JohnsonJones

A LOT of questions there. I think I have answers to them, but unsure if that's what you are really wanting. In addition, I'm not sure how much of it I would want to go into here, as there are many that do not even understand some of the basic ordinances, and as some of this deals with temple ordinances, I'm unsure how much is even appropriate to discuss here. A side point, I think John 14:23 is also talking about having the Gift of the Holy ghost, as is revealed in his answer to Judas in verse 26 in continuation of this. It may also mean the second comforter, but I also feel it is discussing that gift which any one who loves the Father and the Son and have followed their commandments of baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy ghost may have. it will also teach us all things, and help us to know the truth within them. Calling and Election made sure (in this life) is an interesting topic, but ironically I do not believe it requires one to personally know the Father (In my opinion) as a person of and in the flesh in physical contact. One can receive this as ordinance in the temple, though it is not practiced nor given as often today as it has in time past. This may be off topic though and going a little too far off into the hinterlands to really be something we should discuss.

I don't think it is R-rated (R ratings are graphic in what they show or explain), with a few exceptions (song of Solomon taken literally may be R or X rated). In general, most of the Bible probably falls within the realm of G rating to that of PG rating. Even in death such as when David slew Goliath it doesn't exposite how much blood there was, with the locations it splashed or the tendrils of the neck and muscles or any other explicit detail (an R-rating would probably go into at least a paragraph or two of explanation of the blood and gore...while an X-rated one would probably utilize twice that much to an entire chapter!). It can be quite action packed though at parts.

I go to extremes most times and try to only use the Lord's English versions of the name of the Savior, or that of the Father when I am talking about it in a respectful or holy fashion. Even in Normal speech or writing I normally will refer to them as the Lord or the Son, and the Father rather than how we refer to them when in holy settings. I'm probably just more paranoid about avoiding even the chance of breaking the commandments than I need to be.

Have you seen what people get with SS these days? People who try to live only on their SS ARE in the poor house already. Why do you think someone who should be in their retirement (though I also admit I was very UNWISE with money when I was younger and spent it all rather than investing like I should have) is still working when they should be enjoying their "golden" years (also, I tend to enjoy it, which I suppose may also be part of why I am still a historian. Also to be honest, there are OTHER reasons that I am still doing the stuff I do which have nothing to do with money, but additional money definitely helps. If I was to try to live ONLY on what SS would bring in, my quality of life would be greatly decreased).

Well, comparatively to most on these boards I am EXCESSIVELY Liberal. Probably considered to the FAR Left...which I will point out in many situations so people won't make any mistakes in that. However, I view myself more as a centrist, neither really left nor right, neither truly liberal or conservative. I might even say I probably lean a little more conservative than liberal, but comparative to the politics many Mormons seem to have these days, I'm probably decidedly Liberal in comparison.

We've seen provable micro evolution from what I know, but never the entire macro evolution where man is descended from Apes. From what I see, it is merely conjecture similar to finding similar shaped rocks and saying that all those rocks are connected or related in some way. Mind of course, though I talk to Biologists (and others at the university in other departments) I am by no means a scientist in that arena. Those Biologist DO treat evolution more as a LAW rather than a theory (nevertheless it IS a theory) in regards to not just micro evolution, but also macro evolution. I am a historian and as such normally deal with things AFTER the advent of mankind, and even moreso after the advent of writing and record keeping that we are aware of. If one does feel that this form of evolution is FACT though, how do they correlate it with the story of Adam and Eve. Some say it is symbolic, but if you take it that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, how do you recompense that between the story of Adam and Eve and the ideas behind evolution. You'd have to have two separate groups there, which eventually would have to intermix in some way (and perhaps if that were the case, those who are the children of Abraham are the TRUE descendants of heaven, whereas those who are not are those that are counted as the children of the apes...or something like that)? How does one correlate the two together if they believe both? (and obviously I'm an ape>human skeptic, but I'm interested in what ideas people would postulate who do think in that manner).

