Mute

Do you remember why you had a desire to go before? You said you enjoy being at church on Sunday. I know for exercise, it can be hard to want to get started if you haven't done any in awhile. If you go on a walk, it makes you feel better and you are glad you did it. The next day you usually want to go again. However, if you skip that and end up not going, your motivation and desire to go on a walk may vanish. So in order to keep this motivation, you need to keep with it. The more you exercise, the more you want to do it. Exercise makes you feel better. The fact that you said you enjoy yourself at Church on Sunday leads me to believe the more you end up going the more you may want to. The hard part is just getting started. Just keep to the thought that the more you go the more you will want to. So force yourself for that reason. Now if you had said you didn't enjoy church but wanted motivation to go, then I would have no clue as to what you could do to change that. I know fishing is something I absolutely can not stand. No matter how many times I have gone, I still hate it just as much.

I'm going to cut and paste answers to this question that I have written in the past since this is something I've already looked into and don't want to type something fresh for. Where did the Bible come from? Can there ever be anymore scriptures? One of the most common assaults on the LDS faith is the accusation that they have added to the Bible with the Book of Mormon being the addition. This claim is on virtually every site with negativity towards the LDS faith and used by many who seek to provoke ill feelings towards the LDS. Deuteronomy 4:2 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 12:32 32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Galatians 1:6-12 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Proverbs 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18-19 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Few people understand how the Bible came to be. The Bible is a collection of books and letters. The word bible literally means books. It wasn't until many years later after these individual books and letters were written that some of them were collected into "The Books" or "The Bible". There are many other writings which are spoken of through out the different books but are not in the collection of the Bible. Not all of these books were written at once. They were written over a large period of time by many different people, yet the Bible contains writings after Deuteronomy. Why is this? It clearly states do not add or take away from what the Lord has said in Deuteronomy. The Lord gives other scriptures to later prophets and says the same of do not add or take away. Would this mean the Lord could never speak again or there can be no future writings? Obviously it would not mean this or no one would use anything past Deuteronomy. The LDS believe the Book of Mormon to be other scriptures from prophets which were not included into the collection of the Bible. There are alot of religious books that they didn't include in the Bible because they weren't certain how accurate they were. The Apocrypha, which the Catholics use, are books which were written by prophets and there are a lot of books that are even mentioned of in the Bible but no one knows where they are. We have a collection of some books but we don't have all of them and when they were written, they weren't in any official collection. Here is an example. Lets take Toytoa the car company. There is a president of Toyota (God). He speaks to his representatives (prophets) that speak to the public about the company (company being the gospel). I'm a representative for Toyota and I write four books or letters. A year later another representative writes two books and in it it talks about other books another representative wrote (some of the books not included into the collection of the Bible). Six months later another representative writes some books and says do not add or take away from this writing. Four months later another Representative writes some books and letters. This goes on and on till you eventually have say 50+ representatives who wrote over 100+ books and letters. Now 20 years after the last known book was written, a group of people gather together 25 books from 10 representatives and they put it into a collection (The Bible). Then 50 years later someone else (Joseph Smith) says they found some other books and old letters written by representatives that weren't included into the that collection which other people wrote. So you go to one of the books in the Bible that says do not add or take away from this book and say "well it says right here don't add or take away so that obviously discredits what you say". The books through out the "The Bible" were written many years apart. The fact that there are books and letters after Deuteronomy in the the Bible shows that there can be other writing besides that of Deuteronomy. The fact that there are other books and letters mentioned of in the Bible but not included in it show that we do not have them all. Recently there were the other writings discovered which are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. So to say Deuteronomy is refering to all of the books of the Bible or all books ever written, when many were not even written till hundreds of years later does not make sense. There was no Bible then. God still spoke to prophets after Deuteronomy. So to say because one book in a collection of books says not to add or take away from it and that it would some how mean you can never have anymore writings makes absolutely no sense or noone would use any books past Deuteronomy. Some people look at the Bible as though it is one book and it is not. This is a fact. If a person knew the origin of the Bible they would know that it is very possible that someone could find and even have found (Dead Sea Scrolls) additional writings. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Passages from the Book of Mormon. # 2nd Nephi. 29: 3-4, 6, 10 3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. 4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. The Lost Books of the Bible. The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22). The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (Matt. 2: 23) is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11: 1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23: 5; Jer. 33: 15; Zech. 3: 8; Zech. 6: 12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh. The Book of Mormon makes reference to writings of O.T. times and connection that are not found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or in any other known source. These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19: 10; Alma 33: 3-17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3: 4-22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46: 24-26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of brass spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5: 10-13).

