Leaderboard

I think you are right to want to get this resolved before marriage. Just based on what you’ve written here, I think the bigger issue (over finding a church you are both comfortable with) is that you are so committed to this and she, seemingly, is not. You need to sit down together and really communicate about this issue. Find out why she doesn’t seem to think this is important to figure out before marriage.

Mores, you’re making the civil case—one I very much agree with; and in a remarkably articulate way. But as it pertains to the theological case, I don’t think you even need to concede as much as you have. Theologically, marriage is all about rearing up righteous offspring—if not in this life, then in the next. It’s not that marriage is a hoop to jump through to get into to the highest degree of Heaven. It’s that the highest degree of Heaven is by definition a state of existence in which you are eternally creating new lives and teaching and guiding those lives into spiritual maturity—and just by the nature of what that task involves (and I mean this more in a spiritual than a physical or mechanical sense), you need an eternal partner in a heterosexual union. Many progressives bellyache about the idea of God being a man and complain that women just can identify with a deity that is solely male—but then demand that the Restored Gospel tweak its theology to allow for male-male couples to attain exaltation and basically (to put things crudely) become joint gods who will raise an infinite number of females who will never know what it is to have a Heavenly Mother. To me, the idea of gay sex is frankly far less offensive than the culmination of misunderstandings, skewed values, ignorance of or willful blindness to human nature, sloppy logic, and drawing of botched inference upon botched inference in which LGBTQ advocates generally, and LDS LGBTQ advocates in particular, base their arguments and worldview. In other words—gay marriage in and of itself is merely one of many, many things that are both morally wrong and sociologically counterproductive; but given modern social conditions it also happens to represent the culmination (so far) of every idiotic deconstructionist dogma that’s come into play since the early 19th century.

Wait, wut?

Maybe you should have a discussion with your fiancee about her Church's beliefs, so that you understand where the posters commenting on this thread are coming from. M.

I'll play this game all day long. The only real unsurety in the game is whether my opponent will play when she has the 0. But this is easily circumvented by choosing never to play when I receive the 0. If both players agree to always play, then the expected value of winnings per round is $50. So in ten rounds, I can expect to walk away with $500. If I choose to be conservative and only play when I have a 1 or 2, then the expected value of winnings per round is $100, but play may happen in only 75% of the rounds. So in ten rounds, I could expect to walk away with $750 I wouldn't want to be you in this game, however. The expected winnings for you are -$100 every round.

Interestingly only Republicans (and one Democratic-Republican way back in 1824 where the winner lost both) have lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. Rutheford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. It's especially interesting because twice during that period Republicans were supported by the more heavily populated Northern States, and twice by the less populated rural states. John Quincy Adams actually lost both the popular vote and the electoral college, but was selected as President by the House of Representatives (the only time the 12th Amendment has been used) because Andrew Jackson only won a plurality of electoral votes not a majority. Can you imagine the storm that would erupt if that happened today? Anyways, there is your random history lesson for the day from your friendly neighborhood high school history teacher☺.

Sure; let’s quit saying/singing something that’s fundamentally true just because it makes Babylon uncomfortable. I’ll save that one in my “what-could-possibly-go-wrong-with-that?” file.

Have a good talk Do let us know how it goes or if there's anything we can do to help.

I wont be able to reply for a while because I have to go see my girlfriend.

Hi Chaplain I have thought about going into ministry myself but I'm still praying about it.

Perfectly understandable; but . . . you're considering marriage with her?

“Saints”, “body of Christ”, and “church of Christ” can be ambiguous terms in LDS discourse and scripture. In one sense, all sincere followers of Christ have felt some measure of His redeeming power and can be said to collectively be a part of the “church of Christ”; and this approach can be found in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. But our belief is that to maximize the benefits of the salvation Christ offers in the here-and-now, and to make our salvation complete through the eternities, there are certain “ordinances” (i.e. rituals or liturgies) that one needs to go through, covenants one needs to make, and lifestyles one needs to adopt. Thus, we also (confusingly) use the terms “saint” or “Church of God/Christ/the Lamb/Firstborn” to apply specifically to that group of individuals who have accepted the particular doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have received (or are preparing to receive) its ordinances and covenants, and are sincerely trying to pattern their lives in accordance with the Church's teachings. That’s the perspective @Vort is speaking from, and frankly he’s right: if your girlfriend takes her church’s teachings at all seriously, then her relationship with the Church as an institution is probably not completely severable from her concept of her own relationship with Christ. But again: individuals will vary; and the best approach here is for you to just ask her.

