Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[rockpond]

CFR, please. Who made that claim, and when?

 

Earlier in the thread, it was the post I quoted when you then quoted me and began this discussion.

[rockpond]

That said, I do not necessarily believe that the spouses loving another sincerely qualifies all aspects of the relationship as God-approved.  I know that the prevailing litmus test in current liberal society is that the relationship need only be between two consenting adults, yet that doesn't make it God's requirement.  He sees more than we do.

 

I don't think that the love between spouses (same or opposite gender) is what qualifies the relationship as God-approved.  My views on this aren't driven by what you call refer to as the prevailing litmust test in liberal society.  They are based in my understanding of the gospel and the plan of salvation.

 

I don't believe the homosexuality is an aberration.  I believe that God designed some to be homosexual.  And I believe that God wants us in loving relationships to learn, grow, serve, sacrifice.  That seems to be the plan.  Not celibacy.

[Russell C McGregor]

Earlier in the thread, it was the post I quoted when you then quoted me and began this discussion.

Was it?

 

Yes, but the claim made was the traditional marriage has been the same for thousands of years.

Was it indeed?

 

Have we opened a can of worms by broadening the meaning of marriage beyond what it has been traditionally meant for thousands of years?

He doesn't claim that "traditional marriage has been the same for thousands of years." He claims that marriage has traditionally meant the same thing.

And it has.

You quoted scriptures that mentioned King Solomon's hundreds of wives.

How many husbands did he have?

 

[theplains]

Blue, if we have children that are able to be baptized after visiting with a Bishop and reviewing their desire and understanding of fundamental beliefs and then we have another set of children that are able to do the same thing, answer the same questions, but the Bishop says "no" for the sole reason of the actions of another, then we have taken away their ability to fulfill their desires and to exercise their agency.

 

The LDS Church has a similar teaching about baptizing a husband or wife.  "Preach My Gospel"

says in Lesson 12 that you are not allowed to baptize a married person without the consent of

the spouse.  

 

Agency is denied the person who wants to be baptized.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Zakuska]

So you think governments should dictate to churches what moral criteria they have for membership?

Amazing!

 

Hmmm.... is some one putting words in my mouth again?

All I said was civil law could force the issue. sheeesh.

 

Who are you quoting, Zak?

That would be a paraphrase coming from your side of the fence.

 

Not in any plausibly free country.

Congress ingored the first Amendment the first time around. You think they arent affraid to do it again?

 

No. It doesn't actually say that.

<scracthes head> Why did you skip verse 1-3?

Aaaa... I see why... because it refutes your point.

Heres the heading to the section. (Please Note what I have bolded)

1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.

Thank the Lord church's can't burn us at the stake house anymore!

According to this heading we should "defer" to civil law when civil law is in conflict with ecclesiastical laws.

Why? Because an earthly Government can impose up to and including capital punishment on us for not obeying the law.

God will forgive whom he will and he won't hold us accountable when our enemies come upon us and impeed us from following his law.

Now lets read it together. The first 4 verses defines the contractual roles of Government in this contract (ie. curtian) between church and state. Please note what I've bolded.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

Did you notice in verse 2 Russel?

We are to hold Civil law "INVIOLATE" just like I said and like the heading says... we are to "defer" to the laws of the land.

The church sure broke its own laws when it got involved in Prop. 8!

D&C 134

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences o

...

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

The whole point is the Church can Govern is a mans conscience, something Civil Government should not. And Church has no power what so ever to torcher and burn people at the stake.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[Tacenda]

Because I don't have an issue of overwhelming importance that needs to be answered at the First Presidency Level.  And If I did I'd run it by the Priesthood holders in my Ward and/or Stake who have the keys to administer in spiritual and temporal things at the local level first.

 

However I had considered sending another family Christmas Letter to the First Presidency.  I'm guessing they are a little busy to respond to all such inquiries, but President Benson surprised me so who knows.

 

I worked for the Governor of our state for about 5 years.  I answered a lot of citizens questions in his behalf (it was part of what I did) because I had the information they needed, and he did not always have time to give a personal answer to every inquiry.

 

Honestly - do you write the President of the United States to complain about your Postal Service?

No, just thought you might try it out, I don't have the guts.  I don't want to flag myself, I'm already a scourge to my ward, (just kidding). 

