Leaderboard

A couple things that came to my mind of why there might be hesitancy: ~ Sometimes people really aren't aware it has lapsed and a call from the exec sec is what it takes. (not everyone lives close enough to a temple to attend on a regular basis so don't notice the exp date) ~ Shallow but - knowing that the bishop you don't jive with (putting it nicely) will be released soon and/or you'll be moving so just wait to avoid said bishop. ~ Less than pleasant experiences in the past (ie along the lines of guilt/grilled - 'why haven't you come sooner'; 'when was the last time you attended the temple').

@NeedleinA, I’ll raise my hand as one of those people that is hard to schedule, despite being an active very believing lady. . Here’s the OCD honest reasons, all of which work together, but last is the biggest — -The shortage of time is indeed a factor. Both for the interviews themselves and actually attending the temple. - My non-member husband, while supportive of me believing and participating locally, is complicated when it comes to matters of tithing and me being gone for a 6 hour tremble trip. Especially when I was working 100 wks, and we did/do have little kids at home without outside support. - While I love the principle of the temple, my experience actually going ... has been a mixed bag. There’s a lot of complicated emotions there. - (The biggest reason) I love the gospel deeply, and all of the above are very delicate- close-to-the-matters of great importance. And to be frank, I do NOT trust my local leadership to discuss them with the needed delicate reverence. I either don’t know them at all (majority of them) or I’ve been trampled by them in the past and had trust very broken, and it’s not the type of broken that having a conversation will fix anything. I believe in the Gospel deeply. And the time of temples being closed will pass. Regardless of whether or not it’s open, I’m going to keep living my life worthily. But I really don’t want to open up to a man whom I don’t know well and/or has hurt me badly in the past.

I'm sad that I have lost my chance to take my boys to a General Priesthood Meeting.

You specifically asked my opinion. Here are a few thoughts rattling around in my head. The cynic in me has trouble see anything but "statistics" motivating the search for a new initiative. There's a bishop and/or stake president who is being asked in interviews with his priesthood leader about the "low" statistics, and he is uncomfortable being asked those questions, so he wants to find a way to raise the numbers to alleviate the pressure being put on him. My point being, look deep inside for what is motivating this kind of thing (in a time when temple attendance has been difficult or impossible or is only just barely available again). Before coming up with a new initiative, make sure that the real motivation is truly pastoral. If the motivation is administrative/statistical, work within yourselves as leadership until the motivation becomes purely pastoral. Along those lines, I sometimes wonder if one of the best things bishops and stake presidents could do is to learn how to "separate themselves" from their ward. Somehow be able to say to the priesthood leader, "these statistics represent real individuals, and each one has either chosen to have a TR or not, and I am not going to be responsible for each individual's choices (whether to take credit for them having a TR or feel guilty for them not having a TR)." I know it is more complicated than that, but it too often seems that the immediate motivation for something like this is making a report look better rather than true pastoral interest in individuals. I agree with @LDSGator that some of this is trying to identify why people aren't renewing recommends. Pardon the brief tangent, but one of the interesting things I got out of David Ostler's Bridges was the disconnect between leadership and members. Ostler asked leaders why people went through faith crises and also asked people self-identifying as experiencing a faith crisis, and the reasons differed -- substantially in some cases. I expect the same dynamic might be at play with TR renewals. Local leaders need to be able to approach their congregants and understand why they aren't renewing their TRs. Maybe (emphasis on maybe), that will inspire some kind of initiative that can help people renew their TR. Or maybe it will identify some other need (unrelated to TRs) that the ward/stake/branch needs, and put the TR statistic on hold. Somewhere in the search for reasons, be ready for some difficult reasons. Some like @Jane_Doe may have bad interview experiences from the past or real discomfort with some of the TR questions. Are leaders ready to sit with people in their discomfort and minister to them? I also agree with @Fether that having a current TR is not really the end goal here. The end goal is helping people have a good relationship with God and Christ and the Church. Having a current TR may be an easily measured numeric placeholder for that much more difficult to measure aspect. IMO, honestly focus pastorally on individuals' relationship to God, Christ, and the Church, and TR renewals will naturally follow. In the event the statistics don't, the focus is still on the right end goal. Those are my thoughts. Probably worth about what you paid for them.

