Leaderboard

My cousin and his new wife did this after their sealing in the temple. Most of her family are not members. Basically she walked in on her father's arm just like a traditional wedding march. They had a small ceremony. Not the announcing of vows etc but something along the line of a ring exchange. Her Bishop performed the ring ceremony. You might want to talk to your Bishop. He might have some guidance or resources as to how this should be done.

My youngest daughter just called me "a dolt" -- think real hard what she was really trying to say.

As others have stated, I think you know the answer to this problem, but it's just hard to admit. Physical attraction is normal, but once those feelings have risen and you have acted upon them, there is no going back. Only moving further down the path of intimacy, thus leading to sex. The easiest (yet hardest, I'm sure for you) in this scenario is to stop the relationship now if you wish to stop breaking the law of chastity. There is just no other way for you to avoid committing that sin, knowing that you've crossed some very serious lines already. Try to think of the big picture in this case. What type of woman do you want to be like when you approach The Lord one day? Would He approve of the decisions you have made? If not, what can you do to change it so that you can find true happiness in His presence? Only you can make those choices in the end, not any of us. We can only provide the advice you probably don't want to hear.

"The law" here gets kind of a bad rap. In practical terms it would be extremely difficult to impose the death penalty for adultery under Jewish law, because such executions were subject to meeting the following conditions: There had to be two witnesses in capital crimes, not just one (Deut 17:6) (who's going to commit adultery in front of multiple witnesses?); The witnesses had to begin the act of execution (Deut 17:7); and Both parties to the adulterous act must suffer the same fate (Deut 20:10).Executions under Jewish law were supposed to be rare, and Jesus simply reminded the Jewish leadership of that. "Okay", He says, "if you want to apply the law, be sure you're applying the entire law, or else go home." (Foreshadowing James 2:10, by the way). This created a double-dare for the prosecution: First, to try to get a conviction under circumstances they knew to be impossible under Jewish law; and second, to try to impose capital punishment even though their Roman overlords had specifically denied them that prerogative. The "pricking in [the Pharisees'] conscience" wasn't some "well, golly gee willikers, I guess nobody's perfect!". It was "Oh, crap--this Galilean hick called our bluff before the Romans, and schooled us in the Mosaic law!" It was a humiliation twice over. And, more to the point of this discussion: It was the Mosaic law--and Jesus' argument thereunder--that saved this woman's life.

Bini, I know this isn't your faith anymore; but as it is the faith of your family, you may find it helpful to read this: Suicide: Some Things We Know and Some Things We Do Not

Just_A_Girl is pretty good at drawing, and this year she did a color pencil portrait of all five of our kids which is now hanging on my office wall.

Nephew #1 and his wife both have Scottish heritage, so they had a Scottish theme to their ring ceremony. There were bagpipes (recession music) and a tartan sash placed on the bride. Their ceremony was in the chapel. Nephew #3 and his wife had their ceremony in the cultural centre. They had a procession with their bridal party, bride and father walked in together. I remember thinking their bishop said something really nice but I can't remember what it was. The bride is crazy about anything Disney, so their recession music was a disney song. Both ring ceremonies happened before the reception (food and dance). Talk to your bishop and give him some ideas of what you and your fiance would like. M.

This was definately the year of the BEST. However it wasnt in the receiving but in the giving. My wife saw a gift idea on pinterest and told me she wanted the same thing for her. The husband put 12 envelopes in a box and wrapped it. In each envelope was a date night activity for each month. When my wife opened her gift and saw the 12 envelopes she cried. It was emotional for me too thinking that I have been so busy last year with work that we barely even got any date nights done. Sad to think I had to gift wrap my time for her, but glad that its set in stone and planned out for 2016.

I took PP to mean that she is not the one who bares the burden of change or of the sin. No man is an island, so the effects of his sin will be felt to her and her family. She can't carry his burden for him. Putting password protection on the internet, monitoring, etc. is putting the burden of the sin on her and that isn't right. He is the one who needs to self-monitor. She'll feel the effects of it and for that she will need the Savior. She will need to be the best wife, she can be-loving, patient, forgiving, etc. and for that she will need the Savior. He will need to change and for that he will need the Savior.

