JohnsonJones

I've heard it. Utah is sometimes used as a stat in this. I can't recall the exact numbers, but it was like only .5% of Mormons actually enlist compared to like 5% of the rest of the population of the US or something to that effect. It was like Mormons and especially Utah had half the percent joining that other groups had or something similar. Does it really matter though?

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if I understand it, but it's an interesting one. I think that in heaven many are sent to this earth to parents. Many go into situations that are not ideal, and in some instances very bad. Does that mean that the baby shouldn't have gone there? Each of us has a purpose in this life, even babies and children. We may not understand all the purposes that individuals have in this life, but each one of us has one. Sometimes individuals are sent to help teach others or guide them in ways that would not be possible if they had not been born. Other times, for some, it is hard to have children. Why is this? We may not really know, but perhaps sometimes it is to help us learn life lessons or give us trials to help us grow. We wanted more children than what we had (and some would consider that we had a LOT of children already), but we suddenly couldn't have anymore. Luckily, we started early enough to have quite a number that we love dearly. No matter what we tried we couldn't have anymore after the 7th child. Was that because we shouldn't have one? Or maybe it was for many other reasons. Perhaps we needed to learn and experience this, or maybe it was to help us financially with those children we already had, or all of the above and MORE reasons in addition to that. The key is to be thankful for what one has and what one has been blessed with, and realize that the Lord knows us and to accept his will in all things, even when it is hard.

Hmm, interesting. It depends on the thickness of the wood, but you SHOULD HAVE been able to find a log somewhere. Cutting into the middle, you then cut out the middle of the log and it SHOULD be dry. It is this principle that keeps many houses dry on the inside as well. Three days of rain is not enough to soak through thick pieces of wood. Taken wood that's been soaked for far longer than that in the swamps and been able to get it burning, so three days of hard rain should not be enough to stop it. That said...$25? I'd have said better to have dryer lint, flint and steel, and in case of emergency fire starter liquid and charcoal. You can stack twigs on the charcoal as it burns, and then put heavier pieces to dry out as the flames get larger and hotter. That SHOULD start a fire in a real emergency. Bag of charcoal, fire starter, and flint and steel should be cheaper than $25. A handaxe and a knife are a one time purchase, so shouldn't count as the entire cost. I suppose a survivalist would say...hey...you may not have charcoal and fire starter. If I had an instance like what you said above...I'd look at the guy...show him my fire...and laugh at the idea. I ALWAYS have charcoal and firestarter somewhere. I buy gobs of it in the spring and never seem to get through all of it by winter.

In reply to the original question... We got married and children just seemed to follow soon after. It's one of those things. No shouting voice from heaven to me about it. No angelic visions or the Lord coming down to visit me on this. I'm not going to point out much else in this thread, I think my contention on some subjects would drive away the spirit rather then bring it in...but I WILL say this. If the above occurs...you have already been involved with emotional adultery at the least, and more than likely adultery overall. At which point, yes, probably divorce is in the picture, but I'd probably say that's due to sinning against the Laws of the Lord more than anything else. This should NOT be something to be considered or even an option, in my opinion. If you consider this an option, the adversary will KNOW this eventually, and may make it a possibility in the future. He knows our weaknesses and uses them against us. If you think it, more than likely as actions follow thought, it WILL occur. Maybe not yesterday, maybe not today, but give it a decade or two and when you think you are most miserable and bored of your marriage...it will happen and you will go as happy as a beaver into the beaver trap into the snare set for you by the adversary. I've seen it happen with great tragedy over and over and over again.

It depends on how far you want to travel. It could take an hour or two (depending on rush hour or other things) to get to it, but Disneyland is RIGHT there in California (well, right there being a subjective term). You could go. You could make it! On the subject of theme parks, San Antonio is only around an Hour South of Austin. You have Sea World...and of course, the Riverwalk and the Alamo. You have a piece of Texas history just an hour south of Austin...

Oh come on now. You broadcast your religion right on your avatar...how much more involved with religion can you get. I'm a Georgia Bulldog...and you are a Florida Gator...two religions that constantly bash heads. There are some religions that will ALWAYS be in conflict... (In case it went over people's heads, the above is a JOKE. One must understand how serious people get about their Football in the South, and furthermore how envious almost every Southern university team is of the Gators. Of course, temporarily some are envious of Georgia, and I AM somewhat of a hardcore Georgia fan...and so there is a little bit of rivalry there...which is all part of the joke).

