Martain

Also be aware that although the temple prep class may not have started, you can read the manual online at any time for personal study. The pathway is: LDS.ORG -> Menu -> Study: Manuals -> Optional Courses -> Temple Preparation I personally also read The Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer and The House of the Lord by James E. Talmage. I recommend them as I feel they helped me to be prepared as well.

You asked if he would be willing to put a filter on his work computer and he said no indicating his objection was that it would get in the way of his work. Reading between the lines I assume that you've already done so for the home computer and that this IS making a difference. The filter I use is 'K9'. Every time a website is pulled up that meets what I've restricted it gives me the option to type in the override password. I can even at that point put it in supervisor mode for up to an hour in order to allow everything. Here is your rebuttal. "Well why don't we install a filter and give you the override password. It won't prevent you from accessing any website but will give you a warning if what is being pulled up is something you don't want to be seeing." Logically his objection is then no longer valid at that point because it's simply not true. Hence he will either offer an additional objection or he will accept and install a filter. I once worked for DirecTV and a trainer told me of one of her calls where a husband called up and wanted to order a pornographic movie. She asked him for the password and he said he knew it but didn't want to give it. They went back and forth over him being unable to order this movie without the password until he finally gave in and gave the password. The password however was "Jesus Christ" and after giving it he said to forget the movie as he no longer wanted to watch it. You could apply the same principal to the filter put on his work computer. If using the K9 Filter, set the password up as something like "God is watching me", put the email address as yours so he can not change the password and then give him the password. None of this will prevent him from viewing it if he is determined to do so or even from uninstalling it either. What it will do is add an extra layer of protection. It will also serve to increase his level of accountability in regards to his actions. One can't really argue that it was an accident if they had to input a password to override the filter in order to access it.

When Jesus was asked which commandments are the greatest he answered as follows: Can we not liken verse 40 to 3 Nephi as well in saying that upon the commandments he lists in 3 Nephi likewise hang the rest of the commandments and the prophets? Yet likewise we can say that though a man may focus on living the greater commandments, he can not do so without living the lesser for they are part of the greater whole. One example would be the commandment to be humble. Of two men one of which attends his church meetings and the other who does not, which man is humble and being obedient to the commandments given in D&C 59? The commandment to gather together and worship is simply a way in which we obey the greater laws and develop the attributes we seek. Of two men one of which goes on a mission and the other who does not, which man is loving his neighbors more? The oppportunity to go on a mission is simply a way in which we obey the greater laws and develop the attributes we seek. The same can be said for the reset of those things you list. The fact is that it is necessary for us to be obedient in the little things to inherit the celestial kingdom as well as the greater things. By doing them we are provided opportunities in which we live the greater laws of loving God and loving our neighbors. Perhaps you can look at it this way. Say the Lord commands you to build a house. This is the commandment. Yet how do you build the house? The Lord then gives you a list of other commandments that will enable you to build the house. This then combined with all other instruction is what the list you gave us is. Note of caution brother,

