person0

Yes. No. No, at least temporarily. Regardless, you may or may not be required to abstain from partaking the sacrament. Your bishop/branch president will determine what is appropriate to your situation. No, not if all of this was happening during that time. No, the Lord will validate the baptism regardless of and in spite of your worthiness as a proxy. Yes. No, your ordinations are still valid. They will become fully validated between you and the Lord upon your sincere and completed repentance. Most likely you would be commended for your sincere desire to repent, overcome, and draw closer to the Lord. You should expect to leave the meeting with him at peace and uplifted by the Spirit of the Lord. You can expect the joy of knowing you are fulfilling the path of repentance the Lord has prescribed. You might possibly be given a time frame to abstain from blessing, passing, or partaking of the sacrament. The time frames may be different, such as don't partake for 1 month, don't pass or bless for 2 months; they might also be the same, the bishop will use the spirit to determine what is best. Missionaries who falter with an act of masturbation, for example, are generally required to continue partaking the sacrament no matter what because the leadership of the Church have determined that it is prudent in the eyes of the Lord to not allow the members or investigators to question their worthiness. While it is unlikely, given you are the only priest, there's always a very tiny chance that a similar inspiration could come to your bishop/branch president. Over time you would become fully clean and be ready to serve a mission. I would expect an absolute maximum length of 1 year for your repentance process, but given the specifics you have shared, if I were your bishop, I would say between 3 and 6 months would be more than enough to determine you have sincerely repented, and to walk with you through the repentance process. (Disclaimer: I have never been a bishop or branch president) In the MTC I learned that an Elder who confesses the sin of sexual intercourse while in the MTC is not sent home if his repentance has been and is sincere, so long as the transgression is more than 3 years in the past. (No, I did not commit such a sin myself, however, it came up in an interesting discussion with my MTC branch president). You will also very likely need to meet with the Stake President. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a serious sin, and should not never be considered lightly. Don't ever do it again, this is God's power being used improperly! There would be no reason to not allow you to attend seminary. In fact, your bishop would be well pleased with your desire to attend. It is further evidence of your sincerity. The bishop would not tell anyone (unless he felt it necessary to include your parents which is entirely reasonable), however, your parents might ask you on their own. People will try and make guesses and might look at you funny. That is the result of their own wickedness, pride, and improper judgement. Regardless, I can assure you no one will ever know about your homosexuality unless you choose to disclose it, or unless your Church leaders act improperly (highly unlikely in a case like yours). You have no cause to be ashamed for your repentance, only for your sins of the past. Once your repentance is complete, you may consider it as if you had never committed those acts, for this is how the Lord sees it. You will be clean! You will absolutely be able to go. It is not even close to being too late. I would expect you to still be able to go before turning 19. You should also consider telling your dad that you do think you want to serve a mission, but that you know you need to prepare yourself to go. You need to know that the Lord loves you. You have not done anything that will keep you from His love. His hand is stretched out still, all the day long, for you. Repent! Draw near unto Him. Read your scriptures. Pray fervently and sincerely. At this point the only thing holding you back is fear, but Christs love casteth out all fear. I can tell you already that even just the strength of your desire to repent is preparatory to your becoming a valiant soldier of God! Your homosexuality, nor your sins, need to define who you are, they are merely attributes of your mortal and physical state. You are a son of God. His plan is for you. Repent! Just do it, and partake of the fruit of His love. I promise you will find joy you have never known, or have long since forgotten. You will strengthen your testimony, and will become a strong witness of the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

