MarginOfError

Honestly, I think your request is a bit strange. But I grew up in the Church, was sealed to the spouse in the temple clothing I purchased when I was first endowed, and my spouse used the same temple clothing she purchased when she was endowed. We had both served missions, so had temple clothing for several years before we met. In fact, we both still have the same temple clothing almost 15 years later. There's really nothing special about the temple clothing--other than it being special, but I hope you know what I mean. That being said, if it seems weird/uncomfortable to you, then buy new ones. Emotions aren't always rational, and are rarely worth ignoring. So go be you and have fun!

Rather, it was their intention that the invitation be made in the second lesson (and maybe the first). Source: the Missionary Discussion pamphlets. And I believe them.

These special cases are authorized by the First Presidency. The sealing don't happen unless those being sealed present the letter from the First Presidency. For the more routine sealings, authorization (technically, recommendation) comes from the bishop and stake president. I've never heard of a sealing being denied by a temple president or sealer except for lack of proper paper work. Likewise, I've never heard of a sealing being performed because the temple president declared it acceptable absent those recommendations. But, if a couple presented to the temple with a joint tucked behind their ear, that's a situation where the temple president might put on the brakes.

Oh, I'm definitely rolling my eyes. Church leaders and I have a long history of mismatched communication patterns. And I'm often irritated with how things are conveyed (or not conveyed at times). In this particular instance, I'm baffled by the "it wasn't our intention," when, as far as I can tell, it very clearly was their intention. If the statement had been something like "we tried early invitations and it didn't produce the results we desired." or "we tried that approach and have found that it is has become off putting in today's society" or something like that, I'd have celebrated it as a remarkable message. I believe that the words we use matter. And the words that were used here--"it wasn't our intention"--do come off a little like @Fether described, like the blame for the lack of success falls on over zealous missionaries and mission presidents. It's the difference between saying "we're going to correct our course" and "we're going to correct your course". It doesn't sit well with me, and I'm willing to call people on it when they do it.

Even better. Hyundai Accent.

There is a provision in the Handbook for when the natural parent cannot be contacted. The letter from the stake president to the First Presidency would need to detail the efforts made to find the natural parent. The other option is for the step parent to adopt the child, in which case the issue is moot. Temple presidents don't actually have any authority to say if the sealing may take place or not, barring some very obvious and egregious worthiness issues manifest when the family arrives. But that's a different matter than step parents and children, etc.

You only say that because you weren't on my last test drive.

Car salesman: You've had test drive, and didn't that car feel GREAT! And since you didn't have any bad feelings, why don't you commit to buying this car. We'll talk about down payments, financing, and interest rates later. But first, since it felt so great, you should commit yourself to buying it. Yeah, sure, you can back out of buying the car. But making that early commitment before learning about the harder commitments causes cognitive dissonance when backing out. Which is the point of high-pressure sales tactics. "But you agreed to buy it!" Then again, I wasn't in the field a year before I stopped carrying the discussion pamphlets. By the time I had hit a year, I'd mostly abandoned the hard commitment. I've always been antagonistic toward that approach, so it shouldn't be any surprise that I would continue to be now.

I even said as much earlier: I was not trying to express my own feeling in that particular post, but speculating on where a lot of the angst is coming from. Sorry to not be clear. But I will stand by my statements so far. Taken all together, comes off to me as "we don't know where it started. But we condoned it. But we didn't really mean it." ('it' being early invitations) But I will concede that the statement is so vague that it's incredibly easy to insert whatever biases and interpretations you want into it. Which is a problem for the present discussion and could easily turn into a problem for implementation.

While it isn't a direct quote from Elder Ballard, the article does indicate that "Church leaders don’t know where these practices [baptismal invitations in the first or second meeting] began..." which may be teeing up a lot of the "say-wha?" Anyone who served a mission before 2005 has a pretty good idea where to look for some of these practices. https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-06-26/president-ballard-baptize-2019-mission-leadership-seminar-50222?fbclid=IwAR2Xo4KtxPd1JFedXKvp1bKtzc95bwEKbxY4X7so8KOTdTm1TFYpVEeU_Tw

Just to put it down in one summary Things that were discussed prior to the recommended invitation to baptism God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost The First Vision The Mission of Jesus Christ Faith Repentance Baptism Things that were discussed after the recommended invitation to baptism The Apostasy The Restoration Priesthood Sacrament Life after death Work for the dead Eternal Families Chastity Word of Wisdom Fasting Fast Offerings Tithing Missions of the Church Now if Elder Ballard had said, "it was never our intention to baptize people before they had learned something about the gospel..." But that isn't what he said. He said, "it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel..." All I'm saying is that for the statement to be true, the ambiguous "something" has to be a very low bar--the actual-published program was extending that invitation before even scratching the surface on some of the core and unique teaching of the Church. And again, I'm not saying that the early invitation is necessarily bad. But to tell me it wasn't intended? If you didn't intend it, why did you write it that way and leave it for 20 years?

