JohnsonJones

Well, the last few hours before I take off again on another trip for a few weeks. Recently someone posted a document on these forums, which was an apologist work. It was an impressive piece of work and was somewhere a little over 90 pages. While I was reading over it, something struck me (as in, I thought of something, not that I was actually hit). Like some individuals from my above post, I think many have harsh opinions in regards to the LDS church at times. I have run across many people that have gotten strange ideas from the internet. One of the things that brought me to these forums was seeking a place where uplifting discussion regarding LDS topics could be talked about. In other places, it seems many who hate the church had infiltrated them. There I saw many interact with them, but very rarely did any convince others of the truth of the gospel. This brings to mind something that I was taught on my mission. I was a young man at the time, and we were teaching or talking to those who had many more years of experience. We were told that we would not convince others by argument, but by bearing of the testimony and the Spirit doing the conversion. I think that there are many good things written which can benefit the humble individual, and those who are truly seeking to learn truth. For those, such documents as I read, are useful and enjoyable to read. For others though, I think the same item told me on my mission is true. It is the spirit that turns a person's heart towards the Lord, it is the spirit that convinces. If one is so hardened against the spirit that they will not listen, you will probably have no effect trying to convince them otherwise. If you argue with them, it drives the spirit away, typically. The best way then, if the person still has an iota of listening to the spirit within them, is to bring the Spirit into the conversation (and we were told to bear testimony, as the Spirit can confirm the truth of it, and bring it to the room), and have the Spirit do the talking. In that, we believe it is the Spirit that helps others come to the truth, the Spirit that brings testimony, and the Spirit that converts.

Once again, sustaining is NOT whether people will follow or not follow the Lord at this time, and as I said, if we ever get to that point, we are in serious trouble in the Church. It is that the membership should be led by the Holy Ghost so that if there are any questions that ever come up regarding leadership or other callings, the spirit can guide the membership so the correct choice can be made. In the aforementioned situation with Brigham Young, if the church had chosen otherwise, most likely the LDS church would have become a footnote of the early 1800s and then disappeared. Sure, Young may have still been the elect of the Lord, but without membership, there would be NO CHURCH. He may have become a prophet, but he would not be President. The ONLY reason Young was able to become leader of the Church was due to membership having the Spirit to guide them in that instance. Other times and situations have also arisen, normally on more local levels, in similar situations. Normally, things then come to light that other leadership were not aware of which point out why the membership felt as they did. We are NEVER to blindly follow, and always seek the Holy Ghost's confirmation when we sustain. Unfortunately, many probably do not seek this confirmation of their leaders, however, it is something that we are supposed to do. This way, instead of simply thinking Monson is the Prophet of the Church, we KNOW he is the Prophet of the Lord.

I take it the derogatory term used in this thread means the Japanese? Hmmm. I would also contend there was quite a lot of dislike for the Germans as well from that Generations, perhaps as much as there was against the Japanese. However, it can be harder to tell who was German and who was not than it is to tell Japanese apart. They had some rather unsavory terms for those of German descent or who were Germans in that time period as well. I am happy we are not using those terms here as well.

I don't know. If all that is left is suffering, and then death, is it right to allow someone to suffer needlessly without hope? We don't even do that to our pets. Normally if a pet is at the end of it's life and suffering with no hope in sight, only pain till it dies, we put it down. If we do that for animals, what does that mean we should do for people. So, undecided on this. I can see both points of view.

Yes...and No...From what I understand... The idea behind the voting today isn't whether the people will follow the Lord or not (and if we ever get to that point, the church is indeed in perilous times). The idea is that enough of the church will have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that if there are ever questions that come up regarding callings or positions, that the Holy Ghost as a guide will lead the members to vote in the appropriate manner. All confirming and sustaining should be done with the guidance of the Spirit. A prime example of this in our modern times where the membership as a majority were guided by the Spirit over the correct course of action of who to fill certain roles came upon Joseph's Death and The voting to have the President of the Twelve and the Twelve Apostles lead the church. There were several that were wanting to lead the church, some that were powerful orators (Sidney Rigdon in particular). However, it was the guidance of the Spirit upon the members that led to the choice which they sustained, and which has brought about our current leadership today.

