Leaderboard

The reconciliation is simple. 3 is false.

Whereas I agree with the point your making, I wanted to add that the law of the harvest still applies, even if we can't help it. If you walk off the edge of a cliff you fall to your death regardless of whether it was your fault or not. I point this out in support of the idea of getting help. We must deal with the issues of life in practical ways, and realistically face the challenges we have. Get help. Use medicine if appropriate. And accept that we may, indeed, have challenges that others may not have in spite of our righteousness or God's love for us.

It sounds to me like you need to seek immediate professional help.

Were there zombies?

I listened to a talk by John Bytheway recently called Come Unto Christ. (Not a new topic). In the talk he makes the point that instead of using the word "can't" we should use the word "won't". Maybe its a talk that would help your husband. Its not about "I can't drink coffee." Its about "I won't drink coffee because coffee isn't good for my body." OR Its not about "I can't drink alcohol" but rather "I won't drink alcohol because alcohol fogs up my brain and I am less in control." OR ....... you can fill in the blanks. :) When we use the word won't instead of can't is shows that we are choosing to act for ourselves. I've never viewed the WoW or commandments as restrictions. I can see how some do. My children all think its restrictions. I see the commandments God gives us a safety rails on the freeway of life. Sure I can choose to smoke, drink, not go to church, not pray, etc., but when I follow the commandments I'm happier and I'm healthier. I hope that helps a little. Addition: Don't judge yourself too harshly over the tattoos. Yes they are visible but some people have worse sins that aren't visible. Just do your best and know that Christ will forgive anyone who wants to come to Him. Best Wishes!

I just asked randomly, some asked why I was asking so I was able to engage in conversation a little bit. Like I said there is an underlying knowledge of polygamy and the practice of it with JS, our teaching of the history glosses over this. It is an after thought and in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter.

Are you saying scientists are impure?

Can I offer a third voice in support of "don't beat yourself up over this". If it is a sin, masturbation is one of the most common sins. I hesitate to respond (admins may delete if they strongly disagree with my advice), because you are young and may have trouble with the nuances and conflicts on this topic. From what I have seen around the Mormon internet, masturbation creates some of the most heated debates and discussions. I guess the point is, amongst many Church members, there is quite a bit of disagreement over the issue -- nothing as decided as the resources you have obviously just found. Perhaps in your sense of betrayal is a fear that your mom is somehow ignorant of the information you have found, and possibly she is. On the other hand, she is likely well aware of the sources (or sources like them) that you have found and has made a different choice regarding the sinfulness of masturbation. You allude to other difficulties in your family. In spite of these, your mom has the first stewardship to teach you right from wrong. I think I might suggest that you take your newfound information and your "betrayal" to your mom. "Mom, you told that masturbation was ok, but I found these sources that say it is not ok. I'm concerned about this, will you explain your position on this so I can better understand it." If you are still dissatisfied with her explanation, say "Thank you for explaining, now I want to go to the Bishop and see if he can explain the Church's position on this." You may even invite your mom to join you in that interview. Whatever you decide, please get rid of the any and all of the "I was wondering if I should never see the face of the earth again because Ive mastrubated and watched porn pretty much half of my life!!" kind of self-talk. You may have sinned, but you are still "a daughter of a Heavenly Father who loves you" and you have a divine nature and individual worth that sin cannot take away from you.

I wish I had waited until I was older. I would like to get them removed but it would roughly be the price of a car

Somebody sure wants attention, anyway.

Please don't beat yourself up too much. You seem like a normal, healthy person. Yes, talk to your Bishop, but if you don't feel comfortable with him try talking to another adult you trust. Again, don't be too hard on yourself and relax. You aren't a bad person because of this issue you face.

Crypto, I think that depends on your upbringing and culture.

This sounds very interesting. Do you think it would be a good choice for an LDS ladies' book club?

LM, I remember when I first saw that "scare". He's a good sport and encounters crazy stuff almost everyday it seems. No, he doesn't know me. But he'll do the kiss. I'm certainly not the first fan. To clarify, no saliva will be swapped, at least that's not what I'm planning... Haha @ TFP! That's a fair trade.