There are many, many issues one could come up with to point to as to why it is unreasonable that the translation story of the Book of Mormon, and therefore the book itself, is true. There are also many answers, which, as @The Folk Prophet pointed out, on their own can never provide enough satisfaction to the naysayers, and should not be enough for a believer. There are very few things in life where this wouldn't apply. All well known religions have proponents and detractors; most weight loss programs and diets experience the same. We each have different preferences, different temptations and struggles, and different desires, which all pull us to and away from different things. One great blessing we have is God's wisdom, and His plan and pathway that will lead us to Christ and the eternal truths we need to gain eternal life. Many have recommended various books and other resources, which are great materials. However, personally, I would recommend not to put time into reading any other books until after you have made a decision for yourself about if you 'believe' the Book of Mormon is true. As valuable as various resources, opinions, and points of view can be, nothing will come close to being as powerful as your own personal conviction and understanding, especially as it is developed and bestowed by the Holy Ghost, the power of God. I want to address this line from your post. Part of what strengthens the testimony I have received from the Spirit is that in fact, God enabled certain men to have a vision of the plates, and others to physically hold them in their hands. These two separate experiences work together to bear witness of the divinity, as well as the physical reality of the plates. If you open up your copy of the Book of Mormon, these are in the very early pages known as the Testimony of Three Witnesses and the Testimony of Eight Witnesses. Here are some key points from the Three Witnesses: And some key points from the Eight Witnesses: One can observe that the three witnesses did not ever touch the plates and were shown them by an angel. However, the eight witnesses were shown the plates directly by Joseph Smith and held them in their hands. These events occurred at separate dates and times, and the three and eight witnesses were in fact 11 different people. I personally can testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, because I have received a witness of the Holy Ghost through prayer. I promise that if you sincerely desire to know of it's truth and are willing to follow through with the changes which will enhance your commitment to Christ (meaning you have a sincere heart), you will be able to receive a witness on your own that it is true by the power of the Holy Ghost. Once again, as great as the advice many others are offering, I personally would counsel you to seek out a witness of the Spirit before focusing much energy on reading other materials. You should continue asking all the sincere questions you can think of, and do whatever research will be helpful. I promise though, that everything you need to determine if the Book of Mormon is true is contained within the front to back cover. Anything else is icing on top of the cake. Our forum friends will probably get tired of me saying this at some point, but, while I was raised in the Church, my father is Muslim and I have family and others from a variety of religious backgrounds. I have dealt with persecution and anti-Mormon material for much of my life. I have dealt with doubts and fears and questions and concerns. I only say this because I want you to know that it doesn't matter what your background is, the Lord loves you and is willing to provide appropriate and real answers to your sincere questions. I consider myself and intelligent and well studied member of the Church, yet the only true solace has always come initially through the witness of the Spirit of God. You can and will come to know the Book of Mormon is true if you seek it sincerely. We will all be glad to help you however we can in the process, but ultimately this is your spiritual journey toward Christ.

There is a time and place to relate opposition to homosexuality, etc, and to share the related truths of the gospel. From what you wrote, it appears the woman you visit teach is not currently in a situation where that would be appropriate. I believe the above quote would apply in full or in part because the Lord expects us to exercise wisdom in our communication with others. If this woman were to act as she is seeking, she could bring undue 'persecution' upon herself. It could be minimal, or possibly result in termination, depending on how she were to go about it, and what interactions, etc, resulted from it. Found another quote: Specifically finding a way and a reason to express disapproval of a lifestyle choice in the workplace is essentially a form of persecution. As others have hinted, if you turn the tables it would not be reasonable. If another person wanted to express disapproval of this woman for being a Mormon, what would be the appropriate way to go about it? I think it would be rare to find an appropriate opportunity and method to share that position.

I am interested in the answer to this question from a non-LDS perspective. My personal view, which comes from the LDS perspective is that there are self-existent eternal laws that exist outside of God such as justice, and mercy. Many attributes we ascribe to God would also fall into the category of self-existent and eternal, such as benevolence, perfection, righteousness, and so forth. The fact that these laws are self-existent and eternal allow for a principle which is likely considered heretical to many Christian denominations; the idea that God could cease to be God. Not that it ever would occur, but that it technically could happen. My belief is that God must comply with eternal law; He continuously lives in perfect obedience. The plan of salvation, and Christ's atonement is His perfectly crafted plan that complies with those laws and enables the salvation of mankind. If you don't believe that there are laws that God Himself must abide, then why would there be any need whatsoever for a Savior? Without absolute eternal laws, it seems to me that God could just save anyone based on whatever metrics he chooses. And then, if He truly is a benevolent being, what would stop Him from providing a way where every single creation could fully repent over time and join Him in Heaven? If eternal law does not exist independent of God, then it seems to me that God (based on most existing religious interpretations of Him) would be classifiable as a 'respecter of persons'. I once attempted to explain this idea to my Muslim father, hoping to show him why I could never come to believe in Islam, because their interpretation of God would in fact result in Him being a 'respecter of persons' based on these very principles. However, from my current understanding, this may similarly apply to many Christian denominations. I hope that I have made my position adequately clear. Ultimately, the main question is, why was the atonement of Jesus Christ necessary? However, anything related to sin or death is not really the point of this question, neither is the difference in our understanding of the Godhead. My inquiry for the non-LDS is more of, why was it necessary for God to use the atonement of Christ to save us?