[Scott Lloyd]

If the 1st Ammendment "guarentees" free exercise of religion then how in the heck did all this happen Scott?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

 

Where was the first Amendment when our forefathers-and-their-wives-and their-children were hiding out in dugouts in the backwoods all over Utah running from the law? 1st amendment did them a lot of good.

 

There are no guarantees when the Government is involved.

 

As Brigham young once said in the Captial Building of Utah...

 

"If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

 

What Congress wants Congress gets 1st Ammendment be da--d.

But you were saying the Church is obligated to knuckle under to oppression because we believe in obeying the law. That is pure crap.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say it should.  I was asked what I would recommend doing to make the church more welcoming to gay members.

Saying you recommend it is tantamount to saying it should do it.

[Zakuska]

But you were saying the Church is obligated to knuckle under to oppression because we believe in obeying the law. That is pure crap.

Is it? We already "knuckled under pressure" in regards to Polygamy.

Please read D&C 134 and pay attention to the heading.

1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

We are to "defer" to Civil Law and hold it "inviolate" even if it conflicts with Heavenly Law. Civil Law can deprive us of life and property. On the other hand God can forgive and will forgive if the civil law makes us break a heavenly law. (Think about his revocation of the command to build the Missouri temple)

Also Did not God forgive Abraham when he took Hagar to wife because the Laws of Babylon made him do it?

Why do you think Elder Holland told Ms. Davis to get to work and obey the law even though it offended her conscience?

Looks like the church violated our own beliefs contained in D&C 134 with our participation in Prop 8. (see verse 4 and 9)

Edited November 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

The LDS Church has a similar teaching about baptizing a husband or wife.  "Preach My Gospel"

says in Lesson 12 that you are not allowed to baptize a married person without the consent of

the spouse.  

 

Agency is denied the person who wants to be baptized.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

You are correct, children and a spouse may not be baptized if the parent or spouse will not approve of the baptism.  This is distinctly different from disqualifying an individual from being baptized because of the sinful behavior of another individual.  

 

It is how we get to the decision that is so important.  If the reasoning is faulty then the explanation to support the policy is faulty.  

 

Just because something is difficult should not prevent someone from being a LDS or entering into a personal relationship with the Savior by taking his name upon us.  As far as I know, it is always difficult; life is difficult.  

 

I still don't have a problem with the outcome of the policy, but I do have a problem with the reasons some provide. 

[Russell C McGregor]

Saying you recommend it is tantamount to saying it should do it.

Of course it is.

[Russell C McGregor]

Hmmm.... is some one putting words in my mouth again?

All I said was civil law could force the issue. sheeesh.

That would be a paraphrase coming from your side of the fence.

Congress ingored the first Amendment the first time around. You think they arent affraid to do it again?

<scracthes head> Why did you skip verse 1-3?

Aaaa... I see why... because it refutes your point.

No.

Because it is irrelevant to my point.

 

I don't usually fill my posts up with extraneous material, you see.

 

Heres the heading to the section. (Please Note what I have bolded)

1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.

Thank the Lord church's can't burn us at the stake house anymore!

I must admit I've never heard of anyone being burned "at the stake house."

 

According to this heading we should "defer" to civil law when civil law is in conflict with ecclesiastical laws.

What? It says that?

Where?

Two points:

 

1. The heading is a summary of what's in the verses. It's not a source in its own right.
2. It says that "all men... owe respect and deference to the law." It says nothing -- nada -- zip -- zilch -- about churches owing having to yield their own ecclesiastical judicature to any civil authority.

 

Why? Because an earthly Government can impose up to and including capital punishment on us for not obeying the law.

The Church is not in breach of any laws, so your really dumb argument is moot.

 

God will forgive whom he will and he won't hold us accountable when our enemies come upon us and impeed us from following his law.

Now lets read it together. The first 4 verses defines the contractual roles of Government in this contract (ie. curtian) between church and state. Please note what I've bolded.

Okay.

 

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Thank you.

And now let's look at verse 2 again, and this time you can take notice of what I've bolded.

 

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Do you understand what those words mean?

I do.

Translating from Regency English into Facebook-era English, they mean this:

WE THINK THAT IF GOVERNMENTS DON'T ENACT AND UPHOLD THEIR OWN LAWS THAT PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, THEY'LL HAVE TROUBLE.

I'm astonished that I have to explain this.

 

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

That's good. Our religious opinions don't prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others, so there's no conflict there.

 

Did you notice in verse 2 Russel?

We are to hold Civil law "INVIOLATE" just like I said and like the heading says... we are to "defer" to the laws of the land.

