Sisters serving missions & forgoing marriage?

[Darren]

By the way, I have no idea what you and some others are referring to when you say " the cleansing ". What does that mean?

Cleon Skousen wrote a whole book on the subject, his last published book, titled, "The Cleansing of America."

Simply put The Cleansing is being on the wrong side of the word "if" used by the Lord in 3 Nephi 20:15-16

if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people-
Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who are many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the sheep who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver

If the Gentiles do not repent of living by the lies of the False Culture, with The Cleansing to start presumably at Salt Lake City, Utah.

D&C 112:23-26, Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord;
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

D&C 133:1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the Lord your God, and hear the word of the Lord concerning you—
2 The Lord who shall suddenly come to his temple; the Lord who shall come down upon the world with a curse to judgment; yea, upon all the nations that forget God, and upon all the ungodly among you.
3 For he shall make bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of their God.

3 Nephi 16:7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.
8 But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles—for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them;
9 And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a by-word among them—
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.
12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.
13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.
14 And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father.
15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that has lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.

From the book, "Then Cometh The Day"
...in 1967 President McKay informed Brother Skousen that “Our People (the Church Members) are becoming Slaves” because now they do not know “how Our People Can Work Together By The Law.” The only way that one “can work together by the Law” of the English-speaking People, the Business Law by which they have worked together since they came to the Island of Britain, is to “do all that they do in the Good Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.” President McKay told Cleon Skousen that “Our People are becoming Slaves” because they do not know how to “work together by the Law.”

We know how this is a description of many of the people of whom the Lord spoke, in 3 Nephi 16, who “in the latter day” “have come forth upon the face of this land,” of which “land” He said, “the Father hath commanded me—that I should give unto this people (Lehi’s descendants to whom He spoke) this land for their inheritance.” We know, in relation to what He said of these “Gentiles” who “have come forth upon the face of this land,” “when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations,” that obviously, they are no longer trying to “do all that they do in the Good Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ” as the English-speaking people had committed to do in order to earn the only Title that they ever said that they had to live on the North American Continent. And, in D&C 133:2, when He speaks of the “judgment” to come upon such, He also speaks of that judgment coming “upon all the ungodly among you.”

Just as President David O. McKay would not think about the alternative, “if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—
Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who are many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the sheep who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver” 3Nephi 20: 15,16, so it is too terrible for those searching for “those who are ordained unto this power, by the administration of the Comforter, shed forth upon them for the revelation of Jesus Christ,” D&C 90:11, to think about those indicated in D&C 112:23-26, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord;
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.”

President McKay said that he would not consider that alternative, “if the Gentiles do not repent,” because he said, “If that happens then everything that I have done in my life is in vain, because everything that I have done in my life is to get my people to repent.

It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. Bruce R. McConkie, "Stand Independent above All Other Creatures", Ensign, Conference Report, May 1979

"slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame." ... For instance, this great republic must pass away in the manner indicated unless the people repent. Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 18, p. 339

Personally I hope we don't end up on the wrong side of "if."

The early LDS People (who were, mostly, of New England Ancestry) were given the instructions through the Prophet Joseph, in D&C 86:8-11:
8. Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers─
9. For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God─
10. Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.
11. Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a light unto the Gentiles, and through this priesthood, a savior unto my people Israel. The Lord hath said it. Amen.

We need to forgo the loving of lies by continuing to live by the True Culture of Joseph Smith (if ye continue in my goodness) to have the blessings on the right side of "if" and forgo The Cleansing.

Darren

[passionflower]

-delete-

[Darren]

What is the difference between a "constitutionalist" and a true conservative?

A Constitutionalist believes that government is to be restricted by the rule of law. Typically an LDS "Constitutionalist" believes that in founding the United States, Jesus introduced Constitutionalism, a false notion. The very word "constitution" is a Catholic Culture word, for some magic piece of paper, that by the hand of the Pope, or through his Chancellor, seals in heaven what is sealed on earth, by his seal on that piece of paper.

The word "Government" is a French word from the Greek word Kybernion, which means the rudder of a ship, and is a principle of Orthodox (top-down) control. We don't want the top-down control of Babylon and of the other continuing governments found in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

As a True Conservative I realize that we don't need any government, only virtuous businesses working together by their elected leaders, in our bottom-up organizations spelled out to some extent in the Old Testament and lived by the Anglo/Saxons before the 8th Century. In the True Culture "Government" is kept from interfering in the business of the people who live by the Law. Basically a True Conservative knows that Law is Virtue and Virtue is Jesus Christ. How to run everything by the bottom-up organizations that are how "we the people" work together to seek Virtue.

God Bless,
Darren

[gkearney]

Darren you need to move to the Channel Islands the only place I can think of governed in such a manner.

[passionflower]

What is the difference between a "constitutionalist" and a true conservative?

A Constitutionalist believes that government is to be restricted by the rule of law. Typically an LDS "Constitutionalist" believes that in founding the United States, Jesus introduced Constitutionalism, a false notion. The very word "constitution" is a Catholic Culture word, for some magic piece of paper, that by the hand of the Pope, or through his Chancellor, seals in heaven what is sealed on earth, by his seal on that piece of paper.

The word "Government" is a French word from the Greek word Kybernion, which means the rudder of a ship, and is a principle of Orthodox (top-down) control. We don't want the top-down control of Babylon and of the other continuing governments found in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

As a True Conservative I realize that we don't need any government, only virtuous businesses working together by their elected leaders, in our bottom-up organizations spelled out to some extent in the Old Testament and lived by the Anglo/Saxons before the 8th Century. In the True Culture "Government" is kept from interfering in the business of the people who live by the Law. Basically a True Conservative knows that Law is Virtue and Virtue is Jesus Christ. How to run everything by the bottom-up organizations that are how "we the people" work together to seek Virtue.

God Bless,
Darren

-delete-

[Darren]

So how does this all line up with what I just posted on your other thread about true and false culture? God is a God of order. In the celestial kingdom we know there is a governing counsel of the Gods. God runs a house of order up there. It does not matter that He is all knowing, He runs everything by a certain Priesthood protocol, if you will. This is one reason I know that the Priesthood is a male thing. It is so linear, structured and a house of ORDER, and it orders everything on earth and in the universe. That makes it 100% a guy thing in my book. Men just like to think this way and order their world and the world around them anyway they can. (I find this intensely BORING!)
So what am I not understanding here? How could there be no governing powers or protocol in true culture?
And you do not believe the constitution is a divinely inspired document? You think it to be just a continuation of catholicism? Whatever the document is called, it is inspired by God. He says as much in D&C 101:80. I realize there is plenty of Greek influence in it, by the way, but God still claims it. So what are you talking about here? If you are doing EQM. then the sanction of God is all that is necessary to believe in something.
What an interesting conversation this gets to be. I am eager for your answer.

