Sexual Sin and the FAIR Instagram Video on Alma 39

[The Nehor]

On 8/14/2024 at 5:53 AM, Stargazer said:

I don't know either, but I don't think it needs to make sense to you. And I should like to take a moment to point out my signature line, where it says:

"How poore, how narrow, how impious a measure of God, is this, that he must doe, as thou wouldest doe, if thou wert God." [John Donne, from a sermon preached in St. Paul's Jan. 30, 1624/5]

And what makes you think it was an unnecessarily harsh schoolmaster? How would you modify it to make it only a necessarily harsh schoolmaster? Got any good ideas? I shall aver to you that I don't think the requirements of the Law of Moses were as harsh as you think they are. It happens that the Jews of our current day are following the Law of Moses as amended by thousands of years of Rabbinical overthinking -- but even the Jews don't seem to think that the Law as they follow it is an unnecessarily harsh schoolmaster. Because they've been more-or-less faithfully following it for the better part of 4,000 years.

They aren’t though. They have altered virtually everything in it. That is like claiming we follow the Word of Wisdom as given by Joseph Smith. We don’t. We obey some of it, some of it we ignore, some of it we do the exact opposite, and some stuff we made up and treat it as if it has always been there. And we’ve only had about two centuries.

On 8/14/2024 at 5:53 AM, Stargazer said:

I can tell you that there is one genuinely unnecessarily harsh law, called Communism, that only survives a short time. It doesn't take very long until people get so fed up with it that they throw it off, one way or another, in very much less than a century, everywhere it's been tried. So maybe the Law of Moses isn't as harsh as you think it is.

Communism isn’t a law code. Apples and freight trains comparison here. It would take quite the shoehorn to try to make this work.

On 8/14/2024 at 5:53 AM, Stargazer said:

Neither do I believe this. You're welcome to explain your reasoning, if you want. But you've no doubt heard that many things reported in the Bible (or, for that matter, the Book of Mormon) are figurative, alliterative, or illustrative? And not meant to be taken literally? Saying that God swore in his wrath about some pretty egregious behavior serves to illustrate that God really didn't like what they did. It's more impressive to say that "God got really angry, so angry that he swore an oath about it", than if it said, "God rolled his eyes about it."

This diminishes the seriousness with which religion treated oaths. They were not metaphor.

On 8/14/2024 at 5:53 AM, Stargazer said:

Obviously God knew in advance that Israel would trample on the higher law, and had the lesser law ready for them. Obeying the lesser law for 1400 years was a schoolmaster for the Israelites -- and a test for each and every one of them as to whether they were willing to obey God. More to the point for the rest of us is that that 1400 years was a schoolmaster for all of us. God gives us laws that He wants us to obey, and he also gives us the agency to not obey. So, what will we do today? Will we obey God, and do the right thing, or will we obey our own lusts to do the wrong? 

The story of God withdrawing a higher law and giving the Israelites a lesser law would hit more if it came from the stories the ancients told. Instead it is something added to the story only recently. It has a bit of a self-serving angle suggesting that we are better and are worthy of a higher law.

*looks around at us*

The Israelites must have been really bad.

[Stargazer]

On 8/14/2024 at 5:43 PM, manol said:

How about this:  Taken at face value, I think the Law of Moses is unnecessarily harsh.  The fact that the Jews found work-arounds to soften it (when is the last time they carried out any of the executions it calls for?) makes me think they thought so too.

They had prophets back in the day. Presumably the prophets that were active were interpreting God's law according to God's will. 

On 8/14/2024 at 5:43 PM, manol said:

 

You cited the Joseph Smith translation which introduced the "God swore in his wrath" language.  I made the mistake of assuming you were presenting the JST version as being a literal description of what actually happened.  But if that particular wording was figurative in your view, then it doesn't sound to me like we disagree much. 

Maybe my delivery was bad?

 

I was presenting the JST version as figurative, yes. We might not disagree a lot, but I'm sure we do somewhat.  

As His children, we need to feel that He is angry at us for our wrongdoing. But as the perfect parent, while He is disappointed with us, He nevertheless loves us more than we can comprehend. I have raised a few children, and there were times when I, despite my deep love for them, I had to put on a front of anger in order to teach them the ins and outs of misbehavior and its consequences. By the same token, we are told about the God of Wrath ("Deus Irae") in order for us to understand the importance of obedience. But we are also told that God is Love. 

