BJ64

I did not say that he intended offense. Most people who say offensive things do not intend offense. If person A asked person B why he is fat most people including person B would think that was an offensive question but that does not mean that person A intended offense nor does that mean person B would take offense.

I find it interesting that when the subject of the second coming comes up there are always people who say they don’t want it to come yet because they are not ready for it. I feel that we are not preparing for the second coming but as you said we are preparing for our own meeting with Christ. I believe the second coming may not come in the lifetimes of most people presently living. It certainly didn’t come to lifetime of anybody already deceased but that timing doesn’t matter as far as our personal worthiness is concerned because we might meet him this afternoon. We need to always be prepared to meet Christ.

I said that I thought the question was offensive I did not say that I was offended by it. People say offensive things all the time that does not mean you have to be offended.

There is no life cycle for our spirits, only our physical bodies. Our spirits have always existed and always will exist. There no beginning and no end to our spirits. This is a principle plainly taught by Joseph Smith and Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”

I only asked him why he asked the question I did not tell him I found it offensive.

I believe that society’s anti-masturbation hysteria during the 16th through 19th century was due to medical misinformation. When you are told that masturbation causes insanity and all manner of disease of course you’re going to do whatever you can to get everyone to avoid it like the plague. However I think masturbation became a sin during the middle ages when Catholic theologians pronounced it as such justifying their position on the basis that any sexual act that cannot result in conception is unnatural and therefore evil. This also included any sex act of a married couple which could not result in conception. They went so far as to teach that masturbation and sex acts of married couples which could not result in conception were more grievous sins than rape because rape is a natural sex act that can result in conception. Pretty mixed up stuff. Fortunately I’m not bound by the teachings of medieval Catholic theologians.

While throwing out old materials from the stake clerks office I came across an old pamphlet about pornography. I can’t remember the year of publication. It said that every instance of porn viewing should be confessed to the bishop. Considering the broad definition of porn which is often used this would have members seeing their bishop every time they see an inappropriate scene in a tv show or movie, read something sex related or opened the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. It has been my understanding that the sins which need to be confessed to the bishop are those which may affect ones standing in the church. Considering that porn use and masturbation are two things among others which are specifically mentioned as not cause for disciplinary action, it would then stand to reason that they don’t need to be confessed to the bishop unless the member wants the counsel and advice of the bishop in the matter.

The interview excerpt I posted was about the very video you posted. Here is more of it. “For Clark, the sudden online attention missed the point completely. “Neither my talk nor the video has anything to do with masturbation. There’s nothing in the video or in my talk about that,” Clark said, in an interview with TIME Thursday. “We were really focused on addictions, pornography, things that are really damaging spiritually to people.” In his words the video you posted has nothing to do with masturbation. Can you find any scripture anywhere which says that masturbation is a sin?

How do you interpret this statement given to Time Magazine by Kim Clark then president of BYU Idaho, now a member of the seventy? Time Magazine: Do the church and the school see masturbation as a sin? Kim Clark: Well, it is interesting. I would frame it this way. Masturbation is a behavior that, if continued, could over time lead to things that are sinful, so the counsel that the church gives to its leaders is to counsel with young people to help them understand that their bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost. That comes right out of Corinthians, that is what Paul taught, and it is a beautiful doctrine—that our bodies are a great gift from God and we need to take good care of them, and that the procreative powers that God has given us, he cares very much about how they are used, and so that we need to learn to use them in ways that are in accordance with his will and his mind.

One might add that no one is sinless so missionaries will always also be sinners. It’s just a matter of how much sin is acceptable for a missionary. The same applies to temple attenders. They are all sinners as well. Every one of us is blatantly disobedient to some degree. If not then we’d be perfect already.

I am suggesting that if a leader held missionaries to a higher standard than what is required by the church then it could lower the number of missionaries serving.

The list of interview questions for Melchizedek Priesthood ordinations prints up along with the recommendation form the same way the baptism questions print up with the baptism recommendation form. The ordination questions are essentially the same as the temple recommend questions. I know the guidelines say that the interviewer should not deviate from the temple interview questions. I can only imagine how our stake president must grill young men preparing for missions. Perhaps there is a connection here as to why there are fewer than two missionaries out per ward/branch in our stake.

Are you inferring that a stake president deviating from the standard of list of ordination questions stems from a problem higher up in the leadership chain?

@JohnsonJonesI view you as a voice of reason in discussions involving the law of chastity. I wonder where you draw the line on asking about masturbation? Personally I feel the question should not go beyond “Do you obey the lay of chastity?” When I was interviewed to be ordained a high priest about three years ago the stake president asked me if I masturbate. My reply was that I had in the past but had resolved it with my bishop. I asked why he asked me and he said it was his duty as president of the high priest quorum to make sure that no man that masturbates is ordained a high priest. Personally I found the question offensive. He just as well have asked If have oral sex or play out sexual fantasies with my wife and such. I think the question should stick to do you obey the law of chastity and if the member has concerns then he or she can then ask regarding them.

I can’t speak for him but I believe the point is that questioning should not go beyond asking if the child obeys the law of Chastity and not probing further unless the child brings it up. However I will add that there are a lot of members out there who do not think masturbation should be discussed because they feel that it by itself is not sinful.

The writing under the caption First Estate contradicts Abraham 3. Abraham 3 says nothing about eternal intelligence + spirit body = spirit child of Heavenly Parents. What Abraham 3 says is ”18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”

Except for the sons of perdition everyone will be “saved”. That is all will be resurrected and receive a kingdom of glory. In this respect other Christian faiths who claim that all you have to do to be saved is say that you believe in Christ are correct. They will get their salvation. What they won’t get is exaltation.

I haven’t read the thirty pages of replies so forgive me if someone has already said this. Everyone will be repenting after death. To become like God you have to be perfect and repent of all of your sins. Since nobody is perfect when they die, all will have to repent after this life. However the degree to which we repent in this life the better off we will be in the next life.

I also don’t like when the class gets bogged down in some irrelevant off topic discussion and never gets to the point of the lesson.

Yes, the instructor and class member participation can make a big difference.

You need permission (a recommend) to attend the temple. You don’t need permission to attend gospel doctrine class. However, having taught Sunday school I understand the feeling of having people leave the class to go to a different one. (Our ward has three gospel doctrine classes). Personally I don’t find gospel doctrine class terribly interesting. The lessons repeat every four years and have done so my entire adult life so I’ve been through them each about eight times. Fortunately there will be new curriculum in 2019.

I don’t think God does what He does in order to be worshipped, I believe He does it so that we can become like him. Here is a quote from Joseph Smith “The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”

Here is a quote from a recent statement by Elder Renlund. "The Latter-day Saint leader says the “old sectarian notion that suicide is a sin and that someone who commits suicide is banished to hell forever” is “totally false.” He adds that “we know from all the statistics out there that someone in the ward [congregation] is hurting. Someone is having suicidal thoughts in your ward. And as we come together as families, as churches, in a community, we can do better than we’re doing now. … Heavenly Father is pleased when we reach out and help His children. I think He’s profoundly pleased.”

I think your assessment is right on how to sustain leaders. However on the local level at least it’s hard sometimes to put your full support behind a leader when you know their flaws. For example a councilor in the bishopric who throws tantrums at work and cusses and swears at everyone and the wife of the bishop who is in the primary presidency and called child protective services on her neighbors to spite them and refused to apologize and along with her husband drove the family out of the ward so that they are now attending a different ward. It makes me feel that my short comings aren’t too great. We all have weaknesses but I think sometimes we know too much about some people.

However acting as though you’re someone’s friend and then talking behind her back isn’t exactly being genuine either.