Jenamarie

It could be that he's asexual, not having any real attraction to either gender, in which case I suppose the advice for him would be the same we give to those who are homosexual members: if you do find a person of the opposite gender attractive and have a genuine desire to marry them, do so, but it would be unfair to try to force yourself to marry someone if you can't give them all of you.

The kind on DVD? I love Suzanne Deason and Rodney Yee's Yoga DVD's. I sometimes will pop one in after the kids are in bed, they're so relaxing and yet invigorating at the same time.

I have a collection of workout DVD's that I rotate through. My favorite instructors are Jillian Michaels and Bob Harper for total body (weights + cardio), Shawn T (Insanity, cardio) and Rodney Yee (for Yoga/stretching).
I do one or two DVD's each morning, first thing. :) (and I say two dvd's, because some workouts are only 30 minutes long, and I see better results when I work out for 45-60 minutes at a go)

Well, Christ *did* die on a cross as a part of the Atonement. What's the big hoopla??

Our Church Leaders don't need to instruct us on every letter of doctrine or obedience. We are allowed to use common sense. Setting aside the garments was not my first suggestion. If it is "impractical" to wear the garments, then they can be excused. We don't wear them swimming, or during athletics, or in my case, I can't wear them with some work I do. We are instructed in the temple to "set them aside prayerfully". 
 
This is Missouri, not Spanish Fork. There won't be a scandal. A wedding is a big deal, hence so much emotion. The bride can be asked to accommodate the dress request, but if impractical, I wouldn't cause myself or anyone else stress over it. 
 
She not setting them aside to have sex. She's accommodating a friend.

I would mainly worry about length of the dress, (knee-length) and then ask if the store sells matching boleros or some other shoulder-covering add-on that either matches or coordinates with the dress. It would be a lot cheaper to go that route as opposed to having the dress altered to add sleeves.
 
Definitely let the bride know ASAP, so that she can keep you in mind as she looks over possible dress options.

Why is this such a common comment members make about other members?
 
M.

Yeah, I sometimes get confused with the way Americans refer to communism as socialism, whereas in Britain we mean a much less extreme, though still left of center, political movement, when we talk about socialism. For us, socialism means things like free health care at the point of need, a uniform access to opportunity, and a guaranteed minimum pension if we get to live that long. Socialism, to us, is not radical, just gentle on people who may well have contributed much to society without ever becoming wealthy. 
 
Best wishes, 2RM.

I think, after listening to Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in Priesthood session, we should be less concerned about who a specific talk is or isn't directed toward, and be asking ourselves "Lord, is it I?"

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613260/Muppets-Santino-Fontana-to-join-Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir-for-Christmas-concert.html?clear_cache=1
 
Too bad it's a Christmas concert. I'd love to hear the choir sing "Manah-manah!"

Weird. Never heard of it, although I've heard of families who do something small to commemorate it, like a special Family Home Evening lesson or cake for dessert. Nothing at all on par with a full-blown Christmas celebration though.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613260/Muppets-Santino-Fontana-to-join-Mormon-Tabernacle-Choir-for-Christmas-concert.html?clear_cache=1
 
Too bad it's a Christmas concert. I'd love to hear the choir sing "Manah-manah!"

In some ways, what you have is not a problem with doctrine or with teachings, but a problem with expectations.  I don't think it's an uncommon problem, and I think it drives feelings behind the exoduses of people who feel like the Church has lied to them about its history.  When we build up a particular idea in our mind of what historical figures were like, it can be devastating to find out that our image isn't at all realistic.
 
And once those images and expectations are entrenched in the mind, it's very hard to alleviate them.  For instance, my wife once dated a guy who is aggressively committed to adhering to every single word that comes from a member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve because he's convinced that the Savior himself makes regular Thursday morning appearances to them.  How am I supposed to tell somebody like that about the documentation one of my friends (a historian writing a Biography of Joseph F. Smith) has put together of Joseph F. Smith stating flat out that no prophet had seen the Savior since Joseph Smith.  Or of David O. McKay telling a member that he had never seen the Lord.  I suspect his soul would be crushed to learn of those statements because it is so far removed from the vision he has created for himself.
 