Hence, God's wrath must in reality be figurative. And intentional. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/14/2024 at 6:44 PM, Teancum said:

And they used to stone sabbath day breakers as well. So there is that.....

As someone else pointed out, this seems to have happened only once. Or at least, it was only recorded once, that we know of.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Israelites must have been really bad.

They were, yes.

So are the rest of us.

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But one should be cautious in counseling anyone to live together before marriage if the intent is a long term marriage.  I have heard the reasoning that one should be sure they are sexually compatible before marriage to prevent breakup over that, but apparently that reassurance doesn’t increase stability, maybe because if both are virgins there are no negative comparisons to other partners or worry one isn’t as good.

Mark E. Peterson is said to have once said that in 44 years of marriage he had never once seen his wife naked. If that's true and not a joke, he has definitely benefited from his incomparability when it comes to sex.

But living together before marriage is less about sex, there would be opportunities for that on a date. It's much more about experiencing everyday life together, resolving conflicts and becoming more mature as a result. Can I open up to my partner without having to pretend? Can I confide in my partner, can I talk to them about intimate things? It's not uncommon for a spouse to be much better at talking to their best friend than to their spouse, which is actually a bit of a pity.

But I don't want to give any advice here, because that would result in disciplinary proceedings for LDS members. I will say, however, that those outside the church who live together before marriage do not live as godlessly as some like to portray.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

I will say, however, that those outside the church who live together before marriage do not live as godlessly as some like to portray

Generally the Church treats such couples as a family in my experience, working with them if there is a desire to get married (recent case in my ward); if not (sometimes there are legal issues, others it’s personal preference) they are still welcomed to attend church as a family—at least in the cases I have known—though not baptized generally (I have heard exceptions are made in some countries where divorce is not permitted and a couple is obviously longterm, likely with children).

Quote

living together before marriage is less about sex

Yes, I understand this.  I have just been in several conversations with nonmembers in the distant past (70s and 80s) where they pushed living together beforehand and that was the reason they gave, so my mind goes there first in the discussion.  But you are right, claiming living together is only about sex makes as much sense as claiming same sex marriage is only about sex.  It is too acceptable these days to have sex outside of a longterm relationship generally speaking for that reasoning to be reasonable, imo.

Edited August 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Looks like living together is still indicative of greater risk for divorce.  Exception exist if they are already engaged (they have already made the commitment rather than are trying to see if they are compatible (in most areas).

https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/1/23697802/living-together-cohabitation-before-marriage-linked-divorce/#:~:text=While living together makes it,divorcing if you did marry.
 

Quote

It also creates inertia. “Our theory,” they write, “is that moving in together can prematurely increase the inertia for remaining together prior to a couple making a clear commitment to a future in marriage.”

But it doesn’t increase commitment. While living together makes it harder to break up, it doesn’t make marriage more bulletproof. And per Rhoades, “sliding” into a live-in relationship instead of actually deciding shared future goals is linked to higher risk of breaking up before getting married or divorcing if you did marry.

One reason those couples have a higher risk for divorce may be that “when you move in together without having a clear mutual commitment to a future together, they didn’t really make a decision. That may set them up to slide through other traditional milestones,” she said. 

Stanley said couples sometimes take on too much before they’re ready for it, including sometimes parenthood. “Some are stuck in a place where they probably would have left.”

Cohabiting, he added, has become part of the dating phase of life, rather than the settling down, married part because couples who cohabit are actually less likely to ever make it to the altar at all.

Quote

The report offers some advice on achieving a successful marriage. Among the tips:

• Don’t believe suggestions that cohabiting will improve the chance of a lasting marriage.
• Slow down. “Timing and sequence can help you land on the right relationship path,” the two researchers write.
• Make decisions about romantic relationships, instead of drifting, including decisions about living together outside of a formal, declared commitment. Stanley calls that “Decide, don’t slide.”
• Don’t cohabit to test drive the relationship.
• Don’t do it to save money, either.

 

Edited August 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

I personally think the problem with living together first to see if you should marry is that every relationship will have bumps and if you aren’t married, the interpretation when the bumps come is more likely to be ‘this relationship isn’t working, so now we know marriage isn’t for us’ where if one is married, it is more likely (but not always) to be responded to as ‘this relationship isn’t working, we need to work on the relationship’.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

We might not disagree a lot, but I'm sure we do somewhat.  

