JohnsonJones

This thread is simply a place that I can express various things and thoughts I've had on various aspects of the LDS religion from doctrine to traditions. Feel free to read or comment as you want. These are mostly just my thoughts, so not really a place for hard doctrine or concise teachings of the LDS church. The first item I think I'd like to write about is what is covered in the First discussion, or in this instance, the Godhead. We, as the LDS church believe in God. We know that he exists and that we are his children. His only begotten son is Jesus Christ. This is our older brother. In this life we all sin and because of this we would not be able to return to live with our Father if there was not a plan to save us from this sin. We call this the plan of Salvation. Jesus Christ, our older brother, took upon himself our sins and atoned for the sins of the world Because of this we can return to live with our Father again. On the surface this can seem like very simple ideas, and yet, beneath them lies a deeper idea which differentiates the LDS ideas from Others. The ideas of the LDS church is closest to that of the Trinitarians, though there is a specific and unique difference. Trinitarians also believe in almost everything above, except they do not view the Lord as our literal older Brother in the spirit. They also do not believe (in general) that Christ is a spirit child of our Father the same as we are, but he is our older brother in that aspect. The trinity is NOT Unitarian (both the original meaning ONE deity and ONLY ONE deity, and the new which is to unite all faiths and beliefs) or monotheistic, nor is it polytheistic. It is sometimes believed by those who do not understand it completely in a more Unitarian (meaning one deity) belief, where The Father and the Son are the same individual, indivisible, and one being completely. This is NOT Trinitarian, though it is held at times by many who attend Trinitarian religions. Trinitarian is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are Separate and distinct individuals or beings, but at the same time are also the same being, or the same substance. There are many different approaches to this idea. One is where one views a father as being a father, a husband, a co-worker and other roles as separate roles, but at the same time, the same individual. Another way that some believe in the trinity is as follows. Hold up both your hands. In front of you, you will see both a right hand and a left hand. They are separate parts of your body. You can have them act independently of each other, without one copying the other. They can appear at the same time. However, they are BOTH part of the same being, they are BOTH part of you, as is your head as well. The LDS church differs from this as follows. If you are married, take your right hand. Hold it in front of you. Now have your spouse hold her left hand in front of you. Once again you have a right hand and a left hand in front of you. They are both separate and can act independently of each other without copying the other. The can appear at the same time. HOWEVER, they are not both part of you. They are both separate as beings as one is part of you, and the other is part of your wife. Hence, they are of a different substance from one another. This becomes important when one analyzes the origins of the trinity and the impact of Joseph Smith. The Catholic Church likes to portray the emergence of the Nicene/Athanasian creed (though it upholds that the apostles creed was in existence since the apostles themselves) because of a two way struggle between Athanasius And Arius. This is far too simple a view as there were FAR more than simply Athanasius and Arius in contention at the Council of Nicea (or the other councils that occurred). Many try to attribute to Arius that he was teaching that the Lord, or the Son was not Divine...which may or may not be accurate. There were MANY theologians at that time, and many of them felt that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost were completely separate beings with no connection between them, with the additional thought that while the Father was divine and held all heavenly power, the Son was merely a mortal. Arius's teachings didn't specify this, and today when the LDS church is looked upon, many scholars view the LDS church as trying to resurrect the teachings of Arius, but NOT the teachings of those others theologians. Athanasius was thought by some non-Catholic scholars to actually be a minority view. His teaching was that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were three different individuals, and yet consubstantial, being comprehendible and yet incomprehensible . This meant that, just like your right hand and left hand are the same age, and have always coexisted with each other, the same held true for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as they were all of the same substance. Arius was of the thought that "the Father came first, and then the Son." In otherwords, that the Father existed before the son, and that the Father was the one who created or gave birth to the Son, whether in spirit or in the flesh. The Son was still divine, but unlike the Father, was younger than the Father. For Athanasius this was heresy, as was all other creeds. Arius had the largest number of followers however, that were contending with Athanasius at the Council. Lucky for Athanasius that he was able to get the Empire on his side, and hence their might. He exiled Arius, but that did not end Athanasius's problems. In fact, Athanasius never saw his creed take precedence over the world while Arius's (and others) followers dictated against it. Even the Empire didn't settle until at least the Council of Ephesus. I suspect that a century later, though the Catholic histories record that Arianism basically died out, that some segment of the other Theologians that were similar to Arius, but did not believe in the divinity of the Son (or believed the Son was merely a mortal and not divine) survived, as we see a very SIMILAR doctrine appear in the Middle east. Here we see a small religion that takes many Judeo/Christian ideas and incorporates it into it's own religious creed. Islam is born and we see the same idea of Monotheistic deism where the Lord is seen as a prophet rather than a Savior of the World. This brings us to the First Vision. What was so revolutionary about the First Vision. It was not specifically that Joseph Smith saw two personages. This in no way contradicts some views of how the trinity would work. In fact, the trinity operates as it does because of confusion in regards to the Bible where it indicates that the Son and the Father are one in some parts, but in other portions it is quite obvious that they are separate entities. There is the time that they are seen both at once by Stephen, the time of the Baptism where the Son talks and then is baptized, we see the Holy Ghost descend in the Form of the Dove, and the spirit of the Father rests upon the Son and also speaks, showing that both the Father and the Son can be seen separately and heard separately. It may have been startling to young Joseph and others, because as I said, for many they believed more in a Unitarian or Monotheistic idea rather than a trinity, or for those who believe in a more united trinity it may be a surprise, but for those who truly believe in the three separate but the same or united, it holds no challenge to the Trinitarian doctrine. The trinity can appear as separate beings at the same time as exhibited in the Bible. However, Trinitarians of the Catholic religion and descent (Protestantism) held that when Christ came, he fulfilled the law. He fulfilled everything for the Bible and thus the Lord no longer appeared to men. There were no such things as visions, or angels appearing to men any longer. Prophets were no longer needed because the gospel was fulfilled and completed by the coming of the Lord and his teachings were complete. The thing that went counter to this specifically was that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Resurrected Son. Even if he claimed he simply saw an angel, much less God, it would have a large impact, because such a thing was believed to not be doctrinally sound. For those of the Catholic descent, this was impossible to have occurred. Joseph's Claim that he was visited by God was not only unbelievable by those of the Trinitarian descent, but absolute heresy. The belief was either that an individual was selected by men who did not receive revelation or talk to God in person, but that was restricted by the Power of heaven to not be able to declare falsehoods (this being the Pope) and hence the leader of the church on Earth. Others felt that it was simply the Priesthood Authority that gave them the ability to lead the church and it would not go astray (Orthodox). Others felt that it was the Bible that was the complete word of the Lord and hence it contained the fullness of the gospel. Hence their belief was that it was from the Bible that they derived their authority (much of Protestantism). Others felt it was by Grace and calling that it was delivered, and that through that they could guide the church, but not through personal revelation or talking personally to the Lord or servants of the Heavens. Hence, the First Vision shows that the Lord still talks to men in person. That he will reveal his will to his servants, and those servants are those who lead his people. The idea that we have a man that can talk to the heavens, that can receive revelation from them in our day and time is what sets us truly apart from others in regards to Joseph's First Vision. Later we come upon the ideas that the Father and the Son are separate individuals and not the same substance. That they are independent of each other rather than consubstantial, which is a point of doctrine many point out today in regards to differences between the LDS church and others of the Trinitarian belief. However, originally, Joseph didn't make this point, his was that God still speaks to men and thus God speaks to prophets, even in our day. How can we know if Joseph Smith was a prophet though? Joseph Smith left us with a way which we each can find out. Several years later Joseph Smith was visited by an Angel. That angel showed him gold plates that were the remnants of an ancient civilization. After four years of visiting the Angel annually, he received those plates and by the Power of the Lord translated them. This book is called the Book of Mormon. We can read this book. At the end of this book is the scripture found in Moroni 10:3-5. It gives us the litmus test so that we can KNOW rather than just feel or believe, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it is what it claims it is. If we pray and ask, with full desire and ponder what we have read, we can receive an answer. If we get that answer and then know that the Book of Mormon is the truth, then by logic, we also know that he who brought it forth by the Power of the Lord was a Prophet and that what he taught is also true. This then is another difference between us and other religions. We believe in this idea. This idea is that each one of us can receive personal revelation from the Lord. What a simple, and yet astonishing truth! That every man can talk to the Lord and receive an answer...not just some holy leader chosen to speak for us, but every one of us has that possibility! So this is my first post on various thoughts. I have no idea how much I'll post or not, most likely when the forum is moving slower I'll be more likely to post. It's more for me to talk to myself and put things down in writing so that I can figure out how I think of them logically or at least set them out in order so I can make order of them than it is to expound to anyone here. This is NOT me teaching, but more my thoughts and ideas put down in order rather than the chaotic form they fly around in my mind. This one was obviously my thoughts on the discussions given to investigators and members and pondering it myself. If you choose to read or comment, great. If not, great as well.

