Leaderboard

Moses 1:39 Satan had the same last 2 questions that you pose. His solution didn't work though...

“The hub formerly known as Mormon”, expressed in written form by some character from the Deseret Alphabet?

I was going to mention that as well. I know it is a story of the relationship between the lord and Israel, but I really think that modern day could use it as well. How many wives have divorced a husband for looking at porn? How many couples have split up due to infidelity? The lord forgave Israel whenever they came back, but we as modern people have a huge issue with forgiveness. I could have divorced my wife for what she did, but I am truly grateful that I took a different path. I almost feel like a newlywed right now. Forgiveness is a powerful concept. In the case of the op's question, forgiveness shouldn't play a role in deciding to marry a divorced woman, but it is similar in that you are not holding someone's past against them. The lord loves us regardless.... Why should we be any different with those we decide to marry?

I agree, and yet struggle with this. Quite frankly, an atheist often has a better chance of conversion than a nominal Christian. The atheist is under no delusion. They know they are apart from, opposed to, or simply out of God's realm. Sadly, the spiritual person, the believer in a Higher Power, the "I believe in Jesus, but don't stress about it" person, the inactive member, the Christmas Easter Only (CEO) Christian, etc. etc. actually believes they are good enough--that God will take them in. If the church's teaching about 3 heavens is true, that may be right. However, from my binary perspective (heaven vs. hell), the half-hearted soul is the primary candidate to hear, on the day of judgment, "Depart from me, for I never knew you." So...especially to young people,...my counsel would be run, do not walk, away from romantic relationship with those that are under-devoted. You cannot woo them, nurse them, even love them into the Kingdom. Let Heavenly Father do His work in their lives. Romantic love must never overwhelm the love and devotion we have for the one true and living God. -- Okay, PC is done preaching.

I agree with JAG. If Kavanaugh really did do this thing, then he should not be within a mile of a judicial post of any sort, much less a Supreme Court appointment. That said, I have zero reason to believe his accuser. And do you know what would be ten times worse than appointing a former juvenile delinquent to the SC? Allowing any random, unsubstantiated accusation to destroy a man's reputation and a judicial appointment. The former would put a potentially bad man in a position of influence, something regrettable but probably survivable. Not like it has never happened before. The latter would destroy our society.

The following presumes Kavanaugh actually did what he is actually accused of doing, which is by no means certain. — No. NO. Nopity-nopity-nope. This is not teenaged stupidness. This is an attempt to get a young woman away from any possible defenders, overpower her, silence her calls for help, and forcibly disrobe her; very probably in preparation for rape. This is not normal teenaged boy behavior. It is not even typical teenaged-boy-level stupid behavior. Believe it or not, I was once a teenaged boy. And somehow—mirabile dictu!—I made it all the way through high school (and college!) without ever doing that to a girl. Now, I work in the juvenile court system; and I understand and generally agree with the rationale that youthful indiscretions—even grievous ones—should not subject a youth to the adult penal system; and that on attaining majority delinquents should be given a chance for a new start in life via a sealed juvenile record. But that doesn’t mean prefer them in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Freaking Court over the plenty of other excellent candidates who have never—either as an adult or a juvenile—exhibited the level of malice, brutality, and sheer sociopathy that it takes to engage in the sort of conduct being alleged here. I was listening to several other conservative-leaning commentators discussing this today, and the not-quite-universal consensus was that this is run-of-the-male teenaged boy boorishness that ought to get a pass. The ease with which this position was acknowledged and accepted frankly horrified me, and elicits two gut reactions: 1) Maybe the #metoo moonbats were right all along; and 2) Behold what Trump and his siren song of “locker room talk” hath wrought on the GOP.

No, you are not wrong. But when in Portland, do as the snowflakes do. Wait, no. Don't do as they do. But at least speak as the snowflakes speak. Wait, no. Don't do that, either. But when the guy who likes to wear a dress and makeup tells you he wants to be addressed as "she", go ahead and humor him. And don't feel bad if you forget sometimes. And don't be too lavish in your apologies if (when) you do.

