JohnsonJones

Did someone just say give Japan nukes? I'm probably just very old...but did we just forget about what happened last time Japan was a Military power in the Pacific? Also that Japan and China hate each other...quite a bit?

Not the church standard, but what I use is the metric...would I let my little children watch this (even if they aren't little anymore, it's about what I would let them watch when they WERE LITTLE). IF it is a no, that it probably is not good for their souls or mine. If it is a yes...then it's all good. This tends to be far more discriminating on what one would watch then even normal LDS standards. That said, I let my kids watch almost anything on Disney when they were little, and my wife felt at times that I was too lax even in that. I know some of my kids watch much more violent shows now that they are older and make their own decisions, and I don't know everything they let their kids watch. I have let my kids watch PG and even PG-13 movies when they were younger, but it is entirely dependent on the movie. For example, if Star Wars: The Force Awakens had come out when they were little, I probably would have let them watch it. There is one scene I might think could give them nightmares and hence my wife might nix the movie (then again, I had kids have nightmares about beauty and the beast, as well as Sleeping Beauty...soooooo...). Or, even better, Tron Legacy, which is a PG-13 move probably would also have the okay by me. However, there are MANY PG movies from the 80s and 90s (and some today even) that I would NOT let my kids watch...so we are more variable I suppose than just a straight up rating thing.

Some of this thread is news to me. I actually DO pay tithing on gift money. I have no idea why someone would not. If it is increase, you pay tithing on it. Now, if you are in your parents house, that money has already been tithed. But if I receive a gift from my relatives (they are definitely not LDS) and since I'm not in their household, even if they were, I pay tithing on it. Am I to understand from this thread that there are adults that do not pay tithing on gifts? I can understand that, especially on expensive gifts...but what if the gift was money...would you pay tithing on that or not? We aren't supposed to go beyond our bounds, and tithing is a deeply personal decision in many cases. As long as someone says that they are a full tithe payer, I'll accept that. However, I am surprised at the indications that people say they don't pay tithing on gifts...or more specifically, gifts that are money. Would not a monetary gift count as a sort of income? Once again, if in an interview, I'd never go into that much depth unless someone really wanted to go into it and brought it up themselves, but my counsel probably would be, if it was in the form of money, I personally, would tithe on it (but even then, wouldn't hold them up to that standard, but let them decide for themselves on what they consider a full tithe payer unless it was blatant they were not doing so).

I'd never resign, they'd have to kick me out.

I've read the Last Battle, it's been a while though. It showed one particularly interesting insight into the Mind of Lewis that I've liked. It showed the idea that the ONLY judge is the LORD. When we see Aslan as the symbolic meaning of the Lord in the book, he accepts someone who devotedly worshipped in another religion. In this, Lewis expressed the idea that it is possible for others who would have followed the Lord devotedly if they knew, could also attain heaven. I think it also showed that it is the LORD that decides, not MAN in who gets to heaven and who does not. Sorry, I guess that is off topic, but I think that's something that reflects my own beliefs. Too often we try to say so and so is going to heaven, or so or so is not (which I suppose in some ways is trying to set ourselves up as a representation of a false judge/deity), when in fact, the ONLY one that is the true judge is the Lord himself.

We have so many allies in the region, I don't think us using nukes on N. Korea would be an answer. That radiation fallback would come onto S. Korea, Japan, and possibly as far as the Philippines. However, I think N. Korea has a bad record. They have done some aggressive acts in the past and nothing says that once they have nukes they will be completely peaceful either. Eventually, they'll probably attack an army site or a ship or something else out there with a nuke without any provocation from anyone like they have in the past with more conventional weapons. A nuke does a LOT more damage than a conventional weapon. In the past, I'd say N. Korea was an annoyance backed up by China. However, now, they are becoming what I consider a rabid dog. The ONLY reason I think we have not taken them out before is China...so I say, we strong arm China. For ever nuke on an ICBM they fly, we fly one towards china. When China complains, point out that with their reasoning on N. Korea, if we go to war there, China will almost assuredly jump in to the fray...so we might as well attack China forthwith if N. Korea is going to attack us (or our allies). I am HEAVILY against war, and do not think we should take an absolute aggressive action at this time, instead relying on diplomacy. That said, I think the only way to get N. Korea to act sensibly in any manner is to get China to take our concerns seriously...and that hasn't worked without a significant show of force for some time with them. Instead, we've seen a regional grab by them to expand their borders and threats to Taiwan as we've sat back instead of flexing our muscles. Flexing is not attacking, I'm solidly against war or attacking, but sometimes you have to show people a reason not to stir (or wake) the sleeping giant.

