california boy

I agree. I was hoping I made it clear I didn’t want to derail this thread. But I did want to make the point that and hopefully people will actually think about what they find unChrist like in others may be something they should consider in their own beliefs. Carry on

I am sorry, but I just have to say something here. Isn't this exactly how the Church treats the LGBT community? We love them, and are friendly towards them but they are not going to the Celestial kingdom. They will never be allowed to fully be a part of the Church. They won't receive the blessings of the priesthood. Their marriages are not really valid. They certainly are not allowed in our beautiful white temples. Did the Church even claim that their children are not allowed to be baptized before they got a lot of pushback? Is there really that much difference in attitudes? If you can see that, then perhaps you can understand why the LGBT community feels the same way about the Church. Makes me sick as well that sympathy and empathy comes with an asterisk. Well they aren't straight, so not on our team. Maybe this is not the time to bring this up either. I am not looking to derail this thread. I am just giving you all something to ponder about the institutional way the Church treats the LGBT community. All without any revelation from God, just the opinions of those who lead this Church. Are there not those that are LGBT who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer? Should not the LGBT community be judged based on their actions as well? Are they incapable of loving and cherishing their spouses/partners/children? Also sorry I am getting off topic. This is not a post anyone has to respond to. The only thing I am asking for is that if you find the way some Christian churches treat the Church to be morally wrong, then for just a moment reflect on the attitudes and policies of not just some that are members, but the institutional treatment of those that are LGBT. Maybe during this time of reflection, some may also soften their hearts a bit for those that the Church treats in a very similar way.

So sorry to hear about President Nelsons passing. I know he was a leader that so many adored and loved. Maybe that is what this thread should stay focused on rather than those who are angry for what he stood for. He was a great man that worked tirelessly to lead the Church the very best he could.

The fact that you think leading your post with someone somewhere calling the Founding Fathers Fascists and implying those on the left support this idea in your post tells me how extreme your views are on the actually political climate in this country. And if you think that extremism is only coming from one political party also tells me that you and people like you are a major reason why this country is so divided. Then stirring Christ and His message of peace and respect for others into this rhetoric is very distasteful to me. The teachings of Christ should never be used as a weapon against another political group in my opinion. Sure, there are those that should be condemned for what THEY say. But lumping everyone together in some common stew as if everyone on the left agrees with these extremeness is shameful and very far from the teachings of Christ. Perhaps you should consider whether you are actually describing your extremism and ask yourself if you are an example of what Christ wants us to. be.

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "one true church" and the plan to find that church is suppose to be found by personal answers to prayer then I would say that plan has utterly failed when less than 1% of the population of humans on this planet have found that path back to God. And even a lot of those that have found that path have left because of the failings of prophets to receive answers to their own questions about doctrine and where to lead this one church. If scriptures are the magic key to finding that path or even truths, then how can so many different, often conflicting beliefs, come from scripture. Of all the ways to find truth in this world, revelation from God to find truth seems to be the most flawed if one believes in an only one true church paradigm. Just step back for a minute and reflect on all those millions of people in far greater numbers that members of the LDS church who are willing to devote their entire lives for something they believe God has guided them to. A lot of those personal beliefs actually lead people away from Christ. I have traveled the world and I can tell you first hand there are extremely devout people who believe with all their heart that they believe God has revealed His truth to them who are not even Christian. The longer I live, the less I trust God to show me some narrow path back to Him and the more I trust in who I am as a person and my own relationship with God is what is paramount. I don't believe God leads us to a single path back to Him. The very nature of a "one true church" means an exclusion of others and their path back to God. I am not saying that there is not value in being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For some people that may very well be a path back to God that works for them. But I really bristle at the concept of that being the "one true church". It's not. There is no one true church. Sometimes there is not even a church at all that leads people on the path back to God.

I hope you can understand the difference between gold sinking very slowly over years, decades even centuries compared to claims that the gold was just out of reach when it sunk deeper into the ground and was guarded by some spirit. And just because other cultures have similar mystical beliefs does not make it true.