Ok first things first. You need something to grab everyone's attention because chances are they'll most likely be half asleep by the time you give your talk. I recommend doing something like Steve Ballmer, the motivational speaker for Microsoft, does. Here is a link so you can get a better idea of what you need to do. I guarantee if you do that before you give a talk, the crowd will be cheering your name...or the bishop will be pulling you off the stage. I'm willing to bet it will be the first. Now what is the talk on? Talking about something you care about makes it a lot easier to give a good talk. If it's not something you care about, then try to find something about the topic you do care about or that you feel is important enough to focus on. Collect your thoughts and organize it in a way that makes it very easy for the audience to follow. Give the talk so that it flows from one point to the next instead of being scattered. An optional thing to do is list what you want to accomplish in your talk and then generally but briefly explain it to the audience. Know your audience. You need to know or at least have an educated guess about how much your audience knows to be able to explain things to them. Make sure not to belittle them or talk above their level. When you teach a principle, you may use short stories to help illustrate a point or insert a joke but don't over do it. You may not know all these people but try to remember that they're no different from you or me. Be down to Earth. Try to find something people can relate to. Try to find something that could possibly be inspiring or motivating for them. The tone you use can have one of the largest impacts on the way the audience perceives what you say. If you speak in a monotone voice, are always looking at the clock and read your talk word for word off a sheet of paper, then you may not hold the audience's attention as well. Don't be afraid to express emotion in what you say. Take your time though. You're not in a rush. Even if you're the last one to give a talk and it's 5 mins till, they'll wait for you. Just try to relax and take deep breaths. Don't focus on what others are thinking about you. Chances are they're not thinking anything other than how uncomfortable the seats are. Once you start talking on the message, that's what people are going to be paying attention to. Focus on that. Try to show an interest in those you're talking to. If you care about the people you're talking to, they will recognize it. They can tell it in the tone of your voice. They can tell it in the expressions you make. People will know if you are sincere or not in what you say. It makes an unbelievable difference in how much they pay attention to what you say if they think you care about them. People will even know if you're nervous and if it helps you, you could even tell the crowd you are nervous. It might make the other speakers feel better to know they're not the only one who is nervous. If you're talking from your heart, that's all that matters. Talks from the heart, by an unexperienced person, can be more powerful and hold more meaning than a talk by the most gifted speaker in the world. Read the audience. See if they're paying attention. Are they listening? If they're not, then you have to change something. You have to say something that will interest them. If your audience is talking with one another, then there is usually a problem. You could even ask the question of why is this topic important for others to listen to. I guarantee that would get their attention pretty quick because it's probably something they're wanting to know if they find themselves too bored to listen to you. Of course, you better have a good answer to follow it up with or you can expect them to go right back to ignoring you lol. Try to look at the audience's eyes. It lets them know that you're talking to them and not just a general crowd. It means more if they know you want them to hear what you have to say and that you're not saying it just to take up time. Look to your family if you find yourself becoming too nervous but don't keep your eyes there for long. The talk is meant for everyone, not just your family so eye contact is very important with the audience. Try to use good posture. Don't slouch or look like you're bored to be there. Look alive. Most talks are boring enough as is. Be the one that stands out. Keep to the point. Don't stray off on boring stories about yourself. No one wants to hear you praise yourself. Talk as little as you can about yourself. This isn't your time to talk about your weekend or the time to talk about all your problems. Don't build yourself up but don't tear yourself down either. If you're going to use a good example, don't use yourself. Use someone in the audience or someone you know, preferably someone outside your family. It's ok to use yourself as a bad example in a story or perhaps to share past mistakes you've made but don't tell about something serious which you did wrong. This isn't a confession. When you have the talk thought out as well as written out, listen to the talk yourself. Would it hold your own attention? If you find yourself getting bored listening to what you have written, it's usually not a good sign. Rehearse what you want to say. You can practice while on a walk, in the shower or while driving a car. When you finish writing it, ask for feed back from a friend. See what they think about it. Look at some great speakers the world has had. Who gave the talks that have inspired you? Was it their talk that was inspiring or was it the speaker saying it? Perhaps it was a combination of both. Would it have been as inspiring or uplifting if someone else gave the same exact talk? Why did you hold an interest to what they said? Some people are absolutely brilliant speakers. It doesn't matter what they are talking about. It would hold our attention and it doesn't matter what they were saying. Many would be persuaded by their words. Sometimes an attractive lady can be the most persuasive though lol. When you near the finish of the talk, summarize the points you have made. At the end of your talk, summarize what you have said. Briefly list the different points you have gone over and conclude your message. Remember, practice makes perfect.