I'll give you the advice you don't want to hear. You already know the answer-you just are refusing to accept it. That refusal to accept the answer you know to be right will lead to much heartache in your life. Obeying the Law of Chastity when you are young and in love is hard enough as it is, you make it even harder on yourself when you are the only one who believes in it and the other person does not. For an atheist there are only two reasons not to have sex out of wedlock; STDs and babies and both of those are overcome by "protection". No matter what he claims or how strongly he claims to say to you about how he might believe sex before marriage is wrong--deep down in today's modern society there is absolutely no way he can be an atheist and firmly believe it. Not believing in a God, means not believing in scriptures and the scriptures are the only thing in our modern society that makes the claim, definitively sex before marriage is wrong. I'll tell you the other thing you don't want to hear; continue down this path and you will have sex with him. If that is what you desire then you will get it; if you desire to stay true to God then you already know what you have to do.

Not in the way you are suggesting, no. But then, the fact that President Monson cited this event as an example of "forgiveness" does not mean either that (1) he (President Monson) meant to say that Jehovah granted forgiveness and cleansing to this woman of her filthy adulterous behaviors at that moment or (2) Jesus actually granted the adulteress such absolution. That Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee" at that time doesn't mean he meant "I fully forgive thee"; we are granted a space to repent, as both the Book of Mormon and common-sense observation teach. Many times, I have heard leaders misuse teachings or historical events to illustrate a perfectly true principle -- such as the 180° misunderstanding of the Isaiah passages reading "his hand is stretched out still" as being some sort of confirmation of divine love and forgiveness for those who abandon their sins, or telling an oversimplification of the story of the apostasy of Thomas Marsh and his wife as being an example of allowing a small, insignificant thing (and our own pride) to drive us away from God. There is in fact divine love and forgiveness to all those who would turn away from their sins, even if that is not what the Isaiah passages actually mean. We can in fact allow insignificant minutiae couple with our own pride to drive us away from God, even if the Thomas Marsh history is significantly more nuanced than the simplified story would suggest. The book of Matthew is full of such misapprehensions and downright misstatements of Old Testament passages, attempting to show Christ's divinity (a true principle) through what can best be described as a wholesale slaughter of the literal meaning and context of many Old Testament passages. If President Monson meant to suggest that Jesus eternally forgave the adulteress right there on the spot, then that might well be true. But I could also understand it as an attempt to explain a true and important gospel principle using an example that doesn't actually fit, as has often been done before. Whether or not President Monson meant to suggest such a thing, I am pretty confident that he did not mean to declare new revelatory doctrine that we should thenceforth teach.

In the end I really enjoyed it and will happily shove money down Disney's throat for more. Parts that bugged me: get more new characters! Sure it was nostalgic to see the same fish guy (General Ackbar) in the exact same setting but I could have just watched the older movie for that. Same with Nien Nunb (another fish looking guy). I actually felt bad for Kylo Ren that he, a trained sith, was beaten by someone so new to the force. Sure Rey knew how to fight, but what did she really know about the force? She was an infant, yet took Kylo to town. I don't mind at all that she kicked some but, but it just didnt seem she was ready for an all out battle like that.

