Leaderboard

We know what Satan's "plan" entailed at the broadest level. That is to take away our agency. Traditionally this has been interpreted as taking away our choice, as most people understand agency as nothing more than free will. But this is not what agency is. Agency is choice AND accountability. And it strikes me that a proposal to take away choice might have appealed to some, but taking away accountability would have appealed to a great many. In short, what Satan may well have been trying to sell is that he, if chosen, would take away consequences and just save everyone. Sounds about like the same thing he's still trying to sell the world now, doesn't it? And it seems to appeal to the vast majority, does it not?

A few clarifications. This is the oft-told story, the one I grew up with and believed, but it's only approximately true. To be clear: At some point during our premortal life, the Father presented THE plan of salvation. There was only one. That plan required a Savior to redeem mankind. The First, whom we know today as Jesus the Christ, responded "Here am I. Send me, and the honor be Thine [that is, the Father's]." The Father did so. At least one other responded, "Here am I. Send me. I will redeem all, that none shall be lost. Since my plan is superior, give me the honor." He was rejected. He and those who followed him then rebelled and were cast out, having failed to keep their first estate. Nowhere in scripture is mentioned any idea of "competing plans" or (as I have often heard in my life) that we "voted". Our only "vote" was to decide whether we championed the Father's plan or Satan's rebellion. And it is crystal clear, at least to me, that Satan's only "plan" was to usurp the Father's honor and glory. He, Satan, had no "plan" to bring all to exaltation. Such is impossible, a defiance of the very meaning of the word "exalt". Satan's only "plan", if you care to call it that, was to usurp the Father's honor and destroy the agency of mankind. That is the selfsame "plan" he pursues today. I would say our main point of decision was whether we loved and sought to follow the Father (or equivalently, his Only Begotten), or whether we loved and sought to follow other voices. Same point of decision we have now.

My youngest daughter (now 30) is gay...she has a "wife", I have decades members long friends who have grown cold to me as a result. My daughter helped with my youngest son (via assistance help pay for his mission) and comes over every Sunday with her spouse for Sunday dinner. Some of my LDS friends think I am encouraging her by letting her come over with he spouse. My daughter nd I are very close. But I love her as I do with all of my other 3 childern. I love her with all my heart and would lay down my life in an instant for here. As far as any childern she might adopt or have through artificially, I would treat that child I would treat like my other 8 grandchildren. But God and nature has already passed judgment on the children of those...they cannot reproduce and even if adopted, in short they cannot ensure if they would be gay. But like all others we should be loving and compassionate, just like all God's children, that we remain blameless before our Father and Saviour, that we remain the worthy children of our Father in Heaven. Because I need to remain forgiven and bathed in the blood of Christ. God help us all to b the same.

Does the LBGT community generally oppose polygamy? If so, why? Frankly, it has a stronger historic tradition, and there are religious motivations. Why deny those? Why would an LBGT person--especially one who insists on same-sex marriage--dare judge the loving, committed relationships of a man or woman and his/her spouses? My tongue is not in my cheek. I'm completely serious. Personally, I've always thought polygamy had much stronger grounds to stand on than same-sex marriage.

Found my older source: Be Still, and Know That I Am God - Elder M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - CES Devotional for Young Adults • May 4, 2014 • San Diego, California (Bolding mine)

If 85% of the distractions are mobile phone-based, it makes perfect sense to single that out for special mention. I agree that it's worthwhile to point out that any distractions are inappropriate during the sacrament, or indeed during sacrament meeting or any other Church meeting,for that matter.

I agree more information would be helpful. Generally, I'd agree divorce shouldn't be an option and every possible action to renew the love in the marriage should be made. To your question, I'd stay in a loveless marriage if it were a mutually respectful relationship where my needs and my partner's needs were reasonably met--yet I think such a satisfactory marriage wouldn't be loveless.

With all due respect, Godless: If you're going to play the moral relativism card, ya gotta go whole hog. There are something like two billion bigamists in the world today. That's almost six times the total number of gay people on the earth (350 million, if you assume 5% of a population of 7 billion); and the majority of the polygamists would say that it's actually people in homosexual relationships who are being enslaved by their cultures and by their own baser instincts. But, coming back to the US: If state-sanctioned marriage really is just about formally recognizing who's "in love" with whom--then logically, you have to validate that "love" wherever, and in whatever form, you find it. On what basis do you deny legal recognition to the several tens of thousands of polygamous American families who have zero affiliation with any sort of Mormon or Mormon offshoot group? Why are their constitutional rights inferior to the rest of ours? And, come to think of it, couldn't one make an argument that serial monogamy is just as oppressive to women as outright polygamy? Have we not already created a culture where a man can get what he wants from a plethora of willing women, without having to incur the expense and inconvenience that traditionally ran with maintaining a harem?

