MarginOfError

At the risk of invoking the wrath of Ben's muscles, I am going to post this response that I never got a chance to submit as I was diligently studying the texts while others worked to derail the thread beyond the point of recognition. If we discount the first two verses of Matthew 5 (introductory verses) there are 46 verses in that chapter. Comparing these verses to the record of this same sermon among the Nephites yields the following results 11 verses show no difference 30 verses show a difference in words, but the message of the verse is perfectly identical 2 verses do not appear in 3 Nephi (two verses that expand on loving your neighbors and your enemies In 1 verse, Christ refers to himself as perfect (he does not call himself perfect in Matthew) Two verses are altered by the Joseph Smith TranslationI proceeded to compare Matthew 6 and 7 with 3 Nephi 13 and 14, respectively, but did not record notes and numbers as it was rather tedious. The verses were very similar, and never in one instance did the message being taught change. Words would change, but not the principle being taught. Now let us move on to comparing the JST with the other accounts. Matthew 5:19 (JST 5:21) -- there is no real difference in these accounts as far as the message is concerned. The JST expands on words such as "least" and "greatest", describing them as "not saved" and "saved", respectively. This part does not appear in 3 Nephi at all. In Matthew, verses 19-20 make reference to the scribes and Pharisees. In Nephi, these groups did not exist and there would be no need for this reference. The description would be meaningless to the Nephites. The Nephite version commands the people to come to Christ and be saved. Ultimately, the message in unchanged. Matthew 5:30 (JST 5:34) -- Christ explains that the offending right eye was a parable. The parable wasn't given to the Nephites, and so there was no need to explain it. The Nephites were told to "deny themselves [of wicked] things." Again, the message is unchanged. Matthew 5:48 (JST 5:50) -- JST becomes "Ye are therefore commanded to be perfect." Not much difference. In Nephite version, Christ declares himself perfect also. Matthew 6:1 (JST 6:1) -- adds, "and it came to pass that, as Jesus taught his disciples, he said unto them." Matthew 6:13 (JST 6:14) -- JST adds "suffer us not to be led into temptation." Nephite record has the original "lead us not into temptation." The message is commonly understood to be the same. Matthew 6:22 (JST 6:22) -- adds "eye single tot he glory of God." No change in meaning. Matthew 6:25 (JST 6:25-27) In the Nephite record, these verses are directed to the Twelve. In the JST, Christ expands on his discussion about not worrying about temporal needs when preaching the gospel. The messages are, again, identical. Matthew 6:30 (JST 6:30) -- No difference in message between the three records Matthew 6:33 (JST 6:33) -- Again, words are different, but the message is identical Matthew 7:1 (JST 7:1) -- JST adds "judge not unrighteously" Matthew 7:3 (JST 7:4-8) -- Christ gives the disciples instructions to go to the scribes and Pharisees. This does not appear in the Nephite record, but there were no scribes or Pharisees in the Americas. Matthew 7:6 (JST 7:9-11) -- A call to repentance is added in the JST. Christ explains more about not casting pearls before swing. In the Nephite culture, the wicked had already been destroyed. There wasn't a need to explain more about pearls and swine because there weren't very many swine. Matthew 7:7 (JST 7:12-17) -- JST adds a question asked by the disciples in Jerusalem. The Nephite disciples didn't ask an additional question, apparently. Matthew 7:21 (JST 7:31) -- JST adds "that day soon cometh" Matthew 7:28 (JST 7:36) -- JST adds that these sayings were with the disciples and makes reference to and description of the crowds in Israel. Matthew 7:29 (JST 7:37) -- JST adds that Christ had authority of God and not of the scribes and Pharisees. No need to refer to scribes and pharisees with the NephitesSo, after looking at these more closely than ever before, I still can't make out how this casts a shadow on Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. As far as I can see, his translations consistently reflect a similar message to two different groups at two times. Each translation takes into consideration cultural, political, and historical elements consistent with the record. Both are doctrinally similar. When read in their entirety--when not looking at the differences in individual words--the messages are identical. I have to thank you for providing this challenge. My testimony of Smith's calling as a prophet received a big boost from this.

