Why Changes to the Temple Ceremony?

[neverending]

Sir told me that I should start a new thread on this subject since he wouldn't answer my question. What I'd like to know is why there was a change made to the temple ceremony without the President of the LDS Church coming out saying he received a revelation. Even Pres. Kimball revealed a revelation in 1978 that blacks were to receive the Priesthood. Isn't the temple ceremony the most important ordinance for all LDS members?
I know that Joseph Smith stated that these ordinances were never to be changed or altered. "'Ordinances insti tuted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." He also said, "He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
what then are people to believe? Why do the LDS not become confused over these changes or question why?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir told me that I should start a new thread on this subject since he wouldn't answer my question. What I'd like to know is why there was a change made to the temple ceremony without the President of the LDS Church coming out saying he received a revelation. Even Pres. Kimball revealed a revelation in 1978 that blacks were to receive the Priesthood. Isn't the temple ceremony the most important ordinance for all LDS members?
I know that Joseph Smith stated that these ordinances were never to be changed or altered. "'Ordinances insti tuted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." He also said, "He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
what then are people to believe? Why do the LDS not become confused over these changes or question why?

No confusion at all.

The ordinances have not changed.

The means and the message are able to be modified according to circumstances.

But the ordinances themselves have not changed.

Hope that helps.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

No confusion at all.

The ordinances have not changed.

The means and the message are able to be modified according to circumstances.

But the ordinances themselves have not changed.

Hope that helps.

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want, but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!! So, your answer is not truthful. JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want, but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!! So, your answer is not truthful. JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons.

Well, consider that Mormons have MODIFIED Who God is; Who Jesus is; Who the Holy Spirit is; What Creation means; and What Prophecy is (unfulfilled jabbering by Smith). In the world of Mormonism, words have no meaning other than what they apply to them at the moment. Thus, the command never to alter the temple rituals is actually circumvented by saying that the ritual was only modified. Incredible, and duplicitous!

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir told me that I should start a new thread on this subject since he wouldn't answer my question. What I'd like to know is why there was a change made to the temple ceremony without the President of the LDS Church coming out saying he received a revelation. Even Pres. Kimball revealed a revelation in 1978 that blacks were to receive the Priesthood. Isn't the temple ceremony the most important ordinance for all LDS members?
I know that Joseph Smith stated that these ordinances were never to be changed or altered. "'Ordinances insti tuted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." He also said, "He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208
what then are people to believe? Why do the LDS not become confused over these changes or question why?

Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.

They certainly have been changed - all the blood letting has been omitted!

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

They certainly have been changed - all the blood letting has been omitted!

Do you long for the good old days?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir,
Try and explain it anyway you want,

I was answering your question in a civil and non-argumentative way. Why do you ask Mormons to dialogue with you and answer your questions, and as soon as they do, your first response is they are simply trying to explain it away?

but a modification IS a change!! The endowment procedure has been changed too. No longer do the men or women going through the temple for the first time have oil touched to intimate areas of their bodies. That is a CHANGE!! The blood oaths have been TOTALLY removed from the ritual, that is a MAJOR CHANGE!!

Jesus "modified" the gospel, did he not? "Ye have heard it said......but I say unto you......."

Do you have a problem with that?

But the ordinance hasn't changed. Just some procedures. While I went after the 1990 change, the "blood oaths" you refer to are not the ordinance.

So, your answer is not truthful.

Sure it was. You just can't seem to resist calling me a liar, even when I decided to actually entertain your thread without polemics or argumentation.

JUST WHAT, are these circumstances that now have gone against what God supposedly ordained? No one was pressuring the Church to make these changes other then maybe the young women going through to be married and found the rituals gross and disgusting as I did. A secret club for only the worthy members? An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members, especially when you think of those members who live in poor countries. And let's not forget the wealth that resides within the LDS Church and how they spent 3 billion dollars to build a shopping mall and condos in downtown Salt Lake City and recently spent a half billion dollars to purchase land in Florida. Why not allow ALL members this wonderful ordinance if it is the highest form of worship for you and without it, those poor souls will never gain their exaltation? Should people due to being poor be denied these special ordinances? That would be making God out to be a respecter of persons. [/SIZE]

ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc....

