its_Chet

I was kind of hoping that this big pile o' poo I stepped in might go away, but I can tell I've got more 'splaining to do. Maybe my repentance is incomplete. There's more to the story. Considerably more. But I'm not comfortable taking it any further, and it's only obvious to me now that I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, or at least should have chosen my words more carefully. By the way, thanks Puff, and you're certainly right about that. Let's just consider a standard, hypothetical situation, then. Person A disregards the law of chastity as a teenager, having numerous encounters in which various "firsts" take place, all of them with people who come and go. Later on, Person A meets Person B. While Person B cannot claim to be perfect, Person B has done a decent job of observing the law of chastity, and so virtually ever "first" is reserved for Person A. Person B has no one to compare Person A to, because Person A bill be Person B's first for pretty much everything. Not so in reverse. Consider what this will do for Person B's insecurities if Person B is an unusually sensitive person. Consider how it will make Person B feel if they should be made to feel that in spite of their own obedience to the law of chastity, they are made to pay the price for Person A's transgressions, and Person A doesn't care (should that be the case). In my own situation, there are multiple, additional complications beyond this, which make it rather difficult to handle sometimes. It's fine if there's no sympathy for me in that, but I do ask that any contempt be holstered. I wouldn't wish the pain I've endured on my worst enemy (despite my vindictive nature), and it's only been through applying the atonement in my own life that I'd been able to avoid offing myself years ago over it all, frankly. Can Person A repent? Yes. Is Person B required to forgive? Yes. IF, and I do mean IF Person A is able and willing to leave everything else behind, is Person B required to let it go and not obsess over it? Yes. IF Person A is willing to forget everyone else but Person B, is Person B justified in dwelling on Person A's past? No. If Person A changes their life, and doesn't allow anything to come between A and B, is Person B to blame if he/she can't let it go? Yes. But assigning blame is not a smart thing for someone without Priesthood authority to do, much less an under-informed, outside party, and hopefully anyone eager to pass judgment on Person A OR Person B will remember that. There's always three sides to every story, and often, only God knows that third side. This all goes back to my original post in this thread. All I was trying to say is that it appears that somehow some people get the impression that the law of chastity is only a "suggestion", and that every single consequence of breaking that law can be erased with repentance later on. The reality is that sometimes there are residual effects, and we should bare that in mind before we sin. Repenting might not cure AIDS, for example. My central point was that I hope we can find a way to get through to some of the tougher nuts to crack out there, and get them to understand how important it truly is to observe the law of chastity. We need to get them to realize that the choices they make today can cause others pain tomorrow, and that they need to consider the consequences of their actions. One thing marriage has taught me is that so many of the decisions my wife and I make, no matter how minor they may seem, affect the other one of us. Selfishness can cause pain. Let's double our efforts to teach our children not to give away what they ought to lock away in a vault until their wedding day, not just for Person A's benefit, but for Person B's benefit also. There is wisdom in the law of chastity. It is not a meaningless task master to keep us from "having fun" when we are children with raging hormones. Obeying the law of chastity prevents all kind of hurt, and if we can't see that, we at least need to trust in Heavenly Father's wisdom on the matter and obey the law of chastity. To lost87, let me ask you to consider using a different user name. How about "found09"? Please don't allow my unique and complicated circumstances to make you feel that repentance is impossible for you in your own situation. If you're married, you only need concern yourself about how your own Person B feels. If you've repented and done all you can to make sure your Person B feels like he/she and the Godhead are the most important things in your life, than you've got no reason to worry. If you're not married yet, and you've repented, all you have to do is promise yourself that when you do get married, your spouse will have that place of importance in your life, and that you will remember your sins (and those with whom they were committed) no more. If you do that, and your spouse still has feelings of insecurity, it will not be your fault, and your spouse will probably need counseling of one sort or another. The atonement is an eternal sacrifice, capable of providing us with forgiveness and eternal life, no matter how much or how badly we've sinned (provided we repent, of course), unless it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I would be cheapening the atonement, and demeaning my own Savior if I intentionally suggested otherwise, which I have not. I apologize if anything I've said has been taken that way, and assure you it's not intentional. It tears me apart when I consider the depth of Christ's suffering on our behalf and the injustices done to Him. I don't mean to add to that by suggesting that it wasn't enough. It was. I would never wish to insult Him by suggesting it wasn't.

