JohnsonJones

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.

I assume you are Male from how you phrased your statement? It's a tough question to answer. Without knowing what opportunities you've had in life, it is impossible to actually tell how certain things may apply to you. Did you ever have the chance to be sealed in the temple and turn it down? Did you choose work and education over dating worthy members? Did you have the opportunity to go on a mission and decide not to? There's a whole cachet of possibilities and questions and without knowing the answer to those, it is impossible to say something relating to your situation. The general answer is NOT one that I think you'd be happy for (though it is probably applicable to at least 90% of the situations out there). Instead, I'll relate a story that can show hope for those who may not have opportunities in this life. This story is about a person named Alvin. Alvin was NOT born into the church. He was never baptized. He never received the Holy Ghost. He never had a chance to go to the Temple. By all accounts, he did not get to do any of the ordinances that we are instructed to do. Imagine Joseph Smith's surprise when he found that his brother Alvin was in the Celestial Kingdom despite all of that. For those who are unable to obtain ordinances and promises in this life, there is this hope. As he stated about his brother Alvin. Doctrine and Covenants 137: 3-9 Thus we see the Lord looks upon men's hearts. Alvin, even though he did not have the opportunity in this life, if he HAD gotten that opportunity to receive these ordinances would have received them with all his heart. Hence we see the Lord is just for all men, regardless of the circumstances they face in this life. Hopefully you can see the parallel here.