Scientist (especially mathematicians) has realized that there are serious problems with the Big Bang theory. The religious community, in general, has been overjoyed with the problems but in not understanding the complexities of the problems had made complete fools of themselves trying to take ridiculous advantage of the perceived problems. The problems in essence surround what we call initial parameters or preconceived conditions. At the offset of the Big Bang theory it was thought that our universe is contained in a region that is described as one dimensional space time – which is also described as a singularity. This idea of singularity or one dimensional space time was given more credence with the discovery of Black Holes. Black Holes in essence being various pockets of single dimension or singularity. A noted and popular astrophysicist, Carl Sagan, concocted an idea for a novel that all points of singularity are the same time space, one dimensional singularity, in order to theatrically justify what has become known as worm holes. There are other ways to justify worm holes but for some reason this idea got legs and has become the popular notion. Carl Sagan’s theory of worm holes also presented a partial solution to the parameters conundrum of the Big Bang theory. That is that the singularity that was the initial condition of the Big Bang theory could act as a conduit for our current universe to have come, not from the singularity but from the collapse of some other universe through the singularity to us. We have since discovered that mathematically it works out really nifty for an eleven dimensional universe to collapse through a singularity to our universe. But there are still missing pieces to the puzzle. Two other classifications of Big Bang theories have also gotten traction. One class is called the “Brane” theories. This is the idea of multiple Big Bangs taking places as various (infinite) universes encounter each other – trading substances. And the other is best described as the quantum anomaly Big Bang. This is in essence an extension of quantum weirdness running off the deep end from the micro scale of particle physics to the macro scale of universe astrophysics. It is this quantum anomaly theory that assumes the Big Bang came from nothing. There are two problems for ex nihilo religious argument jumping on this band wagon. First, the nothing of ex nihilo and the nothingness of “empty” dimensional space time are not even close to the same thing. The other problem is very difficult to explain in layman terms but in essence deals with anti particles, anti energy and other “things” (like the Higgs Field) that have various effects on what we think of as stable space time and elements of matter. None of which lends itself to well to the traditional religious concept of a “creator” of something wonderful and stable without some sort of pre-existing stuff.

#3 still has yet to be proven, and god doesnt say anything about that.

Something else I was wondering - does Norman know you, and does he know you're planning on staging this kiss?

Sorry I don't have time right now to read all the other posts...but, my first thought is... The baby already has a father. He may not be in the picture right now. But, at some point in the babies life, the father will appear and possibly want custody. Maybe even want a paternity test to prove the baby is his and want the baby to have his last name. Are you willing to give up your Mission for a child that is not yours and maybe have the father come into the picture? Also, what if he does reappear and your girlfriend and the bio father could decide to get back together? You are trying to take on a HUGE responsibility. Are you prepared for that? Education... job... security for the mother and child and maybe more children to come? A chance of it all blowing up and you end up with no girlfriend, no baby, and no mission! I pray you really think this out. Pray like you've never prayed before. I actually feel a little afraid for you. I pray all things come out good for you. Just my thoughts.

Moms Night Out

I'm not convinced that the relationships to already-married-and-cohabiting women, or very young teenagers, were pitched as marriages--at least, not as sexual ones (and let's face it--at least where such relationships are concerned, 75% of the concerns people tend to express is because of the sex that we assume was taking place under the auspices of those relationships). There's a sort of a parallel among Catholicism, where my understanding is that if a woman becomes a nun, she's theoretically married to Jesus (that's the perception, at least. Obviously I can't speak to the theological nuances). But to tell someone wholly unacquainted with Catholic theology or practice "Oh, yeah, this is Sister Maria and she is married to Jesus" would create a very different idea of the relationship than what actually exists.

