The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[Harambe]

I will grant you that a mission is not for every one and some would be better off in college or elsewhere. However maybe that kid wants something different than you in life. Did that kid return from his mission to attend a college?

As for a net positive. That man dedicated, on his and his families dime, two years of his life to help others and spread something that has brought him profound joy in his life. I only wish more kids had that level of dedication, willingness to serve others and sense of responsibility when they were 19 (now 18).

To be honest I see them both as net positives for society and him. It is not like he turned down college to join the circus. He is dedicating two years to his fellow man. That is a deeply profound thing.

As a man that went on a mission.. what made you go?

When I was of that age, or round abouts, the big line was "Every able young man should go". Everyone that I knew my age was expected to go. Growing up, people looked at those who didn't go differently.. negatively. Even if it was for a good reason like they had a scholarship, or the family just didn't have the money to support that(sad, but it's a good reason not to go). The pressure was on.. Your bishop was after you from the age of 16 on. It actually started at 14 for me.

There's always the expectation and social push to get you to go to church. Especially as a young man.. they needed someone to bless/serve the sacrament. But at 16, every time I showed my face at a function of any time, "You ready for your mission?" was the first thing on someone's lips. At 18 it felt like people would hunt me down at the store to ask me the same thing. These are men that you love and respect. People you've listened to talks from in Sacrament meeting. People you've heard bear their souls during priesthood meeting. People you've listened to all your life share testimony every first Sunday of the month. Constantly hounding you to do something you're not even sure benefits, as global society as a whole seems to mock missionaries more than anything else.

So, I ask again. Did you really go because you wanted to share the joy in your heart? Or did you go because "that was the social expectation"?

I didn't go because I don't need anyone to tell me I'm doing the right thing. I only need to feel like I'm doing the right thing.

 

[Harambe]

Exactly. You want to use that as a basis for an arguement that God just threw him out because he didnt toe the line. OK fine.

Also he is not like us. We are like him. Yes one can argue it either way but my point is is that while we have some of his traits, he is perfect while we are not. Infallible is exactly what we are talking about here. it seems I beleive that and you do not. If that is the case and you think he is not perfect then of course that leads to all sorts of doubt and speculation.

Also who says he didn't try to keep his relationship. Maybe Satan rejected hsi plan and tried to take over the throne.

It all boils down to I trust in my Lord and you do not. Do not mistake that for me not having questions. It just means I trust that He has a reason.

If he's so perfect, why has he historically shown such frustration with his own plan of free agency? So much as to destroy entire civilizations? The fact that one third of heaven and Lucifer disagreeing in the first place is proof that he's not perfect, as if he were, he would have created only those that are perfect, and would agree all the time.

Also arguable, and a good point now that we're talking about it, if there was no free agency in heaven, how did Lucifer rebell? or even disagree?

I'm not saying God's the bad guy here. I'm really not. I'm saying his plan is not perfect, nor was it meant to be. The fact that his plan isn't perfect has been validated by him on multiple occasions. It's completely ok not to be perfect. We're here to strive to be that, just the same as I'm sure he does.

 

[Harambe]

Stoked, I think we might need our own thread for this. Don't you?

 

[Stoked]

As a man that went on a mission.. what made you go?

When I was of that age, or round abouts, the big line was "Every able young man should go". Everyone that I knew my age was expected to go. Growing up, people looked at those who didn't go differently.. negatively. Even if it was for a good reason like they had a scholarship, or the family just didn't have the money to support that(sad, but it's a good reason not to go). The pressure was on.. Your bishop was after you from the age of 16 on. It actually started at 14 for me.

There's always the expectation and social push to get you to go to church. Especially as a young man.. they needed someone to bless/serve the sacrament. But at 16, every time I showed my face at a function of any time, "You ready for your mission?" was the first thing on someone's lips. At 18 it felt like people would hunt me down at the store to ask me the same thing. These are men that you love and respect. People you've listened to talks from in Sacrament meeting. People you've heard bear their souls during priesthood meeting. People you've listened to all your life share testimony every first Sunday of the month. Constantly hounding you to do something you're not even sure benefits, as global society as a whole seems to mock missionaries more than anything else.

So, I ask again. Did you really go because you wanted to share the joy in your heart? Or did you go because "that was the social expectation"?

I didn't go because I don't need anyone to tell me I'm doing the right thing. I only need to feel like I'm doing the right thing.

Are young men pushed to go? Of course they are.

As for me specifically it was explained what possible benefits were but it was made very clear that it is my choice and I needed to do what is best for me. By both my father and my bishop. So for a while I was on the fence and I was not sure what to do. I finally decided at 19 1/2 to go.

I was the first to go on a misison in my ward (outside of Utah) in about 8 years.

 

[Stoked]

Stoked, I think we might need our own thread for this. Don't you?

This convo could go on forever yes. Let us give the thread back to Colton.

 

[CONAN]

I think this was essentially answered regarding an earlier question. Our reaction now to certain information will be vastly different once we cross over.

This is a good response. What about dinosaurs? Lots of stuff that will be answered that we don't get now. But none of that stuff is super critical so I don't spend time thinking about it.

 

[Stoked]

This is a good response. What about dinosaurs? Lots of stuff that will be answered that we don't get now. But none of that stuff is super critical so I don't spend time thinking about it.

I agree that you do not need to spend time worrying about it but I see no harm in asking and wanting to know.

