Carl62

Except for blasphemy of the Holy Ghost and murder (in certain instances), what other sins are unforgivable in this life?

Do I agree with you on all these points? Yes. But is this the true form of forgiveness that Christ wants us to live our lives by? No. Actually, according to your own analogy, you just excluded Paul the apostle himself since he played a part in the stoning of Stephen. Christ felt he deserved a second chance.

Purity in the resurrection and forgiveness in this life are two totally different things. While it's true that in the resurrection we will be made perfect, but while on this earth we will make mistakes, thus the need for forgiveness. If we say that we forgive our brother for some wrongdoing, yet later use that to say that he can't be a part of something because of that error, than have we truly forgiven in the way Christ wants us to forgive? Don't think so. This is not the kind of forgiveness where God says he will take away our sins and remember them NO MORE. Let's fess up. If people are secretly being excluded from positions as a result of their past errors, then we have NOT truly forgiven in the way Christ wants us to. To think otherwise is being very disingenuous.

Woundedknee nailed it right there!

If being ex'd before getting rebaptised is looked upon "as if it never happened", then why is it that 99.999% of those who are rebaptised never end up becoming a bishop, stake president or higher? I don't know if I'm quite sold that SLC looks on it as if it never happened.

I've discovered that, depending on who you talk to, some say it's not mandatory and others go as far as saying it's a commandment. Everybody's outlook is different on this in the church.

If anybody is curious about what this contains, I just heard the soundtrack a few days ago and I must say that this isn't just some elbow-ribbing-picking on of the church like the South Park episode on the church. This is way worse. Just on the soundtrack alone it uses over 50 F-bombs (I read that the play has over 100!), talks about Joseph Smith raping babies (many times actually) and having sex with frogs, Jesus coming across as a dude (along with some foul language), twisting the Book of Mormon beliefs with Star Wars tales, allegorizing the baptismal experience with the first time having sex ( the missionary and investigator are both excited because they'll be "doing it" for the first time), and it goes on and on....

If this is the case, then there are a lot of well respected "sinners" in the church, such as Danny Ainge, Marc Wilson, LaVell Edwards, Gifford Neilsen, Donny Osmond, and Steve Young. There status in the church was never affected because they chose not to serve a mission. President Monson himself never seved a mission and he is the head of this church! While I agree that if you have the desire and worthiness to serve a mission, by all means go. But if you're going simply because everybody else wants you to and not for yourself, then you're going for all the wrong reasons and will end up doing more harm to the mission (and possibly to yourself) than good.

This is ridiculous. Where did I say anything in my post about this being connected with church doctrine or policy? This is about parent and leaders over-expectations which ends up having missionaries to be in the field who shouldn't be. As far as my solution to the problem, try reading the rest of my post that you omitted and you might see my idea that could help future missionaries get a bit more prepared.

But what is the point of sending a 19 year old who simply doesn't want to be there? All your doing is giving him a 2 year period of doing whatever he wants without being under the watchful eye of mommy and daddy. I know, I have seen this many times. They'll just simply hook up with the other truant missionaries and do whatever they want. When it comes to handing in weekly reports to the mission president, they'll just write in whatever sounds good (oh yes, they can lie!). If you think this doesn't happen with a somewhat sizeable percentage of missionaries, then you do have blinders on. If they don't feel like they're quite ready at 19, then keep them home for about 1-2 years and have them do something productive for those 2 years, THEN they could very well be ready and more mature to handle such a commitment as opposed to just simply shoving them out the door the second they turn 19. They're human beings, not robots!

Talk to some of the 19 year olds out there and I think you might hear differently.

It's different because one is a choice and the other, for a lot of 19 year olds, unfortunately isn't.

If you think that your "choice" of serving a mission with all of its persuasions, guilt-trips, bribes, (insert family member(s) name) pressure, and coersions is the same as you desiring who you want to have as your best friend, lover, and eternal partner, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll be more than glad to sell you. You can even name the price.