You're correct, I didn't present the right result, but I wouldn't change my strategy. The risk that comes with playing always is that if your opponent chooses to only play when they don't have a 0, then I my winnings get diluted toward 0. My biggest concern, then, is that I do have an opponent that is numerically literate enough to know that occasionally refusing to play when receiving a 0 increases their winnings at the expense of mine. But now we're getting into game theory, and not probability theory. So my strategy is to play only when I have a 1 or a 2, resulting in $25 per round. Assuming one minute per round to play, distribute winnings, and reshuffle, that amounts to about $1,500 per hour, or the equivalent of a $3,000,000 annual salary as a full time position. Expected values given below. E[Winnngs; Both Play Always] = 0.25 * -100 + 0.25 * 200 + 0.25 * -100 + 0.25 * 200 = 0.25 * (-100 + 200 + -100 + 200) = 0.25 * 200 = 50 E[Winnings; Me Play > 0, Opp. Play Always] = 0.25 * (0 + 200 - 100 + 200) = 0.25 * 300 = 75 E[Winnings; Both Play > 0] = 0.25 * (0 + 0 + -100 + 200) = 0.25 * 100 = 25 E[Winnings; Me Play Always; Opp Play > 0] = 0.25 * (0 -100 - 100 + 200) = 0.25 * 0 = 0

He's talking about me, of course 😎

Right from the CFM manual:

@AbramM, let's say you're a master chef of French cuisine. I'm dating a girl from your cooking school. Obviously, she likes French food. I'm not into French so much. She wanted to go eat with me, so I took her to the place I like to go. They serve twigs, fresh pollen, and an assortment of bird droppings with plenty of stale cow urine. Works for me, but she didn't really like it. So the next time we went out, we went to another place that I thought would cater more to her French palate. We enjoyed cotton candy with maple syrup and tall glasses filled with cold vanilla extract. I thought it was more like what she was used to, and she did seem to like it better. But she said it's not really the same. I don't know what to do. If we get together, what are we going to feed the kids? What do you think? Now I do not mean to compare your ideas of worship with cow urine. I am trying to state that, from the perspective of a Latter-day Saint, worshiping as we do is spiritual food. It feeds our souls. To one extent or another, most Latter-day Saints realize this, maybe not as starkly as I've written above, but they know it by feel. Going to another religious service tends to leave them feeling unfed, in a spiritual sense. The fact that your girlfriend is preparing to marry you demonstrates either that she's not all that attached to the Church or that she's so head-over-heels, googoo-eyed in love with you that it's overwhelming her. In either case, you're right to be wary. A Latter-day Saint who understands and loves her religion will cling to it. As Christ taught, anyone who values father or mother, sister or brother over the Lord is unfit for the kingdom of God. Our first loyalty must always be to God, as I'm sure you agree. I foresee four possible outcomes to this: Your girlfriend finds her love for the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and decides (correctly) to make that a top priority. You investigate these weird beliefs of hers, find God's voice speaking to you through them, and get baptized as a convert. The two of you continue to pursue your path together, eventually being sealed as husband and wife, and start your eternal journey together to inherit joys beyond comprehension. (This is what I would call "the ideal".) Your girlfriend finds her love for the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and decides (correctly) to make that a top priority. You cannot reconcile your beliefs with hers, but you love her and she loves you. You find a way to make a life together and still find great happiness as a married couple, figuring out some way to raise your children in a religious atmosphere that probably doesn't fully satisfy either of you, but works as a compromise. (This is what I would call "a pretty good outcome".) Your girlfriend finds her love for the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and decides (correctly) to make that a top priority. You cannot reconcile your beliefs with hers, and your relationship with her eventually withers and dies. (This is what I would call "sad, but frankly it could be worse".) Your girlfriend struggles with being divided between her desires for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and her relationship with you. Eventually, she decides for whatever reason that her interest in the Church is holding her back, so she relinquishes that. She then proceeds on with her relationship with you, which may be wonderful for you both, or maybe not. Hopefully, she doesn't blame you for her choices; but if she does, she and you both have to find a path through. (This outcome is the one I fear.) Going into a marriage divided in religious ideas is not a big deal for those for whom their religious ideas themselves aren't a big deal. If I very firmly believe that God is a stone wall and my wife firmly believes that God is a gigantic warthog, but neither of us really cares about the nature of God, then that probably won't be an issue between us. But where religious belief is valued, fundamental differences will be important. I guess my advice to you would be to keep this in mind.

