JohnsonJones

And your statement is why there are many that have a problem with the story in regards to the LDS church. It's this idea that has hurt some individuals testimonies. The LDS church is, in fact seen as a cooperative entity with Nazi Germany. You can say you don't like history, or what it portrays, but that's the dice. The church did, in fact cooperate with the Nazis, and in fact DID benefit from it. Was that inspiration, revelation, or some other item? It would surely have suffered (and a certain favorite apostle of some may have never grown up to be an apostle) had they not done so. It was because of that complicit and cooperative nature which left the church somewhat intact to be effective after the Nazi's were gone. Your argument that he was going against the church's wishes is also something that hurts testimonies. How can a young man who chooses to do the RIGHT thing...doing wrong? I see it differently. He was excommunicated, and excommunication that the LDS church never nullified in and of itself. I think that shows the power of your church leaders, and how important it is to be righteous and reverent enough to do as the Lord would, instead of how we would. His leader probably also used that type of justification that you stated. However, the LDS church has also taught us to think for ourselves, to gain a testimony for ourselves. The LDS church stated that though they didn't nullify the excommunication (have they ever done this?), they did say the excommunication was done improperly and thus implied that his excommunication was NOT in line with what should have been done. He was rebaptized and all other ordinances in the temple. I see this as the LDS church showing their support for his decision. In this light though, the LDS church in Germany sided against their own member, when the member chose to do the right thing. Standing up to tyranny and evil, such evil as we saw in Germany, is NOT wrong. However, the LDS church in Germany at this time chose to side with the Nazi's rather than do anything to help Helmuth (where in prison he was bereft of even the simple civil rights of a warmth and decent food, and was open to abuse, when the church could have provided some of those things for him). Was it the right choice? I don't know. To this day, I couldn't tell you. I'd say they shouldn't have excommunicated him, and though he was, it was done improperly. Was it right to cooperate or be complicit in light of Nazi Germany's evil...I don't know. Luckily, I wasn't the prophet, that was a hard decision he had to make. Because of his (edit: to clarify, the prophets statements of what the saints in Germany were to do in regards to the Nazi's in power and the German government) decisions, the church existed in Germany after WWII, even behind the iron curtain. That, in itself, is a miracle that compounded on itself when the Temple was built. I prefer to see Helmuth's story as an inspiration for LDS individuals though, rather than something that is disparaging by showing things we can wonder about endlessly in regards to decisions that the LDS church had to make.

Matter of opinion. Hitler himself tried to distance himself from Mein Kampf in the mid 30s, though obviously some of his ideas remained. His own ideas were to take the Nationalistic tendencies of the right, but utilize them to forment the policies of communism from the left. In this, he commented that it was, in fact, living socialism. This is a society where all were provided with what they needed. It was a society where religion could ONLY say what he said it could say, and if they spoke against his commands, they were traitors. It was a society where you could only think as he would have you think, that if you wanted to think otherwise, it was against the laws of the state. He felt that normally, a communistic type government, that also had restrictive laws on what people could believe, what religion they could attend or have faith in and what that religion could even teach, and where people did not have freedom of press or other freedoms would not be possible in a normal society we see in the US today. (or elsewhere for that matter). However, infuse a degree of patriotism and nationalism, where people subdued their own desires because of their loyalty and love of their nation/state, and they would gladly work as hard as they could, and do what they could which in turn would enable this idea to work. IN essence, the STATE becomes the religion, and because of people's faith in it, they make it work. Sadly, in retrospect, it didn't work. Hitler got Germany better off by taking land from the jews and others, confiscating property, and then confiscating other nations and their wealth to prop up his socialistic government. Had he continued, without the continuous influx of resources, it is probable his state would have collapsed around the time Germany was defeated anyways...though some hypothesize he MIGHT have made it to the Mid-50s. Look at Venezuala and it's problems today for something slightly similar (though without the Jews being carted away, at least that we know of, and no warring on it's neighbors...it's still somewhat similar if one wants a comparison to the nationalism driving socialism idea).

