JohnsonJones

Huh? What in the world??? Okaaaaay. If that's what you think. I think I've often enough pointed out how miraculous these things were, in fact repeatedly...but...if that's what you think...sorry you think that way about me.

That may be a wise choice. I've found that the essays do not help those who fell away because it's history in many instances...instead...at times they find that the essays provide more justification than anything spiritual. If one could (though many times people will not heed any suggestion to do so) I'd always encourage reading the Book of Mormon continuously as a way to rebuild a testimony. Normally that's ignored though...so I am unsuccessful in that light.

help???? As I stated previously, though popular historical perception is that the LDS church were Nazi collaborators, I actually disagree with my peers in that arena. You will find me in the minority because of that view. I am not arguing that the LDS church were Nazi collaborators. Ignoring that they benefitted from being complicit or cooperating is to ignore what happened in history. The views that some have expressed in this thread that disagree even moreso to what history stated would not be taken seriously by any historian in many instances though. Even my arguments that though the LDS were cooperative, they were not collaborators are not taken seriously in some instances. However, benefiting and blessing can be two sides to the same coin. Historically speaking, there is no way to deny the LDS church benefitted or as some would say, was blessed by how the church in general acted in Germany at the time. It's similar to how we are blessed in the US. For example, if you stated that you are blessed by the Lord to be able to access the genealogical resources kept in the US, you could say it was a blessing from the Lord, and you are right. However, many would also say that you are benefiting from the freedoms granted to individuals in the US to be able to do so. Others in other nations may not have those blessings/benefits. In many instances, blessings and benefits are congruently the same in observation. Now, there's a LOT more too it, that could definitely be stated as blessings (for example, the church members suffered along with the rest of Germany at the end of WWII with the bombings and post war events...to a degree many today would be absolutely floored by...but via the blessings of the Lord many of these burdens were lightened to the point that some can point back to that time and see the hand of the Lord...), but what one would term as benefits to the LDS church because of their cooperative nature during WWII could also be seen as benefits directly related to their stance regarding the governments at that time.

Thanks for the link. Nice reading for those who are interested.

????? Is that simply because you don't like Nazi Germany that spurs this. I get the feeling a LOT of these statements are NOT because people are interested in the truth of what happened, but out of emotion because they can't believe the LDS church benefited in a situation like that. I could go listing things that the LDS church benefited from their association in Germany, but from many responses, it sounds like there are many that do NOT want to hear history and instead wish to ignore it. In that light, I feel by talking about the miracles that happened then and later which directly benefited the church, would not be well understood or accepted by some here. If one wants to understand why the prophet's statements may have been inspired, then it is important to understand HOW the church benefited from following what he stated. When one understands those benefits, and what happened to other church's and religions, one can see how it truly turned into a miracle during WWII and in the ensuing years where they had similar stances with other governments. Yes, I think Helmuth Hebener was a Hero, and did the right thing, but I also think the church was blessed by following what the prophet stated. It is possible for both to be accurate. In many instances, the initial response to the history of the LDS church in some areas may not sit well with you, and in that situation you can have it hurt your testimony, you can try to understand it and in that instance your testimony may grow, OR, you can try to ignore or rewrite it or disagree with historical facts. The reason I think people can't believe that the LDS church cooperated (which was absolutely necessary for survivial in Nazi Germany, even cooperation brought on things like church searches and other things, non-cooperation was a death sentence for MANY people), or that the LDS church didn't benefit is because when one mentions the word Nazi, it instantly brings up the image of bad guys and evil...and the instinct to disavow any connection one may have springs to our lips (or in this instance, our fingers). Instead, I'd encourage people to read and understand history, and then, instead of trying to fight the world and say it never happened, embrace it. There are many stories in the gospel and the church that may appear horrible at first. However, as we understand what it was for, or the blessings that may have come from it, normally if we allow the spirit of the Lord, our Testimonies can grow. There is more I could say on how this story personally affects me, but I don't think that might go over well with some people here.

Every time you check you watch it's 11:11? Maybe you should keep your eye on it for a few minutes to see if the time ever changes...

