Leaderboard

Subject of OP: I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?” The "TEST" is not what I find disturbing, as we already know this life is a "test" (Abraham 3:25), but the test being spoken of centers around this sentiment, "it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God." If anything, this bring to my remembrance, "Wolves in sheep's clothing," but I am not sure this is referencing a "wolf" among the sheep. How in the world can we not know a "Saint" from an "enemy" to the people of God? My first thoughts lean toward the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament (the Gospels). Who were "Saints" and yet were "enemies" to the people of God, or better said maybe, "Who should have been "Saints" rather than "enemies" to the people of God? The pharisees, saducees, and scribes were all "sheep" and look at how they treated the people of God. Look at how they treated their God, for that matter. I remember listening to a TED talk on Youtube who mentioned the following (she was Mormon), "We only need enough Millenials to grow up in the Church, who then become leaders, who then are able to change the policies and doctrines." This mentality is truly the "enemy's" (the evil one's) philosophy. The philosophies of men mingled with scripture, and obviously a poor understanding of doctrine. I don't even think this individual realizes how this is not the Lord's mind or heart. I would agree with the thought regarding "love" and its misunderstanding and misuse in our world. This is probably already occurring through social media. I have seen all to often, from Saints, how the Church has failed society -- really? -- OK, sure (false). Regarding Public Policies and Laws in Relation to Morality When the proper understanding of rights is understood there really isn't a question as to what the Law protects. The misuse of the term "rights" is why we are enduring what we are right now. Zion will be a system of Laws, even based on morality, where if people do not want to adhere to they are able to leave. There will be no "SSM" in Zion. So, how people confuse the notion that if we fight against "an assumed right" (which isn't a right to begin with) that we are somehow following Satan -- I don't know. This is incorrect. There was a sacrament talk that misunderstood this principle, and the talk assumed that if we don't have all the choices we are following Satan also (or if we inhibit choices we are following Satan's plan). If so, then why did Nephi not teach his posterity of the people in Jerusalem, and their ways? Because they were not of God. What I hear from people is that Nephi was actually following Satan's plan of not giving people options as he should have. He should have taught, he should have made laws to protect the "sin" of Jerusalem, because that is God's way. NO IT IS NOT. Never has been, never will be. If so, the Church would have never moved forward with Prop 8. Why did they? Because they know of the judgements which are to come, and they have given warning. Zion will be accomplished by righteousness and by laws that keep righteousness, otherwise, there will be nothing in place to protect it. There are Celestial Laws, Terrestrial laws, and Telestial laws. Zion will be a place where Celestial laws (it doesn't matter what personal belief system someone will hold) will be maintained by law.

So I've now read through this entire thread. And I will say that I see both sides of the responses that are being given. But one thing I want to say and we say this quite often here on the forums. When you come to a random internet forum (LDS or not) you can expect a variety of responses. Not all of them are going to be what you want to see or what you want to hear. And we will allow a variety of responses unless they start breaking some of the site rules that we have set into place. So far none of the responses meet that criteria. Many times responses are given because that person or someone very close to them have gone through the same situation. Now I'm NOT saying that is the case here because I don't know and frankly it is none of my business. Believe me. I have some subjects that just push my buttons and because they are something I am passionate about, I voice my opinion even if it goes against the grain. It's just how we as humans are. Putting a disclaimer or a rule in the title such as "no judgment" won't stop people from having opinions or expressing their perspectives on a situation. It's like saying, "I want to hear what you have to say but only if it is something I want to hear." In fact many times it fuels it more than stops it. It's the nature of an internet forum. But we can't ask people to leave unless they are breaking site rules as I mentioned earlier. And that can only come from the moderating staff. What I get from the OP is you are asking about what kind of action, disciplinary or other, you might receive for your actions with another. To be honest, none of us can tell you that. We are not your Bishop. We don't hold any stewardship over you. Only your Bishop can guide you and direct you and decide what action might need to be taken. Having a porn addiction can cause problems in a marriage. By your own admission you stated that he came to you months before your got married and admitted he had a problem with it. Getting married doesn't just magically make that addiction go away. The same can be said with any other addiction. You mentioned he is a wonderful husband that treats you like a Queen and is a wonderful father to your child. That's such a glowing compliment to him in a world where some just don't take marriage and parenthood that seriously. I guess what I really want to say is, it sounds like both of you have issues right now that are affecting your marriage. That's really what it boils down to. Both of you need to work on your individual issues. Both of you need to have some long serious talks with your Bishop and follow his counsel. Both of you also need to have some long serious talks with our Father in Heaven. I'm sure you are already doing that. And again, keep in mind this is a public internet forum. If you are going to come and lay your problems down for the world to see and expect only kind, thoughtful, and encouraging words it doesn't always happen. The forums are filled with different people with different life experiences and many times give their opinion based on those experiences. I truly do wish you the best and hope that both of you can receive the help you need. It does sound like there is still much hope and love in your marriage.

