JohnsonJones

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.

If we are going on opinion, I would think it would refer to our universe (multiverse is indeed part of physics as well, and not just part of a comics conundrum...but the multiverse that physics talks about is not really like the comics version. Comics draw off the idea of infinite dimensions in that each action we do creates and alternate universe due to a dimensional quantum idea...whereas, the multiverse talked about normally is one where there are different universes [sort of like bubbles in a sink, with each bubble being it's own universe] each with it's own physical laws). I have no idea if it would refer to the multiverse...but I'd say probably the universe we are in. I believe it also mentions he came at the meridian of time, which implies that time itself in our perception, has a beginning and an end which is more of something we see in our physical universe, but may not be something that exists in any other universe out there as we perceive or understand it.

Two questions have arisen in this thread...and I will attempt to give answers as I see them. 1. There is a DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSGRESSION AND SIN. Little Children are incapable of sin. Hence, there is no sin that they commit. They MIGHT commit transgression. Transgression is completely covered under the atonement of the Christ. Sins are a little bit more fickle, but are also covered...but we are required to have faith and repent, be baptized, and endure to the end in relation to sin. Transgression on the otherhand, including Adams, were completely covered in the atonement. This means, that little children, who are incapable of sin, even if they have transgressed, are completely covered. Since this is the case, they are sinless and pure before the Lord. As they are sinless and pure, they are ensured entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Which leads us to the second question... 2. IS this fair or just? For those who do not believe in a pre-existence, this would seem very unfair and very unjust. Afterall, they do not have the test that all the rest of those who live beyond the age of 8 must go through. For those who believe in a pre-existence...it is obvious the above thought is very shortsighted. What is this life of less than 120 years compared to the eternity that came prior to it. If one believes in the pre-existence as taught in the LDS church, one must also believe that we were capable of making choices and decisions in that life. In fact, that belief is the very essence of why we came to this life and are here when a 1/3 of the host of heaven CHOSE otherwise. In that light, WE, each of us, chose what we would go through in this life and what we would learn, suffer, and achieve. In fact, one way of viewing this life is that it is merely a time for us to choose whether we will follow the Lord or not, that all other choices were already foreseen and made by us previously. In that light, those who chose to die before the age of 8, were most likely already tested in the life prior, in the pre-existence, in ways which we are not aware of and do not know. We cannot fathom the tests they passed, or what they showed in order to be proven for their valiance. What we do know, is that they will go to the Celestial Kingdom in the hereafter, and that the Lord is just.

My answer reflects much of what has been stated here, but is in a way, simpler and direct. Read the Book of Mormon and ask. and an LDS article that discusses it. Moroni 10:3-5

Some thoughts on the matter. A Father holds jurisdiction above a Bishop in some matters. There are thoughts that when you are in the final judgment, the one to judge you will the be the Lord. This is true. There are some thoughts that the Lord can delegate, and hence though he oversees it, in many instances these will be the twelve apostles judging those who were under their apostleship. This may also be true. The church is set in a form that is similar to that of heaven. In this, the higher functions can be delegated to the lower leaders. In heaven, it is NOT a stake or a ward that is the primary unit, it is the family. Hence, the lines of delegation go either through the priesthood lines, or via the genealogical lines. If genealogical, then it is IMPERATIVE that the temple work that connects you back in the genologies of time is completed. If, it is delegated, it means that judgment can be delegated to someone who knew you best in this life, or at least was closest to you in this life in your local heavenly unit...which is your family. What this means. Your Bishop is a judge in Israel for a set time (normally around 5 years). He is accountable for what he does during that time. For serious sins, confessions SHOULD be given to him to determine worthiness and membership in the church. However, when in heaven, the power of judgment is the Lord's to delegate as he wills. Some feel, that for LDS families, that judgment will fall upon righteous fathers of family units (if those fathers were righteous...of course) to judge their families. Hence, for that eternal judgment, in some ways, it is very much on one to HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER...in a far stronger sense than one can emphasize. That said, if I were your Bishop at that time (and I wasn't, at least as far as I know), I wouldn't have not done what your Bishop did. However, I would have probably had restrictions on you in regards to what you may or may not do at church which would remain until you had humbled yourself sufficiently for repentance, which would include informing your parents.

