prisonchaplain

115
 
Just thought I'd share this:

I do not find the OP to be disrespectful, because begging to differ should not necessarily be viewed as disrespectful. In the same spirit, I do disagree with the OP. God has revealed himself through some very specific scriptures. Some doctrines are better than others. Some churches are more closely aligned with God's precepts than others. There is right and wrong, black and white, and not nearly as much gray as many seem to want.
Having said all of that, our role is to respectfully state our cases, and to not be offended when someone politely disagrees. All views are not created equal, nor do they stand equally well to tests of fact and logic. However, everyone deserves a respectful hearing.

It's immoral.  Yes...so right.  The phrase makes me want to slap its annunciator.  "Check your privilege," is another way of saying I have no right to speak, or that my thoughts must needs count less than that of people of other classes (poorer, darker, more female).  Oh, and the book definitely gets judged by the cover.  I took the quiz for fun, but this whole thing stinketh.
 
Nevertheless, congrats to Anatess for out privileging me.  :)

When I, as a non-member, hear a member say, "The LDS Church is true," I understand that to mean mine is not--at least not in fullness.  Where some of my fellow non-LDS may be mislead is in failing to understand that a non-restored church is not necessarily a condemned one.  In traditional Christian teaching there is heaven and hell, right and wrong, Christian and not Christian.  So, if a church says they are the true one, we immediately assume they mean all others are "false."  If so, the others are condemend.
 
Today, I do not hear all of that.  It's more like when I say I am a "Spirit-filled" Christian, or I believe in the "full gospel."  I do not deny that other Christians walk with the Spirit.  I do not mean that others are lacking a sufficient gospel.  Instead, I believe that my church allows a free reign of the Holy Spirit that most others would attempt to restrict.  I mean that we not only preach salvation, we pray for the sick, and may even cast out a demon, if need be.
 
Initially others were offended by our claims to the "full gospel" and to being "Spirit-filled."  They thought we were saying they did not have the Spirit at all, and that their gospel was empty.  Today most Christians acknowledge our orthodoxy, and even admit that the manifestations of God we see are authentic.
 
Personally, I would not bother with hesitating to make the statement.  Further, I argue against saying "I believe."  It implies an uncertainty, or at least an unwillingness to defend the statement.  If it's your faith, proclaim it confidently.  If someone wants to take offense, but asks you how you could say such a thing, then tell them.  Be kind but confident, and let agency do the rest.

This is a spin off the Sexless Marriage thread.  A reference was made to the Good Girl Syndrome.  I take that to mean girls have been taught to be modest, chaste, and even sexually shy.  Good girls do not look for such things.  They may internalize the idea that marital intimacy is "dirty."
 
I get it...kinda.  However, at least consciously, that line of thinking should be easy to oppose.  After all, do we not also teach our daughters (and sons) that within marriage intimacy is commanded by God? 
 
1 Corinthians 7:   2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (New International Version)
 
Once the lie is exposed, it should be relatively easy for a couple, within counseling, to begin working towards intimacy.  Yet, I sense from some posts here that such is not the case.  Why?

Like classylady, I too never really saw my parents be physically intimate.  Nor did we ever talk about the birds-and-the-bees (and the very idea of such a talk filled me with mortified embarrassment).  My teachers at church also didn't talk about their married relations, for obvious reasons.  So I never got a idea of what "good" sexuality was like. 
 
Instead, I saw/heard disgusting/stupid things about sexuality from teenagers in public high school.  Seckuar teachers were mute on the subject and I didn't talk to my folks.  Church teachers said "Don't do that" and I said "DUH!!".  I watched so many of my friends get terribly burned by sexual mistakes, and I graduated high school with zero desire to ever go 'there'. 
 
I knew that someday my husband and I would have sex... but that day was so distant.  How was I to know what "married healthy sexuality" looked like?  What did it feel like?  How do you find it?  I had no idea, and I wasn't sure I wanted to know— every passing year I saw misused sexuality hurt my friends get hurt more.  I was afraid.
 
That's one way how "good girl syndrome" can come about.

I think I suffered a little from "good boy" syndrome if there is such a thing.
 
The message I often received (or at least how I translated it) was that boys want sex and girls don't. So when I got married I had some difficulty with my feelings towards my wife when she expressed desire for me.
 
It felt un-natural and awkward to be wanted sexually and I found myself looking down on my spouse a bit. I've since repented, and I do think those attitudes require repentance and forgiveness as one gains understanding. 
 
I think it's important to teach children that is sex is not only sacred, but is natural and a gift. That both men and women find fulfillment thru it's proper function and its an important part of a healthy marriage.

When I, as a non-member, hear a member say, "The LDS Church is true," I understand that to mean mine is not--at least not in fullness.  Where some of my fellow non-LDS may be mislead is in failing to understand that a non-restored church is not necessarily a condemned one.  In traditional Christian teaching there is heaven and hell, right and wrong, Christian and not Christian.  So, if a church says they are the true one, we immediately assume they mean all others are "false."  If so, the others are condemend.
 
