Vort

Possibly, did you go running in Michigan?

Hi Vort!
Thanks so much for your advice! I really appreciate your taking the time to comment. :)
Honestly, it took me almost a year to reach a fork in the road with my guitar teacher (that was the first time I'd ever had anything happen like that), and I don't think I've outgrown my piano teacher at all; she's told me before that she doesn't want me to get frustrated. I just have to figure out how to tell her I can handle a little more. Granted, I can't handle everything, but I really do feel like I can deal with stuff a little harder. I'm sure I haven't outgrown her because she's been teaching so long.
Oh, and actually, I still have the same guitar teacher; I just had a talk with him and we developed a new plan. Things are much better now. :)

I think our goal only very rarely is (or should be) to change someone's opinion. I think our goal is to preach the truth with the Spirit bearing witness. Whether that person changes his/her opinion is up to that person; if s/he feels the Holy Ghost but chooses to deny the witness, that is the inherent right of agency given to all children of God. I agree with TFP; our goal should be to teach the truth with clarity and with the Spirit.

You need to put time between yourself and those actions and thoughts. The only way to do this is to press on, over the coming weeks and months and years. Having opened yourself to these thoughts, they have become ingrained in the patterns of thought of your brain. It will take time to recondition those paths, maybe months, maybe decades. Just keep on keeping on, and eventually you will get there.
 
(Maybe also take from this the lesson that, while we can always repent, we can't always immediately undo the evil consequences of our choices. In pretty much every case, it is far better to avoid the sin and its consequences than to try to expunge the evils and clean up afterwards.)

The rational against informing your spouse because, "It'll hurt them to know." has always seemed a bit convenient to me. Particularly when paired with, 'It'll be difficult to get their trust back.'

Interesting question, with many possible answers depending on the context.
 
I could easily see myself being Catholic. There is a tradition of scholarship in the Catholic Church that appeals to my carnal mind. There are enough elements of true religion, such as sacrifice in caring for the poor, that could challenge me enough to embrace it. And there is great beauty and power in much of the tradition, such as the unbelievable cathedrals and many of the sacred hymns and liturgies. A very large built-in worldwide community of fellow practitioners helps. And being a Westerner, I find Catholicism strangely familiar in many situations, just because it has seeped into almost every aspect of our lives. I'm not a big fan of many aspects of its theology, such as Mariology. But honestly, I think theological concerns are overrated in almost every religion. Concern about this or that aspect of doctrine pretty much always turns out to be nonsense anyway.
 
I could possibly see embracing some eastern philosophy such as Buddhism, but I doubt I would be a strong adherent. I find little depth in many of such beliefs, which seem pretty vanilla and generic. I prefer a religion that actually challenges me to one that just says, "Be excellent to each other -- and party on, dudes!"
 
I think that Islam might actually win my vote, though. Despite the intensely negative press Islam receives in the Western world, and despite some obvious scary elements in some of its practitioners, it is a religion that combines a rigorous and demanding theology with surprising cultural flexibility and a recognition of the sacred nature of families and communities. Catholicism is far more familiar to me, but I'm thinking Islam might provide more deep resonance.
 
Or I might go the easy route to atheism/agnosticism. The problem there is that such a philosophy is deeply unsatisfying. It essentially says, "Everything is what you make of it, and nothing more." There is a built-in nihilism to atheism that inexorably leads to cynicism. And I find that cynicism poisons everything it touches. But then, if I left the LDS Church for some reason, I would very likely become deeply cynical, so maybe that would fit right in with my worldview.

I think our goal only very rarely is (or should be) to change someone's opinion. I think our goal is to preach the truth with the Spirit bearing witness. Whether that person changes his/her opinion is up to that person; if s/he feels the Holy Ghost but chooses to deny the witness, that is the inherent right of agency given to all children of God. I agree with TFP; our goal should be to teach the truth with clarity and with the Spirit.

How could it ever rise beyond the level of a hand warmer? The thermal energy of the candles or tealights can't be multiplied by the flowerpots - that's a hippie dream - even if one believed in the mystery of flower power.
 
Just for warming your soul, and not your rooms. And you've really checked it and did compare the temperature of the room it was in vs other rooms...? Then we might even have an experimental proof!
  
hi!

I do not believe that, not at all. 

Silhouette, here is a thought about being a secretary.
 
I have served in several quorum presidencies and a group leadership, though never as secretary. In my last calling as an assistant in the high priest group leadership, I served with a friend who was also the secretary and who took his calling very seriously. He was the only "holdover" from the previous group leadership. He took careful notes of all our meetings, including discussion on the various topics, decisions made, and ideas we floated.
 
I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that he was the most important member of our leadership group. The HPGL agreed with me on that, as did the other assistant, so it wasn't just me. But strangely enough, until that point, I had never realized just how important a good secretary can be for a presidency. We were literally three times as effective because he was there, doing his job.
 
