Stargazer

I am afraid that I have to say that I don't like some of these new hymns. I'll get over it, don't worry. One of my sisters-in-law and her friend actually submitted a brand-new hymn for consideration. They still don't know if it's been accepted.

Well, we're spoiled for choice... Some astronomers estimate that there are around 200 billion trillion or 200 sextillion stars in our universe. But this number is just an estimation, and there is a lot of debate surrounding the term universe and how many stars are present in it. But, as you say, we can't see any more than about 9,000. If you could count one star per second, it would take you much longer than the current age of the universe to count them all. And then you'd still be counting, because new stars constantly come into being. Pack a lunch. A lot of lunches!

So, you're afraid of them going against church policy about information privacy and sharing that you resigned your membership? I get it. Anyway, you might as well stay on the rolls, since they seem to be leaving you alone. Which is what you want, I gather. I'm not encouraging you to resign your membership in any case. During the 9 years I served as a ward clerk, there was aware this one sister who resigned her membership. She was married to a member, and they had been inactive for many years. She was off the rolls, but her husband kept his membership, and for some reason after she was out, he started attending church again. Now, she had originally been a convert from the Catholic church, and the reason for her resignation was that her parents had been devout Catholics, and she desired to return to the Catholic church in honor of her parents (apparently they had been terribly disappointed at her becoming a "Mormon" back in the day -- but they had both passed by this point). Problem was, after she went back she didn't find the spirituality that she was hoping for, that she thought she had remembered. Several months after her resignation she came to see our bishop, possibly at the recommendation of her husband, and she started the process of rejoining the Church. After a year she was back, and then a year after that they went to the temple and were sealed as husband and wife (something that they had not done earlier). They went on with their lives, which since they were in the 70s, weren't all that much longer. But they testified to their dying days of their re-awakening in the Gospel. So, you never know. Stay in, and who knows what might happen? Have you heard the story of Dusty Smith, who from time to time has been a member of this august board? You're new, so you probably haven't. Here's his story:

I watched this. I was rather impressed by it, actually. But you seem to have hung your hat on the most negative aspect you could find. The video was produced by LDS Philanthropies, and told the story of a particular family, the Mellors, who seemed to be of great financial means. The father of the family did say that if a child of his went off the rails he would not feel it advisable to give them a large inheritance, due to the experiences of others who had landed their adult children with large inheritances, and due to their lifestyles those inheritances had brought nothing but ruin to them. He said that in that case he would prefer to give his money to charity rather than to his wayward children. A friend of his had suggested a path that involved creating a family charitable foundation funded by the Mellor's wealth, with him, his wife, and his children as trustees. They decide together on an ongoing basis where the money should go, and I got the impression that a portion of that would go to LDS Philanthropies. The children also contribute a portion of their own funds to the foundation, so that they have a "stake" in it. And of course you've hung your hat on the Dad saying he would withhold an inheritance from a child because the child had rejected the teachings of the church and was no longer living according to its moral principles. How horrible! How dare the Dad say this! Note that the Church didn't say that was what members should do. It was what this one apparently quite rich person has decided to do. Of course you choose to interpret this as advice from the Church. Which might be why this video was withdrawn from the Philanthropies website, because people with hair-trigger anti-Mormon sentiments found the fault you have. No doubt you've heard stories of people who win big in lotteries, and a few years later are worse off than they were before. Do you seriously think that a loving father should gift a large sum of money to one of his children, knowing that the child is likely going to turn that instant wealth into a black hole that will suck him in? Even gifting it in installments can cause irreparable damage. The problem is UNEARNED WEALTH. And if a parent does not believe that his or her child cannot handle wealth, should that parent give the child that wealth anyway? Do you remember Publishers Clearing House and their large awards, some of which could be taken as "lifetime" installments? Some of those who took the "lifetime" award instead of a lump sum are not faring very well with their unearned wealth once PCH has gone bankrupt. Check it out:

Interesting bet. But I don't think you know what you're talking about. Stay away long enough and you will forget everything. I've been in a few bishoprics (usually as ward clerk) and I happened to know that a member or two had asked to be removed from church records. Do you know how I knew? Because their name was no longer listed in the membership roster. The bishop didn't even tell me, as the ward clerk. One of my sons married a girl belonging to one of the breakaways from the old Worldwide Church of God. My daughter in law complained to me that they were "constantly" getting visited by members of the local ward (an exaggeration, probably), and wanted to know how to stop it. I told her that she should tell them to stop coming by (evidently they were actually doing home teaching, instead of whatever it was you were getting), or if it was still a problem he could write a letter to his bishop and asked to have his name removed. Which he did. And guess what? I never got notified! His bishop must have been really sloppy about it. From what you self-report here, you seem to be in a Utah ward, or in a very LDS-dense area. And everybody is in everyone else's business. As it turns out, most of the rest of the church live in the "mission field." I'm surrounded by non-members. The nearest member lives two miles away from me. I have to drive for 20 minutes to get to church. And the Church is not a surveillance state, unlike what some people seem to think. And now I'm curious. Why haven't YOU resigned your membership? Still a believer? You don't have to answer, obviously.

Not a self-starter, then, I guess. The point of tithing settlement is to give you a chance to declare your tithing status. "Hi, brother Notatbm, are you a full, part, or non-tithepayer?" If you don't show up, the bishop takes his best guess. It's a voluntary service for tithe-payers, not a Church Revenue Service investigation, for crying out loud. I've served in callings that deal with church donations. Security of tithing funds is taken very seriously. Tithing settlement is an opportunity to make sure that what you have paid in matches what the church has recorded what you have paid in, and to make whatever adjustments are needed. It also gives you the opportunity to make sure the bishopric isn't skimming your donations so they can go on a tithing-fueled vacation in Cancun. I was once the home teacher of a family whose husband had been excommunicated because, as ward clerk, he had skimmed off donations for his own use. Although he could have been prosecuted civilly, the church didn't take that route. He was gradually paying the pilfered funds back. And looking forward to the day when he could be rebaptized and have his temple blessings restored. I don't care, either, if someone visits or not. When I've been ill, however, I do get offers of priesthood blessings. But they wouldn't know to bring that up, except that in my calling I need to keep people aware of if I'm going to be there or not. So they find out. Funny thing, I've never heard anyone bragging about ministering or home teaching. Did you used to hear people doing that? One thing that I find improved about ministering: no longer having to feel like a failure because you have to monthly report about the people you didn't visit. I have five families on my ministering list. I only ever visit two of them, and those two my companion and I keep watch over because they are elderly and not in good health. The other three are always there. For some reason I haven't been asked to minister to any less actives. Shall I come over to visit you occasionally then? I'm in England. Church of England service attendance is quite low. There's 23 million baptized members, and they are pleased to report a "surge" in attendance at church lately, by 1.5%. It's now 693,000 average weekly attenders. That's like 3%. Evangelical churches in England are doing better, I think, but finding stats is a bit difficult. Our own stake has ward and stake parties, dinners, and firesides. My old stake in Washington state was very socially active, too. I get the impression that your stake is dead. So perhaps you shouldn't judge the entire church based on your apparently exceptional part of it.

Here's the funny thing about that. Most if not all of the notional 75% you cite don't seem to want to leave the church's membership rolls. You think they should be forced out. Maybe the Savior would disagree. When I was flying home from my mission in Germany in 1974) I spoke with the purser on board the PanAm 747 I was flying in. He happened to be a member of his ward's 70s quorum in his stake in Seattle. In the discussion he mentioned that he was involved in a pilot program in his stake that sent representatives to long-inactive members offering them easy way out of the Church, since they didn't seem to be interested. Surprising fact: virtually nobody wanted out. My late wife's excommunicated husband maintained to his dying day that he was still a Mormon, regardless of his actual membership status as "Not a Member."

I'm sure if you complained to your elders quorum president that nobody's visiting you, you'd start getting more attention. Or do you emit one of those "Don't you dare visit me!" force fields to scare them all off? Before ministering came along, and except when my HP group leader was my home teacher while my wife was in the process of dying, I hadn't been home taught for years. With ministering I've never been visited under that program. Even though one of my ministering brothers is the EQ president. But then again I'm there every Sunday, so maybe he isn't so worried about me. As it turns out, I don't particular care about being visited. If I need something, I know who to call (and it's not Ghostbusters).