[RealFakeHair]

Sir's comment!

ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you a dollar to a doughnut there will never be a person who is on welfair becoming the church prophet too.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

I was answering your question in a civil and non-argumentative way. Why do you ask Mormons to dialogue with you and answer your questions, and as soon as they do, your first response is they are simply trying to explain it away?



Jesus "modified" the gospel, did he not? "Ye have heard it said......but I say unto you......."

Do you have a problem with that?

But the ordinance hasn't changed. Just some procedures. While I went after the 1990 change, the "blood oaths" you refer to are not the ordinance.



Sure it was. You just can't seem to resist calling me a liar, even when I decided to actually entertain your thread without polemics or argumentation.



ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc....

Sir,
What I highlighted in red, is a real problem. Again, you say falsehoods. As a member of your church, born and raised, married in one of your temples, I KNOW that in order to even get a temple recommend, one MUST be a full ti the payer plus answer all the many questions put to them by their Bishop and Stake President. Have the requirements for a recommend changed now too? How can a poor person who has to s****e out a living daily, afford to pay ti thing? That man is striving with everything that is in him to provide a meager life for his family and doesn't have anything at the end of the day to pay to the WEALTHy church he joined.
As for Jim and I being curious about ALL the money that the LDS Church spends, it is only because we see the money spent on things that are not of God, i.e. spending 3 billion dollars to buy up a full block of downtown SLC to build a shopping mall and million dollar condos. Then recently, spending almost a half a billion to purchase acreage in Florida. How does this help anyone other then the Church? Who benefits? Is it the poor? When I know that the LDS Church gives .7% of what it takes in to help the poor. That is shameful! Can you imagine all the poor people a half a billion dollars would have helped? I can think of so many places that kind of money could have been used. Christ said, "when you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me (Matt. 25:40).

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir,
What I highlighted in red, is a real problem. Again, you say falsehoods. As a member of your church, born and raised, married in one of your temples, I KNOW that in order to even get a temple recommend, one MUST be a full ti the payer plus answer all the many questions put to them by their Bishop and Stake President. Have the requirements for a recommend changed now too? How can a poor person who has to s****e out a living daily, afford to pay ti thing? That man is striving with everything that is in him to provide a meager life for his family and doesn't have anything at the end of the day to pay to the WEALTHy church he joined.
As for Jim and I being curious about ALL the money that the LDS Church spends, it is only because we see the money spent on things that are not of God, i.e. spending 3 billion dollars to buy up a full block of downtown SLC to build a shopping mall and million dollar condos. Then recently, spending almost a half a billion to purchase acreage in Florida. How does this help anyone other then the Church? Who benefits? Is it the poor? When I know that the LDS Church gives .7% of what it takes in to help the poor. That is shameful! Can you imagine all the poor people a half a billion dollars would have helped? I can think of so many places that kind of money could have been used. Christ said, "when you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me (Matt. 25:40).

We have been told and retold, if you want to know the truth of all things Follow the Money IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Most gods are ever changing, the gods of 19th centry America isn't the same gods of today.
Examples, *****s are now accepted in most churches even in leadership roles.
Women are now deacons and preachers and teachers to men.
Slavery okayed in the South by their gods, and today not.
Sagreagation okayed in America by their gods, and not today.
LDS the everylasting never changing gospel of the 19th centry, well it changed too.
Seems to me the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow should be the same God.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Good question. Times change. The temple movie changes. There was a time where there wasn't a movie. The underlying ordinances have not changed or gone away. How those ordinances are carried out has. Just like baptism. Originally it was done in a river or lake. Now, in many cases it is done in a building. I have done a baptism in a river before. Again, the ordinances are still performed, which is the critical thing.