No. I think it was because there were prideful High Priests, discriminated against older Elders, and struggling Elder's Quorums that were lacking the experience and wisdom older individuals could give them. The combining of priesthood quorums, IN MY OPINION, was done to do away with these in order for the priesthood in the ward to feel more unified and more as a spiritual unit within the ward that all the priesthood should feel part of. It was to increase the brotherhood between the priesthood holders of the ward and to create stronger unity among them.

I think it's more than that. Policies of who could go on a mission changed, I think in the late 90s to early 00s. At that point, anyone who had broken the law of chastity was basically guaranteed they could not go on a mission. That was relaxed a little in around the mid 00s and then came the apocalypse. They started asking a WHOLE LOT of unrelated gospel questions to determine if one could go on a mission or not. Anyone who had any number of physical, mental, or emotional difficulties was barred from going it seems at the Stake or higher level (Bishop have no say in this). Those who are borderline on certain things might or might not go. Sometimes they are given trial missions (2-3 month missions on a trial basis) and if they do well they can go...however...these individuals are HIGHLY discouraged from going already. These measures got MUCH more strictly enforced when the missionary age went down. I'm not sure if there is so much that the youth are dwindling as much as it is that these restrictive policies are cutting down the numbers so strongly as to cause this dwindling. I think they were reinforced and focused on when the age went down because of how many young men were trying to go on missions and to try to get a handle on the numbers. NOW...I think it may be more of a detriment than helpful...that may just be me though.

You've lost me. What are you talking about in relation to Mormons in your post above?

Hmm... When you are first born, you have the ability to cry, spoil a diaper, and move your limbs. You will be moved where someone moves you, you will see what they put around you. You have very little agency. As you grow, you gain mobility and the ability to have more actions you can choose from. This continues to increase as you grow and mature. Intelligences only have what they have been granted by the Lord. Take a Tree. It is an intelligence, but it is far more limited in it's actions than you or I. Is it completely by choice? Or is there more to it. It is possible that it has choice and agency, but is that agency as great as that of the Human race? I would say that there are vast differences between the intelligences gathered under heaven, some having lesser and some having greater intelligence. My thoughts on the matter are that when we were just starting out and were intelligences gathered by the Lord, we had very little agency compared to what we have now. As we became spirit children and were granted spirit bodies we started to grow in knowledge and ability. We were granted the ability to choose more than we used to so that rather than simply being like the stones which go to and fro at command, we instead had the ability to make some choices. I think that free agency is a GIFT from the Lord and that as we grow and progress this agency grows greater. Even now, we have agency, but I think that agency will and can increase in the future. Who do you think will have more free agency to choose...those who go to the Telestial Kingdom, or those who progress to the Celestial Kingdom. I would posit that those who go to the Celestial Kingdom will have far more power and glory and hence that will give them a greater range of agency to ACT than those who go to lower or lesser Kingdoms.

You may be surprised. Utah Valley is a very good place to raise a family, but many of the same difficulties are in Utah Valley and Utah itself as any other place in the US. There are areas of abject poverty in Utah and especially Utah Valley. Around the colleges and University, there are even starving students still, just like anywhere else. There are many homes where both parents work, and daycare is a booming business in Utah. The thing that makes Utah Valley and Utah itself a great place though, and different (so I agree, there are differences, but I'd also say that people in Utah can understand the world and what goes on with it) is that there is a HUGE amount of the population that is dedicated to following the commandments of the Lord. Their influence can help encourage each other to stay firm in the faith as well as staying true to the Lord. There is sin, and there are those that advocate for it. Salt Lake City is the center of a large number of wonderful Mormons. At the same time, it has been known for years as one of the centers of the LGBT movement, and a great deal of temptation and advocates of sin reside in the major metropolises. There are many Mormons who have served missions, and most of them were in areas of the World (and the United States) where the LDS church is not strong. They spent two years with those who thought and acted differently. We also have MANY families that have been in the rest of the world and experienced it personally. Some of these people moved to Utah because they find strength in solidarity where there are enough LDS members that you can see their influence at schools and work and experience a more unifying experience where it is safe to express your beliefs. I have family that is not from Utah and not from Utah and I go to see them as often as possible. I also have at least three kids that live in Utah currently and I'd say they have a good knowledge of what goes on in the rest of the world. I have family ranging from San Francisco, California to Dusseldorf, Germany. I know many Utahns (and also Idahoans for that matter) that go to many different portions of the world regularly and spend a lot of time there. My PERSONAL thoughts are that just because one is from Saratoga Springs (or Sandy, Utah, or Midvale, Utah, or Rexburg Idaho or anywhere else where many Mormons may reside) does not discount their personal experiences and knowledge of the world. These are my personal thoughts on the matter, which may not coincide with others.