This is a difficult situation, and I am sorry that you are dealing with it. In some instances I would suggest (if you were on good terms with them) to contact her parents and get them involved to some degree, but as that is not possible, it is not a path that you can take. I would advise some marriage counseling from an LDS counselor if possible. I think she is experiencing a mid-life crisis (though not in middle age yet) where she regrets actions she took previously and wants to live life how she thinks she could have lived it if she were not with the "good girl" image. It is one of selfishness and self-centeredness. This can be extremely tough on a marriage. I am NOT a marriage counselor, and what they would advise is probably ten times better than what I am thinking. Perhaps the time is not right to try to push your own thoughts on your wife, but perhaps focus more on your children. Bring up to your wife your children's love and ask her how much she loves them. Find out if she wants to hurt them, or what she would do for her children. Children need their mother, they need both parents in a committed relationship. There are many that do not have this in today's modern era of broken homes, but we know from revelation and from messages (Proclamation to the Family for starters) in our day that a Father and a Mother are important. See if she is willing to sacrifice for her children and to love them with all the love of her heart, even if she cannot love you presently. Ask to start saying daily family prayers, both morning and night. See if she is willing to say couple prayers together both morning and night with you. Spend time cuddling. When I say cuddling I do not mean anything further than that, I mean time where you put your arm around her shoulders and sit close to her or hold her close and just talk. Make time for it each day. A much tougher thing to do, but if she is willing, perhaps one of the more important. See if she will spend just five minutes (more if possible, but five minutes at least) each day just reading from the Book of Mormon outloud with you. Another step, if it is possible, is go to a one income home. This is NOT possible in many instances, but it seems that she has a weakness in the world currently. Using your children as a focus, have it so that she will spend time at home raising them. This means that your household income will decrease greatly, but if she spends time at home with the children, perhaps the worldly temptations will diminish and her spiritual being will be uplifted more. If you can have her focus on your children and the needs of your children, I think she may be able to overcome the self-centeredness that seems to have pre-occupied her character. Perhaps it will bring the best out of her as she tries to bring them up the best she can because she loves them. That's the important thing to dwell on in regards to the children, is her love for her children (which I hope that she has). By sacrificing for others, it can bring the best out of us. In addition, stop thinking about the things of yourself, but focus on her and your children yourself. Try to set an example of selflessness. Put all your labors and love towards helping and furthering what they need in life. I don't know the solutions to your problems. I, like anyone, can offer advice, but advice is a dime a dozen comments. Advice is cheap, it's much harder to find an actual solution. It sounds like a hard situation that you are going through and I do not know the answers that you seek. I pray that you can at least find solace and comfort from the Holy Spirit in this time of trial.

This came up in another thread, and I found the idea so fascinating that I wanted to keep track of it (no idea how to keep track of something on these forums overall for the long term, they seem to disappear off my page at some point...but I do keep track of this thread...sooooo.... That other thread discussed the Garden story of the Creation and other aspects and brought some interesting ideas to mind that I wanted to keep around just so I could think about it and perhaps reference...but NOT because I actually think there's actually merit to what I'm stating below. Okay, some of what was written in that other thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up. People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following? If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created? If that is so, what does that mean. Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth? In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet? Is that what people are stating? That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand. It paints things in an entirely different context. I think I'll post this in my personal thread. I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it. Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution. It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story. We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation. That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures. Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off. If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago). Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly. If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things. For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species. Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics. In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon. We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers. By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob. Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families. What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into? We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars. War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side. Could it be that they also intermarried? In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect. He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding? Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become. As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind. It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about. What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to. How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story. A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology. If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out. Is it like what I describe above? How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story? I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story. I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take. What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic. Like something above? I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.

Okay, some of what was written in this thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up. People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following? If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created? If that is so, what does that mean. Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth? In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet? Is that what people are stating? That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand. It paints things in an entirely different context. I think I'll post this in my personal thread. I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it. Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution. It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story. We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation. That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures. Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off. If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago). Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly. If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things. For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species. Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics. In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon. We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers. By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob. Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families. What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into? We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars. War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side. Could it be that they also intermarried? In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect. He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding? Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become. As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind. It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about. What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to. How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story. A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology. If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out. Is it like what I describe above? How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story? I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story. I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take. What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic. Like something above? I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.