One big thing comes to mind, judge not that ye be not judged. I'd be very careful about saying who will or will not get someplace at times. That said...we have the Doctrine and Covenants. It supports much of what has been stated here. Basically, those who are committed to a life of crime or sinful ways which do not correspond to the Lord's commandments but do NOT deny the Holy Ghost and hence, in this life or the next, accept the Lord, are fulfilling the Telestial Law and can go to the Telestial Kindom. Those who follow the commandments, repent, be baptized, and endure to the end (which also, if able, includes getting the Temple Ordinances and accepting the covenants and all that pertains to them) by obeying the commandments, are following the Celestial law and inherit the Celestial Kingdom. All others, though they may be very righteous with the exception of accepting the gospel and proper authority and hence the ordinances of the Lord, though they are that righteous, they have been deceived by the craftiness of men, or other such things as dictated in the Doctrine and Covenants and inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom. In that light, a LOT of the world today is subject to following every sin under heaven and seem bound and determined to only follow the dictates of a Telestial law. There are those who are deeply religious and overall are excellent people. However, they reject the gospel wholly and completely. For those who are Christian, they will get the exact reward they desire. Their reward, as they teach is a heaven where they live with the Lord or can be with the Lord. The Lord does visit the Terrestrial Kingdom (but not the Father, only the Son), and hence they get as they wish and desire. This is not a bad reward, and in fact, is far more glorious than any of us can probably imagine (actually the Telestial Kingdom has been described that way too, which implies how glorious the Terrestrial Kingdom is even more so). Finally, there are those that accepted the gospel of the Lord, or who have no chance to do so in this life but would have with all of their heart if they had that opportunity in this life. These follow the tenets of the Celestial law as described above. Even if we include all the membership of the LDS church, comparatively to the world's population, that is an excessively small percentage. at 15 million members compared to 7 and half billion people...that means the LDS church membership composes of .2% of the world's population, or 1/5 of 1 percent. That is a VERY SMALL percentage. You might stand a better chance at most things in life than hitting that percentage normally. If something is 99% accurate, meaning it can be 1% off, it is normally considered pretty accurate. 99.8% of the world is not LDS... That said, I read once upon a time something I have not been able to find since. In it, Joseph F. Smith said something to the wording that 80% of all the children of the Lord that ever live on this earth will inherit the Celestial Kingdom. I don't know how many will obtain the Celestial Kingdom or not, but I think all of us would hope everyone could make it because of the charity of our hearts. Whether it is a large percentage, or a small percentage, that is the Lord's will to judge and decide. I think it is far more important to try to make it ourselves, to pray continually and strive to obey the commandments so that one soul...ours...will be saved.

You stated it. It was in response to one of my first posts in this thread. Go back and read what you wrote a page back or so. Most likely because you thought of it in reference to simply sustaining the prophet, rather than every church leader. However, it is a MISNOMER, that would never occur. The church would not reject a prophet of the Lord, and if it did, that would indeed be a serious time. AS long as the membership has the spirit to guide them, and they should always strive to have his spirit to be with them, they will ALWAYS choose to sustain or at least show their support for the Lord's anointed Prophet. To imply that the church would choose to not do so, is misleading and thus misses the entire point of why we raise our hands at General Conference. The reason we do so is as I've outlines, is as what is stated on the church websites, and is done in the local level on up. We show our sustaining of the leaders. If there ever comes a point where the majority of the church is NOT led by the spirit, and hence does not show their support of the General authorities it will be as I said, it is indeed perilous times if that ever occurs. However, there is no chance of that occurring in our present time, and to try to say that's the entire reason we raise our hands as a vote is to not understand WHY we raise our hands in the meeting. It is to show we sustain the leader or not. If we are led by the Holy Ghost, we can know whether we should or should not. However, in the instance of a prophet, until the majority of the church has rejected the Holy Ghost...this WILL NOT HAPPEN. Thus, to imply this is what we are doing or choosing, is missing the entire point of what and why we sustain someone to a calling. That said, many raise their hands to support the prophet, but there are many that pick and choose what to actually sustain him in. Anways, this has to be my last post of the thread, because I have to go catch a ticket as I'm going on another trip today. If anyone has any questions regarding what sustaining is and why we do it... Follow this link and hopefully you won't argue as much with it. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/03/we-sustain-our-leaders?lang=eng

