Vort

This is incorrect. Before June 1978, those with black African ancestry could not hold the Priesthood or enjoy temple ordinances. Those without black African ancestry could, regardless of skin color.

Lily, Good for you for caring enough about your testimony to ask about it! Let me offer a few thoughts: In Alma 32, Alma discourses on how the word of God is planted and grows in our hearts. Like any living thing, it needs to be nurtured and protected while young and tender, but eventually will grow into a great, strong, solid thing that we can rely on. As a five-year convert, you are still relatively young in the gospel, and your testimony is likely still more of a sapling than a mighty oak. Protect and nurture that testimony, as some of the following will do.Listen to the General Conference archives from last conference. Do it more than once -- I aim for listening to the most recent General Conference at least once a month.Read from the scriptures daily.Pray at least twice a day, and with real intent. Be sure to follow Elder Bednar's counsel about prayer in the last General Conference; it was supremely wise and helpful. (Don't remember that talk? Listen to it again!)Ask yourself: Realistically, what might the prophet ever ask you to do that you should not do? Is he going to ask you to kill someone? Marry lots of people at once? Cheat on your taxes? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the prophet tries to implement a non-inspired idea, how would it ever hurt you to follow his directives? Avoid them like you avoid pornography. That is what they are; spiritual pornography, inculcating in your mind a warped and false view of what Mormonism is and should be. The time will come that you will be strong enough in your faith and testimony, and well enough educated in the gospel and LDS history, that few or none of the antiMormons' arguments will have any effect on you. You will immediately see the falseness of what they say, the error in their logic or the outright (often subtle, sometimes not) misrepresentation of facts and history. When you reach that point, you will ignore antiMormons because they have nothing of value to add to your life and you dislike dealing with their dishonesty. Until then, ignore them because they want to feed you poison. The bottom line is: Ignore them. Don't wonder about them. Don't take any of their assertions or "facts" to heart. Don't even listen to their ideas. I mean, come on. "Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are...BROTHERS!!!!" This should tell you everything you ever need to know about the mentality and honesty of antiMormons. In the immortal words of Nancy Reagan: Just Say No. Not at all. You are engaged in a struggle to understand and come to Christ, which ultimately is a struggle for your soul. We wish you only the best. No apologies necessary.

Yes. The sacrament is an ordinance for baptized members, not for anyone else. However, current practice is that anyone who wishes to partake may do so. It is understood that those not under the covenant, including little children and all unbaptized persons, are merely eating bread and drinking water, without any deeper meaning. I am sure the missionaries told you to go ahead because they did not want to cause needless offense. It doesn't hurt anything for you to take the sacrament, but since you now have a bit deeper understanding of its significance, you may choose to skip it until you have actually made the covenant and the sacrament has meaning as applied to you individually. And congratulations! Wonderful news about your upcoming baptism!

Oops, sorry. Bad topic drift, and I've been as much at fault as anyone. Apologies to the OP et al. We can take this to a separate thread, if anyone cares enough to do so.

Again, what is the purpose of baptism and partaking the Sacrament each week?To renew the baptismal covenant. Again, it's far worse for a man to kill and eat his neighbor than to think he's better than his neighbor, even if the man (and/or the neighbor) is LDS.

I can think of some passages in Exodus where God does indeed specify acts such as murder and theft as being wrong. Maybe you can think of them, too. :) I fully reject this idea. If I have desires and impulses and I act on them to commit murder and rape, then I am guilty of grave sin. If I do not act on them, I am not guilty of that sin. To think otherwise is to make a mockery of the very idea of individual choice and accountability. It's along these lines: Pride = bad. Why? Irrelevant, as I've discussed above.

I do believe J was referring to those who were baptized into the church.I would argue that it's worse for a man to kill and eat his neighbor than to think he's better than his neighbor, even if the man (and/or the neighbor) is LDS.

I could as easily argue that it was desire for power that "caused" the fall of Satan. We are all guilty of pride, but we are not all lost forever. The distinguishing factor between Satan and you (or me) is that you (and I) didn't rebel against God.