I think there is a vital element in regards to our mortal existence, and that it is exactly as the scriptures say. This is where we choose between good and evil. It is a time to prepare to meet our Lord. Yes, I think the Lord and we have a great deal that was decided in the pre-existence, but as a Mormon, I also believe it was fore-ordination, rather the pre-destination that lies upon us in this life. In the pre-existence we had a choice between good and evil (or the Lord and the fallen) and chose to follow the Lord. There we had full knowledge of who we were and who the Lord was. However, the ultimate prize in this life is MUCH greater than that. We are offered everything our father has. We will have the power he does. How does one tell if someone will ultimately abuse that power or turn evil (as many of our brothers and sisters did in the War in Heaven). I would say this is the perfect test for it. The best way to see how one will act is how they will be if they are completely themselves. They do not have that former knowledge to guide them, thus their true self should become apparent in this life. Hence, one that is more likely to do good, will do good, and one more likely to do evil, will do evil. Only those that show that they are inherently good by nature, and to be trusted to wield the great power and responsibility will be entrusted with it. That's what I think our great test here is. It isn't over knowledge, but what we are truly like in the depths of our beings. Will we choose to do the right when we have no memory of it, or will our nature make us enemies of the Lord? We may have been able to give ourselves some hand up in the process (for example, we may be members of the church today which is a great advantage, but as we see from many who were born in the church and have fallen away it is no guarantee), but in the end, it is how we will act that will determine what we will obtain in the next life. For the most part, what we do may have been decided by us already in the pre-existence, but I still think we are able to make a choice between good and evil.

I think I expressed my feelings about the "longer ceremony" recently and how it makes me feel uncomfortable with how they've enacted it recently. I still try to do a "longer ceremony" once a month, but I am extremely uncomfortable with certain liberties taken. The other item that may be hurting it in our stake is that they've pushed for us to only take family names to the temple instead of using the names that are in the temple itself. I've sometimes thought that maybe I should not go so often because I don't have as many family names (they push it a lot, but I don't have an easy time doing my family geneology thus far, and hence I don't have a ton of family names to take with me to the temple). If we can go without taking family names (at least for our area), a key thing to helping us may be to help us know that we should not feel guilty if we don't have any family names to take with us. I was not aware that the church was backed up in that way. I could try to do more temple work in that way regardless of how uncomfortable I feel I suppose, especially since I now have a lot more time then I used to.

