Daniel2020

Petting (like making out) isn't in the same category as fornication and adultery, but it's something you should probably discuss with the Bishop. If for no other reason than by the time you starting petting you're getting very close to committing fornication and talking with your Bishop will hopefully help you get things under control before something more serious does happen.

If only perfect people could attend the temple there wouldn't be any proxy work done is this life. Some sins disqualify a person from receiving a temple recommend while others don't. Lay praying, for example, doesn't while smoking does.

Making out isn't as serious as fornication. When I was a Bishop this wasn't something I required (young) people to confess before partaking of the sacrament, etc. But it was something I asked about and counseled against. Normally people don't go to a Bishop to confess they've been "making out." But--for reasons well explained above--it isn't something you should be doing. (And if you continue in this behavior the chances are you will do something that you will need to confess to your Bishop.)

An excellent insight! Thanks for the post.I have a Bible with four columns and each column contains a different translation. I've found it most helpful.

True story, believe it or not: I once lived in a Ward (this was prior to the 1972 Bulletin referenced above) where the Bishop denied temple recommends to those imbibing Cola Drinks. He also denied a mission call to a priest for drinking Coke. The priest wrote a letter to David O. McKay. Who then was president of the Church. President McKay responded by telling the Bishop such questions should not be asked in worthiness interviews. He also told the priest that in his personal opinion it was best not to partake of drinks containing caffeine. When I was in the SLC Mission Home we were told that if while proselyting we were offered a choice between a caffeinated drink and a non-caffeinated drink we should choose the non-caffeinated drink. But if our contacts only offered us a caffeinated drink we should partake. We were told the reason was the Church did not want to create the impression in the mind of our investigators that partaking of cola drinks was against the Word of Wisdom. (As I've said elsewhere, I'm now an old man. Perhaps things have changed in the decades following my mission. After all, back then missionaries were ordained by General Authorities and interviewed annually by a General Authority.)

I'd rather not go off topic by quibbling over words, but since the statement regarding Cola drinks was intended by the General Authorities to clarify the Word of Wisdom--which is clearly a doctrine--I called it doctrine. I take very seriously anything that appears in the Church Handbook of Instructions, a Priesthood Bulletin (which is a supplement to the Church Handbook of Instructions) and/or a letter from the First Presidency that is read in Sacrament Meeting. Because such things are intended by the General Authorities (speaking as one) to covey the Church's official position on a subject. I take less seriously something in a publication like the Ensign, teacher's manual, etc. While such things clearly help us learn about the Gospel, they are usually the product of a single author who often is not a General Authority. For me, these publications just don't carry the same weight as something issued by all the General Authorities speaking as one for the express purpose of stating the Church's doctrine/position on a given issue.

A Jew, Hindu, and Mormon while traveling together were in need of accommodations for the night. They spied a farm and decided they would ask to spend the night. The farmer agreed to put them up for the night, but said one of them had to sleep in the barn because he only had room for two visitors in the house. The Jew volunteered to sleep in the barn. A few minutes later there was a knock on the farmer's door. When the farmer answered the knock the Jew was standing outside. The Jew explained he couldn't sleep in the barn because it contained a pig. The Hindu then offered to sleep in the barn. A few minutes later there was a knock on the farmer's door. When the farmer answered the knock the Hindu was standing outside. The Hindu explained he couldn't sleep in the barn because it contained a cow. The Mormon then offered to sleep in the barn. A few minutes later there was a knock on the farmer's door. When the farmer answered the knock the pig and cow were standing outside. They explained they couldn't sleep in the barn because it contained a Mormon.

As I've posted elsewhere, I'm an old curmudgeon with a long memory. While--to some--what follows may be part of ancient history I think it (just like D&C 89) continues to express Church doctrine: The Priesthood Bulletin of February 1972 (volume 8, number 1) states, "There has been no official interpretation of the Word of Wisdom except that which was given by the Brethren in the very early days of the Church when it was declared that ‘hot drinks’ meant tea and coffee." "With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided." (Clifford J. Stratton, "Caffeine--The Subtle Addiction," Ensign, June 1988, p. 60.)

I'm an old curmudgeon who has lived a long life; I've held a lot of callings and have a long memory. Church policy has swung back and forth on this issue--and other issues--during my life time. There have been times parents have been encouraged to have babies blessed at home. There have been times it has been discouraged. There have been times a father who is a non-member or a non-Melchizedek priesthood holder was permitted (even encouraged) to hold the baby while the child was being blessed. At other times this has not been allowed. It reminds me of the Church's position on marriages being performed in the chapel. At times it has been permitted and other times not allowed. ------------ Having been both a membership clerk and a Bishop I can tell you many stories of somebody blessing a child at home and forgetting to take the proper steps to have the blessing recorded. Or of children who had to be blessed again because when the child was blessed at home the ordinance was performed by a father, grandfather, etc. who did not hold the Melchizedek priesthood. (I even know of a case where the blessing was given by a mother who was an ardent feminist.) For these reasons I think it is preferable to have children blessed in Sacrament Meeting. BTW, the Bishop is supposed to authorize a child receiving a blessing that will created a Church record before the ordinance is performed, be it in a Sacrament Meeting or at home. Sadly, this is often ignored when a baby is blessed at home--resulting in the problems I listed above.

