Leaderboard

We should NEVER EVER tell people on this forum to not talk to their Bishop. It is never up to us to make that determination. Nor should we ever recommend otherwise.

I submit that no one knows what's in another person's head* unless said other person has truthfully spoken what's in their head. Rather than drawing conclusions based on your own experience and avoiding the issue, follow yjacket's advice, or talk directly to her (best option, IMO - and should consist of what you feel and how you are interpreting things rather than making statements of what she is feeling or thinking, as if you knew them*), or if you have to talk to someone else, talk to the bishop. * Except brain, eyeballs, blood, fluids, and the like. * There are few things more annoying that having another (mortal) person tell you what you think or feel (or what you don't know or what you did/didn't do/say when they weren't present), as if they could possibly know without you telling them.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it at all, and unless there is some specific behavior besides "she is looking at my husband a lot" it might be time to be a little introspective about your own feelings. If she starts to blatantly flirt then that might be a problem, but otherwise who knows why she is staring. For all you know, your husband might remind her a lot of her spouse that died and simply seeing someone that looks/acts like her dead spouse might be bringing a little bit of joy into her life. My guess is that you are fairly young and so is she (i.e. this isn't your "typical" widow case and she is young enough that should would eventually be looking to get remarried). Having come close to being in that situation myself, my biggest piece of advice. Have some Compassion and Christ-like love for her. It is said that as a rule of thumb people need to grieve at least one month for every year that they were married (I think that is a little jilted, but hey it's a rule of thumb). It is entirely possible that she is either a) still grieving or b) has started to transition out of grieving to living a "normal" life. Quite frankly, losing a spouse at a fairly young age, I say <60, is extremely hard and unless you've either walked that path or come close to walking that path, you will never know the pain, suffering, and agony that one must go through. To say it is rough is the understatement of the year. Your whole world is turned upside down, if you have kids, even worse so. Screwy, weird thoughts and feelings come and go, it is a roller-coaster that you never know when the high or the low will hit. And if it has been a while and she hasn't remarried, it can be even worse b/c unfortunately in this church (not a dog, just the reality), the available pool of quality men or women to marry from the ages of say 30-50 (they are already married and having families!) is pretty pitiful. So take someone who had a temple marriage, living the good life and then their spouse is gone at say 35. They still want companionship and to love, staying single from 35-80+ is no way to live life, yet who are they going to marry at 35? Just about anyone who is quality is already married, and even worse-off for them if they had an awesome spouse. It is highly doubtful she means anything harmful by what she does. Rather than be jealous, have compassion and become friends with her, who knows . . .maybe you are the key to helping her get remarried to an awesome man-a friend, a co-worker you know who is single, etc.

I thought bishops were like executive pastors. And, if you don't have lead pastors who preach and vision-cast, who's Glenn Beck?

I believe you will get much better results asking this question directly of your wife rather than to a bunch of strangers on the internet. The Traveler

First, for the living, one point of doing proxy ordinances is to obey the Lord. Whether your father accepts the ordinances will not alter whether you have obeyed. Another reason (I think) is to enable the dead to choose (you cannot choose to accept an ordinance that was never done). Whether your father accepts the ordinances will not alter whether you have helped to give him a choice. Second, we mortals cannot judge what constitutes someone's "chance" in mortality. I expect we often think we can, and we often think it seems obvious, but I am not convinced it is so obvious as we think. So, I think you should not give up on your father in life, and I think after he's gone, perhaps when the Spirit tells you or confirms it's right, you should do his work - to be obedient, to give him a choice, to show faith in the Savior's ability to change hearts even after death, and just in case your father's "chance" didn't end in mortality after all.

As FYI, the Warden would be my boss's boss. The Associate Warden is my boss...which in church terms would be similar perhaps to an Executive Pastor (they are usually in charge of administration and finance, releasing the Lead Pastor to preach/teach and vision-cast).

Yeah I understand they think they are doing what is best but all it does is facilitate this atmosphere where you feel you can't ask questions which is why I come on line so often. I find it quite sad that I have no one i can talk about spiritual matters with in the flesh.. In my old Church, debate was encouraged to strengthen ones faith. Still I go to Church to worship God. I can study at home.

My wife of 1 month was just baptized on July 23 and confirmed a member on July 24. What can I do as her husband to bring the gospel more into our home in a positive influence? I am a former member who is coming back to church so I am not re-baptized yet.

Depends; am I one of them? Because I can think of plenty of adults I'd rather be kidnapped and tortured than have sex with.

When I asked Jack Bauer, he disagreed.