I think you should do what you feel is right. It's a very hard thing to feel cast off by your family. I can relate to you in being forced to attend church. Not everyone is forced though. Unlike you, my family didn't end up kicking me out because I chose not to serve a mission. If that had of happened, I'd probably have felt very unloved by them and possibly become very bitter towards the church. I really feel it's better to let individuals decide what is best for them. I'm very big on letting someone think for themselves. I'm not going to tell you what the right course is because I'm not really sure. However, the fact that you said you didn't enjoy going to church, never felt like you fit in and only wanted to leave, leads me to wonder if returning to church is the solution to why you're feeling this way. Are you sure the church is what you're missing and not perhaps your family or maybe a desire to go back to be accepted by your parents? I don't know all of the circumstances in your life. I don't know if you believe in the church. I don't know your reasons for wanting to go back. You would know that better than anyone. I'd suggest finding that reason or the reasons out and going from there. I think if you go back, you should go back for you and not because you feel expected to. What ever your reason for going back, just make sure it's your reason. If it turns out you're still feeling like you're missing something, then maybe there is something else you need. From your post, I got the impression that you weren't terribly happy in your life right now. If I'm right about that, then maybe the best thing for you would be a friend or someone close to you that you can talk to about your feelings with. Someone in person is going to be a lot more help to you than someone online. I'm not saying going back to church isn't going to help you feel better. It might. I just didn't get the impression that not attending church is the reason you are feeling the way you are. I think it's something deeper than that based upon what you said. Then again, only you would know. I wouldn't feel ashamed to return to church though. It's no ones place to judge you. If someone judges you, it's probably because they are unhappy in their own life and don't have any friends. No one wants to be around someone always judging others. At least I don't. Either way, you're going to find people you like and people you don't like in anything you do in life.

I'm not sure I entirely understand your post. When did your friend's husband have relations with another woman? Was this at the start of your friend's marriage to him? Was it while they were dating or was it before they had even met? If it was while they were dating or while being married, then I would most likely not think it's ok for him to have had sexual relations with another woman. People generally have an understanding in a relationship that you are not supposed to cheat on the other if you want that relationship to continue. Unless both parties in a relationship consent to allowing one another to have sexual relations with another person, then I would consider that cheating and there for wrong and disrespectful. If your friend's husband had this child with another woman before he even met your friend, then I would not consider anything he did wrong other than neglecting to find out if there was a child born. I feel he should have tried to find that out and told your friend about it before being married. I would want to know something like that before I made the choice to marry someone especially if your friend asked him about it before marriage. If he knew about it and lied then the lying I would find wrong too. However, the woman he had sexual relations with, you said was unwilling to tell them who the father was. So you may never know if your friend's husband is the father or not. So what's the point in worrying about it until the lady is willing to reveal who the father is?

No. It's more complicated than that. I don't believe many things are wrong unless they cause harm to someone other than yourself and even then there are circumstances where I would not view it as wrong if you did harm someone else. There are circumstances for each situation to take into account as to whether I'd view it as wrong or not. Does the fact that a horrible outcome is always the result sufficient justification to to call something a sin or wrong? I wouldn't tell someone to touch an electric fence but I wouldn't consider it wrong if they did. Touching a hot stove isn't wrong. It's unwise but it's not wrong. There are consequences and high risks involved. You could end up losing your life if you touch an electric fence or end up with a severe burn if you touch a hot stove. It is not the act of premarital sex which I find wrong. However, I might find some of the actions some people may take prior to or following premarital sex as wrong. For example, if someone failed to tell their partner they had a std or lied about being single when really they were married, I'd find that wrong. From my understanding, the man in the link you gave did not bother to find out if there was a child born. That action I would find wrong. Eating too many french fries or not brushing your teeth often enough, can have bad outcomes. I don't find it a sin to do it though. I don't consider it wrong. I consider it some what unwise. It has risks involved. You might gain a cavity or gain too much weight. It's still your choice and it doesn't affect others. As far as espionage goes, I don't really consider that wrong. I don't know why you would either considering they did that in the Book of Mormon. Alma Chapter 43 30 And he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take. Child pornography I would consider wrong. I would consider it wrong because the child isn't developed enough to even want to participate in those actions unless an adult tried to force them to for their own selfish pleasures. It has no benefit for the child that I can see. Children are not old enough to make a choice like that imo unless someone over "encouraged" them or forced them. It's not consenting people. You're taking advantage of a child 100% of the time. However having consenting adults does not always make something ok imo. Child pornography is honestly not a subject I've really put a lot of thought into. It's not a controversial subject except among child molesters in NAMBLA. Virtually everyone agrees that it is wrong.

No. I still couldn't. This situation does not apply to everyone. It's not a universal situation which applies to everyone who does this. I believe the father should have found out if he had a child or not. He should have taken responsibility for it. I'm not saying that I think people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions. The mother did take responsibility. I don't think she did anything wrong by that. That is my opinion. I already admitted that abstaining from sex can help prevent pregnancy and and stds. I wouldn't say the risk of those makes it wrong though. There are risks involved and some times things don't go how we want them to. There are risks involved in skydiving too. There are risks involved in driving a car. I don't consider it wrong because something unfortunate can happen. If someone has a child, I think they should take responsibility for it. If they don't want the responsibility, then I believe they should put the child up for adoption or be willing to take care of the child should they have one unintentionally. I understand if you disagree with me. This is only my opinion.

