Connie

Joseph Smith changes this verse quite significantly in his inspired translation. It reads: 
This of course is much more understandable, indicating the twelve apostles of the Lamb, who will judge the tribes of Israel and work to bring forth kingdom of God on the earth.

Hi Bruce. It's very nice to meet you and welcome to the forums.
 
I'd like to say thank you for your work in the nursery. When my oldest son was a little guy, he did not like women. That probably sounds funny, but he hated going to nursery if there were only women there. So we were very grateful for the men who worked there. He would only go if there were men. He was very much his daddy's boy. He only barely tolerated me. Funny kid. It took him years to get over that.
 
I was actually just recently called as a nursery leader. Oh how i wish they would call some male workers. It really changes the whole tone of nursery. I think the kids behave better with a male presence.

Hi Bruce. It's very nice to meet you and welcome to the forums.
 
I'd like to say thank you for your work in the nursery. When my oldest son was a little guy, he did not like women. That probably sounds funny, but he hated going to nursery if there were only women there. So we were very grateful for the men who worked there. He would only go if there were men. He was very much his daddy's boy. He only barely tolerated me. Funny kid. It took him years to get over that.
 
I was actually just recently called as a nursery leader. Oh how i wish they would call some male workers. It really changes the whole tone of nursery. I think the kids behave better with a male presence.

Growing up we always had an orange in the toe of our stocking. My dad was also very fond of nuts--the kind in the shell that you have to crack open. So we always had peanuts in our stocking, too, and we would have to crack them open and peanut shells would get everywhere. I'm too lazy to do that with my kids--I don't want to have to clean up nut shells. So i get the cans of already shelled (and salted) nuts and put some in little baggies. Then there was the salt water taffy, but that's candy so i'll shut up now.

Usually just getting lost in a good book works quite well for me.
 
Listening to calming music also works, though I’m quite the fan of silence—it’s such a rare thing.
 
Playing the piano can also help, and what’s nice about that is you can based it on your mood at the time. You can pound out something dark and vigorous if you’re angry or pull out the Chopin if you want to brood or just play something calming.

I’ve always liked my own name. I know it’s not unusual or anything, but it has been faith-affirming for me. My mother always told me it meant constant and true, and I have always tried to be constant and true to the Lord and His gospel. Hence, I’ve always had an affinity for the name Constance. It’s not my name (my name really is just Connie), but I like to call it my Nicholas name.
 
Some more unusual names I’ve heard that I’ve thought were pretty cool and faith-affirming are America, Cumorah and Zion. Probably the most unusual one I’ve heard is Zerin, which some might recognize from the Book of Ether as the name of the mountain the brother of Jared moved.

Speaking from an LDS viewpoint, which I suspect is shared by many (thought certainly not all) other Christians:
 
How do we accept Christ's grace and enable his atoning blood? Not merely by saying "Lord, Lord". Not merely by proclaiming our supposed devotion. We accept Christ's grace by doing as he told us to do. It is through our works of obedience that we develop the faith necessary to accept Christ's grace. Thus we see that the whole "grace vs. works" dichotomy is false.

If you're on a computer, you might want to try using a different web browser.

Agreed
 
Agreed. Big difference between something that may lead vs. something that is considered apostasy.
 
I can take a snap shot of 10 actual sisters I actually know who married outside the church. Carborendum's example of his personal sister unfortunately rings too true. Of the ten sisters I know:
 
2 - Husbands were baptized after about 20-30 years only once they aged in their senior/elder years.
1 - Currently has a "supportive" spouse who allows home teachers, comes to events and appears pretty neutral.
4 - Have non-supportive husbands. Husbands who gripe every time the wife wants to go to church, relief society events, etc. Husbands who intentionally plan family outings on Sunday. Husbands who tell the kids they don't need to go to Seminary in the morning so they can get more sleep to be in some other school activity. Husbands who make is apparently awkward for home/visiting teachers to come over. Husbands who are always trying to slide in "gotcha" remarks, ex: "see the news says drinking wine is good for you", "I know a Mormon who screwed up this way...", or articles similar to what your husband presented. Most of these sisters have never been endowed either. In some cases because the husband didn't want the wife in Gs. So on and so on.
3 - Divorced
 
I feel bad for those spouses who carry the burden all by themselves to raise a family in the church, especially the sisters who don't have the priesthood in their home, etc. 
 