Dang, prisonchaplain! Your idea of slightly immature humor is what I consider class and dignity! I hope that says more good about you than it does bad about me. :)

Okay, I'm very interested to know what you're referring to here. Would you expound please? Thanks Hemi

Why are you here? This website is clearly designed for the discussion of our religion by us and people friendly to us. If you're looking for a Mormon-bashing website, your search is not over and you'd be a lot less frustrated if you moved along now. But I gather from what you've said so far that you think it's appropriate for people shoot verbal spitballs in a place of reverence, and everyone's supposed to just put up with it. That is not a house of order. That is not reverent. That, sir, is not Christ's Church. Have you ever considered that when an entire congregation insists that all religion is bad, and that the only proper way to approach God is through some church that is supposedly anti-religion, that those people have organized a religion themselves? Have you ever considered that for a group of people to gather together and, in unison, declare their shared doctrine to be correct, with one of its focal points being that all religion is evil, that they are themselves a religion? In short, have you ever considered that you've made a religion out of pretending you don't have one? Please understand how seriously your criticisms of the true Church of Jesus Christ will be taken here as they are launched from the soap box you've employed thus far. You, like anyone else here, have an organized system of belief, and yet you would not allow anyone else the right to have such a system of belief if it is contrary to your own. You and people like you have made a religion out of nothing more than telling all others that they're wrong. What lost scripture have your ecclesiastical authorities translated? What Gospel principles have they restored? What laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ have been reinstituted through the authority of your church, and where did it get whatever authority it claims to have? We happen to know a little something about Christ's Church, thank you. When you are no longer content to merely have a form of Godliness while denying the power thereof, just let us know. We can teach you more about faith and truth than you have demonstrated ever imagining. I lack the patience at present to explain to you how and why there is a difference between false religion and true religion, and how writing them all off without making an honest effort to prove the hypothesis is failing to show proper diligence in the pursuit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I lack the charity at present to search for something in you that is truly willing to put God before your own pride. So I'll just end here, with much left unsaid.

Having an occasional and legitmate complaint about your government is one thing, but always blaming it for everything, believing any accusation cheerfully, and adding fuel to the fire when other countries misunderstand our decisions is another. There are too many people who behave as if they are being paid to discredit this country in any way possible, and they are usually very strident in their accusations. Funny thing is, those same people, when "their team" is in power, are quite unwilling to accept any dissenting opinions from those who disagree with them, which I find to be hypocritical. We were talking about people who make an every day deal out of criticizing this country, and are never willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, or try to represent it in a positive light when other countries get a false understanding of our intentions and goals.

I agree 100%. I'll never understand why some people feel the need to be the devil's advocate. You can be respectful without bashing your own country, religion, etc. If anything, I find less respect for people when they do that. What good is their faith when they are so willing to criticize it? What does that prove? All it proves to me is that they don't adequately respect their own religion. Sometimes I feel obliged to do that for them, even if it's a different one than mine. And as far as America bashing goes, I say "Love it or leave it". Isnt' it interesting that after the Saints migrated to Deseret, they had big 4th of July parades? They'd been spit on by various state and lower level governments, and failed to get redress from President Van Buren, and yet their patriotism remained intact. And we've got "angst-ridden" teens in the suburbs wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. Go figure.

I still think the Church did the right thing. Some offenses are just too much to allow, even if you'd rather the perpetrators just go away quietly.