In an English way that we use this Greek word, we often use "Government" to mean "Structure," it means "rudder," an orthodoxy system of centralized, top-down control. God works by Perfectly Ordered Structure, he being the example to all and then putting the charge to work together by virtue into the hands of our brethren (as we look among ourselves for our leaders) the proven order and means to structure all of society.

The Perfectly Ordered Structure is what the Anglo-Saxons worked by, these timeless structures of working together in 10s, 50s, 100s, 1000s, and Tribes, which is exactly how the LDS Church is structured and should be also how our economic society that we live and work together in is to be structured.

Church-Government from the understanding of that Greek word is an oxymoron and incompatible with the Germanic word "Church."

"Church Law" is the Structure, with legislative,executive and judicial elected leaders (for the maintenance of the law). We have courts and juries. We have councils and general assemblies for establishing the law of the Church. We have patriarchs to serve as examples to the people, we have a chief executive as our president, his two executive assistants/councilors and the Supreme Court of 12 apostles.

English is not the True Language and is such a funny way to understand the word meanings that we think of as Gospel Truths.

The craft of Babylon is to use the standards set by them, of words, to trick us into working together by their thoughts. "Government" is a head-fake word representing a way to order ourselves the wrong way, the deductive way. Law and Law Institutions are the United Order way to work together.

You will notice two spellings of the word constitution in the D&C, one is constitution and the other is Constitution, the one will fail and give way to the other, the united order way of working together, which inspired the written Constitution, spelled that way. The constitution of the people that will forever stand is the oath of the people, embodied with their Laws, to the purpose of God, written or not.

From the book, The Story of Our Law for Little Children

IN ORDER FOR A BUSINESS TO BE A BUSINESS IT MUST FIRST HAVE A “PURPOSE.”

The purpose of an English Business will be written in its CHARTER. However, ENGLAND HAS NO CHARTER. At the time of the Magna Carta the Government was obliged to stop destroying the Records of the Law of England, so we have available to us the “by-laws” of “the Board of Directors” of England, after the year 1189 A.D. These describe the different Branches of English Government, how they should be run, the fact that there MUST BE a “Purpose” for such an operation, and that it should be found written down in the written Charter of England. But, no such written Charter exists.

We know what the people of England have always BELIEVED the Purpose of England’s Law to be. It is the Purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ. That was the Written Purpose of Connecticut, written down in Connecticut’s Colonial Charter, which was still the Constitution of Connecticut at the time that the Connecticut Delegation to the Constitutional Convention wrote the US Constitution (as it was, indeed, for more than thirty years thereafter). That everyone who was a part of the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ (that one joined by being baptized and confirmed in one of the Communes into which England is divided) was able to work toward the “Purpose” of the Lord Jesus Christ, by doing all that he did in “the Good Faith” of the Lord Jesus Christ, is the “warp and woof” of English Puritanism.

When Puritanism in England came upon evil days in the 1660’s, at the time of the “restoration” of the Monarchy, Puritans weren’t responsible to worry about what the Purpose of the Law of England was anymore. The Puritan Congregationalists were not the Church of England anymore, the Episcopalians were.

“How did the Episcopalians deal with the problem of the ‘Purpose of the Law of England’?” That was easy. The Purpose of the Law of England, in England, is still, today, the Purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, to bring any Modern “logic” to why that is so, the Episcopalians (the present Church of England) handle it this way: “What is the Purpose of the Law of England?” “Well, what is the Law of England FOR?” “We know the many things that the Law of England is AGAINST; those are spelled out in the Statutes of Parliament etc.” “One thing that the Law of England is NOT AGAINST, however, is the Sovereign (the Sovereign is “above the Law of England” and cannot be taken to trial before any Court of the Law of England).” “Well, then, if the Law of England CANNOT be AGAINST the Sovereign of England, that must be what the Law of England is FOR.” “And, since the Sovereign is the ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England on Earth,’ that is how the Purpose of the Law of England is today the Purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ.” And so dear, “jolly old England” muddles its way through on this issue.

Of course this nonsense was totally unintelligible to Eighteenth Century Congregationalist New Englanders. They were out of contact with this Problem, after the end of Puritan rule in England and the Restoration of the Monarchy. However, the Episcopalian Tobacco Planters, of Virginia and the Carolinas, knew full well how incapable the New Englanders were on this subject and let them “walk right into the trap.”

The Apparent Purposelessness of the USA

The Preamble to the Constitution gives SIX purposes for the Supreme Law of the Land of the U.S.A. There is NOT ONE SINGLE Purpose. Maybe some people in the USA might be for one of the Purposes, some other people might be for one of the others, but both of these groups might be against all of the other Purposes and each other. YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO GET THE PEOPLE OF THE USA TO WORK TOGETHER, LIKE A BUSINESS, IN THAT MANNER. WE WILL NEVER GET THE PEOPLE OF THE USA TO WORK TOGETHER LIKE A BUSINESS UNTIL THEY ALL HAVE A COMMON PURPOSE: THE PURPOSE OF THEIR LAW, THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND.

The Preamble to the US Constitution reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That first purpose, for “we the people of the United States,” “to form a more perfect union” is a beautiful and some would even say a “holy” thought. But, for them to ever be able to move one millimeter in that direction (if the entire moral of the “History” of the Law, based on all of its adherents doing everything that they do in “Good Faith,” has any meaning at all) they are all going to have to have BUT ONE Purpose, rather than the six that that beautiful thought and the five other Purposes that follow it add up to.

Maybe the New Englanders felt that by going way out on a limb and talking about “Blessings,” (“the Blessings of Liberty”), they were stretching themselves enough to get some kind of a Purpose that was broad enough that the Tobacco Planters would identify with it, in some way, and that we really would have ONE country, that the Tobacco Planters would have a little bit of mercy on this “Supreme” Law of the Land that the New Englanders thought that they were setting up for everybody. The Tobacco Planters were merciless.

“No Dependence”

The Continental Congress began its session for the year 1785, in New York City, on January 11, 1785. During that year they passed, the “Northwest Ordinance of 1785,” which divided up the entire American West into Puritan Communes wherein what an honest man, who does everything he does in “Good Faith” in the Lord Jesus Christ, has acquired by honest industry, would be only his to enjoy and which could not be taken from him without his consent, in the Tradition of the Communes of England, from time immemorial, and recently the popular basis of the American Revolution, so popularized by Samuel Adams.

