sensibility

Wait, no, back up. I believe that God called Joseph Smith as a prophet. I also believe that, while in that office, Joseph did and taught things which were wrong (incorrect, immoral, misguided, sometimes all of the above). Agency is one of the foundational principles of the Gospel, and I absolutely don't believe that God strips men of their agency just because they're in a position of authority in the Church. I honestly don't know enough about the BoA issue to profess an opinion, but I'm open to the idea that Joseph simply got carried away. Should I hand in my temple recommend for this? I'm not an active poster, but I have been a member of the website for years now, so hopefully I won't be accused of trolldom for this post.

This thread makes me want to cry.

Yes, it is. In fact, they don't make military garments for women unless the woman bothers to put in a special order; they just tell women to wear the men's military garments. I've worn my husband's tops before, but I can't imagine wearing men's bottoms. But I've heard of women who did, mostly because they prefer the thicker elastic.

I'm pretty sure I've heard that the Adam and Eve couples are married too. I always assumed that the current films are from 1990, but I wasn't endowed until 2008, so I can't say for certain.

Not according to Doctrine and Covenants section 42: 18And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18 is speaking to people in the Church, who have already made covenants with God. If you look at the scriptures cross-referenced, they're even more specific in addressing only members of the covenant. We have a higher level of accountability, and I don't think that scripture applies to people outside the Church. To answer the original question, yes, I believe the sin must be confessed to be forgiven. But I don't think refusing to confess it at one point stops you confessing it later.

My bishop once counselled me to build a career in education and to put off having kids for the first four or five years of my marriage. I didn't do either, and I didn't even feel the need to pray for permission to dismiss his counsel. Those are areas where my husband and I retain full stewardship; the bishop can make suggestions, just like any other family friend, but the stewardship rests with individuals. You can support your bishop in his calling as the father of the ward while still retaining stewardship over your own life choices. I know he doesn't have to raise his hand to sustain you in that stewardship, but it exists all the same. Exercising it isn't disrespectful or subversive, even if your bishop disagrees with those choices. "Girls" purusing careers . . . I'm cringing for you. You're being much more humble about this than I would be -- clearly I'm not ready for this sort of trial yet.

I know you say the Spirit told you to take this job, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only job you're allowed to have. It might mean that it's one of the possible jobs that would be fine. If I were you, I'd look around Vancouver for vacancies in fast food, retail, other minimum-wage-monkey jobs, and put in some applications. Then if you were offered a job, you could pray and see if that might also be one of the acceptable jobs. If the answer is no, you can turn down the job offer. Easy-peasy, no harm done. But, you are eighteen, so let me gently break it to you -- sometimes job satisfaction isn't in the game plan. I've worked as a cleaner for McDonald's for two years. I have some physical problems which mean it's excruciatingly painful to stand for more than a few hours. At some points, I was taking three full doses of Tylenol in my eight- or nine-hour shifts, and it didn't even touch the pain; giving birth was less traumatic. Do I dread going to work? Oh yes indeedy, but it puts food on the table. You do what you have to, sometimes. But if my job didn't provide enough money, which you say yours doesn't, you can bet I'd be out looking for something, anything else. Looking at other job options isn't a sign of faithlessness; maybe you've already learned the lessons you needed to learn.

Well, first things first, you're not polygamous. You're polyamorous, which is much more socially acceptable. Welcome to the alternative-lifestyles movement! Second, you're not looking at 'core doctrine'. You're looking at out-of-date Church policies which have been explicitly overruled by more recent policy. Third, if you want to cling to superseded scripture, I suppose I can't stop you. But you aren't allowed to complain if someone decides to implement the core doctrinal penalty for adultery -- death by stoning is way traditional, you know. As society changes, God changes the rules we're expected to live by. And that's certainly lucky for you. Fourth, I must ask -- seriously?

To register with my first NHS GP, I took in my passport and filled out a one-page form. I've never had to submit any kind of proof or verification (not sure what you actually mean by that?), and I've always had appointments within three days, urgent appointments were always same-day. I love the NHS, and I'm proud to pay into National Insurance. I've just taken a look at North Carolina's Medicaid program, and I don't think Verone is eligable under any category. What a sad story.

I have two names I use online; one I've used for many, many years on blogging websites, fan websites, that sort of thing. When I started joining religious websites, I wanted a new name; I happened to have 'Sense and Sensibility' sitting by my computer at the time, and the website in question had 'andsensibility' available. So I've used variations of that ever since. At the time, I didn't realise that it would seem egotistical. However, many people have kindly and gently pointed out that it does. Oh well, it's all spilt milk now.

It would only make sense if a human body existed in stasis, in a vacuum, with no external influences. Since we don't, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Haha, I don't think you're the first person I've confused with that. I don't like the word 'lesbian', and 'gay' can apply either way, so that's where I default. In some circles I might identify as queer, but on LDS.net, I'm just plain gay.

