riverogue
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by riverogue
-
-
Up until less than a year ago. I felt that I had a strong testimony about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as a prophet, seer, revelator, and restorer of our faith, as well as all the latter-day prophets, and doctrines of the church. I believed this despite being raised by less active parents in a home where the gospel was rarely talked about, and with my parents whom did not care whether I was a temple recommend holder or not. Few periods did I regularly read the scriptures, with one of the exceptions during my mission.
Irregardless, I have always prayed more to God than I have spoken to everyone else in my life combined. I have never tasted alcohol, tobacco products, illegal drugs, a couple times coffee and tea. I was a virgin till my marrage in the temple. I was usually active, to semi-active in the church at other times. Although I have only had one short calling in nursery. The fact that I even attended, at all, is surprising because of social phobia, depression, that my past wife didn't like church, not being around other members while in the army, and because of my upbringing. I sometimes paid my tithe. I regularly met with my bishops.
I had rare occasions that I did look at porn, but have always struggled with a masturbation addiction for which I was very embarrassed. I shouldn't be embarrased now sharing this, because I learned that many temple recommend holding men at all levels of the church struggle with it too (as stated to me by a prominant sexual addiction therapist preferred by some General Authorities). This addiction, kept me from going to the temple from the time I was thirteen until my mission, and also after my mission. I was led through my addiction to be unchaste with women for a few months, soon after adivorce. This caused my disfellowship three years ago. I am still disfellowshipped because of my masturbation addiction. Besides all of this, I feel my worthiness has remained relatively at the same degree since my adolescent years. I think they call that damnation. However, I still feel the spirit often although it is not always with me.
Recently, I started college and have taken biology, environmental science, and ethics and values classes. I also have been doing a great deal of reading about church history, both from LDS publications, and from exmormons. Because of college and my readings on our history, serious doubts have been caste into my mind about the church and its teachings, Joseph Smith, and other latter-day prophets. What these have to do with, I need not get into it all, but I could seriously name hundreds of reasons why I personally think the church might not be true. I am shocked by things that I, and many others consider highly unethical, concerning both actions common to most Americans, actions considered just fine by even the most devout temple attenders, as well as questionable events in church history. I ask myself, how could the church be true if the prophets have not taken a stand on these issues.
So I decided the last month that I seriously need to get my own life in order, "cast the beam out of thine own eye", as Christ said. I started reading and praying everyday in earnest. I have been attending church every Sunday for the last two months. Every day I pray to know for a surety that the church is indeed true. I have been abstinate from my addiction for only several weeks, I've been keeping a chaste mind.
However, my doubts still linger. A part of me thinks, perhaps this church is best known as the most true church on Earth, instead of the one true church, with mistruths that may be taught as doctrines. I still feel that the basic principals of love, service, faith in Christ, repentance, obediance, humility, etc., taught at church is true, and is greatly emphasized in the church. However I have serious doubts about all of the necessary saving ordinances taught in the church, and about what the church teaches about the premortal life and the life after we die. That definately poses a problem for me in trying to get my temple recommend, and getting married in the temple again. But why would I even be concerned with this, unless deep down, I really do feel that it is true.
Anyway, for an example of one of my doubts: what would really keep a man and a woman, lets say in the Terrestial Kingdom, from having a relationship, and living with each other as if married? Would they no longer have their free agency? If they have perfect, reserrected bodies, wouldn't they still be able to have sex and have children? If not, that would be alot of wasted organs. I mean, almost every organ of men and women were created, to at least a small degree, in a fashion to support procreation. How can we be confined to an eternal state without agency or ability to use our bodies in a way in which it was designed for. Perhaps we could be confined to this state temporarily, and that there has got to be some additional challenges, corrections, or learning experiances for those who were less valiant in this current life, so that we could eventually progress to a state in which we would be allowed to use our bodies as they were designed. This would allow for eternal progression. But is eternal progression only for those who reach exaltation? And, if eternal progression is available to those who reach the lower kingdoms, is this eternal progression all encompassing in every aspect of their eternal existance?
