TannersDad

You're kidding right? The whole purpose of that book is to lead people away from the LDS church. Unlike many Lattery-day Saints I am drawn to reading anti material. Part of it is my interest in knowing what is the latest thing that they have come up with and part of it is to have the opportunity to question my beliefs. I think that is healthy but to be honest I have yet to encounter the anti material that has even made me flinch. I think ultimately the stuff makes my faith stronger. One of the best things about the LDS church is that the members are taught to question their beliefs.

I think this an interesting topic and I like others, feel that this is not the place to share sacred experiences. I think what President Packer was trying to teach is that many people fail to recognize the Spirt or Holy Ghost confirming the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the truthfulness of other things. It is a still small voice after all. I think President Packer was saying that you don't need God to come down and stand on your chest to know that the Book of Mormon or any doctrine for that matter is true. The Spirit or Holy Ghost often manifests Himself in a simple good feeling which anybody can feel. In my opinion this is the greatness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that anybody can know of its veracity for themselves.

Does this make sense to anyone else? "The selfish act of knowing you are raising a child" I don't count knowing as an act nor do I get why knowing that I am raising a child is selfish. "and doing a good job of it requires that you do certain amount of work to help the baby out" Knowing that I am working to raise a child also isn't selfish nor is trying to do my best to raise that child. Of course I am looking at one small picture, that is all Cal requested. But I still don't get how looking at the great picture is selfish nor am I positive what you are refering. Is looking at the big picture when raising a child selfish? or is doing acts with the big picture in mind selfish? or are you suggesting that single acts cannot be taken into context until we have the big picture and only then can we determine if the act itself was selfish? I am not sure when speaking about selfishness why we were only allowed speak about it on a continuum and not single acts. My point is this (not sure what you were trying to say so I'll sum up with my point): Not every act is done for the personal gain. Can you point to personal gain in every act? Yes, does that mean the personal gain is the motive for that action? Back on the topic of marriage, I know that when I bring flowers home to my wife it will make her happy. Do I get personal gain when she is happy? Absolutely and have I had to bring flowers home because I was in the dog house and needed to make amends? Sure, in that case the reason I brought home flowers was for personally gain but even then I would argue not pure personal gain. On the other hand I have brought home flowers to my sweet wife simply to make her happy. Let me say that again, the reason I did the act was to make her happy. Do I benefit from her happiness? Sure but it was not the reason I did it and that is the difference between a selfish act and a selfless act. Finally, I pretty confident that just like any act can be shown to be selfish, any act can also be shown to be selfless.

I'm glad you have all the answers. Too bad they don't address the question. I don't recall asking or commenting much on what women get when they get divorced. Second, the divorce rate varies from state to state--in many states it is over 50%. As to you comment on why I got divorced, you know nothing about me or about the details of my marriage. Shows how mindless you are--commenting on things you know nothing about. Third, you are simply assuming, as many of the women on this thread have, that I am somehow against spouses treating eachother with the uttmost of respect and consideration. You completely misinterpret my comments, reading in things that suit your fears and prejudices. As to the divorce rate in the LDS church, it is about 33%, about the same as the divorce rate of couples from other faiths that attend church regularly. First, who said that I had all the answers? I was just pointing out that the things being discussed here are not what makes a happy marriage. People that have sex every night (with their spouse) and are wealthy still get divorces. Second, the question was about divorce not what makes a healthy marriage. I was addressing peoples opinions on healthy marriages. As far as I can tell no one gave good info on divorce. Third, the only thing that I am assuming is that you believe the things that you posted in your original post. Based on that I am not surprised you have been divorced. Don't misinterpret my assumptions. Fourth, what planet do you come from where people only do things for selfish reasons? Do you really go into any action thinking what is in it for me? I can only imagine how this attitude helps in marriage... You may not realize it but no one does anything where there is nothing in it for them, even if it is just the avoidance of feeling guilty for NOT doing it. Give it some thought, it will dawn on you what I am saying. That is just how human nature is, deep down. We use the terms UNSELFISH to simply mask our one and only motivation for doing anything--to feel good. Give me any action a humans take and I can show you how it is at its root, selfish. I challenge you! Take me up on it, I dare you, I don't doubt that you could turn anything into a selfish act, just like I don't doubt peoples ability to justify any action regardless of how horrible it may be. What you are not recognizing is that even though you can explain something a certain way that does not have to be the way it is. You assume that just because you can find a selfish reason behind every action that every action must be selfish. People often do things not to fell good in the end. You are correct that serving others will make you feel good but not always, like changing my son's diaper doesn't get me all warm and fuzzy inside and I could certainly ask my wife to do it, so what are my motives there? I don't want to smell him, well I could always put him in another room and close the door. How about cause I don't want him to get diaper rash and then have my son be miserable which would effect me? He already has diaper rash and is an unhappy camper so why would should I do when my wife would be fine doing it? My son doesn't cry when he has a dirty diaper so I wouldn't need to make him be quiet. Please can some one tell me the last time they changed a diaper that it made them feel really good? Alas, I am sure you will come up with something. Here is my challenge to you: find a woman that has a newborn baby, about two weeks old. Then go to her house at two in the morning when the baby is up for his/her feeding and explain to her why getting up every night for the last two weeks and nursing her baby for an hour has been selfish. (Or better, have another baby and when you wife gets up in the middle of the night to nurse, call her selfish). Don't explain to me, I don't want to know.

