mdfxdb

It would appear the answers are all over the map on this one. On one hand there is a zero tolerance policy, and even one instance is sufficient for confession, and could even prevent someone from serving a mission if it were to happen close to the leave date. On the other hand, this falls onto the home repentance plan, and likely does not rise up to full confession status unless it is a problem/habitual. If an otherwise worthy member of the church confesses to the bishop that he/she has masturbated within the last month, and it probably happens 2-3 times a month what would be the consequence? Would there even be one? Could you lose your temple recommend? Zero tolerance seems like an awful tough standard for a 18 year old young man..

Does self-pleasure prevent an otherwise worthy individual from leaving home, and serving a mission. From entering the MTC? Would someone get sent home for this? What quantifies a "problem" with this behavior? How much of this behavior is acceptable, how much is not? Under what circumstances should it be discussed with church leadership?

Tell him he has a choice. Lay out your terms. But be ready for him to fire back. If you want to leave him, fine. But don't spring some surprise on him. Be specific. Say it out loud to his face. I am telling you to be specific because women communicate differently than men. Sometimes, unless a man has an ultimatum set before him he will blow it off, or he may not even pick up on your "hints" as being that serious.

doubtful a doctor would advise self-satisfaction as a method to relieve stress... at least I've never heard that one. If you are looking for permission to smoke medical marijuana... you wont get it here. As mentioned before. Go on a run, exercise, do something physical to relieve the stress/bad feelings. Exercise is a great way to make yourself feel better about almost everything.

Mormons are regular people. I don't present myself as other than what I am at work or at home, or at recreation. And aside from not drinking, and not smoking, and being a moral person. I guess I'm pretty normal. What else would there be that would make me not normal. I guess I don't understand the premise? Most people I know love their families, drink in moderation, go to church, try to be faithful to their wife's and girlfriends. I relate to much of how they live.

Have you been to counseling?

It is a rule in the current handbook, and the mission presidents have discretion to change it for their mission/circumstances. I know on my mission if I showed up at someone's place for dinner at 5 they would kick me out. I don't think I ever had dinner before 8pm for 2 years. As it is only 1 hour for dinner with members is ridiculous. How can we get to know our missionaries? How do they expect us to refer to them our most important contacts/people in our lives if we do not know them? I agonize when I refer someone to my dentist (I have a great dentist), and that isn't essential to their salvation. The missionaries in my ward expect referrals from the members, but do not invest the time to get to know the members. part of the problem is the dinner at 5 thing. I work, I commute, I'm lucky to be home by 6. This means we don't feed the missionaries during the week. When they do come over they are there exactly 1 hour. It is not very pleasant to have a meal with someone who is constantly looking at their watch. I'm not sure why this policy exists, it needs to change. I do not believe the hours between 6 and 9:30 are the best for proselytizing. Most people where I live are like me and aren't even thinking about sitting down to dinner until after 6. Guess what happens if someone comes and interrupts my family and I having dinner? I'm upset, no I'm not going to let you in, and no I don't want to hear about your Jesus crap........

Short answer is yes. There is an obligation unless both parties have circumstances which have been communicated prior to marriage, or if circumstances change during the marriage rendering one or the other incapable. Otherwise, yes there is an obligation.

Saw naked and afraid w/ the Mormon guy. I thought he was pathetic, selfish, made stupid decisions, and wasn't a very good survivalist. Aside from being a not so great survivalist, he made way too much of being LDS for no reason that I could perceive.

If reasonable efforts have been made to get a response then the process should move forward. The bishop should send a certified receipt letter requesting correspondence. Then maybe 3-4 weeks later continue with the process if no responce.

From the handbook: "Living children who are born in the covenant or have been sealed to parents cannot be sealed to any other parents unless approval is given by the First Presidency. Living children who are legally adopted and were neither born in the covenant nor sealed to former parents may be sealed to their adoptive parents after the adoption is final. A copy of the final adoption decree should be presented at the temple; a court decree granting legal custody is not sufficient clearance for a sealing. There is no obligation to identify the natural parents of these children. First Presidency approval is necessary for a living member to be sealed to foster parents. This requirement applies even if the natural parents of the foster child are unknown and cannot be identified by reasonable effort. Such requests are made by the stake president." also see: Children Who Are Not Born in the Covenant Children who are not born in the covenant can become part of an eternal family by being sealed to their natural or adoptive parents. These children receive the same right to blessings as if they had been born in the covenant. A child may be sealed only to two parents—a husband and wife—and not to one parent only. Males ages 12 and older must hold the Aaronic Priesthood before they may be sealed to their parents. Members who are married or are 21 or older may not be sealed to their parents unless they are endowed.

great advice. There are plenty of active, worthy LDS men who are available. Meet one of them.

What do you mean they're not correct??!!??!! Jesus doesn't have a beard?

I am happy they are setting the record straight....only took 150+ yrs.....

A lie of omission is just as much a lie as a lie of commission. Knowingly not correcting a falsehood is the same as willful deception.

"misleading" and "translation" I completely agree that "translation" is the wrong word. Inspired or by Revelation would be more accurate, just as in the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible, or the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Moses. Any one know what happened to the Scroll of Joseph which accompanied the Book of Abraham? "misleading" however, is exactly what I would call it.