Also, If the all powerful and loving God made a way for our eternal progression, then what about all other life? If you took all life that God ever made and put it in a 50 gallon barrel, filling it to the rim, humans would be like a tiny grain of rice sitting at the bottom. Would it be fair that all other life would never be able to have the emotions, wisdom, and experiances that we have, or that God has? Would it be fair for most of those lower forms of life to always be confined to a state in which they would never be able to have free agency, only operating by instinct and chemical processes? Wouldn't it be just for them to eventually have free agency so that they can progress in intelligence, abilities, and finally in wisdom and spirituality? What do we believe about the lives of animals after their deaths anyway. Take a look at a lion. So much about a lion is created to hunt and eat meat. Look at all of it's mannerisms, social behavior, it's build, camoflauge, organs for hunting and digesting meat. After it passes from it's current life, it would make sense to me that it would continue to hunt, kill, and procreate in heaven. But if it did kill, that would negate what we are taught about immortality. The lion, and all other species, would either have to completely change form, or be merely a living symbol of what it once was, for the rest of eternity.
I know that I need to cling to basic principals of the gospel such as love, faith, repentance, etc. Perhaps I need to accept all of the doctrines taught to me because I would not be willing to gamble away my future exaltation just because of doubts. Maybe I should keep an open mind as long as I cling to what I know to be true. What could it hurt anyway, to participate in doctrines I dont completely understand, like the saving ordinances. I guess I will have to have faith in those things, examine how they can be a growing experiance for me, even if they were false, and then I will have sure knowledge of the truth after I die.
-
I looked through my math and I think it was bad , but since changed it in th above post. 1 auto death in 900 during a 2 year period is poor though. I would qoute for you the source if I could find it again. sorry about that.
I know that I had substantial mental health issues before and during my mission (depression, social phobia, excessive anxiety disorder). so much so that my bishop didn't expect me to serve a mission. When I said I wanted to go, he was surprised, and I went. I never went through any kind of mental health evaluation. I didn't know they do that. And I never recieved anykind of mental health couseling from my mission president. Usually interviews with the mission president was an in and out gotta get the job done kind of thing to be done once every two months
-
that number dates back since the churches organization. Its about 500 missionaries that would have died in auto accidents during their two year missions. 1/900 about. but that's only during those two years. Do the math a missionary is much more likely to die in auto accidents.
we did recieve a short training lesson every two months: we would usually review the accidents that happened since the last zone meeting. It was kind of embarrasing for the missionaries present in those accidents. I do not recall any video though.
Getting 8 hours of sleep in an 8 hour alotted period is easier said than done.
I agree, not all missionaries need sleep aids.
Perhaps mental health professionals wouldn't be able to relate very well to such a foreign lifestyle. I was throwing ideas out there. But I dont think mission presidents are qualified either
-
No. Have have been in 4 wards since my mission and have not seen a calendar once.
-
There has been around 600 casualties. I was thinking, at the least, we could to erect some kind memorial, and a reporting system, for our fallen Heros, like we do for war casualties. It is surprising that we haven't.
Also, missionaries and their families need our prayers. Sorry for the outdated statistics, but from the time of Joseph Smith until 1989 there were 525 missionary casualties out of abt 447,969 fulltime missionaries. Being a veteran and aware of the approximate numbers of deployed soldiers in Afghanistan, the casualty rate is similar. It's a dangerous world out there for our missionaries. Most of them are hit by cars and die in automobile accidents. They are relatively inexperianced drivers, always on the road, and are often distracted while navigating and address searching in busy, unfamiliar areas. Murder is actually pretty low on the list. It seems that the Church could at least do some risk assesment and other training, rather than just saying, "drive safe". The church could implement technology to help keep the missionaries safe like a military does for its soldiers.
Anti-collision device now being installed in vehicles:
Ford, Lincoln Models Get Active Anti-Collision Technology Option
I remember when I was a missionary we would usually hunt down about a dozen or more new addresses each day. GPS would do alot to reduce distraction while navigating.