NO WE DON'T!!

(Just joking... sorry, couldn't resist!)

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As His children, we need to feel that He is angry at us for our wrongdoing. 

Okay, maybe we do disagree somewhat... 

IF (<- and that's a big "if") we are so immature that fear is the language we speak most fluently, then fear may well be what works best on us. See D&C 19:6-12. But imo there comes a point at which fear is no longer a useful tool, as fear imposes a barrier between us and God, which is imo is why fear of the Lord is [ONLY] THE BEGINNING of wisdom. (Proverbs 9:10, emphasis mine).

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But we are also told that God is Love.

Now we are in agreement! 

Love does not terrorize its students; on the contrary, love actually casts out fear! (1 John 4:18).  The two are ultimately incompatible!  So imo the teaching to "fear God" and the teaching to "love God" are on two very different levels: the one is for beginners and boneheads, and the other is for disciples. 

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hence, God's wrath must in reality be figurative. And intentional. 

And I can agree with this, but imo “God's wrath” is never the highest level of truth on the subject.

I do not believe that “wrath” is an emotion God indulges in, as I don't believe it even exists on his level. By way of example, the emotion “murderous hate” exists for some people here on this Telestial world, but I would bet it is not something that would ever even occur to you; it simply does not exist on your level. You could never, or probably never, be tempted to indulge in it.  Likewise, imo "wrath" does not exist on God's level, though the concept of "God's wrath" may have utility in some situations. 

Edited August 15, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

Mark E. Peterson is said to have once said that in 44 years of marriage he had never once seen his wife naked. If that's true and not a joke, he has definitely benefited from his incomparability when it comes to sex.

Yeah, and I heard that he had sex only once per child.

Both tales sound like science-fiction. And are not believable.

My seminary teacher once told us in his classroom that he didn't kiss his wife until after they were married. We groaned at him. He looked expectantly at us, as if to say, "Go thou and do likewise," until finally one of us piped up -- "That's because she wasn't your wife until you were married?" He gave us a big smile and said "That's it!" Everyone laughed.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I personally think the problem with living together first to see if you should marry is that every relationship will have bumps and if you aren’t married, the interpretation when the bumps come is more likely to be ‘this relationship isn’t working, so now we know marriage isn’t for us’ where if one is married, it is more likely (but not always) to be responded to as ‘this relationship isn’t working, we need to work on the relationship’.

I think a good amount of time people who otherwise would not get married end up getting married just because they are already living together (and having kids) and it's easier at that point than starting over with all that baggage. 

I remember reading once where some dating and marriage counselor said that relationships that go on for years before marriage having a bad success rate because people so often spend those years trying to convince themselves that the relationship works, and then end up getting married due to the pressure of the momentum they've already set up in their lives, rather than because they really want to be in a committed lifelong relationship with that specific person.

[let’s roll]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:50 PM, Devobah said:

I've had so many mental conversations with my pretend future son or daughter going over what I would say to them if they came out to me. I don't know if there is a perfect playbook for that conversation. The best that I've been able to come up with is just letting them know that I love them.

I had two of my seminary students come out to me before they came out to their parents.  With that experience I can tell you I believe your instincts of leading with love will serve you well should you ever have that conversation.  
 

In both cases I was prompted to do far more listening than talking.  As I recall what little I did say centered around 1) expressions of gratitude for their trust, 2) specific examples of Divine characteristics I see in them and how those characteristics make it easy for me, their peers, their family, and Deity to love them, and 3) assurance that I am a willing sounding board for them as they navigate life.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

NO WE DON'T!!

(Just joking... sorry, couldn't resist!)

LOL

5 minutes ago, manol said:

Okay, maybe we do disagree somewhat... 

IF (<- and that's a big "if") we are so immature that fear is the language we speak most fluently, then fear may well be what works best on us. See D&C 19:6-12. But imo there comes a point at which fear is no longer a useful tool, as fear imposes a barrier between us and God, which is imo is why fear of the Lord is [ONLY] THE BEGINNING of wisdom. (Proverbs 9:10, emphasis mine).

