ryanh

Expanding on that a little bit, here's the way I see it. Most all Christian religions believe in the above paradise and prison in a manner that is quite similar to LDS. After we die, we immediately go to either paradise or hell. We are happy, or tormented based on how we lived and whether we accepted Christ or not. But, where the LDS doctrine differs is an understanding that that paradise/hell is only a temporary holdover until the resurrection. It is not the final assignment for eternity. See the below image. Rather than the Spirit World being the final eternal assignment, there is then a resurrection, judgment, and assignment to one of three degrees of glory - likened to the Sun, Moon, and Stars by Paul as Miss1/2way referenced. What is not included in the above diagram is the "outer darkness" - the eternal hell referenced by Rameumptom. What LDS often forget (because we get so focused on the Celestial Kingdom - the highest one where we would most like to go), but which is a unique and merciful understanding of our Heavenly Father's plan, is that there are VERY few individuals that will not receive one of the three degree's of glory. And that even those that receive the least degree of Glory - the Telestial Kingdom - liked to the glory of the stars as compared to the moon and sun, is in and of itself a glory beyond understanding or description. In essence, LDS believe that the vast majority of people who came to this earth (chose to come to earth from the premortal life) will receive a paradisiacal reward. Alma chapter 40 is the palace to start reading to find the doctrine regarding what happens when we die. Then, Doctrine and Covenants section 76 is the revelation to Joseph Smith that details the three degrees of glory (heaven). Non-LDS Christian doctrine actually is quite similar to what LDS believe. The difference is that LDS doctrine goes far beyond and gives us a more complete understanding of our Heavenly Father's plan for us, from beginning, to final assignment.

How is it you came to the conclusion "meat bad" as you included in the title of this thread Cydonia?

Case in point for my conclusion that you interpret some things wrongly. Where did I say "revelation"?Were you aware that the forbidding of meats by some is addressed in both the NT and D&C? Or did you choose to interpret those in your own way too?

You wonder about interpretation, but don't see that your understanding is filtered precisely by your own interpretation? The WoW as given in D&C has some rather difficult phrasing for 2009 english readers to grasp. At times it seems contradictory – esp regarding the forbidding of the use of meat. I'm comfortable relying on subsequent interpretations by leaders to supplant my understanding of what is intended, and not to rely on my own interpretation alone.It feels like you simply want to argue in favor of forbidding the use of meat.

Well, I too am a little confused on where Traveler is going with this point, or even what the point is, but I don't have any trouble reading into what he wrote things that are not even there.

I can appreciate that, even if not completely empathize with it. You're probably right. It just kept coming to my mind, so I put it out there.

I'll readily admit I don't fully understand all the doctrines and nuances of the sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise, and the implications of divorce. But, the explanation you gave Gwen doesn't seem completely logical to me. Something is missing. If a temporal divorce made a previous sealing completely null and void, then why would it take the action of the first presidency to cancel it? As you pointed out in other words, it's not like the keys given to the sealer make the sealing automatic. It's an ordinance, not an actual sealing. So, if the Promise had not sealed the union, why should it simply not be made a footnote for genealogical reasons upon temporal divorce? Why would it require the action of the First Presidency for cancelation (apart from the necessary keys issue)? Would the temporal divorce be ‘sufficient’ to render the sealing null, and thereby there would be no action required by the First Presidency to “cancel” it? That it requires the action of the First Presidency says to me there is more at stake than just to whom a person is to be sealed. It would seem to me that the fact that the other woman - the ex of the “sisters” husband - is not in a marriage now, she has at least tried, and has gone through the steps and received the ordinances necessary for exaltation. That must count for something, else it would be an automatic cancelation in my mind. That she, as a fallible mortal, fell short, is not as critical as the fact that she attempted to carry out the necessary steps for her exaltation. Perhaps she needs to consider a slightly different perspective. Would she really want to deny the other woman the benefit of having recorded on earth and in heaven that she at least tried to do what she was supposed to in order to receive exaltation? All because of some worries of what "might be" that almost certainly never will be? Does she really think that living in the Celestial kingdom will be a forced situation in which she would be miserable? In other words, does she think heaven won’t be “heavenly”? As harsh as it may sound, I keep going back to the thought that has been brought up - perhaps she needs to address her feelings of jealousy. Perhaps considering it from the stand point of what it might mean to her spiritual sister could help in the endeavor.