Thanks for the additional information. It sounds to me like things are not nearly as black and white as either side is claiming it to be. My takeaway is that there is a lot of hard evidence that Joseph Smith was far more than just a laborer hired to do some digging. It seems to me he was hired specifically because of his claims of being able to find buried treasure through his magical stones. It seems pretty clear that some kind of treasure hunting claim has a lot of documentation. Just how deeply that claim is documented and the final outcome of the trial seems to be more elusive. Is there any documentation that he actually EVER found treasure for anyone using his magic stone? Or was it just a claim that Joseph Smith made up. Part of me has always read these verses in Helaman as a narrative so similar to Joseph Smiths claims of treasure hunting slipping away just as they got close to it. That concept in the Book of Mormon and in Joseph Smiths claims to be able to find slippery treasure seems to have no basis in reality for me. It just seemed like the same kind of "cursed magic" that I don't really believe physically happens to things that are buried, even if they are treasures. These are the verses I am referring to. The same concept of slipping treasure is also referred to in Mormon 1

Do you know why some believe it might not be authentic ?

I also found this in the Joseph Smith Papers. It is the testimony of one of the witnesses at the trial.: | I want to point out the part that I have put in bold. I think the OP is very misleading in claiming that Joseph Smith was just there to help in the digging. According to the court papers, Joseph Smith claimed to see a vision of two indians fighting over the treasure, a fight ensued and one of the indians was murdered and thrown in the hole to guard the treasure. The excuse Joseph Smith gave about the chest now not being there? It kept sinking just out of reach. This also states that the court found him guilty The question I have is, do you all believe that Joseph Smith did in fact see the indians fighting by looking into the peep stone? Do you really believe that the chest kept sinking into the ground just ahead of their digging? Can you convince me that what is in the court documents is not a sworn record of what was claimed by Joseph Smith? I don't really have an ax to grind on this subject, but when I read the OP, I felt like he was glossing over a LOT of what we do know about what happened and proping up Joseph Smith as some kind of day laborer who was just hired to dig as he was instructed to do. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Here is the link to the Joseph Smith Papers that has a record of the trial. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-docket-entry-20-march-1826-state-of-new-york-v-js-a/1

I did find a little more documentation on what was going on. Hope it helps to shed light on this subject: .

This is so right on. I honestly don't understand how people who have their own personal beliefs in their religion feel the need to prevent other people from having a different point of view and try to validate their beliefs by trying to control others.

Both good points. I think that explaining to them why we are considering marriage is a significant part of why we need to tell them.

My partner and I have been together for 16 years. I know I will be with him for the rest of my life. But we have never married. Partly it is because of the Church's strong stance AGAINST gay couples marrying. The whole automatic apostasy thing. I obviously don't really care about what the Church thinks about my relationship with my partner, but I thought it might just add additional problems for some of my children who are still active in the Church. Coupled with our not really needing any of the financial and legal benefits that marriage brings. But lately, my partner and I have started talking about maybe we should get married for those legal reasons. It is not that I need his money or he needs my money if one of us die. We both are pretty secure financially. My estate will go to my children and his will go to his granddaughter which sadly is the only direct decendent he has. But lately, he has decided that he might want to have his assets divided differently upon his death. We both have living wills, but changing them as situations change in our lives is difficult to keep up. If we marry, then I could divide up his estate any way he wanted me to even if he tells me what he wants in the last week of his life. Since marriage has become something that is not really important to either of us largely because of the Church, if we do get married, we don't really want even a small gathering of people. It would be just for us. I am not even sure I want to tell anyone. Not even my children. I don't want them to feel like it is something they need to attend or even acknowledge. On the other hand, I don't want them to find out later after I am dead and feel like I hid it from them. The LAST thing any member of the Church should complain about is gay couples not marrying. The Church is the one that set this up with their damn policies against gay couples and not just telling them to not marrying, but actually fighting their right to marry. Could they be any more clear than that in encouraging gay couples to never marry?

oh sorry. I misread your post.