Why do any parents let their children learn through failure? What do we get out of raising our own children? It's interesting that you post this because it seems so obvious to me, yet I'm not sure how to articulate it. I'll give it some thought and hope one of the smart people come along and do it for me.

Okay, I have all the Canon Law on it with all the changes encapsulated in one document in English with the supporting documents (policies written for the law for its execution). But as I'm reading it with the perspective of a non-Catholic, it is confusing (except maybe for @Just_A_Guy who is well-versed not only in legalese but also in Latin which Canon Law is written as). So, I'm going to start with this simple summary and then edit this post to link all the details if you want to get the fuller (but a lot more complicated reading) picture. This is the Policy FAQ derived from Canon Law issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (policies only applying to the US): http://www.usccb.org/upload/FAQs-canonical-process-sexual-abuse.pdf Excerpt: What does canon law now require a bishop to do when he receives an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor committed by a cleric (priest or deacon)? A: The Code of Canon Law stipulates that the first steps after receipt of an allegation of the commission of an ecclesiastical crime are usually taken by the local bishop. If the priest against whom an allegation is brought is a member of a religious order, his superior might take the first steps instead. Any allegation that has the semblance of truth (it is not manifestly false or frivolous) undergoes what is referred to as a preliminary investigation. During the preliminary investigation, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and his good name must not be illegitimately harmed. According to the Essential Norms, which constitute law on sexual abuse of minors for the dioceses of the United States, the investigation should be conducted promptly and objectively. The Essential Norms also require the bishop to follow all civil reporting laws when the allegation concerns the sexual abuse of minors. Church officials are also to cooperate with civil authorities in their own investigations. Moreover, the bishop exercises his power of governance in other ways to make sure no harm comes to children during the phase of the preliminary investigation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you want to dig deeper into Canon Law, here it is. It's, for sure, not for the casual inquirer. Edit #1: Canon Law Summary of Changes that covers pedophilia by priests: http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_introd-storica_en.html Relevant Excerpts: Delicts against morality: 1. The violation of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, committed by a cleric with a minor under the age of 18. The procedural norms to be followed in these cases were as follows: Whenever an Ordinary or Hierarch had at least probable knowledge (notitiam saltem verisimilem habeat) of the commission of one of the reserved grave delicts, after having carried out the preliminary investigation, he was to inform the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which, unless it called the case to itself because of special circumstances, would indicate to the Ordinary or Hierarch how to proceed. The right of appeal against a sentence of the first instance was to be exercised only before the Supreme Tribunal of the Congregation. Criminal action in the cases reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was extinguished by a prescription of ten years. It was also foreseen that prescription would be computed according to the norms of CIC can. 1362 § 2 and CCEO can. 1152 § 3, with the singular exception of the delict contra sextum cum minore, in which case prescription would begin to run from the day when the minor had completed his eighteenth year of age. In tribunals established by Ordinaries of Hierarchs, for the cases of the more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative could be validly performed only by priests. Furthermore, upon completion of the trial in the tribunal in any manner, the acts of the case were to be transmitted ex officio, as soon as possible, to the Congregation. Edit #2: Sacramentum Sanctitatis Tutela https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela.html Relevant Excerpts: ... we expressly established, “[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against the faith and more grave delicts whether against morals or committed in the celebration of the sacraments, which have been referred to it and, whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of both common or proper law,”4 thereby further confirming and determining the judicial competence of the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as an Apostolic Tribunal. Edit #3: In case you are wondering what is this Doctrine of Faith??? This is basically the FBI/DOJ of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/index.htm Edit #4: The US Conference of Catholic Bishop's policies in the application of Canon Law in the US relevant to pedophile priests: I suggest you read this in its entirety: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/Charter-for-the-Protection-of-Children-and-Young-People-revised-2011.pdf Excerpt: ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question. Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor. In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and support this right.

