Mamas_Girl

Hopefully this works. Deseret News : Search Results if not go to the Harold B Lee online library HBLL Online Collections : Advanced Search and search Johnston army and limit it to Deseret News 1, 2, 3. And you should get several pages worth of the paper that you can read for yourself.

Been there, done that -- 25 years instead of a total of 21, but... I really don't recommend it. Seriously. No discipline? You'll be free? Take it from one who's been there, there is no greater punishment than what we put ourselves through. And no harsher judge, jury and executioner than we are to ourselves -- not repenting of sins can be a prison all its own. I carried an elephant around on my shoulders for 25 years, and then went in to my bishop. After talking to him I could feel the weight being lifted off my shoulders, literally. It leaves me wondering why I waited all those years. The joy and happiness of being set free by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ is true freedom, nothing delivers the joy and happiness that it does. But you have to do what's right for you, I can only share my own experiences.

Thanks, all good answers.

As one in your shoes let me ask a few questions. I've toyed over the last few years between being LDS, agnostic, or atheist. I had fallen away from the church for a while and couldn't decide which of the three I was. The one thing I did learn was one cannot be LDS and agnostic or LDS and atheist at the same time. You need to pick one and do it right. Having lived with an agnostic husband for about 15 years (now an atheist for about 5 years), I have to ask, You said, "I cannot ever be more than agnostic about God in this life." And yet you're considering marrying this girl in the temple. So my questions: Does your girlfriend love you just the way you are, right now? Is she okay with your being an atheist? Would she marry you even if you didn't convert to being LDS? You said you love her enough you don't want her to give up anything "especially something as doctrinally important as being sealed in the temple- to be with me." What is her take on this? Does she want you to do something you don't believe in? Will she feel guilt about this in the future? The reason people want to be married in the temple is that they're sealed for time and all eternity. The problem is, if one is either agnostic or atheist then they're not going to be going to the highest level of the celestial kingdom, which is where you're girlfriend wants to be with you. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it required to enter the temple for men to be holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood? Your wife would probably expect you to bless your children when they're infants, and give blessings when they're ill. What if you're given a calling? Will you serve? As I said, I'm LDS and my husband is atheist. When we were married my testimony was less, and he was agnostic. Now I'm stronger in the church than I've ever been and he's gone the extreme too, he's now atheist. We loved each other for who we were before we got married. We didn't expect either one to change for the other. If it happened great, if not well... that was fine too, and here we are still married after all these years. The point is, there's a lot more serious stuff that you need to think about than just how science fits into the LDS church. What's gonna happen when years down the road the "logical fallacies" just become too much and the "honey do" era is over? Are you going to remain strong in the church? If not, how's that going to effect your wife and now children? I don't mean to sound like I'm rude, but you're in a "honey do" phase right now where she can do no wrong, and all you wanna do is "do" things for her. I respect that, but these are questions you're gonna have to consider before making the jump. Ah, but it does. You'll be giving up your freedom to just be you. If you're anything less than a believer you're living a lie, and there goes your freedom. Most atheists don't really like religious people to pray for them, but I have a feeling that you want us to, so I will. I hope something out of all this helps, but I'd just be careful that you understand what it is that she wants. Converting for someone else seldom lasts, so to thine own self be true!

One of two things must happen. First you gain a testimony of the reality of God, or second you accept that you're atheist and hope she'll do the same. You cannot be atheist and LDS at the same time. FWIW, I'm LDS and married to an atheist, and have been for over 20 years. We agree to disagree on the topic of religion (more particularly "faith"). My husband's been through the missionary discussions twice, and attended church (all three sessions) for over a year with me, but he never got the witness of the Spirit necessary for him to believe that God is real, and without that well... baptism is just a lie, temple marriage is a mockery, etc. You can be baptised and hope that you'll gain a testimony over time, but that's risky. And to be baptised you must as Dravin said, tell the interviewer that you believe that God is our Heavenly Father, and that Jesus is his Son, and the redeemer of the world. That may be a bit difficult for you. My husband tries his best to support me in my belief (though it's not easy for him, since it means I have faith in an unseen being for whom there is no scientific evidence), and he encourages me to participate in church socials and such. Is there any chance that your lady would be willing to marry you even if you remain atheist? Are the two of you willing to take a chance that maybe if you're married, a few years down the road you'll gain the necessary testimony? But what if you don't? It's not just converting (being baptized), but she'll expect you to attend church with her, she'll expect you to be ordained to the priesthood, and then you'll be expected to give priesthood blessings. And of course she'll expect you to go to the temple with her too, to be sealed for time and all eternity, and make covenants with a God you do not believe in. So I would encourage you to think seriously about this committment, because it's more than just saying you accept God, it's an eternal committment.

