mordorbund

I grew up Mormon; so it was a very evolutionary process for me where the voice of God confirming the truth of these things just grew stronger and stronger.  It wasn't a single "Is this true?" followed by some overwhelming feeling of "YES"; it was a now-uncounted number of positive, confirmatory (I would even go so far as to say "revelatory") experiences generally in line with the phenomena described in Galatians 5:22-23 and 2 Timothy 1:7.
 
 
I don't want to dissuade you from that method; but I think it's important to note the limitations of that method.
 
For example, we can independently confirm that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo, really existed--just as described in the Doctrine and Covenants.  We can confirm that Joseph Smith was imprisoned in Missouri at the time D&C 121 says he was; and the remains of that jailhouse still exist.  We can confirm Brigham Young was in Winter Quarters in 1846, just as D&C 136 says he was.  But I doubt anyone would be so brash as to say that archaeology "confirms" that the Doctrine and Covenants is true in every particular--let alone that it confirms the D&C's purported divinely-inspired origin.
 
And of course, I can confirm the existence of places like London and Brighton and Gretna Greene in eighteenth-century England; but that doesn't make Meryton or Longbourn or Pemberley actual places or confirm that Pride and Prejudice is indeed scripture.
 
For people who claim that their embrace of Christianity is based in science/archaeology, or a mixture of rationalism and faith; I would respectfully submit that most of them are unconsciously giving a lot more weight to "faith" (and even the idea that they themselves can receive/have received supernatural communications from God) than their secularized culture would let them admit even to themselves.  Once they come to grips with that, I think Mormonism's admonition to "go pray about it" seems a little less weird.

I've been deliberately slow to reply in this thread because the responses infuriate me.  So let me be extremely blunt, church.  You're talking about things you simply do not understand.  You have had multiple people on here with deep, personal experiences with pornography addiction (and addiction in general) talk about how this isn't about sexual fulfillment, but about control and stress.  You've largely dismissed those statements because you believe that it is about sexual fulfillment.
 
Here's a newsflash for you.  If you want to know what it is that drives people to use pornography, talk to the people that are driven to use it.  They generally have a far better understanding of what motivates them to turn to porn than someone who has been fortunate enough to escape its bitter clutches.
 
Pornography use and especially pornography addiction is very much like nicotine addiction.  It takes the typical smoker over 12 attempts to give up cigarettes.  Do they enjoy smoking?  Yes and no.  People who want to give up smoking enjoy the feeling they get when they are smoking, but they hate that they can't give it up.  Without the drug, they are irritable, more stressed, have trouble concentrating.  When they have the nicotine in their systems, they are calm and more focused.  The continue to smoke because the short term craving for the calm and stress management consumes their will for the long term benefits they objectively know come from a smoke free lifestyle.  
 
Simply put, they haven't mastered their cravings.  They haven't bridled their passions.  It's incredibly hard for them to master these cravings because it means giving up peace of mind for so long while the mind and body retrain themselves.
 
I get why the church speaks so harshly against pornography.  It's far easier to go without it if you never get started on it.  And while the rhetoric around avoiding it is correct (SpiritDragon was correct when saying that it starts out as a sexual curiosity), by the habitual use is established, the motivations are no longer the same.
 
Which is why it concerns me that the LDS dialog around pornography is full of descriptions of covenant breaking, filth, and the jeopardized exaltation.  But pornography use is no more condemning to a person's soul than tobacco use, coffee use, alcohol use, or profanity.  Yet, pornography use is the only one that gets reviled so strongly.
 
The net effect of all this vitriol toward pornography is that those most in need of help are afraid to come forward and ask for the help they need.  I'm not joking one bit when I say that I have heard too many women say that they would leave their husbands if they found out he used pornography.  Men who are found out to be pornography users are seen as perverts, deviants, and some leaders will even disqualify them from serving in callings, particularly with youth and children.  Think about what message that sends to someone who is struggling with this challenge.  And then ask yourself this: why don't we treat alcoholic, coffee addicts, and smokers with the same level of disdain.
 
No one here has claimed that it is okay to view pornography.  We've all condemned it.  And yet people still criticize us for "tolerating the sin" because we seek to temper the dialog about it.  This is hurtful to people who are struggling with these addictions.  It's deeply hurtful.  Because the kind of rhetoric we hear over the pulpit is "it's evil evil evil evil EVIL!!!  avoid it!  oh and if you fail repent right away."  It makes it sound like it should be so easy to repent of.  but it just isn't easy.  The difficulty of overcoming these addictions is almost never, ever appreciated in talks against pornography.
 
And then you come in with your "it's always about sex.  food addiction is always about eating" garbage.  Again, try listening to the people that have been experiencing it.  I once watched a show about food addiction and listened to people talk about how they ordered large amounts of food from a drive thru then went to a secluded alley where they could sob while consuming their drug of choice.  It was not about the food.  It was not about the eating.  It was about the emotional and physical reprieve that came about because of the eating.  Habitual pornography use is not about sex.  Sexual release is just the vehicle to get to the emotional and physical reprieve desired.  Until you can learn to separate the vehicle from the desired feeling, you will remain ignorant of what truly motivates the addict.
 