I believe I'm tracking the sentiment here, I think. Since my sphere of stewardship does not offer me the chance to ask the actual members in stake their reasons for not renewing their recommends, asking here acts as a great second place sounding board. Taking your pizza analogy, we have plenty of customers who come to the restaurant but no one is ordering pizza combo #1. When we have been asking people 'why not?', we are only hearing back that it is 'not for them' but nothing beyond that. What exact part is not for them? The mushrooms, anchovies, the what? You are correct, it is hard to try and help individuals address their certain concern(s) if we can't figure out the concern to begin with. One more check mark as to why I appreciate everyone here offering up their thoughts. With varying degrees of Church activity from participants here and the anonymity it helps to drill down to some possible specifics.

Forgiving and forgetting: I truly do exemplify the Savior's own words of a man who has the memory of an elephant. Memories simply do not leave my mind very easily -- especially those that left an emotional impression on me for whatever reason. But the fact is that I do not get to "choose" what I remember and what I forget -- to an extent. Can I be held responsible for something that isn't a choice? I have a quirk that (if it were my choice) I really wish I could bet rid of. It deals with memories that are linked to strong emotional impressions. These could be both good and bad. Whenever I experience a memory trigger, I relive that event in my mind. If it is a bad one, I usually have a "shout out". These often include vulgarities -- which is why I believe I have Tourette's or something similar to PTSD. This tends to happen several times a day with differing memories. I can't really control these. A trigger happens, and my mind goes over it again. No choice. But it happens. It is hard to forget a memory that keeps presenting itself several times a week; for my brain, impossible. What I can do is make an effort to forget the feelings of resentment and judgment. I will do the right thing with my family I'm raising. I will do the right thing with those I come into contact with. I do not use my past as a crutch of excuses to not perform to the best of my abilities. Little by little, my memories will fade (a lot of them are emotionally linked, after all). But many will never fade simply because they have replayed in my mind with each memory trigger for all my life. Not my choice. Just how my brain works. I hope I can change my underlying nature enough that those triggers stop being triggers. I really hope I can forget. But it I really don't believe it is mine to control. I've taken a similar path for my family. Our only contact with my family is with my non-biological sister. As the kids get older, I tell them why we have no contact with my side of the family. They don't know how to take it. So far, most of them simply forget I ever told them. While all my children do express some complaint and curiosity, they don't seem to be affected by it. What I do look forward to is the day where I can actually hope for repentance. I hope for repentance of others. But I acknowledge that I'm not perfect either. While I take some solace in the fact that I haven't done what others have, I still know that we are all sinners and we all need the grace of Jesus Christ. So, by D&C 64:10-11, I continue to ask for the grace to forgive others just as much as I seek forgiveness for myself. And I truly do hope that I can greet my trespassors with open arms in the Celestial Kingdom. May I be prepared to do so. May they actually find themselves there as well.

I thinks it is largely for statistics. Which I would be 100% fine with if they came out and said that, I would love to valiant in helping our leaders keep track of where we as Saints were as a whole… but I also recognize the many Saints may have trouble with that I would be completely down for this view too, I would probably always be in the mood for a temple recommend d interview. But the setting and environment had never been like that. All of my experiences in getting interviews have been sitting in a hall waiting for my appointment which is 15 minutes late. I sit down and the bishop asks me the questions verbatim and I respond with 1 word answers. I remember once I expressed a question and thought on the question about being honest with our fellow men and it was simply blown off since it wasn’t part of scripted conversation. Then when I go to the stake presidency, there is even more of a assembly line feel. I get the sentiment, I just don’t buy it

https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference-fall-2019/2021-06-07/first-presidency-announces-changes-to-general-conference-discontinuing-saturday-evening-session-215558?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage-en&utm_content=churchnews-en Beginning with the October 2021 general conference and continuing thereafter, the Saturday evening session will be discontinued. The change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen, according to the Newsroom release. Does this strike anyone else as utterly non sequitur? I certainly support the Brethren in such decisions, but someone in the newsroom must have messed up with the last sentence above.

Also, it cuts down on the media photo-ops for gender based agitators trying to draw attention to their cause by storming into (or visibly being denied entry to) priesthood meetings—Ordain Women, transgender folk, that kind of thing.

