Maureen

I have more SENT than INBOX PM's. Eventually I clean them out. You must be of the popular crowd lindy if you have too many INBOX PM's. M.

LOL! Yes, I can see how others can give the newlyweds that questioning look. Both my parents and my in-laws had honeymoon specials. My MIL usually had 8 month pregnancies, except for one, and all the babies were full term; so I teased my BIL once about how he came 8 months after his parents were married; with a wink, wink. He didn't like the teasing because of what it suggested but I knew my MIL's circumstances and just thought it was funny that he would be so defensive.My nephew just got married and we found out he and his wife are expecting a "honeymoon special", hence the poll. M.

I'm always still surprised to hear when a couple is pregnant right after getting married, hence the "Honeymoon Special". How often in the 21st century does this still happen to people who definitely want to follow the realitively normal order of dating, marriage and babies? I know when I got married I wanted to wait for babies, at least 2 years. My babies came well after 2 years but I'm still glad I made that decision to be married for sometime before babies came. M.

Yes but, what is the chance that a major leader of a religion would so abruptly make such an announcement. If any such change in attitude toward scripture were to happen I believe it would be a very gradual change.M.

Shawn, it's not hard to guess that many here would not take your question seriously. It's like if you went to a Catholic or Protestant site and asked a similar question:On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if the Pope (or Protestant pastor of a congregation) announced that the Bible will no longer be considered scripture to members of this Church? When you re-word the question it to fit a different but similar kind of setting it makes it more clear why you would get a indifferent or incredulous reaction. So Shawn, what would be your answer to my re-wording of your question? M.

Hey Heather, Not sure what you mean by a blog system, could you define. I'm not a "chat" person, I prefer the message board style. M.

Thanks for the reply s_g2.Now don't you wish you said all that in the first place. M.

It is? Could you supply us with that "word for word" commandment please? Really? What happens if you attend a church that doesn't pass out "Temple recommends", does it still count? Are you telling us st_garvan2 that the only reason you go to church is because you are "commanded" to, in order to received that "Temple recommend". Do you have any "personal, spiritual" conviction regarding church attendance, or is it just a "robotic" gesture? M.

Do not fear st_garvan2, Snow likes to display that comedic flair on a daily basis. Let me tell you that his "flair" is much more endearing than (as he pointed out) his crazy mis-spellings (which also happens on a daily basis) . But it's okay to tell him to "keep his day job" if you don't think he's funny. He'll understand.M.

Did you notice how 'Brother' Priam made two very bad choices based on religious superstition. If he would have listened to his sons he wouldn't have had such bad luck - but then again if he did, there wouldn't have been a movie to go watch. I've never seen God's Army but I did watch The Singels Ward. I've read that Richard Dutcher didn't like The Singles Ward. I guess you can't please everyone. M.

I'm sure other life situations and interests have side tracked these fellow posters, temporarily of course. B) M.

In my opinion SF, I believe that "church attendance" was mainly set up for a support system, social atmosphere, teaching doctrine, etc. It is where people of like mind in beliefs and faith can come together and learn from each other about God and the relationship they can have with him. In this day and age there are many different ways to have the above without the traditional "church" setting. So many people can still learn and socialize re: God and our relationship with him and remain very firm in their faith. But just like reading a good book (holding the book, turning the pages, marking with dog ears, etc.), the atmosphere of a church setting is probably the best and connected way to have a strong faith and support system in regards to our relationship with God. M.

SF - This is really just your opinion, because the court records regarding Terri's situation and the medical community who are authoritative in regards to the "permanent vegetative state" disagrees with you.If you were able to read the Abstract Appeal link that I posted you would have come across that. M.

Hmmm - what does this description remind me of? For those of us who see the history of the LDS church in a different light then its members, Snow's statement could easily describe 19th century LDS history. Yes, the reminder of polygamy haunts the CofC to this very day. The "Fundamentalists" wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the CofC. M.

Thanks Jenda, Cal and especially SF that was very helpful. M.

