Madam_Mim

I just have to mention that after all my critical comments lately: Even though I may not like many things that the church teaches, I still feel like especially members of your religion are some of the best people ever! Just had to throw that in here 😊 Did you never think of people from other religions who seem to be just as convinced as you are? I don't know how you can be so sure that this is the "right" religion when there are others who claim the same thing.

Are you saying that in the other kingdoms there are no babies and all the singles are there? Now THAT sounds like heaven to me!

But can you relate at least a little bit to my position - that it doesn't seem reasonable to adjust your life to rules of a being that we don't know for sure exists? Especially when we see that different religions seem to get different "messages" from god.

Yes, it's different and I don't expect the church to make changes that would contradict with one of their most important teachings, that wouldn't make sense. I was only referring to the way people try to make sense of it and tried to find reasons why it was justified. I don't think gender is interchangeable. But I'm not too familiar with this topic. I am aware that there are people who feel like they are born in the "wrong" body - and sometimes you can really tell that someone just behaves and even looks so much like the opposite gender and I understand that they want to change and I have no issue with that at all. I'm only saying that I don't think you can just decide that you're the other gender now (without having any surgery or treatment first). - Sorry for the long answer Sure, in general motherhood is intrinsic to female. And it probably is best for a child to have a mother and a father. But if two males or two females want to have a child, I don't have a problem with that either. A child doesn't grow up solely with the parents - there are usually enough people within the close circle of the family to have a child experience male and female influences. I'd say you love someone if you care deeply about another person, want to spend as much time with them as possible, treat them affectionately and care about their well being. And if we're talking about love for a partner and not just a friend, there usually comes the desire to also express this love physically. But which (love or sexual attraction) comes first might vary, I think.

I have to admit that I didn't think about examples of consensual actions that could be viewed as wrong, just because it's so obvious to me that homosexual relations are nothing that could be considered "wrong". (And yes, I'm aware that I could be totally wrong about this and I'm making god angrier every day by supporting gays... but I'll gladly take that risk) Regarding your two examples (marrying a relative or an animal): What does that have to do with gay marriage? I have to admit, when I read all of your arguments on why gay marriage is "wrong", I couldn't help but think that people probably argued quite similarly before the priesthood ban was lifted ("god knows better"). Most of you would agree that it's a good thing the church got rid of it, but back then people probably tried to justify it too. I'm not relating exclusively to gay-marriage now, but just speaking in general: Since I'm not convinced that a god even exists, it's very difficult to understand why anyone would put god's will (well.. or what people claim to be god's will) above the well being of humans. I know that you are all trying to do good things and don't want to harm anyone intentionally. It's just difficult to watch from "outside" when people get treated poorly because others are so convinced that this is what must be done to please god.

I appreciate all of you commenting but wow.. I'm having a really hard time to relate to your views.

Nice! Good to know I know this is a controversial topic, but I just have to ask: Do any of you struggle with the way the church views homosexual behavior? It's so hard for me to grasp why this is considered to be one of the worst sins. What's wrong about two adults of the same sex, falling in love and being in a consensual sexual relationship? Is it because it conflicts with god's plan for us to have a family/babies? I guess that's not the only reason because otherwise it would also be sinful if a straight married couple decides not to have children. Making someone feel guilty for falling in love with a person of the same sex and not allowing them to ever experience what it's like to fall in love and be loved in return is cruel. And masturbation is forbidden for them too? I mean come on... that's just torture That can't be healthy.

Thanks! Oh and just to make that clear: Whenever I don't react to your answers or stop talking about a certain topic it's not because I didn't read or care about the answers. When people explain their view or how they make sense of certain things, I sometimes don't see any use in asking more questions. Because often your view or a general explanation of something I didn't know enough about is all I'm interested in. If this was about ME trying to get convinced, I obviously would ask more. Something completely else: I've read that everyone is welcome to join a Sunday meeting (not sure if that's what it's called... but I guess you know that I mean). I would be very interested to visit, just because I'm curious to see what's happening there - but I feel like it's maybe inappropriate to go there when I'm so completely unconvinced by (any - not just "your") religious teachings. What's your view on this? Do you think someone who doesn't even believe there's a god shouldn't visit or is it ok as long as you behave in a respectful manner?

Haha, I love this example! Thank you! I can live with the fact that I sound like a dope to most of you on here - but I still appreciate comments like yours very much

Ooooh ok - I didn't know about this one. Thanks again for your explanations! I've read that he probably didn't have children with any of these women, so I guess he didn't have sexual relationships with them. I was more looking at it from the married woman's view: Joseph Smith "receiveth a wife" and she "be with another man" (her first husband). And I admit... I just assumed they're not virgins anymore since they were married. But of course that's irrelevant anyway if the marriages to Josef Smith were Eternal sealings. You guys have to admit that this topic can get kind of confusing! First I get asked if I don't know how babies are made and then I'm told this wasn't about sex at all 😏

I guess these parts would be a problem? 41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

No, I knew about Joseph Smith being sealed to more women before, but I didn't notice that this doesn't match with Section 132.

Are you used to getting asked a lot of questions whenever you talk to someone who's not a member of the church? I've read it again - this time in German, just to make sure I don't miss anything. I still couldn't find anything that explains why this is exclusive to men. But now that I've read it again, I noticed something else I don't understand: Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already married to members of the church. Why were those women allowed to do that? And is there any explanation given from Joseph Smith why that's justified and not against Section 132?

