Maxel

That's a very funny story! I've never been one for live-action RPG's, although I've been addicted to the video game genre of RPG for... well, most of my life. I have an ex-girlfriend who was into gaming, and she enjoyed it as a wholesome activity after her conversion (until the people she played it with decided to make it darker, and she quit playing). I think she played Vampire? I don't remember... I've been wanting to try it once, but there's no one around who plays that I'd be comfortable playing with.

That is an awesome talk! I had no idea that Michelangelo was reluctant to paint the Sistine Chapel... Food for thought.

Welcome to the forums!

So, would it be fair to say that the LDS viewpoint about the nature of God is clearer and easier to understand, and that the Trinitarian viewpoint about the nature of God is less clear and difficult to understand the basics, while impossible to understand it fully? It seems to me that, if that is the case, then each viewpoint validates the theology of each religion: the LDS see God's Kingdom and the nature of God as making rational sense even from human perspective, and Trinitarians believe that God's Kingdom and the nature of God don't make rational sense from a human perspective.I'm really asking a question and trying to figure this out, please bear with me if I've misunderstood any/all of it. Also, just a note: if one teaching is clearer than another, than it is clearer than the other. I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be difficult to understand in its essence, but it is not easier, at any level, to understand than the doctrine of the LDS Godhead. Questions similar to 'Is God talking to himself when Jesus addresses the Father?' are not adequate examples of the hole in Trinitarian doctrine. In fact, the Trinitarian doctrine only seems to run afoul of incorrectness if one is to believe that God is a rational, explainable phenomenon. That's always how I've looked at it, anyway.

I think I can help clarify. I hope I don't do Traveler a disservice by trying to help. The Lord Jesus Christ was a partaker of the temporal effects of the fall by choice, but he was not in any way affected by the spiritual effects of the fall. That is, he suffered the temptations and weaknesses of the flesh, but at no time in his life gave in to the spiritual temptations that accompanied physical trials. For example, during His time of temptation from Satan after His period of fasting for 40 days, he allowed himself to be tempted and afflicted by the physical consequences of hunger and thirst. However, even when Satan appeared and tempted Christ to turn stones into bread, Christ refused to use His spiritual powers for sinful reasons. He chose to live life as a mortal man blessed with immortal spiritual gifts. He was tempted, but he did not fall into the trap of sin that is the otherwise universal heritage of the Fall. He was a partaker in that he was tempted, but he was not a partaker in that he did not give in to those temptations. As Traveler said, Jesus 'voluntarily condescend[ed] below his divine station to suffer as a sacrifice for all that the fallen state of man requires for justice'.

Tom, your brilliant insight reminded me of a quote from Elder Bednar: As one gives up the parts of their lives that are incompatible with the Gospel- be it friends, habits, etc.- God replaces what we give up with something much better.I'm sorry about your friend, kiwi, but keep your chin up! My experience is that the Lord provides us with the people we need in our lives, when we need them.

I've been meaning to get on and say something else about Onetimequestion. I fear I may have led somewhat of a premature witch hunt, in that I never gave Onetimequestion time to explain the glaring hole in his story: namely, what happened to his feelings of being possibly possessed by an evil spirit? And, what turn of events led him to pondering and doubting the faith of his fellow LDS members? I fear that I personally have not followed the counsel of God to 'hear a man before you judge him', and for that I apologize. I now wish to open the floor for Onetimequestion to explain himself, if he so chooses.

Dove, I'm truly sorry for the turn of events you are experiencing. My heart goes out to you. I have no idea what you should do; I pray that you will find the required comfort, strength, and wisdom needed to help you get through this. Much love, -Maxel

No... If she's describing a church that has spiritual validity to its teachings, then we are talking about different things. I am speaking of a church that has its doctrine revolve around the outward gifts of the spirit, such as the speaking of tongues, etc., and not the central message of the Gospel of Christ. It may be nothing but a caricature of some congregations, but it accurately describes some other churches. I've seen parts of a service like what I'm describing, and the spirit that they exude is anything but holy. The scene was full of everyone yelling and babbling, some rolling around on the ground, some beating their chest and renting their clothes; the whole thing was closer to an unholy orgy than any genuine feeling of the spirit of God. After the main service, most people went home.From what she described, it seems I'm talking about apples and you guys are describing oranges. I don't want to sidetrack this discussion too much though; there are others talking about the positive manifestations of the gifts of the spirit, which is far more edifying than discussing the misguided application of them.

Ouch.. Pam taking some collateral damage.

Thank you... *Hopes that St Ceeboo's thread-closing powers are not lost.*

BenRaines is so old, he is wise. And, he called Adam 'Grandpa'.