I am gay. Ruthiechan is right. The fact that he likes pretty glittery things doesn't mean he'll want to sleep with boys when he grows up; more, the fact that somebody doesn't want to crossdress doesn't mean they'll be straight. I never dressed like a boy (it took years for my mom to convince me to wear trousers at all), and look what happened to me. Homosexuality isn't about wanting to be the opposite gender, it's just about who you're attracted to. To the OP, I've been on both sides of this -- I've been the gay child (though I never turned my back on the Church), and I also have a loved one who's living a lifestyle completely incompatible with Church teachings -- this person never was a member, but my husband and I still wobble on the line between endorsing a lifestyle and loving a person. I really feel for you. The advice in this thread is pretty fantastic. Your son still needs your love, he still needs your company, and he certainly still needs your prayers. You don't have to approve of what he's doing to spend time with him, to have conversations with him, to smile and laugh and joke with him. He's still your son. Will he come back to the Church in this life? Who knows? It's certainly possible. But whether or not he does, he still needs his mom's love.

Well, here's my take. I spend plenty of time evaluating actions for their appropriateness, helpfulness, godliness. But I do it for my own sake, or because I'm specifically advising someone. I don't -- for instance -- go to Church and take notes on whether other women are wearing modest clothes. I think about modesty, and I often think in pretty hard absolutes, but the thoughts occur when I'm standing in front of the clothes rack at the store. Do some lovely sisters in my ward wear clothes I wouldn't? Well, probably. I'm trying to remember and I honestly can't, because I just don't have enough time to think about it. If I were teaching about modesty, I would teach my understanding without apology, but I don't look around to make sure everyone else is adhering. Basically, I think that other people's specks of sawdust can be a very pretty distraction from my own giant 2x4s, and I try (with varying degrees of success!) to guard against that. The Pharisees saw Christ healing on the Sabbath -- and focused so hard on the perceived transgression that they missed their own Messiah. I don't for a moment think I can't fall into the same trap. But at the same time, my understanding of 'the pure love of Christ' is that Christ's love is wholly focused on perfecting us and bringing us home. I believe the call to charity is also a call to aid in that work of perfecting each other. If I see a situation where I think I can genuinely help some one be closer to Christ, I try to be brave enough to speak up. When I know my words will bounce off with no effect at all, though, then instead I dedicate my energy to repenting of my own sins. Because, indeed, they are many. Oh, and something like the bully situation goes into a completely different box for me – that's protecting the vulnerable, and calls for immediate action.

Truly speechless. How much time did you spend compiling this little beauty? I could have probably done an entire day's worth of housework in the time it would have taken me.

Ah, now there, we fully agree. My husband doesn't look at porn, but he does have a few sins, weaknesses and quirks. They're not huge; my husband's a great person. But if I spent all my time staring at those flaws, examining them from all angles, drawing up spreadsheets of the negative impact they have on my life . . . our marriage wouldn't last very long at all. I would forget all the wonderful qualities my husband has, and his flaws would be grossly exaggerated. That kills marriages. You're absolutely right and I wish everyone knew that when they went into marriage. That doesn't mean I have to look at a serious sin against me and against God and try to find the "bright side". There is no bright side to sin. It doesn't mean I should minimise sin by comparing it to more minor social infractions. It doesn't mean I have to pretend that it doesn't hurt. In a deep relationship, betrayal should hurt; it should be a major factor in motivating the offender to repent and change. But ultimately, I think we're coming from the same place of wanting marriage partners to respect and uplift each other. Thanks for responding to me so politely, I haven't been as patient as I should and I know my tone got quite sharp at times. I apologise for that. Cheers. :)

No. However, they are both sexual transgressions. And since my point was actually that God doesn't forbid people feeling sorrow over their spouses' sexual transgressions, I think you'll find my point stands. I'm quite interested that you've dragged my gender into this. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you felt that was an important factor. Incidentally, I've asked my husband and he agrees with my posts, so hopefully that helps you feel better about the whole thing. :)

Hi Bill, I simply used the facebook example as a springboard to point out the fact that the initial premise on which you based your entire argument -- specifically, porn is like a conversation -- was completely incorrect, which necessarily invalidates everything that follows. I might just as well say, "My spouse likes reading books, and reading books is like porn. I don't get mad at him for reading books, so why on earth would he get mad at me for looking at porn?!" Porn isn't like books. It isn't like conversation. The argument simply doesn't follow. I think that you're failing to grasp the fundamental issue here. In some situations, feeling hurt is a fully appropriate reaction. Here, we're talking about a person who has forsaken their sacred vows of sexual monogamy and full fidelity in favour of looking at obscene pictures of strangers. It is completely appropriate for that to hurt. It is infidelity. It is cheating. It should hurt. Yes, of course that will be uncomfortable for the person who looked at porn; but asking the spouse to deny their emotions because it's uncomfortable is weak and cowardly. But, who knows. I could be wrong. There is that scripture about the women who cried out to God about their husbands' sexual transgressions, and God said, "Verily, shut up, you silly women. Try to see the positive side, at least he's still coming home to eat your cooking!" Obviously that's a paraphrase. But I'm sure it was something like that.

