HEthePrimate

It's really hard to divide blame sometimes. I have a friend who recently got divorced. For fifteen years his wife refused to have sex with him, and otherwise gave him the cold shoulder, for no good reason. Eventually he cheated on her, presumably because he wanted some intimacy in his life, and to feel appreciated. It was the wrong thing to do, and he was responsible for his actions, but one can understand why he did it. His wife was upset. They talked to the bishop, and the man received Church discipline. Because he didn't want to lose his wife, and felt bad about what he had done, my friend repented and got back into the good graces of the Church. But in the end, his wife decided to divorce him anyway. People are responsible for their actions. But I also think that people can and do influence other people, that we are not islands. While I do not condone my friend's sin, neither do I think his ex-wife is entirely blameless. One could make the argument that she, by not showing him an appropriate level of love, respect, and affection, broke the marital vows first.

It is possible she does feel better. I'm not going to be the one who says the gospel can't transform people's lives.BUT, it would be a good idea to keep an eye on her. Sometimes people feel better for a while, as the result of a change like joining a new church, or getting married, or moving someplace new, but with time the effect can wear off. So be her friend, keep an eye on her, and if there are warning signs, then talk to her about it in greater depth. This is not something I take lightly. I have known two people who committed suicide, one of whom was quite close to me, and a third who made several attempts. Also, somebody in my high school killed himself my senior year. Sometimes people feel suicidal due to traumatic, but temporary, things that happen in their life, but when things get better for them, their feelings improve, especially if they are able to talk about them and work through their feelings. Other people have mental illnesses, which may involve a chemical imbalance in the brain, which don't just go away, and so those people need counseling, and possibly medication. But don't panic--it is possible your friend really is okay, and may continue to be okay. The only way to know is by being their friend and paying attention to what they say and do, and caring enough to do something if the need presents itself. Peace.

Maybe certain LDS leaders set up certain things to divide Mormons from non-Mormons, but God's commandments are meant to bring people together, not divide them. That's what atonement is about. It's what sealing the entire human race together is about. It's what the missionary work is about. Satan drives people apart, and it is Satan's children (like the Pharisees) who insist on setting themselves apart (that's even what the word "Pharisee" means) from everybody else. Yes, a division will occur, but it's not God doing the dividing, except to protect the innocent from "ravening wolves" and the like. But God would rather convert the wolves so they are no longer a threat.Things like the prohibition on multiple earrings, beards, and insisting on guys wearing white shirts are superficial indications of false righteousness. You are right that they are meant to separate Mormons from non-Mormons, but they have nothing to do with morality or worthiness, and are not commandments from God. The ancient church had its pharisees, and the modern church has its pharisees. The garments and the temple ordinances have nothing to do with dividing Mormons from others. They have to do with making covenants with God, and teaching us things we need to know for our eternal exaltation, and building up Zion, and reminding us of our covenants. God, and the Church, would like for everybody to eventually come to the temple and receive those things. For the most part the tares (or the goats, if you will) will separate themselves from the wheat. Only the predatory ones that insist on attacking people and disrupting the work will be forcibly cast out in order to protect the innocent. People like the pharisees. So, after saying all that, I guess we're both right. As Joseph Smith said, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest!"

Was Genesis meant to be taken as empirically accurate?

Will your past transgressions affect this woman if you marry her? Like, did you get an STD that you'd pass on to her? Did you commit a criminal act? Are you likely to break the law of chastity again, and cheat on her?Basically, use your judgment. If what you did in the past is likely to impact on this lady, then tell her. If it's something less serious that you've repented of, then it may not be necessary. Not all sins are created equal. I mean, if I meet a new lady who shows interest in me (I'm widowed), I don't really care if she had sex with some guy ten years ago. Unless she caught a disease I should know about, or if she still has a thing for him, or whatever. So it all depends. Good luck to you, my friend!

The tares are those who think they're better than everybody else and would therefore exclude "undesirables" from their company. In other words, they're like the self-righteous Pharisees who Jesus reprimanded, as opposed to the sinners, who Jesus reached out to. Essentially, the tares weed themselves out. It has nothing to do with not having enough faith, as implied in the OP, or not holding orthodox beliefs, or anything like that. It's about the attitude people have about others, and how they treat other people.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the Spirit of Christ is about "weeding people out." Jesus tries to draw all people to him, and we should follow his example. That is an important problem. I don't think we're going to solve it by saying "Screw what people think/want/need, we have our own special way of doing things," but by showing them how the Gospel is relevant to their lives, and making the Church helpful to them in a real-life way.

Wow, good for her! I really admire women like that. After my parents' divorce, my mom also had to work and raise us kids at the same time, and I really don't know how she did it, while retaining her sanity. Very strong. Very dedicated! HEP

Please excuse me while I roll my eyes for a few minutes...

Would that we had a "Laugh" button for occasions like this!

