JohnsonJones

Well, if one wants a more Scriptural basis rather than the History of the church or the Teachings of Joseph Smith (which are both excellent readings) or the journal of discourses (can get long and hard to search through at times), the best reference to this is found D&C 132 I believe in verses 15,16 and 17

It was an extrapolation on Joseph Smiths teachings that those who were not married in mortality were the second degree, or the servants of those who did attain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Their logic was that these individuals could not obtain a celestial marriage, hence their logic was that they could only be servants in the second degree, (but still crowned with power to do all things, but not the power to have offspring) in the Celestial Kingdom. It may be flawed as we know what later revelation brought about with the priesthood, but the ideas they based it upon still are there. This idea in regards to the three degrees of glory and the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom are still in LDS teachings, and as per the LDS site (and not in the historical essays which I could say may be suspect, as being done in the world rather than the church's esteem, these are done on the definitions of things in regards to our understanding on LDS topics) it mentions this idea. Kingdoms of Glory Inserting the portion of the Celestial Kingdom here, bolding is NOT in the original transcript, but my doing for the quote. The terrestrial and telestial entries are BELOW that portion that is under the Celestial Kingdom entry.

In the context throughout his life that Joseph Smith talked about this, pretty certain the three degrees of the Celestial Kingdom was specific enough to the Celestial Kingdom and NOT the three degrees of glory. Though not doctrine, Joseph was pretty explicit in regards to the second degree and those who were not married being in the Celestial Kingdom, but being servants. This was something latched onto by Brigham Young and many other prophets up to at least Joseph Fielding Smith. Unfortunately this was most often spoken of in relation to Blacks (who at the time did not have the priesthood and thus were unable to enter into the temple and the subsequent blessings of Eternal Marriage) and their plausible fate in the ensuing situation in the Celestial Kingdom. Note, this was NOT a continuation of what Joseph Smith discussed (his was more on those who were not married in mortality for eternity rather than those of African Heritage), and hence their own extrapolation. It isn't doctrine, but they were pretty clear on that idea of different degrees within the Celestial Kingdom itself.

There is a difference between being in the Celestial Kingdom and Exaltation. As per the Doctrine and Covenants, the Celestial Kingdom itself is subdivided into three degrees or divisions. It is only the Highest that attain Exaltation. Spoken of in this, though not strictly LDS doctrine, is the facet of these three degrees, spoken of by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young bring in the direct ideas of the second degree in the Celestial Kingdom, those who are not married for all eternity or have the blessings of being sealed to a spouse in eternal marriage in this life. There is story about one individual who desired to only be a servant in the celestial Kingdom, but Joseph would not have any of that and had them sealed. Those who do not have the bonds of sealings in eternal marriage will receive the thrones, powers, and abilities of the Lord, but as they do not have the ability to have eternal offspring, will instead be the servants of those worthy of the higher degree. This then is the second degree in the Celestial Kingdom as per Joseph and later Brigham Young. Joseph F. Smith (who also had the revelation regarding the Spirit World in a similar record, which found it's way to the Doctrine and Covenants, though the thoughts on the Celestial Kingdom did not) and later Joseph Fielding Smith actually went onto the third category of those dwelling in the Celestial Kingdom. Those who are sealed in the eternal marriage and attain exaltation may also bring their children there, even if those children do not merit the celestial kingdom. Those children may merit the lower kingdoms, but due to the sealing power, they are brought up to be with their parents in the Celestial Kingdom though they will have to repent of their sins in this life or the next, and possibly even pay the price of that sin. It is implied though in the Celestial Kingdom, they do not have the bodies of those in the higher degrees, but those which they earned from what they chose in this life.