Well, I teach my kids not to talk to strangers, but that's with good reason. Just recently, with our local kids, that paid off in a BIG way. We had strangers try to kidnap some elementary children for who knows what. They screamed, they struggled, they ran. We found the people and got them arrested (and it was people, not just person). I suppose it depends on where one lives, but I don't see why one would teach their kids to talk to strangers, especially with all the evil that goes on in the world today. Abuse does occur with parents, but then children shouldn't go talking to strangers about it unless that individual just happens to also be a police officer. Instead they should turn to teachers, others, and individuals that they know that might be able to do something about it. It may be paranoia, but do a search sometime to see how many predators are around the area you live. It makes one think twice about the entire strangers thing when one sees it in many areas. We can still build community by increasing those we know, by building it in church, and being neighborly. I don't see a conflict between building your community up, but making sure that your children don't talk to strangers who you, nor they, know what their real intent is.

I'd heard of this in the US but did not know that many were sold by their families themselves. I had seen several documentaries on it dealing with what appeared to be many children of minorities (in the US), with some of them also being kidnap victims, or runaways, as well as those who were introduced as a way to make money by friends and fell into a trap they could not get out of. In a similar note, there IS human trafficking in the US. I've seen a few in the US that got hit by stings (which was a good thing). All of them thus far that I've seen personally (well, read about when it happened in a city or area I happened to be in at the time) seemed to be Asian massage parlors where they had promised woman from the Orient good jobs in the US and then basically kidnapped them once they got here by taking any way they had to return home, and/or other means to escape. I've seen it enough that whenever I see an ad or sign along the highway for an Asian massage parlor, I wonder if that place is also engaged in human trafficking. I've volunteered at an abused woman's shelter before, it wasn't an underground organization though (why would such an organization be underground, their are legitimate US resources available to help those in these situations and unless the cops are corrupt, they normally also have safe houses and such to also aid in these problems) as help as well as I suppose to help safe guard the place (there were also police visits and drive by surveillance on a very regular basis to also try to keep up security). I must admit though, even with everything we did to try to keep the ladies safe there, incidents of a horrible nature still occurred occasionally. For your children, warn them about the dangers, tell them not to talk to strangers, tell them to be wary of others, and all other things you can to try to ensure that they are as safe as they can be, even when you are not around.

I think I explained this previously in another thread, but I'll do a short rehash here. It is a double sided policy. The LDS church tries to respect the rights of parents to raise their families. In that light, it normally is not going to encourage children to be baptized if their parents are opposed to the policies and standards of the LDS religion. Children are supposed to respect their parents, not hate and fight them about their lifestyle. As the LDS church does not approve of Gay Marriage in it's standards, if it were to baptize children from those marriages, it would be encouraging those children to disrespect and disagree with their parents. In most instances this should be self-evident. The church in general has a policy where a child cannot be baptized if parents do not approve. Some would question, what if the parents in this type of marriage DO approve? There is a secondary problem that arises. Though children of divorced parents can be baptized if one parent approves in many instances, in this instance, it has been shown in various other organizations that those involved in same sex marriages tend to be very angry and over wrought when something happens that they do not approve of. This is NOT just in regards to Same-Sex marriage participants, and does occur with others, but overwhelmingly it seems to have occurred in the past in regards to the LDS church with children in these situations. Furthermore, this policy is ALSO a safe guard to the LDS church. In that way, it is a double sided policy. Though they do not speak for every LGBT individual, those on the fringes of the LGBT groups tend towards legalistic antagonism, willing to use any and every legal means to force an organization to bend to what the LGBT audience feels it should. This has been used in the past against the church. It is being used today against the Boy Scouts of America and is largely responsible for many of the changes that have occurred (because the only other choice, as I've heard from the BSA is to be sued into obscurity and no longer exist). It is highly likely that eventually without a policy like this a Same Sex Marriage couple will say they approve to have their children baptized and then utilize that as leverage to claim discrimination and uneven application of policies within the church, therefore insisting that they have the same rights as others inside the church that also have their children accepted. These could involve things such as having a member of the home bear the priesthood, as the LDS doctrine says families should have a priesthood bearer and as a baptized child...they would assume this should apply to those in a Same Sex marriage as well, regardless of gender or sex. This would NOT simply be a petition or trying to get into a priesthood meeting, this would be done via courts. Other aspect could be insisting on being sealed as a family unit, and various other items that have been ensued in other nations as well (and one reason some hypothesize that the LDS church may do what it's done in other areas where sealings are distinctly different and in a different category than the Marriage Ceremony). So, in short it is to safeguard the homes, but it is also to safeguard the LDS church. Whether one agrees or chooses to see it that way, is there own prerogative.