That's ok. We've always been apart from the broader cultural tides. I think even back in the 1800s, members of the church were known to be a "peculiar people." I accept that gladly.

I *think* it goes like this: Freshman starts seminary in the fall, does the second half of that book of scripture, then does the other half spring of their senior year... Honestly, at this point I'm guessing we're get a huge overhaul to the seminary system announced in GC, along with the changes to the Mutual / sr primary activities.

Hi Abram, if you want a sermon, we have tons of them in the LDS Church. Just go to lds.org and pull up any of the General Conference videos. We have another General Conference coming up on April 6 weekend where you will hear sermon after sermon for 2 days straight. Ok, that said... Church for Latter-day Saints is not about sermons - although that's a part of it. Church for us is about Covenants. Church service on Sunday is for Worship and a weekly renewal of our covenants of baptism. Church is also about Priesthood Authority. We claim to be the only church with the Priesthood Authority to administer Christ's sacraments. And also, Church is about fellowship and service. The talks given is a service each member gives to others as they impart teachings of the Prophets and Apostles as applied to their own lives or as applied to their ward. Our Church do not have paid clergy. Every member is called to service. So, if your fiancee is serious about her faith in the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, other churches would be okay for those occasions when one is put in a situation for fellowship and service to those in other churches. In the case of your fiancee, she would be doing it as a service to you. But it is not going to fulfill the renewal of covenants and the administration of the sacrament by Priesthood Authority integral to Sunday worship. As I see it - not knowing anything about your fiancee - you have a fork in the road... if your fiancee is serious about membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will just have to accept that that is where she's going to go on Sundays. But that is not the end of Church for an LDS. The Church is a lifestyle - it involves callings (teaching, ministering, fellowship, etc.) that happens throughout the week, it involves Covenants that may be expressed through avoidance of certain drinks, the choice of clothes we wear, the activities we engage in, etc. And one that would affect you directly - the desire for a Temple Sealing. You will have to be supportive of all of these things even as you don't desire to be involved with these things. If your fiancee doesn't have a faithful desire to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then what you need to do is sit down and really ponder with your fiancee what exactly it is you are looking for in Christian living and how Church attendance contributes to that. The best way is for you both to find out what Christ wants you to do through sincere, humble prayer. Just trying out Churches like a pair of shoes sounds to me like a futile activity that doesn't have lasting power especially for something that greatly impacts your future children. But yeah. That's just my 2 cents.

Hi @Shiva, I'm going to grab some highlights from your post-- Ok.... HUGE RED FLAG. This action he is describing is criminal physical assault. It's a major crime and very wrong. You SHOULD be upset that he did this, let alone bragging about it. He wasn't "protecting" anyone here, he was committing assault. Proper protection is helping her get the medical help she needs and police intervention. ANOTHER RED FLAG: this "joke" is major sexual harassment and complete disregard of you as a person. Such belittling someone is manipulative and abusive. More belittling and comparing: another huge flag of an extremely unhealthy relationship. This^ is classical abuser behavior: phase 3 of the abusive cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse ^This is gaslighting, another classical abuser attic: Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting That's because he's not telling you the truth. Your instincts are 100% correct here. Blaming others rather than accepting responsibility for his own actions... More gaslighting... @Shiva, I need to be honest with you here: this man you are dating is abusive towards you. The past is not nearly as important as the HORRIBLE way he is treating you today. The Lord's call to fogginess does not translate to "please continue to stand in places where you are degraded, mocked, and abused". NO!!!! (there's actually some great GC apostle quote on this, but I can't find it right now). Please @Shiva, don't stay in such a situation. You are d daughter of God and deserved to be respected, loved, and listened to.

Yep he sure did. But like you said that ridiculous Super Delegate system they use ensured he won anyways (not that Hillary can complain, she took advantage of it in 2016). Its actually amusing to me that those complaining loudest about the EC have the least democratic nomination process.