From the Church essays, bold is mine: Almost 15 means they were 14 years old when they were married. " Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” The Church is just suggesting that no sex was involved. But it is not really stated as a fact that there were no sexual relationships. Perhaps it is because given how Joseph Smith cohorts that marriage to happen. Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith thought that marriage to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball needed to happen? Did he just wake up one day and decided he had to marry a 14 year old? With their access to all the archives on Church history and Church historians as well that have spent years studying these records, how did they come up with an entirely different answer about the age of these two girls and got Church leaders to agree to their documentation.??

Do you think that personal revelation is less infallible than prophets claiming revelation? From what I have seen and felt, when it comes to actually knowing the will of God, it seems pretty messy and far from some kind absolute truth no matter who is claiming revelation/inspiration.

I am trying to find out who defines the "high ground". Your answer brings up a lot of questions. I would love for you to naviage presentism with the nature of God. I thought that God held the moral high ground. Are you saying that Joseph Smith went against the will of God to marry a 14 year old?? Or are you saying that God has no problem with adults marrying 14 year olds? Or does God makes it ok for his prophets to engage in immoral behavior because, well, others are doing it. Or does God look at what is practiced at times by others and decides it is ok as long as others are practicing it for that time period. If what we think is moral behavior changes from generation to generation, then is there really an eternal rule? If there is no eternal consistent rule about morality, then morality just becomes subjective to a certain time period. You see, it is not me defining what the moral high ground is. It is me trying to find out who you think dictates what morality is in any age whether it was 200 years ago or today. And as others have asked, do you believe slavery in 1830 was moral because so many people practiced it?? I didn't see your answer to that question.

So Robert, if you have no problem with adult married men marrying a girl that is only 14, then why is this never discussed in Church lesson manuals and explained away, like you have here, as no big deal? Seems like it needs to be discussed as being no big deal??? Maybe it should be made clear that God approves of adult men marrying 14 year old girls and the practice should be encouraged today since it seems obvious to you that this is what God wanted Joseph Smith to do. This isn't about presentism as much as it is about what is right in the sight of God by a man claiming to speak to God on a regular basis.

I am going to push back a little bit. The history of the Church tells what kind of person Joseph Smith was. Keeping facts about who he was out of lessons doesn't present a true picture of who the man was. And who he was is core to this image of him being the greatest person since Jesus Christ or whatever that often quoted statement said about him. We got plenty of that Praise to the Man stuff and hardly anything about some of the lets say, less socially acceptable practices he participated in such as how the BoM was really translated and him marrying a 14 year old.

A few months back, I had a nephew call me up. He was interested in buying a kiln to do pottery. He told me that the ceramic bowl I gave him maybe 15 years ago has been on his counter all these years and he thinks of me when he sees that bowl. I was kinda shocked that he remembered who gave that to him because I completely forgot giving it to him. It really gave me a lot of joy that he would reach out to me about something that he thought I could help him with. It also kinda made me think more about what I give for gifts in general. I think back on my wedding so many years ago and the presents I got. One was restaurant knives from an employer when I worked in his restaurant all through high school and during the summers in college. I still use those knives every day and think of him often. Another gift I remember were salt and pepper shakers that were hand made that a family member bought from a boutique. I have no idea who gave us cash and how much they gave those many years ago.. I actually have a wedding invitation right now from a nephew that is getting married. I have to be honest, I have mixed feelings about even giving my nieces and nephews wedding gifts since all but a couple ever reached out to me for decades when I came out to my family as gay. Now they want a wedding present from me? It is literally the first personal contact I have made with him since he was about 12. I try not to let other peoples behavior determine mine. So I will make sure this nephew gets something special from me as well. Maybe not everyone can whip out a bowl or platter, but everyone can find a special gift that isn't necessarily from Amazon but maybe from a boutique type store selling hand made and unique gifts,. I get that some couples need money. I like the idea of including money along with something that won't just be another gift to fulfill an obligation. Shouldn't a wedding gift be more than that? I am not trying to convince anyone to take this route. Just giving you all something to think about.