Heh... Gives us more time to fortify our lives, then. Still, when it comes down to the people viewing the issue on an individual scale, I still think that any amoral movement won't come to fruition until they dupe the general populace with those kind of arguments. They present a logical front, but when tried against logic grounded in the Gospel, the 'understanding of the wise men perish'. Hopefully, that won't be for a while longer in this case...

Because, in general, it seems that immoral movements get farther in any given situation using pathos instead of logic. The less the people know, and the more they can be made to feel misplaced emotions, the more ignorant they are kept.What's more emotional: an overbearing, established religion misguidedly trying to suppress the rights of a minority, or a religious organization using Constitutional means to combat an issue they see as moral? If they can paint the issue in the former light, the uninformed will not realize that the real situationis the latter. They won't accomplish anything until the majority of active U.S. citizens (i.e., those who vote) are duped by that kind of argument. Then... we're in trouble, as a nation.

Then you and I are talking about different things. I speak of the churches which make their selling point, their defining characteristic, feeling the outward manifestations of the spirit of God.

Amen... I am fully aware of the tendency for guys not to speak their mind or approach dating from a mature viewpoint... I go to Elder's Quorum and see it every week. I don't mean to sound judgmental, but that's the way it is.The purpose for this is for everyone to learn more about relationships, and I think learning about communication might help too.

Sometimes I write more quickly than I ought, and don't think how what I say will be interpreted by others. This is one of those cases, and I apologize. First of all, I realize that 'perverted' is too strong of a word, once I think of the entire range of meanings connected to it. A better word, for my purposes, would have been 'misguided'. Secondly, in no way did I wish to pass a judgment on the people who may attend such services: a person attending may be wonderful and lovely. In the same vein that I might pronounce the LDS gospel 'true' yet it be implied that its members are imperfect, I could label another church as 'untrue' yet it be implied that its members are good people. On principle, I wouldn't want another to judge me based on my religion; nor would I want another to judge my religion based on me. Now, a congregation that meets regularly and comes together for the main purpose of experiencing the 'manifestations of the spirit' that I described in the previous post is one led by a misguided spirit. Why? If the main purpose of gathering is to feel the outward manifestations of the gifts of the spirit, one has lost the core value of the Gospel (that is, the message of Jesus Christ to change lives and save souls) and focused on one of its ancillaries: the sensational occurrence of the outward gifts of the spirit. In the time of the early church, gifts of the spirit were only manifest to further the glory of God and not subject to the desire or schedule of man. In other words, a philosophy that puts a primary emphasis on the sensational gifts of the spirit has misunderstood the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is therefore misguided. I say such a philosophy is lead by a 'misguided spirit' as a reference to the fact that there are many spirits, but only one true Spirit, and that we should test them (1 John 4:10.

I transfer notes that I find particularly helpful/insightful, but mostly I start anew and keep the old ones in case I ever need previous notes.

Thank you! The purpose of this thread is to inspire conversation and encourage education about the realities of friendships and dating. Thank you for jumping in. Good point. I guess I kind of fall into an unfortunate synthesis of the two: I don't have many friends, and no really close ones. I've always been a lone wolf, but I think it's more due to mental health issues than my personality. My father's the same way.Which does raise the question: in which ways does healthy mental status contribute to friendships? And I don't just mean a lack of mental health issues, but having a healthy, working, active mind. It seems to me that friendships, being interpersonal, multicultural, and dynamic, would require two people who keep their minds as fit as possible so as to avoid unnecessary drama within the friendship. Thoughts? I've always thought the same thing. In fact, one tacit conclusion of the way I set up the first post is that each level of relationship must build on the previous one to be healthy. In other words, normal healthy relationships develop from friendship --> dating --> marriage (if marriage is ever reached). Thoughts?