Addressing this issue is a tough one. In part, because my own representations have been kidnapped by the Alt-Right and others. I spent a lot of time in the Deep South when what many consider the confederate flag (which was actually only one of many, and was actually the Battle Flag for troops from Virginia) was found on most of the flags there, and where statues of the Confederate Generals were easy to be found. I appreciated being able to go visit various historical areas, and even visit digs at certain sites. There is a deep and rich history there in regards to the Confederate States, the reasons why they were formed, and what happened afterwards. I personally don't want them to destroy such memorials like the statue of General Lee. I thought it was horrible that they decided to change the flags which states had into others, and that taking down these flags is a loss of history or the recognition of what it was. This isn't because I think slavery was a good cause, or think anything along those lines, but because of the history that these items bring to mind, and the stories that they relate that may otherwise be forgotten (and history forgotten is history bound to be repeated). However, I feel uncomfortable relating these views as these symbols seem to have been hijacked both by the Alt-Right and their followers as well as those on the violent and very history reconstructionist of the far left. To say, I also don't want these statues and flags taken down or destroyed indicates that I align with one of those two groups, both of which I absolutely do not agree with. Traditionally those things have been symbols that represented ALL people in the South, not just those who were racists or otherwise. Now days, however, one cannot express that they would rather those statues remain and flags be left to fly, without somehow being seen as aligned with those groups. It also leads to that question which you raise...where does this insanity end? Robert E. Lee may have been a slave owner, but overall, he was opposed to the South leaving the Union and their reasoning for doing so. However, he had a very strong sense of loyalty to his state (remember, states were seen differently back then, with states being more like nations in something like the EU rather than a UNITED STATES that Lincoln and others saw it as) and when asked specifically, went to lead their troops. His is a tragic story where though his personal convictions were different then those who led the confederacy, his sense of duty and loyalty to his government led him to work against those convictions and fight for what he felt was his own patriotism. If we take down his statue, simply because he was a confederate general...after all those statues are gone...where do we go from there. Washington really is a logical extension, because he too was part of that Southern legacy. Maybe we start smaller and remove others that don't agree with our sense of modern day morals, such as James Madison, the very individual who proposed the 3/5 compromise. Or maybe James Monroe who owned slaves like Robert E. Lee, but was also similarly opposed to it (which is a rather ironic thing if you think about it). His idea was to send freed slaves to another nation in Africa, and in that light, Liberia has it's capital named after him. Or maybe Andrew Jackson who owned slaves, actively traded, and was a proponent of it? OR perhaps someone many don't recall, John Tyler who supported it's expansion in his time? Who do we go after next in these instances. When we look at only one or a few components of these individuals lives instead of their whole person as reasons to eradicate their memories, it can start looking an awful lot like a witch hunt. But as I said, I don't express these feelings as much these days, as, it unfortunately, a lot of this dialogue has been hijacked by extreme groups on the right and left instead of letting normal correspondence talk about it, and hence any who may discuss it are many times seen as being part of that far left or far right grouping.

Just to be clear, I am NOT positing that the LDS church were Nazi collaborators, they WERE cooperative however, and complicit. One can see many of the miracles that occurred because of this stance, not just with Nazi Germany, but with the Communist government in the East after that. The book that I suggested above is NOT for the weak of testimony. It is probably the best book out there in regards to Mormons in Germany from the mid 1800's on, and though I see it as non-biased, I know many members who are offended by my comments in this thread may see it (the book) as an attack on the church. It takes a FAR stronger stance against the LDS church's activities (as I stated, it basically says the LDS church collaborated with Nazi Germany, a stance I personally DO NOT agree with, though I do admit the LDS church definitely cooperated with the government in power at the time) and as such, may offend some of those who don't like my comments in this thread and others like them. (this is a heads up and warning for those who may be offended by it so they aren't surprised if they pick it up and are so offended later). The LDS church suffered less even then some other religious organizations that also cooperated with Nazi Germany. Cooperation did not mean easy sailing. LDS churches were still searched at times, hymnbooks confiscated, and anything positive about Jews or Israel at times destroyed. What it did mean was that the LDS population overall did not get sent to death camps or other places of horror. The biggest significance of this though, that I see, is that we can see the blessings to those who followed the prophet's counsel, and the miracles in Germany that followed after WWII. One can see this as a testimony building experience, or one that hurts it. As I stated before, Helmuth is probably the biggest example that is used today in this regards to the LDS church's actions in Germany (and as I said, it's not just the excommunication portion, while in prison, membership could have aided him with comforts and other things he was denied, but chose NOT TO...that's not just the branch president there this lies upon. In addition, Hubener was disavowed up until at least 1945 by the church in Germany and was known to membership). However, the most inspirational thing is Helmuth NEVER LOST HIS TESTIMONY. In an instance where I think most of us would despair, deserted by friends and members, and to a point, even the church, HE HELD TO THE FAITH. I cannot express how inspirational that story is in that light. Even where most of us would have no hope, he still kept his faith in the Lord and his testimony of the gospel. That speaks volumes more about the truth of the gospel and how if we have a testimony of it we will not fall when upheld by the Lord in our faith. In many ways, his story is one of a hero as well, one that has been known by Germans and German saints far longer than that of Mormons in general. His story is one that can build your testimony of the church, and the gospel, if you can see and understand the different elements of it.