Welcome to parenthood! You've been given a rather abrupt introduction, it sounds like. I don't know if you've read any parenting books, but it couldn't hurt. One thing to keep in mind is that kids' minds aren't as practiced at applying abstract concepts like time, or days of the week. Your niece may be coming to wake you up on Saturdays because she doesn't fully understand the difference between Wednesday and Saturday. If you start talking to her on Friday nights that Saturday is a day when your wife is home and on Saturday she should ask your wife to get her food, she might start to make that connection. But you have to talk to her about it every Friday night. It might take a couple months for her to remember, but it'll come. Also keep in mind that kids thrive on routine. so if your niece is used to getting you up in the morning to get breakfast, she'll do it just because that's the routine she knows. It usually has very little to do with the parents or their parenting styles and more to do with the natural cognitive development of the child. Your niece sounds like a perfectly normal and healthy girl, and at this age, this behavior is a good sign; it means she's developing just as she should. So, while it may be inconvenient at the moment, you can work to alter her patterns a little, and always remember that what you do now lays the foundation for a wonderful relationship 20 years from now.

I'm sure as a programmer you have your own preferences and habits for programming, but the thing I find that helps me the most is to write really specific comments about what's happening in my code. I usually comment my code as if it were an outline. For instance, in R (The R Project for Statistical Computing), the comment character is #. So when I write my code, I might do something like this: #********************************** #* Import Data and Create New Variables #* 1. Import Data #* 2. Calculate Age Variable #* 3. Determine Age Group #********************************** #*** 1. Import Data xls.import( function arguments ) #*** 2. Calculate Age Age <- Current.Date - Birth.Date AgeYears <- Age/365.25 #*** 3. Determine Age Group if(Age < 18) Group <- 1 elseif(Age <25) Group <- 2 elseif(Age < 40) Group <- 3 elseif(Age < 65) Group <- 4 else Group <- 5 #********************************** #* Description of new block of code #********************************** I find that when bugs appear in my code I am able to review my code in these blocks. As I review each block I can determine if the error could originate in this block a lot more easily than trying to identify the line where the error occurs. Other than that, I try to keep my mind sharp by employing mathematical logic. I review things like basic theorems in math and the real numbers. I should do some more Sudoku puzzles or something to keep sharp.

If the first train is traveling due west and the second train is traveling due east, they'll never meet.

While I see your point, and it's one that I can agree with, I'm not sure that positing "even if it is that bad you can still be forgiven after you die" is a good approach to take with a person who has entertained thoughts of death. Given the person and the specifics of this situation, I think it might be better to focus on the fact that she can be forgiven in this life. Have we provided any useful advice yet, hidden?

Dear Sister, Your post has inspired a rare surge of emotion in me. I have great sympathy for you and sincerely hope that you will begin to feel the compassion that you deserve to feel. I sincerely hope that we here have done nothing to exacerbate the guilt you are feeling; but I am not optimistic that such is the case. Oftentimes in a community like this, where the majority of the opinions are already in agreement, comments about abortion can be a little exaggerated. In LDS circles, we sometimes speak of abortion with very harsh words, terming it “murder”, “shedding innocent blood,” and even “unforgivable.” I hope you can learn to disregard these comments—in LDS doctrine, these statements are simply not true. I first refer you to an article in the August 1972 Ensign entitled “The Case against Easier Abortion Laws.” (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Case against Easier Abortion Laws) In this article, Gilbert Scharffs quotes from the June 1972 Priesthood Bulletin. I am going to share a part of that quote here, but I want it to be clear that the quote that follows is taken directly from the Priesthood Bulletin and is considered an official explanation of policy to Church leaders. So you see, in the view of the Church, abortion is not in the same class of sin as murder, nor is it in the same class as “shedding innocent blood.” Any member of the Church who says otherwise is doing so in blatant contradiction to Church policy on the issue. Furthermore, abortion is a forgivable sin. You need to stop telling yourself you can’t be forgiven. In fact, if we were speaking face-to-face, I would use the words “in the name of Jesus Christ, stop telling yourself you can’t be forgiven.” Boyd K. Packer delivered a talk in 1992 that I highly recommend you read. It was given in the April General Conference of that year and is entitled “Our Moral Environment.” (LDS.org - Ensign Article - Our Moral Environment). In this talk, Elder Packer said: He is very clear that forgiveness is available to those who have had an abortion. Forgiveness is available to you. That’s a promise that every Apostle will make to you. The last resource I will share with you is a talk given by Elder Robert D. Hales in the October Conference in 1976. He read a letter from a young woman who had an abortion. At the time, this young woman was an inactive member of the Church. She tells of the circumstances leading up to her abortion, her return to Church, and her struggles with obtaining forgiveness after returning to Church. I won’t quote the whole story (but you can read it here: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Lord Offers Everyone a Way Back from Sin). The only part I will share is this: I do not have the ability, nor the authority to tell you if the Savior has forgiven you. I can sense, however, that you have not forgiven yourself, which is something you must learn to do. Now that we have established that you can be forgiven we need to stress this point endlessly: Do not lose hope. Also, do not try to take this journey alone. It appears you have felt hopelessness in your situation for so long that you have sunk into a depression. Seek help. Discuss this more with your bishop, and let him know that you neither feel forgiven nor have you forgiven yourself. Involve your husband in this discussion. Seek professional help through counseling and/or therapy. You are absolutely not beyond the reach of the atonement. I promise you that if you will seek help, and diligently seek the strength to forgive yourself, you will come to know a joy and happiness as exquisite and wonderful as is your pain and despair. With the greatest of affections, MOE

