Leaderboard

Met my husband when we were 15 years old. He moved in right across from me. Fell in love quickly after we met. When Marco and I were 17 years old we got married. But, due to being way to young, peer pressures, partying, and a lot of other issues we ended up getting divorced when we were about 21. After that I met and married another man and was married for about 34 years to him. Marco remarried too. I since divorced and so was Marco. I never forgot about him and always loved him. I actually looked for him over the years but could never find him or his family. About 5 years ago I started working on my genealogy and through searching I found his sisters on FB. I made contact with them, then Marco's mother, and then Marco. As soon as we talked on the phone we knew we would be together again. We got married at his mother's home because we wanted her to be a part of the wedding and she is bedridden. Then a year later we were sealed in the Manti Temple. It was awesome to see how we both grew in the Church and in our age. Oh... btw, I asked him to marry me this time. hehe p.s. The time on the image is wrong.

Just read that article. Blah. In the long run, women end up hurting themselves any which way you look at it. There are so many single moms where I work, and though I'm not attributing it all to the pill, I wouldn't doubt that it and the mentality it has produced in our society is a contributing factor. Personally speaking, I'm going on 24 years of marriage and loving it! Watch and learn:

My personal opinion of a capitol punishment has significantly evolved. But I believe what has modified my thinking the most is the changes in my understanding of death. I have been most influenced by the death of my parents and my wife's parents, all of whom were righteous individuals that shrived diligently to honor their covenants with G-d. In short I have come to believe that death is not at all something that should be viewed as something bad or an event of disadvantage. What is bad is the prejudice and hate that convinces someone to do another harm - regardless if it brings about death or not. Hate is bad not because of what we may do to others but because of what it does to our soul. I honestly do not believe that being responsible for someone's death is really that big of a deal. What is a big deal is hate - and it is a big deal even if we think we keep such hate secret and do not really act upon it. I believe this is a true principle taught by our savior. That we should love other - even those that hate us and do us harm. But we should not be unreasonable. There is a time to save lives and a time to end lives. Both should be done through love. Some thought about death: 1. We will all die - every one of us will taste death. We should understand this as a blessing and opportunity granted by G-d. 2. Some believe that it is better that 99 murders be set free than it is that one innocent individual should wrongly be put to death by our human laws. I do not think that such thinking helps or protects the most innocent of our society. I have come to believe that it would better if 99 innocent individuals should wrongly be put to death than one hardened murder being set free in an innocent society - I believe this even if I was one of the 99. I would gladly give my life to protect the innocent of our society. 3. Being willing to sacrifice life to benefit mankind is at the heart and core of a belief in Christ and respect of G-d.

When I joined the Church after high school, I ran into many of these very things and others. I had the advantage of not growing up in the Church with whatever expectations of history I would have. Honestly speaking, I found the idea of the stones charming. Researching these findings is good, but as others have said please stick to the truth of your testimony. These discoveries are just things and details. Who are we to put qualifications on truth? We can't say "I will accept Truth as long as the prophet has a red beard, enjoys checkers, and isn't allergic to dogs." (I know your discoveries aren't nearly so trite, but I do feel strongly it's about the same thing. "I will accept Truth as long as the history includes a 5 pilgrimages, neither 4 nor 6, and has a scripture precisely 738 pages long in Times New Roman font." And, possibly what you are looking for, "I will accept Truth as long as it is politically correct by the standards of 2015, not 1827, not 1989, and not subject to any change in politically correct standards for the next ten years." History is what it is. Are magic stones of revelation any crazier than Deity appearing to a boy?

The hottest I will normally go, out of 10 being really hot (regular restaurant hot) is a 7. I have tried some super spicy wings (Buffalo Wild Wings) and after 2 or 3 I cannot taste anything. I also prefer not to sweat while I eat, and feel my lips. At home I use Tapatillo, Chalula, Tabaso on anything with a tortilla. I am a fan of spicy, just not burn your face off.

What if I find white shirts distracting and the insistence upon them to be unnecessarily contentious?

My perception is that anatess and Maureen are talking about two different parts of the same elephant.

Nerf herders. Especially scruffy looking ones.