In my opinion, why does it have the potential of leading to apostasy for both the member spouse and the member kids...
the inability to serve two masters. You are trying to teach one example, and your spouse may be teaching a totally different one. Divided loyalties exist in the family, that can lead to spiritual weakness and confusion.
 
So long answer to your question: NO marrying outside the church is not apostasy, but from what I have seen time and time again it is a huge up hill battle and many people can't keep up the fight when their main person of supposed support is actually the anchor dragging them down. 

I agree. The spirit of the law is the letter and then some.

I agree. The spirit of the law is the letter and then some.

In my experience, obeying the spirit of the law is almost always much more difficult than obeying merely the letter.

It's a thought-provoking question. If i may ask some of my own for clarification and curiosity's sake, Vort. Do you consider it venting (according to your own definition of the word) when Christ drove the moneychangers out of the temple? For some reason some verses of Jacob 5 came to mind when the Lord of the vineyard starts to numerate all the things he has done for his trees and asks "what could i have done more?" when his trees don't respond with good fruit... would you consider this venting (possibly whining)? Why or why not?

I see paganism and satanism as two very different things. There's plenty of pagan roots with most holidays but nothing that i have been able to uncover with satanism, not even in my studies of Halloween. But i agree with others, make these holidays your own. It doesn't matter how others in the past or present have celebrated. Take what's good and incorporate it in your own way with what works for you and your family.

Babylon was the greatest city in the world.
 
That description does not do it justice, however. Babyon was enormous, the first known city to exceed 200,000 people in population. That's 200,000 people in one 2200-acre place, without indoor plumbing or automation. And it was massively powerful; at its peak, no person, nation, or army could hope to compete with it.
 
But its size and military might were merely the most obvious characteristics. Babylon was a place of great learning, far and away the most brilliant, progressive, enlightened city of the earth in its time. And it was cosmopolitan on a scale that even we today would find impressive; there is a reason the "tower of Babel" signifies a mixing or melting pot of various languages and cultures.Hammurabi's code is still touted as one of the great civilizing documents in all of human history, despite its rather harsh edge in today's judgment. Thousands of years later, we still remember Babylon's fabled Hanging Gardens as one of the wonders of the ancient world.
 
In terms of freedom, the citizens of Babylon were probably the "freest" people of their time, in the way we use that term today. The people had opportunities, the land was prosperous, and their strength made them impenetrable. If we had to go back in time and live during that period and could scout our prospects before pulling the time machine lever, I expect that many, perhaps most, of us would consider ourselves lucky if we got to go to Babylon.
 
In short, the closest modern approximation we have today of the glory of the Babylon of nearly four thousand years ago is...the United States of America.
 
Yet look how the Bible vilifies Babylon. It was the mother of whores. It was the destroyer of souls. It was the place most feared by the people of God, not primarily because of its military might, but because of its seductive power. It stood in opposition to all that God wanted of his people.
 
I think this is worth meditating on, especially as we consider the forces acting inside and outside the US and the so-called "western world". We would do well to learn to see our own civilization a bit more as God sees it, and not be too dazzled with our brilliance and technical achievement.
 
We are Babylon 2000. That should be a sobering thought for all of us.

Well there's cheeky and then there's just unkind.

I highly recommend this version - http://www.audible.com/pd/Sci-Fi-Fantasy/Dune-Audiobook/B002V1OF70
 
It's beyond a narration, as part of it is narrated and part is theatrical. It switches throughout and might be confusing but I think anyone of average intelligence can easily follow along. The narrated and theatrical elements combine together nicely to make this one of my top audio books so far. I will definitely listen to this again.  It's the Lord of the Rings of SciFi. 
 
I'm working my way through this one now and enjoy it so far. 
 
http://www.audible.com/pd/Fiction/The-Golem-and-the-Jinni-Audiobook/B00BU8KV2S

Oh, that’s a good idea. I read the book in my teen years but really don’t remember much about it. When I tried picking it up again a couple years back, I didn’t get very far before I decided to let it sit for a while longer. It was so dark. My hubby loves it, and I bet if I suggest getting it from audible he would be ecstatic. How was the narration?

