Catholics, Mormons & Private Parts

For context of this post, see here: https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/the-samaritans-night/

I asked my friend, who is an active, practicing Catholic, how the local congregation has handled the recent news of over 1000 Pennsylvania children being abused by over 300 priests, some of whom had been priests in our town.  She told me this, paraphrased:

"The priests knew ahead of time about the news release of the abused. They warned the church that it would be released, and invited them to let them know if there were any further individuals who had suffered abuse. They advocated prayers for the victims, and justice for the accused."

Less than two weeks after that news broke, I learned that Sam Young received a letter for a LDS disciplinary council, due to his efforts to change the LDS bishop's interviews for children and youth.  Sam has a website (www.invisiblescubit.wordpress.com) where he has published accounts of many who have dealt with the consequences of closed-door, private interviews where sexually explicit questions have been asked of minors.  Some have been molested.  Some raped.  I have only been able to stomach reading a few accounts due to the extreme graphic nature of so many of them.  He has stated that he has received over 3000 accounts to date, though he has not published nearly that many.

The news of his trial reminded me so poignantly of Denver Snuffer, who five years ago and also this weekend, was excommunicated for "apostasy".

[What was his apostate sin worthy of getting the ax? Addressing some of the uglier history of the Church in a book called Passing the Heavenly Gift. Because he wouldn't break contract for publication, he was ex'ed without even being present at his hearing.]

We'll see what happens with Sam - I'm pretty sure it'll be the same for him, and it's likely already decided, just as it was clearly done with Denver. This is not how LDS scripture indicates that these councils are supposed to work. The whole thing IS a kangaroo court, once again. They are becoming all too familiar.

I support Sam Young in his efforts. Because I support him, and the headquarters deems him an apostate, I am technically in open opposition to the LDS Church, which also, in their interpretation, means I'm apostate. That word used to be a very huge insult to me, but seeing the persecution of faithful believers dampens the blow for me, personally.  I think this issue begs all churchgoers address a larger doctrine though, which is this:

These men are not God and do not represent God. They don't speak for God, unless of course, they actually have something to relay that is actually FROM God. I don't care what church you participate in. Confessing your "sins" to a man pretending to represent God is not necessary, and to continue to regurgitate the saying that "God is at the head of this C/church" is a reckless teaching.  Be careful how you say that, church.  Scripture indicates we are to confess to God and in some instances the church body, but not a pseudo-god. If as a society of those who BELIEVE in God - Catholic, Christian, Mormon, whatever - we don't openly speak against this practice collectively, we will CONTINUE to see abuses of power and the pedophiles will have a playground of ladders to climb to claim religious notoriety and safety under their given Church umbrella. Because the church body - particularly the Mormon one - is not allowed to criticize the church head, who is so frequently equated with God Himself.  This is the case with the Catholics, and this is especially the case with the Mormons.

I saw in one Facebook group this week where a woman stated (paraphrased): "I believe President Nelson is looking younger every day!  I truly believe he is in the process of being translated."  Really?  The man who had a direct hand in excommunicating SO many believers is being translated?

God may be at the head of the church (little c), but he is certainly not at the head of any of these Churches (big Corp C). That is certainly not to say that God has no influence with them, but to rather say that we make idols of men. It's not fair to them and it's certainly not fair to us as disciples.

And yes, as a 12 year old child I too was routinely asked if I masturbated. I didn't think anything of it, because it was part of the list of questions and the process was approved, stamped, and supported by God, so I thought. I can't even say the "m" word in front of my kids.  Gross.  

Casting Out, Removing Fear, Reclaiming the Space

A few weeks ago I posted my thoughts on the recent policy change regarding children of a gay parent.  I deleted the post, due to my own free will and choice.  After doing so, I received quite a lengthy message from a sister in my ward, who felt it her responsibility to call me to repentance.  Understanding that she will likely be monitoring this page, I am using this post to dispel all fear that she sought to attach to me, whether consciously or unconsciously.  Sometimes people do that.  They think they are acting in love, when their sole intent is to cause you to live in the same fearful space that they are living in.  I cast that out.

I also cast out the spirit of condemnation, the spirit of judgment, the spirit of mockery, and the spirit of piousness.  I replace them with a spirit of acceptance, a spirit of mediation and intercession, a spirit of humility, and a spirit of love.  I cast the negative spirit entities to hell where they belong, or to a place of light where they may be taught.  As in all things, they get to choose where they dwell.  I invite the Holy Spirit of God to replace them on all counts.