Sorry I didn't get to write the full response I was working on (then again, maybe it is for the best as I tend to get long winded and it was already long) as I was trying to post links and hit enter on one of them, the forum posted what I typed before I got to finish it. We could relate it to the topic, but I think the verse goes far more than just that... Looking at the above portion of John 17, to me it seems to be talking about the Lord and those who follow him. His point of reference for his own life where he was in the world seems to me to be when he was actively among the Jews teaching them in his mortal ministry. He then points out that even as he was among the Jews and teaching them, he was hated because, even though he was among the Jews and with them, he did not act as they did and did not teach them as they wished. I think that applies to the LDS, and as former General Authorities have remarked, we are a peculiar people. We go to work and participate in our day to day lives with those in the world, but we do things that are peculiar to us, or in otherwords, we follow the commandments of the Lord even when others do not. We stand out for not drinking coffee or tea or alcohol and for not smoking. We try to refrain from foul language (or many of us) and we go to three hours of church on Sunday (and with meetings...some of us a LOT more). We do not believe in breaking the law of chastity, and in fact hold it up as a particularly important thing to keep in our day and age. We follow the ten commandments, and even more, try to follow the Higher law established in the Beatitudes. Thus I see this as we are actively among the other children of our Father, but we do not act as the world would have us act, but as our Lord has commanded and shown us by his example.

I got busy this weekend, but the thread went onwards a great deal. I thought I'd answer this remark though. I believe it comes from John 17, which is normally the verse utilized when making the remark...in the world, but not of the world. And also John 15:19 where in is stated Now, one may say this does not say the exact phrase of "in the world but not of the world" so with that in mind, for the strict scriptorian, we'd have to turn to modern prophets in regards to this phrase. Now this is just a CURRENT thing and these are modern articles. The LDS church could change these (though some of them I imagine they will not, but some they might). How can I be in the world but not of the world (Youth Article) Being in the world not of the World (Youth Article) To Be in the World but not Of the World - James Cullimore 1973 Oct Conference Teachings of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith ch. 19 In the World but not Of the World I could go on, but somehow when I hit enter it posted this prematurely, even before I had the chance to review. I think the general idea is posted of where we might get the idea of "Being in the World, but not of the World" in the LDS church. Some could source it to the scriptures (New Testament) while others would probably link it to LDS tradition drawn from certain scriptures and Teachings of our Lord.

Well, it was another birthday for my Father-in-Law. Every time I think I'm old...I remember her family. They seem extraordinarily LOOOOOOOONG lived. It also tells me I have no chance to outlive my wife. She'll outlive me for sure if she lives as long as her side of the family seems to live. Centurions seem to be the Norm rather than the exception!!!! It was funny though. It's bad when your own kids start having problems remembering birth days. I told her today...shouldn't you call your father. She asked me...What for? I said...just go call him. She was perplexed and couldn't figure out why I said she should call him. Finally I told her it was his birthday and she went and called him.

Well, considering our Heavenly parents have sent us here and exposed us to evil so we understand it, and in some instances FAR worse than the crackhouse...I see your point in regards to their example. Not that I agree, mind you, but I see your point. It's one many individuals who are angry about the difficulties in this life express at times in regards to a loving Deity and their wondering how this could be so. (Yes, my response is somewhat tongue in cheek in the same way I took Vort's other response...so you can also laugh at how rather facetious my response is). PS: On an even more humorous scale, my daughter who seems to have the bad habit of reading over my shoulder pointed out how this can ironically also be interpreted considering my point #3 I made in the long post above this one. I guess I was homeschooled in the pre-existence...Maybe this IS a good thing...

