Leaderboard

Grandparent's expected role varies greatly from culture to culture. But since you're American and I'm American, I'll just talk American view: she can be involved as much or as little as she likes. If she wants to take the kids 0 days a week, that's her perfectly valid choice. If she offers to have them 3 or 5 days a week and the parents are down with that, then that's great and fantastically generous of her. Offering to compensate her for that time/energy is also generous of you. No adult child has no right to go up to grandma and say "you are obligated to devote X hours a week to watching my kids!". (which for the record it doesn't sound like anyone is doing).

That depends on what you mean by "love".

You do you. Don't worry about what other people think.

What do you mean by "obligations"? Basically at this stage their "obligation" is to support... The nature of that support can and will vary drastically between different sets of people depending on their abilities and your needs. You're mom is under no obligation to become a full time parent to your kids. (That is you and your husband's job) Her situation changed and she is able to increase the amount of support she can give(and the way she can give it). Tell your husband to quit being greedy with someone else's time, and say 'thank you.' for what she is willing to give.

To add to Husband's perspective, he would be up for paying my mom--he has no problem with that. He would prefer the kids to be with her than at daycare. Which, again, I totally understand, but only if Grandma is up for it.

Welcome, @Flowerthatdoesntwilt! Just for context, I am a middle-aged widow who has no children. I didn't have strong feelings either way about having children, we just didn't. Based on my experience (born in the Church, and given the above, and experience not related to children with what I'm about to recommend), here's what I suggest: Every time you get on your knees to pray in private, and silently (and quickly) every time you're part of any prayer (in other words, in your heart), pray for the Lord to change your heart on this matter - He'll know how to change it, so don't worry about how to do it - it won't be you, it'll be Him. Then leave that prayer and do your best to live the gospel. Don't worry about wanting or not wanting kids, just live the gospel as best you know how - study scripture, pray, attend church, serve in callings, serve others. Do this for every single prayer - deep breath - for years. Don't worry about how many years it might take1, just keep doing it. Don't worry that it seems absurdly redundant, just keep doing it - morning and night, over meals, whatever - just every time you pray. Ignore the erroneous notion that our prayers aren't supposed to repeat (that's false - they're not supposed to multiply words or be in vain). Don't worry that six months into it you don't feel like your heart has changed. Don't worry that you're praying for something you don't really want - that's irrelevant. Don't worry that you're praying for something that may never be an option anyway. Just keep praying for the Lord to change your heart. Don't stop until you come to the realization that your heart has changed. It may not change in the way you expect, the way you want, or the way you didn't want when you started, but it will change. 1For me, it took about two years. I didn't realize there had been any change until one night, as I was falling asleep, it hit me that I had been changed. I had done nothing to make the change - couldn't begin to imagine how. I had left that part to the Lord and tried to do what I knew to be right. NOTE: I suspect if you resist change - e.g. if you say to yourself every chance you get, "I don't want kids" (or similar), then you will "win" because the Lord won't compete with you - he won't force a change of heart on you. But if you let it go and leave it up to the Lord, he will change your heart in the manner that will be best for you across time and eternity.

Folks, that is an outstanding movie, probably the best and most enjoyable SF-themed film I have ever seen. I know it's two years old, but I don't care. It is a true work of art. Bittersweet, sad yet hopeful, and the emotion is always authentic. If not for the completely useless F-bomb dropped for no one knows what reason, I would have said it flirts with perfection. Amy Adams is easy enough on the eyes to be enjoyable to watch without her physical beauty taking over the scene and detracting from the goings-on. Same with Jeremy Renner. Forest Whitaker strikes exactly the right tone to make his role credible and important without becoming unsympathetic. This is an alien-invader movie that doesn't really care about the aliens, except to make them sufficiently strange to fit the needs of the story. All SF is really about people, not aliens, but very few SF films or shows have managed to get that right. Arrival gets it right. In addition to the obvious human (and humanistic) themes, some ideas are touched on that I think especially resonate with Latter-day Saints. (It may or may not be of note that Amy Adams was raised LDS.) Certainly there are obvious things like love for your child, the worth of the human soul even through sickness and death, and the sanctity of bonds between people. I also perceive the idea that our time-bound existence here is just a flattened representation of reality, and that a "God's-eye" view would reveal a different story. I also am charmed by the idea that the pain and even misery of life is a gift, part of our existence, something to be embraced and experienced rather than fled from. @anatess2 thought I would love the movie. She was right, of course, as I wrote when I first watched it. I guess I'm surprised that it is so rewatchable. I didn't see that would be the case, but it is. The beautiful soundtrack helps a lot, but it's more than that. The whole movie just works so well. Seriously, what a film, and not just if you're a linguistic geek. (Though that helps, too.)