Hey man- Congratulations! Judging by your posts, it seems you've done the right thing- even though it must have been very, very hard. Congratulations! You're continuing to do the right thing by moving forward and seeking support and wisdom from heavenly and temporal sources. If you continue on this path, you will be blessed eternally for it. In your road to recovery, a close connection to your Heavenly Father will be the absolute best tool available to you. Indeed, making use of the Atonement of Christ is the only way that you will ever be truly free of the monster of addiction. I would caution you a bit about listening to others' first-hand accounts, as everyone is different and what worked for one person may not work for (or even be relevant to) you. However, if you keep close to God and think through everything you hear and learn on your road to recovery, first-hand accounts and therapeutic recovery techniques will become some of your greatest friends. It is in this spirit that I recommend to you everything everyone has said above, as reading all the posts have filled me with a confirmation to the truthfulness of what they say. Having warned you about first-hand accounts, now let me share with you what I've learned from mine. Are you seeing an LDS therapist? If not, do you have access to seeing one? Generally, LDS therapists are more able to connect to you on issues of these kinds of addiction, as they have a gospel understanding of the situation. Do you have the kind of relationship that you can talk to them about this? I was never able to tell my parents about mine- my father is addicted himself, and my mother isn't a strong enough source of support for me to trust her with such personal information. However, if you are in a situation where your parents would be able to help you, tell them if you feel the spirit prompts it. It seems you've done the right thing. Judging by her behavior, she is just as hurt, in some way, as you are. I would take applepansy's advice- 'She is a daughter of our Heavenly Father and He will watch out for her. You need to worry about you.' Strictly speaking, it's a matter of the severity and secondary effects of the addiction. Your situation, however, does not seem to warrant either form of discipline. To my understanding, excommunication/disfellowship is usually considered only when a serious neglect of familial duties is a result of the addiction, or when any abuse stems from it. As you are still single, you don't have to worry about the neglect, and it seems you don't need to worry about any abuse you've inflicted on others. The only abuse stemming from your addiction is self-abuse, which you are trying to overcome.Many, many young men (and some young women) are dealing with these same problems. Excommunication and/or disfellowship is not the normal way of dealing with them. In one ARP session I attended, there was a man who was married with a 5 and 2 year old and extremely active in multiple callings, including President of the Elder's Quorum when he went to the bishop. The effects of him admitting his addiction (and he was heavily, heavily addicted) was the releasing of him from his calling, the recalling of his temple recommend (which he received again after 3 months of cleanliness), and the inability to participate in the sacrament for a period of time. Being active in church while hiding an addiction is not a viable reason for excommunication, to my understanding. Firstly, you have your heart in the right place if your main concern about being excommunicated is losing the spiritual blessings attached to being a participating Mormon. Secondly, I would advise you to relax. Even if you should be excommunicated, '[e]xcommunication when used correctly lets you start over. It can be the beginning of the repentance process.' (Props to applepansy for those inspired words)The best thing you could do, in regards to preparing to see your bishop, is to get down on your knees and pray for the strength to do so, and then go and see your bishop! One wonderful thing about the Church is the perfect way in which the Lord has set the ecclesiastical structure: the bishop is perfectly suited, with the right tools and knowledge, to help you receive the help and healing you need. We are told that our bishops are who we can go see in times of serious spiritual trials- right now, you are in one and need all the help you can get. I've never, ever heard anyone say they regretted talking to their bishop. Keep it up, dashb78- you can do it!

I think the gift of tongues is one of those gifts of the spirit that is popular because of its apparently contradictory mysticism ('oooh, they're speaking an angelic language!') and realism ('I can't understand what they're saying...'). Being LDS, the most common reference I know of to the 'gift of tongues' is the speaking in, and understanding of, languages that the speaker/hearer has no knowledge of otherwise- for example, a monolingual English speaker speaking fluent Chinese to a crowd in Hong Kong. I've not heard of the other manifestation of this gift- the speaking of angelic tongues that cannot be understood by mortal men- nearly as much. However, I believe it does exist in some form, although I'm sure there's much more to it than the mere speaking of a heavenly language. Like all gifts (prophecy, healing, etc.) there has been misunderstanding and abuse among those who don't quite understand it. I once saw an LDS friend of mine backed into a corner by a group of Protestant (I think Baptist?) boys who were babbling incoherently and claiming to be speaking 'in tongues'. There's also congregations who gather and work themselves into a 'spiritual' frenzy ('holy rollers' I've heard them called) and do all manners of things they claim are caused by the spirit: rolling around on the ground, prophesying, speaking in tongues, etc. Clearly, a congregation that makes that its normal practice is also led by a perverted spirit, if we are to believe that the gifts of the spirit are manifested by God's power and for His purposes, and not catalyzed by the whims and schedule of man. I also agree with Traveler about the reason the uttering of angels may be 'so great and wonderful they cannot be uttered by the mouths of men'. If the angels were speaking in an incomprehensible language, then how could the men hearing understand their words to be 'great and wonderful'? If the men were given the power to understand the language, than the only reason the words could not be interpreted would be the spiritual impact of the angels' words was so profound, that merely repeating the words would do the actual message such disservice as to render it an entirely different message. Otherwise, the hearers would be able to piece together at least a rough translation.

Onetimequestion's most recent posts cement his agenda. He is here to 'call us to repentance' and 'teach us what Christ really taught'. This from a person supposedly fearing he was possessed by a demon barely a week ago! He also flat out tells us we don't know Christ- otherwise we would 'know of his truthfulness'. I hate being this contentious; someone please do something about this.

