Leaderboard

Best of luck, friend. You should probably be talking to a lawyer right now. I can almost guarantee you your wife is. Advice from an outsider and a stranger: Don't hold on so tightly that you strangle the relationship. if she really wants to go, you can't make her stay -- and even if you can, YOU DON'T WANT TO. If she believes she has found wonderful freedom outside the Church, let her go. If she thinks her marriage to you is stifling her, let her go. Move on with your own life, and make this seeming tragedy into an important lesson that moves you forward to happier times. Again, best of luck.

Carlimac, we are empathetic. Plenty of people have come across this problem. But I e also known couples who simply want to get sealed who are forced through the drama of trying to please everyone in the family, so they don't offend anyone. You speak from the family perspective and your feelings are valid, but the family's feelings should never trump the wishes of the bride and groom. Not saying that's the case here, but in a culture where the celebration is largely the wedding day rather than the sealing a bride and groom should not have to deal with the drama of relatives threatening to abandon them over who gets to witness what. It's not loving, it's not caring, and it ignores the feelings of a couple who, let's face it, matter the most that day.

I think it's fine in the Gospel Discussion. It's a good discussion as to how we all should spiritually prepare for General Conference.

The classic economist, Adam Smith, argued FOR unions, in his The Wealth of Nations. His argument was that owners have capital on their side, so it was reasonable for workers to unite for negotiations of wages and benefits. So, I support that unions exist. Further, when stock markets rise, company profits rise, executive bonuses rise, BUT worker salaries remain stagnant, or even decrease, something seems afoul. What I don't like is when unions use dues to support irrelevant political causes, such as abortion rights.

Families are forever - and it you stop to think about it sealing a couple is not just about them. It is about their family and the truth is that their family goes back and forth in time and touches billions of individuals. We work very hard to bring families together - not to find excuses to leave someone out. Temples are about families and we work endlessly not to leave anyone out --- EVER. There is no doctrine as to the max to invite to the temple. Sorry to those that think otherwise. The max is determined by local codes based on exits and room size. Changing the room size is only part of the problem - fire codes for example have other requirements. It is not just a choice by the general authorities. As of today there are limits imposed. The Church has to comply with local codes and I am sure has not plotted against Uncle Phil or Aunt Jane in large families. The best we can do is deal with the parameters we are given. Good individuals in good families will do the best they can and move on with life - there are worse things in life than not being able to attend a favorite relatives special moment. We can be sad but we can and should be concerned but deal with it and continue our lives the best we can.

I think we need to tread carefully when it comes to families. Sure, we have the couple that has a few family members and/or friends at a tiny courthouse ceremony, but remember that at least in western culture family is a big, big part of the wedding day. Should the day be about the bride and groom? Of course. But, for better or for worse, family usually comes with the territory and it does behoove the bride and groom to be diplomatic with the family. LDS sealings are merely one type of wedding in a country full of family-focused celebrations. It can be difficult to separate the two desires. Other than that, I do agree with much of these posts as far as the temple sealing goes.

the problem with the scenario presented is that the fruits were tested before they were ripe on one tree. Excelelent testimony by the way, thnak you for sharing!

I think the better question to ask is How do I tell my wife?It may be that somewhere on this forum there is someone who has been in a similar situation as you are, and has had the experience of telling their spouse something difficult, and they may be able to give you some helpful advice.

Same things I do when I'm focusing on being close to anyone: think of that person often, reflect on how that person has changed my life in the past, and open up my ears to the what they're saying to me now/future.

It's up to you of course. Me? I would tell both the Bishop and my spouse. I think honesty is essential to marriage. I would want my spouse to tell me! Would I be upset? Definitely. Would I divorce? Probably not, at least not without giving marriage counseling and Bishop meetings a good try, along with prayer and fasting. I would also want to meet both with the Bishop and my spouse. Bottom line is, tell the Bishop and he will direct you through inspired counsel. It might be easier to tell your wife after telling the Bishop, he should give you essential advice. I have been in a similar situation but different sin. I questioned not telling the Bishop, rationalized, made excuses, thought maybe I really don't need to. It added to my reasons for going inactive. Well, I finally did tell the Bishop and what a burden made light! I felt SO much better. I did not worry anymore. I did not convince myself anymore- because I knew. I wish I had told the Bishop much sooner. It might not be a question of God forgiving already or not, it might be a question of what do you need to do to forgive yourself? My two cents.

