Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/28/19 in all areas

  1. Clearly you don't spend enough time reading handbook 2. IMO, everything we have indicates with perfect clarity that God wants children to only be born to a father and mother who are sealed for time and all eternity. Anything less than that varies from tragic to tolerable to intolerable to willful rejection of God's commands. IMO, this falls into the latter category.
    6 points
  2. https://www.lds.org/study/manual/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies-and-guidelines/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#title_number71 Especially: Handbook 2 answers a multitude of questions.
    5 points
  3. That doesn't make sense. If you doubt she has time for herself, why would she think she has time for child?
    4 points
  4. "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." --from The Family: A Proclamation to the World
    4 points
  5. Sunday21

    Craziest situation ever

    By the way, I went to my therapist today. I took emails from my family. My therapist told me to: chnage locks on my doors tell my family to take a flying leap. Screen my calls Set boundaries! Thank you for your encouragement! ❤️
    4 points
  6. This may be so; but at least for me, in spite of my natural inclination to stick up for my co-religionist, I’ve tried to take the OP’s statements at face value. My takeaway from all that is that she maybe doesn’t take her religion 100% seriously, but blanches at the prospect of outright breaking from it—but that she also isn’t being completely forthright with the OP about her motivations and intentions. I don’t see manipulation coming from the OP; I see a young man who knows what he wants and wants to know if this young lady meets his criteria; and he’s frustrated at the fact that he can’t know that because she can’t or won’t give him a straight answer.
    4 points
  7. Okay...but @AbramM also indicated he had no idea LDS was anything other than another Protestant denomination, because the girl did not let on, and he's only 20. In his discussion here he has come to realize that the differences are vast, and yeah, they can't marry so long as they do not share common faith. He also gave no indication he would attempt to convert her out of her LDS beliefs. Instead, he said she was evasive about her faith, and acted willing to be in a traditional Christian church. So, granted, I've got very little skin in this game (the girl's not Assemblies of God, after all), but it could be possible to look at his declarations and say, "Oh good. He'll respect her faith and walk away, if she's truly committed to being LDS." No?
    4 points
  8. There is no debate about this. A child deserves a MOTHER and a FATHER under the covenant of MARRIAGE. A child is not a Barbie Doll.
    3 points
  9. Vort

    Word of Wisdom question

    Frankly, I do not pretend to understand all the reasons for the Lord's words, or even exactly what those words are teaching. It sure sounds to me like the Lord is saying that we should limit our consumption of animal flesh, preferably to (1) the wintertime and (2) times of famine. How strong is that teaching? The entire Word of Wisdom was explicitly not given as commandment, but as counsel. Although we have taken it upon ourselves as a commandment, that doesn't resolve the issue of how we treat meat. My own tentative solution has been to try to treat all food, but especially animal flesh, as sacred. I have often said that I believe every meat-eater should be required to kill and dress at least one animal per year, to drive home the point that meat doesn't come from the store. There would be some unwilling to do this. Great. They don't get to eat meat. Eating meat is for those who openly acknowledge what it is they're doing and what the cost is to another formerly living being. It's not immoral to eat meat, but it should not be a light thing. The book of Genesis teaches: A more modern translation would be something like, "Every living animal shall be food for you, just like fruits and vegetables are. But do not eat meat that still contains the lifeblood." Interestingly, Joseph Smith rendered those verses as follows: This seems to be saying, as you suggest, that eating meat should be an occasional thing. How do we interpret "And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives"? Does that mean we have to be starving to death before we should be killing and eating animals? I don't think so. Eating itself is required to sustain life, and I think this is what the Lord is saying above. Don't kill animals for the fun of watching them die (which, shocking though it may be to our modern sensibilities, has been a popular sport and pastime throughout human history). Slaughter animals for food, not for mere sport. At least that's my interpretation.
    2 points
  10. "Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline." Wow! There it is. When in doubt, check Handbook 2. Thanks, @zil.
    2 points
  11. In addition having a child is hard. My wife and I have struggled from lack of sleep, depression, loss of certain social activities, high costs for child care etc. I don't say this to discourage others from having children, my daughter means the world to me, but trying to do all these things by myself without my wife would be 10 times harder. I'm not saying it's impossible, many good brothers and sisters find the strength they need to rise to the occasion, but why would you purposely make yourself a single parent? And just to satisfy a whim at that? I feel for her, a lot actually, I know what it's like to want a child and not be able to have one (infertility for years) but she needs to stay within the bounds the Lord has set.
