askandanswer

These are the closest thing I could find, and the second doesn't seem in favor of this whole "don't let missionaries be witnesses" thing (though only by implication).
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ-supplement/07-appendix?lang=eng&id=p205#p205
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ-supplement/07-appendix?lang=eng&id=p222#p222
IMO, the missionaries should decide whether or not to come forward (and IMO, they should, if they actually witnessed the events in question).  Is it possible to bear false witness by keeping your mouth shut?  I wouldn't want that question lingering in my soul until I die.
ETA: Scratch that question.  IMO, that hymn I posted answers my question:
 

Pretty sure you won't find anything in the Church Handbook of Instructions to support his position of not involving the missionaries in a criminal investigation due to some rule or policy of the church.

Thanks for this, this is a helpful and interesting read.
This has partly become my business. The first counsellor in the District Presidency asked me to attend court the day after the person was arrested. I did this, and there were several phone calls between myself and the Branch President on the morning of the hearing as I kept him updated. Since then I have visited the person in prison four times, twice with the EQP and once with the Branch President. The Branch President and I have made several attempts to find emergency accommodation for this person in the hope that if he had a place to stay the judge would be more likely to release him on bail. 

I have real problems with this policy and the whole "be good citizens" thing our Church teaches.  ETA: For that matter, I have issues with it and the whole "tell the truth" thing and the "be kind" thing, and I could go on but why.
Good luck to you, @askandanswer.  Don't envy your position.

A witness is a witness no matter who they are.

If they were personal eye-witness to the events, I'd say that more light is always better than less light.

There are many hypotheticals and unknowns here (bolded). I would handle this by getting more facts to make an informed proposal to bring to the Lord.
Exactly what are the Church's "practice" and "the church line"? What is the purpose of the practice and the line? (italicized) -- I would need a clear reference for this (CFR from you, if you have one).
Then I would decide whether I am seeking a moral or ethical resolution (secular) or a spiritual resolution (personal revelation) and propose and pray accordingly.

Bro, I am beyond lost. You have so many “this may be, this might be, perhaps” that I’m not sure anyone can give you solid, insightful advice. 
 
That said, I really do wish you the best. 

Yeesh.  I guess these are the two main principles at play: 
I'm also a big fan of these guidelines: 
The 3rd guideline is basically "mind your own business".  If you're not personally witness to this story, then all of your claim to the 4th guideline is hearsay and gossip.  Whenever I find myself in a situation like that, I'm happy to talk in principles to anyone who wants to listen to me, but I wouldn't be interfering with a criminal matter.  
Example: My friend is telling me this story, and my friend was there.  I might talk about the options my friend has, which include being brave and fighting a system with risk of blowback, or keeping silent and not doing the right thing.  But at the end of the day, it would be my friend's action to take, not mine.

There might be a member who, later this week, might be asked to plead guilty or not-guilty to a set of charges that resulted initially from a minor domestic violence incident but which were added to because of the nature of the interaction between him and a number of police officers who showed up in response to the initial call. If this person pleaded guilty he could end up spending a year or more in jail. This person’s legal representation might come from a non-government, community based organisation whose level of funding is far less than the completely inadequate funding provided to government Legal Aid organisations. In this country, there is no right to legal representation. If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if you don’t fall under the remit of one of the government or non-government organizations that attempt to provide legal representation, you’re on your own, although in practice, that doesn’t happen very often.
There may have been a missionary, and perhaps even his companion, who witnessed this interaction between the member and the police.  It is possible that this missionary could give evidence that could be different, in several key aspects, to the narrative of the numerous police officers who might be the only other source of information on this matter.
There could be a strong reluctance from church leaders to have missionaries involved in this matter in any way. The police have not sought a statement from him/them. The lawyer who may end up handling the matter on behalf of the accused is not aware that there are one or two missionaries who might have witnessed much of the actions upon which the charges are based and whose testimony could influence either the verdict or the sentence.
It may be the case that the church has had to choose between, on the one hand, maintaining its practice of preventing missionaries from serving as witnesses in criminal trials and concealing, or not making available, important evidence that could result in an impoverished person with a clean criminal record receiving a sentence that would be harsher than it might otherwise have been, or on the other hand, allowing the missionary to testify, thereby serving the interests of justice and reducing the severity of the sentence that is likely to be given, and that the church has chosen to protect the missionary to the detriment of the accused.
My question is what is the moral and ethical thing to do in this situation. Should I let the lawyer know that there might be one, possibly two witnesses who could provide evidence that may run counter to the police narrative, or should I follow the church line and say nothing to anybody about the  missionaries? And if I say nothing, would I then be complicit in what could be labelled a conspiracy of silence aimed at influencing the course of justice in a manner that is likely to adversely impact on a poor and highly vulnerable person? My inclination at present is to follow my Priesthood leaders and keep quiet about the missionaries. How might you handle such a matter?