When we are very young, fear is a language that we speak quite fluently. As we begin to move about on our own we have fear of falling, fear of being alone, fear of loud noises, and so on. As we get a little older we acquire more fears. Sometimes we fear our parents' disapproval. 

But there's fear, and then there's fear.

From the Study Helps on the church website:

Fear -> "Care should be taken to distinguish between two different uses of this word. The “fear of the Lord” is frequently spoken of as part of man’s duty (Ps. 111:10; Eccl. 12:13; Isa. 11:2–3; Luke 1:50); it is also described as “godly fear” (Heb. 12:28). In such passages fear is equivalent to reverence, awe, worship, and is therefore an essential part of the attitude of mind in which we ought to stand toward the All-holy God. On the other hand fear is spoken of as something unworthy of a child of God, something that “perfect love casteth out” (1 Jn. 4:18). The first effect of Adam’s sin was that he was afraid (Gen. 3:10). Sin destroys that feeling of confidence God’s child should feel in a loving Father and produces instead a feeling of shame and guilt. Ever since the Fall God has been teaching men not to fear, but with penitence to ask forgiveness in full confidence of receiving it."

5 minutes ago, manol said:

Now we are in agreement! 

Love does not terrorize its students; on the contrary, love actually casts out fear! (1 John 4:18).  So imo the teaching to "fear God" and the teaching to "love God" are on two very different levels: the one is for beginners and boneheads, and the other is for disciples. 

And I can agree with this, but imo “God's wrath” is never the highest level of truth on the subject.

I do not believe that “wrath” is an emotion God indulges in, as I don't believe it even exists on his level. By way of example, the emotion “murderous hate” exists for some people here on this Telestial world, but I would bet it is not something that would ever even occur to you; it simply does not exist on your level. You could never, or probably never, be tempted to indulge in it. 

Yes, to what you wrote here.

5 minutes ago, manol said:

Likewise, imo "wrath" does not exist on God's level, though the concept of "God's wrath" may have utility in some situations. 

As I said above, we may fear our parent's disapproval. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Looks like living together is still indicative of greater risk for divorce.  Exception exist if they are already engaged (they have already made the commitment rather than are trying to see if they are compatible (in most areas).

https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/1/23697802/living-together-cohabitation-before-marriage-linked-divorce/#:~:text=While living together makes it,divorcing if you did marry.
 

 

Yeah, that is the general consensus I have seen. If you have made an emotional commitment to eventually marry or to stay together without marriage for whatever reason it is usually not an issue.

When you live together before you make any kind of commitment and then eventually marry divorce increases. I suspect this is due to sliding into a coupled and highly enmeshed life with another person without consciously and willfully choosing it. Then suddenly you realize it is not working and you never agreed to this and bail.

[Frank11]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I personally think the problem with living together first to see if you should marry is that every relationship will have bumps and if you aren’t married, the interpretation when the bumps come is more likely to be ‘this relationship isn’t working, so now we know marriage isn’t for us’ where if one is married, it is more likely (but not always) to be responded to as ‘this relationship isn’t working, we need to work on the relationship’.

I agree with you 100%.

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Looks like living together is still indicative of greater risk for divorce.

Yes, on the surface that is true, but I think you are overlooking a very crucial factor. The people who are willing to marry without living together first, often for traditional religious reasons, are the same people for whom divorce would only be a last resort. 

The divorce rate among temple marriages is only 6%, which is excellent, but still six times higher than the divorce rate among Hindus, which is 1%. Why ... because they don't live together before marriage either? ... because they have happier marriages? ... because they are the only true religion? - NO - The main reason is, divorce is an absolute disgrace in Hinduism, especially in India.
The dissolution of an eternal temple marriage is also a big disappointment for family, in the community, with friends, but it doesn't seem to be as bad as a Hindu divorce. 

People who aren't so conservatively religious and don't live in a conservative environment generally see no problems in living together unmarried, but also have fewer problems getting divorced and don't have to fear social ostracism.

 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

I agree with you 100%.

Yes, on the surface that is true, but I think you are overlooking a very crucial factor. The people who are willing to marry without living together first, often for traditional religious reasons, are the same people for whom divorce would only be a last resort. 