Food storage ideas have changed over the years. It's more of an idea than something that one has to do in order to be found worthy, obedient, or any such thing like that. The best equivalent I could tell you to look at it as, is advice or suggestions that may be a good idea for some but NOT necessarily for you (unless you feel it is relevant, currently). The idea is that you have something to fall back on in case of emergency. It used to be that the overwhelming idea was that one needed food, and so a years worth of food storage was suggested. Now days, it actually encompasses more than food storage. It can be a few weeks, it can be three months (the more typical suggested time amount these days) or it could be year of food. The other side of it that some suggest, but some miss, is to have a rainy day fund. This is because someone probably realized food alone is not going to get people through a tough time. This can be an amount set aside so that if one needs money (lets say someone loses their job, having enough to pay 6 months rent can be a comfort in that situation), they have it available. This is something that you can fall back on to keep yourself alive and living, while still self supportive, if one needs to be. The biggest problem people have had in the past is that they get food storage, viewing it more as a commandment that they have to do. Then, they never touch it again. Imagine 30 year old wheat which has had weevils and other things in it. Not a pretty picture. I think food storage is good advice. We cycle through the food storage, so we buy what we project we may need over the next while, and then eat it on a daily basis, replacing what we use. This is the easiest way for ME to do food storage (as there are MANY different ways people do it, some still do that, buy a years worth of food and never touch it again). I probably don't have a years worth of food for my family (though maybe more than a years worth if it were only me and my wife). it is probably more like 3 to 6 months worth of food. We have a LOT of canned stuff such as canned soups, vegetables and fruits. Since we would use this anyways, having a little more in store is not that much of a problem. We don't do wheat. Some people can do a ton of stuff with wheat, I cannot. It takes other items that one needs to store with wheat if they are going to use it, such as yeast, sugar (unless you only want bread, and more bread, and more bread forever), salt, and other accessories. I'm simple, so we do have a bunch of bags of rice that we keep and rice cookers. This is sort of the biggest adaption we've made in keeping food storage, as we now eat rice (instead of crackers) with soups, and in place where crackers or bread may be used normally. However, rice is easy to cook and easy to store. I probably have about what we'd use in 8 months to a years worth of rice in our food storage pantry. Now, some people take food storage very seriously, others do not. It's not something that is specifically pushed in the LDS church, but is advised. One could view it very similarly to other things which are occasionally advised, but it's not something that one needs or has to do. In fact, I'd worry more on the commandments and other things at this point than trying to rush off and trying to do it all on someone's advice, unless you already feel this is a good idea. Other things that are simply more of advice that I'd put with it are things like, don't spend more than you bring in each month, don't get into debt unless you have to or it is of significant worth (such as an education or buying a house or something like that). These are things that leaders have mentioned about how to be better prepared to live our daily lives and face the different things that can happen to us in the world. These are not things that affect your worthiness, how righteous you are, or anything like that. They are words of advice that may or may not help people make decisions in their lives. No Bishop (that I've ever heard of or know) is ever going to ask someone if they have food storage, or if they have gone into huge debt to buy the latest and greatest Iphone, or anything like that. In a nutshell, that's what the entire food storage thing is about. I'd say, don't stress it. There are tons of LDS members that have NO food storage and no rainy day fund at all. They are also great members. Those that do have this and have had tough times often find it a great comfort and help. However, there is nothing in the Bible or scriptures that say you have to do this, or this is something you need to do. It can be VERY useful and can be something wise to invest in when one is ready, but I wouldn't go into debt (some people have, I would highly suggest against that) or do anything crazy in regards to food storage (or a rainy day fund). Take it as it is, and definitely don't stress about something like this (and least my thoughts on the matter) any more than you would any other advice given to you (and advice can be good or bad, dependent on each individuals situation, what may be good for me, may not be good for you, and vice versa). PS: I see you added the item about money. Many miss that idea, and yes, a rainy day fund is part of the advice. A small amount of money is one of the item suggested (and is something that is now also suggested in the financial community that people have enough saved up to cover 3-6 months of living expenses). It is advice (or as one put it, a suggestion), but not one you necessarily have to do. It depends on what you think is best for your situation and your own circumstances in life.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to know everything about something before they jump into it. This particular subject is covered in the missionary Lessons on lesson 5 (which I believe the missionaries should be giving to New Members, however I know that many times these discussions are never given by Missionaries, Ward Missionaries, or Stake Missionaries, which is unfortunate), or at least they used to. I believe MIssionaries still teach out of "Preach My Gospel." which standardizes what missionaries do or do not cover or teach typically. This lesson is found here Preach My gospel: Lesson 5 I know if I were an investigator, I would want to know all the lessons and all I could about the church. Wanting to know about things before joining an organization is to be expected. I think the more people know before they join something, and the more informed they are, that when they do choose to join they are much stronger members for that very fact...there are no hidden surprises that suddenly come out to bite them. I am not everyone though. I prefer a more open discourse on subjects, or as open as I can be. Not everyone feels that way and I understand that, but personally, I'm one that wants to find out everything I can before buying something so I can make an informed decision.

I think it's actually a blessing that the Missionaries were unharmed. It could have turned out MUCH worse. The first question is why the criminal didn't pull the trigger. A quick pull and that missionary is seriously injured or even killed. I'm very glad it appeared that this did not happen. It could have been a far different outcome. The danger is if other missionaries decide this is SOP (standard operating procedure) but then come across a criminal that is far more willing to shoot before doing anything else.

