Islander

I think that a clear sign of maturity is the ability to discuss delicate and even difficult subjects. Perhaps sex is one of those. I am not sure since it has never been difficult for me to call things by its proper name. But beyond that, there are many ways to have a frank and honest conversation about sex once the relationship has reached the point where marriage may be a good prospect. For women, sex (to really get the hang of it) takes some time. For men is straight forward and quite simple in most cases. An appropriate conversation about sex prior to marriage should include issues relating to history of physical/hormonal problems, disease, abuse, fears/phobias, concerns. Remember, the topic is normal and universal. There is nothing shocking or off planet that will be revealed in the conversation. If we remember that by then you suppose to be best friends, there should be no concerns about having such conversation. After all, you can tell your best friend everything.

ALL disciplinary issues in the (LDS) Church are treated with great seriousness and diligence since ALL endowed members are considered clergy. All issues are also dealt with in the utmost privacy. Most times, and depending on the seriousness of the offense, only the Bishop (in the ward) would be aware of the situation. The rest would be handled at the Stake level. Often times a sanction includes the temporary abstention from partaking of the sacraments, suspension of priesthood responsibilities and duties, exclusion from the Temple. But we are commanded to try and reach out to the wayward brothers and sisters. I visit a couple of them and have a great relationship with them. We would never throw anybody from the Church. They thow themselves out when they refuse to repent and acknowledge transgression. In which case they remain dis-fellowshiped until such time they have a change of heart.There is no need for a public act of contrition. It is all done in love, with great care and in teh sincere hope that they wold repent and return into full fellowship.

People tend to confuse the gift of prophesy with priesthood authority

I participated a fireside last Sunday near LA and a young woman performed a solo with piano that was just breath taking. It was not one of the hymns but the theme and the soft melody were just amazing. I sincerely doubt that rock music can invoke such outpouring of the Spirit.

Difficult as it sounds, you have to resolve this issue before it gets a LOT more complicated. You have to overcome your desire to save face and not being embarrassed on account of your past transgression. Yes it is difficult but it should point to the fact that all sin has consequence and it is unavoidable. Go to your bishop now and deal with this. Yes, it may be difficult, yes you will feel embarrassed, yes it may cost you the relationship but it will be resolved and you will not have to carry they weight of it any longer. On account of true repentance the Lord will not behold future blessings.

Hog wash! It is nonsense. They have never made public what psycho-social instruments they use or even commented on how they were validated. Statistically speaking you would have to be a space alien not to have ANY point of social overlap on a site that claim to have 10 million people.

Omaha: Wikipedia is a trailing news source. I suggest you stop trying to argue an issue where it is obvious you have some information gaps. Since you admitedly share the Administration's ideology, you seek to reaffirm your position and close the door to any and all opposing views while ignoring the weight of the counterpoint offered. It is not a profitable exchange at this junction.

Beyond the political leaning of the person, your worldview is shaped by your life experiences, psychological makeup and social constructs. Meaning, you become a pragmatist or an ideologue. The last 12 months suggest we are in the presence of a group that lives in a construct of its own design totally divorced from reality. Ideology seems more important than reality. That would not be so bad if they would be willing to listen to the dissenters which appears to be (ignoring them) the new sport; crush the opposing view, who cares about the merits of the argument. Mark Twain once said: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

This is, by far, an anti-religious drive. The ONLY reason why the city has not argued against the proposed plan is because the Church has provided study after study, including statistics on traffic flow and urban development that the Temple does not cause congestion, accidents or otherwise a hazard to the community. Everybody else is arguing a different point but they are all mute since ALL the relevant factors have been accounted for and addressed. The Church has been building Temples the world over for 100 years. There is no new argument.

I think that you have to rely more on the historical record than on a philosophical or modern interpretation of the facts. Jesus did not say that the Temple should be done away with. The Apostles continue worshiping in the Temple after the crucifixion (Luke 24:53 and Acts 2:46). James, the brother of Jesus was known for his righteousness and daily Temple ministrations. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans and the inhabitants scattered, religious life as they knew it stopped and was disrupted forever. The final blow in 132 AD scattered the Jews across the face of the earth. From that point on the priestly class faded into obscurity and with it the cultic rites of the Temple. The "gentiles" never worshiped in the Temple and the it was not necessary for them to embrace Christianity. As some noted before, the Jews of the 1st Century AD had lost perspective of what the Temple meant. It had become a tradition, a mechanical and culturally mandated rite but they forgot that the Temple pointed to the Messiah that would Atone for the sins of His people and the world over. Thus they were not offered more than they could understand. In the later days the Lord has revealed more for it seems that at least some of His children can grasp and embrace a "higher law" and a more profound covenant beyond the salvation that He freely offers them. He has caused Temples to be built upon the earth that His purposes may be fulfilled at this time. Modern revelation is what guides the affairs of God on the earth not the theological understanding of men. If Christ revealed that Temples should be built so the His Spirit would once more dwell there and move upon the face of the earth that He may offer them a glimpse of the world to come and endow them with power from on high it will be so. Some will believe and some won't. We shall know hereafter who was able to hear His voice and who did not. The NT was not and can not be the ONLY and conclusively unique word of God for it was not intended to be so! Beyond the testimony of Mark, Matthew and John and the accounts collected by Luke what we have is a collection of letters between the Apostles and branches of the nascent Church (co-religioners) with some explanations on specific subjects of Christian living. It is not the fullness of the Gospel. To claim that the word of God is ONLY contained there is clearly not a sound proposition.