That's an extraordinarily idiotic misreading of the passage.

What it actually says is that the government is supposed to hold certain of its own laws "INVIOLATE."

Specifically, those that protect the rights and liberties of the people.

That would include, among others, such rights as "freedom of association." Which, as far as I can tell, has always included the right of private organisations to set their own membership rules.

 

The church sure broke its own laws when it got involved in Prop. 8!

That conclusion is unavailable on the evidence.

Sorry.

 

D&C 134

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences o

...

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

The whole point is the Church can Govern is a mans conscience, something Civil Government should not. And Church has no power what so ever to torcher and burn people at the stake.

I'll keep that in mind if ever any Church leader tells me to torcher[sic] anyone.

[JAHS]

What do you believe "support" of "the church's stance on SSM" would/should look like, in my children's and my circumstances?

The extent of my comments in conversations that I have had with my kids about the morality of SSM (including discussing my own marriage) has been to say,

 

"I know you guys have different beliefs about gay relationships--and that's ok. We are all free to follow our own beliefs, and we don't have to agree on things to be loving, respectful, and kind to one another."

Incidentally, that is the same approach I take whenever there's an issue that my kids may encounter in which they and I, or we together, may disageee on, whether it stems from the church or anyone or any other organization and I/we may not agree on or with, and which isn't limited solely to gay subjects.

By saying the above, I feel I'm showing support of my kids' beliefs about SSM (as taught by the church), whether or not I personally support the church (which is really entirely irrelevant in teaching kids how to live peacefully and cooperatively in a pluralistic society--including family members who do and believe things differently).

So, how would you judge my approach above--would you say I'm being "supportive"...?

 

This may have been covered already. Your response to your children sounds supportive but also sounds like you are talking to adult children.  I don't know how old your children are but if they were still very young church members growing up within the lifestyle, would they not be more inclined to be accepting of it which would go counter to what the church says is appropriate?

[Avatar4321]

Is anything contrary to the plan of happiness good?

And if it's contrary to good what can it be other than evil?

[Damien the Leper]

Is anything contrary to the plan of happiness good?

And if it's contrary to good what can it be other than evil?

But that system doesn't apply to or hold relevance to those of us outside. We can discuss the ontology of the argument ad nauseum but we will never agree because our epistemology is so different.

And I do see what you're saying, Avatar. Thank you for contributing.

[JLHPROF]

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."  Matt 7:18

 

So a wicked man can't give to charity?

A murderer can't help an old woman across the road?

Don't the KuKluxKlan do volunteer work?

Didn't John C. Bennett help establish the Nauvoo charter providing protection to the Saints?

 

 

Can Satan tell a truth or many truths to get across one lie?

No, the presence of some good works (like good parenting for instance) in a SSM doesn't change the violation of eternal law or God's design in any way.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see how I could attribute morality to anything but personal preference, however that preference is determined. 

Yes.  If the universe is mechanistic, then it is determined, including complex, intelligent mammals.  There can be no free will, and all preferences are determined.  All morality is then mechanistic preference.  Is that what you mean, Smiley?

[Daniel2]

This may have been covered already. Your response to your children sounds supportive but also sounds like you are talking to adult children. I don't know how old your children are but if they were still very young church members growing up within the lifestyle, would they not be more inclined to be accepting of it which would go counter to what the church says is appropriate?

When my kids and I started having the types of conversations I referenced, above, they were ages 6, 9, and 11 (they are now 12, 15, and 17).

One may think that their young ages might have affected them to be more inclined to be accepting of gay relationships... however, their mother (with whom I unfortunately have a very acrimonious relationship--her wish, not mine) made sure our children have been... less than tolerant. Parental alienation is a pernicious, destructive, and painful phenomenon, especially when concealed in the aurora of righteous indignation.

[Zakuska]

What? It says that?

Where?

Two points:

• The heading is a summary of what's in the verses. It's not a source in its own right.
• It says that "all men... owe respect and deference to the law." It says nothing -- nada -- zip -- zilch -- about churches owing having to yield their own ecclesiastical judicature to any civil authority.

You're barking up the wrong tree Russel and I can see the vein bulging out the side of your forehead. Take a chill pill would ya.

I said "nothing -- nada -- zip -- zilch -- about churches [snip:owing] having to yield their own ecclesiastical judicature to any civil authority".

Let me translate this into 3RD GRADE ENGLISH so even you can understand (it will probably escape you once again anyway).