States: California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida. Nevada, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Iowa...oh yeah...and Hawaii Countries: Canada, South Korea, North Korea (DMZ only), Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong (it was a colony then), Macau (also a colony at the time), China (PRC & ROC), Philippines Temple (Open House): Langley, BC, Canada

tybrad, you are going to get a variety of advice here, so it's up to you to pick the best advice that fits your family. With that said, I will totally disagree with anatess' statement above. I think for the first year of baby's life that baby should indeed be made the centre of the universe. Babies are born self-centred, its necessary for survival. For that first year you make baby the boss, meaning, whatever baby wants, baby gets. For example, if baby wants hugs at 3am, baby gets hugs at 3am. If baby wants to play instead of sleep, baby plays, etc. And then after baby turns one, you spend the next year, teaching baby that mom and dad are the boss, and that's perfect timing for the "terrible twos". It worked great for my kids. Good luck and most importantly have fun with your new baby. M.

I go with getting the kid a gift. It's the kid's birthday after all.

Actually, the explanation I read is simpler than that. The Greek verb "to hear" can be used with the accusative or genitive. When used with the accusative, it means "to hear," and with the genitive it means "to hear without understanding" (I think). In Greek these verses don't conflict at all: one verse says only that they heard a voice, and the other says they did not hear a voice with understanding. Trouble erupts when you translate this into English. IIRC there are English translations that make this difference clear, but I can't seem to find them at the moment and I really need to get back to work. See also http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=731 Next question?

First I'm sorry this is happening to you. Second, your wife is questioning everything when her parents get a divorce. Divorce is detrimental even to adult children. I.e. "Mom, how can you tell me what is good or bad seeing that you married the wrong man, and were making major life mistakes into your 30's or 40's?" Hang in there, many times there type of situations take years of independent study by the individual to sort out. It is okay for her to do that. Just try and keep the marriage and family together. God will work a miracle.

Michigan? Zion doesn't come to you. You must go to Zion.

I remember my experience finding out the hat, rock, tresure hunting, etc. but I didn't throw in the towel. However I did have the thought that this all may indeed be a lie. However I kept studying and used FairLDS for some help on some questions. My testimony came out stronger afterwards, but it took a year of independant study to secure my concerns. I believe that is why the church recently put out those "Gospel topics", which is a good first step. Hang in there there are anwsers to your questions.

Classylady and I are also counting on you coming up to Nauvoo when we are there.

My sister married some guy she met through online dating (don't know what site). It did not turn out well. He quickly became verbally and emotionally abusive and she eventually divorced him. Thankfully they had no kids. My wife and I had a long distance relationship from day one, but we did get together once or twice a month over the first year at youth dances. Over the next year after she moved further way we spend much less time together, and after that was my mission. Soon after our engagment we lived very close and I practically lived at her parent's house with her except I left at night to sleep at my place. You can't rely on only what you share online to know somebody. You have to spend a fair bit of time really being together. You need to see them on a bad day without them being able to filter what you know and experience.

I would love to do more traveling if I could afford it.

Welcome to the site !!

If you know/can figure out what mission your area was in at the time, there are facebook pages for different missions as well as sites like mission.net you can check. Good luck and welcome!

Or TCOJCOLdS? I can't count the times I've been corrected for miscapitalizing that D.

Yeah, sorta makes me feel kinda simple, being from a group that just goes by AG...

Former scout master and current mb counselor here. Yes that sounds obviously wrong, and I would hope that it was said as a joke from him. That teaches the boys the opposite of what scouting is about. 3 of my 4 boys have gotten their eagle through a lot of hard work.

Ron Paul philosophy or not, it makes perfect sense.

"In the Commons debate, Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told the House: 'This is a bold step for parliament to take, but it is a considered and informed step. And for the many families affected, this is light at the end of a very dark tunnel.'" But as the old joke goes, when politicians see light at the end of the tunnel they usually borrow money to buy more tunnel. Does this make the embryos trinitarian?

In theory, I have no problem with the death penalty. In action, I do. Like JaG said, It's a mess with how we drag it out forever. That defeats any real justice. I've heard some suggest the perpetrators live in restitution towards victims and their families and I rather like that idea. It's kind of slavery, but I think it gives satisfaction more quickly than death 20 years later

Countries: Scotland England Wales France Germany Spain Gambia USA States: New York Florida Temples: Preston London Orlando I feel that everyone who grew up in a country that doesn't have high levels of poverty (against the international poverty line) should visit a country that does at some point early on in their life. I know my attitude changed considerably when I visited Gambia for the first time at the age of ~12.

