apollyon

Thanks guys. It is really nice to hear that I'm not crazy or something. I've been thinking on this for a while now, and I'm not looking forward to what it means. Can I just mention that? It means a literal lifetime of being alone. Yes, I can have friends and my family, but I'll never have love. *Puts on brave face* Oh well, that just means I get to be even more awesome than I already am. Speaking of being awesome, anyone else running the Utah Marathon this October? I'm super excited for it. On a different note, if anyone else is dealing with this or anything related, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

I have never seen anything wrong with Dr. Who. I actually just barely got done watching season 5 of the new series. To everything that everyone else has said: 1) I liked Sally Sparrow, I would love it if she were the new companion, but we all know that's not happenening 2) David Tennant needs to come back. Work some Dr. Who magic for us David Tennant fans! 3) I actually wish Martha would show up again. She was the the best companion, in my opinion. 4) Should we start a Dr. Who thread? Seriously, if there are this many fans on here, we could have some pretty good discussions.

Okay, before we get the obvious responses, I know I'm supposed to marry. Let's move on. I've been struggling really hard with "same-sex attraction" for the last two and half years. I'm just going to call it being gay, if you want to call it something different, go for it. I don't care. Over theses past years I've had various successes and setbacks. However, the last few months have been exceptionally difficult, and I've fallen further than ever. Just to get it out in the open, I've only kissed another guy. We did not go so far as to have sex. I had rationalized my way into saying that I didn't care because if I was going to have to deal with this for the rest of my life, then I'd rather at least get some physical pleasure out of the whole deal. I now realize that was wrong, but only too late. I openly admit my mistakes, and I have plans to go and speak with the bishop as soon as possible. (I just moved into a new ward, and so it might be a week or two before I can meet with him) And I plan to tell him literally everything, haha. He will learn so much more than he wants to know, haha. Sorry, I promise this is serious. Here's where I'm looking for some support. Being gay, I don't feel like it would be fair to my theoretical wife if I got married. I know some guys have done it, and good for them. I just feel like it would be a constant concern for her, because it is for me. I wouldn't want her to have to deal with that. It seems that it would be something always there, nagging us. And what if I do fall? Then I've ruined my marriage, scarred her irreparably, and I don't even want to consider what would happen if we had kids. In short, I think it would be unfair to my wife. However, I also have an even more basic concern- who would want to marry me? Rightfully so, most women wouldn't even take a second look at me once they knew the truth. I still like women, and I would love to have someone to love for the rest of my life, but I doubt any woman out there would accept dealing with me. I've had a few discussions with women where they comment that they won't even date, let alone marry, someone who has looked at pornography. I suppose it goes without saying that for one that has kissed another man I won't even get a second look. And I don't blame them. I have failed in such a terrible way, it's not fair for me to expect their love when they've done the work to stay clean. So, I have resigned myself to celibacy for the rest of this life. Gag. And then I leave it in God's hands as to whether or not I had a chance to marry. I don't think I did, struggling with this addiction, but that's His call. I'm planning on the Atonement to cover this for me, because I think in no other time have I needed it more. I have made several plans for my single life, and I'm honestly excited for it. Do you realize how much time and money I'll have without a spouse or kids? I realize that isn't the best attitude to have, but really I'm consoling myself. I already feel the hole in my soul when I think that I'll never have anyone in this life. So I plan on ignoring that with being rich and awesome. Anyway, what I'm really looking to hear is your opinion on my position. I'll take whatever. Am I justified in not wanting to ruin my wife's life? Or is there someone out there that would put up with that? (on an related note, would I want someone who is okay with my problems?) So yeah, that's it. Congrats on reading through this novel.

So, I have problems with self control. I don't know what the problem is. I don't know why it is so hard for me to control myself on somethings. I'm 22 years old, and I have been making a concerted, conscious effort for self control for the past 5 years, at least. As far as I can tell, no progress. I always seem to fall back into the same ruts. So I wanted to ask if anyone has any methods of self control, any motivations that really work well for them. I'm pretty much giving up hope and this is a last-ditch attempt. I don't mean to sound all whiny and depressed, because I'm not. I'm just "fed up with it." You know? That's the end, if you want to go ahead and leave a response. I'm going to elaborate on specific areas that I have a hard time controlling. I find it very odd, because there are some things that I am fantastic at having self control over (specifically money and related things. I won't buy something if I know I can't afford it, or if it's not even practical), but other things I have NO self control, and I will lose countless hours of my life. This example is specifically video games, but that's not the only thing. If it were video games alone, I wouldn't say I had a problem. I find it difficult to control my reactions towards other people- I'm terribly sarcastic and critical, but I don't do it to be rude, but just because I honestly feel that way and I think people should know when they're being stupid. I have some bad habits that I can't seem to break. And conversely, I have good habits that I can't seem to get into. For example, I love running, and I want nothing more than to run a marathon. But I can only run for a few weeks before my motivation kinda peters out and I start making excuses not to run. If I'm going to run a marathon, that is at least 3 months of intense training, which I can't bring myself to do. Not for a lack of desire, but for a lack of self control. Anyway, you get the idea. Any suggestions would be helpful. I'm willing to try anything at this point.

Just so you all know, I've stopped caring about this thread. Feel free to continue debating it though.

Well, aside from the excessive use of emoticon things, I'm impressed that someone on here actually knew the reference. Well done. Also, I feel like you're trying to sound all cryptic and wise, and it just comes off as confusing. If you've read the other posts, you would know that I'm not doing this because I doubt, but because I want to understand better. Just like St. Augustine, I believe that there can be a rational foundation for our faith. Maybe not for everything, but at least for some things. And even if there is no rational foundation for our faith, I believe the effort to understand what laws bind both us AND God will bring us closer to Him ans we understand more about Him.