What makes this even more bizarre is that anyone has been able to watch or listen to any General Conference session for 30 years now. They have never been secret. True, until recently you had to wait until the Church released the audio or visual recordings to listen to or watch them, but they were freely available. But the good news is that I now understand the reasoning behind the seeming non sequitur: The fact that a Priesthood Meeting designed only for men who hold the Priesthood (and perhaps for men preparing for the Priesthood and for men investigating the Church) is openly available to all, even live, it makes sense not to hold it as such a restricted meeting. So there is logic to the action; they just assumed that everyone would fill in the missing piece to make the logical connection. I didn't see it, though I guess it's pretty obvious. Thanks, @Carborendum.

I'm going to stop being a wicked man, and start being a GOOD man. I'm going to stop making obscene gestures to BMW drivers. (Yes...even when they do cut me up.) I'm going to stop looking "lustfully" at women... (well...except my wife of course) ...'coz we all know what Jesus said about that! I'm going to stop getting angry and doing Basil Fawlty impressions. I'm going to treat everyone with infinite patience. (Yes...even the most annoying people.) I'm going to stop spreading gossip. I'm going to stop making snarky comments to the effect that Meghan Markle keeps her husband under house arrest. Wish me luck. I'm going to need it!

It’s a really good sign that people are talking about why and asking questions. Only then can we solve the problem.

Yes, it does. It makes sense that they will no longer be labeled as PH/RS, while maintaining the fifth (third) session. But to eliminate one of the five sessions because anyone can watch it would mean we should eliminate all sessions because anyone can listen to it. Then when we eliminate it, no one will be able to listen to it. So, we will have to re-institute it again. Yes, it is a non-sequitur. I think we get the intended meaning even if it was poorly worded. There were separate men's and women's meetings because they used to talk to men about treating our wives better. They'd tell the women don't be so hard on yourselves. And it was done in a gathering of largely the intended audience. Now that there is no such gathering anymore, they're just going to say the same stuff in general meetings. Too bad.

Basil Fawlty, Reginald Perrin, and Ron Swanson are my heroes.

I do not have any additional insights to why members might choose to not renew recommend... However I do have a really really good reason for those that are questioning why they should have a recommend if they can't use it. Learning/relearning/reinforcing humility. God gives command we are under covenant to obey the commands. There is no only if I understand/agree with it exception clause. One the biggest acts of Faith is following a command we do not understand/agree with. Yes it can absolutely suck to be asked to take things on Faith, but that is exactly the test of this life... And as a test it is understandable that we struggle with it, it wouldn't be a test otherwise

I won't pretend to speak for other stakes elsewhere, but I know for our stake presidency/leadership the concern is thankfully pastoral in nature. We all are very open about the fact that numbers/stats are only small tools/indicators to help get us to the real goals BUT they are not the goals. In this case: temple attendance, saving ordinances, service to those who have passed on and ultimately exaltation are the real focus. We can't get to step 2 (the temple) without step 1 (recommend). If we can't get to step 2 (covid), we can at least strive for step 1 in the meantime. It reminds me of stories where members of the Church in eastern block countries, post WW2, would save their tithing in jars, etc. even though they had no one to give it to. They saved it up in the hopes that someday they could actually turn it in. While they were limited in their ability, they still did the best they could at that particular time in those particular circumstances.

One additional thought. Everybody is lazy. But even a lazy person will get off his butt and run out of his house if it caught on fire. The issue isn’t and never is laziness. The issue is what people see as important. I forgot to turn off the printer in my room and there was a full blue glow. It was mildly annoying, but I didn’t think it was worth the effort of getting out of bed to turn it off so I slept with it on. Now, had the main light in my room been on, I absolutely would have gotten up to turn it off. Likewise, Many see the request of keeping a current temple recommend during a pandemic as unimportant so they won’t be getting up to do that unless someone can provide a solid explanation. Me, and many like me agree, but have a testimony in simply following the prophet, even on small things like this so they choose to do it anyway.

I'll make that my NEW YEAR resolution!

Oh, your posts on this thread are perfect, you are doing everything right by encouraging dialogue. More importantly, you are actually listening to all of us. Perhaps the people who only say that the temple is “not for them” and say no more lack the confidence needed to further express themselves? Maybe they don’t feel like they'll be heard? I don’t know, I freely admit I can’t read their minds. Again, I think you are doing everything right. We could all learn much from this thread, and from you.

