Faded

Well, Here are the sum total of actual questions in your original post: You will have to forgive me if those didn't sound like actual questions. Those are leading rhetorical questions phrased in a very patronising way, belittling the beliefs that you assume we have. Implying that you already know that we practice our religion out of utter terror of deity, assuming that we condemn all who disagree with us to burn in hell for eternity and that we think there's no such thing as a good person without religion.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints departs significantly from orthodox Christian dogma on a great many points. The common sense approach is to ask questions like, "Is it true that you believe _______?" That way you can be disabused of any incorrect assumptions you might have about our beliefs. And I have no doubt that you've encountered a wide array of opinions on the matter, but what is the official doctrinal stance taken by the religion they are a part of? You may find a Catholic who does not believe in the Trinity, ex-Nihilo creation or infant baptism. That does not mean that Catholic accurately represents the teachings of the Catholic Church. As to the notion of burning in hell for all eternity for being gay: If you think we believe that then you're grasp of LDS theology is pretty much nonexistent. I have no problem with you stating up front that you are and atheist and that you are a homosexual. Saying as much isn't going to bother me one bit. It's honest disclosure and appreciated. The rest of your original post -- to me -- came across as confrontational and patronising, yet full of incorrect assumptions about what we actually believe. My suggestion would be to ask questions until you feel you know enough about our beliefs to carry on an intelligent conversation first, then if you still feel so inclined feel free to pursue the debate of the homosexuality issue.

I don't disagree. Ideally we do the right things for the right reasons, but some people don't work that way and need to be driven by dread and fear. I wonder if the OP is even serious about having a discussion. Possible and even very likely they're kicking over the proverbial anthill just to see what happens. I'm very curious to see if they actually respond to any of the posts going forward. If they do then it strikes me as a very strange way to make your first post. That's why I linked the argument clinic video -- they just remind me of the man in the video who is ever so politely asking if he can please have an argument.

For starters, he might just be delusional enough to believe that if you hit the gym every day and just work at it then you'd get down to size 3 in no time at all and if only you had the body of a porstar (ala the porn you say he's been addicted to) then you're marriage would suddenly be heaven on earth. For starters, he's nuts. A person who obsesses about his wife being overweight would be obsessing about some other flaw even if she did have a perfect body, face, etc. Therein lies one of the biggest problems with pornography addiction. The women are actually real women, so the man thinks "Why doesn't my wife look like that?? If that woman can keep herself looking like that, why can't my wife do it?" Well, if you have the time, money and mental fortitude to spend six hours in the gym everyday with a personal trainer and to hire a nutrition consultant, maybe you could get to a more ideal weight in a few years. If you actually have that kind of time and money, then by all means go for it -- not so much for him but for yourself. You slimming down to a size six isn't going to fix the underlying issues in that man's head. His problem is that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, even if it isn't.Is it possible to love a woman and be happily married to her if she's 50+ lbs overweight? Absolutely! I am happily married to just such a woman. Would it be easier if she was 130 lbs? Does it bother me that my wife is about 100 lbs heavier that I'd like her to be? Yeah it does bother me more than I'd like to admit (since I'd prefer to lie and say it doesn't bother me at all of course). I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me some. I really wish it didn't bother me at all. It makes me feel like a terrible person for letting it bother me even a little bit. I love my wife very much and do my best to avoid thinking like that but it still happens sometimes. If she magically dropped down to 130 lbs, I'd be thrilled beyond belief! And once again, having said that I feel like a complete scumbag for saying it. Ultimately, I love her no matter what and I'll never make our marriage and my love for her conditional on something so trivial as her weight. I'm not stupid. I know full well that if I can't love her just the way she is, I wouldn't be able to love her any better at an ideal weight. It certainly would be nice if she was suddenly super-thin. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. It would also be nice if my work gave me a $1 million raise tomorrow. What's the point in obsessing over what isn't? But I guess it's just human nature that we do it anyways. So my honest answer: Go ahead and do your best to get yourself in the best shape possible. It might even help a little bit. Just realize that it's not going to solve the real issues here. A man who is willing to give up on his marriage that reason is likely to find other reasons to give up on his marriage. It's almost certain he doesn't realize it yet though.