You are not an extremist for doing you.... You might be an extremist if you tried to make everyone else do you or condemned people who did not live up to your standards.. But I did not get that from this post.

At the bottom of most websites is a link to some kind of rights & use policy. Here's the Church's: https://www.lds.org/legal/terms?lang=eng ...which includes this bit: Personally, I wouldn't use stuff from outside the media library. For other stuff (not from the Church website), you need to follow links and see what their copyright says (it's "right" as in "my legal rights" rather than "write" - easy mistake to make as it's generally seen as applying to the written word, and there's such a thing as a copy writer, but I digress). Some allow for personal, non-commercial use (usually on condition that you credit the source), and some don't. IMO, you do not want to violate copyright. The folks who can afford to crush you also have automated methods for finding violators - you don't want these people to know your name (my husband and I had a non-fun battle with a company who thought our domain name violated their trademark - not fun, you won't win). The folks who can't afford to crush you might be struggling artists whose work you just stole - don't do that. Often, all you have to do is ask - and give credit. Also, there are lots of places out there to get stuff under the "creative commons" license, which will cost you nothing more than crediting the artist.

Whether we receive new scripture depend entirely on our repentence. D&C 84 54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received-- 55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. 56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. 57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written-- 58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. We need to be ready or it will be for nothing. “I believe the Lord can do anything he sets his mind to do. But I can see no good reason why the Lord would open doors that we are not prepared to enter” (“The Uttermost Parts of the Earth,” Ensign, July 1979, 9).

What, I am not speculating, I provide the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Ya, this is in part why in one of my questions I asked where he was quoting this information. I wanted to know context of the lesson or manual he was sharing from.

Agree with @LiterateParakeet Depends a lot on the culture and personalities involved. By the way, if grandma provides even a little assistance, you owe her. She deserves the odd picture, attendance at kid’s birthday party, include in Saturday outing to McD’s. Be grateful!

The ending was elegantly understated, and all the more powerful for it. "Do you want to make a baby?" "Yes. Yes, I do."

I purchased this without ever even seeing it in theatres (never got around to that) because I just already sensed I would love it (plus the Amazon digital version tend to have a respectable sale in the beginning). I really do love this movie. I really don't feel too much hatred for Renner's character because the vast, vast majority of the movie he is a most likable character. I think he was being human, with human vulnerabilities and heartbreak. I also watched Primer after falling through an internet rabbit hole (I want to say it began with me researching the movie Coherence which is also a spectacular sci-fi movie with nothing more high-tech than you would find on a nice-but-modest stage play but I do have trouble recommending it on this board due to a high amount of intense language but I still probably would call it the eeriest and best multi-universe movie I've ever seen so here is me not officially recommending Coherence). Anywho, looking for opinions on that movie led me to a great blog written by a very Christian gentleman with a love for mind-messing movies who could not say enough good things about Primer. Now that is a mind-messing movie. Back to Arrival. I really do love pretty much everything about this movie. It has such a wonderful emotional impact that gets better as you ponder on it.

It appears that the OP is working out of the Gospel Principles manual, chapter 5 (which is now page 22, must have been page 28 in an older edition) https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-5-the-creation?lang=eng I don't think I can add anything to what others have said. Any of these details we try to fill in would be speculation. This is the internet, where we like to speculate, as long as one recognizes that it is all speculation.