Absolutely not. I agree with a post above, they're not asking to be raped. Instead I see it as they are seeking to be seen. Some seek to be seen because they want to feel attractive. They notice that the more immodestly they dress the more attention they receive and seek the attention hoping to feel attractive. Some seek to be seen because they are lonely. They notice that the more immodestly they dress the more attention they receive and hope that this will help them find someone who will love, marry, respect and commit to them. Some seek to be seen because it makes them feel powerful. They notice that the more immodestly they dress the more attention they receive and they feel a sense of power over being able to so dominate the minds of such men. Some seek to be seen because they want money and gifts. They notice that the more immodestly they dress the more attention they receive and the more likely a man is to give her things in order to try and get in to her bed. Some seek to be seen because they want sexual intimacy. They notice that the more immodestly they dress the more attention they receive and the more likely they will attract a man who will be intimate with them. Some seek to be seen because they flirt with danger. They notice that the more immodestly they dress the more attention they receive and seek an adrenaline rush from living on that edge of knowing that they are putting themselves in danger by possibly attracting men who would take what they want violently. I won't argue weather or not there are any exceptions to the following statement but as a general rule, there are no women who dress to be raped. Any man who sees an immodest woman and thinks that she secretly wants such is hearing the lies of the adversary. That being said, certain types of dress attract certain types of men. If you don't want to attract sharks then you should not pour blood into the water. There is a direct correlation to the amount of blood you pour into the water and the level of immodesty. As a man I hope to be able to say that I have a very firm idea of how the male mind works =) The problem with your statements is that they are incomplete truths. Walk up to a man with a nice juicy freshly cooked steak and wave it under his nose. While the majority of men will find it appealing, the truth is not all will. Of those who do, the truth is some will want to eat it and others won't. Of those who want to eat it, the truth is some are willing to pay the purchase price and some aren't. Of those who aren't, the truth is that some will attempt to take the steak by force and others will simply go home and eat something else to assauge their hunger. Of those who hunger for the steak but are not willing to purchase it, the majority will go and assauge their hunger in some other way. Few are those who would use force to take the object of their hunger. The same can be said of men. Of those who lust after a woman, the majority will go and vent their lust in some other way. Few are those who would use force to take the object of their lust. The truth is that the 'urge' you mention is not natural but rather aquired through sinful thoughts and behavior. The truth is that most men do not have such an urge and find it repulsive. I am glad that the number of such men are the minority. Part of your statement indicates that a man who is tempted to commit such acts will eventually reach a point where he can no longer resist temptation and then act upon it. The truth is that the more we sin the more we surrender our agency and ability to resist temptation to the adversary. It is indeed possible to reach a point through sin where there is no inclination to resist and you are fully in the adversary's power. Yet it doesn't take immodesty at all to become the victim of rape. If a shark is hungry it's going to eat regardless as to whether or not it's prey is pouring blood into the water through immodesty. Yet that being said, the odds of attracting a shark do increase in proportion to the degree of blood poured into the water and if a woman doesn't want to be eaten in such a way it is advisable that she not dress in those ways which attract such men. I don't function the way you indicate and I'm not a lying sack of garbage. In addition to my deeds being chaste, so is my mind. I am attracted to both beauty and modesty. I am mentally repulsed and saddened in increasing amounts proportionate to the degree of immodesty. That is not to say that the adversary does not periodically test my defences but I do not heed or entertain his whispers.

There are many answers to that question but here are at least two. He lusts for power [D&C 76:28]. He wants all of mankind to be as miserable as he is [2 Nephi 2:18]. The footnotes to Job 1:6 'Sons' links to Genesis 6:2. In the Old Testament Institute Manual, published by the LDS Church, we have a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith where he explains that the 'sons of God' were those who held the Priesthood. Rather than Archangels, Job 1:6 refers to the covenant people of the Lord's church at that time. Job 1:6 doesn't necessarily mean that anyone saw the Lord or Satan any more than we do when we likewise present ourselves to the Lord in this day. Job 1:7 indicates that it was the Lord who initiated the conversation. The Lord may be referring to Christ rather than God the Father. There has been many times where the Lord has conversed with others by voice alone keeping his Glory and presence veiled. Could it not have been the same here? Since it states only that they converse, must we conclude that Satan beheld the Lord? Unless the Lord desired it, Satan would not know of his presence. Though he knew already why Satan was there, one does need to actually say something to initiate a conversation. Why not say something that would also be informative to the reader upon the story being told? Why wouldn't there be? Job does after all set a precedent for such to happen. Nevertheless we have these words of comfort. A book that I feel would help you in this matter can be found here with additional light shed here.

We are taught that life liberty and property are the unalienable rights of all. While Latter-day Saints know that we are accountable before God for the use of our body, as an adult male, I have sole legal ownership of the property known as myself. Does not a husband say, "She is MY wife and I am HER husband" and the wife say, "He is MY husband and I am HIS wife"? Is this not due to the contract made when a man and woman enter into marriage? Don't spouses have claim upon the time, talents and affections of each other? While you originally had sole ownership of your self, isn't marriage a contract of mutual co-ownership? In regards to alimony and child support, isn't this the way the law sees it? If you can feel comfortable with the idea of marriage being a contract of mutual co-ownership, then wouldn't adultery be theft? Theft is illegal and punishable by the law. Anyone see any conceptual problems with this line of thinking?