God bless Penny, that's all I can say. If I wasn't typing, I'd be clapping my hands right now. Hey there sjdean! Good to see another "Dwarfer" out there! Interesting that you mention learning from television, and Red Dwarf in particular. I always found the "Justice" episode to be incredibly insightful myself. I always thought how neat it would be if we could have a justice field here on earth. You'd never have anything of yours get stolen. If someone attempted to inflict physical abuse on you, you wouldn't feel tempted to retaliate because they'd immediately suffer the effects of their assault and you wouldn't. On and on and on..... How marvelous that would be, I thought. And then I realized that it sounded more like Lucifer's plan to do things that way, and that while this world is fundamentally unjust, it's the only way for us to learn to overcome evil, to rise above it. We have to have unpleasant experiences to learn and to grow, as much as I hate to admit it. I still like the idea of living in a "justice field", but I understand now why life isn't like that. I too learn a lot from television :-)

Perhaps you might find this interesting: The 'I Hate Romney' Club - TIME

Hallelujah!!!! Penny is spot on!! And more eloquent than me. Line upon line, precept upon precept. You can live the word of wisdom, you have family home evenings, you can sample parts of the Church and get a somewhat better understanding of it as the true Church of Jesus Christ without having to take that step of being baptized and provoking the disappointment of your relatives. I think Heavenly Father understands that you need to feel safe in your decision before you get baptized. I think He understands that for converts, we all need that to some degree or another. Like Penny, I told myself that while everything I'd learned seemed undeniably true, if I felt later on that the Church was not true, I could just leave it. But I felt that in the balance, it was what I needed to do. I thought the Church was true. But I didn't know it was true until after I got baptized, and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. You will experience the same thing, as I did, as Penny did. At some point, you will come to believe the Church is true enough that you feel like getting baptized, even though you will most likely still have some small reservations about it at that point. In the balance, there will come a time where you feel more like getting baptized than waiting any longer. You will not know the Church is true until after you get baptized, because you need the gift of the Holy Spirit for that, and that comes after you're baptized. A leap of faith is required for all of us. I do believe that Heavenly Father will work with you and try to make your particular leap as gentle as possible. That's why I recommend you continue investigating the Church and build on how you've come to view it so far. That will give you more strength to do what you will eventually decide to do if you continue as you are. And that would be a very good thing, I promise you. Whatever sacrifices you make when you do join the Church, you will be more than compensated by Heavenly Father. But there's nothing wrong with minimizing your sacrifices to only what is necessary. But when you realize what sacrifice is necessary, be brave enough to take the next step. Continue investigating, and be as considerate of your husband's feelings as you can. That's my recommendation. Remember that your relationship with Heavenly Father ought to supercede ALL else. Families can be eternal, and are important beyond words, but Heavenly Father is most important. If it comes down to it, we are all expected by Him to choose Him even over family members, if it comes to that. I look at it this way: Who died for my sins? My parents? My granparents? Friends of the family? No it was my Savior. And so my relationship with Him should come before all else. And He is my mediator with Heavenly Father. It is Jesus who grants me the ability to return to Father. If my parents or granparents had a problem with me doing what I believed was necessary to honor my relationship with Jesus, I would have to choose Him over them. Luckily I was never in that position. I hope you never are either.

By all means, you have a right to your opinion. I just inferred that you were turning my words around on me to mock me. If anything, Romney has, in his role as Governor of Massachussetts, gone out of his way to avoid letting his religion influence his policy. And I don't believe it's fair to be so dismissive of my "Huckabee hang-ups", at least within the context of the time they occurred. He could be a different person now, and I refuse to presume to judge that. But common sense says that there was something bad going on in the primaries. That's why I went from being a Huckabee supporter to not being one. It's not like I had it in for him from the beginning. Far from it, actually. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a militant secularist upset with Huckabee's ability to make a policy decision that is influenced by his faith. I applaud that and I think we need a LOT more of it, regardless of the actual faith of the official. But when I get the impression that someone's ideology might motivate them to use the government to attack my religion, I get concerned. And there is definitely a precedent for that. My concerns at the time regarding Huckabee were legitimate.