If only 7% of our population were stupid, we wouldn't actually be too bad off. The real problem is that 48% of the people surveyed said they didn't know where chocolate milk comes from. That half of the country votes!

I haven't read much of this thread but: Not sure this always applies, but it was what came to mind when I read your post.

Spider-man looked 12 years old, and was way too dramatic. (Actually, I haven't seen it yet either)

Alma 32:28

I could give you lot's of theories, but I couldn't give you any physical evidence. That's not really a problem for me though. I know of no other brand of Christianity that offers such a comprehensive list of answers to difficult questions. I would say the lack of an answer elsewhere to such a crucial question might be just as bad as a plausible answer that is supported from an alternative perspective (this doesn't always hold true, but to me in this case it does). Ultimately, and more importantly, I have a witness of the Holy Ghost that satisfies my desire for evidence in this matter. The only part of what I shared that I would think you would be unable to get from the Holy Bible is the concept of uncreated intelligence. Obviously in the LDS view, pre-mortal existence, being children of God, and the concept of God creating us for the purpose of sharing in His glory and lifting us up to be like Him are things that are reasonably supported by the Bible, even though a protestant might argue otherwise. I won't speak for others, but I really don't care much if you believe or don't believe what Joseph Smith said. Even in relation to the idea of possible conversion to the LDS brand of Christianity, you believing Joseph Smith is not a starting point or deal breaker. Even Mormon's believe that Joseph Smith and prophets old and new have made mistakes and taught erroneous concepts when not acting directly in the prophetic speaking on behalf of the Lord. Even Joseph Smith himself said as much: You don't have to believe in Joseph Smith, or that God was once a man in order to believe in pre-mortal existence. It certainly fits the paradigm, but is a non-essential concept to salvation. If you want to consider all of our doctrine at once, it will obviously be a difficult slow progression, especially if you are trying to make it fit within your current religious viewpoint rather than consider it on it's own merit as a logical or at least reasonable concept. You don't know this because you are new to the forum, but many including myself are not new to other faiths or denominations. My own father is still a believing Muslim, and I grew up with southern baptist grandparents. I know it is true for myself because I have a witness by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. In the same prayer that I received that personal witness, I also asked if the Holy Bible was true and received an answer that indeed it was. I also asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet and received that answer in the affirmative as well. However, even if all you start with is one thing (like pre-mortal existence), that is enough to then move on to other things. Eventually you can come to know the truth of it all. It is your life, your soul, your salvation, and your pondering, but as I presume we share in believing, it all belongs to Christ. Something led you here, either a sincere desire to understand the concept of pre-mortal existence, or malice of some sort, or a combination. I sincerely hope it was the former. Based on your previous answers about your experience with this question, as well as the question about God's purpose, I am confident that you have not found, nor will be able to find a spiritually satisfying and fulfilling answer elsewhere. Either way, I sincerely hope for you to find the answers you seek, and if I can be a help to that I am glad to do so.

I was under the impression that these images were released years ago, and that they were found to be of one of Joseph Smith's sons. I had never seen the very top one though.

I would choose the superpower of speed. Specifically to the level of the Barry Allen - Flash. Why? Because if you really had the speed capabilities he had you would basically be the best, at everything. You could cram for a test, or learn almost anything in about 5 seconds with the speed reading skill. You could use a speed burst to be good at almost any sport. You would be the most powerful soldier in the armed forces, or privately. You can manipulate time, walk through walls, produce lightning, fire, and wind. Run on water, swim ridiculously fast. I mean, there are very few skills you wouldn't be able to master. You wouldn't need to teleport because you could run undetectably and vibrate through solid walls to get where you need (on the planet at least).

