Guest

Missionaries Going the Way of...

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sin is pursuant to knowledge.  It is not a sin for those who has not made the covenants for temple worthiness.  It is a sin to those who are temple worthy to choose not to marry in the temple.  In your case, your wife does not have sufficient knowledge to marry in the temple.  But, if she was temple worthy and you decided to marry outside the temple, the reason for such marital arrangement could be a shackle tied to your ankles.

Its not a sin. If it were a sin, then why are bishops allowed to marry people inside churches? Certainly the church wouldnt condone purposely enabling people to be sinners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its not a sin. If it were a sin, then why are bishops allowed to marry people inside churches? Certainly the church wouldnt condone purposely enabling people to be sinners. 

Are you just deliberately being obtuse?  SIN IS PURSUANT TO KNOWLEDGE.  If you're not temple worthy, you can't get married in the temple.  You, can't sin against something you have no knowledge of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Are you just deliberately being obtuse?  SIN IS PURSUANT TO KNOWLEDGE.  If you're not temple worthy, you can't get married in the temple.  You, can't sin against something you have no knowledge of.

So, I have a good friend who is temple worthy, he married a gal who wasn't. They were married in the church by a bishop. Are you suggesting that he committed a sin marrying outside the temple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not correct. Marrying outside the temple is not a sin.

Call it whatever you will but if such a thing is not repented of and corrected (perfected - or made perfect) it will have an end at death and will not have effect after this life or in eternity.  In other words - such belief and behaviors will prevent someone from the Celestial Kingdom of glory in the resurrection.  See Doctrine and Covenants 132 with particular attention to verse 4 that talks about being "damned" for rejecting the "everlasting" covenant which includes temple marriage.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Call it whatever you will but if such a thing is not repented of and corrected (perfected - or made perfect) it will have an end at death and will not have effect after this life or in eternity.  In other words - such belief and behaviors will prevent someone from the Celestial Kingdom of glory in the resurrection.  See Doctrine and Covenants 132 with particular attention to verse 4 that talks about being "damned" for rejecting the "everlasting" covenant which includes temple marriage.

 

The Traveler

There are a few issues here. The first is that marriage outside the temple, or failure to marry at all is not what constitutes sin. Sin is defined as-

"an offense against religious or moral law"

Specifically, sin is what alienates one from God and defies moral judgement.  Marriage, between man and woman, whether by a judge, minister, etc, is not a sin.

The other issue is that to be damned means to be condemned to hell. In section 132, the context here is that if one enters into the everlasting covenant, which includes marriage, and then sins against that covenant, they will be damned. This means that upon their death they are delivered up to Satan in hell for a period of time until justice has been met. After their penalty and repentance they can be exalted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There are a few issues here. The first is that marriage outside the temple, or failure to marry at all is not what constitutes sin. Sin is defined as-

"an offense against religious or moral law"

Specifically, sin is what alienates one from God and defies moral judgement.  Marriage, between man and woman, whether by a judge, minister, etc, is not a sin.

This really depends on the knowledge.  Parable of the talents.  2 temple worthy people in the USA who decide to get married at the courthouse instead of the temple is defying moral judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There are a few issues here. The first is that marriage outside the temple, or failure to marry at all is not what constitutes sin. Sin is defined as-

"an offense against religious or moral law"

Specifically, sin is what alienates one from God and defies moral judgement.  Marriage, between man and woman, whether by a judge, minister, etc, is not a sin.

The other issue is that to be damned means to be condemned to hell. In section 132, the context here is that if one enters into the everlasting covenant, which includes marriage, and then sins against that covenant, they will be damned. This means that upon their death they are delivered up to Satan in hell for a period of time until justice has been met. After their penalty and repentance they can be exalted.

If not for the atonement of Christ all would all be damned.  Even those without sin.  But is more that a dictionary definition created by men - rather it is a eternal principle and law that stands in the way of perfection.  There is a time appointed for repentance.  Repentance is more that just sorrow for sins but it also includes covenant (but failure to covenant is also sin).  When the time appointed for repentance and covenant have ended those that are not loyal to covenant are not justified and must atone (which includes suffering) for all their sins and unfulfilled covenants.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This really depends on the knowledge.  Parable of the talents.  2 temple worthy people in the USA who decide to get married at the courthouse instead of the temple is defying moral judgment.

Thank you @anatess2 but there is a dimension that may not be understood in this discussion.  Regardless of knowledge - before one can properly enter into the everlasting covenant of marriage - they must repent.  Failure to repent will prevent the ordinance being sealed by the Holy Ghost.  When one understands the principle of repentance - they will understand that part of entering into the everlasting covenant of marriage is to repent from a life of being single.  But someone in their pride may cry out that being single is not a sin and therefore needs no repentance.  Thus they remained as what the Book of Mormon calls "stiff nick" and unrepentant which is the state of a "natural man".

