RipplecutBuddha

Much less the Book of Mormon. I have found that the non-member who honestly studies the Book of Mormon for what it is, doing their own research, examining it from several angles, usually come away from the experience realizing that the book is far more complex an issue than what they first thought. The Book of Mormon is packed with historically accurate information, styles of writing, etc. that nobody knew during Joseph Smith's lifetime. To explain how Joseph Smith got so much information correct that simply was not available requires conclusions that critically-minded people aren't always comfortable accepting. Add to that the relatively new science of wordprinting. subconciously, we have our own individual method of writing, patterns and phrases that are unique to each of us. By use of this new sicence it has been determined that there are at least seven separately identified authors in the Book of Mormon. It has also been identified that none of them match Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Samuel Spaulding, nor any other contemporary of Joseph Smith. Wordprints cannot be faked any more than fingerprints can be, and since this science was not around in the 19th century, it's unlikely that anyone surrounding the BoM would have thought to even attempt it. None of this proves anything, of course, but it does keep the door open that so many 'Mormon Scholars' seek to keep closed.

One thing that helps me in difficult times is what God has taught me about pain in general. This life is about pain and suffering. God's purpose and intent is not to protect us from pain and suffering, but to help us endure it and understand it. Think of the suffering the early saints went through in crossing the plains of the United States in order to get to Salt Lake. God did nothing to prevent that pain and suffering. Hundreds of people died in the effort, in fact. However, those people gained not only great faith in God through that experience, but they also gained a great education in pain and suffering that they would have never gotten otherwise. The scriptures are also filled with the suffering of the righteous, and the results of such suffering. Sometimes it seems God is ignoring our pain when really, he's trying to teach us something that we cannot learn any other way. Elder Jeffery R. Holland gave a talk to a CES fireside called Come Unto Christ way back in 1994 I believe. I have a written copy of the talk that was published in the Ensign. If someone could link to that talk, I don't have time right now to do so, but I feel it would help you greatly. It's one of my favorite talks ever given by a General Authority. Finally, don't dismiss the primary answers for what they are. God tends to give us the most vital things first, then builds upon them.

along with what else has been said, let me add that the study of any relgion requires a lot of time; even the religion one accepts as true. There is no shortcut, and there is no speeding up of the process. If you or your friend are sincere about finding the answers to these statements, you will need to earn them just as any of us has to. The idea that God was not always God is not official LDS Doctrine, as the scriptures do not spell such an idea out plainly. There are verses that suggest such could be the case. Along with the teachings of Lorenzo Snow, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, the idea is a popular belief that I feel is correct. This conclusion took time for me to reach. Time spent studying the bible in detail, studying the Book of Mormon, and the words of modern prophets. The 'Jesus and Satan are brothers' issue is a misconstruction of our beliefs done deliberately to set us directly against protestant beliefs. Yes we do believe they are brothers, just as we also believe Jesus is our eldest brother. Since we believe that God created all inteligent spirits as his children, Both Christ and Satan would of necessity be siblings along with all of mankind. However there are significant differences between us and Christ that place him far and above us in every way. He is our brother, but most importantly, he is our Savior. We will answer to Christ for our faith and obedience in order to claim the salvation he has extended to us. Because of what he has done for us, we worship him and pray to the Father in his name. All that is done in the LDS Church is done in the name of Jesus Christ; prayers, blessings, priesthood ordinances, and temple ordinances. Satan, on the other hand, is also quite different from us despite being a brother of ours in spirit. Because he rebelled against God, he lost many blessings that we enjoy, such as the chance to return to live with God again.

Beginning in Florida, Hooters was begun by a group of guys who apparently really liked owls. And given the tongue-in-cheek attitude of the entire restaraunt chain, there's no way this statement could have had a slight dose of sarcasm, wit, etc. to it??

And here I thought I'd have to defend using the cultural hall to fly indoor r/c helicopters during the week....

Okay, okay, I was wrong...I get it...call off the hounds, and tell the guys in the black van across the street they can go home now. Seriously though, I had thought that was the case. In retrospect, I'm unsure where or when I first thought this, but no matter.