We had a lesson on missionary work too. I brought a very pretty chocolate cake, I gave the kids little plates and got them excited for the cake then I smashed the cake with my hand to grab a fistful of cake and dumped it on their plate. It was supposed to illustrate how we can't expect people to eat our delicious cake if we don't present it with reverence and the Holy Ghost... but.... the kids just happily ate the cake that I just dumped with my bare hands on their plate before I was able to explain about not wanting the cake.... so the lesson was a complete fail. Ahhhhhhhh, fond memories.

Ummm sounds delicious

It is a shame. Race is a demographic, just like age, income, education, gender, religion, family composition, gun ownership, etc. All are worth looking at and talking about. But yeah, when someone picks a particular race/gender combo to demonize and blame and poke fun at, yeah, there's bigotry afoot. But darn - it's just so dang fashionable to beat up on white males these days, that nobody thinks there's anything wrong with it.

How old are you guys? You are in direct control of your body and how you look. Are you working out regularly? do you eat right? do you take care of your skin? do you dress well and wear clothing that fits your body type? If your overweight and things are saggy go to the gym. You can't fix your spouse he has to want to do that for himself but you can fix you.

Your right the bishop is responsible for his flock, but he does not need to be bothered with every little detail. We are talking about adults here not kids.

Correction: Is there someone out there that doesn't believe lots of folks vote Republican because they are pro 2nd amendment, pro traditional marriage, and pro life? Attributing it to uneducated white males is your classic definition for... Tat-tada... BIGOTRY.

(Skip a "political" thread, and you miss all the fun, apparently.)

Didn't we do this one already? I must have filed the contract, or something. I have to say, though, you try bringing Hillary onto the compound (alive) and I am so emptying the safe and going on the lam.

Someone get that guy a "I'm a Mormon" spot already, or a TLC Sister Wives spin off show.

I'm with you on this.. When I has testimony the Church was true there was no way I couldnt act on it without knowing what I was doing would have been wrong. In that case me refusing to be baptised would have been rejecting the Gospel. My husband is a non member, he likes the lifestyle of the Church, has members who are friends, feeds the Missionaries, we have family home evening etc.. But there is just certain things he just doesn't get.. I'm going to do his work or the kids can do us both, i see no reason if I uphold my Covenants why we won't be together. We think of time as a straight, measurable line, but that's not how Heavenly Father sees it.

Good marriage, fulfilling marriages don't just happen.... You have to work for it... And it is hard work, involving sacrifice. To often married couple start taking each other for granted as they work to do other good things, they simply assume that their marriage will remain strong and healthy in spite of their lack of care toward it. When this happens you get the situation you described for yourself. The good news is that you can fix this. Even better news is that you already know how to fix this, because you have already done it before. The only hard part here is to start doing it again. I am talking about dating your spouse again... Whatever the two of you did before you were married that lead to your marriage start doing that kind of stuff together again. Whatever spark you once had can be rekindled, but you both have to want it and you both have to work toward it.

Ok.. Some interesting points, thanks for the replies guys.. 1, I am taking the advice and taking the rains in the Gp classes, we are doing charity this week, I come up with questions about philanthropy, what it means in the Bible to have a pure heart and if a pure heart is applicable only to LDS/ Christians. If advertising your humanitarian work is following not letting your right hand know what your left is doing. How can people focus on spiritual matters if their basic needs arnt already met and if using the power of decernment is judging others. This is making the class much more interesting ? I understand totally what Gator saying however I don't agree! I came to ask about this book in a faith promoting capacity, If I wasn't bothered about what I was looking at I wouldnt have asked. fair play if you can be that impartial though, I'm not sure I could

I hear Hillary is available...

You have to remember the church is still relatively young. The church passed 1 million members in only 1947. Until recently it was hard to find good stuff that was pro-Mormon that was not published by the church. (Partly because of Brodie's abuse of the church opening it's archives to her, the church became guarded about that afterwards.) This is happily changing now with new Mormon scholarship being produced, and a more open attitude by the church. I rarely see things about Mormonism that I consider objective or neutral. However, Wikipedia is actually pretty accurate from what I've seen, and seems pretty neutral to me. Bushman's book RSR is honest and he tries to be objective. Even though he is a believing member, he was also a first rate professor of history at Columbia U. I trust this book. There is plenty of stuff on the anti-Mormon side. Some is not overly anti-Mormon, but they rely on anti-Mormon sources too much, such as the American Crucifixion book. The author of that book naïvely tried to get info from all sides, but he ended up serving a drink mixed with anti-Mormon sewage. It's important to consider all sides but not all sources are of equal value or trustworthiness. Most of the overtly anti-Mormon stuff is not worth the paper it's printed on, as far as getting to an objective and honest understanding of the facts. Brody's book is well-written and is the most popular biography "out in the world", but it is full of very questionable statements and the author was antagonistic toward the church. She had an agenda. For a scholarly book it is not very forthcoming about the sources for the statements it makes. Overall, it amounts to an anti-Mormon book, not because the author is overtly anti-Mormon, but because the author is not being honest and distorts or even apparently invents many things. Some non-Mormons honestly try to explain Mormonism but they get it wrong, because it's so different in many ways. You see this in the newspapers a lot.

