john doe

Start  here  and we can expand from there.

Start  here  and we can expand from there.

Start  here  and we can expand from there.

Start  here  and we can expand from there.

So he's going to speak in Australian? Niiice.

People, especially people who are facing their mortality, want to know that they are cared for and thought of by others. Too often we back away when someone we know is facing the end of their life, when instead we should be coming closer. You don't need to do anything grand or exciting, just be there for them, and talk to them. Provide needed service, Help take the load and stress off the surviving caregiver(s).

People, especially people who are facing their mortality, want to know that they are cared for and thought of by others. Too often we back away when someone we know is facing the end of their life, when instead we should be coming closer. You don't need to do anything grand or exciting, just be there for them, and talk to them. Provide needed service, Help take the load and stress off the surviving caregiver(s).

People, especially people who are facing their mortality, want to know that they are cared for and thought of by others. Too often we back away when someone we know is facing the end of their life, when instead we should be coming closer. You don't need to do anything grand or exciting, just be there for them, and talk to them. Provide needed service, Help take the load and stress off the surviving caregiver(s).

Some random thoughts:
 
Part of the problem when actions are taken against a poster is that the person generally vehemently disagrees that they were/are breaking site rules, even when shown exactly what they have done. Everyone thinks they are in the right, and they are being unfairly targeted by certain/all mod staff.
 
Personally I have become less involved on the forums partly because after a while the discussions become the same. People with agendas will always bring up their agenda no matter the topic. I can accurately predict most posters' posts before they chime in on threads. Eventually it all becomes the same to me, and I have no interest in carrying out pointless conversations.
 
If we want to have better and more conversations with more people, we need to learn to see things from perspectives different from our own.
 
Some good posters have been chased off because certain other posters here have goaded them into breaking site rules and then complained that we weren't harsh enough in our punishments. And now you're complaining about them being gone? You got what you wanted. When someone is banned, they're banned. Rarely do they get an opportunity to come back.

I had a sister in law die of cancer. She and my brother were not members of the church. One of times we went to visit and my wife and I both knew she wasn't long for this life we taught her the Plan of Salvation. She was laying in bed as we told her about it and the she sat straight up in her bed and said.....yes...yes....I believe that too. She died about two weeks later. I conducted and spoke at her funeral. Recently my wife went took her name to the Temple and did her work.

I spent five years making far more then normal visits with one of my best friends as he died.  His wife told me as I was leaving one of those visits that he really enjoyed when I would come by and talk.

It's times like this that I wish the laugh button was still here, because this post cracks me up in so many ways. Thanks, Hoosier!

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

I go to the gym.  I wear my garments all day, change out of them into gym clothes, work out, take everything off and go use the gym shower, then put my garments back on with my regular clothing.  I'm not aware of any reason to hide garments from the eyes of the unendowed, and it's never been an issue.
 
I've gathered a couple comments from doctors at physicals when I was asked to "strip down to your underwear".  Harmless enough.  "Oh - you're mormon?  My cousin's friend is a mormon."  That sort of thing.
 
Handy rule of thumb I've heard over the years that bishops seem ok with: The four "S"'es of not wearing your garments: Swimmings, sports, showers, and sex.  
 
Sacred, not secret.  We treat them with respect.  But they're articles of clothing.

I think a couple of Neil Maxwell quotes would be helpful to Kate:
“Faith in God includes Faith in God's timing.”
― Neal A. Maxwell
“The submission of one's will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God's altar. The many other things we 'give' are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us.”
― Neal A. Maxwell
“Never give up what you want most for what you want today.”
― Neal A. Maxwell
"Those who turn against the Church do so to play to their own private gallery, but when, one day, the applause has died down and the cheering has stopped, they will face a smaller audience, the judgment bar of God." - Neil A. Maxwell

As it was practiced only by a very few, I would guess I would not be affected. Huzzah.

I rest my case.

2 1/2 hours is insane. 1 1/2 hours is too long. If you're going that long, your bishop isn't leading the meeting properly and needs to learn time management skills. If it were me, I would just excuse myself and leave unless there is a clear need for me to remain in the meeting. If you do that enough, the bishop will start thinking about how valuable your time is and consider respecting it by conducting ward business in a timely manner.

2 1/2 hours is insane. 1 1/2 hours is too long. If you're going that long, your bishop isn't leading the meeting properly and needs to learn time management skills. If it were me, I would just excuse myself and leave unless there is a clear need for me to remain in the meeting. If you do that enough, the bishop will start thinking about how valuable your time is and consider respecting it by conducting ward business in a timely manner.

*shrug* Maybe. I expect that what would be considered "reasonable" would vary vastly. I think the church has been quite reasonable in their response and dealing with the issue. I find the response entirely sufficient. Those who find it unreasonable and insufficient, I suspect, would generally continue to find it unreasonable and insufficient.

I much preferred this one.   Made me laugh.