There are many Mormons that hate facing the truth, or want to rewrite the truth. AS for the Leader of the church unit, the excommunication of Hubener was NOT done properly. It was NOT approved by the Stake, nor by any other higher authority at the time. The leader was part of the Nazi party and very PRO-Nazi. Unfortunately, instead of saying that whatever his decision was, since it was done improperly and did not go through the proper channels or method, was invalidated and had no power or effect, hence no action in regards to rebaptism was needed because the original baptism was enough, that did not happen. In this instance, the reason people get upset is that his excommunication was NOT nullified. Nullified means that there would have been no need for rebaptism. This is actually a big sticking point with those in various places because instead of nullification (in which case, no rebaptism would be necessary), the excommunication was accepted and so a rebaptism WAS done (or I suppose for temple ordinances and such). It is a strange case, to say the least. In 1946 a notation was added to his record that he had been excommunicated by mistake. That still left him excommunicated. Family members then were proactive and got him rebaptized in the temple in January 1948. Finally, later in the month, the record was again amended by George Albert Smith to say the excommunication was reversed. However, this still left the notation that he had actually BEEN excommunicated and was seen also as being done as the individual now had been rebaptized. The rest of the ordinances were done in June of that year in the temple. When they say, nullification, it means the actual excommunication was of no effect, meaning no rebaptism would be necessary. The sticking point is whether this has ever actually been done in the history of the LDS church. I don't know of any situation where the LDS church has straight up nullified an excommunication and stated no rebaptism is necessary, as I notated above. We, as Mormons, however, do no favors to try to hide our history in this. When we hide history or try to say it didn't occur, people WILL find out, and WILL find the truth. Were the Mormons complicit and cooperative with the Nazi's in WWII Germany. Yes. They were. This is NO secret, especially in Germany and other locations. Trying to say it didn't happen, or rewrite this is similar to some humorous Japanese history rewrites In saw in the entertainment arenas where the Japanese told WWII stories where they were with the allies against Germany, or were the actual good guys of the War. Even if those programs tried to rewrite history, the rest of the world knows the truth, and trying to rewrite or hide it isn't going to make people think differently. What it does, is make people look poorly on the LDS church at times (though in this instance, this isn't the church trying to rewrite stuff, the church has admitted much of this, I see it as specifically members who feel uncomfortable seeing this, without trying to understand). The thing is to try to understand WHY it was done, and what occurred because of it. In this instance, we know what probably would have occurred to the LDS church if it hadn't cooperated with the Nazi's. The same that happened to others that didn't cooperate or were not complicit. In many instances, those organizations ceased to exist, the people killed or severely restricted, and a huge amount of suffering ensued. All organizations that were not directly under the control of the Nazi's suffered somewhat, but those who did not cooperate, faced hardships that we today probably can't even imagine. People think that cooperation is a bad word, and in some ways it is. What they don't realize is the COST of Non-cooperation with the Nazi's in Germany at that time. Those who did not cooperate, and were not complicit...well...in that light, Hubener is also a good story to reflect upon. If the LDS church did not cooperate, look to see what happened to Hubener to see what else may have happened to the membership. Because of the cooperation, the LDS church remained in Germany. It continued to exist both in the West, and surprisingly even survived somewhat behind the Iron Curtain. This is the effect. It is in essence, a miracle that this occurred, and even more miraculous that because of this, and the church's neutrality in general as well as being seen as supporting whatever government was in charge (whether Nazi...or Communist later on in the East, or other wise), a temple was allowed to be built in an era where such things were normally not allowed. That is a HUGE miracle. In addition, though the church was complicit and cooperative, a fact that probably preserved the church, not all went down easily or nicely. Otto Berndt deserves recognition in this. Zander was the Hamburg District leader for the Nazi Party, however, Otto Berndt was the Hamburg district President. He did not agree with what Zander did, and in fact was severly interrogated himself in regards to the Helmuth affair. He never broke under questioning, and in reality considering the harsh circumstances, should have died. He attributed divine intervention as to why he survived. Berndt did not actively oppose the Nazi's, however, he also did not simply bow the knee and be optimistically engaged as Zander was. Berndt may also be the one who we can attribute to trying to help correct the wrongs against Hubener after WWII. Of interest, the LDS church suppressed much of Hubener's story until the 1990s. An excellent book, at least from a historian perspective, is Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany by David Conley. It goes further than what I have stated about cooperation, and makes the theory that the LDS church was not just cooperative, it actually collaborated with Nazi Germany. I see it more as a non-biased book, but some Mormons who don't really know about historicity here may view it as an attack against Mormons. It words things far stronger than I would have, but I see it as telling an essential history that we need to know, while recognizing the heroics that went on (such as Helmuth Hebener and Otto Berndt) at the same time. In history circles, I actually would be considered somewhat weak in contesting that the church ONLY cooperated and at worst was complicit, where as many feel the LDS church was actually a collaborator. I still hold that the church was cooperating, and it is pure nonsense to try to argue that they weren't. No one outside the LDS church would take you seriously, and I doubt even the LDS history department would take that claim seriously. It's no secret about the cooperation of the LDS church in Nazi Germany. That said, I would NOT argue that the LDS church was a collaborator however (even if some historical contexts such as the book above would make that claim), which is where I think some people in this thread are getting confused.

