Leaderboard

No, it is not. Almost all of what you posted has been said by prophets in not-so-many-words. The danger of emphasizing our belief in a Heavenly Mother comes when we tend to believe that our Heavenly Parents are somehow of different minds. They are both perfect. They are perfectly in harmony with each other. They are perfectly loving to their children. They would both provide the same answers to the same problems. So, I don't see how some people (especially women) who get it into their heads "My Father hasn't been fulfilling my needs. I know that my Mother would certainly treat me differently!" No. No, She wouldn't.

If she's food insecure, then that's a much more immediate concern to her than a drivers license. People who live like that often struggle to plan past their next meal. They live in fight/flight mode 24/7 and it's exhausting. The best thing you could do for her is try to get her linked up with a social worker if she doesn't already have one. Might be difficult without ID, but that's where I'd start. Social workers exist to help people who struggle to help themselves.

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses! This is such a wonderful community. You've given me a lot to reflect on. I deeply believe in the truth of the Gospel and have no desire to stray, so it's been invaluable to connect with other members here and gain their perspectives, especially since I don't have many opportunities for that in my own ward.

It's absolutely overdiagnosed. I think to some degree we are in a time where disorders may be some variation of "cool". I definitely believe in circumstances that are so extreme they cause real issues and need to be treated, but people are also trying to categorize every little thing. My concern is that we're so scattered on how to approach not just ADHD but attention in general that we are at a loss for that elusive best way to learn. A common sadness among teachers is that we can't really do much that is more active because kids have no traditionally-learned limits, so all the time is spent practicing limits and boundaries. "I would love for you to run around. Can you do it without destroying something or hitting someone?" That's a surprising amount of steps and skills to get to that point.

"True to the Faith That Our Parents Have Cherished" - Elder Hans T. Boom, Saturday Afternoon Session With the footnote to President Nelson's April 2022 talk, "Preaching the Gospel of Peace": FWIW

Random thoughts: 1. I loved the Vatican when I visited. I’d like to live there. I also recognize that if it became the sort of place where the likes of me could go and live, much of what I love about it would be lost. My love for it—and indeed, a big part of its allure and spiritual power—derives from the fact that it is not what it would inevitably become if it were under my control. And I wish that Francis had understood and conceded about my country, what I understand and concede about his. 2. LDS temples are beautiful, but (with a handful of exceptions) their artistry is not even in the same ZIP code as the artistry of the great medieval and renaissance basilicas and cathedrals. 3. Artistry can be a form of worship. Craftsmanship can be a form of worship. In our temples we do the latter very well; as I think we are theologically beholden to do. But we do the former only at a very elementary level. Temple artwork is first and foremost intended to recall and evoke the spirit of specific past events; not about embracing beauty as an aspect of divinity and then pioneering new ways of seeking beauty for its own sake. 4. There are good reasons for the LDS Church as an institution to *not* prioritize artistry, even (arguably, especially) in its temples. Structures can become enormous money pits if you aren’t willing to say goodbye to them when they become obselete or damaged beyond repair (see SL Temple, SL Tabernacle, Provo City Center Temple, Kirtland Temple; compare Ogden Temple, Anchorage Temple, Provo Rock Canyon Temple). And the architectural uniqueness of France’s great cathedrals is a big part of why the government there expropriated those buildings and has often refused to give them back in the intervening centuries.

We call it the 80/20 rule: 80% of the work is done by the same 20% of the people. Sometimes we call it the 90/10 rule.

Happiness is not so simple though. The principle of losing our life to find our life, sacrifice bringing blessing, and that joy comes from faith, righteousness, humility, service, obedience, and effort, are not intuitive to the human (natural man) condition. People are (in their fallen "natural man" way) seeking self-fulfillment, money, pleasure, and ease, laughter, fun, and a painless existence. The gospel does not intuitively provide these things (though it does in a round about way). The core principles of Christ's gospel amount to denying oneself and taking up one's cross to follow the Savior. These principles are obvious to those who've engaged in them, even in practical matters of life (such as working out and eating right to be healthy, being careful with money and working hard to be wealthy, etc., etc.). But the world, more and more, pushes the ideas of "deserve" and "self" and "victim" and "follow your passion" and all the Disney (a.k.a. Satan) garbage like that, which all feels, to the natural man, like how we should find/seek happiness. The problem is that it doesn't work. So I'm not disagreeing with you. An environment where people left happy is, you're correct, the key. But what that environment looks like is sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and so forth. And that's a tough pill to swallow, even though it's the actual medicine we all need.