Not knowing the details of either case, I can't say for sure if the differences of discipline are just or not. But it is quite possible that even if your friend and his ex committed the exact same sins, two different bishops could decide two different things. A lot is left up to the discretion of local leaders. I could be wrong, but I think excommunicating an endowed member would be a stake matter. But whether or not the case is referred to the stake for purposes of excommunication would be up to the bishop. If the bishop thinks probation or disfellowshipment is enough, then it would end there.Odd? Perhaps. Unjust? Perhaps. But that's the way it is.

No, adultery does not mean "covenant breaking" in general. It refers specifically to violation of the covenant of marriage. When the prophets call Israel adulterous, they are using the term figuratively. (Though, of course, if the Israelites were indeed cheating on their spouses, the prophets could use the term in a literal sense.) Saying "'adultery' means 'covenant breaking'" is rather like claiming that "Her eyes were glistening jewels" means she literally had precious stones in her eye sockets.

I am, like, super old-fashioned and don't get cable TV. So I don't watch CNN. I know some of you young 'uns will be shocked by this, but what can I say? I don't need 150 channels!

Exactly. I'm all for gay rights, so that they would be treated equally before the law of the land, but that does not mean that all private individuals and institutions would have to cater to their every whim. If a church thinks homosexual behavior is a sin, that's what the church thinks, and GLBT people are free to seek another church.But as far as the state is concerned, there should be no discrimination against GLBT people, IMHO.

A friend of mine (who is currently serving as a bishop) always says, when he's being interviewed for a temple recommend, that no, he is not worthy. As Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous, no, not one," and my friend will quote that scripture to the interviewer. They've been through this before with him, so they always roll their eyes as if to say "Here we go again!" and they know that he does meet the requirements for a temple recommend, but he thinks that's kind of a dumb question to ask. We are all sinners, but there are degrees of unrighteousness. The Church sets certain standards for people to meet in order to enter the temple, but they do recognize that none of us are perfect. So what I'm saying is that you're probably being too hard on yourself. Don't fret about it too much. Go to the temple, go on a mission, or whatever. Don't get depressed about not being perfect--that wouldn't help anything--but it's good that you want to continually strive to improve yourself. Keep it up! :) HEP

This is something a friend of mine posted on Facebook:

Ok, my response was deleted by the mods. Normally that would irritate me, but this time I don't mind. I spoke hastily, and in anger, and I came back here to edit my own post anyway, so the mods saved me the trouble. Nevertheless, I do want to make my basic point again, without getting carried away this time. Here's the definition of a coup d'état: I live in a democratic republic, chosen by the people in elections. In fact, just this morning I participated in the democratic process by voting in my state's primary election. If a small group carried out a coup d'état in my country it would, by definition, be undemocratic, and an act of treason. They would be forcing their will upon the people, rather than letting the people choose their own government.I don't know if that's what the original poster meant, or if s/he was referring to the Second Coming of Jesus, or what. But I do want it to be known that I object to the idea of the forceful overthrow of my government, and urge people to be careful what they wish for, and what language they use. If you did mean the Second Coming of Christ, that still brings up some questions. When Jesus comes again, will it be by coup d'état, and will he rule over the world without the people's consent, without giving them any choices, and without letting them participate in their own governance? Or perhaps he will rule, but let us make some/many of our own decisions? I just have my doubts that Jesus would abandon what we won in the War in Heaven. Anyway, that's largely a matter of speculation. Thanks. </soapbox>

Why wouldn't Satan be able to enter God's presence and converse with him?

All of it!

:lol:You're joking, right?

Deuteronomy 22:23-27 Just goes to show we shouldn't read the scriptures too literally, eh? I'd say there's a problem with both the Bible and with people's willingness to uncritically go along with it.

Meh. I think the argument about science and religion is overblown. My father is a scientist, and he's a strong LDS believer. Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" makes sense to me, wherein he asserts that science and religion serve different purposes and answer different questions, and don't have to be viewed as in conflict with each other.

Confession time: Many moons ago, I did some temple work for Jewish Holocaust victims to whom I am not related. A friend was handing them out, and we were all excited to be doing something good for those people who had suffered so much. In my defense, I was young and foolish, and this was back in the days before it became publicly known that Mormons were doing this, and before Jewish people complained about this practice. If a friend was handing out the names of Jewish Holocaust victims today, I would "just say 'no'."

I am both liberal and conservative. The trick lies in deciding what is worthy of preservation as-is, and what needs to be improved upon.To use an example that is (hopefully) less controversial than politics, I like a lot of classical music, more so than seems to be common. However, I also like innovation in music, and enjoy a lot of rock and roll, jazz, and numbers from other genres of music. But there is good music and bad music, in all genres, and I'd just as soon leave the bad behind and focus on producing more good music. So I am both conservative and liberal. Same general idea applies to politics, but I don't want to use specific examples, so as not to upset too many people! (Maybe another time... )

The letter says: The way I read that, even if I'm related to a Holocaust victim, I can't do his work.I do have Jewish ancestors, but they were not Holocaust victims, and are from hundreds of years ago, so there should be no problem with doing their work (actually, it's already done). I'm curious as to what other "unauthorized groups" there might be.