Well, who knows how accurate it is or not. You definitely wouldn't see it from my posts here, probably. Mine looks to be Mediator Personality (INFP-T) It looks like it was a pretty close call between me being an introvert or extrovert though...so I suppose on a different day it may have a slightly different result? The only other one which was close was identity which had me at 45% assertive and 55% turbulent...not certain the turbulent sounds all that great...

Am I allowed to bash someone over the head with my scriptures. I have several different pairs. Though the Quad seems rather hefty, I think the oversized Triple combination and Holy Bible in their case takes the cake. Does bashing someone with them do anything to actually change their mind...other than brain damage? If they already have brain damage, does it do anything more? I'm not so certain this is a good idea though, my kids probably have some good ideas of how to bash me over the head with their scriptures. They probably would get the even larger ones for those who have a really hard time of reading, make sure they are hardcovers as well, and then bash me over the head in hopes of changing my mind on something (and of course, I won't...haven't when they were little, won't now...but that wouldn't stop them from trying!!!). Perhaps if I just pretend to nap in Sunday School they'll figure that old dad is already conked out and doesn't need any scripture bashing to take place! Of course, then I might have the problem of them bashing me over the head to try to wake me up...or tell me someone needs to talk to me, or something. I can't win with this entire Scripture bashing thing... The above is just for fun, not trying to be serious, so hopefully no one took affront to it.

Are you in Tampa? I have an uncle and brother in law in Tampa (Well, actually one is in St. Petersburg and the other in Clearwater, but close to Tampa). Stay safe.

I'd just call her up and say...Hi...I'm Danny Phantom (or whatever the name is) from your ward. I was wondering if you would like to go out on a date to (if a dinner, say a restaurant...or just dinner) this Friday (or whatever day) at 6 PM. If she says yes...great. If she says no...well...you have your answer. If she says she would love to, but is busy...maybe give it another try a second time, or give an alternate time for a date. And then, the easy part is over. You actually have to talk with her on the date.

Not really a scientist, but a Historian. As such, for many of those in my field (including yours truly) one of the more grueling aspects is trying to get research grants. Thinking on what you wrote, I am reminded hat one of the first things history students should learn (normally in the Historians craft which is a 200 level class) is that the writing of history, even if you try not to be, is biased by the writer. This is one reason why a historian should always try to get primary sources, and get SEVERAL primary sources which hopefully give differing views of the same situation/event...etc. I try to write as unbiased as possible, but I recognize that even I have a bias in my writing. I'm not sure that those in a university setting are necessarily going to come to the results that a company or the government may like or want, but each of us have a bias and, at least in things like history, it does influence the conclusions sometimes. Luckily, with peer review, as well as ongoing research, we are free to discuss (or some may say argue at times) differing points of views in regards to our bias, and opinions on how history is recorded or read is revised at a regular pace.