When I first saw this, I felt I knew what they were referring to. I believe this individual is probably referring to an unfortunate event in which, yes, the LDS church did side with the Nazi's against it's own. They are probably referring to Helmuth Hubener. I do not believe in hiding history, or ignoring that it occurred. His is a story that one can read to hurt their testimony, or build it up. It is one that has made some doubt the LDS church because of what they did to him. He is a shining example of what type of leader the LDS church raises when it utilizes the Scouting program, and the type of individual which should be an inspiration. I'll summarize his story below. He was original in the Scouting program until the Nazi's took over and forced the youth to join the Hitler Youth. Helmeth found that many things that were being taught or done did not seem to be congruent with his LDS upbringing, nor the things that he had learned as a young man. He was not alone in this. There were several members that felt this way. However, the LDS church's policy has always been one more of neutrality rather than opposition to whatever government is in power or not in power. In this light, Heber J. Grant recommended LDS members to remain in Germany, to try to cooperate when needed with the appropriate authorities, and to not cause trouble. Helmeth, did not follow this counsel. In this light, however, the LDS church is seen as one of the organizations that cooperated with Nazi Germany at that time, and unlike other religions which were persecuted fiercely, avoided much of the persecution that others suffered. They are also not seen as standing up for what was good or right against a tyrannical government. That said, history can be unkind to those it leaves in it's wakes in how it sees the LDS church in this situation. Heber J. Grant and the Brethren may not have realized what was happening in Germany (and almost no one did in regards to the death camps, even many Germans, until after the War, and for many that did find out, they didn't find out till near the end of the war anyways). We cannot know how the church would have responded if they knew. Perhaps it would have been the same. As I said, though seen as cooperative with the Nazi Government (or as much as any organization that wasn't run by them, which meant that they still suffered somewhat), the saints did NOT suffer as grieviously as others. In this light, perhaps it was revelation to preserve the saints as much as possible and leave the church on firm ground that had this revelation come forth. Because of this, the church eventually was able to build temples and other things for those many saints that remained, and include us getting an apostle from there today. We may not have had that if the church had some other policy in place. I don't know, but the rest of the story of Helmuth is tragic. Helmuth supposedly lived in a ward where around 3/4 or more of the pro-Nazi supporters who were also LDS went to church. The leader of the church was one of those. Helmuth had gotten access to a radio via some friends, and could hear the BBC over it. He found out that the stories the German government told them, and what was told elsewhere were vastly different. With his background, he knew he could think critically. He did not have to follow blindly. This is something LDS leaders have taught us for decades, to find out for ourselves what the truth is rather than relying on the words of others. He went forth and decided that what was happening was wrong and wrote pamphlets trying to expose the truth. He was captured and placed in prison by the German government/Nazi's. Just listening to those broadcasts was considered treason (be glad we live in the US where we can listen to what we wish). Distributing pamphlets critical of the Nazi's was even worse. He was scheduled to be executed. He was stripped of being a citizen and human rights. During this time, Helmuth was promptly excommunicated by his church leader. In prison, he suffered from exposure to the cold elements without much comfort except the cold floor. He had little food. Excommunicated from the church with all that this meant, on the verge of being Excommunicated, he exclaimed "know that God lives and He will be the Just Judge in this matter… I look forward to seeing you in a better world!" Helmuth knew that the man who excommunicated him was very pro-Nazi, the very group he opposed. He still remained true to the faith, and had a testimony, despite all that seemed against it, of the truth and the gospel. He was beheaded, I think he is the youngest one accused of treason and being an enemy sympathizer that was killed for that at the age of 17. The LDS church came in four years later and said that the excommunication was done through improper channels. Helmuth never had the ability to attend the church court that excommunicated him, and it never was assembled at a higher level than the ward. That said, the LDS church did not nullify the excommunication either. Instead, they had him rebaptized, and his ordinances done. Because of this, it has angered people. Some feel that this indicates that the LDS church cannot be true because of their choices in the matter of Helmuth Hubener. I think this stance dishonors his memory. If anything, I personally believe (so this is a personal belief, not fact, or anything like that) that Helmuth would rather people know he still had a testimony, that he knew how the excommunication should have been done, and what his true stance with his Lord in heaven was. I feel he would rather people join the LDS church and remain faithful, even when all other abandon them like Job, and keep their testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. I think he recognized the difference between the gospel and what it teaches, and that of the choices of men, even leaders in the church occasionally...and that there IS a difference, especially with local leaders occasionally. I think Helmuth is an example of what we should be, and the testimony each of us needs to strive to attain. I see the story of Helmuth Hebener as someone who kept their testimony, even when all else was lost. He was one that took to heart that each of us needs to find and discern the truth, and choose the right no matter what the worldy cost, with the guarantee that our rewards in heaven will be given us and that the Lord is just, even if those of the world are not. I think his testimony at the end, that God lives and is the Just Judge, shows us that we each can have a testimony that transcends just the church and it's organization here on earth, but one that is of the true gospel of the Lord. As I said, I think this is probably the story and ideas which were referred to, and I can see how it can be taken the way it was expressed. I also see how it can also be a shining testimony to each of us to hold strong and NEVER lose the faith in the Lord and his path.