So please.  Just spare us already.

But which end?

I had in mind the bus stop where mothers clutch the babies tightly to their chests, and look at the fellow with a cigarette like he'll instantly transmit lung cancer to her little cherub if he gets within 50 feet of her.  But hey, here in Washington the community condemns the evil Tobacco Industrial Complex, but laudes the local, organic marijuana "co-ops."  :-)

This one is easy--NONE!  No good angel would be caught dancing!  You would not hear that in some liberal church, either. 

Iay asway aughtay anday earnedlay ethay ewnay Atinlay.

Did you just call a small shovel a card suit? I think that's asinine at best (and offensive at worst).

Change is always tough.  But, I'm liking the new lds.net.

Fair questions.  My preference would be for my daughters to date and marry "Spirit-filled" (i.e. Pentecostal) Christians.  However, my counsel would be that they date/marry men (I have all girls) who would either join their church, or who are active in churches they could be at peace with joining.  For the congregation, I simply tell members they should encourage their youth to marry "Believers."  That implies one who is truly 'born again.'  Of course my congregations are prison chapels, so they are not denomination-specific. 

It's funny you mention that prisonchaplain, I was just reading Exodus on this topic (Leviticus is more clear-cut, but Exodus has a certain ring to it). The Lord warns them if "thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, [then they'll] make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."
 
I don't know if you're familiar with mormonads (little motivational-type posters included in our youth magazines reminding them of our standards with associated scriptures and images), but I felt this verse was overlooked. I don't know what image to use for this verse, but maybe the text would be something like:
 
 
 
Maybe I should leave this to the professionals.

Why yes. Yes it is.
 
evangelicality

From my understanding of Evangelical theology, I would say don't date LDS!!! (I may need more exclamation marks)
 
We are talking about your salvation, your children's salvation, and your spouse's salvation. When you are married, you are to be one (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/5.28-29,31?lang=eng#27) (even one flesh), to the extent that your joys and your trials are shared. If your spouse becomes a stumbling block for you, the two of you need to work together to move forward. Jesus taught that if your eye offends you, pluck it out (and dealing with one flesh, how difficult is it if that eye has an arm fighting to keep it in). Paul softened this by suggesting that the believing spouse may in time sanctify the unbelieving (but I would point out that the sanctifying happens when the two of you together excise offending eyes). I say exercise discernment and marry a partner who is a true partner! You'll be rearing children together, "Can two walk together, except they be aagreed?" You will both influence your children in the way of salvation. Choose someone who will show them the path.
 
My simple test on this matter: Date persons that you think are saved.
 
For the most part, that excludes LDS, and that's fine by me. If our youth are in error, don't risk yourself and your posterity.

So, I recently had to replace a car, and the replacement car (I won't call it "new") has a radio with ability to play mp3s.  So, I made a goal that over the next couple years I want to listen to every Conference address given by an apostle in my lifetime (beginning with the April 1980 Conference).  So, every now and again, I'll post something that I find particularly interesting.
 
For today:  Ever wonder what would happen if, during the sustaining of Church officers, someone stood up and said "no"?
 
Here's what happens.
 
Also:  A very thought-provoking discourse from Mark E. Petersen.  (Reading this talk doesn't do it justice; you've got to listen to it.)  This reminded me of TheFolkProphet's recent thread about bluntness.  I don't think the message has changed; but people just don't seem to talk this way in Conference anymore.

This choice--between the good nonbeliever and the bad believer--is a non-starter with me.  I'd counsel against both.  "Better to be single and alone than to be married and wish you were alone!"  I know...I know...eternal marriage.  Yet, I'd double-down on my counsel.  Better to spend eternity single than sealed to an abusive, obnoxious spouse.
 
As for dating--our young can learn social engagement skills, interpersonal communications, tolerance for diversity, etc. from attending youth events, group outings, and perhaps some 'casual dating' in well-attended public places.  However, there is no need to engage in multiple potentially romantic encounters to learn about our own likes and dislikes. 
 
Mark this--prisonchaplain is more old-fashioned, intolerant, and narrow-minded than most.  Maybe it's because I'm the father of three gorgeous daughters.  I wonder if the fathers of sons feel differently.

Morobund and I will both being seeing the Stake President.  The discussion will begin thusly:  You are both strong.  You stand on rock solid doctrinal ground.  BUT . . .

It's funny you mention that prisonchaplain, I was just reading Exodus on this topic (Leviticus is more clear-cut, but Exodus has a certain ring to it). The Lord warns them if "thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, [then they'll] make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."
 
