[Church activity rate and Scripture Questions]

How do they come up with the 4-5 million active members number? Is that just Sacrament Meeting attendance numbers?

There are so many types that might be considered inactives... those who don't hold temple recommends but attend Church every Sunday. Those don't attend Sacrament Meeting for some reason or other but are temple recommend holders. Those who attend Sacrament meeting but don't go to Gospel Doctrine or Priesthood/RS for some reason or other. Those who attend all 3 but don't perform their callings such as Visiting Teaching/Home Teaching, etc.

The LDS Church is not a "Sunday" thing. It's a LIFE thing. Therefore, counting "inactives" is moot.

I was told a long time ago that the church, for statistical purposes, counts inactives and actives solely based on church attendance. If you attend two weeks or less a month for church then you are considered inactive. It might even be if you only attend once a month.

Obviously you are right that there are so many things that demonstrate levels of activity. But statistics requires measureable data. its easy to measure sacrament meeting, and people attend it for the purpose of the sacrament and that is a reflection of people repenting(i.e changing, growing) during the week. So it gives a generality that these are the people moving forward and growing.

[Trying to understand lesson re: Priesthood today.]

I remember reading about President Smith teaching about how women gave blessings as you said andenex. It was in doctrines of salvation. I thought, though, that he said women may give a blessing but it is an operation of faith, not an operation of priesthood. Women may also stand in with the husband in blessing children but it is no longer an operation of priesthood but an operation of faith. someone correct me if im wrong(its been awhile since i read it).

This is how I understand each part of the Priesthood.

Keys- The rights given to man to officiate in the work of the priesthood, whether it is ordinances, service, or other capacities. Keys are held by one individual so the one who holds the keys really become "keys" in the sense that they open the door to work of the Priesthood being done. Such as a Bishop and baptism. No one may baptize an individual unless authorized by the one who holds the keys which in this case is the Bishop. I still have authority to do so, but I am not permitted to use that aspect of the authority without the one who holds the keys allowing me to.

Authority- The right that men have to officiate in the ordinances of the Priesthood. Without this none of us may act in a way to call down the powers of heaven. more explained later.

Power- An actual eternal strength if you will. This power changes based on personal righteousness of an individual. If one is righteous then the person will have more power granted to a situation that he acts in. If one is unrighteous, then when he acts it may be as if the person had no authority. Power comes from God but personal righteousness increases the "conductivity" of the priesthood holder to allow that power to reach the situation and touch hearts or alter situations.

Blessings- The fruits of the work of the Priesthood.

So one quick point to make. So what is the Priesthood and how does it differ from just faith. Faith is a power indeed. However, any person on earth can seek blessings and call upon God through the power that is in faith. The priesthood is different in that there are specific blessings that are guarded and regulated, if you will, through priesthood. This allows order to be in the "house of God." Not everyone may baptize for remission of sins, but only those who meet conditions of repentance and then the one holding keys allows a priesthood holder, that possesses the necessary authority to baptize, to actually perform the baptism. The power of the priesthood will be manifest through the Spirit so the recipient will be clean from sin. The blessings of peace and joy and gratitude will be had.

So faith cannot give one that special blessing. It takes the priesthood and following the necessary authority to allow these important blessings but yet keep chaos out of the work.

[Anyone recently been to Beijing or Bangkok]

We are excited. And yes, even though visitors are warned about eating food from the streets, the hawkers really do have the most authentic dishes to serve! Since moving to the US, I think my awareness to cross-contamination has gone overboard, and I'm suspicious of every little detail while dining out at a restaurant. It drives my family nuts! The funny thing is, I don't recall being so paranoid when I lived overseas, and would happily eat from the hawker carts and stalls with friends. At any rate, we certainly will be enjoying the fantastic food and the people there.

There are a couple things I recommend, get Roti's they aer like an indian treat that in Thailand they put sweetened condensed milk and sugar on it, and then they will somwtimes put bana, choclate or egg. If you are really lucky, some have blueberry, strawberry and other fruity flavors.

There are things called namban's, essentially smoothies. Most refreshing in that heat. They have all sorts of different flavors.

There are also fruit stands, so depending on what's in season you can get some of the best fruit in the world. America PALES in comparison. Get dragon fruit, papaya, if you can brave it Turian, Jackfruit, Gnaw(rambutan i think), Mangosteen, mango, farang(i cant remember what that is but it is a popular thing in brazil.) Basically I'd try any fruit there, They're all good except Turian and that one depends on who you ask.

Sticky Rice and barbequed pork. These come on skewers, and you get a bag of sticky rice. The marinade is amazing!! A sweet mixture that just keeps you wanting more.

And don't forget the bugs. Crickets aren't bad at all, just crunchy little things. Grasshoppers are a little bit different, but still have good flavor if you want to try them. Just remember to pull off the wings when you eat them.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

There is a dish, it's hard to find but it is the best dish I ever had. YomBlaaDukeFuu. It is a fish that is broiled and then when it becomes flaky, it is deepfried so it looks like breading crumbs. Then there is a tangy sweet and sour spicy sauce that you dip it in with sticky rice. The crumbs literally melt in your mouth!! And the flavor is perfect. It doesn't taste fishy so don't even worry about that. It is just gloriousness in your mouth!!

There are other dishes to try, but if you eat thai you generally can find the same ones here in america. In fact if you are in utah the best one that I've had in America is Thai Ruby. That is the most authentic in my opinion.

[Anyone recently been to Beijing or Bangkok]

We have our dates and bookings done! We chose Thailand over China this go around. I just HEART Thai food, especially their spicy pepper rice, YUM. We have planned the Rose Gardens, Siam Niramit, and of course their late night street market (I'll feel like I'm back home in the Philippines!). We are spending 4 days there and the rest in Hong Kong.

Excellent!! I served my mission there. Best place in the world. I was mostly up country, so I didn't see much in Bangkok, but there is a crocodile farm(if I remmeber right) and snake farm where you can eat snake and drink blood and see other stuff. I went to the rose gardens, well worth it!

Also, Bangok is HUGE. If you get lucky with traffic you can get across(NW to SE) in a little over an hour. But that is taking a toll road. So once you get off then the traffic is bad. There was one part that me and my companion we drove to one of the elders houses and it takes about 15 minutes if you hit the lights and traffic isn't bad. It took us two hours there, two hours back. So traffic can be horrendous, I'd go somewhere and plan on staying in that general area if you can.

If you have any questions feel free to ask. And buy as much food as you can from off the streets. It is AMAZING!! Everything is. It is a special place!

