JAHS

I was agreeing with you.

Not sure why it should be so wrong to use the word "Jew". It is used over 260 times in the Bible.

The Old Testament scriptures don't actually command polygamy as stated in the D&C, but God allowed it without condemnation. The only situation where it was made mandatory by the existing law was when a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. (Deut 25:5–6)

CFR please From the Church Topics website: The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise. In limited, specific cases the Lord has commanded His followers to practice plural marriage. Some of these cases occurred in biblical times. Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 29–40

Why do you believe that? Because God commanded it to be practiced by prophets of the Old Testament to raise up seed.

When we are sealed we are sealed into the patriarchal family of God, which in a way means everyone sealed to God and to everyone else. Somehow things will get worked out as to who finally goes with who into the eternity. This of course is mostly my opinion.

Plural marriage was a real part of the original doctrine of God and was therefore part of God's restored doctrine in these latter-days. It was never rescinded. It was and still is a doctrine of the restored church. We simply don't practice it in this life right now, but there are many who are practicing it in the next life. All those plural marriage sealings have not been voided. Blacks receiving the priesthood was never an original part of God's doctrine. It was something that was prophesied to be allowed sometime in the future. It was finally allowed through revelation from God. And it was done at the best time for this life. All people of all races living and dead can now receive it.

And if He did the Church might have fallen. There were too many who were still conditioned to believe that blacks were nothing more than to be used as slaves and that they were an inferior species. It's kind of like the word of wisdom that was not followed strictly at first. President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits.

Most of the nation and most church members hearts in the early days of the Church were hard about this topic. Therefore God decided it wasn't the right time for it. I didn't mean to suggest it was God's fault.

The number two is the key issue here. It never turned into fifteen. The system worked the way it should have worked. Even though those two may have had the right idea; it wasn't the right time. Maybe their prompting helped to get the rest of the church leaders and church membership in general time to study and pray about it over the next few decades to eventually lead to a real change. Kind of like the Word of wisdom not being so strict at first to give time for members to get over their addictions to certain things.

Or God decided it wasn't the right time to address it.

If all 15 apostles have been wrong how would you know it?

Even if all 15 Apostles agree on the directive? That's why there are 15 of them. If any one does or says anything wrong they will be corrected, and that has happened a few times. So far trusting them has not done me any harm.

I guess if we at least "sustain" the Apostles as the 4th temple recommend asks we are OK: "Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?" Does sustain mean we don't question everything they say? It means we support them as leaders of the Church and as prophets, seers, and revelators. For me it's easier to believe most everything they say and if it turns out they are wrong they will be held accountable for it; not me. But I still study things and receive my own witness that what they say is true. I have never had the feeling that they were ever wrong; especially if they all agree on a certain point of doctrine.

Usually the way you do it is more sneaky. You have the church buy goods or services from some legitimate business entity that the embezzler owns. Or you use Fast Offering funds to pay off bills or expenses owed to such businesses. The latter is easier generally. I am also a stake finance auditor. The auditing program flags any expense that could be suspicious and tells us to check it during the audit. The Bishop is supposed to get a copy of a persons rental contract for those who get help with rent so we know it is legitimate. All expenses must have two people in the Bishopric approve the expense and sign the check. Any Bishopric member who receives reimbursement funds can not be one of the check signers or approvers of the expense. One of the questions specifically asks if the payment is being made to a Bishop or his family and must be approved by the Stake President. After the audit there are two other people who review the audit and sign off on it. Embezzling may be possible but a very difficult things to do.

From the Handbook: "People who are not members of the Church may be called to some positions, such as organist, music director, or a calling to help plan activities. However, they should not be called as teachers, as quorum or organization presidency members, or as Primary music leaders. A person whose membership has been formally restricted or has been withdrawn may not have a calling (see 32.11.3 and 32.11.4)." When we still had the scouting program there were non-members who served there. I know some who handed out the programs at Sacrament meetings

So does "all donations" mean all or does it actually exclude Fast Offerings? I know that records are kept on how much fast offerings are donated in a ward and that a ward should not spend beyond what is donated within their ward. But is that just a numbers thing and the actual money might be used for other things once it gets to Salt Lake?

Someone I know(non-member) said they found this letter on their door step and wondered if it was legit. Anyone heard of a ward doing this?

Would not report them. The question might come up in a temple recommend interview about being honest in their dealings and obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Bishops are told not to ask about their immigration status. How the member answers that question is between them and God and hopefully they are in he process of trying to become legal citizens.

Don't like it. Brother Joseph is turning over in his grave if he hasn't already been resurrected.

Here's a list of some. They mostly align with the NIV except for King James and New Amer Std Bible Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (King James) Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me". (New International Version) I've been out of step with you for a long time, in the wrong since before I was born. (The Message) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (New Amer. Std Bible) For I was born a sinner-- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. (New Living Translation) See, I was born in sin and was in sin from my very beginning. (New Life Version) I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born. (Contemporary English Version) I know I've been a sinner ever since I was born. I've been a sinner ever since my mother became pregnant with me. (New International Reader's Version) Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me. (New Revised Standard Version) Since we normally use the King James translation did David's mother conceive him in sin?

For example. David said: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (King James) Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me". (New International Version)

Apparently the following entry was recently made in the Church Handbook: 38.8.40.1 Editions and translations of the Holy Bible The Church identifies editions of the Bible that align well with the Lord’s doctrine in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation (see Articles of Faith 1:8). A preferred edition of the Bible is then chosen for many languages spoken by Church members. In some languages, the Church publishes its own edition of the Bible. Church-published editions are based on standard Bible texts. Examples include: The King James Version in English. The Reina-Valera (2009) in Spanish. The Almeida (2015) in Portuguese. Church-published editions of the Bible include footnotes, subject indexes, and other study aids. Generally, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in discussions and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other Bible translations may also be used. Some individuals may benefit from translations that are doctrinally clear and also easier to understand. Examples of such translations can be found in the Church’s Holy Bible list. When members encounter doctrinal discrepancies between Bible translations, they should refer to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and teachings of latter-day prophets. _________________________________________ Wondering if this will actually help or add more confusion when interpreting scripture? Like it says, there are some scriptures where the meanings do change depending on which Bible translation one is using.

This may have already been answered. On the subject of what non-latter-day saints believe about the triune God. When Jesus was resurrected and showed His flesh and bone body to His apostles did He maintain that physical body when He ascended to Heaven? And if He did, does that now mean that the triune God that most Christians believe in now also has a body of flesh and bone? And if not why?

Why is the only possible partnership to create spirits seen as husband and wife? It’s not apparently needed in anything else, at least in the sense we need to know about it. It makes sense to me both male and female are needed (assuming doctrine is correct and that is how eternally speaking sexual identity falls into categories) when both sexes are being created if part of creation requires the sharing of some personal element, which idea I am very fond of (literally giving a part of yourself to your children to carry with them as an eternal bond), but not necessarily marriage depending on what being parents actually mean in a community of Gods (and gods?) that are one. Edited Saturday at 07:30 PM by Calm The D&C says about those who don't choose eternal marriage: 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. Exaltation means the ability to increase in glory by the creation of spirit children and in that way to have eternal increase. And there are those who do not marry according to God's law and are appointed angels to those who did do that. In order for those people to be angels to those who are exalted they woud have to be in the same glory in order to be angels to those people. I don't think the angels could be those who inherit a Terrestrial glory.