I imagine that some of my comments when read at first might infuriate some people on here. Just hear me out before you rip me apart. In the LDS faith, there aren't any true sacramentals as you describe them. There are objects or items we treat with a certain reverence, but we treat them this way not for what they are, but for what they represent. Take for example, the Sacrament emblems. When we bless the bread and water, we "bless and sanctify" it to represent the body and blood of Christ that was shed on our behalf. After these emblems are sanctified, they are indeed treated with the reverence that would be expected for Christ's body. Yet, when the ordinance is completed, the remaining bread is tossed in the trash and the remaining water is poured down the drain rather unceremoniously. In the end, the emblems are still bread and water. But in that moment when they are used, we treat them as something so much more sacred in order to help ourselves focus on and remember the covenant that we are making through the ordinance. Take consecrated oil as another example. In and of itself, it is simply oil, but after consecrating it, we set it aside as something of special importance because of the power and authority it represents in the blessing ordinances. Out of respect for that power and authority, we do not cook with it after it has been consecrated, nor do we prepare foods, or season cookware. We designate it for its stated purpose and treat it with the respect we treat godly authority so that when it is used, our minds are properly focused and we are better able to receive and understand the counsel God has for us. If left unused long enough, even consecrated oil will go rancid. When it has gone bad, it is disposed of without fanfare or notice; perhaps quietly slipped in the trash, or poured down a drain. Even Temple Garments hold little value beyond what they represent--our covenants with God to follow in His paths. We are taught to treat the Garments with the reverence we treat our covenants. The way we treat our Garments is intended to be a representation of how we treat our covenants--do we carefully and dutifully fold them, or stuff them in a drawer hastily and without awareness? At the end of the day, however, they are little more than a certain cut of fabric. They are meaningless without the covenants they represent. I do not say these things with any encouragement of not treating these things as if they were sacred. The way we treat these things--the "outward expressions," some have called it--are often the start to learning how to treat what they represent. As we gain experience giving due respect to our covenants by our behavior, we begin to see the significance and sacredness of the intangible through the tangible. Certainly, if we were to cease treating these objects with the respect to deserve, we would begin to lose our understanding of the significance of what they represent. At the same time, it does us no good at all to treat them as sacred if we do not seek to understand what it is they represent. Have I befuddled everyone enough yet?

If you are concerned about the amount of time that these two callings will require of you, take your concerns to the Bishop and discuss it with him. With additional knowledge, he may decide that one calling is enough. On the other hand, he may feel that he still wants to extend both callings. But it helps him understand the needs and [instantaneous] limitations of his members if they are candid and upfront with him. I can discuss with you some aspects of the membership clerk calling. I am currently the clerk in my ward, and I spend about 6 hours a week performing my duties, and those include bishopric meeting and PEC/ward council. My calling would be nearly impossible if I didn't have my membership clerk and my financial clerk. Because I get a lot of face time with the bishopric and coordinate with quorum and auxiliary presidencies, some people think that I do a lot to keep the ward running smoothly. The truth is, the membership clerk and the financial clerk collectively keep the ward running. Without the two of them, the ward's administration would grind to a halt. But here's the really neat thing about membership clerk and financial clerk. In my ward, they each put in about two hours a week. On a busy week, maybe three hours. Very frequently what happens is the bishopric identifies something that needs to be taken care of, and I pass on the list to those two, and they do it all. For the most part, they come in on Sunday, do their thing, go home, and don't think about it again until the next week. The membership clerk keeps track of Sacrament meeting attendance; tracks who has been sustained for callings and records when they are set apart; records ordinances as they take place; and looks over the membership records for any errors or omissions that need correcting. For example, at the moment, we are trying desperately to make sure each family's children are properly recorded, and that their blessings are recorded if they were performed. The membership clerk also spends a lot of time updating addresses and contact information, and generating reports for who in the ward we are having trouble locating. But we restrict his responsibilities to these people to the administration. We send the Elders' Quorum and High Priests out to track the people down. So it is very possible that as a membership clerk you could only work 2-3 hours a week, and those mostly at Church on Sundays. I'd be happy to discuss more with you if you like. Just drop me a note. Hope this helps give you some expectations.