Let’s review some of the words of Samuel Adams whereby he organized the American Revolution. He said:
... what a man has honestly acquird is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent ...
“... a man should have the free use and sole disposal of the fruit of his honest industry, subject to no Controul ...”
“... sacred and inalienable natural right,” (of a person) “quietly to enjoy and have the sole disposal of his own property.”

This Continental Congress, that Samuel Adams’ own Massachusetts House of Representatives had called into being, to defend these ancient, sacred Rights, that the ancestors of the American people had handed down to them, and which could not be taken away from them, as long as they did all that they did in “Good Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” and they were not convicted of doing otherwise by Twelve Men united in judgment as Christ had told the Apostles that they must be, now made this ancient English Tradition into the Law of all of the Communes of the American West. In these Communes, from now on, every American Freeholder Farmer would hold onto his Land, his basis of power, by this ancient tradition. And, these millions of new Freeholder Farmers were the new basis of power in all of Anglo North America! And, the Land whereon they operated by this Tradition included Alabama and Mississippi! This Tradition, sooner or later, was going to clash with the Tobacco Growing Industry of the Tobacco Planters of Virginia and the Carolinas. It was going to clash with it precisely because of the Negro Slavery upon which both it and their great profits from it were established. They were determined that it would be much “later” rather than sooner.

The Tobacco Planters attacked in two directions at the same time. One of these directions was to get the pushers of this “divide the Continent up into Puritan Communes” drive to write down on paper what they felt the logical “Constitution” of the English-speaking people living in the USA was.

The attack in the other direction was their attack upon and almost entire destruction in the USA of the tradition of the historical, English association of the Lord Jesus Christ with the Common Law of England.

This is how they did it:

As the Northwest Ordinance of 1785 was passing the Continental Congress and turning all of North America around them into a Farming Community divided up into Puritan Communes, based upon Principles that had been the arch-enemy of Virginia, the Carolinas and the slavery-based Tobacco Industry from their beginnings, the Politicians of Virginia undertook a rare burst of activity. The result of this activity was what they called, “the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom,” of January 16, 1786. This Statute was urged upon Virginians, to be adopted by them, from Paris.

To make a long story short that Statute says:
“... our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions,”
and then this wise crack:
“any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ...”


Taking What Is Yours

This Section of this Book is the “purpose” of this Book. It is to show you how, because of this last mentioned “Statute,” there is no “Property” which you can own in the USA that is your “absolute” (to use the word of Samuel Adams to George III) Property unless you know the rest of this Story.

So, let us go through that “Statute” carefully and understand it and then go on through the rest of this Story.

This Statute was sent to Virginia from Paris, France by the most politically capable of Virginia’s Tobacco Planters, working in collusion with the Inciters of the French Revolution. When he said, “our civil rights” he meant precisely those Rights that we are speaking of when we say that “no one can take your life, liberty or property except it be done like Jesus said in the Bible, by Twelve of your fellows acting as one, finding that you have broken this Law that we have all shared in common back through immemorial time.”

The Tobacco-planter calls these “CIVIL rights.” Lets examine that expression first.

The word “civil” is an adjective in Old Italian, which means, “having to do with the STATE.” “CIVIL rights” were those rights, in his STATE, which William the Conqueror was in a position to give as rewards to them who accompanied him in the Conquest of England. The expression “Civil Rights” means those rights that are GIVEN to you by some State.

The basic understanding in the expression is that if some State chooses to GIVE you some rights, it also has the prerogative to choose to TAKE THEM BACK.

If this is true of the dictatorial States of the world, it is based on nothing more than the power of suggestion in the English-speaking world. There is never any record of any “State” ever “giving” these Rights to the Ancestors of the English-speaking People. [As Churchill’s Book says, “THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLISHMEN RESTED NOT UPON ANY ENACTMENT OF THE STATE.”] And, the English-speaking People, in any significant number, never called these Rights, “civil rights,” until this Tobacco Planter made this statement which so devastated traditional Christendom. Thereafter it didn’t seem to matter if you called them “Civil Rights” or not. However, it is dangerous for you to call them “Civil Rights,” because if you do you are acquiescing to the Tobacco Planter that your personal hold, free as it may be, upon your own life, liberty and property, is allowed to you by your STATE, and can be taken back by your STATE, whenever it sees fit to do so.

“Why did people just give up and do this; why do they acquiesce and call their Ancestral Rights, ‘Civil Rights,’ if there really is a more true name?”

Because after what the Tobacco-planter said in the rest of his statement, the poor, little men of the world were so worn-out, in their souls, that it didn’t seem to make any difference anymore.

“What is this statement that so wore men out?”

Again, that statement is that, “Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions.” What that says is that the folk beliefs of all of the North European peoples, that they got the protection and the Rights afforded to them by their Gild-brothers, if they did everything which they did in “Good Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” are groundless. That Tobacco Planter is saying that any rights that an Englishman might have (which came from some State in the first place) have NO DEPENDENCE whatsoever on any “religious opinion,” which that person might hold to as being his “Good Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” any more than any opinion that that person might have about ANY OTHER ACADEMIC SUBJECT, that he picked up in SCHOOL, such as “physics or geometry.”

That statement caused the French Revolution.

As soon as the word was heard in France that that statement was not only going unchallenged but was bowling down any would-be challengers that got in the Tobacco Planters’ way, the merchants of France immediately junked the French Monarchy. It was to that statement, viewing its effect on the intellectual side of the French Revolution (which Karl Marx took it as his task to understand and promulgate), that Karl Marx refers to when he says, “All revolution comes from America.”

“But, why not fight back against that statement?” It is so obviously false, right on its face.

In the first place, the exigencies of World War II and the United Nations formation have overridden the “giving up to the eloquent Tobacco-planter” of the USA and re-implanted the concept of “Good Faith” (in the tradition of the Crusaders, and that Faith was in the Lord Jesus Christ) as that upon which all Rights depend in Modern International Law.

Secondarily, let’s suppose that this author was talking with that Tobacco Planter on this subject.

I. “Do my Law Rights have any dependence on my religious opinions?”
The Tobacco Planter. “No.”
I. “Do my Law Rights have any dependence on my moral opinions?”
The Tobacco Planter. “Well, maybe, if you just think any crazy old thing you might have to be restrained.”
I. “Well, my moral opinions are dependent upon my religious opinions. I and others of European heritage get the idea that we shouldn’t walk up to you and cut your throat, out of the Bible.”
The Tobacco Planter. “Well, in that case, if you got it from the Bible, I guess that I take it back. No, your civil rights have no dependence on your moral opinions.”
I. “Do, my Law Rights then have any dependence on my moral acts?”
The Tobacco Planter. “Well of course they have some dependence on your MORAL ACTS.”
I. “Well, my moral acts are dependent upon my moral opinions.”