And your statement is why there are many that have a problem with the story in regards to the LDS church. It's this idea that has hurt some individuals testimonies. The LDS church is, in fact seen as a cooperative entity with Nazi Germany. You can say you don't like history, or what it portrays, but that's the dice. The church did, in fact cooperate with the Nazis, and in fact DID benefit from it. Was that inspiration, revelation, or some other item? It would surely have suffered (and a certain favorite apostle of some may have never grown up to be an apostle) had they not done so. It was because of that complicit and cooperative nature which left the church somewhat intact to be effective after the Nazi's were gone. Your argument that he was going against the church's wishes is also something that hurts testimonies. How can a young man who chooses to do the RIGHT thing...doing wrong? I see it differently. He was excommunicated, and excommunication that the LDS church never nullified in and of itself. I think that shows the power of your church leaders, and how important it is to be righteous and reverent enough to do as the Lord would, instead of how we would. His leader probably also used that type of justification that you stated. However, the LDS church has also taught us to think for ourselves, to gain a testimony for ourselves. The LDS church stated that though they didn't nullify the excommunication (have they ever done this?), they did say the excommunication was done improperly and thus implied that his excommunication was NOT in line with what should have been done. He was rebaptized and all other ordinances in the temple. I see this as the LDS church showing their support for his decision. In this light though, the LDS church in Germany sided against their own member, when the member chose to do the right thing. Standing up to tyranny and evil, such evil as we saw in Germany, is NOT wrong. However, the LDS church in Germany at this time chose to side with the Nazi's rather than do anything to help Helmuth (where in prison he was bereft of even the simple civil rights of a warmth and decent food, and was open to abuse, when the church could have provided some of those things for him). Was it the right choice? I don't know. To this day, I couldn't tell you. I'd say they shouldn't have excommunicated him, and though he was, it was done improperly. Was it right to cooperate or be complicit in light of Nazi Germany's evil...I don't know. Luckily, I wasn't the prophet, that was a hard decision he had to make. Because of his (edit: to clarify, the prophets statements of what the saints in Germany were to do in regards to the Nazi's in power and the German government) decisions, the church existed in Germany after WWII, even behind the iron curtain. That, in itself, is a miracle that compounded on itself when the Temple was built. I prefer to see Helmuth's story as an inspiration for LDS individuals though, rather than something that is disparaging by showing things we can wonder about endlessly in regards to decisions that the LDS church had to make.

