NeuroTypical

Hi Finrock, I'd refer you to the Elder Oaks "Judge Not" and Judging link I gave. He lays out seven ingredients or principles of a righteous judgement. I just mentioned two. I'd also remind you I prefaced my comments with this:

I'm not arguing for inaction. I'm arguing for righteous judgement, and keeping the commandment to love thy neighbor. Please don't mistake my light-heartedness for light-mindedness. Of course this is serious stuff. Maybe you do end up taking decisive action of some kind here. Elder Oaks' article is very relevant to figuring this out.

It's not that I'm disagreeing with a lot of what is being said here. I guess I just know a pile of sinners who ought to be ashamed of themselves, and I've figured out how to love them like I'm commanded to. So it's easier to not get all hot under the collar when I hear some story online. BTW, this article is a great roadmap to figuring out what to do when stuff like this happens: “Judge Not” and Judging - Elder Dallin H. Oaks

I get a kick out of thinking of Apostles being regular folk. Because they are, but nobody believes it. I once attended a meeting where an apostle spoke to us, and it was a point he tried hard to get across. He claimed his calling really wasn't that much different than our other callings in the church. Maybe more of a time requirement, and certainly one that required him to argue with people demanding receipts from him. As one or two people were getting choked up just being in his presence, he asked us to consider something. If we saw something in him that we had never seen before - some great spiritualness or wisdom or something - that only meant that maybe we hadn't availed ourselves of the full blessings of discipleship in our own lives, and he invited us to do so. Then he quipped about submitting receipts.

This falls under "here, let me stop working on my sins so I can talk to you about yours". Of course it was dishonest and wrong. Judging actions are easy - assuming you have your facts straight. But a few questions to consider before judging the people involved: Think of stewardships - do you have any in this matter? You cannot judge a righteous judgement without stewardship to do so. You've now discovered something about someone. You say "the family", but do you know all the details? Did they hold a family counsel? Is there shared guilt by inaction? Are they weak and easily manipulated? Or are they weak in understanding or keeping covenants? Were they intentionally mocking God? You can't judge a righteous judgement if you don't have all the facts - and insight into their motivations and contents of their heart are necessary. What do you do? I dunno. You say 'close friend' - maybe you ask them what they were thinking? Show up with a big smile and say "I've given into temptation on a lot of stuff over my life, but I've gotta admit that smuggling a Catholic into the temple hasn't really hit my radar until now. Tell me all about it!" If you find out, then you'll know a bit more about how someone else struggles with doing the right thing. Maybe it would give you some ideas on how to be their friend in more useful ways.

What about the Taliban gunmenYes, Flavius, we are to be merciful and forgiving of them too. Do you disagree?From where I'm standing, mercy and forgiveness does not automatically equal removing consequenses of actions. Sometimes it equals hastening or providing the consequenses.

I guess the only thing I have left to say, besides reiterating my suggestion to watch Signs again, is to remind you that you have a duty and responsibility to your wife and children, which does not go away in or out of the church, happy or unhappy with God. I can't really do much about your pain, but I can remind you to do the husband and father jobs you've promised to do. If you think long and hard about how best to do them, I'm guessing you'll have your answer about whether to stay in the church or not. Excellent movie. If you recall, they had pretty given up on life and humans when the boy came into their lives. The realization that they had stewardship over him and a responsibility to him, kept them in the game for another two decades. They had all their crotchety old man gripes about their sorry situations and how they didn't ask for this, yet set about raising the boy. I figure they made the right decision.At the very least, we'll know where to bury you.

Your wife is PC's mom?Nah. But I'd bet real dollars that if she and PC met in real life for an hour, he would go away better at his job in some way, with some new insights into the hearts and souls of those he ministers to. (Mind you, I'm sure PC is already great at his job already - I'm not saying he's lacking in anything. I'm just saying my wife is one of the greats when it comes to seeing a person's soul, and she has some ability in sharing her talent with others.)

Does that mean we'll probably never know the logic behind the calling?If you see either of them again, I trust you'll ask them for an update and let us all know.

