HEthePrimate

I very much doubt there are too many people who view their sexuality as their entire identity. Pretty much everybody understands that their sexuality is only a part of who they are.For example, in addition to being gay, a man is also a son to his parents. He may be a Canadian. He may enjoy soccer. Etc.

The Church doesn't normally hestitate to apply labels to people. "Wicked" and "apostate" leap to mind. "Same-sex attraction" is merely a broader term that applies to homosexuals of both sexes, whereas "gay" typically refers to male homosexuals and "lesbian" refers to female homosexuals. People use the terms "gay" and "lesbian" when referring to themselves, not to box themselves in--why would they want to do that?--but as a simple descriptor. Or I should start calling myself a "so-called straight" so as not to box myself in?

Helping the people in his ward is the bishop's job. Don't worry about "bugging" him--it's what he's there for. Yes, I believe most schools and universities have counselors. In my opinion, cutting is not a matter of "worthiness." It doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it is unhealthy for you, so you need to get help. Your bishop should be able to help you. Even if he personally doesn't know what to do--though he might--he can at least refer you to a therapist. Good luck! HEP

I agree with what President Hinckley said in that quote, about the important thing being whether or not one acts on one's inclinations. But I wonder why he said "so-called gays and lesbians." That seems to imply that they're not really gay or lesbian, which casts doubt on the rest of what he says.

Let's see how it sounds when we switch it around. Is heterosexuality a state of doing or being? That is, in order to be considered heterosexual, does a person have to currently be sexually active with a member of the opposite sex?I am a widower. If my heterosexuality was dependent on being sexually active--that is, on doing--then I was heterosexual while my wife was alive, but after she died, I must have suddenly become asexual, because I keep the Law of Chastity. Right? Can you see why I'd take umbrage to that suggestion? IMO, hetero- or homosexuality are states of being, not doing. I am not currently sexually active, because I follow the Law of Chastity, but I am still heterosexual because I am attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Normally I wait until a movie is at the discount theater before watching it. (Yes, I'm a cheapskate!) But on Memorial Day I thought to myself, "Hey, it's a holiday, I'll treat myself!" and went to see The Avengers. Plus, it was freakin' hot that day, and I don't have AC at home, and I figured it would be nice to sit in a cool theater for a couple of hours! It would be virtually impossible for any movie to live up to all the hype, and indeed, I was not blown away by The Avengers. But I did enjoy it, and found it entertaining. :)

If the Church knows about his criminal record, they'll put a notation on his Church membership record saying he should not be called to work with children or youth. Even if he's fully repented and in good standing with the Church, they don't want to run any unnecessary risks. But that's assuming they know about his past, and I know they don't normally check people's criminal backgrounds unless it's brought to their attention.You asked if he was truly repentant what would dissuade him from accepting a calling to work with children. Well, if he's truly repentant, that should theoretically do it. But it's understandable that people would want more safeguards in place than that!