[Mormon Marijuana Smokers]

Selek,

I know you do not want to continue a conversation that does not talk about the issue at hand. However, what I said seems to be interpreted as me condoning what the op said through mollycoddling. That is not the case.

And I want to make one big distinction. The Savior cast out the moneychangers, dealt with the pharisees as He saw fit. Why? He is the Son of God. He is the judge. He is perfect and executes the exact amount of mercy or justice that must be meted when a judgment is given. Would you say that a judge in a courtroom is the only one in the room to pronounce judgment? Yes, so what gives us the right to pronounce judgment on others?

Now, even though I say that, we still make some judgments just as apostles have taught us(I think particularly Elder Oaks). We need to make a judgment to protect ourselves. Avoid potentially bad friends, or situations. However, that does not mean that we condemn and hate the person. Anything that involves hate is not of God. God is love. We still are friendly with a person, we still treat them well, we still show respect. So one day they will remember the moment and say "you know what those mormons or that person was still really good even though I tried hard to antagonize or treat them ill or I was simply wrong." So many people stay out of the church and even religion in general just for the simple fact of seeing hypocrisy in those types of actions. They see people who profess love, but show overbearance and condemnation even if the intentions are well meaning.

Well, then it could be said that it is still their choice what to think. What if I do my best and they still are bitter. Then I'd say I tried my best as the Gospel requires. I am not at fault. However, if I am not trying my best and just say forget it, and I leave a bad example. Then I have contributed to the person's faulty thinking. I am building the strength of the tumor as you put it. A person has more reason to feel justified in their decision even though the reality is in the end that justification will collapse against the law of God.

When Alma the Younger was teaching about his time of rebellion he said he "murdered" the children of God. He expands this to mean not temporally but spiritually. Some of those people never came back.

I never had anything against people telling him that he was in the wrong. rameumpton's post, I think right after mine, was a perfect way to teach the op he was in the wrong but in a respectful manner. It was like boom boom boom it's wrong because this this this. And not attacking anything.

So what did I not like? It was just the way we went about it. If something is wrong then something should be said. Just not in overbearance as Alma 38 says. When it begins to be more than just talking about the issue and we condemn the person. Actions, words, thoughts are expressions of who we are. To say that his comment is the stupidest ever seen on this site, first think how that makes them feel? If I said that about not only one of your posts but all of yours, how would you feel? You would either be hurt, not care, or get defensive or self-evaluate to see where that is true and see if there are any course corrections that need to be made. The first person is someone who is sensitive and probably more vulnerable due to situations in life. The second is an ignorant person or someone who makes a quick judgment and says that it's not them. The third are the proud and the guilty who taketh the truth to be hard or someone who has insecurity that they are not sure how to respond so they lash out. The last is the penitent who will see the truth and then see if they need to make changes, after properly evaluating they determine what needs to be done and does it and then moves on not worrying about it. That last one is hard for everyone but is the best. A number of people remain ignorant, and there are also many that have the insecurities that will either be hurt or get defensive. Do we want to add to that mountain of reason to be insecure? It doesn't matter whether they have it or not, but do we want to contribute? I don't. Attacking generally puts people on the defensive. Whatever the reason is. That is why we have to act with respect and love. The love will help the person feel safe and will actually listen to what was said.

Long example from my life. When I am attacked, unless I have time to evaluate more sides to a story like here or if I feel I am doing well spiritually, then I often will be a little defensive. In this setting, I can often look to see the other person's point of view. Though those insecure moments for me are all because of my spirituality. If I better about reading and praying, then I make better decisions and I feel more at peace so when I am attacked I have God-given strength to evaluate their side quickly and respond respectfully or kindly. But when I am having a bad day, boy I will fire back and unless you are a high superior then I will adjust but I will grumble. Anyways, a person probably made the right point but because of how I was treated, I ain't hearing it. I don't care. If someone who tries to manipulate me to do something and I realize it. I ain't doing it. I will spite the person. Is it Christlike no, but I feel an eye for an eye in those situations instead of the mercy and love that I should show. On good days, show me respect and I'll show you respect. Don't show me respect and I'll show you respect. On a bad day, show me respect and I'll show you respect. Don't show me respect, and you ain't getting it.

I guess my big point with all of this is if we respect others then our consciences can be clear that we didn't drive people away. We might have the right point to make, but often people hear the manner in which we teach the point more than the actual message. That is an error in humans, but it is just as Jacob expressed/prayed in Jacob 4 essentially saying I hope that my anxiety for you does not get in the way of the message. We need to be wary of how we communicate lest others misinterpret it and turn away from the Gospel.

[US lds in China can be likened to the people of the Book of Mormon!?]

How does one go about getting jobs teaching English in places like Tailand and China? I have heard you do not need to have a college education to do it. My sister is wanting to go someplace just to get away from things and work. She wants exotic so maybe this is a good idea?

I know this is old, but for anyone who is curious. I don't know the specifics, but in Thailand around 2009-2010ish and if I remember right, you can make about 90,000 baht or 3,000 dollars for a year. It might even be more than that I just can't remember for sure. Doesn't seem like a lot, but one dollar is a full meal per person. If you get foreign food then it will be more expensive. You wouldn't be living somewhere big, but it is definitly livable and enjoyable. Best food in the world, nicest people in the world, simple lifestyle, and cheap cost of living.

To my recollection, you do not need a college degree. They value your ability to speak english, as a native, as sufficient qualification. I would think that all you would need to do is look online for schools that need a teacher. I would recommend Nong Khai. Best place in the world. The aboslutely most relaxed, peaceful, fun, quiet town. It is on the river of Laos. I would live there for sure! There is a university not too far away, and I'm not sure if you need a degree for that.

The other issue though is tickets over are anywhere from 1,200-2,000(upwards) roundtrip per person.

[Mormon Marijuana Smokers]

We, as Latter-day Saints are commanded to repudiate false doctrine when it is presented to us.

I don't believe for a moment we can help bigernflo. He is unrepentant and militant in justifying his sin.

By his own admission, he did not come here with questions, but with an agenda- not to learn, but to preach the Gospel According to BigernFlo.

Therefore the only thing we can do is expose his position for the damnable mockery that it is.

Yeah exposing false doctrine is a lot different than ridiculing the person and making him look like a joke and not worth anything. D&C 18 The worth of souls are great in the sight of God. Implied is every single one. Right? Can you honestly tell me that you are treating his soul with worth when you are putting him down more than the issue?