(Raises hand tentatively) All of the above? Tests can have multiple problems. Lack of charity is one. Too much "false" charity--especially charity masquerading as permissiveness-- is another. Absolutism/statism from the political left, as well as suspicion and paranoia from the right (and divisive rhetoric from both). Criticisms from the social left who think we're compromising too little, and from the social right who think we're giving up too much. Attacks on the GAs from within the Church by Dehlinites and feminists from the extreme heterodox wing as well as from Snufferites and doomsday prepper-militia types from the extreme orthodox wing. Dogmatic, intellectually lazy fundentalism; as well as faithless skepticism. Excessive allegiance to the self-appointed intelligentsia on the one hand; self-satisfied know-nothingism on the other. And so on, and so on. To the extent that "the test" can be reduced to anyone factor, I would say it is simply this: who will stand with the Lord and His modern prophets; versus who will be blown away with the social movement of the hour.

I'm going to go a different route than others have, but I'm generally not one to listen to so keep that in mind. Your husband has a porn addiction. This is no indication of how he feels about you. It is no indication of how he views you. He's an exceptional husband and father. He treats you like a queen. You have self-image issues, presumably because of how you think he views you due to his porn addiction. You nag him about his porn addiction. Have you considered the possibility that you're the reason there is no passion in your marriage? Have you considered that your reaction to his addiction is hurting your marriage more? Now you've cheated on him? You're concerned about the punishment? Do you think you should be concerned about how you violated your marriage, your children's trust, and your covenants with God? Honestly, you sound as though you're more concerned with yourself than your family. Since you came here for advice, here it is. Be an adult. Adults have responsibility. Go see your bishop. Now. Do what he tells you and hope your husband forgives you. Due to the fact that you said he will, it sounds like you take him for granted. Stop. Be the wife and mother you committed to being. Help your husband through his addiction, Stop being selfish. I wish you the best. I wish your family the best. I truly hope you work this out for the sake of yourself, your family, and your relationship with God. I mean that sincerely.

This is way cool. https://www.lds.org/church/news/straining-to-hear-each-sunday-meetinghouse-listening-devices-dramatically-improve-participation?lang=eng

That is exactly where my thoughts were heading. We've been warned over and over that many Saints will be pulled away by those in our midst that claim to be Saints but spend their time placing little doubts into our thoughts. They will be crafty and we may not realize what they are doing. But will we be strong enough and able enough to discern that is happening? I think I can see this already happening with some of the people we've seen in the news that have gained many followers with their subtle and sometimes not so subtle teachings. We've seen some of these people have already lost their membership in the Church.

You might as well argue that we need porn shops and bars on every corner so that we can have choice. But that isnt the Lords plan. We are commanded to live righteously, to build zion and do away with all forms of idleness and wickedness. Laws themselves are based upon moral principles. There is nothing wrong with strict moral law. We do not have to allow evilness and idolatry in society to survive and live Gods plan. God commands that we do away with "all" evilness and idolatry. Agency is actually best preserved as people choose to live righteously and do away with evilness. In the past some great prophets were able to completely do away with all evilness. Enoch was one such individual that created zion and because of its righteousness God removed it from the earth. Jesus, in the Americas after his resurrection, was able to establish righteousness for almost 4 generations where "none" in their civilization were lost and all were saved. Satan destroys agency through temptations, evilness and idleness. As people give in to temptations and sin they slowly become bound in his chains and are led "captive" to his will and doom. That is precisely how Satan destroys agency.