Okay, swimmers have a set standard because what they wear has a direct impact on their performance. Not an artistic impact, but a real, physics-grounded impact. Also, swimmers are competing in a physics-grounded competition. The winner is identified immediately following the participant's efforts. Dancing, on the other hand, is purely a subjective judgement call once you get past any physical mistakes such as a stumble, or poor timing with the music. With dance, the clothing is determined by.....the performer. In his mind, he had to dress this way, but nearly all of us can agree he would have performed just as well wearing a single-peice leotard going to his ankles and wrists. Maybe his dance did 'need' to be done in the costume he wore. That being said, he should have remembered the standards he agreed to follow while a student at BYU. After all, he was made aware of them long before he committed to attending the college. He voluntarily agreed to them, so I have no issue with how the school handled it, because he also voluntarily acted against those standards. Otherwise he could have performed a different dance that didn't 'require' so much exposure of skin. After all, the only kind of dance that I know of that requires skin exposure of any kind would have gotten him expelled from the school immediately.

As far as official church positions, the LDS church is still opposed to contraceptives, however I can't recall ever hearing of anyone being excommunicated for using them during my lifetime. The other part of the official church position has been "What happens between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home is between them and Heavenly Father." What I take this to mean is that the rules have been laid out, and we know what they are. It isn't the job of the LDS clergy to invade the privacy of the members to make sure they're fully obedient. We don't answer to the Bishop, or even the Prophet regarding intimate issues such as this. As for the shift in protestant faiths, I have seen a similar activity overall in protestant positions. Whether it's right or wrong, I won't say, though I disagree with it personally.

Another interesting point is that the verse is a very Hebraic method of writing, in the way of expressing a location. Given that Bethlehem is still less than five miles from the old city walls of Jerusalem, or so I recall being told, remember that Israel at the time was not a very big country, and keeping major cities within walking distance was common throuought the region. Add to that the fact that Jerusalem was the capital city, and that pretty much seals it. I mean when you're talking about Washington DC, are you going to specify the suburb, or just leave it at 'DC'?

I think it's also significant to point out that Even Joseph Smith refused to commit to a specific time for the second coming. Considering all the revelations he claimed to have recieved (claims I believe, btw) I find it interesting that this one very central issue to Christianity is not one he ever claimed to have an answer for. The closest he came was to say it would not occur as early as a certain date. It seems the specific day and time for Christ's second coming was not something even Joseph Smith needed to know, and that should say something, considering how significant his ministry was. It just doesn't look like it needs to be known yet.

Something similar happened to my father regarding payments on the property he used for his business. The bank assumed he tossed out his financial records after seven years, but he kept them for twelve years. They tried taking him to court for missing an entire year of mortgage payments. He didn't even call his attorney. He just grabbed the annual box for that year's financial records, left it in care of the court, then went home. The case was dismissed the next day. Then my dad went to the local paper, told his story, and pulled his accounts from the bank and went with a local bank. After the month was out, the guilty bank lost nearly a third of it's balance sheet in accounts. The entire staff was changed out three months later.

I've also heard it said that Satan cannot know our minds, so him putting thoughts in our minds seems off. The world around us, what we see and hear is how Satan suggests things. How we treat what we see and hear is where our agency begins. Having said that, and knowing that only Heavenly Father knows our hearts and minds, remember that Satan never had the veil draw over his mind, so he's had centuries of experience tempting us, and he's probably gotten quite good at reading our minds through our actions, our habits, etc. He can see when we're vulnerable, and that's when he begins the suggestions. Also our own habits can create temptation where we've given in to it in the past. In such a case, we're tripping ourselves up more so than Satan. He starts it, but we keep it going through our weaknesses.

We understand only in part why our bodies are so important. Satan, however, understands exactly why they're so important. He and the spirits he led from heaven are so desperate to gain a body, they were content to be embodied in swine, with the approval of Christ. Also, while all sin is grevious, two specific types of sin are most significant in the eyes of God; How we come into this world, and how we leave it. Murder and fornication were the two sins punishable by death under the Law of Moses. Considering that God allows us to participate in the creative process through procreation, I would safely say God is very cautious about this arrangement. Again, the exact reasons why may elude us in full, but they are significant enough for us to understand right now. Every gift we have can be used to uplift and help others. Considering that becoming selfless is nearly a core concept of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, anything that turns our thoughts to ourselves would contradict that goal. Thus utilizing sex as a mere pleasure would all but destroy the purpose for our being here in the first place, and immodesty shows we just don't value what God has worked so hard to give us. Pornography, as I've said elsewhere, reduces us as individuals to be judged solely upon our appearance and nothing else, which is also directly contrary to God's method of operation. It all focuses on this life, this world, and our desires. None of these things are significant in the eternal perspective, nor are they useful as a means to salvation and exaltation.