I probably wouldn't consider all of those blessings but I can understand if you do. You don't believe someone can be close to God if they have premarital sex or do you mean they will be close to God if they don't have premarital sex? I'd have to disagree with kids having a lower IQ if they're not raised within a marriage though. The poverty of a child may be higher if it's a single parent but not always. "I have told many groups of young people that they should not postpone their marriage until they have acquired all of their education ambitions. I have told tens of thousands of young folks that when they marry they should not wait for children until they have finished their schooling and financial desires. Marriage is basically for the family, and there should be no long delay. They should live together normally and let the children come. . ." (Spencer W. Kimball, "Marriage is Honorable," Speeches of the Year, 1973, p. 263) I'm getting the impression that having enough money isn't something Spencer W. Kimball thinks couples should worry about before having children. So why should I a single parent? Now it's a big job to be a single parent. It takes up a lot of time and cause a lot of stress on someone but I don't find it wrong to be a single parent. If you didn't believe in the Bible, would you still find premarital sex wrong? Even if my life depended on it, I wouldn't be able to provide reasons for why I felt it was wrong. I could tell reasons for why I think it's wrong to hit your little brother or why it's wrong to rob a bank but I couldn't name one reason for why I felt premarital sex was wrong. It has risks like everything but it just doesn't seem wrong to me. I'm not promoting someone go out and have premarital sex. I'm just saying I can't see reason behind the belief that it is wrong or that premarital sex is a sin other than simply because people believe it to be wrong based on the Bible. I have no problem with others believing it to be wrong.

When I was religious, I very rarely ever prayed over food. I usually only prayed before bed if at all. I would occasionally say prayers during the day but I wouldn't kneel down for them. I usually didn't kneel down for prayers unless I felt it might help show I was sincere. You can avoid repetition by believing you're talking to a real person. I believed I was. If I didn't have something to talk about, I generally didn't talk. I didn't like praying just for the sake of praying. I never really felt right asking for forgiveness unless I felt I did something that personally had to do with God. If I made someone unhappy or sad, I didn't ask for God's forgiveness because it had nothing to do with him. Sometimes I'd talk to God about various things or at least I believed I was talking to God. I don't know if there was actually anyone listening or not but God is who my words and thoughts were intended for.

Premarital sex is a controversial subject. Some find it wrong. Others do not. I don't know what blessings you would gain by not having sex but you would avoid the risk of catching an std or pregnancy.

I've never even heard of an lds funeral. Are you sure they do not allow non lds to talk or sing at such funerals? Are you also sure that you have to be lds in order to dress them in temple clothes? I'm assuming by temple clothes, you do not mean garments right? Just white shirt, white pants and tie or a white dress for a girl? I just can't imagine that being true about someone not being allowed to give a talk or sing at an lds funeral unless they are lds. If it is true though, why not just have the funeral some where else? The lds faith does not teach that the way someone is buried affects what happens to them in an after life. Both my brother and my sisters had their funerals at a funeral home. Neither one was buried in temple clothes. My sister was buried in a white dress but they were not temple clothes. If there is one thing I learned from my sister's funeral, it's that you shouldn't try to stick loose change up a dead guy's nose in the funeral home. It doesn't matter if you think it would fit or not. It's rude or at least that's what my family told me when I tried to do it. I was younger then and it's not something I would consider doing today. Still....I sometimes wonder if it would have fit.

Well Knights of the Old Republic doesn't have quite as good of graphics as Mass Effect or Dragon Age but the story and dialogue options are far better than any in Dragon Age or Mass Effect. All of the games are made by Bioware too.

I have not checked out Demon's Soul but I will be sure to do so. You said he likes rpgs? Some of my most favorite rpgs are Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect 1 and 2 and Dragon Age. You can find previews of them on youtube if you're curious about them. They are great games though.

This is something I haven't taken the time to thoroughly think out well enough to put into words. I don't know what this feeling is others describe. Not everyone has described this feeling to me in the same way which has caused doubt for me that at least all people who say they have felt something are feeling the same thing. I do think it's possible some people could be feeling something from a a Holy Ghost but I don't know that for sure. I've read the scriptures many times and I personally felt inspired by some of the stories but I never could say these feelings I got were any different from when I read another inspiring book or watched an uplifting movie. Still, it's not something I can dismiss and say no one feels a holy ghost or is prompted by one. I don't have enough knowledge about this feeling in order to make an accurate assumption on what it is. Feelings in and of themselves are not something many people truly understand. How many times have you heard someone say they're in love when really they're just raging with hormones. I'd say the best way for someone to test what it may be is to try reading and praying for themselves and see if they feel anything. Try to pay attention to what you're feeling. I would encourage others to at least try it. Maybe they'll have something happen that they can be certain of. Maybe they won't. I don't know. I never was certain and I read the Book of Mormon 8 times but I still think it's worth a shot for others. There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon that talks about the vineyard. Alma chapter 32. It talks about this feeling that will come. 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. Maybe you'll get a feeling like this, maybe you won't. If you do, is this the holy ghost? I don't know. There is just an awful lot of factors to consider in figuring out what this feeling is others refer to as the holy ghost. It's not something I can say one way or the other. I simply don't know.