Here are some of the stats: 1983 US Embassy attacked: 63 killed. Same year the Marine barracks in Beirut blown away 241 killed. 1984 Torrejon, Spain: 18 killed. same year Kuwait Airline plane 4 dead 1985 TWA flight 1 US navy diver killed Since then, Hezbollah has killed more civilians in terrorist bombing in the ME, Asia and even in South America than any other group. Just today, HLS hinted that there is a link between the Christmas Eve failed attack and the Iranians. Again, a threat assessment relates to who can actually do the most damage and not which one is the dog that barks the most. What we call Al Qaeda is a loose and for the most part autonomous cohorts of the mujaheddin that share a common ideology. Hezbollah has the organizational structure, finance, training, support and operational capabilities that Al Qaeda lacks. Remember, their slogan "was, is and always will be: death to America" That is a pretty telling statement.

The fact that they have been reluctant to strike inside US territory does not diminish the threat. Because we "know where they live" they have shown restrain all this years. Once the Mullah's in Iran determine that it is time and that retaliation fromt he US would not be forthcoming they can order a strike that will make 9/11 pale in comparison. Until 9/11 Hezbollah had the record for inflicting the most US casualties worldwide. They have also attacked Israel worldwide with more precision and damage than any other organization. There are thousands of members of Hezbollah in the US already! The same can not be said for Al-Qaeda, for example. Again, it seems to me that you have not been able to assess accurately what a global threat to the US can be and where does it come from.

I happen to know a thing or two about the subject. But, also check some of these sources.: Hezbollah's Strategic Threat to Israel :: Middle East Quarterly G2 Bulletin http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/262.pdf FrontPage Magazine - Hezbollah, Illegal Immigration, and the Next 9/11

I suggest that in order to appreciate the current state of affairs we must understand what the real threats are. If any future terrorist attack in American soil are to take place they will not be from Al Qaeda. A much greater and underestimated threat comes from Hezbollah who already has thousands of operatives in US soil, by the way. They are sponsored by Iran, significantly better financed, with vastly superior counterintelligence and operational capabilities, much better trained and embolden by our aparent lack of resolve to deal with them on the nuclear issue. The Iranians know that the US will not do anything. They will carry on and continue to follow their WMD road map and develop a deliverable nuclear payload. They will pass the material to Hezbollah making them able have a dirty bomb in US soil in 5 years. I think Israel will move against them before we do and that can bring the world to the brink of WW-III. Are we safer now? Nope, I do not think so.

Of course not! I remember years ago when the San Diego Temple was announced that it took years for the church to defend the host of lawsuits filed to block the construction. There is no new or novel arguments against Temple building. For almost 100 years it has been the same unfounded, non-descript, vague and blurry arguments. It is opposition for opposition sake.

Hey, where did the OP go? I think it was just one of those hit and run? Should we close it then?

I think the whole argument here overshoots the mark.

Check out this one:

These divisions and "strange" doctrinal interpretations were a stumbling block for me for eight years while I searched for a church. And we will see more of the same as philosophical reinterpretations of the scriptures supplants biblical truth. I hope the faithful in these congregations will find the strength to hold on to the Savior as they struggle to hold fast to the word of God and truth.

You are very young and likely do not understand this as of yet. But the difference between girls and women are: certainty and strength. Certainty which is clarity in discernment, the ability to definitely know right from wrong without looking for feedback or confirmation. Courage to make decision based on truthful principles regardless of how difficult they are and hold steadfast to that standard. Now that you DO know, worry less about what others say and do and smile quietly at their frailty, while hoping that some day they will find the way and truth that you already know. You knew you were doing the right thing, you felt it and acted accordingly. As for the other girls, well, grandma just to say: "nobody is stupid on purpose. Some folks just don't know any better for the time being..."

For me being a convert also the nic "Mormon" is a misnomer! It sounds strange since it is not even the name of the religion. I think we continue to hold on to it out of pride and historicity. It does not bother me but it really makes no sense. It would be the equivalent of calling Catholics Popeists or others Islams. I never use the term. I always identify myself as a Later-day Saint.

Hello Tony, I am also a convert. I understand how difficult it can be to withstand the world being so young in age and barely the fundamentals of the Gospel. Do not spend much time thinking about the past. Just come back, find a chapel near your home, talk to your bishop, attend Sacrament. Seek to reconnect emotionally and spiritually with what you know to be the truth and that brought so much happiness to your heart. Welcome back!

I grew up in a country were most people are pagan or atheists but a very small minority have Catholic traditions that involve very large statues and crosses. In my home we did not practice any religion but we read the bible. We did not have any images so they tend to be a bit outside of what I would consider "appealing" when it comes to religious displays. I really have no feelings about somebody wearing a small cross that is a family heirloom or a gift. I think what creates cognitive dissonance for me is the meaningless outward display of it. It would be hard to argue with the fact that jewelry is mostly for show rather than a true symbol of faith.

It could very well be that you are broadcasting some "vibes" that put off certain people. But again, as PC so eloquently explained, it makes sense that a young men look for the very best prospect he can find/likes based on certain assumptions about who would make a good eternal companion and physical care is just but one of those attributes. In the other hand, most people you'll encounter in your life are 5-8 on a scale of 10. Then, average is obviously the norm to be so redundant. Rather, concentrate on being the very best you can be and that will be attractive to some.