CHURCHES HAVE TO RESPECT AND DEFER TO THE LAWS OF THE LANDS THEY OPPERATE IN JUST AS MUCH AS MEN WHO WALK THEIR HALLWAYS

THEY HAVE TO HOLD THE LAWS "INVIOLATE" JUST AS MUCH AS GOVERNEMNTS AND MEN DO. IF THEY DIDN"T ANARCHY WOULD RULE.

You really think churches are above the law?

If that were so then We'd be in Jerusalem already.

 

I do.

Translating from Regency English into Facebook-era English, they mean this:

WE THINK THAT IF GOVERNMENTS DON'T ENACT AND UPHOLD THEIR OWN LAWS THAT PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, THEY'LL HAVE TROUBLE.

I'm astonished that I have to explain this.

So governments pass laws and churches and people can just disregard them all together. Gotcha.

 

That's good. Our religious opinions don't prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others, so there's no conflict there.

Yes there is a conflict... a huge one... our "collective religious opinions" on marriage prompted us to go out and spend 8+ million dollars lobbying and posting up yard signs and prancing around trying to prevent the same liberties and rights we have to be extended to our fellow citizenry.

You're in denial if you think otherwise.

 

I'll keep that in mind if ever any Church leader tells me to torcher[sic] anyone.

So I assume you mean that you will quit poking homosexuals and rubbing salt in their wounds and driving them to call the Suicide hot lines? Assaulting some ones conscience can be considered "Psychological torture" and is punishable by law. Edited November 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[carbon dioxide]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

When God establishes law, a violation of the law can be said to be evil.  However I think a better term to use is unclean as evil has connotations with it that might not be accurate.  Since no unclean thing can dwell with God and those that violate the laws of God are unclean, then unless they repent they are cast out.  So I will not say SSM is not evil but causes one to be very unclean before God.

Edited November 20, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Avatar4321]

But that system doesn't apply to or hold relevance to those of us outside. We can discuss the ontology of the argument ad nauseum but we will never agree because our epistemology is so different.

And I do see what you're saying, Avatar. Thank you for contributing.

Why does it have to be relevant to anyone outside to be relevant to reality? Truth is truth regardless f whether all recognize it.

[carbon dioxide]

Why should we care what those who think we are bigots say of us? Why should we listen to the advice of those who want us destroyed?

We can't please everyone and there are people who will call people bigots if they don't agree with their agenda.  Take for instance the whole transgender thing.  I am fine with people calling me a bigot if I know the difference between male and female and that gender is based on what a person is, not what they think they are.  I will gladly be a bigot on this.

[carbon dioxide]

The LDS Church has a similar teaching about baptizing a husband or wife.  "Preach My Gospel"

says in Lesson 12 that you are not allowed to baptize a married person without the consent of

the spouse.  

 

Agency is denied the person who wants to be baptized.

 

Regards,

Jim

Yes but that is a matter between the spouses.  If the gay couple both agree with allowing a 13 year old to be baptized in the Church knowing full well what the LDS view is on SSM and that it will not change and they accept it, I see no reason not to allow the baptism of the kid.  Such an event would be extremely rare but I think the policy should allow for it.  Take every case on its individual merits than one broad policy.

[Damien the Leper]

Why does it have to be relevant to anyone outside to be relevant to reality? Truth is truth regardless f whether all recognize it.

But what may be reality to you does not mean reality for others. Because the LDS church says that God said or approves something is not based in a universal reality no matter how strong a belief may be held.

[ksfisher]

I'm going to CFR you on that one.  And please include the context of the remarks.

 

My suspicion is that members are not to bother the general authorities with things that local authorities have the keys to administer.  But a situation involving a new policy, and something as serious as the results of a same sex marriage might be something the brethren might take the time to review.

Handbook 2

21.1.24 Members’ Communication with Church Headquarters

Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters. With an ever-increasing Church membership, responding personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task and would make it difficult for General Authorities to fulfill the duties for which they alone are responsible. The General Authorities love the members of the Church and do not want them to feel that they are without the support and guidance they need. However, all things need to be done with wisdom and order.

The Lord has organized His Church so every member has access to a bishop or branch president and a stake, district, or mission president who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors. By reason of their callings, these local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction.

Members who need spiritual guidance, have weighty personal problems, or have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in their family and Church responsibilities.

If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president.

In most cases, correspondence from members to General Authorities will be referred back to their local leaders. Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.