NightSG

Also true.

My wife sent this meme to me this morning.  She said it is going around in some circles, so I suppose so.

I care little about what non-Americans, LDS or otherwise, think of us.

I too do not care what non Americans think about gun ownership.  They have the wrong of it anyway.

Yep.  If you have made the decision to carry, along with the training and mindset such responsibility demands, then the two safest most responsible places for your gun are either locked in your home safe, or in your holster on your hip.  Any third option is less than optimal.

Haven't had the chance to ask the DA lately, but as best I can recall, all the firearms stolen around here this year have been from cars.

Now that the Church policy has made national news I feel other actions should follow. I'm a member of several non-profit organizations and this week I was at a meeting where a letter was read ...warning people who live in East Texas of a current risk. A major law enforcement group sent out letters, warning of people who have been identified as dangerous going to non profits ...trying to be accepted and claiming to be a member. Investigation reveal the "visitor" will be well armed.
This non profit asked members to lock all doors but one during meetings. Assign someone to watch those entering and if a concern is identified call 911.
I would like it if the Church would have common sense guidelines to reduce risk. It is good that, since peace officers can carry, signs can not be posted. I am concerned that this nation wide news story may identify the Church as a target on Sunday.
In Texas if a sign is not present it's not illegal. I never carry, but some have already said they would rather take a chance on discipline than risk there family's safety. Glenn Beck stated he believes people will be afraid to attend a Christian church within 5 years. It is is important that everyone understand nationwide we are rapidly becoming a different country and being nieve is not the best policy. You don't have to Google far to see we do have haters out there. One other Church in my tiny town has 4 unidentified armed persons at every meeting.
😆 Of course if implementation of this is like the policy that class rooms for youth and primary have windows in the doors, I will not be alive to see it implemented. PFR in our area only do what is necessary to have services due to budget restraints.

Nothing will make a crime free utopia.  That's why I have a duty to protect myself and my family.

I don't think it takes any research at all to do that.  Just take a look at the Family Proclamation, then take a look at society; the degradation of the family unit is the primary force in the degradation of society, from victimhood culture, to criminality.  Until Satan is given the boot, there will always be evil actors in mainstream society.
Widespread carrying of firearms in mainstream society works like medicating an incurable disease: it protects the individual for as long as possible until they ultimately succumb to the effects of the illness.  In the case of guns, if everyone in society becomes wicked, people will kill each-other with anything.  Eventually, only Zion will be a place of refuge.  In the meantime, I will protect myself while I await the day I am called to go.

I don't need to be a member of your Church to notice cultural views. All I have to do is read this thread to know that many of the men here see the author of this article as being rebellious for just writing the article.
If you think I have hateful attitudes on this forum, then quote one of my posts that reveal these hateful attitudes.
M.

This; I wore a light blue suit and white shirt with orange pinstripes this morning.  Because it's a suit I haven't worn in a while, but dropped a couple pounds to get the pants fitting right again, and the shirt actually coordinated fairly well.  I certainly didn't declare it a "non-white shirt protest."
Got quite a few compliments on it too.  

People don't get addicted to wearing pants, and it does not require an expensive procedure to replace pants with a dress.  We want to see people with tattoos and addictions in Church because it is indicative of their desire and willingness to change.  Wearing pants after knowing, believing, and committing to the standards of the Church is open rebellion.  We want homosexuals in Church too, but that doesn't mean we want them to embrace a homosexual lifestyle.

Or maybe you're just such an obnoxious drunk that we had to neuralize you and plant this whole story about being Mormon so you wouldn't do it anymore. 

Or maybe you're just such an obnoxious drunk that we had to neuralize you and plant this whole story about being Mormon so you wouldn't do it anymore. 

Oh my goodness. I can only imagine the hardship she will go through if she decides to take on a child on her own. If postpartum depression kicks in that baby is done for. I find it very hard to believe that she can't successfully be courted, YET wants to take on the responsibility of motherhood.  Maybe take one step at a time. I understand that it can be frustrating being alone but I am sure she can find a mate if she changes up whatever she is doing now. 
 

