Daniel2020

Joseph Smith never governed?What was he doing when he was mayor of Nauvoo? Or the commanding general of the Nauvoo Legion?

Yes. That is what being subject to, as well as supporting and obeying, the law of the land is all about.------------ You seem to have a big hang-up on taxes. You go so far as to call it theft when you are taxed for the benefit of others. Frankly, I think you're hiding behind a convenient philosophy that allows you to justify being greedy and selfish. Your attitude does not fit with the second great commandment: To love your neighbor as yourself. I doubt you would have made it as a First Century Christian when they had all things in common. It might be well for you to ponder on the second great commandment. Also the message and circumstances when Christ said, "Render under Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is Gods."

By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them. (D&C 58:43)The fact that a person forsook a sin years ago does not necessarily mean his/her repentance is complete. Some sins must be confessed to the proper priesthood authority before repentance can be complete. In my mission an interview by the mission president would still have been required even if a great grandmother had been a lesbian. Partly that is because of the seriousness of the sin and partly because often it is best that such things be handled by somebody more experienced than the average district leader. Regarding the sin of abortion, apostasy, homosexuality, a major felony, etc. that fact that it occurred 20 years ago does not change its seriousness. It is necessary for a person to truly understand the gravity of the sin to be able to repent of it. Sadly, some people think that if it happened long ago it is no longer a grievous sin. So it is wise to have the interview conducted by somebody like a mission president to be sure the true nature of the sin is understood--otherwise repentance isn't complete. There is something else to consider. When a person is baptized he/she needs to feel that his/her sins were "washed away" at baptism. So it is prudent for a person who has committed a grievous sin to have the baptismal interview conducted by somebody more experienced than the average district leader.

It depends on the mission and the transgression. Back when I was on my mission, a missionary interviewing a person who had an abortion; committed a felony; had a (prior) homosexual relationship; or committed some other serious violation of the law of chastity such as bestiality, sadism, etc. would have needed an interview by the mission president to be baptized. The same would apply to some other situations. Such as a person who had been a member of an apostate church.

Pam, I appreciate it if you--and others-- would responsd to my question: Let's change things a little bit. Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful? That the person was born that way? That we should lay off branding such a person as a sinner?

Let's change things a little bit. Suppose somebody has a strong desire to have sex with a young child (but doesn't act on the desire). Are you saying that such a desire isn't sinful? That the person was born that way? That we should lay off branding such a person as a sinner?Yes, I'm serious in asking all you politically correct people to respond.

Not that I know of. Could you be more specific?

While President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball taught that no one is born homosexual. I realize that's no longer politically correct, but I believe it was true when he taught it...and that it's still true today. Like President Spencer W. Kimball?

In other words--contrary to the scriptures--you don't believe in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates." Nor do you believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Perhaps. If I knew what I did I probably wouldn't have done it.

There aren't enough goals scored to make soccer exciting to most Americans.Most of a soccer game consists of guys kicking a ball up and down a field without scoring any points. Most Americans find that boring.

Again, I prefer to seek answers from the cannon of scriptures. The scriptures are pretty explicit that a man lusting after another man is committing a sin. (To sin in this matter it is not necessary to engage in a homosexual act as the act of a man being attracted to another man is an unclean, unholy act of lust and evil concupiscence.) The scriptures say: …we should not lust after evil things… (1 Corinthians10:6) Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, ...For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: (Colossians 3:5-6) Not in the lust of concupiscence...For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. (1 Thessalonians 4:5,7) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, …unholy, Without natural affection, (2 Timothy 3:1 - 3) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; …they which commit such things are worthy of death, (Romans 1:27 - 32) ------------ Once again: Passions, appetites, desires, etc. should be kept within boundaries the Lord has set. A same sex attraction is totally outside the boundaries the Lord has set.

The arousal of a man for a woman, and woman for a man, is part of God’s plan of courtship and marriage. That is not true for any degree of same sex attraction—making same sex attraction a totally unholy, unrighteous sexual desire.Passions, appetites, desires, etc. should be kept within boundaries the Lord has set. A same sex attraction is totally outside the boundaries the Lord has set.

As I read the scriptures having a same sex attraction is breaking the laws of God. (See my following posts.) A same sex attraction is completely incompatible with God's plan of eternal marriage--making it an unholy, unrighteous desire.

Withholding information isn't lying. Unless it creates a deception.