Just in case you didn't see the warning: **************************** * SPOILERS * **************************** 5 . . 4 . . 3 . . 2 . . 1 . . Just saw the new Star Wars movie. I was not impressed by it, and I'm kind of unhappy about the fact. Let me try to explain why. Lots of things can enhance the enjoyment of a movie. A well-directed movie is almost always a pleasure to watch. Good acting can bring it to the next level. Scoring, sets, and costuming can add an extra dimension to the experience, making a good movie great and a great movie outstanding. But for me, it all starts with the writing. (The fact that Lucas did not write this movie was probably a very good thing.) By far the most important element in the writing is the lesson being taught. And Star Wars teaches facile, immature, and often downright sucky lessons. I do not have the time or patience to rehash all seven full-length movies to analyze them for the lessons they teach. It is enough to note that Darth Vader, an utterly unrepentant mass murderer who willingly slaughtered children seeking his protection and then later was complicit in destroying an entire planet, killing millions -- not to achieve some military objective, but simply to cause suffering to a witness -- this same character is redeemed at his death. How? Because he saved his son from the trap that he himself had set. And thus we must say that, you know, underneath his gruff exterior, Anakin Skywalker really wasn't a bad guy after all. This would be repulsive if it were no so utterly absurd. So now we have Darth Vader's literal and spiritual grandson doing is level best to follow in his ancestor's very footsteps. The character (I don't even remember his name -- such was the deep impression he left on my psyche) decides that what he really needs to do is to murder his heroic father in order to set himself free from his annoying impulses toward goodness, actively seeking to stamp out any vestige of goodness in his soul. (We Mormons actually have a term for such an individual. We call him Perdition and a son thereof.) Ignore for the moment that this is not the way goodness and evil work, which means we are watching the interactions not of human beings, but of creations of purest fiction. What is this teaching us? What is the lesson we are supposed to learn here? What the heck sense does it even make that a son would say, "You know, I really don't want to, but I have to murder my loving father so I can become a dark Sith lord" or whatever his goal was? There were other things I disliked about the movie, as well as some things I liked, but the above was the defining feature of the movie for me. Of course, this plot means that they killed off Han, the most interesting and sympathetic character in the entire movie series. They also did a hatchet job on the second-most-beloved character, Han's wife Leia, who might have been presented as a matriarch enjoying the fruits of her lifelong labors while she continued the struggle against tyranny and the Democratic Party. Instead, she was presented in an utterly masculine context; were her character male and treated in a similar manner, I would have said the character had been emasculated. Is there such a term as "ex-feminated"? That was Leia. I was afraid that Leia might actually kiss her husband, which would have been kind of disgusting. (No worries there, though. Such a thing might have injected a bit of actual human emotion into the film, and J. J. Abrams would not stand for that.) From a purely entertainment standpoint, perhaps the most damning aspect was that I had to fight against falling asleep in the middle of the film. It was that boring. There was plenty of action and garbage flying around the screen; looks like Transformers has permanently shifted film visuals, and much for the worse. But people stay awake and engaged for characters, not for things. When your most engaging new character is a spherical robot, that says something about the franchise. Though if we're honest, that really is not that much different from the original Star Wars in 1977. I could write more, but I'm exhausted and need to get to bed. Maybe next week I will wish I had written something else about it, and maybe I'll add to this review or rewrite it or something. Probably not; Star Wars has never taken up all that much space in my mind, and this disaster of a movie has ensured it will take up even less from now on. TL;DR SUMMARY: I didn't like it.

A two way tie for me. 240 rounds of 5.56 tracer. Wasteland 2 for my PS4.

Quite the opposite. Big Mac is legit tough. You're manly with that tie clip.

My daughter gave me a homemade My Little Pony tie clip to wear to church. It's ok - she gave me Big Mac, and he's a boy pony, so I won't be girly.

Ain't it great pulling one over on the Lord... ...oh...wait.....

"Murder" and "kill" are not synonyms, but the Hebrew does not differentiate as neatly as we might like. Strong's number H7523 רצח râtsach (the verb in Ex 20:13) is: 1) to murder, slay, kill 1a) (Qal) to murder, slay 1a1) premeditated 1a2) accidental 1a3) as avenger 1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle) 1b) (Niphal) to be slain 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to murder, assassinate 1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive) 1d) (Pual) to be killed It appears 47 times, translated in the AV as: slayer, 17 Num 35:11, 25-28 (4), Deu 4:42, 19:3-4 (2), 6, Jos 20:3, 5-6 (2), 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38 murderer, 13 Num 35:16-19 (7), 21 (2), 30-31 (2), 2Ki 6:32, Job 24:14 kill, 4 Exo 20:13, Num 35:27, Deu 4:42, 5:17 murder, 3 Psa 94:6, Hos 6:9 (2) slain, 3 Jdg 20:4, Psa 62:3, Pro 22:13 manslayer, 2 Num 35:6, 12 death, 1 Num 35:30 killed, 1 1Ki 21:19 killing, 1 Hos 4:2 murderers, 1 Isa 1:21 slayeth, 1 Deu 22:26 However, in more than fifteen commentaries I've read, the near universal agreement is that, in the Ten Commandments, the phrase should be rendered "thou shalt do no murder." Those commenters who did not explicitly make such a statement, they were silent on the choice of words. Reading the Old Testament, we find a myriad of references where God commanded "killing". Not least is the idea of retributive killing for relatives, for rape and adultery, for other covenant breaking. Clearly, killing is not immoral in some cases, but in others, it is the final affront to the humanity of others. Lehi