This suggests that man can "earn" the right to a "pure" wife by being pure himself.No, it suggests that people have the right to marry whom they will. Why? Is it also a "sin" for me to rule out a potential marriage partner because she weighs 600 pounds and smells bad? No? Then why the difference? I see no sin in deciding whom I wish to marry, and for whatever reasons I see fit. My reasons may be wise or foolish, but it's no sin.

Does this statement have any meaning? If so, please explain. I can't find any. Why do we care that God "loves" us? What does that mean? Why, it means that he has blessings in store for us that he gives us as we ready ourselves for them. That's why we care. And, of course, those blessings -- that "love" -- is and are conditional. What blessings does God have in store for Satan? Does that mean that God no longer loves Satan? In what sense does God "unconditionally love" Satan? How does that so-called "love" have any positive effect on Satan, or on God, or on anyone else? "While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional." -- Elder Russell M. Nelson

I disagree. An otherwise-worthy person living in a normal marriage relationship will be welcomed into the waters of baptism with enthusiasm. An otherwise-worthy person living in a homosexual or other non-normal-marriage relationship, even if it's legally recognized, will not be baptized. I'd say that's a pretty obvious divine sanction of marriage, even the non-temple, non-sealing type.

I don't believe God is a consequentialist: It is not the consequences of our sins that damage our relationship with God, but the effect those sins have upon ourselves - i.e. making us less worthy to enter His presence.I suspect that killing and eating your neighbor will have a more negative effect on your worthiness to enter God's presence than thinking you're better or more worthy than he is. And I should care about the opinion of theologians because...? Rebellion, not pride, was the original and proximate cause of Satan's fall.

I think forcible rape is probably worse. Also, killing and eating people is probably worse than thinking you're better than they are. Not sure, but I might be able to come up with one or two more.

Tell that to God.Why would I tell God what he already knows?

There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

But look who married him! At least it didn't say "State Pen".

Sister Foreverafter, I respect your sincerity, but you are mistaken. "McConkie & Oaks" (sounds like a law firm) were and are apostles, indeed prophets. Were they to preach falsehoods, you may rest assured that the First Presidency would correct their doctrine. The fact is that the kingdom of God works exactly as Elders McConkie and Oaks have described. Their words reflect present reality. That's how it's done. If a bishop or stake president knows and has proof that a person is committing adultery, the leader will not issue that person a temple recommend, no matter what that person claims. If divorce and subsequent remarriage were indeed considered adultery by God, then anyone who divorced and remarried (public acts which cannot be hidden) would have his or her temple recommend revoked immediately. It is simply false to say that they are committing adultery as known to the public, but that the leaders of the Church can't do anything because they say they are not adulterous.

Fawn Brodie was a fairly well-known "psychobiographer" whose main claim to fame in LDS circles is her infamous biography of Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History". Brigham Young was divorced by his wife Ann Eliza Webb, a divorcée with two children whom President Young married, apparently to provide for her. She left him and wrote her autobiography, "Wife No. 19". Her book was well-received and added greatly to the popular anti-Mormon sentiments of the day. (It's a rather absurd and laughable tale, available for perusal in its entirety at an antiMormon website.) Her two sons, when adults, broke with her and never contacted her again. She revised her "autobiography" to no acclaim, and died in obscurity.

You know, this really isn't a satisfactory answer. There are all sorts of potential legal unions that I believe God would not recognize even temporally; two obvious examples are polygamy and so-called "gay marriage". It appears to me that God recognizes the temporal marital union of a man and a woman not only because it is proclaimed and recognized by the society as a whole, but because it conforms to the divine plan of marriage. That suggests there is something inherently divine and holy about the marriage of a man and a woman, even outside the temple covenants. (Which of course I believe anyway, as I suspect most Latter-day Saints do, so maybe this shouldn't come as such a revelation to me.)