Not in my book =)

The sorrows of sin =( The way I see it is thus. Either she has repented or she has not. If she has repented then she is pure and clean and to the Lord it is as if it never happened. Likewise it should be with you. The concern I therefore see you having is whether or not she has truly repented and received forgiveness for her past sins. Again I say either she has repented or she has not. Consider all the evidence in her favor and any evidence against her. Then take it to the Lord asking for a confirmation that in his eyes she is clean from this stain. Is not one of the primary roles of the Holy Ghost to confirm truth? If it is true then can you not receive a witness of it? There is also this to consider. Imagine yourself in her shoes. I expect that had you so sinned and then repented, you would feel eternally grateful to her and have even more love than you would otherwise to her for looking past... your past.

If you want to return to being fully active, please do. If you are not yet comfortable in attending a YSA Ward, you can always attend a family ward instead. There are worthy righteous priesthood holders who have no problem with you already being a mother. That being said, even they will have multiple concerns. Now if I see a single mother with children I realize there are multiple explinations for how this came to pass. Perhaps she was married and then her husband died. If so this could be a concern for both she and the child could only be sealed to either him or me but not the both of us. Perhaps she was married and then she was divorced. If so this could be a concern dependant upon why she was divorced. Perhaps she was raped but choose to keep the child regardless. Such a selfless act in my mind is very compassionate, forgiving, and charitable and would speak highly of her character. Perhaps she had the child out of wedlock. If so, had she taken out her endowments and covenanted to keep the law of Chastity? If so, had she been a member of the Church who had then broken the law of Chastity? If so, was she a convert to the Church who had never received the law? Regardless as to the circumstances, has she truely repented? If so then I can obtain a witness of it through the Spirit. With such a witness I would not consider her any less than those who were still virgins. Personally I feel that you'll more likely find a righteous priesthood holder (in your age range) who is unflummoxed by your motherhood among those who have very strong and powerful testimonies. Among those who can say "I Know" because they actually truely know. If this is so, then invariably they will be looking for a daughter of God who has done the work to likewise receive such confirmations. Pray to the Lord and find out through personal revelation what you must do to become the type of woman who will attract a righteoues son of God who is not afraid of becoming an instant father. If you are not able to receive such revelation then please do what ever it takes to become worthy to receive it. I too have had a portion of my life where I felt I was being "looked down at" by my peers in church. In my case it simply wasn't so. I wore the glasses of guilt and unrepented sin which lead me to color and interpret everyone else's actions through those fog covered lenses. The truth was, I wasn't being looked down upon, I was simply perceiving everyones actions through the misconception that I was.

MrMarklin, Am I correct in understanding that you advocate that she separate or even divorce her husband? That you are implying she is worthy of condemnation for not doing sooner? That those of us who recommend differently are also worthy of condemnation? For that is how I interpret your comments and your casting of shame. I feel no blame at your insinuation for I spoke what was in my heart which was devoid of a desire to wound anyone. It has been my understanding that there is no need for evidence as a requirement for a restraining order to be granted. That basically, anyone who wanted one could have one taken out. So even though a restraining order was given, I do not feel I can use it as evidence to accurately conclude either way based on the information given me. I am sorry you feel to condemn some of us in this thread so and hope you will forgive us and understand. No one here is against the punishment of true abuse or against an individual doing what they need to do to become safe from an abusive situation. Some of us have simply determined that there isn't enough evidence to conclude either way and rather then judge falsely, we will not judge at all and will instead leave it in the hands of those whose are in a better position to do so correctly, namely herself with the guidance of her priesthood leader and the Lord.