I can completely understand that and that makes total sense. I wouldn't want to discuss something personal to me either if I felt someone was going to mock or make fun of me for it. If someone can't respect my beliefs, then I'm not going to share it with them. I don't always expect people to open up to me about their beliefs simply because I ask. If they are personal, I would prefer they say they're personal rather than avoiding the question though. It's not my goal to make someone uncomfortable.

I agree people should be challenged but many people are uncomfortable with this. In my opinion, if someone is uncomfortable being challenged, so long as it is in a polite manner, they shouldn't be trying to persuade others to believe in their beliefs or at least they shouldn't be attacking other peoples beliefs. I think it's good to question ones beliefs. I don't know if you'll ever find out the right answer or not but I think it's allways a good idea to question things. It could changes one's beliefs or it could strengthen their beliefs. So in my opinion, it's always a good idea.

How would you recommend fixing this problem?

You may be right about them feeling a lack of faith by saying that but it's hard to know if they don't tell you. I'm not going to jump on you for believing the spirit was confirming things to you and not your own imagination. I don't know if it was or not. That's a reason though for believing. You are comfortable enough in your own faith in order to tell me that. Yes, I could question whether or not that was actually the spirit or just your imagination but at least you are willing to tell me this is what you believe and why. You are willing to be put on the spot for your beliefs. That is what I wanted from others. I may not be convinced by their reasons but that's ok. I'm not looking to disprove them or try to dissuade them from believing as they do. I just wanted to know why they believe as they do. Many times they do not give me a reason. This leads me to simply try and guess why they believe. It leads me to wonder if they really don't know why they believe, if they just believe because they were told by their parents or what ever. Maybe they're simply insecure with their beliefs and aren't sure? It's very difficult to pin the answer unless they give me a reason. My whole point in writing this was simply to share my experiences in seeking answers to this question. The only thing I've found is that I don't know if they do know why they believe. Surely the lds can not be the only ones that can give a consistent reason for why they believe. Obviously, people have to have a reason. I mean to find it but it is very frustrating in searching. People must have a reason. Maybe they just haven't thought it out or thought about it. The only things I've leaned is that many Christians must believe the spirit confirms truth and also that many seem to have researched an awful lot against the lds faith. I didn't really find that as much among Catholics though. I remember some of the reasons for Catholics believing were almost comical. I remember one person said "If you're going to join a church, why not go with the best". One person said they joined for the wine. I honestly didn't spend very much time asking Catholics though. Maybe I'll try that some more.