It sound to me as if you are too needy. You are too desperate. Unfortunately this is a turn off for many people. Of course, if you could find someone who is just as needy as you are, it might work out. In this you probably would need to look at those who may not be the most attractive girl out there, or she may not be the girl that is the cutest one you know. Instead, you'd probably have to start looking at if the girl has a great attitude, or is a nice person before you consider their looks or attractiveness. You start to look at the girl for who she is first, rather then the exterior appearance. My thought is that you should stop worrying about it as strongly as you are. Instead, focus on being a complete and whole person first. To me, it sounds as if you suffer from depression or depressive moods. Because you suffer from this it could be that you feel that finding someone will solve this (and this may be unconscious or in your subconscious even rather than a conscious thought). You are in love with the idea of being in love. You feel that if you just could have this issue you can have so much resolved in your life and things would become so much greater. In truth, it solves nothing. If you are NOT already happy with yourself, you will NOT be happy with someone else. You will have a brief period of Euphoria and then you will be just as unhappy as before, except now you will be making someone else unhappy as well. Instead, focus on being happy with your life and what you have currently. This does not mean you should stop going to Young Single Adult dances or activities. You should continue to do so and continue to ask girls out on dates. You should not obsess about it. Resolve to do something great with your life or pick up an awesome hobby. Find something that can make you content with your life. I am probably an introvert to a degree. I LOVE books. I LOVE history. I focused on that. I was blessed to find the most beautiful girl and get married to her. Not all are that blessed. Even when I am not around her I still have things that I enjoy. I still love history and I love working in history. When I travel for research, I LOVE doing that. That does not mean I love her any less, or that I do not miss her, but that I am happy with what I am doing and my life. If she were gone tomorrow (I expect I will die first, so only hypothetical) I do not think I would have difficulties as I would still have my library of books to read and a LOT of history to still explore. You need to be a complete person and be satisfied with yourself. You still need to strive for marriage, but don't make it such an obsession that it makes you depressed or unhappy. Do the things necessary to try to find a spouse, but also focus on the good things in life. Be happy with yourself so that you can make someone else happy, rather than expecting someone else to be the one to make you happy. I'm sorry that you are feeling so down, unfortunately, the only one that can bring you up at this point is probably you.

Hi, my name is Abram. I am a Christian from Oklahoma and I joint the forum to ask a question to Latter-day-Saints for advice. I'm sorry if I am not meant to be here because I don't identify as a Latter-day-Saint. Best wishes, Abram

Note: LDS don't believe a person has it held against them if they never have the opportunity to be baptized in this mortal life. Such a person can (and many many will) rejoice with Him forever (this is actually a big topic). It is the deliberate and unceasing refusal to be baptized, despite being taught the Gospel and given plenty of opportunity where problems are coming up because that is not accepting Christ in the least.

A disciple of Christ is a follower of Christ (that's the definition of disciple). True living faith isn't that wherein a person says whimsically "yeah I believe in Christ" and then completely ignore Him to live the same-old life of sin and following mammon. Again, your works are NOT what saves you. Rather it is faith-- real living faith in Christ-- that the old sinner dies and the new disciple of Christ emerges.

You are mixing up a couple of different topics here. Let me clarify LDS Christian beliefs here-- 1) Salvation is a gift from God, by His grace. 2) Nobody can work their way to Heaven. Such an idea is downright laughable. 3) Faith is an action word. Living faith does include action. A person is not baptized because they are trying to work their way to heaven. Rather, they are baptized because their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ commanded it and they follow Him. Likewise with repentance. It is not a "work based gospel", rather a Gospel of living faith in Christ.

Ah yea. If your girlfriend is a faithful LDS and she knows this about you, it’s understandable why she didn’t tell you about her faith. We do a loooot of work. We make covenants, we minister, we baptize, we ordain, we seal, etc etc etc...

Oh, yeah. That guy. What a weirdo. EDIT: But to be fair, his wife is smokin' hot. I wasn't joking about that. Woo-woo! And I think she likes me...

We're telling you standard beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We do not know your girl, and do not know the extent to which she holds these beliefs. As the hiding it-- I don't think this is a case of hiding anything, rather just poor communication. Thus far everything you've stated about the specific beliefs you hold is the exact same as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We're both Christians, hold that relationship with Christ, etc.

I'm not being rude when I say this but I don't care what people think about me. My concern is with what God thinks of me and I know where I stand with God.

Nope. Generally, these kinds of problems are either brute force the expectations, or simulate them. I will say, though, that expectation can be a really useful thing. When you can think about it in terms of expected winnings per round, it gets a lot easier to extend the thinking into long term results. It's a lot harder to reason with it if you try to think of long term results first.

