NeedleinA

While there are those who "also" deserve thanks, it is not to say that simply because someone receives a paycheck that a "thank you" is not deserved too. I'm a small business owner and tell my employees thank you all the time. I'd be one pitiful employer to withhold sincere praise for them or anyone who goes the extra mile despite being paid. 
 
 
I would offer up that some people who don't leave their name after doing a good deed would prefer the silent blessings as opposed to any praise anyways.   

This is true.  Nevertheless, we give honor to whom honor is due.  They may wave us off and say, "Unnecessary--I'm just doing my job!"  The recognition does feed their soul, though.  More than that:  When we show our gratitude to the unsung heroes in our lives we feed our own souls.

You can find a few bad apples in any group in life: doctors, teachers, ward members, etc. I would never let a few taint a great group like first responders. Good job thanking them for their service, I appreciate them as well. The cops in our town are on a waving basis as you pass them, pretty cool. (either waving or flagging me down as I zoom by?)

Forums are how I found the site. Tend to heavily prefer forums for the interactions and honestly tend to ignore articles since they are static.

Forums are how I found the site. Tend to heavily prefer forums for the interactions and honestly tend to ignore articles since they are static.

The "no" answers are wrong. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has abandoned his temple covenants through adultery is most certainly subject to excommunication. Whether that actually happens or not is at the discretion of the stake president, and it may seem an unlikely outcome. But possible? Oh, yes.

Forums are how I found the site. Tend to heavily prefer forums for the interactions and honestly tend to ignore articles since they are static.

How does anyone know who has been recommended and rejected? Seriously, how does that get around? It means someone is gossiping and that someone is at a high level. So, yeah, I supported the SP to do a smack down. Unless it is the SP, then I would expect the Area Authority to do the smack down.

Does the bishop in a ward tell each and every other potential candidate for any ward callings why they were rejected in favor of another candidate?

I don't see why a bishop being called would be any different.

Yes it would be interesting, but I don't think it is really practical or relevant, especially because it opens the door to contempt where often no harm is intended.

Wedding rings let others know that we are married.  Since I work an environment where I often interact with those who do not know me well, it seems wise to wear the ring.  Also, I remember not wearing my ring to church a few times, and a sister wondered why.  There was no real judgment, but there may be some who believe that not wearing a ring could send the wrong signals to eligible singles.

At work I sometimes get called rude because I tell people things they don't like to hear.  My typical response: "just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it rude."  Same thing often applies to the accusations of bullying on forums.  Just because you don't like what someone said doesn't make it bullying.

Being on the forums here has taught me a lot.  I have learned that I better know how to back up any statements I make.  I remember in one of my very early posts I had mentioned something that I believed was church doctrine, and I was immediately asked where I had heard this, and would I please show documentation or references.  I was completely at a loss.  It was just something I had assumed and had heard somewhere.  It's been good for me to research and find answers. And, I have actually learned that Classylady doesn't know everything about the Church, there's a lot out there I can learn, and there are people on these forums that I have learned a lot from.  Thank you, all.

Byron makes unwarranted assumptions about several things in this topic.
First, he apparently assumes that "Gospel" means only the four Gospels: Matthew through John. The context of the very passage he cites makes that assertion false. Paul is speaking of the Gospel he preached. Others have shown that the Gospels, as texts, had not all been written when he penned Galatians. Even had they, he did not preach the texts of the Gospels. This fact is attested by the rest of the first chapter and, indeed, the whole epistle.
Part of his argument is that the Greek word euangelikos means "good news" (in Old English, "gut speil", whence "gospel"). So? Rather than support it, this undermines his position, since "good news" is hardly limited to the first four books of the New Testament.
We can examine what Paul meant by "gospel" in 1 Cor 15. The first few verses define the Gospel: it is the good news that responds to Job's question in Job 14:14a: "If a man die, shall he live again?" and his assertion that, though worms destroy this body, yet in [his] flesh, shall he see God. (The passage is not clear. In some translations, it says the opposite: he will see God without his body. My Hebrew is not up to translating this, so we'll use scholars who have worked on it for centuries -- but this is where having a iving prophet is helpful.)
The answer to Job's query is "YES!!! And therein lies the nugget that helps us understand why Byron is wrong in his implications.
Second, he assumes that we know today what Paul taught the Galatians. In this, he is right, to a point, but only to that point. The particulars of his teaching in Galatia are shouded in silence, but we can deduce that, at least, he taught what he'd preached elsewhere.
Knowing what that was is critical to discussing his point in the first few verses of Galatians.
Third, he assumes that he was writing about us, but Paul was writing to and about the Galatian saints. This is not to say that we cannot apply it to others, but those "others" must be in the same condition the Galatians were in when Paul chastized them for their apostasy.
The Galatians, like many of the early converts to the Church were of two types: Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as their Redeemer and God, and gentiles who had also accepted Christ. Both groups shared the world with the Romans and the Greeks. The Greek philosophers were wise in many things, but they were wrong to the extreme when they hypothesized that matter was evil, and that God, god, or gods must be immaterial while still existing, because He, it, or they were not evil or corruptable.
Thus, the apostates of the I & II repeatedly had to be reminded of the central fact of the Gospel: Jesus Christ rose from the dead with a resurrected body, and each of us will be similarly resurrected, as well. That is the good news.
In chapter 3, Paul calls his converts foolish. Why? Because they had rejected the true Gospel, the Gospel he had preached, and started following "another gospel: which is not another". Or, in other words, they had become apostates, preferring a false "gospel" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
How shall we apply this scripture to our day? Who follows a false gospel, and who follows the true? Who accepts the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ? Who accepts the literal physical resurrection of all mankind, as Paul, as Peter, as Jesus Himself, taught? Who denies former, who the latter? Who denies both?
Answer this question, and we see to whom Paul was writing in our time.
I know that we Latter-day Saints accept the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. We know that He sits in yonder heaven in His physical, His resurrected body of flesh and bones. We know that one day, all, from Adam to the last babe to be born in the Millennium of our Lord's reign, will likewise be resurrected.
When accusing us of false doctrine, our critics must assure themselves that they are not the apostates. Lest their arguments turn again and rend them.
Lehi