    2 points
  12. This is true. The Church strongly discourages in-vitro fertilization when using semen from anyone but the husband, or an egg from anyone but the wife. However, as Alia said, this is between her and the Lord. Also, children are meant to be reared by a father and a mother. Being a single parent, especially of a newborn is very tough and time consuming. Another thing to consider since she is LDS, is that if she conceived, she would be unable to have the child sealed to her...children can only be sealed to both a father and a mother, not just 1. If she eventually got married, and wanted a sealing, she would need to seek permission from the actual father of the child...it would get very messy, complicated, and difficult. I would recommend against it - it is difficult, but better to wait upon the Lord.
    2 points
  13. @anatess2 articulates my thoughts on this even better than I was going to. Yes, I consider myself both conservative and Christian. Additionally I consider myself a “conservative Christian” (which I would define as focusing on praxis) but not a “fundamentalist Christian” (which I view as being more interested in matters of theology/dogma). I oppose elective abortion, believe gay sex is a sinful and destructive activity meriting no especially sanction by government, support churches that endorse traditional family/gender roles, and think that the nation would be better off if we talked about God more in public fora (including in schools), and believe adherents of a given faith should change their conduct to conform to their faith’s ideals rather than the reverse. When my progressive acquaintances make some statement about “conservative Christians”, and their oppressiveness of women/minorities/LGBTQ, and the general uselessness of their religions, and the prospect that “bigoted” churches should at least be taxed—they mean me, and they don’t usually care that I’m not a young-earth creationist.
    2 points
  14. This good sister needs to realize that it's not about her, or her hurt feelings, or her loneliness. It's about another human being. In the 1970s there was a sitcom called The Mary Tyler Moore Show, about a single career girl (as they were called then) and her adventures at her television station employment. One of the characters was an almost preternaturally self-obsessed TV cook played by Betty White. In one episode, this character described her pain and horror at the death of an acquaintance, ending her heart-rending story with the plaintive cry, "And I know God killed her to punish me!" Your friend's unhappiness and heart-break might lead her to a life choice that would involve others, not just her. It's not all about her. I realize this might sound callous, but I don't mean it to. I'm sympathetic with how she must feel. But as others have stated above, a child deserves both a mother and a father, married to each other. To intentionally deprive them of this even before conception strikes me as wrong and selfish.
    2 points
  15. She can either trust God and his promises... Or she can trust herself. Plenty of people in this life do not get the blessings that other people might get... It all depends on highly individual circumstances. While desiring the blessings and working for it is very very good... Crossing the line into disobedience and sin to try to get it... is well... crossing the line
    2 points
  16. Her problem is not finding a husband. Her problem is she thinks God is so cruel as to "curse her appearance". Plus the problem that she thinks marriage is built on a foundation of APPEARANCES. How you help her is for her to learn some more about what Love means in God's kingdom.
    2 points
  17. No, not really. I don't think you can point to anything outside of a highly artificial situation or purely definitional linguistic matter that can be "proven" in this sense. Syllogisms like "All dogs are mammals and Fido is a dog, so therefore Fido is a mammal" are almost geometrically valid proofs, but that is simply a word game. I say that "foo" means "five", so therefore two plus three equals foo. You rarely or never get this in any real-life situation (maybe in law, but like I said, not in real-life situations). The very idea of being able to "prove" something "beyond doubt" is an old Greek philosophical abstraction. The Greeks loved their abstractions, and used them to invent a lot of ideas that don't really interface with our experience of reality: Insubstantial spiritual substance, horses that are more horsey than any actual living horse, and so forth. If you want to understand why LDS doctrine departs so radically from traditional Christian doctrine in certain places, the observation that modern traditional Christian thought is highly derivative of Greek neo-Platonism goes a long way toward explaining the divide. (Thanks, Augustine!) I mean, seriously, can you even imagine a Middle Ages Christian philosopher seriously contemplating that God the Father has a physical body, with arms and legs and feet and eyes and a mouth and a beard? Or that God himself might just come right on down from heaven some day and talk face to face with some farm boy? For those of that mindset, this is far beyond radical. More like laughable. It's no wonder Joseph Smith was not taken seriously by any theologian of his day and area. Think of how absurd you would sound to people in the time of King Alfred (assuming you spoke Old English), peasants and royalty alike, if you tried to describe modern life to them. They would laugh at you and call you mad.