Dove hits the nail on the head. We disagree, but be respectful.

Sincerely,

TPV

[I have learned a couple things throughout the night....]

No, trust is broken before sincerity is questioned. You don't question the sincerity of someone you trust, though maybe saying trust is absent rather than broken may be more accurate.

It depends on which side of the trust is broken. For instance, I ask you a question then you question. I am not the best communicator, and say you don't like one or two of my words that I use. Then you say you don't think I am sincere. To me I trusted you until you questioned my sincerity. Your trust might have been broken as I was speaking but to me it was not. One person can trust someone while the other does not trust in return. So I agree depending on what side. I hope that helps explain better what I meant. does it? And I hope you forgive me using you as an example I was only doing that so it was easier to communicate what I meant :) And it is probably better to say trust is absent.

I don't know how to make multiple quotes so I will just reply here.

To Eowyn

I wasn't questioning what estradling said in the least, I had read 4 or 5 posts in a row on an earlier thread to truther that me as a member reading wouldn't even want to listen for an answer. So, when I saw what estradling wrote I was like "that is exactly the two groups." I have thought about this before and I saw finally a simple passage regarding an observation I've seen but have not known how to put it into words. I believe there are two groups and there are also two sets of reactions that I have noticed that go with each group. And I was trying to find a way to communicate a worry of mine. It was made easy with the quote and I tried to say I was only quoting estradling because I loved the way he put the observation.

To pam

As you are head moderator, I'd say you have responsibility and it's necessary to be a judge of where one comment has gone too far or not. So measures need to be taken to make sure things do not get out of hand and as estradling said, "the gospel can be displayed here." But what about everyone else who is not a moderator, and judgmental comments are made after one or two posts. I've seen that multiple times over the last few years. That is what I am concerned about.

I agree sincere or not there are better ways to ask questions. But sometimes we don't communicate things best. My post is the perfect example. I saw an observation, it was a concern to me, I addressed it with related issues. To me, I don't see others making the same observation so I thought I would bring it up because the dangers, I believe, can be far reaching.

In reply I was told the person I quoted is a moderator, that my comment about trust was inaccurate(which I agree though Id rather say it was incomplete because as I explained, and hopefully showed, it depends on how you view the trust), and that what was said indicated a certain pattern and that a line needed to be drawn because it was crossing site rules about the church. And also that things could be communicated better.

Based off responses, I gather that I was not completely understood that way I was intending. So it suggests that I didnt communicate it in the best way.

Anyways, that is why I try to understand what is trying to be communicated rather than specific words, a lot of the time. Sometimes the words just sound real bad, but the person may be as sincere as they can.

I like this, "Yo dawg I wuz chillin at my comp and i wuz thinkin dat all i gots to do is pray. and dats it. God will be der and protect me and my family and all i can say is man dat right. you get wat im sayin g?"

How would that be interpreted? Sometimes I do actually talk like that. I grew up in the south, hung with my brothers. But Im sure someone would say something like I need to show more respect for God and no that is not all that you have to do. And I would be told that in a more demaning manner than what I simply just said. I say, "well, God speaks to us in our own language and own understanding." If that was how God spoke to me, then what right does one have to demean the way I worship? People come on here and may not have the best vocabulary or education or social skills or typing skills. Some people write on a sheet of paper or speak better than they type. Some people use things as a defense mechanism because that is all they have to try and cut the anxiety they feel.

Here is one example about someone I grew up with. I was 8 years old a boy walks into class drops his scriptures and kicks them into the wall over and over again. What do you do? He then starts to talk about how he is ashamed of his father, he hates his father, he drinks, he hates his family, he hates his brother, and so on. As years go by he gets picked on ALL THE TIME. He comes to church until he is about 14 or 15 when I think it was too much. Reasons he was picked on, he was overweight, glasses, not athletic, not musically gifted(these two were what most of our youth was talented at), his voice cracked a lot(probably from low self-esteeem, i dont blame him, he did eventually get voice lessons which helped a lot), couldnt sing, he was super smart but sarcasm was a major problem in our ward and so less smart people would say something and this guy just wanted to fit in so he would laugh or say i know but then the other people would start laughing and say stuff like "he laughed hahaha." On top of that he had no friends, his family life was rough, his older brother made fun of him for the same reasons. So I tried to be his friend, but he would just respond and make fun of me. I got picked on a lot myself so it wasn't very fun and after awhile i just stopped. But looking back and seeing everything he went through, I see why he would lash back at me. Of course at that age I never understood.

Sometimes though with some people who I have felt like have probably been a little overexpressive with their shock and some answers, I feel have been demeaned by members. What I see is a guy who is trying to figure this stuff out, but the answers are huge to him. He is jumping into WAY foreign waters and is like whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa is this for real man that is unbelievable!! And the language is used that he feels best expresses that. It is more than what was expected. But he is still there trying to learn.

We've been in the church so long or been active so long, that we forget what it is like to not have our testimonies and when one lives by a completely different set of rules and is not paying attention to another set, then decides to really jump in without knowing what to expect, yeah id say it will be a little crazy.

My sum up is the underlined section. The other stuff was to hopefully shed light on where I am coming from.

Does that make sense? Is there something that would be better if it was clarified?

[I have learned a couple things throughout the night....]

If you are here to find out the truth about what the LDS believe and how we practice our religion... Well you are in luck. That is why this site exists. We have a wide variety of different members with greatly diverse backgrounds and personal experiences.

But do understand that we have rules designed to keep this a place were LDS beliefs are displayed. And understand that we didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. We do have some experience dealing with people coming here and saying they want to learn the truth..

Generally they can be divided into two groups. Those who sincerely want to learn about us... And those are more interested in 'proving' us wrong then truly understanding us.

The first group is easy to identify. The first group asks questions, sometimes alot of questions depending on how much it takes for them to get what they feel is a good understanding. While doing so they are careful to avoid coming off as to confrontational or hostile, because they know that antagonized people are going to be more inclined to give defensive answers or give no answer at all. Now they don't necessary agree with our position once they find it out. They may find that for them it makes no sense whatever... But that doesn't stop them from gaining an understand of what and why we believe what we do

The second group is more concerned about being proven right, to beat that dead horse, to score a rhetorical point. They read responses not to understand but to gain ammo for their next shot.

Now the first group is more then welcome here. The second group we endure because we know it is only a matter of time before their over zealousness will cause them to break the site rules and get kicked out.

So here another truth for you Truther... What category you fall in to is completely up to you. So choose wisely, this site will respond as necessary to your choice.