Silence.

You see. His statement is nonsense if you push it.

The trouble is that most people don’t bother to push it because any positive merit to what he said is not the issue. The issue is that the Tobacco Farmers of Virginia and the Carolinas took their stand that the Basic Belief, of all of the People of the Lands of Northern Europe, which Lands are divided up into the Communes of the Believers in the Son of God, that their basic Rights and Freedoms, here on this Earth, are earned by them, in their Communes, by their holding onto their “Good Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” is FALSE. The Issue is that that stand had a leveling effect on the worn-out religious institutions of Europe, which the opportunistic Merchants of France found that they could exploit to their advantage. The issue is that Karl Marx, a self-styled expert on the History of France, declared to all of the People of the World that the “belief,” the “-ism” of all of the “Communes” into which all of Northern Europe — the center, then, of the World’s political power — is divided, for the worship of the Son of God, HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY SON OF GOD. All that the real “-ism” of the “Communes” of North Europe is, is the irrepressible onward press of the biological evolution of the species of man, emerging from the darkness of Medieval Europe’s Christianity to the full light of the Modern World’s Atheistic Concentration on Industrial Development.

And these last words merit a side comment. In one of the popular editions of the Federalist Paper’s, written in the main by one of the most vocal of Virginia’s Tobacco Planters, the editor said that in the education of these Tobacco Planters and their associates, History passes directly from the Greeks and Romans to the Renaissance. In their education there was no reason, nor any place, for the Middle Ages. This was typical of education for the privileged, the educated, during the period of the American Revolution, which is called the “Enlightenment.” This same ignoring of the Middle Ages passed on to Communism and typifies it.

God Bless,
Darren

[passionflower]

-delete-

[gkearney]

English is not the True Language

Somehow Darren I am sure you can enlighten us as to which language is the "True Language".

[Darren]

English is not the True Language

Somehow Darren I am sure you can enlighten us as to which language is the "True Language".

In the Orient, for the past 3,000 years their interlingual language has been written pictures, which more accurately convey thoughts than phonetic words do. So lets vote, language as pictures of the nouns and verbs or language as a set of arbitrary sounds to bla, bla, bla about those nouns and verbs? In the True Language another level of our being interacts with that type of being in the Godhead, to see by the eye of pure intelligence the qualities of the material world, EQM. How is that?

[Darren]

OK. But the Priesthood is a governing force that moves from the top-down, and it is NOT a business, or it would be Priestcraft. There are no grass roots movements in the church. No wards or stakes send a representative to meetings at the church office buildings. The Apostles meet together and make all decisions, are accountable only to Jesus Christ for their actions in regards to the governing of His church(not to us or any representative) and give us any changes in policies through proper Priesthood channels. No church member gets to have a voice in the making of these decisions. The church is not a government "by the people, for the people, of the people," it is a literal Kingdom.
I do not have any problem with aligning true culture with the Kingdom of God on earth. I do not know how to reconcile it with a Representative Government, however.

And that was an interesting bunch of history.

And I am screwing up this thread. I accidentally turned this into the "true Culture" Thread. Sorry. You can answer me on the proper thread if you want to.

Although it never uses the term, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) (has) ... developed gradually from a more presbyterian polity .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_polity

D&C 26: 2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

D&C 28:13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

Mosiah 29:26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

D&C Section 104, Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, April 23, 1834, concerning the United Firm (see the headings to sections 78 and 82). The occasion was likely that of a council meeting of members of the United Firm, which discussed the pressing temporal needs of the Church. An earlier meeting of the firm on April 10 had resolved that the organization be dissolved. This revelation directs that the firm instead be reorganized; its properties were to be divided among members of the firm as their stewardships. Under Joseph Smith’s direction, the phrase “United Firm” was later replaced with “United Order” in the revelation.

67–77, The general treasury of the united order is to operate on the basis of common consent

104:21 And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent or voice of the order, which dwell in the land of Kirtland.
36 And it is my will that he should sell the lots that are laid off for the building up of the city of my saints, inasmuch as it shall be made known to him by the voice of the Spirit, and according to the counsel of the order, and by the voice of the order.
53 Therefore, you are dissolved as a united order with your brethren, that you are not bound only up to this hour unto them, only on this wise, as I said, by loan as shall be agreed by this order in council, as your circumstances will admit and the voice of the council direct.
64 And the avails of the sacred things shall be had in the treasury, and a seal shall be upon it; and it shall not be used or taken out of the treasury by any one, neither shall the seal be loosed which shall be placed upon it, only by the voice of the order, or by commandment.
71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.
72 And this shall be the voice and common consent of the order—that any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this to help me in my stewardship—
76 But in case of transgression, the treasurer shall be subject unto the council and voice of the order.
77 And in case the treasurer is found an unfaithful and an unwise steward, he shall be subject to the council and voice of the order, and shall be removed out of his place, and another shall be appointed in his stead.

D&C 102: 3, 8 Voted: that whenever any vacancy shall occur by the death, removal from office for transgression, or removal from the bounds of this church government, of any one of the above-named councilors, it shall be filled by the nomination of the president or presidents, and sanctioned by the voice of a general council of high priests, convened for that purpose, to act in the name of the church.
9 The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church.

D&C 51:4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.
12 And this shall be done through the bishop or the agent, which shall be appointed by the voice of the church.

D&C 38:34 And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that certain men among them shall be appointed, and they shall be appointed by the voice of the church;
35 And they shall look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer; and send them forth to the place which I have commanded them;
36 And this shall be their work, to govern the affairs of the property of this church.

D&C 41:9 And again, I have called my servant Edward Partridge; and I give a commandment, that he should be appointed by the voice of the church, and ordained a bishop unto the church, to leave his merchandise and to spend all his time in the labors of the church;
10 To see to all things as it shall be appointed unto him in my laws in the day that I shall give them.

D&C 58:49 And let there be an agent appointed by the voice of the church, unto the church in Ohio, to receive moneys to purchase lands in Zion.

D&C 134:3 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.

D&C 20:63 The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences.
65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;
66 But the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.

D&C 107:27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—
28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—
29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.

