Intro

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related. No insults or personal attacks allowed. Rated G.
User avatar
latterdaytemplar
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:06 pm
Location: St George, UT, USA
Contact:

Intro

Post by latterdaytemplar »

Hi there everyone. I'm new to the forum and I thought that I would introduce myself. Hopefully this is the correct place to do so. If not, then I apologize.

I grew up in Indiana/Tennessee and currently live in Utah (been here for almost 10 years now).

I come from a Latter-day Saint family. My dad's side comes from pioneer ancestry; my mom's family is from Kentucky. I was an adult Sunday School teacher up until a few days ago when I moved into another ward's boundaries in-town. I served as a missionary in Mexico City North from 2010-2012.

I went to university full-time for a little while; I'm now saving up and sometimes going part-time because I don't want to accrue any more debt from student loans.

I currently preside over the local Masonic Lodge (about halfway through my term).

I'm not sure what other information to share here. I'm excited to be here, to learn about other peoples' views, and to share mine if/when applicable.

(I realize that my profile picture takes away from my anonymity; I knowingly present enough information here for people to find out who I am.)
"… Behold, we will end the conflict."
—Captain Moroni (Alma 44:10)

Whatever conflicts that you come across in life, they can be beaten. Adopt Captain Moroni's attitude: be of the disposition to end the conflict, and then act on that disposition.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Intro

Post by huckelberry »

Latterdaytemplar, a welcome to you. You sound more of a believing Latter Day Saint than most of the people posting here but that definitely does not mean you are not welcome, you are welcome but need to be forewarned.There is some variety of attitudes towards the church here but hostile and angry is certainly a part. We actually enjoy discussion from different viewpoints.
User avatar
latterdaytemplar
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:06 pm
Location: St George, UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Intro

Post by latterdaytemplar »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:55 am
Latterdaytemplar, a welcome to you. You sound more of a believing Latter Day Saint than most of the people posting here but that definitely does not mean you are not welcome, you are welcome but need to be forewarned.There is some variety of attitudes towards the church here but hostile and angry is certainly a part. We actually enjoy discussion from different viewpoints
Thank you huckelberry. Yes, I do come from a more believing/faithful point-of-view. I did notice that some here have adversarial points-of-view against the Church, but I appreciate the warning nonetheless.

I hope that I can contribute some worthwhile conversation here. I hope that it's okay that I might also spend some time just reading at times; I'd rather just read along in various instances, especially where I might not have much or any relevant or substantial input.
"… Behold, we will end the conflict."
—Captain Moroni (Alma 44:10)

Whatever conflicts that you come across in life, they can be beaten. Adopt Captain Moroni's attitude: be of the disposition to end the conflict, and then act on that disposition.
User avatar
latterdaytemplar
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:06 pm
Location: St George, UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Intro

Post by latterdaytemplar »

By the way, huckelberry, I love your username. I'm not sure if it is a reference to the movie Tombstone at all, but I happen to be wearing this t-shirt right now.
"… Behold, we will end the conflict."
—Captain Moroni (Alma 44:10)

Whatever conflicts that you come across in life, they can be beaten. Adopt Captain Moroni's attitude: be of the disposition to end the conflict, and then act on that disposition.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Intro

Post by huckelberry »

latterdaytemplar wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:13 am

I hope that I can contribute some worthwhile conversation here. I hope that it's okay that I might also spend some time just reading at times; I'd rather just read along in various instances, especially where I might not have much or any relevant or substantial input.
Latterdaytemplar, I find I have a question for you. It was quite some time ago when I was last active so some memories may be inexact. I find myself thinking or remembering people having some uncertainty about the appropriateness of LDS individuals participating in Masonry. I do not think there was a rule and it is possible that uncertainty was a local thing. I do not know church policy if there is any on the matter.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Intro

Post by huckelberry »

latterdaytemplar wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:16 am
By the way, huckelberry, I love your username. I'm not sure if it is a reference to the movie Tombstone at all, but I happen to be wearing this t-shirt right now.
Nothing against the movie but I am connected to a young man going down the Mississippi whose spelling is shaky.
msnobody
Priest
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:35 pm

Re: Intro

Post by msnobody »

