Leaderboard

The fact that she took you aside and told you privately indicates she was trying to be sensitive to your feelings. Kudos to her for that, however hamfisted her attempt might have appeared to you. I personally don't think it's wrong to call Church leaders by their first names, but I do think that, in Mormon culture, it's traditional to show respect. My last two bishops have been younger than me; the previous bishop was my friend, and the current bishop was a brand spanking new RM when we first moved into the ward. Yet as long as they hold the office of bishop, I avoid calling them by their first name and call them Bishop Lastname. I don't necessarily think that's what everyone is supposed to do, but it's what I do. It is my way of telling the bishop, myself, and anyone who might overhear that I hold their office and their work in sacred respect.

Correct. Both spouses have to choose to be sealed as a marriage first, and then kids to the couple.

Why is romantically bound a requirement? Or only two individuals? Why must the state do it the way u suggest here?

I read a great education article some months ago that I can't locate at the moment, but it spoke of poverty and its effects in low-performing schools. The solution is very three-fold. The schools need to be fixed, the community needs to be fixed, and the homes need to be fixed. Yes, it's quite the challenge. You'll have the students that will push through and survive and succeed no matter what, but for a greater change all three of these components must be fixed. Leave one out and the assurance of success falls dramatically. The Church teaches so much about values being taught in the home. Everything goes back to the home. And darn it if I don't believe this whole-heartedly. But without community examples everything falls through. It's a big job. Platitudes about families and communities fixing themselves have their fair share of truth but the problem is greater than that.

Someone more versed in Tax law could better answer.... But here are a few things I see... 1. Less money toward the mission of the church because it is diverted to a tax bill 2, The church becomes a target to IRS investigations and related politics. That being said I think the church has an out. If it comes down to it the LDS Church can get out of the legal marriage business. It can tell its leaders not to perform any marriages whatsoever. It can inform it members to acquire and legal marriage outside the Temples before going to the Temples to be Sealed to their spouse (like they do in England currently). Rendering Sealings a purely religious ordnance with no legal standing. This should allow the LDS Church to avoid the issue entirely if it happens and not require to much change in how the Church does things.

Hi! I just joined and am looking forward to interacting with everyone here. I grew up in Provo and have been a member of the church my whole life (well, officially since age 8 I guess). I'm currently serving in the young men's organization in my ward in Spanish Fork. I love the church and would not be who I am without its positive influence in my life. While it's not always easy to do the things we are asked as members, the benefits are clear: keeping the commandments leads to a happier life and greater spiritual power. When I give my will to God he directs my paths and helps me become so much more than I could ever become on my own. I was married in the Salt Lake Temple and my wife and I will celebrate our 19th anniversary in a couple of months. We have three wonderful children and far too many pets. I work as a business analyst by day and teach guitar and piano lessons by night.

The argument I often hear is that polygyny is inherently oppressive to the females in the relationship. Now, if you allowed polyandry (multiple husbands to one wife) as well as polygny--it would be hard to keep making the oppression argument. But then you're basically creating state-recognized sex rings of fundamentally unlimited size, which even more obviously begs the question of why the heck the state is subsidizing marriage in the first place.

You again are accusing them of being abusive, renegade and murderer all in one statement. Perhaps, you shoud state that the police officers in question have been charged in connection with the man's death. If they are guilty of murder and it can be proven then they should receive the harshest sentence available. The news media uses convicting and inflamatory language that is unnecessary and creates much of the high tensions that occur. "Cop shoots and kills unarmed teenager" When it should have been accurately described " Man assault police officer and officer shoots the assailant in the line of duty." (Furgeson)

They caused the death of a man. Even the BPD has admitted they failed to follow procedure. In what universe is it a bad thing that these men be brought to account for their actions? If indeed they did no wrong then they'll be exonerated. If they did wrong then shouldn't they answer for it? Some already decided they're renegade, some have already decided they can do no wrong just because they wear badges.

If the thought of marrying someone makes you feel like having a panic attack, it's a pretty good sign you shouldn't marry them.

Wow that was hostile... Anyway, looks like the officers are being charged.

Thanks Mirk .... I also think of Secret Cobinations when I here about the Tri Lateral Commission and the Skull and Bones Society. Just my opinion.

mirkwood, Thank you for taking the time to post these. I have most of them in my files but a couple I don't (didn't) and am glad I do now. Taken all together they paint a sad and scary scenario.