I mentioned this to my wife at one point. Her response was, "When I was the Primary president, I had Vickie So-and-so as my secretary, and she was the most valuable person in our presidency."
 
Moral: Your position is no afterthought. If you do your job well, you will make your presidency vastly more effective. Don't stress over this, of course, but don't underestimate the importance of what you can contribute.

Blackmarch is right. Grace doesn't contradict the law. It's not in conflict with the law. It balances the law. It works within the law.
 
The law is the law. It's factual. It simply is. It amount to something like: If I lie to you you won't trust me any more. The goodness of God and His grace and Atonement make it possible for the law to be satisfied and for God's great mercy to come to those who choose to accept him, repent of their sins, and take up their crosses and follow Him.
 
Mercy doesn't rob justice. Christ paid the utmost farthing for our sins. He PAID for them. That is the key. Justice is satisfied because He did this for us. In return, He makes our path plain. Come follow me. If ye love me, keep my commandments. Feed my sheep. Etc.

Why is there always this comparison between the "loving same-sex couple" vs. the horrible heterosexual couple.  All the arguments I see in favor of homo adoptions are that the child will be raised by two people who "love each other".  Why the portrayal of the loving homo relationship vs. the horrible heter. relationship.
 
Here's a hint, every single couple in the world has issues and problems, some issues are bigger than others, but they are there. And here is another hint, statistically speaking homo. relationships end up breaking up more than heter. relationship.  The relationship that statistically breaks up the most is female & female.
 
This flawed idea is promoted in the movies people watch and the shows people watch.  Most heter. relationships are portrayed as deeply flawed while most homo. relationships are portrayed as blissful.
 
So the very premise of your argument is flawed, statistically speaking you will have a better chance of being raised in a loving environment with heterosexual parents vs. homosexuals guardians.

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

FWIW - the first three verses of D&C 89 are editorial commentary that date back to the earliest editions of the D&C, but they are absent from the manuscript form of the revelation.
The Church's enforcement of the WoW has changed over the years, but even in Joseph Smith's lifetime compliance with the WoW was (at times) expected for church leaders; and noncompliance there with was one of the grounds for David Whitmer's excommunication.
If Iggy feels her bishop has given her an exception, I'm not sure that's something anyone here is really in a position to challenge. But as a general rule, to the Church as a whole since the time of Heber J. Grant (if not earlier)--yes, it is a commandment.

Iggy - it wasn't a commandment when it was given because the Lord knew it would be difficult for the members to give it all up over night.  Hence the mercy.  However, it was changed to be a commandment later - and is still en force now.
 
From YW manual 1, lesson 38:
 
To be sure the young women know that the Word of Wisdom is a binding commandment for us today, read the following:
“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by President Brigham Young, that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation and a command of the Lord. I desired to mention that fact, because I do not want you to feel that we are under no restraint. We do not want to come under condemnation” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14).
 
Bolding, italics & underlining is by me.

^^^ these two thoughts seem in conflict, and I remain highly skeptical.
 
Of course, I wouldn't put it past local leadership to do such a thing somewhere in the world. But one would be hard pressed to convince me that the decision was appropriate, right, or inspired in any way in our current world. Moreover, it is irrelevant to the covenants we make.  My bishop giving me a temple recommend in spite of my disobedience does not mean my disobedience went away. I will still stand accountable before the Lord for the commitments I have made that I ignored, would not keep, or otherwise disregarded. I, and everyone who has gone to the temple, have made sacred covenants to obey the commandments. And where there was a time when the Word of Wisdom's "commandment" status was ambiguous, it is not ambiguous to any degree nowadays, at least not when it comes to the standard 4 (coffee, tea, alchohol, tobacco).
 
The commitment to the Word of Wisdom is one of the key tenets that is used to determine commitment to conversion and a willingness to put ourselves aside in favor of the Lord's will. If it is, indeed, viable that certain people can (nowadays) get a free pass on this particular commandment, it throws the whole system out of whack. I simply don't buy it. No way, no how.
 
John can only go to the temple if he is committed, worthy, willing to give up all his sins, but Bill can go to the temple in spite of not doing these things?
 
It is indeed a different age than it was a few generations ago. I have a pipe on my shelf for decoration purposes that belonged to one of my great grandfathers. As near as I understand, he smoked it his whole life, and was a worthy member. That is non-applicable to me. Were I to smoke said pipe I would not be worthy. No getting around it.

"Don't touch where the garment covers" is an old rule of thumb to help return missionaries and others set boundaries for premarital physical affection. The idea is that, in addition to the obvious parts, you really shouldn't be rubbing your girlfriend's thighs or massaging her abdomen. As a rule of thumb, it works well enough, but I personally see nothing wrong with giving a gentle backrub. In any case, to answer your question: It is not any sort of established LDS standard. The bishop is unlikely to be asking about backrubs with your girlfriend. But if she's uncomfortable with it, it's probably best avoided.
 
