of kings, Lord of lords. This Hebrew grammatic construction requires that the two words connected in the expression are in the same category, but one is the "most" or "supreme" over the others. We never suppose that "holies" of the "Holy of holies" are not truly holy, rather the one is the holiest of all others. The same thing with "King of kings". There is one "King" that is supreme, one that rules over all other "kings". The same thing with "Lord of lords". There is one "Lord" that is supreme', the highest Lord over all other "lords". But when we get to the "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17), the modern Christian view can't handle that. So we start hearing excuses and exceptions that these other "gods" must be idols, false gods, corrupt human judges, demons, or some other category of being that totally breaks the Hebrew superlative. It's either that God is the "God of gods", or he is: The False God of false gods The Idol of idols The Corrupt Human Judge of corrupt human judges The Devil of devils The Hebrew superlatives don't work any other way.

I was at home in Washington state, asleep. The rest of the household was awake and the kids were getting ready for school, etc. Suddenly one of kids comes waking me up, telling me that one of the twin towers has collapsed. I quickly pulled on some clothes and headed downstairs to the TV room. I'm standing in front of the TV watching live coverage when suddenly the second tower comes tumbling down. What a wakeup. I head to work at the usual time, and arrive to find that all the televisions in the building have been pulled out of storage rooms and all are tuned into live streams of the whole thing. Very little work is getting done, because most of us are watching the coverage. I noticed that my coworker that I consult with on a particular software system is sitting in her cubicle staring at her monitor, but not doing anything in particular. I go to ask her if she's OK, and she is definitely not. Turns out that her brother, who worked for an investment firm in San Diego, CA, just happened to be in meetings in NYC that day at their company headquarters, located in one of the towers. Oh, crap! Not feeling particularly useful at helping her deal with this, I go to see our division chief and tell him about it. He does seem to know how to handle it, and he goes to speak with her. I find out later that this was the correct thing to do, because he is able to reassure her of his support and concern over the situation. As for the brother, he later turns out to be among the survivors. What happened was that although his meetings were occurring above where the airplane struck the building he was in, he had volunteered to go down to the floor where all the refreshments were being sold, in order to get donuts and such for the meeting. That's where he was when the airliner hit, and he was able to evacuate downstairs. To my coworker's huge relief. When the news was released as to who had been responsible for the attack, the hotheaded one of my sons became very irate, and was talking about going down to the recruiters to join the US Marine Corps. But I reminded him that he didn't have a high school diploma or a GED, so the Marines likely wouldn't take him. I told him he'd have to schedule taking a GED, and this cooled his ardor considerably. Apparently he was more scared of taking a test than of Marine drill instructors or being in a war! Well, he could have passed no problem. We had home-schooled him because he was causing trouble in his school, which is the reason for no HS diploma, but he took on being home-schooled with great enthusiasm. Sharp as a tack; just too much of a "good ole boy."

Absolutely. In all the wards I have lived, it seemed like the only pressure came from parents. This will differ over time and space, because parents differ.