The Hebrew word we see translated to "fear" is a loaded word that means a great many things beyond "being scared of." Reverence, love, devotion, submission and other things are implied in many cases, especially when it is "fear of God." Faith in the NT and Fear in the OT are somewhat equivalent really. We just don't have a good word equivalent in English, especially the modern usage of the word "fear."

So a man walks into a room full of strangers and says, "Sorry for the interuption but I'd like everyone here to know why I'm right and they're wrong." Seems like a pretty silly thing for a first post on a forum don't you think? The scientific jury is still out on the science of how homosexuality happens. No clear evidence for or against genetic predisposition, we simply have no idea there. But from the gays I have known in my life I can accept that it is not always a conscious decision to become homosexual. Why on earth do you suppose that's so important to point out whilst introducing yourself to a group of complete strangers? Seems a rather odd way to say hello. Acceptance isn't really in question. We'll agree to disagree over the moral correctness of homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I'm required to hate you, demonize you or belittle you in any way. You presume to know a great deal about the Church of Jesus Christ and it's members but clearly you don't know very much at all. So were you hoping to better understand us or are you here for no other reason that telling us that we're wrong about everything we believe to be true? The fact that you introduced yourself as an atheist means you haven't much use for God. What are the chances of you actually understanding something that you believe to be useless? While I can't say for certain whether they all have websites, it's worth pointing out that you're one down and more than 30,000 Christian denominations to go. Then you can move on to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and the rest of the religions that believe homosexuality is sinful and wrong. If your message is "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality" to all those who think otherwise, I do hope you have an abundance of spare time because you've got your work cut out for you. Or have you already gone to websites of other religions with your message? If you've chatted with other faiths on the matter, how did it go anyways? I must say I'm very curious: If we just happen to be the first religion you're coming to with this discussion, I'd love to know why we've been so honored to be your first pick?

Is it just me or are you doing this: I may have more to say later.

Correct. The Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize the validity of a marriage between man and man, woman and woman, man and horse or woman and cat. Why on earth would a change in human law automagically cause God to up and change his mind? If NABLA gets their way, marriages between older men and young boys will one day be completely legal. Sexual relationships between older men and young boys actually gained social acceptance in ancient Rome after all. Marriages between older men and unwilling eight year old girls is an ongoing occurrence in third world and Muslim nations. It's not impossible for such a things to gain widespread legal status, is it? Homosexuality was a huge socially taboo thing for thousands of years, yet here we are. Does the fact that marriage between a 40 year old man and an 8 year old girl is unthinkable today mean that it will always remain unthinkable and to your point illegal? One thing I'd like to address that is bothering me about this: Why is your daughter making it a "Mormon vs the Gay Community" issue when it is in fact a "Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and every other major world religion vs the Gay Community." Excepting new-thinking variants who like to make themselves politically correct, there is no major world religion that does not consider homosexuality sinful. How does she think it's just about the "Mormons"?? EDIT: Anyways, I think in my mental wanderings I've stumbled across an example for you. There are many modern examples of this practice but I can't link them because they seem angry and spiteful towards Islam which I have little taste for. The best example I can find quickly is Aisha, one of Muhammad's wives. He married her when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Obviously this would be unthinkable in modern America, but for him is was perfectly legal. Following this precedent, marriage to very young girls is perfectly legal in many predominantly Muslim nations, with the express requirement that the girl must reach puberty before her husband has sex with her. When the unthinkable becomes 100% legal, does it change it from wrong to right? Where is the dividing line between right and wrong? Is social acceptance an acceptable measuring stick for right and wrong?

A better example might be pedophiles. It's just as likely for attraction to underage children to have a genetic component and homosexuality. And there are life events that happen (such as being a victim of a pedophile) that significantly increase your chances of being sexually attracted to small children yourself. Pedophiles are not necessarily violent criminals. Their sexually deviant predisposition is likely to not be their fault. The difference is that pedophilia is not given the same due consideration as homosexuality, largely because pedophiles who act on their sexual attraction are violating the rights of the children they victimize. That does not mean that they consciously decided one day to be intensely attracted to little boys and/or girls. Odds are they probably didn't. In fact, pedophiles are most often among the most self-loathing people you'll ever encounter. You better believe that the vast majority wish they weren't attracted to little kids. Homosexual and pedophile both have sexual impulses and attractions that are not socially acceptable and in both cases, acting on those attractions and impulses is sin of a very high order. Why would it matter if they're born that way or not in either case? We live in a society where adultery, orgies, pornography, homosexuality, fornication and all manner of sexual deviancy is considered perfectly acceptable. Consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they see fit so long as they do no harm and do not violate the rights of others. That does not mean that it's all fine and good in God's eyes.