Doesn't make any difference to me xD I must be a bad person

Would not the best way to "nurture" those who have not faith, however, be to do so while firmly and unapologetically proclaiming truth?

We are of a similar mind The Folk Prophet; however, the teaching "if it is not canonized it doesn't count" shouldn't be withdrawn as all have not faith and need to be nurtured. I ride this bandwagon when it has merit (according to my heart and mind). I also find it hard how anyone would deny this teaching who has been gospel taught, studied, and serves their master; and yet, I can empathize with those who may feel, as it isn't scripture it isn't canon, thus I don't have to believe or accept it at the moment. I think you would agree, not canon, has merit, although plainly taught by a prophet the Adam God Theory (extreme example). Though I mention this your third paragraph still remains true -- truth is truth. Article of Faith #9 confirms your third paragraph and one I firmly believe in. Truth is truth. What is -- is, and what is not, is not. Whether a truth is canonized or not doesn't negate that it is still true and if true we should accept it, as we are duty bound as members of the gospel of Jesus Christ to accept all truth (Christ). The Family: A Proclamation to the World is a perfect example of truth not canonized -- yet -- some who favor a particular movement do ride the bandwagon "if not canonized it doesn't count" with some aspects of this proclamation. Agreed, where we come in is to seek to help those who have not faith, hands that may hang down, to accept truth as it is taught and understood in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

BYU might have a challenge remaining such a steal for a great college education. And to think all they (LGBTs) wanted was to be left alone so they could live their lives. Sheesh! Have you heard about the $125,000 the Christian bakers have to pay the lesbians because of their 90 symptoms related to stress and heartbreak after being denied a cake for their wedding? Seriously absurd.

I can't even imagine calling any of the general authorities by their first name even in a casual conversation with a friend or a spouse. For some reason that just seems disrespectful to me. It would have to be President Monson or Elder Perry for example.

As far as child-to-parent sealing goes, people are not sealed to a mother, or to a father. People are sealed to a married couple. No exceptions. The ideal is "born in the covenant", which presupposes a covenant of marriage between husband and wife. Sealing to parents makes the child-parent relationship identical with those "born in the covenant". So in brief, no, children cannot be sealed only to their mother, because that doesn't make sense. It defies the very meaning of "sealing". But don't despair; live your life well and teach your children well, and you will see things work out.

Very sad story . . . obviously the man who shot the cop should pay the ultimate price if convicted. And very sad that man who shot him was an Army Vet supposedly suffering from PTSD. We will never truly know or understand the full costs of at least one idiotic war . . .

Atlanta should be burning soon.... unless of course his black life doesn't matter.

Your situation raises a lot of red flags. Why rush into a contract for eternity? The church has a great marriage preparation manual. I would call off the wedding, go to the temple...if you do not have a recommend that would be a great next project, lds counselling - just for yourself, would be a great step. Have you talked to your bishop? Some elderly ladies in the ward? Elderly ladies in the church are a great source of wisdom. Good luck!

I find how to refer to people "respectfully" is very dependent on culture. I don't think there's any *right* way to do it, just different culture/habits people have. My personal habits are: * When thinking/talking informally to myself or friends, I use just the last name: "Monson", "Packer", etc. It's easy for shorthand and I know too many "Tom"s, "Dave"s, and "Robert"s. * When talking slightly more formally, like at a church lesson, I will use a person's title, especially when first referencing them. I find it pleasantly precise and respectful. If a person is referenced more than >3 times in the conversation, I'll just use last names for connivance. * When a very formal setting, like giving a talk in Sacrament Meeting, I'll just the title just for formality. Again, I don't think there's any *right* way to do it.