There is a family in my ward that is one of those perfect families. You know the type. The movies they watch are all in black and white or animated Disney. All they do is work on the farm all the time. Not nocking them, mind you, just explaining the background here. We're talking about the poster family. The mother in the family admitted to a friend of mine that she thinks there is some bias against men, if not in principle, at least in practice. She said she thinks that women are coddled while men are not because the men are better emotionally equipped to put up with the bias. She didn't say this to justify or condemn anything, but basically just a matter-of-fact explanation for why she believed things appear to be the way they do. I suppose it's just one of those things that exists to test us, to try our testimonies. Will we hold on even if it seems there is sexism at work against us sometimes? I remember standing in line behind a highly influential High Priest in one of my former wards, at a Church buffet. He spilled some of the food off of his plate, and commented on how he thought that men were the weakest link. I wanted to pick up a spatula and whack him. His own individual clumsiness was not justification for disparaging an entire gender, even if he was rumored to be part of it. Just because I can't bare children, it doesn't mean I'm of any less worth in Heavenly Father's eyes. And if the man in front of me spills some food? Forget about it! I would ask anyone in a leadership position reading this to remember that there are some who feel that the worldly, summarily dismissive attitude toward men is creeping into the Church, and that some men may not have a strong enough testimony to deal with that. I'm not trying to tell the Lord's chosen how to do their jobs, I'm just asking them to bare this in mind. Belittling anyone is wrong. Belittling an entire demographic is destructive to society.

Aha! The plot thickens!:) This changes things, the way I see it. While I know for a fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Church of Jesus Christ (and anyone else can too if they want to know for themselves), and while I believe you shouldn't postpone joining yourself to it any longer than absolutely necessary, I can see complications to that that I didn't see before. First, I know what a pain in-laws can be. Best not to invite any wrath if you don't have to. There's another thread around here somewhere about a guy who joined the Church and his wife didn't, and now there's a bit of tension between them. He says she's coming around, in that she is less hostile than she used to be about it, and the PrisonChaplain did a good job of giving us all an idea of what the wife's point of view must be. So you've got a tightrope to walk here. I can see already that the Holy Spirit is testifying to you of the truth of the Gospel, and make no mistake, that should come first. But not yet having the gift of the Holy Spirit (and I can tell you as a convert what a TREMENDOUS difference that makes), joining the Church for you has GOT to be a little worrisome because you don't yet know that it is true, and most likely won't until after you've been given the gift of the Holy Spirit. For most people, it's a leap of faith. You jump in not knowing how you'll land, but trusting in God that you will land safely. We all do, of course, but going into it, you can't really tell how it will unfold. I had little to lose when I joined, but I was still a bit hesitant. You've got bridges that may have to be burned, if you join the Church. Not because you want them burned, but because joining the Church has a way of making enemies for people in situations like yours. You won't be the one burning the bridges, but they will burn just the same. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not it's worth it. I doubt you're going to know with the level of confidence I'd want in your situation until after you've gotten the gift of the Holy Spirit and had a few months to read scriptures, attend Church and General Conference, and pray. Doing all that without the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as doing it when you do have the gift of the Holy Spirit. There will come a point where you feel you have to make the decision. I wouldn't rush it if I were you. I'd keep diligently and earnestly investigating the Church if I were you, but I wouldn't take that big step until you're prepared to accept the persecution you may face for doing so. When you feel strongly enough about the Church to do that is a decision you have to make yourself. You're not ready yet. You need more time. I would recommend you continue to sincerely investigate the Church, and if your father in law gives you any grief, perhaps you might explain that you're only trying to learn more about the Church, and that you haven't made any commitments to it. We commonly have non members use our genealogical research centers with no strings attached. Visitors are welcome, no obligations. We encourage people to hear our message, and we go to great lengths to make it available, but we're not out to wreck your husband's home. Any way you can ease the tension would be helpful to your own situation. Not much more I can say other than this: Do what you think is right. The Holy Spirit (aka your conscience) will guide you. Have the courage to follow Him (the Holy Spirit), and if you lack courage, pray for it. Your situation is not easy, but God will be there for you.

As often as the participants in that conversation are as polite and respectful as you two are. In other words, not often enough. But I'll take what I can get.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to say is that it stands to reason that of all the other worlds populated in by Heavenly Father's children, they are likely at various stages in eternal development. Some are telestial kingdoms, pre judgment (like this one), or post judgment, with resurrected beings living there, having been judged worthy to receive that particular level of glory. Some are terrestrial kingdoms, some are celestial kingdoms. I did not mean to imply that Father has children or creates worlds that begin in a celestial state, skipping all the growth and maturation that is necessary to demonstrate one's appropriate eternal destiny. I apoligize if I was not clear. By superior faith, I meant that on any one of those other worlds, there is insufficient evil for that world's people to crucify the Son of God. If the term "superior faith" troubles you, feel free to substitute something else, and I'm confident we'd remain in essential agreement, as we basically are now.