There are some areas in the church where science is more accepted than others. Members of university campus wards tend to be the most liberal and accepting; while members of small rural branches can be a bit more conservative, and a little more resistant to the sciences that challenge their belief. But even in the smaller rural branches you can usually find members who see overwhelming evidence for evolution, or the Big Bang, etc. I used to be a literalist, believing everything in the Bible without a doubt. Now I believe a lot of what the Bible teaches are more stories of faith and obedience than a science text book. The more I've been looking into archealogy of the Bible, Darwin, and other things, the more I'm learning that there is room for both religion (based on faith) and science (based on evidence of the senses). There used to be a great e-list that has either disbanded or changed servers called Eyring-L. It was a list for LDS who believed in science. It was a great group with great people, and we discussed numerous things from the Big Bang theory, Darwin, the Word of Wisdom, and so much more. I know one of the fellas passed away, and the list sort of followed suit (no offense meant). I wish we had something like that again. Anyone know if the e-list still exists on another server or anything?

Well, sometimes we just have to admit that we don't know everything. I personally do not believe every word of the Bible to be literal, so what science says doesn't affect me as much as it might some others. Relgion has been forced to change their beliefs before when it was proven that the earth was round and not flat. A lot of people like to base their faith on evidence, but yet the scriptures tell us that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Science is sense, in other words you can see, feel, touch, smell, and hear things and thus know with a certainty that these things are true. One can travel to Egypt, Rome or the Reed Sea and know that the places are real. Faith on the other hand is a witness of the Holy Ghost in something that can't be seen, and is often seen as illogical by those not of the faith. Take, for example, the miracles performed by Jesus in the Bible. There seems to be enough evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but there is no scientific evidence that he performed the miracles that he's credited with in the Bible. So how do we, as Christians, know that he actually performed them? Or that he was even the Son of God? By faith -- a testimony by the Holy Ghost. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is well over 6000 years old, and that man evolved rather than being literally created from the dust of the earth. Does this shake my faith? Not at all. I believe that God wanted the Bible to be more of a story of faith and trust in him, than he did a science manual spelled out to the nth degree. We're told, in fact, to study the sciences and all things in, on and above the earth. Almost nightly, on the news, we see Darwin's work in effect with how things change to survive. Of course I'm talking about cancer cells and how the news lately has been that some cells have become resistent to treatments and that scientists are working on more aggressive individualized treatments. As man progresses in his understanding of medicine, diseases evolve to resist eradication. I think most religious people would find this use of science to be very beneficial, but if we're going to accept that cells can evolve, then soon we're gonna be forced to accept that species can evolve as well. We cannot use science only when it is convenient to our faith. Just my two cents worth.

Well, Exodus 20:12 tells us that we're to "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." So if the church holds three meetings on Sunday, I'd assume that we should attend all three. I guess one thing to think about is, what are you doing if you're not in church? Are you still keeping the Sabbath holy? According to D&C 20:75 the Lord says it is "expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;" it then goes into the sacramental prayers. These prayers are a renewal of the covenant that we make at baptism, that members are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he has given them;" and then the blessing we receive in return is that "they may always have his Spirit to be with them." I mean, this sounds to me like sacrament is at least very strongly recommended, if not commanded. I know there are circumstances where some members have to work, or whatever and cannot attend each week, and I'm sure the Lord has this taken care of. Of course the other two hours worth of classes are a chance for the Saints to get together and discuss in an open format the scriptures, or the words of our church leaders. Each brother and/or sister has something to offer in these classes. We're all unique in the gospel, with various experiences or thoughts, and they add to the classes. But whether we're actually *commanded* to attend all three -- I don't know.