I would just echo what Huckleberry said, and say, welcome. Regardless of our varying views, I think we, for the most part, think of one another as our online family.
And he made from one man every nation of mankind… having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 4573
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Intro

Post by canpakes »

.
Welcome, latterdaytemplar!
User avatar
latterdaytemplar
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:06 pm
Location: St George, UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Intro

Post by latterdaytemplar »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:52 am
Latterdaytemplar, I find I have a question for you. It was quite some time ago when I was last active so some memories may be inexact. I find myself thinking or remembering people having some uncertainty about the appropriateness of LDS individuals participating in Masonry. I do not think there was a rule and it is possible that uncertainty was a local thing. I do not know church policy if there is any on the matter.
The short answer to what you bring up here is that the Church does not have any doctrine or policy specifically proscribing participation in Freemasonry.

I wanted to get that out of the way because my full answer is somewhat of a novel.

There have been bans against members of the Church becoming Masons at one point; however, those bans were imposed by the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Utah (under which jurisdiction I am a Mason today), not by the Church.

First, there had been an informal ban, particularly in the late 1800s; this was due to Latter-day Saints practicing polygamy, which was a federal crime. We Masons are charged to be obedient to the law of the land in which we reside or find ourselves, and membership in the Church would have, according to the prevailing Utah Masonic thought at the time, been seen as agreement to violate federal law, whether or not the individual Latter-day Saint was a polygamist or not. In fact, this very issue led to one Utah Mason being expelled from Freemasonry after it had been learned that he was a member of the Church:
Bro. Robert N. Baskin, Chairman of the Committee on Grievance and Appeals submitted the following report, which, upon motion, was received and unanimously adopted:

To the M∴ W∴ Grand Lodge of Utah:

ARGENTA LODGE, NO. 3
vs.
JOHN P. SORENSON.
} Expulsion.

The undersigned Committee on Grievance and Appeals, respectfully submit the following report on the above entitled case:

Charges having, on the 17th day of April, A. D. 1879, been preferred in Argenta Lodge against John P. Sorenson, and he having been afterwards duly served with a certified copy of the charges, and a summons in due form, requiring him to appear at the Hall of the Lodge at a time in such summons specified, and answer said charges, the said Sorenson failed to appear as required, either in person or by his attorney, whereupon on the day fixed for the trial of the case, counsel was appointed for the said Sorenson, and the trial proceeded with, before six commissioners duly elected to try the said Sorenson on said charges.

The specifications contained in said charges were, 1st, "That the said John P. Sorenson, a member of said Lodge, on or about the 1st day of April A. D. 1879, at the City of Salt Lake, in the Territory of Utah, did unite himself, and at this date is in full fellowship with an association of persons commonly known as the Mormon Church, whose principles and practices in Utah are in direct violation of the laws of the United States, as well as the laws of morality and common decency.

2d. "That the said John P. Sorenson, on sundry and divers occasions, at Salt Lake City, both before and since the day and year aforesaid, declared himself an advocate of the principle and practice of polygamy, and by such declaration is bringing the Institution of Masonry into disrepute, all of which acts of the said John P. Sorenson were in violation of his duties and obligations as a Mason, and to the scandal and disgrace of the Masonic Fraternity."

The commissioners, who were, Bros. John S. Scott, Albert Hagan, Jabez G. Sutherland, Obed A. Palmer, Martin K. Harkness and Moses C. Phillips, by their unanimous verdict, found the said Sorenson guilty of the acts charged in the above specifications, and all, except the said Moses C. Phillips, concurred in pronouncing the said Sorenson guilty of a Masonic offence, and passing upon him the sentence of expulsion from the Lodge, which verdict, decision and sentence, duly signed, were afterwards presented to the Worshipful Master in open Lodge, who pronounced the result and directed the Secretary of said Argenta Lodge, to record the same as the judgment of his Lodge in said case.

The trial of the said Sorenson was in all respects duly and regularly conducted.