kolobexpress

Historically this has not been the case... But Cannon Law has changed in recently to do this. Imagine if you will the Vatican as an Independent Nation State, its churches as embassies, and it priest as diplomats with diplomatic immunity. (it is not the case but that is the kind of behavior we have been looking at historically) When your diplomat breaks the law of the country they are in... you do not want them subject to local laws... you want them sent home so you can deal with it/them according to your laws. Historically the Catholic Church has had the power to do this. But they do not any more, and it took a bit to adapt to the change (which it has by changing the Cannon Law) Like on every police drama ever when you are dealing with 'diplomats' who are corrupt things do not always go the way you want them to when trying to bring them to justice

I am very open to helping those with mental issues - I am not sure that help looks like - the idea that warm fuzzes is always more helpful than tough love and straight talk seems strange to me. To be honest I do not think there is a single category for a helpful attitude. I know I am not much help and am very conflicted - mostly I step away and support anyone that has patients. Back in the day when there were mental institutions that those with problems were committed - I would visit and try to make connections - but I was told I only saw a small part of the problem. Sometime I tend to think the experts are only seeing a small part of the problem as well. I am not sure we have made that much progress with out science or religious enlightenment in our modern era with those with mental issues. The Traveler

I vote for one of the three marked below:

When I was young I would judge people that inflicted self harm or commited suicide. I was pretty ignorant. Being older and knowing people that suffer with depression and other mental illnesses, I could never judge again. Having overwhelming feelings of sadness and worthlessness is absolutely terrible and I feel for those that experience these. For many there is no simple solution. This isn't a case of a broken bone you can set in a cast and be healed in a few weeks. These are struggles that go on for years and can incapacitate people to the point they won't get out of bed or do anything productive. They don't believe doing anything will be of any value. They don't feel the joys of life and want the pain to go away, but don't know how to make it go away. They need our love far more than they need us debating whether it is a sin or not. It is our place to love them, not judge them.

That's for ex-members. Implies some of us aren't (for Christ). Personally, I don't like the idea of the Lord's name in a URL or site name - seems like it would cause too-casual use of his name. But that's me. I like MormonHub too, but I'm very glad that the owners decided to follow the prophet's counsel to not refer to the Church or its members as "Mormon": I always think of "MormonHub" as a central / gathering place for members of the Church, thus replacing "Mormon" with "Latter-day Saint" is the closest way to adhere to the guidelines: Latter-daySaint(s)Hub. Even if it's not so obvious to people who are not members, (a) it's still unique to us (as far as I know), (b) it shows that we follow the counsel of the prophet, and (c) it helps make "Latter-day Saint" more common, thus increasing the chance others will use it. This seems like a more-than-worthwhile effort.

As a former Single Stake rep, I have met a lot of faithful single women. The demographic reality is that if they do not marry outside the church, they will not marry. Not marrying in this life has serious consequences. In my area, ministering sistering is, if not dead, certainly on life support. Being old childless and single is bleak. I often ponder what to do about the older single women. The over 40s and the older 50s. Many of them are have low incomes and no cars. No car in my area often means inactive as the bus system here is expensive and inconvenient. Some denominations, but not ours, have a bus. In general, if a member marries out, they become less active but the alternative is stark.

I will again state that their are grace-filled interfaith marriages. However, my right vs. wrong understanding of scripture--particularly for the never-married, and most particularly to young people--is that this is neither a matter of honesty nor of romantic love, but rather one of obedience. God, through the Apostle Paul, said NO to unequal yoking. King Solomon tells us the meaning of life is to love God and obey His commandments. So, my best love and my best honesty is to avoid interfaith dating and seek out a marriage union with one of my own faith. My wife was Presbyterian, but when she married an AoG preacher she knew she would be joining an AoG church and that we would raise our children in the same. Fortunately Korean Presbyterians are more AoG in their outlook than they American Presbyterian, so it was an easy transition for her.

It must stink. However, that doesn't change my knowledge that Joseph Smith is a Prophet called by Heavenly Father to kick things off.

Has anyone mention Hosea? I'll see myself out.

