NeuroTypical

Happy neighbors and no disputes may not sell houses, but angry neighbors and the prospect of legal fees and fighting will sure the heck NOT sell your house. I once paid a lawyer $100 for this advice - I'll give it to you for free. Go knock on her door with a big smile on your face, explain the situation politely and kindly, admit that you honestly don't know what to do about it, and see what happens. Maybe the two of you can work out a deal. You have ok chances that she isn't exactly looking forward to angry neighbors and fighting either.

What horrible lies are being told in this thread? I'm ashamed of y'all for believing such nonsense as Santa Claus not being real. The truth is that I'm Santa Claus. I have been telling my kids so for at least 3-4 years now, but they still won't believe me.

Hey bristleconesky, just whatever you do, please, PLEASE don't call me 'sir'. It happened to me a few years back and I'm still reeling. By way of advice, if you're all bent out of shape that you're not 25 any more, 40 is gonna blindside you like nothing you've ever seen before.

Well again, anne, I carry concealed, which means you wouldn't know one way or the other. Maybe you could explain what would cause you to complain? I still don't see any differences in my life coming from your trust or lack thereof, your objections or lack thereof, even if we had daily face-to-face interaction with each other. I mean, if I was coming to your house or business I wouldn't carry out of respect for your desires, but then again I don't carry in homes of people I know anyway. But any other place on earth where we would interact, I'm bound by conceal carry laws - not by a fellow citizen's trust or objections. And since I do it right, my fellow citizens don't know one way or the other.

I'm trying to figure out just exactly how my life would be different if you did trust me with my gun...

Interesting website. Don't expect it to fly with mormons any time soon, but maybe someday.I know quite a bit about the New Life Church shooting, and my family is on that campus at least weekly for much of the year. I'd love to be able to discuss their current situation with someone else with ties. Do you know Carl Chinn, or are you just a visitor to his website?

1. Remind the offenders that this is a place of worship and private property, and ask them to keep quiet. If they continue being disruptive, call the sheriff.Ditto.Well, BrendaM, I'd like to ask you the same things I asked Vort:I'm trying to visualize what this scenario looks like. Could you walk me through it? Does the bishop just make a sort of general announcement over the pulpit, and hope the sound carries over the crashing and screams? Or does he leave his seat and chase them from room to room, saying "please keep quiet"?

I would like to share a mindset that my family has developed, which has helped me reduce the amount of anxiety and fear in my and my family's minds regarding guns.There is no such thing as a "gun accident" or an "accidental shooting". The words are false - they lie about what really happened. There are only negligent discharges and negligent shootings. Those 500 kids a year were not accidents, they were mostly a result of parents who were negligent in their duty to keep firearms away from innocent children. The yearly accidental shootings are not accidental - someone failed in their basic duty to not point a loaded weapon at someone and pull the trigger. If you consider guns from a 'negligent vs. responsible steward' standpoint, then you can look at yourself and see what side of the line you currently fall on. Responsible gun ownership demands that one develop a list of habits - locking or otherwise securing your weapon, always treating it as loaded, proper finger/trigger placement, safe carrying, not to mention ability to use it effectively. And especially mindset that would allow you to use it effectively if necessary. There's a world of difference between saying to yourself "I don't want one of those scary, dangerous guns in my house" and "I don't have the skills, habits, equipment, and mindset necessary to be a responsible gun owner." The first thing basically means that you are at the mercy of the gun - nothing you can do will ever make there not be scary dangerous guns. The second thing is a worldview you can act on. You can choose to develop those attributes.

Oh, I'd figure that maybe 75-90% of American mormons are right of center to one extreme or another. In Utah, President Clinton came in third in his re-election race - behind Bush and Perot.But there's a difference between holding the (correct) impression that mormons in general are not pacifists, and assuming those who refuse to defend thenselves have contempt for the gift of life God has granted them. I don't see how you can make that claim. "Think the police are there to protect you? Guess again. [...] They are there to draw the chalk outline around your dead body." That's not cop bashing? What would you consider cop bashing?