One other thought re: encouragement - Acknowledge that there are legit reasons for not attending the temple (ie health - which is not always visible, shared; distance, etc) but having a current recommend is an indication of your willingness even though circumstances may prevent it. Also, share quote/s about keeping it current and point out this is one way to 'follow the prophet'/'if by my own voice or voice of my servant it is the same'.

I'm a fan of keeping a temple recommend, whether you can/will use it or not. Checking in with priesthood leaders every 2 years on stuff this fundamentally important, has numerous advantages. And most bishops I've run across, all have a list of important heart-changing moments that have come about while interviewing someone. One to add: Some folks occasionally think that attending the temple simply isn't in the cards for whatever reason they think is good, and they don't want to argue the point at the interview. Sometimes interviewers take the opportunity to try to get the member to commit to a certain number of visits over the next year. Puts some folks in the awkward position of either refusing to commit, or lying with a weak "I'll try my best" that they are pretty sure won't happen. So they just avoid the whole thing altogether. I guess it's a combination of c. and e.

I agree. Perhaps it's a modification for an imperfect mortal world, as forgive-but-not-forget can be necessary to one's survival, in absence of real change in offending parties and circumstances. But it seems further along the path to perfection forgetting would become not only more feasible, but possibly more expected. I can imagine quite a few repentant offenders who would love their sins to be forgotten. Do they yet deserve it in this imperfect mortal world? Can we yet demand others to forget? Not forgetting may be good enough for now, but doesn't seem appropriate for the eternities.

a. Not a priority to even attend the temple, so why do I need a recommend for a place I'm not interested in attending and serving in. b. Avoid recommend interviews since they are not living the standards to enter the temple anyways. c. Recommend holds no spiritual value by itself d. Lack of time for interview e. Avoid the experience/wait/rush/privacy of the interview itself This list is good. I think people don’t go to the temple just due to a lack of desire. It’s also really, really hard for people to admit they don’t like the temple experience, so perhaps that has something to do with it? After the French Revolution many citizens simply stopped going to church even after they reopened under Napoleon. Perhaps it’s the same thing here on a smaller scale? People got into the habit of not going during Covid and just don’t want to resume. If you want to know why people no longer go, you have to ask them. Asking active LDS why people don’t go to church or the temple sounds very odd to me. If I open a pizza place and it fails, a wise person asks the customers who didn’t like it how it can change so it does not happen again or stops happening. A fool sticks his head in the sand, makes things up than acts shocked when his next pizza place fails. Again, same sort of thing.

Our stake is apparently an exceptional stake in this regard. The Houston Temple President said of our stake that if just three other stakes had the temple attendance that our stake has, then we'd have to build a new temple. Do the math. That means that one stake is doing about 1/5 to 1/4 of the temple work for the entire temple area. (Pre--COVID, of course). Today, though, some people are taking the attitude of "why bother?" Without temples readily available, what would be the reason to have one anyway? Now, I fear that with temples gradually opening, those same people fell into a habit of thinking "why bother?" and will still choose not to have one. The big problem I see in my current ward is that they don't emphasize it enough. They talk about it in bishopric meetings. They ask how to encourage it in other leadership meetings. Then they do absolutely nothing to keep it in our minds. No talks in sacrament. No special Sunday School classes on the topic. No special events. No messages for ministering families. When it comes to leadership encouraging something, the leaders need to do more than what they are asking of others. If I want you to go to level 1 (have a current recommend) then I need to be at level 7 for you to finally see why it is so important. For us, at least, it starts from the top down. They talk the talk. But they don't walk the walk (at least, not to level 7).

I have readily acknowledged the chronological sequence from biological to adoptive. What I don't get is this emphasis on why biological family denotes any particular quality that makes them superior to an adoptive family. So I had to think a while about what benefit I could possibly have had from my bio family vs my adoptive one. The only thing I could figure is medical history. That then opens the door to the whole nature vs nurture argument. And that debate simply hasn't been settled in hundreds (thousands?) of years. I've provided my explanation and position on that argument. But it apparently fell on deaf ears. Apropos of this particular side thread, it seems to even out. So while I can possibly accept differences, I don't see either as "superior" in the rearing and nurturing of a child. The reason I have no problem with living a "Plan B" life is that I realize that life is full of Plan B. How many times do we ever make a plan and it turns out exactly as we planned? Sure, we may get to a goal. But we all had to make adjustments as we went. There is nothing wrong with anything being called "Plan B." That usually acknowledges that Plan A did not work. And it also acknowledges that, perhaps, for the circumstances present, it was the wrong plan to begin with. So, a lot of the time, by definition, Plan B was better. Yes, yes, circumstances, circumstances... We all acknowledge better or worse "for the circumstances." I admit that. But I'm pointing out that Plan A almost never works out in life. All of our lives are built on Plan B, Plan C... And that is the path that made us who we are. Big question now is "Why do some believe that biological family is overall superior to adoptive?"

