JohnsonJones

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.

You have received some good advice in this thread. There have been two different questions and I'll give my slant on them. 1. On finding a wife. I was VERY LUCKY. I found a gorgeous blonde that was one of the most beautiful women in the world. I was smitten with her. I wish I could say I married because she was a terrific person, but that would not be completely true. One of the reasons I married her was because she was one of the most beautiful women I had ever met. She was one I could honestly say to her...you are the most beautiful woman in the world and be completely honest about it. But that is NOT why I was lucky. In fact, I would tell anyone that marrying for that reason is absolutely one hundred percent stupid. If you marry for that reason, with today's society, you may already be setting yourself up for divorce unless you get as lucky as I did. I got VERY lucky (like winning the lottery type lucky). My wife came from a home where humility and understanding were upheld. She came from a mother who had unconditional love for her children and husband and passed that quality onto her daughter. My wife had a firm commitment to gospel taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. This means she has a great understanding when I goof up. She has a great commitment to me, even when I am not acting my best. She has greater and better morals than I do. I love John Wayne movies, but she will be the first to inspire me when they may be a tad too violent, inspiring me to watch more church oriented media and spend more time reading scriptures and books by General Authorities and LDS writers than I do with my old westerns (Louis L'amour, Zane Grey...etc). I not only married someone who was beautiful, I married up in someone who was more spiritual than I. I would say the ideas of trying to be the person that someone would want to marry is VERY important, but when finding a spouse, if you can, marry someone better than you are. If nothing else, marry someone who shares your values, your commitments, and your beliefs. This is what may have saved me. When I was out dating I paid very close heed to the ideas to try to date other members. I normally strove to date girls that were already strong in the church and were seen as good girls already. This meant that they shared my religion and my belief system already. We had this in common and it meant that, although there may be some things that were different, overall, we shared many of the same goals in life already (temple marriage, devotion to the gospel). Look for someone who shares your same values and you increase your ability to find someone who will be wonderful to marry. Also look for someone who shares your commitment. To many marriages end in divorce these days. Sometimes this quality passes from parent to child. Try to find someone that shares a commitment that once married, they will stay married. One that will not run away the moment things get hard. Most importantly, look for someone who loves the Lord as much as you love the Lord, and make a commitment yourself to always love the Lord and put him (and whoever you marry) first in the marriage, before yourself. If you put them before yourself, you will find marriage is a LOT easier to remain committed to. As I said, I got incredibly lucky. My wife as she has aged has gotten even more beautiful. I can still tell her she is the most beautiful woman in the world. However, now it goes far beyond just physical looks. She is still the most beautiful to me in physical looks, but now she is also extremely beautiful to me because of her spirituality. I was greatly blessed and thank the Lord that he has blessed me so greatly with such a wonderful wife. #2 - On going on a mission This can be a little more complex, especially when you have family members that are a little against the church (or greatly against the church). My wife and children are members, but most of my family are NOT members. Some actually do not like the church. So how do I reconcile this honoring your parents with following the church. This talk was given before you were born by Dalin H. Oaks. Honour They Father and Thy Mother In it he says something very important From a talk by Rex D. Pinegar Honor they father and they mother Not as official, but still good advice From a LDS church News article Unrighteous parents honored by righteous child So how do I see this? When parents wish to have their children do things in harmony with the Lord, you do it. When they want you to do things against the commandments or the Lord, you still honor them even if they do not see it that way by NOT following them and instead following the Lord. This means, you still help them as much as you can, you still obey them in righteous actions, you do not argue with them, you do not fight with them, you instead show them love, long suffering and charity. Many times I told my daughters, the way a young man treats his mother and his sisters is the same way he will treat you. Look to see how he treats them before you marry the fellow. Treat both your parents with respect and honor due to them, but when they wish you to do things contrary to the Lord, follow the Lord. The Lord said the greatest commandment was to love him with all your heart, might, mind and strength. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. This equally applies to parents. Put the Lord first, and after the Lord, put your parents desires and wishes. I did not have the dilemma you did. Young men did not need to go on mission immediately at the age of eighteen or upon graduation of High School. They could wait much longer, and in many and most instances did so. We were fully adults on our own, without any need for parents permissions to go on an LDS Mission. Hence, I was out of my parents control when I was the appropriate age and as an adult, could choose for myself. I imagine that if you so desire, the same will apply to you if you do not mind going on a mission when you are a little older. I have had young men up to the age of 23 in the past two years apply to go on missions. If you desire to go on a mission, I am certain that you can fulfill that desire at a later date. If you desire to do something else, seek the Lord first in all things. Whether you go on a mission, or you stay home or you go to college, look to the Lord and keep his commandments. I think that's perhaps the most important thing. It is far more to listen and look to the Lord than go on a mission. A mission is beneficial though, and I find those that go on missions typically (but not always, I have seen some that have fallen away from the church that went on missions as well) gain a much stronger testimony, a stronger and deeper understanding of the LDS church, and a greater commitment to the Lord. However, whatever way we end up serving, seek the Lord's will first, and then seek what we want. The same goes for our parents, if we will seek the Lord's will first, and then our parents secondly before our own, I think we will find our lives more blessed than putting our own desires first. It is important to honor your father and mother, but it is also important to honor him who gave that commandment, the Lord. If we put him first in our lives, we will see that everything else will eventually fall into place as far as obeying the commandments and following him .

I would answer yes, it is possible. If you look around your ward, you are probably looking at several who have the exact same problem as you do. Many do not realize how prevalent this problem is in the church currently (at least in my personal experiences). The same would apply with word of wisdom difficulties (which are far more widespread than some may imagine as well), or other difficulties. Another personal story of mine. My family (not my kids or my wife, they are LDS) is not LDS. One of those who was closest and most receptive to the gospel was my cousin. He also was a homosexual. He did EVERYTHING in this life to try to overcome this obstacle...and I mean everything. Any treatment that was promoted by the LDS church and others, he tried. Many would be surprised at how far he (and others like him who were already in the LDS church) went to try to overcome this. Sadly, he never overcame it. No matter how hard he tried, he just could not beat this. He kept on trying, as far as I know, to his dying day. I was horrified at some of the things he did to try to overcome homosexuality. I would even say he went to extremes Now, I may be conservative to a degree in my views on how one might become homosexual, but I KNOW he tried his best and did all he could continuously to overcome this obstacle. As far as I know, he remained celibate his entire life. He kept on trying his best. He was also homosexual to the day he died. With all that effort, is there anyone who would condemn him or his efforts? Perhaps, but I am NOT one of them. I think he stands a chance of being saved, just like the rest of us. He probably tried far harder then anything I've ever had to struggle with. I firmly believe he was a good person. Sometimes sin may define a person, but many times...it does NOT. The person defines WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT GOOD THEY WILL DO IN THE WORLD. Even if you are never successful at beating it, but you keep trying and repent all your life and do your best to live the gospel and it's commandments and I think you have a genuinely good chance of obtaining the Celestial Glory. PS: On my cousin...as an aside, he had one other difficulty as well, one which I also see many cannot get over, even if they want to, which is smoking. I believe he may have finally been able to beat that one near the end of his life, but earlier in life he still smoked. We would play cards at our grandmother's table (with an uncle occasionally who also was homosexual, interestingly enough) and he would occasionally smoke. Part of it was that my entire family smokes except for me (Not my wife and children, but the others in my family who are not members) and so everyone else would be smoking as well. That probably made it harder for him to quit that addiction in those years. My sin, though I never drink it, is I still yearn for a cup of coffee. I don't ever touch the stuff, but at times I think I would love to. I sure hope in these instances our intent, which for me is to never touch a cup of coffee much less drink it, is taken into account rather than what sometimes is found in the yearnings of our heart. My own efforts mean that I don't even drink Hot Chocolate or any hot beverage these days. I stay as far away as I can, and I repent of my yearnings as much as I can. None of us are perfect, and I am a prime example of being imperfect. I just have faith and pray and repent as much as I can. If you would be condemned for your failings, it is possible I would be just as much condemned for mine. I have faith though, that the Lord's atonement can take away my sins as I repent, even though I still have those cravings to this day. I know the same is applicable to you.

