Midwest LDS

I don't know. I've had problems in my life, who hasn't, but nothing like these guys. I married my wife because I loved her. When we have issues, which happens to everyone, we work it out because we value our marriage more than being right. I'm not bragging, I don't think we are special we are like thousands of well adjusted couples out there. But we both have a living breathing testimony of Jesus Christ and that helps more than anything.

Thank you I appreciate that.

Interesting, but I think the answer is fairly simple. The major difference between Lamoni and David, as you mentioned, is ignorance. In Mosiah 3:11 King Benjamin teaches us an important gospel lesson that explains why there was a difference in the apparent severity of their repentance "11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned." Lamoni was raised by a bloodthirsty people who knew nothing of God or his ways. He was living his life according to the only way he had been taught. It's apparent from King Benjamin's teaching that God takes that kind of ignorance into account, and it is covered by the the Atonement of Christ. Also Lamoni, once his ignorance was taken away by Ammon's teachings, readily accepted the Gospel, and accordingly God forgave him of his sins. David knew better. He had been raised in the faithful household of Jesse, and had lived the Gospel from his youth. He had been guided by the Holy Spirit throughout his life and had known and worked closely with at least two prophets that we know of, Samuel and Nathan. Also, since Nathan solemnized David's plural marriages (before Bathsheba) it's apparent that David continued to have the Gospel in his life all the way up to his fateful decision to murder Uriah. David had absolutely no excuse for his sins, and because of that his murder was far worse than those of Lamoni.

That was interesting I just looked it up! But it was actually a Presbyterian thing as he was an Elder in his local church.

I would say less strict is harder to live. While the first one in your hypothetical example is more difficult to live, it also spells out everything that needs to be followed by a faithful saint in exact detail, with little room for disagreement. Whereas, the second one requires a lot more individual choice and responsibility, virtually guaranteeing argument and disagreement about what consitutes substance abuse. In addition, since it's no longer a commandment in scenario 2, there will be many who say "what's the big deal, it doesn't matter anymore?" Stricter commandments are always easier to live IMO just because they are clearer.

In 5th ed every class has multiple builds you can choose from and one for barbarians (primal path I believe) has a bunch of supernatural abilities. I love 3.5 (I still have most of the books) but I've played a lit of 5th ed with my group and it's really well done. Especially compared to 4th which was awful.

Yep they do have some cool magical abilities in 5e, and man if you build them right in they can take a beating. Definitly a fun class.

Ah barbarian my favorite spellcaster 😉

I agree. Why be an Illusionist when you can call down meteors from the heavens? It always sounded like a boring class to me.

I don't think it's immoral. Like any game, you can play a "clean" character no matter what the alignment. My favorite way to play Lawful Evil is as a well intentioned extremist. Someone who's willing to do the dirty work to benefit society (think Section 31 from Star Trek). Usually I will play them as having a code of honor to set them apart from other villians. Like they may overthrow a rightful king and place themselves on the throne, but they refuse to hurt a child stuff like that. I also mostly agree with @unixknight that I usually don't allow neutral or chaotic evil characters in a party. They are just too ruthless or crazy and usually end up causing party conflict.

Those are fun too. I like playing any of the fighting class good alignments. The only spellcaster I play is cleric. Of the other alignments, I only play Lawful Neutral (strictly intepreting every law can be fun once in a while) or chaotic neutral if they are dedicated to Chaos (I don't like the typical Chaotic Neutral where you just do whatever you feel like, it's not as fun to roleplay).

I've been playing a paladin as my primary character type for 20 years. There is no question that I've always played them as a crusading knight, out to right wrongs and destroy evil. I know some people try making a paladin a wuss who is constantly wringing his hands over whether or not he is breaking a local law or being nice enough, but to me thats not Lawful Good, that's Lawful Wuss. A paladin is a crusader who ALWAYS knows (in a way only possible with magic😁) who is evil, and who operates on higher laws to protect the innocent. That's the way I've always played them, so it was a surprise to me when I finally learned the way a lot of people play them. Mine have always been significantly cooler than that IMHO😉.