Sometime, somewhere, someone told me (you don't get much more authoritative than that) that the commandment was originally "Thou shalt not murder", which of course is almost a tautology. Don't know if it's true; the NAS Exhaustive Concordance seems to back up the idea.

My wife bought ourselves a Christmas gift. It's a old style looking radio with am and fm ....it will play cassette tapes and CD's and it has a turntable right on top. We can get those LP albums out and play them again.

Mine wasn't a gift though in some ways it was. Since we celebrated Christmas Eve this year I had all of Christmas day to do nothing but watch movies and craft. It was the most heavenly of days. Working 2 jobs I rarely have the time to just do something for me that I enjoy for hours on end. It seriously was THE most relaxing day I've had in years.

Friction in a relationship can occur where there is resistance and a lack of understanding. Labeling her husband as a bad person creates resistance Labeling him as a sufferer of an addiction changes the perspective and provide room for compassion, sympathy, things in which this couple needs to overcome the issue together. Have you ever noticed that when our Prophets have spoken over the years, they speak with compassion and love. But the further you go down the chain to our Stake presidents, Bishops, Auxiliary leaders, Mothers/Fathers etc...their relaying of the prophets words are more emotionally charged, maybe a little judgmental? Maybe we have been socially conditioned to accept these judgements by individuals who are not Prophets, then we turn around and judge each other under the same guise? Your wife and/or local church leaders may have condemned and chastised you over your short comings which caused friction in your home but there is no reason that we need to allow that same mindset to continue for the OP. When my wife was 12 yrs old her father (non-Lds) cheated on his wife and they got divorced. My wife was devastated and in her mind built up the belief that all men are cheaters. The first year into my marriage my wife found out about my porn addiction, she was disappointed in me but understood that us men are not perfect. After explaining to her my total commitment to her and that my problem is an addiction and not a fantasy life style I desire, she had no problem being supportive of me through the repentance process. 13 years later and we are happy together, Im always repenting, we still have the ups and downs that any relationship goes through but as far as my porn addiction we did not let it cause friction in our relationship. All the symptoms you describe of what should happen to a family where the husband is a porn addict did not happen in my home and a big key to that was to really understand the Atonement, understanding that with a humble and meek heart my intentions can be good but my body remain weak, after enduring to the end no matter how much I fail as long as I never give up our Savior will make me whole. That is the joy and good news of the gospel that I needed to believe in order to get me through the hard times and prevent me from doing things that I would later regret, for example dating or flirting with other women or even adultery. There may be different degrees of porn addiction and different degrees of consequences. In my case it never got to the point where I was physically hurting someone. I also never allowed myself to get into the really hard core porn that would really screw up someones mind. ps* Although I am talking to jojobag I really am doing this for the OP to read and understand it from our point of view. I really hope and pray that any information in this thread can be beneficial to someone.

Isn't the clear point that Kylo Ren was A) only partially trained and B) quite severely injured? I had a bigger problem with the forceless Finn standing agains Kylo for so long.

Whatever it is that you're going to do, remember that the Lord died for you and for me and for us all. Are we not going to choose Him at all times, sacrificing even all that we have and that we may have? Are we going to desecrate our purity and possibly ruin our future as the elect of God? God's promises are so great, and please, just like you were chosen, choose Him.