As far as encouragement - people respond to being inspired, not told. I've read/heard a couple things in recent years that helped me see the bigger picture/different perspective which in turn led to having a better view of the importance of keeping it current regardless of proximity/ability to attend. Unfortunately, my memory is vague but one was along the lines of 'if you're anxious to experience the Millennium, the temple will be a big part of that so you may as well adjust your attitude now and give temple/fam hist a higher priority and show that you're ready to participate during that incredible time period. (this could be worded better but that's a rough idea) Also, a reminder that the things we're asked to do are for our benefit.

Thank you for the variety of answers thus far. If I were to try and summarize the reasons given so it appears to be: a. Not a priority to even attend the temple, so why do I need a recommend for a place I'm not interested in attending and serving in. b. Avoid recommend interviews since they are not living the standards to enter the temple anyways. c. Recommend holds no spiritual value by itself d. Lack of time for interview e. Avoid the experience/wait/rush/privacy of the interview itself

I don't mean to sound inconsiderate, but what conversations are you having in a temple recommend interviews? Other than the initial chit chat, my interviews consist of questions being asked and answers given. I can only think of a couple of interviews that had conversations and that was because I asked questions to gain clarification on questions that I had been thinking about.

I think having a temple recommend is largely symbolic and the power of that symbol is largely what we make of it. It begins with our approach to the interview. When viewed as an interview with the Lord it can become a profoundly sacred experience. There is a big difference between those who are there just to answer the questions right and those who see the opportunity to express the depth of their conviction and love of the Lord. Both may be considered worthy but the experience seems to mean so much more to those who recognize the importance of the principle taught over and over in the temple of returning and reporting. It is something that happens at various intervals: daily in prayer, weekly with the sacrament and every two years with temple recommends. I think for these people the physical recommend is a reminder of that ultimate report we all will have with the Lord that the temple prepares us for.

I’m familiar with the explanation behind it… I just don’t see that as a compelling reason. Not having a temple recommend doesn’t mean I’m going to stop praying, paying tithing, and start living a riotous life. Have a temple recommend in my wallet that says “expires: *some future date*” doesn’t give me spiritual strength. It indicates to others my worthiness, but not myself. I have scriptures, words of the prophets and church literature to teach me whether I am living righteously. I will likely keep it current all the time regardless of temple accessibility because of such counsel. But this very much seems like a stats or law of moses type suggestion so it makes it difficult for me to emotionally and seriously get behind.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Elder Djarot Subiantoro shared the following: At least in this particular case, it is my next HC speaking assignment.

Have the Executive Secretary call people to schedule a TR interview. And stay out of people's business unless it's within your stewardship.

