Buckeye

I’ve always seen two key inaccuracies in the notion that we get our own planet. First, it’s too small. The doctrine is we share everything God has, not just one lousy planet. Second - and most critically - we don’t “own” anything. Whatever material we’re entrusted with is a trust to benefit others, not ourselves. It’s a stewardship.

Even though I have been married to a woman who wears garments for over 20 years now, I must admit I don’t have a good grasp on the issue of garment designs being a poor fit for many women. My wife has expressed this sentiment at times but not in much detail. I’m curious whether any sisters with design experience have created designs that would address the challenges? That approach strikes me as more effective than waiting on the church to get the design right. Or is it just the case that the needed design is incompatible with the church’s requirements re markings and coverage?

They were read to me today during a stake leadership meeting but haven’t yet been read over the pulpit to the general membership. FWIW, I think the new language is more direct but still leaves open enough interpretation such that most members who now do not wear garments as often as leaders would like will still be feel comfortable keeping their practice and answering “yes”.

Is there still time to submit Pink Floyd’s On The Turning Away?

Yeah, the church probably should have picked a different day for the announcement. At least they didn’t announce the Kirtland temple purchase on April first.

Exactly. To an objective viewer, LDS is about the least sophisticated religious group, the one “playing church”. I find great value in our approach personally, but we’re clearly less professional than other faiths. This past Sunday I was in NYC with my wife and teen daughters. We visited church services at Trinity church (episcopal) and then an LDS ward at union square. The decorum and seriousness with which Trinity took their service vastly outweighed ours.

Umm, we’re still very much learning the proper way today. Look at the constant changes to temple ordinances.

Bingo. The way I understood this argument is that a woman pastor of a non-LDS church who leads a flock of, say 500 people, has less (or no?) priesthood power and authority than a woman who only oversees the building cleaning assignments in her LDS congregation. The reason is that our priesthood and power is real, while other churches is not. That’s a very troubling argument to me.

I’m typing on a phone so a bit lazy.

One my life’s highlights was being invited to sing in a combined choir for the 175th anniversary. My session was at sunrise. I can’t describe the feeling of watching the sun come through the east window as LDS and CoC sang The Spirit of God together.

I lived there 17 years. CoC were very generous in allowing our frequent use. For me this is bittersweet. We can take better care of the building because we have more funds (though they did a very admirable job). But we lose a tie to these brothers and they to us. When it was in their hands we still had access to use it but their ownership kept them tied, in a real sense, to Joseph and the restoration, and therefore to us. Hopefully they continue to revere that heritage but it will be harder for them.

Yes, keep it historic. We can (and have) built hundreds of temples for current ordinances, including one under construction about 30 minutes from Kirtland. Were we to renovate Kirtland so much would be lost. Does anyone really want to tear out the podium where Christ stood? Blasphemy in my book. Also, we sustain the law of the land. The Kirtland Temple is protected from substantial alteration by being on the register of historic places.

About 10 years ago when I lived in Ohio I planned out a YM high adventure to beaver island Michigan. Work commitments kept me from joining but the youth confirmed there’s still people on the island. If I had the resources and inclination to build an end-of-times zombie apocalypse bunker, beaver island would be a good choice.

How much did the bookends cost? They’re awesome.

Feel free to move this comment to a separate thread if it risks a derail, but I just read an abstract of an article regarding a major new archeological find in Ecuador. Based on the size and years of habitation we can add one more candidate to the possible locations for BoM geography. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi6317?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D75470974684613446334993648347645513518|MCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1705022942 Abstract A dense system of pre-Hispanic urban centers has been found in the Upano Valley of Amazonian Ecuador, in the eastern foothills of the Andes. Fieldwork and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) analysis have revealed an anthropized landscape with clusters of monumental platforms, plazas, and streets following a specific pattern intertwined with extensive agricultural drainages and terraces as well as wide straight roads running over great distances. Archaeological excavations date the occupation from around 500 BCE to between 300 and 600 CE. The most notable landscape feature is the complex road system extending over tens of kilometers, connecting the different urban centers, thus creating a regional-scale network. Such extensive early development in the Upper Amazon is comparable to similar Maya urban systems recently highlighted in Mexico and Guatemala.

On a related note, I recall the question arising on this board whether women who covenanted to obey their husbands (full stop) under the previous endowment language are eternally bound by that covenant when the language changed - first to soften and then completely remove that covenant. My view was, and remains, that they are not. As we mature we can drop wrongful covenants. I don’t subscribe strictly to Karl G Maeser’s famous quote re honor (pasted below). His is an important view and reflects some truth, but it goes too far when taken to a literal conclusion. To co-opt a key statement from the Supreme Court, our covenants are not a suicude pact. The evolve as we mature. Is there nothing eternal an unchanging one might ask. I believe there is. Just one principle upon which all others stand - charity. Every other principle has its bounds and limits and must retreat when in conflict with the pure love of Christ. I have been asked what I mean by my word of honor. I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls - walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground - there is the possibility that in some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I'd die first!

At what age are any of us mature enough to make covenants? My view is that our covenants continue to evolve and expand as we mature. 8 makes sense to me as most children of that age can understand basic right from wrong and associated commandments - don’t steal, don’t hit, say nice things to your sister when she has a rough day, etc. When your son is, say, 16 he’ll hopefully have a deeper understanding of right/wrong and so his baptismal covenants will have more meaning than when he was 8. But the value of the covenants is they drive us to be better. That can start at 8 for most people.