I'm glad you have all the answers. Too bad they don't address the question. I don't recall asking or commenting much on what women get when they get divorced. Second, the divorce rate varies from state to state--in many states it is over 50%. As to you comment on why I got divorced, you know nothing about me or about the details of my marriage. Shows how mindless you are--commenting on things you know nothing about. Third, you are simply assuming, as many of the women on this thread have, that I am somehow against spouses treating eachother with the uttmost of respect and consideration. You completely misinterpret my comments, reading in things that suit your fears and prejudices. As to the divorce rate in the LDS church, it is about 33%, about the same as the divorce rate of couples from other faiths that attend church regularly. First, who said that I had all the answers? I was just pointing out that the things being discussed here are not what makes a happy marriage. People that have sex every night (with their spouse) and are wealthy still get divorces. Second, the question was about divorce not what makes a healthy marriage. I was addressing peoples opinions on healthy marriages. As far as I can tell no one gave good info on divorce. Third, the only thing that I am assuming is that you believe the things that you posted in your original post. Based on that I am not surprised you have been divorced. Don't misinterpret my assumptions. Fourth, what planet do you come from where people only do things for selfish reasons? Do you really go into any action thinking what is in it for me? I can only imagine how this attitude helps in marriage...

You people are all crazy!!! Most women do not get a windfall on divorce. Alimony (they call it maintenance now) is pretty much a thing of the past. On the rare occasion that they do get it, the only get it for a limited period of time, usually no more than two years to "rehabilitate" them. The divorce rate is 43% in the United States. Most marriages are still working. The divorce rate for LDS marriages is really low so whatever counsel people are getting before/during seems to be working. The aspect of sex in a marriage is way overblown here. It only becomes an issue when some one is being selfish. In other words the issue isn't the sex it is the selfishness of the partner. This is the same thing about money, child care, etc... Someone is being selfish. When both parties in a marriage are only concern with the well being of their partner then the marriage will work. Cal is up in the night. After reading his stuff was anybody shocked that he went through a divorce?

There are a couple things that I don't like about this. 1. The title should be The Plan of Salvation. Mormon did not come up with this and his name shouldn't be associated with it. This is the Plan presented by Jesus Christ which was the plan of the Father. 1. I have never seen Intelligences in the Plan of Salvation. 2. The doctrine that we are born according to our merit is false. 3. The veil is not labeled. Its important part of the doctrine that we have forgetten pre-earth life. 4. The purpose of Earth life is two fold. Two receive a physical body and to be tested. 5. I have never thought of Paradise and Spirit Prison as being two distincts places but rather the same place with people being in two different states. Spirit Prison is for people that need to be taught the gospel, so those that had no knowledge of the gospel are in Spirit Prison. 6. Not sure why you have Joseph Smith in the Judgment circle. 7. I don't think we know enough about the levels of the Celestial Kingdom for it to be broken down that way. 8. I don't think that the other kingdoms can be broken down the way you have them. For example, I can see how someone that accepted the gospel could also be in the Terrestial Kingdom. 9. I don't like the Millenium placed where you have it. It will take place on Earth and having it there makes it seem like it does not. 10. We do not believe that Salvation = Resurrection. Salvation = Exhaltation. 11. I have never heard the saying Salvation without Exhaltation is Damnation. 12. Jehovah = Jesus Christ 13. There are more temple ordinances Really I think you have made it pretty complicated and I am not sure what your point is by making this. The Plan of Salvation is very simple and should not be complicated with all the garbily gook that you have added.

Our Bishop stood up yesterday after we had taken the Sacrament and stressed to us the importance of taking the sacrament with our right hand. While I have heard that this is encouraged I have never heard it before in a church lesson or from the pulpit. Is this really church doctrine? If it is why is it not taught more effectively?