Along those lines, I suppose it's possible for the adversary to have contemplated that his greatest opportunity to frustrate Heavenly Father's plan was to tempt and derail either Adam or the Savior Himself. He couldn't get that opportunity to tempt either were the fall not to occur, and he probably was 'chomping at the bit' to get his chance to try.That said:

This talk may help clarify: Sins and Mistakes By Elder Dallin H. Oaks

I agree. See your Bishop. Not because I think there are unresolved issued regarding sin, but for your own mental well being and reassurance. I spent three months in the MTC - two to learn language, and an extra third waiting for my visa to arrive. I saw plenty of guys tormented by things they didn't have fully resolved in their minds, whether completely repented of or not. You don't want that distracting you while you are in the MTC, or while serving in the field. IMO, from what you posted, you don't have much of a reason to worry about your opportunity to serve being jeopardized. You have more to worry about your state of mind interfering with your ability to serve. Besides, if there was actually cause to worry about your mission being impacted, wouldn't that be all the more reason to go in and see your Bishop ASAP?

Reflecting further on specifically what I have done when facing my dark periods lately, I recall a couple other things that helped. Listen to good music. My favorite is Soft Sunday Sounds on FM100.3 They stream them over the web too, so it's not just for Sunday, or just for Utah. The LDS genre spiritual music can really help sooth some of the pain. Just hold on, hold on, the light will come. I also search myself and try to identify what it is that *I* might be doing to prevent myself from hearing the Spirit, or preventing the balm of Gilead from being applied. A great talk was given by Elder Maxwell in 1976 - Not Withstanding My Weakness regarding this.

I assume you are asking Traveler, and I have no intent to supersed his personal opinion, but such a statement would not accurately reflect my understanding. Loyalty through trials may be very telling, a true litmus test of what we are down deep, but service of, and love for, others is expected when we are in times of ease too.Lattelady, if you really want to understand the beliefs of LDS as they relate to faith/works/grace, I would highly suggest the book Believing Christ. It is not a long read, but addresses the topic fairly well. (You are more than welcome to borrow my copy if you can meet up in SLC, but it may be cheaper than gas to just find a used one at a local DI.) For example, this AM's reading included: FAITH VS. WORKS For centuries theologians have argued pointlessly over whether individuals are saved by faith or saved by works. A pox on both their houses, for neither by faith alone (defining faith as mere passive belief)4 nor by works alone are we saved. Salvation comes through a covenant relationship in which both faith and works play their parts. To insist that salvation comes by works alone, that we can earn it ourselves without needing the grace of God, insults the mercy of God and mocks the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in our behalf. On the other hand, to insist that salvation comes by belief alone and that God places no other obligations upon the believer insults the justice of God and makes Christ the minister of sin. The scriptural concept of the covenant, an agreement between mortals and God that lays obligations on both parties and that satisfies both justice and mercy, eliminates the false either/or of faith versus works. In simple terms this is the arrangement - we do what we are able to do, and Jesus Christ, the object of our faith, out of his love and mercy and grace, does what we are not yet able to do. And we must believe he can do it-we must believe Christ. In the parable of the talents, it did not matter that he with five talents earned five more while he with three talents earned only three. The efforts of both were accepted, though one had more talents and produced more results than the other. Indeed, even he with only one talent would have been accepted, if only he had done what he could-but he chose not to try. It is true that we cannot save ourselves by our works, but we can contribute something to the joint efforts of the partnership. To be in partnership, to be in a covenant relationship, we must do something. Even though our best efforts may be insufficient to save ourselves, they are sufficient as a token of good faith to establish a covenant with our Savior. Though that covenant relationship is then "sufficient to own, to redeem, and to justify," God still requires our participation. Without our assent and our participation, salvation would amount to nothing more than predestination, a happy accident that arbitrarily happens to some people and not to others. No, we must participate in our own salvation to the extent that we are able. It is a partnership after all, and the junior partners must contribute what they can. To refuse such participation is to refuse the very idea of partnership. Two persons riding a tandem bicycle may not do the same amount of work, but if the weaker one uses that as an excuse to pull up his feet and stop pedaling altogether, then by definition the arrangement ceases to be a partnership and becomes exploitation. In the language of the gospel, it violates the covenant. Trying our hardest to keep the commandments and be like Christ is part of our covenant obligation, not because we can succeed at them in this life, but because the attempt, the commitment to try, demonstrates our sincerity and our commitment to the covenant; it is a statement of our goals and desires. Our valiant attempts show that we really do hunger and thirst after righteousness - even if we don't always succeed at it. Faith is always willing to try-and to try again and again. While success is not a requirement of the covenant of faith, my best attempts are. The gospel covenant requires this "good faith" effort. So the old debate about faith versus works is a false dichotomy, a phony either/or. No matter which side we choose, faith alone or works alone, we destroy the concept of a covenant, of the partnership between the individual and God.