I'm also quite disgusted with the frequency and ease with which certain words used to define reproductive anatomy are used on television these days. When I was a kid, the worst words I'd ever hear on television started with D or H, and could be found in the scriptures.

I'm sick to death of hearing everyone selling food on television using the word "decadent" to describe chocolatey desserts. It's like one grammar school drop out started misusing a word he didn't even know the definition of and a bunch of flunkies and yes men started immitating him. What a bunch of lemmings! Next, will they start using the word "superfluous" to describe desserts with lemon or cherry in them? Man, that pie was SUPERFLUOUS! And then every time a commercial for nutri-system comes on they'll mention their "superfluous" desserts. Shakespeare must be rolling in his grave.

I concur with Alana. Jesus is the Savior of all the worlds He has created, delegated the task by Heavenly Father. All of those worlds which are populated by children of Heavenly Father (who look just like us) worship the Savior just like we do, pray to Him just like we do, and look to Him for a remission of their sins. Like us, they too believe that Jesus is the way, the only way to eternal salvation, and that we can only approach Heavenly Father through Him, the great Mediator. And like Alana says, it wouldn't be that much different to compare people living on a planet where Jesus did not conduct His mortal ministry and be crucified and living on the same planet in a different dispensation. Either way, we know Him only through the Holy Spirit and the Gospel He has given us, and very few people in the world today have ever actually seen Him. I'm sure He has visited people on other worlds. I'd venture to say such a thing probably keeps Him busy, even now, especially considering that no other world He has created is as evil as this one is, collectively speaking. Maybe He's able to spend more time on other worlds because of their superior faith. Maybe on other worlds His feet touch the ground outside of a Temple. On some other worlds they don't even need Temples, because that world has been Celesitalized and that whole world is a Temple. Interesting to think about. I always like to ponder the eternal destiny of mankind, and what all it involves.

I personally don't believe in any secrets between spouses. While it doesn't mean that I think spouses need to give each other a verbal report of every waking minute of their day, I believe that secrets are destructive. If what I'm doing has to be hidden, and it's not a surprise for her birthday, it's wrong. If she feels the need to keep a box full of love letters from old boyfriends under the bed, that's wrong. I don't want to be married to someone who is clinging to their past, with other people. I want to be married to someone who only wants to be married to me, and has no regrets about it. I think secrets, even if they don't actually make this so, at least always threaten the possibility. And how can we trust a spouse who feels the need to keep things from us? what are they hiding? Before I got married, I told my wife all the really bad things I'd ever done. Not to dwell on them, or fail to avail myself of the atonement, or any of the other things that I hear bandied about by sanctimonious folks sometimes. I told her those things for one single reason: so that she'd know the worst I've ever done, so there'd be no unpleasant discoveries in the future, and so that if she was okay with that, I'd know that we could make it. It's like that part in the movie "Meet Joe Black", where that guy who really loves his wife tells Joe, "She knows the worst thing I've ever done, and it's okay. And when two people know the worst the other has done, they're then free to love each other fully." Okay, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's my point. No hiding. No secrets. Being up front, forthcoming, honest. That's the way to go. A spouse who can't manage this is not the kind of person I'd want to be married to. When two people get married, do they lose their individuality? I think not. Yes, the two become one, metaphorically speaking, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to get new hobbies or become a different person. You have to take into consideration that the decisions you make now affect two people, not just one. You have to take your spouse's needs and wants into consideration when making decisions that are personal and seem to be your own singular prerogative. That's the discipline. I believe that if a married couple successfully shows consideration for each other when making decisions throughout decades of marriage, they will eventually become more and more like each other, and those kinds of sacrifices will become easier. In fact, you might say that they would be turning into each other, becoming like each other. And in that way, they would perhaps give up their individuality, in a manner of speaking, but it would be voluntary. In my own experience, after less than two decades of marriage, I've found that my wife is such an indescribably essential part of my identity that without her I'd be a broken, hollow shell of a person. I may not feel that way all the time, but when she is out of town visiting relatives, it's unmistakable. I felt complete before I met her, but without her now, I'd be only a shadow of complete. That's how I think it should be. Married people should need each other like they need air.