It's been a LONG time since I read the case in my entirety (Wikipedia has a link to the text, I think; but I don't have the time to delve into it right now); but as I recall--it's not necessarily that discriminatory beliefs are being adopted; it's that the institution actively discriminates. Bob Jones University wasn't just saying that interracial marriages were bad--they actually had a rule against their students being in interracial relationships, and those who violated the rule were subject to university discipline. Similarly, Mormonism has a rule against gay sex; and those who violate that rule are subject to church discipline. I THINK that the logic basically went like this: 1. The nonprofit statute (501( c)(3)) says that the institution has to work towards the public good. 2. The Civil Rights Act of 1963 says racial discrimination is bad. 3. Bob Jones University discriminated on the basis of race. 4. Since Bob Jones University is doing something that Congress has declared to be bad, it cannot be said to be working towards the public good. ∴ Bob Jones University does not deserve tax-exempt status under 501( c)(3). So, going back to Mormonism: Theoretically, we can teach that gay marriage is bad, all we want. But, when two gays say "we understand that, but we refuse to be celibate and we insist you administer your baptismal and temple rites to us"--if Bob Jones gets extended to religions, the Church may well find itself losing tax-exempt status if it refuses to administer those rites.

There is no life in homosexual principles. It is a dead end. Our species cannot survive if we subscribe to homosexual principles. Life is in heterosexual principles. There is no other way for our species to live except through the principles of heterosexuality. Homosexuality cannot exist without heterosexuality. Heterosexuality has primacy in nature and in principle. It doesn't matter which individual is capable or not capable of procreating. There is no life in homosexual principles. It is an impossibility and that is what matters to the question of marriage. Godless, you and millions of others have diluted yourselves in to believing a fictional version of reality. Only by denying reality can you successfully argue that homosexual "marriage" is "good" for society or on equal footing with authenticate marriage. The reality that you are denying is that homosexuals and homosexual "marriages" cannot be relied on for the long term survival and good of the human race. We just can't. If a society supports homosexual unions it will ALWAYS be subsidized (so to speak) on the back of real marriage up until society just can't afford or just doesn't have the luxury any more to support a way of life that literally doesn't bear fruit or seed. -Finrock

I find it interesting that the concept of the state has been around as long as it has, and Godless' notion has only existed for less than a dozen or two years. Yet he states it with such surety, as if the notion was so obviously above reproach, it needs no justification or persuasion.

How precisely has the LDS church jeopardized its tax-exempt status?... besides having religious definition of marriage that fell out of favor in less then a decade?

I've had friends tell me they are spiritual but not religious, and the impression I get from my discussions with them is that they've lost faith in formal religion for whatever reason but still recognize that there is a part of themselves that hungers for light and truth and peace. I've seen them find spiritual fulfillment in nature, or through yoga or meditation or serving others. I believe those who leave their formal religion, whatever it might be, to pursue their own paths may at times do so because they find themselves engaged in the forms of religious observance without the substance. This is an empty and tiring experience that can only end with a re-commitment (to the same religion or a different one) or a falling away of some kind. I think others may say "I'm not religious" simply because they have no desire to discuss something so personal with anyone, least of all a chaplain or pastor or bishop who in their view will only attempt to "push" them in the direction of a particular religion or belief system. The answer in either case is the same: show them kindness, treat them with honor and acknowledge their freedom to choose.

I would agree 100% that what you're (the OP) feeling is much more than pre-wedding-jitters. There are some serious red flags going on.

LP....your post is hyperbole. Another day in America...really? Your posts sound like the brown shirts are dragging jews into the streets and executing them. Media sensationalism.... And no...never been to Washington. But, I can assure you I have a much geater understanding of the black issues than u do with your in depth conversations on facebook. Most people from the West have no clue.... Funny how black folks and white folks etc seem to avoid "another day in America" by simply not breaking the law. Perhaps, certain groups of people should begin to understand that simple tactic. Stop making excuses for them or anyone else that behaves this way. That attitude of poor me is destructive and leads to the baloney we see on TV and is just bigotry. You say the justice system isn't working for them, I say it is working overtime because of them.

No, and I'm not familiar with the other cases you mention, either. I don't think the majority of Americans are, either. Which begs the question: why did Martin and Brown, who were legitimate bad guys, got all the public sympathy. My point stands--John Q. American sees these brouhahas and naturally (though wrongly) concludes "if this is the best you can do, I guess there isn't such a problem with white-on-black racism after all"; thus poisoning the well when these bona fide incidents crop up. I wouldn't presume to state WHICH ethnic group in the U.S. tends to be the most racist; but I think it's telling that the term "racism" is now being re-defined in academia to include an element that one can only be "racist" if one comes from a historically powerful/privileged group--meaning that (black) Mayor Ray Nagin is free to proclaim New Orleans a "chocolate city", and that we tend to assume at the beginning that black-on-white violence has no racial component but that white-on-black violence does. And of course, with the Michael Brown case--don't forget those black "witnesses" who were so eager to see (white) Officer Wilson go down for murder, that they invented the forensically-disproved fairy tale about Brown being shot on his knees execution-style with his hands up.Contra our Dear Leader's threats about the need for a "national conversation" about race after an incident of police brutality against a black man in a city where the mayor, police commissioner, and 9/15 of the city council are also black--racism is not a uniquely white problem. It is rampant in this country, across ethnic lines.