The said Moses C. Phillips, when the proceedings of said trial were presented to the Worshipful Master of said Argenta Lodge, at the same time presented in writing the following, to wit: "The undersigned, one of the commissioners, elected to try the charges preferred against Bro. John. P. Sorenson, a member of your Lodge, dissents from the findings of the other commissioners, and begs leave to make this, his minority report, and says that it is impossible for him to find Bro Sorenson guilty of gross un-Masonic conduct, and assigns for his reasons, that specifications Nos. 1 and 2 are not sustained, as follows:

1st. "As Bro. John P. Sorenson did not appear at the trial, it is to be assumed that he actually joined the Mormon Church. While nothing appears on the record in this case, yet it is fully known that before John P. Sorenson was made a Mason he had belonged to the Mormon Church. Masonry does not forbid a member to worship or believe according to the dictates of his own conscience, but asks its votaries the distinctive believe in one God. It is not charged that John P. Sorenson averred any such disbelief, hence, whether he joined the Mormon church or any other known church, cannot be accounted to him a Masonic crime."

2d. "It cannot be sustained, as charged, that he, by joining the Mormon church, became disloyal to the Government under which he holds citizenship, as the United States Government has not as yet disenfranchised any of the believers in the Mormon doctrine, but with a knowledge of all that has been made known about that religious faith, has admitted avowed Mormons to sit among peers and law makers of this great nation."

3d. "The avowal of John P. Sorenson, as declaring himself an advocate of polygamy, does not lay him liable to Masonic punishment, unless it should be proven that he himself practiced polygamy, as the advocating of a principle does in no instance admit that the party, so advocating it, would himself practice it."

"For reasons before stated, I cannot join the Commissioners in their verdict, and consider it a dangerous precedent, as no man should be put on trial as to his religious belief, except he openly declares himself an atheist."

On the same occasion the other five commissioners presented in writing the following, to wit:

"In submitting to the Lodge the judgment in said case, the majority of the commissioners deem the case of sufficient importance to warrant them in setting forth their reasons for the action they have taken. At the outset we disclaim all intention of interfering with any Brother's religious belief, so long as he is a good Mason and true, and complies with the theological requirements demanded of him at the threshold of Masonry. We will not, as Masons, quarrel with a Brother should he even set himself up as a prophet of the Most High, provided he leads a moral and upright life, and obeys the laws of the country in which he lives; but when we see a Brother deliberately connecting himself with an institution claiming to be religious, which he and every Mason, and every intelligent citizen of the Territory knows, has for years openly encouraged and enjoined upon the members a practice in direct violation of the law of the land, and when we find a Brother upholding and sanctioning that practice, knowing it to be in violation of law, deem it our duty, apart from and without reference to our bitter abhorrence of the practice itself, degrading and productive of so much misery as it is, to place the seal of condemnation upon the act, so far as it lies in our power as Masons to do, relying upon the intelligent judgment of our Brethren throughout the Territory and civilized world to sustain us in our course. Other and cogent reasons might be adduced, satisfactory at least to the great majority of the Fraternity in this Territory, why no Brother should be permitted to retain his membership in any Lodge in this Jurisdiction, after having joined the Mormon Church organization. We deem it sufficient, however, to sustain our action, that the Brother upholds the violation of law, which the Mormon organization sustains and enjoins."

Belief in God is the only requirement imposed by Masonry, touching the opinions or creeds of its members, consequently the criminal code of Masonry does not, except in the respect just indicated, take cognizance of the mere abstract belief of its adherents, however wrong or pernicious such belief may be. But when a belief pertains to human action, of the character shown to be entertained by the said Sorenson, and it is being carried into effect by practice, it is no abstraction, and is not embraced within the scope of the case just announced. On the contrary, anything done in carrying such belief into effect, or in anyway promoting or encouraging the practice is certainly wrong and punishable by the common law of Masonry.

As the said Sorenson was not charged with disbelief in God, in order to sustain the sentence against him, it must appear that the specifications of which he has been found guilty, charge him with some overt act in violation of Masonic law, punishable by expulsion.