Correct. This article seems very well put together, and concise as to the translation process. It states what we don't know, and it states what we do know. I don't think that's too much to ask. Leaving the process to our own points of view or various interepretations, of how the interpretation process took place just leads to the "shock" when you find out that's not how it happened. It makes no doctrinal difference, so why not just teach it as it happened?

Book of Mormon Translation The intentions of the illustration are irrelevant. It's not how it happened. Not once growing up in primary, sunday school, institute, my mission, BYU relition classes was it represented as it actually happened. I never once saw any reference to a seer stone or a hat...

It's not about every little detail. It's about a misrepresentation of how it happened...

We can argue about the expectation of little details, but when we are presented with illustrations of Joseph Smith on one side of the table and Oliver on the other with a sheet between them, well what do you expect people to think? It's not about getting the details right. It's about misleading people into thinking the translation of the book of mormon occurred as we typically think of a translation process. Joseph Smith stated that it was through the power of God that the book was translated, and as a member growing up I always swallowed that line along with the illustrations I was shown because I presumed just like 99% of everyone else who heard the statement that the power of God was manifest because Joseph didn't speak/read reformed egyptian. Also, that he used the Urim and Thummim exclusively for the translation. Why would it be so hard to expect to be presented the facts as outlined on LDS.org that I cited on my initial post? Why does this even have to be a shock to people? It's a shock because as investigators, members, and sunday school attendees we are taught something very different about the process.

I agree these things are not the central topic of Sunday School, Sacrament, EQ, RS, but when people state as fact in those meetings that Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Moses, or the bible for that matter.., or relate those translation stories as though it was done in the conventional manner then people in general are being misled. Should we as members really have to vette where our scriptures came from in a literal sense? Surely it all boils down to individual testimony, but shouldn't we make an effort as a church to get the story straight from the onset? We expect people to believe Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in the first vision, but omit the seer stone from the "translation" process. We expect them to believe one, but for some reason we obscure the latter because it is too fantastic to contemplate? correction. not obscure, but hide in plain sight.

ensign july 1993, friend 1974.. those were referenced in this thread... not by me.. We can go on and on about how generalities are important, but the devil is in the details. Do we really want to lead someone down a primrose path only for them to find at the end things weren't as they were taught. I'm not talking about investigators only, but long-time members who have no clue. I firmly believe that as members of the church it is our responsibility to take responsibility for our church education as much as possible, but when certain things taught time and time again are misleading either via assumptions, depictions, or outright ignorance then you as the attendee/student accept those things as fact. Most members of the church rely on their teachers (sunday school/elders quorum, relief society) to convey to them those things which are true. It is true Joseph Smith translated the Book of mormon, but definately not how the picture shows...

I have found independently all that you have referenced. As to the elementary school explination of Columbus and such. Well I'm not 5 years old, and I venture to guess neither are most converts. The thing is I have found this stuff, everyone who looks can find this stuff, but it is definately not front page news. Ensign articles, and Friend articles more than 10 years old are not current teachings. We do not read those publications as we read the scriptures, nor are they typically discussed in church. The majority of church members rely on the church manuals for instruction on church history, and doctrine. Fine, if they want to put some shine on the "translation" process, but why not just pull the misleading stuff then (pictures depicting Joseph Smith "translating" the Book of Mormon with Oliver Cowdry behind a sheet being the scribe)? I'm not kidding when I mention this to 1 out of 20 members they have no clue about the seer stone, or the hat. If I mention Joseph Smith posessed more than one seer stone then the smoke really starts coming out of their ears, and if I mention that one of the seer stones was on the alter of the Manti Temple at it's dedication they are even more blown away. This all irrelevant as a doctrinal point. When I was on my mission if someone had confronted me with those facts I wouldn't have known what to say, other than to bear my testimony and maybe do some research. I know I wasn't much different than my companions, nor much different than any current missionaries who are teaching "the translation of the book of mormon".

Disparage and vilify? lol..... So let me sum up my understanding: The church has a small budget, so they don't rotate out incorrect pictures/depictions of the translation process. No effort is made to correctly teach how the translation process worked. I do agree that it makes little difference to our testimonies at the end of the day. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't, but if it makes little difference then why would the church make a fomal declaration of the process? Why not just maintain the status quo and let those that wish to know find out on their own?

My point in this discussion is that the general understanding of how the Book of Mormon was translated is not generally known by the membership of the church at large. As a missionary I never mentioned the seer stone to anyone. I never even knew about it. At no point in my church education Primary, sunday school, seminary, BYU did anyone ever mention this. Granted it isn't a secret, but you will never find out going to regular church. It is on LDS.org, and is easy to find, but couldn't we agree that it is hidden in plain sight? Sure, it isn't important to our salvation, and if we can believe Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, then we shouldn't have any problem swallowing the seer stone story. It just seems to me that things could have been made a little clearer along the way. And if Joseph Smith was reluctant to reveal his methods, then why does the church perpetuate the picture of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry seated at a table with a sheet between them? I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've seen that particular illustration over the years.