person0

Reminds me of this little gem:

@Carborendum, I get and appreciate your perspective. Here are some thoughts I have: In my mind, you have violated the Sabbath, but the Jew did not. To me, the day is unimportant, the consistency of observation, and the holiness of the observation is the most important. I disagree. There is no slavery involved, your mother/father does it as an act of service and love, in addition to their divinely appointed duty. It is better to ask family to prepare it. If all fast food workers worked for free on the Sabbath, and if all restaurant owners reduced their prices to to cost only and did not produce profits on the Sabbath, you could also consider this as an act of service for the restaurant and it's employees. If people abused this service and did not use it on a need basis, the abusers would be breaking the Sabbath. If you are away from home, you would put forth sufficient effort to secure food in advance in preparation. I agree with you. I would say the real question is "what type(s) of work is acceptable, and what is not?" I agree that people should not be taking this to extremes, like my in-laws refrigerator which has a 'Sabbath mode' for orthodox Jews. BTW: I am mostly just debating your statements for discussion and perspective purposes, in good fun/conversation. I am not saying I think people must attempt to live this strictly, nor that I am a perfect Sabbath observer.

We ask people who experience homosexual attraction throughout their lives to forsake that deep ingrained part of themselves and to follow after righteousness. For those who heed this command, it often involves a single and celibate life. In other cases it means doing their best to make a marital relationship work. Regardless, it involves great sacrifice to go against their 'natural man'. I see your situation as no different. You may live a righteous life without children, however, the Lord has commanded us to multiply and replenish. You have been promised children in your patriarchal blessing. One way or another, it appears that the Lord has called you to be a mother, if you are able. I have children, and have always wanted children. My wife and I are unable to bear our own children and have adopted. As I have dealt with the reverse situation (wanting children and not being able to have them ourselves), I personally can not imagine how difficult it would be to not want children, and so I am truly sorry for the struggle you must be dealing with. However, I believe that you are not feeling these emotions for no reason. While cultural influences play a part, the Lord often brings these things to our mind when we are called, and not yet acting. Yesterday in General Conference, Elder Stanley Ellis taught us that hard is good! I would suggest from the information you provided, the Lord has called you to be a mother. This may involve great sacrifice, but will bring even greater blessings, some possibly not until the next life. Is it not possible that your lack of desire for children is part of your 'natural man' that you must strive to overcome in this life? If so, what better way than to become a mother and to give a part your life for someone else? EDIT: Get married first!

@CommanderSouth, When Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, and read within the book that there were walls around the city of Jerusalem, even he who saw God and Christ face to face immediately doubted and thought that he had possibly been deceived. Only after Emma confirmed to him that Jerusalem was indeed surrounded by walls was he reconciled to the truth. If a prophet who actually saw God and met with angels would doubt based on something so simple as the existence of walls, I can assume our occasional doubts are to be expected. I have my doubts on occasion, but I also have a way to deal with them. I am convinced that the Church is true, but if it's not true, then there is no God, and all religions are invented. If the Book of Mormon as a whole were to be a fictitious invention, then so could Jesus as the Savior and everything else, just as easily. Personally, I would rather believe that there is a God, and a Savior, and an afterlife. When I doubt some historical fact, or this or that, I find myself realizing that it's not really worth it to focus on that thing, because if were to give in to my doubts, I would end up being an atheist, or at best agnostic, and I pretty much refuse to go there. Also, when I consider that if Satan really exists he would want me to go there, that makes it even easier. It's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or bust for me! As others have mentioned, focus on things that do strengthen your testimony! I remember when I received a spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I remember giving a blessing in which I was blessed to receive the Spirit to foretell to my friend that she would meet her husband that year; she did, and has been married to him for 5 years now, and going strong. I remember giving a tour of the Church building to an investigator named Carlos and standing in front of the painting of the first vision and reciting it as we both looked on, and the power of the Spirit that filled our hearts and the room. There is nothing that will ever be more convincing of the truthfulness of the gospel than moments like these. There will always be things to doubt, but those things are merely incidental areas where we lack information. The truth is revealed by the power of the Holy Ghost. The only way you can effectively overcome your doubts in the long run is to receive witnesses of the Spirit of God. However, even then, just as Joseph Smith experienced himself, from time to time you will still be faced with missing information and things that can be doubted. In those times, you fall back on what you do know and what you have experienced.