My postulating on it more than anything else, definitely not something from the prophets. Well, in physics I believe they have the idea of a multi-verse, where there are multiple universes and our universe is just one of many various universes out there. Perhaps it is possible that each is ruled over and each in many ways is endless and infinite (we have ideas of how large the universe is, but in reality, we have never seen nor known the edge of the universe, it's just a hypothesis that it even exists [and expanding or contracting depending on the theory] and that there is a boundary to the universe). It could be that the universe itself is infinite and that there are multiple universes out there that are also existing. I have no problem thinking that the Father of all things rules over this entire universe and it all is his creation. It may be that this is not just the only thing he has power over, that he has power over other dimensions (so maybe the spirit world is of this universe, but a different dimension thereof, and the same applies to the heavens?).

As stated above, I hope you have tried to attend your local meetings. I hope things go well and are going well with you.

Well, what's interesting with Moore currently is that most of the accusations have faded...no lawsuits. Gee wiz...imagine that. However, one HAS arisen which should become interesting. Roy Moore I think filed a lawsuit with Alabama to not certify the results of the election. I think part of it deals with outside tampering and the accusations of lies against him (and I think there is strong evidence of massive outside tampering...but I don't know why that wouldn't let Alabama certify the election...the election is done I think the results stand for themselves). IN that light, Leigh Corfman has filed a defamation lawsuit in regards to the Moore Lawsuit. In it, she seeks to say that She was not lying in regards to Moore and all she wants is payment of court costs...so no monetary damages. Should be interesting to see where it goes at least.

That sure seems to be the Democrat playbook at this point. I wonder how long it will take for independents to catch on and have it backfire in the Democrats faces.

Well, I took a look at my taxes in several of the sites. It appears that I will lose somewhere between $180 and $1800 on a general estimate. I'm not one that's going to get any "new money", but the biggest campaign promise stated by Trump that he broke in regards to the new taxes is that he would not benefit from it. Turns out, it appears he is one of the BIGGEST beneficiaries of it. Republican Senators have broken several promises with the new taxes...that of reducing the budget deficit and everything that they said in conjunction with that. From all appearances, this is going to make it balloon bigger than anything that Obama ever did. Funny that when one gets into power, they take the same positions as those they attacked rather than keeping to their promises. The ACA has not been repealed (something they had almost unanimous republican support for almost every time they voted, and that was a LOT of times previously to Trump taking office), and the new ideas don't do away with it, they just take away a tax penalty which, once again will affect the US Budget adversely and is predicted to make rates rise even more than they have been already. That wall...oh yes...that wall still hasn't been built. Instead of worrying about Sanctuary cities now...the entire STATE OF CALIFORNIA has become a Sanctuary state. Oh yeah...good job with that...Trump and Republican congress. California basically just went nuclear on that entire topic. Now it's not just cities, it's states that are going into sanctuary status. Coal hasn't gained any new jobs...still losing a few even from what I hear. Corporations, despite having record profits (and this, along with the disaster in Kansas is why many are saying these tax cuts do nothing to inspire them to reinvest, they already have more money than they have in over a decade and they are still NOT reinvesting...if they are not reinvesting after having over 2x the money they used to, why is anymore going to inspire them...it should have had targeted tax cuts where they get reductions for salary increases or job creation...etc), have NOT created more jobs (in fact, more have gone overseas under Trump...though it MAY be at a slightly reduced rate). I see Trump having done ONE and only really ONE big thing which is to create a more conservative judiciary with his Supreme court justice and the various judges he's installed. Other than that...not a whole lot I think that is good is going on from him or his Congress. I think this is going to have major reverberations against them in the coming elections and in 2020 and probably far after that. I did not like what Democrats did when they were in power, but at least they didn't turn around and say they wanted a balanced budget and then do the exact opposite of that. They already were for a budget explosion. Thus far, I'm not liking what the Republicans have done while in office even more than disliking what the Democrats did when they were in office. That's not a good sign for Republicans I think. Alabama was a trick from the Democrats in my opinion. From what we see of the lawsuits against Roy Moore today, it seems clear to me it was a political ploy rather than any REAL situation, at least that's what it appears now. If that's the Democrat playbook, to push slander on any republican candidate like that, it's not going to take too long (or so I hope) that the independents catch on and basically vote the exact opposite of what the Democrats want...basically have it backfire in the Democrats faces. In that light, Alabama is not showing any thing in regards to Democrats being able to win in my opinion, except via lies and slander. On the otherhand, Tennessee and Virginia are far more telling. It could be VERY rough for Republican in the mid terms and just as rough if not worse in the next presidential election. They HAD their chance as the majority party and instead of doing something like they were trying to do under Obama, they basically acted like the Democrats x 200. If they wanted to do things then do the major actions we all wanted from Conservatives...balance the budget and repeal the ACA. No one cared about a tax "reduction" during this time period, but they do care when the deficit is going to increase primarily due to tax cuts for the wealthy, not a good way to draw attention to a supposed tax reform. And I know of almost no one that really wanted Net Neutrality repealed. The nations that don't have net neutrality are places like China and North Korea. Yeah...great company there that we've joined. Portugal is one of the few free nations that does not have Net Neutrality and what's happened there due to it has NOT been pretty. There are some that may celebrate it, but overall that was NOT a popular move. I see the tide turning strongly against the Republicans but it is NOT because of the normal political tides, it's because they are sabotaging themselves and shooting themselves rather than any normal political tide.