I don't know if you're familiar with mormonads (little motivational-type posters included in our youth magazines reminding them of our standards with associated scriptures and images), but I felt this verse was overlooked. I don't know what image to use for this verse, but maybe the text would be something like:
 
 
 
Maybe I should leave this to the professionals.

In reading Palerider's experiences, I came to wonder if intermarriage with a religiously unaffiliated, but open-minded, person works better than marriage to one actively involved in a different religion.  It's not ideal, but on a case by case basis, I could see it as preferable. 
 
Now, here's my bombshell:  I wonder of the ease with which we allow our children to marry those of other religions has had a part in society's embrace of same-sex marriage today.  Quite a stretch?  Consider the children of Israel--especially in Judges.  Over and over again we read that the children would marry the local Canaanites, begin to worship their gods, and then judgment would come.  If we don't do our stuff right, why should broader culture's folly suprise us?

The Apostle Paul says to be the most loving spouse we can be, if we are married to an unbeliever (whether in our Church, or our Christ).  Who knows, he suggests.  We just might win them over.  If not, it's still the best way to live peaceably.  On the other hand, if the unbelieving spouse cannot handle the conversion, and asks to leave, Paul says to let them go.  Again, we are called to live in peace.

From my understanding of Evangelical theology, I would say don't date LDS!!! (I may need more exclamation marks)
 
We are talking about your salvation, your children's salvation, and your spouse's salvation. When you are married, you are to be one (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/5.28-29,31?lang=eng#27) (even one flesh), to the extent that your joys and your trials are shared. If your spouse becomes a stumbling block for you, the two of you need to work together to move forward. Jesus taught that if your eye offends you, pluck it out (and dealing with one flesh, how difficult is it if that eye has an arm fighting to keep it in). Paul softened this by suggesting that the believing spouse may in time sanctify the unbelieving (but I would point out that the sanctifying happens when the two of you together excise offending eyes). I say exercise discernment and marry a partner who is a true partner! You'll be rearing children together, "Can two walk together, except they be aagreed?" You will both influence your children in the way of salvation. Choose someone who will show them the path.
 
My simple test on this matter: Date persons that you think are saved.
 
For the most part, that excludes LDS, and that's fine by me. If our youth are in error, don't risk yourself and your posterity.

From my understanding of Evangelical theology, I would say don't date LDS!!! (I may need more exclamation marks)
 
We are talking about your salvation, your children's salvation, and your spouse's salvation. When you are married, you are to be one (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/5.28-29,31?lang=eng#27) (even one flesh), to the extent that your joys and your trials are shared. If your spouse becomes a stumbling block for you, the two of you need to work together to move forward. Jesus taught that if your eye offends you, pluck it out (and dealing with one flesh, how difficult is it if that eye has an arm fighting to keep it in). Paul softened this by suggesting that the believing spouse may in time sanctify the unbelieving (but I would point out that the sanctifying happens when the two of you together excise offending eyes). I say exercise discernment and marry a partner who is a true partner! You'll be rearing children together, "Can two walk together, except they be aagreed?" You will both influence your children in the way of salvation. Choose someone who will show them the path.
 
My simple test on this matter: Date persons that you think are saved.
 
For the most part, that excludes LDS, and that's fine by me. If our youth are in error, don't risk yourself and your posterity.

Wahooo!!!  The "View New Content" button is working in the Full Version now.  Thank you Pam, and the behind-the-scenes site admins!

"I don't drink, smoke, gamble or chew--and I don't go with girls that do."
 
"Garbage in.  Garbage out."  Be careful what you feed your mind on--why allow the Devil to vomit in your household?  Use the off button, brother!
 
Maybe one of our greatest "urban legends" was backmasking.  The idea was that certain Rock 'n Roll groups had intentionally placed demonic or immoral messages within their songs--backwards.  Supposedly the concious mind could not filter out the gibberish, but the subconcious mind would be forced to feed on the immoral suggestions unfiltered.  Bottom-line:  Stick to Christian music!
 
No to bingo, lotteries, and gambling.  Back in the day, even card playing was discouraged--it looked too much like gambling.
 
Harken back a couple generations and dancing was a major taboo.  One comedian even quipped, "Repent and be Baptist, for all have fallen short of the Assemblies of God."  (It was tongue-in-cheek, because we forbade dancing and many Baptists were okay with it).
 
Of course makeup was taboo back in the 50s and 60s, until 'progressive pastors' broke down the taboo by saying, "Some old barns need a coat of paint."
 
Was there some legalism and silliness in all this?  Some.  On the other hand, many nonreligious folk have taken to abstinence from alcohol, and the current political administration is more adamant against tobacco than we are.  Many civic leaders see casinos as causing more social harm than economic good.
 
Bottom line:  A lot of the words of wisdom are wise indeed. 

Maybe the neighbor is the one who we believe will never be baptized?

I read "not encouraged" as a more relaxed stance than "discouraged". From the Church Handbook of Instruction vol 2, 21.3.2:
 

Well there's your problem.