For those of us non-harry potter fans...is a patronus some sort of avatar or something like that I assume? Some sort of animal they can choose... I am not a fan but I suppose mine would be a wolf in that case.

Ach...you're right. The drugs must be making me loopy!!! I still have about three days worth of them. It's actually just a recall mistake of mine today. I think David O. Mckay would be O'McKay with that M'Stake though. (or not...). Doesn't it seem sometimes it was just yesterday that he was the Prophet. Time flies. Testimony of David O. Mckay

#1 Thomas S. Monson was a very great man in the LDS church. He tried his best to show charity to widows and others that were less fortunate. He tried to set an example on the podium of how to be righteous and how to follow the Lord. Would you believe that he was not perfect. This is not to put him down or slander him, but to utilize him, who was better than many of us, that even the best of us still mess up. I am not going into some of the things that he may have had difficulties with on a personal level in his last few months before his passing, but I will say if anyone will go the Celestial Kingdom, I would think it would be him. He was not perfect, none of us are. NONE of us are good enough for the Celestial Kingdom. That is why we ALL need the Atonement in our lives, and to accept it. We need to utilize the great sacrifice the Lord made for us, having faith that it is true and that we can repent of our sins. We need to do this daily, repenting and praying constantly. Thomas S. Monson was the prophet of the Lord, his mouthpiece on this earth for the past few years, and one of the most righteous people I know of or about. From what I know, he repented daily and sometimes did NOT feel worthy or up to the tasks he had. He, like you, knew he was not strong enough on his own but had faith in the Atonement and the Lord that he could and would be forgiven. I am no where in the league of Thomas S. Monson, being a much worse sinner myself. However, I have faith in the Lord and know that I can have the faith to repent of my sins. His atonement is great enough to cover for all of us if we are willing to accept the first principles which are faith and repentance, and accept that the first ordinances of Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost will be honored fully by the Lord who established them for us. #2 According to scientist 90%-95% of all men lust whether in their hearts, in their minds, or in sin (unfortunately). We can quench this desire rapidly and look away when tempted. Decide to kill the thoughts and view others as daughters of our Lord rather than anything else, but sometime, somewhere, almost all men have been caught up in this thing called lust. In the church today, MY PERSONAL OPINION is that we are stressing certain sins out of proportion to how we are instructed to treat them. One of these is Pornography, which I assume from your topic that you are struggling with. The problem is that it IS a significant problem, and a huge plague on the church currently. It is almost impossible to explain the gravity of the sin and the seriousness of it without doing what the church has been doing. At the same time, unfortunately, people tend to equate it with far more serious sins...sins which we are explicitly told will get us excommunicated...as explained in this article... The Three most abominable sins There is a distinct difference between the sins of pornography (and masturbation) and that of most other sexual sins in regards to their seriousness. This is that most of the sexual sins involve one not just hurting their own chastity, but also being involved in hurting another individuals chastity and involving them in a serious abuse of the powers given to us and going down the path of deadly and grievous sin. Whereas many of the sexual sins involve another, typically pornography and masturbation does not also include a personal involvement in the destruction of someone else's soul in addition to ours. I have yet (and perhaps there will be a first time, but I have not yet) to see ANYONE excommunicated because of Pornography or masturbation. Other sexual sins...yes...but those two...not yet. Normally it is a far lesser degree in what is considered. The BIG thing to realize is that these two sins or Pornography and/or Masturbation are covered under the atonement. Repent and pray often...the Lord is probably FAR more willing to forgive you anytime you ask then you realize. He probably forgives you far more easily than you forgive yourself (or even then others, even the most forgiving of us...forgive you). However, it could be worse than what I think you infer from your topic. I am going to relate something that I got via a phonecall to me just recently. Just in the past two days I had a test that I'm still going through. I have been quite ill, but that does not stop my responsibilities. A situation arose that deals with a member of the church. As it deals with a very serious violation of marital vows and the law