Well, I usually say that the only good reason to be a mormon, is you believe God wants you to. But I suppose in your case, it seems that you might not think God is all He's cracked up to be in the first place. The deity you envision isn't really the one we believe we have. Yours is closer to what the Greeks and Romans had - distant and impersonal, consumed by selfishness. Not the benevolent Father LDS believes in. Dunno. I also don't know what impact such revelations might have on your wife and children. You mention being inactive for 8 years - maybe not a big impact.Have you watched the movie Signs with Mel Gibson? If not, I'd suggest it. They say it's about aliens - but it really isn't. That's all I got - sorry. Faith is one of the first principles for a reason - you seem to have lost yours. I wish you and your family well as you move through this issue.

I suppose his extensive criminal background and obvious status as unprovoked home-invader made lawyers unwilling to touch the case. The news article doesn't say anything about Mr. Martinez' citizenship status, but if his next of kin were not in the country, or not in the country legally, that often will mean no follow up civil case. I'm sorry the guy and his wife had to go through such a horrible thing, and I'm glad the media stopped short of naming them in the story (although the public is one google search away from looking up the address). I hope they're doing ok.

Oh, I believe your friend's account, and I have read others like it. One of the two national headlines in the last few months is like it (the father who shot the guy molesting his young daughter). But the majority of accounts I've read and the advice from my instructors seem to agree - if you are counting on the police to just automatically see that you were in the right and act accordingly, you are likely to be surprised. The police are most likely to do something very important to them - go home alive after their shift. So they err on the side of caution when it comes to handcuffing people, especially people who admit to killing someone. They also seem to be big on understanding a fuller examination of the evidence brings light not immediately available at the scene - so again they err on the side of not letting a potential murderer get away. I'd be interested to know - since this case appeared to be so obviously justified, was your friend sued in civil court by the next of kin?

Anddenex and Earl, let's walk through the process. My wife and I have taken three different classes in two states (CO and UT), and the instructors tell similar stories. If you use deadly force and figure it was justified, you should expect the police to show up not happy with you. You should expect to be handcuffed and booked into jail. You should expect to spend around $10,000 or more in out of pocket legal fees, and you will lose somewhere between a few weeks and a few years of your life as you are pushed through the legal system. Not only the criminal legal system, but also the civil legal system, because the person's next of kin will be filing civil rights violations against you as well. You will also be tried in the court of public opinion. Your relationships and friendships will all change, as everyone you know (or thought you knew) will develop new opinions about you, many of which you will disagree with. You can expect most of this to happen to you, regardless of whether your case actually makes it to trial or not. If it makes it to trial, you'll then proceed to either be found guilty of something or not. The stuff you guys are arguing impact this last phase of the experience.

I named both my kids after StarTrek characters.

My daughters have this power over me, on occasions when they exercise this power. On other occasions, they're part of the 'anything else'. :)There are events that preclude happiness, and it is just not to be found for a while. To force happiness in these cases, would be to engage in lightmindedness, or mock sacred things.

What these guys said.

Well, of course. The problem is, those three bits of knowledge can be very, very hard to come by in real life. How do you know someone is unarmed? They could have something hidden. How do you know someone is not posing a threat? Wandering around in your bedroom at night and refusing to back off doesn't exactly yell "I'm not a threat". How do you know someone is only trespassing alone? You are not a mind reader - you don't know their intentions.Maybe someday someone will invent a way to get hindsight before the event. Until then, we make our decisions and live with the consequences. Three decisions: 1. Take no action besides talking/shouting/calling cops. - Intruder is nonviolent, everything is fine. - Intruder is violent, and harms you or spouse or kids. 2. Take action which is not likely to seriously injure/incapacitate intruder - Intruder is nonviolent and does not become violent, everything is fine. - Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action works, everything is fine. - Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action does not work , you/spouse/kids are harmed. - Intruder is violent, but your action works, everything is fine. - Intruder is violent, but your action does not work, you/spouse/kids are harmed. 3. Take decisive action which is likely to injure/incapacitate intruder. - Intruder is nonviolent and does not become violent, action works, get judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20. - Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action works, get judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20, but you/spouse/kids are safe. - Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action does not work, you/spouse/kids are harmed, and you are judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20. - Intruder is violent, but your action works, everyone is safe, you are judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20. - Intruder is violent, but your action does not work, you/spouse/kids are harmed, you are judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20. Ok - quickly - you woke up at 3am and have 2 seconds to make your decision. Quick! What is it! Do you have the faintest idea how to be effective with 2 or 3 in the first place?