The is no official doctrine stating that all homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. There is no official doctrine about the possibility that genetics might have a role to play. The Church does not have a ironclad stance on the why's and the root causes of homosexuality. Each individual case must be considered individually obviously. But homosexuality is viewed as something that can be, should be and has been overcome successfully many many times. Not all are successful and my heart certainly goes out to those who are unsuccessful in overcoming it. The only clear Church stance on the issue is this: You can have same-gender attraction and still be a member of the Church in good standing so long as you do not act on said impulses and attractions. Not much different from a heterosexual member who spends their entire life single through no fault of their own. They are both expected to obey the law of chastity. The Law of Chastity = No sexual relations of any kind unless it is between husband and wife. The expectation for both is the same: No sexual relations outside of marriage.

While it's certainly no picnic, does this really surpass the Dustbowl drought during the Great Depression??? "This catastrophe intensified the economic impact of the Great Depression in the region. The Dust Bowl has been identified as the "most extreme natural event in 350 years"" Things aren't good, I'll give you that, but United States has been through worse.

The year 2012 might just see the Second Coming happen!! Then again it might not. "“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." -- Matthew 24:36 I take that to heart. The ancient Mayas were never told when the Second Coming would happen. The ancient Nephites were never told. Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, Peter, James and John all didn't know when it would happen during their mortal lives and prophets and apostles. Even now in heaven -- standing in God's very presence -- they still don't know. I always find it quite comical hearing people trying to predict when the Second Coming will happen. We don't know and we're better off not knowing. The funny thing is, with so many people predicting when the world will end ... eventually somebody's going to guess right.

The studies continue but nobody has actually proven that genetics has anything to do with it. There were a couple studies that showed something like a 2% increase in likelihood to become homosexual attributing it to genetics. Trouble with that is that 5% is the standard deviation of any statistical study, so a 2% greater chance is statistically irrelevant. Now if you are aware of better studies with better results feel free to share them. No doubt there are many. By the same token, there is an unending quest to prove that imbibing alcohol is actually good for you -- and in like manner, studies that "prove" this fact were biased to begin with. People want to feel better about consuming the poison known as ethanol alcohol, therefore there will always be people out to prove that said poison has healthy benefits. Ultimately, nobody has actually proven that ethanol itself has any positive benefits, but it's a medical fact that it is very bad for you. Likewise, studies suggesting that homosexuality is genetic and claiming it as "a proven scientific fact" are rarely unbiased and I've yet to hear of one that actually proves anything with any certainty at all. Ultimately, the "gay gene" has never been found. It's all theoretical at this point, but people want it to be true, so there will always be studies that claim to prove it. Is homosexuality an inevitability that occurs at conception? I have no idea but I tend to think it isn't. Does that mean that all same-gender attraction is something the individual actively chooses? No, I don't think that is the case either. I think there's a lot of same-gender attraction that happens in direct contradiction to what the individual actually wanted for themselves. As to your other point about gender being a premortal and eternal characteristic, I think there are many things that will have to be sorted out in the eternities. A friend of my was born with both male genitalia as well as a uterus and ovaries -- both of which were unknown because she was not born with a vaginal opening. After considerable prayer and introspection, she decided that she was really and truly a girl and not a boy, despite having lived as a boy/man for her entire childhood and even serving a full-time mission as a man. I'm willing to accept that she's right and that she really is a girl. There are many grey areas and we can and should leave those things in God's hands. Now if somebody finds themselves attracted to those of their same gender against their will, ultimately one must realize that "the natural man is an enemy to God." What is natural and what God expects of us often are polar opposites. My heart goes out to those who face this trial. It must be a terrible thing to face. But outright acceptance just isn't an option. No Mormon nor any other Christian who actually takes the Bible seriously can conclude that homosexuality is fine and good. It is condemned repeatedly in very strong words in both Old and New Testaments. So while the Church of Jesus Christ has immense love and sympathy for those struggling with same gender attraction, it is not acceptable for one of us to be a practicing homosexual.