It may be important at this point to draw a distinction between making a deal with God and seeking a sign or testing God. One is perfectly okay, and the other two are not. Making a deal with God is okay. It's basically like making a covenant, only not as serious since it's not sealed by the Priesthood, and is usually done from a significantly less enlightened position than a covenant would be. Even when, like in my case that I mentioned on my last post, the deal is made by someone who has little faith and isn't sure what will happen, there is still a modicum of faith required. We don't make deals with a God we're convinced doesn't exist, after all. I guess in a way the deal I made at the airport could have been kind of considered a test, but I like to think that since I went beyond honoring my end of the deal that respect and gratitude were the over riding factors in that deal. Basically, making a deal with God, as I see it, is a plea for His assistance by a person not fully convinced one way or the other what He will do, but yet believes that He can do something to help. And part of making a deal involves ponying up your end of it also. Seeking a sign or testing God, on the other hand, are bad ideas. They imply skepticism, cynicism, and pride. It's as if to say "If you're really there, prove it." And invariably, that which is sought by the person doing such a thing is some kind of miracle that only follows faith. Faith which is absent in the endeavor. It's like demanding that a wagon move on its own without a horse to pull it. But in addition to that, it's a slap in the face to God. It's treating him like your own personal "yes man", a breath-taking show of irreverence and disrespect. God builds planets and stars, and governs worlds without number. It is very unbecoming to demand that He satisfy mere curiosity or prove His existence, contrary to the plan of salvation. The plan of salvation requires that we demonstrate faith before we receive any signs. That faith may not have to be much, but at least some is always required. I don't know how much faith deblldo has, but I think it's safe to say she has enough to get things started here. Perhaps the question is, is she beyond that point? Is she at a point where Heavenly Father, rather than sending the missionaries to her, wants her to seek them out? I think only deblldo can answer that one. Maybe that's the real question. How much faith does she feel the Holy Spirit asking of her? More than she's shown so far? Not more? She may need to consider that as part of the path to getting answers. I think sjdean is onto something. As a convert, I know that my baptism took a leap of faith. My testimony came later. I got baptized on a hunch. The miracle (in that case, my testimony) came after the demonstration of faith.

Cute. Did Mike Huckabee learn about Mormons when he was in seminary? - By Michelle Tsai - Slate Magazine Read that, for starters. When you're done, look at the picture I'm attaching, and tell me it's not possibly contrived, and implying something about the eligibility of the other candidates in the republican primary, particularly Mitt Romney. There was much discussion at the time by many people that suggested it was intentionally done just that way. Next, read this: How the Southern Baptist Convention has tried to keep its members from becoming Mormons. - By Neil J. Young - Slate Magazine If you're up for some in depth analysis of the anti-Mormon materials that were being distributed at the 1998 SBC in Salt Lake City, this is a long, but informative read: What Certain Baptists Think They Know about the Restored Gospel - Daniel C. Peterson - FARMS Review - Volume 10 - Issue 1 If you do all this and still believe that at the time, I did not have a legitimate concern about Huckabee's attitude toward freedom of religion for non-mainstream Christians, then let's hear what you have to say. And hopefully your point will be more reasonable than merely twisting my words around and throwing them at me like a spitball. Whether or not Mike Huckabee means it when he now says that he doesn't have it in for Latter Day Saints, that's a decision everyone needs to make on their own, even if it means reevaluating him. But at the time, as I stated in my last post, I had a legitimate concern, based on things Mike Huckabee had said, and on things that the SBC has a well established and ongoing penchant for saying. I could provide links to some of the most revolting anti-Mormon garbage I've ever seen, taking you straight to official SBC websites, but I prefer to leave such lies and deceptions in darkness where they belong. I was living in Salt Lake City when the SBC came in 1998. I saw the billboards and full page newspaper ads they bought. The attitude conveyed by them was not one of charity and respect, but of a condescending group of people who were going to introduce "the Mormons" to a Savior they'd never known. Honestly, there is one, chief reason why the SBC comes to Salt Lake City every so often. They see themselves in a "turf war" with a religion that, unlike themselves, has no paid clergy. Like those who persecuted the ancient Apostles for threatening their livelihood as idol makers, these people are gunning for the Church for the same reason. Maybe Mike Huckabee has spent enough time outside their influence to learn that "the Mormons" aren't the cult he has undeniably been told we are. I'm willing to take Huckabee at face value today. Are you willing to admit that his behavior during the primaries, in addition to his affiliation with one of the most hardened anti-Mormon groups in the world was at least, at the time, a cause for some concern?