I agree that there are people who really do want to understand and others who are not. You expressed it so well that I felt I should quote here the two groups.

However, I get extremely concerned at times that we might drive people away because of how we respond to people. If it is the opinion of someone that our religion is lame then let it be. If something breaks site rules then that is for moderators to correct however they feel, though a private message would seem best suited to me imo. I've not observed what is done in that regard.

But that isn't for all of us to tell a person that the comment was inappropriate and start harping on them, openly questioning how sincere or genuine someone is. Usually when someone questions whether I am genuine or not, then usually I get turned off to whoever I am talking to. Once sincerity is questioned, trust is broken. Therefore there is no more growth or increase in understanding.

So, yes there are two groups, but one comment that may not be worded how we like it should not determine how we respond. Even if we see multiple comments, we still should be civil, trusting, and supportive of the person. (As I Christ taught us to forgive seventy times seven).

Christ taught us to turn the other cheek. We should give the benefit of the doubt. I don't see that given very often. Being defensive destroys missionary work.

[Questions about a Temple Wedding]

I came here to have discussions that I can't have with my family without stressing them out..I came here to get some info that would help me talk about it with them. But all I get is frustrated by stuff that makes no sense.

I get my motives questioned which makes me not want to ask questions. She can talk to her bishop? seriously....? Does he have enough authority to change this insane rule? Are you saying that some people in the church get special treatment?

I am starting to regret coming to this board, because everything I have learned tonight is scaring me away and making me want to take my family away from this church..Up until now I at least had hope.

Hi truther! how are you? At first things may be hard to understand but give it some time. I see where you're coming from. Especially when you haven't known what happens specifically in the church or anything for that matter, it may come as weird or different.

I've also lived in Thailand so there is a major difference in cultures. Some things were just so unusual. For instance, you watch what you do with your feet. If you point the bottom of your foot at someone, it's the same as us giving the bird. Over there you could point at something with your middle finger and they find no offense. It's just different.

The biggest thing I find is being calm when learning about stuff. If you feel tons of emotion, or a rush, or anything that builds up feeling, then you could end up looking at things subjectively. I try to be as objective as I can with things. I love science. Hopefully my name indicates some objectivity. I've noticed for myself when I have the above feelings and I am not calm, then I am not as alert to certain details that will really open my mind or understanding.

I'm sure it is not easy, and there are things that just don't seem to jive at first. For me, the answers have come when I sought to learn what everything is about. What is the center of the message? Why is that the message given to us? How does that help me? These questions will teach you a foundation so when you start looking at smaller details, like temple wedding procedures, janitors at church, home teachers, Priesthood, all these things will be understood better. I'm sure you know who home teachers are and the priesthood, but the more we learn and grow in our relationship with God, the better we understand the reasons we have them and how they are blessings in our lives.

I have a verse that I feel would be helpful, I'll give it to you if you want. It helps show what the center is, and then you can learn from that point and start taking topics closest to it and work your way out to those other things.

Even as members we continue to grow in understanding so don't worry about not understanding everything at first. Just take one thing, study it. Take another, study. Meditate to see how they connect, and then move to the next thing and keep repeating, while giving time to test out what you are learning. Your understanding will grow and you'll be a lot more at ease about it.

I hope that helps! Best of Luck to you!

[Share Your Favorite Scripture(s)]

Jacob 2:8 For it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God; yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.

D&C 68:4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Matt 6:21 For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.

Prov 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths.

All these have just helped me at one time or another to learn key things or comfort me or helped me put things in better context when going throughout the day.

[What is a Christian?]

Tonight, for family scripture study, we read in Alma.

As we were reading we came across two very interesting verses (Alma 4:10-11), that I thought hit on what has been bothering me lately.

In my opinion (from verse 10), this is the state that my ward is in..."failing in its progress". Few baptisms, low-retention, and high-inactivity. But a ward that is "failing in its progress", really means that it's members are not progressing spiritually as individuals.

Think of a chain--it will only be as strong as it's weakest link. We all need to be strengthening our individual spiritual "links" and thus we--in turn--become a strong "link" in the larger gospel "chain".

Verse 11 struck me as well. Taking it out of context, and trying to apply it to what I have been thinking, Christians of all denominations must set the standard. We must set the bar high. Otherwise, couldn't we be the ones causing society at large to regard religion as unnecessary or irrelevant?

Could the weakening of standards, weakening of followship from Christians of all denominations be a cause in the weakening of society?

If we want others to take the gospel seriously, and see it as something sacred, something worth attaining at any price, then shouldn't we be treating it that way?

Well, it starts with me...with you...with each of us. We have to make sure that we are the strong links, and then help others to become strong links as well.

I agree. The lowering standard I feel is very dangerous. It brings in peer pressure on one level, and on another the people you interact with misunderstand your tolerance for acceptance and approval of something(thus we get a lower standard).

At work there is one individual who will interrupt me briefly to say a joke that I think is inappropriate but really its so seemingly on the line that if I were to say something then it will make it a bigger issue than it really is. (I guess growing up with people who swore, did drugs, said off-color jokes, and whatever else that you would think is disrespectful so you ask the person to stop saying them.) For me I learned to tolerate it, I know my heart and what I will focus on. Sometimes asking people is good, but then you get others that saying more loudly and then it becomes even more annoying. Anyways, at work I just tolerate things, but lately it is bothering more and more. I feel though that my tolerance in the beginning was probably construed as acceptance and that I didn't mind the jokes. Reality is I did mind, I just don't let it bother me or worry about it unless it gets extreme.

I also know that the way I knew my parents were serious about the Gospel is they treated it serious. They were detailed, and attentive to little things. When the President Benson said no rated R movies. They made no exceptions. When President Hinckley said to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year, my parents worked to make it happen. They were disciplined and said hey this is the Gospel, this is the way it is. They made sure they were so far from the line that there was never any question in my mind what they expected or what they believed and what they would do. I feel that takes real sacrifice, and real giving in order for that to be achieved. It doesn't happen at once, but over time(like Elder Bednar's analogy with the wheat painting and Home Evening).

Then when I searched and gained my testimony. I developed my own expectations. Some based off my parents, some on the apostles and prophets that I studied, some from promptings. However, though those were the sources, I always made the choice and decision regarding what my expectation was. I set the standard where I felt it ought to be based on the understanding I had and felt. My expectations have changed based off experiences I've had. At times I feel I am too lenient and my standard has fallen, sometimes it is because of an attempt to love. Like above I am probably too lenient. But it might be better to put up with it rather than have contention at work, and then I'll hate going to work every day. So learning to balance. I really think that is one of the biggest things we work on in this life. Can we balance the Spirit and the temporal? Sometimes we are impatient, but really it might be because we are hungry.