That is a big if you start your post with. Would a person who is straight view his attraction to the opposite sex the same way a gay person views his attraction to the same sex? Would it be considered "natural man" for the straight guy as well? If so, then isn't everyone on a level playing field when it comes to needing to be expunged in the next life? And wouldn't a gay person who is married be any different if he had desires to have sexual relationships outside of his marriage? In short, what I am saying is I don't really see any shades of difference between being straight or gay, the attraction is just on a different sex other than social prejudice by some people. So can a single person enter into the highest degree of exaltation? Is marriage not a requirement for everyone in the highest degree of exaltation? I remember teaching a gospel doctrine class many years ago on this issue. The manual clearly stated that single people that die, end up being servants to those that are married. I remember reading those statements from the manual as my single divorced sister whose previous marriage was not a temple marriage sat in the class. It was very painful. I don't think anyone knows, including Church leadership. They all are just guessing. In the mean time gay couples become the new black, not allowed temple blessings, priesthood and not even allowed to hold Church callings. And like me, most leave the Church along with a lot of their family members. Some try marrying someone of the opposite sex in hopes that somehow that might possibly be their only hope. Most of those marriages end in disaster for all involved. It is a policy based on "men of their times" that doesn't seem to work but will probably stay in place until new apostles who are men of a different era try to resolve this issue, perhaps by simply letting God sort it all out in the next life.

So exactly how do you expect someone who is gay to fulfill the commandment to enter into eternal marriage and multiply and replenish the earth when gay couples are barred by Church leaders from the temple sealings? Based on Church doctrine and not just personal opinion, how do you see their exaltation being played out? Are they magically changed to be heterosexual when they die? Does God grant other magical transformations upon death? Just how is temple work done for them after they die? Who do you marry them to? If that is not possible, then is exaltation possible without eternal marriage?

I always find your answers to be very thoughtful and well expressed. I wonder how you feel about those that are born LGBT? Are they the new fence sitters, not allowed temple blessings and priesthood simply because they exist on this earthly trial began with being born gay? How does one dismiss outright the very key part of what is required of exaltation of entering into eternal marriage. Does counseling LGBT members to stay single and celebrate provide a solution by ignoring the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and ignore the commandment to not find an eternal spouse?? Or does marrying in the temple become just a suggestion and not a requirement for exaltation? If so, does that apply to all of God's children or just the LGBT ones? Part of the problem is NONE of the solutions the Church currently teach are based on revelation, but rather the feelings of men who are, as we have found out so often, men of their time and fallible.

I remember that story being repeated regularly. It was met to scare you into making sure you had a years supply. It worked for me. We started buying wheat in 5 gallon tins. Almost a half century later and it is still stored in my x wife’s garage. Guess it wasn’t as urgent as one of the three Nephites thought it was. But hey, after living on this Earth for 2,000 years he would probably like to wrap this whole phase up and go right to the second coming

I served in YM for many years. Our ward was one of those half the boys were interested in scouting and the other half wouldn't be caught dead in even a scouting tee shirt. My solution was to use the merit badge program as ideas for activities. For example, there is a photography merit badge. I arranged for the young men to visit a professional commercial photography studio. They got to ask the photographer what it is like to choose that as a career, what daily work was like and just how a photo shoot is set up. At the end of the meeting, I would go over the merit badge requirements, many of which were already done by the visit. Those interested in getting a photography merit badge could finish up on their own. I set up similar types of activities with a whole host of career and hobby options. It is a big list of over 100 different interests. The list of merit badges is still there and a great resource to spurring ideas on enrichment activities for the young men. No merit badge, but is that really all that important? Isn't the goal to widen the view of possibilities available to young men??