Well, an evolutionary dead end is not actually a slippery slope, and I think the statement I made was actually relatively true in relation to it resulting in an evolutionary dead end. In regards to evolution, it's not really a slippery slope, if we are talking biology vs. feelings. Now, note, I am NOT a biologist. I had to take Biology 101 and Zoology 101 long ago many decades in the past, but I haven't had to take a ton of classes beyond that (because, I'm a historian...we don't do tons of biology for some odd reason, unless you are focusing specifically on an area of history that also focuses on biology...like the history of biology or something like that). Evolution can take many different values. For a while many of those in the LGBT arena have tried to persuade (and some have tried to show) that being homosexual is actually a genetic trait that can be passed down. Now the hypothesis is that there are genes that cause this trait. However, since those who are homosexual typically do not mate and produce children (or so the supposition would be), therefore this trait should not be passed down. Eventually it should die, in particularly, in a very short period of time. In that light it could be an evolutionary dead end of those that bear the trait. HOWEVER, if it is genetic (and hence affected by the rules of evolution), that has double implication as it has NOT died out (obviously). First, it can be a recessive or dominant trait passed onto others without it actually being evident within individuals. Secondly, if the conditions are right, it can actually become a predominant trait. This could be through any number of variables (mutation, bottleneck...thought that may require a nuclear war or some similar disaster) that result in this. If, for some reason, the conditions are right where the gene that causes homosexuality also has some desirable trait for the survival of the individual and becomes a predominant trait of the human species...it is, in fact, from an evolutionary viewpoint, a point where it actually could become an evolutionary dead end for the entire species, where that trait causes the species to die out as well as that trait. This has happened in species before, and it is probable it will happen in species after. Humans are not precluded from this just because they are human...from a scientific point of view (religious point of views are different). Of course, worrying about it or that it will happen is pointless right now. The predominant effect of the collective human species shows no inclination to make it a survival trait at this point, and until such an event (as I said, mutation, bottleneck, etc...) occurs, there is no point in wondering what to do if it occurs. Most of the arguments on BOTH sides of the homosexual argument are based upon belief, religion, or faith rather than science. It's done because people FEEL that's what should be done rather than what science says on the matter.

Well, naturally speaking, if every one was homosexual and acted as such, and no heterosexual marriages occurred (or heterosexual relationships to be more on point)...the human race would probably die out in one generation. I think we'd call that an evolutionary dead end.

I didn't get a choice on what hymns were to be sung, that was the chorister (or who ever was conducting at the time) choice. I would have loved to play Choose the Right every time we sang, but for some reason no one else wanted to do that.

Thanks for the clarifications anatess

Some other thoughts on this. Calvinists believe in Pre-destination. This means, since everything is known in the heavens, everything is predetermined. The question of the topic seems to be focused on Calvinism. The question being, if everything is predetermined (or known) is it free agency. A parallel - I have a child that doesn't like to do many things that I ask of them. I know their reaction to things in many instances. When they want to act out, I know that if I offer them a jolly rancher, they will decide to settle down because they trust me and know they'll get a jolly rancher later. If I tell them they can stay up a little later tonight if they take a nap now, they will settle down and take a nap now. Does this mean, because I know their reactions when I offer certain things that this child has no free will? Just because I know what will happen, does not take away any of the free will that child has. The child still makes the choice. Just because I know the result does not lessen the fact that this child is the one actually making the choice. Mormons do NOT believe in pre-destination. The LDS church believes in fore-ordination, which is similar, but not exactly the same. If we take the ideas of knowledge from above, in reference to the child...the child still has free will. In the LDS scenario, the child COULD one day decide that they do NOT want the jolly rancher, or that they are NOT going to take a nap. So what problems arise from both types of scenarios? In pre-destination, detractors complain that if the Lord knows all, and he KNOWS that someone will go to hell because it's been predetermined, does that not make the Lord evil? The Lord, knowing how we would react, would therefore also be able to utilize his power and knowledge to change the conditions so that this individual would choose the right and go to heaven. According to Calvin, this is rectified in many ways because the Lord knows each of us from beginning to end. He knows what our souls truly are like, and thus which of us should go to heaven and who should not from the beginning to the end. Hence, this knowledge also sanctifies us and the Lord is good, while condemning those who were wicked and evil from the beginning. There are some who would choose to be bad no matter how much candy they were offered in this life. The LDS do not believe in pre-destination. In fore-ordination the question would be, does this mean that an individual could derail the entire plan of salvation. If we truly are given choice, can the choices of the human race make the entire plan from heaven go off the rails? The answer, once again, is no. The answer to this lies in action. The Lord knows what we are going to do. He cannot reward or punish us until we actually take that action. Take our laws and legal system for example. In regards to justice, is it justice to punish someone for a crime they have not committed? The answer is no. In the same light, even if he knows what we will do, we are not rewarded or punished until that choice has been made. Furthermore, even if we are given choice to say no, the Lord is infinitely more knowledgeable than we are as parents, and most likely realizes when how we will or will not react. Which brings us once again, if he knows, how is then fore ordination rather than predestination? I would say because there are CERTAIN choices which we can make in our life that affect us individually, if not collectively. In otherwords, the actions we take overall in our lives have been foreseen, but certain things we decide on our own that determine whether we choose the good or the evil in this life, can be made by us and will determine if we go to heaven or the hell. In catastrophic circumstances, the Lord always has a way for the plan to continue (aka...Cain and Abel, which led to Seth's line of children). This is made possible because of the Lord's knowledge. Now, as per my opinion, I would also say that WE are not ignorant. In the pre-existence I think we decided what we would do in this life. Overall, we decided where we would be born, in what circumstances, and all other factors. We HAD CHOICE even before we came here. In many ways, what we will do, become, and achieve WERE DECIDED by us in the pre-existence. Because we worked with the Lord, we knew how we would act in many circumstances and thus like clockwork, the world acts in accordance with the great plan that we all came up with in the pre-existence. The Lord knows it all, as it has been already seen how it will be done with each of us. Even though we cannot recall what we knew we would do, we already decided on the course of our lives. However, we cannot be rewarded or punished until we actually TAKE action. We are awarded according to our actions, not our choice of what we could or would do in a given situation. Because of this, even if we do not realize it, our lives are already charted out. Our decisions for the most part are predetermined because we will act in a certain way in a given situation. HOWEVER...we ARE given a particularly MAJOR choice in this life. It is just as the scriptures say, this life is not the time to determine whether we will become an engineer or Lawyer (or in my instance, a historian). It is a time to choose good or evil. I think this is really the ONLY real decision left, that most of what we will do and see were decided upon us in the pre-existence. However, the choice of whether we will choose the good or the evil is the real choice that we have in this life (once again, in my opinion). Even then, the Lord knows our choices and thoughts in the pre-existence, as well as the here and now. It is this that makes it so the Lord can truly judge us all on a level and balanced basis so even those who do not have the choice to join the church in this life can be judged with justice with those that did in the life hereafter, and if they would have chosen to accept the gospel with all their hearts, be rewarded the same rewards they would have been if given those opportunities.

