Carl62

This puts me in mind of some of the uptight, Pharisaic members who wouldn't even allow Jesus himself to pass his own sacrament simply because he has a beard, long hair, wears sandals, and doesn't wear a white shirt. I think some people need to loosen up those straight jacket strings and start living the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter. So you think if Jesus were in the Sacrament meeting and a little child were to come up to him with a cookie in his hand and had crumbs falling around him that Jesus would tell him he had to eat it outside? Don't think so.

Now that the cat is pretty close to being out of the bag that it was drug related, the question now becomes was it accidental or suicide?

Is there anything in the Church Handbook of Instructions that say we shouldn't have tatoos?

But where do we draw the line as to what we accept from past leaders vs. living prophets/apostles? Does this give us liscense to start playing 'pick and choose'? How do we then as a church, based on this, know exactly what is doctrine and what is just council or opinion? Or what is even accepted at all? Please don't ust the 'ole standby of 'pray about it' because if people start getting individual answers for themselves which could all vary, then do we allow ourselves to follow our own little road of confusion without anybody giving us any concrete answers? Then if somebody finally does make a statement over something, is it from a dead prophet or a living one? Is it considered as doctrine or just council? Or even mearly opinion? You see how the cycle of confusion continues........

Is this considered as council or an actual commandment? Is this looked on as inspired or as an opinion? It gets confusing for a lot of LDS as to what's doctrine and what's merely advice. Do we take the things we like to hear from our leaders and call them doctrine and the things we don't like and say 'that's just opinion'? Is this something we are to pray over for our own selves or is this etched in stone for everybody? Still scratchin' my head over all this.

I served a mission in San Diego, Ca. As for the people I met and had a chance to share the gospel with, it was some of the best experiences I ever had. As for the political side of the mission that I wasn't aware existed 'til I got out there, it turned out to be the biggest mistake of my life.

This should be a matter of personal choice. My girlfriend has three butterfly tatoos because she loves the fact of how the butterfly is the most delicate, harmless creature there is and this is how she wants to live her life. She's simply loves butterflies. Everywhere we go, I hear nothing but compliments about how beautiful they are (and they are!). She's even thinking about getting a fourth one done. Also, I can't imagine that all tatoos would be something that one would regret getting. What about a person who gets the name of a deceased child tatooed? Why would anybody think they'd regret getting that? When it comes to getting tatooed, again it's all a matter of personal choice. I honestly don't believe that this is something you can lump everybody into a 'one size fits all' category.

Awesome!!!! The ward isn't going to know what hit them when they walk into primary and find all those kids with their three-quarter sized Flying V's strapped on belting out Van Halen's "You Really Got Me" with their amps all the way up to 11.

This is EXACTLY what I brought up (more than once actually) to a member of the bishopric when I got the "well, we'll see what we can do" response which turned out to be.....no response. I find it interesting that this couldn't be done, considering that the people who are in the Spanish section of our ward have these very same headphones for interpretation reasons.

Sure example plays a part in it, but it's not the only thing. Far from it! There's education, communication, discipline, love, guidance, and many, many other things. If it was based on example only, then the children would get very little, if anything, out of it. All the ingredients needs to be together in order for it to work with children.

I have NEVER in my 30+ years of being a member of this church ever heard of somebody going to church on a steady basis based strictly on seeing someone sitting in a church pew and even having their testimony based on that one person! The whole thing sounds absolutely ludicrous to say the least! And to say that my mother should go to church and just sit there not understanding what's being said all because there's the hope that one day someone will be "inspired" to attend more because of simply watching her be there is outrageous! Again, if somebody bases their sole reason for attending church merely based on watching an old woman sitting in church IS DOING IT FOR THE WRONG REASON AND WILL NOT LAST! Like the scriptures say, you cannnot build a house with sand as the foundation.

If that's the case, then are they going to church because they have a testimony of the gospel or a testimony of my mother? If it's the latter, then they're going for the wrong reasons. If your heart is not in it for the true reasons, it will never last.

