mercyngrace

Best post on crazy testimonies (and talks) in the history of the internet - saved by the wayback machine:  https://web.archive.org/web/20120822202234/http://www.mormonmommywars.com/?p=659

There's a little boy who has the same genetic disorder as my kids. He needs a bone marrow transplant, but no donor is available for him. Because his family are Hmong, a donor is most likely to be found in that ethnicity.

I know there is a fairly sizable Hmong population in Utah. Does anyone have any connections with them, who could encourage someone within the culture to hold a bone marrow drive? It would be a great Eagle or Values project. If needed, I could facilitate contact between the family and the drive organizers.

This family has already lost a child to this condition. I would love for this little boy to be given a fighting chance.

 

PM me.

 

There is a Hmong family in my ward and they probably have connections to a larger community. 

There is a treatise on this very notion, a short story actually, called The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis.  Obviously not doctrinal, but worth the read imho for anyone interested in this concept.

 

Great short story. Highly recommend. 

 

I also recommend The Heavenly Village by children's writer Cynthia Rylant. 

Thanks Nevo!

I don't think there is a way to pinpoint the exact moment such a diagram existed. I am sure people were drawing it on a piece of paper ever since it was understood from the scriptures from the early days of the church. I know missionaries were using it as early as the early 50s when teaching investigators about the plan of salvation. The first set of discussions used by missionaries to teach investigators starting in 1952 was "A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel" It had the following diagram in the Plan of Salvation chapter;

 

 

 

This was followed in 1961 by "A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators" (I used this on my mission) which also had the familiar diagram.

 

Thanks JAHS!

Anyone know where this comes from?  Is it a doctrinal statement?

 

Thanks!

MnG

 

Edit: At this point I'm assuming it's a common reading of D&C 88:32. It that the only source?

Since it is not an official diagram, I don`t know the year. I saw it in the 70`s and used it on my mission in the 80`s. It takes an incredibly powerful doctrine and tries to make it understandable. I find problems with it, but had some positive experiences wih people learning from the diagram. It works the best when there are scriptures with it.

 

I think some would say it's "official" because it is published in church manuals and, as I mentioned above, in the missionary lessons. 

 

Aaronic PH Manual:  https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/34822/34822_000_002-01-salvation.pdf

 

Preach My Gospel (newer style but essentially same):  https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/36617/000_preach-my-gospel_1207575_prt.pdf

The one that was/is in missionary flip charts, primary manuals, youth manuals, etc. Can't attach an image right now because I'm at church on my phone. (I know.... I know....don't judge me....)

Does anyone know when the plan of salvation diagram became part of our standard explanation of the life of the soul? Mid-1950s? Earlier?

 

Thanks!

MnG

I was fascinated with Judaism from a very early age so I wanted to marry a Jewish fella.Someone unorthodox enough to marry me and yet practicing enough to teach our children his faith.

 

Didn't happen. My husband is an adult convert (from Catholicism) and we met about 3 months after he was baptized. He was in my home ward and I moved home to finish school some place where I could afford college without my parent's paying for tuition or student loans. 

Well said.

 

And I wish you wouldn't exit the thread. You have provided some illuminating insights here.

 

Agreed. One thing that occurred to me reading ERMD's last post is that, I have had complete trust in other bishops and generally didn't hesitate to assume they were handling things just as they ought. For others, it may take time to build a trusting relationship with a bishop or rebuild it. Maybe that's why bishops are serving longer (I heard that was a recent policy change - can anyone confirm?). 

 

That was a derail - but still - something that occurred to me because of ERMD's contributions to the thread. 

Tacenda,

 

I think many people share your experience in that they don't think twice about how things are done until they have a crisis of faith. The questions that I've grappled with over the years have been less about a specific crisis and more a result of the particulars of a situation confronting me with the reality that the way we've always done things isn't necessarily the only way we can do things. 

Too much sex talk in church if we do this. We might as well show a movie about it,  something like they might show in a public school health class. Teenagers today know more about sex than previous generations. Just a click of the right website is a wonderful teacher. To believe that the teen is stupid about it would be wrong. I say give all teens a church sex talk, both girls and boys together...make it a teaching moment by a professional if possible. And what the bible says about it or leaders of the church. Maybe that will help.

I'll admit that since we homeschool, how we teach about sex is pretty matter-of-fact. We teach it in 5th grade and follow up as necessary. We essentially say "this is how mammalian bodies work" and then explain that adolescence is the period during which your body prepares for adulthood. We detail exactly what that means and what's worth worrying about and what's not. We explain the church standards and how those standards provide a measure of self-control and safety. 