This Facebook message is being shared not to drudge up memories or live in the past, but rather to declare that I stand firm with the Lord.  If the nobles at any earthly organization feel that I do not fit in with their standards, that is their choice.  I seek to be part of the Church of the Firstborn.  You should know that the Lord has warned that all earthly organizations will fall preceding His second coming.  If you suppose that one in which you belong is exempt, you don't believe the scriptures.

Posted November 9th, 2015, 10:41 pm:

I wish to apologize for my most recent post which some of you may have read. While I understood the contents of what I posted, I realize that my experience with Mormonism is much different than those who had read it, and my words interpreted as something completely separate than I intended.

I have no intention of leaving the Church, despite what was read, and despite my sheer difficultly in coming to terms with the change in the baptism policy. It is severely tempting, however I am using all the prayer and willpower to stick through looking at the faces of those who so clearly disagree with me, and approach me with intent to prove me wrong on a frequent basis. I would appreciate no one taking initiative to invite me to leave the church as I received today, as it is not only unwelcoming, but quite frankly, UNloving, un-Christlike, and pure evil. If you see stories of folks online suggesting that "Why don't you just leave if you disagree," you ought to take care with your words. We spend millions of tithe dollars to share the message we believe to be true, to bring people to Christ. Let's not be so hasty to shove people out the door because they have a different understanding of the gospel. Joseph Smith called that as being "trammeled". Google it and you'll find a great quote.

No one knows my story but me. I have been born of incredible parents who raised me faithfully in this religion. I attended 12 years of Primary, full attendance through the Youth program, 4 years of seminary, and 5 years of college religion courses at BYU, the church school. I served a mission, which was where I had a stark awakening to the church in the world of rural Pennsylvania where Mormons are less than 1/100% and a testimony meant more than social norms, vs the Church structure and operations in Utah where numbers and rules are everything, down to the way that you comb your hair or wash the mission car. No one knows my experiences, so please don't dare to tell me what you can only assume. You have no idea.

After my mission experience I married in the Washington DC temple. I quickly had children, as church leaders in UT encouraged all righteous members to do, and walked a road of faithful activity in this church ever since. In all I have had 37 years of faithful attendance, never being inactive, and magnifying my callings. For years I could even claim 100% visiting teaching. I do not say this to puff up my Molly Mormonism, but to indicate that you cannot get more "true blue, through and through" than I am.

Several years ago I experienced a vision of sorts, which caused great awakening in my life, and it caused me to seek understanding of what I saw. The current teaching of the church curriculum are limited to around 27 topics, and the topic of visions and dreams are not high on the list next to sharing the gospel or temple work. So I had to figure things out through much prayer, by digging into the scriptures, searching the words of early visionaries like Joseph Smith, Parley P Pratt, and Olivery Cowdery. My bookshelf is full of books of stories of early saints' experiences with the other side of the veil. No one wanted to talk to me about things, as they typically preferred talking about sports or the Walking Dead, so I devoured the scriptures and sought discussion with anyone who would listen, which was virtually no one, as the current understanding is that these things ought not be shared; they are too sacred.

In studying these things I learned fascinating things about our early church that I personally feel are important, yet we have changed such that very few understand or share my same beliefs. Most members do not have copies of the Joseph Smith papers or revelations and manuscripts on their shelves. Most people do not have a copy of the History of the Church, the Lectures on Faith, or other useful pieces at their fingertips. Please forgive me for forgetting that most have not dug through these things with the same reckless abandon in which I have. I should not have dared share my assessments with you, who really have no desire to even see a need for such studying. We are both free to focus on what we wish.

In closing, I ask one thing. Please do not think it appropriate of yourself to contact me to call me to repentance. If you believe that is your role, you are sorely in gross misunderstanding of the scriptures. If you cannot discuss church doctrine, history, or scripture you have no leg to stand on to insinuate that because my dogma varies from yours that it is incorrect. Do not attempt to insult my studies, my diligent prayer, or God's opening up of the mysteries of scripture to me because you can't be bothered to take time out of YOUR interests to do so. Do not insult me to call my exploration a frivolous hobby, a trite expression, or apostasy. Do not send me texts, gossip about me or my beliefs, or any other unChristlike thing. You are better than that. I believe Joseph Smith was and is a prophet, and I believe his words are unbelievably important, and unbelievably neglected. Despite my fervent belief in Joseph Smith's work, I recognize that he cannot save us, and that ONLY Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can do that, and HE is the righteous mediator between us and the Father, who is the righteous judge, and only one worthy to act in that role. It is through Christ's grace ALONE that we are saved. We are ants compared to His greatness. I am so sincerely sorry for thinking it my place to share my beliefs about the state of our church among those who have no idea of the ideas I have learned through my exploration, especially on Facebook.