My wife deals with such matters in my house, and I'm grateful for her guidance on the issue. From her standpoint, a kid has an absolute right to feel what they're feeling. That does not mean they have absolute rights to act on feelings any way they happen to see fit at the time. She and I both come from less-than-ideal childhoods where we were taught to surpress or force away our emotions. We figure that's as unhealthy as giving free reign to screaming 'I hate you' and chucking stuff. You learn to accept and deal with strong emotions.

Btw, moving 663.8 miles away from her parents, was one of the greatest decisions my wife and I ever made together. She did not agree with that statement for several years. Nowadays, she believes it more strongly than I ever did. A lot of problems occasionally just solve themselves by sticking a big honkin' mountain range in between you and some other people.

Something to make clear: Drunk girls can kill people too. The police chief of my local small town tells a story. Over his many decades of service, he had handcuffed hundreds, maybe thousands of suspects and taken them into custody. On one of these instances, he was injured by the handcuffed suspect. She was a 14 year old underweight girl who lifted herself up and almost kicked his kneecap off.

It all depends on the situation. If I see some drunk girl stumbling around my living room crashing into bookcases, no, of course you don't shoot her. If I hear someone breaking and entering my home at night, then Castle/Stand-your-ground doctrine, as well as common sense, all dictate that I can assume the likelyhood that someone intends serious harm to me and mine, and I can react with the level of force I am certain will stop the threat.

Yep - you and your husband present a unified front. Whatever you and hubby , it's your decision and if mom has a problem, she can be the grandma that always calls him Ted or something. Not the end of the world. Be grateful that grandpa wasn't named Florian or Ariel or Rory or some such.

It's important to know the context. It's written there in the chapter entitled "Entertainment and the Media". The counsel there is specifically given to folks trying to figure out what sort of entertainment to seek. If you find it entertaining to watch your fellow humans beat each other up, you may want to rethink some things about what you find entertaining and why.That said, the earth is a violent place and humans are violent people. Preparing to live in a violent world and identify and deal with violence should it come your way is, at least in my opinion, part of reasonable preparation for our mortal journey. From that standpoint, participating or watching stuff like MMA and whatnot is not about entertainment to me. In other words, I take my kids to krav maga classes and they learn how to kick bad guy groins. This is not for anyone's entertainment, and we're not (in my opinion) going against any counsel in the Strength for the Youth Pamphlet.

I am not really arguing, but that way of summing things up doesn't really help me the most. The commandment is to love thy neighbor, not love them for who they are. It seems maybe a fine point, if 'who they are' is a son or daughter of God with a divine birthright and potential. And of course we're commanded to judge in certain ways and on certain occasions. Vort wasn't asking what we have to do. He was asking for examples of how other folk forgive and love a certain kind of sinner - specifically "those who have betrayed their covenants to be a brother to you -- who claim the title of Latter-day Saint even while they mock and disparage the prophets and those who follow them". It is interesting to think about forgiveness and charity. You can't forgive someone unless you have something to forgive them for. You can't arrive at that conclusion without making a judgement. So when it comes to forgiveness, you can't act in charity without first passing righteous judgement. Anyway, some folks are very hard to love, and viewing them as we wish they were, as they can be, as they will be if they attain salvation, often helps me and my wife. Amen to that.

One of the original soundbytes from al-Qaeda's recruiting efforts, was to call the US a paper tiger - fierce and strong looking, but all just for show. One of the baddies will now face US justice. I guess he'll find out first hand if the soundbyte is true or not, won't he.