So full circle, I agree we have to individually develop ourselves spiritually. Then we have to live a high standard. Not based off what we see. That I feel is the biggest detriment. so many people in society, in our homes, ourselves, we see things and think that is the way it is or how it should be but there can be a better way if we seek it. As a little kid at school it was always the doctor takes care of you when you are sick. I have since learned that there are many other people that work with your health and doctors seem to have the place as emergency care in my book. I had to be shown these other ways, otherwise I would never have known anything other than doctors take care of you when you are sick.

As far as the Gospel goes(for your question), I feel then we have to hold it up like it is sacred, it has to be a serious thing. Obviously not Pharisaical like "oh son you didnt read your scriptures you are going to hell!" That will teach the kid to hate it. so we need to avoid hypocrisy. That is why some people become atheist or agnostic because they see the hypocrisy and they don't believe anymore. But we have to be loving and firm in what we believe. Is it the most sacred thing to you? Is it the one you will pay the price no matter what? Is it what you devote your time and attention to? The way we treat it in our heart is how our actions will be shaped.

One of my favorite verses.

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[What is a Christian?]

So, I have been pondering...what does the populace at large think being a Christian is?

Is this just a Southern mentality that merely believing in God makes them a Christian and makes them religious?

What about other denominations, or other wards in other areas? Has anybody seen the same style of worship or Christian mentality in their area or region?

Or is this just in my area and stake?

What does being a Christian mean to you? Is just the belief in God enough to qualify any of us as a "Christian"? Or do you think it takes more, a whole lot more, to be a "Christian"?

I grew up in north carolina, and am now in utah. I'll just answer the questions and then make a few other comments.

In the south a Christian, depends on who you ask. Often (as was my experience), you have to believe in the Bible, the biblical Christ, and accept Him into your heart. What is really a Christian, in my mind. Simply a follower of Christ or as Traveler said, a Disciple of Christ.

The mentatlity of the South I feel is different in the Church, but people who join the church also bring the southern culture with them. The hospitality and a mindfulness to God in many areas of life. My boss read from the Bible during meetings. We prayed at school before games.

I feel southeners do live the Gospel and are charitable, but it isn't everyone. A lot do and they often do not parade what they've done. So testimony meeting for me, yes lots of gratitude, stories that would not include Gospel topics. But the people were humble, focused on Christ, and trying to grow. Home teaching was below 30% but people would serve each other when they were in need, they were friendly and warm to each other. Isn't that the idea of home teaching? To watch over the church and strengthen them? Yes the spiritual teaching isn't there as much but temporal needs are taken care of. Lots of service projects for widows, poor, and needy.

I did see the attitude you ask about. But it wasn't in many and I rarely saw that in the church. People were either believers or they weren't. There just were some that believe that once you receive Jesus into your heart, then you are saved and there is nothing to worry anymore. You've done it. That group can fit what you say. However,what was often taught is that good works would be manifest in their lives because of that acceptance. So, you would see people living good lives.

The truth is there are many hypocrites in the world, you will see it in other denominations, and you will see it in our church. (or at least people appear to be hypocrites though they may be quite good people) That does not mean the pure in heart aren't in other denominations, and they aren't in the church. It just means we see imperfections of people, but the real test is for us to progress and grow. We must try to become pure in heart so we put God first. I found it easier in Carolina than here in Utah. Every day I could have a conversation about God and what I believe. Here, I get a 2 minute conversation that doesn't get deep at all. I miss that aspect of the south.

People believe differently about Christ, but they are only doing the best with what they've got.

You mentioned failings in your ward about people accepting callings and other things. Sometimes the issue there is the people just don't know or understand that they are being asked by God through the person to take a calling. People just don't know sometimes. And that will go with anywhere you live.

I promise you this though. If you will look for the things(good) they are doing. If you try to learn from them. If you take their comments and ask questions about them(works best when they are talknig about a scripture and you try and figure out how they came to that conclusion and then see what is the truth). If you daily look for missionary opportunities and just open your mouth. If you do these things and study every day to be able to ponder on them. You will have words put in your mouth when the time comes. You will feel a love for these people. You will see their faith. You will grow in your testimony in our Lord Jesus Christ. Your faith will increase. Your desire to do right and be a true Christian will develop. And you will be happy and enthused because of your progress and growth, and seeing the good that God does for you every day.

[Consider the Lilies of the Field]

One thought I have is this.

The context was to the apostles when they were put the Kingdom first. The Lord is telling them go and do and I will provide for food and other necessities and other temporal affairs. You mention that there are those that do not get what they need or their nourishment. If you think in the temporal, yes they may not get what they need but in the spiritual, there is nothing lacking. They will still be saved even though they died early because of temporal conditions. (I know that we don't know that they will be saved, but we DO know that the Lord will provide the opportunity to be saved.)

So you may say well their temporal was not provided for. The reality is that maybe they didn't need more time here. They really did have enough temporal things to make the spiritual journey that they needed here. Now it is time to go back.

It might be said well they didnt progress on their journey at all, they had sins and so on. Well, we can't be the judge so I say that an opportunity will be provided after this life, and continuing in this life is only going to bring more pain or suffering or might leave such a scarring moment for that person that they can't handle it so it is better to move on to the next life so they can receive the healing they need. The Lord will not allow us to endure more than we can handle.

just some thoughts :)

[Anxiety]

I have to say I 100% disagree with the suggestion that you avoid doctors. We all have anxiety to a certain degree. It is natural. But what was described by the OP sounds severe.

I am not sure why receiving medicine for real problems is looked down upon so much. It shows no lack of faith. We have been blessed to have the medical advances available to us. Yes there are things one can do "naturally" but in cases where natural just doesnt cut it, there is no shame in having something prescribed.

I think one reason the suggestion to avoid doctors was given is because drugs just temporarilly alter chemical balances. The current levels of various chemicals in your body. Often, a doctor will see symptoms and prescribe a drug based off symptoms. Back pain is a big one, mental health, etc.

A chiropractor or a someone who works with vitamins can resolve those issues. The back pain could be because your back is out of a proper alignment and it pinches a nerve(can happen with pregancies when the baby sits over a hip). The mental health could be because you lack certain vitamins.