    2 points
  18. I find this words of wisdom discussion interesting. In Mormon culture we seem to try and make the different aspects of the words of wisdom carry different weight. Example: alcohol/drugs is bad, tea and coffee is next but eating meat outside of winter or time of famine is optional. I would say most active members would say: drinking alcohol/taking illegal drugs breaks the word of wisdom; coffee and tea seems to have some debate on the types or how it is used; eating meat only in winter or time of famine doesn’t count. As a culture what has made us feel some parts should be strictly observed and other parts like meat is optional? I would say out of everything meat has the most clarity in D&C yet is least followed, if at all. quick example: many wards have some type of cookout during the summer season (Pioneer Day) which usually seem to have lots of burgers, hotdogs or bacon if it’s a breakfast. No one says a word about how these events could be breaking the word of wisdom. Yet if we served coffee or tea at the event the leadership would we shocked. I would normally say this is an extreme example but I am not so sure it really is.
    2 points
  19. Why do people keep assuming that Release Time and Early Morning options are exclusive things?
    2 points
  20. Anything CNN says makes me uneasy.
    2 points
  21. This was always my problem with the Moroni Promise. Missionaries present it as a kind of "panacea to doubt", but when you think about it it's not so simple. Like you say, the world is full of people who "know" that the doctrines they profess are true. And since some of those doctrines contradict each other we are force to accept that (however sincere they may be) at least some of these people are mistaken. The answer you'll get from a missionary (and from the equivalent in other faiths) will be something like: "Don't put your trust in what we or anyone else say: ask the Spirit." But this doesn't actually help very much: if other people can be mistaken about what they think the Spirit (i.e. God) is leading them to "know", is it not possible that we could be mistaken too?
    2 points
  22. I have no idea how you have come to this conclusion with the information that @AbramM has provided in regards to his beliefs and his situation. He has stated he believes in the Trinity, he has faith in Christ and in Christ's power to save. He seems to have dedicated his life to God. He is looking for someone with the same beliefs as him to spend the rest of his life with. He thought he found her and was surprised to find out that who he thought she was and what she believes may not be so. He has a dilemma, because this girl does not appear to want to share her beliefs with him. She agrees to attend church services with him and then doesn't keep her word. He can't read her mind, so all he can do is have patience that she will eventually open up to him. If it turns out they do share the same beliefs then they can move forward in their relationship. If they do not share the same beliefs, then @AbramM has said he will end the relationship. M.
    2 points
  23. @AbramM actually said he would move slow, because he does not want her converting for his sake. If she does so, he wants to take the time to see if it is something between her and Jesus, and not just her attempt to appease him. Like I said before, I really see that he is handling this with a good measure of wisdom.
    2 points
  24. Fair enough, but it's hard for me to imagine a hard break over that. My first wife was LDS and I was Catholic*. I had -zero- expectations that she should convert for my sake, because even though we were of different religions, I would not have come between her and her sincere belief and worship of God. Nu-uh. Not a chance... because I loved her for who she was. Her religion is what made that woman who she was and it felt like pressuring her (either deliberately or not) to change for my sake just felt incredibly selfish. That said, I get why someone, especially LDS, might want to stay within their denomination so I don't mean to sound like I'd expect everybody to handle it the way I did, but at the same time it just seems weird to me that the third option-coexistence-doesn't even seem to be on the table. But yea, I do agree that these folks need to work on their communication in a big way. That really ought to be the takeaway from this discussion. (*for the curious, these days I'm the LDS and she's gone inactive/borderline hostile to the Church. I guess wine coolers and the new husbands were preferable.)
    2 points
  25. Maybe, and I hope that's how it is. My concern is that if she's really as willing to convert as he suggested, she may very well do so anyway. Maybe she's not that committed, or maybe she's prioritizing the prospect of marriage over her religion. Either way, we have folks right here who have demonstrated that there's a middle ground, where both parties can respect each other's beliefs and still be a couple. If that's still a deal breaker for him, well ok fair enough, and maybe she gets the lion's share of the blame for not having been more open sooner. But I can't help but wonder... Our friend here seems very, very specific on what his expectations are in terms of a relationship. Is it possible that she didn't feel secure telling him all the details? Is it possible that she knows him well enough to know that she'd lose him if he knew the details of LDS doctrine? Because the situation now seems to be at a head. Either she breaks from the LDS church, or she breaks from him. Those are the options he's given her. In either case, she's going to lose something precious to her. That doens't sit well with some of us.