To me, I think that Christofferson's return to the Church IS a major theme of the story; even if he himself chooses not to present it thus. I mean, yes, we continue those relationships of love with wandering family members for their own sakes; but in the grand scheme of things the point is that sooner or later the tentacles of divine providence catch up with them (and if they don't, then the eternal potential of those relationships remains perpetually stunted to some degree). @JoCa strikes me as being partially correct; insofar that these warm fuzzies about "acceptance" tend to evaporate the minute the Church says "thus far and no further"; and at such times what had been acknowledged as love and support suddenly gets recharacterized as some sort of cynical masquerade. I suppose the trick is--you love wanderers for their own sake and try to avoid coming across as if you see them as merely some sort of "project"; but you also never stop praying that they'll allow the Atonement to turn them into something better than the goals they've currently set for themselves. Between this experience and that of Bennett and Becky Borden, I think maybe we are being shown that there *is* a way to reclaim folks who have allowed themselves to be swallowed up in homosexuality. Maybe their experiences do leave scars in the form of incorrect thinking patterns and self-identities that persist even after the behavior has been shunned (it would be interesting to know whether Christofferson now has a testimony that gay relationships are per se contrary to God's plan; or whether he just sees himself as jumping through an arbitrary and temporary hoop to claim a higher spiritual plane. I also want to know why in Sam Hill it's supposed to be a "blessing" to be gay; and whether Christofferson would also say--or be comfortable with someone else saying--that it's a "blessing" to be straight. If I'm not supposed to stereotype, and "anyone" can be gay and my "gaydar" shouldn't be tripped by speech patterns, dress styles, interests, supposed effeminacy, etc; then what exactly *does* constitute being "gay" other than sexual attraction?). But, typical progressivist doublespeak aside, the key to me is--they came back. They ended sinful relationships out of a desire to pursue something better. And they weren't beaten into it by a series of relational, economic, or health setbacks--they just realized, for various reasons, that there wasn't enough God in the choices they had been making; and then Church members loved them the rest of the way back. What a story! Mormonism used to be a green field in the middle of a desert, and it didn't take much to keep sheep in the fold or to herd the wanderers back where they belonged. But Satan's spent the last thirty years seeding the desert with locoweed and then keeping the sick sheep from finding their way home. It may be that the best strategy for today is to re-design the sheepfold gate in a way that still deters exit but also facilitates re-entry for those lost sheep who finally realize they've been gorging themselves on spiritual junk food. I think I'll spend some time trying to understand how the shepherds are trying to rebuild the gate, before I start sniping about how different this gate is from the old one.

Thank you so much for the support you guys! You really made my day with your messages. <3 <3 <3 <3 I sometimes forget how far I've come and to take the time to enjoy it. I was able to wear jeans today that wouldn't fit up my thighs before coming to Rexburg today, so, that was another thing to just hammer home how much has changed for me. *hugs for everyone* @priesthoodpower I don't think I could do that diet. It would not be a sustainable lifestyle choice for me. Unless eating carbs made me ill, I will probably never be able to let them go(unless it became a commandment, then I'd have to pray every day for the Spirit to console me through the loss of pasta and Italian bread and bagels). I really respect people who are willing and able to give certain things up for the long haul.

I think the test is leftist values. Which is to say, the test is "love". The true love of Christ is the key to Sainthood. The false "love" of the progressive left is the obvious correlative state that deceives. How else could we look at fellow members and fail to see who is and isn't a true Saint? Pornography and the like doesn't cut it for me. No one aware of another, or even themselves, engulfed in that chasm considers such a characteristic of Sainthood.

I hate to break it to you @skippy740, but you're reacting to what you expect to be there rather than observing what is actually there. Or you are making massive assumptions without sufficient grounds for so doing, and responding to the result of your assumption. Either way, your side of this debate is not following what the other side actually said. (My personal assumption is that you've had this conversation so many times that you've stopped listening to the person with whom you're supposed to be conversing.)

I think its important to address the difference between agency and rights. Agency is simply the ability to choose for ourselves. This however does not mean we get to do whatever we want (even when it can be argued that it doesn't impact anyone else). For example, the war in heaven was fought over agency. One third of the hosts of heaven wanted to follow Satan's plan. Did they get what they want? No. God essentially said too bad and gave them the royal boot. Why was he able to do this without depriving them of their agency? Because following Satan's plan wasn't an option or a right that God had given them. Everything comes from God and we have no right to demand anything except that which he chooses to give us. Its no different in this world, especially here in the US of A. The Bill of Rights was our inspired forefather's attempt to address exactly what those God-given rights are. So to argue that God (and by extension His Church) does not have any say as to what right's people have just doesn't hold water. IMO.

I appreciated the article, as I have many of the similar ones posted here recently, because it shows that you can repent of serious sins even when you have been entrenched in their practice for a very long time. While I appreciate the message on familial love and the efforts the Christofferson family went too, to love their wayward son, the true beauty for me was when he rejected everything to come back into the gospel of Jesus Christ. He rejected the World's teachings and the feelings of his partner and decades of poor personal decisions to become clean again through Christ's Atonement. I feel like the Church is demonstrating that you can reject even the most insidious of inner desires, in an effort to reach out to people who may have considered themselves lost long ago due to their participation in homosexual activity. While I may quibble with some of the words Brother Christofferson used to describe his journey, I feel as the father of the prodigal son when he told the faithful brother in Luke 15:32 "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." Brother Christofferson was dead but now is alive again and found and to me that is reason to celebrate.