The oft-cited ideas that you can forgive someone without giving up your feelings of being wronged by the person and that you can forgive someone with the condition that you never ever ever ever have to see that awful creature again do not sound much like divine forgiveness. I believe forgiveness implies exactly the opposite. Very, very valid response there @Vort. I've been having a righteously bulletproof response to this for over a decade now, but read the whole thing for a surprise twist at the end! Briefly put: "Just about any repentant and forgiving pair can benefit from forgetting, but not all. At least, maybe not right now." My wife escaped from a family full of multigenerational child sexual abuse. She started knowing what happened to her, and which brothers it came from. Over the years, additional bits of info became available. She wasn't the only victim. The brothers themselves were victims. One brother didn't 'keep it in the immediate family', but molested two different siblings' children. Then we hear about which aunts and uncles were molested, and did molesting. Then apparently a story about a grandparent molesting an aunt. The toxic cancer of incest and sexual abuse spanning four generations. The fifth hasn't been born yet. Over the years, it became painfully apparent that my wife's mother was part of the problem. Not just incapable of saying stuff like "don't molest your sister" out loud, but also incapable of seeing it happen, even when it happened right under her nose. Her go-to behavior was to "react with disbelief and shock", either do the wrong thing or not-do the right thing, then tearfully apologize later, but only if she got caught and called on it. Her list of failures was impressive: Failure to see it coming. Failure to address it when it came. Failure to stop it from happening again. Failure to stop it as it was happening in the next room. Failure to stop it from happening in the same room, less than 10 feet away from her, under a blanket. Failure to stop it from happening to another victim. And another. Failure to cooperate with the authorities. And the last one my wife allowed to harm her: failure to tell the truth to a lawyer about her daughter/my wife. My wife's mother had nothing wrong with her testimony, her activity in the church, her intelligence, her moral compass, her understanding of how troubled her family was - all of that was fine. But for whatever reason, whenever it came time to actually do something, she became paralyzed into inaction, or denial, or even outright lying to people. "If I [do the right thing], it will hurt my son's chances of going on a mission." "If [someone else does something], everyone will know what my son did, and he'll lose all his good friends and leave the church." We heard a dozen variations on that theme over the years. Along with flat out denial of established facts, and accusations that the people presenting the facts were crazy, evil, or had it out for her family. So there's my wife, with our new kid. And a mother that kept proving, time and time again, across years, that she would consistently act in ways that nurtured and encouraged abuse, protected abusers, and silenced or cast out 'boat rockers'. We tried from 2004 through 2009. Things culminated with an ex-spouse going to the cops, and one brother went to prison for 5-life. So my wife and I closed our relationships with my children's grandparents/aunts/uncles, and all the friends, neighbors, and peer group. One choice was clear: The relatives were a clear, direct threat to our children. One choice was harder, but still clear: My wife matters, and if her parents are going to keep missing opportunities to not hurt her further, then she has the duty to protect herself from her parents. We have family we visit in Utah - it's the ex spouse of my wife's brother, and her child from another marriage. In this climate, from a position of distance and control, my wife managed to forgive her mother, and all the rest of them. I asked her what she wanted to see happen to the people in Utah. She looked at me in genuine pain, born out of concern for the people she loved, and cried out "I just want them to be healthy." Holy crap but we went through a lot of boxes of kleenex back then. Still do, on occasion. I would tell this story over the years, and ask the people who were advancing Vort's notions on forgetting, if they still figured we were doing something wrong. (I don't need to ask you, Vort - you are a good person, and I already know your answer. It is good, worthy, and correct.) And we raised our kids without grandparents in their lives. And when they got older, we told them why. So here's the plot twist - fast forward 15+ years, and my daughters are coming of age. As they turn 18 and come into their own strength and moral foundations, my wife is melting the ice a tad with her people in Utah. A facebook friending here. A post gets liked there. A short conversation about neutral topics in instant messenger? I never thought I'd see the day, or want to. I asked my wife about it, she said, without a hint of sadness, that her mother is the same. As long as nobody talks about the bad things, everything's fine. Like nothing has even happened, actually. My wife's mother can't hurt my wife any more. And our kids are closing in on adulthood, having had full childhoods untouched by this crap, other than the sad lack of extended family. And the mother's days of being relevant, and having access to choices to fail at, are mostly in the past now. There's always a funeral or wedding or something happening, I'm thinking we may actually see my wife and daughters in the same room with those people, and everyone getting along. The elephant in the room is elderly, and sleeping in a corner. As long as he isn't blocking any exits, I think things will be ok. And yes, all of us, everyone in that room, looks forward to the day when we meet each other on the other side of the veil, and any dumbness or illness or lifelong inability to do good, hall as been removed. And we all stand spotless, having been washed clean of our sins by our Savior and His atoning sacrifice on our behalf. And mother and daughter and granddaughter can all embrace in trust and love. We're told that if we just can't stand to see someone in heaven, we won't need to ever worry about that meeting, because we won't be there. I believe that to be the case.