Well, actually in some of the cases they DID specifically target the ONE business out of two or three (and in one case over a dozen) to try to force them to do things, despite the fact that there was a business that WOULD do so right down the block. That's one item that makes it seem like their is an agenda. When someone targets a specific individual, despite having other options...yes...it seems a tad fishy. There have also been a case or two where there was the only one in town, but many of these isn't because of a lack of options, but specifically targeting a business to make a point or run that business out of "business" as it were.

Awesome, congratulations!

Well, here's a different side of the coin. I was called as the Pianist for the Priesthood when I was 18. I could play the piano, but I wasn't all that great at playing the piano. Hence, I played at a speed I could in order to play the song. You ever heard Ye Elders of Israel like a funeral dirge?

Just for my clarification...and please don't take offense. I grew up with the term Oriental being more formal than the term Asian, however I was corrected recently by some individuals (and yes, they were white dudes for the most part) that the term Oriental was offensive and I should use the term Asian now. Is that accurate? It used to be when I talked to some Japanese individuals they were offended by the term Asian when applied to them for some reason, and corrected me to use Oriental, or in reference specifically to them, Japanese. However, the current speech seems that this would be offensive? If you could clear this up it would be great! Because I don't know.

This IS MY OPINION (yes, I shouted, so people don't get the wrong idea). The Lord loves all children (and all of us too, believe it or not, even the wickedly mean ones like me). The church welcomes all children, but there are reasons why some children are not baptized even if the child desires it. The premise of the church is to be supportive of the parents of children. If a child's parents do not want that child to be baptized, it would be unnecessarily antagonistic to baptize that child anyways. In general, those opposed to the policies of the church would not be supportive of having their children a part of that church. In general, many of those who support (as the term is put here) Gay Marriage, are against the policies of the church which oppose that type of partnership. There are those who would be tempted to baptize children involved with that partnership anyways. This policy makes it clear, we do not do this. Furthermore, some of those in those types of partnerships have hard feelings against the church. They will do much (including utilizing their children) to try to open up an avenue that will enable them to lay down a lawsuit (much like what the BSA has recently been struggling with) in an attempt to force change in the church (for example, if their child is baptized, then perhaps try to sue the church for not allowing them all to be sealed in that type of partnership with their child...etc...etc...etc). This is done not only because the church supports the parents decisions with their children, but also as a protection of the church itself against those who would wish to destroy it and the methods they would choose to employ in that matter. Once again, this is ONLY my opinion, and not actually what is going on in the church or their thinking at all. It is merely my take on what I think are probable reasons behind these policies that were discussed later in this thread.

No, nothing like that. When I say deeper discussion it would be more like things such as the teacher (this is an example similar, but not exactly) proclaiming the Lectures of Faith to be revelations from Joseph Smith, and a member saying they didn't quite think that was right...and then the Leader stepping in and asks the member to leave for disturbing the class. The worst I think we've had has happened several times, and this is closer to the point of what discussion are has been over the teachings taught by other churches. A teacher starts stating what Catholics or Baptists believe, and then a former member of one of those churches says...that's not what we believed at all. One of the Leaders for some reason then feels it is their duty to put that member in their place, tell them the teacher is correct, they are wrong, and please leave if they insist on interrupting the class as the discussion is driving away the spirit (though for the person offended, once they felt inaccurate information was being told, the spirit probably left already, or so I imagine). I have one member so offended by this they have restricted their entire family from coming to church now, even if the rest of the family still wants to come. A great majority of them though, I have a general story, but not the specifics and so I know they were offended by things at church, and things said (and normally it seems to also be heavily reliant upon the GOSSIP and backstabbing that ensues after the event) but not the specifics. In general when I say deeper, I don't mean things that are especially "deep" doctrine, but they can be subjects which are occasionally heavily discussed online by anti-LDS groups (an example of this would be things dealing with the why the Pearl of Great Price was canonized and when...seemingly innocuous discussion overall, but if one looks online and stumbles across anti-LDS teachings it can turn up some pretty nasty stuff). What comes to mind is the scripture that says how great shall be your joy if you save but one soul. I sometimes wonder, what if a leader does the exact opposite of that, because of their decisions they actively are part of the reason that drives away a soul? (And I am NOT innocent myself, I dread that as well. I know at least one or two people that I inadvertently offended, and though I tried to apologize profusely afterwards, I am pretty positive they are still angry at me). What do we tell the Lord then? When he asks, why did you drive John, my good friend away from the gospel? Do our excuses of saying...well, I thought he was talking about things I didn't like in class was a big sin, enough to drive him away...really seem like something we want to tell the Lord? I agree, ultimately it is our choice whether to be offended or not. Part of what I'm supposed to do is to visit these inactives and try to get them to return to church, after the fact of what has already happened to them. I'll admit, for most of them, I'm at my wits end. I have no idea how to accomplish bringing them back to the church. I completely agree with your statement (and I think the end of at least two of my posts above support that), but unfortunately, when dealing with many of these individuals, that's the last thing they want to hear coming out of my mouth. I WAS successful (at least temporarily) with one or two of them, as they came out to tithing settlement at the end of last year, so that's a great, but overall, I don't know how to help those who feel offended overcome it and return to church activity.