@zil: Maybe that is a reason for both of us to stay home, watch it together on the internet or BYUTv, and cuddle together on the couch (making sure to maintain a firm hold on each other). That way, it will be both or neither (as if I really had any aspirations that my puny strength could defy God's decrees if He really was going to only take one of us). @laronius: That sounds like an excellent idea. Jupiter is pretty low in the west, though it should still give a decent view in the twilight. While there, scoot up and look at Saturn (which is higher in the sky and easier to see), maybe over to the east where Neptune and Uranus are near opposition and check out these little blue dots. If I can get out of town and away from city lights, Andromeda should make a good target along with the Ring nebula and... What does the weather look like this weekend? If my wife comes home to find the house mysteriously empty, she may not know if I was raptured or if I just went out of town for a few hours. Who wants to go on a rapture star party?

Seems to me that the church has always maintained the difference between temptation (which happens to all of us) that we do not control, and Sin (which happens to all of us) which we do control. So the church repeats the Lord's commands to us to be virtuous... while knowing we will be tempted not to be so, and knowing at some point sin will mean that we are not virtuous. The fact that we fail does not void the command nor the church need to repeat it. The church has clearly condemned the sin of homosexuality (just like it has condemned all other sins)... This has not changed... what has changed is the world altered and convinced people that we are not defined by the choices they make (collectively)... but by the temptation they face. In the past people where not homosexual unless they engaged in sex with a member of the same sex. Thus in the past the church could make blanket statement condemning homosexuality because everyone accepted that it took action to be that. However now a days the world will teach you that if you ever had a fleeting thought about that you are forever a homosexual or bisexual or whatever sexual except being heterosexual. Because the world has smashed the two different things together the church has to separate them to maintain the standards it has always has. And that standard is Temptation is not sin...(although dwelling on temptation can be) you can be a faithful and good member of the church no matter your temptation. Repentance is the answer to sin and a repentant person can be a faithful and good member of the church no matter what your prior sins were (assuming repentance). The unrepentant person is not in good standing but the Christ-like response is to love the person anyways and hold the door open for them to repent and be healed

President Hinckley says, "I do not know precisely the nature of that test. But I am inclined to think the time is here and that the test lies in our capacity to live the gospel rather than adopt the ways of the world." The ways of the world are made up of "divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them (Mosiah 4:29)." And I don' think President Hinckley in his commentary was was referring to Utah alone.

Thanks, but she's not wrong. I could learn to be less blunt in my responses. I have a bad habit of calling things as I see them. I try to have compassion, and I truly believe I do, but I have no patience for not "adulting" about certain things. Personal responsibility is one. You can't fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Get off your high horse. You cheated on your husband. I am a lot of horrible things, including a jerk, but I've never betrayed my family. You should be looking inward. You came here for help. Stop acting like a petulant child looking to blame someone else for a missing cookie and worrying about whether mom's punishment will be severe. It doesn't matter what the penance is. Accept it, learn from it. Beg your family's forgiveness. You shouldn't even be worrying about your husband's addiction. You shouldn't even have mentioned it. It is irrelevant to the issue. Yet it was the first thing you posted about to generate sympathy and/or share blame. THAT is why my response seems "jerky" to you. You aren't truly repentant. That said, your husband's issue is your husband's issue. You're making it a problem with your marriage. The church doesn't view porn like the rest of the world. The natural man doesn't view porn like the church does. It doesn't diminish his feelings for you. Get counseling to work through your feelings of inadequacy. Get counseling to help bring passion back into your marriage. The porn is a use issue. Stop making it the central issue. Your infidelity is now the central issue. EDITED TO ADD: I know I sound harsh. Infidelity bugs me. The title of your post didn't help. It says you don't want to hear about your blame in this. Then the content of your post didn't seem to be looking for advice at all. I just felt bad for your family and don't think you realize that you're the problem that needs addressing nor that you're committed to fixing it. Those are the details you provided. Go talk to the bishop. Go talk to a counselor. Get on your knees.