I am not a particularly great person. I would like to comment, but I don't really think I have focused on a specific thing on that list. Do I try to exercise faith in the Lord. I do, and I try to repent of the evils which I do. I think I far too prideful for my own good, most likely, and try to fight to make myself more understanding and empathetic to others plights. Not a specific story, but on faith. Faith can be far more difficult at times. It is the first principle of the gospel. We need to have faith so that we can achieve the second principle, that of repentance. We need to have faith that the Lord will forgive us and that by his atonement, we can repent and be clean. We also need to have faith that he will keep his promises and keep us in mind. I am reminded of a story by Elder Holland which I think was of his younger years. He was on a job and was driving some distance in an old car. That car broke down, and so he left his wife and went to find help. He found someone to help him and they went back to where they came from. Once again, they started off on their journey, only to have the car break down in the same spot. He once again found help, and the gentleman who helped him I believe stated something to the effect...you may make it to your new job, but this car will not...in regards to their voyage. I believe that is an example of where one may have their faith challenged. He was trying to provide for his family. He was doing the right thing, and yet, when it came down to it, we know he still had faith. I had a similar situation recently, but not as challenging as Elder Hollands probably was. We had family reunions and other family functions. Now, because of my rather foolish inattention, I was without a temple recommend recently and needed to get it renewed. It was relatively easy, I just needed to be around for one week night and get it renewed. However, it overlapped with a family function. I chose to be with the family, afterall, are we not trying to build an eternal family. However, I catastrophically, at least to my car, hit a deer at a very high speed. This completely demolished the car (and the deer I might say). At that point, my initial though was...was I not trying to do the righteous thing and be good, to help my family and bring us closer together? In truth though, I realized several things. First, no one was injured, we were protected and blessed that we were safe. Secondly, that perhaps part of this was that I NEEDED the protection of the temple recommend, that an active temple recommend on me is VITAL. And finally, the Lord lets good and evil rain upon both the wicked and the righteous so that judgment can be just, and our choices made because it is fair, not because it is necessarily easier for one than the other. (though, even then, looking back at my life, it has definitely been easier for me to choose the right than for many). It is one where I could have had my faith damaged, or reflected upon it and see how I should act instead, and utilize my faith in the Lord in that effect. I think a similar situation may affect some in Houston this week. All our sympathies go out to those in Texas, but one particularly notable thing was the Houston Temple for the LDS members in general. In 2016 there were floods in Houston, but the temple was saved from our perspective. Perhaps it's due to wickedness in Houston, or perhaps it's just rain on the righteous and the wicked both, but once again floods came to Houston in 2017. This time, the temple did get flooded. It is an opportunity for us to either utilize it to grow our faith, or not. I am still pondering upon it and the temple there. I suppose I am weak as well, as I am still stuck continuously on that first step that Alma mentions, to have faith. I strive to have faith and increase it continuously, but even then, I still haven't moved any mountains (yet).

ALL sin is serious, is there a reason one would choose to make this one more serious than...say...assault and battery? or murder? Or grand theft? Or maybe not keeping the Sabbath day holy? Or taking the Lord's name in Vain? Sin is serious, I agree. Focusing on one sin and making it the bogeyman above all others, especially if it is such a minor sin comparatively to many others, in my opinon, is not helpful or encouraging to someone to try to repent of the sin. Making mountains out of molehills only scares someone from walking over a molehill easily because they think it is a mountain instead.

All sin is serious, but sometimes we like to focus on minor sins like this to the point that people forget that there are a lot more serious sins out there that are far more damaging to the individual or others. While I agree the individual involved needs to take action, there is no need to frighten them needlessly. What will happen if the Bishop is told, most likely (I can't guarantee anything TBH) is something VERY minor, and in many instances I find it is FAR less (if anything) than what the individual THINKS will happen or occur. If I told someone that was traveling 5 miles over the speed limit that they were breaking the law and going to go to jail for the rest of their lives if they ever were caught and to stop it...most would think I was going a little overboard. On the otherhand, if I said to someone breaking the law by committing grand theft and murdering the store owner that this could lead to life in prison and possibly execution in some states.. The two aren't really comparable. Both are breaking the law, but one has a much heavier punishment affixed. The focus for many police will be speeding, and the speeding tickets. The first is FAR more prevalent and applicable to more people when discussed. If more people wear seatbelts and follow speed limits, the number of deaths would probably go down much farther if the first is enforced, than telling people about the second one. The second is still enforced by the police, but with the amount of time and tickets, the first probably takes more time in discussion and otherwise. The same would apply in the discussion. The sin discussed in this thread is perhaps the most prevalent in the church from my perspective currently. It is one that probably affects every member in some way, either because a family member is committing the sin, or a relative is involved with the sin, if not the individual themselves. This should mean that the leaders of the church address such a prevalent sin at almost every conference or general meeting in many instances. It is as bad, if not worse, than any plague. The numbers of members involved with the sin, from my perspective, is staggering. Anyone involved with it, is absolutely not alone in their suffering. However, it is in no way comparable to how hefty the punishments (at least in most cases, there are exceptions, as I've stated previously) are for other sins of a more damaging form for both the individual and others. The very first thing I would want someone to understand is that they are not alone. That it is very easy to repent of, if they WANT to repent. And that they should not despair. There are MANY I've met that have given up all hope of ever overcoming this sin when they meet with me. They have already condemned themselves in their minds...there is no reason for us to reinforce such things. The message I would bring is that of repentance and that they can repent, and in many instances will be FAR EASIER than what they've made it out to be in their minds. (though that does not mean it will necessarily be EASY...just easier than what they may think...and it may take a long time to over come as well. But it is possible, and with faith in the Lord, their burden maybe made light).