I recommend watching this documentary "Food Matters."

Did you know we have had the "cure" for cancer for over a 100 years? You read that and might be like yeah right. But the truth is we have.

"Curing" cancer is a simple idea. Currently we use Chemo, surgery and other stuff to remove tumors. Obviously, it gets it out, but is it fixing the mechanisms in the cells that are generating the tumors? No. So curing cancer is just getting the mechanisms to reverse back to normal. So they no longer create the tumor cells.

The simple answer is avoid Genetically modified foods(which is sadly a lot of what we eat.) And get the vitamins necessary for the body to function.

In the documentary, it gives this story about a woman who had severe depression, she would sit in the corner of her home and she would do nothing, she contemplated suicide amidst all this. A Psychiatrist gives some pills. They don't work. Then a man who works with vitamins. Gave a vitamin called Niacin. They gave heavy doses of the stuff too. The woman was going back to normal life and everything, when she went back to the psychiatrist. She told him about the Niacin, and he said it wasn't safe. She got off niacin, and then she went back to the corner in her room.

I don't trust doctors anymore. They only ever use drugs anymore and don't believe in the strength of your body. I believe a lot of our issues whether mental or physical often come because we are malnourished in someway. I broke my arm once and the nurse forced me after 10 minutes of telling her I wouldnt take the pill and then she convinced me by breaking it in half. It didn't do anything for me. My body had sent all the endorphins I needed to be pain free. Another time when my wisdom teeth were pulled, they gave me some heavy pills, i dont know what they were, but it wasnt till I stopped taking them that my pain started to go away. I would take them and my brain would fog over so I wasn't aware of anything. But I could still feel the pain in my mouth. My cheeks would numb a bit, but not my jaw where the pain was. Doctors say these drugs help but they do not. Sure in emergencies they help. That is what the value of the doctor is. They cannot sustain though. They aren't long term fixes. Think about it a doctor is in a place for the sick. The goal of the doctor is to get them out of the sick place because it means what? it means they are healthy again. That is a dumbed down breakdown of what the doctors work is. So who treats the healthy, ourselves. Ourselves learning our needs, for minerals, spinal alignment(affects nerves and brain activity), vitamins, and muscle relief. We get the help we need from those specialists and maybe other areas if you can think of them. And I believe that doctors do not serve the purpose that we(society) often think they serve.

Another additional point, pretty much any processed food is absolutely gross. Did you know that the old twinkies had beef in it? yeah thats right beef. ugh!! Take a look at little debbies and Im sure you'll find stuff in there that unfathomable.

[How To Pray]

I am talking about being asked to open or close a class with a nonrehearsed spontaneous prayer. I'm not talking about specific prayers like the blessing of Sacrament or the Lords Prayer.

I once read from the words of Elder McConkie, that our public prayers should be short, the essence of the prayer being, a petition concerning the current feelings of the occasion. If it just rained and that was needed, then exress gratitude, call upon God for the Spirit to be there, whatever you feel and see are needs for the occasion. Whatever should be reflected on. But it should not go on for 5 minutes and be filled with every eloquent word you can think of or whatever.

The idea as I see it and understand it, speak in your words, with your heart, and about the occasion.

A note on the last thing. Keep things appropriate to the situation by praying for things pertaining to the group. I.E you might have a personal need that you feel in your heart and you are praying to God in your heart but you don't necessarily need to pray about that with the group. So be mindful of what is appropriate for the group. Another quick idea is that when closing a meeting I feel it is okay to mention what is discussed, and maybe it is something that you learned, but praying for the help to apply and implement the principle into your life is appropriate so those prayers may be short they may be longer. I feel the idea of a closing prayer should send us off more motivated to act on what was taught, and some prayers do and I go right home from church and start moving to implement what I learned other prays are just like okay yeah we said the prayer, talk to people go home, eat, play games with family or whatever else that is more relaxing rather than remembering the Lord. I am not saying or blaming my inaction on the prayers, but that prayer may have been the last spiritual boost from the meetings I needed to get me over the hump and get acting. You never know. I'm not making a point that prayer MUST be that way, but merely that there wonderful blessings from closing prayers.

[How To Pray]

I don't even know what that means.

I believe all he is saying is instead of might the Spirit be here, instead ask that the Spirit really be there, and the reasons for it. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I just wanted to make a comment about the Lord's prayer. I've said the Lord's prayer and if I were asked to offer that prayer I wouldn't mind. Simply, because that would be the feelings in my heart. Yes it may be "memorized," but it is a prayer from my heart and that is what the Lord wants from us.

I grew up in the South and before football games, we would pray. The Lord's prayer was offered together by each of us. At first it was diffferent for me, but as I grew to ponder and think of the meaning and really mean what I was saying. I noticed it became a spiritual moment and I could feel the Spirit and I gloried in a loving God. I love the Lord's prayer, it means a lot to me now, because of those moments and experiences with it. I don't think it would be as special to me if I didn't offer those prayers.

[Why Science?]

No one knows what is in the heart of another....

from another recent thread...

"Science consists of symbols that explain our experiences.

Religion consists of experiences that defy being symbolically represented." - JLT

"experience in general defy being symbolically represented- it's the old problem of describing the sound of a trumpet, the color red, or the taste of salt to someone who has never experienced it using words alone." -

Both science and religion attempt to be verified by "two or three witnesses"...

After all is said and done, we can only know what we have personally experimented with ourselves.

I agree we do not know what is in the heart of another. I meant that the work of pure/true science and religion is a work for the heart. They enhance our ability to grow and become like Christ and they are complementary of one another. That is work that occurs in the heart. I don't know the heart of another.

I agree with the quote, science is measured empirically meaning that it is measureable with numbers and symbols. Religion uses experiences that we have. A spiritual confirmation from God cannot be empirically measured with numbers and symbols. It is an individual experience that is received from God.

The next quote I agree to a degree. This is a challenge of life to attempt to explain our experiences, it happens in religion, what does the Spirit feel like? One of those explanations is peace. It takes experimenting to discover the meaning of that word. But it cannot be symbolically measured with numbers like science is. symbols are the means of communicating experiences but science can use numbers for everything. Religion can only use words. I can explain the color red, and the sound of the trumpet with numbers and probably even the taste of salt with numbers too, but that would be all you hear is numbers that have no meaning unless you experience the taste of salt or see red or hear a trumpet. But spiritual things have no numerical explanation. Just I feel and I know and then the idea is communicated with words. I guess what I am saying then is the only way to have a personal experience something is to go through the same experience. No amount of communication from each other can help. That is why God speaks to us in our own language and tongue because we understand words differently. We can communicate with him perfectly but not with a human being. Communication with God is composed of the throbbing's of the heart, the feelings that we have has we express our desires to God. Not the words. I believe Elder Talmage said something to that effect at the beginning of Jesus The Christ. The thing I dont agree with then is that symbollically representing an experience is just an attempt to communicate an experience and not an attempt to actually cause an experience. That is why it is defied because there is no possible way to perfectly communicate with others, only with God because of the pure direct communication with Him.