The divorce rate among temple marriages is only 6%, which is excellent, but still six times higher than the divorce rate among Hindus, which is 1%. Why ... because they don't live together before marriage either? ... because they have happier marriages? ... because they are the only true religion? - NO - The main reason is, divorce is an absolute disgrace in Hinduism, especially in India.
The dissolution of an eternal temple marriage is also a big disappointment for family, in the community, with friends, but it doesn't seem to be as bad as a Hindu divorce. 

People who aren't so conservatively religious and don't live in a conservative environment generally see no problems in living together unmarried, but also have fewer problems getting divorced and don't have to fear social ostracism.

 

There is this too. Is a marriage successful if it just manages to endure until one of the people in it die? If they stay together because of fear of social disapproval or financial ruination if it ended?

[manol]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

As I said above, we may fear our parent's disapproval. 

This is just my opinion, and I do not expect it to be a popular one:

Even that fear simply does not exist in the presence of perfect love. 

And since I'm probably coloring outside the lines already, might as well keep going:  Right here and right now we are in the Presence of God, and the Presence of God is within us (D&C 88:41). 

Edited August 16, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

Just now, manol said:

This is just my opinion, and I do not expect it to be a popular one:

Even that fear simply does not exist in the presence of perfect love. 

I absolutely agree. 

I have heard it said that if a child trusts a parent's love, he or she has no fear of the parent's disapproval.

Just now, manol said:

An since I'm probably coloring outside the lines already, might as well keep going:  Right here and right now we are in the Presence of God, and the Presence of God is within us (D&C 88:41). 

Well, I certainly feel it pretty much all the time.

[Frank11]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, and I heard that he had sex only once per child.

Both tales sound like science-fiction. And are not believable.

When I look at Peterson's other statements, which are confirmed, this seems suddenly very believable.

https://www.mormonquotes.com/Mark_E._Petersen

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Frank11 said:

When I look at Peterson's other statements, which are confirmed, this seems suddenly very believable.

https://www.mormonquotes.com/Mark_E._Petersen

I believe that even those quotations do not confirm the two claims you and I have put forth. And yes, I'm aware that Elder Peterson had some pretty icky opinions. 

Now, it happens that I've said some pretty dumb things occasionally in my life. But having said that, there are plenty of other dumb things that I could be believed to have said, but did not. So, I shall not attribute to others what they are rumored to have believed or said which cannot be substantiated.

Edited to add...

A large number of the quotations given in your link regard a certain sexual practice, as if Peterson was were uniquely obsessed with it. I will remind you that Peterson was as much a product of his time as you are. And European sexual mores were just as worried about it as Peterson was. Look up the Wikipedia article about this and you will see that. Ever hear about the blindness warning associated with the practice? Peterson didn't invent it. It was part of the culture you and I have grown up in. I remember being warned against the practice as I was growing up, and in completely non-religious contexts.  

Now, as for the website where you found that array of quotations, I invite you to consider their obsession. 

Edited August 16, 2024 by Stargazer

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

have heard it said that if a child trusts a parent's love, he or she has no fear of the parent's disapproval.

I’m not sure about that.  The way my daughter talks, she never once doubted we loved her or that our love was conditional (we had the advantage of being both in psychology and thus were aware of pitfalls and were consistent with what little negative discipline we had to use (we had it easy with our kids in that way, neither were inclined to rebel, etc).  Discipline was about getting them to do good things rather than stopping bad behaviour and it seems inappropriate to tie fear to positive actions.  Rewards are more effective in that type of training…if you can find the right ones.

Anyway, back to the point…minus diabetes, we didn’t use fear as part of discipline and even with diabetes it was simple truth it would have been wrong to try and hide, she would get very sick without the shots, even die.  And there was plenty of live felt according to her.

And yet she also had a lot of fear in disappointing us (once the diabetes hit, her ability to concentrate plummeted and schoolwork became a terror for her outside of art).  Fear of hurting us by her failing was so strong she ended up having to quit school and homeschool was more or less a joke because me trying to help her only made things worse (luckily she fell through the gaps and I wasn’t jailed for not providing her with a decent education, she picked that up on her own by researching interests and just being brilliant  though don’t ask her any math questions, which is her worse subject because she knows that I loved it so much and it hurt that I couldn’t share that love with her).

Maybe our disappointment does not count as disapproval because it was her missing out rather than doing wrong, but I think from what she said she felt like she was doing wrong in her own eyes even though she knew we wouldn’t condemn her in the least.