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thank you @anatess2 but there is a dimension that may not be understood in this discussion.  Regardless of knowledge - before one can properly enter into the everlasting covenant of marriage - they must repent.  Failure to repent will prevent the ordinance being sealed by the Holy Ghost.  When one understands the principle of repentance - they will understand that part of entering into the everlasting covenant of marriage is to repent from a life of being single.  But someone in their pride may cry out that being single is not a sin and therefore needs no repentance.  Thus they remained as what the Book of Mormon calls "stiff nick" and unrepentant which is the state of a "natural man".

 

The Traveler

Seriously? You think being single is a sin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Seriously? You think being single is a sin?

The "natural man" is an enemy of G-d - and as such is a sin.  Do you understand what is meant by being "stiff nick"?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The "natural man" is an enemy of G-d - and as such is a sin.  Do you understand what is meant by being "stiff nick"?

 

The Traveler

Yes I understand what being a stiff neck is. I'm beginning to believe you have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 5:50 PM, carlimac said:

One of my sons was exposed to it at his friend's house- the home of youth pastor from another church, at age 11. We were just so naive, thinking that "our family doesn't do those kinds of things", that his addiction went on for 6 years before his brother discovered it on the family computer and told us. He's 26 now and we don't talk to him about it anymore. I don't know if he still deals with it or not. But when we first found out he had counseling. We didn't punish him- just tried to get him the right kind of help. When he confessed to our bishop he was essentially dis-fellowshipped. Couldn't take or pass the sacrament for months even though he wasn't viewing porn at the time. He tried so hard to quit and would for awhile- months at a time, but he always found ways to access it again.   He wasn't defiant- just addicted. We moved to a different state. Son went to BYU but wasn't perfect during that time. The new stake president was less hard on him and helped him get ready for a mission. He went, served honorably although struggled with masturbation during his mission- he'd wake up at night in the middle of it. It was really frustrating for him. After his mission he returned to porn off and on. His BYU bishops tried to help but there was a limit to what they could do. This was all during the time when the addicting nature of porn was less stressed than the sin of viewing it. So my son felt really lousy about himself most of the time. 

Ultimately he left the Church.   I think it may have been too hard to keep feeling so bad about himself because of the external pressure. He also lost his testimony of God- at BYU of all places. But he remains a very good-hearted person who tries his hardest to help those in need and is studying medicine. He keeps the Word of Wisdom and doesn't sleep around- hasn't even had a girlfriend for 4 years. 

It all makes me so sad. But even if he didn't see it in the home of this particular friend, he would have encountered it somewhere else- teenage boy parties were notorious for viewing it and he would probably have had this problem anyway.  

Carlimac- my heart goes out to you and your son, thank you for sharing your story- it may help others who are living through the same thing. 

Addictions are so hard to understand for those who have not had to deal with an addiction themselves or have not had to deal with a loved one who is dealing with an addiction.

My son-in-law found faith in God because of his addiction (drugs)- but it took 4 or 5 stints in rehab for him to be able to learn to deal. He knows how lucky he is- knowing that there are those who are not able to kick it.

I have learned through life experiences how hard it is to deal with an addict, with addiction, and how hard it is on the family.  I pray your son can regain his testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, people, PEOPLE! 

Upon reading so many posts of anger, aggravation, and intolerance of others opinions........ let me just say...... We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

There are members of our Church who are suffering with various afflictions in their lives...... and who is it that wants other members to bicker and tear apart? Hint..... it isn't God.

Chill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes I understand what being a stiff neck is. I'm beginning to believe you have one.

Because you think I excuse seemingly insignificant sins and mitigate repentance?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Because you think I excuse seemingly insignificant sins and mitigate repentance?

 

The 

Because of your false beliefs regarding sin. I have a single older sister who through strange circumstance never got married. You are trying to tell me she needs to repent. Thats ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Lindy said:

People, people, PEOPLE! 

Upon reading so many posts of anger, aggravation, and intolerance of others opinions........ let me just say...... We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

There are members of our Church who are suffering with various afflictions in their lives...... and who is it that wants other members to bicker and tear apart? Hint..... it isn't God.

Chill.

Well, we tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 7:04 AM, anatess2 said:

It is not a sin for those who has not made the covenants for temple worthiness.  It is a sin to those who are temple worthy to choose not to marry in the temple.

I think I do not agree with this. Choosing "good" is not sin, even if you don't choose "better". I don't think "suboptimal choice" is a correct definition of "sin". I think a correct definition would be "an action that offends the Spirit". Generally speaking, marriage would not be such an action. As Paul taught, marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.

Not that I'm trying to insert myself into this conversation. Just responding to that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think I do not agree with this. Choosing "good" is not sin, even if you don't choose "better". I don't think "suboptimal choice" is a correct definition of "sin". I think a correct definition would be "an action that offends the Spirit". Generally speaking, marriage would not be such an action. As Paul taught, marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.

Not that I'm trying to insert myself into this conversation. Just responding to that point.

Now, I'm gonna have to disagree with @Vort which is going to bring my knees to knocking.

Let's go with a magnificent example, then reduce it to ordinary example.  Joseph Smith was given the privilege of the First Vision, unlike say... John Quincy Adams.  If Joseph Smith would have joined the Methodists after being called to restore the Church, this "suboptimal choice" would needs be repented of.  John Quincy Adams, on the other hand, would just be fine being a Unitarian.