Now as to your comment..."Can you see where trying to understand Mormonism is full of so many conflicting doctrines and very difficult to keep track of? God is NOT the author of confusion. For it says in 1 Cor.14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I can say the same about modern Christianity. Doctrines change, ie.. women clergy, gay marriage, etc. Even doctrines in the different denominations are different. Talk about confusion. It is all different in Christianity.

Can a movie be made as to say the EXACT SAME THINGS said in acting out the play that is today found in the Salt Lake temple? The temple ceremony has changes many times.. In Kirtland, Ohio in 1836 a washing and anointing ceremony was performed. This included complete bath, followed by an anointing with oil. Later this was change to include only a foot-washing ceremony and partaking of the sacrament which consisted of bread and wine. The washings and anointing ceremony found their way into the Nauvoo Temple where they became know as the initiatory ordinance taken before a person was allowed to do their endowment work. The earliest accounts of the Nauvoo temple endowment indicate that initiatory washings followed a literal Old Testament model of actual bathing. Large tubs of water are specified in the separate men's and women's rooms. The anointing was performed by liberally pouring consecrated oil from a horn over the head and allowing it to run over the whole body (Wilford Woodruff, Mysteries of Godliness, p. 81).

That is much different than a small dab of oil placed on the forehead of the initiate. Today people must be considered clean as they come into the temple from the world.. That is a HUGE Change of Doctrine..

As late as 1931 the Salt Lake Temple had full-sized bathtubs for the washing ceremony (Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, Appendix F, pp. 175-76). Then a few years later the washing and anointing ceremony was reduced to a ritual touching with water and oil on the various parts of the body by an officiator as prayers were said. The initiate was no longer totally undressed but covered with a sort of white poncho (called a "shield") open on the sides. The officiator then reached inside the shield to anoint various areas of the body (Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, p. 61). Then the temple worker ***isted the initiate in putting on the one-piece form of the garment. Many Mormons wear the two-piece style in everyday life, reserving the one-piece style for the temple.

In January of 2005, the initiatory washing and anointing rite was again modified. Now an initiate disrobes in a locker room (men and women in separate areas), puts on the one-piece garment by him/herself, and then puts the newly designed shield over that. The new shield is no longer open on the sides so that the person is totally covered prior to entering the cubical for the washing and anointing rite. The temple worker simply touches the person's forehead with water, and then gives the blessing regarding the various parts of the body (see account below). This is followed by an anointing of the forehead with oil and a repeat of a similar set of prayers. There has also been a slight modification to the wording at the end of the ritual telling the patron that his/her garments are now "authorized."

LDS defenders tell us that there are good and righteous reasons for changes to the Temple ceremony they teach:

It is important to remember that the temple ceremonies are teaching mechanisms that are tailored to the needs of their audience. . . The mechanisms may be changed for many reasons including, but not limited to, the following:

Spiritual Growth of the Church. . . .
Apostasy in the Church. . . .
Modernize to conform with the prevailing culture and/or language. . . .
Add a specific teaching that is especially needed at a point in time. . . .
Remove a specific teaching for cultural reasons. . . . ("Changes to the Temple Ceremonies," by W. John Walsh, http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...le_changes.htm).

And all this happens before we even start talking about pulling the "Pay-lay-ale", the minister, and the penalties out of the endowment for no other reason I can understand other than to make those using the temple believe they are as Christian and any other, but they know more, having more of God's word..

There are no changes in a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.. We have no female clergy, no gay marriage. The Bible teaches that a elder/bishop is to be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband. It teaches that:

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Any "church" that would ignore these teachings calling them Old Fashion, or out of step with the modern world is NOT a Christian church, and are not part of the greater Catholic Christian Body.. There in no confusion in the Church there is much within mormonism.. IHS jim

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you a dollar to a doughnut there will never be a person who is on welfair becoming the church prophet too.