I can't tell you with your kids today. I raised mine decades ago. I can just tell you what I'd probably say my preference is, which is more a matter of opinion. In that regards, I can express how I cam to my opinion...however what you do I think would be better be decided between you and the Lord...which would make it more a matter of prayer. If I were raising kids today and had a similar choice, I'd probably prefer them to go to public schools. As I said, my views are biased based on what I see at the university. A LOT of Homeschooled kids get in trouble because they simply have no experience dealing with how canny their peers can be. They are, simply put, unprepared for the cunning of the other students who want to take advantage of them. They have NO experience to fall back on. It's not like sending a soldier to the front lines...I'd when they are younger and you are there it's more akin to sending them to be behind the lines, but still in the battlefield of active spiritual combat. They still have the other experienced soldiers to show them the ropes (their parents) and veterans to help protect them to a degree. Sure, they can still be wounded or killed, but it is not as likely. When they do get sent to the frontlines, they will already have experience and be vets in it themselves. Still deadly there, but they have a far greater chance of making it than some greenie just out of training. Whereas, keeping them home IS keeping them in training. They do not get as much experience in the battlefield. Sending them off afterwards...from homeschooling is like sending them to the frontlines ONLY with training and without any superiors or veterans to protect them in some ways. They aren't even veterans themselves. Now, if they've been on a mission, or have family there in the same city, they tend to fare far better (perhaps even being akin to veterans as well)...but by themselves...sometimes it's like sending them to the wolves. With the younger homeschooled students we have some ways to protect them (they ARE minors still, even if going to college, normally they are also living in the Dorms). Legally we can bring up laws and other things, but they still get exposed to a great deal that they would not at home. Other students coming from homeschooling, it's different. Children should be gaining the full armor of spiritual protection when they are at home already. This is when you teach them right from wrong. However, teaching is one thing....putting it into practice is another. When they go off to schools and encounter things they can bring those problems back home to their parents to engage their parents. In my experience Home Schooled kids ARE: 1. Incredibly smart and do incredibly well with my classes. I'd say on average they do better than other students. They normally seem smart and hardworking. 2. They have problems debating their views sometimes. Some are comfortable debating others, but there is a good minority of them that have serious problems dealing with others. They cannot take criticism and never listen to the other side. They always shout them down, or would if they were allowed. They never seemed to learn that there are other views out there than those their family share, and cannot understand that other people have viewpoints also. Other students also have this difficulty...but homeschooled students sometimes seem to suffer from this more strongly. This is especially evident when something in history does not agree with what they were taught at home and they feel a desire to try to debate the professor in class (for example, covering a basic idea of man having been on the earth for thousands of years and ideas of evolution and dinosaurs being touched on briefly...suddenly I might get an entire angry email debating that we should not be teaching such ideas in history...even if it's right out of a selected book that we are using!). 3. Many of them seem to come with a very strong parental influence which overshadows themselves. They seem to refer more to their parents thoughts and actions than their own. Eventually we see this slowly dissipate, but it can take a while for them to form their OWN opinions and ideas. 4. The above may seem terrific from a parents point of view, but many times it's problematic. They never had a chance to experience the world outside of their own parent's social circles and so have never developed on their own. Other kids have branched out some (but are still developing themselves, just are further along socially), and have their own identity. These homeschooled kids are out there finding out who they are and easily fall into bad persuasions at times in this exploration. As I said the younger ones are more easily protected from the bad side of some of these schemes because they are minors and staff and faculty know to look out for them. Some of the older kids though...it doesn't turn out how the parents would like it to in many instances. So, for me, if I had to do it today, I'd probably have them go to public schools. I'd rather they face some of the challenges that they will have to deal with when I am around and easily available. That way they could bring up their questions and talk to me, or, since I see them more often, be able to talk to them and see their troubles. I don't see the elementary - High School age students as much as University students. I can't say exactly what troubles are there and my thoughts are based more on what I see from the university age kids than the high school age kids these days. My last kid left the house almost 20 years ago. It's possible a LOT has changed in that time. In addition, because the university holds expectations and standards of who can even get into it, I expect that I see more of the better behaved and acting children that end up going to college than those who are in the public High Schools in general (nothing against those who do not go to college, I think there are exceptional folks who choose other career paths, I'm simply stating that I think due to the weeding out process to get to college you get a different type of student in many instances). I'm not your family though, so you need to choose what you think is best. If my kids were falling behind academically, I'd be concerned. If the public school areas were not a conducive environment, I'd probably move to an area which WAS more conducive, even if that meant finding a different job (which, probably was easier when I was younger, positions in my career field opened up all the time back then). The ideal is not just a child that is strong in the gospel, but also one that has a good and sound mind academically, and is as healthy as they can be as well. My ways may not be your ways. If you are thinking of this though, I'd say the best advisor in the universe is your Heavenly Father. Take it to him in prayer and figure it out between him and you. It is possible that there are solutions that are not mentioned on these forums or elsewhere (perhaps something that could be implemented at home in your homeschooling or otherwise) that will come to mind as you pray and ponder this. I hope you find the answer that you are seeking.