Perhaps. But I'm only trying to reiterate what the church's stance is on sustaining, whereas it seems many here seem to have this idea that the point where we sustain leaders is where we choose whether we are going to follow the Lord or not. That's ridiculous. That's what people are trying to defend. If we are going to use this as an argument, we might as well say...we choose everyday to not follow the Lord because we sin. Hence, there's no point to even being a church if that's the fact of it. That's like saying, if we miss a day going to church, we have decided that we are not going to follow the LORD (and in this, when we state something like that, it typically means it's a permanent type of decision in our intent...not something which might not actually mean and we fully are still trying to follow the Lord as best we can). That misses the point of what sustaining is. It's NOT that decision point of whether we are going to choose to follow the Lord or not. It is exactly as I outlined in my post above. I narrowed it to 3 simple steps (the LDS sites actually break those down further, for example, accepting counsel and accepting callings are listed separately), but sustaining a leader is NOT going to decide whether we are going to fall away from the gospel and the church and other such nonsense implied in this thread. People choose not to sustain their leaders all the time, most probably because they have do not have a testimony that the leader has the divine backing to act as the leader, or no testimony that the leader can receive divine inspiration to give a calling (and it happens a LOT, people decline callings all the time when a Bishop asks, and more than that even in regards to other things they've been asked to do by the local leadership...like clean the church). To say that's the equivalent of apostasy...and they are choosing to no longer follow the Lord and reject the gospel...as has been implied in this thread is NOT what it means...is, in my opinion, very much off track of what the intent and what sustaining is all about. Sustaining shows that we will sustain our leaders, and that should be done under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. If we follow the steps for sustaining our leaders, than, if that leader is called, as we show our faith and prayers in that light, by default we will gain a testimony of their calling even if we have not had it previously...OR...as many have chosen, we might not sustain that leader by rejecting their counsel (done constantly in wards), or rejecting a calling (also done quite a bit), or various other ways which we choose not to sustain a leader or individual in their calling.

Because as I said, there are MANY who do not sustain those called in their wards (and sustaining is not just something one does in regards to the prophet, it is ANY calling in the church), but that does NOT MAKE them apostates. If we excommunicated anyone who did not sustain someone who was called to some position in the ward, we would have no church. Sustaining is FAR more than just raising your hand, and this is why it is important to have a testimony of these things. It does not mean you have to pray about every calling, but it does mean that you need to be led by the Holy Ghost. When led by the Holy Ghost, you will not be led astray. This applies to the church as a whole. This is why, as long as the membership is led by the Holy Ghost, the church will not be led astray. One lone rogue leader cannot lead the church astray while the entirety of the church is led by the Holy Ghost. It has been tried in the past (though, talking about big events, it normally was just one or two General Authorities at a time, which the membership eventually did not approve of, which led to the twelve eventually also being led to do an excommunication of an apostle or Seventy...something which has not occurred recently...luckily) and failed. When you have a testimony of a person so called, you should (not that you necessarily will) be led to do all the other items of sustaining that individual. Because you know of their divine calling, you will follow their counsel in that calling, and if under their leadership for that calling, you would accept callings from them (aka...you would probably accept the Relief Society president's advice and counsel in regards to Relief society, but if you are a male, probably would not fall under their leadership to accept a calling in Relief Society. On the otherhand, you would fall under that auspice to accept a calling from your Bishop). In addition, because you have a testimony of that the calling is from the Lord, you will sustain them with your faith and prayers as well. This is also sort of a circular item. As you pray, you will gain that testimony renewed in regards to their calling and your faith will help to sustain them as well. There are MANY in the wards that do not sustain their leadership. There are many who do not accept callings, not realizing that this is part of the sustaining of our leaders. Once again, this does NOT mean they are choosing not to follow the Lord, or apostatize from the church. Most of the time this means they do NOT yet have a testimony that this calling is from the Lord. This means they may not feel that leader has the divine inspiration from the Lord to make that call. Hence, why having that testimony of your leadership is so important, because without it, in many instances, there is no desire to do what you say you will do when you raise your hand to acknowledge that you sustain that individual in their calling. However, not sustaining someone in their calling is NOT a choice not to follow the Lord, anymore than any other things we may do say that. There may be multiple factors (perhaps one cannot do what is asked because it conflicts with a work schedule, or perhaps there are other factors). No one stands condemned for not sustaining a leader (now talking against or evil speaking, or specifically trying to tear down LDS leadership is different and the exact OPPOSITE of sustaining and should not be confused with simply not sustaining). I think a majority of the church at some point or the other have not sustained a local leader at some point in their life. Normally that has nothing to do with a choice of whether they are trying to follow the Lord or not, but other factors at work.