Yeah that's super annoying. I think on some level it's true that we need to have walked a mile in each others' moccasins, at the same time I think it's possible, with a little open communication, to help someone understand even if they can't take that walk. So I just read LP's links and I largely agree with them, but the second one, not entirely. I don't think the complacency of people outside the slums is necessarily due to racism. I think it is sometimes, but there are plenty of people who have no racism in their heart who still say things like "They ought to just take some personal responsibility and/or move." A person doesn't have to be a racist to say that. Instead, I think the problem is complacency in general. As Conservatives, we believe in self reliance and personal responsibility, and we have great faith in our point of view. I'm a huge believer in the idea that we all make our own destiny. The problem is that when we have such great faith in that principle, we tend to think that everybody can just get on top of their situation, all of the time. We kinda need to believe that, because otherwise our sense of personal empowerment becomes threatened. If some inner city family from West Baltimore can't get out and is stuck in the slums, then that could also have happened to us, and that thought is scary. It's scary to me. I like to believe... I NEED to believe that as long as I keep doing my best, taking responsibility and working hard, I'll never end up like the people in those slums. And maybe, as far as my faith in Heavenly Father and His designs remains strong, that won't happen or, if it does happen, things will be ok. And that's good... but not everybody puts their faith in God. And maybe that's the real problem... maybe there isn't enough of God's presence in the culture of ghetto life... Maybe if more people in that part of town went to church and got closer to God then they'd be able to seize their destiny as a community and make things better... maybe. But when we, as believers, are charged with spreading the Gospel and showing compassion to our brothers and sisters, are we supposed to only show compassion for people who live up to our expectations of how to live? Are we supposed to only care about the suffering of the people who we, personally, judge to be worthy of it because they've met our standards for trying hard enough to get out of their situation? Are we released from any obligation toward those who we, in our human wisdom, have determined aren't trying hard enough?

Cancel the wedding. You can always plan another one. Get premarital counseling. What you're feeling is more than jitters and it needs to be sorted out.

Ophelia, you are new here, so you don't really know these people who have responded to your question. But I've been reading their posts and watching their discussions for several months now, and I can tell you that they are strongly rooted in the gospel with excellent insights into a broad range of matters, and their responses to your question are well worth listening to.