Thank you for acknowledging that you do not get it... I can work that and with someone that that answers question instead of evading. Thank you for referencing the Family Proclamation... which shows the importance of family, and the need to protect it. So it starts out really simple... which comes first in time... a biological family or a adopted family? (That is a self evident question) Thus per the Family Proclamation the biological is the first family that we need to protect. (Because it is the first one that exists) But sometimes we can't protect it for very good reasons... Then we go to adoption, and once adopted that is the Family that we focus on protecting. This does not make one family better or more worthy in any way shape or form. But it is a clear case of Preventing Damage being better then Healing Damage. (Not that there is anything wrong with getting healed if you need it but not needing it means less suffering). Its about keeping families together if it is possible to do so, at every point. If we truly value families then we have to acknowledge that biologic one comes first in time, therefore it should be the very first one we try to fix (again if possible). How this gets twisted into the adopted children/families being lesser is so mind blowing off the rails its like people are hearing what they want rather then what is being said.

@Ironhold I'm not even going to try to empathize with what you are dealing with. It seems like some people get more than their share of trials in this life. I have a friend who has had to deal with major loss and disappointment over and over again during his life and yet he keeps on going and another who seems to get diagnosed with a different kind of cancer every couple of years and yet doesn't slow down in pursuing life. I think you would belong in this category of people I'm inspired by and of whom i say I'm glad it's not me because I don't know how I'd handle it. Keep up the good fight and continue to put your trust in Him who does know exactly what you are dealing with.

I wonder about this. D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. When the Lord forgives us, is it with the understanding that we never speak to him again? Or is the very idea of forgiveness a furtherance of our relationship with the Lord? The oft-cited ideas that you can forgive someone without giving up your feelings of being wronged by the person and that you can forgive someone with the condition that you never ever ever ever have to see that awful creature again do not sound much like divine forgiveness. I believe forgiveness implies exactly the opposite. Now, maybe that's a later stage of forgiveness that is beyond easy reach for some people, and so we tell them to do what they can and take baby steps in the direction of forgiveness. If so, maybe there is some wisdom in that approach. But the statement above seems not to match the ideal of divine love and divine forgiveness, which are exactly what we are commanded to model in ourselves. Too often, I fear we look to the easy answer that soothes the hurt and seems on the surface to make sense, without investigating deeper and being willing to face tough-seeming realities about the true nature of our existence. Maybe I'm bad at forgiving. If so, I need to improve on that. Telling myself that I don't ever actually have to give up my dislike of the person I'm supposed to be forgiving, that I can insist on never interacting with or seeing or breathing the same air as the hated person, the I can permanently sever all ties to him, and certainly that I can clutch to my breast the memory and feeling of betrayal by his actions and of my own victimhood at his hand—well, I just don't think that's going to help me become the person I'm supposed to be. I'm fine with admitting that forgiveness seems too hard, or that I'm willing to forgo vengeance but not my grudge, or that I'm not willing to talk with So-and-so ever again for any reason because he's an awful person who wronged me. These attitudes may be regrettable and may keep me back, but expressing them is telling how I honestly feel and view things. That expression of feeling is not bad, even if the feelings being expressed are. But when I start insisting that God modify his definition of forgiveness to allow me my carnal feelings or claiming that what God really meant is not, you know, what the scriptures teach about it, then at that point I'm way off the reservation. To my ear, such rationalizations sound no different from those who claim that there is no sin in drinking an occasional beer, or that fornication isn't actually bad as long as the participants, you know, love each other. Yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor. There is no harm in this. I do not minimize the difficulty of forgiveness for the victim of a serious hurt. I make no judgment on such an individual. But redefining "forgiveness" to make it more palatable to us and less offensive to our sensibilities is definitely the wrong way to go. There is nothing fair about forgiveness. The whole concept of forgiveness is that you quit seeking redress for your grievances, however legitimate. As the saying goes, forgiveness means giving up all hope of a better past.

@Traveler I think you make a great point. I often find myself wanting to shut the world out, the people and their problems. But then I'm reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan where the so-called spiritual leaders avoided the man who fell among thieves lest they themselves get sucked into a societal problem they witness. Yet this is one of the very reasons we are on the earth at this time, to provide a light in an increasingly dark world so that those who are humbled because of what's going on will know where to turn. @mirkwood's experience with the dramatic rise in domestic problems is troubling yet makes perfect sense as that is where everything begins both the good and the bad and then spreads out into society in general. I don't follow professional basketball, for various reasons, but I've noticed in the news a number of incidents recently of fans becoming hostile towards players, something I don't think was common in the past. Just another sign of what's happening in men's hearts at large.

Are you going to stop making mid-year resolutions?