People do change; but going into a marriage with him being an atheist and the hope that he will change is the wrong way to start off a marriage. You've got to accept the person as they are and accept the fact that there is a very strong likelihood that they will remain that way for this life. Are you willing to accept that he may never come to church, he may never bless your home with the Priesthood, may never baptize your kids, may never take you to the temple. You simply have to accept those things as a reality before marriage. Marrying an atheist? Nope, very strongly against it-I will condemn it. As much as religion is a worldview and a way of thinking the same is true for atheism-it gets to the root core of who we are, how we act, what are goals are in life. People can claim to be good people and be atheist, and that may be true-they very well might be good people. However, atheism as a philosophy and a way of life cannot sustain society nor can it teach society to be moral, just, good over the long term. Everyone's goal is to maximize our happiness-even the drug addict is doing his best to maximize his happiness. The farther in the future we are able to see, the more likely that we will do things today that while in the short-term seem to make us unhappy they will in the long-term make us very happy. It boils down to the simple truth that if there is no hereafter, the time horizon for an atheist to maximize their happiness is their death. Therefore as a philosophy and a way of life underlining everything for an atheist is what can I do to live as long as possible and be as happy as possible during that lifespan. What that ultimately means that as a way of life, the moment that an atheist believes that their current situation is not making them happy, they will immediately start to change it regardless of the consequences to other people. Which means it is okay for them to lie or cheat if necessary if they believe it will make them happy. It becomes a very narcissistic way of life. For a person of Faith, we recognize that sometimes we have situations where we do things that cause pain and harm to us personally, with the faith and hope that those decisions will reap rewards in the hereafter. Marriage is a perfect example. For an atheist, if the marriage becomes difficult why bother sticking around? For a couple of Faith, they believe that while it is difficult it will be worth it because they made a covenant to God. All the major life decisions, when to have kids, how many kids to have, why are we having kids, how do you raise kids, what kind of household should we have, are material things really important, do both spouses work, what activities to do, etc. Literally everything is affected by those two diametrically opposed worldviews-one of faith, one not of faith. I recognize that modern culture has sold you a big fat lie about love and romance. Every movie you watch all that matters is that the two people "love each other", yet that can't even define it. It is so squishy and fleeting, a mirage is what movies and hollywood sell, but it ain't the real thing. Yet, I can define it. True love and loving each other is about sticking with each other through the good and the bad. True love is forgiving your spouse and being a helpmeet when they have an addiction to porn; true love cleaning up the vomit on the floor after they have had the flu, true love is being by your spouse when they have a disease or are terminally ill-visiting them in the hospital every day for months on end when you have a full-time job and kids or 100 other things to do, true love is picking up your spouse from the airport from a business trip at 11pm and not complaining, true love is self-sacrifice it is about building each other up and honest to goodness through hell or highwater being side-by-side with that person. It ain't the glamorous things that make true love-it is what happens in the daily grind of life that determines true life. Life is hard enough as it is and believe me-it can be very, very hard-soulcrushing hard. Starting it off with someone of the same faith can make those soulcrushing hard moments just a little bit easier. My favorite video about love from the Church:

Backroads Are you talking about 2 grand as in $2,000.00 two thousand American (non counterfeit) US of A Dollars? Do you think I could pose as a distant cousin of yours visiting from, say, Australia and have dinner with you and the family and Grannie next Christmas? dc

Hi Anddenex, I think contrast is not the ideal word. They are not polar opposites. Generally one can follow both the letter and spirit of the law, in fact this should be the normal situation should it not? After all the letter is meant to lead us to the spirit of the law, so I have nothing against the letter. But if were not careful we may lose the spirit of the law and simply follow the letter of it. So at some point we must come to the spirit of the law and then it will not mater about the letter of the law for the spirit of the law encompasses it. I'm not sure I understand your point about Nephi, maybe you can further explain. However, I would say that the letter of the law is designed to compliment the spirit of the law, not the other way around.

So much I want to say, all of it I'm sure his wife has told him.

Is there really a difference?