John Taylor DESTRUCTION OF THE NATIONS.--This nation and other nations will be overthrown, not because of their virtue but because of their corruption and iniquity. The time will come, for the prophecies will be fulfilled, when kingdoms will be destroyed, thrones cast down, and the powers of the earth shaken, and God's wrath will be kindled against the nations of the earth, and it is for us to maintain correct principles, political, religious, and social, and to feel towards all men as God feels.-- 18 THE PATTERN OF WORLD POLITICS.--When nations and rulers set the pattern, they generally find plenty to follow their example; hence, covetousness, fraud, rapine, bloodshed, and murder prevail to an alarming extent. If a nation is covetous, an individual thinks he may be also; if a nation commits a fraud, it sanctions his acts in a small way; and if a nation engages in wholesale robbery, an individual does not see the impropriety of doing it in retail; if a strong nation oppresses a weak one, he does not see why he may not have the same privilege. Corruption follows corruption, fraud treads on the heels of fraud, and all those noble, honorable, virtuous principles that ought to govern men are lost sight of and chicanery and deception ride rampant through the world. The welfare, happiness, exaltation, and glory of man are sacrificed at the shrine of ambition, pride, covetousness, and lasciviousness. By these means nations are overthrown, kingdoms destroyed, communities broken up, families rendered miserable, and individuals ruined.-- 19 THE KINGDOM IS ONWARD.--God is with us and will be with us, and will sustain us, and no power on earth or in hell can stop the progress of this work; for it is onward according to the decree of Almighty God, and will be from this time henceforth and forever. And as the prophets have said, so say I, woe to those men and woe to that nation or to those nations that lift up their hands against Zion, for God will destroy them. I prophesy that in the name of the Lord God of hosts. And he will be with his Israel, and will sustain his people and bring them off victorious; and if faithful, to the end, we shall obtain thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, exaltations, and eternal lives in the kingdom of our God.-- 20 "Were we surprised when the last terrible war [Civil War] took place here in the United states? No;... You will see worse things than that, for God will lay his hand upon this nation, and they will feel it more terribly than ever they have done before. There will be more bloodshed, more ruin, more devastation than ever they have seen before. Write it down! You will see it come to pass; it is only just starting in....there is yet to come a sound of war, trouble and distress, in which brother will be arrayed against brother, father against son, son against father, a scene of desolation and destruction that will permeate our land until it will be a vexation to hear the report thereof" 21 "A terrible day of reckoning is approaching the nations of the earth; the Lord is coming out of his hiding place to vex the inhabitants thereof; and the destroyer of the gentiles, as prophesied of, is already on his way. Already monarchs of the earth are trembling from conspiracies among their own people....Already have two of the presidents of this republic been laid low by the hands of the assassin; and the spirit of insubordination, misrule, lynching, and mobocracy of every kind is beginning to ride rampant through the land. Already combinations are being entered into which are very ominous for the future prosperity, welfare, and happiness of this great republic. The volcanic fires of disordered and anarchical elements are beginning to manifest themselves and exhibit the internal forces that are at work among the turbulent and unthinking masses of people." 22 "As far as constitutional liberty is concerned, I will say, the God of heaven has raised up our nation....and it is through the intervention of his providence that we enjoy today the freest and most independent government the world ever saw. And what was the object of this? It was to prepare the way for the building up of the kingdom of God in this the last dispensation of the fulness of times; and as long as the principles of constitutional liberty shall be maintained upon this land, blessings will attend the nation." 23 "But what I want to say is: we live in a government raised up by the God of heaven. We have a Constitution that was given by inspiration from God to man. I believe it is the best human form of government that was ever given to the human family. Now, I say if our rulers and governors become corrupt and attempt to trample those principles under their feet; though the nation itself might go to pieces, yet it is beyond the power of man to destroy the principles of the Constitution. They may destroy one another, yet the principles contained in that instrument will live, and the God of heaven will maintain them until Jesus Christ comes in the clouds of heaven to set up his throne in Jerusalem, and to reign on the earth a thousand years." 24 "The judgments of God will now begin to rest more fully upon this nation and will be increased upon it, year by year. Calamities will come speedily upon it and it will be visited with thunder, lightning, storms, whirlwinds, floods, pestilence, plagues, war and devouring fire; the wicked will slay the wicked until the wicked are wasted away." 25 "The American nation will be broken in pieces like a potters vessel, and will be cast down to hell if it does not repent--and this, because of murders, whoredoms, wickedness and all manner of abominations, for the Lord has spoken it." 26 "...I will say, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, that "Mormonism" will live and prosper, Zion will flourish, and the Kingdom of God will stand in power and glory and dominion as Daniel saw it, when this nation is broken to pieces as a potter's vessel and laid in the dust, and brought to judgment, or God never spoke by my mouth." 27 "The Lord then poured out His spirit upon me and opened the vision of my mind so that I could comprehend in a great measure the mind and will of God concerning the nation and concerning the inhabitants of Zion. I saw the wickedness of the nation, its abominations and corruptions and the judgments of God and the destruction that awaited it.... On January 28th I was again given a vision. It concerned the destiny of our nation and of Zion. My pillow was again wet by a fountain of tears as I beheld the judgments of God upon the wicked. I was strongly impressed that the Apostles and elders should warn the inhabitants of the Earth." 28 "When I contemplate the condition of our nation, and see that wickedness and abominations are increasing, so much so that the whole heavens groan and weep over the abominations of this nation and the nations of the earth, I ask myself the question, can the American nation escape? The answer comes, No; its destruction, as well as the destruction of the world is sure; just as sure as the Lord cut off and destroyed the two great and prosperous nations that once inhabited this continent of North and South America, because of their wickedness, so will he them destroy, and sooner or later they will reap the fruits of their own wicked acts, and be numbered among the past." 29 Lorenzo Snow "The wicked will destroy themselves. Our object is the temporal salvation of the people as much as it is for their spiritual salvation. By and by the nations will be broken up on account of their wickedness. The Latter-day Saints are not going to move upon them with their little army; they will destroy themselves with their wickedness and immorality. They will contend and quarrel one with another, state after state and nation after nation, until they are broken up, and thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands will undoubtedly come and seek protection at the hands of the servants of God, as much so as in the days of Joseph when he was called upon to lay a plan for the salvation of the house of Israel." 31