Indeed. If I am worthy, I could always Transfigure right now if God should appear to me. My face will shine with divine glory just as Moses after encountering God on Sinai and Stephen before the Jewish council. Just like the High Priestly sons of God and all others who saw God, were not mortals when they saw him, as "no man can see God and live". I'd be divine in life, and not human. Alternatively, if he does not appear to me, I'm a god now as much as you might claim you are "saved" and "born again" now. Our transformation into what we will become hasn't happened yet. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) Because you completely ignored Deuteronomy 32:8 and Daniel 10, which explicitly describe that exact geographical assignment. You are misreading your clear passages. Paul uses the Greek phrase legomenoi theoi ("called gods"). In 1 Corinthians 8:5, Paul literally says: Even if there are beings called gods, "in heaven", for Christians there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus. Paul explicitly assigns the title Theos ("God") to the Father and Kyrios ("Lord") to Jesus. If you insist that all beings "called gods", if they are not the Father, are not divine, means the Lord Jesus is not divine. What we could both agree on, is even if they are real and "in heaven" and divine, Paul is telling us to have no regard for them. In Galatians 4:8, Paul writes, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods", isn't target-locked on the heavenly Bene Elohim at all. In 1st-century Roman Galatia, the imperial cult was everywhere. Emperors were routinely declared divine and worshiped in local temples alongside city-state rulers and benefactors. Human rulers and local magistrates that claimed a divine status they did not possess. When Paul tells the Galatian Gentiles that they were enslaved to beings that "by nature are not gods" (me physei ousin theois), he is pointing out that mortal emperors, client kings, and political rulers possess zero intrinsic divine essence (physis). They are unworthy men playing god. In Galatians 4:3 and 4:9, Paul identifies them as having power, the stoicheia tou kosmou (the elementary principles or powers of the world). In the Old Testament framework (Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and Psalm 82), the real beings in heaven were meant to serve under God's authority, but many rebelled in war, became unworthy and fell, or perhaps accepted worship when not supposed to. Jeremiah is addressing manufactured idols and covenant loyalty, not spiritual entities. Jeremiah’s primary focus is the physical practice of idolatry. Jeremiah 10:3-5, "a tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe... they cannot speak; they have to be carried"). A piece of carved wood is "no god" (lo elohim). It has no intrinsic life and cannot act. But does not negate the ancient Near Eastern reality that real spiritual entities (shedim / bene elohim) operated behind pagan worship systems. Jeremiah is mocking the absurdity of bowing down to a block of wood. You just conceded the point without realizing it. "They sacrificed unto demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not..." Deuteronomy 32:17 explicitly uses word elohim to describe shedim (demons). Shedim in modern Bible translations is usually rendered as "demons" or "idols," is an ancient loanword derived from Akkadian "sedu", means a high-ranking, protective spiritual guardian assigned to a specific city, palace, temple, or royal personage. To the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, a sedu was not evil, but a legitimate territorial patron or spirit power that provided military protection and administrative authority over a geographic domain. Thus Deuteronomy 32:17 "They sacrificed to demons [shedim], not to God; to gods [elohim] whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up..." is a parallel structure the biblical author set up. By calling them shedim and elohim, the text acknowledges that these are patron guardians over Gentile nations (assigned at the Babel judgment in Deut 32:8–9). To Yahweh, Israel was His personal "allotted heritage" (Deut 32:9), so for an Israelite (or an adopted Christian Gentile) to offer sacrifices to a foreign nation's territorial guardian was treason. But when pagan nations sacrificed to shedim seeking their favor and they got it, and on occasion successfully opposed Yahweh. The Old Testament said they were subordinate but rebellious elohim whom Yahweh would ultimately have to judge. King Mesha of Moab was trapped in his city by the combined armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, he performed a desperate act of sacrifice to his national god, Chemosh, and defied Elisha' prophecy from the Lord, "Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath [qetsep gadol] against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land." (2 Kings 3:27) The glorious guardian of Israel in Daniel 10:5–6 is the Lord Himself. Being delayed in Daniel 10 implies that the spiritual powers of the nations (the prince of Persia) possessed such entrenched, real authority over their geographical domains that even a supreme manifestation of the Lord’s messenger, or the Lord Himself encountered a period of cosmic resistance before Michael stepped in to shift the balance. Strawman, I never said they were equal or independent of Yahweh, I said they are real, non-human, territorial spiritual entities that the Bible calls elohim. By insisting these real spiritual entities "are not real gods," you are rejecting the Bible's own vocabulary (elohim) and substituting a modern philosophical definition.

I have a small family. Would I like my children to serve a mission? Of course. However, it has to be a conclusion they come to on their own. I hope the only pressure they have is from the Lord. I'm not sure about other Bishops.

If centering Sacrament meeting on Christ requires rearranging the furniture in order for that to happen, perhaps there are bigger issues.