It's the last days and it's gonna get worse .... Unfortunately

There is that which seeks to draw us out Out of our comfort zones And then which seeks to draw us in Shadow cast And sunlight dappled The forest steeped in green I love the gold-green of sun touched leaves Which lie darker in the shadows below And the soft rustle of leaves upon the breeze Aflutter on swaying boughs Mingled with the chirp and whistles of birds Which call from tree to tree It is here that I hear my God speak He who is natures God

There are already calls, mostly because of the Chaplain Wes Modder case, for an end to chaplaincy. Why, they ask, are government dollars paying the salaries of clergy, who preach hate against me and those with my gender orientation? I suspect the day is coming when government chaplains will be replaced by adding a few more "secular chaplains" (i.e. psychologists/licensed therapists) to the rolls.

I think it might be helpful if you went to a quiet place for a while where you can rest, recuperate and reflect, away from the daily stress. Sort out what you want and then make some decisions and plans. Then build your resolve to the point where you feel confident in what you have decided and your ability to carry it out, whatever it is you may decide.

What if they want to choose by race? Actually, this one is not a matter of feeling. It's a matter of straightforward statistics. Can you demonstrate that the given situation does not meet the 95% (or some other) confidence interval? If only that were so. Perhaps you should not allow yourself to be offended by others' opinions, especially in an area where you actually agree that it might qualify as at least *a* factor in the decision. Remember what you said about people should choose their mates based on their own determination? That doesn't mean we don't get to talk with them and try to influence their opinion. That's pretty much one of the definitions of parenting -- and of friendship.

Thank you for your approval. I want beautiful blue and and gorgeous black skin. Her head should come to my shoulder for optimum cuddling. A beauty mark is desirable but not required. I stand corrected. Is it only the color-related traits that are off the table? Or does it also include all the uncontrolled biological ones (like height)?

Because the State doesn't recognize the friendship?

I want to thank all for responses - especially Mirkwood. However, I think that what I have attempted to convey has been missed. I have not posted to convince anyone about secret combinations. My intent to bring to realization on how great a threat we are facing. It has been pointed out that up to half of all nuclear material in possession by the USA is now owned and controlled by Russia. This amount of nuclear material is enough, all by itself, to annihilate the entire human race. This means that Russia controls 80% of the world's nuclear material necessary for making nuclear bombs or as use as nuclear fuel. Russia provided the nuclear material for several countries that now have nuclear weapon capabilities. This list includes China, North Korea and now Iran. North Korea and Iran have both indicated that they intend to use their nuclear capability to destroy the USA. How concerning is there, in the USA, for any deal that our nuclear material could be leaving the USA and ending up in possession of our enemies that intend to destroy this nation? My initial post was intended to point out what must be involved in order for this to have happened. The arguments being given in response - is not that such a thing did not happen or even that something should be done - but that those that were involved in doing it - did not break any laws.

do a search on the church page (lds.org) it comes up with about 7 references referring to cellphones and behavior during sacrament. Good Luck and God Bless your talk. just phrase it as use of cell phones during Sacrament. Do the search from the scriptures page.

Was going to weigh in...but Vort and Finrock said what I would have...so the rest is re-hash. Satan's "plan" was a lie and would never exalt. There was not choice between two options to exaltation. There was a way to gain exaltation, and a way to not. The only choice we made was in whether we understood and trusted in our Father, or believed the lies that there was a better way. And that challenge is the same war we fight now. The same choices, the same challenges, the same half-truths, mingled-with-scriptures, it's-all-about-love, true-love-would-save-everybody, no-one-should-be-punished-for-who-they-are, LIES are the same that Satan has used from the beginning. He is a liar.