That's... fascinating. I knew before that men can be sealed to more women in the eternities but I've never heard of those posthumous sealings for remarried widows. I'll have to read into this a bit more but I have to admit, at first I didn't know how to react to this in another way than "WHAT?!". It just seems so strange when you've never heard about that before. Another thing that's interesting to me: I know there are these 3 different kingdoms of glory. If a woman makes it to the celestial kingdom but she wants to be with her son, who left the church (or commited sins or whatever and isn't in the c.k.) - is there any chance for her to get to another kingdom to be with her son or is she forced to stay in the celestial kingdom forever?

They can't be sealed while they're alive, but when they're dead it's ok? Is there an explanation for that somewhere (and why it's different for women)?

I'm glad you mentioned this - that's really strange to me. If you don't believe in eternal marriage or no afterlife at all, remarriage seems reasonable because why should you spend the rest of your life alone if you long for a partner to spend it with. But considering that your marriage lasts for eternity, remarriage seems like cheating. And what are a few lonely years on earth in comparison to eternity? I would follow every bit of the Word of Wisdom and live the healthiest life possible just to make sure I'm going to outlive my spouse and avoid an involuntary plural marriage... Just the thought that his second wife suddenly shows up in heaven - awkward. (That's worse than two women wearing the same dress to an event. WAY worse!) But on a more serious note: Can anyone recommend a link to a text or speech that explains why women can't get sealed to more than one man? I've read some texts on lds.org on marriage and sealings but couldn't find anything helpful.

Thanks @ephedra ! I'll have a look at those. I have to admit I was a little irritated at first, but I can understand that it might be frustrating to see someone misrepresenting/misunderstanding important parts of your religion. I'm aware that this is not the perfect concept to get a good understanding of the church's teachings and I'll never have a fully understanding of what you believe and why you believe it but this is something that interests me, so if I just learn a few new things or think about some different perspectives, that's good enough for me.

Thanks for all your answers! I just noticed that I used "mormon" - I'm sorry. That wasn't intentional. Oh.. ok. Maybe my questions so far didn't make sense, but thanks to many of the answers I understand those things a bit better, I think. Now that I've read all of your explanations I wouldn't ask the same questions again because now I know that I've viewed many things about the Doctrines incorrectly. Sure, I could have read all kinds of texts from the Church and listened to speeches from prophets to learn more - but I prefer just having a conversation with believers. And nobody is forced to interact with me. Also I just enjoy having a conversation with believers and learn their point of view.

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now?

Thanks! Sorry! I've read the whole section again and also the link @LiterateParakeet shared and I agree, it isn't primarily about polygamy. It's just that the last part (64-65) really sticks out when you read it for the first time. In fact I already did just that So far, that's the only question about your religion that I've ever asked my friend who's a member of the church and she explained it to me. But going back to the D&C in general: If someone drinks coffee regularly (just choosing something that seems rather harmless) and everyone knows it - is that a big deal within the church? I mean... do you have to talk to the bishop? Or is it just something other church members disapprove of but there won't be any consequences? Oh gosh, those questions are so strange and believe me, I've thought about deeper ones that I'm going to post another time. But those about the D&C just popped into my head, so..

Hi there! I wanted to use this thread to just throw in questions that come to my mind or that I've already been thinking about before but didn't want to start a new topic. I'd really appreciate it if some of you are willing to check this thread once in a while to explain some things to me or just tell me your views! This way I don't interrupt or disturb ongoing discussions in other threads. A few people on here probably aren't too keen to explain everything to a nonbeliever or wouldn't appreciate it if I bombarded several threads with my comments. So I thought with this thread only those who are fine with dealing with my questions will read them and I don't bother anyone else. OK, let's go. I'd like to start with the D&C. How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C? Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? Why is section 132 still included? I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore. How can the reader tell that this isn't a current doctrine (is that mentioned somewhere in the scripture, is there an "updated" version, a footnote or something like that)? Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed? So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever? (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book, that's why it feels strange to not have the current doctrines in there)

Thanks for the explanations! Not sure I'm convinced yet, but I understand what you meant a little better and this definitely is something I'll think about some more.

Wow, I knew this would get some interesting answers. Or maybe they are just so interesting to me because I feel differently about this. I don't think I made the choice to not believe in a deity. I simply haven't found any good reason/argument/evidence (yet?) to think there is a God, so I don't see how I could suddenly choose to believe, even if I wanted to. Oh.. sorry for getting off topic by the way. Next time I'll just start a new thread. Something like "atheist asks weird questions about your faith" and I'll just post in it whenever I think of something I'm curious about.

Thanks for your replies! Do you think to either believe or not believe in a God is a choice?

Just out of curiousity: What would happen to me, according to your belief? I've read the Book of Mormon, am somewhat familiar with D&C and read some teachings from various prophets - so I know the law. But I don't believe in a god and therefore don't live my life according to the scriptures (of course I follow some of the "rules", like not to kill people, but I already did before reading the scriptures). I think the only things I'm "guilty" of - in your god's opinion - is drinking alcohol sometimes and smoking. Oh and I'm refusing to create an eternal family by not wanting any children.