of chastity, I pondered what exactly I should do. I have known this individual for almost my entire life, and as such, could not believe what I had heard. This individual was a Bishop previously, and then in the High Council. I had seen this individual as a role model in my life. I still have not taken any action until I learn more, but in preparation I have been reading up on the subject to better prepare myself. It is especially hard to know what to say or advise or even suggest when one is especially close to the individual involved with the sin. It is like someone punched you in the gut when it is someone that you have always respected and looked up to. In all likelihood, it will be handled at the stake level in a church court. In order to try to keep a level and unbiased head in regards to the individual and make wise decisions, should the accusations turn out to be true (and I haven't yet vetted that they are or are not true yet)I have done a lot of research and praying today. It is a hard thing on both the sinner and those who know and love the sinner. I have dealt with these things before with others, but never in regards to someone who Iooked up to this much, respected this much, or was this close to. It makes it much harder.The above article I posted was one of those I read. However, I read a lot more than that, and even as I am saddened, I also found hope in regards to the individual if the accusations turn out to be true. If your sin is greater than that of pornography or masturbation, I have also read more on that and have good news. I read the following article on this subject, and if you are willing to continue to have faith and look to the Lord...the atonement has a place in your life. A chance to start over the key is to NEVER LOSE FAITH. Even when you want to give up...DO NOT LOSE FAITH. I have struggled the past day over the item above, and though I am familiar with the proceedings and what should be done, continued to read and try to find faith myself in the correct things and decisions that should be done in this instance. It is not always easy...and sometimes VERY hard...not just for the person involved with the sin, but for friends and family, and...believe it or not...Bishops and Counselors, High Councils and Stake Presidents and other leaders. If they are close and love you, believe it or not, it is actually a very hard thing to go through for them as well, but that is because they love you and want you to repent and arrive at the celestial kingdom with them...BECAUSE YOU STILL BE SAVED with us in the Kingdom of God. Your friends and family and those closest to you in the church love you and believe in you. If this experience has taught me anything thus far, it is that the friends and family KNOW that the sinner can repent and be saved and even want that to happen with all their heart. It is only the sinner at times that is the one who lacks the faith of that possibility, but if they would just ask and rely on our faith, we would do all we could to help them, in fact, just about anything in our power to help them to utilize faith and repentance and be saved. #3 We all have free agency. You can pray for someone to have their heart touched, you can pray for strength, and you an have mighty prayers. What you cannot do is force someone to do something. A few more stories on this. David O. Mckay was a prophet from some time ago. I never knew him, but I have heard this story related to me. David O. Mckay was also a very righteous man. He was a loving father, and wanted the best for his children, especially that they would follow the teachings of the church and be saved. He had a daughter who he taught the principles of the gospel and did all in his power to bring up right. From what I remember, his daughter apostasized. He said MANY GREAT PRAYERS ON HER BEHALF. This was an apostle and later a prophet of God. He said many mighty prayers. Do you think his prayers were sincere? I think they were. Do you think this was a desire of his heart? I think this was perhaps one of the greatest desires of his heart. How do you think his prayers were answered? His daughter did NOT return to the church. She engaged in terrible and abominable sins. After many years of fasting, struggle, and sadness he did get an answer, but it was not that she returned to the church or righteousness, which is what he so desired. It was that she was his daughter because if she were to get to the Celestial Kingdom, he and his family were her best chances of getting there. That's it. No great change of heart from her, no sudden differences. The great and huge desire of his heart did not occur. She had her free agency, she had her freedom to do as she chose in this life. Another story of a blessing that seemed to be unanswered, if I can recall it right. I think it an apostle in the early days of the church (Orson Pratt? Orson Hyde?) who was told his wife was very sick. He went to her and gave her a blessing. His desire of course was that she be healed. What do you think happened? Shortly