Greg95821

I'm going to try to explain this as I understand it. Bear wish me on this, it'll all come together eventually. The entire point of our living is to learn the lessons we have to learn and grow how we have to grow in order to one day be exalted (i.e. become like our Heavenly Father). In this life here on earth we're going to screw up and do something we aren't supposed to do every once in a while (i.e. sin). That's where things start to get dicey. When we do something wrong, we have to be punished for the same reason a person punishes their kids when they do something wrong. It's in order to teach us right from wrong. Of course, the punishment also has to fit the crime. The problem is, there's only one fair punishment for doing something wrong, death. That's also one of the oh-so-common stumbling blocks you have to figure out to understand the atonement. No matter how minor the sin may seem, death is still the fair punishment for it. Now, while physical death is a part of our punishment, spiritual death is the part that's troublesome. Spiritual death is basically being separated from God for the rest of eternity, and it essentially disqualifies you from exaltation. It's a catch-22. In order to learn the lessons you need to learn to be exalted, you have to live. When you live, you'll inevitably sin, which will result in spiritual death and prevent you from becoming exalted. The answer to this dilemma is the atonement. First the person acting as our savior had to live a perfect life without sin. By doing this, he doesn't need to be punished. Then, he basically suffers a PHYSICAL death on the cross for us so that we don't have to suffer the SPIRITUAL death that's due to us. Now to really get to the answer to your question as to why God couldn't outright forgive us. It's like this, we still needed to be punished so we would learn our lesson, and Christ dieing on the cross in and of itself wouldn't teach us anything. What really saves us is that we acknowledge that Christ made that sacrifice for us and we repent of what we did. Bear in mine what real and true repentance is. Repentance is feeling true sorrow for what you did, and truly regretting Christ had to go through that for you. It's why if you punish one kid for what another one did, if the kid that actually committed the offense truly regrets his friend getting in trouble, he's just as apt to learn from the lesson as if he himself was punished. In summary, the atonement had to happen so that we could be punished for our mistakes and learn what we needed to learn in life, while still being able to return to our Heavenly Father and continue maturing as his children after this life was over. I hope that was helpful to you :)

Well, this certainly got more responses than I was expecting :) Anyway, thanks everybody for your input. There's definitely some information here worth considering!

The only reasons I could really see this being a problem are if you weren't eight yet or maybe if you were a minor without parental consent. Otherwise it should just be a matter of getting your record fixed. I would definitely recommend talking to you bishop if you weren't eight yet since that's almost certainly a problem. It's not a horrible idea even if that isn't the case, if it's bothering you as much as it seems to be. If it isn't something that requires his help, I'm sure he'll tell you and then you don't need to worry about it. Bishops are usually fairly discreet, so it shouldn't go beyond the two of you and maybe the ward clerk. All else aside, I can assure you that your transgression in this case is no worse than most of us have committed at one time or another. I'm sure Heavenly Father will forgive you, and in the end, He's the only person who's approval you need :)

Alrighty, so here's my situation. I'm a 24 year old single guy who recently moved to a new city for work. My new job is out in the middle of nowhere (nuclear power plant), so the nearest apartment I could find to rent is a 30-40 minute drive from work. That being said, I make enough money and will probably be here long enough that buying a house is a legitimate option. The way I see it, I have three choices. Choice number one is buy a place close to work. The obvious benefit is cutting down on commute times. I also like living out in the sticks more than I like living in town. The only problems are if I don't remain single, which is most members' ultimate goal. The schools out there kind of suck if I ever have kids, and I can't guarantee any spouse I have would want to live in the middle of nowhere as well. Also, I would have to relocate from my current singles ward to a tiny family ward, which also reduces the odds of finding an LDS wife at all. Option number two is get a house around where I live now. It's pretty much the opposite scenario as option one, with good schools and dating potential and the likes, but still a nasty commute. Option three of course is hold off on buying for the time being. I like the apartment I'm in, so it's not a horrible option. The big down sides of course are throwing away money on rent vice a mortgage and the commute factor. Also I don't really see the real estate market getting any better for buyers than it is now. A benefit of this one is if I do eventually get married, I'll actually have my future spouse' input instead of just guessing at it. There are also other issues like how big a house I should get. Obviously a house for just me versus a house I could someday fit a family have different size considerations. I make enough money that that's only a factor in so far as I don't like to be wasteful. I could afford all the options above, but I don't really want to buy a bigger place than I actually need. Well, that's pretty much it. Maybe I'm just thinking about this too hard. Just the same, thanks for any input you may have :) -Greg