Drowsiness is a major cause of accidents. Providing non-drowsy, natural sleep aids such as Valarian, etc may be benificial. Valarian is nonaddictive and is supposed to relax ones mental anxieties enough that they can fall asleep. Alot of missionaries don't sleep well because of stress due to concerns over their investigators, their worthiness and success, adjusting to a new life, their families and friends at home, etc. Maybe we could provide it for them if the missionaries want it. Many of them don't have the money to buy it on their own.
Providing mental health couseling for missionaries would be beneficial as well. Mission presidents are not qualified to do this.
As far as financial support, I know on my stateside mission, 99-01, I was alloted only $140 per month. Any other financial support was nearly non existant. Less than a $100 of my stipend went to food. Not nearly enough to meet my dietary demands, especially since I was usually riding my bike 20 miles a day in the shearing humid Georgia heat. The rest went to buying missionary supplies, bicycle repair, replacement clothing, medicines, personal hygeine items, gasoline at times, electric bill if we went over the designated amount, and other unexpected expenditures. Dinner appointments were few and so my main diet consisted of cheap foods that are high in starch, pasta, bread etc. These foods make you drowsy, are not filling, and cause diabetes. I don't know what the churches food stipend is now, but if it's still small like it was in Georgia, they need to give a much larger allotment if possible. I'm sure the general authorities aren't suffering like that in their work, maybe that money could come out of their budget.
-
Are you praying and read reading the scriptures often and sincerely? If so, know that you are on the right track and meet with your bishop. I would be more worried about a person who seems to do everything right but doesn't read or pray.
-
I'm tired of hearing some LDS people saying men with long hair is shameful. Here is a quote by David S. King,
"Church leaders, recognizing that fashions go in cycles, are sensitive to the rich cultural diversity within the Church. For example, they have recently held that clean, neatly trimmed and managed beards and long hair for men—as well as certain other fashions that to some might seem “trendy”—are acceptable for the temple, provided they are not inherently offensive or vulgar" (Feb 1993 Ensign, p29).
If it is considered acceptable in the Holy Temple, then why not at church or anywhere else for that matter.
The churches public stance against long hair began during the Hippie Revolution. Although long hair was recognized as part of the hippie's drug and free love culture. As a result BYU made the rule against long hair and beards, Elder Oaks said,
"In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of indifference toward the best in life" (New Era, Dec 1971 p 46).
The thing is, this was directed only to BYU students, but it has been quoted and summarized repeatedly while being directed toward all men in the church. If this does apply to all in the church than perhaps a rule ageanst women wearing any bottoms excepting slacks and dresses should apply to all women. Elder Oaks had this to say about womens attire, in the same talk,
"The inclusion of pant suits authorizes a style of dress that is clearly modest, however unfeminine some may think it to be. Standing by itself, the word slacks refers to a wide spectrum of attire covering the extremes between the dressy component of the pant suit on the one hand on down to the grubbiest trousers only suitable to slop the pigs. The authorization of slacks for general wear on this campus was meant to signify the kind of slacks that are as dressy as one portion of the pant suit. This new addition to the dress standards does not authorize the wearing of jeans, men’s trousers, or other slacks from the grubby end of the spectrum. Nor should it be understood to authorize the wearing of tee shirts, sweatshirts, or other such attire. These two modifications must not be the occasion for a general deterioration of women’s dress standards on this campus".
Perhaps the women in the church should stop being grubby, looking like the "slop" of "pigs" by no longer wearing jeans, t-shirts, and sweatshirts. But of coarse I relize that the culture has changed since then. A strong recomendation such as this would seem sexist by most women of todays culture. In regards to the priesthood holders Hair. Long hair has also become a manly style among the handsome and trendy, the fine artists, the sophisticated, and the educated.
I really feel like it is time that many members of the church recognize this and lay off on men such as myself who have long hair and are also handsome, trendy and worthy individuals.