General Conference weekend is an extremely busy weekend for me as I report and post on every single talk given during all sessions of conference. So knowing that I will pretty much be busy for 10 hours on Saturday and approx. 6 hours on Sunday I have to make sure I have most done before Saturday gets here.

I wonder if one might find the same correlation in normal schools. i.e. would the terribly educated home schooled kids still be terribly educated would the amazing home school kids still be amazing? The point I'm driving is that parental involvement is key regardless of which route taken. Homeschool simply liberates the child and the parent from being stuck in a one size fits all environment learning all the same social morals of their peers-they have a better opportunity to be even more amazing or an opportunity to be even more terrible.

We homeschool and for me I'd rather my kids not be engaged in school online, especially when they are younger-too many things for them to see and do in the real world What the internet has done for homeschool is make material available. For young kids $100-200 a year will buy all the necessary books, teacher's manual's etc. We'll see how it works out as they get older, but I really like having them home for a little bit longer just to imprint even more heavily good moral standards, decency, courtesy,etc.

We get up in time to turn the TV on. That's honestly about the limit of our preparation.

I will pass on something I learned on my mission from a great Stake President in one area I served. This is his method and it has had a profound spiritual impact on me as well. This Stake President introduced the idea to me this way. Elder - suppose that tonight your phone rang and on the other end was our President and Prophet. Suppose he chatted with you for a few moments and then he told you he had a very important assignment for you. That he had fasted and prayed and that he has determined that you should prepare a 10 minute address to be presented at the up coming general conference. He would not give you a topic but instructed you to let the spirit be your guide pertaining to the subject of your talk. He (the stake president) then challenged me to prepare my conference talk. I promise all that consider this possibility seriously as though they would prepare to speak that they will be inspired far beyond how to prepare. I also promise that you will listen to each talk with greater purpose and intent - also hearing echo of many ideas but with fuller explanations than your preparation and that some talks will touch you in ways you have not experienced at conference before. I thought to also add that on the Thursday before conference that the brethren will have a fast and gather in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple. We may not attend that solemn assembly but we can fast with and in behalf of them.

I'd wager that part of it is that there is some foothold of truth that does call to them, or some sense of belonging- otherwise it would be a lot easier to cut ties entirely. People who have spiritual experiences are still susceptible to the devil if they aren't careful.

I saw a video on the Homestead Channel where the guy dug up a Jerusalem artichoke plant and got all these tubers, so I wanted to give them a try. When I had the opportunity, I brought home a couple of small Jerusalem artichokes. Today after church I cooked them up and tried them. I boiled one like a potato, and the other I sliced up and sauteed in butter. They were excellent, both of them. Sweet but not like a sweet potato, and a mild artichoke-y flavor. Very pleasant. So now I'm thinking of growing a Jerusalem artichoke plant in a five-gallon plastic bucket or some such thing. Anyone have any tips? Anyone else fond of Jerusalem artichokes? Ideas?

She said yes to the dress, and then a stranger paid for it. About a month ago, Liz Jensen accepted her boyfriend’s proposal. Last Friday, the Provo, Utah, woman found her dream dress at a pop-up shop called Elizabeth Cooper Design. Unfortunately, the full-time Brigham Young University student — and seventh of eight children — couldn’t afford the gown’s $480 price tag. Read more at: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/stranger-buys-wedding-dress-for-financially-183306670.html

The only trick that I know for jam's and jellies is that grandma used to always let the fruit stuff soak in the pot with the water overnight, before bringing it to a boil once and then letting it sit overnight again before finishing the cooking. Seems to help with getting it thick without adding extra pectin. Sorry if this doesn't help with juicing the stuff.

Time to close.

Well I'm liberal in numerous ways and far less traditional or conventional. That said, I am toying with the idea of home schooling again, but just don't know how practical it will be in long term due to my personality. I might do it for awhile and then enroll her into private school or do both. I dunno. As for the end coming and things hitting the fan. I think there's always been a doomsday mentality, even generations ago, my parents when they were young (they're in their 70's) talked about the new and growing evils.