 

Then we take the lofty view. We teach that we need to be able to see individuals not just bodies and that in order to love, (Alma 36) we need to bridle our passions - passions being more about us than the other person. We teach respect for all people and that the Savior's command not to lust doesn't have and "unless she's really hot" exclusion. We explain that this is because if you are lusting, you aren't really seeing. The Savior could see, really see, a woman taken in the very act of adultery. He didn't see her body. He saw her broken and fearful heart. He saw her need for mercy. He saw her need for correction. He saw her need for charity. So far, reinforcing this has been effective but our oldest is only 15. Still he knows exactly what I mean when I say "Do you see her, son?" and it brings him back to the ultimate goal.

 

As a teacher at church, I also take this lofty approach when I teach the law of chastity (minus the explicit biology lesson).

So, in preparation for a youth temple trip, I'm sitting in my office, ask this question, and the 12, 13, or 14 year old responds as above.  You say I stop the interview, tell them to ask their parents, and then have him/her get back with me.

 

Got it.

 

I would say pull out the FSOY pamphlet and go over the actual law of chastity then talk about behaviors which can make the sexual drive stronger and more difficult to control. I'd be really clear about where the line is and that some activities which may not prohibit holding a TR or impact membership can still pose problems in our lives if our passions are not bridled. I think I would approach this as teaching, not asking questions, and then let the child say whatever he or she wanted to say. If a YM/YW says they have a problem with masturbation, are they denied a TR?

 

Do you ask adults if they masturbate or do you just assume they don't? Or do you assume they'd tell you if they did? Or do you leave the specifics up to their discretion? I'm just thinking aloud here but I think we kind of assume that adults know where the lines are or are in charge of defining them for themselves right up until a clear violation. 

 

I don't mean to barrage you with a lot of questions, ERMD, I've never been in the position of having a teenager interviewed by a bishop who 'gives me pause' before now so I've stepped from a theoretical examination of the topic to 'this just got real'. We're trying to navigate this with as much respect for the bishop and dignity for our children as possible. 

They CAN'T stop there. If you answered that you broke the Law of Chastity the Bishop has to find out what happened. Stopping there is abrogating their responsibility.

 

If the child has broken the law of chastity and needs to confess, questions that maintain the dignity of the individual can be used to determine an appropriate administrative response but I'm talking about these questions being asked as a matter of routine to kids who haven't crossed or even come close to the line. 

 

Pahoran is saying that bishops were instructed not to ask for details. Add me to the list of those who are requesting a CFR*, not because I doubt Pahoran but because I'd like to print out a copy and have in on hand for when the need arises. 

 

*If this has already been provided earlier in the thread, I missed it, would someone be kind enough to link the comment number? My work is so crazy I barely get back to the thread to even respond to those who directly address me much less read everything through, though I'm trying to catch up! Thanks!

This is Reason #234,210 that I'm happy that I'll never be called to be a bishop.  I can think of few things that would be more uncomfortable than sitting down with a teenager to discuss his/her "sexual purity."  Under NO circumstances would I have this conversation behind closed doors.  I'd INSIST that the doors (and windows) were open, that at least one parent was present, along with a Notary Public, and that the whole thing was broadcast live on YouTube.

 

The fact that this practice has produced so little mayhem to date is a testament to the quality of men that we call as bishops.  However, I strongly suspect that this practice will have to change in the near future as it is simply far too "creepy" from an optics standpoint alone.

 

If bishops just stuck to asking "Do you live the law of chastity?", it would be fine. And if kids have questions, they should use the temple language (no sexual relations except to your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded - something like that). 

 

It's when they start digging into details that issues arise. 

 

IMO, if a bishop wants to explain the standards in detail as a warning against behaviors that can leave to a LOC violation, that's great fireside fodder (with parents invited to add to the discussion). But the law of chastity is simple and clear. 

I would take it to the SP already. No reason to be shy.

Actually, one of his counselors suggested the same thing and I considered it but the SP is already aware of some of the issues others have had. My feeling is that he's letting our bishop learn from this experience and presuming no one is going to leave the church over his immaturity. Hopefully, he's right on that.  

 

Just to be clear, the boundaries he crossed were not moral violations just a facet of immaturity and self-importance. He was asking questions that were none of his business, making judgments about matters which he had no insight or knowledge, etc. and being condescending. Then violating my agency and confidence after the fact.