The evidence conclusively shows that he is guilty, as charged in the specifications, of having voluntarily joined the Mormon church, on or about the 1st day of April, 1879, and continued thereafter to affiliate therewith. There was evidence introduced at the trial, tending to show that polygamy is enjoined and upheld by the Mormon church, but the testimony, on this point, was not as full or as clear as it might or should have been. However, the view which your Committee takes of the case, renders any evidence on that point unnecessary. That polygamy is one of the principle tenets of the Mormon faith; that one of the purposes of the Mormon church organization is the promulgation and practice of plural marriage in this Territory, in defiance of the law of Congress in 1862, against polygamy, a large number of the leaders and laymen of said church, have formed and still continue to form, and live in that relation, and that the whole strength of the Mormon Church and its priesthood are being, and in the past have been, brought into requisition, not only in inducing its adherents to continue in the formation of polygamous relations, but in retarding and defeating the execution of the law against this crime, by resort to means, in many instances, both disreputable and criminal, are facts which so vitally affect and interest the community at large, and are so notoriously and universally known, as to become a part of the general history of the Territory and nation. The civil courts will take judicial notice of these facts, without the introduction of evidence to establish them.

As a general rule, Masonic tribunals are governed, but not as strictly, by the laws of evidence which prevail in civil courts. The said Sorenson having of his own free will and accord joined the Mormon church is conclusively presumed to have done so, with full knowledge of its tenets and the practices of its members, and that it was his deliberate intention to co-operate with that body in carrying out its unlawful objects. His conduct, in this regard, is not different from, or less reprehensible, than if he had joined some other association organized to commit, foster and protect any other crime, for instance, theft, arson or highway robbery. These crimes stand in the same category with polygamy, and are not less obnoxious to law.

Suppose the said Sorenson had been charged with having joined such an association, as that just named, and that on his trial by the Lodge, the evidence adduced had shown that he had joined the association, but failed to show that he had yet picked a pocket, applied a torch or gone upon the highway. Would such failure have been a valid objection against his expulsion Most certainly not. Yet such, in effect, is the objection urged, in this case, by Bro. Moses C. Phillips. Anyone who joins a conspiracy thereby makes himself an abettor in everything which is afterwards done, in carrying into effect its objects. In Masonic jurisprudence, many wrongs are punishable, which are not so by municipal law; and whether the acts of the said Sorenson are, or are not, in violation of the laws of the Territory, or general Government, makes no difference in this case. Because by joining the Mormon Church conspiracy, the said Sorenson became an abettor of those members of the Church, who have violated and are constantly violating the law against polygamy, and as such abettor is morally responsible although he may not be amenable to civil punishment. As many offenses against morals are punishable by the laws of Masonry, which are not so by municipal laws, we think the acts of which the said Sorenson has been proven and found guilty constitutes a Masonic offense, rendering him unfit to be continued in the fellowship of the Fraternity, and for which he should be promptly expelled. Congress, in permitting an acknowledged polygamist to sit in that body, is a national humiliation, which every true citizen deprecates, and which it is to be hoped for the honor and dignity of Masonry will never be followed by the Fraternity. For the reasons set forth herein, your committee recommend that the judgment of expulsion in this case be affirmed.

All of which is fraternally submitted,
ROBERT N. BASKIN,
ALEXANDER G. SUTHERLAND
HERBERT W. O. MARGARY,
Committee.[1]
A few years later, the 1890 Manifesto was canonized as doctrine within the Church (Official Declaration 1, currently at the back of D&C), proscribing any further polygamous unions amongst members of the Church. Even so, a formal ban still ended up being added into the regulations/by-laws of the Grand Lodge of Utah and lasted from 1925 until 1984. It not only banned members of the Church from being initiated in the degrees of Masonry in Utah but also members of the Church who had become Masons elsewhere prior to moving to Utah; no Latter-day Saint could enter or join a Utah Lodge, whether or not they were already a Mason. The only reasoning given was the one in this resolution presented in 1925:
To the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, F. & A. M. of Utah:

We, of your Committee on Jurisprudence, to whom was referred the resolution of Brother W. I. Snyder, relative to membership in the Mormon Church, beg leave to report, recommending the adoption of the following resolution:

WHEREAS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, is an organization, the teachings and regulations of which are incompatible with membership in the Masonic Fraternity, therefore:

BE IT RESOLVED: That a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, is not eligible to become a member of any Lodge F. & A. M., in this State, and membership in such Church shall be sufficient grounds for expulsion.