Greetings @Ann. I will make an attempt to respond. I am an old guy that is at least a generation ahead of you. I am a super nerd that is retired in the field of automation and robotics. Rather than say I disagree with some of your thoughts – may I add to them some of my own thoughts. I am concerned with this generation concerning marriage. I strongly believe that there is much more to marriage than a covenant between a man and a woman. At a minimum we need to remember that a Celestial marriage of necessity needs to also include G-d in the covenant. I am also of the mind that a marriage includes a covenant of children and generations. It is also my understanding (according to the Prophet Malachi) that the marriage sealing connects generations and includes all of G-d’s convent Celestial children. I am unable to comprehend how any Celestial covenant includes any act or intent of the LGBTQ+ community. I agree that we are commanded to love all of G-d’s children and to honor them as His children. But I do no know how it is possible to include such in any Celestial covenant. As for polygamy, I have to little understanding to be of much help – except that if G-d commands us so, that we ought to comply. My great grandfather was a polygamist. But when he first commanded, he and his wife refused. Only after meeting personally with the prophet did my great grandfather and his wife include a second wife in their covenant. Both recorded that they did not understand polygamy and its importance. Unfortunately, neither he or his wife ever explained what was important about polygamy. My one wife has been enough of a challenge for me. I do not feel I have sufficient understanding to make any recommendations to anyone beyond having faith in G-d and his commands. Concerning the roles of men and women concerning the priesthood. I take my understanding from what is taught in the scriptures and the temple. Mainly that in scripture a man is not without a woman nor is a woman without a man before G-d. In the temple we are taught about G-ds and G-ddesses, priests and priestesses. Anciently that title of g-d and priest could be given to the same individual. I assume that plays out as well for g-ddesses and priestesses. I conclude that there is no G-d without a G-ddess and no priest without a priestess; and vise versa. I do not believe it possible to pray to our Father in heaven without including our Mother in heaven. Since Jesus commanded that we address only our Father in heaven, I do not believe we should not specifically address our Mother in heaven. That is unless or until we are commanded otherwise. I am open to discuss any point or possibility. The Traveler

I didn't serve a mission, I will admit I was unworthy at the time, and chose a marriage over a mission. Recent come follow me material has had me pondering. D&6 36 to me reads like, if you are a man, who is ordained to the priesthood, you must "go forth to preach the gospel" (most easily achieved through serving a mission.) Despite shirking a mission once, I still intend to serve 2 missions, a service mission when I've settled into a long term career and I'm not doing extra training/degrees. I will probably be able to do this in my late 30s. And an away from home senior mission when I retire. There is still time for me to fulfil this requirement and I intend to. As for judgement for not serving a mission, nobody would dare say anything directly to me now that I'm creating babies for our dying ward.

Yes I know Pope Francis is dead (and peace be upon him) but something else happened this past weekend which is causing much more of a splash: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/19/europe/uk-supreme-court-biological-woman-intl/index.html The Supreme Court has ruled that as far as the Equality Act 2010 goes, gender is defined by what a person was born as, not how they choose to identify. Right now Starmer-schmarmer is keeping a very low profile, but from here on he can't use the Equality Act to justify allowing trans-women into female-only spaces, or allowing trans-women to beat the socks off actual women in women's sports. I'm seeing my "child" this coming Thursday and I'm taking her (them) back up to college Friday. I may be worrying unnecessarily (she knows I'm a disgraceful reactionary Neanderthal) but I'm a bit uneasy about what to say if she brings it up. And to be honest, I think this may be a false dawn for "real gender" anyway. If I understand correctly, all the government needs to do is to get a new law passed to replace the 2010 act, making it explicit that "woman" includes trans-women, and the Law Lords' ruling becomes completely moot.