No offense, but are you implying something?

It's been my experience that making deals with God doesn't provide the results you expect, but still strengthens your faith, enough to make it worth your while. It is, after all, basically a covenant without the sealing power of the Priesthood. When my mother and I were stranded in a foreign country, out of money with four days left for our return flight home, and the airline wanted us to pay a fee to go home early, I made a deal with God. I offered to read a chapter out of the Bible each Sunday for every day early He got us home. My mother appealed to all the airlines for help. We didn't get out that day, but we got out the next (Thank you Continental!). Rather than reading three chapters, as the deal would have required, I read four (Thank you God!). When I had fallen in love for the second time with a girl who only thought of me as a friend, I made a deal with God that I would burn all the "adult" magazines and videos I had in exchange for Him making her mine. I did my part in advance. He did not make her mine, but I'm hard pressed to call that not honoring His end of the deal, though technically that's an accurate statement. She was poison. She would have made my life a hell that would have ended in my suicide, and I have no doubt of that. I have never regretted the decision I made, even though I didn't get what I wanted. My point is that I have never made a deal with God that I regretted, regardless of how He held up His end of it. And the way He holds up His end is never the way I expect, going into it, though I always end up better in the end, and it's mostly because when we make a covenant with God, the real reward comes from what we do. When we shed a sin, when we sacrifice a vice, when we commit to honor God, we make ourselves eligible for blessings we had not previously been worthy or strong enough to receive. That said, if I were you, I'd keep reading the Book of Mormon (not because it is "better" than the Bible, but because you're already familiar with the Bible), keep pondering it (without the encumberance of holding societal conventions above the wisdom of God, as we are all tempted to do from time to time), and keep praying. Eventually, the missionaries will come to you. They are servants and messengers of God, rather than God Himself, so the level of their ability to discern His will is an added factor to the equation. If they don't come right away, it could mean that they were preoccupied with something else and did not hear His call, or perhaps God wants you to continue studying, to prepare your heart to receive the message they will bring. Heavenly Father always does what He thinks is best, even if it's not what we think is best. And He's smarter than we are. As a convert to the Church, I can assure you that it is the true Church of Jesus Christ. I suspected it when I got baptized, but after continuing to study the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I eventually came to know it is true, for certain. When baptized by someone with the proper authority, we are next given the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is an ordinance in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and all ordinances are necessary for our salvation, like baptism, for example. The gift of the Holy Spirit allows us an increased level of guidance from the Holy Spirit. We become eligible for personal revelation, and this is the only way we can truly know that Jesus is the Christ, that our Heavenly Father lives and loves us, as well as all other truth. A man can lie, regardless of whether or not he actually is lying. A book can contain lies and misinterpretations, regardless of whether not it actually does. The fact that these oracles have room for error by their nature necessitates our reliance upon the Holy Spirit to confirm truth to us. This is how Heavenly Father intended it to be. Not all men and books lie. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Apostles are here to teach us the truth, but we can only know they are true by the confirming "voice" of the Holy Spirit. And when the Holy Spirit reveals truth to us, it is more reliable than anything we could read or hear, because we know the source is incapable of lying. Scientists often have untrue theories. Our senses can deceive us. Empirical evidence is less reliable than the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A book or the teachings of a Prophet may be true, but we can't know that until the Holy Spirit verifies it to us. That said, you will find, the more that you study the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that it is logical, when properly understood. While logic alone should not be used to determine which Church is true, you will find logic in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, once the seemingly confusing things in it are properly understood. There is much in the Bible and the Book of Mormon that I did not understand until after sufficient study, pondering, and prayer, and this with in conjuction with the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Church has some truly remarkable scholars whose assistance has been helpful as well. But like all truth, you can only know it's true when the Holy Spirit confirms. Until then, it's taken on faith, which isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong on that. When the answers have not yet come, and it seems they never will, it is faith that helps us endure to the end. I believe God prefers that we act on faith rather than knowledge sometimes, even though He freely gives me knowledge as a reward for my faith. Faith is more important that knowledge, because faith can carry us forward when knowledge stops. Long story short, be prepared for the missionaries to come talk to you, but don't give up on them if they don't show on time. You still have access to limited guidance from the Holy Spirit, you have the Bible and the Book of Mormon, both of which are profoundly important books full of truth and wisdom. And you still have prayer. Don't be afraid to do what you think is right, even if it defies the conventional thinking of the society in which you live. They laughed at Noah until it started to rain. The Hebrews believed Moses had led them to their death until the Red Sea parted. The Sanhedrin assumed that because Jesus chose not to come down from the cross and avenge Himself that it meant He couldn't do it. The Church is true. When you independently find this to be the case, don't be afraid to be baptized. I leave this with you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I'm having deja vú. Let me tell you about my own situation and you may glean from it what you will. My wife, before I met her, was one of the world's biggest flirts. She craved attention from guys, but would get tired of them and move on. That in and of itself caused only minor problems for her before we met, but after we got engaged, she got tired of me just like all the other guys. We went ahead and got married anyway, and have been married for about 13 years now. She has bipolar disorder, or some other emotional handicap, and it's severe. I don't think it necessary to expound but there are other issues as well. Living with her has always been hard. I used to wonder if God was punishing me because although I was a virgin when I got married, we had overstepped a boundary or two that we ought not to have. I've come to realize that when I'm getting yelled or screamed at by my wife, it's not my fault, and to a point, it's not hers either. I'm slowly learning after all these years to take her mood swings with a grain of salt, even though they are very extreme, and I can be easily provoked. She's the only person I've ever known that had mood swings, and learning how to deal with them is extremely difficult. It is a slow and remarkably painful process. I have had to get to know her all over again repeatedly. I have had to find other reasons to love her besides the one for which I fell in love with her in the first place, as that reason vanished long ago and only makes brief and infrequent appearances during an upward mood swing. The mood swings are the epitome of chaos. There's no rhyme or reason. No control I have. Sometimes she's up when I'm being a selfish jerk. Sometimes she's down when I'm experiencing a moment of spiritual perfection. What I do, what I say, all seem to have no effect. Before I met my wife, I was in love with a different girl who took medication for depression, and I told her I wanted to make her so happy that she wouldn't need it. She told me that was not possible. I thought it meant she didn't have any confidence in me. I have come to understand that was not the point at all. I submit that your boyfriend has an emotional disorder. You can try to stick it out. You may even get him to commit to doing the same if you get him to propose to you. If you two are as stubborn as my wife and me, you'll continue to be married after all the pain, tears, wailing, and suffering. The question you have to ask yourself is "Is it worth it?" You will not change him. That's not pessimism; I'm not a pessimistic person. It's reality. You will not change him and you won't be able to control his mood swings. If it's worth it to you, be warned that you are in for an extremely bumpy ride, so it had better be worth it. Proceed with caution. Marriage ought to be permanent. Don't write a check you can't cash. And think long and carefully, with your head and not your heart, about whether or not you want to cash this one. Ultimately, I suggest finding a compromise for your heart and your head. Your head should be telling you to cut this guy lose and run for the hills. Your heart is obviously telling you that you can't live without him. There's got to be a middle ground somewhere. I suggest looking for it, because listening to just your heart or your head only will most likely cause you regrets.

I think someone's pulling our legs here.