I didn't attend church for three years once upon a time, even though I was a believer. Mainly because I was a teenager, the only member in my family, a member for only eight months when we moved to a completely new area, didn't know where the meeting house was located, and hadn't enough initiative at the time to make a concerted effort to find out. Yep, they should have excommunicated me. In one of my mission cities in Germany there was a branch member who only attended church if his wife kicked his heinie that day, and always sat there sullen and grumpy. In the six months I was assigned to that branch, I saw him there about twice, but his obvious displeasure was memorable. Next time I met him, guess where it was? In Provo at a mission reunion during General Conference a few years later. He was the bishop of the now ward. And you could feel the Spirit radiating from him. Yep, he should have been excommunicated during his "rebellious" years. Are you aware of the Parable of the Lost Sheep? Or, in your rejection of the Church, have you forgotten that every sheep is precious to the Shepherd? The parable ends with the shepherd rejoicing having found the lost one. I'm sure some of his friends laughed at him for spending all that time and effort looking for the lost one when he had 99 perfectly good sheep right where he wanted them. As for the bad sheep, well, I seem to recall that Jesus chose Judas to be one of his Apostles, and imagine that, he betrayed Jesus to His death! Jesus should perhaps have realized early on that Judas was a bad seed and kicked him out. But no, he was permitted to remain -- possibly because the Savior wanted to save him, even at risk of betrayal. You seem to think that the Church is omniscient when it comes to its members. It isn't. And what if it were? There'd be directives coming down every week from Salt Lake City directing bishops and stake presidents to excommunicate every member who had looked on a woman (or man) lustfully that week -- since that's tantamount to committing adultery -- or whatever little thing unworthy of a member. And by the end of the year, there'd be nobody left to attend church, probably including every official in the Church, and every Church employee. The guy that distracted police from the shooter will face man's justice, and then church discipline, because now it is known that he is a participant in child sex porn. If I don't misremember, that is an automatic membership revocation offense.

Upon completion of US Army training at Ft. Gordon, Georgia (now Fort Eisenhower), on my way to Europe for assignment I stopped at the Washington DC temple early in the morning and was baptized, confirmed, and endowed for my father who had died four years before. Sealing of my parents and my sealing to them occurred much much later, but as I was there from the opening of the temple to the closing (about 15 hours) I could have gotten all the sealings done as well. Unfortunately I didn't have all the data I needed -- this was 1980 when the information was not at one's fingertips unless one had thought ahead (which I hadn't). Incidentally, I was working against my father's explicit instructions not to have him baptized after he died. Sorry, Dad, I'll apologize when next I meet you. But hopefully he won't mind by then.

Maybe! I suppose I'm going down the wrong trail. The temple garment thing is well under the radar. But not of course DJT. As for him, he didn't create the image, but certainly posted it. And he gets a very hefty level of outrage no matter what he does, so there's that, too. Hardly comparable for statistical purposes. Nobody cares about temple garment mockery except us. And possibly some of us don't care either.

I heard far more outrage about DJT in papal robes than were ever generated by those mocking LDS temple garments. Perhaps more people saw Pope DJT than the temple garments. Who are the double standard havers? I don't know them by name. But they're out there. If that's too vague for you, I apologize. Of course I could be completely wrong, and nobody has a double standard. Perhaps the ones upset about papal robes are or would be equally upset with temple garments.

Perhaps you're right about how Catholics feel about this. But the mainstream press and the anti-Mormons out there react far more peacefully about how Catholic vestments are treated in a mocking way than they do about Latter-day Saint sacred things. That's my point. Mock LDS garments and everyone sniggers and chuckles. Mock the Pope by putting DJT in papal vestments and Oh! The Horror! Edited to add: I apologize for getting into this. My feelings about another very serious matter are currently spilling over into this and every other area. I need to chill out.