Next time...
*** Spoiler Alert ***

Agreed. Variety of posters and their styles adds wonderful flavor for learning and avoids "Attack of the Clones" - G.Lucas
The intellectuals, the soft spirited, the goof balls, etc. = a great forum, lds.net 

Lived in a US state (name withheld) and I was bused to a specific high school as part of that state's integration program. There were 5 minorities in the high school, my sister and I were 2 of them. Every day derogatory race names and hate were used towards us, bullying was normal. When students yelled racial slurs across the hall/room, you knew it was directed at you. That was a situation I was "forced" into. No perception of bullying, it was real. 
 
There is nothing forced about being on a voluntary forum. The beauty is the computer has an off switch if someone feels "real" bullying. 

Don't you think you run the risk of making false accusations? If you are claiming people have done some bad thing, you need to be able to back that up with concrete examples. Otherwise, your accusations are without foundation.

I see this far too often on my job as an elementary teacher. It's too often a joy to declare others bullies.
I'm going to be honest: I rarely see true bullying here and I've been here 5 years. I don't think I'm inner clique, either.
Be it known that feeling less than stellar over a disagreement is not bullying. Bullying is a,long-term attack against a specific person.
I guess I see personalities here that are what they are. It's also necessary in Internet communications to be frank and to the point. This can come off as harsh.
If you see what you sense is bullying, quote the statement for clarification and/or inform the mods. A vague sense of discomfort is useless.

It's easy to call those you disagree with bullies. It ends up amounting to the same thing you're accusing them of however.

Hi Byron,
 
I get it- I really do.  I've spent years at countercult reachout boards and Catholic Answers Forums trying to be a good guest while still wanting to interact and get my points across.  I've often struggled and failed to be charitable and full of Christlike love (although my best successes in those places have come when I have managed it.)
 
That said, I still want to know something.
 
 
Ok, fine.  Let me be as civilly direct and plain as I can be.
 
* Where did you first encounter the notion of 1 Galatians 6-9 as a criticism of the BoM?
* Where did you first encounter the notion of Joseph Smith plagarizing various sources when writing the BoM?
* Where did you first encounter the heresay that Mormons believe Lucifer is Jesus' brother?
* Where did you first encounter the notion that Mormons couldn't drink caffeine?
* Where did you first encounter the notion of Mormons believing God living on a distant planet?
* Where did you first encounter the notion of Mormons believing God had sex with Mary? 
* Where did you first encounter the notion of Mormon beliefs about our garments?
 
As those of us who have spent years interacting with critics of my faith can attest, these are a handful of common criticisms, spread through pamphlet, critical book, guest speaker at someone's church, symposiums on mormons given by nonmormons, critical website, and such places.  Please forgive me in advance if I'm off base here, but you seem to have hinted at the notion that you've just come up with these questions on your own, in your passing interest in things LDS.  Charitably put, Byron, we know that isn't the case.
 
I am asking you to be as plain in your answer as I've been in my questions.  Where did you hear all this stuff?  It's ok to cite a book, author, website, series of emails, guest speaker, or whatever it is.  When you cite your source you don't lose credibility.  You may even find you gain some. 
 
God bless you, and looking forward to hearing your answer,
NT

We don't claim ownership of the Gospel of the Word of God either... we simply believe him when he says 
 
2 Nephi 29
6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
 
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
 
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
 
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

If anything would save a marriage, I think true love and open affection helps. I remember reading a story about a woman who was going to be divorced had only one request, to be hugged/held everyday for a month, and afterwards if the husband still found divorce agreeable she would go along with it. People give and receive love in different ways, and when hostile arguments arise, love, charity, and compassion are proverbially pushed off the stage and replace with the actors of darker feelings. Marriage counselling would be ideal.
It will be hard for people on the internet to give you the advise and counsel you need. There could be more going on, and we don't know you personally, which makes things a little more difficult.
If divorce happens, allow yourself to go through the grief cycle. Most importantly find someone you can trust to help you through it.
Keep strong, now might seem like a dark time indeed
but along the horizon there will be a bright future shinning.

Sincerity is over rated - I would very much rather be deeply embarrassed by truth than delighted to any degree by a sincere falsehood - temptation is not always an effort to make lies applying - sometimes temptations is as simple as making the truth and a dedication to truth appear undesirable, difficult, mean or even insincere.  Being sincere about a lie - is still a lie.

Fwiw Byron. This is the internet. This is written word. It often comes off harsher and colder than it is intended. It's very easy to read emotions into it based on our own filters and expectations. I find often it is best attempt to clarify with another poster rather than ignore them when they rub a bit harsh on me.
We are also quite a diverse bunch, you'll never please everyone.

"I want to be of service....".
 
Now that's a strange way of justifying your condemnation of others for the very action you are engaging in yourself.