thereafter she passed away and died. Do you think this was what he wanted, or what he desired? Do you think he apostatized about this? Part of what we need to accept is the Lord's will in all things. He has a plan. Many times we do not understand why or how it is supposed to work. Perhaps they have fulfilled their mission in this life, or have a calling in the spirit world. We do not know, we only know that the Lord's plan has the big picture compared to the small picture we have. A more personal story. I have a nephew that did not seem to want to go on a mission. I prayed very strongly about this nephew and did all I could to persuade them to go on a mission. I offered to pay the entirety of it flat out if they would go. They did not go for years. I truly wanted and felt they should go. They are now in their 30s and they never went on a mission. Is this an unanswered prayer...or more likely it was because what I wanted was not what was what they wanted with their own free agency, or perhaps it was that the Lord saw things differently. Not all our prayers are answered as we want them to be. There are many reasons for this. Sometimes it is for others benefits and their spiritual growth. Sometimes it is for our own growth. At times it is for things we cannot see but is in the Lords purposes. At times it is because others have their free agency, it is a part of this life, and something that is necessary for our very purpose being on this earth. #4 Don't peg yourself yet. This is going to sound arrogant...and it may be...but YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. If you truly want to have a judgment, present your case to the Bishop. If it is dire enough he could refer you to a church court. If it is bad enough, you will be excommunicated, and if it is truly bad that you cannot make it to the celestial Kingdom, you will probably be notified upon excommunication that you will not be allowed to be rebaptized in most likely situations. I have only known this to happen when an individual with full knowledge of the Lord has murdered innocent blood in fighting against the church. That is the ONLY experience I have had where such at thing has happened. Even then, that individual can still ask the first presidency and they can decide. Murder is also one where it may prevent rebaptism if it is done by one who is a member (and normally has been to the temple) but that is extremely circumstantial. All other sins can be forgiven by going through the process (and excommunication is part of the process). These are reserved for the most grievous of sins (refer to my article above). So you struggle with sin. It may be something like Pornography or Masturbation. So what? that in no wise disqualifies you from the Celestial Kingdom. It's like the drunk thinking they can never go to the Celestial Kingdom because they cannot stop drinking. Would you ever tell someone that they are barred from the Celestial Kingdom because they drink alcohol and cannot stop, or smoke and cannot stop, or are addicted to cocaine? How about someone who works on Sunday (and that is directly against one of the basic ten commandments) as a matter of CHOICE (rather than being required to)? Would you tell someone who took the Lord's name in vain that they would never go to the Celestial Kingdom (another one of those ten commandments)? What if they have tried to stop it, but it is such an ingrained habit that they feel they cannot stop? Would you condemn them. That's number 3 in the commandments to avoid on the list of 10. In ancient Israel it would be a far greater sin than masturbation. Would you condemn them? I would not. It is NOT OUR PLACE. Then why do you condemn yourself? Do not do this. Instead, have faith in the Lord, and in doing so present an example to your children. The first principles and ordinances of the church are not...be perfect...be perfect...be perfect...but faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the holy ghost by the laying on of hands. These are for imperfect people that sin constantly. You may not have hope, but I tell you, you can have hope. Do not judge yourself for minor things...and if they are major...do not judge yourself but let those who are duly assigned judge you that your mind and heart may be lightened and you can know where you truly stand before the lord and how much hope you really should have.

I'm up an about now. I think I may have passed it onto my son though. He's having a rough time of it. He was bed ridden all of yesterday and today. I'm back on my feet though, at least enough for my wife to allow me out of bed and gazing at a computer screen. Hopefully I won't be too wordy, but I've taken some Dayquil today and it's beginning to feel like great stuff. Normally avoid taking this stuff if possible, but I was going stir crazy.

Thanks...My wife is banishing me back to my room now to get better. I tried to browse quickly through the forums, but she feels bedrest will do me much better than sitting here. thank you very much for the kind thoughts.