D&C 124:144 And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference;

1) Episcopal, 2) Synod, 3) Congregational

Most churches operate under some combination of these three. ... For example ... the LDS church...
http://askville.amazon.com/main-differe ... Id=4900885" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand that there were two common governance structures of Christian churches at the time of the restoration: (1) hierarchical/episcopal—Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox, some Lutherans—in which power and authority were “top down” from the presiding leader(s) to the congregation/parish and its members, and (2) congregational—Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Unitarians, some Lutherans—in which power and authority flowed up from the congregation and its members to elected leaders, i.e.,“bottom up.”

The restored Church combines elements of both the hierarchical structure and the congregational polity. It goes without saying that the Church is structured hierarchically in a legal and practical way, in most cases, power and authority flow from top to bottom. Yet, reflecting a small element of the bottom up polity from congregational churches, in the restored Church, the principle of common consent provides that the authority and power of the hierarchical leadership rests on the common consent of the members. That is, in theory, those “governing” in the Church do so with the “consent” of the “governed”.

In the early restoration, LDS common consent was reflected in meetings that some times resembled New England town halls, assemblies in which varieties of viewpoints were expressed with vigor. Over time, common consent through “voting” in congregations or conferences has evolved to become largely a ceremonial function. ...

So, has the principle of meaningful common consent largely disappeared from the structure and processes of the restored Church (other than as a largely ceremonial ritual...

I do not think so. I believe it continues, and is effected in many different ways.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/19/c ... of-christ/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[passionflower]

"Common Consent"
The principle by which church members sustain those called to serve in the church, as well as other church decisions requiring their support, usually shown by raising the right hand.
Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church. Through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,he directs church leaders in important actions and decisions. However, all church members have the right and privilege of sustaining or not sustaining the actions and decisions of their leaders.

This is the definition of common consent on LDS.org. In trying to get this clear, are you suggesting that the church members can change the direction of the church if they want to by representation or some form of discussion or voting?
And that they can actually have the final say?

[Darren]

In trying to get this clear, are you suggesting that the church members can change the direction of the church if they want to by representation or some form of discussion or voting?
And that they can actually have the final say?

They may have the final say as a ward council on whether or not Santa Claus will be invited to the Ward Christmas Party.

Otherwise No, but individuals in their callings do have the responsibility to change direction in their stewardships as directed by the Holy Ghost. For example, a silly example, a bishop can write a big check on the church's account, and get away with it, as long as the Spirit carries the justification to his Stake President. Or if the Brethren feel inclined to reach down to a ward or stake struggling with some issue, their main recourse is to do "Training." With True Culture, The Holy Ghost/Revelation is the common denominator, not some set of top-down policies.
See Hugh Nibley's, "The fatal shift, from Leaders to Managers." Leaders lead by virtuous example and vision, Managers, well, are bullies.

I am not advocating changing anything in the Church, I am however advocating that in our businesses and work life we do as the Church has always done, and work together by revelation, and that is done by leaders, and councils, that like the Lord told Moses, "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." Deuteronomy 1:13, Take you, elected leaders, "to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" Exodus 18:21

“That Jesus will be a resident on the earth a thousand [years] with the Saints is not the case, but will reign over the Saints and come down and instruct, as he did the five hundred brethren [see 1 Corinthians 15:6], and those of the first resurrection will also reign with him over the Saints.” (TEACHINGS OF PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH: JOSEPH SMITH, 2008, page 258)

[passionflower]

-delete-

[Darren]

Sister Missionaries giving "Harvesting Blessings" ... no more

Sister Missionaries Giving a Harvesting Blessing

Well, it seems over the past few years there is a new “blessing” that missionaries have been using to aid their work: the “Harvesting Blessing”. Never heard of it? Me neither.

“So we went over last night and gave a Harvesting Blessing. The Spirit was wonderful and we invited him to be baptized on January 12th. He accepted!” Sister Schillemat

On the one hand, this seems to be an example of sister missionaries attempting to use priesthood authority (which some people believe they have), but it’s hard to see how this is more than just a prayer (versus a blessing) and something that is more than just a gimmick to get converts.

Finally, it seems these blessings are on their way out as leaders from Salt Lake are shutting down the idea of Harvesting Blessings. Elder Wood, of the same California Riverside mission as Sister Schillemat above and the same missionary who made a man cry on the street with a Harvesting Blessing in March 2013, reported on October 20, 2014 the following:

Wednesday Elder Evans from the 70 came to do a Mission Conference. He is Mr. Missionary ha. He is the executive director of the Missionary Department. I think he is my favorite 70 I have met on my mission. I think I have met like 5. He was super real, very personable, and got stuff done! He changed quite a bit in the mission too. No more OYM’s. That is where we are accountable to talking to at least 10 people per day per person in a companionship beside lessons, tracting, ect. No we just say whether we talked to everyone we passed by in the week. Also he got rid of the harvest blessing which I think was good.

http://www.nearingkolob.com/whats-harvesting-blessing/

[Darren]

Procrastinators

Over the years, our societal culture has embraced delayed adult development. To me, it indicates a certain lack of faith. Could it be that many parents fail to teach their kids to step out in faith?

Is being a sister missionary a way our culture has found to extend adolescence for young women?

Our daughter Whitney has always been wiser than her years and taught us repeatedly about stepping out in faith. She excelled at debate and won many awards in high school. She was going to be a senator, and she would have excelled at that, too. Then suddenly, she stopped. I was stunned. She explained, “Dad, it makes me hard.” Seeing that that was an unwise development, she no longer felt good about it, and she decided to employ her time elsewhere. She had talked with her Maker about it and chose to step out in faith in a new direction.

Clinical psychologist Meg Jay teaches us about what she calls the benign neglect of adult development: “So what do you think happens when you pat a twenty-something on the head and you say, ‘You have ten extra years to start your life’? Nothing happens. You have robbed that person of his urgency and ambition, and absolutely nothing happens.” She continues:

So when we think about child development, we all know that the first five years are a critical period for language and attachment in the brain. It’s a time when your ordinary, day-to-day life has an inordinate impact on who you will become. But what we hear less about is that there’s such a thing as adult development, and our 20s are that critical period of adult development. But this isn’t what twenty-somethings are hearing. Newspapers talk about the changing timetable of adulthood. Researchers call the 20s an extended adolescence. Journalists coin silly nicknames for twenty-somethings like “twixters” and “kidults.” It’s true. As a culture, we have trivialized what is actually the defining decade of adulthood.

It’s a bold message. Here’s why she’s bold:

And then every day, smart, interesting twenty-somethings like you or like your sons and daughters come into my office and say things like this: “I know my boyfriend’s no good for me, but this relationship doesn’t count. I’m just killing time.” Or they say, “Everybody says as long as I get started on a career by the time I’m 30, I’ll be fine.”

But then it starts to sound like this: “My 20s are almost over, and I have nothing to show for myself. I had a better résumé the day after I graduated from college.”

