Carl62

Depending on the amount but the rough breakdown would be: 1/3 (or 1/2 again depending on how large an amount) would go to charities, another 1/3 would go to family, then the last 1/3 would go to yours truly.

I heard about what happened there, but whatever happened to the Hot Mormon Muffin mamas or whatever? That seemed to get swept under the rug pretty quick. I thought I read where they did theirs for some charity.

The only problem with all of this is that this may be thee only exposure people will have of the church, or will even want, after seeing any of this (BofM play or South Park episode). Just like with their Scientology episode, they showed just enough that I wouldn't want to look into it at all, even if parts of it were not true. While I see a lot of people on here sugar-coating and downplaying all of this, IMHO yes this can have a somewhat damning effect on missionaries simply trying to get people to hear our message. People may shut us off just from their preconceived notions of what they've heard from these shows, and we won't know any different. Ask yourself this, are these shows that jovial and lighthearted that you would feel comfortable enough taking an investigator or a noobie in the church to? While you may be sitting there laughing your head off over the 'dumb, dumb, dumb' part, your noobie friend in the church may be sitting there thinking, 'could there actually be something to what it is they're saying?'.

Jace, believe me when I say that I feel your pain over having had a bad mission. It's not that your the bad person, or that you measured with "the wrong stick":rolleyes:. Things just happen that are sometimes out of our control and you have to take what happens and somehow move on with it. My mission was terrible to the point where my testimony wasn't just soured, it was blown to a million pieces. All because of some people in the leardership of the mission who I trusted who had out and out lied. Not to mention a screamfest accusation that I had in my second area from a bishop who accused me of something absolutely horrendous only to find out that he had gotten me mixed up with another missionary. No apologize at the end or nothing. I have since found out that the information given to the bishop was given by another missionary who, along with some other missionaries, had it out for me all because I trusted the mission leadership when they said that they wouldn't say anything to a particular missionary who was making trouble, only to go back on their word and finally say something (follow me so far?) . Again, what really hurt for me was the fact that it was backed up by a bishop! That right there killed my whole entire mission for me. It took four missionaries to keep me from packing the night of the bishop fall-out. What's even sadder was that I was ready for a mission. I had just baptized my father 10 days before I left to go to the MTC and my mother less than a year before that! I was all stoked to go out and preach the gospel! Don't beat yourself up over this, give yourself time to heal and move on. Life can heal all wounds. It took me over 20 years of inactivity to slowly come out of what I went through. Things are finally getting better. Just keep close to God and yes, he can and will move any mountains you have that come in your life. I know he has for me.:)

I think it would be a rare chance that you'd be ex'd. I've heard that the church is trying more not to go the excommunication route becasue only less than 30% end up rejoining again. They want more people to stay in then go out and try to re-enter again. It would also seem strange that you'd get an open arms welcome only to then be told to get out. That certainly wasn't the case in the prodigal son story. I only hope our church follows that example when welcoming inactives. Good luck.:)

But your offense can still stay on your record even after you are rebaptized? Wow, didn't know that!

But I thought that once you are ex'd, then rebaptized, isn't the slate then wiped completely clean? I've even heard it said that when you are ex'd then rebaptized that it never even shows on your record in SLC that you were even ex'd (or so they say, not sure about that). So why would you be penalized later for a calling if you've truly gone through the repentance process and the Lord has forgiven you and remembers it no more? So why can't the church seem to forgive a person on this? Just trying to understand.:)

But that was back in the 1800's. Apostles also wore beards and had more than one wife back then too. Many things have changed since then. Has there ever been a case of anybody receiving a calling after being ex'd to that of a bishop or higher within the last 20-30 years?

...after you've been ex'd then rebaptized? Somebody asked me the other day about this and they were wondering if a person who has been ex'd, then rebaptized, could go on to be a bishop, stake president or even higher. I told them that I wasn't sure but I thought I'd heard that a person could go as high as a branch president but no further. Has anybody ever heard of somebody getting called to the position of a bishop, or higher, after coming back into the church? And if not, why? Very curious on this.

No beefche, I do believe that there are times when a person needs to confess to a bishop, but I think too often members get caught up in this Catholic context of having to confess every little thing to somebody in ecclesiastcal leadership and that I don't believe. My 'rule of thumb' for confession is that I would confess if: 1) I did some harm to the church, or 2) I inflicted intentional pain or injury on to someone else. Even the latter I believe should first be resolved between God and yourself, then the party offended and yourself, then ecclesiastical leadership. If it's some kind of transgression that I caused to myself and no one else is involved, then that is something I believe I can resolve between myself and God.

Excellent post Kurt! You hit the nail right on the head!!

And a very merry Christmas to you Maya, and everyone else on LDS. net!:):)

Taking away the part about further needing to get baptized, why would it still be any different for her even if she was a member, since Jesus clearly stated that again, when it came to any more confessing, judging or condemnations, with him it was completely over?

It's not so much that I'm trying to show a double standard, but it's that I'm trying to point out that as far as any more confessing goes, Jesus made it very clear that that part of it was completely over when she confessed to him! Yes, I agree that after she repented at Jesus feet, the next process would definitely be for her to get baptized for the complete remission of her sins and go on to lead a happy, joyous life in the gospel. No problem there. However, if what I'm picking up (and I could be wrong on this) is that she would still NEED to go and confess even yet to a bishop (or whomever) and possibly undergo even more "discipline", especially when Jesus said that the buck stopped with him on any more further judgements and/or condemnations, then IMHO, that is complete and utter lunacy! While I'm sure there has been varied thoughts and opinions on just what transpired between the woman and Jesus and subsequently after the woman went her way, I like to stay right on course with what the standard works has to say on the subject and take whatever else is said using the spirit of discernment.