Methinks it all depends on why one goes to the doctor. Similarly, we may have different ideas of what we're trying to accomplish through our communications in this thread. Exhibit A: It's not about the nail ("I don't need you to fix it; what I need is for you to listen". :) )

Here's a brilliant column on the issue. IMHO, my initial reaction was spot on! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/why_uc_students_voted_to_remove_american_flag_125948.html

Perhaps we should ask why Mormon families are so big when sealing rooms are so small??? - Sorry, my engineering sense of humor (that my wife cannot stand) just took over for a small moment. I will return to preferred normal sensitive mode shortly.

I think many individuals fulfilling callings can and should be paid for many different reasons. We can pay a cowboy to run a welfare farm cattle ranch and we can pay software engineers to maintain church web sites and we can pay lawyers to assist the church in legal matters. I do not believe it is about money.

Oh my goodness! I feel sorrowful about having to eliminate cousins from the sealing ( who happen to be some of my daughter's closest friends) and I'm accused of complaining like a couple of thugs who tied their brother up and left him for dead?? I don't happen to feel comfortable with the acting in the new movies and wondering why three new movies were necessary and I'm accused of attacking leaders? I'm told to "move on with life"? Bridezilla? Because she would like to have her best friends in the temple with her when she gets married? I make what sounds like a simple solution to a fairly routine, simple problem and I'm treated like I'm apostatizing? This makes me laugh. Believe me, this is NOT my whole life. I think y'all are more worried about me fretting about this than I am. Honestly people. Let's get some perspective here. I feel so much defensiveness about this from so many. Try to take a look at how this would appear to outsiders. Embarrassing really when it's a common sense issue. Why wouldn't you want your loved ones with you at this important step in your life?And yet because of small rooms they are relegated to the punch bowl at the reception. Just seems weird. This is NOTHING like asking for gay marriage or women holding the priesthood. I'm not petitioning the authorities for anything. I'm not standing up in conference to oppose the leaders. I'm simply asking why the sealing rooms are so small when Mormon families are often huge.

Doesn't the Book of Mormon refer to people like this as "dissenters?" It's mildly funny, because while "dissent" in itself doesn't have a negative connotation, and this group might describe themselves as such, the Book of Mormon gives a pretty see-through evaluation of what their real intents are, and it does have a negative connotation - to sow dissent and discord.

You're quite right Dravin: some people do say "Pedancy" but (as I now confirm from Google) the proper word is "Pedantry". And yes, I know this is ironic as I'm taking a dig at Ralph Bakshi for mispronouncing his Sindarin. (Motes and beams etc.) I actually quite like Bakshi's LOTR (which makes me a heretic I know, but I've already exposed that by admitting to liking David Lynch's Dune). I think Bakshi's "Mirror of Galadriel" scene is much better than Jackson's. And I don't care that Galadriel looks like a Disney princess! Annette Crosby provides the perfect queenly voice, so long as you keep One Foot in the Grave out of your head when you listen to her. By comparison Cate Blanchet overacts the part. And what was the deal with turning her into....well I don't quite know how to describe what they turned her into (some sort of wicked ghost/witch?) but it certainly did nothing for me. As for Ralph Bakshi's Treebeard though.... Did Fimbrethil tell him to go get his nose clipped?

Carlimac, you may be right--that it is coming to that. What a shame! I wonder how many veterans visit these pages have stories of chaplains who helped them through their time of service? I know that when I served as a missionary in Korea, one of the chaplains at the base in Taegu was LDS. They said he was good about delivering homilies that would encourage LDS and non-LDS alike. It's just sad that the vast majority who gain comfort and strength and morale will lose out, because a few do not want to hear counsel they disagree with. It should not have to be this way.