Strawman..

[neverending]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Sir's comment!

ALL members are allowed the wonderful ordinances found in the temple. Being poor has nothing to do with being allowed to participate in the temple.

I do find it strange that you and Jim seem so obsessed with the money issues of the LDS church. What they do, what they buy, what they invest in, what they spend it on, who benefits, etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you a dollar to a doughnut there will never be a person who is on welfair becoming the church prophet too.

Hi and you're absolutely right. I don't know of one GA that isn't wealthy. All are either, doctors, attorneys, or prominent business men. They sit up there behind the pulpit looking so smug or sleeping. Why can't an ordinary member of the church hold this position?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir,
What I highlighted in red, is a real problem. Again, you say falsehoods.

No, I didn't lie. You just can't help yourself to want to argue and be divisive (even while complaining about people doing that).

As a member of your church, born and raised, married in one of your temples, I KNOW that in order to even get a temple recommend, one MUST be a full ti the payer plus answer all the many questions put to them by their Bishop and Stake President. Have the requirements for a recommend changed now too?

So your criticism is there are certain requirements that need to be met to be able to have access.

When you said, "An ordinance so special and important that it is denied to a majority of its members", do you also say that "Salvation is denied to a majority of the world."? Or do you believe that salvation is available to everyone in the world but that there will be many that don't meet the requirements in order to get it?

How can a poor person who has to s****e out a living daily, afford to pay ti thing?

The same way others do. By faith and devotion to God.

Anti-LDS who criticize the principle of ***hing based on your reasoning above teach us that you really do not understand or have real faith.

That man is striving with everything that is in him to provide a meager life for his family and doesn't have anything at the end of the day to pay to the WEALTHy church he joined.

The church doesn't need our ***hing, it needs our faith.

As for Jim and I being curious about ALL the money that the LDS Church spends, it is only because we see the money spent on things that are not of God, i.e. spending 3 billion dollars to buy up a full block of downtown SLC to build a shopping mall and million dollar condos. Then recently, spending almost a half a billion to purchase acreage in Florida. How does this help anyone other then the Church? Who benefits? Is it the poor? When I know that the LDS Church gives .7% of what it takes in to help the poor. That is shameful! Can you imagine all the poor people a half a billion dollars would have helped? I can think of so many places that kind of money could have been used. Christ said, "when you've done it unto the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me (Matt. 25:40). [/FONT][/SIZE]

You know who else made the same type of argument? Judas Iscariot:

John 12:4-10
King James Version (KJV)

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Seems there will always be critics who complain about the cost of things and what others do with their own money and how much good they could've done with it, but even Jesus didn't have a problem with it and he even told us there will always be poor people around.

Although, I don't think I would want to be in the company of Judas.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

Hi and you're absolutely right. I don't know of one GA that isn't wealthy. All are either, doctors, attorneys, or prominent business men. They sit up there behind the pulpit looking so smug or sleeping. Why can't an ordinary member of the church hold this position?

You undermine your own argument with your negatively-biased attacks.

Can you list all 12 apostles and their previous careers, along with the first presidency?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

You undermine your own argument with your negatively-biased attacks.

Can you list all 12 apostles and their previous careers, along with the first presidency?

Hey, Sir. Did you know at krispy kreme you can buy an extra dozen of doughnut for only 1 dollar.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

You undermine your own argument with your negatively-biased attacks.

Can you list all 12 apostles and their previous careers, along with the first presidency?

