bytor2112

I hear ya EJ. Our SP says I am the best EQP in the Stake and how he wished every EQP was like me...blah, blah, blah. All I am thinking is....man, I could do so much more, be so much better and how horrible I really am. Sigh....

You could always attend EQ. Just as older bethren who are not HP attend HP. We have some younger HP'sthat attend EQ quite often.

I really enjoy the calling...but, alot of people in the Ward don't have callings and I feel bad taking a calling when so many others don't have one.

The odd things is I was the Gospel Doctrine teacher before I was called as EQP.

Three sounds about right to me. I have been through (3) Bishops and (3) HP Group leaders.

I have served as Elders Quorum President for just over five years and will be released this Sunday. I am happy......and sad all at the same time. I taught Gospel Doctrine a couple times lately and lot's of folks told the Bishop how much they enjoyed my lessons. I jokingly told my wife that I would be released soon and called as GD teacher....well, sort of jokingly. I had the feeling that it was going to happen. Sunday, our Bishop asked how I felt about being called as.....Gospel Doctrine teacher. I of course said, whatever the Lord would have me do Bishop. As I ponder my stewardship of the EQ....I am feeling kinda blue thinking about being released. Anyone else feel that way after being released from a long time calling?

Statement from First Presidency

In 1999, President Gordon B. Hinckley told the members of the Church the following: "We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. ... Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God. Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out. Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married. I commend those of our membership who have voluntarily joined with other like-minded people to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. ... You are contributing your time and talents in a cause that in some quarters may not be politically correct but which nevertheless lies at the heart of the Lord’s eternal plan for His children, just as those of many other churches are doing. This is a united effort." - President Gordon B. Hinckley LDS General Conference, October 1999

Yes....about 25% were non native in the Union vesus about 5% in the CSA

Charlie Daniels wrote the following: I was born in 1936, a mere 71 years after the Civil War ended, when the South was looked upon by what seemed to be a majority of the Northern States as an inbred, backward, uneducated, slow-talking and slower-thinking people, with low morals and a propensity for incest. This was in the days before television, and about all the folks up North knew about Southerners was what they heard. There were a lot of people who took great pleasure in proliferating the myth, and some still do it to this day. As you might suppose, people in the South bitterly resented this attitude of superiority, and in some quarters the words “damn” and “Yankee” became one word. And a somewhat fierce type of Southern pride came into being. The Confederate battle flag was a sign of defiance, a sign of pride, a declaration of a geographical area that you were proud to be from. That’s all it is to me and all it has ever been to me. I can’t speak for all, but I know in my heart that most Southerners feel the same way. I have no desire to reinstate the Confederacy. I oppose slavery as vehemently as any man, and I believe that every human being, regardless of the color of their skin, is just as valuable as I am and deserves the exact same rights and advantages as I do. I feel that this controversy desperately needs to be settled without federal interference and input from race baiters like Al Sharpton. It’s up to the individual states as to what they allow to be a part of their public image. What the majority of the people of any given state want should, in my opinion, be their policy. Unfortunately, the Confederate battle flag has been adopted by hate groups – and individuals like Dylann Roof – to supposedly represent them and their hateful view of the races. Please believe me when I say that, to the overwhelming majority of Southerners, the flag represents no such thing, but is simply a banner denoting an area of the nation and one’s pride in living there. I know there will be those who will take these words of mine, try to twist them or call them insincere and try to make what I’ve said here some kind of anti-black racial statement, but I tell everybody who reads this article, I came up in the days of cruel racial prejudice and Jim Crow laws, when the courts were tilted against any black man, when the segregated educational system was inferior and when opportunities for blacks to advance were almost nonexistent. I lived through the useless cruelty of those days and did not get my feelings out of some sensitivity class or social studies course, but made my own decisions out of experience and disgust. I hold no ill feelings and have no axes to grind with my brothers and sisters of any color. The same God made us; the same God will judge us; and I pray that He will intervene in the deep racial divide we have in this nation and make each person – black or white – see each other for what we truly are, human beings. No better, and no worse. It’s time to do away with labels: Caucasian-American, African-American, Asian-American, Native American and so forth. How about just a simple “AMERICAN”?