I was just about to say the same thing based on Elder Packer and Elder Talmadge's books. :) The Temple is the literal House of God, so no Satan cannot enter therein. The thoughts we may have in there are brought in with us, we are still the same people with the same thought process whether in the temple or on the street. Satan would not be welcomed by the Master of the house, nor would he feel comfortable there.

Does she know you've even been investigating the church? I'd find a way to gently tell her, and explain to her what prompted you to join the LDS. I'd not keep it a secret even for a short while as this is a very important step in your relationship, and you don't want her questioning why you didn't tell her in the first place. You say you guys are open about everything, so I'm betting that the Lord will find a way for you to insert this news into a conversation. You betcha!

I'll show my age a little, anything by the Ray Conniff Singers! Especially Silver Bells. I close my eyes and listen, and I'm transported back to my youth. Who says we can't turn back time, even for a few brief minutes.

Again, this is going to come off sounding rude, but I'm just going to throw this out there. I think one thing that you have to keep in mind is that you've said you've been investigating the church on and off for the past couple of years, you've been resisting baptism up till now... and now you want to but you can't cause mom's ill, and it'll be too difficult on her. May I ask why you feel being baptized would be difficult on your mom and cause a bunch of problems but it won't when she's better? It's been my experience that if it's a problem when they're ill, it's no better when they're well, and I'm wondering if your missionaries have run across the same findings. You really should have a mentor within the branch that you can turn to with questions and concerns. What worries me to some extent is that you say when the missionaries quit coming you lost the initiative to search and study on your own. How do you expect this to change when you're baptized and the missionaries have to move on? As far as attendence sheets: most churches that I've attended (non-LDS) have attendence sheets. I used to attend the Methodist church (born and raised) and every week during the service there was a clipboard with a paper on it at the end of the row that was passed down. We put our name on it and whether or not we were local, a visitor, a member, or a member of another denomination (and if so, which one). We did this in Sunday School as well. So I never saw this as anything odd or unusual. Signing the attendence sheet is important as the difference between a branch and a ward is numbers. The church keeps track of how many people attend each week, and if they hit a certain number for so many weeks then the branch can become a ward. When it becomes a ward it gets some benefits like a new building or new wings added onto the existing building. Right now I attend a ward, but we're trying to reach a certain number so we can have a full gymnasium, instead of just a half of one, and I think there are other rooms and such that are added as well. I've never found that people are all that concerned with a person's non-attendence. Sometimes we'll ask if there's anyone who's sick or afflicted, not so much to barge in on them, but to keep them in our prayers. I came back about 6 months ago after being inactive for 25 years. No one asked me why I was gone, or what I was doing. I was contacted only once by my bishop to be told that the branch had just been made a ward and they were holding a special service if I was interested in coming. I didn't. No one asked why. It may be different in other places, but I've lived all across the US and served my mission in 8 different areas, and I don't find they're too concerned. I don't mean to be blunt here, but are you sure you're ready for baptism? I mean you really do need to attend regularly in order to receive the blessings of church membership. Yeah, you'll get asked about attendence when you go to get your temple recommend. The branch president and stake president will both ask you if you've been attending church regularly, and if not, why? Great! Look forward to helping you.

Actually, you are correct. Senior moment there, that's why the missionaries keep asking members if we know people who might be interested. I stand corrected, not the first time, or the last I'm sure.