I can respect that, although I didn't see the use of certain words as being "specific" but quite general. To me specific is when you start defining those words. But I can still agree not to use "specific" words.I guess in relation to "ordinances" in the Temple, without getting too detailed, would those in the know say that the Endowment session itself is an ordinance or would it be that "the meat" of the Endowment session is what is considered an "ordinance(s)"? Now if I come back later and see my post has been revised, then I know even the words "Endowment session" are a no-no. :) M.

Even though I am very familiar with many things "Mormon", I am still not sure about what is an 'ordinance'. M.

SF (and anyone else who's interested) - I was snooping on the web to see if I could find some objective information regarding the "Terri Schiavo" case. I happened to come across this website: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html There's lots to read, so it will take time to peruse everything, but I highly recommend this site if you haven't come across it yet. M.

For some reason, Mr. Schiavo decided to bury his wife in Florida instead of Pennsylvania. The burial site is not a secret, it's just not where her parents expected it to be: Michael Schiavo had said her ashes would be buried at a family plot in Pennsylvania. But on Monday his attorney, George Felos, said in a statement that the service and burial had taken place at Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park in Clearwater. The statement did not explain why Schiavo, who lives near Clearwater, decided to keep his wife's remains in Florida. He did not return a phone call seeking additional information. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/21/...ain703187.shtml I am assuming, because I can't remember, that Terri's religion was Catholic - therefore I recommend reading this: Cremation: New Options for Catholics by Fran Helner In 1997 the Holy See granted permission to U.S. bishops to allow funeral Masses in the presence of cremated remains. This practice had been available in Canada and a few U.S. dioceses for some time. In this Update we'll look at the reasons behind the permission and the ritual changes that will soon be available in many U.S. dioceses. We'll also explore why the Church continues to prefer burial over cremation.... http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletter...s/CU/ac1097.asp M.

I disagree with you there SF. The article Outshined posted said this:...It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.... ...Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter’s condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney’s office did not turn up evidence of abuse... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/ M.

It's appearing that the "Canadian LDS" way of doing things is quite generous and open-minded. M.

Hi Taoist - There is no exchange of rings during a traditional Sealing Ceremony. A ring exchange can be done after in the sealing room or the couple could request a ring ceremony in a chapel later for all to witness - members and non-members. Therefore, there would only be "one" ring ceremony.M.

It also appears that ....she was blind, because the "vision centres of her brain were dead." http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...iavo050615.html M.

Outshinned, You may be right but to allow a traditional marriage following a temple marriage is a change in what the policies have been. This is something that Maureen brought to our attention in the "Roll Call" thread. Her post was the first time I had herd that the First Presidency had mad this change. I did a search and the above post is what I found. The link above didn't work but I think that it came from the February Ensign 2005. From a non-member perspective I think the ring ceremony is perfect for non-member family and friends as opposed to allowing non-members to view the sealing ceremony. My nephew and his new wife's ring ceremony was held in the chapel. They had the traditional procession and recession music and came as a couple down the aisle since they were already married. The bishop said some words which pertained specifically to the couple. He shared how he met them individually and his lovely views on their personalities and his shock when they announced to him they would like to get married, which the guests could relate to since they knew the bride and groom so well. The bishop's words were perfect because they touched on the uniqueness of this couple and how they came into each other's lives. The bishop shared with the non-members what it means for LDS members to be married in the Temple. The ring exchange was very simple and nice and there were no vows exchanged. The mother of the groom also pinned the Tartan sash on the bride welcoming her into our family. I believe that a lovely family connection can be shared by all if the majority of new couples wanting to get married in the Temple also made the choice to have a ring ceremony at the reception. It made the wedding very memorable. (Editing to add:) It also told the non-members that they were also important to the couple and that they wanted to share this very special day with them. M.

SF - The couple wanted a ring ceremony because of family and friends that were not church members and the Bishop encouraged it also. The mother of the bride wasn't sure if the ring ceremony was a good idea; so my friend (mother of the groom) sent the bride (to show her mother) some "first presidency" information regarding how they have told members to do everything they can to include and be gracious to non-members. It seems that it might be just the older generation that would have a problem with change. If Bishops and SP's and such are all for this new evolving style, then the future is looking good for LDS members and their non-member families.M.