I wish. This very thread you have people comparing it to things one would get excommunicated for in many instances (for example, this is NOT equivalent to cheating, nor is it spiritual cyanide anymore than any other lesser sin one habitually commits nor many other things far worse). It is this type of attitude that frightens people into thinking never to repent, or that they are doomed because the think the sin is far to large for them to ever repent of. That's the real nonsense that I see, and it's an absolute terrible thing that we tell people such nonsense, when in truth, it is FAR more minor than that. Is it a sin. Absolutely...but generally (there are always exceptions) it's not anywhere close to adultery (though many spouses think that and this thought process leads to the other problem of members using it as an excuse to divorce their spouses at times), or fornication, or even heavy petting (IMO on that one). It breaks a commandment of the higher law, but normally it is not breaking a commandment regarding the lower law. This one sin brings around so much unnecessary grief and hardship, and in my opinion, part of it is because people many times label it far more harshly than they should. In this, the words they use are far more harsh in expression, rather than showing love and support for the one who needs it. We talk about it so much because the problem is so prevalent, but many people lose sight of how it is just like many other minor sins. Unfortunately, many will ignore other sins of equal magnitude, or even sins of greater magnitude (for example, habitual shoplifting or one I saw that still confounds me...outright grand theft) and focus solely on this one. I am particularly harsh on this and what I consider pornography (for example, most romance novels In my opinion are straight up pornography), but it seems many who should be supportive of an individuals road to repentance instead seem to question me soon after on WHY I did not level a harsher punishment or do something far more drastic than what I did. Instead of feeling the relief and the burden lifted as the individual dealing with the problem hopefully feels, they seem to want to have some sort of vengeance exacted. Unfortunately, I see this all too often. Perhaps I just deal with this type of thing so often that it has slanted my view in regards to the general LDS view...I've heard that can happen. My experiences though, indicate that people judge it far more harshly than what it really is. Anyways, this is a pretty uncomfortable topic to discuss for me anyways. I deal with this too much as it is, and I don't even feel comfortable in a private setting talking about this stuff with those who confess or bring it up (where it is necessary in many instances and I have to discuss it whether I really want to or not), much less on a forum with many individuals.

Experience and what one can find about it in the Church Handbooks and elsewhere when needing to make decisions and judgments in this regard, as well as hearing what many will say or explain in places like this board. In addition, from the experience I've seen where on many occasions I've seen many shocked at how "light" they think I, or their own leadership have handled it in regards to the repentance process. Unfortunately, I see those that would want a huge number of their brothers and sisters excommunicated over such things, and cannot understand why we don't do this, when this would destroy the church and disable our goal of making strong family units that follow the Lord in righteousness. From their reactions, it seems many equate it with adultery, fornication, or other sins of such a nature of more serious effect, or murder, and treat it accordingly. When this happens, I've seen a LOT of grief caused by such treatment, and only terrible and sad events occur. It deters those who need to come forward from coming forward and repenting for fear. It makes others give up hope before they've even tried. Others expect the worst immediately and think it condemns them. As I mentioned, even in marriage, I've seen wives AND husbands decide to divorce over thinking it is such a terrible sin, doing the opposite of what our goal is and breaking up families and separating children from parents, which I view as FAR worse. It is a horrible stone that people hang around theirs and others necks. Because I state it is not as hefty as many try to make it out, does NOT mean it is not a sin...it is something individuals need to try to overcome and repent of just like any other sin. It is just that it is not as bad or harsh in punishment or condemnation or any other factor as many make it sound or seem. In fact, many are surprised at how minor it is compared to how major they made it out to be in their minds, or how others (who may be in the same boat as they and also have made it out worse than it should be) have represented it to be to them. Is it a sin...yes. Is it as bad as many make it sound...no, and as such, one shouldn't need to fear that their church membership is in any danger normally (especially if one is wanting to participate in the repentance process). Because this is such a widespread problem, (and if science is correct, it is FAR wider than those that admit a problem), it is something that needs to be addressed. It is perhaps one of the most common sins committed out there, and as such, especially with young people, needs to be discussed. It is my opinion this is actually one reason it is brought up so often in conference and otherwise. Unfortunately some equate with how much it is brought up with how terrible a sin it is, and thus some put it above other worse and more horrible sins (for example, fornication, which is FAR worse in many cases). This is a misperception. Many who suffer from it would be surprised at how widespread it is in the church, and there are some that notice the mote in other's eyes instead of the beam in their eye in their haste to condemn their fellow man. Others, because of how hastily others are to condemn them (but normally NOT their bishop, which they would actually find it if they asked, rather than assuming others condemning them so harshly are telling the truth), decide repentance is beyond them, or that they are doomed because of the misperceptions I spoke of above. This is the LAST type of idea we want to spread, as this stops our fellowman from the blessings they can receive. For some, they think they are the ONLY one that has this difficulty, when it could not be further from the truth. As I said, I think this is perhaps one of the most common sins that people struggle with today. If they only knew how many of their brothers and sisters out there are struggling right there with them, and how they should not need to fear from trying to repent, I think many of those who are fearful of even trying to repent, would be encouraged instead to try to repent and be clean.