No, because we in the church are NOT sustaining to choose whether we follow the Lord or not. That is NOT the purpose of it at this time. If it were, we, as the church, would be in serious trouble. Repetition does NOT convince me, rather it is so that people understand, sustaining is NOT showing whether we will or will not follow the Lord. Sustaining is done to show that you will support the Leadership. In this you are supposed to have the Holy Ghost with you. You are supposed to obtain a testimony for yourself regarding your leaders. If you have the Holy Ghost with you, then you can also receive confirmation when you are to sustain them. When you raise your had to show you sustain someone, it is FAR more than a vote or simple indication of any such thing. It is stating that you will literally sustain that individual in their calling. It is First - recognizing that person has been called of the Lord. (in the Brigham Young example, which is the most well known for members, it was recognizing that he was the Lord's anointed, rather than the apparent leadership chain that was felt to be the correct manner prior to that. Smith had indicated that the leadership would follow family chains, at first to Samuel Smith, and then after his death, to his own Son. The reorganized church did just that. However, to think that the LORD will only work through the Leaders to accomplish his designs is to discount the power of the Lord. It was through his power and spirit that the majority of the membership recognized that the true order to be followed was through Brigham Young and the Apostles, rather than what had seemed apparent before. They recognized WHO the Lord called). In this it is showing our confidence that this selection of a leader is correct. It is Second - AFTER we raise our hands, we will follow their counsel. We will help when they ask us to. We will ACCEPT CALLINGS when asked. (IN MY OPINION, this is the most ignored item of sustaining. I think many do not understand what sustaining is, and this is the reason that sometimes I have such a hard time filling some positions). Third - We will pray for them and offer our faith and prayers on their behalf. I do not know how many actually pray for their leaders. Many may occasionally pray for the Prophet, but how about for the Seventies, or the Stake President, or for the Bishop, or for the Relief Society President. When we sustain, we are also saying we will offer or faith and prayers on their behalf. Sustaining is very similar to a covenant between you, the Lord, and the one being called. You are pledging the above things. It has NOTHING to do with whether you are choosing to follow the Lord or not, but more on whether you will sustain those called of the Lord. There are many in the ward that may indicate that they will sustain a person when they are called. A LOT LESS actually sustain that individual in their calling, or so I've noticed. That does NOT mean they cease to be members of the church or are not following the Lord, but it means that they are not sustaining the person in that calling. To say it is an indication whether one is following the Lord or not, IN MY OPINION, is to entirely miss what sustaining is, or what the point of it is.