 

A good friend of mine teaches her kids the TR questions and says "This is what the bishop is allowed to ask you. Nothing more. Nothing less."

 

I hate to have to resort to teaching my kids that they can't trust the bishop with their concerns but at this point, it seems like a good idea. It's tragic because our last bishop was a saint. Really. Just an amazingly humble human being. And I would trust him with my life and my kids' lives. This one, I feel like I have to ask questions about what happened after every fireside...

"This isn't about how you see the church."

 

Well then why are you asking? You posed the question and everybody that answers will answer it according to how they "See" it. You see it differently then I and many others. At the end of the day for ME it doesn't matter that leaders in the past have made mistakes that's part of being human. Moses made a mistake and he was one of the greatest person to walk the earth and to assume that The Lord didn't allow those mistakes to happen with purpose or a learning experience for the future (eg. Joseph with the golden plates) is about as myopic as it gets. The Lord is in control of this church not Pres. Monson. And ultimately The Lord doesn't need anyone's to support or sustain him. We need him far more than he needs us...

Opinion Slayer,

 

Maybe I misunderstood your first post in this thread. You said that you don't see he church as a corporation. In this thread we are explicitly discussing the corporate holdings of the church and the corporate positions held by general authorities. Are you aware that the church is incorporated?

Since Heavenly Father is perfectly able to dramatically correct His leaders, then He must have determined His plan would be better served by not preventing those issues, than by intervening to prevent them.

 

This sounds a bit to 'inshallah' for me, personally. What I mean is that in some cultures people will not take any thought of what happens they just attribute everything to God's will. If you drive 90 mph at night without your headlights on and you arrive safely, God willed it. If you die before your get to have lunch with your friend, it's not because of your insane driving, it's just because God willed it. I'm not sure God is as involved as, "well, He didn't intervene to stop it" implies. Can we blame God for everything that happens when he opts not to intervene? Just imagine!

 

I think that we can not understand financial decisions.  We can disagree that they are smart financial moves or question the competence of the advice on which the decisions are based.    But I also think that deciding the decisions must be wrong in terms of God's will is pretty dicey stuff.   Even deciding they are wrong from the perspective of the world is questionable since we don't know whether the financial management is solely for the earthly purpose of building wealth either.

 

I definitely think you're right in that underlined part. It is dicey but what kind of stewards are we individually if we donate with no thought of how the money we donate is used? Does consenting to a calling and agreeing to sustain relieve us entirely of the burden of thinking through how we collectively are following Christ?

Thank you for your thoughts and edits!

 

To me, the principle of sustaining our leaders and officers is a form of common consent and means we extend our consent for them to act on all matters with regards to the Church, including financial matters. I think common consent operates in the smaller quorums and councils (as in D&C 104) as well as among the general membership (as in 26:2 and 28:13).

 

All obedience is voluntary so we do need to consent to keeping the commandments. The commandment for unity is found in D&C 38:23-27, and I agree that we must achieve that with spiritual integrity and not just in appearance. Thus our attitude and act in sustaining is ultimately a spiritual matter based on spiritual considerations. This is why sustaining is not merely agreeing not to disagree. To the pure, all things are pure (Titus 1 speaks to this—verses 1-9 to the individual responsibility of the Lord’s servants, verses 10-12 on how generalities can be used to not sustain them, and verses 13-16 on how to sustain them individually and generally).

 

In addition to the Lord commanding it, I think our leaders constantly ask (I'll even say "plead") us to pray for and sustain them (and repeatedly thank us for praying for and sustaining them) precisely because they know they are human (fallible) and need to be strengthened in carrying out their duties in accordance with D&C 121 and 107. Their duties include implementing the disciplinary processes outlined in D&C 102 in order to address instances where a leader fails in his duties (generally because he has gone off on his own). I do not believe a Church leader fails because we sustained him too much! Or because he was too unified with his fellow quorum or council members.

Thanks cv75. I'll address this more once I'm home (I'm in RS ... I know, I know...) I did want to make one comment quickly to clarify. I know we are commanded to be unified but I think that unity doesn't come by mandate. We have to work at it together otherwise it's not unity but mere uniformity.

CV75, 

 

I've been in editor mode this weekend so hopefully, this won't come off as nitpickey, but I have a lot of questions and comments about this post. (Mine are italicized and in color.) I appreciate what you've written here because it generated a lot of thought on my part. 

 

So let’s not suppose that opposing means disagreeing, either!  