Thanks for your guys' responses :) ChadTalbot: I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. All the points I'm taking issue with were made by prophets after they were ordained prophets in general conference speeches and published in church publications. Wingnut: I can understand where you're coming from with these references, and I've actually seen these arguments made before. These issues in particular are ones that I haven't been able to reconcile with those arguments. Black skin being the mark of Cain, for example, was not an isolated statement taken out of context. It was repeated by various general authorities in official speeches and publications from the winter camp era right up to the 1978 declaration ending black exclusion from the priesthood. The Adam-God theory was preached repeatedly by Brigham Young during his ministry, in sharp contrast to Wilford Woodruf's statement in his manifesto (part of the standard works) that the church's leader would not be able to lie from the pulpit. The church today points out how polygamy was an entirely consensual and optional practice, though again Brigham Young on more than one occasion stated it was a requirement for exaltation. Again, my point here is not to be argumentative or to try to disprove the validity of any statements made by anybody else. I'm merely trying to wrap my head around how these things and disparity I perceive in how they were and how they're now looked back upon. I'm hoping to find some new way of thinking about these things to eliminate that disparity, though I must admit I have my doubts of whether I'll be able to find a satisfying answer. At least I agree with everything taught today, eh? :)

So, here's my story: I joined the church about a year and a half ago after a long and illustrious career as an atheist. I could go into my conversion story, but it's not really important for my current issues. Anyway, when I joined the church, I did so more because it felt right rather than any other reason. So after the first lessons, there wasn't anything particularly objectionable about the church to me. Sure, I had some doubts, but nothing I didn't think I could work through. Then I started studying my scriptures, and other books written by general authorities and the likes. I avoided non-LDS sources, as I felt they're reliability was dubious at best. Anyway, what I'm taking forever to say is, I have found a few things that aren't quite sitting right with me. Because I have found all these things in fairly official publications, I can't really discount them as untrue, even though many of them are no longer official church doctrine. The Journal of Discourses is one of the chief offenders, containing things such as: the Adam-God theory, black skin as the mark of Cain, polygamy as a requirement for exaltation, ect. Now, I've tried to find official church reasoning for these principles no longer being valid. The usual argument I see is that these writings are opinion rather than actual revelations received. The thing is, I can find no was to distinguish prophetic writings from non-prophetic one, other than which are convenient to group into either category. Furthermore, President Woodruf's manifesto which ended polygamy states that the head of the church will not be allowed to teach false doctrine, so I don't see how the argument can even really get off it's feet. I'd like to conclude by saying that I have no intention of going inactive. I still believe that the LDS church is far more true than any other church. It follow the new testament better than any other Christian denomination and the old testament better than any Jewish denomination I know of. The church's adherence to service to it's fellow men and good moral values is admirable. I love the church, I just wish that I could let some of these things go. Well, thanks for any advice you have to offer! p.s. If your advice is going to be to pray about it, trust me, I've been working on it. Let's just say I've been invoking James 1:5 excessively lately :)

So, I just got out of the navy after giving it six years of my life. Incidentally, about a year and a half ago I joined the church while still stationed on a sea going vessel. My boat was in home port when I decided to join the church and be baptized. Everything was fine until it came time to go out to sea. I was stationed on a submarine, and was the only Mormon on board, so there was no Mormon service on board. I asked my Branch President about whether I'd be able to bless my own sacrament, and he informed me that at least two people were required for that. The end result was that while out to sea, I was pretty much without any official religious service. After again checking with my Branch President to see if it was okay, I ended up attending the Protestant services while out to sea. It actually turned out to be a decent missionary move, as I was able to share a bit about what we Mormons believe and even sneak in a bit of Mormon doctrine into the discussions. Needless to say, I missed not being able to attend my meetings and fellowship while I was out, but the fact that I had to disappear for extended periods was never held against me. I was able to hold a reasonably involved calling and participate as much as I could, and other members picked up my slack when I couldn't. One advantage to being stick on a boat for long periods of time is that it removes a lot of distractions from your life. I never read my scriptures or contemplated the gospel as much as I did out to sea. All in all, there are definitely challenges that you have to overcome, but the experience can also be very edifying if you let it be. I hope my response was helpful, and good luck with whatever you decide :)