dprh

I don't think so.  They've angered/irritated the agitators on social media, who knows how many of them are active Saints.  Everyone seems to play one on television, but don't do active Saint things.  This really isn't any different than what the policy has been for faithful Saints, in my opinion.

I doubt it, and I certainly hope not. If Latter-day Saints can't be obedient in something as small and simple as leaving their firearm at home when they go to Church, what hope have we of establishing Zion? None.

So when my wife and I got sealed this year, I gave her this gift, which I'd been working on assembling and painting for about a year prior.  It's about 12" high total.  Just finally got around to adding the shrunk down copy of our sealing certificate to the base. 

 

Just thought I'd share, since you guys know what a big deal getting sealed is...

I read a short sci-fi story once.  A guy had invented a time machine where people could observe the past without interfering.  He was going into business as a tour guide, but there was a huge problem.  None of the historical events people wanted to see, actually looked the way the history books and artwork had preserved them.  The thing that killed his company, was Washington crossing the Deleware.  Everyone was expecting this:

 
When they got there, and realized it was a nighttime crossing, and Washington was this miserable huddled being in the back of the boat, shivering under a blanket against the cold, well, the tourists would get mad and demand their money back.
 
Hopefully folks don't do the same thing when we encounter stuff, oh say, like accounts on how the BoM was translated that differ with how they've been popularly portrayed in Primary and whatnot.  
 
I'm also fairly reasonable that this is nothing like it looked when Nephi addressed the stripling warriors:

The BoM is sort of light on it's "white Roman astride a noble steed", yet probably a ton of us grew up in churches with this art on the walls.

I'll clarify here that outright disarmament is not something I support, even if the parameters of the two debates are similar. It would be academically dishonest not to recognize a difference between a sociological mechanism (gun ownership) and a biological mechanism (disease)
I just thought it was an interesting comparison.
But the more research I do, the more convinced I become that widespread carrying is not the gateway to a crime free utopia.

I agree with this. I would further posit that when the First Presidency makes a change to the Handbook and announces it publicly, that's the voice of the Lord that we're hearing.

I have such a weak stomach.....just reading about this stuff makes me queasy.
Great article though.  He's an amazing man. 

To me, this seems similar to the arguments that some BYU students make when they complain that the Honor Code restricts their agency.

This American does, and so do many others.

Looking at the statistics that were shared, the chances of getting killed by a gun jump significantly when a Brit comes to the US.  I can understand the hesitance. It's like swimming at one beach and then going to swim with friends at another beach where shark attacks are 3-4 times more likely.  Still very small, but worth noting.

My sister and her husband, both members and great people, struggle with this issue, among other things.

To me, this seems similar to the arguments that some BYU students make when they complain that the Honor Code restricts their agency.

For instance, this watch silently broadcasts that your net worth has reached $3 Million.
 

Oh, watches are evil, for sure. Satanic, even. As D&C 88:100 tells us:
The Lord hath redeemed his people; and Satan is bound and time is no longer.

My sister and her husband, both members and great people, struggle with this issue, among other things.

I didn't say anything about ownership and the quote I used from you didn't either.  You said 
And I pointed out that no, not all Americans think that way.  Just about every time I see a gun IRL, I think it can kill me.  Maybe it's too much TV and video games.  Maybe it's just a safe perspective of the tool.  Honestly, most gun-owners I know, also have a healthy respect for gun safety BECAUSE they know it can kill them.  Guns were invented to kill.  Their designs have been improved to do it better.  Yes, they have other uses.  But to blatantly ignore the fact that they can kill seems foolish to me.

Did you just call @MormonGator a daughter of Zion? 
 
🤣

I didn't say anything about ownership and the quote I used from you didn't either.  You said 
And I pointed out that no, not all Americans think that way.  Just about every time I see a gun IRL, I think it can kill me.  Maybe it's too much TV and video games.  Maybe it's just a safe perspective of the tool.  Honestly, most gun-owners I know, also have a healthy respect for gun safety BECAUSE they know it can kill them.  Guns were invented to kill.  Their designs have been improved to do it better.  Yes, they have other uses.  But to blatantly ignore the fact that they can kill seems foolish to me.

This American does, and so do many others.

Rejoice with me!  I just got a letter in the mail from my company.  It said that we would get a profit share from our company that I work at.  I will be given around $1,350 deposited into an Individual Retirement Account.  This made me very happy today.
I do not ever remember getting a profit share from any company that I have worked at before.

I would agree with this, but there are some that would argue that the Prophet CAN change doctrine with revelation.
(Just to be clear, I actually agree with your statement.  I think that there can be some confusion on the topic to a degree which is what I am bringing up below).
A prime example would be that Wilford Woodruff and others would say that temple ordinances could ONLY be done by one who held the higher Priesthood (the Melchizedek) only.  This was the doctrine (or what they would call doctrine, though I do not think we can actually find it anywhere in the scriptures).  The reasons was that while the Lower Priesthood dealt with earthly ordinances and our immediate ordinances for this earth, the Melchizedek Priesthood also covered ordinances that were for things beyond this earth and this life, which ALSO included that of the dead. 
Do we follow this anymore?  No.
We found out a little while ago that those who are Priests can do Baptisms for the dead.  So, in this the question would be...has the doctrine changed?  Originally you COULD not, doctrinally supported, perform ordinances for the dead if you did not have the Melchizedek Priesthood. 
Today, we obviously are allowing those with the Aaronic Priesthood to do at least one ordinance for the dead (as per this Church adds new opportunies for youth and children in temple participation
There was very little wiggle room previously in this regards.  Unlike Blacks and the Priesthood (where one can actually say that this was in fulfillment of prophecy and the words of Brigham Young technically were fulfilled at that point in 1978, even if not all saw it that way at the time), this wasn't something that really was up to interpretation.
I could say that we had a "restoration" or change in our understanding that since Priests could do Baptisms for the Living, this was extended by common sense to those of the Dead.  Yet, it is still an ordinance performed by those who are in another world, rather than in the immediate life here right now.
The question then, is this a change in doctrine, or how do we interpret it?
If ordinances are unchanging, and so regulated to the point that we must get them exactly word for word...then this is actually a pretty MAJOR deviation or change in an ordinance.  Though it does not change words per se in what was announced, it actually did FAR more, in that it changed the AUTHORITY of the one who was involved with the Ordinance itself.  It also changes the understanding of what the Priesthoods would be in relation to the World of Spirit and the Worlds beyond this one.
What qualifies as a change in doctrine and what does not?
I would postulate most things are based on things with Scripture, but when one gets to the Temple...originally I'd say what was revealed to Joseph Smith and originally written down later is the official ordinance (or we have not performed most of the ordinances we said we have because it was not correct)?
With things beyond scripture, it can be tough to determine what is and what is not...doctrine.  How then, would one define such things?

Hope that your knickers are not in a twist! (Only uk expression that I know! So proud to summon this up!)

Thread title demands cat picture.
 
 

Funny how when it comes to wearing a firearm at church, this seems so totally rational. But when it comes to wearing a colored shirt, it's completely rebellious.

I am put off that so many people consider just day to day living requires a firearm to feel safe.
 
I have plenty of examples of language mix ups and we tease each other about using "English"  but at least we can all agree on dismissing the metric system and measure distance and speeds in miles