I actually bought the entire series not so long ago!

I'm not sure I understand the situation. Did your daughter just say she didn't pay tithing to the Bishop, was it more generic in saying she didn't pay tithing on a gift she received? Or did he specifically go out of his way to say that any money that you tithed on already and then gave her needed to be tithed on a second time? The latter seems unusual for a Bishop to get that specific. I would probably specify with him on it, especially if it's money that was tithed on already. Now personally, I taught my kids they had to tithe on money no matter where they got it from, but technically, I believe that if that money has been tithed on by your parents already, there really isn't a need for them to tithe on previously tithed money for their family household as long as they are IN that family unit in the same household.

This depends...are you asking from an LDS viewpoint, or from some other viewpoint. This is a delicate subject and I hope the mods are understanding as they have been of others who have discussed this in the thread above. I am personally uncomfortable when I typically discuss this very delicate sin. I hopefully avoid offending anyone, as much of this is at first from a most scholarly approach, and then an application of it. If I accidentally offend anyone in discussing this sensitive subject, I beg for your forgiveness as it is completely unintentional. I also ask forbearance from the start as, believe it or not, I am excessively uncomfortable (even when it is a discussion held in private) regarding this subject and thus my writing may not convey precisely what I am trying to say in a very careful and unantagonistic way towards the original poster. I apologize for any weaknesses of mine in regards to the subject knowledge or the subject itself, or being empathetic enough. I hope you forgive me of any weaknesses or mistakes I make in this, and understand that I am only mortal and a man and thus am not perfect (yet). To the OP... You have mentioned TWO different items here, and I will address both of them separately, first discussing masturbation, and secondly, porn, as you mentioned both. You did not list your religion, so I am also addressing it from an LDS and a more general Christian consideration. To be clear, there is NO scriptural basis in the Bible, or any other LDS standard work that actually condemns or mentions masturbation. Many religions have recognized this today. There was a movement in the 18th century s caused by an inerrant reading of the Bible and an improper interpretation by a quack medical interpretation that led to a rise of condemnation regarding masturbation. The story was based upon Onan, who, as per the Bible, spilt his seed on the ground and was promptly struck dead by the Lord. The thought was that he was killed for masturbation. It ignores the rest of the story. However, it is where the term Onanism arises in much of it's current usage, though it has other definitions that were utilized more often previously (and more akin to his actual sin). Onan was supposed to marry his brothers wife after his brother died and raise up children as his brothers. He indeed went into his brothers wife, but instead of raising up children, he choose to specifically mock the Lord in that instance and hence, spilt his seed on the ground. It had always been viewed with some suspicion, but gained a fully on furor of being proclaimed excessively sinful around the 18th century. In the early 1700s a theologian wrote a paper that garnered more fame as it went, and eventually, had many claiming the same effects from masturbation. This ranged everywhere from vomiting and nausea to paralysis and insanity. Madness, epilepsy (yes, this was blamed on masturbation....), and all sorts of items were claimed as being caused by masturbation and was actually verified by what is now recognized as quack science...by medical doctors who did research on this subject. Hence, what had once been a disturbance...became a full on crusade by the 19th century (or the time of Joseph Smith) that masturbation was in fact one of the most vile sins. At that time you see widescale acceptance (up to and including the idea that masturbation leads to homosexuality and then to suicide or insanity as a natural punishment from heaven) of it as a major sin. Now, remember, there is NOTHING in the scriptures in this regard. This is MAN writing this. The last and greatest person to buy into this quack still has a famous name to day. He was John Kellogg (of the cereal fame). In the early 1900s, he was famous for coining a phrase you may hear nowdays occasionally in the LDS church. He was against any "unnatural acts" in regards to sexuality. His arguments went far beyond just masturbation, but one of his major focuses was masturbation. Despite science starting to emerge showing the inaccurate medical conclusions from the past, he pushed much harder in this regard, arguing that masturbation indeed led to paralysis and spinal problems, insanity, and even suicide. It is ironic, considering that some of his ideas were quite revolutionary (for example, at the time many felt alcohol was a stimulant, but Kellogg argued otherwise, that it was actually just the opposite). If one follows the LDS regulations in history (as a historian at least), it follows this furor and ideology quite closely, at least up until around the 1960s and 70s when this quackery