RMGuy

Vort has a very good response for you on this one. I would only change one thing, and add one thing to what he wrote. Your first point about schooling might be true depending on location. For example, I know in many parts of Europe it is difficult/impossible to begin a univeristy program and then leave for a couple of years and then come back. For many young LDS, this means either waiting on college until after the mission (what I would recommend), or completing college and then serving the mission. If you are in the US, this is generally not a problem. If you are outside the US you may want to check with some local schools/as well as missionaries that have served from your home country for information. I would also add to Vorts comment about forgeting what you learned in school and college. You may forget some of the formula's etc., but you will gain a greater knowledge of how to study, time management, and responsibility that will serve you well when you return to your studies. -RM

But that leads to not one, but two questions: 1. Would Romney be right to be upset by such an event? 2. Would Romney have a right to be upset by such an event? -RM

Dravin, I would think that in at least some cases it is even possible that individuals working back through their family history come across some individuals in this group and include them, not knowing that they were holocaust victims or survivors...then someone else reviewing the records finds that the work was done.... I can totally assume good intentions and that this isn't done on purpose. But if we as a church have made an agreement, then I would think we have an obligation to live up to the promises we make. So how can we prevent it happening in the future? -RM

Anne, that is an interesting approach, the waiting to the millennium part, but what about other groups that are also offended, and I can think of several that might say, we want this to cease....islam, jehovah's witnesses, etc., come to mind....should we hold off on them as well? What about if you are a direct descendent of a holocaust victim? Vort, I would guess that you are probably correct that the majority of these instances arise from either: 1. Well intentioned members that simply didn't know about the agreement, or didn't know the name they submitted was part of that group 2. Individuals out to cause trouble. Loudmouth, Good point.....how do we then stop the cycle? -RM

Most of you have probably seen the latest headlines regarding the baptism of holocaust victims and survivors. I am curiou as to what the group thinks. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765550827/LDS-Church-apologizes-for-Jewish-baptisms-for-the-dead.html Mormon church apologizes for baptisms of Wiesenthal’s parents | The Salt Lake Tribune -RM

Hmm, I'm not sure that this will help...but on the off chance that it might, allow me to provide the following quote: "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." -RM

I would love to be in your ward. A dog barking in the middle of some talks might provide needed comic relief. -RM

Well you did ask....... I would like to think that I would welcome her, and would love try to love her....even with her flaws and foibles, since that is how I want Christ to love me. -RM

I think you have gotten some good advice here in the last couple of posts. Remember too what Covey said, "seek first to understand, and then be understood." Try to see things through his eyes. Sometimes I think we are so quick to defend our faith because we know it is true, that we forget that others don't. We always ask them to study and pray and find out if it is true too. While this is good advice, it might also be a good idea, especially with a spouse, to review what their concerns are and try to see the church through their eyes. Seek to understand. -RM

Cwald, I hope you didn't edit your post on my behalf....I'm a 40 something know it all. :) BTW, you have a pm. -RM

Actually, under the Law of Adoption individuals were sealed to each other even when no marriage relationship existed. Most of these were brother-to-brother with the intention of joining families together (so in most, but not all of those instances the brethren involved were part of a marriage covenant with their spouses). This practice was discontinued in the 1890's. While currently there is not a method to allow children to be sealed to a single sister or brother, I have learned that policies (even doctrine related to sealings) changes from time-to-time. As evidence, please see the real world example of the Law of Adoption described above. I for one will not tie the Lord's hands by telling him what he can or cannot do. I recognize and hear the concern expressed above. -RM

Yes sir! I love the twenty-something know-it-alls just as much as the thirty-someting know-it-alls, the forty-someting know-it-alls, fifty-someting know-it-alls, sixty-someting know-it-alls, seventy-someting know-it-alls, eighty-someting know-it-alls..... -RM

Neither. "...and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." No opinion, none of my business. -RM

As a general rule, the counsel is to await the decision of the court it depends on the charges, however there are a number of factors that a presiding officer needs to take into consideration: 1. The seriousness of the transgression - while we think of sin as sin, there are somethings that are worse than others....including: murder, incest, child abuse, etc. 2. The position of the individual. - we hold bishops to a higher degree of accountability than gospel doctrine teachers for example. Also, level of priesthood held, and whether or not endowed is an important consideration. 3. Level of knowledge - things that are public knowledge are generally dealt with quicker than things that are not. etc. Based on my knowledge of, and experience with church discipline process, I am surprised that the individual is still serving as bishop while this is going on...after all, one of the reasons to hold church discipline is to "protect the good name of the church". However, I am also certain that the stake president in this instance has a much greater awareness of the situation and facts that we do, or the paper does. I'll respect his decision. -RM *edited for clarity

Not disagreeing at all Mahone. I was made aware that mods were reading PM's after an exchange I had with another member of the site. Again, this is moregoodfoundation's area. I firmly support their ability to monitor and regulate it any way they see fit. -RM

Which does kind of take the "Personal" out of personal message. I will say this is the only site that I am aware of that mod's read "personal" messages WITHOUT having 1st recieved a complaint from an individual regarding content. The only reference to this in the site rules and agreement is: "LDS.NET reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject, refuse to post or remove any posting (including private messages) by you,...." which doesn't necessarily in my mind lead one to believe that the mods will be reading PM's unless there is a reason to (like most sites), but they can and will. Again, my thoughts are it is their sandbox, they can do what they want and no one is forcing us to 'play' here. Still it is important to know that your PM's are not "private". -RM

Ignorantia juris non excusat. I hope he gets a fair trial, but this is EXACTLY why the church set up an abuse hotline. If we are going to have individuals that are untrained in their responsibilities under law, then they need to have somewhere that they can go to for advice. While we see bishops as Judges in Israel, in most cases they are not judges (or attorneys, or trained counselors for that matter) in the legal entity in which they reside. This is one of the things that happens when you have a lay clergy. You have to take the bad along with the good. -RM

Personally, I'm just not a big fan of advertising religion in general. -RM

For a second there He, I read that as you thought I had said that....then I caught your reference to COB. For others clarification, what I posted above was the church's press release on the ruling. -RM

Hey, if its your sandbox, you get to make the rules.....if I don't like them I'm always free to go play somewhere else. No worries here. -RM

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject. "Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations. "We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage. There is no doubt that today's ruling will intensify the debate in this country. We urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion." LDS church, others respond to Prop 8 decision | ksl.com -RM

Reminds me of: "Most people believe in a supreme being, even though they may call him by different names. We know that God lives......" -RM

Vort, we disagree on many things, even some of what was in this post, but I saw a lot of humanity in your response, and more than a little of Christ. Thank you. -RM

I guess that depends on if you are more of a "that which is not expressly allowed is forbidden" or a "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed" type of person. -RM

The appeals court looks like it has upheld the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 in California. You can read about it here. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=us_c2 or for those of you that like fair and balanced Appeals Court Rules California's Same-sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | Fox News No real surprises. -RM