Wow...so many things to comment on...where do I start. How about we start with some short comments. Those in the Sunday School Presidency are supposed to be Melchizedek Priesthood holders. The Primary is to be presided over by sisters, so long as worthy and capable sisters are available to do the work. If no sisters are available to serve in the presidency, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder may then serve in that capacity (one of my young men's advisers was the Relief Society President at one point in his life). Regarding speakers: generally speaking (as in, not just related to the Church), when you organize an event you put the highlighted speaker last. Sometimes this speaker is called the "keynote speaker." It's the speaker that has the draw; the speaker that people came to see. It is just understood in our culture that these people speak last. This also has the effect of the last speaker discussing the topic that you most want people to remember. This translates into Sacrament meeting a little oddly. Most of us don't know who is speaking on any given Sunday, and so we don't really have that 'draw' to the meeting. The important thing to remember when planning, then, is what message do you want people to have fresh in their minds when they leave the meeting. Whoever is delivering that message should speak last. When I member of the Stake Presidency visits a ward, he is the presiding priesthood authority. If we are to assume a greater weight to his comments than anyone else in the building, then he should be the last one to speak. Likewise, when a High Councilman visits, although they are not the presiding authority at the meeting (High Councilman do not preside over bishops), they are charged with delivering a message from the Stake Presidency. Again, assuming more weight to the Stake Presidency's message, they should speak last. In the case of junior/senior companion, if you want to dig down to technicalities, the senior companion should speak last. But this of course assumes that the senior companion truly presides over the junior companion. This arrangement is very loosely defined in the missionary materials I've read and I believe a true presiding companion is discouraged. I don't imagine most companionships would really care who spoke first or last. With husbands and wives, you might be able to claim the husband is the presiding figure, but I'm not sure how well you could defend that. Husbands are to preside over their families with their wives as equal partners. I would have a very hard time saying that the husband's comments should carry more weight to begin with, but it's even harder given that 'equal partners' thing. In any case, I think you'll find that how these speaking arrangements are made vary from stake to stake, and even ward to ward. It isn't uncommon in my ward for the woman to speak last. Admittedly, it's usually the man that speaks last. I suspect this has more to do with the bishopric inviting couples to speak and they couples just assume the order because that's what our social programming has taught us. But here's the thing, in my opinion, that should be done. When planning Sacrament meeting, the bishopric should select the concluding speaker first. Determine who is going to speak to close your meeting in a way that closes it with the best Spirit possible. Work backward from there. The end of the meeting is going to be the part that sticks with people the most, so that part should be as good as possible. If you feel a certain sister is going to give the best talk about the subject at hand, have her be the concluding speaker. I know some of you might disagree based on propriety and tradition and half a dozen other reasons. But the fact of the matter is, these meetings are supposed to be places where we feel the Spirit so we can be taught the Gospel. These meetings are supposed to help us take these lessons home and apply them to our lives. Putting the best speaker last--regardless of gender--maximizes the ability of these meetings to do that. Here's an anecdote to go with that. Several months ago we had a couple speak in Sacrament in which the wife spoke first and gave an absolutely amazing talk. She was well prepared, gave great delivery, and had a very organized, thought provoking talk. It was a very powerful and inspiring talk. Her husband's talk, wasn't so good. It wasn't really bad, but it definitely was a bit of a let down after such a great talk from her. I don't know if he wasn't prepared or if he just doesn't know how to prepare for such a speaking assignment, but the meeting would have been much more powerful if he had spoken before his wife.