“God’s word doesn’t change, but our ability to understand it does.” ”Line upon line. Precept upon precept.” “....If you believe not these words, believe in Christ...” 2 Nephi 33:10 From the time I first heard of the Church until I became a member was 36 years. I am thankful that Saints I came into contact with had the wisdom to understand that I was operating with incomplete information and helped me become the best Christian I could be with the information I had. That this man is going as far as he can is to be commended. That he is trying to create peace between us and those who are often hostile towards our faith is to be applauded.

I'm not sure I can answer your question on sincerity. I can offer some sincere advice if you're willing to accept it. This is given with the belief that you want a confirmation. I felt the same as you do when I was an investigator. I would read the Book of Mormon and any other material I could find and pray for confirmation. Somewhere along the way, I heard a talk developing a testimony. It spoke of having the desire for your beliefs to be true and then acting upon that desire. It spoke of living your life as though your testimony were strong and following the Prophets. When you act in faith, you gain confirmation. I really enjoyed this message: My experience was a gradual increase of light. After living in faith for a short period, I looked and realized I had a testimony. Even though I still wasn't "ready" to be baptized, once I had that understanding the confirmations came fast, furious, and very obviously. I'm not sure this helps you at all, but I hope it is encouraging. Here are a few talks on the subject: https://www.lds.org/youth/article/gaining-and-keeping-a-testimony?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/the-power-of-a-personal-testimony?lang=eng

Thanks to Pam for the link https://www.ldschurchnews.com/members/2018-09-04/a-sneak-peek-at-the-home-centered-church-curriculum-for-2019-47893 1) 2 hours of Church on Sunday! Sunday School at home. Sacrament Meeting & Priesthood / Relief Society / 1 hour of primary. And I hope there is a class on BYUTV each Sunday with General Authorities actually teaching the class. 2) General Conference moves to quarterly instead of semiannually D&C 20:61 The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in conference once in three months, or from time to time as said conferences shall direct or appoint;

Where is this congregation and how fast can we baptism them?

One could argue we already do that, alternating General and Stake conferences.

Totally respect that!

Caveat here: some sins inflict deep wounds and have an involved healing process. For those a person should also seek the help of their assigned spiritual doctor (aka their bishop).

I wore something like this to church 2 sundays ago:

I have no problem with wanting someone better... I felt that way with the presidential elections.. The big issue for me with Kavanaugh situation is that it feels like a character assassination hit piece... Or if you want to presume guilt it feels like someone using a person's personal trauma for political ends. No matter which way you want to swing on Kavanaugh innocence or guilt this whole setup violates some major principles that I feel are very important

Ayup. Sadly, in the Church of Christ, even suggesting that sometime down the road a victim of sexual assault may need to consider the role of forgiveness will immediately make you and your heretical patriarchal ways the subject of the next MormonStories podcast.

@mirkwood, I thought of you when my husband begged me to watch The Nun with him. I didn't go. I told him to reach out to you but he didn't believe that there's such a guy I know named mirkwood who would go with him to any horror show. He ended up going alone and he was sad but enjoyed the movie. He is currently seeking movie-companions to Hellfest and that new Mike Myers movie. There's no way I'm going to those either. So please go with him.

And here is where one can learn/benefit from the Catholic Canon Law process of Reconciliation where the state of sin of the abuser is not the only concern but also the state of sin of the victim - regardless of how unpolitically correct that sounds. Emotional healing from a grave injustice can only come from the cultivation of righteous desires.

Ahhhhh!!!!!!! Tricked again! I will not close my eyes to sleep for a fortnight!

I'm hoping the winning entry is from this list. (But not ManChunk or whatever that was supposed to be.) Really liking LatterDayCentral, or LatterDayDiscussions.

An eternal marriage (sealed together) is the greatest blessing/gift that we can receive. I am so grateful that my husband and I have an eternal marriage. I’m so grateful that my daughter who died in a car accident at the age of 19 was born in the covenant. Not only do I know that I will see her again, but I cherish and hold to the promise that we are an eternal family. There is no other blessing in my life that is greater than this. Please do not think lightly of eternal marriage. One of the greatest comforts I had as a child was knowing my parents were sealed together as husband and wife. My father died when I was six years old. I am so thankful for that comfort of knowing we were an eternal family. Even though my father was not with us in this life, I knew we were still a family. There is no other blessing more comforting than this knowledge. I strive to live my life worthily, even though I often fall short, so I can be with my daughter and other loved ones again. I don’t want anything less than this. For me, nothing else comes close to this blessing and comfort. When you truly love someone you want an eternal union.

