RMGuy

I'm a Mormon A Mormon - The 10 Best (Topical) Halloween Costumes for 2011 - TIME -RM

Gopecon, Your statements above are true, but I'm going to go back to beefche's original question which was "What ordinances will it not disqualify one from participation?" I'll stand by my statement above. All of those indicated above MAY BE performed by an individual that is NOT living the WoW. That is straight from the handbook. You are correct that the EASIEST way to verify your ability to participate is to check your temple recommend, but it is not the only way to check your ability to participate. Again from the handbook, "...a priesthood holder who is outside his own ward should show the presideing officer a current temple recommend or a Recommend to Perform an Ordinance form that is signed by a member of his bishopric." So it is not the only way. You are of course entitled to your opinion that the Spirit would withdraw itself if someone was not living the WoW, however it didn't seem to do that to Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, or many of the Presiding Patriarchs of the Church. You are entitled to have or not have anyone perform an ordinance for you, or to be part of that circle. However, not living the WoW does not preclude individuals from participating in the ordinances listed above, which was the original question. -RM

Mnn is correct. If it was paid to you in error, the company should be paid back the excess and they should correct the taxes etc fro you. -RM

The simple Gospel of Jesus Christ is as complex as our bureaucracy can make it. -RM

"A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members of who not comly with the Word of Wisdom..." "A bishop interviews and member of his ward who confesses or is accused of a serious transgression" "Only a Melchizedk Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedk Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthoood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling. As guided by the Spirit....bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings." Based on that here are some of the ordinance that WoW violation would not disqualify an individual for automatically. Partaking of the Sacrament Naming and blessing of children Baptism of children Ordaining children to Aaronic Priesthood Being in the circle but not voice for Melchizedek priesthood ordination Being in the circle for the setting apart of a family member Consecrating Oil Administering to the sick Father's blessing and blessing of comfort or counsel Dedicating of a grave Dedicating a home To name a few..... -RM

Originally ZONE, The WoW was given by way of invitation and greeting "To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the aword of wisdom, showing forth the order and bwill of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—". It was not a commandment. Notice too that it talks about temporal salvation as opposed to spiritual salvation. It wasn't until the late 1880's that the church began to really take a stand on the WoW, and not until the early 1920's that it became a requirement for temple attendance. So what you have heard above it correct. Lite beer is against the WoW as it has been explained to us today. It will disqualify you for a temple recommend. However, your take on vs 17 is also correct. As originally given and interpreted beer was acceptable and is indeed the mild drink spoken of in that verse. Similarly the 12 did not substitute water for wine in the sacrament until 1906. During the the mid 1900's WoW violation was also subject to church discipline. That is no longer the case, but it will, as stated above disqualify you for participation in some ordinances. -RM

Just checked and all of my tigers are safely locked up, now if I could just find that darn lion....let me know if you see her will ya? -RM

I've read 32 of the books on the list. -RM I have many more to go!

There is a LOT of wisdom in that statement right there! -RM

Interesting choice. -RM

Not the only one. I have sometimes wondered "why would some people want to be sealed for eternity to people they can't even stand for mortaility?" I think sometimes we spend a lot of effort to get a wonderul estate in the next life and so little time maintaining the estate we already have. -RM

Try this: It’s not about the election. We hired a PR firm like all good churches, and this was their recommendation. Don't blame us. I'm a Mormon. There you go, under 140 characters.

WOW! Bear down chickenhawk. If the OP didn't want to help, they wouldn't have asked the question to begin with, we have to understand that what we would do in a particular situation isn't what everyone else would do, and that this individual is MUCH closer to the situation, and has the benefit of knowing not only the people involved, but the local law and the past history of the people involved. It's cool that you have a different opinion, and it's good to share that advice as well, but when it comes to statements like the one above, I sometimes wonder that we don't chase more people away than we help. -RM

Short answer is, I don't know if you can. You cannot undo in a few hours what he is learning at home every other hour of the day. Also, I don't know if it is really your place (I know I will take some flak for that), but at the end of the day he isn't your kid. There are a lot of things that we as members to that others might think are odd or wrong....think about how you would react to someone coming in and attempting to change the decisions that you made as parents. With that being said, you have one potential out. Supplying alchol to a minor is a crime. If you are willing to up the ante to that level and turn the parents into child protective services and the law, then you MIGHT be able to do something. This has the potential to backfire as well. I am sure that the parents are NOT going to be supportive of their son hanging around a family that just got them into trouble. He likely will NOT be attending church any longer either, and on top of it, he might even resent/hate you for getting him and his parents into trouble. You are correct it is a ridiculous situation, but it is one of their own making. -RM

If you want to make a lot of progress, then stand by her as she does this. -RM

The family is the basic unit of the church No success can compensate for failure in the home A little personal story: For many years I, like mormonmusic above would have defaulted to the church position. I thought that my relationships with my wife and children were good. I would try to fit them in as much as possible amd make time to spend with them even while fulfilling my callings. For example, while serving on the HC, I used to take one of our children each week with me on visiting assignments. They were good times. Then I one day I got to thinking.....really thinking.....that sometimes what we say in the church is contradicted by the way in which we act. I thought about the two quotes above, and I changed my behavior. Now family comes first. There is a church activity, but we have other family plans....then we do the family event. Guess what? When I though my relationships were good, they weren't. They are now. In our house, family comes first. -RM

Honest question. How do you know if someone has left? -RM

I don't think you really want me to answer that. -RM

I think the Beast brings up some very interesting points. I can particularly relate to this, "I have had archetypal LDS spiritual experiences. Afterwards, some of the premises upon which those experiences were based proved to be verifiably false. That troubles me. I will not go into reasons that I doubt in detail because I do not think you truly want to know. If I am wrong in that assumption, I will happily correct it later. Believe it or not, my disaffection came about as a result of getting called to (based on people’s perceptions) higher and higher callings in the church." -RM

Short answers: Yes you can come back Yes it is possible Yes you would be rebaptized Yes you can go to the temple. -RM

Additionally, you can have an employee sign anything that they want at the time of employment, in terms of the contract, but they cannot waive their rights under EEOC, NLRA, or ADA. Even if they sign something waiving those rights it is considered void. -RM

Are you suggesting that anytime a Lutheran employeed by Lutheran church sues a member of the faith that they would/should be fired? I've got some money that precedent hasn't been followed. -RM

Generally the result of the suit will be some form of settlement. She probably doesn't REALLY want to be back now either. -RM

From my study of the scriptures it appears that he helped individuals move through the following: 1. What do you think? 2. Why do you think that? 3. Here is what I believe/know 4. What do you think now? 5. How can I help? That seems to be a pattern I see repeated. -RM

With all due respect Vort, I believe you are reading this wrong. The EEOC is NOT stepping in because she was fired. The EEOC is stepping in because she is claiming she was fired in retaliation for threatening to sue. It is the retaliation that interests the government. In reading this article they had filled her job when she did not return in the Spring semester. What notification to her did they provide? When she presented herself as fit to return to work, they offered her other options. It was only AFTER she threatened to sue that the church voted to remove her from her position. Up until that point she was an employee on the books. There is enough there for the EEOC to believe they have a case for retaliation. -RM