It can matter, but NOT in the instances you are talking about. However, that said, I think we may be on the same page though, as far as understanding out varied political views that don't conjoin with each other.

Okay, there is a LARGE Hispanic population which are related to the Lamanites who originally inhabited the Americas. They have skin tones which are NOT lily white as many who consider themselves white. I am aware there are whites who are also Hispanic, but we see those very rarely in our area. And yes, in this instance, his skin color DOES matter. Unless one is so racist they believe ONLY WHITE men of European descent are ever chosen by the Lord or that ONLY those who have white skins in this life will be saved in heaven. When one ONLY chooses those of a white European background as leadership or things in that manner, it indicates that is the thinking and seems to really offend many who are not. Skin color shouldn't matter, you a right, but when it is obvious it does and is part of the selection process for leaders and other matters, then it starts to matter a LOT...for one...because it IS extremely racist. And when skin color matters SO much that instead of selecting one of the temple recommend bearing Elders (because they can't be bothered to make any High Priests) the Branch President and instead bring someone from OUTSIDE a branch who was in another ward to be the Branch President because of what appears to be skin color...yeah...that speaks highly of a problem from what I understand. So, yes, when there is racism against the minorities, then Skin color actually DOES matter, because racism forces it upon everyone so that it becomes a deciding factor in most decisions...and when it becomes as blatantly obvious...then it matters even more. For me, just to start with, questions like...why should they attend a church that hates them, or doesn't want them there, are things that one has to start answering or dancing around the question. It's a dang hard question, and anyone who thinks they (they Hispanic members) are being racist instead needs to analyze what the heck they are thinking, because I can tell you from how they've treated me, they aren't the ones that are racist. AS for me...perhaps involuntarily...but at least I recognize it and try to change how I think and act and try to understand where they are coming from. As I noted previously though, perhaps I am inadequate, and the right choice would be to choose someone who understood them far better than I and could be far more effective at bringing them back into activity within the church.

I've only read the first page, but in my area...Racism is a really BAD problem in some ways. This isn't some foreign LDS area either, there are a LOT of LDS here, in fact they are the majority. However, there is a HUGE Hispanic contingent of members. There are ZERO (that's right, zero) Hispanics or even minorities in the LDS leadership, despite being in such large numbers. The Spanish branch, that even has a WHITE Branch President. I've talked to some Hispanic members, and some who are inactive, and they notice this. They even state there are difficulties with their kids associating with the other LDS kids. I have to say, I am ignorant of some of this though, and cannot relate...though I see and hear what they are saying. I've only had two experiences where I saw it directly. The first was where a certain individual in leadership invited the LDS leadership of the areas to go to a meeting. Once there it was obvious it was to try to garner membership from that leadership into a White supremacy type organization. There were several that were already in that organization. The other was at a thrift store. There were some Hispanics there talking in Spanish. One I knew, who was a military veteran of several years, had been wounded and was medically retired. One individual came up to them and told them to speak English. They were in America and if they didn't want to speak English and sacrifice for the nation that he loved, they should get out. Now, as I said, one of these was a military veteran who was speaking Spanish. I was embarrassed. I took the elderly gentleman aside, away from them as it was starting to look nasty, and instead talked to him about his mission. However, though I didn't bring it up to him (and maybe I should) I was rather shocked at how he treated that guy. I did mention that one of the individuals that he had talked to was a military veteran who, as some might put it, had fought and bled (but luckily not died) for the freedoms he enjoyed, including the speech he had just given them. So, yes, there are those who are white supremacist in the LDS church. Beyond that though, there is racism in the LDS church membership. I think most don't even recognize it or realize that the racism is there. It is something we can fight. We could almost double our ward rolls for actives if we could just fellowship the Hispanic members in our ward. Right now, I have about a very low percentage of them coming out. If I understood this better, maybe I could help them better. Unfortunately, perhaps what is required is someone far more capable than me of understanding the situation and how to help others engage with it and resolve it.