In my attempt to follow the 2nd great commandment, I've now met and befriended 3 folks who struggle in various ways with just living as the sex they were born with. There are a lot of struggles I don't mind having in this life, those are struggles I never want to experience. Imagine trying to live in your own skin with the pervasive, sometimes overpowering pressure screaming at you that "you're wrong". Gender dysphoria, the closely related body dysmorphia, and the host of various intersex conditions that exist on a hormonal, chromosomal, structural, or genetic level are real illnesses and defects that people struggle with in varying ways. That said, the SCOTUK (did I get that right?), and most of the stuff Trump is trying to do (because we elected him to fix this), is spot on. Humans have two legs. Some folks don't have two legs. Humans are still correctly categorized as bipedal. It doesn't matter if there's a thriving industry that has sprung up to add/remove legs to people who want such things.

Folks who have their lives relatively together in the church, often struggle in similar ways when impacted by less-organized people. I'm reminded of this thread where @mikbone faces his nemesis - having his time wasted by people who waste his time. My life is relatively together in the church these days, and I've experienced such frustrations on occasion. But it was not always so, and I try hard to remember times when churchy folks had to 'endure' me in ways that I now find myself enduring. I've found these to be helpful: - Having low expectations. We're all volunteers here, and public speaking is difficult for many people. Folks got to church - yay! - Remembering various stories about how people can be bearing terrible burdens but still be able to act ok. The mantra "In the quiet heart is hidden Sorrow that the eye can’t see." helps. - I challenge myself that if I'm really ticked off enough about this, I should go approach the person and bring it up with them directly. 90% of the time, it suddenly doesn't seem so bad, once I've got skin in the game.

The study showed both. All religions showed this pattern. And we as LDS are not immune either. Many women are leaving religions of all types. So far, the numbers are not all that big. But the fact that it has gone lower than men is a new phenomenon. We've seen it in world history. But in America? This is the first time. Men flocking to the faith? No, I haven't heard about that. I have heard that women are leaving. And it seems that the driving force is modern feminism.

Perhaps in today's world (literally 2025), we women are the first to see that this statement isn't as true as it once might have been? Alternately, the comment can be made empty when spoken by a man who otherwise shows little to no interest in hearing anything a woman has to say. If they are so much more faithful, then why on Earth would you refuse to consider what they have to say? Back to that "perhaps", @Carborendum recently mentioned a study showing that for the first time, men outnumber women in the Church (I think the stat was for us, but maybe it was for Christianity). He, and others (I've seen the same study discussed on X), seemed to assume that the stat indicated women were leaving the Church faster than men. But I wondered whether it might indicate that men, who have been disenfranchised by the world, are now flocking to the Church as the only place where they are appreciated, whereas the women of the world would not be flocking to the Church, thus the imbalance. Alas, I don't know the source of the graphic / info, so I can't go research the data behind it. FWIW

I think the traditional ways folks unrighteously judge each other's wealth, is largely appearance based. If you live in an area perceived as a "rich area" (usually defined as nicer/bigger homes than yours, or more land). Or if you drive a car perceived to be expensive. Or if you flash wealth in the form of 'nice' or 'spendy' clothing or jewelry. Throughout human history there is usually a thriving industry of things you can buy to make you look richer than you actually are. Beware, there is usually some sort of social penalty applied to those who are found out to be 'posing' and trying to make people think you have a level of wealth you don't actually have. So, it's less "how they know", and more "how they perceive". And yes, it goes in both directions. I've been a fan of thrift stores my whole life. I was confused at reactions from some of my co-workers when I found a nice leather bag at a goodwill for $12.99. After several comments, I looked up the brand and model and discovered it sold new for hundreds of dollars. They were looking at me like maybe they were needing to re-evaluate me in some way. Like my clothes and car didn't match my bag, and I was a question they needed to solve before they knew how to properly think about me. 15 years later I'm on the same bag, and nobody looks at me like that any more.

I have frequently seen people near poverty part with small amounts of money to help people whom they felt had a greater need for it. And anyone in the service industry will tell you that poor people always tip better than wealthier folks. A lot of poor people understand that community doesn't have monetary value, and so they aren't above parting with a few dollars for the good of their community when they can spare a bit.

