All Activity

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 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 and Stephan. Just like the priestly sons of God and all others who saw God, were not mortal men 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. The transformation 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 the 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.

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