RMGuy

As a former missionary myself. Let me echo what has been said. Ask away. They would much rather be spending time with someone that is sincerely seeking to understand than to be out knocking doors and being turned away. Ask questions, observe, contemplate. Take your time. While the missionaries will be excited to get you to the waters of baptism (and we will be excited for you as well) it is a big step, and the covenants and obligations of baptism are serious ones. Make sure that you understand them. If you aren't comfortable with something, ask questions, study, and pray until you understand/and are comfortable with it. In the end, there isn't an end. This is an eternal thing. You don't have to know everything right now, you have years to learn all that. :)

I think The Traveler had it right...see what the bride and groom would like to do. As for the young men, if they volunteered then you could donate some money to the scout program which I'm sure would be appreciated If they were voluntold then I think some paying them would be a wonderful thing.

If you're outraged over the riots in Baltimore, you should be. If you're also not just a little concerned about how a man can be taken into custody for 'acting suspiciously' and somehow, during transport, while handcuffed, end up with a severed spine and a crushed voicebox then you're also part of the problem.

I'm pretty certain that every single person that is on church assistance is sinning in some way or other...you know...just like all those people that aren't on church assistance. I am grateful that the Lord never predicated charity on the perfection of the recipient.

PC, I concur with your pharmacy example in so far as they are the actual owner (not franchise) of the enterprise. I appreciate JAGs thought on the concept of expressive service. My initial thoughts were someone different, but I find some validity in his concept and so need some time to consider...

My take, for what it is worth. I support religious freedom, and I support non-discrimination. I believe that most, but not all, on each side do as well. In other words, contrary to the hype, the discussion isn't religious freedom vs LGTBQ freedom, but rather where we draw the distinction. I firmly believe that just because you go into business you should NOT be required to check your beliefs at the door and I firmly believe your religious freedom extends to business decisions. Yet, I also believe there are limits to how far those privileges should extend. At the risk of introducing yet another analogy: If you are LDS and decide to open a business, let's call it a restaurant, you should be entitled to believe anything you want. You want to believe that Joseph saw Jesus in the Grove? Great. You want yo believe that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet? Excellent. If you want to use that belief structure in operating your business, for example you choose not to serve alcohol in your establishment, then you have my complete and unwavering support. If someone were to suggest that you are no longer permitted to believe as you do, or that you must serve alcohol against your beliefs, then I'll be first in line to cut a check for your legal defense fund. Where I don't think religious freedom should apply is in the refusal of a service that you already provide because you disagree with the beliefs of a customer or client. Believing alcohol, shellfish, or pork products is bad is completely within your religious freedom rights. Choosing not to serve alcohol, or shellfish, or pork products at your establishment is and should be totally within your control. Yet, when you refuse to serve a client a cheeseburger because you know or suspect that from time to time, indulge in a beer, or a shrimp salad, or a ham sandwich, THAT is discrimination that should not be protected under religious freedom. If you serve cheeseburgers by choice then you need to do so equitably to all customers. That is where I think we will end up.

For me contention usually comes about when a person or persons are more concerned with being right than with what is right.

How do you know it is filth? It maybe, but how do you know this? Again, my question is not content based, but process.

So it is ok to evaluate content without knowing or understand content?

So doesn't the same hold true then Eowyn? And if not, why do you get a special pass?

Truths don't get to work only one way. NQP. If you have to read it to understand it then it holds true across the board. If you need to ask a mormon to understand Mormonism, then you have to ask a Participant to understand BDSM...right?

Many of our friends and neighbors believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction as well. I'm not commenting on the content of the book. I haven't read it. I'm commenting on the attitude that we don't need to read or watch to "know", that it is perfectly acceptable for us to judge content without reading or watching it, but not ok for others to do the same. Sorry folks, but that is the definition of hypocrisy. If you don't want to read or watch it...fine, I have no desire to do so either. But categorizing it when you haven't read it based on preconceived notions or the words of others is no better than your neighbor who knows you aren't Christians because their pastor told them that the Mormon bible is all about worshipping Joe Smith. Sorry if that struck a nerve.

Isn't it interesting that when non-members denigrate the Book of Mormon because they just "know" how bad/evil/twisted it is that many times our answer is "have you read it." Yet we re very ready to do the same here. I haven't read it, not really interested in it either...but the hypocrisy is jarring.

I was once in a ward where the bishop decided that we would have meetings when we needed to have meetings and not just because we were "supposed to meet." I remember one quarter where we didn't meet at all. There was nothing relevant to discuss. I remember other quarters were we met several times to solve and resolve issues. They were effective because we had something that needed done and accountability. Sometimes meetings can feel like we are killing time because we are supposed to. Not recommending that this is the solution for all or even any wards, but I will say it made a big difference in what we actually got done in that ward for the positive.

Scroll up. Read what Vort said. Ditto!

Estradling, I understand what you are saying, and yes we have heard over the pulpit that "every worthy young man should serve a mission." However we also know that there are numerous young men that have been "excused" from service for a variety of physical issues and ailments. There are some that due to emotional or mental issues should also not serve. Sugar casting what a mission experience is further sets these youn men and young women up for further damage. We need to be honest in what a mission is, it is a pressure cooker. A wonderful experience for most and long term damaging for a few. Those few are real people, with real lives, and sacrificing them on the altar of a nice phrase is NOT ok. I loved my mission and have no regrets. However, it was not the best two years of my life, nor should it be for anyone. But I will restate and stand behind what I said above...a mission is not for everyone. If the young man or young woman in question does not feel they should be there then leadership, family, and ward friends need to accept that. Perhaps if you had a companion that attempted suicide 3 times in your presence, it would shape your opinion slightly differently. If it was your son or daughter perhaps even more so.

I think that for most people, not just missionaries, when they say "I know" what they mean is "I believe". Not all clearly, but many. I think belief is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable reason to serve a mission. I also think that sharing honest mission experiences with youth is valuable, but it is important to share both the fun experiences and the difficult ones. Having an accurate picture is much more beneficial than just repeating "it was the best two years" mantra. Finally, I m convinced that missions are not for everyone. If an individual does not want to go they should neither be forced, guilted, or bribed into doing so.

If you've repented Jesus has already forgiven and forgotten the sin. Do you think he would want you to keep bringing it up?

Best illustration I have found on this is here: http://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness/ Like any illustration it is not perfect and it has some flaws, but it does do a good job of explaining why many are crying foul and others are looking around wondering what the big fuss is about.

TFP, if the former member states no further contact is desired and the missionaries/members persist in attempting to visit the could open themselves and the church up to trespass or harassment charges.

No worries Vort. Usually, when an individual sends a resignation letter to the church they recieve a return notification from the church letting the individual know that there is a 30 day waiting period and that ths has been referred to a local leader (bishop or branch president) to follow up. However, legally as soon as the church recieves the letter, the member is "out". The courts have said, in instances where the church was sued regarding this, that is no 30 day wait, nor any obligation to meet with a local leader. Hence my used of the word legal. So while the church may have some internal process, an individual is no longer a member legally as soon as the letter is received by any church leader.

Legally as soon as they recieve a letter you are out. The rest is the church's process. You can send to a local leader or to Salt Lake. That is it. They will send you a confirmation to tell you that they have to send to local leadership, but legally, you are out.

PC, we talked a bit about the club issue earlier, but I hadn't heard about the accreditation question. Thankyou sharing that one. I definitely need to read up on that.

PC, we talked a bit about the club issue earlier, but I hadn't heard about the accreditation question. Thankyou sharing that one. I definitely need to read up on that.

Ask your bishop...:)