The same thing tends to happen with Joseph Smith.  We talk about him and all the great things he did and kind of gloss over the less favorable ones.  That's common for us to do with people we admire.  But we also tend to mythologize historical figures.  Discovering the ugly truths that lie under the mythological veneer is unsettling.  
 
And so we enter the big debate about how much the Church should teach history and how much members should be responsible for seeking out on their own.  I find a lot of the comments I read from people who have left tend toward blaming the Church for whitewashing the history and suppressing the ugly parts.  To some extent, that is true.  But their proposed solution that all of these things should be taught in Church is a bit over-the-top.  The Church is an institution committed to teaching principles and values of eternal significance.  I have my doubts that it should be responsible for educating members about the historical nuances (and yes, sometimes failings) of its past and its past leaders.  The more moderate comments tend toward wishing the Church would more openly acknowledge that this stuff exists. 
 
Recently, they have done that with authorizing the Historical Department to publish articles about hard historical topics.  I'd like to see more of it, and, if I had my way, I'd like to see the Church encourage more peer reviewed research in Mormon History.  The solution, as my friend says, is not less information, but more information.
 
And that's really where the answer to your faith crisis is.  You need to learn more.   You can't discount a lifetime of learning based on a few weeks of reading on the internet.  And you can't discount a lifetime of feeling based on that same amount of reading.  The issues involved here are complex, and twisted, and intertangled, and every bit as messy as human nature.  Don't try to unravel it all so quickly.

Perhaps I've missed it in my reading of the thread, but, while I agree there will be polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom (there have been thousands, if not millions, of polygamous marriages throughout the history of the Earth that have zero to do with Joseph Smith), but where is the source of the teaching that NEW polygamous marriages will be formed? Where is the source of the teaching that some of us may find ourselves being required to expand our marriages to include other persons?
 
I ask, because the ONLY time I've come across this teaching is in forums like this, or people making comments in Sunday School. I've never come across it in my scripture study or in any Conference talks. I wonder if we're all just getting worked up over a teaching that perhaps has no reason to be taught.

I think, after listening to Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in Priesthood session, we should be less concerned about who a specific talk is or isn't directed toward, and be asking ourselves "Lord, is it I?"

I think, after listening to Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in Priesthood session, we should be less concerned about who a specific talk is or isn't directed toward, and be asking ourselves "Lord, is it I?"

I think, after listening to Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in Priesthood session, we should be less concerned about who a specific talk is or isn't directed toward, and be asking ourselves "Lord, is it I?"

I think, after listening to Pres. Uchtdorf's talk in Priesthood session, we should be less concerned about who a specific talk is or isn't directed toward, and be asking ourselves "Lord, is it I?"

I actually was pleased that the MEN were allowed to be (slightly) colorful for once. It's always brightly colored women next to men in dark suits and subdued ties. They still had the dark suits, but I loved the brightly colored ties. :)

"Why are you still nursing?"
"Because we are."
If somebody is being a busybody I don't feel obligated to spell out my life choices to them.

"Why are you still nursing?"
"Because we are."
If somebody is being a busybody I don't feel obligated to spell out my life choices to them.

"Why are you still nursing?"
"Because we are."
If somebody is being a busybody I don't feel obligated to spell out my life choices to them.

I actually was pleased that the MEN were allowed to be (slightly) colorful for once. It's always brightly colored women next to men in dark suits and subdued ties. They still had the dark suits, but I loved the brightly colored ties. :)

"Why are you still nursing?"
"Because we are."
If somebody is being a busybody I don't feel obligated to spell out my life choices to them.

I actually was pleased that the MEN were allowed to be (slightly) colorful for once. It's always brightly colored women next to men in dark suits and subdued ties. They still had the dark suits, but I loved the brightly colored ties. :)