Orthodox Christian

You know in the original story of Ham being cursed by God and having a mark out upon him, it doesn't say it was a black skin, so how has a dark skin been equated with this curse, and wasn't the mark put on him not only as part of the curse but also in case anyone should kill Ham and therefore become cursed themselves? I don't understand how that conclusion was arrived at. Did the LDS church support this view, or does it? Quick edit: the curse was upon Ham's son Canaan, not Ham himself. Sorry, another quick edit: I am confusing Ham with Cain who had a mark put on him. I've just read the relevent passage, but nowhere does it mention a mark. It says Canaan was cursed with servitude to his uncles and their people, so it seems an even greater leap to equate the curse with a black skin. Sorry about the edits.

Yep

It's very tricky. Does he know this person, has he had dealings with him/or words that could be turned back on him, eg, could he be accused of repaying an unproven situation because he doesn't like/ get on with the accused.

God, when asked who he was said I Am, that's it, He is all in all, totally the Other in comparison to His creation. He is Love, manifested in Christ, He is beyond any further definition, our minds simply can't do it.

I am not LDS, so you can be assured that I wouldn't do that. However, this is a world wide forum, I guess in that sense you don't know who is reading these posts. But the people you have engaged with are decent people, I can't imagine any of them would do that either. However, what you have divulged here might be offensive to some faithful LDS, maybe you should be a little thoughtful about what you share on an open forum. BTW, have you looked at any of the celibate gay sites on the net? They might help you to see a way forward. Many of them have a strong Christian faith but have chosen celibacy out of love for God. Just a thought.

Dario I am not judging you, what I have written, I have deduced from what you have posted. There are people here in your church who are urging you to speak to your Bishop, these people are experienced in your faith and they are concerned for you. Listen to them.

You assume that being chaste is easier for straight people than gay. Why? The law of chastity is for everyone, you are not a special case. It seems to me that you are unwilling to restrain yourself, and loneliness isn't an excuse for promiscuity. If your relationships are only of the brief sexual encounter type, then you will be lonely and unfulfilled. If you want to faithful to your church you have to walk the walk.

I doubt your Bishop will need to know those details. Take heart Dario, God forgives and gives all the strength to overcome our failings. You are no greater sinner than anyone else, you just need to desire to turn around.

Thing is Dario, we are all supposed to examine ourselves before God. Our consciences and sinfulness and repent and confess to God throughout our lives. Repentance means turning back or turning away. It doesn't mean you repent until the next time you repeat the sin. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in someone who remains sinful, he cannot impart His grace in that situation. As Bluebell said we have to live by God's commandments.

True of many faiths I would say.

Oh, do I congratulate or commiserate? That sounds flippant doesn't it, sorry, I am sure your position has entailed many hours of thought and serious deliberation. May I ask if you have retained a faith in God?

Can't be all bad then if an LDS member is comfortable there.

Not necessarily, but there are many 'Why I left the .... Church' videos etc. They don't necessarily present a balanced view. And after a while they become repetitive.

You need to remember that God will not be mocked.

Maybe so, but you will not be alone, many Christians who stick to their faith will be with you.

Dario, of all people, I am the least able to judge you. But, I found it shocking that you would deliberately lie on an occasion as important as this. When people make a decision to become a member of a church, they normally follow a period of instruction so that they know the doctrines and beliefs of that church. And further to this they are taught what baptism means to that church. To think that it is acceptable to lie shows a measure of insincerity. God sees what we do. Most people when they are involved in a church wish to live a life that reflects the values of that organisation. Any fornication or promiscuity gay or straight does not reflect Christian values. To think that you can become a member of a church without any change with regard to sin is plainly wrong. I feel you need some guidance from someone, priest or bishop, who has your best interest at heart.

Oh, looking at your link, it seems like an 'I must tell all' sites. I guess all faith's are beset by these.

May I ask, if you lied, is your baptism valid. Don't you think in that one particular moment in your life you should have been truthful. What does being a Mormon actually mean to you? And are you saying that the missionaries encouraged you to lie?

These sound like fake emails, and who is John Dehlin?

Hi Calm, I was thinking in terms of our secular societies, especially in the West. Numbers actually don't matter, of that 30% many will be nominally Christian, probably never having been in a church since their baptism, which to some Christians is only a tradition. I think it might be true to say that religion is becoming a dirty word in many areas of Western society. People have said to me, Oh you're religious aren't you, as though I have some sort of illness. So if you are Christian and don't go along with mainstream liberal thinking, then you are generally despised as a bigoted hater. Sorry if I have digressed.

I think all Christians are on the fringe now, maybe that's how it should be: in the world but not of it.

Hello everyone and a Happy New year. This is a long shot. So I am doing my family tree courtesy of Ancestry and have recently found that I have a Dna match to a lady who has Jane Cardy in her tree. I have Cardy's in my family, so I am assuming this lady is a very distant relative. Well, she and her husband emigrated from Renfrewshire in Scotland to Salt Lake City. So I am assuming that she was a convert. So I was wondering if this resonates with anyone. I will give more details if anyone thinks they have information about this lady. Thanks in advance.

Thankyou, but I didn't think I made assumptions, I just asked a question.

By your comment it's like saying that it's not important, the rite itself, it's not to be taken seriously anyway.

I don't know how my simple question of whether family members could object to baptism for the dead became so complicated. But it is interesting that the LDS authorities in anticipation of such objections made the 110 year rule and decides that only the closest or first degree relatives could object. Of course the 11O year rule would safely see these very close relatives mostly deceased. Therefore by their own rule your church has decided it can just go ahead. But what if the deceased was a Jew, a Hindu , a Buddhist or Moslem, and living relatives were outraged that their ancestors were being posthumously baptised into an entirely different faith tradition. Are you saying that they could not stop this and maybe use the law to help them do so. My gg aunt died in 1944, still within the 110 years since her death, but according to your church rules, I could object but would be ignored, correct?