Mataba is maganda! Couldn't fully grasp that one because of the culture that I grew up in. In short, symmetry of features.

Hard to say what the real story is. Seems there are competing news stories out there regarding the accuracy of the numbers. Stimulus jobs overstated by 1,000s

It just may be that the form and manner of passions we feel are primarily a part of this life mortal life only. Think about it. Will single "angles" in heaven be tortured constantly by a drive? The feelings you are having towards your boyfriend are 'infatuation', and are a normal and planned part of drives put in us in order to perpetuate and bring all of God's children to earth. I sometimes joke (only partly joking) that were it not for the hormone processes that create infatuation, it is likely that there wouldn't be many marriages or babies. Men and women would just sit on opposite corners of the dance floor and never interact. Just some ramblings of personal thoughts, not anything doctrinal. Then, the thought that does have some doctrinal underpinnings, which has already been said, but is worth repeating. This life is a time to grow, to develop, to learn how to be 'in control'. No it doesn't require us to be perfect at this time, but it does require that we try with all our might, and tame those things which are based in selfishness. Masturbation is about selfishness. And it CLEARLY can be tamed. Miss1/2’s analogy of the horse and rider is apt. I'm having a hard time believing that the majority of missionaries are actually having a problem with this. Yep, served a mission. Have my own experience, and my companions' experiences to form my opinion on. Missionary service is about being selfless. If one is willing to set aside 2 years of their life, there is certainly not only an interest, but a drive to not be selfish. Humm. Never heard any idea that one thought could exclude a person from the temple for a year. Even with grosser sins, there is no set timeframe for exclusion from temple attendance. Each case is unique.Might I suggest finding ways to quit focusing so much on, and talking so much with others about, the sexual habits of others - it sounds like you are being fed some misinformation. Did you read the Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments talk linked to above? Elder Holland gave a similar talk in general conference in 1998. Personal Purity Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

P.S. Then I work to forget me, myself, and I, and all our problems, and focus on serving others. I'm repreatedly amazed at how my thoughts and actions are inspired and directed, and I'm reassured that God lives and cares about us all. It's curious to me that I can feel so directed at times in my efforts to serve others when my pleadings for reassurance for myself appear to be unanswered. (oh, and then I go to the Dr, try to find out what on earth is ailing me, and pop my prozac )

HEY! Have you been reading my journal??? One thing I have learned to do during those times, which seem to be the status quo for this hardened and unfeeling guy, is to reflect on those past experiences that have shown me so clearly that God does exist, does communicate, and does love. Perhaps that is why journals of spiritual experiences are so important to keep - to record those events while fresh and felt, to have to treasure later.

Traveler, have you read the book Believing Christ? I'm assuming not because what you argue as what is in the book is the anthesis of what I just read in it in the past couple days. I'm especially dumbfounded by: IMO you are putting words in his mouth (book) that are not there. Flaws stay with us and we don't learn? Where is that said? That is a false representation of his writings as he explicitly states that that perfection is not only a goal, but a requirement (be ye therefore perfect even as I am), and that it is precisely through our experiences that we will get there.