-
So Wednesday afternoon I was on an LDS dating sight and was contacted by another woman for chatting, and we chatted for an hour. She said she was pretty religious, very shy, affectionate, and liked the outdoors. I thought she would be a good match for me. She asked if I was doing anything that evening. Well I was busy that evening, but the next evening we went on a date to see a movie at Jordan Commons and to dinner at the Mayan. As far as communicating she seemed a little distant, just one sentence answers whenever I asked about herself, and she didn't really make much initiative to speak to me. I though maybe it was because she is shy, but I wasn't sure at all. During the beginning of the movie I made the first move (holding her hand) at first her fingers were limp but she grasped mine tighter later during the movie, moved her hand away to touch her hair or something a few times, and continued to interlace her fingers in mine. She also leaned her body against mine after mid movie. I cupped her hand in mine on my knee. It felt romantic. And I held her hand in public while walking out to her jeep. She had to drive me all the way back to Orem, as I dont have a car. She lives in Salt Lake. I asked if I could call her later to ask her on another date and she said I could just text her as she can't answer her cell often. So I am a little confused as to whether she is attracted to me based on conflicting body language vs. her not speaking much to me. I dont have much dating experiance even though I am 30 and divorrced. She is 30 too, but said that she has never been in a long-term relationship. I would like to go to church together onSunday, but I don't know if it is appropriate to ask her if I can attend her ward with her. I'd ask if she wanted to attend church at my ward, but she would have to drive for an hour just to get to Orem. I could just take UTA for free to Salt Lake without the expense or stress of driving.
-Do you think she is interested?
-How long should I wait to text her?
-Is it appropriate to ask a woman if I can go to church with her after the first date like mine?
-
"Now for the spirit of the law: Be as generous in calculating your tithing as you want the Lord to be in calculating your blessings."
Spirit of the Law: You can buy extra blessings by paying extra tithing.
Darn, I wish I had more money so that I could afford more super-spiritual merchandise.
-
Hey at least she was honest. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether any other girl you want date as had sex or not. If one only dated those who claim to be worthy or virgin, whatever, one would be eliminating out of their dating pool alot of honest and humble girls or guys. Here's some food for thought: that unfortunately most every dishonest mormon is a temple recommend holder, unless they get caught in the act. Hence, having a temple recommend usually doesn't say anything about a person, except I feel there is a higher probability that they are dishonest.
-
"Courting is when from the beginning you agree to get to know each other with the understanding of a marriage in the future."
The way this person put it sounds kind of uncomfortable to me. My interpretation: That's like being engaged from day one. I don't think that is the way to go. You dont know someone enough to decide whether you should even want to be married to him/her until you know them very well. This can take years. And from my experiance dont write someone off to be a worthy marriage partner just because of their position in the church, even if they are a bishop or general authority, i know this from being sexually abused by a stake relief society president who was my own grandmother.
-
Bytors post makes sense to me. I have also just recalled reading about how Joseph Smith also sealed brothren who were good friends together too. Does anyone have anymore information on this matter and whether it is in fact true. If so, why do we not do this today? It seems to me that if all the righteous are sealed to their spouses, children, parents etc; many, if not all of us will one day be sealed to each other, anyway.
-
I am looking for the best answer to a puzzling question that I have been confronted with repeatedly about Joseph Smith's marriage to a 14 year old girl. I don't remember her name. But they say that Joseph Smith couldn't have been a true prophet of even a righteous person, because he married a 14 year old girl. Joseph had said to the effect, that he didn't want to marry her, but was told by an angel that if he didn't, he would be struck down by the angel with a sword. So he did marry the girl. Now-a-days everyone of us would write-off a man claiming this as another Warren Jeffs. How do I explain this to my non-member friends that bring this up?
My serious doubts about serious doubts, perhaps it was from my sinful life, but may they are just.
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by riverogue
Who said I was giving up? I didn't write that in my text anywhere. Neither did I say that I was testing God, nor trying to appease my consciounce.
I thought about deleting my original post, but there are thousands of Latter Day Saints who can relate to my same struggles.
It will be interesting to see which ones here will try to burn me with their words.