It looks as though you are misunderstanding the news release. The second bullet point (bolded above) appears to be your source of confusion. In journalism and technical papers, it is standard practice to refer to an organization by its full name on first reference, then refer to it by an abbreviated version of some sort afterward. The news release simply say that, when writing about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, use its full name on first reference. If the publication then desires to use a shortened version, they are asked not to use "Mormon Church", "LDS Church", or "Church of the Latter-day Saints". Instead, the suggestion is to use "the Church" in later references; if that is not specific enough, "the Church of Jesus Christ" is suggested, as is "the restored Church of Jesus Christ". How realistic it is to expect or even hope that news organizations in general (much less an antiMormon -- can I still say that? -- rag like the NYT) will actually follow these requests is debatable. But saying the Church is being presumptuous is simply not true. If an article is talking about seven churches, or even two, then "the Church" might not be specific enough. But most articles that mention the Church are talking about "the Mormons", not a bunch of different groups. In such articles, there is no confusion in using "the Church" in non-first references. I think it's a perfectly reasonable and valid request, though I seriously doubt most news organizations will have the courtesy (especially to a religious organization) to use the preferred terminology.

Anywhere there was a prophet who was commanded to write as Nephi, and others were. We have in scripture a prophet by the name of Balaam, not of Israel. If what has been said about prophets is that they all testified of Christ. It would not shock me if Balaam recorded his teachings about Christ. There were tribes (similar to Lehi) who were scattered. It would not shock me if we receive records from Asian continents, Australia, Africa, South America, Canada regions, etc... I would be shocked if Christ has not come within 100 years or so. If so, then yes, we will have new records from ancient days. I, personally, do not believe we will receive any ancient records before Christ comes; although, I am open to being wrong.

D&C 1321:7-8 reads “7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” matter takes up space so I would assume so. Perhaps spiritual exists in a separate dimension or perhaps there is some principle of matter specific to spiritual that makes it able to coexist with physical matter. Perhaps the spiritual creation was more of a design, like molding for a ring. Or perhaps like I mentioned above, spiritual matter does take up space and he had to go somewhere where it already existed in some form of chaos so he could organize it. No, they take up the same space, same as how our spirits and bodies take up the same space to form a soul. I’m not sure. From how O understood it, spiritual matter is one type of “element” if you will. Mixing one element with the same element does not create life, but the sex organs we have now have the ability to create life. The question of blood and “celestial blood” or whatever i is called only had to do with immortality and mortality and not to do with being on earth

You are in NO way damaged goods. You do yourself only harm by comparing yourself to this imaginary "ideal woman". God doesn't have just one 'perfect' daughter. God loves YOU. Please stop hurting yourself this way. Martial eternal companionship exists for more than just having children. If the only purpose of companionship was to have children the church would have to say ridiculous things like "every infertile couple should get divorced!" and "no one past the age of menopause is allowed to get married!". Obviously that's not the case- because eternal marriage exists for MORE than just having children. Now, I'm a no-nonsense pragmatic person who prefers to cut to the chase in things. If I were in your shoes, I would just cut to the chase about this issue right away in dating so if the guy wasn't interested we could both move on to other people right away. But that's just me personally. You do you and how you best want to approach this.