You've already received the encouragement, guidance, and counsel, so I won't go there. I cannot take away the hurt. In fact, I'm going to make it a bit deeper: You physically became what you were afraid of your husband doing to you emotionally, virtually, that could also lead to physically. Why? Because you let FEAR into your marriage. Sure, you can blame his habit, and I can blame the church for teaching paranoia about it, but you have to take responsibility for your own reaction. 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Personally, I think the women in the church are 'trained' to be 'parents' to their husbands, to withhold sex if he has a problem, to leave and abandon him when he could need her spirit the most, and to consider it grounds for DIVORCE. (What happened to 'in sickness and in health'? It's turned into "unless he has a pornography problem".) The women in the church who think this COULD be cowards and spineless about all this. This is why you think you're less attractive and he's less attractive to you - you changed into a PARENT instead of being his WIFE. You're EMASCULATING him while trying to heal yourself. How can that help anything? Yes, pornography is far worse than it was 50 years ago when it was just magazines under the bed. But the paranoia around it... I think is uncalled for. Consider this: there are healthy marriages where they both drink alcohol and smoke. As long as it is not abused, their marriage is okay. No, it's not a Celestial marriage, but it can be a fully functioning marriage with love in it. How do I know? I have non-member family and they smoke and drink... and they've been together for at least 35 years. It can be done. (Yes, he can get drunk, but he's still responsible about it and he's NEVER abused his kids or his wife.) Of course, as LDS with the WoW, we also say "why take the chance?" Can you have a loving marriage with pornography? I won't say yes or no, but I will say that I'm sure it can be done, if you love him for him... and not just his worthiness. Pornography will interfere with having a Celestial standard of marriage... with potential eternal consequences. But to have to leave? I think that's overkill. Don't ask me how I know all this. I just do.

I definitely see it as the left wing movement. Just walking down the street one may never know who is on the right or the left. Its rather scary that SLC itself is now run by left wing politics. The church, with heavy conservative right wing views, is surrounded by people and politics ramping up left wing views in their face. the church is definitely being tested and some are choosing to leave it because the voice and reason of secularism from the left more coincides with the lifestyle of their fallen natures. Abortion, same sex marriage, legalizatiin of drugs, gun control, feminism, socialism, big controlling government, equality, gender neutrality, government ran and controlled healthcare, separation of church and state, atheism, are all principles the left promotes. The real trigger behind this though is Satan himself- the father of lies. Almost every LDS doctrine as contained in the Proclamation is under direct attack from the left. If the left were to make their own family proclamation it would write exactly the opposite. And yet, there are supposedly faithful LDS who side with the left. Im baffled, honestly baffled that someone would fain believe themselves to be faithful LDS who support everything opposite our church believes in.

I agree with almost everything you wrote, JoCa. But not this: I do not believe this is true. I don't have much experience with which people engage in porn usage, but I feel quite sure in saying that even a perfect wife might have a husband who uses porn. I believe those who say that porn usage is not about the wife, it's about the husband. I believe this is the nature of sin in general, reflecting weakness and deficiency in the sinner far more than in anyone else.

Harsh words, with which I vigorously disagree. Frankly, I'm saddened to see such open disloyalty to the kingdom of God and its leadership. You are mistaken. Identifying as someone who has a short temper, or who craves Mountain Dew, or who is sexually attracted to aquatic mammals, or who is attracted to pornography, is NOT sinful. It's recognizing one's proclivities toward wickedness. As long as the person's thoughts and behaviors remain chaste, the person is fine to participate fully in Church activities, including temple and exercising the Priesthood. One's proclivities are not one's thoughts, and the hope and promise is that the former can be overcome by keeping the latter pure. If your reasoning above were correct, then neither you nor anyone else could participate in Church activities. Your weaknesses would prevent you from doing so, no matter how disciplined you tried to behave. I happen to agree with much of what you say, but you go much too far in some areas. This weakness is perhaps no more evil than other commonly exhibited traits; unfortunately, our present society demonizes the particular weaknesses you demonstrate, making them more problematic. You may want to consider following the example of the apostles more closely in this.

I realize Mormons are generally very tolerant and non-judgmental, but in all fairness as a heathen, I realize that sometimes you just need to beat the stupid out of people.

Yesterday: You do know that's friggin' amazing, right? Everyone do their happy dance for a mustard seed!

Revelation for couples should be received as a couple. That's not to say it can't come to one spouse first, but that the other spouse should also receive it too.