Fraternally submitted,
C. W. MORSE,
P. L. WILLIAMS,
SAMUEL PAUL,
F. C. SCHRAMM,
Of the Committee on Jurisprudence

I recommend that the above resolution not be adopted.
GEORGE H. DERN,
Of the Committee on Jurisprudence

After a full discussion, on motion, the majority report was adopted.[2]
Now, on the Church's side of the issue, many people often reference a statement made by Church spokesman Don Lefevre in 1992:
There is no specific Mormon prohibition of Masonry, but Church spokesman Don LeFevre said the Church discourages its members from joining it or similar groups.

"The Church strongly advises its members not to affiliate with organizations that are secret, oath-bound, or would cause them to lose interest in church activities," he said. "Local leaders have the autonomy to determine whether members who belong to secret or oath-bound organizations should be advanced in the priesthood or called to positions of authority."[3]
It may be that he was referencing Church President John Taylor; however, Taylor said this not about Freemasonry but rather about ritualistic, oath-bound labor unions (for example, the Knights of Labor, many members of which were present at the Rock Springs Massacre against Chinese immigrants in Rock Springs, Wyoming) that he felt were dangerous and should not be joined. He wrote the following (a mere portion of one of his addresses) in response to that event:
You have no doubt read, through the papers, an account of the terrible affair which recently occurred at Rock Springs, in Wyoming Territory. We could not help feeling a little anxiety lest some of our people should have been connected with that bloody riot, and immediately requested Brother Cluff, President of Summit Stake, to inquire into the matter. So far as we have obtained information to the present, however, we find that not more than one has been in any way mixed up with that matter, and he a person of doubtful standing. We are pleased to learn of this, because we cannot associate with any deeds so revolting and inhuman, and we take this opportunity to express our opinion on this subject to the Saints. A great number of secret societies are being formed with which we cannot affiliate. Such organizations are generally inimical to law, to good order, and in many instances subversive of the rights of man. We cannot amalgamate with them. They are very distinctly spoken against in the Book of Mormon, as among the calamities which should afflict the people.[4]
It is more likely, however, that LeFevre was referencing President Lorenzo Snow (who had been a Mason in Nauvoo and seemed to be writing from experience here; I only recently became aware of this letter):
1901 — August 29 — Circular letter — Church Historian's Library, Salt Lake City.

The same question of whether or not young men should be given recommends to go to the Temple if they had joined secret orders was raised earlier (July 9, 1896) by President Abram Hatch of the Wasatch Stake. The essential answer is the same in both cases.

"The counsel of the First Presidency in all such cases has been against our brethren joining secret organizations …"

Salt Lake City, Utah, August 29th, 1901

Prest. Angus M. Cannon and Counselors,

DEAR BRETHREN:

The following question has recently been asked us by one of our Stake Presidencies:

How strict shall we be with young men who wish to go to the temple who have united themselves with secret orders?

That our views might be known and acted upon by Presidents of Stakes generally, we send you herewith a copy of the same, as follows:

"The counsel of the First Presidency in all such cases has been against our brethren joining secret organizations, and where any of them have already done so their counsel to them is to withdraw themselves from such organizations as soon as circumstances permit and wisdom dictate.

"It is true that many of our people have been led to join some of these societies on the ground that their aims and objects are purely charitable and social in their character, and besides, inducements are held out of procuring life insurance at greatly reduced rates. But however worthy their aims and objects may be, this fact remains: They are outside the pale of the church and kingdom of God, and brethren in allying themselves with them divide their allegiance with organizations that are man-made, and which have not been devised of the Lord for the building up of Zion; and in doing this they render themselves liable to have their feelings alienated, in whole or in part, from the church which requires their all. We may say on this point, that it is the testimony of brethren who have joined organizations of this character and severed their connections with them, that their tendency is to draw away from the church; and it may be said and expected, without question, if the lines were sharply drawn between Mormon and non-Mormon, that all such organizations would be found in the ranks of our enemies, on the principle set forth in the saying of our Savior, "Those who are not for us are against us."