That helps a lot with understanding where you are coming from. I agree, this is HIGHLY dependent on the Bishop and perhaps the Stake Presidency. Leadership differs from person to person, and what one may do, another would disagree with. I will be honest. I know Bishops that would push for excommunication in your case. I know Stake Presidents that would back them up. If they dislike you (as you implied previously) already, or have grudges or a hard attitude, you are also correct, it could increase your chances of punishment and excommunication. I would hope that this is not the case though, and that there is no dislike there. That said, what you did is not necessarily something people get excommunicated for. Normally, in my experience, the excommunication comes from someone who is unrepentant about such things. If it is merely embarrassment on your part, they (Bishop and Stake President) have probably heard FAR worse over their days. If you haven't heard them talking about others in situations similar or worse, most likely they will never speak a word about what you tell them. I, PERSONALLY, would not agree with a decision to excommunicate if what you've said is accurate. The first thing I would probably look at is if the person is repentant. Are they still doing the sin, are they sorrowful, do they wish to repent? If they fall under these qualifications, I think great mercy is to be had. Some miss the goal of repentance and instead feel punishment is in order. I look at confession and church courts more as trying to aid that person in their path to repentance. There are many Bishops and other leaders that also feel this way. If you are repentant, I also know Bishops that would try to help you progress and advance in finding the spirit and gaining a better testimony. That would be far more important than imposing any sort of punishment. At most, they may ask you to not say prayers, or giving talks in meetings or things like that, but still saying personal prayers, attending and learning at church until you have gained a personal feeling of forgiveness of the spirit, or barring that, a certain amount of time has passed. The bigger issue that I would hope is that if your circumstances are as desperate as they sound, that the Bishops would remember that we are supposed to be Christlike and do all they could to help you out into a better situation and position in life. To me, helping the unfortunate is FAR more important in this instance than any condemnation of a sin they did out of desperation to try to escape the situation. I would say you probably will eventually need to come clean about this. You may need to face the results of this some time. It is possible that some people already are aware of this already, even if you do not know. It may even be possible the Bishop already knows. I would say, sometime you will probably end up needing to face this and probably confess. I am not your Bishop, and I cannot rightly say how your Bishop will respond or act. I would hope mercifully, but I cannot say one way or the other what the result would be. I am not in your leadership, and cannot know how they would react. Once again I would hope, mercifully and with great sympathy and understanding, but I do not know. What you ask is out of our purview to answer. We are not those who you would confess too, and do not have the guidance of the spirit to help us tell you what the proper course of action would be when you confess. I would hope your Bishop would, but once again, I cannot advise you on which path you should take, only that sooner or later, this is an issue you probably will need to address. I feel great sympathy and sorrow that you had these events happen to you and the desperation you must have felt when faced with what must be overwhelming obstacles in your life. If anything, we should be inspired by the Life of the Lord and his great mercy. Several stories come to mind, the first from Luke chapter 7 verses 36-50 and another from John 8 I hope you can find the peace you desire, that you can find hope in your life, and that the Lord will bless you with a good way to provide for you and your child. I hope that in some little way, perhaps you can find inspiration to seek forgiveness from the words of the New Testament that I posted above, or if nothing else, it at least gives you hope by seeing the great mercy the Lord has for you and for all of us.

I don't know what caused some of those changes. I'm not saying it's Cultural Marxism, merely that it could be one explanation of it. The New First vision video is an example. It decreases emphasis on the reason Joseph Smith has traditionally gone to the grove to pray and instead places a new line of emphasis that he goes because he has been sinning and wants to repent but does not know which method is the correct method to repent. That isn't inaccurate, but a strange demphasis on the reasons given officially for many decades with a different emphasis on Joseph Smith having sinned and needing to repent. This differs in regards to the official account (or more like the account Joseph Smith and later prophets accounted as the official story even if other tellings of it existed prior to that). Why would they do that? (For those curious, the official account that's been held for decades by the church and endorsed by it is found here....as well as at the end of the Pearl of Great Price.) Joseph Smith History Perhaps the same reason they've written several of the Church History articles. Many of them go counter to what's been written in the volumes of Church History as well as statements of apostles and prophets in prior conferences. From that viewpoint it is puzzling. HOWEVER, historically speaking, they ARE more accurate in regards to church history. Instead of taking LDS church leaders at their word and the idea that they are honest about it, a historian tries NEVER to just get one account or something from a single side. They try to get several points of view, including those who were opposed to those individuals. Hence, much of the information apparently used in those essays also come from the historically accurate method of gaining insight from the enemies of the church's writings as well as many different sources. From a historian's perspective, this offers more of a balanced view of the situation than simply accepting that one side has the correct point of view. In regards to the LDS church though...Why would we do this? Accurate from a world's point of view, but not necessarily going in the same line as the LDS scriptures, D&C, or the church history, so it puzzles me. Temple stuff is another matter, and so I won't go into that as those things are considered holy, and I'm not going to discuss them in that detail outside of the Temple. I would imagine everything is done for a purpose, and there is probably some divine reason that someone feels inspired to do this, but I am in the dark as to the why. If it were done to appeal to the younger generation, it doesn't appear to really be accomplishing that, and if it were made to appeal to the enemies of the church, it seems that it's done more to encourage them than anything else. So, I have no explanations on it. If it is because of inroads of Cultural Marxism, as I said, that could explain it. It could be something entirely different as well. It obviously is NOT for me, and that is probably why I don't know why it's been done and who it is applicable for.

