Eleven

Mr Shorty, are you married? If youre single, Honestly whether I'm right or wrong, Im glad you have this opinion of sex because it could keep you away from making a bad decision. More single people should have this opinion, even though sex isnt evil its just timing. Married, i still understand where youre coming from, but honestly its a beautiful thing if you view your glass half full. Yes there are many evils about sex out there, but there are very righteous things too if you look for them.

I wonder If God was planning on furthering their knowledge of things Himself by teaching them verbally until they took it upon themselves. Like what if Gods original plan was to teach Adam and Eve everything the fruit would have offered, and once they knew everything, they would understand that they needed to accept mortality upon themselves or something like that.. Maybe God, like you say, wanted them to get to some stage of progression before he allowed them to partake of the fruit and Adam and Eve simply jumped the gun. So God improvised thinking "Well, i was going to have them take it at some point, guess i need to deal with this now" Just speculation and outward thinking..

So I'll be blunt, because this is the only example i can think of. Kids are taught not to have sex, but this doesnt mean sex is impure, it just means at that time it is. Can you help me understand where in scriptures maybe where it implies this notion? This definitely makes sense on how it "could" fit, but in my mind i havent made the connection "how" and "where" it connects

Out of all the comments, I thoroughly enjoyed this. I read up some and found this too. Dallan H Oaks said once that there is a very careful distinction in our article of faith #2. "We believe man will be punished for their own SINS and not for Adams Transgression He goes on to say that the difference between a Sin and a Transgression is this: Murder is inherently wrong, therefore a sin. Driving without a license are crimes only because they are locally prohibited, therefore it is a transgression, not a sin -put into my own words from June 2006 Ensign Page 48- Vort, youre a straight arrow, what do you make of this? Is this to say out of Gods two commandments, one was a spiritual commandment (replenish) and the other was simply a worldly law? Ive never seen God give something as simple as a worldly law, but i would love to be corrected. Also from this article, It says These two commandments were given to give them a choice. Am I to understand they were meant to oppose each other? I understand entirely this quote above the "reasons" why God had to put agency and responsibility of our actions on us as mortals, but it completely boggles my mind that God could/would ever give two commandments that opposed each other. I havent read all the comments so I'll do that now and see if i can further my findings

Thanks for the correction on 2/3 vs 1/3, i was typing fast. Either way, still lots of souls. Btw, yes Vort Ive been to the temple recently you goof. lol. Most cases I havent thought of these questions while being there, mostly Im there finding peace from grief happening outside the temple, so my thoughts are elsewhere. I need to make a trip specifically meant for education. Forgive my repetition, but its how i learn lol. So if im getting this straight: God did not create our souls, he organized them. (i knew this already, just didnt make the connection). Us being intelligences, we even had agency then. So there was such thing as evil and righteous intelligences, and God organized them no matter if they were good or bad? is that correct? SO BECAUSE GOD ORGANIZED some good and some bad, One of those bad intelligences was Lucifer, who had a huge issue with pride and immaturity. When he offered his plan and was rejected, he was bitter, and the only way to get back was to swear against God, in which he was banished. Also I wanted to make another connection. Alma 42. Where it basically says That if God chooses to not be good, "God would cease to be God". Is this suggesting there is a higher power to cast him out IF he should ever go bad? WHICH HE WOULD NEVER DO, but is this what thats suggesting? What Im getting at by bringing this up is that Good and Righteousness existed before God. If so, Like Vort said, In Vorts life, kids were the author of chaos in his house locally but that doesnt mean chaos existed elsewhere previously. So calling Satan the "creator of evil" should really be called "the usher of evil" or the one who introduced it to this (our) eternity... hopefully thats coming out right. What Im getting at by bringing this up again is that Evil and unrighteousness existed before Satan. So far so good?

These questions drive me insane because i dont believe mankind will have the answer for them until everything is all said and done. what Im asking is: God is the author of Good. God could not, and would not create evil. (am i right? lol) God created Lucifer, Son of the Morning, Someone all of us looked up to. Lucifer made his own conscious decision to walk away and try and make his own way. Evil was created by Lucifer, The father of lies. What my question is, is God said evil is necessary for the plan, yet couldnt create evil? So was He taking a gamble that someone would step up to plate to be evil? (speaking VERY casually) What if Satan chose to accept Christ? Where would evil come from then? One of my friends gave me the best response but i want more lol. He said 2/3 also fell. THATS ALOTA PEOPLE. SOMEONE out of those billions of billions of souls would have stood up if he didnt. -------------------------- Next Queston: Adam and Eve. Why did God command them not to partake of the fruit if it was necessary for the plan to continue? Did he "sin" for the good of mankind? is it possible to Sin for the good of anything? Or did he "transgress" and somehow thats different than sinning? I mean be blatantly disobeyed God.. On the flip side, Did God know they would fall? If he did, did He basically set them up for failure by creating a law he didnt want them to follow? Can God do that lol? probably not but im just asking conclusive questions that may lead to nothing. From what i may or may not understand, Having a savior was plan B? What hope was there for Plan A of us somehow not needing a savior? My mission President ( the one I agreed with in case anyone follows my threads) said once that back up plans are just as important, the Atonement was a back up plan. Is this correct? thanks I need opinions please.. these questions kill me lol. thanks

To the person who made this post asking about if he should tell his wife or not, I would definitely tell her. Think about it.. chances are youre going to need to go through a repentence process which means no sacrament.. shes going to notice that ya know? I think a wife would rather you tell her, then her get blindsided when she finds out for herself. And also i think it would be better to happen in front of a bishop. When someones in front of a bishop, its really hard for the adversary to tempt them to be judgmental. Step 1: tell bishop Step 2: have bishop call you both into his office before you stop taking sacrament and explain everything to her Step 3: Look her dead in the eyes and tell her you love her and shes beautiful. You looked at porn and have done so for a long time, and doing it because it is an addiction rather than doing it because you think your wife isnt pretty enough is two different things. Women i believe shut down for that exact reason, they think just because youre looking at that means directly "Im not good enough for him".. then intimacy (sexually or not sexually) stops, magic dies, relationship dies.. so on Step 4: KEEP YOUR CHIN UP. YOURE DOING THE RIGHT THING. I respect the sinner that mans up to his mistakes WAY more than the man that cowers at them. remember, there are two types of people. sinners and liars. Dont be a liar. We all know where liars go (lawschool)

BTW thanks for all the ideas guys. But Dravin i fully agree, the quotes validity completely relies on the persons definition of what exactly success is. The difficult thing about me and where this quote originated with me is this Presidents view of success was numbers. If you didnt baptize a lot, you were never called into leadership. The zone leaders heavily talked about a "favorite 30" list anytime a lot of zone leaders where going home, meaning some of the other lowly missionaries would have to step it up and become that type of missionary... because of all this, certain areas baptized 70 people, and i SPECIFICALLY remember a missionary coming to me and showing me 70 names of converts, 2 were still active and both had WOW problems... So for me, My president, knowing what his definition of success was, said this quote and the only thing i could think of was more and more depression among other missionaries. If you didnt baptize as much as everyone else, you werent making a success out of your mission. Anyways, what i said in this facebook comment was "I think the saying is off but the moral is right. I believe Pres was trying to say "If you dont give 100% in everything that you do, how can you ever hope to be successful in anything you wish to accomplish". that was my take on it. But in the christian world, saying "If youre not first your last" to me is an oxymoron.

On my mission we had a mission pres that i didnt fully agree with at all times, but still sustained and did what i was told. I had two mission presidents, and the second was by far the one to relate to me, focusing more on Part member work and working through the members like the preach my gospel explains.. anyways, this first mission pres was very "be a man" kinda guy and also was a lawyer, and so in and out he kinda took what he wanted out of the white handbook and preach my gospel and the rest he made his own. Anyways, heres what im getting at. He had this quote that SO many of my rm buddies love, and it doesnt even make any doctrinal sense to me whatsoever.. His quote was "If you dont make a success out of everything you do, then you will never make a success out of anything you do" What i get out of this is "If youre not successful at everything you try, your just unsuccessful, period." One of the mission buddies posted this on his facebook and I tried to ask him "Hey what im getting out of this is *what i just typed*, and he deleted all my posts lol.. so i guess it was a soft spot. What my question is; What do you get out of that quote? Does anyone else take it for a hasty generalization fallacy that one instance of unsuccessful shouldnt ever mean your damned from ever being successful? Or is it the bad taste in my mouth from this mission president thats getting in the way of me seeing it? EVERYTHING is a BIG word, and so is ANYTHING. I concluded to them that if this statement were true, i could say that because i was unsuccessful at making my self breakfast without making a mess, anyone could conclude i will never be successful at paintball because of it lol.. i use extremes to help paint the picture, but you get what i mean. i need commentary. let me know

Looks like all the input has been placed. Ill just throw my two cents in Ive lived in arizona ALL my life, probably similar to you, and I also went on a mission to Florida. Though I cant say Ive experienced the worst heat, Ive been close, and I would stick with cotton or cotton poly. HIGHLY breathable, HIGHLY absorbent of sweat. Its either that or mesh, and I refuse to wear mesh simply because my dad does, and i refuse to wear the same underwear as my dad :S It was super awkward at first when i was new to garments, now, it feels really REALLY awkward without them

Vort, you need to teach me how to do this quoting one after another thing... I tried to distinguish my answers with bold lettering and failed miserably lolol

Why would you not want to be married in the temple you feel the spirit at? Also, Vort had the best and most direct answer for this here. God would never sever you from your family, he gave you that choice.

Thats exactly right Chrissy. I just barely got off my mission and dated a girl beforehand for 5+ years. It was SO tough letting that one go. Trust me, some point your going to take a step out of your heart and realize he's just a boy. Honestly, Ive heard a lot of girls nowadays dont want to marry boys their age, they want to marry those who are getting back right when the boys they grew up with are going to. Anyways, Im just a guy, and could be entirely wrong. But whatever the case is, DONT waste two years of your life, no matter if this guy is right or not. Date for two years and accomplish a lot of self defining. If all that dating did you nothing but self mastery and figuring out what you really want, Look what you lost! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You've only gained a better understanding of what kind of guy you really want, what really attracts you and what really urks you lol. Its a win win situation

..... lol That didnt really answer anything i made this thread about.. Im not over thinking anything, i just state the extremes to help paint the true picture of whatever opinion is being given. Honestly, i think your overthinking and going too deep into what i was asking lol. all i asked was if your sealing was included when temple blessings are restored and what would happen to my mother in law if she went through the process with the ex. Everything you just stated was information everyone knew was already implied. Thanks though:D

Personally i cant stand the mentality of this subject.. Being a guy, Ive seen two of my friends that didnt serve missions because of their past mistakes and did every rightful darned thing to fix it, were that close to being called, and the first presidency declined. THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD. and yet they feel ostracized that women wont even give them the time of day. I hate to be so colorful in my post, but it makes me sick that this friend of mine that was so close to a mission was declined, HE is way more spiritually mature for facing his mistakes and making them right that some of the knuckle head missionaries i served with that completely wasted their mission service with watching movies, "hanging out" and doing other things they shouldnt.. This is almost the same discussion of choosing to marry a girl that isnt a virgin but has made a full turn around. My wife wasnt a virgin when she met me and she told me on our first date. Still to this day, she almost cries at the memory of my reaction, because i didnt even bat an eye when i said "I dont care where you've been. I can see where you are now". She thought for sure i was going to walk out and never talk to her again, but little did she know at that moment my mother wasnt a virgin either when she was married, and her parenting skills and the way she treated me was everything i wanted a mother to have. Because i knew that my own mother turned her self around from a bad mistake, i knew those who lost their virginity didnt deserve to be treated any differently as long as they learned from their mistake. Not serving a mission is definitely NOT the same bar sin wise as pre-marital sex. But something I DEFINITELY see wrong with our people is how judgmental we can be on these two subjects.