It is not a matter of "logic". Logic is the process of using truths we already know as building blocks to prove the existence of other truths, things that must necessarily arise from what we know now. For example, the First Presidency taught of the existence of a heavenly Mother by using a sort of logical argument stating that the existence of an exalted Man or "Father" necessarily implied the existence of an exalted Woman or "Mother". There are many different forms of logic, but I know of none that would allow us to take our current imprecise and partial understandings of this topic and use them to prove that "kingdom progression" must necessarily exist. You could argue (quite convincingly) that the scriptural and prophetic teachings seem to imply that "kingdom progression" does not happen -- and I would probably agree with you -- but that still does not constitute proof in any rigidly logical sense. We really can't use logic to establish the facts one way or the other. But that doesn't mean both are equally likely or equally reasonable. We do not have a public revelation of the truths of these matters; I rather suspect we don't know enough to understand those answers, even if they were given to us. We are thus left to grope in the dimness, offering opinions and telling stories as to why our suspicions ought to be valued over someone else's. Here's mine: In evolutionary biology -- a topic that interests me greatly, but that I have no real expertise in past the dedicated spectator level, so take the literality of my examples with a grain of salt -- living things are classified according to a taxonomy that starts (depending on which taxonomy you like best) with the organism's "kingdom". There are several kingdoms, varying depending again on which taxonomy you want to follow, and they typically have names like Animals, Plants, Amoebas, Slime molds, Fungi, and so forth. Within each kingdom you find an astonishing variety of living things. "Animals" include things ranging from an all-but-invisibly-tiny water bear to the 100+-foot-long, nearly half-million-pound blue whale, from a millipede to a moose, from a lobster on the bottom of the sea to a mountain goat at 15,000 feet, from a fish sailing through the water to a hawk sailing through the air. All of these are part of the Animal kingdom. If you look at, say, the Plant kingdom, you will see an equally astounding variety of living things, from duckweed that looks like cornmeal floating on the water to giant redwood trees nearly 400 feet tall (think of it!), from pansies to cacti, from Kentucky bluegrass to carnivorous (!!) Venus flytraps. Some very long time ago indeed, possibly billions of years ago, these separate kingdoms of organisms were thought to have had common ancestors. But at some point, some organism took the path of becoming Animals and some took the path of becoming Plants. Today, hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years later, both types of beings (or rather, their descendants) exist and flourish. But a Plant and its descendants will never become Animals. Never. They are of the Plant kingdom. That branch divided a very, very, very long time ago. That choice was made anciently. It can and will never be undone. Plants may, and surely will, continue evolving and developing in all sorts of astounding directions, but they will never become Animals. And Animals will never become Plants. It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that any living thing would "progress" from one kingdom to another. Such an idea doesn't even make sense. A Plant and an Animal are both "living things", but they are of completely different types. I believe the "kingdoms" spoken of in the Doctrine and Covenants are of a somewhat similar nature. All such kingdoms of glory are comprised of human souls, just as all taxonomic kingdoms are comprised of living things. All such kingdoms of glory will offer progression to their inhabitants, just as Plant and Animal species, and indeed all living things, progress through the generations with varying rates and types of change. But the divisions have taken place. Plants are not Animals, and never will be. In the same sense, we are choosing this day how we want to exist. We make our choices now, in this life, while we draw breath, and perhaps also in the next while we await the Resurrection. But the time will come when our choice will have been made. We will have set ourselves on our eternal course, and our loving and generous Father will do all that can be done to help us further ourselves along that path. But make no mistake, they are separate paths, and the further along them we go, the further they separate. And those paths never cross each other. An elm tree spends no time wishing it were a buffalo. For the most part, and with only a few bizarre exceptions, a person spends no time wishing he were a protozoan. In my opinion, it will be so in the next life; I don't see that those in a "lower" kingdom will spend any time thinking about how great it would be if they were in a "higher" kingdom. But our Lord has told us that we will gain a maximum of joy and eternal happiness, literally beyond our ability to understand, if we seek honestly and intently for exaltation. I believe him, and so I seek.

Page 26 for anyone who lacks google fu.

I daresay your current teacher thinks guiding you is the way to build your skills. If you feel you need more structured lessons, move to a new teacher. It's nothing personal.

You need to speak to your bishop, you are not the father and can prove it so no worries there...per handbook 1 Members are not eligible to serve missions if they: 1. Are not worthy as outlined in 4.5.2. 2. Would have to leave dependent children in the care of someone else. 3. Have been members of the Church for less than one year. 4. Are in debt and have not made definite arrangements to meet their obligations. 5. Are on legal probation or parole. 6. Are HIV positive. 7. Have been convicted of sexual abuse. Not your kid, not your dependent. Don't ruin your life go on a mission and if you come back and still feel the same way, well make an honest woman out of her.....

Before I was LDS, I was engaged to a woman who was LDS, and we discussed my conversion and what a huge step it is. Long-time LDS members often cannot understand that being baptized as an adult convert (especially when marriage is part of the picture) is often a really big and really hard step. To me it felt like stepping off the edge of the Grand Canyon at night. On the day I was baptized, I came very, very close to turning the car around and going back home. Perhaps your husband is feeling the same uneasiness I did, even though he doesn't talk about it with you. Withdrawal from Church activities may be his way of convincing himself that he's in control and that he's not being swept along by strong currents that he cannot control. If I were you, I'd set an example of how the Church changes me and brings blessings into my life. Many men naturally float toward things that benefit them, so start advertising those benefits. And I know it's hard to go alone, but it's the only way. Be strong. The strength you show will probably be good for your marriage. It will certainly be good for you.

I'm not LDS, and I am a coffee-drinker. However, I'd feel wierd asking for coffee from hosts I knew were LDS. It doesn't have the same issues as alcohol, but still--out of respect, I would not ask. Family is different. However, I still think expecting to be served coffee shows a bit of hubris.