Two years huh? So the honeymoon phase is wearing off fast now, if not completely gone. How much reading have you done regarding the typical progression and changes of marriage relationships? You say “tried everything in the book to spice things up again”. The connotations of that statement indicate approaching it like a man typically would – as would be expected as that is precisely the perspective you are coming from. You might need to look at your intimate relationship through different paradigms. How much have your efforts been in the form of service and serving your wife? Can’t suggest much as I don’t know what you have or have not done. It would be helpful to know what you have read, or other efforts (not specifics on technique or anything!!!! ) you have made to turn things around. How much have you searched LDS.org for general conference talks on marriage? It does sound like you are facing some of the typical changes and maturity of relationship that makes a marriage “work”, not automatic bliss. It takes effort and refinement. Men marry a woman hoping she will never change, only to find she often will. Women marry a man hoping to change him, only to find he often won’t. It’s just a sad fact of life that frustrates both genders. Trust me, I fully understand how important intimate connections and compatibility are in marriage. President Kimball referred to sexual incompatibility as the primary cause of divorce among LDS according to ‘research’ by the Church. But, for many men, being in a marriage is simply going to be a continual frustration that you will have to accept in order to stay married. You simply may never be able to feel as close and emotionally connected with your wife as you want to be, in the manner that would be your first choosing. Look for other ways that are mutually satisfying to both of you, even if not the ‘best’ choice for you. Do lots of reading. Five Love Languages is a good place to start if you haven’t already.

Resources for marriages where one or both partners have ADD/ADHD. My primary recommendation is the book ADD & Romance by Jonathan Halverstadt. Johnathan has ADHD, and not only captures well the challenges this condition can bring to a marriage, but gives practical solutions to dealing with those challenges as well. Another book is Gina Pera's Is It You, Me, or Adult ADD?. I generally would not recommend this book to the spouse who has ADHD as it is very much from the non-ADHD partner's perspective. For those married to someone with ADHD, this is your book for understanding and validation - esp if you are at your whit's end. Other books include: You Mean I'm Not Lazy, Stupid or Crazy? : A Self-help Audio Program for Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder I've heard from those with ADHD that this is a very validating book making it clear that it is the disorder, not the quality of your character, that is at issue. Driven To Distraction : Recognizing and Coping with Attention Deficit Disorder from Childhood Through Adulthood by Edward Hallowell Recognized as the breakthrough book recognizing ADHD and it's effects on adults. Delivered from Distraction by Edward Hallowell I have the book, but couldn't get past the first half of it. Hallowell's writing clearly reflects his ADHD, and I couldn't stand reading it. Too much of an apologetic and patronizing tone for me to take it seriously. Honey, are you listening - Written by an ADHD husband and his non-ADHD wife. I have not read it. Living With Add When You're Not the One Who Has It A very rudimentary primer that introduces the concept of ADHD's impacts on a marriage, and one woman's awakening regarding why her marriage to her deceased husband was so hard. I was disappointed, and would not recommend it except as a starting place for introductory information. Healing ADD, Daniel Amen Dr. Amen is known as one of the leading researchers and thought provokers regarding ADHD Attention Deficit Disorder in Adults by Lynn Weiss, Kenneth A. Bonnet Ph. D. Adventures in Fast Forward: Life, Love, and Work for the Add Adult by Kathleen G. Nadeau What Does Everybody Else Know That I Don't?: Social Skills Help for Adults With Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Ad/Hd) a Reader-Friendly Guide by Michele Novotni, Randy Petersen (Contributor), Richard Dimatteo (Illustrator) Adult A.D.D.: A Reader Friendly Guide to Identifying, Understanding, and Treating Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Attention Deficit Disorder in Adults by Lynn, Ph.D. Weiss, Kenneth A. Bonnet Ph. D. A.D.D. on the Job: Making Your A.D.D. Work for You by Lynn, Ph.D. Weiss Journeys Through Adulthood: Discover a New Sense of Identity and Meaning While Living With Attention Deficit Disorder by Sari Solden, Edward M. Hallowell You, Your Relationship & Your Add: A Workbook by Michael T. Bell

To partially answer your questions from a reverse perspective - one does not have to have a temple recommend in order to continue wearing garments. Any member that has received their temple ordinances, and continues as an official member of the church, can in fact purchase garments whether or not they currently have a recommend. The photos you reference may be more of a "symptom", not an "effect".