As has been said, Paul must be taken in context - he was combating the influence of Judaizers. (IMO, all scripture must, and the context starts in Genesis and ends in the Articles of Faith.) Yes, what he teaches can be applied outside the exact context, but only correctly when we understand what he was saying in context. From the Institute New Testament Student Manual for 2 Corinthians 3:6: And since I can't find the source (have spent a couple hours and now decided to give up), you're welcome to ignore this, but in some church manual, I read that the reason the law kills (or leads to death) is because the punishment for violating even the smallest part of the law is spiritual death. Given our fallen nature, none of us will be free from sin, thus, the law punishes us with spiritual death. The only escape is through the Atonement, which answers the ends of the law, so that we can be freed from this punishment. (IMO, Romans 7 teaches this concept.) NOTE: Everyone I talked to about this (3 good members, 1 bishop/seminary teacher, 1 stake president/seminary teacher) all started with the idea of obeying the letter without understanding the spirit (that this leads to being like the scribes and pharisees), just like this quote from above manual: And every one of them explained that when we follow the spirit of the law, we obey the letter of the law as well (the reverse doesn't have to be true). (In other words, obeying the "spirit of the law" cannot excuse one from "letter of the law".) They also found my memory of what I'd read in some manual to be a sound interpretation. IMO, in too many posts herein we're understanding "spirit of the law" and "letter of the law" the way the world does in dealing with worldly laws. That interpretation may be fine for worldly laws, but not for God's laws. Edit: (oops, forgot to add to my list of consultees: 1 brother, 1 father)

My toddler wouldn't stay in bed. We had Christmas at 4 am. She still remained awake, eventually devolvibg into a dancing and singing frenzy of sugar-induced oblivion at Grandma's house. I'm quite certain she was hallucinating at one point. Little girl slept til noon the next day. My husband bought me a Supernatural hoodie, a book of old maps, and some jumper cables which we got to use that very day! My grandmother handed out 2 grand to everyone.

Frankly, I wasn't sure what his atheism had to do with your chastity issues until yjacket gave insight. It seems ultimately solving and preventing chastity issues makes for two main solutions: get married or break up. While I won't totally condemn marrying an atheist I won't recommend it. And are you even at an age where you want to get married? Thus, the likely solution is leave him. Sorry.

Rey is related to Luke, methinks. In fact, I think she is his daughter. Notice how she lived on a desert planet, had a landspeeder, dressed like Luke, and has the Force aplenty. I think it is foreshadowed in this movie that she is his daughter. I think he left her for the same reason why he was hidden. I have no clue who her mother is, but I think we'll find out that the final battle will be a family affair--cousin vs. cousin. Ren wasn't fully trained. First, he left his Jedi training early and then Snoke says to the general guy to bring him Ren to complete his training. And I think Rey went to town on him because 1) Ren was wounded and tired from his earlier fight and 2) she had experience fighting with that pole thing. Not the same thing as a saber, I get that, but she used some of the same moves with the saber as she did with her pole thingy. What I would want to see is Ren not gaining salvation. I didn't get the feeling that he was actually conflicted about killing his father. I understand that as he prayed to his grandfather, he stated he felt the Light pulling him. But, when his father showed up and offered to help him, Ren saw his opportunity to reject the Light and took it--no hesitation. And although I know that his mother can and will forgive him, if he is redeemed at the last, then it WILL be another rewrite of Episode IV. There's no doubt the Good will overcome Evil--I liked that foreshadow in the Ren vs. Rey fight in this movie, but I'm just so mad at Ren for killing his father and one of the best characters of all time. HE DESERVES TO ROT IN SITH HELL!

Sounds like me. Absolutely everything has gone out the window. Maybe it's more like a tornado. Or a fire. Anyway I've doubted before, but nothing on this level. I've always tried to question everything, things I always "knew", but I guess I didn't realize how much my family impacted that. It's really hard to believe. "If something's too good to be true, it probably is." The idea that there's a God, Jesus, and all that definitely seems like it's too good to be true. I'd really like to be proven wrong though. Thanks for all the responses so far. I'll probably reread them dozens of times as I try to ease into this.