There is a legend/myth or some would consider it history (and we know it happened as we have the monuments and markers of it, but we may lack some details) of an invasion of Greece by the Persians during the Second Persian War. This led to the Battle of Thermopylae. They were led by one King Leonidas, who had a force of around 4000-7000 Greeks. The Greek legends say they faced an army of over 2 million Persians, though, historians now think it was more likely to be around 70,000 to maybe up to 300,000. Still, a sizeable force with 10 to 1 ratios at best, and up to 75 to 1 ratios at worst. King Leonidas determined that the battle could not be won eventually and decided to save the majority of the Greek Army. He and his Spartans, along with their retainers would defend the pass while the rest of the Greeks retreated in good order. His final force to defend this retreat was probably around 1700 Greeks total (300 of his Spartans, or those that survived the first few days of the battle, their retainers (or slaves, aka...the helots) which numbered around 900, and 700 other Greeks that refused to leave. Now, if the entire army simply decided to stay, as the Persians were gaining the high ground and flanking the Greeks, they all would have been killed. If they all retreated, as it was on open ground beyond, the Persians could simply rush them, overrun them, and kill them all as well. This meant someone had to play delay the Persian army. This was the group that Leonidas kept with him, to fight the rearguard action. Every Spartan died, and the rest of the rearguard died for the most part died as well except for around 400 who surrendered. They held off the Persians long enough for at least part of the Greek army to survive and fight another day. The Battle of Thermopylae was a huge loss for the Greeks. They gained almost nothing from it, and the two cities they were trying to save were captured. However, the Greeks survived to fight another day, in part, because King Leonidas did his part to try to preserve them. So here is the parallel. Not every Greek participated in the Battle of Thermopylae, in fact, comparatively, it was excessively small. However, it has had a HUGE impact on Greek consciousness and character. Why then is it important that Leonidas and the Spartans remained at Thermopylae if every Greek gets the benefits regardless? My answer, is because if they had not, there would be no history, no pride, no salvation, and definitely nothing for the Greeks to look upon as inspiration if he had not. There has to be someone willing to do the work and pay the price. The same applies here. Yes, there are those who benefit from our work on this earth in the hereafter. It could be that the majority that are saved in the Kingdom of our Lord are saved in the hereafter. However, there has to be someone here to do that work.

The LDS church has a belief about those who pass away. They believe that all men, no matter what religion, creed, or thought may have the opportunity to be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven. They believe that after they have died, that if they so choose, they may elect to accept the Lord in the life after this one. They will then be judged as per their choices and thoughts in this life and receive the appropriate award. This award varies from individual to individual depending on what the Lord saw in their hearts during this life, and how repentant or non-repentant they were, and other actions of theirs. This has the conundrum, however. The New Testament has the Lord's command that one must be baptized. How then, can they be baptized once they are dead? The LDS believe that those who are living can perform a proxy baptism. A good explanation is to look at what the Lord did for us. We have all sinned and need to pay for those sins. That would send us to hell for basically...all eternity...at least from what I understand. So it needed an innocent being to take those sins and be a proxy for us. Being innocent meant that this being (the Lord) could overcome this extreme and eternal justice, and thus save us from our sins. He stood in for us and took upon him OUR sins. Now, we cannot do that. We are not perfect, and we cannot take upon ourselves someone else's sins. We are merely those who worship the Lord and are his disciples. What we can do is to try to follow his example and help those who are in a situation that they need our help when they cannot do certain things themselves. We can act as proxies, or stand in for them when they cannot. This means that we are baptized in their stead in temples. Because this is something that we ourselves cannot do, and it is far than mundane, it is something only done in a holy place to the Lord where his spirit and power is. This is the Temple. In the Temple, we have the opportunity to do those ordinances (things like Baptism or marriage) that the New Testament requires to be done on this Earth for those who have died. There are a HUGE number of people that have died, and many have died without even the opportunity to hear the gospel or accept it. This is obviously a huge amount of work to be done on others behalf. These are the Baptisms that people are talking about. In this, you are choosing to serve others because you wish to help have those ordinances performed for those who are already spirits and thus cannot have them done in the physical form themselves. You would need to discuss with the Bishop about getting a temple recommend to do Baptisms for the Dead. If you get this, you then may have the opportunity to go to the temple. As you have been baptized yourself, you could perform this ordinance as one being baptized for the dead. You can also get the ordinance where you would receive the Holy Ghost (most new members also have this ordinance, and so this is another one that they can perform in the Temple). Is it odd, to some, perhaps. It can take some thinking about. The ordinances that you could perform in the Temple in this instance are not that odd in and of themselves. They are the ones that you have already done yourself. As you have been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, these are the same ordinances that you would do in the Temple, on behalf of another. It is done the exact same way, but in what the Mormons feel is a very holy edifice of the Lord's (or what we call the House of the Lord).