    2 points
  26. Hence my statement: "If you then judge that difference as being an unreconcilable deal breaker, then let her know you have judged thus, and leave the conversation as a single man." Inter-faith marriages are a LOT of work. I know that first hand, even though I am extremely happily married. I respect Abram's dedication to his faith. If he finds the difference to be unreconcilable, he should break up.
    2 points
  27. Honestly, in reading the back and forth, it felt like @AbramM was being cajoled into a conversation he repeatedly said he did not want to have. He has his faith, is committed, and demonstrates a pretty solid understanding. He has not had experience with LDS folk, did not want to engage in an interfaith debate at a predominantly LDS public platform, and yet did attempt to engage in your questions. His goal is to find a woman he can serve the LORD with, and to avoid being "unequally yoked," with one who does not share the same faith. I doubt any here would contend that LDS and Protestants believe the same things, and that the differences are mostly semantics. So, why call a 20-year old judgmental etc.? He's exercising spiritually healthy caution about one of the most important decisions he will ever make. I respect him greatly.
    2 points
  28. Lee was my brother’s AP in the Texas Corpus Christi mission. He still speaks highly of Lee.
    2 points
  29. At this point there does seem to be an open discussion of the Trinity. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the general counsel that @AbramM has received concerning his girlfriend is to have an open, direct conversation about where she is really at (committed LDS vs. not-committed and open to traditional Christian churches). After that is resolved, @AbramM has indicated he is willing to pursue or leave her, depending on where she is spiritually. So...if the only purpose of the Trinity discussion here is to get the OP to believe there really isn't much difference between the two beliefs, with no input from his fellow Protestants, then I would suggest that that's odd. The difference is significant. It's so significant there's been the suggestion that LDS Christianity should be seen as a whole new branch, rather than as a Protestant denomination (an Idea I agreed with, btw). Can we say it's that big, and then that it's no big deal?
    2 points
  30. Some of the IRS rules have changed that at one time would have gotten us in trouble with our 501c status. As long as ThirdHour is not advocating a political candidate we are okay. Opinions from forum members are okay. I'll have to ask the powers that be regarding the need to update the rules if need be.
    1 point
  31. I have to laugh. We had some issues with the Newport Beach temple. The original design was too big and too white. So they changed the style and made it more of a tan color. The irony is that the area is a flood with mega churches (including Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life campus). The temple is actually smaller than the LDS chapel next to it. Here's a map to give you comparison. And by the way, the Mariner church was kind enough to allow their parking lot be used during the open house.
    1 point
  32. I consider myself to be a conservative Christian. I don’t get overly political on my Facebook, but if I posted a meme defending conservative Christians—it wouldn’t be because I was trying to curry favor with my Baptist and Pentecostal friends. It would be because I considered myself to be defending my own (broadly defined) faith community.
    1 point
  33. The reason I wont just break up with her is because I love her and I want to be fair to her. I have been honest with her that we need to find a church we can both attend before we get married. As soon as she lets me know (if she does) that she doesn't want to find a church with me then I will break up with her.
    1 point
  34. We don't know if she lead him or or tried to tell him, or really anything about that interactions. There's easily a dozen different possibilities. Yes, they are both young. As to the manipulation, maybe flipping things around will help illustrate: Sarah is a LDS gal, who's dating Bobby who's a Methodist, but not really committed to it. They met a the local dog show in southern Idaho, and Sarah just assumed he was LDS. Now, Sarah really hopes that Bobby becomes LDS so that they can get married in the temple. She's not outwardly pressuring anything, but does inform Bobby know she can't marry a Methodist, but if he converts, then they could be equally yoked and get married. Do you see the pressure being put on Bobby there, but just the nature of the situation? It's not a good thing, and I would tell Sarah to 1) accept Bobby as a Methodist or whatever his faith may be, or 2) break up. No option of waiting around to see if he converts.
    1 point
  35. Scott, I appreciate the questions. I am just one of several mods; we’ll follow up via PM. On political discussion—I believe a couple years ago there was a slight relaxation of that rule that was discussed by @pam on the main forum; but we may not have gotten around to actually updating the site rules. I’ll invite Pam to weigh in and tell me if I’m wrong.
