Urstadt

I have a smallish desktop combination safe sitting next to our bed.  Four buttons and the thing opens up.  Kids don't know the combination.
 
We also have a safe in our bathroom closet where we keep the rifles and other stuff.

Possibly. I suppose I like the idea of a box.

Would you be ok with the cable lock that comes with the gun? It completely disables it. :)

I am a believer, and I do have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, but I also believe that God lets us choose our path, we have the building blocks, the foundation, the tools necessary to find our way back to him. Those that think that God is involved in our everyday decision making process may be disillusioned to find out that he is not. 
 
If you think that he truly is then ask yourself this: why is there disease? why do people turn from the truth when they hear it? why is there famine, death, murder etc, etc.... the list can go on and on. He "God" lets us work 99% of things out for ourselves

Guns, Coins, Scout patches, Enemies

Does God let us as mortal men make mistakes and allow us to correct them later? Yes
 
Do mortal men lead the church? Yes
 
Was the church led astray from its divine purpose as a result of the ban? No
 
So if the church was not led astray as a result of the ban, is it not possible that God let Brigham Young make a mistake? Or is it not possible that Brigham did not heed the counsel of God? I'm sure that has never happened to a prophet before. Some mistakes are hard to undo and once they become policy are even harder to rectify. 

I have heard this a lot and know many other members believe it, too. But, I have also heard bishops and stake presidents says that many members will be very suprised to learn one day just how much Heavenly Father sat back and let us run the show. I haven't passed judgment on the issue myself yet. I just know how dearly I loved those men who told me that and how much I trusted and respected them.

I would go so far as the say that overall progress of the Kingdom is not requisite for it to be appropriate and perfectly acceptable. God's will and ways are His. We do not have to understand them. They do not need to make sense to us. He can do as He wills. Our place is to trust Him. Whether the choices seem to hurt or help per our perception--irrelevant. God's will is His.
 
The bottom line is that when all is said and done, those who exercise agency to choose to accept God will be given all that He has. Those who did not will not. The rest is all pretty meaningless. Some had the priesthood, some didn't. Some had riches, some didn't. Some had polygamy, some didn't. Some had freedom, some didn't. Some had health, some didn't. And so it goes. All meaningless in the end. Did we choose Christ or didn't we?

The very thought of that is absolutely terrifying. And less than 10 miles from your house? I'd be constantly worried and afraid.

If you're gonna own a firearm, it's important to be responsible.  I think we all agree on that.  Nobody wants accidents with kids.  I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a gun accident, only gun negligence.
 
That said, here's my setup.  My guns are only in one of three places.  
1. In the gun safe (combination lock, and the combo is not written down anywhere.)
2. In my physical posession (either strapped to me in a holster, or in my hands, or being cleaned, etc.)
3. Locked in my car (I like this one the least.  It's necessary because of the gun-free zones out there.)
 
Kids are safe. 

Where I live, there is a gang I learned about in my gang awareness training put on by the Sherriff's department. They have a reputation that they pride themselves on maintaining.
They attack in 4-man teams with shotguns, baseball bats, rope, and condoms. Their plan is the same everytime. Kill whoever opens the door with the shotgun: no time to respond to respond to that. (If no one answers the door, they shhot their way in with the shotgun.) Then, they storm in, tie up both the men and the women. They beat the men with the bats, to maintain their brutality reputation among the gang community, and rape the women. A four-man team with a shotgun, a baseball bat, and rope, high on uppers that take away pain, is not something any human being will ever defend against with martial arts, pepper spray, or a tazer. Especially because everyone who is sprayed or tazed always has 1-3 seconds to get a shot off before they hit the ground and are incapacitated. Even if you incapacitate one of them, the other 3 will get you. No, the only way you defend aganist that is a tactical shotgun or a pistol with extended magazines, and a planned out emergency response plan that your family practices during some family home evenings.
That gang, that I learned about, is located < 10 miles from my house.

We don't like that term. We prefer "restorer".

An irresponsable gun owner is a danger...

Yeah, there's a Brigham Young quote along the same lines that the Fundies are very fond of using against orthodox Mormonism because they claim it's proof the Church went astray. Of course, you read the thing in context and it's merely a tautological warning that--under the old policy--if one married an African, one's children would be ineligible to hold the priesthood. Young's quote, at least, doesn't seek to bind the Church to the policy in perpetuity; and I'd be surprised to hear Petersen make an on-the-record statement to that effect.