It could be argued that one cannot know anything for sure, and I know people who do argue that. We could theoretically not even exist. No matter how much we feel like we exist, we could be a bad, food-poisoning-induced dream that God is having.But some things are more probable than others, given our faculty of reason, physical evidence, etc., than others that don't make sense or which lack physical evidence. I've actually been to Paris, France. I've talked with people there. I learned French. I ate their food, pooped in their toilets, banged on doors, and lived that reality for 22 months. Based on personal observation of a wide variety of things that can be measured, I conclude that Paris is real and is in France. It is much easier to make a case for the existence of Paris than the Fields of Aaru (the heavenly paradise in ancient Egyptian mythology). But if you've received a revelation from God that after you die, you're going to the Fields of Aaru, I probably won't argue with you. Just don't expect everybody else to receive your personal gnosis as "The Truth," because it's something they can't measure or see, and they would have to receive their own revelation in order to believe/know it. Until they receive that revelation, they'd have no reason to believe you. To be fair, I suppose it's possible that I, and the millions of other people who claim to have been to Paris, might have dreamed or hallucinated it, and so you can't know for sure that Paris exists--even if you yourself have been there! But it does seem rather unlikely, does it not? Anyway, I didn't claim that religious knowledge is impossible. But it is attained by different means--namely, revelation--than empirical knowledge, and that seems obvious enough that I don't know why I bothered writing the above! In an LDS book (I think it was published by F.A.R.M.S., but don't remember the title) I once looked at, the author listed five different ways of acquiring knowledge. If I remember correctly (please correct me if you've read it and I got the list wrong), they were as follows: observation, experimentation, authority (learning from an expert or authority figure), reason, and revelation. FWIW, I think using a balance of all those tools is a healthy way to go, rather than relying exclusively on one.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I think that obviously the father should have stopped the man molesting his daughter, assured that his daughter was safe from further harm, and then called 911.Stopping the criminal does not necessarily require killing the criminal. Though if the guy was waving a gun around, there's a good chance I'd shoot him to prevent him from killing my daughter or me. Point of information (my inner school marm emerges!): A pedophile is not the same thing as a child molestor. A pedophile is an adult who is attracted to children. A child molestor is an adult who, well, molests a child (or more than one). I have met people who feel attraction to children, but have not acted on it.Anyway, when it comes to legal repercussions, I think it should depend on the seriousness of the crime. For example, looking at child pornography should carry a lighter sentence than raping a child.

I think the original purpose of the question was to see if the person supports polygamy or groups that support it, and also groups that are specifically anti-Mormon (i.e. whose main purpose is to tear down the Church). If a person were to be overstrict about interpreting that question, he could not join any political parties or other organizations because none of them are in perfect accords with that the Church teaches. Likewise, what if my sister (or brother, etc.) leaves the Church? Am I supposed to stop associating with her? I don't think so. So I think we need to be careful not to apply that question too loosely, and stick to anti-Mormon and polygamist groups.Peace.

Those who look it up in a dictionary know the difference between "know" and "believe." Knowing and believing are not the same thing, and the scriptures recognize this. Moreover, the scriptures indicate that believing is just fine. D&C 46:13-14 says that some people have the gift of knowing by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while others have the gift of believing on their words, "that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." When Ammon is talking to King Lamoni's queen, he asks her if she believes what he says. She replies that she has had no witness other than his word, but she believes him, and he praises her for her faith (Alma 19:9-10). And of course, in the ever-popular Parable of the Seed, we are instructed to plant the seed in our heart and nourish it. If it grows and produces good fruit, then we know it was a good seed, "and your faith is dormant; and this because you know" (Alma 32:34). Belief and knowledge are two different things. And if you don't "know" something for sure, that's okay. You can still do fine in the gospel and even receive eternal life, according to D&C 46:13-14. If people really do know something, I have no problem with their saying so. However, I suspect a lot of people use the wording "I know" when in fact they mean "I believe" because it's what they hear other people say all the time at church, and maybe subconsciously they feel it would be unacceptable to say "I believe" instead. I'd rather people "be real" and honest and say they believe if that's what they mean, and that might offer a sense of relief to others who feel they are somehow deficient for not having a sure knowledge. HEP

At first I thought it was supposed to be a video of a child's first root canal. What a relief that it's not!

That's supposed to be better for the child?

Chloroform

Obviously no, having sex with your high school girlfriend should not be regarded as a capital offense.To me, the real issue is the rule of law, letting law enforcement officials and the justice system do their jobs, and not appointing ourselves judge, jury, and executioner. Vigilantes purposely ignore the law and due legal process, and are therefore (IMO) criminals themselves.