This is not meant to offend anyone in writing this but this is something I've thought about quite a bit and this is what I've learned from talking with hundreds of Christians from various faiths but primarily those of protestant faiths and those part of non denominational churches. This is not meant as a stereotype for what every Christian believes from other faiths. This is only based on my personal discussions with other Christians. If you don't believe this way, then you don't believe this way. This is just my results from talking with others so please try not to take offense. A question I have spent a great deal of time trying to find an answer to was why those of various faiths/religions believe as they do. I never could get a clear answer to that though. At least I couldn't get a clear answer from members of other Christian faiths. The lds were the only ones I knew the reason for. Generally the lds give the answer of praying for confirmation and then usually confirmation is described as being a feeling of peace and love. Whether someone believes this is actually confirmation or not is besides the point. It is still a reason and it's honestly one of the best I've heard so far even though I'm not a believer that this is necessarily what others believe it to be. In my opinion, feelings are very uncertain but this isn't a question of whether praying for confirmation works or not. It's about why others believe as they do. There are many Christians who do not believe in praying for confirmation in the same way the lds do. They do not believe one should pray in order to test the truth of the Bible, Book of Mormon etc. They believe the word, meaning the Bible, is already perfect and that God confirms truth through the word. I don't personally believe the Bible is perfect or that it's perfectly translated correctly. Either way, if it was translated correctly, it does not explain why they believe it. Usually the answers were things that made no sense to me. Let me give you an example of how some of these conversations went. I erased all of the ones I had kept copies of and I never recorded the ones in person so I decided to go through the trouble to give you a fresh example by going into a random christian chat. I cut out everything anyone else said in the channel because they weren't participating in the conversation and in order to make it easier to read. The name I used was Mute_37. <comforter> Hello and welcome to christian chat im your bible scholar host any bible study questions feel free to ask me <Mute_37> I have a question for anyone who is Christian. Why do you believe in your religion? <EDB> I BELEIVE COS ITS TRUE <Mute_37> And why do you believe it's true? <EDB> I SPEAK TO GOD AND JESUS <comforter> mute cause i see that it is the truth <Mute_37> Can you tell me why you beileve it's the truth? <EDB> WELL COS I SPOKE TO GOD AND JESUS THATS WHY <Mute_37> and why do you believe you spoke to them? <EDB> I DID <Mute_37> and why do you believe you did? <EDB> I SAID <EDB> I BELEIVE IT COS ITS TRUE <EDB> THATS WHY <Mute_37> Simply saying I KNOW CAUSE ITS TRUE is not a reason to me. <EDB> MUTE IT IS THE BEST OF ALL REASONS <EDB> JESUS LOVES ALL OF US <comforter> Mute cause I found out the bible was true <Mute_37> Comforter HoW did you find out it is true? Why do you believe it? <comforter> Because it is God's word <Mute_37> Comforter, you are not telling me why you believe it. I could read lord of the rings and say "It is written so it must be true" <comforter> mute it says things there in ancient times that only a divine could have known that science today confirm <Mute_37> Comforter, what does it say that only a divine could have known? <comforter> mute the bible knew the pangea and that the earth split up and continental drifted <Mute_37> and where does it say this? <comforter> Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. <Mute_37> In my opinion, that is pretty vague to say that is referring to continents dividing <comforter> whats vague about it figures youd make excuse <Mute_37> It's vague because it could be any amount of land that was divided. It could also mean nations were divided. <Mute_37> Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. They stopped talking to me after that so I didn't get a chance to continue. Comforter did give a reason for believing though. He believes the Bible because he believes that verse is referring to continents shifting and that this proves the Bible is true. That's honestly better than what I've heard from many others. Even though I don't believe that is what the verse is referring to, it is still a reason. Usually what happens is, people just sit there saying things like "GOD IS THE WORD" until I become too frustrated to talk to them. I will then use the example of lds praying for confirmation to help them understand what I would consider an answer. I don't care what their answer is so long as it is an answer. This is when the conversation becomes very interesting but also extremely annoying. In 90% of the conversations or more, instead of attempting to even answer my question, the only thing they want to talk about is Mormons. They list reason after reason after reason for why the lds faith is wrong and evil. It's like what the heck just happened? I only used the lds as an example but now they won't shut up about it. You can't change the subject once they hear the word Mormon or LDS. That's all they will talk about. If you say anything against what they say, they treat you with a lot of contempt. They throw more things at you then you would ever believe. It's mind boggling how much time they've evidently spent looking up claims against a minority church that they aren't even a part of. They know a lot of claims to throw at the lds but they don't know why they even believe in their own faith? Again, this is not meant as a stereotype for every Christian. This is simply based upon my personal conversations with hundreds of others. I'm not implying that no one other than lds have a reason for believing as they do. I am saying that 90% of the people I talked to didn't seem to have a reason though. It's like they couldn't seem to understand what I meant by the question of "Why do you believe in your religion". That is what eventually compelled me to use the lds as an example to help them better understand why others believe as they do. I didn't care if their answers were the same, similar or what ever. I just wanted to know why they believed. Now having someone attack a religion does not make it true but I do find it curious that they spend so much more time attacking the lds than atheists or agnostics like myself. They don't even seem to go after non Christian religions like Islam etc. The whole reason I started going through the claims against the lds faith is because people seemed to take the time to learn claims against the lds faith rather than learn their own beliefs. Maybe if I can help educate people, I'll be able to finally get an answer to my question. If they ever had one to begin with. I may just skip Christianity all together and try asking Muslims or Jews why they believe as they