As an interesting note I use to ride a bus to work with a detective in the Seattle area. I asked him about his opinion about what to do with individuals that habitually break the law - repeat offenders. His theory was: 1. First offense - use a parole method to try to rehabilitate the offender. 2. Next step - if a parole method fails to change their behavior the incarcerate then in a controlled environment to attempt to rehabilitate them. 3. Final step - If they cannot be changed in a controlled environment of rehabilitation and they continue to repeat the offense - then execute them. I was very shocked and asked if he was advocating executing someone for repeated offense of shoplifting a 25 cent item???? His answer was - do you want to end the offense or not? Do you intend to use the force of law to stop criminal offenses? If we feel that certain crimes are not worth stopping - then why bother with passing any legal effort to stop it? If someone is so addicted to an offense that they will sacrifice their own life to continue - they are a far greater danger to society than their petty crime. According to my friend the only way to end commission of a crime is to end the life of those that refuse to end criminal behavior. I have often thought on this concept and would ask the question - Does not G-d condemn from the blessings of heaven those that refuse to end criminal behaviors? If you believe in hell which by definition is "death" - how can you say you do not support the death penalty?

I'm against the DP because I believe all human life is sacred and worth living. That's the bottom line. I think we should only take away a life as an absolute last resort. Like in self defense, or in the case of a just war. When someone is already locked up and they no longer pose a threat to society, I see no justifiable reason to kill them. We are not killing them in order to protect ourselves. We have the technology and the means to keep society safe from these people without having to resort to execution. So I don't see the point. Life is sacred. You don't destroy it unless you absolutely have to. ^That above is the reason why I don't support the DP. Now, there are other things about the DP that I think further makes it horrible, but are not THE reason why I am against it. - One thing is the fact that by executing someone, you are robbing them of their chance to repent and save their soul from Hell. As long as they are still alive, there is always the hope that they will turn to Christ. - Another thing is in regards to the people who already have repented. We can learn from them. They can give us insight into the minds of people who have an urge to kill. They can do good for the world. Ted vehemently warned us about the dangers of pornography in his interviews. Jeffrey became an active Christian and served as a model for other inmates to turn to Christ. - Lastly, of course, is the issue of wrongly convicted innocent people getting executed. Even one innocent person having been convicted is one too many. But even if someone never were to repent, had absolutely nothing positive to contribute to the world, and was 100% guilty, I would still be against the DP for the sole reason that human life is sacred and we don't destroy it unless we absolutely need to.

Get rid of income tax. Make it all sales tax. :) Wasn't that like a Ron Paul philosophy or something? Hehe.

I must confess with sorrow that this attitude has me concerned about the thinking and belief of many “religious” individuals. Even among LDS, that believe in missionary work in the spirit realm to teach those that had no opportunity in this life of the redemption of Christ that somehow believe that when this life is over G-d will judge the sinner and send them to hell. The interesting twist is that they always believe that their sins will be over looked and that it is someone else going to hell. Just the basic doctrine in the parable of the talents – I believe that there are greater expectations for those to do good and forsake evil; that have a relationship with G-d than those that do not have such relationship. I would think G-d to hold those to higher account that know better than those that are ignorant of divine things. That those that covenant with G-d and still sin (regardless of how small a sin) are somehow innocent while those that are ignorant of G-d’s goodness and do not understand, are more guilty for the exact same sin? To be clear – I reject the religious notions that anyone will stand before G-d with sincere tears and remorse for their sins – that G-d would reject such because they died not understanding repentance before they died. I do not believe in such a G-d and I reject any such doctrine. This is one major reason that I accept the LDS religion – that G-d is no respecter of persons and will accept the sincere of any truly repentant person – regardless of when they realized their sins to be evil and desire to be forgiven and live righteously. I believe when we stand before G-d – that G-d will ask us to make known our all that we desire. If our desire is heaven – I believe that G-d will assist all that desire such good to live forever in heaven. But those that learn to love sin – regardless of what church they attend or how much they love G-d – that G-d will grant them their desire and let them live in eternity with the sins they love so much that they cannot let go of such sins.

The "problem" with the doctrine of the Trinity from a non-Trinitarian perspective is that it's based on neoPlatonic philosophical ideas. Plato famously talked about the "tripartate soul", which doubtless formed a basis for Trinitarian ideas. His concept of two horses, one mortal, fallible, ugly, and misbegotten of the corrupt elements of the earth, the other pure, strong, beautiful, perfect, and made of a conceptual substance introduces an absolute divide between the corruption of anything and everything on the earth and the utter perfection of the heavens, and never the twain shall meet. I believe it was to this background of thought that Joseph Smith revealed that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter", that the elements themselves are refinable, and that they are in fact eternal. In order to accept the Trinity, you really have to buy into the whole Platonic metaphysics. Those of us who do not are doomed never to understand the Trinity in the same way as those who do embrace Platonic (or neoPlatonic) philosophy and cosmology.