Hard to answer the questions truthfully. I'd consider myself a conservative, but compared to many of the Mormons, they'd put as a flaming liberal!!! As for environmentalist, I'd say I'm absolutely NOT what I'd term a fake environmentalist...but when people talk about environmentalist these days...that's what they refer to. Ironically, I'm connected to two REAL environmentalist. The first is my uncle, who is in environmental engineering. He does a lot of clean up for environmental disasters. I have helped him do actual environmental cleanup jobs in the past, especially during my summers...thus being heavily involved in actual environmentalist/environmental work. The second is a cousin that lives with us occasionally. She is a conservation Biologist. One of the things she's done that she explained to me is working with the hunters and animal conservation. In a nutshell, they need to keep track of approximately how many animals are around and alive (such as deer) compared to the flora and fauna of the rest of the area. Taking that into account, they determine how many they need to cull that year. Hunters provide an excellent way to cull the animals so that the biologist do not have to go and put down that many animals themselves. She explained that when they get it wrong...more animals will actually die in a far harsher and painful manner. When there are too many animals, they normally will die of starvation, and more of them will die because the lack of food affects the entire population. To say the least, unlike the fake environmentalist tree huggers, She absolutely LOVES hunters and the association they have with them that enable them to keep the numbers steady. I used to go on field trips with her to help out with numbers and identification and stuff. So, in that light, I'd actually didn't know how to answer 1....but maybe... 1. I'm none of the above? 2. I actually think the Big Bang is plausible, but as per above, not certain I'd say I was an environmentalist or not. 3. I'm LDS, but I'm not sure if the church really takes a stance on any of the so called environmentalist issues of the day (global warming, etc). Neither of the above relatives believe in the Global Warming myth as stated in politics and the news. They both feel we may effect the environment, but feel that the issues being stated in the media is more a political thing than anything dealing with factual science, and that many of the fake environmentalist do far more harm to the environment than help. They both feel we need to care for the environment, and we may have some effect but there are also other factors at work there that are rarely discussed, or even attempted to gain control of or even observe. In fact, they both have stories where fake environmentalists hindered their jobs, put the environment at risk, and in some cases started major disasters (one where forest fires were started by idiots who thought they wanted to stop deforestation and camped out but didn't know didley about controlling campfires and other stupid stuff, another where some group promoted the construction of a plant to make alternate fuels, but had such a terrible chemical storage that it leaked causing a major environmental disaster...). The funny thing is, the idea I've gotten from them is there is a cadre of scientist that is the in group. These are the people that are after, pride, prestige, and power, and thus are the ones involved with politics that are pushing a lot of the fake environmental messages. The other scientists and people working in the field, the ones with the actual and real experience and hands on work in the areas...their views are basically ignored overall by the politicians, the media, and Hollywood. Due to this, REAL, viable steps that are not costly, expensive, or hard to implement are ignored in favor of those who have a political agenda more than one to actually help the environment or world around them. They have ideas on how to practically reduce pollution and other aspects, but both say that these measures will never get widespread use simply because those who are in the "in" crowd of scientists and politicians won't have any money/profit from them if implemented. Hence, though I might consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist (and even have hands on experience to a degree), I would very much not want to be identified with what people in general consider an environmentalist today as per the Hollywood definition or idea.

Depends. Creation out of nothing is normally more specific to evangelicals or more hard core Christians. When we read the Bible though.. It does not say he did it out of nothing, and in fact says the earth existed...but was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. KJV Genesis 1:1-2 by the way.

Well, I really need to go back over the section, but I think leaders (well, Bishops and Stake Presidents at least) are required to be clean shaven as per the instructions. The only reasoning I know behind it is so that we appear more respectable, or conservative, or something like that. This is probably the same thing that is applied towards missionaries as well. I don't know of any thing in that regards for the members in general though.