There is this thing called the law of witnesses. When a revelation is from God, it will not come to just one individual, it will be confirmed by a another person with a stake in the matter receiving the same revelation. So please do bring it up with your husband. He may be having similar feelings, or if he gives it some thought and prayer he may get a confirmation and then the two of you can move forward united in faith. Or he may receive a different prompting and you can have some comfort that you are not violating God's will in waiting a bit as you plan. Just say 'Honey, I need to tell you something I've been feeling and get your thoughts on it...' you aren't dictating to him what will happen, you are trying to work something out together. I proposed to my wife 6 weeks after I got back from my mission, we were married 6 months later. I was in school full time and she had a job at a retail store so we didn't have a lot of money. We didn't wait however, she was pregnant a month after the wedding and over the next 10 years our first 5 kids were born. Yes there were financial challenges and sacrifices, but we kept paying tithing and it worked out. We did have to have a friend babysit for a couple years while she was at work and I was at class, but after I graduated she was able to be a full time mom up. Our kids are older now so recently she was able to finish her degree. She has a career and I do too and I can work from home so even though our youngest in in high school he still has a parent at home. My wife says it is better to chase kids when in your 20s and do home work in your 40s than the other way around. Now that might not be the right path for you guys, but just because you are young poor newlyweds doesn't mean starting a family is impossible or wrong. You both need to take this to God and then act in faith on the answer. It doesn't matter if it doesn't seem logical, if you feel peace and confidence from the spirit over it, go with it and trust God to clear the path before you.

Welcome to the forums, @newlywed! Congratulations on your marriage! First, I'm going to refer you to a post I made in another thread: Next, I'm going to point out that in my experience, you will have the most success getting clear guidance if you study out the issue, make a decision (that doesn't mean the decision has to be what logic or math tells you, it just has to mean that you've considered everything you can think of to consider, and then made a decision), and then ask the Lord whether the decision is right. (This seems to work better than asking the Lord to tell you what to do.) Finally, you of course need to counsel together with your husband about this. Find the right time, when he's not stressed or rushing to do something or too exhausted to think straight. Let him know about these feelings you've had, your doubts about them, and that you'd like to consider the issue with open minds. God is a God of miracles, and I think that's what my dad's story shows. But He also expects us to work and think and make wise choices, so there's always a balance. In your case, you need to consider everything, plan what you can, trust in the Lord, and be open to his reply to your prayer. I wish you and your husband a long and happy life together with a beautiful family. I hope you'll stick around and tell us how it goes. Next you'll get replies which are perhaps wiser than mine (though I consider my dad's story to be wise counsel), and certainly more experienced (since I have no children, so I haven't been in a similar situation).

I do not know how to reconcile the two verses. I agree that they appear not to be consistent. One possible resolution is that Enoch and his entire city were taken, and so were not on the Earth, so they somehow "don't count". That seems pretty weak to me, but I don't have anything better. Enoch said he was "clothed upon with glory", which I interpret to mean he was translated (as you apparently do, too). But Enoch was not translated in order to stand in the presence of a spirit, even that of Jesus Christ; translation is needed only to withstand the presence of a resurrected, glorified being. So there would probably have been no need for Moriancumr to be translated. Enoch was perhaps translated because he was to be in the presence of the Father. Verse 11 gives some small support to this idea, as Enoch was instructed to bear record of the Father. Summary: I don't think the brother of Jared needed to be translated.

People care. Especially the person getting cheated on. But, it used to be that governments were theocratic. Now they're not. They don't need to be. The government does not (and should not) be the arbiter of morality, especially not the way it is designed in the US Constitution. Pedophilia? What in the world does that have to do with marriage? PROTECTION OF CHILDREN - That's what MARRIAGE is about. Why should a government codify marriage? To protect children . Why is it illegal to marry your brother? To protect children. Why is it illegal to marry at 13? To protect children. It used to be that it's not a marriage unless there are children. Because, outside of children, there is no reason to put yourself in a contractual obligation. Women, even before suffrage, were under the protection of their fathers and brothers. They need not get married for protection. A child born out of wedlock, on the other hand, becomes the sole responsibility of his mother. Now, gay marriage is billed as "it doesn't hurt anybody". Yes, it does. It hurts children. Have you ever heard an LGBTQ movement proposing that they not have any rights to children or adoption? Of course not. In their minds, a child growing up in a gay household is just as advantaged as any other marital union. Because, as they say, there are a whole lot of single parents and divorced parents and dysfunctional parents, and abusive parents, etc. etc. etc. But, we didn't legalize divorce because Johnny and Jane were so excited to plan a marriage so they can divorce. Whereas, gay people are so excited to plan a gay marriage and put it up as a societal ideal no different than heterosexual marriage in the rearing and caring of children.