I find that there are many in the church these days that have similar ideas to Romney. These individuals do not so much have a testimony in the LDS church (though they will answer all the Temple Recommend questions in the "right" way), as much as they feel the church has good things about it and attend for the good morality they agree with. Some of these do not believe in Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, and I've seen some of them (such as Mitt Romney perhaps) be called to some local prominent church leadership positions (such as Bishops and Stake Presidents). I am happy that even if they lack a strong testimony, they still strive to go to church, attend meetings, participate in ordinances, and strive to do good and be good Mormons in most instances. Of course, that does not mean this is what Romney actually believes or that he is one of this group of individuals. It may be more a thing of moral courage and fiber. It can be hard, not just for him in his position, but any of us, to stand up and say the right thing at the right time in all positions. He could have had this interview as a strong missionary moment where he related the story of Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, he may have seen that as something the general public would take badly and he would be portrayed badly in the media or otherwise and hence, rather than discussing this aspect of the church chose his answer otherwise. In this, it may have nothing to do with what he actually believes, but more a lack of courage in the moment to say something else. I don't know what I would have said in his same situation, and I know that there would probably be a great amount of pressure on any of us in the same situation. In that light, my own thoughts are that I won't judge him for a single statement like that in an interview where there obviously was a tremendous amount of pressure upon him on what to say and how to say it. Politics can be a very hard thing on moral caliber and public judgment. Each of us might say something we didn't mean in the exact way we stated it, or mean one thing but it comes out another in media interviews. Even Gordon B. Hinckley who was well versed in the Gospel and the media has had some things questioned at times by members in various media interviews he gave during his time as an apostle and later as a prophet. None of us are perfect. That said, I don't know if I would vote for Romney or not as my representative if he were in my state. I see him as having more representative experience of the values of the Northeast rather than anywhere else. By running elsewhere I see it more as political opportunistic grabs rather than a true representation of those who have lived there for most of their lives. Let those who are FROM their state represent their State. I think that's the biggest obstacle I would have in regards to Romney (and one I had in regards to the Clinton when she ran and got office). It smells more of political opportunism from someone with a political career rather than someone who is actually going to represent the interests of those who have lived in a state for the purpose of actually living there for a life and home.

I am not a Star Wars fan. I really didn't find the Last Jedi all that exceptional. Some of the interaction between Rey and that other guy (the bad one) was interesting. The movie was far too jumpy, so it didn't really focus that much on that interaction or relationship. I think the message was about learning that there is a time to fight and a time not to fight and to know the difference. That a true leader doesn't always seek out a fight or jump into the fight, but instead learns to value resources and others. That it is not necessarily by fighting that we win. That's not a bad message and better than many messages out there today, but I can't say the movie really grabbed me. I think part of it was I was a little annoyed at the dialogue at parts, especially the beginning. I thought the phone joke was a little ridiculous and the lightsaber throwing over the back made me wonder if I had stumbled into Star Wars the Comedy or Parody rather than a Star Wars movie. I think it was the attempted humor that put me off the most. I am not a Star Wars fan though. My son who dragged me to go see it with him told me that he thought it was the best Star Wars movie yet. He's a Star Wars fan so you have that edge of support. My wife didn't go with us and wasn't dragged along, and I have no idea if my other kids watched it as they haven't given me their impressions of it. But that one son really seemed to like it. He's been to see it at least one more time since he dragged me off to the theater.

