person0

There are approximately 5 million LDS in the Continental United States. Of 300 million population that is roughly 1.7%. It is estimated that 3% of the population is homosexual. Members of the church are generally not in the norm/mainstream of societal thought. It can be argued that there are an equal if not greater number of the population who condemn the LDS Church and/or its members for one reason or another. Why are we not committing suicide at the same rate?

Yes, very obvious , but is it acceptable/approve-able, in what context, and with what additional (if any) requirements?

I have no problem logically accepting that evolution and creationism can be complementary. However, given the doctrines set forth by the teachings of the Church, it does not appear that the physical evolution of species is within the realm of possibilities if one acknowledges that evolution requires physical death and physical death requires blood/mortality.

I'm not in Canada, but that's an interesting way to ask people which pen they think is the best. I'm not a pen enthusiast, the next closest thing could be tech enthusiast but not even enough to be an early adopter, just to follow the news. My wife and I were discussing this scenario after watching the new movie 'Passengers' and I was curious to see other people's opinions on the matter. Either that or I just don't have enough of my own problems right now that I feel the need to create problems and solve them so that my existence is meaningful! Hero complex?

This is along my own line of thinking as well. As far as the dedication to the new spouse, we must also consider that the original spouse would likely presume the spouse on the island to be dead and may re-marry as well. As far as the kids though, at least 1 time in history something similar happened, however, I'm not certain that the current state of the gene pool could handle it happening again

Givens: 1) Male Person (A) 2) Female Person (B) 3) A deserted island large enough with sufficient variation to provide safety from the elements. 3') Could be any secluded environment such as outer space like in the new movie 'Passengers'. 4) The island has sufficient vegetation to sustain life for an indefinite period of time and Persons A and B are capable of harvesting/accessing it to support themselves. 5) Neither person has any reason to believe they will be rescued or discovered. 5.1) This does not mean it won't eventually happen, it might or might not. 6) Everything we currently know about the gospel and reality is still in effect. 7) Persons A and B are not married to each other, both are healthy and relatively young. Problem: Physical intimacy outside the bounds of being 'legally and lawfully wedded' is sinful and contradictory to the commandments of God. However, Spencer W. Kimball has acknowledged: Question: In the given scenario, how could Persons A and B solve the problem to remain faithful while also not remaining celibate until death? Possible Answer: They formally establish their own (2 person) society and in the process establish laws. One of those laws determines what is considered 'legal and lawful' marriage in their society. They abide the law they have established for themselves and thus are married, resolving their predicament. Other Items to Consider: What if one or both of them were already married to someone else before finding themselves in their predicament? What if 10 -15 years down the road they are discovered and returned to normal society (especially if they were previously married)? What if they have children? Ideas anyone?

Sustainable Does the fact that it 'makes people feel better' have to mean that its truthful?

I show up to every stake conference, but I still consider it like a day off because it is 2 hours instead of 3, and I don't have to preside over a meeting or teach a lesson!

You made a lot of good points, however, on this issue, I definitely disagree. Debt is semi equivalent to slavery. If the government was fully abiding the principles of righteousness from the beginning we would be able to eventually be debt free and then have a surplus in order to provide for the people in times of need. Consider the history of the Church, while the church was in debt for a time, it was nearly on the brink of financial ruin before sufficient membership began paying an honest full tithe and the church began to operate at a surplus over time. The church now operates in a surplus of Billions. That being said, while there is no such thing as 'healthy' debt, I would concede that it can be argued that there are times where there is necessary debt. However, this country is over 200 years old, debt is no longer classifiable as necessary, both at the federal and state level. The current debt of the US could be classified as stupidity (among other things).

Perhaps some more personal background can greatly help clarify. My wife and I are physically unable to have our own children. When we as a couple first approached the decision of whether or not to use birth control, we were not aware of this fact. Every time we prayed to determine if it was acceptable for us to use or continue to use birth control early in our marriage, I always received a spiritual impression of 'It doesn't matter'. After about 1 year into our marriage we decided to forgo using birth control and were excited about the prospect of having children. After 7 months of trying and failing we started a year long medical investigative process which resulted in the knowledge that even after expensive medical procedures we would only have a 5% chance at best of bringing our own biological children into the world. We decided to forgo the procedures. The doctor placed my wife on birth control medication long term as it provides specific hormones needed to help her remain healthy. In addition to that we discovered that had my wife's parents allowed her to be placed on birth control medication in her teens our % chance of bearing our own children could have been much higher. With that knowledge I hope you can now see that I am definitely conscientious about your point #1, my own wife needs 'birth-control' medication for her well being and without it her life expectancy could literally be shortened. About point #2 I did choose the word abomination on my own, however, I am not personally saying it is a heathen and immoral practice. I chose that word simply because I felt it was strong enough to be inclusive of the united perspectives of some of the early brethren rather than picking one single quote and using that terminology. I still do not believe it was inaccurate to use that word for that context. In conclusion: I do not personally have any problem with any individual or couple deciding to use birth-control medication, that is between them and the Lord. I would never tell someone that by choosing to do so they were committing an abomination, such would not even cross my mind. I do not personally believe that the use of birth control is a heathen or immoral practice even outside of my particular circumstance. I 100% agree with the church's current stance as quoted by @anatess2 that The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife. The intent of my original comment was to illustrate that there have been opinions from both perspectives offered by authorities of the Church. I still believe that when accurately read it does convey that message, however, I have already but once again apologize that my intent has somehow been unclear and mistaken. I hope that it is now sufficiently clear where I am coming from on this issue.

I agree, especially since there is already a defined emeritus process for 70 from the 1st quorum. However, I doubt it will happen due to the nature of the mantle of the 12 apostles and first presidency. I believe in the past the rest of the 12 simply take over the responsibilities and the next in line of succession takes on the role of Acting President.