On the topic of Heavenly Mother, I have a few personal thoughts. Joseph F. Smith taught that in a family, the priesthood holding father is the ultimate authority who presides, and the mother is the primary nurturer. He said this "patriarchal order" continues into eternity. Part of the patriarchal order is that both parents are equals in this world and are responsible for the care and teaching of their children, and as Heavenly Father and Mother are exalted humans, they are subject to this system as well. Therefore, I think that it is possible for Heavenly Mother to communicate with us in some way. I don't agree with praying to heavenly mother, but I think if you reverently to pray to Heavenly Father with the goal of coming closer to both our Heavenly parents, then it becomes acceptable to ask our heavenly father, about Heavenly Mother. Secondly, in the initiatory women are ordained as priestesses in the afterlife. I therefore believe that Heavenly Mother as an exalted being, (and I'm assuming a priestess) has some involvement in the priesthood, and a level of interaction with the church. This is all pure speculation of course, but I don't believe it is contrary to any teachings.

As I understand it, the custom was that the virgins would have been waiting with the bride at her house for the groom to come and fetch her. If he’s late enough that people are falling asleep, then the natural response at some point is “gosh, is he coming at all? Girl, he’s a deadbeat. Clearly not reliable. Not a provider. Not husband material. You should send him on his way even if he *does* come.” But these virgins did not give up on the bridegroom. Nor did they abandon the bride. They knew the groom had already paid the bride-price. They continued their vigil as loving and loyal friends, showing faith that the wedding was indeed still “on”. They aren’t bad girls; and even the ones we call “foolish” are still far wiser than most of their generation. But, notwithstanding their good intentions—some of them just plain weren’t ready to fully cope with an event that wasn’t playing out on their timetable.

The newest feline member of our family. 8 week old female. We’re still trying to decide on a name, though. Update: We decided to name her Zelda.

Brother, I am sorry you’re going through this. I think @The Folk Prophet is on to something. Based on what you’ve written your wife has clearly broken her covenants to and relationship with you. You’ve got some hard decisions to make about whether that break is irreparable and where that leaves you in terms of your future relationship, financial affairs, children, etc. I think in these situations that it’s tempting to seek validation from the Church—to know that the guilty party was subjected to Church discipline, banned from temple entry, or at least to have a Church leader publicly proclaim “Jane Doe has committed sin x and the world should all recognize and acknowledge her as a predator to be condemned and shunned and person y as the victim of Jane’s behavior who deserves our support.” I would encourage you, hard as it is, to resist that temptation. To a significant degree Church discipline can only be applied to the extent that the guilty party is willing to subject themselves to such—by confessing, by telling the truth thoroughly, by making evidence available, by showing up to meetings and hearings at all. You know what she did. You know what God thinks of it. You know what destruction she has wrought. You know that someday—if not now, inevitably at some point—she’s going to feel the full weight of what she has done. You know that unless or until that day comes, her worship experiences are hollow and her covenants are null and void regardless of where she goes what scrap of paper she might carry in her wallet. It doesn’t feel like it now, but it’s possible to get to a mental and emotional state where your healing is completely independent of whatever does and doesn’t happen to her in this life. Life is still fundamentally good and beautiful, and you’ve got great things ahead of you. A quest for vindication and justice will distract you from seeking the good things in life, eat you alive, and ultimately leave you empty inside. I won’t tell you to “move on”. But I will tell you that your life will be better if you focus your efforts into cultivating a “move on” mentality.

This doesn't seem like an important question for you to have an answer for. It seems like, entirely, the wrong way to come at the issue. What difference does a yes or no answer make? It's a letter of the law question that should have no bearing on your choices moving forward. If, technically, you determined kissing IS breaking the law of chastity would it change your choices vs determining it ISN'T? Seems to me that the underlying problem remains the same regardless of that answer.

Oh...yeah. I understand the craft. Very much. I'm just not into all musicals, like some people I know. In my opinion, to be into all musicals, one has to have, essentially, no taste.

I grew upon Rodgers & Hammerstein plus Phantom and Les Mis, and in college I got into Scarlet Pimpernel and Jekyll and Hyde. Those—either due to the music or the story— all seemed to have an “epic” quality that the newer stuff (even Wicked*) seems to lack. *Full disclosure: I never liked “The Wizard of Oz” in the first place—it just seemed freakish—so in my book “Wicked” was already starting from a hole it was never able to climb out of. And rap may be a technical skill, but it is utterly without beauty and thus I reject it (and by extension “Hamilton”) as an art form. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

To be open-I cut off contact with two leftist family members who both have politically violent tendencies. One is 350 pounds and completely useless if he actually had to resort to violence. The other is very very old. So they aren’t dangerous-just annoying. I also know conservatives who dream of the day they can play Punisher and shoot someone who accidentally bumped into them at the county fair. So I’m not naive to political violence. I know it exists.