I do not know if you are still here or if you will ever see this. I hope that you might. I want to empathize with you. There is no way I can ever truly relate to how you feel in regards to how minorities are treated in the LDS church, but I have seen what you have expressed. I agree, there IS racism in the LDS church in many areas. I am what you probably would call white, and I can see it in my own area to a degree. I agree, it can be disturbing, and bear with me with this if you are reading this, but it may be inconsequential to the bigger picture. On another point, I can see those boys hurt you badly, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. What they did is WRONG. They were NOT acting like Mormons and they were not acting like they should. The LDS church would NEVER condone actions like that. What they did was absolutely wrong, and I am horrified to hear about it. Nevertheless, it is NOT the first time I have heard of actions like that. I could tell you multiple stories over the past few years of racist who just also happen to be Mormons that did some very terrible things (things that even make your incident seem like a walk in the park, things that were absolutely terrible to the point of being so horrific I blanche when thinking that this was perpetrated by those who call themselves Mormon). I acknowledge that this goes on within Mormon communities at times. It is inexcusable. This does NOT represent all Mormons though. It also misses what I think is the more important part. This is what I think is important... You said that you love the Mormon gospel. You stated that you love the Book of Mormon. I think that is the Holy Ghost testifying to you that the Book of Mormon is true. When you read it, do you feel this feeling. If you do, I am betting that this is the spirit telling you the truth of the gospel. Listen to this spirit, it is the most important thing for you in your life to this point. This is what you desire in your life. You can have this and a church that believes in this. You do NOT have to go to your local ward. You can attend any ward (that is a church group that meets in our church meetings) that you desire. You do not have to be around the individuals that caused you so much pain and anguish. You stated you have a friend that attends the church. If they are a good friend, ask them why they still attend the church. Even with all that it seems they may go through, what reasons do they have to continue going to the Church? During the days of Jesus Christ the true church was on the earth. This church was his church, but at the time it was run by corrupt High Priests and scholars. The Lord held true to the gospel. He was considered a Jew, and obeyed the Jewish gospel and deferred to Jewish authority. He pointed out the problems that they did multiple times when they challenged his teachings in the New Testament, but he always followed the Jewish faith while during his mortal ministry. It was the true religion and true gospel at that time. It was only AFTER he had fulfilled the Law that his apostles established new churches (the seven churches I believe) around Israel and elsewhere. it was after his sacrifice that the law was fulfilled and a New covenant was made. In this, the higher law or new laws were seen to be obeyed rather than the old law of Moses. He sent his apostles to find his sheep and save them. The same applies today. If you know the Book of Mormon is true, you know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If you know he was a prophet, you KNOW the church is the true church. Just like in the Lord's mortal ministry, this does NOT mean the church, it's leaders, or those within the church are perfect. It means it is the vessel in which the gospel is carried and the ordinances which pertain to our salvation are given. In that, it is the true church on this earth. Just like the Lord, if you know it is true, you should be baptized and join in the church. It does not matter the persecution or other things, even from those within the church itself. If the church is true, then what they do is inconsequential to the big picture of things. If what they do is wrong (just like what the Pharisees did was wrong in the Lord's mortal ministry, and what the church leaders did the the Lord in his crucifixion was also wrong of them to do), then stick to the gospel. Obtain the ordinances and follow the Lord's example. I know this is the true church. I know the gospel is true. I know the Book of Mormon is true. Even if the persecutions came from within the church, even if I were tossed out or beat upon or suffered loss, the gospel is true. It's principles will bring you to the Lord, and it's ordinances are divinely given. I urge you and any others who may read this that have received a testimony of the Book of Mormon, that know that the Book of Mormon is true to be baptized and be members of the church. Stand strong in your faith, no matter what obstacles are tossed at you from outside the LDS church, as well as within, and the Lord will bless you in his own due time. I know we will receive blessings of the Lord if we follow his commandments (one of which is to be baptized) and follow his example. Even if we are among the poorest and most despised in this life (and we know those are who the Lord went to in his mortal ministry and in many instances praised these poor, disabled, or despised individuals above those who were church leaders, Jewish leaders, or those in high standing whether political or economical), we may be among those who are of the greatest blessed in the hereafter if we stand firm in the faith of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, obey his commandments, and endure to the end. I don't know if you will read this, but if you do, I urge you to give the church another chance, talk to the missionaries, and be baptized. This IS the church for you, even with all it's faults and problems. We NEED more people like you that can help us change our own attitudes and ideas. Instead of looking at us as others, look at us like your brothers and sisters and help us to find a way to better understand you and those who you feel we could do better in our own empathy and understanding. Once again, I know this gospel is true. Just like you, I love the Book of Mormon. I know it is the word of God. I hope all those who have this testimony join with me in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints and follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior.