From an LDS viewpoint -- which really means from Vort's viewpoint, since I don't speak for the LDS Church -- we are not currently bound by the full terms of the laws of marriage. In Zion, a marriage would be considered so sacred that no one would ever consider divorce, except perhaps in cases of adultery or severe abuse. (But then, that wouldn't happen in Zion, would it?) As the mortal Lord explained, Moses allowed divorce because the people's hearts were too hard to live the higher law. It appears to me that we, too, are not yet bound under the absolute terms of the higher law. I say this because I observe that men and women may divorce for whatever selfish or frivolous reason, remarry, and still obtain a recommend to enter God's holy temple and hold whatever callings come their way. If we were bound under the law that Christ explained (and that Paul emphasized), surely this would not be the case. Thoughts: - I don't know of any Church Priesthood leaders I have ever had (quorum presidents, bishops, stake presidents) that have divorced for a frivolous reason and then remarried. There have been cases where their wife left them for a frivolous reason, but that is their wife's doing, not theirs. Since their wife left the union, they are no longer bound under the covenant, and thus fulfill the Pauline instruction to be the "husband of one wife". - Note that the word "adultery" is used to mean "covenant breaking", and applies both to sexual infidelity and, in a larger sense, to the breaking of covenants in general (e.g. the people of Israel at some points were a wicked and adulterous generation because they broke their covenants to God). If one party sues for divorce, he or she is unilaterally breaking that covenant, and thus, in a sense, committing adultery. Under Christ's law, this is grounds for true divorce on the part of the other party. - Christ didn't talk about women divorcing their husbands, because (I gather) such a practice was so rare as to be almost unheard of in his time. I understand that husbands divorced their wives because they wanted another woman and didn't want to support their current wife. This, if true, shows marriage as a societal contract arrangement more than a union of souls, which is the historical (and perhaps present) reality. - As I see Traveler points out above but that didn't occur to me to write, I believe Christ was talking about what we LDS would call "celestial marriage" or "temple marriage". A civil marriage has no eternal standing before God (though I do believe that God recognizes and honors such a marriage in the sense that the married partners are not living in fornication), and thus is not included under the same laws that govern an eternal marriage.

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Speaking of the Beatles: Band on the Run -- Wings

Welcome back into the fold! May we worship together with you for the rest of our lives. You ask if being a missionary later in life will satisfy "that commandment" of serving a mission. I would suggest that perhaps you should look at the situation differently. None of us earns his exaltation. All fall short of God's glory, and all are dependent upon the grace and mercy of Christ to be saved. If heaven consisted solely of those who kept their second estate perfectly, without error or sin, then it would hold only the Father and the Son. Such is not the case, however. Even though we have made errors, foolish choices, and rebellious decisions, we can still repent, become sons and daughters of Christ, and be received by him into exaltation. For whatever reason, you did not serve a mission as a young man. That time in your life is now past, and that duty unfulfilled. You can't go back and refill that hole -- but you can move forward and do what's required of you now. It will not consist of going door to door asking to teach the gospel; it's more likely to consist of keeping your wife safe and happy, raising your children, earning a living for your family, doing your home teaching, and teaching in the Primary (or whatever calling you're given). My suggestion is that you do what you're given now, rejoice in the opportunity to be a living part of God's kingdom, and accept the responsibilities and blessings God has for you NOW, as opposed to worrying about what you didn't do THEN. Who knows? Maybe one day in the not-so-distant future, you will serve a mission and preach the gospel. That would be wonderful. But whether you do or not, seek to build the kingdom in the situation you're in now. Don't waste time regretting opportunities lost. I strongly believe that God will not condemn us if we give honest effort, even if that effort isn't what we had hoped. PS The stake missionaries were renamed "ward missionaries" several years back, while I was one. I think that they were actually originally called ward missionaries lo these many years ago. Anyway, if you're interested in being a ward missionary, you could always let the bishop know of your desire. He may or may not call you to that position, but at least he'd be aware of your interest.

Using wingnut's song title theory, I submit: Belong I Somewhere, by Park Linkin

Let's see...I have bats in my attic, no mace but some old nunchucks in the garage, and ground pepper in my kitchen. Yep, I'm all set.