I can't fathom it either, but there's no reason to jump to such a negative conclusion, UserName. The BoM record of the people of Ammon a.k.a. Anti-Nephi-Lehis for example, had made a covenant with God to do no more harm even at the cost of their lives. It's pretty dang clear that their choice was not only righteous and good, but great miracles were brought to pass. They refused to defend themselves, not out of contempt for the gift of life, but out of a need to repent for their past lives and submit totally to the will of God. I figure folks may have other reasons too that don't fall into the realm of 'contempt for the gift of life'. I've known enough cops personally to disagree with you here. And getting paid to color with chalk? It might sound slightly appealing, but I can't see many people finding fulfillment with it for very long. I'm thinking you might benefit by getting to know a few cops on a personal level, or maybe going through a citizen's academy if one is offered in your area. It might give you a more charitable outlook as to why they do and don't do things.I'm pretty much in agreement with most everything else you have to say though.

I'm not the ward clerk. The guy in question did live at my house 12 years ago for a few months. I think my answer was good - yes, his mom can help them, and yes, they should already have her number if they are who they say they are.

I just took a call on my cellphone from an 801 area code - 240 prefix. What do you think? Church or deceit?

"Who is this 'America' of which you speak? We are the Confederated Federatory Entity of Southern Canada!, and we don't go into debt." News at 11.

Here is a pretty good way to visualize the sheer quantities we're talking about. xkcd: Money

Well, maybe. It is a mishmashy hodgepodge of state, county, and local laws, as well as the training of the cop, and possibly how upset or influential the person is who is reporting.In CC circles, when your concealed firearm makes a visible outline or bulge that people can see, you hear terms like "imprinting" or "tentpoling".. I don't think there are any rules or laws using those terms. There are, however, often laws against "brandishing", where you display your firearm in a threatening manner. It is possible to "brandish" both concealed and unconcealed firearms. And, depending on local wording of the law, training and past experience of the responding law-enforcement, how a report came in, and how much of a dangerous jerk you're acting like, 'imprinting' or 'tentpoling' could be considered 'brandishing', depending on how it's done, or how it's percieved to be done. On top of that, you have immature people who believe the main purpose of carrying firearms is to provoke encounters with citizens and law enforcement and 'educate' them about your 'freedoms'. I don't envy cops. I try to empathize with people who would just rather not see guns in the first place. And when I legally carry, I do my best to just look like some guy and pass unnoticed.

I would refer you to the copious historical accounts of insurgencies, up to and including any non-Afghani who has ever put on a uniform and gone to Afghanistan. Heck, go watch that horrible movie Red Dawn.Disarming citizenry makes life easier for despots or tyrants. (I don't know anyone who is either, I'm just speaking in broad generalizations here.)

Sorry Sunny, could you point out someone who has "advocated war and violence" in this thread? I have missed the post(s)...

I think you missed the part about me giving someone who show up on my doorstep unannounced until the count of three before I start shooting. Maybe at some point in my life that will be how I treat everyone, but for now, I'd reserve that treatment only for monsters.Remember, in that Midgley story, he was leaving society to visit them, they were not entering society to visit him. Similar to the controlled conditions present when humans interact with Komodo dragons or male lions. I do my best to treat everyone with love. I do my best to treat the monsters I'm associated with love, while simultaneously protecting innocents from the real threat of harm posed by these folks. Does that make a bit more sense? I mean, I'm not expecting agreement here, but understanding would be nice.

Remember, same-sex marriage proponents have assured us that theirs is a quest for equal rights only. There will be absolutely no infringements or changes on our lives. We've had it shouted at us angrily - we're idiots for being afraid that two guys getting married will have any impact on our lives at all. Up next, 'hate-crime' similar legilsation that attaches additional penalties for laws broken with excessive masculinity.

Cool! With the page 2 entry of the Canadian telling us we're all crazy, this gun thread now has reached all the milestones of a standard gun thread. I now prophecy a slow descent into chaotic name-calling until finally locked by a mod. Here's your chance to prove I'm not a prophet.