Mentioned what? But seriously, where was Jennifer for the thread about cleavage? (I don't mean anything personal. I really am just that reckless with my comments)

Then there's my family. My grandfather was living with us as his health was declining. On Thanksgiving Day, I was playing a computer game when my father approached me and said, "Just wanted to let you know that your grandfather just passed away." (he literally died in the house). I looked at my dad a little confused and finally managed to say, "I don't know what I'm supposed to do. Should I do something?" To which my dad said, "Yeah, just go back to your computer game." So I did. An ambulance came and took my grandfather's body away, my aunt and uncle showed up later that day and we had Thanksgiving dinner like nothing had happened. Admittedly it was awkward for the first 15 minutes of dinner, because we were all like, "doesn't it seem weird to you that we're having this feast 7 hours after someone just died?" But we got over it.

I always used to have the same problem. Girls were always trying to be unchaste with me. It was like I was some kind of magnet for carnalism...or maybe I excreted pheremones from my pores...whatever it was, I could not get the girls off of me! Okay, so that isn't entirely true. I did have a problem of that nature, however. I had a several girls that I'd start talking with, we'd get to be good friends, but I didn't want to take the relationship to the next step--exclusivity. There'd be this outrage of emotion and then I'd never hear from her again. I never did learn how to handle it. The only consolation I can offer won't feel like much consolation. Everytime this happens, it's going to suck. You're going to hate it right up until you get the guy that lives by your standards and makes a great relationship for you. When you get that guy, all of this trouble will seem like it was absolutely worth it. It's just going to suck until then. Sorry about that. Your other option is "if you can't beat them, join them." But I hear hell is awfully hot this time of year. Property taxes are excessively high (as in, your soul for your property), and the air conditioning never works. Oh, and if it makes you feel better next time, you can always knee the guy hard enough that he won't think about being unchaste for at least a year.

Yeah, I was curious if anyone else got the same instruction. I probably would have blown it off except for the way they phrased it around making changes. Good to know we're just weird. :)

We were recently (in the past week) instructed by the Stake Presidency that reverence children were no longer to be used. I don't know if this direction originated from the Stake or from somewhere else. However, it was accompanied by direction that choirs were no longer to provide prelude music for Sacrament and that we are to be sure we do not add to (or take away from) the Sacrament meeting description in the Church Handbook of Instructions.

Let's try this: the First Presidency must approve of all people who are called as Bishop. In other words, you cannot be a bishop without the approval of the First Presidency. Any righteous, willing, and worthy man may be bishop regardless of his marital status. If the Lord chooses a divorced man to be bishop, that man will be bishop. Church policy, however, does have a preference to married men as bishops. If two men are available to be bishop and they are equally qualified in every way except one man is married and the other is not, you can expect the married man to receive the call. I know of no specific policy that forbids a divorced and remarried man from serving in any leadership capacity. (That doesn't mean the policy doesn't exist, but that I've never seen it)

I agree with you, Hemi, but that's why I said he is only entitled to generalities that could potentially involve his health. I actually will stick by that one. Then again, these are simple yes and no questions I'm talking about. the conversations would be something like "Have you engaged in sexual activity?" Answer either yes or no. "Have you engaged in activities that would put you at risk for STD's?" Answer either yes or no. "Have you been tested for STD's?" Answer either yes or no. End of conversation. That really isn't much disclosure, and I am adamant that he is entitled to this and no more. aluvsd4ever, please forgive me if this post seemed excessively insensitive. I felt that to bring my point across I had to disassociate from the personal nature of the situation.