Today, I do not hear all of that.  It's more like when I say I am a "Spirit-filled" Christian, or I believe in the "full gospel."  I do not deny that other Christians walk with the Spirit.  I do not mean that others are lacking a sufficient gospel.  Instead, I believe that my church allows a free reign of the Holy Spirit that most others would attempt to restrict.  I mean that we not only preach salvation, we pray for the sick, and may even cast out a demon, if need be.
 
Initially others were offended by our claims to the "full gospel" and to being "Spirit-filled."  They thought we were saying they did not have the Spirit at all, and that their gospel was empty.  Today most Christians acknowledge our orthodoxy, and even admit that the manifestations of God we see are authentic.
 
Personally, I would not bother with hesitating to make the statement.  Further, I argue against saying "I believe."  It implies an uncertainty, or at least an unwillingness to defend the statement.  If it's your faith, proclaim it confidently.  If someone wants to take offense, but asks you how you could say such a thing, then tell them.  Be kind but confident, and let agency do the rest.

I found this for under $10K.  It's a 2007 Chevy Express 12-passenger.  I guess I solved this string.  Yay me!
 

I found this for under $10K.  It's a 2007 Chevy Express 12-passenger.  I guess I solved this string.  Yay me!
 

Faith4 is spot on, in my book.  Our ultimate faith is in God.  However, He chose to reveal himself through the scriptures.  Those scriptures are reliable.  We get caught up in debates about them being "perfect" or "inerrant."  They are right.  They are what God wanted for us.  They are for our edification.
 
Interestingly, our priest asked me last week about the canonization of the Bible.  The gist was why we Protestants accept the compilation of the scriptures, when that compilation was done by Catholic hierarchy.  In other words, why do we recognize the books, but not the authority that approved them?  Of course, the question was asked openly, not as an accusation or challenge.  I thought about it for a day, trying to recall my seminary conversations/lessons about canonization.  Ultimately, what I remembered is that we focused on criteria.  What standards did they use to select scripture.  Also, we do believe that God's anointing was on the process.
 
Why does this conversation remind me of that Baptist minister who used to come here--the one who preaches from the Book of Mormon, but who remains Baptist?

We believe that was the test that took place before coming here, what is called the "first estate".  That is where we had all the facts, all the truth before us.  Everyone here chose correctly and therefore will merit a Kingdom of Heaven through the saving grace of Christ.  The test of mortality was meant to take place with minimal information as to reflect our true, primitive nature and drives, "the desire of our heart".
 
Now we face the test of true character, whether we will actually do the thing we said we would or not.  It is a test of integrity, or 'how far would you go?' 
 
We all believe in Christ, we sometimes call this the "light of Christ" and it is ours to ignore as we chose to ignore our spiritual side in this life.  Sin, then is a reflection of character, not a mistake that someone can say, "oops, my bad."  This probationary period we call mortality is the only chance we have to change character, a "change of heart,"  or being born again.  After this, our trajectory is set.
 
I explain it to my children this way; A soldier in boot camp will vow to never leave a fallen soldier behind, they all agree to that standard (like what we agree to in pre-mortal life).  But, in the heat of the battle only some will actually follow through with that standard (integrity - the test of mortality). Just like in this life, only some will actually follow through with their professed belief in the God's plan, to require a Savior, and have enough faith to follow His gospel despite being in the "heat of the battle".
 
So, sin is really bad in terms of it reflecting our true nature, our difficult to change character. It is a deep hole that is difficult to get out of but it can be done through repentence.  

Doctrine and covenants 19:
4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
 
I agree that LDS theology has a different take on sin, repentance, punishment, judgment etc. than evangelical christianity does. I think it shows a great deal of respect and insight that although you see our views as less severe that you would ask for discussion rather than simply make up your mind on your own perception of our views.
 
I find this passage of scripture above does a great deal to help explain some of these differences. Essentially we believe that everyone will repent. If they repent in this life than the atonement of Jesus Christ covers them and they need not go through more pain than that required of forsaking evil and offering a pure heart and contrite spirit. As for those who die without the law, we know that they can be taught the gospel and have ordinances performed on their behalf that they are free to choose; yet we know very little about how repentance works outside of this life. As for those who have the gospel in this life, but do not repent... these are clearly who this passage is speaking to (not necessarily exclusively). These will suffer a pain that is incomprehensible to us, essentially putting the Saviour's sacrifice to naught. The suffering endured will meet the demands of Eternal and Endless punishment under the direction of He who is Endless and Eternal, but not lasting indefinitely. I would not want to find myself in this position.
 
It should also be noted that those suffering such will not be going on to exaltation as this would half defeat the need for a savior if we could all just suffer for our own sins. The lesser kingdoms of glory, while no doubt wonderful, do represent a damnation as far as it refers to having a limit on progression. This in contrast to eternal progression in the highest order of Celestial glory and exaltation.
 
A thorough reading of the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants helps to paint a more clear picture of the individual kingdoms of glory, or the many mansions prepared for us. Because everyone will acknowledge that Christ is the Lord and be judged by him there will no doubt be regrets within those that are in the lesser kingdoms, but we are given assurances they will be happy places. 