Serial Monogamy (is a form of polygamy) is accepted in the US (as is another form of polygamy, but that one has partners that are not married under the law, though they may be having relations with multiple partners at a time). The most common form of serial monogamy (aka polygamy) of this in the US is for individuals to divorce from one another, and then enter into another marriage relationship, thus having more than one partner over their lifetime. The LDS church still allows this form of plural marriage, though it only counts the polygyny aspects in regards to eternal marriage, at least on the surface. More complicated, the LDS church has a form of polyandry (one woman, multiple men) in it's temple sealings for the dead currently, in that it seals a woman to multiple husbands if they were married to more than one husband in life. This is actually a doctrinal change over the past few decades, as before they would only have the spouse sealed to one husband. Their logic is that this gives the woman a choice or something like that in the afterlife. The original thought was that if there was a mistake, it would be cleared up, but if multiple husbands were sealed to a spouse, only the FIRST one was the one that counted (normally, that one was to the first husband they were married to). This obviously has changed, probably with the hopes it will be cleared up in the millennium. A woman who has been married multiple times now will be sealed to any husband she was married to in this life at any point. The same applies to husbands, even if they were divorced from their wife under harsh circumstances. Historically looking at it, the practice of polygamy in which a man was married to multiple woman at the same time was rescinded in practice. Serial monogamy, was NOT illegal in the US and hence the practice of polygamy in that way was allowed. One could make a point of saying, due to serial monogamy and the way fornication occurs in western society that polygamy is now more popular than ever, just not the civil recognition of such relationships being as with a man civilly married to more than one woman at a time (or vice versa) though they can be civilly unmarried but having marital relations with multiple partners at the same time. In regards to the LDS church, polygamy was never rescinded as a commandment, only the practice of it was halted for reasons as per the manifesto. However, most in the LDS faith (or this could just be me, echoing my own feelings in relation to thinking others feel similar to me) do NOT favor the idea of polygamy nor the practice thereof.

If it's any consolation, he may actually have been considered a conservative today if he had the same views he had back then, but were a politician today. Yesterday's liberal is today's average Republican. Yesterday's Republican is more like the Libertarians of today, but even the Libertarians may be a little too liberal to for those Republicans of old.

This is what Folk Prophet is referring to, and it is doctrine Moroni 8

The above is my personal opinion, BACKED UP DIRECTLY by things and blessings given to me by individuals. It specified I made a choice, and the ONLY reason I decided to live a life is to receive that blessing of eternal marriage. There are many who will have celestial bodies but not be in an eternal marriage. As per Joseph Fielding Smith, there may be those in the Celestial Kingdom who do not even have a Celestial body! The items quoted by McKonkie regarding that particular volume of the doctrines of Salvation discuss the items prior to his talk never state children are married in the Celestial Kingdom. It discusses what he goes over before, but the marriage thing is particular to his talk there. He has no sources from revelations and prophets in that regards. This is located in Chapter 3 of Doctrines of Salvation, however the questions regarding who is and who isn't married in the Celestial Kingdom is found in Chapter 4 of Doctrines of Salvation which Mckonkie leaves blank. It is there that we find out about the hows and whys of the exaltation of the family unit and other such items. I have a great respect for McKonkie, as also his son (Joseph McKonkie), and he states in this talk that children do get married in the Celestial Kingdom. He has no sources or reference that actually talk about that subject, it is his own personal injection in that article. McKonkie ALSO stated previously that Blacks would never have the priesthood. Unless it is stated as doctrine or in that regards, it is NOT doctrine. That said, I am making it clear that this IS my opinion. It is NOT doctrine (anymore than one claiming children are also attain celestial marriage) as these items are ONLY found in external sources (for example, the Doctrines of Salvation) which are the thoughts and extrapolations of apostles, prophets and general authorities. There is NO doctrine in this regards other than the things Joseph originally revealed and which Joseph F Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith extrapolated upon, none of which reveal that children are married in the Celestial Kingdom. Joseph Smith original taught that children who die will remain that same age and size for eternity and rule on thrones. That changed in later teachings that their parents will have the opportunity to raise them in the eternities. More or less than this is basically our opinions.