Matthew 26: 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep⁠, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Sometimes during the sacrament my mind wanders and I am reminded of this verse.

I'm getting the impression we should center our lives on Christ. Also, maybe we should go inside those temples that are being built every once in a while. Even after the tours and dedications.

I have to shake my head and laugh at some of the things you say... The total number of gang members do not outnumber the total number of the US military or law enforcement. There are approximately 700,000 gang members in the US. There are approximately 1.2 million police officers in the US. There are approximately 2 million members of the military in the US. Now add in the retired members of both the military and law enforcement who are still capable of operating. Yeah, gangs would die in droves. The violent left would die in droves. VERY few of those gang members have any sort of firearms or tactical skills. Most of them hate each other so most of them will not work together...for any reason. Next point, see @NeuroTypical's comment above about AOC and Pelosi and gangs.

Is this title click bait? Depends on how you read it, I suppose. Am I saying I'm wicked and disappointed? Am I saying other others are wicked and it's disappointing? Or am I talking about the fact that I finally saw the movie musical Wicked and I was disappointed? Just up front...the movie is good. It's well made. It's well acted. The story is solid. It's a good movie. But.... I had to fight back tears in the end, not because it was an emotional movie. I suppose the emotion of the music (which is pretty solid in the end...more on that) primed me for being emotional, but I was not emotional about the movie or the plot. I was emotional at disappointment. Alright...getting into it: Wicked was a good move. Very good. But several things were disappointing, one being an absolute dealbreaker for me. First, Wicked as a "music"-al.... The music. It's...okay. I've never loved it. It has 2 or 3 okay-ish songs, several "meh" songs, a couple of garbage songs, and 1 or 2 great(ish) songs or musical moments. However... Second, the orchestration choices and style of Wicked STINKS! I've always hated it. I'd hoped they'd fix it for the movie. And...a little bit they did. But mostly, nah. Still stinks. I mean, If you were going to put a style of music to represent the Land of Oz, what style would you choose? Would it be pop/rock? Would it? NO! It's garbage. That's all I have to say on that. Third, the choreography was (along the same lines) TERRIBLE in the same way. It didn't, for the most part) feel in any way appropriate for Oz. It might have (sort of) fit the music style. It was very modern and...you know... pop/rock-y. But it was bad. Fourth, and this is the big one, it was...how do I put it delicately? Nah. Forget delicacy. It was GAY! And I've always hated that about Wicked. Now...just to be clear... I'm not using "gay" as a pejorative expletive here, like was done in the 80s. As in, "That's so gay, man!" I mean it simply as a stylistic thing. It's stylistically gay. And it's not to my taste. I do not like stylistically "gay" entertainment. It ain't my cup-o-joe. And I've always felt that way about Wicked. Certain musicals fall into that category. A lot of them are, indeed, filled with homosexual stuff. But that's not even what I mean by the "style". It's just a style of music and acting and presentation and etc., etc. that doesn't appeal to me. And I don't quite know how to describe it other than being "gay". It's like the put-on way "gay" men act that's supposedly "effeminate" but is nothing like females actually act. It's just a stylistic gay men thing. Like the gay lisp or limp wristed cliches. And, in music (musicals in particular), it's not a lisp or a limp wrist or something like that...but it still has a sense of that. There's a feel to certain shows that comes across, stylistically, as.... like I said...I don't have a better word....gay. Now...I realize...to some, ALL musicals are gay. Fair enough. Fine. I know there's subjectivity here. And it's hard to really put my thumb on what it is about certain musicals that stylistically does not appeal to me in that way. Wicked is not the most egregious here. I've never hated Wicked's music. I just haven't ever loved it. That being said, I understand why some do. The same way I understand why some love Hamilton. Rap's not my thing. But I see the art. I get it. But then -- and I don't know how this compares to the stage musical, having never seen it -- they added legit crossdressing and homosexual implications in the movie. Like I said...maybe that wasn't added. Maybe the stage musical has always had that too. But THAT's the big dealbreaker. Not buying. Not letting the kids watch. Nope. And that is extremely disappointing, because what is a, legitimately, GOOD movie -- and I'm always looking for new, good, movie musicals (they're rare nowadays) -- becomes a no go for me because of woke crap inserted. And...just like my annoyance with the pop/rock music style and how it doesn't work for Oz...it's the same thing here. Dudes in full make-up and dresses, and others flirting and infatuated with other men, and the like, feels SO out of place and wrong in what should be an innocent written-for-children world. And...yes...I get that Wicked is a grown-up deconstruction of Oz, but open drag and open homosexuality? Nope. Does not fit. It feels like nothing more than the injection of modern leftist politics into it, and it harms the show -- even if I put aside my moral objections. It doesn't work. But the deal-breaking part is the moral objection. So....I'm disappointed. Particularly because Wicked was, indeed, a good movie. Very good. Anyhow...the emotional reaction (having been primed by the legitimately good music moments at the end of part one), were tied into more than just my disappointment from Wicked. It was like all the disappointments I've had in entertainment over the past 30 years came crashing down on me and it was upsetting! Star Wars, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Lost, cancelled series after cancelled series, Michael Jacksons last few albums, Andrew Lloyd Webbers musicals after Phantom, everything Claude-Michel Shoenberg and Alain Boublil did after Les Miz and Miss Saigon (which is only 2 shows...but still....The Pirate Queen? Garbage! So bad! What the stink?!). And myriads of movies and shows and musicals that excited me in concept and then turned out to be garbage. Etc., etc., etc., etc. SO...MANY....DISAPPOINTMENTS! Sigh. I mean, I got over it quickly. But it was pretty emotionally upsetting for about 10 seconds. And then even though I got over it, still upsetting enough to complain to my wife for an hour and then write up this post.