Ignorance can result in undesirable, or "evil," consequences, but I agree that it is not the essence of moral evil. If a person does something that she knows is wrong, that is obviously more evil than if they did it in ignorance. Although none of us has a perfect knowledge of anything, and yet we can still do evil things. To an extent I agree, but would qualify it by saying that focusing exclusively on oneself, when you have the option of paying attention to others, can result in evil. Babies are very self-centered. Their purpose in life, for the time being, is to get their needs met and grow. But babies are not evil--they just are what they are. If a person chooses to remain in that babyish state, forever demanding that everybody else take care of them, without contributing anything in return, even though they're now 25 years old, then we have a problem. But at the normal infant stage of life, there is nothing evil about being self-centered.Even as an adult, there are times when a person needs to focus on herself and meet her own needs, or sometimes seek help from others. But you're totally right that if they focus exclusively on themselves, such that they ignore other people's needs, or even harm them, that is evil. Could you clarify, please, what you mean by "spiritual" vs. "physical" evil? Just want to understand what you're saying. Peace, HEP

Thanks for those quotes. There are so many variables that may result in a person not getting sealed in the temple in this life. I figure God is loving, kind, and merciful, and he's delighted when people love each other so much they want to stay with each other for good, and so he'll provide the opportunity for those who didn't get sealed during their mortal life.

It makes me happy to hear of people who prepare themselves because it makes sense to prepare. Sometimes I want to ignore the news and just live my life, because so many of those news stories are disturbing. But inevitably I go back to reading the news (I don't watch much TV) because I want to have some idea what's going on beyond my own little life. Plus, I figure that if I'm going to vote responsibly, I'll need to understand what the issues are.But yea, it doesn't hurt to take a "news vacation" every once in a while, in order to keep one's sanity! Peace to you.

Haha! Or maybe it has to do with smoking something... Except my BIL was called to be a bishop at quite a young age, and as a result became a high priest. Some people they have meet with the HP Group even if they are not actually high priests, because they are older, and might fit in better with their age-peers. And sometimes they decide "What the heck, he's meeting with the HPs, might as well make him one!" But yeah, it's often a result of a calling like Bishop or High Councillor.

Okay, here's when the Lord supposedly told them to destroy the Amalekites: Or Samuel claimed the Lord told him this. Or whoever wrote the book claimed that Samuel said that (authorship of the Books of Samuel is uncertain). Note that it says to kill everyone, men, women, and even babies who were still breastfeeding. Animals, too. Now, I don't believe the Lord really wanted that. This is a case where there may have been a mistranslation, or someone altered the text, or the original author had an agenda. But again, that's not to say we can't find good messages in Samuel, just that I don't believe the Lord commanded that particular thing. It is possible the Israelites did not carry out the total destruction of the Amalekites anyways, as other scriptures hint that there were survivors. Maybe it was just a particularly brutal war, and the Israelites wanted to salve their conscience, I don't know.

Pretty much. Or they purposely claimed God told them to do it in order to justify their actions. Or they really did believe God told them to do it, much like the 9/11 terrorists probably believed God told them to do what they did. I'll agree to disagree on that. This is not to say I don't value the Bible, or think it uninspired. I just don't believe that it's perfect.

Woohoo! Good for him! (And you! )

You can take it however you want, but I'm being serious. The God I worship does not command people to commit genocide. I am not mocking, I am rejecting the notion that a good and just God would do such a thing.I am not accusing God of evil--I am saying that what is written in the Bible may not always be an accurate reflection of God's will. Human beings wrote the Bible. They may have been inspired with a message from God, but their own opinions, philosophies, and cultural assumptions may have also crept into what they wrote. I am saying we need to read the Scriptures with a discerning eye.

Exactly! The definition of an addiction is that you continue doing a behavior even though it's hurting you. The pain/distress is not enough to make you overcome the behavior, but it can alert you to the fact that you have a problem. You may want to change, but not feel able to. Yes. Everybody believes in something, and I think you're right that defining one's own beliefs and/or building upon them can be helpful in overcoming self-defeating or addictive behaviors.

My point is that you DO NOT need a code of conduct in order to see the need to repair your behavior. If your behavior is causing you distress, or not yielding the desired results, you will want to change it regardless of whether or not you have a code of conduct. For example, if I touch a hot stove and burn my hand, I don't need a code of conduct or a revelation from on high to tell me not to touch a hot stove again.