I'm not convinced that unions are inherently a protectionist racket. Neither have I been dissuaded from the idea that labor should not have the right to unite for negotiations. YPjacket seems to argue that coercion is a crucial issue. I'm guessing that we're talking about closed shops vs. "right to work" open shops. I'm still open-minded on the subject, but have seen reasonable accommodations in place that fall in between the two. For example, my wife had three choices as a newly hired teacher: 1. Pay a fee to the union for its negotiating work, without joining the union. It was less than full dues, though only about 15% cheaper. 2. Join the union, without donating to the union PAC (which supported politicians and issues not directly related to negotiations) 3. Join the union and donate to the PAC. In private industry, companies that have management/owners that don't want to work with unions simply have to maintain a satisfied-enough work force that their employees do not want to pay extra for union representation. Coors comes to mind.

Here's a true story about how a union was formed: There is unrest in the forest There is trouble with the trees For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas The trouble with the maples (And they're quite convinced they're right) They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade There is trouble in the forest And the creatures all have fled As the maples scream 'Oppression!' And the oaks just shake their heads So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights 'The oaks are just too greedy We will make them give us light' Now there's no more oak oppression For they passed a noble law And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, axe and saw

This is, obviously, not a universal reality. I agree. If this is debased then I am the foulest creature who ever walked the earth -- something that I feel confident most women would believe about most men if they honestly understood them.

Not much preparation here. Listen to the talks and if one touches us we look for it in the ensign to read and study it or will listen again to it later.

Good choice...:)

anetess wrote: “In the whole "Perfect World" scenario - Socialism is great." I understand the sentiment, but I vehemently disagree with the premise. Socialism/Communism is nothing less than Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. Even in a "perfect world" filled with perfectly righteous people it would still be an evil system because it is hostile and contrary to the principle of agency. askandanswer wrote: "Other than heavy handed government legislation curtailing the powers of unions…" It was "heavy handed government legislation" which gave unions their powers in the first place!! Some of you might be interested to know that at one time there was an argument within the Church as to whether or not a man who belonged to a labor union was worthy to hold a temple recommend! The question was put to the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith) regarding a man who belonged to the AOUW (Ancient Order of United Workmen). They wrote: "we are not in favor of our brethren joining organizations of any kind outside of our Church. But we are more especially impressed with the wrongfulness of their joining organizations which interfere with the rights of their fellow citizens in regard to labor. To illustrate: we think it is wrong, contrary to our religion, and contrary to good citizenship, for men to combine together in any organization to prevent their fellowmen from working because they do not join them or work for such amount as they think workmen ought to have." (Development of LDS Temple Worship Vol. 3, Page 106) They ultimately ruled that the man COULD be given a recommend, but their opinion of unions is interesting nonetheless.

We are all normal ...your the one who is sick......Lol!!

I like to read a few old favorites of prior GC talks.

There have been times on this forum and in other places in life when my focus and/or my desire has been to be liked or to be complimented because of my knowledge or because of the things that I think that I know. When this has been the condition of my heart when I am teaching or preaching the words of God then I have been practicing priestcraft. However, practicing priestcraft doesn't have to be so overt. I have fallen in to the practice of priestcraft in very subtle ways as well such as when I use scripture or the words of God to put someone in their place, even when it was clearly justified. I want to add that the idea here is that when we teach the word of God we should do so without any guile, with sincerity, with love unfeigned, and for the glory of God alone! -Finrock

Charging per blessing or ordinance does indeed strike me as priestcraft -- though to be thorough, we must admit that the early Saints operated in exactly this manner. If we are to make blanket statements about priestcraft, those statements might very well apply to our own ancestors, early Church members and even leaders of the time. Some cases of priestcraft are more clear-cut and egregious than others. The guy pumping his congregation for funds to buy a private jet? Priestcraft practitioner. I have no problem making that judgment. Other cases are not so obvious. I certainly do not believe that any "man of the cloth" who accepts remuneration for his life work is practicing priestcraft.

What are your thoughts on stipends for clergy?