Matter of opinion. Hitler himself tried to distance himself from Mein Kampf in the mid 30s, though obviously some of his ideas remained. His own ideas were to take the Nationalistic tendencies of the right, but utilize them to forment the policies of communism from the left. In this, he commented that it was, in fact, living socialism. This is a society where all were provided with what they needed. It was a society where religion could ONLY say what he said it could say, and if they spoke against his commands, they were traitors. It was a society where you could only think as he would have you think, that if you wanted to think otherwise, it was against the laws of the state. He felt that normally, a communistic type government, that also had restrictive laws on what people could believe, what religion they could attend or have faith in and what that religion could even teach, and where people did not have freedom of press or other freedoms would not be possible in a normal society we see in the US today. (or elsewhere for that matter). However, infuse a degree of patriotism and nationalism, where people subdued their own desires because of their loyalty and love of their nation/state, and they would gladly work as hard as they could, and do what they could which in turn would enable this idea to work. IN essence, the STATE becomes the religion, and because of people's faith in it, they make it work. Sadly, in retrospect, it didn't work. Hitler got Germany better off by taking land from the jews and others, confiscating property, and then confiscating other nations and their wealth to prop up his socialistic government. Had he continued, without the continuous influx of resources, it is probable his state would have collapsed around the time Germany was defeated anyways...though some hypothesize he MIGHT have made it to the Mid-50s. Look at Venezuala and it's problems today for something slightly similar (though without the Jews being carted away, at least that we know of, and no warring on it's neighbors...it's still somewhat similar if one wants a comparison to the nationalism driving socialism idea).

When I first saw this, I felt I knew what they were referring to. I believe this individual is probably referring to an unfortunate event in which, yes, the LDS church did side with the Nazi's against it's own. They are probably referring to Helmuth Hubener. I do not believe in hiding history, or ignoring that it occurred. His is a story that one can read to hurt their testimony, or build it up. It is one that has made some doubt the LDS church because of what they did to him. He is a shining example of what type of leader the LDS church raises when it utilizes the Scouting program, and the type of individual which should be an inspiration. I'll summarize his story below. He was original in the Scouting program until the Nazi's took over and forced the youth to join the Hitler Youth. Helmeth found that many things that were being taught or done did not seem to be congruent with his LDS upbringing, nor the things that he had learned as a young man. He was not alone in this. There were several members that felt this way. However, the LDS church's policy has always been one more of neutrality rather than opposition to whatever government is in power or not in power. In this light, Heber J. Grant recommended LDS members to remain in Germany, to try to cooperate when needed with the appropriate authorities, and to not cause trouble. Helmeth, did not follow this counsel. In this light, however, the LDS church is seen as one of the organizations that cooperated with Nazi Germany at that time, and unlike other religions which were persecuted fiercely, avoided much of the persecution that others suffered. They are also not seen as standing up for what was good or right against a tyrannical government. That said, history can be unkind to those it leaves in it's wakes in how it sees the LDS church in this situation. Heber J. Grant and the Brethren may not have realized what was happening in Germany (and almost no one did in regards to the death camps, even many Germans, until after the War, and for many that did find out, they didn't find out till near the end of the war anyways). We cannot know how the church would have responded if they knew. Perhaps it would have been the same. As I said, though seen as cooperative with the Nazi Government (or as much as any organization that wasn't run by them, which meant that they still suffered somewhat), the saints did NOT suffer as grieviously as others. In this light, perhaps it was revelation to preserve the saints as much as possible and leave the church on firm ground that had this revelation come forth. Because of this, the church eventually was able to build temples and other things for those many saints that remained, and include us getting an apostle from there today. We may not have had that if the church had some other policy in place. I don't know, but the rest of the story of Helmuth is tragic. Helmuth supposedly lived in a ward where around 3/4 or more of the pro-Nazi supporters who were also LDS went to church. The leader of the church was one of those. Helmuth had gotten access to a radio via some friends, and could hear the BBC over it. He found out that the stories the German government told them, and what was told elsewhere were vastly different. With his background, he knew he could think critically. He did not have to follow blindly. This is something LDS leaders have taught us for decades, to find out for ourselves what the truth is rather than relying on the words of others. He went forth and decided that what was happening was wrong and wrote pamphlets trying to expose the truth. He was captured and placed in prison by the German government/Nazi's. Just listening to those broadcasts was considered treason (be glad we live in the US where we can listen to what we wish). Distributing pamphlets critical of the Nazi's was even worse. He was scheduled to be executed. He was stripped of being a citizen and human rights. During this time, Helmuth was promptly excommunicated by his church leader. In prison, he suffered from exposure to the cold elements without much comfort except the cold floor. He had little food. Excommunicated from the church with all that this meant, on the verge of being Excommunicated, he exclaimed "know that God lives and He will be the Just Judge in this matter… I look forward to seeing you in a better world!" Helmuth knew that the man who excommunicated him was very pro-Nazi, the very group he opposed. He still remained true to the faith, and had a testimony, despite all that seemed against it, of the truth and the gospel. He was beheaded, I think he is the youngest one accused of treason and being an enemy sympathizer that was killed for that at the age of 17. The LDS church came in four years later and said that the excommunication was done through improper channels. Helmuth never had the ability to attend the church court that excommunicated him, and it never was assembled at a higher level than the ward. That said, the LDS church did not nullify the excommunication either. Instead, they had him rebaptized, and his ordinances done. Because of this, it has angered people. Some feel that this indicates that the LDS church cannot be true because of their choices in the matter of Helmuth Hubener. I think this stance dishonors his memory. If anything, I personally believe (so this is a personal belief, not fact, or anything like that) that Helmuth would rather people know he still had a testimony, that he knew how the excommunication should have been done, and what his true stance with his Lord in heaven was. I feel he would rather people join the LDS church and remain faithful, even when all other abandon them like Job, and keep their testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. I think he recognized the difference between the gospel and what it teaches, and that of the choices of men, even leaders in the church occasionally...and that there IS a difference, especially with local leaders occasionally. I think Helmuth is an example of what we should be, and the testimony each of us needs to strive to attain. I see the story of Helmuth Hebener as someone who kept their testimony, even when all else was lost. He was one that took to heart that each of us needs to find and discern the truth, and choose the right no matter what the worldy cost, with the guarantee that our rewards in heaven will be given us and that the Lord is just, even if those of the world are not. I think his testimony at the end, that God lives and is the Just Judge, shows us that we each can have a testimony that transcends just the church and it's organization here on earth, but one that is of the true gospel of the Lord. As I said, I think this is probably the story and ideas which were referred to, and I can see how it can be taken the way it was expressed. I also see how it can also be a shining testimony to each of us to hold strong and NEVER lose the faith in the Lord and his path.