Sir,
Do you think I am uneducated and don't have any intelligence at all? Please forgive the length of this post but it contains a lot of info. Here goes.
Who is in the first presidency? 1. Pres. Thomas Monson: Distinguised career in publishing. Exec. for Advertising for the Deseret News. Sales Manager for the Deseret News Press, on of the West's largest Commercial Printing Firms where Monson rose to Gen. Manager. 2. Pres. Henry Eyring: Pres. of Ricks College, faulty member and a graduate of the school of Business, Stanford. BS in physics from University of Utah. MBA, Business Administration and PhD of Business from Harvard. 3. Pres. Deter Uchtdorf: Pilot for Lufthana German Airlines. Senior Vice President, Flight Operations and Lufthana Chief Pilot, Chairman of Flight Operations Committee of the International Air Transport ***oc.

The 12 Apostles:
1. Boyd Packer: Supervisor of Seminaries and Insti tutes of Religion and a member of the Administration Council of BYU.
2. Tom Perry: BS degree in Finance with a career in the retail business and served as Vice President and Treasurer in companies in Idaho, California, NY and M***achusetts.
3. Russell Nelson: Thoracic Surgeon graduate from University of Utah.
4. Dallon Oaks: Attorney and graduate of BYU. Practiced law in Chicago. Pres. of BYU from '71-'80. Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, '80-'84.
5. Russell Ballard: Real Estate, automotive and investments. Member of civic committees and boards.
6. Richard Scott: Mechanical Engineer, and served on the immediate staff of Admiral Hyman Rickover directing the development of the nuclear fuel for a wide variety of navel and land based power plants.
7. Robert Hales: Distinguished business career serving in executive positions with 3 major national companies.
8. Jeffery Holland: Educator, served as President of the AAPICU (American ***oc. of President of Independent Colleges & Universities. Sat on the board of NAICU (National ***oc. of Independent Colleges & Universities. Member of the NCAA, President Commission. Served on the governing boards of a number of civic and business related Corporations. Author of 8 books.
9. David Bednar: Professor of Business Management at Texas Tech University and the University of Arkansas.
10: Quentin Cook: Vice Chairman of Sutter Health System. President and CEO of a California health care system. Prior to that, a business lawyer and managing partner of a San Francisco Bay law firm. Board member of several profit and not-for-profit corporations.
11. D. Todd Christofferson: ***oc. General Counsel of NationsBank Corp. now Bank of America. Also served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Commerce Union Bank of Tennessee.
12: Neil Andersen: Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. Business interests, advertising, real estate development and healthcare.

Ok Sir, as you can plainly see, ALL the GA's are well to do business and professional men. They are all well to do. It is a shame that you can't see it and have no answer as to why an ordinary member in good standing can't be asked to be a GA. And as for finding this info, anything one wants to know is easily found here on the internet.
One question for you. Why is there 14 Apostles within your church? And what kinds of men did Jesus pick to be his apostles? Where they wealthy men or just ordinary, every day men?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

Sir,
Do you think I am uneducated and don't have any intelligence at all?

No, but I do see you don't disappoint with your victimhood/ self-persecution complex by asking that question.

Please forgive the length of this post but it contains a lot of info. Here goes.
Who is in the first presidency? 1. Pres. Thomas Monson: Distinguised career in publishing. Exec. for Advertising for the Deseret News. Sales Manager for the Deseret News Press, on of the West's largest Commercial Printing Firms where Monson rose to Gen. Manager. 2. Pres. Henry Eyring: Pres. of Ricks College, faulty member and a graduate of the school of Business, Stanford. BS in physics from University of Utah. MBA, Business Administration and PhD of Business from Harvard. 3. Pres. Deter Uchtdorf: Pilot for Lufthana German Airlines. Senior Vice President, Flight Operations and Lufthana Chief Pilot, Chairman of Flight Operations Committee of the International Air Transport ***oc.