I hope I'm not the only forum member that has read the first three posts and felt something akin to what I'm sure Joseph Smith felt when he first saw what it was God wanted him to translate into english....

Regarding the word of wisdom, it's much more than a code of health, though that is the immediate concern. A bishop of mine pointed out during sacrament meeting that the spiritual purpose of the Word of Wisdom is that by following it, we don't allow physical needs to interfere with communication from our Heavenly Father. When you drink alcohol it impairs your thinking. It also gets in the way of the Holy Ghost speaking to you. As you investigate the LDS church, you're asking a lot of questions from Heavenly Father through prayer. He wants to answer you, but he can't get past the effects of alcohol. Also, changing yourself takes time, so patience is the key here. You're going to struggle with this, and Heavenly Father understands how tough it will be for you. He's willing to help, so ask him in moments of weakness to help you stay away from things that will keep you from feeling his presence, and hearing his voice. Keep on the path brother, and we'll keep praying for you as well.

and the men who stared at goats were 100% level headed? Lots of crazy stuff happens in life....war just turns up the volume on some of it.

If the person performing the baptism is authorized to do so, it is valid. The worthiness of the priesthood holder is examined each time, but if an unworthy priesthood holder is allowed to perform the ordinance, it counts. No ill effects fall upon the new member due to the unworthiness of the priesthood holder. For example, Alma likely got his priesthood from King Noah, as King Noah selected his own high priests. Even though King Noah was wicked, Alma's authority was valid when he later baptized people. and for the male, recieving the priesthood is a saving ordinance.

Makes one wonder what the bronc riders will do during the rodeo......

There was only one Elijah, the prophet by name. However there was a prophet named Elias, and there is a type of prophet known as "an Elias" the term means a prophet who's calling is to prepare the way for another servant of God. The confusion is over whether John the Baptist was fulfilling the prophecy concerning the return of Elijah, which he did not, since he did not hold the keys. The confusion lay in the fact that in many Christian circles, the names Elijah and Elias are interchangeable and understood to be exactly one and the same person. When he says 'They also knew how to count' there were indeed two beings present with the Lord, hence the request to build three tabernacles on the spot by Peter. However, counting does not identify who was in the cloud. The saying that John the Baptist was the greatest of all prophets may have something to do with the fact that he operated with his priesthood authority in three dispensations of the Gospel. He started his ministry under the Law of Moses, then lived to see the inaguration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally he helped usher in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times by restoring the Aaronic priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. None of these have anything to do with the prophecy of Elijah 'turning the hearts of the children to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to their children'. That prophecy was fulfilled in the Kirtland Temple by Elijah himself. Another way John the Baptist was great was that he was 'an Elias' to both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith.

I don't think he did, though I could have missed it. In my reading, he's just calling for us to get off of auto pilot and really think about it. (something we should do more often than normal, I think.) I just re-read his post, and I still don't see a refutation...just good solid advice. In short, the answer given was that while John the Baptist was an Elias for both Christ and Joseph Smith, he was not the Elias mentioned in the prophecy that the OP quoted. Further answers were given that several prophets have been an Elias (one sent to prepare the way) throughout the dispensations of the Gospel.

When my older sister was on the way, my parents were in the middle of picking a name for her. My uncle suggested the name Denise. Mom liked it until he went on to say that when the next boy came around, he could be called Denephew... BoM names....Abish, Aha, Aiath, Amnah, Amnigaddah, Arpad, Carchemish, Cumom, Desolation, Gazelem, Gimgimno, Hamath, Hermounts, Jacobugath, Jeberechiah, Laish, Lehonti, Madmenah, Ogath, Opher, Rezin, Ripliancum, Shearjashub, Shimnilon, Shurr, Tarshish, Tubaloth, Zenephi, Zerin....They do just roll off the tongue, don't they....