We meet our exchange student in about two hours. He is the fourth one we have hosted, for two weeks, from China. It’s an amazing experience! 

Figured we needed a positive thread.  
 
My son freakin loves his mission.  When he got called to Farmington NM I sighed. 
I hate NM.  Got like 3 speeding tickets going thru a 30 mile stretch (NE corner of the state) back and forth from Texas and BYU during undergrad.  Total speed trap 65 MPH on Texas side and 55 in MN - and no one lives along the road, its totally abandoned other than dirt, weeds, scrub trees and cops dispensing citations!
Anyway, he has been in the Zuni Pueblo for 3-4 months and absolutely loves it.  Lots of service (mostly chopping firewood).  Confiscating alcohol from the members and the occasional dime bad of cocaine.  Had to explain that we don’t take possession of illegal substances.  And teaching the gospel.  
His letters are great.  And his attitude is spot on.  The ward Sunday attendance has gone from < 10 to over 40.
Once again the Lord knows best.

More likely an Australian passport

Exaltation down under. From penal colony to heavenly abode. You might have a point there. 😃

This seems to give rise to another question, though.  We have skeletons of infants and children who died pre-Christ.  But I had always understood that the non-Telestial dead who died pre-Christ were resurrected shortly after He was.  So, why weren’t these little ones resurrected?  Is *every* pre-Christian grave modern archaeologists find, the resting place of a wicked person?
One solution to this that I’ve been toying with, is that while resurrection *might* in some cases entail the re-gathering/re-assimilation of all of the specific atoms/molecules that went down into the grave (especially when doing so constitutes a sign to others, such as Christ’s own resurrection)—that that may not *always* be the case; and resurrection may actually involve the selective retrieval of some body material that was discarded throughout one’s life (if *every* molecule that was ever part of/eaten by us came back in the resurrection, we’d be physically enormous.)  
Thus, I suspect that the fact that we today have remains that are traceable to a particular individual, doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual has not yet been resurrected.  Peter, for example—we know he’s been resurrected.  Joseph Smith saw him.  He got ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by him.  And yet, I think the evidence is reasonably strong that the 1st century skeleton found under St. Peter’s Basilica and analyzed in the mid 20th century, does originate with the apostle Peter.  But then, it must be that there isn’t enough of him there at the Vatican to even call it his “body” anymore.  Certainly, the soft tissues are all gone.  Whatever’s still there is like . . . nail clippings.  The nonessential stuff.

How was Abel able to deal with being alone in the spirit world?  Perhaps the place was empty and Abel kept busy by building a house with a gable. Perhaps Abel had an adorable pet sable (they would have shorter lives, so some may have died before him) and told it parables while he made a table to sit at and a chair to sit on.  Perhaps Abel built a stable stable in which to keep his friends the sables.

disavow: deny any responsibility or support for

@LDSGator talkin' like he ain't got this inspirational poster hanging in his bedroom.
 

 

This is clearly a sin.  Jesus commanded that our i be single.

(230-220)/2=5
230-220/2=120 because Mr. Bigglebaggle told me about the order of operations in like 6th grade. 

I see what you did there.

Living in different states, thankfully!

In another thread it was suggested that there might be some problems in the church. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't, I don't know. But what I do know is that if there are problems in the church they're not my problems, they're God's problems, because its His church, and its for Him to solve them, not me. I just need to keep doing what I've always been doing, but do it more and better because I still see the occasional hint of an imperfection in myself (an almost imperceptible hint ). I feel no need to get engaged or involved in whatever problems there might be. They're not my problems.