I'm trying to reconcile this. What you say makes sense on a gut level, but the numbers are muddy for me. I'm obviously being too casual in my analysis, and I need more rigor. Maybe you can help guide my thinking. Over a thousand trials, I will see right about 250 0s and 250 2s. These are sure losses/sure wins, if the other guy plays. The other 500 will be 1s, of which I will win 250 and lose 250. Grand total: -$25,000 + $25,000 + $50,000 = $50,000 What happens if we both always play or if we both play "selfishly" (ducking out on a 0) are pretty obvious cases. For now, I want to focus on the case where I always play and my opponent ducks out when he sees a 0. When my opponent ducks out, then obviously I am always seeing a 1 or a 2. Since he's going to duck out right about 250 times, I will lose out on those 250 wins, with 125 of them being when I see a 2 and 125 of them being when I see a 1. So: Grand total: -$25,000 + $0 + $25,000 = $0 Okay, got it. Never mind. Though if you have some handy insights into how to visualize such things immediately instead of having to graph it out, I'm all ears.

@without_you - First, welcome! I'm sorry you're struggling. I haven't read all the responses but what comes to my mind is 'what you feed, grows' so I suggest focusing on your strengths and what you do have/did get. Focus on the positives and choose to be optimistic and trust that things happen when they're supposed to (even if we don't see/understand it). Wishing you all the best!

The most important things are shared (Christ, the atonement) but there are differences in other areas. Obviously it would be best to chat with your girl about what she believes directly. But if you want, we can share standard LDS Christian beliefs and how they compare. Two possible ways to go about doing this would be-- 1) Start with basic LDS Christian beliefs (like MannersMatter posts our Articles of Faith). 2) Talk first about whichever subjects you feel are most important.

@AbramM - First, welcome! Second, I admire the fact that you're putting having a common church with your fiancée as such a high priority. If it helps, these are our beliefs in a nutshell: 1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. 3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. 5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. 6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. 10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

She is a Christian. She's just not a Protestant.

Oh, and good luck with the job hunt!

I completely agree with you. The uniquely marital aspects of the relationship need to be there (I’m not sure romantic passion as understood in the 19th century and later is a sine qua non, but certainly some unique combination of companionship and respect and admiration and selflessness and mutual trust, in conjunction with some degree of exclusivity)—but the whole point is that the relationship nurtures the creation and development and training of new lives. Otherwise, there’s just no point to it other than to pass time through eternity; since companionship and respect and admiration and selflessness and trust can all exist in the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms as well as they can in the Celestial. It’s no accident that both eternal marriage and eternal increase *only* exist in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

Aaaand this is what I thought of...

I should have added a P.S. - I was devout Catholic who got married to an inactive LDS... fully expected him to become Catholic as he was attending Catholic Church service with me... I got baptized LDS 4 years later, sealed to my husband in the temple a year after that.

Speaking as a person in an LDS-Protestant marriage, your great words are worth much more than that.

Hi @AbramM ! I'm an LDS Christian extremely happily married to a Baptist/evangelical dude. I also very regularly attend non-LDS-Christian churches (cause I'm a nerd that way). When it comes to being married and raising a family, most important question to ask here is not about "which pew shall our butts warm Sunday morning", but rather it is "what Truths shall we teach our children and practice in our homes?" LDS Christians and Protestant Christians are both Christians and agree on the most important things (Christ, His atonement), but have different beliefs on other things (such as LDS believing in eternal marriage, priesthood power, and continuing revelation). For example, LDS Christians believe that a marriage covenant (when sealed by priesthood power and both parties embrace Christ) is for eternity-- you shall be husband & wife forever and your children sealed to you. Protestant denominations declare that all marriages & other bonds are dissolved upon death. Your marriage would not yet be sealed with that eternal priesthood power. Shall you teach your children the eternal or temporary importance of these bonds? Another example: shall you teach your children that the Heavens are open (mommy's view), that they are closed (daddy's view), or that mommy & daddy have different beliefs on this? Shall a child be baptized right when they are born (as is the practice for some Protestants) or shall they have to accept the Gospel & be of age first (LDS Christians and some Protestant views)? Which books of scripture shall you teach your family out of (LDS cannon includes more that 66 book Protestant Bible)? Focus on the most important things first (what Truths shall we teach our children) and reach a common ground. Don't worry about all the stuff that totally does not matter (like music and sermon style).