The 12 Apostles:
1. Boyd Packer: Supervisor of Seminaries and Insti tutes of Religion and a member of the Administration Council of BYU.
2. Tom Perry: BS degree in Finance with a career in the retail business and served as Vice President and Treasurer in companies in Idaho, California, NY and M***achusetts.
3. Russell Nelson: Thoracic Surgeon graduate from University of Utah.
4. Dallon Oaks: Attorney and graduate of BYU. Practiced law in Chicago. Pres. of BYU from '71-'80. Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, '80-'84.
5. Russell Ballard: Real Estate, automotive and investments. Member of civic committees and boards.
6. Richard Scott: Mechanical Engineer, and served on the immediate staff of Admiral Hyman Rickover directing the development of the nuclear fuel for a wide variety of navel and land based power plants.
7. Robert Hales: Distinguished business career serving in executive positions with 3 major national companies.
8. Jeffery Holland: Educator, served as President of the AAPICU (American ***oc. of President of Independent Colleges & Universities. Sat on the board of NAICU (National ***oc. of Independent Colleges & Universities. Member of the NCAA, President Commission. Served on the governing boards of a number of civic and business related Corporations. Author of 8 books.
9. David Bednar: Professor of Business Management at Texas Tech University and the University of Arkansas.
10: Quentin Cook: Vice Chairman of Sutter Health System. President and CEO of a California health care system. Prior to that, a business lawyer and managing partner of a San Francisco Bay law firm. Board member of several profit and not-for-profit corporations.
11. D. Todd Christofferson: ***oc. General Counsel of NationsBank Corp. now Bank of America. Also served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Commerce Union Bank of Tennessee.
12: Neil Andersen: Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. Business interests, advertising, real estate development and healthcare.

Ok Sir, as you can plainly see, ALL the GA's are well to do business and professional men. They are all well to do. It is a shame that you can't see it and have no answer as to why an ordinary member in good standing can't be asked to be a GA. And as for finding this info, anything one wants to know is easily found here on the internet.

You seem fixated on your own preconceived caste system. It doesn't strike me as problematic that people who are successful in their spiritual lives are also successful in their temporal lives.

One question for you. Why is there 14 Apostles within your church? And what kinds of men did Jesus pick to be his apostles? Where they wealthy men or just ordinary, every day men? [/SIZE]

That's three questions.

I honestly think God calls who he wants for leadership positions in the church. The only people who seem to have a problem with who God calls are jealous and/or bitter in their own lives, so they ridicule and despise others.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

No, but I do see you don't disappoint with your victimhood/ self-persecution complex by asking that question.




You seem fixated on your own preconceived caste system. It doesn't strike me as problematic that people who are successful in their spiritual lives are also successful in their temporal lives.



That's three questions.

I honestly think God calls who he wants for leadership positions in the church. The only people who seem to have a problem with who God calls are jealous and/or bitter in their own lives, so they ridicule and despise others.

Your comments are always interesting. Do you have education in psychology? You accuse me of many mental problems. You always ***ume things that aren't there as well. I had a few simple questions that I wished an answer to but you went off on your tangent. Maybe someone else can answer my questions without going into the my mental state. For me, there's no problem with wondering something, that is how one learns. And yes, God can call whomever He wishes, but in the case of LDS GA's they are called due to their position within the community, it has nothing to do with God. For with the LDS, it is always about appearances...I know, I saw how my father was as a child and even as an adult. Once I had left the church and was attending a Baptist Church, our son was asked to be the lead in a Christmas play about the star over Bethlehem. My son has a lovely singing voice and had to sing 3 songs in the play. I was very proud of him. When I told my parents about it and invited them to come, my father refused saying, "there's no way I would come. What if someone saw me going into your church?" I was shocked that he refused on such ridiculous grounds and missed out on seeing his grandson sing. It was upsetting for my son when I had to tell him his grandpa wouldn't be coming. How was a child to understand such things?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

Your comments are always interesting. Do you have education in psychology? You accuse me of many mental problems. You always ***ume things that aren't there as well. I had a few simple questions that I wished an answer to but you went off on your tangent. Maybe someone else can answer my questions without going into the my mental state.

So it's okay for you to question MY thoughts, but it isn't okay for me to question YOURS?

Sounds about right.