That's a hard question. Unfortunately, many times it depends on what your stake and ward leadership is like. I've seen people do things that one Stake High Council might excommunicate, while another completely forgives the person. In some instances depends on the Stake, and the leaderships opinions therein which can vary, unfortunately. That said, there are VERY FEW ways to guarantee one would be excommunicated. In fact, it would take a high amount of knowledge, and a high placement of authority, as well as some pretty bad criminal acts that were done with full knowledge and desire to actually KNOW one would be excommunicated for them. Were you a High Counselor who was doing a nightshift as a hitman for the Mob or something? From the way you wrote what you have been doing, it would seem that isn't the type of thing you'd necessarily been involved in. There are things some people think will automatically get them excommunicated these days, but that isn't necessarily true. The Council is supposed to be very sympathetic. I've known of people that were literally writing things against the church and fighting against it that were not automatically excommunicated. The first step is to see if they have a repentant attitude, and wish to strive to be forgiven. Then, it is dependent on what they knew already, what authority they had, and what blessings they have experienced in their lives. Most of those who were willing to repent normally did not get excommunicated. Sometimes it wasn't even being willing to repent, so much as simply stopping what they were doing. Most of the things that would be guaranteed to get one excommunicated normally involves something that would send someone to prison for a very long time, or someone who had a lot of authority and blessings did something that was pretty bad in and of itself. Even then, there are no guarantees of excommunication. I'm saying this because I find it hard to believe that you have been involved with a life as bad as you say with how you also pair with it with saying you have defended human decency and such. Now, if I put myself in something similar, I personally cannot see myself as going around committing pre-meditated murder all the time. I literally cannot see myself in a situation where I would be guaranteed excommunication. However, let's say I was involved with something like that. The first thing I would do in a life of crime is to try to find a LOT of money that I could live off of for the rest of my life, quickly. I would invest it in a swiss bank account, or if I wanted to be certain, one beyond the US reach. I would then find a non-extradition country I could run too before the law could catch up to me and live out my days as a third party national. However, as I said, in all honesty, I cannot see myself in that situation. I'll present a completely hypothetical situation, unrealistic as some may think it may be (and even if I think it may be a tad unrealistic, I'll paint it as grim as I can to hopefully explain what action I would take). Instead, let's say I was an alcoholic (I'm not, this is trying to put myself in the situation the OP is discussing). I grew up with the Bishop and the Stake President. They are unholy evil people that they will let their emotions and unrighteous opinions flavor their decisions instead of looking to the Lord. They WANT an excuse to excommunicate me. They hate my guts. They will use the fact that I'm an alcoholic as a crowbar for leverage to bring me to a church court and excommunicate me. It does not matter what I say in the matter, if they do it, it is a done deal, they hate me that much. In that instance, if possible, I would move. If possible, I'd move out of state, or province which they were located. I'd move FAR away from them. Then, I'd deal with my sins or anything else I may have to confess to. I would move out of their jurisdiction. That does NOT excuse me for my sins, and any sins that needed to be confessed would STILL need to be confessed, but if the factor are those who hate me or dislike me, I'd move away as soon as possible to remove that factor from the equation.

What does TBI mean? I think I will now be more cognizant of my spelling and grammar around some people. I'm terrible at spelling and grammar.

This is problematic, and gives me an idea that the leaders are not portraying the entire story correctly. At least one person has asked that the leader not be allowed to discuss this item in public because the leader does NOT accept blame in any of it and blames the individual for being a disruptive force in class. I don't believe in censoring individuals, so I did not tell the member I would prevent the leader's discussion, but the leader knows the individuals concern. My thought is how dismissive the leader has been toward that individual and others, the leader will probably bring it up in the council and every other place they can (as they have been doing), which is another problem with how they offend people. It seems GOSSIP is rampant, and they like to talk behind people's back. Most likely the subject will be brought up at a time when that leader is at the class, but has ensured the members they are talking about are not. Furthermore, and this also has offended people when they find out, and plays into this, because of this gossip network, blame normally falls on those who are now inactive members and is also part of why they become so offended at it. This is a difficult situation for me, because it does not appear anyone else sees a problem with this, including those above me. Despite that, this is still a choice by the member to choose to BE offended in the first place. The best advice is what I gave above though, even in this situation we have a choice. It's the three steps above. 1. Decide which is more important, our pride, or following the Lord. The best choice is to follow the Lord and go to church. 2. If we decide we want to follow the Lord, we go to church regardless. We then have another choice. To try to be Christlike, or to emulate the world. We should forgive the individual regardless of how many times they offend us. 3. Finally, we should love the individual. This can be the hardest step for some. Unfortunately, despite how simple those steps may sound, they can be incredibly hard for people to accept, much less do.

