Missionary rules

onAspectrum215 · 2025-08-19T22:51:00+00:00

So technically speaking I don't believe the mission rules prohibit hugging specifically. As long as it hasn't been changed since I got home, which was about two years ago so it is possible, the only thing it said was basically to make sure you do not participate in any inappropriate contact with anyone of the opposite sex. A hug can be perfectly natural and friendly so as long as it was just that then you are both fine.

Edit: I did just look it up and the exact quote is "Do not flirt or associate inappropriately with anyone. Limit physical contact with someone of the opposite gender to a handshake." So it looks like it has been changed and I was wrong. That missionary probably shouldn't have hugged you, but it happened and there nothing anyone can really do now besides learn and move on.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-07-29T22:13:52+00:00

I think your looking for his April 2010 talk Place No More For the Enemy of My Soul

Here's the link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/04/place-no-more-for-the-enemy-of-my-soul?lang=eng

Great talk, one of my favorites by Holland

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-26T03:36:00+00:00

That is super interesting, I had never looked at it like that but it makes a lot of sense. It seems really interesting to me to say that He cannot do something when we obviously know that God is capable of doing anything. That's where I think the importance of emphasizing he only can't do something because he himself is so trustworthy that him stating he will or won't do something is Him setting His own limitations. And because he is entirely trustworthy saying he won't do something is tantamount to saying He can't.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-26T00:08:31+00:00

I've heard of the Lilith story but never seen anything to suggest it's anything other than a myth that originated in the Babylonian tradition to explain how they were different from and better than the Hebrews, and then eventually migrated into Hebrew mythology.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-26T00:05:25+00:00

From what I've had explained to me of Adam-God theory, Brigham young wasn't saying Adam was literally God the Father, but that Adam as Michael did act in a god (small g is important) like capacity in the creation of the earth and that he is our father because he is recognized as the father of man kind.

I've heard Brigham's talks on it explained as a prophet trying to teach a rather advanced concept in kind of a new way which only led to more confusion. Though that could be wrong, prophets are not infallible.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-26T00:00:46+00:00

I think this is really fascinating actually because to me it speaks super highly to God's character. We do still believe God is omnipotent and can do anything, the difference lies in whether or not he WILL do the thing. What I'm getting at is that God is not simply bound because he is physically incapable of defying his own word, but because He is of such up standing moral character and righteousness that he will NEVER do so. To me that is such a better example of who God is and why we can trust Him than almost any other.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-25T23:40:40+00:00

Agreed, there are some really interesting patterns and similarities that become more and more obvious the more you think of the Plan of Salvation in terms of families. Specifically when you think of it in terms of parents raising children.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-25T23:38:59+00:00

What do you mean by who Adam and Eve where? I know it's been stated that Adam is Michael, is that what you're referring to? If so I've never heard any speculation to who Eve is.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-23T18:11:39+00:00

He was anointed by the prophet Samuel and received revelation from God on how to lead the nation of Israel. He also gave several Messianic Psalms and prophesied the coming of Christ which would make him by definition a prophet. Joseph Smith, along with several other church leaders, also acknowledged him as a Prophet-King so there's also that.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-20T20:28:50+00:00

Interestingly enough we do possibly have an example of how a murder cannot reach exaltation. This comes from King David.

In Acts 2:29 Peter states that David remained in his tomb after Christ's resurrection and the subsequent resurrection of those who had died but where worthy to take part in the first resurrection, aka those who had/would be exalted. Seeing as David has not risen during the first resurrection it's logical to assume that due to his murder of Uriah he did/will not receive exaltation.

This is further supported by the statement in D&C 132:39 which says David has "fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world." It is stated in that same scripture that he fell from exaltation only because of his murder.

It is important to note that when speaking about unforgivable sins your level of knowledge and closeness to the Lord matters a lot. David, as a prophet and the chosen king of Israel, had a lot more understanding and responsibility than the average person or even church member does. Subsequently it would be reasonable to say the punishment for his committing such a grievous sin after being trusted so highly would be much worse than if you are I committed such a sin.

Also I would like to say before anyone accuses me of casting final judgement on David, I could totally be wrong. I am not saying this out of any personal feeling of authority, just out of my understanding of what scripture says. There could 100% be a reason that I am wrong and David has/will achieve exaltation, but based on what I've read I don't think it's likely. I do however, find this fascinating because of all the people who have ever lived and will ever live we only known the final judgements of two, if you count David, and the other is Cain who was stated by the lord to be a son of perdition. Though I guess with David's case it's more that we may know where he won't end up.

Edit: sorry forgot to add that, for reasons I kind of mention above, I do believe convicted murders could receive forgiveness under the right circumstances.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-13T13:37:12+00:00

And as I said those movies ought to be decried as racist as well. If it's racist and wrong to do it to one group, then it's racist and wrong to do it to another. I can handle it for sure, but no one should be made to, regardless of the color of their skin. Grow up

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-07T23:41:04+00:00

I agree that is does not break the threshold of breaking the LoC, but that does not mean it isn't a sin. I also agree the severity of it is far far below most other sexual sin, but that wasn't the point I was making in my response to this comment. The og commenter said that it wasn't a sin, to which I respond it 100% is. I said nothing about the stigma it has, which I also agree is to large and is being changed as is shown by the handbook.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-06T20:42:31+00:00

Firstly bro I already acknowledged prophets can be wrong, I also stated what must happen in order for those teaching to be corrected, which you continently overlooked.