With love,
~Jen

Which End of the Pride Cycle

Anyone who frequents an LDS Sunday School class will understand what is frequently labeled the "Pride Cycle".  We'll say that it is a major message of the Book of Mormon.  Peace ---> prosperity, wealth ---> pride ---> war ---> destruction ---> humility ---> peace ---> prosperity, etc.  And on and on it goes.

This article just surfaced: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3082891-155/mormon-apostle-oaks-kentucky-clerk-wrong.  Elder Oaks, 2nd in seniority in the LDS Church, says it is wrong of Kim Davis to object to stamping her name on gay marriage certificates implies that it is not appropriate for those holding civic positions to act contrary to the laws of the land. (UPDATED: 10/21/15 after reading the update from mormonnewsroom.  Elder Oaks' commentary was a bit more benign than the SL Tribune made it out to be.  They found what they wanted to make it an incendiary article.  It is still grievous, but Elder Oaks was more tactful and lulling than the Trib made him out to be.)

"Believers should ... acknowledge the validity of constitutional laws. Even where they have challenged laws or practices on constitutional grounds, once those laws or practices have been sustained by the highest available authority believers should acknowledge their validity and submit to them."

This essentially is saying to current members, "If you are in the position that Kim Davis is, don't expect us to have your back as a member of this organization.  We won't.  Sign the paper woman."

The moment I read this, I was reminded of a book I'd never read, but everyone seems to own, called Standing for Something, by Gordon B. Hinckley.  I pulled it from our shelves, and flipped randomly to a chapter called "Making a Cause for Morality".  Here are a few lines, which I feel are aptly applicable.

"I feel sorry for today's generation, which seems bereft of heroes.  Men and women who by virtue of their contributions and achievements seem larger than life, and who can be admired for the full breadth and depth of their moral makeup, are a vanishing breed.  

On the other hand, I am satisfied that there are millions of good people in America and in other lands.  Many married couples are faithful to each other.  Their children are being reared in sobriety, industry, and faith in God.  Given the strength of these families, I believe that the situation is far from hopeless.  I am satisfied that there is no need to stand still and let the filth and violence overwhelm us, or to run in despair.  The tide, high and menacing as it is, can be turned back if enough of the good people I have mentioned add their strength to the strength of the few who are now effectively working.  The challenge to recognize evil and oppose it is one that every moral, virtuous person must accept." (Standing for Something, p. 39) 

What an interesting contrast.  At the beginning, we have Elder Oaks, who was quite familiar with President Hinckley, making the case that we ought to follow the 12th Article of Faith and stick with the laws of the lands.  Then we have President Hinckley, saying we ought to stand for something, and rise above the tide.  (President Hinckley even quotes Pope John Paul II, which I find ironic since Pope Francis has become involved in the Kim Davis debacle.)  The question then is, do you view gay marriage as Kim Davis does – as something morally bereft, or what scripture calls the "abomination of desolation"?  (See Mark 13:14.)

What is "desolation"?  I define it as a place where no thing grows.  A land left desolate has nothing living in it.  A generation left desolate would not have children, or posterity, or "seed".  Combine the elements of massive number of abortions of unborn babies, along with the increasing popularity of alternative lifestyles, leaving both families with fewer children being born, as well as humans refusing to mate entirely, and the case can certainly be made that we may indeed be entering this period that Daniel warned of.  I don't know.  What do you think?

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judæa flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. (Mark 13:14-27 - the rest of the chapter is enlightening as well.)  

I've heard a lot of people refering to these signs.  I don't know if they apply to us today, or if it will be for some future generation.  We sure have signs that could be pointing to these.  Is it time to flee to the mountains?

President Hinckley continues:

"It all begins with our own personal virtue.  Reformation of the world begins with reformation of self.  We cannot hope to influence others in the direction of moral virtue unless we live lives of virtue.  The example of our virtuous living will carry a greater influence than will all the preaching, postulating, and theorizing in which we might indulge.  We cannot expect to lift others unless we are standing on higher ground.  Respect for self is the beginning of cultivating virtue in men and women."  (Standing for Something, p. 39)

So I'm a little confused.  Hinckley says it starts with us.  We must live virtuously.  Integrity means to not only hold to true to what you believe, but to stand for it without being divided.  To be whole.  A house divided against itself shall not stand.  It is not structurally sound otherwise.  