There are several different situations. I don't want to get into it all that much due to privacy issues so forgive me if I don't go into detail and dance around it somewhat, false doctrine that the leader may have allowed to be taught is one item that has popped up occasionally, other times dealt with questions into doctrine deeper than what the leader felt should be discussed on occasion, and various other items. From my discussions it sounds like the members got their answers anyways, afterwards, but not at church. Unfortunately, it seems some of them went to places on the internet that were not so nice about LDS members but do discuss some of these topics. That's an entirely different subject though, and yet another headache. This has heavily influence how I think things should be handled in church, because if they don't get their answers one place, they are going to get them somewhere. But the offensive part was the leaders who threaten to throw people out of class. I simply don't believe it that they did that, though they did. The first time I heard a member tell me that is what offended them, I probably was offensive myself simply because I couldn't believe anyone would ever do that. It took verification from others, and finally seeing it all over again that it really sunk in, this actually happens! Apparently one leader went over my head (no idea how they presented it in that instance as I was not there) and even got it approved by higher authority...which sort of left me fuming and tied my hands. My advice of simply to bear testimony about the class subject and try to move it on with the lesson was summarily ignored. Anyways, to the actual topic, yes, those people were offended. I don't feel comfortable asking them to go back to classes which they were offended at simply because I feel they have a good reason to BE offended. However, at the same time, I am supposed to invite them back to church. That's what I'm going to do, but it can be a tough job when you know part of the story behind it, know what caused it, and know the easiest solutions have been bypassed already.

We have a situation in our ward. It appears that it is popular for some people that were given leadership positions in the past, threaten to kick people out for "disruption" when the people were asking questions that didn't flow with their lesson plans or didn't agree with their opinion. For some reason, people didn't take kindly to that. So, that leader got replaced. Just in the past month, we had yet ANOTHER leader threaten to kick people out for expressing their opinions that didn't agree with the lesson. This time that leader threatened to eject people by force! I can't win...I honestly can't win on this. On this, I actually agree, they have the right to be offended. NO ONE should practice their priesthood or other leadership callings in that manner, I would even call it trying to abuse their priesthood authority. So, the problem is, this is a situation I think they have a right to be offended (especially since they were flat out told they were not welcome to church in a roundabout way by telling them they were upsetting that leader by discussing things). I have to go visit these people and it is my thoughts to invite them to church. Of course, the problem being, I agree with their sentiment, I actually understand it now more fully. None of those leaders are ever going to apologize. It's a catch 22 for me. I want the former active members to return to church, but I can't say just get over it because apparently this type of attitude has been going on with some people in the ward for a while. It's not like it's suddenly going to disappear. The biggest problem are these leaders that want to toss people out and though in theory under the BP, they were called by the Stake. When they are threatening to throw people out by force...even if those people want to come and insist on coming (which is why the threat of force was issued if those individuals "misbehave" aka...sitting nicely in their chairs and only speaking when called upon, but talking about things that the leaders don't wish to discuss). I don't agree with that, to be honest...but it seems to be going on. I just wonder if it's going on in my ward, if this is something problematic in other wards of the church. So, yes, people can be offended. I think many people in the church have been offended. I think (as long as they don't throw you out by force...of course) the thing is a personal matter for you to decide which is more important, the lord...or your pride. We don't necessarily do what the prophets of old did when they were offended. Even if we did, we should remember it's done in the Lord's time BY the Lord, not by us. Nephi was offended when his brothers wouldn't help him build a boat. He eventually shocked them when instructed by the Lord. Alma had a different approach where he was slapped, hit, tied up, bound, tossed in prison, watched the membership get thrown into a fire, and finally the LORD tore down the prison and sent a enemy group that basically massacred the town. Nephi's brother (later Nephi, around the time of the Lord's coming to America) I believe was stoned, Nephi and the Saints persecuted. A Greater number of the more wicked of the people were killed in fires, earthquakes, drowning, and all manner of disasters from a great storm. The rest were converted later. Mormon was very distraught with the actions of the people which were doing things very offensive to the Lord. His entire nation was slaughtered. People mocked Noah...they all drowned. Moses is an interesting story. He was not happy with how one individual was treating a Hebrew, and killed that individual. Then he had to flee and wasn't in Egypt for many years. That's one instance of a personal offense where the future prophet took action on his own desire...rather than the Lord acting upon it, and the result probably was not what Moses would have preferred in that instance (a guess). Later, when Pharaoh refused the Lord's demands, the Lord slew Pharaoh's first born and when Pharaoh's armies pursued Israel, many of them were drowned in the seas. So, yes, I think there are times when prophets have been offended, but justice is the Lords. Normally, I think it comes down to choice, however. In instances where we are offended, we have several steps, all of which we need to decide whether we are going to take, or not to take. 1. Decide which is more important, our pride, or following the Lord. 1a. If it is our pride which is more important, than we can sulk at home and/or eventually fall away and do our own thing on Sundays 2. If we decide we want to follow the Lord, we go to church regardless. We then have another choice. To try to be Christlike, or to emulate the world. 2a. If we emulate the world, we go, but we hold grudges and hate on that individual that offended us. 3. If we try to be Christlike, we forgive the other individual. We must realize that the individual may NEVER be sorry and may continue to do what originally offended us. It is OUR choice to forgive them. 3a. If we forgive them, then we must also choose to show our love for that individual. Even as the Lord was dying on the Cross he choose to forgive those who did that to him and asked his father to forgive them. We must show love to those that despitefully use us, and be nice to those that hate us.

I wish I knew what to tell you in this instance. I do not know enough about the law in that instance to tell you what your options are. I can understand why you are not happy about this. I know I would not be happy about it either.