Appropriate question. I suppose the best way to answer - a story from Louis Midgely: I guess that's pretty close to the best answer I can give. Note:* These people had all deeply, deeply wounded other humans, in ways that would never be repaired in this life. * They were forced to live apart, probably for three reasons - justice for their victims, for their own safety, and as a protection for possible future victims. * They were still human, desparately needing the love we are commanded to give. My wife and I add the following for the couple we know personally: * If one showed up on our property unannounced, we would assume they intend us or our children serious injury or death, and we would not think twice about pumping a few rounds into him if we continued to have a clear shot after counting to three. This answer may change once our kids are adults, but for right now, the threat is real and our stewardship is clear. I suppose I don't really expect anyone to see things in a similar light. I'm just telling you how my wife and I are choosing to go through life juggling varous commandments and stewardships that occasionally seem to be in conflict with each other.

It clarifies. Trying to treat something like something it is not, is misguided and wastes energy. Rather call things what they are, and figure out how to treat things like they deserve to be treated. Valid semantic point, I suppose. Ok, pick two terms - one to identify someone fighting the tendency, and another term to identify someone who has lost the fight on at least one occasion. I believe the two kinds of people, while both remaining sons and daughters of God, are a world apart in how they must be reacted to in the eyes of their fellow humans. They tell me love has sort of a dual nature to it. Both inward feelings and outward actions. We're urged to do the outward actions even when we don't feel the inward feelings, both because we're commanded to, and because it helps us develop the inward feelings. Look at the exact opposite of that, and you understand how I can believe such a thing. Well maybe, maybe not. We love the zoo - especially the dangerous predators. Komodo dragons are my wife's favorite. They bite you and then just slowly stroll around behind you until you collapse from the horrible infections a day later, then they eat you. My daughter likes the big cats - even the lions, the males of which kill one another for their harem, after which they will occasionally murder the children from the desposed king, and either rape, kill, or drive off any females depending on their willingness to submit to the new ruler. Ants take slaves, and treat their slaves badly.Monsters exist. Animals can't sin, so calling them one isn't a moral judgement. It's the dual nature of evil. Both inward feelings and outward acts.

It's a very simple notion for me. People who have sexually abused children, and might possibly do so again, are monsters. It's not the child's fault they are monsters. It's not my fault they're monsters. It may or may not be their fault they are monsters. Maybe they are monsters through no fault of their own, and lie completely blameless in the eyes of God - it doesn't matter. But they are monsters, and need to be treated as dangerous predators who might harm children. Because the definition of pedophile isn't some guy with a leaning or a tendency, the definition is someone who has sexually abused a child. Pretending monsters are not monsters, does nobody any good. Failure to call evil evil, is a failure. Children within your stewardship have a claim on your protection, which you have a duty to provide. Do not fail them out of some misplaced desire to help someone. Some of our brothers and sisters, some of God's children, are monsters. They are inheritors of a divine birthright. They are entitled to basic human rights. They want to love and be loved. They are also monsters. We're commanded to love everybody - even monsters. We're commanded to forgive everybody - even monsters. I don't get why this is hard.

I once heard an apostle speak to a group of Bishops and Stake Presidents on 'iffy' situations. He said follow the spirit. If the spirit isn't saying anything, and you can't point to a clear direct unambiguous violation of any of the questions, but you still figure something is very wrong - you should sign the recommend. Temple attendence is an opportunity for the member to give an accounting to God.There is an account about a bitter former mormon lady lying to get a temple recommend in order to record the ceremony and post it for the world to see. She had enough of a change of heart to go tell the bishop what she had been planning. The bishop thought and listened for a moment, and let her know that he appreciated her honesty, agreed she was not worthy to attend the temple, but the spirit did not want him to take her recommend at that time. She should keep it and think about things and come back for another meeting later. The lady telling the story years later had come fully back into the fold.

Actually, not everything said in General Conference should be considered doctrine or scripture. Consider these statements in recent GC's by our prophet: One would think if our prophets wanted us to think of every word said in General Conference as God-breathed truth, they would have used stronger terms than "prayerful attempt to impart knowledge" and such.And absolutely not - books published by individuals in the church are not doctrine, no matter who is publishing them. Individual authors bear the “sole and full responsibility” of the contents of a book. For example, "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie is not an official source of Mormon Doctrine (although he gets pretty much most of it right). Various things showed up in early editions that have been taken out of later editions. Various church leaders have taken issue with Bro. McConkie about the authoritative tone the book took, when it had not been read by the reading committee, and that the Prophet did not know anything about the book until it was published. Just one example. But whatever you've heard about us from a critical source citing that book, you're probably ok throwing it out the window.