How can members of the LDS Church stand divided on this, as currently advised from the 2nd in seniority, via carefully crafted statement?  We support traditional marriage, but only when it's convenient?  Only when it doesn't draw attention to oneself?  Only when it protects our assets?  Only when we're not employed as the clerk of courts, required to put our signature on marriage licenses?  Only when it's really convenient?  Stand for something then?

Elder Oaks.  Seriously.  You've left me speechless.  So I'll quote Helaman.

"But they grew proud, being lifted up in their hearts, because of their exceedingly great riches; therefore they grew rich in their own eyes, and would not give heed to their words, to walk uprightly before God." (Alma 45:24)

It seems to me that this is more about retaining the wealth of the "kingdom" than standing for anything of God.  God would have us treat one another kindly, yes, and with great love, despite our sexual preferences.  Would God have us rely and fall back on the law of the land, if we knew it was opposed to His words?  Is Article of Faith 12 inspired?  Or does it require one to follow the arm of the flesh?    

Ahhh.  Now it all makes sense.  This is how we roll.  Unless we are stand for something. 

The Root of the Gay Dilemma

Late last night I read a post on a blog (I linked it so you can read it before proceeding), which brought up a potential quandry for the LDS Church, to remain with or to part with the Boy Scouts of America.  The Boy Scouts will be making a formal decision, whether or not to allow gay scout leaders in their ranks.  The potential policy change caused a lot of inner soul searching for me, and I'm still in the thick of it.

The Bible, most especially the Old Testament, teaches that men lying with men, and women with women, is an abomination.  Most of the laws and commandments in the Bible stem from a principle which fits into God's plan.  There are a lot of laws and commandments, such as not eating bacon, for example, which the Christian world at large disregard.  Even so, practicing Jews refuse to eat bacon or meat from bi-cloven hoofed animals.  For breaking this commandment, one would face the condemnation required, should they be ascribers to the Mosaic Law.  

[Sidenote: I watched this video from Todd White a few nights ago which really blessed my understanding of Condemnation vs. Righteousness in relation to Christ and the Mosaic Law.  Please watch if you get a chance.  It's worth the time.] 

Previously I've written that I think there are other sins to worry about, and we are just as potentially guilty of many of them.  I wonder if our condemnation is just as dire as those who live a homosexual lifestyle.  As I pondered the heart of the sin, the question came, "Does God approve of homosexual relations?  If so, why the commandment not to?  If not, why?"  The answer I had was because it thwarts the plan of bringing souls into mortality.  If one is living a lifestyle which prohibits child birthing, they are limiting opportunities for children to come to the earth.  

If that wasting of such an opportunity is an abomination, it makes additional sense why abortion is such a horrid sin (beyond the murder-in-the-womb element), but it also raises the question for me, in what other instances might our actions thwart God's plan by prohibiting souls to come to earth?  

Birth control pills?  Vasectomies?  Tubes tied?  Condoms?  Are these thwarting God's plan?  No, really.  

Are those who use these things, or have partaken of these surgeries, likewise thwarting God's plan?  

Is the condemnation the same?  Can we say it does not fall under the same heading as gay relations which cease the reproduction of offspring?

  

I know I for one, tend to believe that I don't conceive of more children because I don't feel capable of mentally handling more.  At the moment it would do me in to add to my "collection". :) I am just as guilty as preventing further life to be born as one who chooses a homosexual life, am I not?  Is there justification for me, because society, and Christians in general, find "family planning" or birth control acceptable?  So why does it cause me such concern if gays are permitted into the Boy Scouts?  Is it a skewed view I have, because society passes judgment (or lack thereof)?

Why is homosexuality the measuring stick of a civilization's righteousness or wickedness?  In the Book of Mormon, sexual sin was not so descriptive to delineate between homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, etc., but rather it was labeled "lasciviousness".  Is our acceptance of lasciviousness in general a litmus test?  Does our legalization of gay marriage, and the government's possessive nature of the institution of marriage mean we are more tolerant of not only private sins, but also public ones?  Have we permitted the governmentalization of religion and spirituality?  In essence, have we become a theocracy, where the religion of the day is atheism?   