Might be worth exploring whether your girlfriend is merely super-cautious (which is probably good) or whether she is generally uncomfortable with physical contact (which seems to me very bad).

The Republican party is corrupt and self-serving. It seeks primarily to perpetuate its own power. The very best thing that can be said about the Republican party is that it's not the Democratic party. Unfortunately, this is actually a big deal. Most Latter-day Saints find that the Republican party, with all its warts and stupidity, is an immensely better match for their values than the Democratic party. There is a reason the Democratic party's core values are watered down in Utah, and they still can't win an election outside of Salt Lake county.
 
Given the choice, I'll pick the Republicans ten times out of ten.

"Don't touch where the garment covers" is an old rule of thumb to help return missionaries and others set boundaries for premarital physical affection. The idea is that, in addition to the obvious parts, you really shouldn't be rubbing your girlfriend's thighs or massaging her abdomen. As a rule of thumb, it works well enough, but I personally see nothing wrong with giving a gentle backrub. In any case, to answer your question: It is not any sort of established LDS standard. The bishop is unlikely to be asking about backrubs with your girlfriend. But if she's uncomfortable with it, it's probably best avoided.
 
Might be worth exploring whether your girlfriend is merely super-cautious (which is probably good) or whether she is generally uncomfortable with physical contact (which seems to me very bad).

By the way, to this day I love the aroma of coffee. It reminds me of Grandma's and Grandpa's house. How funny.

The Republican party is corrupt and self-serving. It seeks primarily to perpetuate its own power. The very best thing that can be said about the Republican party is that it's not the Democratic party. Unfortunately, this is actually a big deal. Most Latter-day Saints find that the Republican party, with all its warts and stupidity, is an immensely better match for their values than the Democratic party. There is a reason the Democratic party's core values are watered down in Utah, and they still can't win an election outside of Salt Lake county.
 
Given the choice, I'll pick the Republicans ten times out of ten.

The Republican party is corrupt and self-serving. It seeks primarily to perpetuate its own power. The very best thing that can be said about the Republican party is that it's not the Democratic party. Unfortunately, this is actually a big deal. Most Latter-day Saints find that the Republican party, with all its warts and stupidity, is an immensely better match for their values than the Democratic party. There is a reason the Democratic party's core values are watered down in Utah, and they still can't win an election outside of Salt Lake county.
 
Given the choice, I'll pick the Republicans ten times out of ten.

Ha ha! I love it when virus softwares fight with each other.
 
The meaning "malware" is a pretty broad definition. Avast is a fairly well known well used piece of software. What Bitdefender considers malware is Bitdefender's opinion. Whether that opinion is valid or not depends on YOUR idea of what malware is. Some people (and software) consider anything with any sort of ad in it malware.
 
At any rate, I'd stick with Windows Defender and forget the rest. Just me though.

My point was not, necessarily, that someone can overcome homosexuality in this life. But, rather, that someone can, by turning to the Atonement through repentance and obedience, be healed from the hurt of it -- just as someone who is a quadriplegic may also be healed in their hearts and souls despite perhaps never actually gaining usage of their full bodies again in this life.
 
As to the overcoming of homosexual or not...claiming that one cannot is every bit as invalid as claiming one can. All evidence one way or the other is entirely anecdotal and therefore invalid. If I'm not allowed to use anecdotal evidence based on people I've known to support my ideas in this regard then neither is anatess.
 
In short, comparing homosexuality to something like Autism (or permanent paralization of some sort) may be valid in some cases, but it just as well may not be, and putting it into those terms in such an adamant way is therefore potentially harmful.  In other words, stating that it isn't productive to claim we can be healed from such things is assuming a black-and-white reality that remains to be proven, and will likely never be proven. And if such thinking is universally adopted, and if homosexuality, in reality, is entirely alterable, then we put ourselves into a state of blindness and lies based on political sensitivity. Dangerous.
 
There's way too much "from what I've seen" behind this issue going around. What we've seen is what people say and do. And what people say and do proves nothing. People, as we well know, are quite capable of corruption, sin, naivety, mental disorders, and a host of other weaknesses that keep them from being, as a whole, very good witnesses of much. And they are all generally blind to reality until they put off the natural man and come to Christ and gain truth by the only sure means of gaining pure truth and light, which means is through the Holy Spirit. So even if everyone living on the earth adamantly claimed that they knew they could not change something that ultimately accounts to nothing more than taste, is not particularly swaying as an argument.

Here's some other scriptures on the matter:
 
Alma 3432  For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.  33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.  Alma 421 ...for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery. 10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state. 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.   22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.  23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice  25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.   28 If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. Alma 4110 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness. 15 For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all. Alma 2017 But Ammon stood forth and said unto him: Behold, thou shalt not slay thy son; nevertheless, it were better that he should fall than thee, for behold, he has repented of his sins; but if thou shouldst fall at this time, in thine anger, thy soul could not be saved.  Mosiah 2 33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.  38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.  39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.  41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.