In the same token, a temple-worthy LDS couple opting to marry outside of the temple because they want their non-member uncle to perform the ceremony would have to repent for that suboptimal choice.  At the same time, a young man called to serve a full-time mission and making the "suboptimal choice" not to because he doesn't want to spend 2 years without playing Fortnite would need to repent for such choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused as to why this is even a discussion. 🤔 

 

 

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

 

-------------

 

D&C 82:3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.


4 Ye call upon my name for revelations, and I give them unto you; and inasmuch as ye keep not my sayings, which I give unto you, ye become transgressors; and justice and judgment are the penalty which is affixed unto my law.

 

 

 

It seems clear to me that sin is a very personalized thing, depending much upon individualized circumstances, and is the reason that a perfect and loving Savior is our judge rather than our fellow man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big misconception is over what defines a "sin". Sins are "wicked" and "evil" thoughts, actions or deeds. They always must be repented of and always bring a loss or withdrawal of the Spirit. Sins make one unworthy to enter into the House of the Lord.

With that in mind, there is no instruction given ANYWHERE on lds.org or given to Bishops stating not serving a mission is a sin and needs to be repented of. In the most recent letter from the Brethren, it describes serving a mission as a privilege for one who desires to serve-

"Dear Brothers and Sisters: 

The Lord declared, "If ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work" (Doctrine and Covenants 4:3). To serve the Lord as a missionary is a glorious, sacred privilege that brings eternal blessings to the individual and those he or she serves. 

For many years, young men and women with a desire to serve God through missionary service but who are unable to do so for health reasons have served the Lord valiantly in various community and Church organizations. We are grateful for their service and are pleased to announce increased opportunities for young missionaries with health challenges. 

Beginning on January 2, 2019, all young missionary candidates will use the missionary online recommendation process. Under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, each prospective missionary who qualifies will receive a call that best suits him or her. 

Preaching the gospel to gather scattered Israel will always be the primary purpose of missionary service, so the Lord, through His leaders, will call most young people to find, teach, and baptize converts. Others, unable to serve in this manner, may be called to serve the Lord as a service missionary. Additionally, missionaries who return home early from a proselyting mission for long-term health reasons may be reassigned to serve the Lord as a service missionary. Some other candidates may, with our appreciation for their desire to serve, be honorably excused from any formal missionary service. 

For more information, please visit lds.org/service-missionary. 

We pray that the Lord will bless the wonderful young men and women throughout the Church who love Him and desire to serve. 

Sincerely yours, 

Russell M Nelson

Dallin H Oakes

Henry B Eyering"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try again to explain a very important principle called repentance.  From the Official Bible Dictionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Quote

The Greek word of which this is the translation denotes a change of mind, a fresh view about God, about oneself, and about the world. Since we are born into conditions of mortality, repentance comes to mean a turning of the heart and will to God, and a renunciation of sin to which we are naturally inclined. Without this there can be no progress in the things of the soul’s salvation, for all accountable persons are stained by sin and must be cleansed in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Repentance is not optional for salvation; it is a commandment of God

For those that think themselves so righteous that they no longer need to turn their heart and will to G-d - I think you error in arrogance and pride.  And so I ask - what is the will of G-d?  In Isaiah we discover that revelation come line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  The will of G-d is also described in scripture as "The Way" or "Path".  This corresponds with the concept of precept upon precept.  

Some want a check list of do and don'ts.  But that is not the will of G-d and will require repentance (change of heart and mind).  Now for the final point I would reference Nephi and his brothers the went to obtain the Brass Plates.  Wherein was the sin of the older brothers?  It was in the thinking that having tried and not succeeded that they were done.  Their efforts that failed to obtain the plates were not the sin (though some have misinterpreted my poor explanation).  The sin was in two things which in essence are one.  First that they thought their effort sufficed and two when their faith was only in themselves and not G-d - thinking because something was difficult and seemed to have no solution that they could quit.  Thus the sin is to not repent.  To give up in essence and think that the will of G-d is not and cannot be fulfilled.

The time of ignorance G-d will forgive - but commands all to repent - to no longer strive to fulfill the will of G-d is sin - not that what we have tried is a sin but that we no longer are striving to submit our will to G-d's.

I hope this clears up a few things - But if it does not - I am willing to speak more on this subject - To @Rob Osborn it is a sin not to repent and draw closer to G-d - or to think a change of heart concerning marriage is not necessary not only for those that are "single" but those that are "married" as well.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 7:34 AM, Grunt said:

Pornography is socially acceptable.  It's talked about openly at work.  

Really? Maybe in private industry, but I'm in a state university with a ton o'anti harassment/discrimination rules. They'd have me on my knees in HR before I knew what was happening if I even looked like I was talking about pornography in the workplace. Plus, tho I am not in Utah and am the only LDS my co-workers know, almost all of them go to church and I can't imagine they would think porn was an appropriate topic for work.

Goodness - they even put 'trigger warning' when they send out an email if there's been an alleged sexual attack in the dorms or in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now