Since those who are worthy of the Celestial Kingdom will go with him when he returns, I rather hope I'm not watching his return in the spirit world... =) In regards to rumors, there is some difficulty in replying to your request. This difficulty is that I have no desire to relate 'rumors' unless I know them to be false.

Are there any circumstances where it is either legal or moral for me to torture another individual? Why would an act which is evil when enacted by an individual be good and moral when enacted by a group? After all, the government derives it's powers from the rights of the people. I can not delegate to the government a right I do not have so where does the government get the right to do so in my place? Hala, if you want an answer to your questions, I refer you to the free books found here.

While there will be few who inherit the celestial kingdom in relation to the total sum of mankind, we do have the following description regarding the size of those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom. You could look at the total odds of mankind and determine as you do and even relate it to the odds of the lottery but perhaps a shift in thinking might clarify. When you purchase a lottery ticket you do so knowing that you have 1 in X chance of being the winner. Your percentile chance is infinitesimally small. You don't even have a 1% chance of winning the lottery and nothing you do can increase your odds of winning. Yet the story in regards to the Celestial Kingdom is completely different. You aren't competing against anyone other than yourself. Where as the lottery was completely reliant upon luck, there is no luck and no odds that you must beat to obtain the Celestial Kingdom. You do the work and live the life necessary to obtain it and you have a 100% guarantee that it will be yours.

I've come to recognize that giving advice can be a dangerous past time. As the internet is anonymous we generally think that we are not held accountable for the advice we give others. This simply is not so. If my advice is sound, based on true principals and correct knowledge, then their acting upon it will bless them and I will be blessed. If my advice is illfounded, based on incorrect principals and incorrect knowledge, then their acting upon it will harm them and I will be held accountable. When an individual cries "abuse" there will be some who advice "leave them" or "get a divorce" and we know that there are indeed situations in which this is the correct path to pursue. Yet are any of us so well apprised of the issues involved as to be confident that our advice is in harmony with the will of the Lord so as to advise them such? Who here would like to be held accountable good or bad before God for the breakup of a husband and wife or parent and child? For the destruction of a family? To the temporal consequences which will last generations? If those who have the stewardship to make such decisions are so cautious to give such advice, should we who are without such stewardship be eager to do otherwise? Can we not be quick to console and empathize and slow to advice anything other than to refer them to those best qualified to guide them in their actions? At least that's what I say.

Rather than opportunity think fullness of opportunity. The circumstances you list above are such that if I were personally making the decision on their behalf I would feel just in saying they did not have the fullness of opportunity. While we may use our own logic to make conclusions in some cases, the danger we run into is in regards to ourselves. Since we do not clearly understand how such a decision will be determined, personal revelation is the best course to go when in doubt regarding yourself. Personally I'm 26 and I know that I have not had a fullness of opportunity to marry. Were I to die tomorrow I do not doubt that I could still pursue this blessing. When in doubt, turn to the Lord for guidance right?

Antess, You have some very real and valid questions. Had you asked this question but a few weeks ago I would have very little in response. You're leaning towards legislation by socio-political means because you can't seem to determine how to properly do it based on moral imperative. If you're willing to be convinced then the case you seek to read I now present by referring you to where it is presented. The Moral Basis of a Free Society H. Verlan Andersen ISBN: 1-57636-027-X (you can download a free copy via the link above) A quote from within it's pages: This statement is only true if you accept that there is no universal moral standards that all accept and agree on. There is indeed such a set of moral standards. What is this standard? Read the book and have light burst upon your mind. It did upon mine. His son added a letter he wrote his mother which shares a line from his patriarchal blessing which reads: Having read his books, I declare that I am one of these individuals and that the above statement is true.

Yes except I would alter your statement slightly. the first degree is for servants (ministering angels) who have the fullness of opportunities to marry in this life, to be determined by god, and do not do so. Also, we don't know if the first degree as per mentioned above is the unknown second degree with the first being the unknown instead.

That there are three divisions we have been taught. Highest within the celestial kingdom: A celestial man and woman married for eternity who are able to progress and eventually become god's and have spirit children. We also know that those who are worthy to obtain a celestial glory but are not so sealed to a spouse become angels to the god's for all eternity. Whether or not such classification falls 2nd or 3rd we do not know. We also don't know who the other grouping consists of. As far as I know, it simply hasn't been revealed.

I thought he did... but now I'm not so sure =) thanks seminary

There are another couple of interesting concepts which may play a part in this matter as well. Haven't we been taught that a resurrected being does not have to show themselves in all their glory? For exampled Christ walked, talked, and ate with his disciples after his resurrection without revealing himself in all his glory. Herein we then have a principal that celestial resurrected beings, have the capacity to hold light within themselves rather than emanating it. Have we also not learned that our earth will one day be a celestial sphere? If resurrected man can so choose who perceives it's light, why not resurrected celestialized spheres as well? Science proposes that there must be huge amounts of matter in the universe that we can't see. Wouldn't it make sense that the light of such sphere's would be hidden from us? Another concept is in regards to spirit matter. Are we not taught that there is spirit matter and that it is simply more fine than physical matter? Would this not account for a large amount of matter in our universe that we are unable to perceive?

Yes, you indicate what you learned in priesthood last week. Usually only priesthood holders attend priesthood. Within the LDS community at least. Then I noticed that you don't indicate that you're of an LDS denomination? Since everyone here has assumed you're a woman based on your picture... such a comment caused a double take.

Good point =) Yet... a thought... Are we not taught that everything was created spiritually before physically? Is not everything comprised of physical matter also comprised of more fine spiritual matter? While they don't have olfactory nerves comprised of physical matter necessary to smell physical matter, are you so well versed in the laws of spirit matter to say that they do not have the olfactory nerves comprised of spirit matter necessary to smell spirit matter? Are you also so sufficiently versed in the laws of spirit matter as to say that sage smelled differently as a purely spiritual creation than it does now as a combination of both?

Yet I conclude that there must be more to that story than Joseph indicated. Satan was given power to kill Job's flocks and family as well as cause illness. Satan normally doesn't have the power to outright kill someone. Perhaps there is an explanation that would explain how his family gave Satan power over them to the point of being able to kill them. I suppose that in the pre-existance we did give Satan the power to appear to us and to tempt us for this would be in accord with what Joseph taught. Yet if we gave these powers, who is to say whether or not he has been given others. I don't see how we can safely conclude in all circumstances that the power Satan exercises over us is due to decisions here and not decisions before coming here. Another example would be a spirit child knowingly coming and being born of someone who is an alcoholic and drug abuser. They know in coming that they would be giving the adversary greater power over them to tempt them to follow suit because of the actions of their parents. To me the way I reconcile this matter is to state, "Satan has no power over us to cause us to sin except that which we give him".

A 1. You're right that we put great stock in personal experience. In fact, I'd say this it's universal =). Stick a hand in a fire and I expect you'd put great stock in that personal experience as well. Outside of personal experience? That's a tricky one to pin down. For the most convincing pieces are those which by nature are closely tie with powerful personal experience. My personal answer would have to be the Book of Mormon. A 2. Yes. Yes I do. The same way something can be proven true also enables us to prove if something is false. Alma 32:27-43 & Moroni 10:3-5. One could indeed use contradictions to rule a religion false. The problem in doing so is that often supposed contradictions are simply a matter of ignorance. Science and the rules of aerodynamics tell us that a bee can not fly. Yet we have visual evidence indicating they can. The contradiction is based on ignorance. Some individuals would indicate that there is a clear unresolvable contradiction between 3 Nephi 30:2 and D&C 42:18 in regards to whether or not murder can be forgiven. Yet any member will tell you that there is no contradiction. One was in reference to gentiles or non-members who had not made convenants with the Lord not to murder and the other in reference to members who had made such covenants. Would you be willing to place your life on the line that your understanding of all aspects involved in a specific contradiction is sufficiently complete as to rule aboslutely against and that no logical or reasonable explination could be offered that would remove the contradiction? One could indeed use failed prophecies to rule a religion false as well. Individuals who do so must be careful for there are many pitfalls wherein they may fall into error. Was the recorded prophecy accurately transcribed? Is their contextual information not being considered? Is there a difference of usage regarding what certain words mean? Is there an ignorance as to possible explinations which would fulfill the prophcy beyond their understanding? Prophcey by Joseph Smith: "There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death til Christ comes." Now those ignorant of gospel truths would indicate that this prophcey was false yet do we not have the example of John the beloved who was given the gift of tarrying in the flesh until the Lord's return? Likewise the 3 Nephites in the Book of Mormon? It is not a stretch to me to conclude that there were those in that generation who desiring such a gift from the Lord were granted it. There we go! Prophecy fulfilled! Supposing the accuracy of a prophcey's recording is not questioned, would you be willing to place your life on the line that your understanding of all aspects involved is sufficiently complete as to rule it absolutely a failure and that no logical or reasonable explination could be offered that would allow it to be valid? One could indeed use anachronisms to rule a religion false. I like this tool the least. Are we so well informed of everything that happened in the past to make such judgements? I had corn yesterday. well I'm sorry, says my friend, I have no evidence that what you say is true. Therefore it must be false. For a long time there existed a biblical anacronism regarding the placement of lions in Palestine. Yet there was no evidence supporting such a claim. Some undoubtedly said that here is an anacronism and I can use this to rule the bible false. Robert R. Bennett: "The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region." An anacronism is simply another name for a contradiction existing due to a disagreement regarding historical accuracy and has the same difficulties in proper use as the other. Are you willing to place your life on the line that our current understanding of history and everything that has occurred in the past is sufficiently complete as to rule in favor of an anacronism? Have we suddenly discovered every piece of archaeological evidence as to conclude so? One could indeed use a lack of an answer in prayer to rule a religion false. After all, at one point, I did exactly just that. However I was wrong. I used to work for DirecTV and I received many calls where customers stated that their box's were broken and they needed a replacement. Yet in many cases it was proven that the fault was not with the machine but with the person using it who didn't know how to operate it. They were convinced that the box was broken. Yet the truth was a different story. They were not operating the device correctly. Would you be willing to place your life on the line that your understanding of all aspects involved in regards to prayer, how it works and what enables one to receive answers, is sufficiently complete as to rule that it does not work? Is that... not what you are doing? It was... what I was doing. My profile has my conversion story and testimony on it. Feel free to read it. It doesn't matter how much my grandmother wants to call me. If she doesn't have a phone, she can't call me. Even if she has one, if she doesn't turn it on, she can't call me. Even if it's on, if she doesn't dial my number, she can't call me. Even if she dial's my number, if she holds the phone upside down, she won't be able to converse with me. Even if she's holding the phone rightside up, if she has an earplug in or has the tv turned up so loud as to drown me out, she won't me. Sure she is free to conclude in any of those situations that the phone doesn't work and that I can't be reached but that doesn't make her conclusion true. Is it not illogical to use a lack of evidence to determine something does not exist? When you have evidence that something exists, well then you know that it exists. But when you do not have such evidence, you do not know that it does not exists, you simply do not know that it does. When you obtained evidence that atoms are real and exist, well you knew that they existed. Yet before you had such evidence, you did not know that they did not exist, you simply did not know that they did. A 3. You're absolutely right. What would it take to prove to an aethist that God existed? Would a miracle do it? It would not. It is usually sufficient to get a man to start exercising faith, but even this is not guaranteed. Just as there is an established protocol as to how an individual determines what something texturally feels like there is also an established protocol for testing spiritual things. If a man never plants a seed, he can not say that he knows it is not a good seed but only that he does not know that it is a good seed. Until he plants it, he'll never know. While I needed to exercise faith in the beginning, I can testify to you that on many points my faith is now dormant and is no longer faith but sure knowledge. Some of which is based on senses even you would accept.

I'm sorry that I can not agree with you Jayanna and Mamas_Girl. When I wrote what I wrote, it was after asking in prayer if I should do so and receiving a confirmation that yes, I should so testify.