WilliamT

This is one of those issues that divides people. There is a culture in some parts of the US, Utah/Idaho/Nevada/Texas/Montana/Wyoming etc where guns are just a very basic part of the culture, and there is a belief that exposing children to them is a good thing because, in that culture, they will be exposed to them frequently anyway, and it is good to teach them. In this culture guns represent "independence" and a way of life (hunting, sporting) Then there are other parts of the US, where guns arent generally part of the culture - and there is a belief that there simply isnt any worthwhile reason to bring guns into a home with children. In these parts of the county, in that culture, guns tend to represent needless violence, crime, illicit activities. So if you tell someone in the first culture that they should avoid gun in the home, where children are present, they are likely to react like you are attacking their very culture. Likewise, if you tell someone in the second culture they -should- have a gun in their home, they are likely to react like you are telliing them to engage in a risky behavior for no good reason,. But these are two completely valid points of view, because there multiple cultures in this country, and both are just as "American" as the other. I personally abhor guns, and think that there is no reasonable place for them in a home with children, unless you live far out in the country somewhere, where there are bears, mountain lions, etc. If you live in Salt Lake City, or San Jose California, or New York City - then no, I dont think there is any justification for having guns in a home with kids. This is just my opinion, but I feel that buying guns for "protection" in urban environments is more harmful than beneficial, especially when children are present. There is no real reason to expose a city-child to guns (in my opnion). When I lived in rural Montana, in the rockies, I never carried a gun, just bear-spray. But in that enviroment, I think guns made sense for many families, even those with children. Since the Latter-day Saints originated in a western/frontier culture, you'll probably have a lot of pro-gun people here. And there really isnt anything wrong with having different opinions. What it comes down to is, if you have guns in your home, and you have children, your most important responsibility is to make darn sure your kids arent going to play with them unsupervised.

I think one thing to remember is, regarding meeting relatives who have abused you or whom you have other unresolved issues with- if you meet them in the celestial kingdom... If they are there, they've completely repented and been made clean. If YOU are there, it means you have already completely forgiven them. If you are both in the celestial kingdom, there shouldnt -be- any issues unresolved. (My two cents anyway)

Thats right! Thats part of the entire -purpose- of the millenial reign of Christ on Earth. Many christian denominations don't fully understand (or even recognize) the fact that there are two ressurrections when Christ comes- One, at the beginning of the thousand year reign, and the other, at the end. Those that come forth at the first ressurrection will be those with the priesthood, and part of the purpose with "reigning with Christ" will be to do the work for all of those that need work to be done. Thats from the New Testament (Revelations Chapter 20) (KJV) This work - baptisms, sealings, ordinations by proxy, for the dead, is, if not THE primary reason for this thousand year period, at least a major part of it - and is exatly why those who are ressurrected in the first ressurrection must be priests (and priestesses!) - to have the authority to do these things.

One of the related issues here are groups of people (for instance, Jews) who find it offensive that we would do this for their ancestors (holocaust victims, for example), and we've had to take great pains to work out a system to try and catch submitted records of people that fall in this category, to avoid doing the work for them, at their request. Sometimes names get through though. I've never understood the anger - since we arent "converting" anyone, we are only offering a chance to accept. If we are right, then we are doing them a great service. If we are wrong, what does it matter? We say their name, in the most reverential place we know, with the most respect that we can give. There is no disrespect. But even so, we try to accomodate the wishes of those who tell us not to do this, unless requested by a direct ancestor. Can anyone here shed any light on exactly why this causes such outrage in the Jewish community?

As far as I know, yes. I assume you are going to ask about the fates of those that we never discover the names of, or all those in history where we are not able to obtain records, and the answer to that is more or less "God is just and merciful" - he'll work it out. But we are still going to do the best we can do.

Think of these examples A] Someone who lives in the amazon rainforest. Never heard any form of the gospel. B] Someone lives in rural texas. Theyve heard of the gospel, but ever heard of the "full" gospel. C] Someone heard about the restored gospel, and prayed about it, and believed it to be true, but their parents/family forbade them from being baptised D] Someone was born with Downs Syndrome, and never was able to grasp the concept of repentence - and was never accountable for their sins (if, indeed, they could even sin), and never could make a decision for themsevles E] Someone was mentally unstable, due to illness, or accident, or drugs, or something that happened in their life before they had a chance to hear, or decide upon the restored gospel F] Someone heard a few things about the restored gospel, but then a somone on the internet sent them links to websites that had very innacurate disinformation, but the person believed the disinformation and never pursued finding out the truth about the church. G] Someone died before the gospel was restored There are many reasons why someone might not have accepted the full gospel and been baptised into the church. And neither you, nor I, can judge who has really "accepted" or "rejected" the gospel... or judge what is truly in another persons heart. So we baptise them by proxy anyway, if we see they havent been baptised yet - and we leave the result to be in the hands of the Lord - between the person we are baptising by proxy, and the lord. Only the Lord can judge the intent of the person. Only the person can accept it or reject it. It used to be, long ago, that people who comitted suicide were not eligible to be baptised by proxy - because there was a belief that the "person had decided to end their own life". But we now know that many of these people were mentally unstable, suffering from an illness that was no fault of their own, and that therefore they may not be held accountable for their actions. So we baptise them by proxy anyway - and let the Lord decided what they were accountable for. In any case, Im suprised that no one has pointed out Paul's comment on Baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) in the New Testament. This was a longstanding practice of the earliest christians, including in Paul's time, but was one of the many things that was removed from Christianity during the apostacy around the 4th century.

Unfortunately I am about as far from Palermo as you can get, and still be in italy. It is an 800 mile, 14 hour drive from here to Palermo, according to Yahoo maps. I also dont speak/read italian, other than a handful of words.... Im not sure how I could help.

Hello peeps I am an american, but I am living in Italy with my Kiwi (New Zealand) wife. We attend a ward in Bologna. It is Italian-only, and neither of us speaks Italian, so it is a bit of a trial at the moment. We are both 42, have a 3 year old son with us. We were married in the NZ (Hamilton) temple back in 2005. We are both converts, I joined when I was 30, she joined when she was around 15. I just wanted to say "Buongiorno" to everyone.