When people ask if I went on a Mission I actually tend to walk around the issue and not give them a straight answer. Why? Because to me I think it's a foolish thing to try to talk about at times. That said, I actually DID go on an LDS proselyting mission. I encourage any young man to go on a mission. I encouraged my Nephews to go on missions (and I feel sad that not all of them did or plan to). However, what is FAR more important today is how worthy one is TODAY, and how strong a testimony one has of the gospel and the Lord TODAY. There are many strong members of the church that did not go on missions. I believe Thomas S. Monson is one of those. Something to ponder. Of interest, there are OTHER apostles who also did not serve missions from a quick search I performed... Russel M. Nelson Dallin H. Oaks Robert D. Hales Henry B. Eyring Dieter F. Ucthdorf Do these names sound familiar? They should, as these are several of the twelve apostles of the LDS church. Some later served as Mission Presidents, but that normally is an officially extended calling rather than purely voluntary. Some have tried to give excuses of why they did not go (but I have also know those from those same times and circumstances that DID go after service), but the larger message is the same that I put above... What one does in the past is not what matters most, what one does today in the HERE AND NOW is what is important.

This is something that I think the LDS church is not as forward in providing for in our modern times. An observation I've found in seeking others of the LDS faith online is that finding others is much harder than one would expect. One of the reasons I am on this forum is because it is one of the ONLY places on the internet for LDS gospel discussions. The internet is really pretty barren for LDS members to discuss things, but rife with a TON of anti-Mormon forums, sites, and places where people can talk and ask questions. In the LDS church, at many times, people don't want to actually answer questions, or actually help those who want to find out information. In some places, the culture of the church actively prohibits growth from those seeking answers. This presents the problem because if people cannot ask questions in their ward, and cannot ask questions on the internet, it can be hard to find honest sources to questions regarding the LDS faith. If you have any questions, I know I, and I think others, will be more than happy to try to answer them to the best of our abilities. As for weekends, I'm not sure everything to tell you. I tend to go grocery shopping very late on Saturday night at times so I don't go on Sunday, myself...so I'm probably not the best example on that. I know there are members who DO clean their homes, wash their clothes and other things on Sundays. I try not to, but my values are not what everyone has. What Sunday is, is an excellent time for is spending time with family, so spending time with your daughter or family. I use it as a day of rest, or try to after I get out of meetings and such. Sometimes just having a day that you can refocus and refresh for the rest of the week is something I can look forward too. My biggest thought from your posts though is that it sounds like you are trying to do everything all at once. You don't have to be perfect instantly, and most of those who expect you to be are probably not perfect themselves in the first place. I'd say keep the commandments as you can, but don't stress as much as it sounds like you may be. In your ward, many want to stay in their comfort zones. I even do that. The best way out may be to try greeting others and talking with others. That can still be a tough thing to do, however, that's the best thing I think you could try. The problem is that most don't want to get out of their comfort zones, OR, and I know this sounds crazy, are just as shy as everyone else about meeting new people. Overall, I'd suggest you start reading the Book of Mormon and/or the New Testament. It does NOT have to be a huge amount each day, maybe even just one or two paragraphs. Here are links to both online, so if you don't have copies of them, you would be able to read them at your leisure via the internet. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng

There is NOTHING that I know from the canon scriptures of the LDS doctrine (so, Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP) that say anything against those items per se, at least as interpreted by the LDS scripture. NON-LDS, and more as per the interpretation of scripture from our Baptist friends as well as our Catholic friends comes the story of Onan. In the 19th century someone did NOT like what the REAL interpretation of the story was and changed it to relate more to self-arousal thus creating the word Onanism. The LDS church in some ways still perpetuates this myth and still utilizes the background of the word and ideas as well as the 19th century craze in it's own liturgy today. This is one of several reasons why certain actions are considered a minor offense today that will prevent one from going to the temple or participating I priesthood duties in many instances if they are engaging in this type of action. This was a craze that overshadowed the real theme and moral of the story, but it was NEVER forgotten by the Catholics and is one of the reasons (they have several others as well) they have been against birth control very steadfastly through the years. Now this story is from the Bible, and is a little explicit, so in keeping with the terms of the forum, I am not going to post the scripture here, but will post a link to the story (or you can look it up in Genesis 38: 8-10. Genesis 38: 8-10 AS per the story's interpretation prior to the 19th century and in many other churches, it can be read to be specifically focused on an early form of birth control. The Real reason Onan was killed was because he disobeyed the Lord, specifically by ensuring that he would not have children or conceive children. It is also a form of birth control that is used today by those who do not want to use superior technology for birth control that we have available. That method is NOT as good at prevention, but it is still a method some practice. That said, as we are LDS, though there may be some discouragement, there is nothing that I know of that is of any condemnation or states that you have done any sort of sin if you practice any form of birth control, including that of having a vasectomy or having one's tubes tied. It is a personal decision, but nothing in current LDS doctrine, that I know of, condemns you for having these things done to you or another. AS far as I know, you are not committing a sin when you do this, as per LDS beliefs today, but it is a weighty decision that can have lasting consequences, so should be taken with forethought of the future (which it sounds as if you have already thought about and done).

This is true in many ways. One of the big ironies I have seen is Utah. Utah is one of the reddest (most republican) states in the US. It can be counted to vote republican, even when they hate the candidate. When visiting Utah you would think that it would, therefore, be very republican and conservative in it's laws. Not so. If I had to judge a state by it's laws, Utah is one of the most liberal states in the Union. It's laws are second to none in many areas that would seem an anathema to Republicans, so much that I've only seen states further to the left in California and Oregon on many of the issues Utah has. Utah has laws that may be on the religious right (so, very harsh against adult bars and stores, abortion, and other aspects), but economically and socially they tend to be very hard left (so yes, you have to get that car tested for it's exhaust in a more stringent test than most other states, yes, you'll have income taxes that are perhaps higher than elsewhere, and yes, you'll feel like you're living in an HOA even though you aren't because their city laws recreate an HOA within the city itself...which is insanely crazy). Utah is a very weird place in that light, so I'd say that could actually support your claim in an odd way.

if you read my post, you would also see that I consider Suicide murder of self, which is a sin. We know that murder is a very serious sin in and of itself. I think using religious convictions is a perfectly correct way to deal with it. My difference may be that I do not feel we have the ability to tell others where that individual has gone after they have committed suicide, as only the Lord is the one who is able to judge. In religious matters and suicide, I do not think that the opposition by religions is all that easily dismissed by experts. I think it depends on the culture that you are living in. If you are in the blue culture of the US, I think it may be very easy to see experts dismissing such ideas, but if you live in what we could call the red culture, I think one would see very clearly that religious values play a huge role into what experts think. What I have noticed is that there are several different cultures in the US, with the biggest divide currently being between what one may call Red States and Blue States. One of the reasons there is such a huge divide in the understanding of different things and the antagonism in politics between these states are because we have two entirely different cultures in the US living side by side. The perspective of individual at times are reflective of what they see in the culture around them. A good example is between my wife and her parents. My wife is huge into pro-hunting. Guns are a big part of that. She views all guns should be legal. Her parents live in California in the San Francisco area and are Republicans and considered very conservative for the area they live in. To them, guns are things to be avoided, there is no reason that a normal individual should have, much less, carry a gun. It is simply a difference of culture and how each perceives the world through the lens of the area where they live.