I think there is a definite principle in play in the plan of Salvation that literally requires evil. There must, after all, be opposition in all things. Satan is, actually, requisite to the plan. For we must be enticed by one or the other for agency to exist. That principle is true and scriptural. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the right and wrong of establishing laws for the protection of society. The implication that agency may be remove by establishing laws implies a strong misunderstanding of agency. First, as has been said, a law doesn't literally force. It punishes after the fact. That is not a removal of agency. It is, frankly, the exact same as agency and exactly the same as God's plan. He does not force us, but we will reap the reward for our labors or lack thereof. That is God's plan and what agency is all about. Laws of the land tend to work in the same way (not always, of course). We still have the ability to murder our neighbors. But upon doing so, we reap the legal reward. Moreover, even if a law, literally, forces (which is rare), it still doesn't remove agency as it relates to our eternal salvation. We still have the absolute ability and authority to choose for ourselves salvation or damnation. The only case where this is untrue is in the cases where we lose accountability due to mental state.

When it comes to being offended, the person taking offense is almost entirely to blame. Henceforth my comment on another topic "If someone is offended... then they deserve to be offended". You decide where your priorities and beliefs lie, you decide what does and does not offend you.

That is almost literally what Vort and JoCa said.

Well, if your wife doesn't come back from the women's session of GC, you might need to conclude you got left behind... On the other hand, if she returns to find the house mysteriously empty...

Leftist values IS talking politics. I would counter and say I do not think you understand what leftist values are either. IT is SAD when one cannot tell the difference between their own political leanings and the gospel of the Lord. Both sides of the political spectrum have their problems, trying to blame it all on one side while ignoring the problems of the other is a prime way to deceive oneself until the day they need to truly make that choice between religion or politics. I know your statements may offend some who are on what we call the leftist side of the political spectrum. As someone who would say I'm liberal and a leftist compared to much in Mormondom...I might even say your statement was a direct attack on my political values. I don't think that's a good thing. We may have different political leanings, but we should both be brothers in the LORD. The Lord is neither on the right, nor on the left, but we may be on the right hand or the left hand. The Lord is neither rightest nor leftist, but rules over all men. The falling away isn't something that deals with leftist values, or conservative values, or whatever you have, but more of something that deals with each individuals testimony. There is a great deal these days that try to destroy the testimonies of members, and it are those things that are causing the great sieve in the church. This thing is probably necessary for the church, but I think all of us should be saddened when we see members fall away from the church into apostasy or anti-Mormon hatred. I would agree though, that though I think it's begun, it is probably going to continue until the second coming of the Lord. I would hope that we've seen the worst of it already, but in all likelihood it will get worse if the book of Revelation or Nephi occurs like many interpret it.

Since this is a thread by and for an individual, I'll only state that we can only help the individual who is LOOKING for help and guidance. You can't teach a society, but we can work with individuals one-on-one, one-by-one.

I will also say as a husband I personally would have a very hard time believing that there was no sex involved. If you go all the way to petting, especially with passions involved (chemistry and passion) as mentioned I would have a very, very hard time believing that some sex did not occur (it might have been simulated). You develop a relationship with a guy, he comes over to your house multiple times over a span of months, you have make-out sessions, it goes to petting and you are telling me you didn't have simulated sex? I just don't buy it; not in today's society. Like I said, if the husband is frankly forgiving, you've got an awesome man and you should do everything to keep him regardless of the porn.

I find sometimes it really helps to have a side by side. Yes your changes are noticeable. It is really apparent when looking at the length of the narrowing in your waist, notice how as your waist tapers inward below the bust and then outward again at the hips that you have created a lot more space then you had in your initial picture. Keep on rocking!

Amen to this again. I would amend it that it's not just confined to wives but also husbands (as in there are some husbands who are a parent to their wife-again not good) . ..but I agree that I think in general it has targeted more women. We say things like SWMBO (she who must be obeyed) as if the wife is the parent in the relationship . .. ridiculous. In the God ordained marriage the man is supposed to me the head of the household, not the woman. A man who is using porn is abrogating his responsibility to lead his family in righteousness. But for a wife to force their husband to be righteous as in nagging b/c of pornography is upsetting the natural order of things. She can encourage, uplift, discuss how she feels hurt by it (which I totally get), etc. But when she takes responsibility to ensure her husband is not using pornography she oversteps the bounds. The proper authority who nags or tells the man to quit using pornography is God, through the Holy Ghost and through proper priesthood leaders such as a Bishop, Elder's Quorum President, etc.

This is true. But I do want y'all to know my husband has told me multiple times that I'm the reason he is getting stronger because I'm patient and try to help him. So yes, I'm angry, but that doesn't mean I always take it out on him. So in this case, that's not an issue

Thank you for the tone of your comments. It's refreshing to hear the side you need to hear in a way that has some compassion to it instead of condemnation. I understand what you're saying which is why I'm in counseling. I can't seem to let go of the hurt I've felt these past 5+ years. The moment I feel like I've got it under control, he'll mess up again and it all comes back which tells me I never got past it in the first place. I don't know how. I am currently figuring that out.

