prisonchaplain

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.  :-)

I usually just ask Palerider what's going on.  He can be biased, but he's not as bad as MSNBC or FOX.   

I usually just ask Palerider what's going on.  He can be biased, but he's not as bad as MSNBC or FOX.   

The main point here is valid.  Jesus was a "come as you can" rabbi. 
 
On the other hand, the social trend has been for parishioners in poorer neighborhoods to dress in their best.  Church is the big activity of the week.  God's worth being presentable for.  It's in the upper middle class churches that dressing more casual became successful first.  The thought was that "dress up" was for the work place.  The suite or dress representing the burdens and stresses of earning a paycheck.  Church became the place to relax, destress, and enjoy the presence of God, unencumbered.
 
Funny how quickly the polo and khakis turned into the crumpled clothes in the corner that I never bothered to put in the laundry, though. 

This one is easy--NONE!  No good angel would be caught dancing!  You would not hear that in some liberal church, either. 

I usually just ask Palerider what's going on.  He can be biased, but he's not as bad as MSNBC or FOX.   

Do you watch the news each day or evening ?
How do you stay current with what\'s going on in the country or world ?
I don\'t watch the local news everyday. I probably look at news sites on line more than watch them on TV.
I don\'t like to watch or read very much because I feel it affects my attitude. I try to stay upbeat and it\'s harder for me if I get wrapped up in news.

This one is easy--NONE!  No good angel would be caught dancing!  You would not hear that in some liberal church, either. 

This one is easy--NONE!  No good angel would be caught dancing!  You would not hear that in some liberal church, either. 

This choice--between the good nonbeliever and the bad believer--is a non-starter with me.  I'd counsel against both.  "Better to be single and alone than to be married and wish you were alone!"  I know...I know...eternal marriage.  Yet, I'd double-down on my counsel.  Better to spend eternity single than sealed to an abusive, obnoxious spouse.
 
As for dating--our young can learn social engagement skills, interpersonal communications, tolerance for diversity, etc. from attending youth events, group outings, and perhaps some 'casual dating' in well-attended public places.  However, there is no need to engage in multiple potentially romantic encounters to learn about our own likes and dislikes. 
 
Mark this--prisonchaplain is more old-fashioned, intolerant, and narrow-minded than most.  Maybe it's because I'm the father of three gorgeous daughters.  I wonder if the fathers of sons feel differently.

I tried downloading it, and, being a non-tech person, quickly got frustrated.  My disk arrived today, and installed fine.  They sent the 64-bit, but it works.  I was talking to a fellow at work, and he said that Ubuntu is really "fat" and inefficient.  So, for those converting to linux from XP, I'll definitely suggest Lubuntu or Xubuntu.