Highlighted portion: In Jesus the Christ, "The law required all males to present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule was that women should likewise attend if not lawfully detained; and Mary appears to have followed both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, for she habitually accompanied her husband to the annual gathering at Jerusalem." How does an individual follow both the letter and the spirit of rules/laws if they contrast each other? It appears you are saying you obey one or the other, not both. The spirit of the law compliments the letter, and often when acting on the spirit of the law (for minor laws) they are acting upon a different letter of the law. You mention Nephi, what letter of the law was Nephi obeying when he killed Laban? The contrast is when traditions of the letter of the law were lived upon while ignoring the spirit, or truth, of the letter of the law given, Or as Elder Maxwell presents, "'Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?' Jesus counter-challenge. Can we not keep the spirit of the law without leaving other things undone? Without such spiritual balance, staying on the strait and narrow path will be a great trial for us." The contrast is the tradition lived with regard to the letter of the law the Jews were living. Wait you can't heal a person on the Sabbath? A tradition which truly contrast the spirit. The letter of the law given to Moses never included it is not lawful to do good. This was the tradition taught and lived upon the letter, which were inaccurate. Paul speaks out against the same traditions, which contrast not only the spirit of the law, as well as the letter (the actual letter) provided.

Vort, I really appreciate the time you gave to your response to my question. I have never really thought of it that way and have always just assumed that she was forgiven...at least for the moment unless/until she transgressed again.

Paul, who I urge you to consider again in the wider sense of which I discussed, addressed this very point. He says, "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7 NRSV). Before we are experts in the spirit, the law teaches us about right and wrong (Paul would say it is our school master to bring us to Christ). It gives us guidelines on our behavior so we can start to feel the spirit and distinguish good from evil. However, once we can recognize the spirit in all it's forms we do not need the specifics. This is not ignoring the law, rather it is fulfilling the law in every way shape and form. And it is not, living in a more lax fashion but in a more exact one as Elder Maxwell stated.

This is why I do not tithe FICA withholdings. (I do tithe on the gross, but if someone agrees to pay me $100 for a job, then pays me $90 when the job is over with the promise that he will pay me more later on to make up for the missing $10, I only tithe the $90.) When I collect social security payments, then I will tithe them, as well.

Anatess Sounds nice. Money is a good gift. That way they can get what they want. But the Teddy bears sounds nice too, particularly with the Pres. Monson quotes. Your mother reminds me of my grandmother. My mothers mother. Whenever she came over, she immediately started cleaning the house. Not, I think because it was dirty, just she was an obsessive cleaner. All the family are dead now, and I don't have any friends (nobody likes me) so Christmas for me was myself and my two cats. And work on my motorcycle. I did recently buy an iPad Air 2 and a gun for myself, so basically I got exactly what I wanted for Christmas. I usually tell anyone don't get me a present, and I usually don't get anything for anyone. That way nobody gets something they don't want. Maureen I'm glad to hear you got that dining room table. That can be an important part of any holiday get together, or for any time of the year. In the Church, in the workplace and certainly at home, eating together is an important part of the festivities and socializing. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year dc

If you consider yourself a Mormon, act like one. Quit seeing him, especially since it is leading to fornication.

That sounds like a great Christmas anatess. I really like the part about your Mom. Our dining room has been table-less for over a decade, so this year we finally bought ourselves a dining room table and chairs and ate Christmas dinner in the dining room. It's strange how when you haven't eaten around a table in a long time, you can forget how things work, like passing around the food. :) It was a really nice Christmas dinner. M.

And they want a pony.

What did you know about first? the lesson or thew family commitment? You had an out for the lesson which you didn't take so I assume that you didn't have the family event planned. I know that it has past but I hope you did the right thing and were late for your family event.

Not really. The younger brother was welcomed back into the father's household, but his inheritance was gone. All that the father had left, was now reserved for the faithful son (v. 31). The elder son certainly had a duty to extend compassion and fellowship and love to his brother--a duty at which he failed miserably--but the rewards were not equal. "In my Father's house are many mansions", and "even as one star different from another in glory", and all that.

I'm with Pam, here. I'll have to look it up when I get time, but I believe it was Joseph Fielding Smith who said that members of the Church should not justify themselves in not paying tithing on taxes that are withheld from their paychecks. I believe he said that tithing should be paid on GROSS income, but I also believe he was speaking for himself rather than the Church. Frankly, I don't worry too much about it. If it turns out that by paying on my gross income I am paying more than I am required to----so what? I'm confident I cannot possibly pay so much that God will be in my debt. If I overpay, I suspect that He will overbless.