not doctrine. As per doctrine, they do NOT get married, and as per Joseph Smith who had the most revealed on this, they may grow older, but, though they attain their thrones in heaven, and it is possible for parents to raise them (and earlier teaching of his actually stated they did NOT grow up at all, but were infants on thrones, this changed after time, probably due to revelation on this), however, nothing states that they get married and have eternal offspring. This is a Mormon cultural addition, rather than anything doctrinal as far as I know. If we are speculating, they do NOT get eternal marriage. The reason is that they had a choice in the pre-existence and were great and good enough to ensure salvation in the Celestial Kingdom, but through their choice, chose NOT to go through the trials of mortaility and hence made the choice of whether to have the opportunity for eternal marriage, or to inherit their salvation with going to their thrones above. Everything spoken of by authorities and such indicate that they go to the Celestial Kingdom, and attain their thrones, but nothing ever states that they have ALL the blessings of those who obtain all blessings in this life do. PS: One of the interesting things about me, is that I was almost one of those who died at birth. It is deeply personal in some ways, but there is one item that came up and that was that I had a choice. I could have gone directly to the Celestial Kingdom as little children who die at birth do, or I could stay and go through mortality. The reason I stayed was the choice to obtain a Celestial Marriage and the blessings thereof. This is my reasoning, though it is not Mormon Doctrine, that I feel the way I do about the fate of those who die at birth. It hence is a PERSONAL opinion. Of course, that only applies to those who die at birth, if one really considers it and does not cover those who die while in mortality but still a child, or even a teenager or someone who has not had the opportunity to marry in this life.

I got some children this book for Christmas Book of mormon for young readers Let me tell you, do not get that book. It's basically the book of Mormon with some illustrations (and it's an abridged version as well). The kids never really touch it. Too complex for kids under 10, at least. Maybe if you read it to them, and then only if they are exceptional and have a longer attention span. This is the one they seem to really enjoy Book of Mormon Stories It's a classic oldie at this point, but seems to do the trick in having them read it, at least the boys. My preferred one and the one we used with our kids when they were growing up can't be found anymore. It was the illustrated stories from the Book of Mormon. It had more pictures and was more complete overall than the book of Mormon for Young readers I recently picked up. This has a picture of one of those volumes Illustrated stories from the Book of Mormon

Okay, insensitive and sort of humorous post coming up. (do not take anything before my PS seriously...if you do...well...you shouldn't have). It is right, only 1 woman spoke for the Sunday sessions. However, it gets FAR worse!!!!! THERE WERE NO WOMEN who spoke during the PRIESTHOOD SESSION!!! The HORROR!!! AND THERE WAS ONLY 1 PRIESTHOOD HOLDER who spoke during the GENERAL WOMAN'S SESSION!!!! The HORROR!!!! Where is the equality! We should have at least 50% of the speakers be Priesthood General Authorities from the First Presidency for the General Woman's session!!! And they didn't really include me!!!! In the Woman's Session...how could they!!! And then, in turn around, didn't include my wife or any other woman in the Priesthood Session!!! The world is going to end, I tell you, the world! Do you realize just how big that is!!!!! (PS: As they include the General Woman's Session as a session of General conference (though a week early, so not exactly sure why that is, wouldn't it work better on Friday night or something before the rest of conference?) there were actually 4 woman who spoke in total at General Conference). I suppose I'm snarky...the above post is wife approved...and she wanted me to clarify she had no desire to go to the Priesthood session even if she could have...and informs me that if I ever thought of dragging her to more conference then she normally goes to she might become violent... She read through the post and approved it (so I could say it was wife approved), but wanted me to add those items.

Hello. I have relatives in Germany, but not Berlin. Welcome to the forums

Actually, Lucas didn't really refer to the EU all that much. At the end of Episode 3 it was balanced to a degree, but only because each side had two champions for it. They were Master and Apprentice (or Master and Lord). That would be Darth Sidious/Palpatine = Sith Master (Dark Side Master) Darth Vader = Sith Lord or Dark Lord of the Sith Yoda = Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi = also a Jedi Master, but the Jedi equal to Darth However, it wasn't completely balanced, though it remained somewhat balanced throughout the Original trilogy in a similar manner. When Luke started to learn the force, he replaced Obi wan and became the Apprentice to the Master or it was then Yoda and Luke to counter Palpatine and Vader, at least to a degree. It truly became balanced when Yoda died, and Palpatine died. Vader balanced it out completely by himself by Killing Palpatine leaving only one on each side which would not kill the other, both which had never become a Master which was Anakin and Luke. The rest of the EU stuff, well, that didn't really enter into Lucas's equations as far as I know. They were their own thing with people creating ways and theories of their own. Now that it is beyond Lucas's control, who knows what Disney feels about it or how they will interpret it.