I do completely agree about slandering the brotheren. They are such great men who love the Lord. McConkie's talk before he passed away has been one of the most moving ones I've ever listened to. My mission president never used the word "enraged." I got that from President Packer's experience with President Hinckley, when President Hinckley suggested modifying the garments and President Packer allegedly slammed his fist on the table in disagreement. I am going to edit my post to take out that word because I do completely agree with what you said about how that word is diametrically opposed to the love and peace of the bretheren. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
That talk was given in my YSA ward in 2011. I've been out of that ward for over 2 years now. I did do my own research the past couple of hours. I think the confusion is coming from a 1954 talk that Elder Peterson gave to BYU. In it, he didn't say anything objectionable (I just finished reading it). But, there is a comment about a generation missing out on the priesthood should members marry interracially. That comment rings a bell to me. I remember something about that. Like you, I wish I could go back and re-hear how it was said.
Sorry I can't be of as much help to you as you have been to me tonight. I'm glad we're getting the facts as straightened out as we can, though. :)

I'd be interested to hear the direct sources, if your bishopric has them--I've never heard anything like it in all my reading.
I've been listening to conference sermons by apostles since 1979 (my birth year) on my commute, and am halfway through 1983. I have developed a huge love for both Elders McConkie and Petersen. If the allegations you cite are true, so be it. But if not . . . Both men deserve better than to be slandered over the pulpit by imaginative bishopric members--even well-meaning ones.
And while President Packer has been openly referred to as something of a "grizzly bear", the idea of him becoming "enraged" about anything seems remarkably out of character and smacks of the Mormon liberals who habitually try to paint anyone who doesn't agree with themselves as completely and irrationally unhinged.

Source for first two: YSA bishopric during a 5th Sunday when all three spoke in sacrament meeting. The first speaker, second counselor, covered the history of the priesthood before the restoration and the restoration of the priesthood. The second speaker, first counselor, talked about the history of the priesthood in the church since its restoration. The third speaker, bishop, reiterated highlights of both counselors' talks and then emphasized the importance of the priesthood today. Thank you for the fact checks. :)
Thank you for the spelling corrections. :)
Source for third one: mission president.

We don't like that term. We prefer "restorer".

The blunt fact of the matter is that having explanations give concerning these issues will not suffice in resolving doubts. There is only one sure way to knowledge of truth, and that is through the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost.
 
I'm not saying don't bother looking for apologetic reasoning behind these things. That's great. I'm saying it is insufficient. The only way you'll get past any of these issues is by turning to the Lord in prayer and fasting and humility, and carefully learning to listen to His guidance.
 
Gaining truth and knowledge is a matter of being given light. It is impossible to see clearly without light. And light comes to us from God and from the Spirit, not just from study. Looking closer doesn't work if we're in the dark. We must have light to see.
 
I recommend doing some scripture study on light and truth; Start with, for example:
 
Alma 19:6, D&C 88:11-13, 1 Jn 1:5-7, D&C 84:45, John 8:12, Luke 11:34, 3 Nephi 13:22, John 12:35-36, 1 John 1:5, John 11:9-10, D&C 93:26,
 
Particularly:
 
D&C 93:28-40
 
"28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.
 
...
 
"31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
 
"32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
 
...
 
"36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
 
"37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.
 
...
 
"39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.
 
Note how we receive light and truth. It's not just by study. It is by keeping the commandments.
 
So, yeah...seek and learn and get explanations and all that. But your real objective is to get more light and truth, which comes through obedience to God's commandments (including prayer, scripture study, fasting, service, etc.) and having an eye single to His glory.

Hi Stovepipe -
 
The LDS Church prefers to keep apologetics at arm's length.  There are some great sources out there (Maxwell Institute, FairLDS.org, Mormon Interpreter, JeffLindsay.com); but the Church doesn't generally officially endorse any of them--rather, it focuses on teaching members to approach God and get answers directly from Him.
 
 
I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all explanation.  I've posited some theories in a post to these forums here.  You might also want to take a look at Brian Hales' website at http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/.
 
 
Meg Stout (who did a series of blog posts at millennialstar.org entitled "A Faithful Joseph") posits that Emma knew more than she let on.  This is a minority view, though--the majority of scholars believe Joseph did indeed mislead Emma about some (not all) of his polygamous marriages.  The reason, bluntly, is that Emma was extremely hostile to the marriages and (in spite of her other virtues) was not above doing some pretty ghastly things to women she suspected Joseph of having married.
 
 
I believe two or three of Smith's plural wives recalled hearing him say something to that effect--though they were pretty clear that Smith also gave them a great deal of time to consider and that they entered the matches freely.  These anecdotes, and later teachings from other Church leaders, do make it clear that it was vitally important--at least, for a time--that the Church teach and practice the principle of plural marriage.
 
 
Not everything a prophet says is inspired; and sometimes they haven't been terribly careful about which of their sayings the Church should formally embrace and rely upon versus which of their sayings are expressions of their own, potentially misguided opinions.  The promise we do have is that we will not be led "astray from the oracles of God, or from [our] duty" (see the explanatory material to Official Declaration 1)--or, as President Uchtdorf put it last year, "God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny."
 