My new goal is to attain, for myself, the wisdom and insight that you continually express in a wide variety of subjects, Traveler. Thank you for your wonderful insight.

DUDE, I thought of that EXACT same story! I love listening to Elder Cowley's talks!I was going to cite the above story, and Elder Maxwell's personal sacrament meetings in his fox hole, but they've already been covered, so...

Talisyn, you are truly a Christian. I thank you for saying that, as what I'm about to say throws a completely different light on Onetimequestion. If I am wrong, I pray he remembers your charity rather than my diatribe.The idea Onetimequestion had a deep lesson suddenly 'sink in' would hold water, if Onetimequestion's writing style and message hadn't dramatically changed over the course of his postings. Remember the whole reason he wrote this article is he thought he has a demon with him, because in the past he dabbled in the doctrines and artistic expressions of satanism? Frankly, if someone who had investigated the occult and indulged in satanic music to the degree when they think they have an unclean spirit fighting for control of their soul, I wouldn't take anything else they had to say on spiritual matters seriously until they had cleansed themselves fully- something Onetimequestion has clearly not done, if we are to believe that on the 23rd he thought he had a 'demon with him'. It might be different if he mentioned this 'possession' again, but he NEVER AGAIN mentions his possible 'demonic possession'. If I am to assume that he is trying his best to be honest, than that evil spirit is still there, or in one moment of feeling God's grace, his soul was utterly healed. It frankly doesn't happen, unless the whole spirit is changed, as in Alma the Younger. Someone who had their spirit changed so drastically wouldn't be on the forums two days later decrying the Church. His next subject is doubting the doctrines of the restored Gospel! It's also important to note that he valued his non-LDS friend as 'a true follower of Christ' that he prayed with in his first post, yet his bishop he faulted for 'not commanding [the spirit] to leave'. Another way to measure the bullcrappery of his postings is the way in which he's presented his message. For example, the bulk of his first post is one big chunk of words; no paragraphs to show a clear delineation between ideas. The only exception is the last few sentences, where he assures us of his general sanity, and encourages us to 'respond with faith'. Every post after that, however (when he starts questioning Church members' stance on Grace) he clearly uses a writing style more suited to a college student writing an argumentative essay. In other words, in the beginning he presents himself as an on-the-edge, end-of-his-rope person begging for help fighting a very serious issue. From his second post on, however, he completely abandons that style and presents himself as a respectable debater, though he mysteriously neglects to respond to the people who tell him that we are indeed saved through the grace of God. In other words, he turns a blind eye to everything anyone else says- unless they help his argument. One third measuring stick is to examine the phrases he uses. Clearly, even in his first post, he is very familiar with biblical and LDS idioms and theology. Phrases like 'it's important to note that I accepted this'; 'son of perdition'; 'ye who call yourselves chosen of God'; 'whereby can I have deliverance'; all speak of a specifically LDS theme and understanding, even when he's supposedly being greatly influenced by this evil spirit. More on the importance of this later. One last area to examine is his use, doctrinally, of Grace and his all-encompassing misunderstanding of the LDS view of it. I won't get into an explanation here, as others admirably set forth examples of how Grace is important. Yet, Onetimequestion persists in his self-righteous conclusion that the majority of the LDS populous is in grave error in their interpretation. He admits to feeling the spirit in temples before and believing that Joseph Smith is a prophet, but he seems to refuse to believe that the LDS Church is still the authoritative Church of Christ. At the very least, he doubts the church because of the 'awful' state of the members- yet he explicitly tells me that 'it's a good thing he puts his faith in God instead of the members' to arrive at the truth. Judging from all these facts, it seems our friend Onetimequestion is either A.) Truly possessed by an evil spirit, and there's really two distinct posters: the real person, and the demon he feels possessed by B.) A skilled liar, and a hypocrite to boot; probably someone who grew up LDS and fell away spiritually, now doomed to live their life in a warped reality where good is bad and bad is good, unless he repents I'm leaning towards 'B'. It seems his agenda is to declare that Joseph Smith was a prophet but the LDS church is in error, and that Onetimequestion knows a better way. It's true I'm extrapolating and drawing conclusions, but that's what I do. I have a good track record, both on these forums and in other areas. I really think this thread needs to be closed (better yet, deleted). I wrote this so no one else would be taken in by Onetimequestion's cunning. Either purposely or accidentally, there is something terribly, dangerously two-faced about Onetimequestion, and until what it is is found out, there's danger to the spiritual safety of this community.