For me, there's no problem with wondering something, that is how one learns. And yes, God can call whomever He wishes, but in the case of LDS GA's they are called due to their position within the community, it has nothing to do with God.

That's simply your own biased conjecture.

For with the LDS, it is always about appearances...I know, I saw how my father was as a child and even as an adult. Once I had left the church and was attending a Baptist Church, our son was asked to be the lead in a Christmas play about the star over Bethlehem. My son has a lovely singing voice and had to sing 3 songs in the play. I was very proud of him. When I told my parents about it and invited them to come, my father refused saying, "there's no way I would come. What if someone saw me going into your church?" I was shocked that he refused on such ridiculous grounds and missed out on seeing his grandson sing. It was upsetting for my son when I had to tell him his grandpa wouldn't be coming. How was a child to understand such things? [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

And here is the typical "Banta-rant" that we have come to expect. The story/ anecdote about an event in your own family that proves the LDS church is bad. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was just your own family's problems/ issues? I have been to and will be going to a Baptist Christmas show. In fact, I have participated in them as a musician. And Catholic, Methodist, AoG, Evangelical....

Sounds like your beef is with your dad, not us or the church.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Sir

So it's okay for you to question MY thoughts, but it isn't okay for me to question YOURS?

Sounds about right.



That's simply your own biased conjecture.



And here is the typical "Banta-rant" that we have come to expect. The story/ anecdote about an event in your own family that proves the LDS church is bad. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was just your own family's problems/ issues? I have been to and will be going to a Baptist Christmas show. In fact, I have participated in them as a musician. And Catholic, Methodist, AoG, Evangelical....

Sounds like your beef is with your dad, not us or the church.

I think that is great that you've been involved in other churches meetings etc. Would you be kind enough though to answer why your church has 14 apostles? You've skipped over that one. And, I know there are many wonderful, faithful members who don't make a lot of money but never get a chance to serve as an Apostle or GA. I still see it as the President and his Counselors picking only those men who are wealthy. For me that is wrong for God is not a respecter of persons and He certainly doesn't care how wealthy a man may be. Excuse me for sharing too about how LDS care only about appearances. Did you not read the story of a Bishop right here in the SL valley who disguised himself as a homeless man and went to his Ward? Several members asked him to leave. Some wouldn't even speak to him or look at him. So, is this NOT about appearances?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by neverending

I think that is great that you've been involved in other churches meetings etc. Would you be kind enough though to answer why your church has 14 apostles? You've skipped over that one.

There are 12 apostles and a First Presidency consisting of 3. Have you forgotten the simple things of the LDS church?

And, I know there are many wonderful, faithful members who don't make a lot of money but never get a chance to serve as an Apostle or GA. I still see it as the President and his Counselors picking only those men who are wealthy. For me that is wrong for God is not a respecter of persons and He certainly doesn't care how wealthy a man may be.

True. But you are reading your own negative bias into the LDS' motives.

Excuse me for sharing too about how LDS care only about appearances.

Why? That is a fallacy.

Did you not read the story of a Bishop right here in the SL valley who disguised himself as a homeless man and went to his Ward? Several members asked him to leave. Some wouldn't even speak to him or look at him. So, is this NOT about appearances? [/SIZE]

Yeah, we're talking about that at CARM too. Did you know a Methodist pastor did a similar thing with similar results.

You seem to take the bad things LDS do and paint the whole religion as bad. There are bad examples of Christ-like love in all churches, even yours. So be careful how quickly you judge others.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

You seem to take the bad things LDS do and paint the whole religion as bad. There are bad examples of Christ-like love in all churches, even yours. So be careful how quickly you judge others.

If the whole church is doing it as is represented in who is called to serve as a GA. The whole church has shown that it is a group of Zoramites.. Even in it's pulpits



Anyone can see how the GAs are placed above the congregation.. Yeap that is Zoramite.. The LDS church is in apostasy.. IHS jim