I agree with trying to have multiple witnesses.

I agree that we know what we have experienced.

I agree the spiritual process is another showing of the scientific method, illustrating that it is the same process. The difference is in what is analyzed. spiritual or physical, measured symbolically or experiences from God.

So to expand on some things and summarize:

I just want to say there are multiple things that science is. Overall simplified down it is a process to discover truth, true principles. Religion uses a similar, if not the same, overall process. However the difference is what can be tested. Science tests physical, Religion test the spiritual. One is measured symbollically, the other involves experiences that come from God directly. That last part is the key the answers in science come from God, but often indirectly by way of physically testing and inventing. There is a measureable answer that you have to apply to discover its meaning.

In spiritual truths God gives you the answer by a feeling/experience. That cannot be measured empirically.

Science takes time and you receive the answer through testing that gives you a measurable value. Over time you learn the meaning of the symbol by various experiences. Symbols are just the means of communicating the knowledge so that it can be experienced.

I'm sorry if I've not explained clearly, to me there is so much overlap, and it is hard to show the similarities while keeping the difference shown as well. just ask me if something didnt make sense.

[Why Science?]

Science is the process that man uses to seek truth.

Religion is the process we use to seek truth and receive the answer from God.

Elder Scott gave a talk and mentioned that the 2 limitations on scinece is you cannot know for 100% sure that what you found is the truth. The reason is because a scientist has a hypothesis and they test something else to determine whether their hypothesis is wrong. I.E. if the test passes then the hypothesis doesn't work and thus thought or idea and we know it is not the truth. In other words we can never know what the truth is because the hypothesis cannot be tested itself. This is to avoid bias.

The 2nd is it cannot test spiritual truths. I.E Does God exist? Is the Book of Mormon true? Etc. It can test things like artifacts, or other historical things to assist in demonstrating the past a bit. Though I don't consider that important or pushes our knowledge of God. However, in studies like physics, biology, chemistry, and math, our understanding of who God is grows when we see the order, the laws by which these things are governed, which helps us better protect and strengthen our bodies. Take care of our stewardships and gifts that God has given, and so forth. In other words, we can figure out some applications for spiritual truths through science, but we cannot determine doctrinal truths from science.

Therefore if it is true science, then the attempt and goal is to find truth. It has to be coupled with religion to find the proper context and use of the findings in a spiritual and uplifting manner. True religion is the teachings of Christ to purify our lives to be like our Heavenly Father and live with Him. Unlike the 2 inhibitions of above. Religion can discover what the truth is and we can get the spiritual truths that are necessary to give us the purpose and perspective of this life and after and before this life.

Just think, science allows us to use construction equipment to build temples. Science builds our computers for family history. Science allows for quicker transportation and thus missionary work goes farther and faster. Science is coupled with God at the root of these innovations.

To speak to what you were saying Anddenex, I feel that pure science and pure religion are more of things in the heart. Yes there is outward manifestation, but my heart grows spiritually as I seek truth from God, and science improves my ability to act in more effective ways. Both are a way of life to find truth and use it. That is pure science

We see the fruits of science in our day, and Enoch's people saw the fruits of the teachings of Christ in their day. We still see those fruits today but it happens on an individual basis. It did for them too, but they all were in tune and became how they needed to be to have such a blessed society. We haven't all become like that but that doesnt mean pure religion is not among us.

Hopefully that helps.:)

[a deeply troubling quote from E McConkie]

Eowyn, I apologize for coming across pointed or accusatory. That was not my intention. I guess I was just tired last night. I was wrong and wrote more out of frustration. My comments weren't directed at you, and more to others, even others not on this site. It is based on multiple observations.

The frustration is that people dismiss wihtout even looking or evaluating. I believe you dont do that. That is what you said just above and from what I've seen you write in the past.

That part wasnt well written, but I am saying what you said in your post, I agree and believe that you do that, and that is what aught to be done.

I have to go to work now, i diddnt proofread that and I am still tired so I hope that what I wrote makes sense.

[a deeply troubling quote from E McConkie]

If Brigham Young was quoted to say chocolate ice cream is the best kind (he'd be right, but that's not the point), would I only eat chocolate ice cream? Anything outside of official declaration is a man's perspective, counsel, and/or opinion. Not Gospel truth. So in that respect, I do take their words with a grain of salt, or at least with an ounce of judicious thought.

I agree, I believe we should evaluate what people say, not just take things at face value. That was what Elder McConkie taught himself. We need to study for ourselves and receive the answer from God. However we should also not be dismissive of material. Until we determine that it isn't something worth putting our time into.

The thing that disturbs me is when people don't consider what was said to be of any worth. They don't even look or evaluate it beyond the 10 seconds after reading it or they realize after they are done reading, oh that was by Elder McConkie, I need to pass over this one. I mean seriously. There are certain names that people hear and then they toss away so many spiritual gems because of bigotry, ignorance, petty dislike, and other silly meaningless things. Brigham Young is one person, Elder McConkie another, and there are others.

If the point was to say that in the past some comments made by prior apostles, before they became apostles even, may have not had the same light that we now have so we evaluate what they said and determine if what they said is connected to the gospel. Then I would have no issue. However, Elder McConkie was singled out, he has been before, and I am tired of it. When I have so much to be grateful for, how can I not defend him? People marginalize him and others, so people miss out on real spiritual rocks. We aren't talking .05 carat diamonds I mean like 3 and 4 carat diamonds that are flawless. Yes there is other stuff that like I mentioned we have greater light now, but people marginalizing these apostles is a dangerous game.

Do you take everything that is in our manuals with a grain of salt(judicious thought)? None of what is in the manuals are official declarations. They are just useful study material. I am sincerely curious about it. I am not sure my tone sounds the best at the moment. I guess I had a hard day at work, and this is something that has bothered me for years.