Have you tried talking to the Elders' Quorum President? He'd be sort of the equivelent of a ward mission leader. Also, don't sell those Returned Missionaries (RM) short. Have you gotten to know them? Usually they'd be more than happy to have the blessings of visiting with someone who's interested in the church. Many of us here are RMs and wouldn't mind talking gospel doctrine, if you have questions that you want answered. People join the church from all walks of life. World-wide have members who run multi-million dollar companies, there are doctors, lawyers, students and those who are on welfare, and everything in between. I think a lot depends upon the socio-economic area in which a person lives. When I lived in a previous branch that was in heavy coal and timber country, we had more miners, when I lived in a student ward we had more analytical and scientific minded individuals, etc. When one lives in an area where the economy has been really hit hard it's difficult to always stay upbeat and positive. Mormons should be the happiest people on earth, or so I've been told. But we're also human and as such occasionally suffer like other people. You have to understand the purpose of missionary work -- In Matthew 28:19 the Savior said: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..." So yes, obviously baptism is the main goal of missionary work. As s_i_f said, the adversary will work harder on one trying to find the truth than he will on those who plain aren't interested. Oftentimes, like in my own situation, I had to give up my siblings to join the church because I knew the church was true, and they refused to accept my becoming LDS. It was the best move I ever made, and my siblings are slowly re-friending me as time passes, but there was no guarantee that would happen. There comes a fine line sometimes regarding at what point the missionaries need to move on, and apparently you've been taught the lessons at least once, maybe twice (IIRC), and you've been attending church... You are really now under the stewardship of the branch president and the various branch leaders. Try going back to the branch president and telling him what you said here. I don't know what you said to him, but ask him why he lectured you in a non-productive way. Explain to him how that made you feel. Seriously I don't want this to sound mean or anything, I'm just trying to help you figure things out by trying to explain things from the other point of view. I don't know if any of this helped, please don't take offense as none is intended. I know it's hard to read the emotions when not talking face to face.

Have you tried talking to your bishop, or home teachers? If you've talked to your wife and she won't do it, they may be your next best step.

I will not support a musical like the Book of Mormon. If you look at the lyrics it's far worse than one can imagine. I found them by simply Googling "Book of Mormon" musical lyrics and they are extremely offensive. The Deseret News ran an article about the movie which told of the profanity: Just looking at the lyrics -- a WOW yeah. It's bad!

If you're serious about the church, I agree. You need to continue attending church services, and getting home teachers who can help answer questions and fellowship you into the church. Missionaries come and go, but the branch/ward members are typically there for the long haul. Keep attending the investigator classes, if you wish. People like the bishop, ward mission leader, relief society president, etc are just as qualified, if not more so, to answer some of your more advanced or complicated questions, and it will give you a chance to bond with those who will be there with you years down the road. Your ward can also be responsible for your baptism, you do not need the missionaries for that either. :)

If you read the secession clauses you will see that the South was the one who started the war over slavery, not the North which is a common misconception. South Carolina actually makes that point quite clear in her own Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. Declaration of Causes of Secession South Carolina. Note that South Carolina cites the usual "frequent violations of the Constitution by the US, and the central governments encroachments upon states rights. But then she goes on to describe what lead to this conclusion. And the reasons are basically (numbers and paragraphs are my own, but the words are original, some text has been left out between them, but the whole text can be found at the link given above): Initially it appears as though the prophecy only stated that South Carolina would secede, it does not give a reason. It wasn't until Section 130 that the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed that it "may probably arise through the slave question." One thing that is interesting is just about the time that Joseph Smith reaffirmed his prophecy was the time that the southern portions of the Methodist (1844) and Baptist (1845) churches broke off over the issue of slavery. So the slavery issue was heating up, not dying down.

So my husband (non-member) and I were discussing D&C 87, and he said he would have been really impressed had he lived in the 1860s to see what was happening. But, he asked, what's up with the rest of the prophecy? Sure the South called on Great Britian, and other countries, but they didn't join in. Where do we go from say the middle of verse 3 to the end? Thanks!

maiku, What I disagreed with in your initial post was that it took science 100 years to catch up and confirm that truth. No, I'm saying that the revelation and science were moving along in tandem. Most doctors (or men of science) in the first half of the 19th century taught the evils of tobacco, though it was still used by many as a medicine to treat various diseases. I'm just saying that scientific magazines of the era, along with many laymen were beginning to really understand the effect of tobacco on the body, but the problem was the same as today -- addiction. My apologies, I didn't realize that Joseph reaffirmed his statement on the war. One thing that's interesting to note is that John C Calhoun, who was that noisy South Carolinian during the first attempt for the state to secede, decided in March of 1843 to resign from the US Senate and throw his hat into the ring for the presidency, Calhoun was well-known as a pro-slavery advocate. Could this have moved the Prophet to reaffirming his previous statement on the war? Could be, but by summer Calhoun withdrew his bid. None the less the point as we've been saying all along is simply that things were going on and the prophet went to the Lord on these matters and received divine inspiration. I also find it interesting to note that Joseph apparently wasn't 100% sure in the second revelation as he says it "may probably arise through the slave question." v 13 But still I think our point's the same. If we're looking for evidence, it's there.