Beautiful story Traveler!....and VERY true!:)

While it is true that a person should attend Sacrament meeting for the partaking of the Sacrament, if a person is unable to hear the speakers for the last half hour then what is that person supposed to do? Should my mother just sit there and play crossword puzzles the entire time? What's the point if she can't hear what the speakers are saying? Is she supposed to show up just for appearances sake so that she won't be placed in some dumb 'inactive' category? It's easy for someone who doesn't have this problem to say "you MUST attend your meetings regardless!" For my mother, she probably gets way more spiritually out of reading a few pages of the Ensign on Sundays than she does just sitting in a meeting staring at the walls for an hour.

I've done this more times than what I can count! As a matter of fact, the person who I've had the most talks with about this just happens to be their home teacher! Again, they just say 'we'll look into what we can do' then that's it. Not another word about it and the ball gets dropped again. I think they've kinda given up because, outside of actual headphones which the ward doesn't have anything set up for that, they don't know what to do.

Oh she has no difficulty in getting to church. She's a very active, intelligent 83 year old. Can drive herself, do her taxes, carry on intelligent conversations, again very active. It's just that she can't hear so well and that's where I thought I'd be able to get the help from some of the leadership in the ward for her problem but so far, nada. So since she can't hear the speakers, she chooses to stay at home and read the Ensign or just simply relax.

Not true! My mother currently holds one and is making plans to attend the temple with my dad before Christmas.

As far as her now going, she goes now about once every other month. She has no hearing in her right ear and 50% in her left so she can hear some, but when it comes to most of the speakers, I know she probably isn't hearing much of anything because alot of them have their heads down when they talk because their reading off of a paper or they just mumble through their talks with a fast "inthenameofJesusChristAmen" at the end. As far as whether the leaders know of her hearing situation, oh yes they do! I've made the point many times about it, followed by the typical response of "well, we'll try to see what we can do about it." Nothing is ever said or gets done.

So what if there's a case like with my 83 year old mother who is hearing impaired and can't hear any of the speakers during Sacrament and they don't make any provisions for her to be able to hear (and please don't say 'sit up front' because that's worse yet), is she then breaking a commamdment?

Why do I have this 'Christmas Vacation' scene in my head where Snots shoots Cousin Eddie right in the butt.

And that is why I go by what the Bible says and not by what a group of men concocted at a council in Nicea almost 2,000 years ago. For me, the Bible trumps what any man says any time. Isn't it ironic how other Christian denominations say we use 'another Bible' and that we should solely rely on just the KJV, but yet when it comes to using the Bible in defining the Godhead, we appear to be more closely linked to what the Bible says than most other Christian denominations.

Plenty of evidence is NOT the same as actually knowing 100%. Lawyers have gone into court already thinking they had plenty of "evidence" to convict somebody only to end up sending some innocent person to prison. I still stand on the premise that unless you actually see it happening, then don't concern yourself with it. What a person thinks is happening and what really could be going on could be two different things.

What I don't understand about this is: A> Were these sins committed a month ago? a year ago? Maybe things have been already cleared up with the bishop? and B> if it's a law of chastity issue, I can't possibly see how somebody would 100% know that that happened unless they were actually right there in the bedroom/backseat of car/or wherever it took place with the person involved. Anything outside of that I'd put straight in the gossip category and chalk it up to MYOB. If it's a WOW situation, than I go back to letter 'A' again where, in most cases, that can be resolved rather quickly with the bishop. Gossip is one sin that the devil loves to snare people into and unfortunately, it's happening more and more in the church. I've even witnessed it with my girlfriends family who she now has a brother that, as of a year ago, has completely disowned her whole family all over some stupid crap that some relatives accused him of. NOTHING good has ever come from gossip or snitching. And to the people that do it, GET A LIFE!

And what was considered by many to be the biggest "cult" at that time? Christianity. And who was the person who lead that great council of Nicea? Constantine, who just happened to be a pagan (cult) worshipper himself. Wasn't baptized a Christian until his death bed. I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual journey also. Till we meet again...:)

In most cases I would say try to stick it out and look for the remote possibility that it might work, but after reading what you said that he said this guy is going to be nothing more than a controlling nutjob. Get out while you can and instead of looking at this as a marriage, look at this as nothing more than just a long, bad date. While I understand that you're an emotional wreck right now, if you get with somebody who treats you the way you should be treated and who loves you unconditionally, in five years from now you'll barely remember this guys last name.