As a whole, I feel like society's judgments are often off, and traditionally misguided.  This might be another case where we justify our sin while pointing out the faulty character traits or sins of another.  Does God approve of homosexuality?  I don't believe so.  Are there male souls born into female bodies?  I believe it certainly is possible, as wow, what a test that would be for the male soul and those who are around him/her.  Are there humans walking around with spirits of the opposite sex attached to their souls, causing gender confusion?  I believe so in many counts.  (Dr. Melvin Fish talks about this in his books, worth considering.)  I also believe it is a sin and a condemnation that we do nothing to administer clearing of those spirit attachments, and consider that kind of healing to be witchcraft or priestcraft.  What do we have to say for ourselves, that the real gifts of healing from same-sex attraction are not found in our ranks?  As "key-holders", are we going to be held accountable for our deficiency in administering these gifts?

The other day I posted a post regarding a Church survey I had participated in.  My stance was to share that I believe we ought to make Church a more Jesus-focused place, and less about pointing to sin.  After reading Anonymous Bishop's post about the gays, I will say that my heart was blown to pieces, but now I wonder if I've gained some bandaging.  All I can do is thank Jesus for offering me some mild confidence in my answers.  I believe my turmoil with the Boy Scouts, and also the Church, is more over their fiscal choices on belt loops and certifications, rather than their flip-flopping over how to handle homosexuality.  There are less expensive ways to instill positive values in boys.  Look at what we do (or did) for the Young Women.

(Photo source, thanks Vintage Kids Stuff!)

Can we not duplicate that for the boys, gender appropriate?  I remember as a young girl, I couldn't wait to get to Girl's Camp to be like my big sisters.  And the most they earned, after 4 years of camp, was a neckerchief with one patch, and two patches if they completed another 2 years and became a "Summiteer".  (Although truth be told, there was more variety in patches throughout the history of the program.)  We ought to sincerely consider our participation in extravagances where such funds really could be providing for those who are "roughing it" on a more permanent basis. 

Thank you, Jesus, for providing me a measure of clarity.  I hope I'm listening to the right Spirit in this view.  It feels much better, and much more loving, patient, and kind than the one which ostracizes.  As for whether or not my son will attend his first scout camp this next month, the jury's still out.   

What do you think, Jesus?

If you told me a year ago that the Church does opinion polls to gather the insights of its members, I'd have probably been skeptical.  I read about it in various blogs, but just didn't pay much attention.  However in the last 11 months, I've received 6 invitations to complete an opinion poll for the Church.  I have completed every one I've been asked to complete.  The topics have ranged from gay marriage to youth issues (I'm not supposed to discuss them with other members, like you people reading this) to other procedural things which I don't really recall.  At first I felt obliged to provide the info, but I noticed afterwards that I indeed felt quite slimy.  Why?

Well probably because I felt like I'm contributing to a Wizard of Oz scenario.  We believe in modern prophets, modern revelation.  If we believe in these, then why would there ever be a need to opinion poll, ANYONE?

When I presented the fact that I've received 6 invites in less than a year to my husband, he said, "You know it costs a lot of money to have polls done, right?  Like Scott Rasmussen and Zogby are making bocu bucks.  Like millions...  You've gotta pay someone to come up with the questions, to send out the letters, to gather and collect the data... yeah, it's not cheap.  They're probably having focus groups and such.  At the end of the day who cares?  If you're trying to get the pulse of the Church members... why do you need to poll them?  Did King Benjamin have focus groups and pollsters going around?"

I don't know what cost this comes to the Church at.  Probably much less, I would think, seeing that it's an in-house operation.  And to be honest, this post isn't about nit-picking at money.  But it is about bringing to light the fact that this is going on, and if you know me, you know I'm anything but a liar.  And I just got my 6th survey request.

I'm not supposed to say what the topic for this one was about, but I will say that I let them know I don't see the need for opinion polling if we are a church built upon living revelation.  Are we not?  If God is directing the Church, which "god" are we serving by asking mortals what they think about every jot and tittle, and then shifting policy, procedure, or in this case, resources to match the trending beliefs?  Shouldn't we be more concerned about asking Jesus what He thinks?    

My Last Temple Recommend Interview

I had a pleasant visit today with a member of my bishopric.  He is a really good man, and I think he did a beautiful job magnifying his calling as a counselor.  I don't know him very well, but my limited interactions speak well of him.