Anger and contention drive people away. The scriptures are clear on that point and my own experience has shown it true. No lasting good comes from bashing church doctrine or leaders. Even if someone doesn’t think it wrong, it’s still ineffectual. What does foster change and invite the spirit is sharing personal testimony that undercuts the factual claims made in support of an erroneous doctrine. For example, if someone in Sunday school claims that families with gay parents are inherently inferior to traditional families, I may respectfully comment that “ I have a sister sealed to her husband and adopted children. That family is just as eternal and blessed as mine even though my sister has never given birth. I also have a cousin civilly married to her wife with whom they share two adopted daughters. That couple is just as complementary and fulfills the divine roles taught in the POtF, even though there are no men in the home. I know the Lord smiles on them and I feel the spirit when I’m with them.”

I’m late to this discussion and doubt I have much of value to contribute that hasn’t been hashed and rehashed in many prior threads. My thoughts: First, the brethren are sincere in their beliefs and have clearly stated the church’s doctrine against SS relationships. I expect that posture to remain for the foreseeable future (especially if President Oaks becomes Prophet). At the same time, there is a large a growing portion of active church members who believe the church’s doctrine is erroneous. They see the fruit of committed SS relationships and judge it good. These member’s beliefs are just as sincere as the brethren’s. While there are important differences, the current situation is akin to the racially-based restrictions on temple and priesthood in the tension it places on members who come to disagree with the church’s doctrine. The church membership -today- is slowly warming to the view that the racial restrictions were wrong even though the doctrines were sincerely held be leaders at the time. Paul Reeve’s work in this area is exemplary. The one nagging issue he doesn’t touch - and I doubt he could today - is what a member living during the ban should have done if they had the same beliefs Reeves is able to espouse today. I believe that is the fundamental tension we face and which will only grow. For me personally, I do not think it right to speak publicly against church doctrine even though I think it wrong and harmful. I do share my views with family members at appropriate times. I do provide my view within church settings if directly asked (which is very rare). And I do speak privately with local leaders about my inability to put in force a church doctrine I think wrong (eg, I won’t sit on a membership council for SS activity). If Smac or others have insights on this tension I’d appreciate them. Right now what I see in my stake is members largely ignore the issue during church meetings all the while growing numbers come to personally support SS relationships (especially the youth). Many of those members choose to walk away because they don’t see a place for themselves in the church even though such members are very common and I believe may already be the majority (at least those living in western democracies).

I just started the annotated BoM. It’s a keeper.

I think he means announcing the new apostle now instead of waiting until conference.

I’ve lived in a few cities where sports teams - most often baseball - will have a ‘Mormon night’. I’ve seen mild support and announcements on the ward level for those - basically flyers in the foyer and maybe one pulpit announcement. Nothing heavy handed. As for The Oath, my guess (pure speculation) is the church is hesitant to support an artistic take on the BoM because, as with all art, it’s subjective and may include inaccuracies. The church does its own videos of BoM scenes. Perhaps there was something concerning here in this work. Did the church ever come out in support of the animated scripture series? I don’t think so but I know lots of members who bought those (sometimes under undue pressure from sales guy)

Here’s a link to what I believe is the full AP article. https://apnews.com/article/mormon-church-investigation-child-sex-abuse-9c301f750725c0f06344f948690caf16 This is horrible, as is all child abuse, but I don’t see anything specific the church should have done differently to stop the abuse. The abuse was by a father of his daughter. He was serving as bishop at some times during the abuse, but there’s nothing to suggest anyone in the church or the family was aware. None of the allegations involve bishop interviews or church activities or locations. Everything was at home or on a school trip to DC. Regarding the settlement, I expect that was a business decision to reduce the potential for adverse publicity or an action against the church. Such risk exists even if the church did not wrong. Regarding the NDA, I don’t have a concern with the church requiring the amount of settlement to be kept confidential. I’m encouraged that the NDA didn’t restrict the victim from discussing the case, just the settlement amount. The one bothersome aspect for me - if true - is the allegation the church requested the victim delete the recordings she’d made of conversations with family members.

My wife’s mother was raised catholic. We love going to Christmas mass. You should try it. You won’t feel a stranger. Mass is very welcoming and meaningful. I’ll add, when traveling in a new city I know of no better way to really understand the place -it’s people, architecture, history, etc - than to go to church service. My family tries to go to an LDS service followed by another denomination. Mass is a great option. I know some families like to skip church when on vacation but I’ve felt this habit is one of the best things Sis Buckeye have done for ours.

I like this. Here’s an add-on suggestion. The ward council already is charged with helping their bishoprics select topics for sacrament talks and music. Why not extend that so each org rotates weeks in which they extend the speaking assignment and have a presidency member sit on the stand in support of their speaker. That person can even control the podium level (the most powerful seat in the chapel!) Bishopric still has a member on the stand each week to give announcements and oversee the sacrament, but otherwise it’s the org leader who conducts the meeting. As each org has 3 presidency members and this responsibility rotates, it won’t be overly burdensome on anyone and let’s the bishopric members sit with their families most weeks.