Welcome @LoudLizard! I'd say, if there's one thing I've found echoed repeatedly on this forum, it's certainly that: However, if you think it's well mannered, perhaps you haven't read enough of @MormonGator's posts yet.

The answer to your question is yes:

I just took a test online. It says I am ENTP. Most of this article about it pins me down pretty well.

I just recently attended a Foster training where a mother remained married to and in the home of her husband who sexually abused two of their daughters. She didn't learn of the abuse until their daughters were 15, but she didn't leave her husband even after that for the same reasons you mentioned. She was afraid because of finances. This deeply angers me on many levels. Be not afraid. That is my advice. If your husband is a mean person but is otherwise relatively normal and there are no safety issues, that's one thing. If his behaviors result in verbal and emotional abuse, or abuse of any other kind, poverty is probably better for you and your children than abuse. I do, however, sincerely believe that people can change through the atonement. I have also heard of stories where men who acted like you claim your spouse does were harboring self resentment for past transgressions that were unrepentant. In one story the man confessed to the bishop and once clean had a significant change in demeanor. Is is possible your spouse has unrepented past transgressions (aside from his other characteristics)? Is it possible your spouse has past life trauma that could be helped by private therapy?

A fascinating idea that I've never considered. As a missionary, I once had a 7th Day Adventist minister as an investigator. In our discussions he was so adamant that the Sabbath must be observed on it's original day of Saturday. I considered two questions in regards to this. What if someone were in a long term situation where they were unaware of what day of the week it was, and as a result simply chose a day on which to worship as their Sabbath and began counting every 7 days; if that day ended up actually being Wednesday, would it be any less sacred to the individual and the Lord? His response was that he believed the Lord would ultimately reveal the correct Sabbath to that individual through the Spirit. But he acknowledged it was a question of value in consideration of his position. Do you have proof to suggest that the Sabbath was never accidentally changed at any point in history, and that what is now Saturday was never mixed up or altered from the time God commanded Moses to establish the Law of the Sabbath? I didn't actually ask him this one, but simply considered it to myself, because he would have given the same answer as to the first question. Personally, I don't think that the actual day of the week would be of absolute importance to the Lord. It was pointed out that the BYU Jerusalem Center observes Saturday as the Sabbath. I think keeping the Sabbath day holy is what is important; when that day is, perhaps somewhat less important. But, culturally, it would be inappropriate to intentionally pick some other day to observe since in the US as a Church, we observe Sunday.

While I recognize the important implications of this example and how it is often used, in context, Christ used the hypocrisy of the Pharisees against them, when they were trying to entrap him. He never condoned the behavior. He never actually said it was okay to pull the ox out out of the pit; he simply and accurately accused them of doing it, while still professing to observe the Sabbath. Side Note Commentary: I also was just thinking about how general authorities travel on Sundays and eat at restaurants as part of their travels. I recall my mission president telling me of a time when Boyd K. Packer was with a group of missionaries and stopped at a Wendy's. When one of the missionaries seemed concerned he told the group of Elder's something along the lines of, "It is okay to do the Lord's work on the Sabbath; I know my body, and I need to eat to continue to do His work effectively today." As I ponder on it, in my limited thinking, I still don't like that. The GA is accomplishing the Lord's work, which is good, but if society as a whole kept the Sabbath holy, I doubt the GA's would be able to travel and eat out as needed unless using private jets and staff. With modern technology it would be easy to pack cold meals, and other forms of nourishment if one were to adequately prepare. However, I recognize that in many (if not most) cases such preparation could be very difficult to coordinate, especially when travel of any significant distance is involved. Also, if the living prophet and apostles have received from the Lord that this is okay, then it's okay. I am by no means a perfect Sabbath observer, but I feel like there's some sort of underlying principle related to the Sabbath that is yet to be revealed that could tie all of these things together. Similar to @JohnsonJones, I tend to ask if I am requiring someone else to work on the Sabbath by my actions and use that as a first basis of evaluation. From the example above, it seems that in some instances that may be already taking it too far.