Another point MarginOfError and I agree on: The desperate need for prison reform. The state of our prison system is perhaps the most shameful aspect of American life -- and that's saying something. I don't know how it got so bad, but when prison rape is a very real concern and I so often hear people talk about e.g. how a child molester will "get what he deserves" in prison (that is, he will be raped), I think the evil of our prison system infects the minds of our general population. This is not what prison should be. As I said, I have little problem with the state executing someone (under appropriate circumstances). I have a very large problem with state-sponsored torture of prisoners. (I don't consider isolation to be torture, by the way.)

Many Evangelicals support the right of government to execute, based on passages in scripture like Romans 13. As individuals, we a required to love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully use us. However, God established government to maintain the order, and, to paraphrase, Caesar doesn't wield the sword without reason. I hesitate to support 100% because of the studies showing disparities in conviction--tracking much higher for minorities in the poor. It's not that personnel involved in justice are racist or elitist, but nevertheless, the unfairness is pretty outstanding.

Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. But I will admit that my reason isn't a great one. I read a news story once about the recent arrest of a man who had committed a particularly disturbing and heinous crime (I don't remember details, sorry). My immediate thought was "I hope they fry the [choose your expletive]." At that point, I realized that my support for capital punishment was based more on vengeance than anything else. I felt that was wrong, and so now I oppose capital punishment. I am, however, aware of the secondary problems my stance brings about. Do we really want to pay to keep these people alive for decades? Is it really fair to incarcerate someone for 30 years and then try to return them back to society? Can a person really spend 30 years in prison among other criminals in our prisons' culture and then reenter society? Part of me, like Vort, suspects that execution may be the more generous choice. But part of me feels like that's also a cop out to take the easy choice. Perhaps it would be better to reform the prison systems? That too would be prohibitively expensive, but maybe smaller jails with more social help would be more productive at turning people's lives around? I don't know. There's a lot of stuff here I don't know. The only thing I am convinced of is that every execution performed out of vengeance is an execution done for the wrong reasons. I believe we will be held accountable for those executions. I'm certain there has to be a better way.

I am slightly in favor. Supposed "bias" doesn't bother me very much. Wrongful execution of innocents bothers me a great deal; but unlike the anti-death-penalty people, I don't see life in prison as a significantly better option. Spend thirty years in a cage for a crime you didn't commit, and the damage is done, at least as badly as if you had been killed by the state.

The Church is, as has been said, neutral. Personally--I believe all life starts out innocent and is worthy of state action in order to preserve it. But I also believe that that innocence can be forfeited through a sustained pattern of especially heinous behavior, to the point that it can sometimes be in the best interest of all concerned to end that life as painlessly as possible. But given how costly the execution process has become in the American judicial system, I'm not convinced it's worth it anymore. Any deterrence value the death penalty carries is more than nullified by the public outpouring of sympathy for the perpetrator that the modern American media inevitably incites.

Like this:

"The short end of the tall guys." I like that. Have to remember it. A beard over a mustache? That would look just bizarre. Can you believe that classical Latin had no word for "yes"?

Can I just note that, taken out of context--this is, quite possibly, the most bizarre statement I've ever encountered here?

How can we tell good from evil? What Mormon says is true. Ultimately the answer to the question of HOW is "mortality". We will learn to tell the good from the evil as we experience mortality and all that mortality entails. God knows this. He told us that we are in a probationary state. We are in a state of training. We are in school. I heard a good analogy recently that may help. When you are in training to become a doctor or whatever profession, the trainers, your teachers, your professors, will expect you to make mistakes. In fact, that is what schooling is for. It is so that you can learn your trade in an environment where nobody permanently gets hurt or where any damage that is done can be completely fixed and made right. Mortality is that. Understand that you are here to learn the good from the evil. You've been given things to help you figure that out but if all it took were just words then the pre-mortal council is all that it would have taken to make us Gods. But, we must pass through mortality and need to learn from experience, trusting that Jesus Christ did indeed come to earth to make it possible that we do not have to pay the full price of our mistakes when we choose evil over good, if we repent. There is nothing that can happen in this life that cannot be completely fixed and made right. We need to see life for what it is. We are here to learn. Christ is merciful and kind and loves us and knows that we are but children learning to become like God. Have faith in Jesus Christ, have hope in His glorious gospel, and be diligent and never give up then by-and-by we will gain understanding and gain godly attributes and wisdom and we will know the good from the evil. So, let me condense what I have said: Question: How can we tell the good from the evil? 1. Know that mortality is the school that will teach you good from evil 2. Have faith in Jesus Christ 3. Have hope in the promised outcome of this school 4. Patiently go through mortality and be amazed as God teaches you and shows you how to be good -Finrock

