jlf9999

This relationship has disaster written all over it. You are a young women and rightfully and biologically want to be married and he is scared out of his brain. Unless he makes a commitment for marriage and follows through with it quickly, your relationship will go no further than a romp in the hay. Honest. You are not the first person to experience this and will not be the last. What you are experiencing is just hormones.

Advice? Sure. Have fun and relax. If you know your lines that is great, If you mess up everyone will have a good laugh and you will be a hit. Everyone loves the person who makes the biggest goof but keeps plugging along. If (when) you mess up, turn to audience and grin. You will steal the show.

Welcome to the club. I have been a member since 1957 and I am still imperfect. Image that. I assure you that if you talked to the members in question they will admit their imperfections too. So will the Bishop, his counselors, the stake president, area authority, seventies and all the apostles including president Monson. It is not a matter of perfection. It is about showing up. By that I mean you get up everyday and decide to do better, fix the things you did wrong yesterday (repent) and move on. My dear young friend you will never be perfect on this earth. It is not required of you. Do the best you can with the understanding that you will mess things up but at least you know how to fix them. It is said that the angels in heaven yearn for nothing on earth except the ability to repent. You have it. Use it regularly and everything will be just fine. Go and be baptized.

Pheonix You have some church related issues that may very well be addressed with just a couple of things. May I suggest you and your wife just take a little time and open the Book of Mormon and do some reading together. What ever the problem is with your wife not wanting to attend church may have more to do with you than maybe some other things. Middle aged women get that way and I think you know what I mean. You may not have done anything wrong but just be there every morning when she gets up. Even if she isn't willing, do the reading yourself. Go to church even without her and be active in the temple opening. She needs a good example and the benefits of activity can keep you sane. Ask other High Priests about their experiences with wives at this time of life. I promise you, you are not alone.

Sexual attraction diminishes with age. It is a fact of nature. It is a hormone thing. Love, which is different and I think confuses some into thinking that it is sexual attraction, is different. When a man is in his teens and early twenties, love is pretty much a foreign concept. That doesn't mean he can't love. It is just that sex is as real as the day is long and to really understand love takes time. If a man is lucky enough to find a lovely daughter of Heavenly Father who can tolerate him for the first ten or fifteen years, he can then begin understand what true love is. The ability to love transcends the veil but I doubt whether in our perfected pre-mortal state would could understand it as well.

The church asks that members attend the ward their area is assigned to. There are reasons for that having to do with opportunities to serve and to avoid elitism between the better off members and the less well off and some other reasons.

The question is really what non-LDS think about the practice as it relates to ancestors they share with LDS people. I accept that you think it is meaningless. But how would you receive notice that the temple work for a common relative had been done or was being proposed? Would you just accept it as a courtesy to your LDS cousin or would there be a fight in the family? Also, given you think it is meaningless, why would you object assuming you would? I ask this question because I spend a lot of time doing this kind of work and don't want unnecessary strains with others not of my faith. The Church has rules for such things but some people are so hateful it would not make much difference what a Mormon does, they would object. I just want to get a feel for what most people think.

The question as I read it had to do with absent parents of a deceased child who had not been sealed. BIC kids will be assigned in their infant state to a worthy family member on the other side pending the arrival of worthy parents. At that time, they will continue to raise the child. Worthy parents will naturally want to have their deceased children sealed to them as soon as possible.

It is not an unusual question. Every person who has ever been born will have all ordinances performed for them eventually - except those doomed to outer darkness. However, for those who were waiting because of time constraints, death does not mean you have to wait until the end of the millennium to have your work done. At the most it would be one year following your death before that work could be done for you. Your husband or other relative could submit your name to the temple just as soon as possible. But I wouldn't worry about that right now. You have a brand new baby coming soon and he or she is the focus. There is no chance that you will miss out on the these saving ordinances, one way or another. You might consider asking for a blessing from your bishop if you don't have a priesthood holder in your family. You are entitled to one.

Can a person sin in ignorance? I have always been taught they can't. In order to be held accountable we must know we are doing wrong and do it anyway.

This question is just for non-LDS readers. How do you feel about the LDS practice of doing temple work for your dead ancestors? I ask because the people for whom we perform these ordinances have non-LDS relatives too. (Sometimes in the past non-relatives names were submitted but that is not the accepted practice. If it is done currently it is not in keeping with the disclaimer submitters must acknowledge before they can submit a name. The rules have tightened up from what they were before.)

I have been told that children who die before the age of accountability are still part of your extended eternal family. Just because the parents are not there does not mean they have no one else. Another worthy family member will take the place of the parents.

This kind of gets down to the bottom line doesn't it? The difference between LDS theology and traditional Christian understanding of the gospel is one comes directly from God through His witnesses and prophets and the other is handed down over the centuries by men through countless iterations out of which we get 2400 different Christian denominations and dozens of versions of the bible. One is either forced to accept that men, over time, got it right or that they got it wrong too often and God had to step in to fix it all. Traditional Christianity says their traditions are the only way to understand God and mankind's relationship with Him and the other says put what we say to the test - ask God yourself.

Soninme Essentially yes. Christ (in His Yahweh role) is speaking in His authority as the voice of the Godhead. LDS theology holds that the relationship between God, Christ and The Holy Ghost is though they were one. Christ is speaking as God the Father. Christ's authority and power comes from His father as does all authority everywhere. There is no authority unless it comes from God the Father. Therefore anyone who speaks with authorization, that is, speaks on behalf of God, it is as though God the Father was speaking. However not everyone, such as earthly authorities, have Christ's authority to speak that way. Mankind must add a "thus sayeth the Lord..." type acknowledgment of where the authority lies. That is so we can know it is not the speakers personal opinion or merely advice. Christ does not need such a disclaimer to speak. Someone else may want to put a finer point on the that however. This is another of those commonly misunderstood subjects that requires some foundation in order to understand better. There is more to this subject than what we have covered here today such as speaking and acting with priesthood authority which has similar authority but a limited capacity.

Soninme Exodus 15:11, Psalms 82:1 and Psalms 86:8 suggest there are other interpretations that must be considered in such a discussion. Essentially, when taken in context, God is telling Israel to stop worshiping false gods and worship just Him. I refer you to Is. 41:29; Is. 42:8; Is. 43:10,12,24; Is. 44:8,9,10,17,19; Is. 45:9,12,16,20,22. The point often made in traditional Christian circles is that there is but one God. Mormons agree on that point too however traditionalists don't go to the next step and ask what is meant by gods small G. In LDS theology, God with a capital G means God the Father of which there is but one. However, in the other quotations of scripture where gods with a small G is part of the subject, we believe the writer is referring to other exalted beings. They are those who share in the full inheritance of Jesus Christ. They have attained a position on the right hand of God along side Christ yet are subordinate to God the Father. The part of the related discussion not mentioned many times and which is woefully misunderstood, is the difference between salvation and exaltation.

Soninme Matt. 3:16-17; Acts 7:55-56; John 17:9-11, 20-21; John 8:18; John 14:28; Mark 14:32-39; John 5:32-37; Mark 14:32-39; Luke 22:40-46; John 17:21-22. There is no passage in the bible that defines God's nature the way the Trinitarians do. Trinitarianism is a tradition - a man made notion. In each of the passages selected above, the separate nature of God from Christ and The Holy Ghost is spoken of. I think if you research the subject you will find that Trinitarianism came about by decree some three or four centuries after Christ died. It was never taught by the apostles or the Savior and was not a first century Christian teaching. However it was the thinking of the Greek philosophers of the later times that became part of the dominant religious authorities's attempt to bring about a more cohesive Roman empire and create a church everyone could agree with. It was a political compromise. I am sorry I can't provide you with the names of more authorities off the top of my head but I think you will find the subject an interesting read. I think Ehrman wrote something about it in Misquoting Jesus as did Davies in The Early Christian Church. There was a late 19th century or early 20th century German scholar whom I can't name that wrote extensively on the subject. I am sure there are others. If memory serves me correctly, these scholars quote early Christian writers extensively. It is through the writings of these early church fathers that we have the history of the Christian church and more specifically for this discussion, how Trinitarianism came to be. If it is important to you I will do some research.

Chaplain An interesting metaphor. There is something I feel certain you are familiar with that can be an aid to learning. For those folks who do the best they can to live a holy life according to the best of their understanding, I suggest employing the Holy Spirit as a helper can be fruitful. Once that line of communication is opened up a lot can happen quickly. My experience is that when I am on track, I can learn and understand so much better than when I am not. If I have had an argument or felt unkindly towards someone then the light goes out. But if I have been anxiously engaged in the work then all that changes. I bring that up because when we have been anxiously engaged, just reading non-canonized works, and scripture, can provide special insights. It is more than just reading J. G. Davies or someone else. It is as though the text opens up a passageway beyond what the words say. It is like the doorkeeper allowing you to look inside the locked library to see all the stacks where the good stuff is just waiting for those who are prepared to read it.

Some folks put a lot of pressure on themselves to understand or believe everything up front as if there was a test at the end. There is not. A testimony is developed. You develop it by living the principles of the gospel one at a time. May I suggest that once you have a testimony of one thing you will come to sense when the Holy Spirit is talking to you and your study thereafter will be easier. Progress comes quickly. Once you experience that sensation you will recognize that you are familiar with it. That is how some folks can say they "know" something after having just experienced it for the first time. It is the Holy Spirit and we are familiar with it from birth. Actually from before we were born on earth. I suggest you are recognizing an old friend - that perfect relationship that has existed since before the earth was made. Once you recognize and understand that, you can never deny it. It makes everything that comes after that so much the easier. The only caveat is that you can't live a worldly life and a holy one at the same time. To keep the growth going you have to live by Christ's principles. Otherwise you stagnate. This is such a profound relationship that some folks who slow way down or stop go through a type of with drawl or sense of loss. Once you know it you will never be the same. For those who fall away, their spirit recognizes the absence of the Holy Ghost and they mourn its the loss. You could say the they grieve. That is kind of the long way around saying no you do not have to believe everything. Everything comes in its own time. This is a process not an event. Lots of LDS people have trouble with one thing or another just as believers in traditional Christianity have trouble with some of the things they are taught. Understanding and acceptance comes with time and effort.

Conversion stories are as varied as the number of people telling them. However there seem to be some common threads. First is that the person felt the need for something more than they had in their life. Second they had a belief in some higher power. They may not have known what or who or if God was but they just had a feeling there was someone or some thing there. That small amount of faith got it all started. Sacrament is a good place to begin.

I don't read every response so if someone has said what I say then superior minds think alike. It is difficult to read what someone has written and apply inflection or voice to it. But if it was said as one friend talking to another in person it would sound better and friendlier. Please forgive us if discussion comes across as unfriendly. I assure you it likely is not. We just get into it sometimes without thinking in the polite way we we would if we were in person. Women are much better at it than men. Men as you know communicate differently. We pass on information while women tend to make friends. They really are the superior sex.

Chaplain If one believes Joseph Smith is a fraud then nothing he presents as revelation could stand either. That point was made by a Baptist friend of mine. However some LDS apologists (PHd types with advanced degrees in such things) tell us there are many Old Testament, Jewish and early Christian writings that tend to support what Joseph says. It is an interesting study. Few Mormons, I am afraid, are well enough versed in the subject to speak to it with clarity.

The Holy Trinity definition is one God of the three parts separate, indistinguishable and unknowable such as the Trinitarian notion of God's nature. Trinitarians have amalgamated or combined three separate beings into a single unfathomable God. LDS theology teaches that the three, God the Father, His son Jesus Christ and The Holy Ghost are just as the bible says they are: different and separate beings. Our theology teaches us that we are the literal children of God the Father and lived with Him in pre-mortal life and had an intimate relationship with Him just as we do with our earthly parents. Jesus Christ is our elder brother, the first born in pre-mortality as well as the only begotten or earthly-born son of God the Father. The nature of God, Christ, The Holy Ghost and who humans are in reality is a study in itself and is quite interesting. However it is often considered a bit beyond Mormonism 101 or even 102. It gets into what eternal life is and more. I would be glad to expound a bit on it if you like. It is a fascinating study and not often discussed very extensively outside of LDS circles.

I think you will find that historic anti-Catholic sentiment is based on politics. In former times, the Roman Catholic church was the dominant religious and political authority and dealt with others with a heavy hand. They were often cruel and demanding. That began to change in the 19th century but not entirely and so there exists some genuine fear of what a resurgent Catholic power structure would do to people with independent ideas.

This is an old thread but the question is often asked. My first response would be that differences are in interpretation. Traditional Christianity's understanding of the bible comes from tradition in great part. I use Trinitarianism as an example. There is nothing in the bible that says God the Father, Christ and The Holy Ghost are one amalgamated God. In fact the bible is quite specific in saying they are three distinct beings. The Garden of Eden story comes from latter day revelation. As I recall there is some early Jewish writing on that subject too. Latter day revelation may be hard for some people to reconcile with given many are taught that the bible is complete, perfect and all that God wants us to know. Clearly that is not the case however. The bible is not perfect and it is not always clear. It leaves much open to interpretation. The recent notion that God is sovereign and therefore everything in the bible is all there is seems to mock God. Using that premise would mean everything that has happened in historic Christianity is God's doing because he had control. On the face of it, the sovereignty argument would make sin impossible. In my opinion that type of thinking is what makes some people hate God for "allowing" awful things to happen. Let's be clear. God is in charge but he gave man the ability to make mistakes and be wrong. That includes the ability to pick and choose what to believe. Mankind's ability to choose allowed the dominant religious authority of the day to decide what was holy scripture and to pass correct as well as incorrect ideas on to others. There are multiple reasons why this happened but it boils down to God allowing it because he knew all would be set right in the end. Mankind is here on earth learn and grow. If God interfered by correcting our mistakes before we made them, we would not have the freedom to decide for ourselves. If we understood everything with perfect clarity we would be less inclined to seek God. We would become people with little faith who knew a lot about the workings of the universe, even God's nature, but a diminished personal relationship with Him. Even now, with the little we know, many people think of God as the butler whose job is to fix things for us when we get into trouble - a kind of 911 service. Mormons believe there is much more to our relationship with Him than that.