I have empathy for the way it appears women have been treated both within the Church, and within the world in general. I also have empathy for the way men -- who aren't in authority positions -- have been treated within the Church and within the world in general. This has been due to the natural man in us all. If we truly want to be honest within ourselves, if all men and women had been living just the 10 commandments alone we wouldn't see what we see today except for the governance of God's Kingdom. What troubles me, though, is the sense that women’s voices and perspectives don’t always seem to matter as much as men’s—except maybe in certain callings. Too often, I feel overlooked by men who then offer well-meaning but empty comments like, “Women are more faithful than men—that’s why more of them will be in heaven.” There are two parts to this statement, the first is I agree women have been overlooked by misguided men in the Church. The Church has progressed to help address those concerns, but as with all of the commandments coming from God both men and women are slow to listen and we get stuck in tradition. An easy example, the youth are supposed to lead out (preside) in their respective callings, but yet how often do we see adult leaders (men and women) disregard this counsel and still lead out? This seems to be the same with men who hold the priesthood and preside; however, we need to be patient with leaders (men and women) who are still learning themselves. I know if a bishopric I had to speak more boldly to our bishop regarding some decisions that were about to be made with the young women. He, just like you and me, was still learning. The other part is, we shouldn't be frustrated with well-meaning truthful comments. The probability of the statement being shared is true. Why do we think truth is empty? All truth is from Christ. Above all, I’m praying for more revelation about our Heavenly Mother. My love for my Heavenly Father and my Savior, Jesus Christ, runs deep, but I long for a divine feminine example to guide me. Me too, and we can learn about her through the Spirit, but what we learn we must keep sacred and hold it to our hearts. When more is revealed, through the Lord's servants - his prophets -- we can then share what we may already know. In my studies and pondering with regards to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother there are two questions that are important. The first is why does Heavenly Mother choose to be unsung? The second, if Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father are one why do they both agree that we don't know more about her? It would be preposterous to think that somehow Heavenly Father tells a perfect glorified woman to sit back and just watch. That would be an exercise of unrighteous dominion, which brings us back to why is she OK with and chooses to be unsung -- at the moment -- except in name? It has nothing to do with the Church, and has more (if not all) to do with our individual and collective righteousness as members. We have a hard time already with revealed words. Easy example, look at how many members now support homosexual marriage, and think that a man can be a woman and vice verse (and support it and raise the pride flag). If we can't understand and accept something so clearly taught as God made male and female after his own image, how the heck do we think we will understand something so important as our Heavenly Mother? The more we collectively as a Church body keep the commandments and turn to Christ the more revelation we will learn. And it wouldn't be surprising to me if the revealed doctrines Elder Bednar mentioned this past conference could include her -- or not. Either way, we patiently wait upon the Lord to reveal what he sees fit to reveal. Keep that strong and committed faith, and no matter what you will be fine.