There are no insurmountable barriers to a single woman procreating, or to male-male or single male adoptions. That is beyond the point I was making. And, also beyond the point, there is, inherently, more to the male-female raising of children than just making babies (as anatess alluded to). So I would content that an argument that my point is weakened by your point is missing a few important ideas, that I did not address, but are nonetheless valid.

Throughout the phases of the allegory, in the various seasons of scattering and grafting, much corrupt fruit was produced. Our Savior does not care so much about the tree, the branches or the roots. It is the fruit that He desires, or more specifically, good fruit that He can lay up in store against the season. Branches had been burned, some scattered, some grafted in, the tree pruned, digged about and dunged all so that tender shoots could grow that "perhaps" the tree might bring forth "good fruit." The Lord is doing all that He can, BUT, the tree MUST respond. In other words, each tree/branch must choose. God will not take our agency away. We must choose to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Our nature as a fallen people (Adam) is continual wickedness. By our very nature, or rather, the natural man, is an enemy to God. The Lord made covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His work is to restore us to those covenants, or rather, to give us the opportunity to become covenant people, even if by adoption. So the grafting begins that maybe an evil tree might be healed and begin to bring good fruit. He grafts the children back into the fathers, or rather, those natural shoots back into their mother tree, turning the hearts of the children to the fathers (prophets/patriarchs/covenants) and the hearts of the fathers to the children. Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful. The tree must be fruitful. The tree itself and the entire vineyard is going to be burned. Who cares that the branches have become lofty? Loftiness does not save. Pride cannot be redeemed. Only if we have become fruit are we worthy to be laid up against the season. The House of Israel has produced much wicked fruit, which is why branches were gathered up and burned, others pruned, scattered, etc. that a good tree might remain, and "perhaps" bring forth some good fruit. Fruit is a genealogical symbol. It is mentioned in the allegory about 65 times. Even if a tree were to produce one single good fruit, that single fruit has within it seed sufficient to populate worlds without number. One fruit can produce a number of trees, which in turn can produce countless more and so on. So if you have been "saved," having put all enemies under your feet, including death, you have truly become fruitful.

If one of her regrets is that she put a college education/professional training on hold for early marriage and child-bearing, and if your kids are all now in school, and she doesn't want to be a stay-at-home mom anymore . . . why not tell her that you're fine with her taking half the family tithing and investing it into her education/professional development as she sees fit for a pre-defined period of years; but then after that you expect that you will each be free to tithe or otherwise donate up to 10% of your individual incomes as you each see fit. Also--I suggest marital counseling. If she's flat-out saying that you and the children are among her past regrets--that's not right, it's not healthy, and it's not normal. Your marriage cannot last long if she's nursing feelings like this and you're never sure where you stand with her.

This is something I don't get . . . ex-mormons claiming their youth was "stolen". Stolen how? so one can go out drinking, partying, etc. as if only Mormon parents see that as a bad thing for their kids. Regardless of religion any parent worth their salt would advise against and to the extent possible prohibit their children from doing so. They would teach their children the dangers of drinking, drugs, sex, etc. The claims of a "stolen" childhood could be made against any number of parents going back generations. "Stolen" really means the ability to do whatever, whenever with no consequences and life just doesn't work that way. I'm truly sorry you are having to go through a very delayed rebellious adolescent phase with your wife. One way or another it will work out . . . Keep loving her and sticking with her through this time . . . which may be a long one. As for the tithing thing; I'd say not only no . . . but heck no. She can run her life however she pleases and if she has a job and doesn't want to pay tithing on it . . . fine. Let's put it this way, if you were single and she were a nanny or a housekeeper, you would pay tithing on the money you bring in and then pay your housekeeper. It would be the housekeeper's decision to pay tithing or not on the money they receive. But she certainly didn't earn the income you bring in. From a financial perspective, she helps keep expense down (i.e. you'd have to hire help without her so you could work), but she does not earn that money. That is a huge fallacy in thinking that she earns half the income . . . no way, no how. That's the point of being head of household; sometimes you just gotta put your foot down. Compromise is good, well and necessary in a marriage . . . but at some point you've got to take charge.