do. Back to what I was saying though. EDB's reason of "COS I SPOKE TO GOD AND JESUS" isn't something I can disprove. I can't disprove he actually talked to God. What he meant by speaking to God and Jesus, could have meant a lot of things. Perhaps I should have asked him what he meant. I'd say chances are unlikely he was implying he talked to God and Jesus face to face like Joseph Smith says he did. Many Christians don't even believe God has a body but I did find it interesting that EDB felt a need to say both God and Jesus. I wonder if he believes they are not one like those who believe in the Trinity do. There are actually a lot of people who belong to churches, that believe in the trinity, but they don't actually believe it themselves. Many times they are not even sure what the trinity actually states and they're not even aware their church believes in it. Another thing with EDB is he never said God talked to him either. He only said he talked to God. So we don't really have to get into the whole question of "did God actually speak to him and if not, why does he believe he did?", which is a deep subject in and of itself. I could talk for a long time on that alone. The only real question is was he actually talking to God? Simply saying you did doesn't make it so. I can say I'm talking to an invisible pink unicorn but that doesn't mean I am. Some people talk out loud at the graves of deceased family members. Are they talking to their family members? Unless this person claims their relative is talking back to them, how do we test if they can hear them or not? If I'm talking to my brother on the phone and the connection shuts off (lets say he dies) but I continue to keep talking, am I talking to my brother? My brother isn't on the line. The connection is lost. I can rattle on all I want and I can believe I'm talking to my brother, but is he actually listening? So am I actually talking to my brother? Unless there is some way of connecting with him, then the answer would be no. Notice how I'm trying to figure how what EDB is actually implying with what he wrote? This is very similar to what people do with scriptures. Everyone claims they know what the intentions were of the people who wrote the scriptures. They also claim to know when something is to be taken literally or not. They say it's clear to those who have the spirit....yet they all claim to have it lol. You can't go back and talk to EDB so how do you really know? Now this part can get a bit tricky. Let me show you the difference I have found between LDS and many other Christians when it comes to this. Because it's really not as different as people want to imply it is. It's more or less many Christians laughing and scorning the Mormons for doing more or less the same exact thing they are. Let me explain what I mean by this. If you ask many Christians, from mainly protestant faiths, the question of "Is the Bible translated correctly", they will say yes, it's perfect in every way. If you then ask them why do people not all agree on the interpretation of the Bible, they will say the Bible is clear to those who have the Holy Spirit of God. Many Christians do not believe you can pray for confirmation regarding the truthfulness of something, especially scriptures, yet they believe the scriptures are clear to those who have the holy spirit. They believe God confirms truth through his word (the Bible). Any person who does not Believe the Bible means as they say it does (which they refuse to call their interpretation and become angry if you say it is such), they imply does not have the Holy Spirit. If it is unclear to those who do not have the spirit, then would this not mean the Bible is not translated perfectly or at least not clear? If they are implying that person must have the Holy Spirit in order to see the correct meaning, then the Bible is indeed not clear unless someone has this. So according to this, they're implying the scriptures are not clear unless someone has the holy spirit (even though they won't admit they're saying that). If that is the case, then the spirit is indeed confirming truth. If the spirit is confirming truth, then how is it confirming truth? How does it tell them what the Bible means? Is it just the first impression that comes to their head on what a particular verse means? Because they obviously do not believe it is a feeling. They always disagree with the lds belief of the spirit confirming truth through a feeling or even having a need to pray for confirmation if something is true. Feelings can tell you things in a way. Sometimes I have a strong feeling that I need to go apologize to someone or feel a strong need to go do something. Is that the holy ghost? I don't believe it is but that is my belief. I do not know what these feelings people describe as the holy ghost are like for everyone. So here is a question. How do they know they have the spirit? Is it just because they get baptized? If that is the case, how do they know they understood the correct way the Bible instructs for baptism? How do they know if you're supposed to have authority or not? Obviously if they did it wrong, they wouldn't have it or at least not permanently. It's kind of like which came first. The chicken or the egg? Many times people will just end up repeating "God is the word and he confirms truth through the word" until I simply want to strangle them out of frustration. The following verses talk about needing to be baptized correctly. Acts Chapter 19 1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. In reality, both lds and many Christians believe the Holy Spirit is confirming truth. Most Christians just happen to not realize that they believe this. Now you just have to figure out how people believe the Holy Spirit is confirming truth and if it's not, why they believe it is. Many Christians don't even realize they believe the spirit is confirming truth, so I'm guessing they don't have a clue. My guess, from listening to them, is that they believe impressions are from the spirit. It's obviously not through the word as they want to say it is. That already doesn't make sense as I pointed out. The reason I say they probably believe in impressions (in other words, the first thought and that pops into their head must be from God or the Holy Spirit), is because many Christians are very passionate about their interpretation of scriptures when many times they haven't even read the entire chapter. I know people don't like being told what they believe but this is my conclusion from talking with hundreds of Christians. I'm not going to get into the whole subject of "Is God or the holy spirit actually confirming things to people and if so how and if not why do people believe or say he is". That's a deep subject and one I haven't taken the time to thoroughly think out. Try not to be offended by anything I wrote though. It is not my goal to say no one has the holy spirit communicate things to them. I don't know if it does or not. There are a lot of interesting things I've thought about regarding the subject but I haven't put it into words. I'm not trying to make anyone lose faith in what they believe.