And then it starts to sound like this: “Dating in my 20s was like musical chairs. Everybody was running around and having fun, but then sometime around 30, it was like the music turned off and everybody started sitting down. I didn’t want to be the only one left standing up, so sometimes I think I married my husband because he was the closest chair to me at 30.”

I’m glad our kids decided to skip the kidult decade. Instead, they decided to pass GO, collect $200, and become adults. They stepped out in faith in choosing a career. In choosing to date as well as to hang out. In choosing a spouse. In choosing to start having kids. In choosing to stop having kids. In choosing to stay married even when times get tough. Our kids are ready for all of these decisions. They were ready for these decisions before they turned 20.

http://mormonpanorama.com/category/personal-challenges/

[Darren]

The Doctrinal Importance of Marriage and Children
Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

In the Church, we stress the significance of marriage, children, and the family because we know the doctrine. And we, as leaders of the Church, know that the adversary incessantly aims attacks at the family. In the past 50 years the birth rate has dropped in nearly every nation of the world. Marriages are being postponed until later in life, and families are getting smaller, even in the Church.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ ... n?lang=eng

[gkearney]

Darren;

Many years ago I was in a boarding school which had a student body makeup mostly of Jewish boys. A few of those students were from very orthodox families which still practiced the idea of arranged marriages. I can well remember that this made a very big impression on those of us who did not come from that tradition, I was about 11-12 at the time.

One day in religion class the topic cam up as one of the boys mentioned that his family and another had selected a girl of about his age for him. The rest of us respond with what would be expected from boys of that age upon learning this news. The Rabbi let us go on for a spell before interjecting this though which has stayed with me all these years:

"In a romantic marriage you go into it believing that it will meet all your needs and be everything to you, but no marriage can be everything. In an arrange marriage you go into it expecting nothing, but no marriage is so bad that it givens you nothing."

I sometimes wonder if the good Rabbi did not have a point in that remark made to us boys so long ago. Perhaps there is something to be said after all for arranged marriages. It is, when you think of it how much of the world worked for most of history and even today it remains wide spread practice with in some ethic communities. While the Latter-day Saints have never, as far as I know, practiced arranged marriages it is something to consider. Do young people of marriageable age know themselves let alone another well enough to make this kind of decision on their own without the input of those who know them best? Are we leaving to the vagaries of chance something far too important to do so?

I am still in touch with my classmates from those years through the schools very active alumni group. While some of those marriages failed, as some number always will, by and large this group of boys have fared better at staying married than have those who followed the more conventional path. Just some thoughts along the way.

[Darren]

Darren;

Many years ago I was in a boarding school which had a student body makeup mostly of Jewish boys. A few of those students were from very orthodox families which still practiced the idea of arranged marriages. I can well remember that this made a very big impression on those of us who did not come from that tradition, I was about 11-12 at the time.

One day in religion class the topic cam up as one of the boys mentioned that his family and another had selected a girl of about his age for him. The rest of us respond with what would be expected from boys of that age upon learning this news. The Rabbi let us go on for a spell before interjecting this though which has stayed with me all these years:

"In a romantic marriage you go into it believing that it will meet all your needs and be everything to you, but no marriage can be everything. In an arrange marriage you go into it expecting nothing, but no marriage is so bad that it givens you nothing."

I sometimes wonder if the good Rabbi did not have a point in that remark made to us boys so long ago. Perhaps there is something to be said after all for arranged marriages. It is, when you think of it how much of the world work for most of history and even today it remains wide spread practice with in some ethic communities. While the Latter-day Saints have never, as far as I know, practiced arranged marriages it is something to consider. Do young people of marriageable age know themselves let alone another well enough to make this kind of decision on their own without the input of those who know them best? Are we leaving to the vagaries of chance something far too important to do so?

I am still in touch with my classmates from those years through the schools very active alumni group. While some of those marriages failed, as some number always will, by and large this group of boys have fared better at staying married than have those who followed the more conventional path. Just some thoughts along the way.

wonderful story

My marriage was arranged by the Spirit.
I had been home from my mission for a year, and I could not figure out why I had not found a girl to marry. I was attending the University of Utah and UofU Institute, attending and participating in just about every social occasion, and I approached just about every girl that I could find that seemed available for dating and social opportunities. A parade of dates and no serious takers. And I was not all that bad, so I thought.

Feeling in the dumps about dating, I was sitting home on a Friday night and my friend came over to get me to go to a singles dance, the Granger Stake (Greater Salt Lake Valley), Utah was sponsoring the dance, and there must have been nearly 200 young adult singles at that dance. Not feeling terribly motivated at that dance, I was just standing and observing others dancing when ...

I had an experience that the Spirit spoke to me, I was directed to immediately turn around and ask somebody to dance. So turning around and asking a girl I had never seen before, I asked her to dance.

Throughout that and the next several dances I felt the promptings continue. She was just a girl, that at that moment could have been any average girl, but that spiritual prompting persisted there telling me something more, that started from the moment before I actually met or had seen her.

A few minutes in the foyer getting to know a little more and a phone number exchange, and 7 days later we were engaged to be married.

Been married nearly 30 years now, based on a prompting from the Spirit.

Perhaps arranged marriages are not so bad, if they are done by the workings of the Holy Ghost. And who better to help that to happen than those family and friends closest to you.

Ancient Nordic Culture had folk dances to bring young men and young women together, in the lively and colorful settings that attended those dances. And as a young apprentice of one of the Craft Gilds, a young man would be introduced to the young ladies from other families of that community. Marriage happened while the apprentice was young, coming into his Craft, as the work life started early for those apprentices of those many gilds, including the farming guilds from which we get the township and county culture that set up America.

Getting married later in life, or just "hooking up," is the Bachelor Culture of the Greeks, that we have adopted as we have come into the same culture that the Greeks were working with, that of the developing State's Culture of Babel.

God Bless,
Darren

[gkearney]

So I do wonder sometimes if a much more formal system of arranging marriages might be useful in some settings. Now I'm not suggesting we arrange marriages at very young ages, although my classmates who had such arrangement seem to have fared alright in that.

Even with your experience in mind it takes someone ready to "hear" the sprit. That is hot always the case and perhaps a much more direct and "hands on" approach needs to at the very least be considered.

[Darren]

In the early 80s I recall a single adults fireside I went to, held at the Salt Lake Community College Institute in Taylorsville, UT. The speaker addressed hundreds of single adults there, and I don't remember who it was, he said, "I could take this group and just start pairing you up and marrying you right now, sending you out together into the world, and those marriages would work better than as you will do all by yourselves. That is because of the Gospel background you all have. You do not need to fall in (romantic) love first, for the Gospel to work in perfecting your marriage."