came to the forefront. In addition, there is some history to indicate that when it was notated as a sin, it was more due to public acceptance of the idea, than anything other than that as the trends in the LDS church and ideas of it CLOSELY adhered to what everyone else though historically up until the mid 20th century. Some may hypothesize that it may, some day, be seen more as racism in the early church is today, rather than a specific revelation on the topic, at least in historical essays. As I stated, though traditionally the LDS church had followed the trends in regards to how it considered masturbation, this started to change in the mid 20th century. Instead, rather than paying heed to the medical and science, the LDS leadership still held that masturbation led to homosexuality, as revealed in the Miracle of Forgiveness by Kimball. So what does this all mean? For a Christian, it means, it depends on whether you believe the Bible, or man. If you believe the Bible, there is really nothing on it found within it. We don't know, but nothing seems to condemn it specifically. If you are a Scientist, and a Christian, you probably will realize that up to 60-70% of ALL MEN masturbate, and up to 90% HAVE masturbated at some point of their life. If you are a Scientist, and a Jokester, but not a Mormon but joking about Mormons you would say...8 out of 10 Mormons masturbate and tell someone, the other 2 out of 10 lie about it. However, if you ARE MORMON, it means something entirely different. We, as Mormons, do not believe in participating in any unnatural act. This has actually been specified at certain times in the LDS history (and I could fill everyone in on a pretty comprehensive list, but that list is no longer used today, and listing it all may not actually be in good terms with the rules of this site, in fact this entire topic...I'm not really comfortable with to be honest). Masturbation, historically has been included in that list. We, as Mormons, believe in continuing revelation from the Lord. From the Lord, hence, the idea then, is that this act is not approved upon by the Lord specifically, at least that's the interpretation I've heard from many. On it's own, however, it is a minor sin. In fact, it is FAR more minor than what I've seen most here state. As I stated above, some, especially from a historical viewpoint, see a close correlation to the quack science of it and how the LDS church saw it at the time...HOWEVER...and I should be clear on that, it does NOT matter in regards to church policy if you are LDS. If you are LDS, it has been listed as something that is wrong to pursue, and something no young man should be a part of. (or old man for that matter). Thus, it is still considered a sin in the LDS church, and as a Mormon, you need to abstain from it if you can (there are medical situations I've heard of that may arise at times...but they are very rare). However, there is a far more serious sin that is connected to it. I have very rarely met a youth who has confessed of masturbation without the confession of a far more serious sin. As the Lord has stated... Almost to an individual, they suffer from breaking this. Now in the lightest form, this is not breaking one of the 10 commandments or the lower law, but it IS breaking the Higher law, of which we strive to live. Hence, it is not a major sin such as fornication, or adultery, but it can have consequences. This is what I see as a great plague on the church today. This sin is most commonly seen today in people viewing pornography. Whether a Mormon, or a Christian (or at least most Christian sects), this is seen as a sin. However, this is not the end of it. The actual interpretation of the scripture goes into that it can actually mean, not just lust, but coveting someone else's wife. This, in fact, IS breaking one of the ten commandments (coveting) and the lower law, and depending on how far it has gone and what actions people have taken in this regard, can be rather serious. I am not going to go into the details of what actions will get you into huge trouble, but lets just say, hopefully people can't imagine some of the things I've heard and seen in that regard. In essence, though, you should avoid any unnatural acts in regard to sexuality, whether you are married our not. Be aware this is more for Mormons, than others. However, in general, these sins, though greivious, are NOT as hefty as many try to make them out to be. Many a spouse at times has the greater sin wanting revenge and having the church levy some heavier punishment upon their spouse for these sins, because they imagine how terrible it must be, rather than what it normally (not always, sometimes it is far more serious) is. I've seen what I consider a far greater sin of spouses divorcing their spouse due to things of this nature, because they view it as far more serious a sin than it normally is (in my experience). I find how much divorce occurring the church today ALSO a plague, and a FAR MORE SERIOUS one than that of pornography...in my personal estimation. This can be a difficult sin to overcome. We can offer support, and love, but it is ultimately up to the individual. The first individual, if he is there, and you are indeed Mormon/LDS that I would confess to probably would NOT be your Bishop. It would be your Father. It can be worked from there in regards to repentance, which, if you are LDS and from your description, may also include your Bishop.