I stumbled across this site originally when looking for answers to questions I had. I later found an lds apologetic forums that is very helpful but I enjoy reading a lot of posts on these forums. I usually don't state I'm not lds before offering advice but I do try to say it's simply my opinion. I don't believe I've given anyone advice that would make them not believe in their faith though. I may not be lds but I have a lot of friends who are. 2/3 of my siblings and both of my parents are lds. I grew up in the lds faith so it's familiar to me. I also tend to interpret the Bible in many of the same ways the lds do. If someone is curious as to what someone believes, most people have it labeled in their profile what religion/faith they are. So if you could always just do a quick check if it concerns you. Regardless, I never try to dissuade someone from believing in their faith. Good advice is still good advice no matter who it comes from. Take it for what it is. I do my best to give good advice but of course I may not always have the best solutions. I'm only human after all.

5 things I wish existed. 1. Instant or near instant travel to other planets and galaxies. I'd find it fascinating if we could travel to other worlds. Sadly, I'll be long dead before we can ever travel to other solar systems. 2. A way actually go into stories or movies kind of like how Reading Rainbow does. It would be another form of entertainment. 3. A way to avoid an after life if there is one. I can't imagine I'd be happy in such a place if one is anything like what many religions believe it to be. I'd also much rather be mortal than I would immortal. Life is worth more when you can lose it. You can learn a lot more by being a mortal than you could by being immortal. How would one learn to conquer their fear if they have nothing which can harm them? We would never have heroes risking their life to save another. We wouldn't value time like we do. There are so many reasons why I feel mortality makes life worth living as to being immortal. 4. A way to tell why so many species have continually gone extinct over time. I'd like to know why the dinosaurs became extinct and what we can do, if anything, to prevent our own extinction. 5. A better method to finding, fighting and capturing or killing terrorists. I don't like them. I'm sure there are a lot more things I wish existed but I'd have to think about it.

What happens when a family is sealed together? I was very young when my family was sealed. I can't remember what takes place. The only thing I remember from it was sitting in the cafeteria and that obviously wasn't part of the sealing.

What I don't like is many people act like medication is the answer to the root of the problem and it's often not if ever. I don't like that so many seem to have this belief that people with depression can't recover without meds. In my opinion, anti depressants are often not if ever the fix it solution to someone's problems. The same way everyone is looking for a easy way to lose weight, when diet and exercise are the key solution. I've never seen anyone who took anti depressants that was honestly more happy. I've seen a lot of people fix their depression without meds. There are a lot of things that cause depression. Divorce, losing a loved one, being molested, abused, neglected, being overweight, not getting out enough, losing a job etc can all cause depression. There are a lot of things we go through in life which can cause depression. I've never heard of someone just suddenly becoming extremely unhappy without having had some sort of emotional event happen in their life. If they have, then maybe the meds would be a good idea. Usually if you help fix that situation, it helps resolve the depression and I don't mean fix it by taking meds. I mean fix it by being a supportive friend, a good listener, getting them out of the house and having something to give them a positive outlook on life. If they're unhappy because of being over weight, becoming in better shape can help that. Taking all the meds in the world isn't going to fix that. If someone is unhappy because a loved one died, talking with people, getting out and having something to replace that sadness with can be a huge help. What people don't need is to be isolated, without friends and have nothing to take their mind off what is bothering them. People need help and being a good friend can do it. I can see it now. Someone walking up to a 3 year old girl crying alone in a mall. Why are you crying sweetheart? I can't find my mommy. Nah, you're just not producing enough seratonin. What you need is some medication to fix this problem. Here take these. Lets say someone is eating a ton of Big Mac's and they get constipated. The doctor says hmm well your digestive system just isn't working very well. So the doctor just keeps giving them this real strong laxative that forces them to poop instead of ever asking why are they constipated? Maybe they should change their eating habits instead of giving them these super strong laxatives? Maybe sometimes the person does need laxatives but the point is I don't think that's usually the solution to the root of the problem if ever.

Does anyone ever actually get better with anti depressants? All of the people I know on them are still just as depressed as they were. That leads me to believe meds are not the solution but if someone claims it works for them all the more power to you. Can Antidepressants Ever Cure You? | Depression Articles That's a link I'd recommend for you Hheinze.

That is totally understandable and I completely agree with you 100%. I don't like it when people or doctors are so quick to label someone as something. We need more kids with Ritalin lol. I've had some pretty cruddy doctors in my time. I once had a doctor put on my medical records that I'm a probable bipolar. He was an idiot. He gave me a yes-no type test. It wasn't very long from what I can remember. It was only maybe 10 questions. The questions were not well phrased and often times you could write both yes and no. I only remember one of the questions. It was something like do you sometimes find yourself in one mood and then your mood changes? Well of course I put yes. Anyone would honestly have put yes for that. If any thought what so ever pops into your head, it can impact the mood you're in. I never went back to that doctor. Like I said, he was retarded but I probably should have asked him what he meant by some of those questions. I had no idea he was going to just go ahead and label me as something without my knowledge. I didn't even know what bipolar was at the time. Sometimes you just want to strangle doctors. Now of days, it seems like people just want to label everyone with something. Many parents just want to send their kid to a psychologist etc and stick them on meds. Uh, maybe the kid is depressed because of the situation they've been through? Maybe meds are not the solution? Imo, if a parent has to send their kid to a psychologist because they're not comfortable talking to them themselves, that's a huge problem right there. No amount of meds is going to fix that problem. It's like someone is trying to tell you, you're not unhappy for the reasons you believe you are. Trust what you think is right. Doctors are not always right and often times I think they're morons.