About three weeks ago, he alerted me that I would be released from my calling at the start of the new year (today, hallelujah), and then extended a calling as an assistant ward organist.  He also asked if we could renew my temple recommend, which was set to expire at the end of December.  We set up an appointment for the next week.

I warned him as we got into the interview that it might not be his average interview.  He was already filling out my new recommend and I figured fair warning would be kind.  I said I have a few concerns.  Had he not called me in for the interview, I would have just let it lapse, knowing that it would very likely not be renewed.

So the questions began.

Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?  Yes, absolutely.     

Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?  Yes, absolutely.

Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? Yes, (nod).   

Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Here we go. As of October, this has become a fully loaded question. I'm concerned that my response won't be what you are expecting here. May we discuss this?

First, the word "sustain". I have always believed sustain means to support. I eat food to support my body in having energy, stamina, and life. I can't think of many other places where we use the word sustain. I'm actually quite a bit perplexed here, because Elder Nelson, in the last General Conference, as a "living oracle" effectively shape-shifted how the church interprets that word, and I cannot agree to it if that is what the word means. In fact, I quite object to it. He said,

"Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us."

Something about this talk just felt all wrong.  It caused an argument between my mom and I before Elder Nelson had even finished speaking.  The internet was ablaze with those who objected to these words.  In essence, and put briefly, I do not feel comfortable making such an oath.  And why should I have to?  In sincere honesty, it feels, looks, and smells Satanic.

Sustaining the prophet or leaders is not an ordinance.  It is not something of eternal significance, and if you believe it is, you are guilty of idolatry.  Idolatry is when we insert someone or something between ourselves and God.  I can follow a prophet's counsel insofar as he speaks the word of God.  Does that mean I must sustain him?

Are there any accounts in the scriptures, the Old or New Testament, the Book of Mormon, or Pearl of Great Price, where prophets insisted that membership of the church sustain them?  The one account I can think of which remotely includes the word sustain was when Alma was teaching and at times the people offered food and supplies for the sustenance of the men preaching.  It was to sustain life.  There was no need for any "oath-like indication that [his] calling as a prophet [was] legitimate and binding upon [them]."  In fact, I would assert that Alma would have shrieked in terror at the thought of making such an oath.

It is one thing to raise the arm in agreement, as in a vote.  It is completely another beast to not mean that you are making a promise.  A "Heil Hitler".  A salute to Mao.  I won't do it.

But do I pray for these men?  Do I hope for them to lead this people righteously?  Do I hope they will learn from the City Creek debacle and not continue to build malls which people are begging on the street for dispursements?  Absolutely.  Do I go to church and attempt to magnify my callings?  Do I support the other people called and try not to complain about how they do things?  Yes.

As other questions followed, they were more of the same "sustaining" questions.  My counselor was not familiar with Elder Nelson's talk, so we agreed to reconvene two weeks later, which landed us on today.  I also had some questions regarding why we do not honor the Word of Wisdom as it is written.  He requested I email him a copy of a document which put my previous beliefs in question, and I forwarded him this.

I shared personal testimony about the importance of NOT making oaths to humans, outside of ordinances, and that they are only to be done when approved by God.  I learned the folly of it in my own life, and I take it very seriously.  He seemed to understand, and we adjourned until today.

Today, this sweet brother shared several stories and examples today of his personal testimony of the prophet.  I didn't mind this, but in truth my issue is not whether or not Thomas S. Monson is a prophet or not.  He could be, and in all honesty it does not matter to me.  Because I don't worship him.  It is God who saves, and it will never, ever be a mortal man.  To indicate that I recognize his counsel as "binding" upon me means that somehow I know the future, and can predict that whatever he says, I will follow.  I won't do it, because I can't predict the future.  If we fall back to sustaining, pre-October 2014, then we have another discussion at hand.  But we don't.  And we know – at least I do – that this new phraseology will be regurgitated over and over again in conferences to come.

If memory serves correctly, I went through the temple for the first time on Saturday, August 27, 2000.  I remember coming home and crying because I felt suffocated in the garments, but I quickly adjusted, thank heaven.  Since then, I have been to the temple countless times, both on my own and with family.  In the last 14 years I can guarantee that I have been to the temple more than all of them.  That's not to say I'm holier than anyone; I just had a drive to go.  And for the first time in 13.5 years, I do not possess a current temple recommend.

Not because I don't have a testimony of God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, or of the Holy Ghost.

Not because I don't have a testimony of the restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Not because I don't keep the law of chastity.