@Shath I just wanted to clarify something. It seems that you are equating LDS church welfare as a charity. I would say that your assumptions are not exactly correct. Yes, it could be viewed as a charity, but it is NOT the charity that you seem to be referring to. It is NOT like the charity that you see in regards to welfare or other items in that regards. In that way, under that type of definition, the LDS church welfare is NOT a charity. Thus, trying to see it in the same way you would other charities is not going to work. It is like trying to compare apples and oranges. To try to explain better. In the 30s and 40s when the US was first instituting Welfare systems, they also had an idea that people would work for help. In this, those who were able were given jobs. At times all that job consisted of was digging a ditch in front of the office and then filling in that ditch. It served no real purpose except to give the individual work. They then were given checks that they could use for various purposes. This was also called Welfare, but it was a very different system than the welfare organization you see in the US and other nations today. It is this earlier definition and idea that the LDS church Welfare system works at times. Thus, in that light it may not count as a charity in the way that you are defining it. We CAN give out money to those who are in need and cannot work or earn it for themselves. However, the ideal is that each person is able to support themselves. In that light, do not look at the LDS church welfare as a charity, but instead as a program designed more like the labor department's idea of getting people back on their feet and back to work. It is operated differently, but the purpose is similar. Just like that department isn't a charity like they way you describe charity, neither is the LDS church welfare program. We encourage people to find ways to be able to support themselves. If possible, we have someone who can help them see if there is a way to better handle their finances. We also are able to help them temporarily to get food and other necessities if we have the means to do so (and sometimes, we do not have the means to give people money for housing, our budgets in these arenas are extremely limited). We also try to have an employment specialist, much like the Labor department does, that can help those who need better jobs or just employment in general to build resumes, find contacts, and to get those jobs and training that they need. We have online schooling now that is promoted by the church to help people obtain better educations. All this can be seen as part of the Church Welfare system. As you see, it is NOT a charity as you think, but more in line with what the labor department may do today in helping people gain employment. This is done via the LDS church though, so one could see it also as a way to be of assistance if needed. I hope that clarifies what the LDS welfare system is all about and why, IN MY OPINION, you are a little mistaken about what and why it exists in the LDS church. Normally, when the LDS church does charity like what you describe it is either from individual members (and I personally believe there are many members out there that give a great deal to the charities that deal in the charity type work you have been discussing), or it is more in response to disasters and other things (such as a hurricane that affects and area, or an earthquake that takes down infrastructure and such). That said, nothing is FORCED upon the member in the LDS church. WE may have preferences, for example if someone is able to work but currently unemployed I would suggest that they help with work around the church. It can make it so that they might feel useful when they are out of work, and that they are not just getting a hand out, but are providing something useful and needed for what they are getting. That is THEIR choice though, and I have never forced anyone to do any sort of work around the church or otherwise in conjunction with the LDS church welfare system.

@dahlia I just wanted to say, please don't feel offended by him. I would never ask anyone to do something that would offend them or be hard for them. I can present the other side of the coin though. I am very guilty of not being as valiant in this as I should be. In theory I should always be at the church helping clean when it is needed. In truth, probably any member of the Bishopric should do that as well. I would hazard a guess that currently, the calling to the individual who is in charge of coordinating the church cleaning is the toughest calling in our area (and perhaps in the church, church wide, but I don't know that as I can only relate personal experience). They have a very hard time getting people to help clean the church. There have been weeks no one shows up. This leaves that one individual to do all the cleaning themselves if they feel that responsible. It can make some become a little bitter about the experience. It can be hard to be expected to be responsible on this when there is so little support from the ward at times. As I said, even I am some what hypocritical on this. What is worse is we tend to give this calling to those who are Elders or others. In reality, now that I reflect on it, it probably would be best to give this calling to former Bishops and High Counselors. It is of such a hard calling at times that it can cause a LOT of bitterness. That does not excuse his actions, but that may explain why he may have approached it as he did. I do not know, but it could be that the individual at the time they were talking to you were feeling bitter...not towards you, but simply in regards to the calling. I have seen it before. That said, if you have a handicap of that nature I would never expect you to need to help. If you need to, explain it to the Bishop and ask them to take you off the list...permanently. I am sorry that you were approached this way, but I am gladdened that you are staying in the church.