I think saintish just knocked another one out of the ballpark!

While it's true that life can throw you "pressure-filled" curves, the big difference between this and a mission is that YOU choose who you want to marry, YOU choose on whether or not you want to have kids, and YOU choose what kind of job you want and where you want to work. For many 19 year old guys, the choice of a mission was already made for them at the ripe old age of......3. I don't ever remember hearing of little kids in primary singing "I Hope They Call Me To Be A Cashier At Wal-Mart", or "your 5 years old now son, so we're going to start saving for your daughters college fund now".

I just saw this morning on vh1 where the soundtrack to The Book of Mormon musical is now at no. 3 on the Billboards chart.

You hit the nail on the head saintish! And then the church wonders why so many people end up going inactive after their missions. A lot of the guys on my mission were just merely punching in a two year time clock (and yes a lot!). Nothing more, nothing less. The stories I could write about of mission rules being broken on my mission I could honestly fill volumes on. So what was the point of them going if they were just laying around the apartment doing nothing? Or going to the beach? Or being on the phone to their friends/girlfriends? Or going to places outside of the mission boundaries where they wouldn't be recognized (they did that by unhooking the odometer cable on their cars). Or doing any one of a number of things breaking mission rules? Trust me, I know of missionaries who had this down to a science. Missionaries should be out there because they sincerely want to be, and not just to give mommy and daddy bragging rights to their neighbors along with a new car for junior at the end of it!

While it may be in his patriarical blessing that he should go, does it say a specific time as to when? If not, then this could be open to his own timing. I didn't leave on my mission until I was 21. No reason. Just wanted to wait 'til I was ready. Went back to school. Got my associates degree, then went on my mission. Nothing wrong with that. I think there's this cultural thing in the church that seems like once you turn 19, then the clock is on. I never quite understood that and don't necessarily agree with that. Missions shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all thing where everyone has to submit there papers the second they blow out that 19th candle. If your son goes when HE'S ready, then he might find it to be a more enjoyable experience as opposed to if and when he runs into a hard time on his mission which could easily result in bitterness because he felt he had to go. Not good! That's the perfect recipe for a resentful and inactive RM.

Well if this is the case, then how do investigators get a testimony of the Book of Mormon if not through the witness of the Holy Ghost?

And this sounds like the very touchy, sensitive response that the OP is talking about, only gospel related?

While I realize that there is a big difference between the emphasis on sexuality between Hooters and sporting events, you can't deny that sexual immodesty is somewhat of a tag along with sporting events. If this isn't the case, then why aren't cheerleaders clothing more like band uniforms? Or why is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the most popular each year? Yet while a person pays their money to go to sporting events, they are indirectly, and on a smaller scale, supporting such things. So I guess it comes down to where people draw the line on supporting immodesty on a smaller level vs. in-your-face immodesty.

So as a married couple, why can't you have both? Why can't you care for your spouse as well as have a bit of a lustful desire for her/him? If there is to be no physical spark whatsoever between the husband and wife, then I can only see that as the start of a very lonely and dead marriage.

And this is where the whole big double standard is which doesn't make an ounce of sense. I find it interesting how a Bishop will not say anything against going to a football game, yet Daddy can take his three sons to a game, sit anywhere in the first few rows right where the cheerleaders are, and oogle and lust after them (probably along with his 8th grade son) for the whole three hour game. What in the heck is the difference between this and Hooters?! You're paying to support something where women are exploited and degraded, yet one is o.k. and the other isn't? Don't get this at all.

Just like you don't really know for sure if there is a double standard that does exists.

Hmm. So let me get this straight. It's O.K. if cheerleaders are dressed like this who are at the football games that we take our kids to and thoroughly support, but then after the game we can't take these same kids to a restaurant where the waitresses are dressed the same exact way because we want to avoid the possibility of an immoral thought going through their head? If that isn't a bass ackwards double standard, then I don't know what is.