Well, they already have a program for those in High School called Seminary. In addition, I believe the current pathways program can be open to those of any age that wish to take those classes, though normally tailored to those ready for college level courses. https://pathway.lds.org/

IF, it ever became canon, or in the D&C, I would expect it more to be along the lines of an Official Declaration than another section of the D&C, but who knows.

Upon restrospect, I was probably TOO Frank in my personal struggles here. I'm trimming it down to be a little less open, and more succinct. So, recently in another thread I had mentioned about people's trust issues, and it's one I've been pondering about, unsure of the answer. Part of what I do in my calling is to go visit people in the ward. I especially focus on seeing those who are inactive, or that are less active. I've met very few with the following idea, but it is one that has me thinking and pondering about me and my own role. I've also seen this accusation spouted towards leadership in some locations across the internet. For me, it is a deeply personal issue that I've struggled with. The Basic gist is as follows. The LDS church tends to choose rich, white, men as it's leadership. Now, when I'm visiting people and they are talking directly at me and very definitely sound like making an accusation towards me, my first reaction is to defend myself. I then realize, that if I do that, it's not going to help these individuals overcome this, or get them to come to church, or any other factor. They have standard statements, that typically all seem leveled at me, as if accusing me of doing something wrong. They obviously have a definite problem with me and most likely many others in the church. Now, when I was younger I held some leadership positions in the church that others did not have that opportunity to hold. I was especially arrogant back then, and heavily regret how I acted at times. I regret it to this day. I have no idea why I was chosen, and wonder if it does have to do with what various people claim. I know I was not as qualified as many who were far better than I, and many were much older than me who were far more qualified as well. My reflections on my defense would be first...I didn't volunteer for any of the callings. I know some people aim to become Bishops and other leaders in the church, and some are successful, but I never did any of that, and never had any desire for it. This was NOT something I choose or even volunteered for. I did it because I was called to it. I don't have a great pedigree in the church itself, so I have no idea how I got into this select group that they think exists...and finally, I have been greatly blessed at times to be better off than many, but I am not fabulously wealthy in and of myself. I am not the one making this type of decision. I should not feel guilty simply because of what I was born as (race, or otherwise). And trying to support my family is definitely something I shouldn't feel ashamed of. And yet, I still struggle with the accusations regarding leadership and how it is chosen in the LDS church. It is something I struggle with very hard, even if those individuals don't realize it. I've seen similar arguments presented on the internet at times and wonder if they got many of the ideas from there (and it's another reason I decided to come back and edit this post so that I give as little ammunition as possible to those who dislike or hate the church if they ever happen across my personal thoughts). I feel incredibly guilty at times. I am sorry that they have this difficulty in their lives. It obviously makes it hard for them to trust many LDS leaders. IF one feels that a leader has never suffered or struggled like they have, and hence cannot understand where they are coming from or why they feel that way, I can see why it makes them hard to deal with some situations in the church, and why it makes it hard for them at times in regards to the church itself. I would love to help them overcome this difficulty, but I honestly do NOT know how to do such a thing. I don't know the answer, or answers, in this. I do what I can, which is to continue to visit them as long as they allow me too, to try to express mine and others great love for them, and our hope to see them again at meetings. It's all I know that I can do, I don't know of any other thing to do for them. I am sad I can't do more within the confines of what we should do in regards to them, and terribly saddened that they have taken offense. I hope that if it has anything to do with me personally, they will understand that I, personally, am only trying to be there for them, and if I have done anything truly to offend them, they will forgive me. Still, I find myself terribly saddened over this type of attitude, and have NO idea how to help people overcome it of myself. This is still a little long, but hopefully is a little more concise, and a tailored a little less in discussing my personal struggle of the issue, while going into the difficulties some may have with trusting me and others at times. Hopefully it also discusses in a way more relevant and uplifting to the board, on a particular struggle of mine to trying to help these individuals, and how I do what I can, but really do not have answers or solutions to their difficulties (or mine).

Several were talking about eternal consequences and other types of things regarding the original poster that were very uncalled for. This forum had judged and condemned the individual without even knowing the sin or the facts of it. We do not know the nature of the sin, whether it was even a sin, or what the events around it were. If I were the individual, I would have absolutely felt condemned by some of the posts in this thread. I know that was not the intent of the individuals (or so I hope), but the tone would have made me feel condemned if I were the OP, and never wanting to return. Several mistakes were made as well, including saying if someone was a victim of a crime they absolutely needed to go see a Bishop, Implications that ONLY the Bishop can tell if someone is forgiven (which implies that one has to go see a Bishop to BE forgiven of certain sins, which implies a Catholic type thing regarding confession...which is ABSOLUTELY untrue) and several other things. This type of condemnation is NOT the type of thing I believe we want to see in the church. It's akin to the Catholic idea that we have to go see someone in order to confess our sins. This is NOT the LDS way, nor is it what the LDS church preaches. This type of impression, that one HAS TO GO SEE the BISHOP presents a very Catholic type mindset and changes the onus of repentance from a personal relationship between the person and the Lord, to one where the Bishop is the one granting forgiveness because one HAS to see the Bishop if one sins. This turns a LOT of people away (though there are other bigger issues there. Some of it is that in many wards, there IS NOT confidentiality. In others, the Bishops DO have a power complex going on. Then, there's a whole different item regarding LDS leadership that some claim that I'm still pondering, as some of it feels like a direct accusation against me and others, but I'm trying to ascertain if I need to be more humble regarding the validity of those claims...which are too long to go into here in any case). Simply telling someone they HAVE to go see a Bishop without knowing tons about it, is probably going a little too far to the extreme. I'm not about to tell some individual who seems to be terrified at the prospect that they have to do anything like that. It's a great way to scare them off, and to do the exact opposite. If they are posting here, they already know to a degree what they should or should not do, and obviously guilt is eating away at them as well as fear. PAM and some others had a great response I think, but I think the individual already KNOWS what they should or should not do. I think what they are looking for more, was support, not the judgment of what they, individually need to do. An acknowledgement of their fears, and encouragement to help them find a way to ease their fears, and to find ways to know they have forgiveness is far better, in my opinion, then telling them what they have to do or not to do in this instance (and every instance is different, this particular one needed more support than anything else. Knowledge about what a Bishop's actual role is, I think, far more helpful in their decisions making process than simply telling them they have to do something. If they have that knowledge of what a Bishop does and the Bishops role in the process, they can decide better for themselves what they should do. Many assume they have to tell a Bishop about certain types of things, which, in truth, isn't really true. A Bishop is there to help, but a Bishop also has a life and telling the Bishop EVERY sin in the book no matter what...I hinted a little at it, but a Bishop really doesn't need to hear a LOT of the things some people think they need to tell the Bishop. A Bishop will do all they can to help you if you can't do it yourself, but sitting through a confession booth with someone normally has me trying to help them understand that most of these things is not something they really need to do. That does not negate what a Bishops role is in greater sins, or rather sins that may weigh more heavily on one's conscience than others (after all, all sin is an offense), but we shouldn't be saying things about one's eternal salvation in this case, and instead show our love and support for the individual who is obviously having a very hard time in regards to some situations. And yes, I was commenting that there are many who do not trust me or others like me in LDS callings or positions. This is not the thread specifically for that, though I suppose I can address it in my typical thread for my ponderings.

As something to note, IN MY OPINION, the WORST Bishops are typically the ones that seek after it. Those who WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR...I try to be good, but if I ever did commit a great sin (which I hope not too, but no one should be prideful about what the future may hold, I hope to endure to the end, but I am not there yet) even I probably wouldn't admit a single thing to such a character. Being a Bishop should NOT be something considered a Badge of Honor, no more than a primary teacher or Youth Leader is. In fact, I'd consider the Primary teacher FAR more important for the Kingdom of Heaven and a far greater badge than a Bishop, as the primary teacher is working with the very essence of heaven and molding the young lives to determine the future of the church, the gospel, and the membership of the church. That guy that's been a scout leader for the past 40 years, is now in his 60s or 70s or older...Now THAT's a badge of honor that everyone should be astounded by. This guy has devoted his life to the youth of the church and building upon the very foundations which have made our church what it is now. That lady who's been in young woman's for all of her life and is now in her 60s or 70s or older, THAT's a badge of honor. She's influenced so many lives and so many people, one cannot even count how much influence she's had upon the membership today. Most people honor the position of a Bishop (just like they do a Stake President, or another), but one must remember it's the position, and not necessarily the person. It goes on from there. I think it was Uchtdorf who gave a talk in General conference about advice he received where he was told people honor his position, but he must not let it go to his head (or something like that). Instead, it is upon humility, and a desire to serve the Lord where true honor comes from, whether a Stake President, a Bishop, a Sunday School Teacher, a Primary leader, or any other position in the church.

We will probably disagree, as there are multiple individuals, several apostles, that have talked about the patriarchal order and patriarchal priesthood as something that can ONLY BE HELD by couples...not individuals. It is why it is ONLY given when one is sealed, as a Man cannot have it without a woman and vice versa. It is also specified that it is it's OWN thing, separate, in and of itself...though as the Melchizedek Priesthood is the higher Priesthood it is part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but those who are not sealed have no part of the order nor ability granted to practice that priesthood. In addition, it is NOT synonymous with the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is under the umbrella of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but a different order of it. An Elder who is single has no part or ability in regards to the Patriarchal Priesthood. It is only granted within a relationship that has been sealed for all time and eternity. It is the one order which make men and woman needing to cooperate in the marriage, it is what is under the heavenly dictates where the Father holds the keys for his family in regards to that Priesthood with the authority (as a Bishop does for a ward) to receive revelation for it, preside over it, and even make judgements, and all other things in regards for the Patriarch of the Family to utilize over his family which is sealed to him (so it is far beyond just the children and grandchildren). However, with it, a mother ALSO has the ability to make judgements, to receive revelation, and all other things under the presiding figure of the Father, and to be a couple. The REASON it is so, is because it is also part of one of the oldest commandments, which means they are ONE. In this instance, they are ONE in the priesthood and understanding, and it can only be practiced and held by a couple that IS ONE, united in cooperation and spiritually. If they are not ONE, they do not have access to this Priesthood, Man or Woman. But it is my opinion, not doctrine.

Judge not that ye be not judged. That's something I think I live with. It means that we need to judge righteously, but we are NOT to try to usurp the power of the Lord to be the final judge. I would fear for my immortal soul if I had to actually do something like that, because ultimately I'd probably end up in a very bad place. PS: Unfortunately, you have Bishops that do NOT keep confidences, Bishops that abuse their role/power as a Bishop, and many other unfortunate things. To tell someone they are going to be condemned forever because they have not confessed to a Bishop is a TERRIBLE judgement for someone to try to claim. I know why there are MANY that do not trust their Bishops, and others. Heck, there are many I KNOW do not trust ME and actually BLAME me for simply being who I am in life, much less any church calling. There are also GOOD Bishops that keep confidences, and that really do want to help. In the end, though, there are two reasons for someone to confess to the Bishop. The first is to help the individual. There are many minor sins that I've heard of that I really do not have any desire to hear about again, but the role of a Bishop is to help the individual in their needs, whether it is in in fulfilling the needs of food and housing, or spiritual needs such as obtaining forgiveness. Christ loves us and probably forgives us as quickly as a loving Father (or older brother) forgives their children. However, WE, many times are the obstacle at accepting that forgiveness. There are many who have a hard time truly accepting that forgiveness (and because they don't, some go on to sin more because they do not understand the principles of repentance or forgiveness, and then there are others that are truly righteous that condemn themselves to no little degree for years upon years putting upon themselves unnecessary self imposed punishments far harsher than anything the church would or can do). The second reason is that for some sins there are administrative things dealing with this WORLDLY church that need to be sorted out, especially in situations that involve grievous sins that will heavily affect others and their own testimonies and beliefs in regards to the true gospel of the Lord (things of which I've mentioned a few above). However, I would NEVER go and say someone cannot attain repentance without talking to the Bishop...though in some serious sins, it is going to be far more advantageous to talk to a Bishop in order to know the steps that need to be taken or done in order to have the best chance at obtaining that forgiveness as well as a full return of the Gift of the Holy Ghost and all ensuing blessings and to KNOW that one is forgiven in the eyes of the Lord, especially with grievous sin. The suggestion of the temple recommend questions is probably decent advice, though waiting until a temple recommend interview is probably NOT ideal.

Well, something of interest. Did you know that income tax did not always exist. It's actually relatively new in comparison to our nation. Our nation survived for over 100 years without income taxes. Of more interest, our Forefathers threw something called a Boston Tea Party, and were opposed to a tax on tea...as well as a tax on stamps. If they paid the amount we pay in taxes today...percentagewise...they'd probably be agoggle over how much we put up with!!!! Of course, 150 years ago, churches had a LOT more charity and helped a LOT more people in a LOT more ways than anything any church in the US does today. In fact, if they did now what they did then, as well as provided resources where men could actually provide for themselves if they wished (of course, they also had a whole lot of land where people could just go off to in order to try to make a living if they wished), there would be no need for welfare. The very fact that welfare finally had to be created so people weren't starving to death and homeless by the millions speaks a LOT more about how wicked our nation and world have become than whether we have a socialistic (and tax heavy government) or capitalistic government. PS: of course, the other interesting thing about welfare is originally they would put you to work for you to get that welfare in many instances. It wasn't until I think the 60s and 70s where you didn't have to do something to get welfare anymore. If they had nothing, they would even give you a shovel and have you dig holes and then fill them in again...if nothing else. From what I understand about the early days of the welfare and other state driven programs to give men jobs at the time (one of the big creators of many of the national parks were these programs instituted during Roosevelts time, as well as the highway system and a LOT of other government jobs that worked on our infrastructure).

Just as a little clarification...being raped is NOT a sin. The person that was raped is under NO condemnation. If they wish, they can go to their Bishop if they think it may help them heal, but they, of themselves, have committed NO sin. In that instance, they may be better served going to seek help from a fully trained medical counselor rather than the Bishop. I say this, because too many (and that unfortunately DOES sometimes include SOME Bishops) make a terrible mistake in this regards. This was actually akin to something TERRIBLE that apparently was happening at BYU as well. I can understand the apprehension some would feel going to the Bishop. This is not an easy thing. I am also going to disagree with some of the major thoughts in this thread. The ONLY person that can grant forgiveness is Christ...NOT the Bishop. The bishop is there to facilitate things, but there are many sins that are forgiven without the Bishops help. The Bishop is a facilitator. They are there to help, NOT grant forgiveness like some Catholic Priest. I know of some who have confessed far later in life (and I'm not going into specifics here, as such things are personal to people and it is NOT MY RIGHT to share those specific stories) that had committed certain sins in the past. In all rights they had been forgiven LOOOONG ago. However, the sins still lay heavily on their heads. They had already paid as much a price as ever could be asked, they had turned from their sin, and lived a virtuous life since. There was NO place there that a Bishop was needed except to lighten their hearts, to let them know that yes, they indeed were forgiven. However, in those instances, the forgiveness had already been obtained LOOONG before that moment, as it is NOT the Bishop that forgives...but the Lord. It was merely the Bishop to help lighten that burden they had carried all those years. The forgiveness is between the Lord and each individual, just like any sin is. This is not something a Bishop can do, a Bishop cannot grant forgiveness. That said, a Bishop is there to be a judge. I would highly advise those of grievous sins such as fornication, Adultery, murder, and other such things to see a Bishop. Forgiveness may be between the individual and the Lord, but certain things between the worldly administration in the church and the individual necessitates a Bishop (or higher in some cases) to handle in the appropriate manner. This is impossible to do if the Bishop (or as I said, in some cases, higher authority than a Bishop) is unaware of such circumstances or is unable to take the appropriate action as the Spirit decides. One should go to the Bishop if they have committed grievous sins, as a Bishop is there to guide, aid, and help in the repentance process and to help the person involved with the sin be able to obtain that forgiveness from the Lord. It is normally something that the Bishop (or higher authority) has to do in cooperation with the individual, as that individual rediscovers and learns and strengthens their faith. Eventually, as everyone should hope, that individual themselves will discover and feel the Spirit telling them that they are forgiven along with the Bishop (or others) and they will be set back onto the path to eternal life. So, to be clear, I am not saying do NOT see a Bishop, but rather, 1. Being a victim does NOT mean one has committed a sin. I hope we NEVER mix up being a victim with having committed sin. The victim is sinless and should not be blamed in those instances. I know I would rather them see someone who is fully trained in dealing with these sorts of emotions and problems than totally rely on me or someone else who are not trained, simply because of a position in the church. 2. ONLY THE LORD forgives. A Bishop does not have that power. 3. If grievous sin has been committed, see a Bishop. There are sins a Bishop will need to do some things about in regards to the church, as well as help one in the road to repentance.

Interesting stuff. Of an interesting note on the number there...if I recall, 777 is considered the perfect number in Jewish tradition. The other number, is almost perfect, but is just short, and hence the opposite of perfection, or the opposite of goodness. Hence, why it is that number and what it stands for. It literally is the number of evil if one looks at Judiac tradition. (if my memory serves right, which seems to be failing at times as I get older).

I don't really want to get into this conversation much, but I thought I'd interject something interesting regarding an opinion of mine with LDS teachings of the priesthood., that many people, including many members, and especially woman who claim woman should hold the priesthood, do not understand. Woman already hold the priesthood in the LDS church, and in fact, those who do, hold the HIGHEST order of the priesthood in the LDS church. The Melchizedek priesthood is the higher priesthood. Under it, as a branch of it, is the holiest priesthood available, and the only one upon which a man may obtain exaltation. This is the Patriarchal priesthood. It is not a different or third order of priesthood, but an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood. It is ONLY granted to those couples who are sealed together for all eternity in the Temple. It is seen as granted to the man, but it is actually granted to the COUPLE, aka, the man and the wife together, and as such, is only available to those who have been sealed together. It is this priesthood that gives a father the actual authority to preside over the home. So, one may ask, why is it that it is only the father that gives blessings and things of that order. The answer, because the church is a church of order. While it is a priesthood that is upon the couple, rather than just the father of the household, the father is the one who holds the keys, and in some of these, he cannot delegate them any more than a Bishop could delegate his keys of judgment in certain cases (though some Bishops may truly want to, and some may even act upon that, there are some keys which only the Bishop is authorized to use). As such, it is upon the Father, just like it is upon the Bishop, to preside and lead the home. However, it is a responsibility in this particular priesthood that is also upon the Mother as well, and at times throughout LDS history, there have been multiple instances of mothers placing their hands on their children and either giving a mother's blessing, or calling upon their husbands priesthood to give a blessing IN HIS ABSENCE. (for clarification, before someone does something waaay out of the ordinary, these are normally blessings that are done simply with the mother laying her hands on the childs head and giving a blessing. It is NOT a blessing of healing and comfort done with the anointment of oil upon the head...as that is a priesthood blessing done by the FATHER or those priesthood holders who have been given those rights under the commission of an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood). In some ways, one would say the Father holds the priesthood and the mother ministers with it...if that can be organized in that way... So, in essence, though one can see the woman would be one who holds or at the least, participates in this, it is the husband who has the rights of the priesthood (as he has the fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood as granted by right, and not just the appendage of the patriarchal priesthood for his family. However, it is under the patriarchal priesthood where it is utilized with cooperation and understanding where the full rights of the father to preside and be the patriarch of the family reside. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Patriarchal_Order_of_the_Priesthood Could my opinion be wrong...absolutely. However, I think this is an opinion that is often missed or not taken into account by many when they consider the family and a woman's rights to the priesthood or her place in the family at home.