No, a soul does not get a second chance after Judgement Day. However, before Judgement Day the spirits in Spirit Prison will have an opportunity to accept the Gospel. This is an elementary part of the Plan of Salvation.

Big churches may have wellness pastors, but in medium and smaller ones, it would be the lead pastor who usually offers spiritual advice. We used to give pastoral counseling, but now the word "counseling" has legal ramifications (read -- churches got sued for 'failed counseling' but non-licensed practioners ... sick world), so we offer "soul care," etc. It is becoming common for pastor's wives to get degrees is Christian counseling, and for them to offer services as part of the church ministry.

Because they aren't living polygamy in mortality... they are living monogamy and no permission is required (except from the Future Spouse). For them to live polygamy in the eternity it has to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise (per the requirements in D&C 132)... And you can be guaranteed that will not happen unless all the other permissions are in place... Thus no laws or rules are broken... Only the potentiality of it is set up here.

Over the course of time, people will get to know you, get comfortable around you, recognize the strength of your faith, and then they'll be comfortable with speculative or difficult topics (well, some of them - some people prefer to just stick to the Sunday School answers and avoid the rest, whatever works for them). I sometimes wonder if this doesn't all boil down to time. Relatively few are willing to take the time to delve deeply into a topic, and they tend not to be in the same place at the same time, so those who want to do this, do it online while all the people physically near them, who "don't have time" for it, are off doing something else... I could be wrong.

Men don't know how to be men anymore, and his father if he has one has failed him in teaching him to deal with the fairer sex.

Yes.. Which is probably disappointing for her that she failed to grab the spot light..

Yes. The news story is reported in many papers, but strangely no mention of KK. The gossip in me wonders what's going on behind the scenes... but then again, none of my beeswax, nor do I really care beyond curiosity. Then again, it being canceled seems to be larger national story about PP, versus KK is pretty unknown outside LDS circles (and even then only a fraction).

Driving a vehicle is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution; it is a privilege. Owning and bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, not a privilege.

I don't see Pokemon as connected in any way with the spirit realm. it's pure imagination from the heads of Japanese animators. Harry Potter, OK, that is talking about magic. However I read it as pure fantasy also. HP doesn't bear any resemblance to what little I know about actual Satanism and witchcraft. I'm a person who enjoys fantasy, and even more so science fiction. I love Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, Magic: The Gathering card game (although I don't play Black, creeps me out). Etc. So that's where I'm coming from. If someone feels bad about getting into fantasy, then that's their right. I myself don't think there's some kind of slippery slope, from Pokemon into Satanism. I think for the most part, most fantasy is on a second, different slope, of harmless imagination.

Firearms are not "designed to kill people". They are designed to launch projectiles at whatever the users points them at. If the user points one at a person, it is the person who chooses to kill, not the firearm. Further, while owning a firearm does not require taking classes and a test, having insurance, etc., neither does owning a car or truck. Even using a firearm or a truck does not require any of these, either, as witnessed by the inordinate number of people arrested for driving without a license or a revoked license (which, itself, indicates the criminal has demonstrated irresponsibility as a driver). So, we see that laws limiting the use of cars by the unlicensed do not stop unlicensed driving. Other laws do not stop speeding, failing to stop at stop signs/lights, or reckless driving of any sort. How, then, would gun regulations stop evil people from misusing firearms? The problem with this point of view is that any proposed gun regulation would do nothing to stop the very thing you and I and anyone else here hate. Your sister would be at the same risk with or without the gun control you desire. The issue is evil, not firearms. Evil, like truth, will out. How about this: instead of banning guns so that good people cannot access them for legitimate purposes, we require that a high school diploma require 90% pass on still targets, 100% pass on a written test on proper firearm usage, and 90% on a fire-no fire range? You seem to think that classes make us safer behind the wheel; why not with firearms? Lehi