That's true, to an extent. In San Antonio for instance, no one likes working at bars or restaurants in the Stone Oak or Alamo Heights areas. People get pre-conceived notions of their clientele based on experience working in different areas, but a good server will still give you a chance to prove that you're the exception to the rule. And ultimately, a good server treats all customers well regardless of how much they think they may get as a tip. True story, when I moved back from St Paul after my recovery, the only furniture I got from my ex was the bed I bought myself before we were married. I went to Savers and bought a recliner, an ugly but very comfortable reclining sofa, and a desk to put the TV on for a TOTAL of about $30. I value practicality and utility, not aesthetic.

There are many who do not understand what "preside" means. And I believe the misunderstanding comes into the Church from the culture around it (or the culture the member lives in / originates from). I don't believe God ever taught any man to dismiss what women say as being worthless. In the meantime, we wait for the Second Coming, because the needle isn't gonna move much before then. I suppose I'm fortunate as I'm perfectly capable of dealing with men such as you describe (having been raised to think completely differently), but there are many women who can't and who suffer, and the world suffers from the suppression of the best within those women.

I think there's a lot of truth here, but I gotta say it also creates rather large cross-section of a pet peeve of mine. I am admin for a couple of buy nothing/local needs groups, and we have actual problems of ostensibly very poor people who are completely generous to the fault they can't take care of themselves. Now, I have no doubt some of the claims are pure fiction, but I also get the impression some are true. "I need groceries and dog food and money because I just gave all I had to my neighbor!" "I just adopted three starving cats and I have no means to feed them, please help!" If I'm honest with myself, I agree with the political compass quizzes that put me as pure moderate, but I agree with the conservative ideal of taking care of one's own as a value.

Joseph F. Smith was a product of his time, as we all are. I believe @Traveler has the more correct explanation of this relationship, and that our understanding will grow until every husband and wife are completely unified, as God is. If you, @HaggisShuu, make the final decision and your wife agrees to that, it seems less authoritative to me and more like her delegating (or giving you her proxy vote). At least, I hope it's more like that and less like other things it could be. But I would hope that you both agree on the decision, as Traveler mentioned.

I am of a different understanding. It is my understanding that presiding is very different than authority. It is my understanding that the father does preside in a family but has no more authority than his wife. I believe that to execute any authority in a family, the husband and wife must both agree. For either a father or mother to assume authority without the other would be no different than an individual apostle to assume authority over the others. It is not allowed and out of order. The Traveler

Criticism of the IDF and Israeli government isn't antisemitism, and that's most of what I see on my side of the fence. I also see plenty of left-leaning Jewish Americans speaking out against Netanyahu and the IDF. The group of lefty organizers I affiliate with has rabbis, imams, and pastors working side-by-side. Sometimes literally.

We're supposed to impart our substance and ease the sufferings of the poor and needy. But when we assign those tasks to the govt to do things for us, that's when lucifer enters the chat. Here's a list of things being done by govt in the name of helping the poor and needy. Please tell me how many of them you support: - "Safe injection sites", where drug addicted folk can get government aid in taking their illegal substances. - Taxpayer subsidized abortion on demand. - Subsidizing single motherhood which encourages absent fathers, and has all but succeeded in America's black communities. - Taxpayer funded gender-affirming care for trans people.

I don't have anything to add to what you've said. The Church is handling this well, IMO. I know beyond doubt that the Family Proclamation is correct and teaches eternal, unchanging truth. Those who hope for changes in the Church regarding sexual orientation or chosen gender rather than biological sex are hoping in vain.

This is an interesting post and I have a lot of thoughts, which I'll get to eventually. My overall thought though is that there is risk here, as in many things, of looking beyond the mark. All of us have the same mark. That mark is the Savior. That should be the center of our approach to any issues. Our roles in the kingdom are worth consideration. But at the core of those roles is the primary role we all have... to take on the name of the Savior and know Him. Worrying too much about other things can, as I said, amount to looking beyond the mark.