I listened to Dune by Frank Herbert on Audible and I really enjoyed it. 

Being on the forums here has taught me a lot.  I have learned that I better know how to back up any statements I make.  I remember in one of my very early posts I had mentioned something that I believed was church doctrine, and I was immediately asked where I had heard this, and would I please show documentation or references.  I was completely at a loss.  It was just something I had assumed and had heard somewhere.  It's been good for me to research and find answers. And, I have actually learned that Classylady doesn't know everything about the Church, there's a lot out there I can learn, and there are people on these forums that I have learned a lot from.  Thank you, all.

I think it reflects wonderfully on the members and on the leadership alike. I sincerely hope that this is not only the first, but more importantly the very last, time you ever feel shame as a member of the Lord's kingdom. As for non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, and anti-Mormons: Those in the great and spacious building will mock and point their fingers. Nephi has showed us the appropriate response: We pay them no heed. We need not concern ourselves with trying to make people like us. Christ's sheep hear his voice; we need only concern ourselves with opening our mouths so they can hear that voice and come unto Christ.  
Did Adam follow "blindly" when he was commanded to sacrifice, and did so for many years without knowing why? When the angel asked him why he sacrificed, Adam's only response was, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me."
 
And what was the angel's response to Adam? To decry him for being a "sheeple"? To mock and criticize his "following blindly"?
 
No. His response was to give Adam further light and knowledge. That is the way we do things in the Lord's kingdom.
  
It certainly does to me.
  
Then put aside your "heartbroken" feelings and take heart, SF. The Lord is faithful and the Church is true. Homosexuality is a grievous sin that will inevitably result in the destruction of the soul of those who practice it and do not repent; this policy is intended to help people reject that path. In the meantime, the homosexual is still loved of God, and is welcome to come to meetings and begin repenting with the rest of us.
 
 
 
Compassion is not telling the girl who keeps cutting herself that there is nothing wrong with her, and by the way, those sure are pretty scars she has carved into her arms.
 
 
Of course you do. And I sincerely hope you also have compassion for those who are sexually attracted to children. But I bet you don't condone their behavior or wish the Church would receive a revelation on how they should be allowed to sate their carnal appetites.
  
What are you talking about, SF? When and in what way as the "height of the bar" been "lessened"?
  
That is a misapplication of the history. Jesus was standing with a large group of hypocrites who themselves were guilty of the very sin they sought to destroy the woman for. They didn't care a whit about the woman; they were willing to kill her just to get at Jesus. Christ refused at that moment to condemn her, instead telling her what he tells us: Go and sin no more.
 
But this hardly means that Jesus didn't teach against fornication or adultery, or made sure his doctrine was "inclusive" enough so that adulterers and fornicators felt right at home. That is not and never has been the purpose of the gospel.
  See those last two words quote above?

This man left his wife to satisfy his carnal lust. There is nothing honorable about that. If he loved her enough to marry her and to impregnate her twice, then he should have loved her enough to keep Little Charlie out of another man's bodily orifices.

How compassionate for his woeful situation would you have been if his new "soul mate" had been a beautiful 18-year-old girl with a 36DD bra? Is he to get a pass because his lusts took him to a man instead of another woman?  
The Church does not exist to show love and tolerance to "communities", especially when those "communities" define themselves in opposition to God's commandments. How much "love" or "tolerance" do you think the Church should show toward the drug gang community, or the forced prostitution community, or the abortion-on-demand community?
 
The Church exists to show individuals how to feel the Spirit, come to know God, and return to their Father in heaven. In so doing, it provides the community for its members.

I doubt it; carlimac-it is called social conditioning. The actual instances I mean real instances of situations are very rare. Just like actual homosexuality is fairly rare (1-2% of the population).  I'm telling you, people don't realize it and have fallen into the trap-but it is an agenda by some very skillful people-read After The Ball.
 