I also understand that when polygamy existed in the Church, many of the men and first wives reported that the additional wives were added by revelation, and by a calling coming from a leader over that brother and family, not as a result of some wet-dream of some elder or high priest. These plural marriages were arranged by the Holy Ghost.

When Odin gave to the Nordic lost tribes of Israel his Law, the men were also told that besides focusing their minds on him by oath (Law meaning "Lo"-ing/Looking), they also had to take an oath to take care of (Love as "Lo"ve also comes from lo, which means your mind's focus) the daughters of God. This Law that brought the Nordic race together IN-Odin's-LAW (where we get the term in-laws) was called "Odin's Law" from that day forward, said in the Anglo/Saxon "Wed-Law" or Wedlock (just like "Wednesday" is Odin's day, Wedlock is Odin's Law). The young men must, quoting Jesus Christ, "bring your women to my Temple and there both give me your eye, as I have given my eye to my Father, then I will show you how to live together and give life together in a state purer than you knew when you were little children, for then you will BE Wed; and that is my name. Then you will live together in my Law: Wed-lock. Then you will have a father-in-law, mother-in-law etc." (from the book, Story of Our Law for Little Children)


This likeness of Odin is found in the Hegge Stave Church, Norway dating back to the 1100s
Odin's missing eye, pictured above, is symbolic of Him giving his mind's eye, his focus, to be the example of Virtue unto us. EQM.

God Bless,
Darren

[Darren]

What does "the Role of Women," when it collides with "the opportunities available to women," have to do with each other? Traditional Culture has a purpose in helping women keep the collective women's minds eye on the first and not on the later. Or shall we have our New Mormon Culture wherein women's minds eye (women's energy) gets distracted by the opportunities available to women, at the expense of the Role of Women?

Women, Priesthood Authority, and the Holy Ghost
When a nineteen year old female missionary (or any other woman with a calling) seeks divine authority, she doesn’t expect sanctification to come through the presiding priesthood holder. Instead, she turns to God and asks for the blessing of inspiration through the Holy Ghost. This is no small point. When a person of either gender is moved upon by the Holy Ghost, their words are as the words of God. This, then, is the authority of Heaven.

For months I have had Elder Oaks’ question rolling through my soul. His answer that women somehow borrow priesthood authority is woefully insufficient, not only because it is a re-invention of doctrine, but because it increases, rather than decreases, a woman’s dependence on man for authority. But the idea that the gift of the Holy Ghost grants that authority to woman seems not only logical and canonical, it feels lovely to me. After all, the gift of the Holy Ghost is individually received and exercised; it is a gift that is dependent on one’s own desire, faith, and need, and independent of someone else’s authority. It is the one great equalizing force given to us all through the Restoration.

The priesthood was restored to the earth so that ordinances like baptisms, confirmations, sealings, and the sacrament could be performed with divine authority. That is what the world lacked. The world did not lack for men who ruled over women. I don’t understand how the ability to baptize or seal in the temple makes a man a better ruler any more than I understand how the ability to conceive a child makes a woman more spiritual. What I do understand clearly is that, in the exercise of our callings, all of us, regardless of gender, need the influence of the Holy Ghost to align our actions with the desires of our Heavenly Parents.

“We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?”

Elder Oaks, I do not have the priesthood, but I have the gift of the Holy Ghost, the very same gift of the Holy Ghost that you have. And that gift has authorized my voice over and over in the exercise of my service to God and man. I have felt the Holy Spirit fill my mind, heart, and soul with ideas and inspiration that I know came from a divine source. Your priesthood may have drawn down this magnificent gift from Heaven, but I do not feel your priesthood as the source that guides me, that authorizes me, in the performance of my callings.

The priesthood does not offer what the Holy Ghost offers. The priesthood authorizes a power to perform ordinances that will be recognized in Heaven, but it does not inspire, teach, or bear witness to the human soul. I understand that the church was organized under priesthood authority, but it was also organized under men. Until recently, we used the terms “priesthood” and “LDS men” interchangeably, so I wonder if our original construct was based, to a significant degree, on the 19th century societal norm of male rule. The realities are, men are capable of governing righteously without priesthood, and priesthood is no guarantee of righteous governing; in fact, it comes with a warning label. Any authority a priesthood holder claims in the exercise of his calling is moot without the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and that sanctification relies on his heart, not his office.
http://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2 ... oly-ghost/

[Darren]

How many years does it actually take out of a young woman's life to serve an 18 month mission? What is the actual cost in time and money? The cost is the loss of true culture as the new emphasis in her life takes her on an alternate path than that which we would call the traditional path for the young women.

A sister mission is easily a 4 to 5 year commitment, before getting back to "normal" life. A year or more preparing to go, 18 months gone, and a year or more adjusting to normal life, if that is possible, after obsessing for years about the mission experience. Then there is the "New Normal" for many young women that also includes getting a college degree and a career before ever getting married, adding many more years before her beginning a marriage and having children, thereby developing into that New Normal Culture for young women who serve missions. As a comparison, how many children could one young mother have during the 4 to 5 years that she would have to take to execute the mission experience?

A Record Low - New Marriages Down 5%
. . .
In the United States, the declines have occurred among all age groups, but are most dramatic among young adults. Today, just 20% of adults ages 18 to 29 are married, compared with 59% in 1960. Over the course of the past 50 years, the median age at first marriage has risen by about six years for both men and women.

It is not yet known whether today’s young adults are abandoning marriage or merely delaying it.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/ ... ecord-low/

New research shows one way that parents are contributing to the delay of marriage ...

Brian Willoughby, a professor at Brigham Young University in the School of Family Life and lead author of the study said that at BYU he finds about a third of the women in his classes say their parents have not only urged them to delay marriage, but also given them incentives to do so, offering them cars and trips if they can stay single through graduation.

“Initially we thought that this might be dads wanting their daughters to delay marriage,” Willoughby said. “Moms and dads trended together – gender wasn’t a factor.”

"A lot of it is coming back to the parents," said Willoughby. "They have a strong influence."

"There is a general notion that there's decreasing interest in marriage, particularly among those who are younger," Willoughby told the Deseret News. "And how people are thinking about it is changing. ... But the continued desire to get married hasn't changed much."

Willoughby and his colleagues got interested in the topic because of anecdotes they were hearing in the classroom — tales of young adults being pressured by their parents to wait a while before embarking on marriage.

Not only did parents want their children to wait longer to get married, but they placed lower emphasis on marriage as a life goal.