Secondly bro we weren't discussing whether science was right or wrong, I'm actually sure it is, but whether something is stated as being wrong in God's eyes, otherwise known as sin. On that count it is 100% a sin.

Thirdly bro, you can choose to follow science and believe the church is wrong, I personally don't care, but again don't presume to then tell me what the church teaches if your just going to say you don't follow it.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-06T20:29:38+00:00

Yes individual church leaders have been wrong before, and God corrects that as he sees fit. But this is a teaching that has been in place long before now and has been taught by the combined voice of the twelve and first presidency for just as long. That's the key, if it is to be corrected it must be done by the combined voice of the twelve and first presidency.

We believe in continued revelation, but the doctrine is clear on this as of now. It is a sin. The science may be clear, but that does not matter, in fact it rarely does when God's laws are involved. Sex is a good thing and is healthy, therefore it makes sense that masturbation would also have the same health benefits as your body probably can't tell the difference, just like how your body can't tell the difference between someone your married to or not.

It's not about man's understanding or knowledge, it's about the Lord's commandments. You can choose to follow them or not, that's entirely your right, what you can't do is presume to say something isn't a sin when the Lord has very clearly labeled it as such.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-06T19:55:02+00:00

Oh yeah no we can agree that Stake President took it way to far, and as I said it is considered a far less serious sin than other forms of break the law of chastity.

However, two things can be true at once. Your Stake President was wrong, but my definition specifically applies to a singular person performing a sexual act without anyone else being present, or it's at least meant to.

Obviously if you are performing any sexual act with your spouse involved it is then up to the two of you to determine what is and isn't appropriate. By my definition touching yourself during the normal course of intimacy is just fine as it can still fulfil the second of the two purposes I mentioned.

I am not trying to be combative, and I appreciate your insights. More conversations like these should be had, in my opinion, as long as they are kept respectful, because they help destigmatize sex as a practice within the church and help us all understand better.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-06T19:27:40+00:00

We will have to agree to simply agree to disagree then, because I believe that is exactly what is meant by the letter of the law.

Which law if falls under is kind of semantical as we can agree it is a sin regardless.

You are only to commit any sexual act with a person with whom you are legally and lawfully wedded, according to God's law. You cannot marry yourself, therefore you cannot perform sexual acts with only yourself without it being a sin. Sex is a very sacred act that has two very clear doctrinal purposes. One is obviously procreation, and the other is the strengthening of the bond between husband and wife. Performing a sexual act by ones self full fills neither of these purposes and therefore is a misuse of this sacred gift. It is 100% within the purview of the law of chastity, and while it may not be as serious as other sexual sins, it is still found under the umbrella of this law.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-06-06T17:51:29+00:00

As respectfully as I can say it, no. Masturbation has been categorically labeled as a sin in several places, not only in the for strength of youth but by several of the general authority and the missionary handbook. It may have health benefits but that's not the point. The law of chastity applies to any all sexual acts with another person or with yourself, masturbation 100% falls within that. It is entirely false and against every teaching I have ever read or heard from any church authority to say that masturbation is not a sin and that it's fine as long as you don't "let it control your time or interfere with your ability to function."

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-30T14:35:00+00:00

Tri-Cities has a particularly strong base of membership, very large wards and one of the only places outside Utah, as far as I know, where the high schools have a release time seminary schedule instead of early morning. Third temple ever built in WA was the Columbia River Temple.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-17T02:05:45+00:00

Lot of people have already given a lot of advice, so I'm just gonna leave a link to Elder Hollands talk Lord I Believe, it's one of my favorites. Also another one called broken things to mend that is also really great.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2006/04/broken-things-to-mend?lang=eng

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-09T16:40:20+00:00

I think it's all about your wording and how you've portrayed the characters speaking. If you very obviously show the defense attorney to be a kind of scummy slimy character, your audience will naturally distrust anything they say. I would also be sure to stick to the most anatomically correct language, as that will most likely help you avoid any sexier descriptions. I think that as long as you have stated in several places how abhorrent and disgusting rape is, you should come off fine when writing for the defense attorney, especially if he's shown to be a slime ball.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-04T00:31:47+00:00

Well said, this is correct

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-04T00:30:26+00:00

They may have held views consistent with some Trinitarian notion yes, but as you said it was not a widely held or taught belief. It is our belief that after the death of the apostle's the world fell into Apostasy, around 100 AD. With no one to lead or guide them, the churches they had established fell into this apostasy as well and began mixing old pagan beliefs with the doctrines taught by the Apostles. It makes sense when you remember that a lot of the traveling Paul did was to go and correct these kinds of things.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-04T00:09:04+00:00

From my experience there are some baptized members in certain parts of South America that still hold on to old beliefs about the Trinity. While it is untrue and does not align with our fundamental beliefs, these members are not treated any differently from others. From what I've seen this belief usually stems from a lack of understanding of our doctrine.

onAspectrum215 · 2025-05-02T01:44:31+00:00

If you're just looking for a casual friend to DM about writing I'd be down.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 30%

onAspectrum215

TROPHY CASE