Of course my response is only knowing what you are telling and not hearing his point in the matter. But, if what you state is fact, then.... His temper frightens you... GET OUT NOW! You feel hopeless and terrifeid... GET OUT NOW! If you are so frightened of this man that you are having panic attacks, that is not a good sign. This is someone you will spend the rest of your life and eternity with if sealed. Why would you want to live like that. It will NOT get better by getting married. If he is picking fights with you now... they will be worse when you get married. They won't just disappear! Abusive people normally will be VERY apologetic after they pick the fight or abuse a person. Don't let that fool you. It sounds like you both need to grow up a little and/or get into counseling. Praying you make the right decision.

All I have to go on is what you are saying, which is colored by your emotions at the moment, but assiming that isn't distorting the story I would say add me to the don't do it chorus, at least don't do it now. You've been praying about this and you still have so much fear and doubt, that sounds to me like you have NOT recieved any kind of answer from God but tried to make his proposal into one in your mind for whatever reason. You can't assume that his asking when he did was some kind of answer if there was no confirmation from the spirit. When you feel a conviction, a calm surity that removes fear and doubt and fills you with faith in the future and give you the courage to take a leap of faith, that is an answer from God. Is there any point where you felt that about marrying him? If you don't have that kind of experience to fall back on where you can say you know it was right to marry him then you will find it very hard to get through the rough spots of marriage without getting to a point where you think you made a mistake. Perhaps you'll get that answer about him later on, but don't you dare marry somebody because you feel obligated to because of all the plans made and money spent, or because you expect it to fix something in you life, or because you've made some calculation that it is the smart thing to do. That would be a terrible thing to put a guy through. Don't turn him into a 'settle for' husband or to put use him to get something you want. When you prayed, did you go to the Lord with a specific decision that you would marry him and ask for confirmation? You can't just ask God to tell you what to do, tell Him what YOU intend to do and why, then get His input. Perhaps turn it around and ask if it would be right to NOT marry him. You don't have to cast him aside, just tell him you need more time, because from the sound of it you really do.

Don't do it !!!

My 2 cents also. The decision to marry or not to marry, to postpone, to call it off or to continue is first and foremost your decision. It is something that you must take charge of and own and then ask God to let you know if it is a good choice or a bad choice. I will say dumping you because you didn't serve a mission is a lame excuse; women are not commanded to serve missions unlike men of the priesthood. If you are young (an assumption on my part), marriage is all about fluffiness, and the right type, infatuation, etc. True marriage and love is much more. 2 people can be extremely different or extremely similar and they can still make great marriages. If both individuals are striving to live the gospel the best they can, are temple worthy and put God first than they can almost always make it work . . . some marriages are easier than other, but then again some people are easier to get along with then others (sometimes the person that is hard to get along with is ourselves!). If you think the grass is greener . . .well as many divorced individuals here can tell you you simply trade one set of problems for another set of problems. Every person you contemplate marrying will have issues, some issues will be easier for you to deal with than others. Questions to ask, does he love you? And I don't mean in a superficial way, but when the chips are down do you believe you can count on him. Because I can guarantee you, life will throw some massive curveballs your way. Can you count on him to have your back? Will he support you and help you in your daily struggles? See the video below for what true love is: Do you love him? Can you provide the same support to him in his struggles. Who are you most like (your mom or your dad)? Who is he most like (mom or dad)? For some interesting reason, most people end up marrying someone similar to one of their parents . . . and when you are 30+ you'll say "oh my goodness I'm just like my xyz". Lots of other questions can be asked . . . but if you really want to figure out a good bit of marriage before getting married, read The Five Love Languages and Getting the Love you want. Ultimately it is your choice, as one of the Apostles said Choose your love and then love your choice. I wish you the best of luck.

