Vort

I grew up in branches. Yes, they still exist. A ward is a regularly organized unit of a stake. I know of two types of branches: Dependent branches and independent branches. Dependent branches are usually very small and are financially dependent on a sponsoring ward. They typically are used when a small group of people live far enough away from the main ward that travel is prohibitively difficult. An independent branch has no sponsoring ward, and can be quite large, but lacks sufficient Melchizedek Priesthood presence to staff all the needed positions in the ward. Or so is Vort's non-authoritative understanding.

Baloney.

Your girlfriend/adulterous lover is not a thing to be given as a "gift". Your wife has no authority to give any such "gift". Then you are not sufficiently interested in going back to Church. Leaving your adulterous relationship does not mean you leave the mother of your child without support. You continue supporting her and her child for the rest of their lives. Just quit having sex with her. Of course. To be clear, the Church would not "force" you to do anything. But you would not be accepted into full fellowship while living in the sinful relationship you are currently in. Indeed, you would almost certainly be excommunicated. You should not be living under the baptismal and solemn temple covenants you have made while engaging in such a lifestyle. You are so greatly far from being with these women forever that your question doesn't even make good sense. You will be sealed neither to them nor to anyone else if you remain on your present course. God offers us ordinances for salvation. We accept those ordinances on his terms, not on ours. You must humble yourself, beg forgiveness from God, and conform your life to his will in all things. Living in an adulterous relationship is not conforming to God's will. There is exactly zero chance that God will decide to waive his law of chastity for your special case. God's "rules" are not merely flexible guidelines, to be modified or ignored at will. The question is: Do you want to be with God? Remember, you will have neither your wife nor your adulterous lover in the eternities if you continue to pursue your present course.

How do we know this?

My brother the trumpeter and organist is more partial to Resonant Tube Theory, which has yet to gain the traction that its cousin String Theory has done. Personally, as someone who has dabbled in programming, I'm somewhat more convinced by Null-Terminated String Theory, though I sometimes wonder if StringBuilder Theory might not prove more useful in the long run.

I am quite the opposite. While there are a few non-LDS hymns that I think are beautiful (e.g. How Great Thou Art), my favorite are pretty much all LDS. There is a depth to many of the LDS hymns that simply is lacking in the others. Not just "adult" hymn, either; some of our Primary songs are as beautiful as any hymns I know of. A few examples: The Spirit of God My Heavenly Father Loves Me The Wintry Day, Descending to Its Close In Humility, Our Savior Mary's Lullaby

I don't see how "historical art architecture" would determine what color the skin of the ancients was, so I don't understand what your teacher was trying to say. I also am not sure why you disagree. As far as I know, we have no doctrine about what color Adam's skin was.

A crazy family tradition involving a wad of cash? Count me in! (Only if I'm on the receiving end, though.)

Welcome, Miguel.

Nothing to do with poor grammar or spelling. Your last sentence, wherein you extol the virtue of "free agency", suggests that legislating against legalized pot smoking somehow abrogates said "free agency". This is false, of course. Laws against drug usage do not affect agency in the slightest. I simply wanted to point out that if you were making the argument that anti-marijuana laws somehow violate agency, you are wrong and have much to learn about the nature of agency.

This last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with your stated opinions preceding it.

Wow, that's wonderful. Congrats!

You can talk to your bishop or stake president for confirmation. No one on this site has the authority to speak for the Church, although there may be some that have actual knowledge on the issue. I believe (there's that hedge again!) that senior missionaries have a great deal more flexibility than their young adult counterparts regarding where, how, and for how long they serve.

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as "technically fulfilling the requirements for repentance." Repentance is not a rote procedure, like changing the oil in your car. It requires a change of heart, which is much more than a technical criterion to be met.

The intent of the question appears (to me) to be this: Is the gospel something that can and should be molded to fit societal prejudices and established norms, as opposed to having an immutable core set of beliefs at its base? And: Is the organization that carries the gospel meant only to apply to small groups -- families, small wards, etc. -- or is it supposed to be able to accommodate any number of believers? At least that's how I interpreted it. I voted "scalable" as a way of saying "no" to the former question and "yes" to the latter

I agree with saintish. Repentence is fundamentally a change of heart. It might start out from fear of getting caught or fear of punishment, and that's fine; but if it never goes any deeper than that, it ain't repentence.

1. No, I believe there is no upper age limit, as long as you are healthy. 2. If you are a man, you must be married. Unmarried/widowed women are welcome to serve as missionaries.

This is not the meaning of "the spirit of the law". In actual practice, keeping the spirit of the law is much more difficult than merely keeping the letter of the law. The letter of the law says "don't murder." The spirit of the law says "don't even be angry at your brother."The letter of the law says "don't commit adultery." The spirit of the law says "don't even look at other women in a lustful way."The letter of the law says "an eye for an eye." The spirit of the law says "do good unto them that hate you."The letter of the law says "love your neighbor." The spirit of the law says "love your enemy."The letter of the law says "attend your meetings." The spirit of the law says "be involved with your fellow Saints, at Church and elsewhere."The letter of the law says "pay your tithing." The spirit of the law says "joyfully give all you have and all you can give to the building up of the kingdom of God."The letter of the law says "do your home teaching"; the spirit of the law says "take watchful care in love of all those over whom you have stewardship."Too many Latter-day Saints use the "spirit of the law" argument to try to justify some aberrant action. "I'm shopping on Sunday because that's when the sales are. But I'm keeping the spirit of the law because I only buy what's on sale, and I go to Church, and I have holly in my heart all year 'round." Btw, I'm not saying this is what changed is doing; I am using her post as a springboard (or, more appropriately, a soapbox).

Gotta say, I have never understood the whole "talk dirty to me" idea. While I have no problems being as explicit as occasion requires, why would anyone want to pollute his marriage intimacy with coarse or vulgar speech? But then, I have always been disgusted by those who reference sex as "doing the dirty". Maybe those are the people who use vulgarity in their sex life, and maybe they do it because they think sex really is dirty. If that is the case, then I am sorry for them.

Feet shoulder width apart, right foot forward, wand at the ready.

You mean like writing sexual things to each other? Or you mean taking photographs of your genitals to remind your spouse what they look like? I'm not sure either is a particularly great idea, but the latter is much more dangerous than the former.

Now every time I go to the restroom I'm going to get all hungry.

I don't believe I ever heard that version, even as an adult. I think one day I was ruminating about the ditty, and I just sort of realized what the word "pigger" must be a substitute for. Kind of a dawning awareness -- "Oooooooooh, I bet THAT's why."

Punch for breakfast?

My Dad, born in Arizona and raised in Arizona and Utah, said "cotton-picking" a lot, too, without giving any thought it the expression's origin. It was just a jovial expression, like "you son of a gun". He once had a black friend over (this would have been in the '60s or early '70s) who had achieved some academic goal or other -- maybe gotten his doctoral dissertation signed off. Dad congratulated him by saying, "Way to go, you cotton picker!" Too late, Dad realized that this was a faux pas. I gather the guy was not offended, though, knowing my dad as he did.