I don't know which one spoke to me in particular, but I know the one that I thought was most pertinent to me and those around me in the world today. With the encroaching temptations of the media, the wild surges of anger, frustration, and discord in the politics of our nation, and the wickedness of promiscuity, anti-religlion (much less anti-LDS) sentiment, and horrendous sin being promoted, I think the expression from our Prophet, President Monson was perhaps one of the most important items for this conference. It was short, but very defining in how we should deal with the world that we are facing right now. We need our own testimonies, and we need to make them strong against the world. I felt this message was also reflected by Elder Cook as the final speaker this afternoon where he also emphasized the need for us to build our testimonies daily and even weekly to strengthen ourselves against the world and other things that we face in our lives.

On a different subject, but related to this morning, it sounds (if your location is right) you are going to be getting a New Temple there! I imagine that is exciting news. I heard a few...what sounded like exclaims of excitement in the audience when it was announced for Saratoga Springs. On conference in general I was delighted that once again we got to hear from the Prophet once again this morning, and feel that it was a vitally important message. With all that's happening in the world, obtaining and keeping our testimonies seems to be a vital thing for keeping us strong in the gospel today. I think that maybe some members do rely on the testimonies of others and without a strong testimony of their own it can become a very hard thing to retain a belief in the church. Right afterwards, there was a son of mine that I had to almost drag to watch conference. I turned to him and asked him if he believed and he said yes. I asked him if he had ever prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, and he said no. I asked him to pray about it (once again, I have before) and he said maybe, but maybe not. He is one that I fear is in that situation the Prophet was talking about, relying on the testimony of his parents and others rather than attaining one for himself. Elder Rasband's talk on the Holy Ghost was also interesting as yesterday morning I had a very strong impression to visit one of the elderly members. I tried to ignore it, as it was still early and conference didn't start until 10. It became more pressing and finally I got up, quickly got dressed and went over to visit the member. They had internet but no TV and had been trying to pull up where they would watch conference to no avail. They were worried, but as I got there and found out, I was able to get them up and running with the LDS.org conference video going with a few minutes to spare. I wonder if that's why I was impressed to get there. They were thrilled that I got it available for them, and I was also able to race back and make it to watch conference myself. I wonder what may have happened if I hadn't gone for the visit. Elder Rasband's talk reinforced the thoughts in sometimes things may occur for reasons we do not know, but we should always try to listen. Finally, the concluding talk of the Afternoon session was interesting. It seems that the more I've tried to follow the right way of doing things, the harder it gets at times. At the beginning of the year I participated in that crazy thing we sometimes do of setting New Years Resolutions. I decided I'd try to read 10 pages out of the book of Mormon each day, which means I think it could lead to reading through it 5 or 6 times in a year. Things have gotten a LOT harder this year, and I wonder if the more I try to be good, the worse the adversary tries to destroy or harm me. I've tried to reinforce doing good things and being in good places (one reason why I signed up for these forums), as things have gotten progressively more difficult. His talk reminded me that what I am going through is trivial compared to what others like Parley P. Pratt or Joseph Smith were called to endure during the early days of the church. It's over for this year, though I imagine I'll read the talks again when they are printed out.