In our most recent Ward Counsel, we watched videos of a Quorum of the 70 training meeting where they discussed the Church's number one focus over the last three years, keeping the Sabbath day holy. From these videos I learned that at the current revelation to the Brethren is that this should remain the leading focus for an indefinite period of time and we should not expect to see any new 'flavor of the month' in terms of focus. I find this interesting because I think it is evident in most of our wards and branches that there is a lot going on that holds people back from fulfilling our Sabbath obligation to the Lord in the truest sense. This could be anything from work obligations, to entertainment impulse, etc. As I was pondering this and considering how the command to honor the Sabbath was one of the primary 10 commandments given to the Israelites, I also came across this passage: This is some strong language, and in my opinion, is indicative of the importance that the Lord places on the Sabbath. Some key points: God not only rested on the seventh day, he was refreshed as a result of the rest he took. The Sabbath is holy to God, in addition to being holy to us. The Sabbath is a perpetual covenant, it is a covenant extending forever. Keeping the Sabbath is of such importance that initially the penalty was to be cut off from the rest of the people, and ultimately to be put to death. With all that in mind, especially considering the Lord's multiple restatements of some things, I find it difficult to accept my current Sabbath observance, and also find it easy to believe that most members are probably not honoring the Sabbath as they should. Which would make sense given it is what has been revealed to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles at this time as the main thing to focus on. Areas of pondering on this topic, where I admittedly occasionally find myself in judgment of others: I have never worked on Sunday's. I have been successful in avoiding it even at times when it would normally be expected/required. Would I be so adamant and continue to not work on the Sabbath if it meant the difference between my family eating and not eating, or keeping/losing my job? My initial reaction would be to say yes, but then, am I doing enough of the right things on the Sabbath to adequately feel I can effectively hold myself to such a staunch position? I do strongly support Sabbath roles for medical and other health/safety careers (i.e. police, firemen, etc). I have trouble finding any sort of justification for spectator or participant activity in sporting events on the Sabbath. TV viewership that involves non-religious, or non spiritually uplifting messages and themes is something I don't like on Sundays in my home. Why do so many feel this is acceptable? Personally, I think clean video games that involve family participation can be valuable and provide a similar bonding experience to board games, but what beyond that? Clearly, activities will differ in how we keep the Sabbath day holy, as do methods for calculating tithing, however, in general, I believe that the counsel of the Brethren is telling, and that membership of the Church as a whole do not adequately fulfill this covenant. What do you think?

This actually happened to me. I went to the dentist for a routine visit when I was in my teens. Woke up the next morning and my face was swollen because a tooth which is partially fake had infected at the root due to the chip which had occurred many years prior. The dentist had to slice across my gums (twice actually since he didn't go deep enough the first time - only numbing shots, no anesthesia - extremely painful) and 'bleed' the swelling from my face, while using the vacuum suction tool to help. This only alleviated some. He performed the root canal which also relieved a bunch more, then I had to take an antibiotic for a week or so. I would assume they would just rip the infected tooth out to start. Surely there would be enough pain to determine which tooth was the cause. Perhaps they could have used some 'bleeding' technique for the swelling. But without some improvisation, I'd say there were probably plenty of people who died.

So as I was brushing my teeth this evening my mind randomly wandered to Adam and Eve, and the fact that they did not have toothbrushes and toothpaste. Even with such things in our modern world, people experience dental decay with varying causes. Although food could easily be mashed with rocks and tools to make it edible for those without teeth, for the sake of discussion, I will assume Adam maintained the majority of his teeth until death. Some theories I have come up with to how this could be possible: During that time of earth's existence it was in the early stages of becoming fallen and dying, Adam and Eve's physical bodies lasted longer as the rate of aging and mortal decay had not yet accelerated to full speed. If Adam's normal bones lasted 930 years, it is reasonable to assume his teeth would have no issue keeping up with the rest. Genetics would fall in this same category. I know people with immaculate dental hygiene habits who still have bad luck with tooth and gum issues. Our modern diets include high amounts of sugar and other additives that could affect dental hygiene in ways that living off the land would not affect someone, hence, we need dental hygiene more because we partake of teeth destroying substances on a regular basis. Possible issue with this theory is that there are many through history who have been affected by tooth decay and other issues, even while living off the land, such as George Washington Usage of primitive teeth and gum cleaning methods could have been discovered, learned, or taught early on such as the still extant use of the Salvadora persica. Just some thoughts. Possibly all three of those factors could have contributed. Regardless, I'm grateful for my toothbrush!