Nothing done before or since has so affected mankind as the atonement wrought by Jesus of Nazareth, who died on Calvary’s cross, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and on the third day arose from the grave as the Living Son of the Living God—the Savior and Redeemer of the world. - Gordon B. Hinckley, The Greatest Miracle in Human History And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more. And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy. - Alma 36:17-21

Everyone should be required to be a server for six months. You learn to deal with entitled people, obnoxious people, irritating people, flat out stupid people-and your only weapon is your smile and personality.

I think it should be clarified that this doesn't mean that Just_A_Guy is suggesting you "move on" from the marriage or the relationship. That's a determination that's between you, her, and God. Just moving on from the past to the future and doing as best you can to be as Christlike as you can, regardless of others choices and actions.

I'm interested - why come to an anonymous chat room looking for answers? What are you looking for from us? Is it validation for your hurt? Is it an excuse to get divorced? Are you looking for hope for your marriage? I get that you're reeling and lost. I'm not challenging or demanding answers or criticizing, I'm asking you to reflect on my questions and tell us what you're actually looking for. You might not know. I'd suggest that answering those questions is worth your time. Do you want to stay married or not? (not a gotcha question, a genuine question) You are hardly alone here. I've heard countless stories from countless people who's spouses have done such things. You might do well to consider a bit of counseling and maybe some group support in an LDS setting. You're not alone.

I testify that the tomb is empty, and He is risen. His grace, love, and power to become are available to all if we follow Him and allow Him to change our hearts. - Valeri V. Cordón, Easter: The Most Important Religious Observance Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. - Moroni 10:32-33

I think the majority of conservatives here know a very different kind of leftist than I do, or rely too much on right wing news to get their description of leftists in real life. There absolutely are leftists who think violence is a-ok. They are disgusting people. There are also conservatives who look for reasons to use violence too. They are disgusting people. I get tribal loyalty, I get we all want to think the worst of those who disagree with us-but violence is a human problem, not a political one.

We know that the five foolish will be "unaware" that any signs have come. So, yes, they will sleep. And they will eventually depart because their lamps are not full. The five wise may be faithful. But human frailties make it impossible for them to stand awake all night. This symbolizes that even when we're watching for signs, we may not recognize them. Part of the reason is that we have had so many false positives, that it is difficult to get excited about "yet another sign." Even the faithful will not know the day nor the hour. But they will be awakened when the Bridegroom comes because we are at least where we need to be. Stand in holy places.

The thing about war is—if we’re smart, we go in with a vision of a specific set of objectives and a well-defined idea of what “victory” looks like. And fairly early on we have to convey that vision to the country and get them (mostly) on board with it. Does victory look like a specific nation or group of nations reducing its own tariffs or eliminating a particular uncompetitive practice? Or do we keep the “war” up until specific domestic industries have developed a particular capacity? Or do we keep going until the trade imbalance (either in the aggregate, or nation by nation) is “fixed”? And if, as some have hinted, the long-term goal is to transition federal government revenue from income-tax-based to tariff-based—there are some good arguments for that; but then they probably shouldn’t be selling tariffs to their base as a temporary, [economic] wartime-based expedient when they know darned well that these tariffs (or are version of them) are going to be permanent.

The best way? The best way is a cultural change that returns the father to the home and re-enshrines the 2 parent household as the desired norm. The state can help by no longer subsidizing single motherhood, which will force men to take responsibility and for women to be more selective in their sexual partners. Absolutely the best way for this change to occur is a wide cultural return to the nation's original Christian values and a return to a belief in God. In other words, the best way to get poor people off govt subsidies is for everyone to become Mormon. (You didn't ask about possible ways, or feasible ways, just the best way.) Yep. Just yesterday the ACAB folks showed up on the UC Davis campus in their black bloc and umbrellas, and attacked a black cop who had set up a free speech "change my mind" event. One assault, and nobody asked for medical attention, so it could have been worse. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/protesters-attempt-disrupt-student-event

I think this is a Marxist idea.

Given what @Just_A_Guy has said about this Joseph Smith Foundation, here's a better link to the source - from the Wilford Woodruff Papers website.