Some thoughts on General Conference from Saturday, not a ton to share, but things that stood out to me. I was impressed by Elder Nelson's talk at the end of the conference. It seemed as if he were telling us to remain strong in this world against the forces that would destroy our faith, and how we need to have that faith and practice in the Lord. I remember Elder Hales as a strong and vibrant man, with that background of being an Air Force officer. He looked so much different today, age has changed him. I was especially touched with his talk on being charitable. It was a theme that sort of was reflected in Holland's talk as he discussed songs, and then went into how sometimes when we see the evil in the world and how uncharitable it is, it can be hard to sing about things or doing those things in song. Moving onto Priesthood session, there were some thoughts that came to mind, but not necessarily based on what was said at times. I was delighted to hear from President Monson, and hope that we hear him tomorrow morning as well...but we shall see. President Monson ALSO talked a LOT about charity. While Elder Uchtdorf also was a speaker in the Priesthood session, some of his items were ones that I started to think about in the middle of his talk. One item that led to a tangent in my mind was when he started about seeing a man for just a moment as the Lord saw him and realizing the Lord loves us no matter what groups we are in or affiliated with or other things that we might divide ourselves with in this life. That got me to think about my children. I love ALL of them. I then pondered on another off topic item. Though the Lord loves all of us, we know not all of us will return to live with him. What then makes it so that some of us return to him and some of us do not if he loves all of us just as much as each other. Who then inherits what he has. I then thought of my kids again. I love all of my kids greatly, however, not all of them are like me. One daughter of mine loves everything I do. She loves books and history. She loves games and Disney films. I have a policy that if the children really like something I have, they can have it. I'm not going to need it after this life, so if it is something they really liked in childhood, or really enjoy overall, they can have it. It is free game. The One that I feel may take me up on this some day is my daughter I just talked about. The other children love me, but she is the one that shares the interests I have. They all have their free agency to get whatever I have, but I think it is that daughter that may take the inheritance I offered because she is the one that would enjoy it most. In some ways, when thinking of this, I think it may be similar with our Father. He loves all his children, and has offered all he has to us. Not all of us are like him or want what he wants. It is only the ones that are more like him that might take him up on his offer. So, yes, a huge side tangent of thought in the middle of the second half of the priesthood session (though I did listen, Elder Uchtdorf then went on to discuss how important each of our callings are, that it is what is inside, not the outward appearance or calling that is what is truly important in this life). One last item that hit me pretty hard this conference that has nothing to do with any individual talk. I felt the spirit in each session of conference. I realized that if one is in tune with the spirit, they can feel the spirit when the apostles and General Authorities speak. It is a testimony of each individual apostle (since I think all the apostles typically speak during the conference eventually, though it isn't always the case, they always try to have as many as can do so) and general authority that speaks in which the spirit is testifying. I think we can renew our testimonies from feeling the spirit testify of them at conference, and know that each of them is called of the Lord as we hear them speak. I know that this is what really impressed me on Saturday as I listened to the various speakers. In many ways, Conference itself should be a testimony fortifying experience, or for those who are truly seeking and trying to find the truth but have not yet, be a meeting where they can feel the spirit and start on that path to gaining a testimony of the Prophets and the Book of Mormon and then of the Gospel.

I haven't any good ideas on it that sounds better than your idea. Sounds good to me.

The thing that struck me oddest had nothing to do with greeting people. Many Non-LDS churches have a social hour or other such thing and they have small snacks or coffee and other such sundries. They normally have a fund which they collect money in to pay for the supplies of such social mixing. However, it sure appeared they actually were selling stuff in one of those churches in something that appeared to be an actual coffee shop in a church. That's a new one. I know some Christian churches would be scandalized (too close to the Sellers in the Temple type idea to them) so was surprised to see that represented in the video. I wonder if this is something new in some churches. Having a coffee shop that actually sells things in the church itself.

Wait a second, did I just understand what you wrote!? 1. You tell your Mother that you'd like to eat Sunday dinners at your own house from now on (though she does not realize you mean HER Sunday dinners at your house). 2. She expects that you'll make your own dinner at your house and eat it, not show up at her house and take the dinner home. 3. You show up at her house, she's kind of confused at what you are doing there. 4. You proceed to start taking things off the table and piling it onto the plate, telling them you love them, but you are not going to eat here with them, even though you are taking the food with you. You are taking all that home so you can eat it there. 5. You then grab dessert as well, and your brothers are like...what??? You're already here, why not stay!? 6. You then leave with the meal in tow and go back home. Is this what happened? I'm not sure whether to laugh or not. Did you really do this? You do this every week!? Are you pulling our legs or is this for real! I know if my kids did this, I would love them to death, but I'd be confused as heck. I'd be utterly perplexed at this. I think over time I'd get used to them doing this, and love them tremendously. There are times they come over and I hope it's for a visit, but then they do their laundry and leave. I suppose it's sort of like that, but never had one that came to take dinner and then leave without eating it with me. Interesting story.

I'm old school and I watch it normally (and these days on TV). However, I am more of a reader and after the talks are printed I prefer reading them in the Ensign.

Absolutely, we are in complete agreement in that.