@hereiam, While @pam is correct that your Bishop is the steward over you, in my personal experience, if it has been more than 3 years since the offense was committed, I would not expect a great deal of disciplinary action to be involved. When I was in the MTC, the Branch President asked me in an interview if I had engaged in sexual intercourse, of any kind, at any point within the last three years. He informed me that if it was longer than three years prior, I would still need to confess, but would not be sent home. It was an easy question for me because I had never done that, but I found the three year stipulation to be informative. It was clear from our discussion that he did not create that time period arbitrarily, but was directed by higher authorities to use the three year rule. If there is some merit to this rule beyond the MTC, I would presume that being racked with the knowledge of your sin during that time may be considered discipline enough. If you confess to the Bishop, perhaps you will be required to abstain from the sacrament, perhaps more, it all depends on your individual circumstances and whether or not you are and have been truly penitent.

I believe my response to a similar thread applies here as well, so I have included it below. We don't know with exactness where the events of the Book of Mormon took place, however, the scriptures only ever point to locations within the continental U.S. as areas of latter-day Laminate residence. Personally, I will stick with that until we are granted additional revelation on the matter. Edit: Regardless of the location of the civilizations spoken of in the Book of Mormon, another thing that could contribute to potential errors until additional revelation comes forth is the fact that the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites are not the only extra-biblical civilizations with prophets, scriptures, and knowledge of the gospel. The Book of Mormon makes this clear: Knowing that the Lord shall speak unto all nations of the earth, who will write His words, is it not reasonable that we could find similar pieces of 'gospel life' among many different ancient civilizations? What if evidences in Central America actually apply to scriptures and prophets who anciently dwelled among them, which have not yet been made known to us? Someone could also flip that vice-versa (but I won't ).

1) True story. Used as a mechanism of instruction to Israel. 2) True story. @Fether's idea seems plausible enough. I'll leave it at that. 3) Doesn't matter if it's true or not, but if the Holy Spirit can come in the sign of the dove, I would assume the devil could come in the sign of a serpent. 4) True: It is likely a work of literacy added on top of a true story where the role of God/Satan was the addition, but where Job was a real person and the events depicted in His life were real: 5) True event. Joseph and Mary Fled to Egypt for this reason. Do you really think HF would be giving us false details about the life of His only begotten through the Apostles/Prophets? 6) True. The earth is a living entity. The flood was the baptism of the earth. 7) Esau likely had no intention of keeping that agreement. Jacob had no intention of forcing him to keep it. Jacob's mother required him to follow through with the plan. Not because of the agreement over soup, but because Jacob was the more righteous and more capable agent of the birthright.

Takes one to know one! BTW: Hillary even wrote a book about it called, "What Happened".

It appears with minor modifications, your phrase has multiple uses.

If we believe Jesus was incapable of sin, then we nullify the entirety of the atonement. Christ had to be capable of sin, and yet never choose it, in order to actually set an example. If He was not capable of committing sin, then we actually have no one to look up to, because he didn't actually accomplish what we are supposed to be constantly striving to accomplish (i.e. living a life of true perfection). Christ had to be able to accomplish this through His own power in order to have the power to bring us back through His atonement. Otherwise, the atonement would be limited, because Christ was using borrowed power, not His own, as part of fulfilling it. It is also scriptural. Below are some statements pertaining to both comments I have made:

Looks like Reign of Judges has been funded. Perhaps you could do it without Hollywood.

Do I see a movie script in the works?

I am certain that the hypothetical situation I presented will never occur. However, after reading, I fail to see how the passages you offered would negate the plausibility of what I was saying. Are you saying that lack of being foreordained would be the issue preventing this? I really wasn't thinking about it that deeply. It would be like a Total Recall scenario; you were evil, your memories were wiped and you forget who you were, in your memory wiped state you choose to be good. It happened in Hollywood! Twice!

Makes you wonder, there are those of us who were on the Lord's side in pre-mortal life, and yet in this life fall to the state of being son's of perdition. Is it possible that some among Lucifer and his followers, if passed through the veil and given a body, would ultimately be righteous, make and keep covenants, and based on mortal life only, be eligible to return to the celestial kingdom? Obviously not going to happen, but just a curious thought.

This verse establishes two things: 1) God the Father is the most high. 2) There is more than one being that can be identified as a god. The spirits comprising Legion did not pass through the veil and would have maintained a remembrance of pre-mortal life. As a result, when they identify Jesus as the Son of the most high God, this would likely not have been in reference to the Father's reality and greatness compared to the various false God's worshiped by mankind at the time.