BJ64

This is something I’ve thought about. If there must be opposition in all things where would the opposition have come from if Satan had followed Gods plan. Perhaps rebelliousness is inevitable and if it wasn’t Satan there would have been someone else

It is said that if gays just stay celibate throughout this life then all will be well with them in the next life because they won’t have that attraction any more but we are also taught that the same spirit that possesses our body in this life will have power to posses it in the next life. If same sex attraction is merely a physical thing then it would leave them when they die. If it is part of the spirit then it would remain a part of them after this life. If gays will lose the desire to be with someone of the same sex after this life would we not also lose our desire to be with our spouse after this life? If love and desire for a spouse is forever for heterosexual couples would it not be the same for homosexual couples?

Here is an interesting essay on this topic. https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

I don't know why people get so worked up about this. I don't think anyone will be forced into a marriage situation that is not agreeable to them. If by some chance plural marriage is a requirement to become a god and you are opposed to it then you just won't become a god. It would be your choice.

I take it as meaning that God will hold you accountable for not teaching your children.

The Old Testament for Sunday school and also the Book of Mormon.

I think it could be summed up by saying that all we really know is that righteous men who are sealed to more than one righteous woman will be practicing plural marriage in eternity. As far as polygamy in this life, five of my third great grandfathers were polygamists.

Here is an excerpt of a speech given by Dallin H. Oaks then president if BYU in 1971 explaining grooming standards at BYU. I think it basically explains the church’s stance against long hair and beards. Note that the rule is still the same 47 years later. “The rule against beards and long hair for men stands on a different footing. I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil. Others argue that beards cannot be evil because they see bearded men enjoying the privileges of the temple. To me, this proposition seems so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them. There is nothing inherently wrong about long hair or beards, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with possessing an empty liquor bottle. But a person with a beard or an empty liquor bottle is susceptible of being misunderstood. Either of these articles may reduce a person’s effectiveness and promote misunderstanding because of what people may reasonably conclude when they view them in proximity to what these articles stand for in our society today. In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of indifference toward the best in life. As Elder Sterling W. Sill has observed: “A let-down in personal appearance has far more than physical significance, for when ugliness gets its roots into one part of our lives it may soon spread to every other part.” “

I have a receding hairline but I’m not going to shave my head. You can’t conceal baldness by shaving your head. Lest anyone think that church leadership is totally okay with men shaving their heads I will point out that it is against the grooming standards for BYU and BYU Idaho. Interestingly though the current president of BYU Idaho, President Erying is aparently naturally totally bald. Therefore as president of BYU Idaho he can sport the shaved head look but it’s against the rules for students to mimic his look. Seems strange to me.

Yes it would be frowned on for a woman to shave her head or dye her hair green but other than this sort of extreme style she is free to do what she wants. I also don’t understand why it’s okay for men to shave their head. That looks more extreme than long hair to me. A man with a shaved head looks like a thug to me yet it is very popular.

My wife and I discussed this topic and decided that past sins that are repented of are in the past and do not need to be discussed with your spouse. There are sins I have repented of since marriage (not adultery or anything like it) that I would not tell my wife about.

I’m in Idaho which is essentially the same as Utah. I often have my hair a little bit long, touching my collar and a little over my ears. I’ve often had comments on needing a haircut. A man in our ward had his hair a little long and got angry that people at church would tell him he needed a haircut so he grew it out down past his shoulders in defiance. The sister and brother in law of a lady in our ward came for a visit. The husband had long hair. He and his dad and brother decided they would not cut their hair until next spring for whatever reason. The lady from our ward told me and my wife that another woman from our ward asked her how her sister’s marriage was. She asked why she would ask this. The only her lady said that since the husband had long hair she figured the couple was about to get a divorce. Its amazing how nosy and judgmental people can be. What I don’t like is the double standard. Women can style their hair any way they want and have it any length they want and nobody says a thing but if a man doesn’t have a missionary haircut he is judged to be evil or rebellious. If men can’t have long hair then women shouldn’t be able to have short hair.

What you posted is what I was thinking about. It says swimming but I would include in that any sport that has to be done wearing a specific type of clothing that would not cover garments. From the statement often read during recommend interviews, “When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment.” I take from this second statement that we are to decide for ourselves with the help of The Spirit how to wear the garment rather than to ask others. It says the garment when worn properly protects against temptation and evil I do Taekwondo and I don’t wear my garments because the top of the uniform is open quite low and would not cover the garment. My wife is usually with me so I told her it’s her job to protect me from temptation and evil while I’m wearing my Taekwondo uniform.

The handbook says it’s okay to remove them during sports when necessary so it’s not something I’d worry too much about.

While we have no doctrine that it will be required, we do know that it will be practiced. I wouldn’t get too concerned about it at this point. I believe that our understanding of everything will be so much greater in the next life that even if we were required to have plural marriage we would not oppose it. However the idea that plural marriage would be practiced on a large scale presumes that there will be many more women than men who inherit the celestial kingdom. I don’t know that that will be the case.

I see nothing wrong with women showing their stomachs in swimwear as men do however I also know ther are parents who won't let their boys go or wear tank tops while swimming or otherwise because they say if it's immodest for girls it's immodest for boys too. I think that's really going overboard though.

I would suppose that either no one has had sufficient faith, or the need hasn’t been sufficiently great for such a miracle.

Why would Adam and Eve evolve when a perfected resurected and immortal being would have the capability of producing offspring? When they were “created” they were immortal like their parents. It wasn’t until the fall that they became mortal and subject to physical death.

Probably there have been only two or three people ever with the faith to move a mountain.

However there are no modern accounts of moving mountains with faith. Even when it would have been very helpful such as the pioneers crossing into the Salt Lake valley and on the hole in the rock expedition.

I think this is the first thing you’ve said that I agree with. I think it was clear to early church leaders that Adam and Eve were the literal physical offspring of our Heavenly Parents. However this teaching seems to be lost since now days the emphasis is that we are the “spirit children” of God and that God is the creator of our spirits. Joseph Smith and scripture say that our spirits were in the beginning with God. Joseph also said “But, if I am right I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops, that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself: intelligence exists upon a self existent principle, it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.”

I believe our Heavenly Parents created Adam and Eve in the same manner as we create our children. Early church leaders believed this also.

Deuteronomy 12:8 ...every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

In my mind apostles are predictable in what they are going to talk about. For example Elder Uchtdorf aviation, President Monson stories of visiting the sick etc., Elder Scott immortality, Elder Haight boyhood sports, President Benson the Book of Mormon, President Hinckley optimism and do a little better and so forth. With Elder Oaks it seems his law background influences him in addressing legal issues such as gay marriage.

It was you who said he just pretty much shot down gay marriage. I assumed you meant recently.