When I used to share some gospel principles to other members, just simple ones about faith or the Plan of Salvation(i know quite broad), I would reference Elder McConkie and I would be ridiculed and people would put him down like it wasnt of worth. And I saw the comment earlier today but I declined to say anything because I don't like bringing stuff up like that. But since it was brought up and I felt a love for the man, I asked myself how can I turn away when I have a testimony of his apostleship, and I know that he taught true doctrine? It saddens me that more people do not appreciate him. It helped me so much to learn from what he said. Not everything is 100% doctrine, but so much of it is, and he teaches only what he was sure of. My wife has asked me questions where I don't believe I can tell her the answer but they are questions answered in process of searching. The source I know she can get the answer from is from certain talks by Elder McConkie. Why? Because that is where I got the answer. The talk is just appropriately conducive to the Spirit.

I feel there is something else I should say though I am not sure. I just want to ask do you take the words of Elder Oaks or Elder Bednar with an ounce of judicious thought?

[a deeply troubling quote from E McConkie]

Nothing in your comments disprove anything stated by Elder McConkie. They simply attempt to marginalize a great Apostle....I often scratch my head when you do this because you have done it so frequently. I still here Elder McConkie quotes used frequently in General Conference and in teaching manuals.....and last I checked, The Standard Works still contain a great deal of elder McConkie's "inspired work".

I know there many people have differing views of Elder Bruce R McConkie. However I must testify that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ. He testified of Christ and salvation through Him. If it were not for Elder McConkie, then I would not be here right now, I would not have the testimony that I have. I am eternally grateful for his righteous service!

Not everything he said was perfectly worded or politically correct or whatever. He spoke without fear. He spoke as Christ spoke, as one having authority(he did have it). No one can speak like that unless they have charity(perfect love casteth out all fear). He was bold, and he would speak the truth. When he spoke I could feel the truth of his words and they gave me something to latch onto until I could study it properly to get a witness from God myself.

He was not perfect, but do you take Brigham Young's words with a grain of salt, do you take others(apostles or prophets) with a grain of salt?

[Why are we not allowed to remember the pre existance?]

We generally accept that God is all-knowing and therefore could draw the conclusion that He no longer needs faith. Yet the hymns are also considered to be doctrinal and in "The Spirit of God" we sing that the knowledge and power of God are expanding. Which is where I suppose things might start to become illogical or pass mortal understanding, but if God is all-knowing and yet has the capacity to expand in knowledge would it not seem highly probable that God still needs faith. It certainly seems like an eternal principle by which the power of the priesthood is directed, and that for God to no longer need faith would be a contradiction to his teachings whereby faith precedes miracles and is sort of a currency of spiritual power.

I also find it interesting to remember that as man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become. This leads me to the thought process that our Heavenly Father would have needed faith in something during his walk in mortality and this may need to continue in the eternities. Also, He may require faith in His servants to accomplish His works... and so faith becomes one eternal round.

Sorry if my post raises more questions, thanks for getting me thinking.

As I have read that hymn I believe the context is referencing the knowledge and power of God are expanding on the earth. I once thought that same thing until I looked more closely at it. He is indeed all-knowing but not expanding in knowedge because He knows everything.

Joseph Smith teaches how faith is a principle of power, that by faith the worlds were created. This shows a necessity for God to have faith so He creates.

[Why are we not allowed to remember the pre existance?]

You all have given me a lot to think about.

Does God really have faith? I may be oversimplifying, or mis remembering, but didn't Alma teach that once you gain a sure knowledge in a thing your faith is dormant which I took to mean that it was replaced by knowledge. If it is as simple as that then I would think God has no faith because he knows everything.

I can see that if it is faith we need to experience here then having the knowledge of our pre existence would prevent us experiencing faith if it is limited to being something not seen which is real. However if God does have faith and knows everything then once again I fail to see how we could not develop that same faith while having a knowledge of our pre existence.

I would think that everything else we could learn here with or without our memories of the pre existence.

2 corinthiams 5:7 we walk by faith not by sight.

Joseph Smith teaches that "Faith is the motivating principle of action in all intelligent beings." He elaborates on this and teaches that what you do is predicated on your faith. If I studied, why did I study? I had some motivation whatever it was to sit down, open my book, and read. If you didn't think that you could learn the material, would you have ever read the book? No.

Therefore your faith is a belief in something, and it will cause you to act according to that principle which you believe. now for faith that saves. The faith we always talk about at church is faith in God, His promises, and teachings. When we believe, it causes us to act. We keep the commandments, covenants and other promises we've made.

This idea is one that God follows as well. He believes something, and also knows it, so He acts. He knows something but still has faith because he continues to act.

Hopefully that makes sense. In short God uses faith because He acts. His faith motivates or moves Him to action.

For some people, like me I feel, they need to be completely blindfolded without any possible way to see, that way they can do this based off their faith. If you see then faith cannot be tested. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for which are not seen.

Some people you put a blindfold on and then they walk around like it is nothing. Others they get real unsteady, they take 2 inch steps, outstretch their hands in front of them, bend at their knees anticpating hitting something. They probably look a little goofy. Those people have fear, and until they have faith they will always have fear and not progress anywhere meaningful.

[Why are we not allowed to remember the pre existance?]

why do we need to live by faith? It is an attribute of God. To be like, God as is the purpose of the Plan of Salvation. We need this experience to help us develop it. I am sure we developed it before this life and can but this earthlife is probably better suited for people that rely so much on what they see. It makes it so it is faith in God that we rely on. No peeking right?

I personally dislike the test analogy. I view it more as a growing grounds. Think of being dropped from an airplane or something that hurls you and at first you are like whoa where am I, nothing makes sense, then when you orient yourself then you communicate with your limbs better to move how you would like. We are put here and at first we might be a little confused, but finding the rock of Christ will help orient you and allow you do focus your energy more effectively on what is necessary and important. All that matters in this life is whether you accept Christ as the rock and chart a course(as exemplified by how you live(not being perfect but whether you keep going in the midst of failure)) to eternal life based off that rock. If you don't then it says you rejected Him when you knew He was the rock. For those who don't know He is the rock get the opportunity to figure that out after this life.

I don't think hijolly meant that you would necessarily get the answer in the few weeks. Some answers can take years to receive. So keep praying and don't give up whether He answers tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade, next century, or next millenium. You could recive it tomorow, but it doesn't matter whether you receive it or not. It does matter if you give up.

An example from my life. I served a mission 2008-2010. I had a question sometime in 2006-2007ish. I got my answer in 2011. 5 years. As long as you never give up, you will receive the answer, just whenever the Lord feels its time to give it to you.