Not because I don't keep my covenants.

Not because I don't go to church every week.

Not because I have a Word of Wisdom problem (although I do struggle with eating too much meat and sugar, and have lots of questions about why we don't use wine in our holy sacraments.)

Not because I have a problem with any egregious sins.

Not because I struggle to wear the garment.  I have no problem with it.

Not because I beat or abuse my spouse or children, although surely there is a better way to raise them properly.

I do not have a current recommend to attend the temple because I refuse to raise my arm to make an oath-like indication that I recognize the "prophet's" calling to be legitimate and binding upon me.

Some may say I'm being nit-picky.  I'm not.  In fact, I take this very, very seriously.  Probably more seriously than many.

As I left and came home, I felt some sadness around this.  Not because I am attached to the card itself, or because I feel deprived of blessings.  I attended and served enough in the temple to get a good idea of what it's all about.  I have done quite a bit of work for my ancestors, as well as my husband's ancestors.  I do not regret being honest in that interview, and I was completely honest.  We could have talked for hours, but I didn't care to keep him that long.  After all, it was fast Sunday, and I was feeling nauseous and headachy as things went on.

The sadness I felt is the darkness and blindness of the minds, which Joseph Smith warned us about.  We do, quite sincerely, worship a prophet.  Or I should say, a president of an earthly organization which will not endure through the millenium because it will have been done away with.  And we likewise worship the other men in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Today in church the bishop read a letter from one of the missionaries serving from our ward.  This elder wrote that he was in a meeting where Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was entering, and how everyone in the room stood when he entered.  He didn't know who was entering at first, and then imagine his surprise when it was Elder Holland who entered the room!  He was ecstatic!  It was better than "Justin Bieber"!  He even got to shake his hand!  And he joked that he was never going to wash his hand again.

The congregation laughed, and it was all fun and silly, but the severity of this joke set in and it took all I had not to look from the organ where I was sitting, down to my husband in the congregation.  It would have done me in.  We hero worship.  Elder Holland and the apostles could quickly squelch this hero worship by insisting it stop.  Immediately!  A quick scolding over the pulpit would put an end to it in a heartbeat  But we promote it.  The congregation is never scolded.

Apostles are not royalty.  They are not the Savior.  We ought not need to stand to show them respect.

It was not always this way.  When Joseph was alive, he would have struck down such an idea that one would be prohibited from entering the Holy of Holies for this reason.

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy. (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 5, p. 237.)

But what does it matter what Joseph thinks.  As my leader rightly reflected, "A living prophet is better than a dead prophet."  So what do the scriptures matter at all?

In 2015, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they don't.  

Bald Eagles in Utah

The symbol of freedom, bald eagle, are dying in hoardes in Utah.  No one knows why.  Reported yesterday, Sunday, 12/22/2013.

The day before was 12/21/2013, the Winter Solstice, darkest day of the year for the northern hemisphere.

The day before was the eve of the Winter Solstice.  Gay marriage was deemed constitutional in Utah.  

A few days before polygamy was ruled as un-prosecutable in Utah.  

Utah is the home of the headquarters of the LDS Church.  

Utah is also the first state in the nation to allow polygamy and homosexual unions.  

The irony is the judge making the decision was appointed by a Democrat and approved by a Republican.  

Bald eagles are dying in hoardes in Utah.  No one knows why. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/22/something-mysterious-is-killing-bald-eagles-all-over-utah/

In Response to the 1276 Beggars

A friend posted this article on their facebook page, and asked for thoughts of others:

"Business of Begging"

I commented, and read the other comments, mostly saying to avoid and don't pay the beggars, but a few that said contrary to that.  Then someone shared this:

"This is from my buddy who is or was homeless good perspective: Don't give the people flying signs money, most of them are using the money for drugs. Give them food, clothing, single sheet flannel blankets, that's it. I would only give them money if they look like they are taking care of themselves, and you get the feeling that they look like they will put it to good use. I will see the same person in the same spot for 6 months. They aren't going anywhere. By that time, they aren't doing anything good with the money. Don't get me wrong, I am sure there is an exception.
There are much better ways to help, although they are not nearly as easy as handing out money. Donate clothing, hygeine packs (ziplock bag with hotel soap, shampoo, and whatever is affordable...some of these shelters/charities have requirements). The biggest help is in the form of pushing for completely different policy. The homeless shelter in salt lake cut its housing in half about 6 months ago, so there are going to be hundreds sleeping on the street this winter. To be honest, I think salt lake city is trying/hoping that many of these people will leave this winter...and it will work to some degree.
The police hand out thousands, no joke, of tickets to the homeless for blocking a thorough fair, because a homeless person is sitting on the curb. They handed out 1276 tickets last year, for the two blocks next to the homeless shelter for the homeless "criminally tresspassing". Most of them were for walking across a parking lot. I know, I got one of them.