My view is slanted. It is biased. I am a Historian...and I normally would like to say I focus on research (and I do that...a LOT), but I do occasionally need to teach a class or two (especially between the months of September and May). Most of the kids I associate with, therefore, are university age kids. My experience with Home Schooled kids are that most of them excel. They study hard and work hard. I have seen FAR more home schooled kids that get into college between the ages of 14-18 than any other. The ones that I deal with are normally very smart and educated. Overall I'd prefer children to be raised in a public school. It exposes them to the brutal realities of life and the temptations that they have to deal with later on. It prepares them for the wiles of men. What resisting temptation boils down to is preparation of the child. If the child knows the way they should go, they will not wander from it, whether they are homeschooled or go to a public school or a private school. If their education is lacking from homeschooling, I'd suggest sending them to a public school...IF that public school has a good rating (different schools are rated). If they are taught to be good, then they will be able to know good and evil at the school and choose to be good kids. If they have a predilection towards choosing evil...it may be a harder call. You can protect them while they are at home, but eventually they WILL end up in the wild...aka...the rest of the world. I'd say at least 80-90% of college kids are engaging in some sort of sin that the LDS church would not approve of. Your children will have a LOT more fierce and harsh temptation at most Universities (Though perhaps not if they manage to go to LDS private universities and colleges. I'm speaking of the public University and Colleges in the US). If your child has a predilection to choose evil, they will eventually be exposed to it. The question is whether to have them exposed to it while they are still home and hopefully you can guide them, or whether it will be later when you are not around. Tragedy can (and may often) occur when children go to public schools. I can't say it will not, it is entirely possible. The biggest hope is that there are parents there to help them through these obstacles and that the children actually listen and learn from their parents rather than ignore their parents. Even children that are guided successfully in their younger years occasionally fall to the temptations that abound in adult life beyond the LDS home. it is a sinful and harsh world out there currently, but it is one we need to be in, but not necessarily of the world. I'd say, pray about it and take it up with the Lord.

I'm not sure this will happen in this instance if they want her to sign an NDA. It may have to be a PRETTY LARGE settlement. There appears to be paperwork that actually goes back several decades...but much of the PR has focused ONLY on the stuff from 2010 onwards. She seems (at least currently) pretty dead set on getting it to the open finally and forcing recognition of victims and others that shared similar situations as she did. She also has several organizations (as far as I can tell, almost all hostile to the LDS church) egging her on and encouraging her at this point. Which means I'm not sure what will happen. It could end in a settlement with an NDA. It could end in a settlement with other requirements, or it could go full on into the full case to the end. OR it could be tossed out. I don't know. The bigger question isn't whether the individual was dealt with in regards to church discipline, but whether that individual went to jail or was dealt with in regards to the Judicial system. I think that's why this case has disturbed some in Utah (where I believe it is actually more of a local news item than something that is national news...at least at this point). Even if the individual was subject to church discipline in any fashion...there should be a duty for those individuals who are breaking the law in regards to the abuse of children or sexual harassment (or worse) to face the legal justice of those actions in regards to their respective governments beyond that within the LDS church.

How can two return missionaries not understand the Law of Chastity or the importance of it? This puzzles me. When investigators asked the same question...what did you tell them? I would think two return missionaries already KNOW the answer to the question...thus I am puzzled why it is even being asked. Because (as per your statement) you are two returned missionaries who may have taught investigators this same principle on your missions...I'm probably going to sound a lot harsher than I do normally to people who may ask a question like this. The fact that it is a commandment is FAR more substantial than ANYTHING else. However...for two people in your given situation...simply put...because you ARE NOT MARRIED YET. This is an act ONLY for married people. The reason is that it can bring about children into the world...which are supposed to be brought up by a committed Father and Mother. That means, two people that are Married to each other. Until you ARE married, there is NO guarantee (as many others have pointed out above me) that you will be married. Countless couples have backed away from this commitment even at the altar itself. Until you are married, this act is NOT approved of by the Lord. If you DO NOT get married to the individual...you also could be seen as breaking the covenants that you have promised to a future spouse. They are NOT the ONE that you have been committed to. In addition, you have also betrayed the Lord in your covenants and promises. By not keeping it a sacred act between a husband and wife...you have tossed the sacred in the mud by making it unholy and disdaining the things the Lord has ordained. It is popular in the world today to throw away the things of the Lord and do as one wishes. Thus, it is more common today for people to not follow the law of chastity and instead live together or other immoral actions prior to marriage. They do NOT see problems with breaking these laws of heaven. AS followers of the Lord, we are to follow his commandments and do as he would have us do. AS others have stated...just go and get a civil marriage now. Immediately if possible. Going to the temple in this state could possibly be showing a disdain for the commitments of the Lord even more. Get a Civil Marriage immediately and then you don't have to worry about the temptation (at least with that person...just because one is married does NOT mean temptations go away). Get married and be done with it.