 
There's been a lot of research done on this by LDS scholars--see Maxwell Institute, FAIR, etc.  Bottom line, in my opinion:  No, the scrolls weren't written by the hand of Abraham itself--they date to thousands of years later.  No, the Book of Abraham as we have it is not a literal translation of those scrolls.  There are lots of interesting theories as to how the two relate--from the notion that the Egyptian funerary rite (which is what the remaining fragments of the actual papyri appear to contain) was a convoluted version of an earlier, pure, divinely inspired endowment; to the idea that the actual papyri were thirty to forty feet long and we only have three to five feet of them at present; to the idea that the scrolls in their entirety were nothing more than a "catalyst" that inspired Joseph to seek further revelation from God and led to the revelation of new scripture (much as the Joseph Smith translation did).  We do have precedent for Joseph Smith working with one text, then getting a revelation restoring the content of another text that no longer existed--see D&C 7.
 
By all means, do your homework on this one.
 
 
Oh, they were here, all right.  Where we get tripped up is when we assume they were the only people here.  :)
 
 
Yep.  You look for explanations, pick them up, weigh them out, and decide which ones make sense and which ones don't.  I also don't expect all of my questions to get answered (though many, many of them have been)--sometimes you just put something "on the shelf" and come back to it later when you have a little more light and knowledge.  The bottom line is that God has revealed Himself to me and given me a testimony; and I'm not going to let the things I don't know lead me to throw away the things I do know.
 
 
The closest you'll get that comes with official Church imprimatur is the Gospel Topics section of the Church's website.  The section is continually being updated, and there have been some really good articles generated in the past few months addressing some of the hairier historical issues.
 
 
I don't completely shut them out, but I don't seek them out either.  If I already have a question about the Gospel and I do some googling and an anti-site comes up--sure, I'll skim the entry as part of the study process.  But I don't read through anti sites looking for more questions or expecting to find "the truth".  If you go digging underneath an outhouse, you might find a few interesting things--but mostly, all you're gonna get is excrement.
 
 
Oh, sure, it's an issue.  LDS leadership has been pretty candid about it.  I think the Church has (belatedly) evolved from a view of history as something that should be specifically written to be "faith promoting", to more of a sense of comfort that even a warts-and-all history can still be just as edifying (perhaps more).  I have a few good friends that left the Church over historical issues, and they are all pretty clear that they could have dealt with the issues themselves--it was the fact that the Church hadn't addressed the issues in a more public way that made them feel "lied to". 
 
The Church is getting better about this sort of thing; but I think there are limits to how far it should go.  Historical interpretations are always evolving; and I don't think it's generally a good idea for the Church to hitch its wagon to any particular theory of history any more than it should come out and endorse particular scientific hypotheses, political platforms, or any other man-made philosophy.  These will eventually stand or fall on their own merits; and the Church will focus on the work of bringing people into communion with God.

The Cult of Glock.
 
Waitaminute...nevermind.

Mormon.

Watch out with the pepper spray, it's prone to aerosolization, meaning you zap people in the general vicinity.  If it's windy, you might get yourself.  If it's indoors, you get everyone in the room. Asthmatics can be killed by this form of contact. Also not that some people are basically immune.  Finding out your assailant is immune to your pepper spray can spoil your whole day.  

Yes.  So does my wife.  I have a concealed carry permit, and so does my wife.
 
Several reasons as to why.  
 
1. We once helped put a guy behind bars for 5-life.  He knows where we live, and he has been in our house before.  There was a risk he might want some payback, so a few years before he came up for parole, we started preparing.   We did things to deter and avoid him, to keep him from showing up in the first place.  We thought through and practiced ways to evade him if he did show up.  And if all of that failed, we thought through and practiced ways to stop him if he presented an imminent threat to our health.  That included practicing with firearms and being able to legally carry them around with us.
 
2. We also live in the middle of nowhere.  The authorities are 5-30 minutes further away from us, than from other folks.  Lots of long drives along dirt roads - if one of us ended up in a ditch and had to hoof it somewhere, a firearm could be very useful to scare away bears/coyotes/etc and signal for help.
 
3. I also acknowledge the tiny risk of random danger from my fellow man.  The Aurora theater killing and the New Life Church killing both happened pretty close to home. 
 
4. I acknowledge the tiny-but-growing risk of deadly acts of terrorism on our soil.  The Trolley Square killing and other such events come to mind.  The Sheriff of my county is nationally known for supporting an armed populace as a good response to keeping such things away.
 
Other random reasons include teaching my kids respect for life, safeguarding my liberty, and being ready for the zombie uprising.  

Just wanted to post two of my favorite pictures.