I am not sure of the question. Do you have a house. The Lord has several houses on this Earth. How do you want people to act in your house. We should probably be just as polite and respectful of the Lord in his own House. It is where his spirit resides. He can literally come to his house on Earth (the Holy Temple) and be there. We have several occasions where he or his angels have been in the Temple. Once again, I'm not sure of the question.

I am a leftist compared to Most LDS found in the Utah and Idaho regions. I admit it. Overall, however, I had a friend who stated I was actually moderate...and they are correct, but compared to the super ultra wave of conservatism that has taken Utah and Idaho by storm over the past three decades...I'm very decidedly...leftist. Wikipedia quote According to legend...when the saints came to Utah, overall, they were very supportive of the Democrats. Brigham Young would not have any of that, but instead, separated them into two groups. One group became one party, the other could still support the Democrats. I find that both sides of the equation are at extremes in many instances. Many Mormons choose to be Republican due to law of chastity/moral issues of the parties, placing that as the MOST important element. In these, they choose things like abortion, Gay Marriage, and other issues to be the most important facets to decide what party they should be in. In some instances, they do join the far right extremes, but in others, I don't think they realize what the far right is pushing. In Utah, ironically, I find some of the most restrictive laws in regards to taxes, and other issues outside of California. Other states are NOT as liberal as hard red Republican Utah on economics, immigrant workers, car emissions, and other such things. I think many Mormons are far closer to Democrats than they realize, but due to the moral facets they place at the top of their chain, cannot see the forest for the trees. I think that in many instances, the extremists of either side are not the ones that are correct (so no alt-right, but also not necessarily antifa either). Normally, a better course is found in between the two extremes...or more towards a middle ground. However, at times, in the far right republican strongholds that are found occasionally among Members in the LDS church, I find this approach makes them see me as very Liberal. In that light, if it makes me a liberal, I am ALSO happy to acknowledge, at least in regards to that type of politics, I am probably also very leftist.

Wow, good collection. If I had not been convinced, yours would have. I'm not sure how one could actually argue against the prophets. I suppose one could say that as those are not "doctrine" as in the four standard works or a manifesto or proclamation, it is not official... But, those statements, for me, seeing who they are from...seem pretty good sources to stem it from. If I recall, the statement that they will need to accept the Lord, and every knee will bow is NOT necessarily the same as Baptism. You can accept the Lord, and bow to someone, but it does not say they will need to be baptized in the verses already provided. Maybe I missed it, but if I were to argue that baptism was needed (and that is not necessarily my opinion, if you read my thoughts above about the quoted post) I would have based it upon something like this As those are directly from the New Testament. IF one accepts that the Telestial is part of the Kingdom, than by default, one would need to be baptized by water and the spirit or he cannot enter into it. On the otherhand, if we take the Bruce R. Mckonkie route and other apostles (which I feel were fairly enlightened), then this is talking about salvation in regards to salvation being exaltation, or at least entry to the celestial...in which case it is very specific that the first verse is referencing entry to the Celestial kingdom or salvation and the direct Kingdom where one actually dwells with the Father...rather than where the Father does not dwell... And that the latter is referencing what will happen at the end of days, and that those can be included in regards to those who are also those who suffer punishment as per the terms of the atonement under the judgement of the Lord and finally enter the Telestial Kingdom. On the otherhand, I can see Person0's point, and in regards to baptism in this life, and baptism for the dead in that relation. That brings up other topics though in that regards as well, especially as we perform more than just baptism for the dead...and also could be extended as per the Doctrines of Salvation (in regards to sealing, and how parents may bring their children to the Celestial Kingdom, even if the children are not Celestial Heirs due to the bonds of the covenant) to others ordinances that we perform for those dead in the temple and how they are also applicable to those, not just in the Celestial Kingdom, but in other kingdoms as well.