They gathered information from 536 college students and 446 of their mothers and 360 of their fathers. Their findings were consistent across gender, with both moms and dads wanting their children to put off marriage a bit longer.

http://news.byu.edu/archive12-nov-marriage.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Goodman goes on to say that many women are also postponing marriage (often on the recommendation of their parents) until they have achieved other goals first. This trend is frustrating for those men who are anxiously trying to get engaged.

... by marrying young, Mormons generally avoid the extended adolescence that’s become so common in contemporary culture because they can’t afford to indulge in it the way single people can. It doesn’t mean they automatically mature, but they force themselves to take on responsibilities that help them mature much faster than they might otherwise.

I worry about my own daughters sacrificing their educations and economic self-sufficiency on the altar of early marriage. And people do get a skewed view of marriage and what it’s all about when we make them paranoid about putting it off “too long.” Temple marriage is seen as the end game rather than the beginning. (Not to mention the light at the end of the long, chaste tunnel. … I don’t recommend examining that metaphor too closely.) ... (A mission teaches lots of good life skills, including people skills, but it isn’t practice for marriage.)
http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/04/18/d ... too-young/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The median age for a first marriage in the United States has climbed to 25.8 for women and 27.4 for men. (Of course, people live longer nowadays, too.) In Utah, the median age for first-time brides has jumped from 20 in 1970 to 22 in 2008 (the latest available data) and from 22 to 24 for first-time grooms.

In one informal survey at the U.'s LDS institute, many young men said 30 was the best age at which to marry.

So what's slowing down Mormons?

The picture is complicated, especially in individual cases, social scientists and LDS teachers say, but a clear trend is evident: Today's young Latter-day Saints are not nearly as confident in the future, in their economic well-being or in their choices as their parents were.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/ ... n.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Making the Marriage Decision

How faith helped these young adults overcome fear and make the choice to marry.

For many young adults, making the marriage decision is straightforward and simple. For others, it’s not so easy. As children of what has been called the “divorce revolution,” today’s young adults have seen the consequences of failed marriages. Current social trends toward delaying and even avoiding marriage further complicate the matter. Some young adults become overly concerned with finding the right person, waiting for the perfect timing, or feeling fully prepared to commit for eternity. In fact, a recent study of Latter-day Saints in the United States showed that one-third of young adults ages 21 to 25 have some concerns or reservations about their readiness for marriage.

Despite these challenges, Church leaders have affirmed the command to marry and have assured young adults that eternal marriage is not only possible but also desirable.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/04/makin ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.livescience.com/27988-marria ... class.html 18 March 2013
A new report by marriage researchers at Brigham Young University finds
• young adults are increasingly delaying marriage
• both men and women feel the need for economic independence before marriage
• growing numbers ... are postponing marriage to their late twenties or thirties, or foregoing marriage altogether

http://jezebel.com/5957103/lowered-age- ... n-missions
Lowered Age Requirement Allows Mormon Girls To Dump Boyfriends
Before the change, the age requirement for women was 21, by which time Mormon women were often married or "on to other things," as a result, missions were primarily the Plan B for women who hadn't locked down a husband yet. Mormon women are now able to put marriage on the back burner.

10 Awesome Perks Of Getting Married Really Young

1. We grew up together.
2. There's less baggage.
3. It's relatively easy to combine lives.
4. We learned the hard lessons sooner rather than later.
5. We didn't waste money (because we didn't have any.)
6. We had very low expectations.
7. We've shared every milestone and achievement.
8. Crazy, wild memories? We've got 'em.
9. We're happier, apparently.
10. We've got nothin' but time.
... my young marriage (gave) me much more time with the one person who's stuck by my side through every stage and evolution -- and loved me through them all. The one person who has been there for every milestone and moment, and who knows every past version of myself. At the end of it all, time is what matters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 34400.html

[bobhenstra]

My grand daughter just returned from her Milan Italy Mission. I spoke to her in Spanish (Tu Form) and she understood every word. She doesn't speak Spanish, but discovered she understands a lot! She also learned an African language and taught the gospel in that language.

I'm trying to talk her into majoring in Romance languages, with a minor in African languages, but she'll make her own decisions--- She was a Sterling Scholar her Senor year in HS. She'll find her eternal partner, if not, I'll help!!!!

I'm very proud of my beautiful grand daughters!

Bob

[Darren]

The Growing Ranks
Young women missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints lead a new generation

In October 2012, church president Thomas Monson announced a change in policy. Men can now go at 18 instead of 19, and women at 19 instead of 21. It is a seemingly innocuous difference that has set off ripples of transformation within the church, raising the visibility of young women and changing the expectations around missions.

“What this does is it gives young women that core spiritual experience that they really need to step up and become leaders within the church,” said Brown.

Brown noted improved leadership skills will be useful for young women in administrative roles, like being president of the Relief Society, the church’s all-female branch for spiritual support and charitable work.

Besides personal growth, Brown also said young women are more effective at proselytizing than men.

The Mormon church has made other recent changes that might signal a quiet shifting of traditional gender roles.

Kell was encouraged to go on a mission by her mother, who married young and did not have the opportunity to go herself.



https://medium.com/@juliapshu/sister-mi ... 238966baa4

[Darren]

Not All Young Women Need to Serve a Mission

What concerns me is the pressure and expectation we are putting on ALL LDS young women to serve.

I have felt and seen a growing perception in the Church that ALL young women "should" or "need to " serve missions. This is simply not true. They can if they want to, but let's be clear. This is not a priesthood responsibility.

Young women need to also understand what a mission entails. This is not an extended YSA activity. This is not like going to college. A mission will be the hardest thing they will ever do. My daughter has had several companions who didn't know why they were on a mission and were wondering if they made the right decision. A mission is hard.

I don't feel a mission is for EVERY young woman. It just isn't. Staying home to work, go to school, and prepare for their future lives is a very important work as well. During this time, if they work hard on their spiritual growth by reading the scriptures, studying conference talks, being active in all their church meetings, and listening to and following the Spirit, they will be prepared for what ever the Lord has in store for them.

However, if our daughters feel they should serve, then by all means...get out on that mission!! BUT if they are not feeling it....they should not be made to feel that they are not living up to their full potential.

Brooklyn Jolley
When the announcement was made I had just turned 19. Everyone EXPECTED me to go. And after praying and praying and fasting and attending the temple, Heavenly Father made it clear he had other plans for me. It was so hard. No one understood, the pressure was insane. But 6 months later I met my now husband, and realized that was the plan all along.

http://mothers-who-know.blogspot.com/20 ... ssion.html