Does that justify your involvement? Not if you don't have the gene! So as to not be too brief in my response: It is one thing to acknowledge that society, with its prejudices and rules of conduct won't "punish" people who stray too far from the accepted norms and rules. In many cases, the behavior has to be punished because it infringes on the rights of others. For example, alcoholism leads to automobile accidents, violence and really poor decisions generally. The behavior that results from alcoholism has to be discouraged for societies' well being. Adultery also results in serious and direct harm to children, and serious pain to others, disrupting the existing family. Genetic or not, the behavior needs to be discouraged. Now, let's examine homosexuality with the same measuring stick. First, it doesn't break up families (unless a person who is homosexual is not honest about it up from). No one is forced to marry a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn't lead to violence, automobile accidents, any more than just being human does. Nor does it cause any harm, in an of itself to any children. The only harm to children is if homophobic parents reject their gay child---and in that case the harm comes not from the gayness itself, but from the ignorance and insensitivity of the parent. As I said before, and you have not disagreed, a certain portion of any primate population, and that includes us, is going to be homosexual. It is not a disease, it causes no liver disease or automobile accidents. The only way it becomes an issue at all is when people arbitrarily decide it is not going to be tolerated. Many societies have tolerated it, with no ill effects. I would say that more harm has been done to people in the name of punishing gayness, than has come from the gayness it self. Lots of people in the LDS church have been hounded out of the church simply because they were gay. The church has made it clear there is no acceptance of gays in the church. The GA's won't say it that way, but the effect is the same---gayness is a mortal sin, and us good, rightous, tithe-paying, sons of the pioneers aren't going to put up with it in our church. By the way, the Minnesota and Australian identical twin studies are comprehensive and very scientific. They didn't deal just with homosexuality, they established that a whole host of human traits have genetic components. The Australian studied even showed that political orientation is influence by genetics. As science catches up with the claims of the pius religions dogmas, those dogmas will either parish or have to face some serious questions. For example, how can homosexual behavior be a sin, if God Himself made them that way? I have raised this question before and no one seems to be able to answer it.. (They try, but all I get is, well, read the Old Testament. I do, and I then find out that the God of the Old Testament also condoned slavery--- I can't believe in a God that would condone slavery, so I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament. There could be another one though, and he doesn't condemn gays for being what he made them either. As to the CROSS you want people to bear---just make sure that you are not the one making the CROSS--I think we all know what God thought of the people that made the last one. Cal, I think you missed the point Jason was trying to make. Being genetically disposed to do something is not a justification for committing the act regardless if the act is socially acceptable or harmful to others. If it is then what else can we justify? I am not the mouthpiece of the church but you also claim that LDS doctrine is "gayness is a mortal sin." Gayness is not a sin, nor is someone believing that they are a homosexual. The sin occurs when a person acts on those feelings.

As I said above I do think that BSA is a good program but it is not one that works for everyone. I think that Duty to God is a great program. They could flush out that program and make it more detailed requiring the boys to do more things, like a service project similar to what eagle scouts do. The key, in my opinion, would be to have the program like Duty to God focus on the spirituality of the boys. Gaining a testimony is the most important thing for the boys to learn while they are still in their youth. Much like the young women the young men could focus on things that they like to do while gaining a testimony. Maybe the issue I have is not the BSA program but the fact that it seems to be emphasized more than the spirituality of the young men in the church.

The Boy Scout program has always bothered ever since I was a young man and had it forced upon me. I am just not someone that likes camping, hiking, or most scouting activities. There are people that do and I say more power to them, I however will never be a scout. Let me express my concerns and see what you guys think. First, not everyone will enjoy scouting so why force it on all young men? The church, rightfully so, holds young men in high regard that achive the rank of eagle. While this is nice it is not as if being an eagle scout makes you a better person than someone else. When I was a young man we had 11 priest in my quorom and only two of us achieved our eagles. As the president of the quorom I was hounded about doing scouting activities so others would get their eagle. I was more concerned with having the other guys show up on Wednesday nights and feeling friendship and welcome than I was with them getting their eagle. In the long run no one else got their eagle but 10 of the 11 priests served full time missions and we are all still good friends after 15 years. My quorom seemed to have great success without using the scouting program as a tool. By the way I don't take any credit for the above mentioned, the guys that were in my quorom were and are excellent men. Further, there is no correlation between being a good missionary and being an eagle scout. There are many good missionaries that never got their eagle and many eagle scouts that were poor missionaries or didn't even serve missions. Second, why doesn't the church use the girl scouts program? I guess the major issues I have here is that everyone always wants to compare the young womans award with that of an eagle scout award. I know that the young woman award is hard work but it just does not compare to an eagle scout award. Third, why does the church use an inspired program for the young women while using scouting for the young men? I have a hard time with this because as I see it the most important part of young men and women is to ensure that the kids have testimonies and will ultimately serve missions and get married in the temple. Young woman, who in my opinion are naturally more spiritual than young men, have a gospel centered program. The young men, who I think more often need spiritual influences have the main program focus away from the church and spirituality. I understand that there is the Duty to God award but that program seems to take a back seat to the scouting program. Boy scouts is only a national program for young men in the states. Shouldn't the church be able to come up with a program that would focus on spirituality and fun activities that could be used around the world? I served my mission among latinos in this country and they didn't even incorporate the scouting program in their wards and branches. They lost many young men because they simply had no program. Again, why can't the church come up with a church wide program for the young men? that leads to the last issue: Has the church out grown the scouting program? Now that we have more members outside of the United States then we do in it, is it time the church moves to a program where all young men can participate? The church has been able to do this with young women and with sunday school lessons. I believe it is time for a uniform system for the young men. Finally, let me say that even though I have issues with the scouting program that I do think it is a good program. It teaches many good things but so does singing in a choir or playing on a sports team but we don't require our young men to do that. I believe that the scouting program is better than nothing and even a lot better than a lot of programs. Scouting is a very good tool for those that enjoy it and take advantage of it but it simply is not for everyone and should not be forced upon all young men. Okay I know that was long but any thoughts? I was trying not to offend anyone so please don't take offense.