Congrats! Ray Pub! It's been over 5 years for me, and I don't miss any of it!
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but the following statement surprised me:
The waning MS population is ongoing and will only trickle up to the elders #s in the future. They have raised the bar to qualify much higher over the last 10-15 years than it used to be.
How have they raised the standards for elders? Age (experience in life) has been lowered to where young guys in their late 20s are being appointed as elders. Of course some of them were appointed MS in their teens. This whole thread is about fabricating one's situation in an effort to step down from a voluntary position. WTF? It's DIFFICULT to get removed in recent years as they've LOWERED the standards so dramatically. I know of a deadbeat son, over 30 years old, can't hold a job, still sponging off of his (not elderly) parents, appointed an elder!
First to go was getting drunk. Used to be, get drunk and you were OUT! Not anymore. Now you'd have to get a DWI while in an auto accident that made the front page of the newspaper. If now one knows of the drunkeness -- or perhaps only your immediate family -- or perhaps just couple other "mature" brothers (who were drinking with you -- always helps if you only get drunk with other elders) -- then ONE elders counseling you is sufficient. He'll tell you that you need to be more cautious about your drinking. (Meaning: Don't get caught)
Recently is was PORN that went out the window for a reason to be deleted. In the past, glance at porn and you were OUT! Not anymore. Now, "soft" porn is SO COMMON that they wouldn't have any men serving if they held to that old policy. To be cause for deletion it would have to involve rape, violence, children, or other "abhorrent, sexually degrading content". Inviting others over to view increases the punishment level -- just like drinking, it's NOT that you do it.....it's only if OTHER PEOPLE KNOW YOU DO IT.
You can be caught stealing, and if you make restitution and are not publicly prosecuted, you can continue to serve based on the fact that the "victim" evidently felt that the "wrong" had been "corrected" and/or did not see it bad since they did not prosecute.
Raising standards? I don't see it.