How so?

Is this conversation ever going to turn to what is IN the sealed portion? There has been plenty of commentary on that subject, so it's not like we're devoid of information on the subject. But I don't want to bring it up if no one else wants to talk about it.

Do we all realize that logically, since we are analyzing the objective truths that God must follow, one cannot appeal to scripture, because God is the source of scripture? He can say whatever He wants in scripture, and if we're to analyze this skeptically, we can't accept that as the absolute truth. So, appeals to scripture won't work. In response to the various comments, Backroads, don't back down just because you think Rameampton (sp?) might have a good point. You were headed in a good direction. People, we need some kind of evidence to support a belief in eternal OBJECTIVE truths. We have to remember, as stated above, most of our sources for allegedly "eternal" truths come from God, which means that we logically have to set those examples aside. We need to find something to demonstrate that God has objective moral truths that he has to follow. And we need to find out what those truths are. I don't think I'm treading on forbidden territory by wanting to know what rules God has to follow.

I kinda get where you're going with this, but could you elaborate? To my understanding, you're saying that the sealed portion is not necessarily literally, but rather is meant metaphorically, or symbolically. So when the seal is "removed" we'll understand things in the Book of Mormon that were previously not understood. But yeah, elaborate please.

In all honesty, I have a hard time believing that it will be democratic. Just out of morbid curiosity, when Joseph Smith said this, was he, in fact, speaking prophetically or was it just his opinion? Of course, I'm terribly pessimistic towards democracy, so that could just be clouding my judgement. Assuming that Joseph Smith said it as a prophet, I'll have to accept it. Return of Christ comes first, without a doubt. Again, assuming that it actually will be a democratic rule (which I won't believe until I see the quote), when the 2nd coming comes around, we all know that there will still be other churches, why not other governments? And based on the conditions at the end of the world, I'll guess that at least one of the world governments is something less than a democracy. As far as the Adam/Joseph Smith conducting tangent this went off on, this shouldn't even be a question. We have plenty of quotes from general authorities that describe the role of those who have passed on once we enter the millennium, which is to stay in heaven and do missionary work there. They will come over momentarily to help out with the work, but they're not going to hang out here. Modern prophet will conduct, no question. I'll even go so far as to say that he'll preside. I've heard it said numerous times that Christ won't just be hanging out here on earth. He might come back for conference, who knows?

Guys, I think you're missing the original question. If there are truths outside of God, what are they? Even if God doesn't arbitrarily make His laws, the laws must exist outside of Him and I want to know what those, are, especially since it would appear that He has contradicted more than a few of His own commandments. Seminarysnoozer, I get what you're saying, and at the risk of sounding prideful, I think I'm okay. I am well aware that I can't trust my own understanding. But I am quite firm in the belief that we have to do our own footwork before we can receive greater knowledge from God. Is he going to explain to you the mysteries of heaven because you sat on your couch with faith, or because you contemplated them, studied and analyzed them, and then critiqued your ideas? He'll only help you after you've gone as far as you can go. That's where I'm headed. And, to be honest, this endeavor has only served to remind me how necessary faith is, because I've almost got nothing left. I have my testimony, and I have to trust in that. And MrMarklin, you're right enough. I don't have a fantastic example of when God has lied to us. I doubt that there even is an example. However, I will still say that he omitted the truth on numerous occasions. I think Nephi could have handled the truth, but God lead him to Laban under the pretenses that he would be able to obtain the plates through some means that didn't involve breaking a commandment. And if we sin by omitting the truth, how does that not apply to God? And Hetheprimate, no, we have scriptural examples. Unless you somehow think that those aren't true. The only non-prophetic book that I've heard of in the Bible is Songs of Solomon, so... And it was my intent to demonstrate that God's decisions could be completely arbitrary. The only evidence we have to the contrary is scripture which God himself gave us. Please understand people, I'm not trying to paint a picture of God as some malicious deceiver, but rather as a God that has no laws placed upon him and still he chooses to make everything toward our salvation. I think this is something worth understanding, don't you?

I speak hebrew, and I haven't necessarily found that to be the case. It is a possible interpretation, but by no means the only one. If God is truly omniscient, then He would have known that people would have changed his mind and wouldn't have needed to. At any rate, if He changes His mind, He changes. See the problem in your argument? No offense, but do you know what we're talking about? I'm referring to utilitarian in the philosophical definition. In such a definition, there are no "limited resources." It quickly becomes political science if we begin talking about specific resources. For utilitarians, the allocation of resources (should we choose to talk about resources) is based on doing the most good for the most people. In reference to truths, utilitarian is all about happiness (not to the extent of hedonism), and what is to be done to give the most happiness to the most people.

I understand what you're saying, and I think it is true to an extent. But I don't agree that this life is ONLY to live by faith. I think we need to live by faith and strive for understanding. I don't accept that God wants us to live by blind faith. Our faith is strengthened by our understanding. I knew this one guy on my mission that subscribed to this view, and he walked around constantly quoting "for faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things," and would say that if we understood things, we didn't have faith, and essentially followed your same argument. But you forget about the verses that come after this scripture, which tells us that our faith progresses to hope and then charity, as our understanding increases. According to the doctrine of the gospel, which teaches us that intelligence is the glory of God, we are expected to increase in understanding. Why shouldn't that apply to God's truths?

True enough. But we're aiming for one-dimensional. Clearly things are better served from various angles, but if something is true, it will be true from even just one angle. And you're proposing that God is utilitarian, which is the theory that I personally subscribe to. However, this automatically means that God has no objective moral truths, or any objective truths at all for that matter, because value, and therefore truth, is based on utility and serving the greatest number of people with the greatest possible good.