Of course it hurts to have a spouse betray a confidence. But I have a very real problem believing that typical woman-to-woman marriage chat, which is what Bill was actually discussing, comes anywhere near to causing the pain that the spouse of a porn addict faces. Especially since, as you'll note, Bill specifically says that he does not feel hurt and betrayed by this -- and he just can't understand why women don't extend the same courtesy to men who want to look at naked women. It is not the spouse's obligation to "toughen up" to protect the addict from the consequences of their sin.

I'm intrigued by your comparisons, and I can see two explanations. So, are you actually insecure to the point that you consider facebook conversations to be a betrayal of marriage vows? Or, are you so desperate to rationalise porn use that you've convinced yourself that it's as incidental an issue as facebook conversations? Sin has consequences. It's a shame, but there it is. More serious sins often have more serious consequences. And one consequence of porn use is that it can deeply wound the person you swore to love with your whole heart. Don't like the consequence, maybe you shouldn't commit the sin.

Interestingly, Tesla criticised Edison for not having enough "book learning". (It also looks like he suffered from a few mental disorders, so perhaps not the greatest reference point for the workings of the human mind) This is true in my experience as well. Of course education makes some people arrogant, but then I've known just as many people who struggled with educational institutions and came away arrogantly convinced that the only problem was that the system couldn't handle someone of their brilliance. In fact, I've known a lot of people like that; I grew up in classical homeschooling culture, and that brand of arrogance is rampant (and, in my estimation, very often misplaced). Traveler, I disagree with your implied assertion that Jesus disrespects scholars. The fact that he had problems with a specific branch of religious scholars doesn't mean that he doesn't honour scholarship. You might as well say that, because he called several fishermen as apostles, fishermen are God's chosen people . . . or that tax collectors are, heaven forfend. I think Jesus himself was a scholar. When considering someone's "inherent" talents and abilities, I think it's good to remember that we don't come to earth as blank slates. We spent our premortal existence studying. Even if we don't remember the drudge work, I think our abilities are the result of focused study -- scholarship. I think we'll be shocked to discover how many subjects we studied. I once met a man who received a blessing from the prophet in which he was told that he had learned to make stained glass in the premortal life.

I really appreciate that post, Gwen. Thank you. While it's true that we have the fullness of the Gospel, there are some truths that we may teach but that are clearly, clearly absent in our religious culture. Mainstream Christianity does better than we do at some things, and we should be humble enough to learn from them. It makes me a bit homesick for Georgia, though! I really enjoyed being surrounded by truly passionate Christianity. It's not quite the same here in England.

I was definitely one of those women. I wasn't majoring in the typical fallback degrees, but I was majoring in classical studies, which is even more useless than M&FD if you can believe that. Then I dropped out to get married, so . . . well . . . yeah, I'm a living stereotype. Three years on, though, I have recently discovered that I love science. Love love love with a wild abandon. Big surprise to me, as I definitely thought I hated it through my entire school career . . . but I find myself furtively studying organic chemistry and A&P during my son's naps, just for the sheer joy of it. I'm lucky that I dropped out when I did, because otherwise I'd have invested a lot of time and money in a degree that isn't what I actually want to do. I now plan to go back to university to study for a degree in some sort of healthcare -- it won't happen for a few years, but that's my apple-pie-in-the-sky plan. I only discovered this dormant passion when I became pregnant and started studying pregnancy and childbirth, so motherhood actually made me more of an academic. Weird.

I'm glad you posted that link, applepansy, because it definitely shows the correct way to deal with these jokers. The American public has the power to change the laws, and I absolutely support that. I would myself vote for a law which protected funerals from protests. The problem is that these people -- assuming, of course, that this account is true and not just posturing on an anonymous internet forum -- skipped that process. They disregarded the laws that the American public put in place, and violated the WBC's legally guaranteed rights. And the scariest part is, it wasn't just civilians, and it wasn't civil disobedience. It was the police. The law enforcement in that county said, we don't like what you're saying, and therefore we will not defend your rights; we will use the power the public has entrusted unto us to actively violate your rights, because we don't like you. The police don't have the right to make that call. Not ever. If the police get to decide who deserves their Constitutional rights and who doesn't, Constitutional rights cease to exist, and we might as well flush the whole thing down the toilet. I lived in the south for quite a few years, and I can tell you that there are a lot of policemen there who don't like Mormons. There are plenty of policemen who feel, deeply and sincerely, that our missionaries cause moral harm. They feel it would better society if we would stop talking and go away. Do those deeply-held moral beliefs give them the right to barricade our missionaries into their driveways, detain them under false pretenses, or neglect to protect them from other civilians? No. We are protected exactly the same as anyone else, and the police have a legal and moral obligation to enforce our rights. You asked, I am a strong supporter of the constitution. I completely agree that we shouldn't stop free speech, but when did it become ok to be disrespectful? The answer is, I'm afraid, it became okay as soon as we set down the right to free speech. That's what free speech means. If we don't like it, we have the power to change the law -- but not the right to break it.

I'm very disturbed by this. Are they seriously advocating beating people, illegally detaining them, and illegally blocking their cars in order to prevent them exercising their right to free speech? How astoundingly Soviet. I'm not in Mississippi, or even in the US anymore, but I can assure you that if I were on that jury, I would convict all over the place. Seriously, majorly disturbing.