In preparation for General Conference I was browsing various materials on the LDS website. It is probably that I'm just slow in this regards and everyone here has already known about what I'm about to mention for a long time. As I was looking at different conference talks through the years I found this All Conferences And then I found even more! Ensign Which floors me. It has all the conferences and Ensigns back to 1971! This is awesome! This prompted me to open my tablet which I recently got and put the Gospel Library on, and lo and behold it had the same thing on it as well! You can have all that with endless reading material! I think it is very cool. It does raise an interesting question though. Now that I've discovered this, do I need to continue a subscription to the church magazines? If I stop subscribing, is this a trend that others are also doing. If so, would that indicate that eventually they might stop publishing the actual hardcopy of the magazine? As a historian, this makes me somewhat sad. For a historian, we are all about books and documents, most of the time hardcopies of items. It seems so easy for electronic items to be lost if some event happens, or even something slight like a media change or an update to the program that opens a specific type of media. However, it is personally cheaper and easier to rely on the electronic than the hardcopy in this instance. It is wonderful that these are available to the world via electronic means, especially with such a back history of issues and conferences.

That sounds like a good message.

I remember the Terri Schiavo situation, but not something from Hinckley specifically addressing it. There is a quote from Hinckley that sounds like what you refer to, but from a funeral address in 1996. Other than that, I have nothing, sorry.

That's not really what I said, but it may be what you understood me saying. In response to each of your paragraphs... 1. Government itself is merely a reflection of the people themselves, if the people (collectively) are moral or immoral. Sometimes that occurs NOT because of what people SAY they want, but is reflected by immoral actions on their part (supporting welfare because we support a corrupt way of pay and employment, or the disintegration of the family unit). It is NOT an individual thing or individual decision. It is a collective reflection of the society itself. This is true in our time, and was true in the Nephite times (as the people became more wicked and corrupt, that unfortunately also started being reflected in their government). 2. Most people don't pay enough taxes to make a difference in whether the government spends their money or not. You normally have to be in the top 10% to actually make even a small difference in whether you are supporting government programs or not. Normally, people don't pay enough to cover the costs of their percentage of the government. Each person's portion that they pay of the budget would be about 10K a year in Federal taxes just to break even, and then whatever percentage of their state budget divided by the number of people "paying" taxes in that. Once you get above that range, when you hit about 20K-30K in taxes, you are actually paying for those who pay less taxes or who through exemptions do not pay taxes at all. I suppose in theory that could occur at 100K if you took NO rebates, no exemptions, no nothing and paid straight up taxes on that 100K (though I do not know why anyone would do that, that's not charity or anything else, but there could be those that do that). You referred that you would do better with your money. That may be true. I am NOT talking about the 90% who do not have as much of an expendable income. This is specific. This is a we for me and those in this situation. This is not a YOU if you are not in that situation. As I said, even if you were completely charitable and lets say you made a million a year and donated all but 75K (after taxes)of that to those in need, the elderly, etc, it still doesn't matter whether what you specifically want. The moral implications are a reflection of society, not individuals in that society. It is society (a we, as in We the people) that I am referring to in a general sense and to myself. 3. No, I don't consider you uncharitable necessarily (and most likely what I said had nothing to do with you). I don't think I called you that, but I did refer to LDS people (us) and society that could be more charitable. In this I was referring to those like me, that could can afford it but choose wants over aid. If you are one of those, and my situation applies to you, then indirectly I suppose I was stating that. In my opinion, the REASON these government aid programs exist is because of a society that does NOT act like a terrestrial (much less a celestial) where it ensures there are no poor among them. We, the people (speaking as a society now, not individuals), are the cause of that through our own choices and immorality. However, the greater the ability, the greater the offense. As I tried to show in response to your paragraph 2, very few actually have the funds to do this (though those that do, when you start looking that way, have over 80% of the money in less than 10% of the population). If you took what the top 75 individuals in the US made each year and had them contribute what they didn't need to help the poor instead of a welfare security net, there would be NO NEED for that government security net in the first place. Even with taxes, with the sums we are talking about, it is very possible to enact this and have many of these programs go away. Their greed is a mirror of the entire mindset that pervades those in the arena who make enough money to actually change things in our society (aka, WE, as in we the people). This is especially prevalent in those who make more money, especially the top 10% and those close to it. If that is why you have taken offense, because you fall in that group, than I suppose we may have to agree to disagree on this. Other than that, have no more quarrel with me and go your way in peace. Even then, I believe I stated right at the beginning, we can all have different opinions and still be good LDS members. We have different opinions, and what I said is a reflection of my own thoughts in regards to me, those LDS in that type of situation, and society as a group at large (we, as a people, not you as a person). We can each have different opinions on what is good or bad and all still be good members of the LDS church. Our differences make us stronger together. I appreciate your opinion and am glad you have shared it.