jerome1232

Hi,
 
I grew up as an atheist but joined the church at around 20 years old, I was active in the church for around 2 years then I stopped attending partly because I moved but also many other silly little reasons.
 
I have been inactive for around 15 years and for a large part of that time didn't consider myself a member.
 
My question is that i'm looking to go back to church but I don't know what the process will be as I have sin quite a bit in that time, I basically broke every part of the words of wisdom possible, I of course didn't pay any tithing at all, I never attended church at all and I have broken my vow of chastity(alone and in thought/desire only).
 
One aspect I've been thinking about as well as repenting which I have already started is tithing, as I have been a member for the last 15 years should I work out how much I have earned in this time to pay tithing or will I be a full tithe payer by starting from now.
 
Also I don't know anyone in the ward closest to where I live and my 1 visit there (15 years ago) I was a little freaked out by someone, for a silly reason but its still on my mind, and its not to easy for me to get there.
 
I know I should just bite the bullet so to speak and go on Sunday and see what the Bishop says but its easier said than done.
 
If it has any bearing on the answer I was/am an Aaronic priesthood member, I have not done any temple ordinances other than proxy baptisms, and I did not serve or start a mission.
 
Also I am moving in the next few months so should I leave it till after I move or is now best.
 
Thank in advance for any and all answers

I read that. It said that about 100 people showed up, most to show support for those resigning.
 
And the one example they gave was of someone who hadn't been to church in 10 years. This doesn't really seem like a flood of resignations. More like some people with an axe to grind with the church, who hadn't been in a long time, using this as an excuse to make official that which was already the case.

fwiw, I actually thought the comment section was rather mild. Usually we get way, way worse than that.

Yeah, I skipped straight to the comments and haven't read the article quite yet.

The articles are more interesting than the comments. :)
 
M.

I thought this write up from Precision Nutrition does a great job of explaining the pros and cons of the Paleo Diet for anyone still interested. Essentially it once again shows that the paleo diet is based on false premises, but that it is a healthier way of eating than most are following.
 
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet

No to grains but yes to corpses?

........ Watched "Expiration Date" short from Team Fortress 2/ valve....
>.>
<.<

From Handbook 2: "Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible."
 
I used to remove my garments to work out until I realized (grew up enough, I guess) that I could very reasonably wear them when doing so. I was making excuses (primarily sweat) that, in my mind, do not qualify as reasonable.  However, the handbook also says:
 
"Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment."
 
Therefore, it is incorrect to state "garments not needed', as it would also be incorrect to state, "garments required". It is a question to be taken to God and the Holy Spirit. But one should always err on the side of wearing them if it is reasonable to do so. The wearing of the garment is a privilege (this plays into how I grew up in my attitude a bit), and we should be look for reasons to wear them, doing so whenever possible, rather than the other way around. The blessings and covenants associated with them are far to precious to treat the wearing of them with a cavalier attitude.

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

I was just reading an article stating it was 300 miles north of the planned flight pattern.  But still over Ukraine not over Russia.

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

Does not seem to be suggesting to me. Apparently it can be read differently by different people. (Surprise, surprise...you mean mankind can read the same Bible and have different interpretations from the meaning?!? Shocking!!)
 
The issue is easily resolved in my mind in the idea:
 
"It is beyond rational belief that such persons could at any period in ancient or modern times, invoke the spirits of departed servants or handmaidens of the Lord."
 
So I start from what I know to be true of the Gospel, and work from there. Therefore, it was not Samuel. It's not complicated.
 
Clearly the verses you indicate either suffer from a translation issue (likely) a change made by some translator somewhere (likely) or they are simply implying that they are from the perspective of Saul who believed he was talking to Samuel (likely). What they do not indicate is that God's prophet came when a necromancer called (ridiculously unlikely).
 
It's less about an official interpretation and more about the obvious conflict with known truths if it is interpreted as Samuel actually showed up.

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

Did we just concede here that nudists are living some kind of "higher law"??? :)

Of course, everyone is right.  The intrusive lady, with all her assumptions and know-it-allness, was trying to help.  Reacting by by saying, "Thanks for caring," would be the high road.
 
I get the OP's reaction though.  To suggest an abuse hotline because someone is dressed modestly strikes me as outrageous.  The naughty side of me wonders if she would have offered this to the Somali immigrants in my community.
 
Maybe a compromise solution would be to say, "Wow.  You are a caring individual.  We need more people like you--in my church.  Would you like to go with me some time?"
 
Sigh...you can't be sarcastic when you offer it though.  Chances are, in that cirumstance, it might come across that way.  Give it a few weeks, then extend the offer.  B) 

Admittedly this is just me being contrary, show up wearing more cloth next time.

Nothing says "party" like communists and nudists.

I would respectfully disagree.  The modern temple rite is done under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  The Israelite temples functioned under the authority of the Aaronic priesthood; therefore the modern endowment could not have been practiced in the Israelite temples except surreptitiously by the few prophets who held the Melchizedek Priesthood (and were generally perceived as renegades by the Levitical priests who oversaw temple worship).  Moreover, the rites of the Israelite temple are carefully recorded in the Pentateuch; and--at least superficially--there are almost entirely unrelated to the modern endowment.  The closest you really get, IMHO, that the initiatory ordinances make reference to an ancient Mosaic ritual and (again, IMHO) are better seen as a "memorial" (see D&C 124:39) to that ancient rite, not a re-enactment thereof.
 
Bear in mind that the LDS temple endowment isn't technically one ordinance.  It's a series of ordinances, punctuated by instructions and explanations, that are administered over about a two-hour period.  I think that conceptually, the LDS temple endowment is very ancient--the idea of man's separation from and return to God; the ideas of making specific covenants with God and getting particular signs and tokens of those covenants (along with an increased proportion of the Spirit as one keeps those covenants); the idea of sacred vestments, and so on.  I also believe that the specific covenants made in the LDS endowment ritual are probably, in essence, the same ones that were done anciently.  But the liturgy and procedure of the LDS temple endowment has evolved quite a bit since 1842 (the original endowment lasted for six hours); so I have no reason to think that the ritual the Church administers in AD 2014 is liturgically identical to that received by Adam, Abraham, or the other patriarchs of old.

Great video! I think my eye's are wet now.

It is quite beautiful.
 

 
M.

So there is a joke going around facebook right now:
 
How many goals will  Germany score in their next game?  A Brazillion?

So in other words you do care some right?  

Wow, I mean wow. Is that the prevailing attitude of today? If a woman doesn't show as much skin as possible she's being oppressed?

Work on your reaction to their reactions. Don't give in and change. I've honestly never heard of a reaction like this. Never seen anyone react to the swim wear my wife wears, she tends to wear these girly, swim shirt things, I have no idea what they are called with swim shorts.