I am a convert. I read ALL the negative stuff that is out there. I'm not joining a church without reading everything. i still joined. Joseph Smith was an imperfect man who was chosen to do something Holy. I agree, some of the things you read are not so good. But that does not negate the good things, the Gospel and the information that Smith brought forth. Joseph Smith was a human. He was probably as messed up as all of us are. I have no illusions that he was some saintly man who walked on water. I believe he was a very rough stone rolling ( I think he called himself that) and maybe that is why God chose him. He needed someone rough and a bit wild to do His plan. I'm sure Smith sinned. He made mistakes and stumbled, like we all do. And again, his humanity doesn't negate the holy message he brought to us. In fact, I think that is what drew me to the church. I like that Joseph Smith was not perfect. Far from it. He was just a man. I Whatever Smith did or didn't do, the message of the Gospel that he brought forth is True. Smith was simply a vessel. I focus on the Gospel and info. And, let's not forget, Smith lived fairly recently. There was much dislike for him and I can certainly understand why. Some guy claims he has a new Bible??? We would all be suspicious ourselves. Who knows if what was written was from haters or accurate journalism? All of the old Biblical prophets did not have modern journalist following them around. Only the good stuff has been preserved! For all we know, those prophets could've been pretty saucy too and no one published newspapers about it. It's because Smith is so recent that we have so much info on him. Regarding the Book of Abraham...I'm not sure what to think, quite honestly. But again, the Book of Mormon is true and so is D&C.

I suspect because such an outlook is comforting. If only people who don't have a strong testimony fall away/leave the Church then it reinforces that they, presumably in possession of a strong testimony, won't find themselves in similar circumstances. There is thread debating the doctrine and principles behind the idea that, "It can happen to anyone." that'd probably give you some insight into the thought processes going around. Putting aside the doctrine and principles that may be behind either viewpoint (for they have their own thread) the idea that someone with a strong testimony can have such a quick turn-around is frightening, and attaching conditions that don't apply to you is comforting in the face of that.

It's interesting how the Church's official position is the murder and adultery (next to denying the Holy Ghost) are the two most serious sins a person can commit. In reality, murder harms a persons body, while domestic violence harms a person's soul. I have seen atrocities committed that are way worse than murder or adultery/fornication. I disagree with the point that more people should be disfellowshipped/excommunicated to help them repent. The vast majority of those who enter the Church's disfellowshipped/excommunication process never, ever emerge as healthy members again. As a business person you can't continue using a process with such a high failure rate. Too often the disciplinary process looks to correct behavior and not treat the root of the problem. This is the reason that so many who do come back from DF/ExComm end up back in the process again....only to ultimately fail again. The DF/ExComm process is slow, lonely, provide very little if any real guidance, has poor communication, and more often than not, provides very little hope. More people need to be left in fellowship and in active association and participation with the general body of the church. Remove them from a calling? Sure! Limit temple attendance? Yes for a while! But process that drag on for years is not right. The current process actually forces more people to fear the repentance process and keeps them from clearing things up and serving in positions of leadership and trust when they shouldn't and live a life overshadowed by guilt. By some estimations, roughly 80% of male LDS members have problems with pornography. Out of fear of the repentance process most will never come forward to get help. These tendencies and habits will destroy a marriage and a family (again an act way worse than murder). Bishops and SP and HC's need better training, the process needs to be better structured and more consistently applied, and members need to be less scared of the process and less judgemental of those who are in them.

What is given after baptism ie the gift of the holy ghost, is withdrawn and one is like any other non member, who can feel the spirit but not as a constant companion. Some people who I saw excommunicated would comment later that they then knew what it meant to have the holy ghost now that they had lost its companionship. Re Carl62, Because of the process. General comments are that about 7 out of 10 excommunicated never return (although the church doesn't admit or publish this) and the process can be exhausting; the person needs to spend at least a year in church without taking the sacrament, then be re interviewed by Bishop and convince him that you have repented fully, if its an elder he also has to convince the SP first that he is fully repented, then have a new disciplinary council and have that go well, then be rebaptized formally; oh and the records would have been canceled and sometimes there's a messup getting the records back from HQ, then if endowed you have to wait another year after baptism before applying to first presidency for a 'restoration of blessings' and then if approved (can take 2 months to 12 months for the paperwork to return) be interviewed by a general authority, who sometimes is a apostle, and convince him that you've fully repented....well, its obvious that it's better not to sin in the first place.