My wife and I were pretty serious when I left on my mission, and I knew she was the one. A couple years after we got married, I found out that while I was on my mission she did some things that were disloyal to me as a boyfriend. She did not break any commandments but she did cross the line and do some things that a loyal and faithful girlfriend would not have done. The fact that she stopped it several months before I got home and had been faithful to me as a wife all along did really change the hurt. The fact that she did those things, then hid it from me, really made it feel as if she had cheated on me the very day I found out. I know what you are feeling, and I know what it took for us to heal that wound so please take some advise. There is nothing wrong about feeling that hurt over it, at least at the start. The hurt comes from the meaning you attach to his actions. You are attaching a meaning to his actions that says his use of porn is a reflection of his feelings and commitment to you, that his using porn is morally equivalent to adultery. Both of those ideas are wrong. His porn use is a symptom of his condition that he needs help with. How the church deals with a case of adultery is very different than how it deals with porn usage because they are not morally equivalent (although both wrong). If you choose to cling to interpreting his actions as you do now, you needlessly amplify your pain and slow or even prevent healing. It is not a matter of whose sin is worse, it is a matter of what sin is yours. Denial, downplaying the seriousness of it, getting defensive, these are not the steps of repentance, that is hardening your heart. And even before you made your mistake, not forgiving your husbands porn usage and hanging onto that anger leaves you guilty of the greater sin.

Of course, it takes two to make a marriage. But he isn't here and you are so people are giving you advice based on what you told them. I really don't understand this. Judgement is "you are damned to hell are a horrible person"-no one has said that. You made a mistake, you committed a serious sin, giving you advice on the seriousness of the sin, reasons why it occurred and how to fix it isn't judgement. It's giving advice based on what you have said.

Sorry, applauded. I started typing before pulling up the statement and didn't think to check it against what I already wrote.

Unless your definition of canonization is different from mine, the LDS Church DOES have an official process of accepting scripture: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

Now's the perfect time for your sister to face herself and learn the difficult lesson of true forgiveness. If she can't do it, I suggest she asks for the principal to move the child to another class. You don't want that negative vibe to put a cloud on the teacher-student relationship. It's highly unfair to the child.

Goodness, gracious batman! That is AWESOME! Excuse me while I wipe drool off the floor.

Full disclosure: Just a few weeks ago, my wife and daughters took chickens to a public park. Like, on leashes. (No, this is not the latest thing, this is just our thing.) That said, we don't take any animals into buildings or big crowds of people or anything like that. The exception being PetSmart, where that sort of deviant behavior is expected and welcome.

Most bishops I've known, are very happy to have the chance to just talk to people and get to know them a little. They have access to reports that tell them things (like a list of members with expired recommends), but most of them learn to not jump to conclusions after their first week of being a bishop. One thing bishops learn real fast - they have more than enough work to do, no reason to add guesswork to the pile. Music to a bishop's ears: "Hi bishop, I just wanted to stop by and say that I know my recommend is expired, and no, it's not because I'm inactive or apostate or whatever. Just things have been hectic."

I live in a world of converts. Not surprisingly converts do their best to read church history and sometimes get things a bit muddled. Part of cramming a lot of info into our heads. I also live a long way from Utah. Some of the policies dreamt up in Utah, become law here and cause pain and suffering here, Some examples: Before the 3 hour block, families had activities almost every night of the week. Here many live a long way to a meetinghouse. Picture being a single mom with 4 kids, trying to keep your children active under such a regime. We moved to the 3 hour block because we were driving mom's crazy. So the dispersed meeting model - not doctrine. How about today? Here we have long visiting teaching lists. How do you visit teach 5 people when your companion is inactive and you work long hours and you have two callings? Simple, stop visiting teaching. So visiting teaching has become something that people with jobs don't do. Bad idea. Whenever, in Relief Society or sacrament they announce that there is a statement from Utah, we all inwardly groan. Someone from Utah has a great idea for a policy. And will they please stop giving the new 'kill me now' policy with that beautific smile on their face? We are not 3 year olds. Some of these people have spent too long in primary. We are barely treading water here. The policy about visit teaching investigators and inactives first, almost lead to open rebellion. Thank you, Salt Lake.

Wait. Are my eyes deceiving me? Does it say that skippy posted? Wow...welcome back dude.