Hi Abram, welcome! Let me introduce you to one of our senior moderators: @prisonchaplain. He's a pastor for the Assemblies of God. He's not meant to be here but we can't seem to get rid of him. I guess we'll just have to get him baptized. Looking forward to your post on that advise you're seeking. We love to help.

Shiva, you are heartbroken over your boyfriends past sexual history. It is true, as you say, that if you two married that the two of you would never share some milestone first time experiences together. You would be unevenly yoked in the physical intimacy department. He can be forgiven, but there are consequences to his past actions. He has a history that cannot be erased. No matter how much he (or you) wishes It never happened, it did. He will have those memories and comparisons of his past girlfriends. Even if he tries his hardest not to compare, it is part of human nature. In order to be happily married when one partner has more experience in the physical intimacy area, some things that are needed would be : trust, transparency, reassurance from the more experienced spouse, absolute knowledge that you are number one and adored, and healthy self-esteem. If your self-esteem is lacking you might start comparing yourself to his exes, and that is never healthy. It can destroy a good marriage. If his past bothers you this much, don’t expect marriage to erase it. Resolve it in your heart before you get any more serious.

It might be interpreted like that, which I suppose is good. But if the Church's leadership were to change the policy such that the tokens of the sacramental covenant were not to be administered to those not under the covenant, that would make perfect sense. I think it's convenient that we don't actively prohibit children and non-members from partaking of the emblems of the sacrament, since to them there is no covenant to renew, but I don't think it's a moral issue of friendliness and acceptance, more like "Why bother possibly giving offense over a harmless practice?" If the thinking on the matter or the social circumstances were to change, the "openness" of the sacrament might well be rethought, and I would have no objection to make in that case.

https://thirdhour.org/blog/faith/scripture/book-of-mormon/book-of-mormon-villain-revelation/ He makes the same point I've often tried to make: Saying "It wasn't God, it was <something else>" is a false dichotomy. Often, it was God acting through the means of <something else>.

I have a close and beloved relative who has not been a practicing Latter-day Saint for many years. He occasionally interacts with women (mothers) who are LDS. In talking with them about some gospel topic or other, he was less than impressed by their insistence that the ultimate reason that we should obey some commandment is because God (or the prophet) said so. Personally, I believe that "because God said so" is a valid reason, but I also recognize that it begs the question of, "Why should we obey a commandment?" God is not capricious, and he does not give commandments on a whim. True, he does give commandments so that they will be obeyed; and true, he often does not explain fully (or at all) why a commandment is being given. We are normally expected to obey first, and find out why later. That is the divine order. But even so, God's commandments are perfectly logical and rational to those who understand all of the whys and wherefores—which we do not. God commanded us not to fornicate. We don't understand why. After all, sex feels good, right? And it results in good things, like babies, right? And God MADE us to want sex, right? So why would a loving God command us NOT to fulfill that craving? Why, that would be like God creating in us a desire for food, and then commanding us to FAST sometimes! Exactly. I don't know why some people experience homosexual attraction. I don't know why God allows it. And I cannot give all the reasons why God has prohibited any and all expression of homosexual desire. But he has done so, and I am 100% sure there are valid reasons for it, reasons that sweep away the ignorant, foolish mortal reasoning of "But it feels good! And I want to!" If we are too benighted to understand that reasoning or too spiritually immature to perceive it, let's at least be wise enough to say, "God gave that commandment, and until I understand why it was given, the mere fact that it was given is good enough for me to obey it." (P.S. My relative was also entertained by the encouragement offered him to "come back" to Church. "It's ONLY two hours now!" Uh-huh. In other words: "Going to Church is a huge pain in the neck and seemingly a waste of time, but NOW you only have to suffer through it for a mere TWO hours instead of THREE!" His comment to me: "Don't these people even think through the implications of what they're saying?" The sad answer is that, no, people normally don't think through what they're saying. They just blurt out whatever comes to mind.)

Sounds like we clueless children need a "How to walk down dark alleys in the bad part of town at 2am for Dummies" book, but for the darkweb.

It is important that each of us are careful in getting our own revaluations We should put our trust in Heavenly Father because man will disappoint. I will not start a fight but all men are subject to flaws. Apostles have been excommunicated for arguing contradictory revelations. I have been promoted by the Spirit, during an interview, not to issue a calling after the Stake Council made a decision. The Stake President said this was correct and how Heavenly Father does things. What ever we are doing we have our own revelations.

Kinda like an organization that calls itself "Antifa" yet has more in common with Nazi Brownshirts than any actual group that opposes fascism.