We understand that plausible excuses are given for joining these organization which amount to certain financial advantages which it is expected our brethren will obtain either for themselves during their lifetime or for their families, at their death. Like excuses might reasonably be given by brethren who have run after the things of the world in the hope of accumulating wealth and who, by doing so, have as a general thing made shipwreck of their faith. While we cannot consent to aught calculated to bring division and consequent weakness to the church, at the same time we have no desire whatever to deal harshly with brethren who have been led to become members of lodges or secret societies; but to all such who have faith enough to receive our advice, we would say, shape your affairs so you can withdraw from them, and never be found again associating yourselves with any organization which has not been instituted of the Lord for the building up of His Zion in the earth, and to all brethren who manifest a desire to receive this advice we would give temple recommends, also permit them to join prayer circles if found otherwise worthy.

In addition to the above we feel to direct your attention to the importance of the young men under your jurisdiction receiving proper instruction on this subject before they join secret societies; and we would suggest, instead of making this a subject for public discourse, that it be talked of at priesthood and quorum meetings.

LORENZO SNOW,
JOSEPH F. SMITH.[5]
I think that President Snow was talking from an experience of disillusionment that he and several other Latter-day Saints underwent as Masons in Illinois (although the issues that their Lodge had had there were largely the fault of the Lodge's leadership). I have not found Masonry draws me away from the Church. In fact, to prioritize my Masonic duties/obligations over those duties that I owe to God, my country, neighbor, family, or self would be considered un-Masonic.

Recently, the Church published a video in its Now You Know series, where it explicitly states that members of the Church may become Freemasons and that Freemasons may join the Church.[6]

I apologize for the length; I just wanted to provide the context behind my short answer.

____
[1] Tilford, Frank, and Christopher Diehl, editors. “Grievance and Appeals: Freemasonry Vs. Mormonism.” Proceedings of the M∴W∴Grand Lodge Free and Accepted Masons of Utah: Eighth Annual Communication, Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Utah, 1879, pp. 29–33, gwm.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/GWM~74~74~8~289554?sort=year&qvq=sort:year;lc:GWM~74~74&mi=7&trs=137.

[2] Howell, Benjamin Rogers, and Sam H Goodwin, editors. “Reports of Committee on Jurisprudence.” Proceedings of the M∴W∴Grand Lodge Free and Accepted Masons of Utah: Fifty-Fourth Annual Communication, Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Utah, 1925, p. 65, gwm.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/GWM~74~74~51~289577?sort=year&qvq=sort:year;lc:GWM~74~74&mi=52&trs=137.

[3] Scarlet, Peter. “Masons Use Service, Respect to Build Friendships.” The Salt Lake Tribune, 17 Feb. 1992, p. D1, www.newspapers.com/image/613644936.

[4] Taylor, John, et al. “Obedience to Civil and Divine Law - Epistle, October 6, 1885.” Messages of the First Presidency, III, Bookcraft, 1966, pp. 29–30.

[5] Snow, Lorenzo, et al. “Secret Orders and Organizations, August 29, 1901.” Messages of the First Presidency, III, Bookcraft, 1966, pp. 340–341.

[6] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith and Masonry | Now You Know. YouTube, Google, Inc., 18 Dec. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNjnkwJgCg.

____
EDIT: Grammar and clarification.
Last edited by latterdaytemplar on Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:56 am, edited 4 times in total.
"… Behold, we will end the conflict."
—Captain Moroni (Alma 44:10)

Whatever conflicts that you come across in life, they can be beaten. Adopt Captain Moroni's attitude: be of the disposition to end the conflict, and then act on that disposition.
User avatar
latterdaytemplar
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:06 pm
Location: St George, UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Intro

Post by latterdaytemplar »

huckelberry wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 2:10 am
Nothing against the movie but I am connected to a young man going down the Mississippi whose spelling is shaky.
Another excellent character. :)
msnobody wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:32 am
I would just echo what Huckleberry said, and say, welcome. Regardless of our varying views, I think we, for the most part, think of one another as our online family.
I hope that I can merit a favorable place here in this family. :D
canpakes wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 6:32 am
Welcome, latterdaytemplar!
Thank you! :D
"… Behold, we will end the conflict."
—Captain Moroni (Alma 44:10)

Whatever conflicts that you come across in life, they can be beaten. Adopt Captain Moroni's attitude: be of the disposition to end the conflict, and then act on that disposition.
Post Reply