I interpret that part of the statement to also include contraception, however, I can see how some would not consider contraception to be preventing life. So I can reasonably agree with your assertion on that. I do not think I repeated that quote more than once and instead used different quotes once clarification was requested. However, I may have missed something.

I apologize for misunderstanding. Please indicate which quote you believe is in reference to abortion so I can better determine this possible blunder of mine.

I have posted a great many quotes up to this point. I disagree with the interpretation that all of them were solely in reference to abortion.

First off in regards to the post title question "How do you decipher your own feelings as opposed to an answer?". It is often unnecessary to do so. Those who have the Gift of the Holy Ghost can stand confident in knowing that so long as they are living in accordance with the principles of the gospel and the commandments of the Lord, they will be impressed upon when a decision or action is wrong or bad. Most decisions can be made based on the 'yellow light' principle: Proceed with caution. Now, in regard to the specifics of the OP: "I've been praying and pondering over it and everything points to that person." I would like to explain my personal experience in hopes to shed some light on the process of personal revelation where another individual's agency is involved. I returned from my mission and already had a 'best friend' who I expected to date, along with dating others and enjoy life before getting married. I returned home close to Christmas day and was preparing a gift for my 'friend' when I felt an impression that I interpreted to mean I should seek to marry her. I pondered throughout the day on the impression and at night in my prayers I asked along the lines of the following questions in a logical order, I carefully crafted the questions so that God could answer me with 100% certainty either yes or no by the power of the Holy Ghost, but without affecting her agency: 1) Is [name of person] someone with whom I would be compatible and could have joy? 2) Is [name of person] a person thou wouldst approve for me to marry? 3) Does't thou approve that I should ask [name of person] to marry me? 4) If [name of person] is willing to marry me, is it thy will that I should marry her? (BTW: The answer was yes to all my questions and I have now been happily married for a good number of years) You could also craft other questions along these lines, however, as you can see, by preparing specific questions for the Lord you can get specific answers and know the appropriate course of action without affecting the other persons agency and without uncertainty. If you ask these questions and feel you do not receive any answer at all then return to the concept of the 'yellow light' rule presented earlier and definitely proceed, until you receive an impression to do otherwise. Others may have a different process, but I have come to this process after much study, and pondering and have a personal testimony of this process. Best wishes to you

I can see that, but I do believe it was within the appropriate context. I never intended to say that it is an actual abomination. I simply intended to say that it was the opinion of some of the apostles and prophets that it is an abomination. That is not to say it is the official opinion of the church. I believe when read accurately my original statement is not offensive nor incorrect given the Church's own definition of the word. That being said, I do concede that someone may not get that impression if they merely glanced at it once and did not fully read into the statement. But now they will have all of these clarifying posts they can read from all of us!

That is really not any different than what I said in the first place. I'm sorry that you felt otherwise.

I think many people extrapolate the doctrine of eternal progression beyond what we understand it to be (even within the church). Let's consider the following from the King Follett Sermon (where all of this got started :-) Now let us once again consider the verses in question (with a little extra): I really don't see anything contradictory when comparing the verses, especially in the context of the LDS scriptures. Even if taken literally let us consider an LDS doctrine that further addresses this: Now lets take all that and put it back into the context of the original verses: Here are some conclusions that I personally accept in relation to these verses and quotes: Intelligence (including Man's intelligence) was not created and can not be created, it has always existed, and there never was a time in which it did not exist. This means that I, Person0 (how ironic ) have existed from 'the beginning', from eternity to eternity, everlasting to everlasting, not equal to God, but at least in co-existence with him. This is extra important because most, if not all, non-LDS dogmas accept creation ex-nihilo, which we do not accept and which is actually a key factor in being able to accept the doctrine of eternal progression as we see it. If I was in 'the beginning' with God then statements like '. . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. . .' remain true regardless of the context. Christ's words in John 10:34-36 @Carborendum had the right idea when he said that you must remain consistent. It is very clear that Christ is using this verse to correlate to the fact that He Himself is deity, descended from deity. Put all of this in the context of the King Follett discourse, as well as in the context of Romans 8:17 (Joint-Heirs with Christ), and we could include other verses, but it all kind of wraps up pretty well. To extrapolate much beyond the basic subset of doctrines establishing the plan of Eternal Progression moves into the realm of speculation (although possibly accurate) is not necessarily official doctrine of the church.

From the article: Now that is true comedy.

If he is your fiance meaning that you are engaged to be married, why have you not already established a wedding date? My understanding is that (assuming/hoping you are trying to avoid fornication) it is recommended that there should be no more than 6 months time between the engagement and the wedding date. Beyond that I second what @estradling75 said, except in the context of what @NeuroTypical said, at which point I think we must all acknowledge there are too many unknowns. Side note: The OP has only 1 post, no response or follow ups and no other posts (so far).

I have removed everything from your post that I agree with or agree with enough to not respond. A who is also a thing. @Rob Osborn The below answers you also, especially in reference to you saying "God knew that man would choose one of these options but that was as narrow as was possible for God. Why? Because it had yet to happen. . ." I'm not sure I myself can make it more clear than the scriptures and apostles of the Lord already have.

The government would actually love that because the mom would be expected to pay taxes! (you could still get around it though and make it work, i'm just having fun here)

Why do you believe this is metaphorical? Is it not logical to conclude that the concept of being 1/3 evil exists in many cultures because it is a truth that was passed down from the beginning and remained mixed in the culture of many fallen societies. Those are the actual words of the Lord.

Zil asked me if I was a programmer, and yes I dabble as a hobby but not to the skill level where I would be able to get a job as a programmer.