You cannot repent after death.  If you have not heard of Christ, you will be introduced to Him and have an opportunity to accept the Ordinances of salvation through proxy, but that only applies to those who would have accepted His message on Earth. If you rejected it here, you will reject it there.
 
And although Mormons do not believe in a literal buring for eterntiy, the separation from God is a very real and eternal sorrow.
 
I think the greater point is that sin must be atoned for.  Christ atoned for all of mankind, but if we reject that gift and do not repent, we will atone for that sin.
 
 
 15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
-Doctrine and Covenants 19

Hello again Traveler :)   As a Catholic, I obviously don't consider Scriptures to be tainted.  Neither do I subscibe to the thought that this is "unquestionably" so.  There have been thousands of exegises books written on the Scriptures, and from the few I've read, are very profound and deep in their logic and reasoning.  As St. Augustine says, "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New".  I find the Bible to be a love letter, written from God to all of us, it is truly beautiful and moving, a living Word, and not a dead letter. 
 
To keep this short, the Scriptures are considered divinely inspired by God b/c they were written by many human authors and spanning many different generations, yet Jesus Christ fulfills over 300 OT prophecies.  The Dead Sea Scrolls further substantiates that these prophecies were written long before the birth of Jesus, and were not altered to "fit" His life.  
 
"To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in the task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more"  Dei Verbum 11. 
 
Can flaws and mistakes be found in the Bible?  Typo's, I'm sure, and other simple mistakes of the like, most likely.  But the message Itself?  No.  This does not mean however that interpretations of the Bible can be w/o error, especially in the light of so many different churches nowadays claiming that their interpretations are correct while others are false. 
 
 

I'm not exactly laughing, 'cause my state's in the same category, but...okay...yeah...I'm laughing!!! 
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613568/Welcome-nerd-heaven-Utah-nerdiest-place-US-study-finds.html
 
 

I know this is a personal situation--a tremendously difficult one.  However, it only seems right to me that if the father were willing to take the child, that he should have that right.  Abortion can be forgiven--just about anything can.  However, planning to do something so terrible, with the idea that it could eventually be forgiven seeems to be dangerous spiritual ground. 
 
So, if the sticking point is difference in faith, and that's enough to keep you from marriage, then it would seem that the choices are to either let the father take the child, or keep him, understanding there will be interactions with the father.  If you hope to raise the child LDS, then is there any choice?  You keep the baby, and work out the child's exposure to faith with the father, and perhaps the family court system, if it comes to that.
 
BTW, I affirm your instinct not to marry someone with such sharp spiritual differences.  This is a difficult road, but God will strengthen and bless you and baby with every righteous choice you make.

Yay you!

Supporters of Justina are appealing to the Governor of Massachussetts.  He's apparently drunk the DCF Koolaid however--claiming that there is a history of neglect in the Pelletier home.  The problem is that his information seems bogus on the face of it.  Mass DCF has never been to the Pelletier home (in Connecticut).  This case is about alleged medical neglect, not home environment in general.  The governor appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth though, because after this powerful public official accuses the parents of neglect, he says its the courts call, not his.
 
http://michaelgraham.com/deval-claims-there-was-neglect-in-the-home-of-justina-pelletier-is-he-lying/

I have been bothered enough by this to speak up.
 
Simply put, from a gospel perspective, this is not an option. Do not deceive yourself. You could be forgiven...but it is not guaranteed. This is not a cavalier thing and you run great, great risk. You know better. Forgiveness for intentionally ending a life when you darned well know better? Well...no one can say absolutely. It is the Lord's to judge. But the risk you are taking in approaching it with this as an "option" is beyond monumental.
 
I cannot state this strongly enough.
 
Take this option off the table!

I had in mind the bus stop where mothers clutch the babies tightly to their chests, and look at the fellow with a cigarette like he'll instantly transmit lung cancer to her little cherub if he gets within 50 feet of her.  But hey, here in Washington the community condemns the evil Tobacco Industrial Complex, but laudes the local, organic marijuana "co-ops."  :-)

I had in mind the bus stop where mothers clutch the babies tightly to their chests, and look at the fellow with a cigarette like he'll instantly transmit lung cancer to her little cherub if he gets within 50 feet of her.  But hey, here in Washington the community condemns the evil Tobacco Industrial Complex, but laudes the local, organic marijuana "co-ops."  :-)

He has very little to gain by expressing tolerance towards traditionalists.  In fact, he'll like get some rather sever push back from the LBGT activists.  Even if his motive is to play nice to win a few of us over, I'd suggest his tactic (if not his position) is blblical.

Because I did a typo.  It should have read "but he is NOW advocating tolerance..."

The traditional marriage conflict has turned ugly.  Some same-sex marriage advocates have compared their efforts with the overturning of prohibitions against interracial marriage.  They press the matter, saying that traditional marriage advocacy should not be tolerated.
 
Hope shines, as one advocate begs to differ.  He says that he has advocated for same-sex marraige for many years, but is not now advocating to tolerance towards those who disagree.  WOW!
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html
 
It's commentary like this that makes me hope that maybe we all can just get along...at least for awhile.  :-)