The confederate battle flag has been co-opted by some pretty ugly groups. Sadly, the public school teaching that the good folks from the north fought the evil folks from the south to free slaves is so pervasive that most blacks and all liberals see it as a symbol of hate. I am angered when I see garbage like skin heads and the KKK use the flag as a banner for their hatred. But they also use the cross and the US flag as well. Most narratives don't take into account the human aspect of the period or the war. The build up to seccession was born of politics, money and political power and certainly the southern politicians felt that power was rapidly shifting to the northern states because of the population explosion that occurred in the decade before the war. Of course the good folks from the north owned slaves as well....until it became more profitable to not as they were becoming increasingly industrialized. The average enlisted soldier did not own slaves, though the exact percentage is debatable, it is usually agreed upon that less than 10% owned slaves. Many slave owners, like Robert E Lee's father in law had made provisions in there wills to free slaves at their passing. Lee was charged with doing just that after Mr. Custis passed. Of note, Lee and Jackson did not believe in slavery and Lee particularly opposed secession. A common element of the times was state identity rather than national identity. Lee was a son of Virginia, first and foremost. He was married to a great grandaughter of George Washington and his own father a revolutionary war hero gave the eulogy at Washingtons funeral. "First in war, first in peace and first in the heart of his country men". Lee was offered command of all Union forces but declined because Virginia secceded and as he stated he could not lead an army against his familiy and his home. Such was the prevailing allegiance of the time. US Grant flatly stated that if he thought the war was fought over slavery...he would offer his sword to the other side and he infact had black body servants given to him by his father in law...a slave owner. During the Vicksburg campaign, Grant returned runaway slaves to any slave owner who pledged allegiance to the union. Southerners formed regiments from their local counties and were musterd into the CSA and just like their northern counterparts fought for the glory of....not the CSA or USA....but for the state from which they came. Southerners saw themnselves as the rightful heirs of the continental army and saw Lee as Washington. They did not want to be ruled by european rabble that had migrated in ever increasing hordes to the North. Much of the union armies were made of men who did not speak a common langauage and after the emancipation proclamation and the draft began, Lincoln had to send troops to put down riots in New York because the very idea that northern boys coming home limbless and/or in boxes by the thousands were fightimng now to free slaves was repulsive. I have been a student of this period of history literally all of my life and have probably forgotten more than I remember as I do not study it often any longer. That said, it was a complicated time and politics and politicans aside, the great tragedy is the soldiers of both sides and the damage that it caused....damage that reverberates even in 2015. My great-great-great grandfather was a soldier in the Army of Norgthern Virginia as were many uncles and cousins and my family owned many slaves and a 5000 acre plantation. I make no apologies for their decisions....it was a different time. Ironically, my father married a woman from New York and grandfathers and uncles and cousins fought for the union...perhaps on thesame fields as my fathers family. Slavery was and is dispicable and is a national tragedy....not just a southern one. Money, politics and consolidating power led to war and the average american, north and south paid the price in blood and treasure. I own a confederate battle flag and understand it's place in history. That said, the southern cross should not be flown over any statehouse or capital buildings, but should rightfully be displayed at historcal places honoring the brave men who fought and died for a cause that most of us in 2015 cannot fully understand.

Sorry...I don't wish to hijack the thread. So, I will just say...no. War is contrary to the will of God and is a result of man's wickedness.

Oh this is just the beginning... Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Welcome back plural marriage... “As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right..

No...you said, it was God showing his displeasure. A wicked people cause war...not God. Perhaps, you want to rephrase your original comment or remove it. You are now stating the facts....that wickedness is the cause of war...not God.

So, God asked Abraham Lincoln to invade the South...is that your claim? Again, you are free to believe that God causes war and not man....

Yes England in older....so what? The USA ended slavery as a nation in less than one hundred years and elected a black President in 232 years. It took England in it's storied history many hundreds of years to do that and they still have not elected a black Prime Minister. You are free to believe that it is God and not man that causes war if you like.....

Yes, Brittain ended slavery before the United States, but practiced it for many hundreds of years whereas the USA practiced less than one hundred years and while slavery ended after the war between the states, emancipation was not the primary reason the North invaded the South. I would note that Brittain does not have nor have they ever had a black Prime Minister, while the USA has a black President. The idea that God was "showing his displeasure" with a horrific war is offensive on so many levels.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT — 26 JUNE 2015 Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage SALT LAKE CITY — The Church issued the following statement Friday: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

John Roberts said some interesting things as well: The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

Courts everywhere.....

And Nero fiddled while Rome...er, America burned. No surprise really....just a bit closer to the retun of the Savior. Sidenote: How can u not love Scalia... "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

I have been updating callings as EQP for over 5 years......pretty certain my counselors can do the same. Though, not sure about the new LRC which seems to only allow me to make changes.

He can gain access....or his EQP can do it as well.

If you have access to MLS, you can u can update it yourself. I serve as EQP and both counselors have acces to MLS. Actually, we have switched to LCR and no longer use MLS.