I have had a similar experience with this subject among protestants. Usually, the most common answer I receive is, "We were created to glorify God." I rarely get more than that, and to me that is a non-answer. If that is the full extent of it, it makes it sound like we are just little play toys that God made for his own pleasure, and in my mind, it messes with a lot of the other attributes we ascribe to God, and ruins other aspects of Christianity that I and many hold dear. Rather than go into more depth on that, I will instead provide you with my personal answer from the LDS perspective as to why I believe God created us in hopes that either it might ring true for you, or at least that it might help as you ponder the topic. I make no reservation about the fact that I will be pulling from scriptural sources outside of the Holy Bible, this is an important part of the LDS paradigm. First the short version: God's purpose is to elevate man to a state of immortality and eternal life. From this verse alone, we learn that God's purpose is unselfish. He has a specific goal in mind, He wishes to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. The question remains, why does He want to do that, why would he create us for that purpose? That leads us to the longer version: Most Christians use the term 'uncreated' in reference to God's existence. He was not created, yet always has been. Are you ready to have your mind blown with 'heresy'? We also believe that man, each and every single one of us (including you), are uncreated beings (although we usually don't use that terminology). Okay so man was in the beginning, what's this about intelligence? You posses intelligence, you are an intelligent being, capable of thought, motion, action, etc, and because of your advanced state you are capable of emotion and reason. We believe that the original 'uncreated' form of man was as an intelligence, we do not know what that looks like, but we do know that it was a non-corporeal form, and that it has always existed, with no beginning and no end. Here are some definitions of intelligence we commonly use: God revealed a little bit more understanding to Abraham about this: So intelligence was not made, but it was organized? Yes. Existing as an intelligence is not necessarily the same as existing as a spirit being, but it is the origin of all spiritual creatures, man, animals, insects. When a Mormon uses the word 'created', what we generally mean is organized. We believe that God organized our spirits, he organized our bodies, and He organized the earth, all from existing eternal materials. Why? We already existed, God wanted us, as intelligent entities to become possessors of the light and knowledge He has. He wanted us to become as He is. He wanted to share His joy and glory with us. We are unable to receive a fullness of Joy without being connected to the elements. What does that mean? Having a physical body. Spirit by itself is not as great or glorious as spirit combined with a perfect immortal body. God created us in order to give us the opportunity to gain that body, and to learn how to use it properly, so that we could abide in His presence and not be cast out. The Jesus Christ's atonement makes up for our inability to perfectly use our bodies, and helps us to overcome and gain the perfect ability so we may one day righteously dwell in the presence of God, not sin, not rebel against Him, and not be cast out. In doing so we may partake of a fullness of joy in God's presence. I want to summarize in two ways, first a cheesy info-graphic of the eternal existence of you. Now to summarize what I believe is God's purpose: God has always existed Each one of us have also always existed as an intelligent entity of some sort God saw that our intelligence was capable of developing to become like His. God wanted to share His glory, knowledge, truth, power, etc. God took the intelligence that existed and created (organized) spirit bodies in His own image and likeness God created a plan so that those spirit bodies could obtain physical bodies to inherit a fullness of joy. Each of us chose to follow the plan because it was obvious to us that regardless of what joyful or painful or positive experience we might have on the earth, it was worth it to obtain the fullness of joy we saw that God had. (Just think about it, in the vast expanse of you having existed for billions, and billions of years, whats 100 years on earth? Practically no time at all, even if it was all painful, you get an eternity afterward with perfect joy) Well, I am sure I could keep going on and on and on (I tend to do that), but I hope this gives some food for thought. Sorry I don't have time to go back ad edit this right now, I am at work and need to be working. Hopefully you get the gist of it. If I have made some errors someone will correct me, or I will catch it later and fix it. One last question to leave you with regarding this topic. Try to imagine a moment when you didn't exist. I do not believe it can be done, because such a time did not exist. You can imagine a moment in time before you were born, etc, but you can not imagine your mind and thoughts not existing. I believe there is truth in that fact alone:

I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it! I just was having trouble coming up with a good way of saying it (coincidentally, probably because I was very hungry at the time). I was definitely being rhetorical about the perfect diet. In regard to healthy eating not being the real question, I was referring to my interpretation of Snigmorder's original point about only eating meat when there was basically no other choice, which is how the whole conversation between He, I and NeuroTypical got started. I was not referring to healthy eating not being the real point of the WoW. I did not interpret your meaning of looking beyond the mark, probably my bad, but my use of the word err was also meant to mean 'err unintentionally while trying to sincerely keep the WoW', rather than actually overdoing it. I think that sums it up. Anyway, I'm gonna go eat my chocolate ice cream perfectly now. (except I probably won't because I'm currently limiting my sweets for fitness purposes)

I highly doubt the 'conspiring men' statement has anything to do with bread preservatives and more to do with glorification and mass production of alcohol, tobacco products, etc. So, why is this a problem? If the ingredient is 100% isolated, why does it matter where it came from? Did you know that the water plant filters your poop and pee and feeds it right back to you? How is this any different? That is more scientific genius than conspiring men. I mean, they are recycling hair and gathering functional and usable elements from it to aid mankind. Once again, not a problem, and inspired scientific genius rather than conspiring men. Some might cringe to know that I directly add MSG into almost everything that I cook and eat. I buy it in big bags like this: Proven via actual scientific studies to be safe. It makes my food taste better than everyone else's food!

I have a confession to make. This restaurant provides an exquisite and delicious all you can eat meat buffet (they also have a salad bar). It is one of my favorite places to eat. Does the fact that I shove my face full of various different delicious meats only once or twice a year count as sparingly? Even more important, (ignoring location) if I'm buying and you're all invited, are you not coming? I couldn't say for sure, but I think NeuroTypical seems like he's up for it!

Are you really that confident that you could present the absolute perfect daily diet? Even if you could, the diet would be different for everyone at every age, it would depend on medical conditions, etc. I don't even think eating healthy is the real question here. It seems to me the point being discussed would be more along the lines of eating 'perfectly'. If you are not eating perfectly then you are technically erring, even if not spiritually or sinfully, you are missing out on the added benefit of eating perfectly. I'm not sure the Word of Wisdom expects or is specific enough for all of us to eat perfectly, just healthy, as you suggested. Some would disagree with that. That's highly unlikely, but there are many people who are under the impression that a correct interpretation of the Word of Wisdom means to almost never eat meat. That, in my view, is inaccurate, and probably less healthy than unintentionally eating too much meat (not the same as glutting).

I think it will make it easier to answer your questions/concerns if we understand your belief about God's purpose. In your belief, why did God create mankind? I want to elaborate by relating certain mainstream Christian views from my LDS paradigm to help you understand why that is an important question. If there is no pre-mortal life, then Adam and Eve's existence began only at the moment God breathed into them the breath of life. God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and gave them a commandment to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the moment God created them, was their body sinful? Or was it only sinful after after they ate the fruit? If it was already sinful, then God just forced the creatures he loves into that position and then blamed them for being sinners. If the body was only sinful after they ate the fruit, why did God create the fruit in the first place? Going beyond that, most Christians for some reason tend to believe that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit we would all be born in the garden of Eden, in a perfect and sinless world. If you also come from that view, just because Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit, what makes you think you would also not eat the fruit? Is it not reasonable to conclude that eventually, of the billions of people born to earth, one of us would have eaten it? If God is a loving God who would not force his creatures into such a position and then blame them, do you believe that people who don't accept Christ because they are not aware of Him are going to hell, or will somehow get another chance? If they don't get another chance, how did God not force that upon them without the appropriate opportunity? When considering the concept of original sin: If God is a loving God, how come just because Adam and Eve at the fruit, I had to be born with the stain of sin even before making a single choice? Why didn't God make each of us separately and put us in the garden 1 at a time to choose for ourselves to eat or not eat the fruit? I am not trying to argue, but instead to give you some food for thought which could help open your mind to another way of thinking. As you can see, the answers to these questions (and others not asked) depend heavily on your perception of why God created us in the first place. Depending on your perspective, you might already believe in a God who would force his creatures into situations and still blame them; even worse would be not having an answer to reconcile the 'why'.

