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.

Im recently married, just a year younger than you, and was sketchy about a family ward... So many older and wiser people.. its hard to relate with alot of them because theyre all in different stages in life than you are. Then i met a young couple our age, and they looked at us like dogs looked at raw meat LOL. We became instant friends because we were the only young couples who were active, and pretty much hang out after work at least 3 times a week. family ward are awesome. Id hate to be condesending to singles wards, but my experience AND MINE ONLY, im not saying all, but mine was the kids tend to be clicky. If they didnt know me from school, there was no hand shake or exchange of names, it was just I sat there with my three roommates and that was it lol. Thats just me though, there are plently of good singles wards out there i would hope

So If i can collect this correctly.. Steve can be sealed to two LIVING women, but because of polygamy issues.. he cant be married to them both? That seems confusing. Its like instating polygamy, the only time Ive ever heard of anyone being able to be sealed to two spouses is if one of them had pasted away, though the church advises that they cancel the other. So say Kathy does this, and gets sealed to steve despite the past wife not willing to comply. Does Steve and these two women die and go to heaven and Steve has two wives? Or will it be his choice as to who he pulls through the "pearly gates"? I want to ask another, Steve's ex wife IS REMARRIED to another man, but refuses to cancel her sealing with steve. If Steve went through the process and everything waiting on Steves ex wife, would the presidency or local leaders prod her to cancel and be sealed to the man shes married to, as opposed to holding onto the past? thanks for the the insight. My wifes mother seems troubled about her standing in heaven. She DOES NOT love her ex husband, and If nothing was done in this world to change who's sealed to who, she says she would decline the ex husband if he wanted to bring her through, even if it meant no Celestial Kingdom.. BUT lets be honest, the ex husband is less active and hasnt had a temple recommend in a long time, so Im not trying to judge, but there could be a small chance he just doesnt make it at all because of procrastination. let me know, again thanks

Congrats MilitaryMember, You have no idea How happy the heavens are that you've made your turn around. I tell this to every "seeking help" thread that pops up because its living truth, but God would do anything for that "one" sheep that lost its path. Ive seen a lot of friends go down wrong paths, make bad mistakes and Ive mad some myself. There is nothing so exquisite as the peace that comes from repentence.

Any time you ever see anti mormon literature, remember these words from Christ "If the world hate you, know that it hated me before you" I cant remember the chapter/verse, its the same as when Christ says "no greater love than his, than a man that lay down his life for his friends. If ye love me keep my commandments." anyways what im getting at is to me, i interpret anti mormon literature as proof that we really do have our heads on straight. They tried and tried and tried and tried (i could keep going) to find fault with Christ and failed everytime. They did everything they possibly could. Fact is theyre doing the same to us. See the parallel? The world SHOULD hate the true and everlasting church. If ours is the most ridiculed, YET we seem to be right up there at the top of most converts and such, I think that says something. So let them say what they want. Im somewhat glad they make fun of my religion, it shows Ive stood up for something in my life and also shows that theyve been trying the same tactics for close to 100 years hoping someday our church will crash and burn and it never will. I believe the dictionary calls that insanity.

Solstjerne, Sometimes out of habit some people might pray like this "Thank you for this day.. thanks for many blessings... please bless husband to make good decisions..." etc Asking God to "bless" anything means God endows your efforts. he doesnt however, replace your efforts with his. Pray for things like "Please help me to recognize what would interest him in the church" "help him to not have such a hard day so when we talk about this he wont be a grump" you get it.

CTR You've shared some really good insight. I cant say I agree with it fully, Honestly i feel that we are both right. For how many references there are in the scriptures of some fiery place called Hell, one must take it literal. Some one had quoted the story of Lazarus and the king or whoever it was from the book of luke. lazarus was taken to Heaven because of his lowly life he lived on this earth, and the pampered King was in Hell, quenched for thirst and begging that Lazarus bring him water for how hot it was. I believe everything you have described is all of the spiritual Hell that we will go through. You cant forget the Physical Hell as well. Remember what Christ said in DC 19 "YOU MUST SUFFER EVEN AS I " Christ's suffering definitely wasnt just spiritual. The way I interpret Hell is sitting inches away from fire. Its extremely uncomfortable... your not getting burned, but your close enough that its agony after a while from all the exhaustion and fatigue of the heat. I do agree with you, i doubt Ill have a pot that says "Reserved for Eleven" filled with lava

So i gotta question! My wifes parents are divorced. Her mother remarried to who is now obviously her step father. Step father has been married before and excommunicated for cheating and alcohol and drugs, and has made a complete full turn around. When he came back, 2 years after getting temple blessings restored he found my wifes mother.. happily ever after.. blahzy blahzy ok QUESTION Her mom and step dad are married but ARE NOT sealed. reason being is her mother WANTS to be unsealed to her biological father, BUT DOESNT go through the process because the step fathers ex wife WILL NOT go through the process of a cancellation. ... Let me throw some random names in here to make some sense.. My mother in law "Kathy" remarried "Steve". They are not sealed because "Steve's" ex wife refuses to be unsealed EVEN THOUGH she has remarried as well. Says to everyone she would take him back if he would come back. My mother in law "Kathy" wants to be unsealed from her ex husband, but feels that its pointless without "Steves" exwife to cancel their marriage first.... hahaha so confusing i know. So what Im trying to get at is two final questions lol 1. IF "kathy" goes through the cancellation process anyways.. and "Steve" and his ex wife never get unsealed, Is "Kathy" left in the wind without a spouse? 2. Since "Steve" was excommunicated and all, does is excommunication cancel is sealing by itself? OR, when he got his restoration of temple blessings, was his sealing back on him? Thank you that is all

Id betcha you found your info in my thread i made just recently. I dont know what the company is called that rates movies.. but television, radio, and movies have all allowed more and more explicit scenes as the time goes by. Using the F-bomb was an automatic R back in the 90's. Now a PG-13 is allowed one or two before its given the R stamp. Girls get skimpier and violence becomes the norm. Its just the winds of time..

Hope this one isn't off key lol, but me and my family would always laugh at this one with the kids: Three cowboys were chased and captured by a pack of Indians. They were all tied to a tree, and were given the choice of torture and release or certain death. All three chose torture. The first cowboy was taken back by himself and asked what his favorite fruit was. He said Apples. His torture was that he must stick 5 apples in his bum or they would kill him. he managed one and was killed after giving up. As the first cowboy waited in heaven for his other pals, the second cowboy shot up into heaven laughing like he never had before. The first cowboy asked "aw shoot, they got you too?!" the second nodded, but was still crying from laughter. "Whats so funny?! We both just got killed!" The second cowboy reported that the Third had chosen Pineapples.

What do you call a nosy pepper? Jalapeno bid'ness