Actually, the church was on the cutting edge of this movement, but they were not the first to suggest the dangers and abstinence from tobacco. Doctors/Science were already agreeing that the use of tobacco was bad. The Journal of Health, 1831, was just one of several medical dissertations of the time that went into detail about the evils of alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful substances. True, but look at the date of that revelation, December 1832. It was only a month earlier that South Carolina had attempted to secede from the Union, though over tariffs, not slavery. But the issue of slavery was heating up, no doubt. In 1820 the Georgia governor talked about how the southern states would secede over the issue of slavery, and even gave an accurate account of which ones! No surprise really since they were all states still maintaining slavery. So you ask, am I saying that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet of God, or that these were not revelations received from God? Of course not. Prophets are on earth to help us through the events that are important to our own time and place, and to inform us of what is to come. So what if Joseph Smith got a copy of The Journal of Health and went to the Lord over the issue of the Word of Wisdom. So what if he knew that South Carolina was a tinderbox waiting to explode. The fact that it did, and it was over slavery, not the tariff is something right there. But this is why we need to know not only the revelations, but the time and place that these were occuring in. If you want to talk about evidence, there you have it. The nation was talking about these things, and the Lord answered through his prophet. I still think that these were amazing revelations. :)

Hi semodex, Jenamarie recommended that you get a book or two on the topic, may I recommend: The House of the Lord by Elder James E Talmage and You May Claim the Blessings of The Holy Temple by President Boyd K. Packer. I'm sure others have come out more recently, but these are two classics and are packed with information. I just saw where Jenamarie also mentioned talking to your bishop, and that's an excellent suggestion. I might also add that if you'd be more comfortable talking to a lady, talk to your Relief Society president -- I've seen that suggested a number of times for various things like this. As sister_in_faith said, it does get easier, really! :)

What makes you think that we don't look at outside evidence? You make it sound like there should be as much evidence proving the Book of Mormon as there is proving the Bible, but yet as I explained the BoM is only 181 years old, so it's research is still in it's infancy. While I don't get hung up in science I have read numerous books and such published by those who really are doing the research -- Drs. Sorenson and Nibley, among others. So, who would you recommend Latter-day Saints study who is currently (or has) doing "Book of Mormon" archeology in either Central or South America, since you seem to want to discredit what the Y and maybe the U have been doing down there? My feeling is that you're gonna be hard pressed to come up with the name of someone who's familiar enough with the Book of Mormon to know if they do come across something connecting it. But when you say that we need to look at outside evidence, does this mean that you have as well? Have you read An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by Dr. John Sorenson? If not, it's a great read. I had trouble putting it down. He does an outstanding job at laying out a very plausible location for each of the events in the Book of Mormon and maps it out. Still it is only one possibility, but if he's wrong, so what? Nope, convert here from the United Methodist Church. How bout you? Always been what you are? Ah, we're back to that, are we?

What about the scripture in Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Admittedly he was not the typical child, for he knew he was going about his Father's business. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on this one, it just occured to me and thought I'd throw it out there. I suppose I'm probably leaning on the side of he was progressing, but at a much higher rate than mere mortal children, for they do say that he was asking questions that astounded the people around him. Oops, I just saw this from Prisonchaplain: "Thus, he matured as a normal human child would, for he was fully human. Nevertheless, he was without sin." Huh? Ya lost me, he'd be half-human, right? The other half was God (the Father).

Also I just found the following from a conference talk by Elder James E Faust Nov. 1987 ?The Great Imitator? - Ensign Nov. 1987 - ensign In it he states: