sensibility

I don't disdain the cross. On the contrary, I have often found that the symbol can be a powerful reminder of Christ's sacrifice for me, just like, say, taking the Sacrament (certainly meant to symbolise Christ's death and Atonement, not His resurrection). However, I don't assume that it's imbued with any power or that it's sacred by itself. It's still an instrument of torture, devised by cruel and wretched people, thoroughly evil in its intent. It just happens to be an instrument of torture which reminds me of my Lord (certainly an example of God turning something awful to His glory). I don't generally wear it as jewelry or anything, because its history is so horrible; however, I'm completely comfortable using it in churches, where people are already gathered to recognise Christ's sacrifice. I wouldn't be surprised if we first stopped using it because of anti-Catholic sentiments. However, I don't think any of those sentiments persist. On a slightly tangential note, have you ever tried to make jewelry symbolising the living Christ? My seminary class did once, and it was actually very difficult. I think we came up with an overlapping circle and square, to symbolise the stone rolled away from the tomb, but it sort of lacked elegance.

Having read your posts, I can understand how those responses to the marriage thread could make you uncomfortable. But nobody was saying 'Run for the hills and leave him to the wolves!' Marrying someone isn't the only way to love them. It's fully possible to teach and serve and lift someone without marrying them. The Church absolutely believes in serving and loving others. We go on self-funded years-long missions to teach othes, we donate fast offerings, donate to the humanitarian fund and the perpetual education fund, we offer long hours of service as home teachers, visiting teachers, Relief Society leaders, Sunday School teachers, Primary and youth leaders, bishoprics, stake leaders, and on and on and on. As you're a member of nearly a decade, I'm sure you know this. The heart of the Gospel isn't Joseph Smith or the temple -- and it's not even service and compassion to others. The heart of the Gospel is Christ. If your faith is feeling shaky, it's probably time to exam the foundation of your testimony. If it isn't Christ, then you need to rebuild on the only sure foundation. Start with Christ. He is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Joseph Smith and the temple don't matter if you haven't recognised Christ as the Son of God and your personal Saviour. Once you do understand the significance of Christ's Atonement for sin, you'll look at the Church differently -- and you'll be able to forgive your fellow Church members for not celebrating Christmas and Easter the way you'd hoped, or for focussing unduly on Joseph Smith and the temple, or for going to Applebee's after Church. You'll be able to forgive Joseph for sometimes doing or saying things that were incorrect or just plain weird. The whole world looks different when you realise that Christ bore the punishment for every sin you encounter, out of love for the sinner. Christ is the answer, always. Best of luck.

That is amazing news. I'm so excited for you. The temple is fantastic. Probably the only way I can deal with the pressure is remembering that it's okay to know I can't completely live up to the standards by myself. It's okay to need the Atonement. It's okay because I can be forgiven when I do fall short. It's okay because when I'm honestly not strong enough to do what God's asked me, I know He will uphold me and give me strength beyond my own. Which doesn't mean it's not scary, of course . . . it just means that I'll be okay, flawed as I am. The other thing that helped is knowing what covenants I would be making before I went through the temple. I think everyone should know this before they set foot in the lobby. Hopefully someone's talked you through that already, but if not and if you feel it'd help you to know, send me a PM and I'd be happy to tell you in appropriate detail. Also, have you had recommend interviews to do baptisms? If so, know that it's the same interview. The interview is not an intensive, draining, scary test that you have to pass (though that didn't stop me from being scared when I was going in preparation to receive my endowment, of course. ). My temple recommend interviews have always been very positive experiences. Best of luck. :)

I'm perhaps a strange case; when my husband and I first decided to get married, he wasn't a member and had no plans to become one. I was fully prepared to marry him nonetheless (I was also in my mid-teens, which probably explains a lot). So a few years ago, I was right there with you, trying to work out how important it is to marry a member. I decided to go ahead and marry him because I knew we got on wonderfully and we liked each other. However, now that I actually am married, I wish I could go back in time and smack myself upside the head. Marriage isn't just for companionship; marriage is a partnership. Everything your spouse does affects you, because your life is permanently bound to theirs. Marriage was designed to strengthen us, designed so that we could draw each other closer to God. When I'm feeling distant from God, I depend on my husband, my most intimate friend, to call me back. When I'm feeling discouraged, I'm so grateful to be married to a priesthood holder who can bless me as soon as I need it, instead of having to make an appointment with a home teacher or whatever. When my husband is feeling distant from God, he depends on me to reach out and invite him back. If we didn't have that support system, we would be so much weaker and easier to break. As it is, though, when Satan comes at one of us, he knows he has to get through the other one first. We strengthen and guard each other. That's what marriage is supposed to be. "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." Knowing what I do now, I would never choose to marry anyone without a firm commitment to the Gospel unless I had undeniable revelation that I should. I was lucky that my then-fiance gained a testimony of the Gospel and joined the Church, and that we could be married in the temple. I would never, now, consider binding my life to someone who wasn't as dedicated to the Gospel as I am. It's a huge gamble. As for your question about raising children without conflict: I've known plenty of part-member families where the parents decided to raise the children LDS and never fought about it. There was no conflict between the parents. However, the children still get very conflicting messages from their parents' examples. I wouldn't choose that for my children. Anyway, these are my thoughts, as someone who's faced the same situation. However, only you are entitled to revelation for your life, so prayer and fasting are the best ways to get a conclusive answer to your questions. :) We know that sometimes the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing. Nobody else can know for you. Best of luck.

That's quite a good summary of the sort of clothes you have to wear with garments. Also, be careful if you happen to wear one of the silkier materials, clothes tend to slide around quite a lot on those and can become unexpectedly immodest. Also, as someone who just went through the temple in October, I thought I'd point out that temple workers no longer give any instructions about whether you have to wear the garment next to your skin (under your bra, etc); it's left up to the individual.

Our Sacrament meeting was a fabulous trio of speakers who talked about Christ's ministry, Atonement, death and resurrection. They bore amazing testimonies of Christ's role, and the Spirit was powerful. It was like hearing Elder Holland's talk all over again. :) We weren't able to attend the classes, but it's generally been my experience that some teachers will insert an Easter lesson and others are more comfortable following the manual.

Well, I looked it up for you in the Oxford English Dictionary. The first references are from the 1400's, so it's definitely been around for a while. It looks to be derived from Latin, big surprise there. Interestingly, apparently it can also be used as a noun. I've only ever heard it as an adjective. Language is great.

I've always understood the phrase 'the letter of the law' to refer to something that is explicitly spelled out--for example, the Word of Wisdom gives various specific commandments (e.g., no hot drinks, alcohol, tobacco, meat in excess, eat plenty of vegetables and grains). Anyone who keeps those is following the letter--the explicit, stated instructions--of the Word of Wisdom. However, it's possible to keep the letter of a law and still not follow the spirit. The spirit of the law is the broad, unstated intent of a law. For instance, the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is taking care of our bodies and keeping control of bodily appetites. So even if we're doing everything written in D&C 89, and thus obeying the letter of the law, we can still violate the spirit of the law by, say, eating a stack of deep-fried Twinkies with breakfast, lunch and dinner. It isn't actually forbidden by the letter of the law, but it's bad for our bodies and is an out-of-control bodily appetite; it violates the spirit of the law.

Here's my thoughts on modesty, not directed at any particular person . . . I think a lot of times our understanding of modesty is unfortunately coloured by Protestant theology regarding bodies; we see them as a necessary evil which we will someday shed to ascend to a higher state of bodiless being. It's a very entrenched idea in religious culture; even the word 'carnal' actually means 'pertaining to the body', or 'fleshy'; we choose to use it to mean 'evil'. That'd be all well and good if not for the fact that it's exactly opposite to our doctrine--bodies are sacred and we will eventually get them back and keep them for eternity. This isn't just an incidental idea to the concept of modesty. It's the fundamental concept of modesty. We aren't modest because we're in danger of causing someone else to have bad thoughts if we dress immodestly; we're modest because our bodies are sacred gifts from God, to be shared with our spouses and no-one else. They're temples. None of us would say that it would be fine to expose certain parts of the temple ceremony as long as we meant well, were obedient in everything else, or the people around us would not have evil thoughts because of it. We know it's unacceptable because we've been told to hold those ceremonies sacred. Well, our bodies are sacred too. I think we spend too much time trying to come up with contexts where it's okay to show our bodies and too little time thinking about the fact that we've been entrusted with something sacred and instructed to protect it. When we're committed to this principle, the modest clothes do follow--but too many people come at it from the angle that we [subtext: women] dress modestly to prevent other people [men] from lusting. That's very much the lower principle.

To be honest, in my experience, if he has been diagnosed with those disorders, there's almost zero chance he'd be allowed to go on a mission anyway, regardless of any transgressions. The raising of the bar includes health issues, and many more people are being honorably excused on basis of health problems, including mental health, than they were before. I've heard of the FP granting exceptions. It's possible. However, it seems a bit unlikely in this case, in my opinion.

They aren't revealing anything new or exciting. All information about the temple ceremonies is already available online. We all know this. It's not even an innovative attack on the Church, it's just that this one has commercials in. This episode won't invalidate our covenants or make the temple less sacred any more than previous exposés have. None of us can stop this, but God can handle it, and He's fully capable of turning it to the good of the kingdom. Is it offensive? Yes. Are people going to make fun of us because of it? Undoubtedly yes. Would I take great pleasure in cancelling my subscription to HBO, if only I had one? Yep. But this God's work. HBO and Dustin Black can't stop it. The temple is still sacred. It'll still be sacred no matter how many people mock it. The Church is still true. It'll still be true even if our beliefs are ridiculed on national TV. We'll be okay.

The standard that we shouldn't date outside the Church is above and beyond the official guidence. The Strength of Youth says we should date "only those who have high standards", and that's about it. However--the sort of dating they're talking about is mostly hanging out with people and doing fun stuff together. It is not intense pairing-off, with kisses and committment and romance and love notes. Romance is for after the mission. It's for relationships that might lead to marriage. And it's never ever a good idea to become romantically involved with a non-member, because romance is what leads to marriage (and, indeed, to the escalations that can keep you from serving a mission or being sealed in the temple). I see no problem with hanging out with nonmembers and doing fun things. I see red flashing DANGER signs when it comes to romantic relationships with nonmembers. However, all that said: your father is your priesthood leader, and it's important for you to listen to his counsel. My opinion doesn't mean anything, since I don't have stewardship over you--and the Strength of Youth also says to honor our parents by obeying them, so . . .

It exists for sure, and honestly I'm surprised that people think it's little-known. We're explicitly told that we'll someday receive another anointing. The question is whether it's being actively administered now. I don't know if anyone but the GAs and any hypothetical anointees would know that . . .

I believe God is subject to eternal laws of justice and righteousness. I don't believe He's subject to the laws of nature. I think it's quite clear in the scriptures that nature is subject to God. (See here, for instance) However, I've had massive debates about this, spanning multiple YSA gatherings, so I'll stop there.

It's tough to disappoint parents. I know. But as you consider and, I hope, pray about this issue, keep in mind that you are not choosing between a civil marriage and a temple marriage. The three choices you're looking at are this: first, you can have a civil marriage and come into compliance with the law of chastity--and not get married in the temple. Or, you can continue to break the law of chastity on a regular basis--and still not get married in the temple. Or, you can leave your boyfriend, which you've said you won't do. A temple marriage is best, of course, but that isn't an option for you. Would a civil marriage disappoint your parents? Yes. It probably would (and for the record, they'll probably also guess why you can't go to the temple, even if you don't tell them). But while I think parents are awesome and all, please remember that the only parental opionion that actually matters is your Father in Heaven's--and He does know the whole story. That said: I hope that you never lose sight of the goal of temple marriage, because it absolutely can happen in your future. The Atonement can wash away every sin you've committed. So I hope that as you begin your repentence process, you do it with the determination to go to the temple someday, and that you therefore won't marry someone who isn't also determined to go to the temple. You can't go alone.

In my experience, it's true that most non-Americans are called to serve in their own country. It cuts down on cultural barriers, language barriers, visa barriers--it removes a lot of the complications that distract from the work. It frees up the missionaries to work more effectively. My mom says that the goal is to have each country be self-sustaining in its missionary force, so missionaries would only be called to their own country--I don't know if that's true, but it would certainly make sense. So I think it's likely that a new call would still be to Canada. I would definitely talk to someone about the surgery, though--they need to know if you won't be able to report on the date they expect you. I think it's wonderful that you've chosen to go on a mission. You can definitely bring something special to the field, since you know what it is to come to the Church as a convert, without your family. Don't let discouragment get between you and your service to the Lord. You aren't the only missionary who's felt disappointed at where they were called, so it's normal--but don't let it stop you. Godspeed. :)

For those who think that Adam and Eve were born, what was Jesus' role in the process? It's quite explicit in the temple and the scriptures that Jesus was involved in the organization of Adam and Eve's bodies. "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so."

As for Pam's comment, I think it's just the snappy, matter-of-fact way she phrased it. Humor's in the delivery, after all. As for the original post, the best measure I've ever heard is that if the Spirit leaves when you do something, you should stop. I don't think anybody but the couple themselves has the stewardship to decide what is acceptable in their marriage bed, and I don't think it's the same for every couple. The Spirit certainly doesn't stop at the door unless you're doing something you shouldn't, but the stewardship of Church leaders does.

Did you know they actually teach Young Women's lesson about what sort of letters to write to missionaries? The Church is concerned enough about this to integrate it into the official curriculum. The goal is to send our missionaries newsy, spiritually-based letters, and not to painfully remind them of what, or who, is waiting for them back home. The lesson talks about a survey of RMs regarding the letters they received on their missions. The RMs said that letters that reminded them of everything they were missing at home were 'depressing [and] unwelcome'. More specifically, the survey found that romantic letters from the girlfriend back home were 'unwelcome'. I can only imagine that a romantic scrapbook would be worse. It sounds like your son is truly dedicating this time to serving the Lord, instead of pining for his girlfriend. That's wonderful. You should be proud of him, and maybe advocate for him with his girlfriend, just to be sure she understands that romance right now could distract him from his calling. I had a friend who very, very nearly left his mission because he couldn't stand to be away from his girlfriend. It happens. It's a tough two years, and your son needs all the support he can get in staying focused, both from you and from his girlfriend.

I think that the organization of the Church is a means unto an end, not an eternal truth in and of itself. If the choice was to either never take the sacrament again until we were rescued, or to disobey the rules of an organization that was set up to ensure that the ordinances of the Gospel are distributed efficiently, I think God would be most pleased for us to take the Sacrament, as long as there was someone there to bless it. Jesus did command us to do it, after all. That's just me, of course, and if I were in a situation where I were cut off from my presiding leaders, I'm sure the Spirit would direct otherwise if God didn't want us to take the Sacrament.

STOP DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 Why are you even thinking about marriage when you're addicted to porn? No. With this addiction driving the Spirit away from you, there's no way you can feel out by inspiration whether or not she's right for you. You have a ton of work to do before you even think of making eternal covenants to someone else. If you were married under the influence of this addiction, your marriage covenants would be a lie from day one. Why would you make a covenant you know you will not keep? And she deserves a husband who is faithful to her, whether or not she knows that she does. Nobody suffers more from a husband's porn habit than his innocent wife. It isn't time for marriage, to her or to anybody else. Get over the porn first. It can be done. I recommend installing an accountability filter on your computer, and asking a male friend to be your accountability buddy. Covenant Eyes is the first one I thought of, but there are others.

Many of us here are coming at it from the perspective of having been baptised and been through the temple, and having made personal covenants of chastity. It would be a much bigger deal for us than for a non-member, and sometimes it's hard to switch around our perspective to accomodate for someone who truly doesn't understand the law of chastity as we do. Most girls nowadays are explicitly taught that premarital sex is healthy, normal, nothing to be ashamed of and in fact preferable to waiting until marriage (if we ever do choose to marry). This isn't my extrapolation, this is literally what's being taught. I know, I'm from the same generation as this girl. I had the good fortune to grow up with the Gospel, so I knew it wasn't true--but most girls don't. A lot of feminist theory nowadays is even explicitly pro-prostitution. These aren't uncommon teachings--they are everywhere. These are scary times, and it's horrible but not surprising to see women falling for these lies. God knows when people sin ignorantly, and I believe with all my heart that He regards His children with loving mercy when they truly don't understand what they're doing.

I like that quote a lot. We have such a cultural fixation on virginity that it stuns me sometimes. Virginity is not equal to chastity; you can be a virgin and still be unchaste. You can be a non-virgin and still be chaste. (Keep in mind that 99.999% of married people are non-virgins too. All their sexual expression may have been within marriage--but they aren't virgins. If virginity is equal to chastity or virtue, then, well, most married people are unchaste and unvirtuous. That's an obviously ridiculous conclusion, but it's the necessary one if you equate virginity to chastity or virtue) The Atonement can heal and absolve people of almost any sin; sexual sins are absolutely included, especially if the person isn't a member when the sins occurred. When God has forgiven a sin, then a person has their virtue back. It's impossible to reclaim virginity, but virginity doesn't actually matter at /all/ once God has forgiven the sin. Zero. Not even a tiny bit. In terms of someone's personal worthiness, it's as though the sin had never occurred. That's what the Atonement means. I think everyone struggles to internalize that truth, but it's nonetheless true. We can never undo any sin--I've tried, and it turns out that ctrl-Z doesn't work in realspace--but we can be made as clean as though it had never happened. It's harder to repent of sexual sin. Sexual sin can have more devestating consequences than other kinds of sin. But it can be completely, 100% forgiven, and God will remember it no more--and I think we have no right to remember it either (see Mosiah 26:31). Is she doing something wrong? She sure is. Will she still be eligable to receive forgiveness and exaltation if she repents? Yes. Without question. Exactly as eligable as we are, because we're all sinners together. Remember that in the course of justice, none of us should see salvation.

What exactly does she want? A public declaration? A personal affirmation that you're still committed to her? Does she want to throw a party? My husband's family aren't members, so they, of course, weren't able to attend our sealing. We're planning to have a ring ceremony for them, so we're facing the same issue; I think it'd be disrespectful to have a 'remarriage' ceremony, as if we were implying that the temple were insufficient, but we can't just stand there and swap rings. I like the Church of England text for 'Thanksgiving for Marriage'; this is the ceremony they use for recommitment ceremonies. There's no exchange of vows, it just recalls the vows that have already been made and affirms that the couple are still committed to them. I think this is a good balance, and if we ever get around to a ring ceremony, I plan to follow that basic pattern. You can find the text here , as an example of how they did it. Personally, if my husband and I felt like doing a renewal (we're only two months married, so we're not quite there yet ), I think we'd probably take a special trip to the temple to do sealings, to help us remember our own covenants. I've also heard that we renew all covenants when we take the sacrament, as our promise to keep God's commandments includes a promise to keep our covenants. So in that sense, we all renew our marriage commitment every week. Probably not quite the sort of ceremony she's thinking of, though. Also, as you're still married, a recommittment ceremony will have zero legal effect, no matter where it's done.

I noticed that many years ago. One example is in the Lord's Prayer; as given in 3 Nephi, it matches the Biblical version. However, there's a JST to the Bible version that changes it. (I think it changes 'lead us not into temptation' to 'suffer us not to be led', but it's been years since I looked at it) I don't have the answer either. I've always sort of assumed that Joseph did just take a break and copy over the Bible accounts; it seems like the sort of thing I'd do, at any rate. I just checked, and interestingly, the 3 Nephi verse (3 Nephi 13:12, for the interested) cross-references to the JST in the Matthew version.