Throughout the ages the Lord has selected different forms of government at different times for his people. For example, the Lord gave both ancient Israel and the later Nephities a political system in which they were governed by judges. He’s given the people of this land their own form of government. As the Lord said: And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:80) Anarchy (in all it's "flavors" is fundamentally the absence of law and government where ever man does as he sees fit) is a form of government. It is not the constitutional form of government the Lord has selected for us in this era; advocating anarchy goes against the will of the Lord. The Lord’s position regarding government and the rule of law is well explained in the 12th Article of Faith. It states: We believe in being subject to kings, magistrates and rulers. We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land.

Why not seek answers to such questions from the cannon of scripture? The scriptures make it very clear that gays (the effeminate) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Here's what the apostle Paul said; it's been canonized: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (1 Corinthians 6:9) Note well the scriptures speaks both of the homosexual act (abusers of themselves with mankind) and the state of being homosexual (the effeminate) as being things that prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of God. Here’s the principle that teaches us why: 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30) Before condemning what I posted you might reflect on: …Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth...the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness…(2 Nephi 9:40)

Wrong. Being gay is a sin--and it's time people stop sugar-coating this. Contrary to the title of this thread, you can't be gay and clean. Think about it: If you were suppressing an urge to offer a human sacrifice to the ancient idol Moloch would you be clean? Would you be worthy to enter God's presence? Being infatuated with somebody of the same sex, falling in love with somebody of the same sex, having a boyfriend/girlfriend of the same sex, etc. is immoral. Even if you don't engage in sexual activity such things are sexually perverted--and very contrary to God's plan for courtship and eternal marriage.

4th of July activities are secular activities. Participating in secular activities on a Sunday is not the way to keep the Sabbath Day holy. (They take a person away from--instead of facilitating--rest and worship, the proper Sabbath activities.) Furthermore, I go to Church to worship God. It upsets me when others--under the guise of patriotism--use Church services to honor and preach about something other than the Gospel of Christ.

For most people in the US it is a non-event. However, I'm sure those who are interested will appreciate your post.

First, pornography is sinful and evil. But it is no where near as sinful and evil as either fornication or adultery. (Adultery is the sin a married person commits by breaking his/her vow of chastity.) Second, as others have pointed out, are you sure this isn't spam? Or something out of a repentant past? More importantly, are you sure your husband is actually reading/viewing this stuff? (I said reading/viewing, not clicking on e-mails without knowing what they really contain. I think we're all deceived on occasion about the true content of an e-mail.) For what it is worth, periodically I receive spam for all sorts of things including pornography and dating services. I don't know why as I've never belonged to a dating service nor do I patronize pornographic websites.

This passage is often misunderstood. It's referring to the Melchizedek priesthood, not to Melchizedek himself. Do you really think Paul was saying Melchizedek was a person without a birth and death? Or that he didn't have a father, ancestors, etc? Paul is contrasting the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood. Linage determined who could and could not hold the Aaronic priesthood (descendants of Aaron and the tribe of Levi). In contrast, there is no linage requirement to who can hold the higher, Melchizedek priesthood. ----------- For those who think Paul didn't write Hebrews substitute "the author of Hebrews" for Paul. I realize the language of Hebrews differs from that of Paul's other epistles. I think Joseph Smith was correct in saying Paul wrote Hebrews. I also think Paul used an amanuensis in writing Hebrews; my bet is Luke was Paul's scribe/transcriber.

This passage is often misunderstood. It's referring to the Melchizedek priesthood, not to Melchizedek himself. Do you really think Paul was saying Melchizedek was a person without a birth and death? Or that he didn't have a father, ancestors, etc? Paul is contrasting the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood. Linage determined who could and could not hold the Aaronic priesthood (descendants of Aaron and the tribe of Levi). In contrast, there is no linage requirement to who can hold the higher, Melchizedek priesthood. He does this to show that now that they are living under the Melchizedek priesthood--not the Aaronic priesthood--they no longer have to observe the Law of Moses.

Does socialism lead to a decline in religion? No. Just look at First Century Christians in both the Old World and New World who "had all things in common." What leads to a decline in religion today is the culture of 20th/21st Century. BTW, speaking as one with a MBA the true meaning of words such as socialism and communism are not well understood by many in the Church. A "Zion people" who have "all things in common," a people who are living the United Order, etc. are practicing economic socialism, economic communism, etc. Call it what you will its common denominator is the de facto communal ownership of goods and services where the "haves" support the "have nots."

An unsolicited comment: It would seem that a couple that can have a rational discussion about tithing should be able to reconcile their marital differences.