You know what's sad to me. This is such a pointless hill to die on. Maybe it's because I'm in the Midwest, but this isn't even an issue in the church where I live. No one pays attention to the type of clothing someone wears out here, unless it's obvious they may need some help because they are new or struggling. You wear your Sunday best, and that's enough. It's just so hard for me to understand why anyone cares so much about whether a woman wears pants or a skirt. Every Saint I've ever met is happy to see someone at church, no matter their clothing (within reason obviously). Is there someone, somewhere who gave a sister a hard time for wearing pants? Undoubtedly, but those are certainly few and far between and this whole dumb issue seems like the poster child of making a mountain out of a molehill just so you can seem "woke".
 Now as a caveat, I think joining in any protest day at church is dumb and reeks of apostasy. Church is for worshipping the Lord, not pushing some agenda so please don't misunderstand this as a post supporting that pants movement.

This is precisely what I'm arguing for in my ward. Consider, if something were to happen to a child at the hand of or under the supervision of an untrained adult, and it were found that the bishopric did not enforce the policy that all leaders receive this training. Guess who is now liable*.....
Quite frankly, anyone who is so inconvenienced and put out by a 30 minute video every three years doesn't deserve the privilege of working with youth or children. 

This is in fact how is has always supposed to have been handled. Because members of the church understand the priesthood and respect those in authority, many LDS people fall into this trap/belief that the Bishop is in charge of everything that takes place within the ward boundaries, and needs to have the final say on everything. They are good people, but just expect to be led about too often. The Bishop does not direct your life. Can this issue be a church issue...yes. However, it is also a legal one. Outside of the church this wouldn't even be a question - people hear about abuse, they notify the police. Unless you really have no idea what to do, there is no reason one should go to the Bishop first with news of abuse, let alone expect him to do something about it, or give you direction. Adults need to be adults and think for themselves. Law enforcement first, then notify local clergy leaders to help rally support for the victim and the aggrieved as appropriate.

Of course not; they just got done trading in their three year old cars and renewing their deluxe cable package and gym membership. They don't have $30 for such frivolous things. 

Just imagine how it looks to real Scouts when said totally green person digs out his old uniform to get his Eagle patch off of it. 

Oh, I dunno, OT, NT, BoM, D&C - all have their parts dealing with behavior of those who people the church.  The Lord has always been aware that His church is peopled with, well, people. 

We have been through this plenty of times.  We ignore all of them - treat them like telemarketers.  We don't deal with collections agencies.  We have 2 histories that got sent to collections before we could satisfactorily settle with the company - 1st one was a modeling agency that represented my husband and charged him for classes when he never agreed to classes, he only needed the agent to sign the contract because the client wouldn't sign without an agent.  The other one is a snafu with a hospital when both my husband and I carried insurance (after Obamacare, grrr) - the 2 insurance carriers keep on pingponging the insurance claim back and forth between them, meanwhile the hospital kept asking us to pay because the insurance didn't give them money.  They got tired of waiting for everything to get settled so they sold the thing to a collections agency.  We refused to deal with the collections agency who like to threaten us with this or that like mafia bosses.  We dealt with the credit bureaus instead.
 
 

This happened to my wife once.  She worked at a vet clinic, and a year or two after she quit, a collections company  tried to bill her for services given to like 8 different dogs.  Rude, pushy, scary guy - making all sorts of demands, claiming she owed, demanding all sorts of information.  It was like a pushy, nasty, aggressive used car salesman amped up to 11.  The atmosphere was one of "I've caught you, you slimy no good thief, and I will get money from you, you can either cooperate and tell me everything I need to know, or we can do this the hard way."
I hung up on him the first call and refused to give him any information.  Then I called a lawyer friend of the family and asked his advice.  He recommended that all communication happen in writing.  So I called the guy back, told him I'd consulted a lawyer, gave him only my email address, and told him I would respond only to email communication from here on out.  Guy was not happy and kept asking questions (give wife's cell number, confirm home address, admit to owing the bill, etc).  I just kept cutting him off with "Email me the details and I'll respond."  I must have said it like six times.  I eventually had to hang up on him a second time.
Got the email with the charges.  Responded via email with why we didn't owe anything, and demanded they stop all collection activities or we would retain the lawyer and all further communication would go through the lawyer.  I don't remember if I got confirmation from them that they'd closed the account, but they stopped contacting us. 
Deal with these people from a position of strength - that's my advice.  Treat them like gang-bangers who want to come into your child's bedroom.

Best one was a collection agency calling while I was having a chat with an old school friend who had just become the new DA. I handed the phone over, he introduced himself, and they hung up. Never heard from them again.