It can matter, but NOT in the instances you are talking about. However, that said, I think we may be on the same page though, as far as understanding out varied political views that don't conjoin with each other.

Okay, there is a LARGE Hispanic population which are related to the Lamanites who originally inhabited the Americas. They have skin tones which are NOT lily white as many who consider themselves white. I am aware there are whites who are also Hispanic, but we see those very rarely in our area. And yes, in this instance, his skin color DOES matter. Unless one is so racist they believe ONLY WHITE men of European descent are ever chosen by the Lord or that ONLY those who have white skins in this life will be saved in heaven. When one ONLY chooses those of a white European background as leadership or things in that manner, it indicates that is the thinking and seems to really offend many who are not. Skin color shouldn't matter, you a right, but when it is obvious it does and is part of the selection process for leaders and other matters, then it starts to matter a LOT...for one...because it IS extremely racist. And when skin color matters SO much that instead of selecting one of the temple recommend bearing Elders (because they can't be bothered to make any High Priests) the Branch President and instead bring someone from OUTSIDE a branch who was in another ward to be the Branch President because of what appears to be skin color...yeah...that speaks highly of a problem from what I understand. So, yes, when there is racism against the minorities, then Skin color actually DOES matter, because racism forces it upon everyone so that it becomes a deciding factor in most decisions...and when it becomes as blatantly obvious...then it matters even more. For me, just to start with, questions like...why should they attend a church that hates them, or doesn't want them there, are things that one has to start answering or dancing around the question. It's a dang hard question, and anyone who thinks they (they Hispanic members) are being racist instead needs to analyze what the heck they are thinking, because I can tell you from how they've treated me, they aren't the ones that are racist. AS for me...perhaps involuntarily...but at least I recognize it and try to change how I think and act and try to understand where they are coming from. As I noted previously though, perhaps I am inadequate, and the right choice would be to choose someone who understood them far better than I and could be far more effective at bringing them back into activity within the church.