If you're not contemplating your coming wedding with joy and excitement, something is wrong. And most of the time there is nothing too wrong with over analysing a situation (other than the lost time it takes, and the stress and confusion it can generate) as long as you then humbly, sincerely and faithfully seek for divine confirmation of whatever conclusion you come to, and are willing to abandon that conclusion if no divine confirmation is forthcoming.

This is the $0.02 advice from some random stranger on the internet, take it or leave it. I’m also kind of blunt… Step 1) Take a deep breath. You’re freaking out right now and your judgment go sckitzo. Step 2) Say a prayer. Not for answers “is he the one”, but simply for peace and calm. Step 3) Wait and listen for that peace. Step 4) Ditch any notions of “type” or “soul-mates”: there’s no such thing. There’s only people whom fall in love and convent to be with each other. All you’re doing by comparing Kyle to some hypothetical “soul-mate” is selling him short. Judge him as him, no one else. I’m not going to tell you whether or not you should marry this dude, because I have no idea. But from your post, your personal emotional state seems to be a house built upon very shifty sands, and like you already have one foot out the door of your relationship. That will not magically change 7 days for now. My 100% armchair advice is that you need to work taming your general anxiety, through counseling, yoga, or whatever. Maybe waiting a while before getting married will be a good thing for you. (Again, I don’t know anything for sure).

I agree with everyone above. Call it off now.

The idea that marriage solves everything is bunk. You will still struggle with the same things until the both of you learn and grow to deal with them. You could break it off and hope to find someone else.... but all that will do is change what things you struggle about. It will not remove the need to learn and grow. So need to ask yourself what set of struggles does the Lord want you to learn to over come and are you willing to do so?

Do him and yourself a favor and call it off.....your setting yourself up for a disaster. getting married is no magical pill that will resolve your issues. They will still be there

It is frightening how rapidly lawlessness and rioting begins within certain demographics of the population. Sad really that in 2015 America, this type of behavior is tolerated. The media should be held accountable for the inflamatory and irresponsible "reporting" of news so called. As a side note...can u imagine what the leftist media in our country would be saying if Bush were yucking it up at media swarays while Baltimore was in chaos.

Oh, "transgenderism" is without any doubt a mental illness and Bruce Jenner is mentally ill. Wants2know, maybe a trained professional, but the training is in error. Show compassion for certain, but, let's not help the sick become sicker.

You'll find "I'm not religious" used by atheists, agnostics, and even theists or spiritualists who mean it to indicate they don't adhere to a defined or organized religion. Heck, I've heard those words uttered by self-professed Christians. What people mean by the phrase is varied.

One caveat: certainly the RS Pres has say in what kind of sign-up sheets get passed around in the Sunday meeting over which she presides. She can't keep the refreshments out of the building; but I think it would be ill-advised to ask the RS to formally assume responsibility for the food now that the Pres has demurred (individuals who happen to be in the RS--sure; but not the organization itself).And, yeah--not a bad idea to double-check with the bishop to make sure that the RS President isn't actually repeating something she recently heard in Ward Council.)

Yeah...where does the RS pres think she has the authority to state any such thing? A bishop, sure (whereas pkstpaul points out it's run by the ward mission leader -- the WML acts under the authority of the bishop...so...). I'd just ask the bishop about it and if he supports her, whatever. It's not like treats make or break what matters about the event. :)

It's not the call of the RS President, nor the Bishop, for that matter. It is the Ward Mission Leader who conducts the business of a baptisim. He is a member of the Ward Council. Sometimes we have to take a deep breath and remember we are all "volunteers" (okay, not literally and not a point of discussion). The point being leadership in the Church is far from perfect and these things happen. Nobody's going to stand at the door and prevent people from bringing in refreshments. Just be respectful and clean up after. The RS's "policy" might be directed to the 8 yr olds. Even so, drinks get spilled on other events. Baptism is even more important than a social. Regardless of policy, I see it as a great opportunity for someone to host a reception, as was mentioned by others. I know my response is all over the board. To answer your question, I've never heard of such a thing, but I would avoid conflict and find an alternative.