Iow, kids have their own minds and they will create problems where there are none from the parents’ POV and I bet that holds for God a thousandfold or more than it does for mortal parents.

I don’t think anyone can live without experiencing fear in pretty much every aspect of our lives simply because we are programmed that way, it is a survival instinct.  We therefore need to teach our kids how to manage fear in positive ways.

Edited August 15, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But there's fear, and then there's fear.

From the Study Helps on the church website:

Fear -> "Care should be taken to distinguish between two different uses of this word. The “fear of the Lord” is frequently spoken of as part of man’s duty (Ps. 111:10; Eccl. 12:13; Isa. 11:2–3; Luke 1:50); it is also described as “godly fear” (Heb. 12:28). In such passages fear is equivalent to reverence, awe, worship, and is therefore an essential part of the attitude of mind in which we ought to stand toward the All-holy God. On the other hand fear is spoken of as something unworthy of a child of God, something that “perfect love casteth out” (1 Jn. 4:18). The first effect of Adam’s sin was that he was afraid (Gen. 3:10). Sin destroys that feeling of confidence God’s child should feel in a loving Father and produces instead a feeling of shame and guilt. Ever since the Fall God has been teaching men not to fear, but with penitence to ask forgiveness in full confidence of receiving it."

This article provides a really good perspective on what it means to fear God and why it's important, and it's different than what our church teaches. A few highlights are presented below. https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/why-is-it-good-to-fear-god/

Quote

Many people interpret the idea to be simply one of great respect and appreciation, awe and reverence. But surely not actual fear? The words are explained away and brushed under the carpet as meaning something far less intimidating.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom/knowledge..." If you want to be wise and understanding in your faith, fear of God must come first.

...we must first enter into fear in order to be freed from fear. Jesus put it this way for us:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

When we have that true appreciation the fact that God really can destroy us forever, all other fears have to take a back seat. God is terrifying—a terror to all his enemies. But by His grace, he has made us who were once His enemies into His friends.

A right fear of God leads us into holiness as we seek to obey and please God. God-fearing men and women desire to be pure in His sight, and the pure in heart get to see God

Here are some examples from the Bible of the benefits promised to those who fear God: (lists 23 blessings promised in the Bible)

 

Quote

Dumbing down and diluting of the fear of God only results in us shooting ourselves in the foot. We are the ones who miss out if we do this. Fearing God is not simply a matter of enjoying His character or appreciating His wonders. The more we become God-fearing, appreciating the true position humanity is in before God, the more our lives will overflow with blessing. Those who pretend to themselves that God is just a cuddly teddy bear of a guy, a big softie in the sky, do so to their own great detriment.

Deuteronomy 10:12 verifies the pattern suggested in the above article "So now, O Israel, what does Adonai your God require of you, but to fear Adonai your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve Adonai your God with all your heart and with all your soul (TLV)" Fearing God leads to a desire to be pure and obedient which enables one to serve God with all their heart and develop a great relationship with Him.

I almost dropped out of High School. By the time I was in the middle of my Junior year I was flunking out of all of my classes. At that point I moved in with my dad, after trying to live on the streets, and he told me I can do anything I want while living with him but if I miss one more class then he will kick me out to live on the streets. I knew that my dad would follow through on his promise, and I was afraid of him because of that promise. So I didn't miss a class ever again. I got on the bus at 6 AM every day in order to get to school on time by 8 AM for the remainder of the school year before I could transfer to a closer High School. That fear was very healthy and resulted in me graduating High School.

17 hours ago, manol said:

IF (<- and that's a big "if") we are so immature that fear is the language we speak most fluently, then fear may well be what works best on us. See D&C 19:6-12. But imo there comes a point at which fear is no longer a useful tool, as fear imposes a barrier between us and God, which is imo is why fear of the Lord is [ONLY] THE BEGINNING of wisdom. (Proverbs 9:10, emphasis mine).

Love does not terrorize its students; on the contrary, love actually casts out fear! (1 John 4:18).  The two are ultimately incompatible!  So imo the teaching to "fear God" and the teaching to "love God" are on two very different levels: the one is for beginners and boneheads, and the other is for disciples.