As a newer convert, I know what's on the other side of the font. I remember it well. I thought I had a perfect life before. Good job. Happy marriage. Good family. I'm amazed at how my happiness improved after adhering to the gospel as closely as I can. My marriage is better than I could imagine. I'm a much-improved father and husband. I was helping someone I minister yesterday and he seemed shocked that someone as new as I am could hold a Temple recommend (limited). He's been a convert longer and struggles with a few things. I couldn't imagine NOT having a Temple recommend. It's like having a golden ticket that improves my life. I don't follow the Prophets so I can say I have a piece of paper. That's just a bonus. I follow the Prophets because it brings me closer to The Christ, which improves my life in every way.

“We don’t share the gospel or go on a mission so we can go to the Celestial Kingdom. We share the Gospel so others can to the Celestial Kingdom and have the privilege of spending eternity with our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ben Arkle.

Some who hate the Church delight to call themselves "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or "Saints Alive in Jesus". I would hate for anyone to get confused or somehow see the name of this site as being affiliated with such people.

(I know it's been a while but I was having Mormonhub withdrawals, love you guys!) I obviously can't speak for this Baptist minister, but I can speak as an Evangelical who has read the Book of Mormon. When Evangelicals read the Book of Mormon, they read it from an Evangelical perspective and background, so they don't understand the theological differences. For example, in Alma 11:44 Amulek tells Zeezrom: " but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil." Evangelicals read this as the trinity even though that is obviously not what it means. My point is not to babble about the Trinity, but simply show that Evangelicals read The Book of Mormon incorrectly. *Again, I can't speak definitively for Dr. Lynn Ridenhour, and I don't mean to.

I like your suggestions. And cliquehub.com ...true dat!

On a more serious note, given the history of the name of the Church, the revelation in scripture driving President Nelson's emphasis strikes me as accepting the self-appellation of "saints" while reminding us that we must collectively and institutionally bear the name of Jesus Christ. In that spirit, both elements can be captured with the shorter phrase: Saints in Christ or just Christ's saints I don't think it's a violation of the spirit of the revelation to embrace the name Mormon for the sake of search engine optimization so long as the focus still remains on the name of Jesus Christ. Mormons in Christ Christ's Momons Of course, the downside of taking on such a name in a site is that everyone will speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world, so I might have to speak less. [did I say downside? perhaps that's an upside...]

I like the suggestion for Latter-day Saint Hub. It's an equivalent to the phrasing "mormonhub". I cast all 3.5k of my votes for it.

by their fruits shall ye know them. i don't think the question is whether or not that one is sincere... but possibly more of one of how sincere? how bad do you want to have that knowledge and if you did what would you do with it? that it has stuck with you all this time shows that you have more sincerity than a bunch of people i could name.

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/members/2018-09-04/a-sneak-peek-at-the-home-centered-church-curriculum-for-2019-47893 Anticipating an announcement at General Conference

Often I will classify answers to Gospel question into two categories. The first category I call the Sunday School Class answer. This is the answer suitable for everyone from age 5 to 105, investigator or seasoned gospel scholar and struggling with testimony or died in the wool never waver believer. When I was growing up as a youth - I seldom paid much attention in class so whenever a church teacher would ask me a question - I would answer, "Because Jesus is the Christ". Strangely - I was never completely wrong with that answer. As I have gotten older and wiser I have become amazed at the brilliance of that answer. In a gospel class if the answer to any question does not included somewhere that Jesus is the Christ - then likely whatever else most want the answer to be really does not actually matter. The next category of answers I will call the motivation answer. In essence this answer is intended to generate more questions and convince the person asking the question - or answering the question with this is that one and only answer according to scripture and the prophets - that they need to study more, be more humble and seek the spirit. I believe one of the most difficult saint to deal with in any church calling is the one that shows up thinking they know all the answers and refuse to hear anything else or listen to anything, anyone else has to say - unless it validates their answer. Mostly I believe I have failed if my answer has not convinced the listener that the answer is not so easy that they do not need to follow the recommendation of Jesus that suggest that we must knock, seek and ask in our journey to learn gospel truths and that G-d will reveal line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept. The greatest heresy of all - is thinking you know the answer. The Traveler