I'm a convert (baptized the day before my 19th birthday). When I was newly baptized, I envisioned a temple marriage, but with all the "finery" of a "regular" wedding.My mom was an inactive member and my dad a non-member (and my siblings/family non members--I was the only active, temple recommend holding member). I knew that if I chose to have a temple sealing without any type of civil service, they would be hurt and disappointed. Once I was endowed, I began to realize that my covenants made in the temple reinforced my thoughts that a temple sealing had more precedence and vitality over any civil service. Fast forward 35 years or so after baptism, I was now faced with an upcoming marriage and how I would handle it. It is my personal belief (strongly held one, mind you) that the covenants I made during the endowment include sacrificing even family relationships to keep my covenants of the Gospel which include choosing to be sealed in the temple rather than civil service and temple sealing (obviously, I'm in the US as having this choice is just not possible in other countries). I chose to have a temple sealing with minimal "finery" for a reception. My dad did not walk me down any aisle, we didn't have anything more than a ring "ceremony" during the reception. My dad's home teacher (yep, a non-member has a home teacher--great man) who did the ring ceremony talked on temple sealing/marriage and the significance of that. We didn't exchange vows or say any words. I know that my family was disappointed and I'm sorry for that. But, I also know that my faith in the sealing and temple covenants enables me to believe that their disappointment will someday (most likely in the next life) be mitigated by knowledge. For those members in the US, their family relationships may inspire them to make a different choice. But as with all commandments or guidance by the prophets, I feel we should resolve to abide unless the Spirit directs otherwise. He didn't direct me otherwise, so I decided to follow. Not an easy choice (sounds easy to do, but in reality when faced with disappointing or even angering family it makes it difficult), but life isn't always about the easy.

So a guy who was chaste before marriage and possibly rushed into marriage specifically for the sex, now has zero physical interest in his wife and stays up late at night, alone, on the computer? There’s a lot that this *could* be; one possibility being a long-standing porn issue.

If I were you, I would write everything I could remember from the original down. Then pray and ask God to reveal what was lost to you (After all that is how we got a lot of the pearl of Great Price and the JSTs) There is also something to be said about vague and short patriarchal blessings. I had a mission companion that showed me the length of his, 4 1/2 pages. I was at first jealous as mine was about 1 3/4 pages. But he told me that his patriarchal blessing was so incredibly detailed to the point that most of the blessings and guidance had timelines of some sort connected to them making it difficult for any interpretation. Ambiguity can sometimes be a major blessing and lead to great spiritual experiences. i also love what @Vort said about “coincidences”. What a great opportunity to build your faith! And hey... maybe under the circumstances you can request another blessing and be among the few that received 3 patriarchal blessings

The second-best-ever SF-themed movie may well be the ultralow-budget thriller Primer. Word on the street is that it cost a whopping $7000 -- that's seven thousand dollars -- to make. It is the best, most gripping, least eye-rolling time-travel film I have ever seen. Very, very, very good, though not as pretty as Arrival or other high-budget films. Doesn't matter; the writing, acting, and directing are so good that you don't even notice.

Agree about Renner. But his moronic elements (including his reaction to the challenge I mentioned) were a perfect foil for the heroine without being cliche so besides the f-bomb, I think he was written just right. A character that can get me that mad is a well-written character. And yeah, Whitaker was a colonel. Colonel Weber.

I super love this movie! I've watched it probably 10 times at least. Even after the 10th viewing it still makes me mad that Renner's character was super stupid in response to the challenges he faced (trying not to spoil this movie for those who haven't seen it). My favorite part is the super spot on depiction of language as an extension of culture and that learning a language is not just knowing words... it's understanding people. My son loves the soundtrack. He thinks it is brilliant in the use of sounds and music to portray a movie where major characters can't dialogue or emote like usual.

My current position is I believe organic evolution is true. Science is pretty solid on the matter. But I answered I don't care because if Science comes up with a better theory that contradicts organic evolution, or if God says nope, organic evolution is a lie by the devil, it won't bother me at all.

You might need your eyes checked. Lol

She might benefit from learning the etymology for the word "man" or "men" or male and female (see also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) In short, the word "man" was derived from "humanus" or "homo" or "mann," meaning human being or mankind, and began generically as meaning "person(s)" or "earthly being" (as differentiated from heavenly being") or of the "ground," or "one who thinks." Eventually, the genders were distinguished using the pre-fix wo or wif (wo-man--, meaning person with stomach, or, female/femina, "she who suckles":), and wer or guma or waepen (waepenmann--meaning male, or person with a weapon or penis). Evidently, the gendered prefix for males was dropped and later became the prevailing meaning for "mann" or "man," though the generic meaning continues, thus causing confusion among those prone to identity politics, toxic feminism, and making "man" an offender for a word (pun intended). Thanks, -Wade Englund-