On the OP question, I think there are actually two questions inherent in the post, and they've been combined. The first was if it was immoral to be married just for certain actions. If the plan is just to be married and then divorce after the deed, without any real commitment or plan to keep that commitment, then yes, I would probably agree that this was an immoral act. HOWEVER...if it was done with full intention of making commitments that one would keep, that I would say, due to the added necessity of making rather permanent contracts that one intends to keep...it is not immoral. The reason some young Christians (emphasize...some...that's not all, not a majority, just...some) may utilize this excuse can actually seem rather valid. In their minds, in todays' society, you can have and be close friends to a member of the opposite gender. Therefore, if you can be friends, hang out, do all sorts of activities with them, in their minds, what then separates being married and not being married in a relationship approved by the Lord. The obvious answer some come up with, is the ability to be intimate. All other actions, they reason, they can do with the other person without breaking the commandments, at least from what I gather. The idea is also tossed in with regards to having children...because to have children, one must needs be intimate. This is SOMETHING THAT I HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN as why some young people say is the only reason to get married. It is so that they can be together and be intimate...because all other things in today's society are already acceptable and still remain faithful Christians. This is a SEPARATE question that was tossed in secondly...which is in regards to the Temple. The Temple idea is inherent in the TOPIC of the post, but not necessarily the story. There was nothing in the OP's story about this relative being married in the temple, and so I assume that in this context, this may not be the case. If it is, it is possible that this young man unfortunately sees marriage relationships similarly to how other young Christians may see it occasionally. In the LDS church, the idea of a temple marriage, or eternal marriage in many ways is a LOT different than that of a marriage of till death do we part. In this, we are planning the eternities out with a partner that will be with us...well...for a LOT longer than just this life. This is something to fulfill a commandment of the Lord, it is something that is there to build the family unit, and there are things that we CANNOT DO in normal life without being married in the temple that goes far beyond that of a simple idea of being intimate. Unfortunately, I still run into the same idea occasionally from young LDS individuals here and there that sees it as how I described it above, that the only reason to be married is due to being able to be intimate...without realizing the full range of what a temple marriage really is in the LDS faith. It is one reason to suggest a temple and marriage class to those who are thinking of getting married. I would agree with other sentiments in this thread that say lust, and lust alone, is a terrible reason to get married. Even if it may be moral (if one is getting married for that, but also intends to KEEP THE COVENANTS they make in the marriage, which means, no divorce), it is a very bad thing to solely base a marriage on. Hopefully, the individual getting married has gotten to learn more about their prospective spouse and gets along with them, along with many other things that will make their marriage successful, and has a little more wisdom in their decisions making process.

My belief (and it's just that, not hard fact) is that LDS membership in general has about the same divorce rate as the gen. population. In addition, without any current information that I have seen recently on current trends, my thoughts on divorce among LDS married for time and all eternity in the temple, in regards to divorce is that it is a statistic that is rising alarmingly in recent years, both due to filings and actions from men and women.

I think I lost faith in the entire Global Warming/Climate change argument when they showed the temperatures for our area. They listed my area as being consecutively hotter every year. What took the cake was when we had our verifiably coldest year, and then they listed it as being the hottest year. Yeah....when you see blatantly false information and you KNOW the area's temperatures and weather where you live...it kind of makes you question what other false information they are relaying...or how in the world they are getting information that is that inaccurate. As for GMO's, they have helped feed a LOT of the world that would be starving instead. As for me, I'm old enough not to really care I suppose at this point. IF GMOs help or reduce life expectancy...well...I'm not too concerned of myself at this point. I know for my own family it probably doesn't make much of a difference. Parents and such ate GMO food and lived into their 90s...so...I don't think it's going to be that much of an effect on my genetics. I suppose if they do have an effect I might have been able to outlive Moses by getting beyond the age of 120...but I'm not certain it's going to make that much of a difference to me. On the otherhand I could die tomorrow...and thus live less time than my ancestory, but either way...the best thing for me is to hope I'm prepared to meet my maker whether tomorrow, or many years from now.