Well, the last few hours before I take off again on another trip for a few weeks. Recently someone posted a document on these forums, which was an apologist work. It was an impressive piece of work and was somewhere a little over 90 pages. While I was reading over it, something struck me (as in, I thought of something, not that I was actually hit). Like some individuals from my above post, I think many have harsh opinions in regards to the LDS church at times. I have run across many people that have gotten strange ideas from the internet. One of the things that brought me to these forums was seeking a place where uplifting discussion regarding LDS topics could be talked about. In other places, it seems many who hate the church had infiltrated them. There I saw many interact with them, but very rarely did any convince others of the truth of the gospel. This brings to mind something that I was taught on my mission. I was a young man at the time, and we were teaching or talking to those who had many more years of experience. We were told that we would not convince others by argument, but by bearing of the testimony and the Spirit doing the conversion. I think that there are many good things written which can benefit the humble individual, and those who are truly seeking to learn truth. For those, such documents as I read, are useful and enjoyable to read. For others though, I think the same item told me on my mission is true. It is the spirit that turns a person's heart towards the Lord, it is the spirit that convinces. If one is so hardened against the spirit that they will not listen, you will probably have no effect trying to convince them otherwise. If you argue with them, it drives the spirit away, typically. The best way then, if the person still has an iota of listening to the spirit within them, is to bring the Spirit into the conversation (and we were told to bear testimony, as the Spirit can confirm the truth of it, and bring it to the room), and have the Spirit do the talking. In that, we believe it is the Spirit that helps others come to the truth, the Spirit that brings testimony, and the Spirit that converts.

Once again, sustaining is NOT whether people will follow or not follow the Lord at this time, and as I said, if we ever get to that point, we are in serious trouble in the Church. It is that the membership should be led by the Holy Ghost so that if there are any questions that ever come up regarding leadership or other callings, the spirit can guide the membership so the correct choice can be made. In the aforementioned situation with Brigham Young, if the church had chosen otherwise, most likely the LDS church would have become a footnote of the early 1800s and then disappeared. Sure, Young may have still been the elect of the Lord, but without membership, there would be NO CHURCH. He may have become a prophet, but he would not be President. The ONLY reason Young was able to become leader of the Church was due to membership having the Spirit to guide them in that instance. Other times and situations have also arisen, normally on more local levels, in similar situations. Normally, things then come to light that other leadership were not aware of which point out why the membership felt as they did. We are NEVER to blindly follow, and always seek the Holy Ghost's confirmation when we sustain. Unfortunately, many probably do not seek this confirmation of their leaders, however, it is something that we are supposed to do. This way, instead of simply thinking Monson is the Prophet of the Church, we KNOW he is the Prophet of the Lord.

I take it the derogatory term used in this thread means the Japanese? Hmmm. I would also contend there was quite a lot of dislike for the Germans as well from that Generations, perhaps as much as there was against the Japanese. However, it can be harder to tell who was German and who was not than it is to tell Japanese apart. They had some rather unsavory terms for those of German descent or who were Germans in that time period as well. I am happy we are not using those terms here as well.

I don't know. If all that is left is suffering, and then death, is it right to allow someone to suffer needlessly without hope? We don't even do that to our pets. Normally if a pet is at the end of it's life and suffering with no hope in sight, only pain till it dies, we put it down. If we do that for animals, what does that mean we should do for people. So, undecided on this. I can see both points of view.

Yes...and No...From what I understand... The idea behind the voting today isn't whether the people will follow the Lord or not (and if we ever get to that point, the church is indeed in perilous times). The idea is that enough of the church will have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that if there are ever questions that come up regarding callings or positions, that the Holy Ghost as a guide will lead the members to vote in the appropriate manner. All confirming and sustaining should be done with the guidance of the Spirit. A prime example of this in our modern times where the membership as a majority were guided by the Spirit over the correct course of action of who to fill certain roles came upon Joseph's Death and The voting to have the President of the Twelve and the Twelve Apostles lead the church. There were several that were wanting to lead the church, some that were powerful orators (Sidney Rigdon in particular). However, it was the guidance of the Spirit upon the members that led to the choice which they sustained, and which has brought about our current leadership today.

Well, they already have a program for those in High School called Seminary. In addition, I believe the current pathways program can be open to those of any age that wish to take those classes, though normally tailored to those ready for college level courses. https://pathway.lds.org/

IF, it ever became canon, or in the D&C, I would expect it more to be along the lines of an Official Declaration than another section of the D&C, but who knows.