I see Vort has posted this but I think it is important for people to know and understand that Satan had no plan. He was a liar from the beginning. He knew that the only way we could return back to Heavenly Father would be through THE Plan of Happiness. He knew that rebelling against God's plan would not save but damn God's children. So, Lucifer had no plan. There is only ONE plan that works. Only ONE way to return back to Heavenly Father. -Finrock

I think we need to keep in mind when responding that the OP may have felt inspired to bring up these things. So he is asking for help with some references. It's certainly not up to us to say what he should and shouldn't talk about if he is so inspired.

It isn't normal. Emotional threats are a form of a abusive behavior.

You say you are in a "loveless" marriage yet you also say your husband loves you. Just because you have chosen to stop loving your husband does not mean you are in a loveless marriage. Are you just looking for permission to leave? What have you done to help fix your marriage? Have you gone to counseling? You reference 3 -4 years. That is barely a blip in the eternities. And again, how much effort have you put forth? Lots of marriages go through difficult times, some longer than that. The time span doesn't automatically mean it is unsalvageable. You seem to lay all of the blame on your husband. Have you done your share to help fix it? Is it really worth tearing a family apart? I used to work a lot with divorcing parents and far too many of them were in denial about the impact divorce has on children and were only focusing on their own needs...usually some vague definition of "happiness".

Hello Joe, nice to meet you, sort of. Welcome to the forum... from an average Rose in south Florida

I can't really say too much without more information... By "husband screwing up". You don't have to share the nitty-gritty-details, but the general category would be useful. For example, my advice would change greatly if "screwing up" meant forgetting your birthday, versus sleeping with other women. Also, you said you're tired. Are you willing at all to hope that things could be made better? As to "thinking you're a monster", I don't think that at all! From your post, you sound exhausted and frustrated; in need of healing, rest, and untying of the knot in your chest. No where in your post do I sense "monster".

The Infinite Atonement by Tad R. Callister of the Seventy is an insightful look at various aspects of the atonement if your looking for something to supplement your studies.

Greetings!

Good Post. I too was taught that we somehow voted on two plans. After studying it and pondering it, I'm not sure how or even that Satan's plan would have worked. We have come in this country to worship the concept of "democracy" meaning we do whatever we vote on. The problem is that a lot of people can be induced to vote on things that make no sense. If we vote gravity out, it's still going to happen. My own thought is that Satan presented a plan that sounded good to a lot of people, but could it be not that we voted it out, nor that the Father just overrode, but simply a factual condition that it wouldn't work. Satan didn't want to save everyone, rather he wanted glory and felt cheated and threw (and is still throwing) a temper tantrum when he was told no.

Thank you for clearing that up. So many members think two plans were presented.

That's true, but I keep reading stories about greater and greater restrictions placed on them... So I can't help but wonder how much longer they'll be there.

One solution--perhaps only a small portion of the answer--is for even more to answer the call to law enforcement chaplaincy. BTW, that's not what I am. My area is corrections. The dark side--inside the walls. Law enforcement chaplains are volunteer. They go through training, and usually ride with police, or fire fighters. They help with death and serious accident notifications. They become accepted, over time, as part of the department. From a secular standpoint, they do help many officers remember that theirs is a high calling. There is also the sense of support, even if the chaplain is never approached. Frankly, they remind our protectors that the Almighty is present. Such may not prevent all abuse, but a greater presence would be a greater help.

Dude, if you think that just being part of the the religion of Islam means one is oppressive to woman, you've got some serious issues. Polygamy in and of itself is oppressive to no one; as long as each party enters into the agreement free of choice it's not oppressive. (which can be said the same of any marriage as long as it is entered into free of choice one does not force another human being to do something with the threat of physical violence it's not oppressive.) Proponents of homosexual unions who oppose polygamy have absolutely 0 leg to stand on. They are hypocrites.

Welcome gebaird, my SIL and her family also live in Spanish Fork. M.

Depends on your point of view. Read this thread, for example. A doozey of a debate on the matter. (I think it really gets into it on page 9 or 10). The fact is, yes, there are quotes that imply (depending on the reading of specific words like "absolute", as in the quote from BH Roberts: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.") The problem, of course, is that other quotes confirm other meanings of the word "doctrine", and also, if you're going to confide doctrine to the standard works by way of quote that is not in the standard works, then the quote itself is susceptible to being non-doctrinal.

Welcome Welcome...

Howdy!

Welcome to the site !!!

You need to read the rules especially the part where it states ...... Each time you sign into site You must pay Palerider in cold hard CASH usuage Fees.

What rules?