Just a Clarification...and I can't really go into it more than what I'm going to say now. It is not done away. The statement that none have had it in the Houston Temple may be true...but the ordinance remains. This is the time for the fullness of the gospel, and that requires EVERY ordinance...even if some ordinances are very rarely done.

That is an absolutely awesome statement. I can't like it enough!

Along with the thing I read with Joseph F. Smith, I also read something else once. Once you choose to be a member of the Church, the Terrestrial Kingdom is no longer on your plate. Your choices will be either outer darkness...suffer for your sins and then the Telestial Kingdom (with the possibility of being raised to the Celestial...which is further expanded upon by JFS son, Joseph Fielding Smith in the Doctrines of Salvation), OR the Celestial Kingdom. You either keep your covenants and repent or not. The degree of punishment may seem harder, but your degree of Glory which you may attain is ALSO greater than those who do not accept the gospel (deceived by the cunning of men) in the first place. Personally, I'd repent and shoot for the top rather than resign myself to an eternity of hell.

I don't wish for the church to allow moderate drinking, I do not miss that. I have many relatives that drink (like all of them) and most of them do NOT drink heavily (though some are blazing alcoholics). The Germans may drink half a cup of wine at dinner...and that's it. I'd call that moderate. I'd also say it's far healthier for them than those of us who do not do so. We keep the Word of Wisdom as Mormons not necessarily because the science behind it says that this is the healthier thing to do, but because we view it as a commandment that was further reinforced for us to keep by Latter Day Prophets (I think it was either JFS or Heber J. Grant that made it mandatory, have to look at my books to recall better). On the otherhand, the thing I would like them to allow...is coffee. I think there are FAR more heavy coffee drinkers out there than those who are heavy alcohol drinkers. I don't even drink hot chocolate myself, so I suppose I'm pretty hardcore in keeping the WoW in my personal interpretation...but I could really go for a cup of joe sometimes.

There's a difference between support and actively promoting. A default position is one of silence in some situations. In this situation, if you felt that there should be no age based or other restrictive laws on who can smoke or drink (and in some areas of the world, 7 year olds ARE allowed and DO drink some alcoholic beverages at times), then you may be supportive of that position by default. However, that is a far cry than going to the elementary school and trying to encourage all the kids to buy alcoholic drinks and smokes from your corner store across from the school and handing out free samples. In that light, if you think the laws (for example, in regards to LDS history and the persecution of Mormons for polygamy practices) regarding marriage are too restrictive or allow discrimination and persecution based upon what should be one's personal convictions rather than something state owned and sponsored, your default position may be supportive of those who also want the same thing so they can practice Gay Marriage. On the otherhand, that's a FAR cry than entering into Gay Marriage yourself and promoting it to others as just and right and testifying that anyone who does not think it is the moral and upright thing to do is a bigot. The first probably is appropriate, the second...well...that's a lot more questionable in regards to the whether you are being honest in your temple recommend questions.

I'm a total carnivore...I'm in trouble it looks like.

Well, I suppose my family is peculiar... We are MORMONS after all. I am massively into history (being a historian and all...), but ironically, none of my children or any other seems to like history. It has been their least favorite subject in school. I don't know what I did wrong in life to make them dislike history so...

Most wards and stakes have an addiction recovery program that is open to any who wish to attend.

What I'm about to say is going to be VERY unpopular in this thread. 1. Stop worrying as much about your addiction. This is self destructive. The more you focus on it, the worse it may become. 2. There is another item that seems to go along with the sin of pornography. I have never met a young man that only suffers from the sin of pornography. Stop worrying about that sin as much as well. 3. How serious is the sin of smoking? How serious is the sin of drinking alcohol? Your sin is somewhere along those lines. Just like those are addictions, you also have an addiction. 4. Some go their entire lives without ever breaking their addictions. Just because one smokes and drinks does not mean they are a bad person. The same goes for someone suffering from other addictions. 5. We, as Mormons, seem to think an addiction of the sort described in this thread is a very serious sin. It is not. It is against the sins in the beatitudes, which also include such sins as calling your brother a fool being akin to murder. Pride, and other such sins are just as bad, if not worse in some contexts. It depends on what sin one wants to focus on. Too often the focal point is on this sin, to the detriment of members and memberships all over the church. Because of how many people view it, we have chased off many from the LDS church. Because of how we view it, and hence how THEY VIEW themselves, they fall away, just like you did for a while. 6. I see this as a serious problem in the church. We are too judgmental in regards to this ONE sin, which is actually a very minor sin. If one is stressing over such a minor sin, they need to reflect in their lives and see the beam in their own eye before casting judgment on another. 7. I once again, want to stress just how minor a sin this actually is. It is akin to not being meek, or not being poor in heart. 8. That said, there are some things I'd like to point out about it. First off, it was either John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff that had a vision. In that vision he went through cities and found a great illness there. Every house seemed to have suffered from it, and a great reek came from them. It was a plague on the land like no one had seen before. I feel that he saw a vision of the great and terrible plague of pornography that is upon us today. I think it is a plague on this land and that every family has been affected by it in some way, either directly, or indirectly through some relative (even if it's just a cousin, or uncle, or aunt). 9. It is a minor sin, but as it is an addiction, it is much like other addictions. Just like if you were a full time alcoholic or smoker, you may have some restraints on you in what you might be able to do or not, depending on how the ward and bishop see it. 10. I can't tell you exact numbers...but I will say this. Official tallies in secular publications figure that 95% of all men do a certain sin. Because of that, most non-members will say that men in the LDS church are either telling the truth and get feeling guilty and out of the church...OR lie through their teeth. In my experience, I can't say that those numbers hold up in the church (or maybe I've just been lied to an awfully lot)...BUT...I'd say...if you look around, there is a VERY high percentage of people (and that also includes woman) that suffer from the same problem that you do. In fact, if you refer to point 8, it is SO PREVALENT, that I'd say this seems very much like that plague they saw in the vision. It is excessively prevalent in the LDS church...not like the secular numbers say, but it is high enough that I'd say EVERY family has been affected by it in some way either directly in their family or by a relative to their family. You are NOT alone in this suffering. 11. There are many that have felt the exact same way you have. MANY. I have seen what has happened in their lives. I can tell you...there actually IS hope. 12. Just like any addiction, if you really want to get over it, you will need support from others. You will need help. The church offers help, but you may need more than just that. It may take commitment and a life-long struggle. However, with help, you can overcome. Conclusion: What I'm trying to say, is you are NOT alone in suffering through this in the LDS church. IT isn't something you can simply toss off and ignore, but at the same time, you may be putting it higher on the lists of sins then it actually is (which is VERY common). There IS hope, even if you feel there is not. YOU CAN OVERCOME, but it probably requires help (and a LOT OF IT) from others, not the least of, is the Lord. Don't let this be the reason you do not come to church. This is a very minor reason not to come, and the Lord would much rather you come to church than to feel so terrible that you do not. If people try to shame you (just like they might if they smelled the smoke of a smoker on them) the sin is on their heads, not yours, if you are truly making an effort to come to church and to repent of your sins. You may not succeed today, or tomorrow, or the next day, or the next year, or the next decade, or even in this life (and I've known those who are alcoholics and smokers as well who never overcome the addiction), but with the Lord's help, I know if you are determined to succeed, you can eventually overcome. Whatever else though, don't let such a MINOR thing become such a major stumbling block to your salvation. Go to church, obey the commandments the best you can, love your family, pay your tithing, teach your children the word of the Lord, and do all you can to be the best you can be. Don't ever think that such a thing should stop you from going to church, or that the might of the Lord can't extend the blessings of forgiveness to you if you are truly trying and desire such blessings.

I grew up with a relative who suffered from SSA. They did everything they could to change the way they were including some horrific things (shock therapy, etc). I would say that there are cases of it that are Genetic. I had another relative that was a Ballet Dancer (male). He was not homosexual, but he stated that 90% of the dancers he knew were, and that everyone that was, had experienced a homosexual experience before they had actually developed themselves. That he felt this was a leading cause of their SSA. In that instance, he implied it was more of a choice, rather than a genetic thing they were born with. That said, I noted that they should remain celibate. That's not all encompassing. It depends on WHY they get married. If they want children, and find that they can know what love is, even without the attraction/lust part of a marriage, and that they can reside within the bounds of that marriage, I have no problem with them getting married. However, to many times we hear of someone who was pressured to get married by a Bishop or otherwise, who could not remain in those bounds. This causes a great deal of grief for the spouse and the children...a grief and ache that I would hope no one would cause to another intentionally. Because of this, I would say, in no way, if one does not feel they can keep within that bounds of marriage for all eternity (or at least to the end of this life) should they ever get married if they have SSA. If they are willing to remain in the church and live it's standards, but cannot reside in marriage with that type of commitment, which commitment I think is harder to keep if you are with someone who is attracted to you, but you are not attracted to them in like manner, then my vote is that they remain celibate. They may fall in other lesser ways, but at least the harm they may cause others is lessoned. If they choose NOT to live according to the Lord's word, and choose another way, let them choose their own path, but let them remain to their own and not bother the church either. They should have the freedom to do as they desire as long as it does not cause harm to others. However, for those in the church, I'd say the preferential thing would probably be for them to remain celibate. There are many desires people are afflicted with that they likewise should not entertain or commit. This is the same thing as far as worthiness in the church goes. If they keep their covenants that they made, which also includes no sexual relations outside the bounds of the type of marriage the LORD has created on this earth and approved upon, they are just as worthy as any other member. In most cases, they do not have to force themselves into a marriage that is not satisfying to them, but at the same time, if they wish to respect the word of the Lord, then that would be default force them to remain celibate. A hard choice for one to make. If they choose to not follow his word and do their own thing, as I stated before, they have the freedom to do that. I am not going to be like those who tried to murder the Mormons and restrict their rights by defining what marriages are approved or not approved by the state, but in like manner, I think if the question is in regards to worthiness in regards to the LDS church, it would be to remain celibate, or to be married in the way ordained by the Lord. Considering their desires...I think the former may actually be easier to abide in that the latter. In my not so educated opinion in this instance.

I'm not a mechanic, but I'd be careful with that. I might even have them do a double check on it. Most likely the mechanic hooked up the electronic diagnostic and it told him nothing was wrong. How long did he have it in the shop and did he put it up on the rack to check everything underneath, as well as doing the typical hood check? If not, you might consider having it going over one more time just to make sure. Peace of mind is better than stuck in the middle of nowhere 7 hours from home.

I normally prefer to not mark my scriptures, but I also understand why it can be useful. In fact, it was extremely useful when I have done it. It all started long ago. I didn't mark my scriptures at all, but then came a fellow who was very into religion (I think he was even a religion teacher...by the name of Reed Benson, related to Ezra Taft...but I didn't know Ezra Taft Benson, but I did know Reed Benson for a short while). He challenged me to do such if I recall right (memory fades with time), and so I took up the challenge that for three months I would read every day and I would have to find at least one or two scriptures that I thought were relevant to me at the time and mark them. In addition, I needed to write down what I found and how they were relevant to me. I didn't do anything special. I took the normal red lead pencils/crayons that people used at the time, and took up his challenge. I normally notated in the margins or edge of the page exactly WHY I felt the verse was relevant to me that day. In some ways, it was like a scripture journal...inside your scriptures. It was useful, not only in that reading, but later on I could turn to pages to see my thoughts and how those things could relate to me then...and realize that the could still relate to me now. Now, when I read the Book of Mormon on a subsequent read if I intend to mark it, I always start with a NEW Book of Mormon that has no markings as of yet. It is good to see how different scriptures can impact me, or where different areas of chapters may be useful. Book of Mormons are cheap, and so this is relatively easy to do. In many ways, I can see how this also was very similar to how I did studying in college (except I did a lot more marking than that even, but I did include notes in the margins there as well, and also correlation between my notes from classes and the book itself), and why what could be useful for classes, is doubly more useful in my study for the soul.

This idea probably also includes a LOT of what we consider humor out there. Also, included in light-mindedness LDS light-mindedness

It could be. I wasn't aware that a phone call would do for visiting teaching these days. I suppose now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

You do not have to be willfully disobedient to transgress a law. In fact, people break laws in transgression all the time. On the otherhand, to sin takes knowledge. You are assigning your OWN MORAL code in the place of the Lord's. You may not understand why things happen like they do, but it does NOT make the Lord evil. Each may have a mission here, and perhaps their mission was chosen to try to aid those that hurt them in some way. Just because you do not understand why the Lord allows bad things to happen, does not make the Lord evil. People have asked this for a LONG time, wondering why the Lord allows evil things to happen. You have narrowed it down more specifically to children under the age of 8, but it's still the same question overall. In addition, you are missing that we chose our missions and what we would do and be along with the Lord in the pre-existence. It takes away NONE of that free agency. The Lord has a higher and greater perspective of this life and eternity, and the reasons for things happening that are evil in this life are always due to the agency of man. However, the Lord knows how each part integrates and works with the other, and in many instances, allows evil to occur to bring to pass greater purposes that only he might know. It's like Nephi, Laban and the sword. Or, another parallel would be Egypt and the children of Israel. Many of those children that died in Egypt were probably under the age of 8, but their deaths do not mean the Lord is evil, but that those who see him as such because of that act lack the perspective of eternity and how this interacts with the purposes of the Lord through eternity. Children, under the age of 8 are sinless and yes, if they die before the age of 8 as per the prophets of the LDS church, are guaranteed celestial glory. The eternities are far longer than this life, and the perspective of the Lord on what one has endured, the trials they have undergone, are FAR MORE JUST than anything man can decide or determine in whether one is worthy or not for Celestial glory.

I, on the otherhand, think the example of marriage to be just about perfect in regards to Vort's comments and the idea of polygamy. Originally, marriage was to be permanent. You got married and stayed married. The only reason for divorce was if one of the spouses committed adultery (as in the BIG A, not some other sundry sin along that line). AS the Lord remarked, this was not so in the Mosaic law. Instead, men were allowed to divorce their wives for just about anything as long as they gave their wives a paper of divorce. This was done because of the weakness of men. Men were so weak that they would not abide by the Lord's law, therefore a lesser version was given to them to live. Today, that law where marriage is to be permanent is STILL the law of the Lord, but we do not hold to it. Even in the LDS church, we see couples getting divorced left and right. To further aggravate this, to be remarried for eternity or sealed, one doesn't necessarily have to have had a spouse that committed adultery. All manner of reasons for divorce are accepted and those individuals can be remarried in the temple for time and eternity. This is obviously made because even today, members of the church are not strong enough (as a whole, individuals in many cases obviously are) to live the higher law. Therefore, we are given a lesser standard to live by. The same was with Polygamy. Even without the crushing weight of the US and the desires of Utah to become a state, many were not living the law of polygamy as it was meant to be. Divorce was actually larger than Brigham Young would have liked, and thus I suppose the same was true with those who came after. Nevertheless, they granted divorce easily, in most cases. Polygamy was seen as more of a curse in many instances, or at other times, done with the wrong purposes in mind. Hence, as Vort stated, I think the reason it was withdrawn was the same reason we as a church are not held strictly to the higher law of marriage today in other ways (only divorce in the case of adultery). We, as a people are too weak for it. In Woodruff's case, it was more circumstantial and in some ways beneficial. By making the manifesto, as the people weren't really living with it as intended, he could help Utah's desired status to become a State in the United States of America. That said, I think even without that situation of coincidence, polygamy would have had a strong stance against it by the time of Joseph F. Smith, and his measures to eradicate it from the church would have been the same and completed in the same way, even without the first manifesto or the push for Statehood for Utah. A similar situation could be seen today. Years ago the LDS general authorities crafted a specific and unique program designed to help the Young Men in the US become stronger in the faith and better prepare them for life as young adults. They worked with scouts to get this specially tailored program. They called the Varsity scouts. This was inspired by General Authorities and made specifically for the LDS young men. However, very few actually did as the General Authorities taught or wrote. Instead, they were content with them getting Eagle Scouts, which meant for many, by the age of 13, they were done with the young men's program and really didn't have much else to guide them with. Years later, the General Authorities realized that that Saints had NO intention of following them in this counsel. Hence, they withdrew from the program. Many Saints misinterpreted this that the Church was withdrawing from Scouts, but it isn't so (at least not yet). Instead, it was because the program was ineffective, and the Saints were not living up to the standards they were taught. So, the blessings and the program was withdrawn. We see this continually. When the things the Apostles teach are not obeyed, listened to, or adhered to, those teachings many times are withdrawn and lesser commandments or teachings are given out instead. We miss out on the blessings of the other teachings, and instead receive the blessings of the lesser commandments.