I was eight when my father graduated from law school. He quit a job and moved to another state where he could attend law school at night. (Not as easy back then as it is today.) My mother was a stay-at-home mom with two kids. I don't know how my father was able to support a family and go to law school simultaneously, but somehow he did it. (He passed the bar number eight.) Yes, we did without during those years, and, yes, it payed off in the long run. Financially and spiritually. (There's nothing like struggling to help you turn to the Lord.)

"Christian solutions" seldom work with those willing to break the law. We are, after all, living in the Lone and Dreary World; the Telestial Kingdom will be a step up.

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I've had way too many problems with hotmail to ever again use anything associated with it. Too bad you didn't pick something else, like Google's Gmail or Yahoo's e-mail. They offer more features and, in my experience, fewer headaches. (An account without hotmail's headaches and with Yahoo's calendar, notepad, etc. would be very useful.)

Patriotism = love for or devotion to one's country. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) Nationalism = loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. [Emphasis mine.] (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) Militarism = predominance of the military class or its ideals; exaltation of military virtues and ideals; a policy of aggressive military preparedness. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) --------------------- Most of what I’m reading above is nationalism, not patriotism. Many or most nationalists are also militarists. Nationalists and militarists always hide behind patriotism. (Oppose a war—any war—and watch them label you as being unpatriotic.) If you love and are devoted to more than one city nobody feels offended or threatened. Except sports fanatics who, at a local level, behave like nationalists do on the international level. There is nothing any more incompatible with loving and feeling devoted to more than one nation than there is to having those feelings for more than one city—unless you are nationalist. Again, nationalism is “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests.” A patriotic member of Nation A would not be offended, threatened, etc. by somebody flying the flag of Nation B on the independence day of Nation A. But a nationalist (and/or militarist) would because, once again, at its core nationalism is “exalting one nation above all others,” not just feeling "love for or devotion to one's country."

Nobody's perfect!:)

Coffee ice cream isn't something I'd consume. To me the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is that one shouldn't partake of coffee for pleasure. The manner in which coffee is consumed is inconsequential in terms of it being a forbidden substance. It doesn't matter if you smoke tobacco, chew tobacco, or inhale tobacco as snuff you are violating the Word of Wisdom if you use tobacco for pleasure. Why should the manner in which one consumes coffee for pleasure be different?

I see breast augmentation surgery as being vain. I don't see it as being sinful or immodest per se. I have, however, seen women dress immodestly after having breast augmentation surgery. Presumably these women find having the surgery pointless if they can't show off the results.

Do you have any evidence supporting your statement, "there is nothing green tea is going to do for you as far as health benefits that can't be accomplished with something else?" Or is this a knee-jerk reaction because drinking green tea for pleasure violates the Word of Wisdom?In the Word of Wisdom the Lord gave an example of how tobacco could be used medicinally (in the treatment of animals). Thus it seems clear to me that substances man is not supposed to use pleasure may be used medicinally. Today nicotine is used to treat Parkinson's Disease and other diseases. (For clinical information, among others, you could contact Colleen McBride, director of the cancer prevention, detection and control program at Duke University Medical Center.) I wouldn't use something containing codeine because I enjoyed it just as I wouldn't drink a beverage containing green tea because I enjoyed it, nor would I smoke tobacco. (Because I want to keep the Word of Wisdom and such acts violate the Word of Wisdom.) However, if a physician prescribed medication containing codeine I'd take it. The same principle would govern my use of nicotine and green tea (as an active medicinal ingredient). There is a significant difference between using a substance medicinally and using a substance for pleasure. A close examination of the Word of Wisdom indicates the Lord approves of the medicinal use of substances he has forbidden us to use for physical pleasure. As always, there is a major difference between the Spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law.

Congratulations!

We're taught that all things were created spiritually before they were physically. If that's correct then it stands to reason that in heaven there are flutes, harps, bagpipes, and all the other musical instruments known to mortal man.

Would you kindly point me the "scientific research" that has established a significant difference in the genes, chromosomes, etc. of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus far only "scientific research" that anyone I've seen relates to behavioral--not fundamental biological--differences. I'm asking for "scientific proof" that homosexuals are born that way--and that homosexuality is not a learned behavior.---------- Back when I took geology in college "scientific research" said we were entering a mini ice age; now it says were in an era of global warming. Also only religious fanatics believe in plate tectonics--there was lots of "scientific research proving plate tectonics wrong. So forgive me when I say that I don't consider "scientific research" capable of answering these questions. Nor do I think it is able to establish what is morally right and wrong.

Pam, Soulsearch, Wingnut, et al.: If you are willing to agree that: 1. Pedophiles are born that way 2. Pedophiles don't sin until they act upon they're (perverted) desires Then your (reciprocal) arguments about homosexuality will carry a lot of weight with me. But if you maintain they don't apply to all sins then I'll consider my case proved that the argument that homosexual don't sin unless they act on their desire is nothing more than political correctness in disguise.

Like what? (Other than teaching that are no longer politically correct.)

Yes it does. Because if what your saying is really true then it applies to all sins. Not just to politically correct sins such as homosexuality.

So why do we bother reading the words of dead prophets and apostles contained in the scriptures? The answer is: truth is eternal.

I think you're confusing loving your neighbor with condoning sin. They're actually very different. (I know you won't believe me when I say I have a friend who is homosexual, but it's true. It's also true that I don't pull any punches when asked what is--and is not--a sin.) Additionally I don't think you understand what is meant by loving the sinner, but hating the sin.--------------- And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent. (D&C 1:27) Somehow I get the idea this scripture expresses an attitude you dislike.