I've only read the first page, but in my area...Racism is a really BAD problem in some ways. This isn't some foreign LDS area either, there are a LOT of LDS here, in fact they are the majority. However, there is a HUGE Hispanic contingent of members. There are ZERO (that's right, zero) Hispanics or even minorities in the LDS leadership, despite being in such large numbers. The Spanish branch, that even has a WHITE Branch President. I've talked to some Hispanic members, and some who are inactive, and they notice this. They even state there are difficulties with their kids associating with the other LDS kids. I have to say, I am ignorant of some of this though, and cannot relate...though I see and hear what they are saying. I've only had two experiences where I saw it directly. The first was where a certain individual in leadership invited the LDS leadership of the areas to go to a meeting. Once there it was obvious it was to try to garner membership from that leadership into a White supremacy type organization. There were several that were already in that organization. The other was at a thrift store. There were some Hispanics there talking in Spanish. One I knew, who was a military veteran of several years, had been wounded and was medically retired. One individual came up to them and told them to speak English. They were in America and if they didn't want to speak English and sacrifice for the nation that he loved, they should get out. Now, as I said, one of these was a military veteran who was speaking Spanish. I was embarrassed. I took the elderly gentleman aside, away from them as it was starting to look nasty, and instead talked to him about his mission. However, though I didn't bring it up to him (and maybe I should) I was rather shocked at how he treated that guy. I did mention that one of the individuals that he had talked to was a military veteran who, as some might put it, had fought and bled (but luckily not died) for the freedoms he enjoyed, including the speech he had just given them. So, yes, there are those who are white supremacist in the LDS church. Beyond that though, there is racism in the LDS church membership. I think most don't even recognize it or realize that the racism is there. It is something we can fight. We could almost double our ward rolls for actives if we could just fellowship the Hispanic members in our ward. Right now, I have about a very low percentage of them coming out. If I understood this better, maybe I could help them better. Unfortunately, perhaps what is required is someone far more capable than me of understanding the situation and how to help others engage with it and resolve it.

Hard to answer the questions truthfully. I'd consider myself a conservative, but compared to many of the Mormons, they'd put as a flaming liberal!!! As for environmentalist, I'd say I'm absolutely NOT what I'd term a fake environmentalist...but when people talk about environmentalist these days...that's what they refer to. Ironically, I'm connected to two REAL environmentalist. The first is my uncle, who is in environmental engineering. He does a lot of clean up for environmental disasters. I have helped him do actual environmental cleanup jobs in the past, especially during my summers...thus being heavily involved in actual environmentalist/environmental work. The second is a cousin that lives with us occasionally. She is a conservation Biologist. One of the things she's done that she explained to me is working with the hunters and animal conservation. In a nutshell, they need to keep track of approximately how many animals are around and alive (such as deer) compared to the flora and fauna of the rest of the area. Taking that into account, they determine how many they need to cull that year. Hunters provide an excellent way to cull the animals so that the biologist do not have to go and put down that many animals themselves. She explained that when they get it wrong...more animals will actually die in a far harsher and painful manner. When there are too many animals, they normally will die of starvation, and more of them will die because the lack of food affects the entire population. To say the least, unlike the fake environmentalist tree huggers, She absolutely LOVES hunters and the association they have with them that enable them to keep the numbers steady. I used to go on field trips with her to help out with numbers and identification and stuff. So, in that light, I'd actually didn't know how to answer 1....but maybe... 1. I'm none of the above? 2. I actually think the Big Bang is plausible, but as per above, not certain I'd say I was an environmentalist or not. 3. I'm LDS, but I'm not sure if the church really takes a stance on any of the so called environmentalist issues of the day (global warming, etc). Neither of the above relatives believe in the Global Warming myth as stated in politics and the news. They both feel we may effect the environment, but feel that the issues being stated in the media is more a political thing than anything dealing with factual science, and that many of the fake environmentalist do far more harm to the environment than help. They both feel we need to care for the environment, and we may have some effect but there are also other factors at work there that are rarely discussed, or even attempted to gain control of or even observe. In fact, they both have stories where fake environmentalists hindered their jobs, put the environment at risk, and in some cases started major disasters (one where forest fires were started by idiots who thought they wanted to stop deforestation and camped out but didn't know didley about controlling campfires and other stupid stuff, another where some group promoted the construction of a plant to make alternate fuels, but had such a terrible chemical storage that it leaked causing a major environmental disaster...). The funny thing is, the idea I've gotten from them is there is a cadre of scientist that is the in group. These are the people that are after, pride, prestige, and power, and thus are the ones involved with politics that are pushing a lot of the fake environmental messages. The other scientists and people working in the field, the ones with the actual and real experience and hands on work in the areas...their views are basically ignored overall by the politicians, the media, and Hollywood. Due to this, REAL, viable steps that are not costly, expensive, or hard to implement are ignored in favor of those who have a political agenda more than one to actually help the environment or world around them. They have ideas on how to practically reduce pollution and other aspects, but both say that these measures will never get widespread use simply because those who are in the "in" crowd of scientists and politicians won't have any money/profit from them if implemented. Hence, though I might consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist (and even have hands on experience to a degree), I would very much not want to be identified with what people in general consider an environmentalist today as per the Hollywood definition or idea.

Depends. Creation out of nothing is normally more specific to evangelicals or more hard core Christians. When we read the Bible though.. It does not say he did it out of nothing, and in fact says the earth existed...but was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. KJV Genesis 1:1-2 by the way.

Well, I really need to go back over the section, but I think leaders (well, Bishops and Stake Presidents at least) are required to be clean shaven as per the instructions. The only reasoning I know behind it is so that we appear more respectable, or conservative, or something like that. This is probably the same thing that is applied towards missionaries as well. I don't know of any thing in that regards for the members in general though.

Just a Clarification...and I can't really go into it more than what I'm going to say now. It is not done away. The statement that none have had it in the Houston Temple may be true...but the ordinance remains. This is the time for the fullness of the gospel, and that requires EVERY ordinance...even if some ordinances are very rarely done.

That is an absolutely awesome statement. I can't like it enough!

Along with the thing I read with Joseph F. Smith, I also read something else once. Once you choose to be a member of the Church, the Terrestrial Kingdom is no longer on your plate. Your choices will be either outer darkness...suffer for your sins and then the Telestial Kingdom (with the possibility of being raised to the Celestial...which is further expanded upon by JFS son, Joseph Fielding Smith in the Doctrines of Salvation), OR the Celestial Kingdom. You either keep your covenants and repent or not. The degree of punishment may seem harder, but your degree of Glory which you may attain is ALSO greater than those who do not accept the gospel (deceived by the cunning of men) in the first place. Personally, I'd repent and shoot for the top rather than resign myself to an eternity of hell.

I don't wish for the church to allow moderate drinking, I do not miss that. I have many relatives that drink (like all of them) and most of them do NOT drink heavily (though some are blazing alcoholics). The Germans may drink half a cup of wine at dinner...and that's it. I'd call that moderate. I'd also say it's far healthier for them than those of us who do not do so. We keep the Word of Wisdom as Mormons not necessarily because the science behind it says that this is the healthier thing to do, but because we view it as a commandment that was further reinforced for us to keep by Latter Day Prophets (I think it was either JFS or Heber J. Grant that made it mandatory, have to look at my books to recall better). On the otherhand, the thing I would like them to allow...is coffee. I think there are FAR more heavy coffee drinkers out there than those who are heavy alcohol drinkers. I don't even drink hot chocolate myself, so I suppose I'm pretty hardcore in keeping the WoW in my personal interpretation...but I could really go for a cup of joe sometimes.

There's a difference between support and actively promoting. A default position is one of silence in some situations. In this situation, if you felt that there should be no age based or other restrictive laws on who can smoke or drink (and in some areas of the world, 7 year olds ARE allowed and DO drink some alcoholic beverages at times), then you may be supportive of that position by default. However, that is a far cry than going to the elementary school and trying to encourage all the kids to buy alcoholic drinks and smokes from your corner store across from the school and handing out free samples. In that light, if you think the laws (for example, in regards to LDS history and the persecution of Mormons for polygamy practices) regarding marriage are too restrictive or allow discrimination and persecution based upon what should be one's personal convictions rather than something state owned and sponsored, your default position may be supportive of those who also want the same thing so they can practice Gay Marriage. On the otherhand, that's a FAR cry than entering into Gay Marriage yourself and promoting it to others as just and right and testifying that anyone who does not think it is the moral and upright thing to do is a bigot. The first probably is appropriate, the second...well...that's a lot more questionable in regards to the whether you are being honest in your temple recommend questions.

I'm a total carnivore...I'm in trouble it looks like.

Well, I suppose my family is peculiar... We are MORMONS after all. I am massively into history (being a historian and all...), but ironically, none of my children or any other seems to like history. It has been their least favorite subject in school. I don't know what I did wrong in life to make them dislike history so...