Wow...you want a line by line response???? okay, I'll give it a shot, but you posted quite a bit. Here goes. - If one spouse is requesting adaptations because they feel they are incapable of fulfilling all their duties, should the spouse requesting assistance be free to do whatever they want with the time and resources they have available, or should any extra time or energy be devoted back to completing their duties, or helping to take up whatever work they can to lighten the load of those family members who are giving assistance, correct? (Similar to if someone can't work and is on Church Welfare - they are expected to serve where they can instead of just going fishing all day). - "To nurture means to cultivate, care for, and make grow. Therefore, mothers who know create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth in their homes. Another word for nurturing is homemaking. Homemaking includes cooking, washing clothes and dishes, and keeping an orderly home. Home is where women have the most power and influence; therefore, Latter-day Saint women should be the best homemakers in the world. Working beside children in homemaking tasks creates opportunities to teach and model qualities children should emulate. Nurturing mothers are knowledgeable, but all the education women attain will avail them nothing if they do not have the skill to make a home that creates a climate for spiritual growth. Growth happens best in a “house of order,” and women should pattern their homes after the Lord’s house (see D&C 109). Nurturing requires organization, patience, love, and work." (Sis. Julie B. Beck). I have quite a few questions about this one: This pretty much sets that a Mother's primary responsibility to "Nurture" includes doing the work that is typically considered "unfulfilling", "mundane" and "oppressive" by the standards of many women today, correct?Combined with the lines from the Family Proclamation, doesn't this also mean that homemaking is a primary responsibility in the life of the mother, more so than her own "optional" talent development, or trying to grasp onto those things that it is not the correct "season" for?These tasks are only secondary responsibilities to the husband, and that he should not give up fulfilling his primary responsibilities to compensate for any inability or choice of the wife to not fulfill them, correct?The mother is expected to take personal responsibility for homemaking, not holding back or waiting around for the husband to "do his part" so she is not "taken advantage of" or "taken for granted", correct?- "A wise woman renews herself. In proper season, she develops her talents and continues her education." (Elder Russell M. Nelson) "But, my dear granddaughters, you cannot do everything well at the same time. You cannot be a 100 percent wife, a 100 percent mother, a 100 percent church worker, a 100 percent career person, and a 100 percent public-service person at the same time. How can all of these roles be coordinated? Says Sarah Davidson: “The only answer I come up with is that you can have it sequentially. At one stage you may emphasize career, and at another marriage and nurturing young children, and at any point you will be aware of what is missing. If you are lucky, you will be able to fit everything in ... A woman does not necessarily have to track a career like a man does. She may fit more than one career into the various seasons of life. She need not try to sing all of the verses of her song at the same time ... The Book of Ecclesiastes says: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” ... The various roles of women have not decreased a woman’s responsibility. While these roles are challenging, the central roles of wife and mother remain in the soul and cry out to be satisfied. It is in the soul to want to love and be loved by a good man and to be able to respond to the God-given, deepest feelings of womanhood—those of being a mother and nurturer." (Pres. James E. Faust) Doesn't this denote that a woman's focusing on chosen talents must come after her duties as Mother are completed, and that in certain "seasons", they may not be developed at all?- "When the Lord gives us a call through his servants, he takes into account all of our talents and abilities and needs. The call is to the whole person including the hidden talents that only become apparent when we are doing all we can." (Ensign, Oct 1979) Does this not say that we can fulfill the commandment to magnify and develop our talents simply by fulfilling and magnifying the callings that we have received, and that by magnifying those callings we are working on the talents that the Lord needs us to work on to be the disciple he needs us to be? - "We may, for instance, have a specific set of skills which we mistakenly come to think we somehow own. If we continue to cling to those more than to God, we are flinching in the face of the consecrating first commandment. Since God lends us “breath … from one moment to another,” hyperventilating over these distractions is not recommended! (Mosiah 2:21)." (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) I believe this goes along with the theory that we don't always get to pick which talents we get to work on at any given time, or that our talents can't compensate for not fully consecrating ourselves and yielding to the Lord's time table or priorities. - "The third category has to do with the nice-to-do things. Those are crafts and hobbies and recreational reading and movies and travel and lunches with friends. A lot of women call this “time out.” These things won’t save us. They add variety to our lives, but they won’t save us. When our priorities are on that list, and our time is devoted to those nice-to-do things, our priorities are out of order, and we lose power." (Sis Julie B. Beck) If we are spending an excessive amount of time in the "nice-to-do" list of things, and expect these things to compensate for our lack of diligence, is that a feeble attempt to "compensate for failure in the home"? Shouldn't fulfilling our primary duties as husband / wife come before these things? Shouldn't we deny ourselves of these things until our responsibilities are fulfilled? - "Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won’t and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can’t. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required? ... The story of the widow of Zarephath is an example of extreme poverty used to teach the doctrine that mercy cannot rob sacrifice any more than it can rob justice. In fact, the truer measure of sacrifice isn’t so much what one gives to sacrifice as what one sacrifices to give (see Mark 12:43). Faith isn’t tested so much when the cupboard is full as when it is bare. In these defining moments, the crisis doesn’t create one’s character—it reveals it. The crisis is the test. ... One reason the Lord illustrates doctrines with the most extreme circumstances is to eliminate excuses. If the Lord expects even the poorest widow to pay her mite, where does that leave all others who find that it is not convenient or easy to sacrifice?" (Elder Lynn G. Robbins) Does this also apply to those who are physically, mentally, or emotionally "destitute"? - "Selfishness is often expressed in stubbornness of mind. Having a “mind hardened in pride” often afflicts the brightest who could also be the best. “One thing” the brightest often lack: meekness! Instead of having “a willing mind” which seeks to emulate the “mind of Christ,” a “mind hardened in pride” is impervious to counsel and often seeks ascendancy. Jesus, who was and is “more intelligent than they all,” is also more meek than they all." ... "Too often when we seek to excuse ourselves, it is, ironically, "the natural man" we are excusing. Yet scriptures inform us "the natural man" is to be "put off" (see Mosiah 3:19). "He" certainly should not be "kept on" because of a mistaken sense that the natural man constitutes our individuality." (Elder Neal A. Maxwell). Those who are strong-willed need to be extra cautious that they are not "hardened in pride", correct? They need to deliberately put off their natural man and increase in meekness and temperance, correct? - "Built, therefore, into the seemingly ordinary experiences of life are opportunities for us to acquire such eternal attributes as love, mercy, meekness, patience, and submissiveness and to develop and sharpen such skills as how to communicate, motivate, delegate, and manage our time and talents and our thoughts in accordance with eternal priorities. These attributes and skills are portable; they are never obsolete and will be much needed in the next world." (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) From what I can gather, just "being nice" isn't enough - we need to work on obtaining not only each attribute, but each of the skills mentioned as well. - "The Lord drew boundary lines to define acceptable limits of tolerance. Danger rises when those divine limits are disobeyed. Just as parents teach little children not to run and play in the street, the Savior taught us that we need not tolerate evil. “Jesus went into the temple of God, … and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers” (Matthew 21:12; see also Mark 11:15). Though He loves the sinner, the Lord said that He “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31). Real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation — not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior." (Elder Russell M. Nelson) From what I can glean, I am to love my wife, not her self-destructive and family destructive habits, correct? - "It is necessary to prepare and to plan so that we don’t fritter away our lives. Without a goal, there can be no real success. One of the best definitions of success I have ever heard goes something like this: Success is the progressive realization of a worthy ideal. Someone has said the trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never crossing the goal line. Years ago there was a romantic and fanciful ballad that contained the words, “Wishing will make it so / Just keep on wishing / And care will go.” 4 I want to state here and now that wishing will not replace thorough preparation to meet the trials of life. Preparation is hard work but absolutely essential for our progress. Our journey into the future will not be a smooth highway which stretches from here to eternity. Rather, there will be forks and turnings in the road, to say nothing of the unanticipated bumps. " (Pres. Thomas S. Monson) From what I can glean in this one, daily planning, and preparing for the future isn't just something that "Highly Successful" people do, it is something that we all must learn how to do, not matter how unnecessary it may seem. - "The Lord gave man instructions in the Garden of Eden “to dress it, and to keep it” (Moses 3:15). The Lord requires this of us today as He did then. We are expected and required to care for and beautify whatever space we occupy on this earth. Whether we are homeowners or tenants, we should feel responsible for keeping property clean, neat, and attractive." (Relief Society Manual -"The Latter-Day Saint Woman") Doesn't this say that