That was a very compelling article. I both agree and disagree with aspects of it. Just for fun, here are a few parts I really, really liked: I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but in a world where way too many people are advocating for complete vegetarianism, veganism, animal rights above human rights, etc, I would much rather err on the side of encouraging people to eat meat too frequently than to err on the side of teaching them to avoid meat too much. I think most people who make the argument as you have done (not necessarily you) tend to err on the side of advocating too little meat consumption. If the Lord feels enough of the Saints are over-consuming meat, I'm confident his apostles and prophets will clarify.

Your interpretation is entirely reasonable, however, Ezra Taft Benson interpreted 'these' from verse 15 to refer to the wild animals, not farm animals (livestock), and the Church published it in the Ensign. This same statement was reprinted in the Ensign in 1994 and in 2000. There is currently no other prophetic/apostolic interpretation published by the Church of this verse, so I will personally accept this one. To me this is also the most logical conclusion as to not create a contradiction with previous verses in section 89 as well as the verses in section 49 shown in my post above.

The revelation does not directly define the word sparingly at all. I would recommend reading the Joseph Smith Papers version of the manuscript, perhaps it could alter your interpretation somewhat. I will show you verse 13 as it is currently printed and as it was in the manuscript: The addition or removal of the coma can change the entire interpretation. Many people living at the time the word of wisdom was given suffered from scurvy for a high meat or all meat diet. I think the point of the word of wisdom regarding meat is moderation. Sparingly can mean many things depending on the context. If all you eat is meat, then sparingly could mean now meat is 25% of your diet instead of 100%. Remember we also have this revelation:

@Carborendum I think it is an awesome study, and makes it's point very well. The problem is that out in the world we are trying to make the case to people who make up their science and who don't even use real scientific data anymore to justify their beliefs. I never thought that the most useless knowledge from high school science would be how X and Y chromosomes work! I was reading some comments about that study on a few other websites earlier today and all the climate change activists are shouting that the study doesn't count because it was paid for by the Koch brothers. Unfortunately, you can't defeat stupid, except with education, however, when people are now being taught stupid, we are screwed!

Wow. That is pretty much word for word my opinion on the matter. Which reminds me of this:

If God and his prophets felt this way the Word of Wisdom would have remained a recommendation. Everyone was doing it at the time.

I'm going to continue to play 'angels advocate' here. So then if an artist takes pictures of your [insert relative] in various different nude poses, it's not porn as long as they are alone? If porn is in the eye of the beholder then wouldn't it be something that should be treated similar to the Word of Wisdom? Not all people drink alcohol irresponsibly, or even to the detriment of their health, but the law still forbids it to all of us. Not all naked images will sexually arouse everyone, but I can assure you there must be a few people out there who would be aroused by a renaissance nude painting. Not all nude imagery is porn; however, most of it is. I refrained from the conversation up until this point because I really liked and agreed with @Vort's OP and perspective and didn't think there was much to add. There is reasonable applicable need for nude imagery for medical and similar purposes. However, those can be obtained during medically appropriate situations. The Church's definition is: I don't know what the artists intention was. Also, I think the other question needs to be addressed: how was it not wrong for the woman to pose nude for the painting in the first place? If it was wrong for her to pose, does that not translate to it being wrong for me to view?

While in general I have almost always held a position in agreement with what your mother said, I also have grounds to disagree and think that you were absolutely correct to avoid that material as a missionary. In order to produce the nude renaissance art, individuals (usually women) posed naked in the presence of the artist. Was the woman not wrong to pose naked at the time she did it? Would you be supportive of your family members posing naked for an artists painting? If not, how is it different to justify that view? What if you could send your daughter back in time to pose instead of the person in the painting? Is it the time period? I would agree that in modern times to see such images may not have the same effect as traditional modern pornography, but to me that isn't necessarily an appropriate justification. What makes a nude painting not pornography?