 

When we sustain the Lord’s servants and their offices, and our self-interest is subsumed into the common consent [Where is this common consent on financial matters?] and the will of the Lord, the actual decisions get proper emphasis and take their proper place in our lives. We raise the temporal and the mundane to a higher, spiritual level of meaning. People are always more important than things, unity is commanded [i'm not convinced unity can be commanded. It has to be achieved by acting in accordance with the priesthood principles outlined in D&C 121. I don' t believe the appearance of agreement is the achievement of unity. Unity has to come from earnestly laboring over the issues at hand and demonstrating absolute virtue and charity, etc. That extends to being accountable to others if and when our actions are not easily explained or understood. This is part of showing those over whom we have stewardship that our love is greater than the bonds of death.] over contention and enmity (or the presumption of being “right”), and the order of Zion pleases the Lord more than money.[And yet, the facade of Zion, in the form of crying "All is well!" is denounced in canonized scripture. Zion is a lot more than agreeing not to disagree.]

 

I think this bears out in those situations where the United Order worked and where it didn’t. For example, in D&C revelations 104 and 124 (given to Joseph Smith to guide these activities), the property and business structures in the day were used to support the United Order and the building of the Nauvoo House. The relationship between such stewardships and business activities with the Church’s “sacred treasury” is described in 104:64 onward., and I find 124:42 a nice example of divinely-directed mingling of ecclesiastical and business authority, and 6:18 and 112;15, 20 are good examples of instruction to sustain our leaders no matter how far one goes to try and tease apart their "corporate" roles, which leads to confusion because ultimately, all things are spiritual whether the corporate body is perceived to serve a business of ecclesiastical purpose, or whether the business or the ecclesiastical activity is temporal or spiritual in nature,  or as in the case of the Church, all of these at the same time. [ultimately, it may be impossible to tease apart these roles, but ten we are faced with the acceptance of a de facto infallibility doctrine. We sustain a leader and consequently endow him with 100% confidence on all fronts. That's dangerous according to D&C 121 since most men can't handle that kind of power. It also contradicts explicitly proscribed procedures for addressing the failures of sitting leaders. D&C 107, IIRC. My point is, I don't think infallibility, de facto or otherwise, is a winning argument so what then are we left with?]

 

Hopefully, that makes sense. I've got to get a quick shower before church now that kids and husband have (finally) freed up the restrooms. I'll try not to sneak a peek until after church... but I look forward to your response. 

"If the church can separate its business income and expenses from tithes and offerings when explaining some of its financial activities, then aren't they already making the distinction between "church" and "corporation"?

I don't see it that way at all but then again I don't see the LDS church as a corporation either (I know there are many that do). We all have agency to sustain or oppose the living prophet. if somebody wants to split hairs to justify or play devil's advocate they can get behind a very long line. I don't know of any better person than Pres. Monson to sustain in this world. He has my full support when it comes to any church development he chooses to be involved with as the mouthpiece of The Lord.

Remember he's the only person that holds all the keys to The Lords kingdom on earth for both spiritual and temporal needs.

OS, I refer you to Storm Rider's comments. This isn't about how you see the church. The church owns and operates a corporatIon and conducts business dealings through that entity. The question is about whether we can separate the church from the church ©.

It has become popular to call them "businessmen, or corporate type" on anti boards with things like LS$...now such thing seem to be picking up steam on Mormon websites. This troubles me...we sustain them as our leaders as well as the Presiding Bishop, who deals with money and tithing matters. When we sustain them then we are indeed sustaining their decisions with our tithing.

Pa Pa, we aren't talking about expenditures of tithing. That gets at the heart of my question. We often use the defense, "This project doesn't use tithing funds. It's financed by the church's corporate holdings." We also separate the activities of church leaders from their corporate activities when we say they are unpaid clergy or when they cut the ribbon at the openings of law offices or banks.Why is it appropriate to make that distinction in one instance but not the other?

This is a sincere question. I'm interested in a logical, considerate response. If we aren't even willing to examine the question honestly, how can we expect to come up with a response?

Does anyone see the irony of this thread  where church critics complain that our church leaders a "businessmen" or corporate types.  Their experience in the corporate world and in spiritual matters gives me confidence that they really know what they are doing.  

 

Such major decisions are certainly done with the knowledge and approval of the highest officials of the church.

Perhaps you can define "critics" since I'm the one both raising the questions and testing the argument and I'm active, church attending, tr holding, and believing.

If you have another way to acknowledge fallibility while also sustaining, please share it while refraining from mischaracterizing others.

Thanks.