Let's hope we never get anyone bat crazy enough to not be scared by it.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, nuclear weapons are at least partially, if not wholly responsible, for the peace we see in the world today. The global superpowers cannot wage the traditional wars of conquest, as they face annihilation if they push other superpowers too far. As much as living in fear sucks, nukes are the only reason we did not fight World Wars 3 and 4 in the 20th century, as that would have fit earlier patterns of war and peace cycles. How long that fear lasts is a matter for debate, but for the moment, we can thank our good friends from the Manhattan project for giving the world an unprecedented level (on the macro not the micro level there are still plenty of brushfire wars) of peace.

Come now, English isn't confusing. It's just a mongrel tongue that has 10 exceptions for every rule, and a wide range of regional colloquisms. Not to mention those of us like me who pick and choose which rules to follow, based on whim and ignorance. What could possibly be confusing about that?😁

@Vort was correct the cutoff is 26 for men. On my mission my companion told me about his brother, who turned 26 in the MTC. He slid in right under the wire. Sisters don't have a specific age cutoff, although if they are over 40 they typically are assigned to a non proselytizing mission.

I know it really is a tragedy. Thank you for your thoughts, I'm praying for his poor mom.

Thanks guys. It's just the kind of thing you don't expect to happen.

This story ended better than most. The shooter, a 14 year old boy, was stopped by police who had been alerted by his mother, and the school he had targeted was able to lock their doors, keeping him outside long enough for the police to get there. He committed suicide after he was cornered. But this one has been more difficult to deal with for me than others. He was one of my students. I teach at an online high school, so my other students and myself were never in any danger, but my heart is breaking for his mother. I don't know if she was a good or terrible parent, but having to report to the police that your kid is heading to a school and is armed, knowing he is probably going to be severly injured or killed or may kill other innocent kids, is a situation I would not wish on my worst enemy. Thank God she reported him, it prevented a tragedy, but I can't even begin to fathom her pain, and she is in my prayers. I posted because I just needed a place to process this.

It's the only one I've found (there may be others but I haven't been able to locate them) where members defend the church, and where the primary focus is gospel discussion. I appreciate that, because everywhere else I went, it was mostly people attacking the church while pretending to be faithful. I can abide and understand faith crises, but I can't stand people smugly pretending to be faithful while eviscerating the brethren. That's why I ended up here.

I see what you mean. Ideally, we should be doing these things throughout the year, and Christmas should not be different. Exercising faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and doing good for our fellow man, should be our default setting no matter the time. However, I agree with @Grunt. I appreciate the time to remind myself to act more in accordance with the teachings of Christ. My weakness frequently leads me to sin and slothfullness, and I appreciate a time set aside (Easter is the same for me) to make an evaluation of how I am doing, and what I can do to improve. I shouldn't need that ideally, but I do, and I consider these holidays merciful gifts from God to help His frail children. Plus I love the other side of Christmas too much to ever give it up (no one can take my my family time and gift giving away☺)

I agree. He knew, at least in part, that the Lord had some big changes in mind for the church and he wanted to make sure our testimonies were strong enough for the days ahead.

I agree wholeheartedly. While I don't criticize anyone for their struggles, to me it's always been enough to know that a change comes from the First Presidency to feel at peace about it. President Woodruff promised in the name of God that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." I've received revelation that President Nelson is God's prophet on the Earth. To me that means I don't need to be concerned with the direction the church is heading, because God himself is at the helm. That is enough for me.

It's blasphemous in the extreme and incredibly offensive, but unless there is a ridiculously huge settlement involved, I don't think a lawsuit will be worth it. Hollywood is going to keep mocking sacred things until the Second Coming and, unless the church decides otherwise, this seems like a moment where "turning the other cheek" would dampen the controversy faster than seeking punitive damages.

Please break up with him. I know this sounds like harsh advice, but if you truly don't love him emotionally, you are only stringing him along. It's going to hurt getting broken up with, but the pain ends, and you move on. Nothing, and I speak from personal experience, nothing hurts more than being strung along for months while you keep telling yourself that you can get her to change her mind, only to finally be told she never really loved you anyways. You're young, you have time to find a man you are truly compatible with, as he still has time to find a girl that will really love him. Marriage is wonderful, but it can be tough. If you go into a marriage thinking "well he's better than nothing" you guys will break at the first major challenge to your relationship, and you'll end up being a young divorced woman or sitting around in a relationship where you share a house but not a heart. Trust me, unless you can truly start loving him for who he is now, end it, take care of your personal sins and learn a little more about what you want in a relationship, and look for a guy you can love with your whole heart.