    1 point
  36. I don't think so. Agree. Disagree. I think that most active members would agree that drinking coffee or (tea leaf) tea is contrary to the Word of Wisdom, regardless of temperature, caffeine content, etc. Oversimplification. They would probably just point out the obvious fact that that point of the Word of Wisdom has not been stressed by our divinely appointed leaders and is not an explicit part of temple recommend interviews. I think lots of active members wonder about that phrase and what it means to their situation. I suspect that most people realize that using habit-forming and/or cancer-causing drugs is of much greater concern than whether or not you eat meat. Paul made it clear that one of the signs of apostasy in the last days would be forbidding the eating of meat. Doctrine and Covenants 49:18 is somewhat ambiguously worded, but taken in context and along with Paul's counsel to Timothy, it seems to say essentially the same thing, that those who insist that others not eat meat are not ordained of God. Well...duh. That seems pretty obvious. The strange thing is not that we freely eat meat but would be shocked at a ward activity serving coffee or tea. The strange thing is that you find this fact strange, almost as if you have no exposure to LDS culture or how the Church teaches its doctrine.
    1 point
  37. If @AbramM were seeking out an interfaith buddy I could understand this line of questioning. He's looking for his lifelong "one-flesh" wife. The girl let on that her faith was compatible with his. He's not trying to be fair and set up an interfaith marriage. He's looking for a traditional Christian soulmate, so he can become one with her in every way, and so they can raise up their kids, without religious confusion, in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. He finds out LDS is a whole lot different from his faith than he thought, so it may indeed be a deal breaker. That's not unfair. That's a young man seeking to live his life for God and without compromise.
    1 point
  38. While I understand that a few here have made interfaith marriages that work, @AbramM is 20, and is expressing the same views I was taught 1,000 years ago--that the "one-flesh" union between husband and wife should be of like, precious faith. "Unequally yoked" was huge in our youth group teachings. "Why date a non-Christian, since you can't marry her?" We heard that a lot.
    1 point
  39. At the end of the day, when I'm making a personal choice on where to place my faith and what I believe, I can only go by what I personally know. I don't know how to account for the Baptist, Catholic, Muslim or Jew who says he/she has had a personal experience from God that led them to where they are. I don't feel like I need to. It doesn't threaten or detract from my own experience at all. Why should it? There's room in my beliefs for all of that. What I know is that God spoke to me in a way uniquely effective in convincing me, and I listened. My testimony is not meant to convert anyone else. It was given to convert me, personally. As for anyone else in any other belief... I don't know what went on in their heart or mind. I don't know what God said to them. I wasn't there. I was there when God showed me what He wanted for me to do. Nothing else in my personal history quite compares to that experience, and so I trust it. Of course, as a software developer, I'm used to thinking about alternatives. "What if it wasn't what I thought it was?" I've had people try to tell me that. I've heard it form other Christians that it must have been from the Devil and not God, because surely God would have led me to be a Protestant/Catholic/whatever the person was. Well, if that's so, then that would have to mean that I do not have the ability to distinguish between the voice of the Devil and the voice of my Creator. That notion doesn't make sense to me at all. I've been told it was just some sort of hallucination by people who weren't there and who have precisely -zero- knowledge of the state of my psyche, my brain or my physiology. Well, I don't find that to be likely either since I wasn't on any mind altering chemicals, have no medical history of such things, have no family history of such things, and it would have to mean I had a very specific hallucination at a very specific time that just happened to coincide with the exact moment in my life where such a change would have drastically altered my trajectory as it would have at no other point in my personal history, and hasn't happened since. So that's what I know and I trust it. Other peoples' experiences are other peoples' experiences. I can reasonably say nothing more about them. How does that impact you? It isn't meant to convince you. You're right to ask those questions. If I were to tell you my story, you truly would have no reason to take my word for it over someone else's. I suppose it could be that you hear enough conversion stories that you feel inspired to ask of God yourself. James 1:5.
    1 point
  40. I never manipulated her, I didn't get mad at her or break up with her when she said she didn't like the Baptist church I attend and it was me who offered to go to her church to see if I liked it. I didn't even get mad at her when she didn't show up to all the churches we were meant to try. I didn't understand she had a different faith when I asked her to marry me, but I told her then that we have to find a church we both like before we get married. I'm not going back on that but I'm not trying to manipulate her. She can make any choice she wants and if she chooses to come to church with me then I will wait a year to marry her anyway so she can always change her mind.
    1 point
  41. anatess2

    Work or Rest?

    I believe it to be both. We rest from our own journey. We work for others still on the road.