I've explained it previously. I'll be brief here, though. I am the first individual in the LDS church in my family. There are no other direct descendants but me. Despite that, others have done my family geneology without me or my families permission (I should note, it is a line of royalty/nobility, so some of the line is already public knowledge...but my particular branch is a little more obscure as it is not directly to the throne, just a title, I am the son of the youngest though, so I'm not in that line really to inherit. In addition, the nobility was done away with many years/decades ago overall, but it is still a line of nobility if that matters, which it might to some). Some of it was expressely stuff even I wouldn't approve regarding one of my relatives (family knows about baptisms for the dead). There were express conditions that were never to be done (individual never sealed to a particular husband under any condition). They were sealed anyways by those who are not part of our family (me and my children basically being the only ones who were direct descendants and could do the work). However, these individuals were born over 90 years ago (and even 110 years ago). My grandmother's work has been done over 4 times now as per what I pulled up, and was actively being done a fifth time recently. It is NOT I who is doing this stuff. So, yes, I can understand at least some consternation when others do work for your direct relatives and do things you do not approve of. that's what I was expressing.

I'm not a knife nut and do not have pictures of my knife on the computer. I have a pocket knife made by Winchester that I normally carry around. Other than that, if I go camping or some outdoor event where I'll need a knife I have an old Air force survival Knife that I keep around in a sheath. I don't have pictures, but there is a picture at this link that looks just like the one I have. Air Force Knife

I can understand some of the distress. I have raised this issue previously, and as the thread has moved on I won't bring it up in great detail again here, but I understand why people would be upset. I have experienced some of this personally. In regards to Carrie Fisher's grandparents, it is possible it is the same excuse I found out in regards to mine? If they are over 90 years since their birth (I used to think it was 110, but apparently it's more like 90, which means almost everyone who is of my parent's generation, much less my grandparents generation at this point) they are free game. We have no say on whether they are baptized or not, I suppose. Doesn't make me feel any better about some of the choices made in regards to my own genealogy by others, but there's that.

Can you do car painting yourself? If you could, you could give a statement akin to the normal costs of the painting and then paint it yourself...thus you get the car paint paid for and might be able to have some extra. I'd only suggest this if you know what you are doing in painting a car. It may be that if they you the cash, you can find a reputable place that will paint the car and give you a deal on it. On the otherhand, if you did any of those, you probably should return the unspent money and explain that you were able to get the job done more cheaply than expected. In that instance they may take the money back, but you feel good because you were honest. On the otherhand, they might say that you can keep the rest...in which case you still got to be honest but also get some extra money as well.

I don't know. I've seen posts by others that are listed as banned, but their posts are still on the forum. If it is, it may be with the new software they are using rather than the old?

Hmm, my wife had a different approach to her engagement ring. She wears her wedding ring all the time, but never wears the engagement ring. I first got her engagement ring many years ago. It was a pretty thing which basically appeared to be gold vines encircling a diamond. My wife has always been afraid of losing it so decided not to wear it shortly after our marriage. She still wore the wedding band, but not the engagement ring. So, I bought her another one, but she didn't like that one. So, I bought her another one, but that was also too expensive for her to wear because she was constantly worried about losing it. Later I bought her a very cheap one, but that one was one of those copper ones and it turned a different shade, so I went and go another expensive one, but cheaper than the others. Once again, she didn't wear that one. Finally, after MANY MANY MANY YEARS AND DECADES I found one of those CTR rings with fake gems in them. I told her how cheap it was, and saw that it did not tarnish like the cheap rings you buy at Walmart or elsewhere. She has worn that one ever since. The irony. I could have bought my wife a VERY cheap engagement ring that was easily replaced. Because I did not, I have probably spent far MORE than normal. I don't think spending two months salary on a new engagement ring for her would be a good investment today, as she would still put it safely away and never wear it. I love my wife.