I'll follow up on this one. The relevant sections of Handbook 1 are 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.6. The requirements for being sealed to a natural parent and a step parent are 1) that the natural parent has legal custody and physical custody the majority of the time, and 2) if the other custodial parent has parental rights, that the other natural parent give written consent. In this case being discussed here, sperm donors don't typically have parental rights. So there is likely no need to pursue the consent of the donor.

I find it hard to believe that they "were not full aware of the problem, or at least its widespread nature." The exact text in the Second Discussion booklet (printed 1986) is Sure, this comes with the caveat This is written in an official church publication that had to have gone through at least the Missionary Department, and likely the Correlation Department as well, both of which are chaired by members of the Quorum of the Twelve. So yeah, I'm having trouble buying that they weren't aware that we were pushing baptism before having taught all of the covenants we live by * Tangential: I'm not necessarily opposed to proposing baptism before explaining all of the covenants. Just struggling to believe that they weren't aware it was going on.

It's a quote from Elder Ballard, so I'd presume the "our" is some form of upper Church leadership. Not sure if you'd call that Q12, Missionary Department, or something else. But somewhere higher than the mission president is how I read it. https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-06-26/president-ballard-baptize-2019-mission-leadership-seminar-50222?fbclid=IwAR2Xo4KtxPd1JFedXKvp1bKtzc95bwEKbxY4X7so8KOTdTm1TFYpVEeU_Tw

I can believe that no one knows or remembers where the early invitation started. But the part claiming “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ,” is a little hard to swallow. If we intend "something" and "properly prepared" to mean knowing nothings about covenants to live the law of tithing, fasting, word of wisdom and chastity, then okay, sure I guess. But for a couple of decades, the baptismal invitation was explicitly written into the Second Discussion, which means only the First Vision, Godhead, and the basics Plan of Salvation model had been taught. There was definitely an attitude of "get the commitment first and let them know what they've signed up for later." So that part confuses me.

Yes

This should be my new profile picture. (side note: the internet is a truly disturbing place)

great...well, now that you have that idea, my address is *rattles off @Vort's home address*

I'd have thought you'd use paintball guns. Maybe I don't know you as well as I thought.

That settles it. Next time we meet, I'm going to wear every last piece of Victoria's Secret clothing that I own. Just to be spiteful.

Pink, (or PINK, to portray the branding more accurately), is a line of clothing and accessories sold by Victoria's Secret. It's target demographic is young adults (usually less than 30). It isn't just lingerie, but casual wear, sports wear, fragrances, etc. (at least, uh, that's what my friends tell me). In essence, they realized they would have trouble building brand recognition if all of their products were worn under people's clothes, so PINK is the line that gets to the outer layers. But that makes it kind of an odd example for you, because it's like saying we shouldn't wear shirts that have the JCPenney logo because they sell women's underclothing. But if you aren't familiar with the PINK brand, I can excuse the choice in example. Just trying to explain why you might be getting some push back on that particular example.

What I am trying to teach my daughters about modesty comes down to three principles, deliberately ranked in order of importance. 1. Modesty in dress means wearing clothing appropriate to the activity you are currently engaged in. 2. Modesty in dress and behavior means dressing and acting in ways that do not call attention to yourself for reasons that distract from your capabilities and divine nature. (ie, don't try to be noticed by how you dress or how you act, but by the things you accomplish) 3. You are not responsible for how people look at or think about you, neither are you in control of it. You are free to dress how you want, but choose the clothing that will attract the kind of attention you desire.

There is a sister in my ward that has told me, and this is almost a direct quote, "I don't feel like I'm temple worthy right now, and I'm not yet willing to make the changes in my life I would need to in order to go to the temple." I admire and respect her candor. And if that's how she feels, I will respect it. I certainly have more respect for her actions than I do for those who do it because "It's what comes next.*" * and to be clear, I'm not referring to anyone in particular, and certainly not @Hello. I commend those who honestly evaluate their worthiness and what they are wiling to give at the moment, regardless of the consequences.

There was a directive to all of the U.S. and Canada to devote the 5th Sunday meeting of either March or June to the topic. I can't find a link to the outline that was distributed to leadership. There's nothing particularly sensitive about it, so I will happily upload a copy of the outline, if the moderators will agree to it. If not, I'm willing to send a copy to any interested parties outside of these channels. The outline itself is heavily focused on financial management.

More likely, they've changed Handbook 2. They make changes very quietly sometimes, and they don't exactly keep a GitHub repository where you can view the changes. Handbook 1 has a statement that members should avoid displaying garments publicly. Personally, I wouldn't consider hanging them on a line in your back yard as a public display.