Okay, MOE is jumping into the fray. I'm going to go through and say a bunch of things related to the field of Communications. "What!?" you say, "I thought MOE was a math nerd. What does he know about communication!?" Well, I'll have you know that while I majored in mathematics, I minored in Communication theory. I learned some really interesting things pursuing that minor that I will share with you here. For starters, the advice to "never go to bed angry" can be a god send, or it can be catastrophic. It depends on the people involved. The crux of the issue is that different people handle conflict in different ways. Some manage conflict by stewing on it until they come upon a solution. Some want to talk about it endlessly. Some want to sleep on it and take on the challenge well rested. Others like to engage in argument. There are many styles of managing conflict that range on a scale from passive to aggressive. The never-go-to-bed-angry style is an aggressive style of conflict management that doesn't work well for people who prefer passive conflict management. Why is this important? John Gottman has done a great deal of research into how married couples manage conflict. He's also done research into why marriages fail. In one of his studies, he found that the single largest predictor of a failed marriage is partners having different conflict management styles. Your fiance, for example, appears to have an aggressive style while you have a passive style. So when conflict arises in your relationship, at least one of you isn't able to manage the conflict in a way that makes them comfortable. This creates more conflict and exacerbates the original problem. This doesn't mean that couples with opposing styles are doomed for failure. Many couples with opposing styles succeed. But the key is that they learn to manage conflict with a mutual style. Essentially, they agree about how they are going to argue. Once they have this agreement, when conflict arises, they manage it with clear expectations and with great success. So that's the conflict management. Go to bed angry, don't go to bed angry, it doesn't matter as long as you both agree. Oh, and always go to bed together. The whole sleeping on the couch thing isn't all that healthy. You're partners in good times, you're partners in bad times. Show your commitment to each other by going to bed together every night. Now, about the other thing--the fact that your fiance is pressing you for details of your past. Fortunately, you're not married to him, and you can still change your mind. I'm not necessarily saying you should, but I would recommend you be very careful in this decision. Your fiance does have a right to know a little about your past. Have you had sexual relations? Have you engaged in any behaviors that would put you at risk for diseases, etc? These are things that affect him and he has a right to know. He does not, however, need to know anything about who or what happened. His behavior appears to me to be the mark of a jealous streak that I would be cautious to trust my emotions to. If you were my daughter, and I were to counsel you with what I know now, I would say make sure that your wedding is at least 6 months away. Have a serious discussion with him about how you will manage conflict, and make it clear that you will not discuss details of past transgressions. If he insists that you must not go to bed angry, and tries to use the Gospel to justify that, then I would call it off. Such manipulation is not a good quality in a spouse. If his behavior doesn't improve significantly within four months, then I would advise calling it off. Disclaimer: This is my advice based on what I know. I fully admit my knowledge is incomplete and only you can know how best to apply any principles or advice that may be contained in my comments. I also fully admit that my comments are based on my academic training. If you do not feel the confirmation of the Spirit, you should ignore it. I'm open to more discussion and refining of comments and wish you the best. Seek counsel from your parents and priesthood leaders; they know you better than I do and will have valuable insight for you. Best of luck. Let me know if you have any questions.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Whoever said that polygamous marriage is to be administered by the President of the High Priesthood making an inaccurate statement. That may be something applicable to the latest dispensation, but we have no way of knowing how the administration of such practice would be handled as the Church’s membership grew into the millions. That’s why it is more appropriate to say it is administered by someone given proper authority. I certainly hope you don’t have my comments in mind, because I have them in pdf form and such a statement does not exist in them.

In the same vein, a search at lds.org for "bear testimony" gives 1254 hits. The search for "bare testimony" gives 0 hits. So I guess your google experiment just raises the question of how well educated are mormons? So the Church definitely has its preference. But in any case, I never really intended for this to be taken so seriously. I don't care if you bear or bare it, as long as people hear the great message of the gospel.

I don't recall anyone saying plural marriages were presided over by the President of the High Priesthood, but by one having authority, such as a prophet. What's more, we don't even know if the Priesthood was governed by quorums at that time in history. We don't know if the Priesthood was divided into offices. The first case we have of Priesthood authority being segmented into offices with different rights and responsibilities is with Moses when he called Aaron and the seventy elders. Besides, we don't know how much time transpired between Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek and his taking of Hagar. By that time, Abraham may have been the ranking holder of the Priesthood. Your question is well taken, but the record is not detailed enough to provide the answer in this case. That's why we look for patterns throughout the scriptures to help us understand how things were handled.

This guy is the smartest person we've seen if office in a long time. Let him work and he'll do well.

gaspah, I completely agree with you that the Word of Wisdom was given for the weak and the weakest of the Saints. It goes quite nicely with Mosiah 18:8-10, especially the part about bearing one another's burdens that they may be light. At the same time, the idea of the membership adding restrictions to the Word of Wisdom, and not the properly authorized leaders, bothers me a great deal. I will place no value on a person's decision to consume or not to consume caffeine. Whereas it hasn't been explicitly stated in the policies of the Church, I won't judge one way or another. However, if you are struggling with it at ward activities, I would say it is appropriate to bring it up with your bishop and request that such beverages not be provided. Mention Mosiah, and the weak of the weakest to him and make your case.

Seriously, I almost just peed my pants. You rule, DS!

I hope you didn't show the GoogleGod your face when he spoke.

First, AngelLynn, I promise I'm not trying to be rude. But really, is it bear your testimony or bare your testimony? I can see how either one would work. Which should it be?