LDS professor and author Stephen E Robinson wrote the following regarding the use of the phrase "keeping the commandments": Latter-day Saints habitually use the phrase "keeping the commandments" differently from its technical and historical meaning outside the Church. This is not wrong, but it is different, and for this reason "keeping the commandments" is sometimes an ambiguous and troublesome phrase for the Latter-day Saints, particularly when they talk to non-Latter-day Saints. We generally say "keeping the commandments" when what we really mean is "trying real hard to keep the commandments and succeeding most of the time." Defined in this way, the phrase describes the attempts at obedience that the new covenant requires as our token of "good faith." Defined in this way, "keeping the commandments" is both possible and necessary; that is, trying to keep the commandments, doing the best we can at it, is a requirement of the gospel covenant, even though succeeding right now in keeping all of the commandments all of the time is not. This is why the gospel covenant offers repentance and atonement in addition to commandments. Technically, however, this customary LDS usage is incorrect. If we insist on fine points, "keeping the commandments" means not breaking them-not any of them, not ever. It means keeping them perfectly, and in reality no one does this. Technically, you can't claim to keep the commandments in this sense so long as you break any of them at all. This is what James means when he says in James 2: 10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not lull. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou lull, thou art become a transgressor of the law." The ambiguity between the traditional meaning and the customary LDS usage of "keeping the commandments" has caused Latter-day Saints and other Christians to talk past each other on occasion and led some who don't understand our theological vocabulary to accuse us of believing in salvation by works. It has also caused some in the Church to conclude incorrectly that perfect performance is a requirement of the gospel covenant, even though the real bottom line is being committed to the proper goals and doing all we can to achieve them. In fact, the whole purpose of the atonement of Christ is to provide a way whereby those who have not kept, do not keep, and probably will not keep all the commandments all the time can still be exalted in the celestial kingdom of God - where they will continue to make progress in eternity until they are perfected -provided that they genuinely hunger and thirst after righteousness. In the New Testament, when Paul talks about keeping the commandments or being justified by works, he means obeying all the(commandments all the time. Therefore he rightly concludes that no one can "keep the commandments" in this sense, that our failure to keep the commandments perfectly condemns us, and that we must look somewhere else for a means of salvation. Strictly speaking, then, it doesn't matter which commandments you keep and which ones you break; if you don't keep them all, you are a transgressor and guilty rather than righteous or just. When the terms are defined in this way, clearly whoever would claim to be righteous on the basis of "keeping the commandments" must keep all of the commandments all of the time. Good luck. That's what LDS mean when using the catch-phrase "keep the commandments".

How many hours of consultation and legal advice would each 'shoveling' get me?

Then what specifically do you still need from LDS to accurately understand what they believe. The very first response to you in this thread is what is called the "Thirteen Articles of Faith". That was written by Joseph Smith, the religions founder, when explaining what makes the LDS faith different from other Christian faiths. There isn't much that would be better for use when attempting to delineate what is unique about the LDS version of Christianity.

Ok, intelligence. Yes, I certainly see where quote #2 you referred to was far more easy to take in that manner than was intended. I don't know you, and I don't pretend to know how intelligent you are. Doesn't really matter a whole lot. I should have done a better job at capturing how I couldn't understand where the disconnect was, and better at elucidating an explanation from you. So, in my case alone, and separate from all others, perhaps the hurts from previous experiences carried over and were attributed to what I posted. Is that an accurate way to say it? Not too big of a deal to me if we can communicate and understand one another. I and many people here completely understand how that can happen. As you pointed out, there is loads of garbage on the net that is meant to do nothing but attack and defame the LDS Church and beliefs. Seems that every week or so there is a new person showing up here on these forums trying to pick a fight and tell LDS how 'clueless' they are. I think some of that knee-jerk reaction to the continual bombardments carried over to you when your post and the initial link appeared. Doesn't make it right. But perhaps we can all at least understand it and learn from it. Are we square with one another yet?