Get community leaders (they aren't leaders, they are business folks with agendas) to consider and take different approaches to handling the homeless. Over half of the homeless have two showers, and two washers and driers, provided by the Catholic Church (side note: the LDS church donates blankets, but has no shelter for the poor. It's only interesting, when the LDS consider this the home base for their ideology).
Let them know of the bishops warehouse on 8th south and 7th west. They allow people to do menial work in exchange for food and clothing. Great program.

The Mission, 5th south and 4th west, provides free hot meals and clothing.

There is a health clinic, the "4th street clinic", on 4th south and 4th west that provides almost all non-emergency medical help."

I don't agree with not giving them money.  Even if they're drug addicts, they use drugs to fill a need.  It's up to you to discern what you can or can't give.  But DO SOMETHING!!!!!

No shelter???

1276 tickets???

My response on the thread:

"Hebrews 13:2: 2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." I will turn around in traffic to give to a beggar, provided I don't see them texting on their iphone. Either way, I try to keep a little food in my car to offer, so if I don't have money I can at least offer food. "Are we not all beggars?" King B."

Heaven help us!!!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  This is insanity.  PUT THEM UP FOR FREE IN THE MALL!!!  

SCANDALOUS!!!

A few years ago I attended my first "Cutman" family reunion.  My mom was the only daughter of Oscar and Mary, and for some reason, we never attended those family reunions.  Perhaps because they were always held the same day as my dad's reunions were, and for some reason that held more weight.  Being a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, my grandma always gave me the impression that her family (and I assumed her husband's as well) didn't like our entire family, because we were Mormon.  Whether or not that's true, I really, really don't know.  She spent much of her (and my) life thinking that people just didn't like her.  I don't fully  understand all or even part of the history behind that.  But regardless, I only ever really knew (even vaguely) about four relatives on my mom's side of the family.

(photo source)

 Anyways, back to the reunion.  My sister and I were listening to one of the folks tell a story that was pretty "scandalous".  (SHRIEK!)  Oh my!  (Fainting.)  The scandal.  I honestly can't remember a single detail of it.  Looking back, though, one thing seems clear.  My ancestors were most definitely watching.

(photo source)

I truly feel our ancestors are mindful of us.  In the book Life Everlasting, Duane Crowther shares countless accounts of people with life-after-death experiences, where they testify that loved ones do in fact, often watch over their mortal descendants.  (Sometimes they have other duties as well, besides this.)  There are several accounts where it is described that some spirits cannot progress, without certain work being done by their mortal descendants.  And they can't progress nearly as fast without a body.  This is one reason it's important for us to use our time wisely here, for the most effecient growth possible.

As I've researched one line of my grandmother's family, I've come to what appears to be a block.  In 1867, one of my grandfathers was born to what appears to be a single mother and non-present father.  (The census lists her as single, but she had two children between 1867 and 1880, who both appeared on the census with their father's last name.)  My grandmother wasn't able to find info past this couple, and I have to wonder why, when some of her research was quite extensive.  Sure, there are physical barriers to record-keeping.  Few documents remain, and for those that do, they are very minimal with details.  But I have to wonder:  Do my ancestors, who are quite possibly well aware of my judgmental tendencies, keeping guard over my access to their personal situations?  After all, I hastily labeled another ancestor as "scandalous", laughing them to scorn.  If it were me, would I grant my posterity access to records about my life, when they showed haughty, self-righteous tendencies?  Hail no!

I know some of this sounds like a stretch.  But many people report miraculous stories of ancestors helping them find them, beyond the veil.  If that is true, then why couldn't it hold that the opposite could occur?

So dear Kate and Jacob, I hope you'll forgive my prior judgment.  I've learned the negative effects of criticism and scoffing, and want nothing to do with it.  Forgive me, please, and let me find out which of all the multiple Jacob Shindels born in the mid-1800s is the father to George Washington Shindel and Pearl Shindel!  I'll send heavenly Mint Oreos your way.  Or whoopie pies or whatever it is you prefer.

~Jen:)
xoxo