Suicide is against the Law in many areas...but it's an irony. If someone is already dead how do you punish them as they've already done the most severe punishment by law (in some states) or worse to themselves already! The only instance where the state can punish someone for a suicide these days is from what some call Assisted Suicide. This movement, has answered the question already posed in the original post of whether people should continue calling it suicide or something else. The movement calls it Right to Die. It is where one has the right to choose whether to continue living or to die. Legally, this used to be prosecuted very similarly to murder, as suicide was considered such as well, and if another person was assisting in it, they considered it even more clearly an act of murder. The person who assisted the other to end their life was normally prosecuted for prison at a minimum. This has grown murkier in the past few years and Assisted Suicide is now legal in Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Switzerland. It is legally pursued to enable it by the organization Death with Dignity, and it is this that has in some ways also brought it to be legalized in the US in some states as many view it as the choice to die while still being able to be coherent and have some dignity in life rather than to die while drooling on one's death bed while costing their family a fortune in hospital bills and other concerns. In the US, this idea of dying with dignity has meant that, though the right to die is not available to most, those who are terminally ill with less then six months to live can choose to die in several states. These are California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Vermont. It was contentiously made legal in Montana under a Court Ruling, and though legalized in New Mexico, made illegal under a Supreme Court ruling. It has also grown murky for some in the Religious and Spiritual circles. Many feel very similarly to the ideas that promote it politically, and this is reflected in their spiritual lives. Does one have the Right to Die? In Japan before Christianity, it was a matter of honor. If one had done a supremely dishonorable act, it was not inappropriate to kill oneself in the most painful manner that they could imagine. This is a theme that actually can be found in quite a few Asian societies. The West did not have this concept spread over it, but have had some ideas from time to time in specific occasions, like a general falling on their sword rather than be captured by an enemy. Another would be the idea where the Captain goes down with the ship, even if he has the opportunity to save himself. My view is that of traditional Christianity, it is murder. The reason is thus. The Lord has given us our lives. Murder is not just the deprivation of something the Lord gave them, but also the deprivation of one of the Lord's more precious gift. We know from the Bible that those who commit murder are in danger of Hell, but I believe we also feel that one can be covered by the sacrifice of our Lord for all men and either sooner, or later, that individual can be forgiven. That said, what happens to those who commit murder, but have no opportunity to try to repent in this life because they are dead already. Logically, one could guess that the individual would go straight to hell for murder, and as they are already there, that's where they went. However, this does not logically fit into the Atonement. Due to the atonement, the results of such are not spelled out. Where do those who commit suicide go then? I do not know, and this is where some Christians (and especially Mormons) find some gray area. We do not know the great ability of the atoning power of the Lord. In other religions, some would say, though we know of it, we do not understand just how great the grace of the Lord is. A little off topic for a moment. There is one scripture that stands out to me in regards to who will or will not be saved in the Kingdom of Our Lord. That scripture tells us not to judge, for that same judgment we give will be in kind visited upon us. To me, this means, we do not say who will or will not get to heaven. We cannot claim or say one is going to hell either, in that light. I think too often we underestimate the great love the Lord has for each and everyone of us, and the degree he went through to try to ensure that we were saved from sin. At the same time, we do not know the evils of one's heart and even those we consider the most righteous, we have no idea if they will be saved or not. We men, are flawed in our judgements, and hence, the only one that can truly judge whether we will go to heaven or not is the one who made the sacrifice that allows us to be there. That is Jesus Christ, the only one that is able to pass that judgement upon us. With that reflection, we cannot say the result of suicide, or what happens to those who commit suicide (or feel the right to die with dignity, or feel they have the Right to Die). The LDS church says it is circumstantial, and in many instances, may be based upon the mental and/or emotional state one was in when it occurred. I personally do not know what happens, that it is purely and ONLY up to the Lord. His ability to save is unsurpassed, and as I stated before, constantly underestimated by us frail humans. To those who are the family members left in the wake of another's suicide, the best thing is to probably know that the Lord loves us all, and no matter what our thoughts are on the deceased, his love is probably greater for that individual than we can imagine, and the desire he has for that person to be with him in heaven is probably equally great. We do not know the judgements of the Lord, nor should we guess in that instance, only to know that he loves each and every one of us, no matter the evils that we all do at some point in our life.