    1 point
  42. The people that I know who are depressed would not go to a doctor if they thought their guns would be taken away. They would ignore problems and lie to keep their guns. This would make things worse, in my opinion.
    1 point
  43. Explain to me how @AbramM explaining the 'how' of the Trinity will help him with his dilemma with his girlfriend. We don't really know what she believes. It also appears that neither does @AbramM. M.
    1 point
  44. No. The bill of rights does not specify "the right of a person to be located where he wants to be located shall be protected". So, here's the counter question - do you believe that preventing an accused criminal from speaking from his jail cell is constitutional? There's no "greater right". C'mon, Mr. lawyer! The government doesn't grant you rights such that it is possible to have greater or lesser of it. There is simply - "bound to protect" or "not bound to protect". Here's your dilemma - a spouse filed for protection because she felt in danger. The state took the guy's firearm. A violent criminal broke into his house and shot him dead because he was left defenseless. THAT's your constitutional dilemma.
    1 point
  45. No doubt it is incredibly frustrating... But He is doing plenty about it! He's sending missionaries all over the world to change that very thing. Materials and information are freely available to anyone, and everyone is welcome at our meetings. It happens sometimes. If we pray for answers and don't get them, sometimes it just means we need to be patient. God operates according to His schedule, not ours. If we pray about something and feel it isn't true, then it's time to do a little study, a little more prayer, and to counsel with those whom we trust.
    1 point
  46. zil

    Computer cord endings

    In that case, you need to determine what the laptop's video-out jack is - probably HDMI - and get an adapter that goes from that to VGA-male - they make them, I have a few. Take a picture of the laptop's video-out jack and I can find what you need on Amazon and you can either buy online or take the picture to the store.
    1 point
  47. This is basically the discussion: Connie: " I have longed to see seminary less entrenched in the public school schedule, especially here in Utah. It is incredibly hard for homeschoolers and those who chose alternative education to find a good time for seminary for their kids here in my area. " Carlimac: " Why not do it like the rest of the world does it. 6 AM weekdays? Johnson Jones: Or online home study Vort: "Problem is seminary is a collective school class, unless you do home study" ( he thinks it's not a good option). He's not sure if early morning seminary is available in Utah Carlimac: "I don't see why they couldn't" do early morning in Utah. Remembers people and situations where it indeed happened. And then blah, blah homeschoolers just don't want to give up their ability to sleep in every day, she hates EMS for her own kids, blahbity blah Estradling: Lives in Utah and drops his son off to early morning seminary ( Yes it does in fact exist !) Then Annatess enters with her take on how well seminary works for her family and all the Floridians and Filipinos at 5:30 AM and Carlimac says good for you but it's not all so rosey up north where she resides.And then some silliness occurs, blah blah blah- whatever. THEN MOE enters the conversation confusing Carlimac about accreditation and why it makes it not possible for homeschoolers to do seminary and they can't go on missions to Brazil. carlimac goes Huh?? Why can't they? And what is this accreditation thingy and then maybe homeschoolers just shouldn't go to Brazil on missions then. And then MOE goes " What are you talking about? You MUST be confused. And I go- NOT So fast Buster YOU are the one who brought up accreditation. So who gets this credit thing and who doesn't and if they don't they should so everybody can go to Brazil on a mission. And then Annatess asks Carlimac sweetly if maybe she could ask her stake president to set up a class (It would be accredited by the way- whew! We can go to Brazil.). But carlimac is a tad confused (again) because she doesn't live in Utah. She lives in Maryland and her kids already go to seminary at 5:50 AM!! Then Vort saves the day by explaining very clearly what Carlimac meant. But we're all still confused by this accreditation business and afraid we might not get to go to Brazil. May we should go to Florida or the Philippines instead. Does that make sense? And then MOE beats carlimac to the gun and attempts to explain accreditation before she can post. But carlimac still doesn't get what it has to do with homeschoolers taking early morning seminary in Utah. Maybe all Utah homeschoolers should move to Florida where it works wonderfully to get up early for seminary. But not Maryland...or Brazil.
    1 point
  48. 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.
    1 point
  49. 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.
    1 point
  50. One of my church friends has agreed to talk to one of my sisters. I am going to try to ask my older sister to stay with my other sister if she comes to town. I can baracade the front door (I have a secret exit out the back) until I get the lock changed and eventually get a number lock for the front. I think I am at an end with my sisters. I just can’t stand them any more.
    1 point