Allow me to suggest a few interpretations of 1 John 4:18. The more one loves God the less they need to fear His divine judgment. In the Book of Mormon some of the prophets even suggest God's judgment as pleasing because they are so full of love. The evidence one can have to see how much they love God is in how well they keep His commandments (naturally, out of righteous desire or who they are, not out of duty or guilt). Another way to consider this verse is that perfect love (of God) casts out fear (of man). Moses was afraid of God. Moses was not afraid of the pharaoh. As Moses came to know God more completely, his fear of man diminished.

17 hours ago, manol said:

And I can agree with this, but imo “God's wrath” is never the highest level of truth on the subject.

I do not believe that “wrath” is an emotion God indulges in.

I absolutely believe that God can feel wrath and anger. In my attempt to have a relationship with Him I have become more raw and vulnerable and honest with expressing my emotions to Him. I have been angry with Him at times. If I cannot expect God to reciprocate, in a perfect manner, the feelings He has and that same level of vulnerability, then I'm going to hold back on how raw I'm actually going to be with Him. Anger is not a bad emotion. All feelings are given to us by God, they are a part of the very essence of life that He has given us. Anger is a gift, and it can be very good and powerful when used appropriately, just as any other emotion can be. Any emotions used without restraint will result in a negative outcome for the person experiencing them. And the inverse of that statement is also true. If I am dealing with a Being who is never angry, then what else is He holding back and hiding from me? Dealing with a person in real life who is never angry is kind of creepy. I want to experience who people really are in my interactions with them, not some mask or facade they put on that they think I'll like to deal with the most.

Imagine things from God's perspective. He gives all that He has, all the time, to everyone. He promises everything in His covenants and He gives all of His blood, sweat, and tears for His people. If He is betrayed, does it not hurt Him? If someone is acting like a rude brat, does it not irritate Him? If someone blasphemes His Holy Name and leads His children into paths of everlasting darkness, does He not get angry? Is He not angry when He sees children trafficked and sold for organ parts to the highest bidder? Would I like Him more if He didn't get angry at that?

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I almost dropped out of High School. By the time I was in the middle of my Junior year I was flunking out of all of my classes. At that point I moved in with my dad, after trying to live on the streets, and he told me I can do anything I want while living with him but if I miss one more class then he will kick me out to live on the streets. I knew that my dad would follow through on his promise, and I was afraid of him because of that promise. So I didn't miss a class ever again. I got on the bus at 6 AM every day in order to get to school on time by 8 AM for the remainder of the school year before I could transfer to a closer High School. That fear was very healthy and resulted in me graduating High School.

A beautiful story, of course it would have been even more beautiful if you had attended all classes out of love for your father, because that's exactly how Christianity works. However, this also depends on your relationship with your father.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

A beautiful story, of course it would have been even more beautiful if you had attended all classes out of love for your father, because that's exactly how Christianity works. However, this also depends on your relationship with your father.

I did love my dad. I loved him even more for making that a rule of the house. But yeah, my primary motivation was not getting kicked out, it wasn't to make him happy. 

I disagree that that is exactly how Christianity works. You'd have to be specific as to which denominations you're referring to as loving people into obedience. Any sect I can think of thinks either you're going to hell unless you believe in Christ or confess that you're saved or get baptized. The ones that don't preach that preach instead that there are no rules, you only need to believe and then you can do whatever you want. There is no loving into obedience because there is nothing to obey. The Book of Mormon contains a lot of "repent or be damned" language in it, as does the D&C. However, I'm pretty sure the LDS church is the only church that believes that all excepting perdition are dwelling in God's glory, in some capacity, forever.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Frank11 said:

When I look at Peterson's other statements, which are confirmed, this seems suddenly very believable.

https://www.mormonquotes.com/Mark_E._Petersen

Okay, this made me laugh:

Quote

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'.

We really need to stop using that ‘little statement’. Either they keep using it wrongly or the Church as a whole has embraced apostasy.

I have learned to use caution when people confidently assert what people are “really after” when their actions and their words both say the opposite. It was wrong about blacks and Jews and yet the same tired techniques are used to bolster Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. There is always some secret agenda that makes little sense if you think about it for more than five minutes.

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Now, as for the website where you found that array of quotations, I invite you to consider their obsession. 

Their obsession with making apostles look like idiots? That is clearly the goal.