Welcome, @Telemantros! You ask a good question. Please do not assume anything personal from the below - I know nothing of your heart and wouldn't begin to judge it - I'm just presenting generic ideas about your question. I think "sincere and with real intent" cannot be separated in this case (it's not two things, it's one combined thing). I think they mean that you want to know with the intent of acting on the answer. So, it's not the following: Once I know, then I'll decide what to do about it. I don't intend to join the Church either way, but I'm curious whether the Book of Mormon is true I don't believe it for a minute, and would just like confirmation that my skepticism is correct Or similar thoughts. So the question to ask yourself is whether you've already made up your mind to act, if the confirmation is received. If you've made up your mind to act, why not start early? There is something about acting that can break through doubts. Things such as prayer, scripture study, and church attendance may be what you need to break down whatever mental resistance might be in the way. Also, doing good in general (the above, and serving others) can help us learn to recognize the way the Spirit speaks to us - each of us experiences that in our own way. Is it possible the Spirit has spoken to you, but you don't realize it was the Spirit? Just a few thoughts. I hope we can answer your questions and provide the discussions and encouragement you need. You might also consider talking to the missionaries again - either in person or via http://mormon.org/. Also, there's no replacement for getting together with Church members. You can find your ward by going here: https://www.mormon.org/worship. (NOTE: Mormon.org is in the process of changing to WorshipWithUs.org, but after playing around on the latter, it doesn't look like it's quite ready for prime time. Just mentioning in case the web address changes on you at some point.)

God is the biggest defender of Agency... God is the biggest Law Giver and the whole plan he has is built around testing our obedience... The two are not incompatible but we need to be careful not to advance one at the expense of the other.

I do not think so - we believe in law and abiding by the law. Perhaps you are confusing agency with free will. The Traveler

Always good to have some basic "how to judge righteously" in conversations like this. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging A summary: If you are missing one or more of those, judge all you want, but you're bein' a sinny sinner doing sinful things and need to go stop sinning. If you have all seven, then it is a commandment to judge, and if you don't, then you're also sinnin'.

My son who is about to be divorced had an extremely rough time dealing with his wife cheating on him. He told me he now knows what its like for those who think to committ suicide or even go through with it. He said if it wasnt for us and our great love and reaching out to him he may have killed himself. My views on suicidal thoughts have changed over the years as a result of experiences I have had. Suicide may be wrong but I am convinced its not a sin. A sin is best defined as ":a wicked act.". People who have suicidal thoughts are usually at the butt end of anothers wicked act- the direct result of anothers infliction of evil upon them.. Something to think about...

Yes, as a Catholic, I distinguish between sin and sinful matter. Sin is the subjective guilt on a person's soul. Matter is the objective truth of the morality of the act. Murder is always objectively wrong, regardless of why someone does it or to whom they do it (whether it's a stranger, a family member, or oneself). But, an objectively grave act does not always result in actual guilt. For instance, the objective loss of life, an offense against God and creation, is an evil. But, is a person aware of that, and do they fully and freely will it? For most people an most cultures, we know killing people is really bad. So, generally knowledge is covered. But, let's say, a person is compromised by emotion or even an altered mental state, such as delusions? Can we say they fully desired their death? Maybe. Can we say they freely willed their death? For this, it's quite possible that they did not... Their will may have been impaired or influenced by a broken brain. In this way, for instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that Robin Williams was impaired when he commit suicide, and so he may not have been guilty of grave sin. This is all from a Catholic perspective, though, so I don't know if that's in opposition to Latter-day Saint teachings. Anyway, God bless!