Didn't say that, did I? I brought Catholics in only for the Papal robes thing, so as to compare and contrast. I don't believe that papal robes have quite the degree of sacredness among Catholics as LDS garments. Given the number of caricatures of popes in their robes that have been publicized for centuries, I think that's pretty reliable. Here's Mr. Bean as the new pope. Did you see the furor at this caricature? No, well of course not. Everyone loves Mr. Bean. But the current US president cannot be allowed any leeway at all -- now matter who drew his papal caricature.

It's the same thing as "Experts say..." or "Scientists say..." It's perfectly likely that it was just something their office manager's second cousin said something at a party after five margaritas.

There were those who got all bent out of shape when the current US president was caricatured in Papal robes. But they're perfectly OK with mocking others. Pot calling the kettle something...

I used my screen capture software to get it:

This is from the YouTube channel "Metatron's Academy" (he has a main channel, "Metatron"). He evaluates the phrasing, vocabulary, and accent of Br. Woodruff in this "talking machine" recording. The recording he comments upon was originally posted by another YouTube channel, "Life in the 1800s," which he credits and includes a link for in the video's description. Metatron is a native Italian (probably Catholic) who lives in the United States. In talking about the recording, he mentions LDS specific scriptures, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenant and Pearl of Great Price. He also explains Wilford's use of the term "endowment" as a temple ordinance. One thing about this guy, he is one of the most thorough commentators about whatever subject he speaks about. He's a bit of a polyglot, too. Besides Italian and English, he also speaks Japanese, and I think he is conversant in Arabic. Anyway, here's the video:

I almost met her back in 2017, when my brother and I and our wives passed through her hometown at the time, Lincoln City, OR, on the day that lovely solar eclipse passed through the US. Unfortunately, I hadn't planned on being there that day and hadn't made any advance arrangements (we were wandering around aimlessly) and she wasn't available.

I don't think he was saying they were dishonest. On the other hand, if one defines dishonesty to include doing something the government forbids, then I guess it would be dishonest. Just like using an extended definition to exclude from being Christian any church that doesn't believe the "approved" doctrine. To the Chinese government, in fact to any Communist government, any religion other than the religion of the State is a threat or potential threat to the governments. By definition. Yep. One of the Beijing LDS branches was shut down by the government using the pretext of accepting donations not according to regulations. Supposedly. As I understand it, the Church has been trying to get legal status in China for a long time, but that status has not been granted.

The internet is China is very closely monitored by the State.

It seems to be only affecting Beijing so far. In a comment to that Ward Radio video I posted above, a Shanghai member said: "@cinnamondan4984 - I am a member in Shanghai. So far have not seen the issues discussed first hand but I can say we will get more millage moving forward obeying the Church’s council on how to engage China rather than smuggling in a crate of BOMs. And if anyone wants to do that because they have nothing to lose then remember people like my wife and kids refrain. My wife is Chinese and due to her father committing a bank robbery and skipping town in 1998 my wife is travel banned until they find him…and it feels like they never will. She is fortunate to have the gospel and the fellowship of the saints in her life though. Our kids can stay by us and be raised in a wonderful branch. I would advise people to think of us before trying to hand out a BOM to the local. We are grateful to just have our local branch…and at times like this its existence hangs in the balance." He mentioned the handing out of BoM copies because Jonah Barnes suggested that was a worthy activity if one had nothing to lose. One thing I noticed while doing a Meetinghouse Locator search is that only foreigner-serving branches in mainland China outside of Hong Kong are shown. Within Hong Kong, both kinds are shown. So I suspect that Hong Kong members are not having this problem. So far.

Something from Christrian Broadcast Network (CBN) about this:

Ignore. Just testing something

Well, that's nice. I shall surely take advantage. In the past when I actually had enough deductions to itemize, short of an audit there was still no requirement to prove one had actually donated to charity. Cheating in the past was extremely easy, and as long as you kept your cheating within reasonable limits it was unlikely to get triggered based on that alone. But I believe that the IRS would compare your claimed charitable giving with "reasonability" standards. Or so said some "authorities." There is always room for cynicism when it comes to taxation.