Read the New Testament. Truly read it and study it in depth. Talmage's Jesus the Christ is a good one to read. The Miracle of Forgiveness is good, but might be on the Boring side for you. A good series by McKonkie is the Messiah series...composed of the Promised Messiah, the Mortal Messiah, and the Millenial Messiah. Some of the books I'd say that are good in regards to the atonement.

Also Fighter Pilots...or at least that's what all those Military airplane movies would have me believe.

This is an interesting thing that you bring it up about engineers. What follows is entirely off topic from the original post. I have seven kids, some of whom are daughters. One of my daughters expressed a desire to be an engineer when she was growing up. When asked about marriage she would point out that her goal in life was to become an engineer not a housewife. Now, she DID get married young (or younger than what many are getting married today by a LOT) and now has four kids, but she went on and got a degree. What was noted was that in some instances when she applied for a job, those positions had the salary notated publically on what certain officials were earning. Almost every time she was offered a job in engineering and technical expertise it tended to be anywhere from $,2000 to $20,000 LESS than what the man who was working in the field prior to her was hired for. In some instances where she and a male co-worker were hired at the same time, she would be hired at less of a salary. In that light, it's not the idea that 50%of all engineers be women...BUT perhaps the following of which I've observed from my daughter being in a technical field SHOULD be corrected. 1) Men cannot scare women away from technical (including engineering) fields. By this I mean there seems to be an allowable amount of sexual comment and commentary in offices. When I've been in some offices when she isn't, even if they know I'm her father, at times there are many inappropriate comments that are crude and not appreciative of a woman's positive qualities. I can see very much how women may feel sexual harassment or otherwise at such offices or classes and decide this is NOT a field they want to be in. (On the otherhand, the office she works in currently, is outstanding. I've never heard anything to that effect, and she hasn't had any complaints I've heard of. She IS the only woman in the office though). 2) Woman with equal qualifications (or better in some instances, my daughter at this point has quite a bit of experience, but there have been times that she was offered less money than another male engineer who had less qualifications than she did for the same job) get equal pay. I don't know how this would be enforced, but I think it's terrible how a very educated lady (such as my daughter) could get less wages than someone less qualified and in some instances less educated. I am definitely NOT a feminist (for starters, I'm not even a woman), but being a father with remarkably talented and smart girls...I find that there are things that I think are not equal in the job market in regards to women who are working. I think that there are those that go off to the FAR ends of the spectrum (both on the far right and the far left) but I think that too often people get stuck looking at those ends rather than a nice medium in between them. In that light, sometimes you go farther in one direction in the hopes that going so far will drag the middle more towards your direction...but not the entire way. In that light, the fight for women to receive equal pay is something that I can completely sympathize with and even hope for, especially when it involves individuals such as my daughter who I would want to be respected for her talents and abilities and be paid as such in equality with any other individual out there.

Not necessarily. JohnsonJones is actually NOT my full real name (and may in fact be a combination of mine and an ancestor's name). Of course, on a legal document I would use my full real name, but going by a nickname doesn't necessarily make one a Con artist or criminal. I believe there have been some LDS prophets that went by nick names (most recently would be Thomas S. Monson who even referred to his nickname at times with Tommie or Tom) as well as some US presidents (though some might say those are all crooked) such as Teddy Roosevelt as one of the more famous of those (even had a stuffed animal named after him...the Teddy Bear). I don't think a nick name is necessarily indicative of anything regarding the person (unless it's something with them being a gangster and the nickname being something like Slick Al, Big Boss Capone...or something like that).

I'm not sure of what the punishments are or should be, but this sounds like a pretty bad thing for the guy to have done. I can understand why people would want justice on this.

We actually have had those at funerals outside of Utah, but I think they are normally considered a form of Augratin Potatoes. I never called them Funeral Potatoes until later in life. When someone first mentioned Funeral Potatoes I was probably giving them very odd looks. I think some people also consider it hash brown casserole, but to me the hash brown casserole is normally crunchier on top than the funeral potatoes are which, at least the type I had were shredded potatoes but made more like the augratin potatoes were.