People speak of "soulless" corporations. Well, duh. A corporation is a legal fiction. Of course it's soulless! It is presumed that those who own and guide the corporation use the judgment of their own souls to achieve a moral end. To fault a corporation for being "soulless" is like blaming a fish for having scales. But many people have used corporations, and the corporate mindset that accompanies them*, to produce unfavorable and sometimes appalling work conditions. They have abused their employees in an unconscionable manner. Thus, unions sprang up as an entirely natural, rational, and reasonable way to curb these excesses. *Not to suggest that only corporations are liable to such abuses, but that's where it's sometimes most obvious. If corporations as virtual entities and legal fictions are "soulless", unions are something a bit different. They are parasitic, prone by their very nature to antagonize and eventually destroy their host business(es). In many cases, they are a "cure" that ends up much worse than the disease. Those who call themselves "pro-union" do not understand what they're talking about. Being "pro-union" is like being "pro-malaria" or "pro-HIV". Diseases have their use and ultimately work toward our benefit, in fact our very being. But to adopt the attitude that diseases are just great and we need to work to make the diseases strong and more stable is lunacy. Unions exist because they apparently must, because we are fallen man living in a telestial world where employers tend to make slaves of their employees. So they are a necessary evil. But never lose sight of the fact (and it is a fact) that unions are an evil.

I volunteer on Fridays instead

Too often those who do not personally struggle with addiction simply say "stop the addictive behavior." I can only imagine how many times you hav told yourself that already. Please do not misinterpret what I am saying as not condoning your addiction. In addition to working with your bishop, get professional help and avail yourself to addiction recovery resources including https://addictionrecovery.lds.org. Also, you have not indicated that children are involved, so that should make things much better.

Pale: Jerusalem artichokes aren't artichokes of any type. They are the root of a type of North American daisy related to a sunflower. The name appears to come from their Italian name, "girasole", meaning "sunflower" (literally "sun-turn"), which sounds something like "Jerusalem" in English. The "artichoke" part is because they have a lightly artichoke-y flavor. They are more like a potato, though I understand they don't mash up very well. But if you don't want to try them, that's fine by me. I'm sure not everyone likes them. I was just surprised to find how tasty they are, and apparently easy to grow. ("Easy" meaning you can't get rid of the darned things. Or so I am told.)

It would seem that almost all discussions about the end of the world center around the end of the wicked. But I would ask - Why is that generally seen as a "bad" thing? Perhaps more would have less reason to fear if we understood better what will be going on among the righteous. In the entire history of the world is there a better time to let your light so shine before men that instead of fearing that G-d should be glorified for what is taking place? Here is a thought - is there more or less fear among those most faithful with their visiting and hometeaching families that with themselves?

I think you have summed it up. There isn't anything more I could add other than perhaps in the last days even the very elect might be decieved and fall away from the church. I fear for my grandchildren and what they will have to go thru.

Having "heard" the voice of the spirit while on duty I have no doubt as to what those officers experienced.

I would recommend going into a fabric store and looking through the pattern books. But don't buy the patterns there. Most of them these days run between $15-20 a piece. Yikes. What I do is write down the pattern number and search amazon for that pattern. I can usually get new patterns for about $3 and add another $3 for shipping is a heck of a lot cheaper than purchasing them at full price. I'm sure my boss at Hobby Lobby (work there part time in the fabric dept) wouldn't like that I'm passing this on. :)

Hugh Nibley agrees (via Joseph Smith). https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/12/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-8?lang=eng It is the Joseph Smith Enoch which gives the most convincing solution: the beings who fell were not angels but men who had become sons of God. From the beginning, it tells us, mortal men could qualify as “sons of God,” beginning with Adam. “Behold, thou [Adam] art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons.” (Moses 6:68; italics added.) How? By believing and entering the covenant. “Our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed, and become the sons of God.” (Moses 7:1.) Thus when “Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed … they were called the sons of God.” (Moses 8:13.) In short, the sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God. When “the sons of men” (as Enoch calls them) broke their covenant, they still insisted on that exalted title: “Behold, we are the sons of God; have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men?” (Moses 8:21), even as “the sons of men,” reversing the order, married the daughters of those “called the sons of God,” thereby forfeiting their title, “for,” said God to Noah, “they will not hearken to my voice.” (Moses 8:15.) The situation was, then, that the sons of God, or their daughters who had been initiated into a spiritual order, departed from it and broke their vows, mingling with those who observed only a carnal law.

Talk to your bishop immediately, and let him guide you. I think you will eventually have to tell your wife. I think you owe that to her. But let your bishop guide you so that this does not devastate her. That's my opinion, anyway.