 

[moevillini]

I think this was essentially answered regarding an earlier question. Our reaction now to certain information will be vastly different once we cross over.

I sort of like the euphemism of "crossing over" though it does sort of remind me of Charon and the River Styx

 

[One Brow]

Every case is different but to say it is handicapping young men in general is absurd.

I agree that early travel and learning a second language are much more likely to be beneficial than hurtful.

 

[Stoked]

I agree that early travel and learning a second language are much more likely to be beneficial than hurtful.

In my family we can speak English, French, Spanish (several of us), Russian and German.

 

[One Brow]

But when I see a kid given a full ride scholarship to MIT turned down to go on a mission, I fail to see how that's a net positive for society, or that kid.

Why would the kid not be worthy of a full-ride scholarship two years later? If MIT doesn't offer it, some other university will.

 

[CONAN]

I agree that you do not need to spend time worrying about it but I see no harm in asking and wanting to know.

Right, but it's not a make or break deal for me. I got a sister that spends way too much time on those subjects and I don't think that's a wise path but nothing wrong with some frank discussions. I just think it goes too far into conjecture.

 

[Zulu]

Why everyone so concerned about the dinosaurs???

What about all the other pre historic organisms that lived before and after the reign of the Dino's??

Post 5,000!!!

 

[nightmare3983]

Why everyone so concerned about the dinosaurs???

What about all the other pre historic organisms that lived before and after the reign of the Dino's??

Because some dinosaurs were really BIG.

/highjackingthread

 

[Bronco70]

What about dinosaurs? Lots of stuff that will be answered that we don't get now.

Why everyone so concerned about the dinosaurs???

Obviously I can only speculate, but to me this seems pretty easy, as does evolution... As colton suggested, and I agree, the "7 days of creation" are purely symbolic (in fact, the LDS church calls them creative periods, rather than days in the temple). The creation had to have occurred over a lengthy period of time. During this time, organisms evolved, continents moved, and things developed into what they were when history started to be recorded. The dinosaurs, and probably countless other species, came and went as the process moved along.

The thing I try to keep in mind regarding ancient scripture is, it was written according to the understanding of mankind at the time. Science wasn't used to explain phenomena, so it's likely that some of the more spectacular stories cannot be taken completely at face value.

 

[colton]

[God is] like us, not some infallible being out there.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We were created in God's image, not the other way around. And indeed the major difference between us and God is that we are fallible. So yes, it's exactly like he's "some infallible being out there". At least according to standard LDS doctrine.

 

[Zulu]

Obviously I can only speculate, but to me this seems pretty easy, as does evolution... As colton suggested, and I agree, the "7 days of creation" are purely symbolic (in fact, the LDS church calls them creative periods, rather than days in the temple). The creation had to have occurred over a lengthy period of time. During this time, organisms evolved, continents moved, and things developed into what they were when history started to be recorded. The dinosaurs, and probably countless other species, came and went as the process moved along.

The thing I try to keep in mind regarding ancient scripture is, it was written according to the understanding of mankind at the time. Science wasn't used to explain phenomena, so it's likely that some of the more spectacular stories cannot be taken completely at face value.

I agree...

So what about..

Australopithecus afarensis (AKA Lucy)
Australopithecus africanus
Homo habilis
Homo eructus &
Homo sapiens neaderathalis
???????

 

[Bronco70]

I agree...

So what about..

Australopithecus afarensis (AKA Lucy)
Australopithecus africanus
Homo habilis
Homo eructus &
Homo sapiens neaderathalis
???????

Yeah, that's a little more tricky. Obviously there were other humanoid creatures that existed somewhere along the timeline. I've always assumed these fit into the evolutionary process. I don't think mankind was any different in this respect than the rest of creation. I don't really buy that Adam and Eve were just put there one day, ready to go straight out of the box. The Bible says they were, but again, it was likely a recording of a story that had been passed along for some time, based in legend more than science.

That's my long version of "I really don't know..."

 

[Harambe]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We were created in God's image, not the other way around. And indeed the major difference between us and God is that we are fallible. So yes, it's exactly like he's "some infallible being out there". At least according to standard LDS doctrine.

I'm not so sure I am, and I've logic behind that other than "that's what's always been lets stick with it". If anything in this world is sacred, it's ones own opinions. I would never keep you from yours. Share mine, yeah. Try to show you how I came to my conclusion; absolutely. Take your opinion away? no way.

And you're right, that's where LDS doctrine is(or at least was when I was around). But for me to believe something there has to be consistency in words and actions. I don't see that out of any organized religion, history of our church, or any other. My options are to not believe in any form of God, or keep my belief's as my own. Since I have experienced both a burning in my bosom, and a "spiritual spanking" for being as prideful as I have in the past, I choose the latter.

 

[Zulu]

Yeah, that's a little more tricky. Obviously there were other humanoid creatures that existed somewhere along the timeline. I've always assumed these fit into the evolutionary process. I don't think mankind was any different in this respect than the rest of creation. I don't really buy that Adam and Eve were just put there one day, ready to go straight out of the box. The Bible says they were, but again, it was likely a recording of a story that had been passed along for some time, based in legend more than science.

That's my long version of "I really don't know..."

Re-read Genesis...

God creates man twice....

Genesis 1:26-28
Genesis 2 he talks about creating Adam and Eve and the Garden!!