You see, if you can make claims that tuck at the heartstrings-no matter how ridiculous it ends up being. Get enough people (and it doesn't take many in today's society of knee-jerk social media mob-mentality), to make up a few scenarios-spread it like wildfire, people get indignant about it and then amplify their voices using social media. One can even astroturf it-spread fake twitter accounts-bots, have paid people write up stories (not saying it is done in this particular case) then one or two voices become 10-15 or 20.  Then even though people start out thinking-hey this type of behavior is morally wrong, well I know Billy and he comes out in support of it. People know that well if I speak up I might be labeled a bigot, or racist or whatever favorite "uncompassionate" name they want to call you and I believe I'm a good person, I'm not hateful. I don't like this and it's morally wrong, but I'm just not going to say anything. And then when the voices get loud enough, people think, well maybe I really am wrong, maybe I am being bigoted, hateful, etc. by having this viewpoint-I don't want to be hateful so since everyone else thinks its hateful it must be.
 
Social conditioning to the destruction of society. 

The greatest threat to liberty, peace and prosperity is the morality of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1800s wrote something along the lines of "America is great because America is good and when she ceases to be good she will cease to be great".
 
The whole entire underlying fabric of society is being ripped to shreds before our very eyes. The underlying fabric, where-in culture is propagated down through generations, where individuals learn right from wrong, good vs. bad, how to treat each other, what to do, when to do it is in the family.
 
"Honor thy father and they mother, that thy days may be long in the land the Lord God has given thee" It's not just talking about being obedient as a child-it is talking about honoring and reproducing the same (or similar) attitudes and culture.  Honor how they lived, replicate it for the next generation and your days-the days of your culture, your attitudes will be long. Don't honor their lifestyle and it will be gone.
 
You mentioned a father who had children and then found a male soul mate. This isn't directed at you, but which is it? Is it something you are "born with"-and if that is the case why would he have even married and had kids? Or is it a lifestyle choice? This man's family was destroyed by a conscience decision to sin-drape it in whatever you want to call it (finding himself, being happy, etc.). Why would a father do that? He would do that because the actual social moors that in general keep behavior like that in check are completely gone. 65 years ago, no one would accept it-he would be an outcast and shamed for disregarding his solemn responsibility as a father to provide for his family.  65 years ago-no one gave a rip about your "feelings".  He feels alone, so what-he has a responsibility to provide for a family and no amount of "feelings" can take away those obligations. The height of being a man was to be in control of your feelings-not to let them rule you.
 
Today, his actions are celebrated, he has "found himself", he is "being true to himself", to heck with his responsibilities-it doesn't matter, it is all about him, him, him and more about him.
 
America used to be the one country that had absolute rock-solid morals-today it is a cesspool. Other cultures have better morals than we do.  Shoot take music, I love listening to some good rock music-I find better rock music out of Europe without all the F-bombs, sexual references, etc. Lyrics that actually tell a story and are poetic in English no less. I can't find anything like that in the States.
 
Our freedoms that were won came about because or hard morals, because individuals took responsibility for their actions. They owned up to their choices.
 
And morals start at the root-the family, it underpins everything.  Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as just a different way to live is a grave, grave danger. Not for the actual numbers of people who embrace it, but for what acceptance of it as normal means.  Because what it means, is that by and large this country no longer has any moral fiber or backbone. 

With all due respect, StrawberryFields--isn't this precisely the kind of selective outrage I was describing? 
 
This man--this father--had a good (maybe not perfect, but good) relationship with his children's mother, who he did indeed "love" at one point.  But he dissolved his family for the most execrable of reasons--to go (literally) whoring off after a relationship that he thought would be more sexually satisfying to him.  There are reams of academic research papers about how, even under the best of circumstances, divorce is intensely traumatic for children; and that where adultery/abuse/addiction/inordinately high conflict are not issues, it's better for the children if the parents stay together.  On that point, the science (to coin a phrase) is settled.
 
This "father" you learned about has damaged his children in a way that will come back to haunt them for their entire lives, and he gets a pass.  But, the church steps in and says "you know what?  We're not going to put that guy's kid in a covenant relationship that will necessarily damage the parent-child relationship further", and it's the church--not this lecherous lout or his home-wrecking boytoy--that we condemn for not knowing what love is, for destroying harmony, and for being dismissive of a child's best interests. 

I love working on family history. It's been years since i've been able to work on it very seriously. Little kids and homeschool keep a girl busy.
 
My parents do a great deal. They work in the local family history center once a week. And our stake has been encouraging and helping the youth to get more into it. So my oldest has worked quite a bit on indexing and has started going with the grandparents to the center every week to learn and work on family history.