keeping a clean house and property is more than just something that is nice to do if we can, but is actually a commandment? - "Now we ask you to clean up your homes. . . . We urge each of you to dress and keep in a beautiful state the property that is in your hands” / “Whatever your circumstance,let your premises reflect orderliness, beauty, and happiness” (Pres. Spencer W. Kimball) Do the "circumstances" spoken of here include things such as illness and injury, even if we are not able to meet the requirement ourselves? - "In describing how we can “manage ourselves wisely” [Elder Neal A. Maxwell] quoted Anne Morrow Lindbergh, who said, “My life cannot implement in action the demands of all the people to whom my heart responds.” Elder Maxwell taught that “some choices are matters of preference, not principle,” adding that “wisdom and order [will] help us to separate preferences from principles” (p. 43). We are wise to conclude that we can’t do it all and that we are not required to. When we feel overwhelmed with all that presses upon us, we should pray for inspiration to guide us in identifying what is required by eternal principles. These things command priority. We do them first. Then, in the time that remains, we pray for wisdom to exercise our preferences among those things that are merely good but not essential. Finally, when inspired wisdom has guided our choices, we proceed, as President Hinckley has taught us, to just “do the very best [we] can.”" (Elder Dalin H. Oaks) Doesn't this set the principle that we do the things that "command priority", even if we had to persevere and delay our gratification of doing the things that we "prefer", even if it takes a long time and we don't get to do the things we like nearly as much as we wish to? Okay, horrible job of a line by line examination. All the same, I feel you are in error in the very approach you are taking. A marriage is a partnership. Both husband and wife are equally accountable before the Lord not only for how their children are raised, but for the health of their own personal relationship. Your approach sounds to me like the results of a union contract negotiation, not a covenant between man, woman, and God. My main issue is how you are addressing, and focusing on, the duties of the wife in the relationship, and not examining at all the duties of the husband. If you want to treat the issue on a level playing field, study the oath and covenant of the priesthood, followed by all the other statements in the scriptures regarding how husbands and wives ought to behave. Then we can go back to past general conferences and begin examining what the GA's have said about the duties of the priesthood holder as a husband and father. I dare say you'll find yourself reading far more than what you've quoted here. You say you simply want to avoid misleading your family, and that is honorable, but in your attempt, you aren't examining yourself at all. Rather you are examining (with near pharasaiacal attention to detail) every last single comment any church leader has ever made regarding the duties of, responsabilites of, and matters relating to the wife. This has the potential of becoming a serious case of unrighteous dominion if you don't catch it yourself. I believe your wife and your family matter deeply to you. That is evident, and far too rare these days. If you haven't already, I would suggest you re-examine your feelings and motivations through prayer with Heavenly Father before carrying this study any further. The other issue I have is where you all but state that the husband has no obligation to assume the wife's responsabilities, and I assure you that is not at all the case. There are many households where the husband stays home and the wife works a job. No two families are the same, nor are their needs, skills, abilities, talents, or desires. It is true that men and women are naturally given to specific roles and responsabilities, but even then, exceptions are not only allowed, they were expected by God. This is why he left so much open room in these standards. Room that it seems you seek to eliminate. In your own examination, what about single fathers? Single mothers? Who's gonna take up the other side? I just feel you are trying to establish your interpretation as the only scripturally based one, and I'm sorry, but your conclusions just don't match the entire picture.

This thread was interesting until it got personal. The main point is the question was asked, and the question was answered. Nobody is refuting the answer given, so...moving on now.

It comes down to our testimony. If we truly believe this is the kingdom of God on earth, If we believe that Christ is at the head of this organization, then we can trust Christ to keep his chosen servants up to the task as long as he needs them. What needs to be remembered even at this stage is that it is our individual duty to confirm the words of the prophet through personal prayer. Only when the Holy Ghost tells us the prophet speaks the truth can we really trust them. After all, every prophet God has called has said so in one way or another.

Exactly. It's not like a gun law regulating the purchasing/licensing of firearms will suddenly make the criminal gun environment fall apart. The regulations and laws ought to focus on the consequences of using a gun illegally, or said another way, for criminal intent. The effort should not be on making the legal process tougher, but it should be on making the consequences of gun related crimes more foreboding. If your goal is to curb illegal gun use, attack those using guns illegally.