While the Savior didn't utter those exact words of "you are forgiven", if you go back and see what was said (John chap. 8) after Jesus pretty much chased off the Pharisee's by asking them who they thought they were by placing judgement on someone, he then turns to the woman and asks "where are those thine acusers? hath no man condemned thee?" The woman then replies, "No man, Lord." Then Jesus says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more". What more needs to be done after that?! If Jesus is telling the woman that NO man, from that moment on, will EVER judge her for her sin ever again, and that's including Jesus Christ himself, then what else is there that's left to be done?! What process is there that has yet to be completed? It's over!! The case was closed when He told her to "go, and sin no more".

But if I hadn't confessed to the bishop, would I have then still been forgiven by God? That's the big question that still doesn't seem to get answered. And also, why was the aduteress woman forgiven on the spot by Jesus? What repentance process did she go through, other then be broken hearted and then ask the Lord to forgive her? Yes, I definitely see a double standard there!

I had a situation of whether or not to confess right before I went on my mission. I had masturbated a few times and felt that I should pray about it to ask God for forgiveness. After praying, I really did believe that I was forgiven so when it came time to talk to the Stake President during my final interview before my mission, I explained to him (after he asked first, LOC question) what I had done and that I asked God to forgive me, in which I expressed to him that I believed that I was. He told me that until I had confessed to him these transgressions, that God wouldn't have forgiven me! I was blown away by this, considering that it clearly says in the book of John that Jesus forgave a woman of adultery right on the spot! ADULTERY, not just masturbation!! So why does the church teach that it's different for us than it was for her? Why is there a double standard in regards to this in the church? I don't get it.

You hit the nail on the head Backroads! I just read the story of one missionary in Oakland who said that whenever they get one of those rare moments of being able to give a first discussion with somebody just off of tracting, it usually gets killed off by the second appointment because they've done research on the church via the internet. Television isn't helping matters either. When you've got shows like South Park, House, PBS 'The Mormons' special, and Big Love that go out of their way to try and derail peoples thinking of the church, then we've got a PR war on our hands like the church has never seen. These shows can do a TON of damage in just one hour! I have no idea what the church can do about this, but it seems like some sort of a different approach has to be taken to somehow explain these things and at the same time, find ways to bring more people in the church and keep them active then what we're doing now.

Were not saying that EVERYBODY who stops attending is an apostate who no longer believes in the church. Believe me, I feel your pain on this because my mom is in the very same boat. She only has 50-60% hearing in one ear left and therefore hardly attends at all (about 2x a year) because of the frustration of having to hear the speakers, yet she hasn't missed a tithing payment in over 20 years. The thing is though is that if you leave the church, then generally you're going to stop attending right? So the inactive/apostate part does fit into this question. The apostate part is just one of many reasons people stop attending.

Great post. I was thinking about this earlier in this thread. You're right in that he seemed more happier and at peace with himself during his last 5 years than what he had been in the early '70's with the Beatles break-up and the lawsuits. I remember reading one interview near the end where he even talked positively about his belief in God. Sure he wasn't a saint in his earlier years and he's even admtted that in many interviews, but I kinda look at the end as him maybe going through his own 'repentance process' and trying to turn things around, especially with Julian who he was just starting to have a good relationship with until the unthinkable happened. You even hear on "Double Fantasy' how his music was happier and more upbeat. Even his song "Just Like Starting Over" was about turning his life around for the better. It's a shame we never fully got to see the results of that.

And the '60's: Beatles, Stones, Byrds, Doors, Dylan, Hendrix, and anybody else that played at Woodstock or Monterey.

Agree! When it came to movies, the '80's kicked butt! Everyone of my favorite movies, from horrors to dramas to comedies, came from that decade. Breakfast Club, Weekend at Bernies, Friday the 13th, Halloween, The Burbs, Ghostbusters, Back to School, Caddyshack, Animal House, Goonies, Cocoon, Blues Brothers, Ferris Beuller, Footloose, etc., etc. Too many to mention.

All we are saaaayying...................is give grilled or crispy a chance.

One thing that the church should do is actually assign two or three people the specific calling of going to the inactives homes and see if they would like to talk about why they went inactive and what can be done about them coming back. If they are on an absloute 'no contact' list, then by all means, don't contact. If you're going to say home teachers then forget that. That can be a joke. I never saw one home teacher in all the 15+ years that I was inactive. Not one person ever showed up on my doorstep to ask me back or ask why I was inactive. Shows how much they cared about me being there. If just one person would have reached out and given me the chance to explain what I went through and why I went inactive, then maybe my attitude would have turned around and I would have gone back to church a lot earlier. But there was never any of that. What I think the church needs more of is people who sincerely do care and whose hearts are into really wanting to help people return to the church as opposed to those who are 'assigned' and who go through the motions just to fill a quota.

WRONG! While it is true that John and Cynthia (his first wife) did divorce, the divorce didn't happen until 1969 which was just about at the end of the Beatles themselves!! They even tried a reconciliation in '68 because John was getting bored with Yoko (who he met in '66, long after the Beatles became rich and famous). So if you are going to make a harsh judgement against the guy, please be sure to get your facts straight!!! Thanks.