@anatess Actually, that's not just LDS teachings, that's actually Christian tradition. It is part of what is known as the Johaninne literature which also include the epistles and the book of Revelations. John in Christian tradition was considered the youngest of the apostles and the only one that was not a martyr (the others all were martyred/murdered except for Judas who committed suicide as recorded in the bible). The LDS differ from Christianity in that they teach that this apostle - John, who is referred to as beloved, received immortality to continue his mission on earth. Christian tradition has it that he was the only apostle to die of natural causes and died, I think (memory could be off) at the age of 98. Now, when you get out of those who take the Bible more literally, and those who are more hard core, and get into those who are more secular and less traditionalist, there are some differences. the Johannine literature is still considered one group with a similar writing style and other familiar similarities between them, but it is thought that it may not necessarily have been John. In this, there was a group who had their culture and tradition seeped in this type of writing and style, and it is from this group of Johannine followers that gave rise to the gospel of John and other ensuing pieces of the Johannine literature. However, in general, with the exception of John living beyond his years and not tasting death, the thoughts of who actually wrote the Gospel (as well as the epistles and Revelations) is something that comes from Christian tradition rather than anything specific to the LDS faith.

I didn't get my information from that article or other articles that have been posted on these forums.

Well, some of them. When got my pilot's license we learned we actually don't want to fly through them unless we've verified via Radar there is no turbulence in them, otherwise it's a good way to get killed. I think they must have gotten this idea from the period of time right after world war two. They had all these prop warplanes left over, and every time those planes flew in formation the clouds just blew the other way...

Tough choice, as all the Silents are good. I flipped a coin between silent two and silent guy.

Well, I picked up March of the Penguins from the Local D.I. and watched it with kids (children, their children, nieces, nephews, their kids...etc). Kids found it intense and interesting at parts, and boring at others.

You are!?

Okay, I do not get this Kekistan thing. What exactly is it. IS it some white supremacist group? It says it's part of the Alt-Right, and other things in that regards, but I'm not clear exactly what it is. Origins say it's from the World of Warcraft Clans where LOL was utilized as KEK at one point, and from there devolved into usage by gamers in the Alt Right with references to the white supremacists? Or I also got something that says it is used by white supremecists to refer to posters and others who they feel are saying things that are nonsense (Actually, stronger wording was used, but is unacceptable here at those sites I got the information from). In the context of the conversation I've read above, I think my understanding is highly flawed, but I don't get a clear explanation of what exactly this thing is...

I went on an LDS mission, however, at times, when people ask, I will tell them that I served a different sort of mission (for work, actually) across the world. We didn't do anything with what the LDS would call missionary work, instead doing other things like buildings and such. I'm an odd sort and find it funny to see their reactions at times when they think I'm skirting the question (which I am) because I didn't serve an LDS mission (though I DID serve an LDS mission) and instead did that. In effect, I'm neutralizing their arena of questioning (though for the wrong reasons in this case, I know what they are asking, but as they only say mission, I'm doing it for my own depraved entertainment at their cost...though some may never know it). In likewise, if I had chosen not to have children, and they asked me about it, I'd simply tell them..."We are not able to have children" (and with your husband having a vasectomy, that would be true I think). "This is not really a topic I enjoy discussing...unless you want to tell me all about your deep personal medical problems involving your privates, inner guts, and other issues". At that point, either they'll jump to a conclusion (most likely), stop talking and never discuss it again in deep embarrassment, OR...they'll give you a run down on their entire medical history. If the last one happens, thank them for their very blatant statements, but tell them, it was only being snarky, that you really are NOT as comfortable as they are sharing deep personal items with a stranger (which could also be true). I had a mother that did NOT like children. I am grateful I was born...but I will say, in many instances if a woman does NOT like children and does not WANT children, it should be her choice. She should feel no pressure to have children in that instance because it could turn out to be a very bad thing for some children. There are times it is better NOT to have children when they are unwanted, then to force oneself to have children in an unwanted situation.

Each Dispensation head holds the keys for their dispensation. These are special keys that only they hold as they preside over their dispensation. The Savior thus, is only the Dispensation head of his period of time, rather than all periods of time. He holds the authority and it is through the Savior that all our authority comes, but others hold the keys at various times and dispensations. I suppose a way to look at it is to imagine that I own a company. However, I have janitors and managers that I hand keys out. The janitors come at different times, and are over the building maintenance and cleaning at their work hours, and the managers are also over the company business during their time at the building. Now all those keys COME from me...I OWN all those keys, not those janitors or Managers. However, I have given them those keys so they can do the work that I need them to do. When they leave, or if I desire, I will have them return those keys to me. Not a perfect example, but perhaps it is somewhat illustrative.