madeleine1, I love the fact that this has changed in recent history, but it's all very new thinking. Back in the day, the Church was nitpicking over the tiniest details. Wars were fought and people slaughtered over the most subtle of differences. Protestantism represents a much larger departure from orthodoxy than many, many movements who were violently crushed before. Catholicism did try to eradicate Protestantism but they were unsuccessful. The fact that they didn't succeed and eventually came to accept Protestantism as a misdirected but well meaning group of Christians comes about primarily because they actually survived. if I had a time machine, I'd take you back to Konstanz, Germany July 5, 1415. You could explain to to Jan Hus how the Catholic Church does not seek to impose their will on others while he is being burned alive by the Catholic Church. I love that Catholicism has made such great strides in tolerance and acceptance of those who believe differently from them. Historically, that's not something they've done very well at. The point I'm driving at is simple: Protestantism isn't heresy because: a.) It survived and grew to be very very large. b.) Catholicism has drastically changed it's approach to "heresy" in the last 500 years. They don't kill people just for disagreeing with them -- not anymore that is. PC can better explain it than me, but as I understand it, Protestantism holds that no hierarchical system of control, rule and decree was ever intended and that after the apostles, Christianity becomes a "priesthood of all believers." I don't think that they acknowledge that leaders from the Pope on down had any right to rule Christendom, but imposed their rule without any right to do so. So coming from that understanding, if we're looking at it from the Protestant point of view, did anyone have any right to tell the Gnostics that they were wrong and systematically eliminate them? If all of the Protestant Reformers had come around with their same ideas in the first five centuries AD, they would have faced the same fate as Gnosticism and with their successful elimination they would be branded heretics as well.

From a Latter Day Saint perspective, the day you got married the Law of Chastity switches from "thou shalt not" to "thou shalt." So not only is it unhealthy, it stands in direct defiance of God's commandments. The command to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" is still in effect for all married couples. It may not help your sister in law to just tell her that, I'm just establishing that it most certainly isn't okay with the Lord. Getting her to come around? Impossible to say until you find the underlying cause. Sexual abuse? Just over-zealously keeping the law of chastity? Physical issues? The solution depends on the cause of course.

Soninme, you're Protestant. You're not in agreement with with the Catholic Church. Therefore you are just as much a heretic as a Gnostic.The Gnostics were an extremely broad category of Christians. They are the earliest serious thinkers who actively sought to develop Christian theology. So many different groups, practices and beliefs have been tossed into the pot "Gnostic" that it's pretty much impossible to nail down any certain beliefs that they all have in common. Catholicism adopted about half of what the Gnostics came up with and claim it as their own. The other half of their material was denounced of course. So what you've got to wonder is if the early Church got it right. Did they throw out truths that the Gnostics had preserved? Did they adopt any false doctrines by mistake? Protestantism gets itself into a bit of a pickle here. Ancient Catholicism denouncing and exterminating Gnosticism goes against the entire basis of Protestantism. It's basically Catholicism telling other Christians what they can or can't believe in. If Protestants thinks it's wrong now, how can it be right back then?

I was actually shocked and disappointed by most Protestant ministers I met when I was a missionary because they really didn't know the Bible that well, so I get where you're coming from feeling disappointed that some Latter Day Saints don't know the Bible as well as they should. I've read the Bible through and I can't really tell you how many times because I don't know. I've also read the Book of Mormon through more times than I can count. Same is true of the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Any Latter Day Saint SHOULD HAVE read the Bible at least once ever four years. As has already been explained, we're on a four year rotation: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants. We're all supposed to be reading the assigned parts of the Bible prior to the upcoming Sunday School lesson covering those passages. Unfortunately, many don't do so because nobody's going to "give them an F" in Sunday School if they don't do the assigned reading. There are several reasons that the Book of Mormon is going to come across as you describe: More important than the Bible. 1.) It is the single greatest key to conversion in our faith. Knowing that the Bible is true and the word of God tells you that the right broad category of religious belief is Christianity. Knowing the Book of Mormon is true and that it is the word of God tells which of the 30,000+ Christian denominations is The Church and Kingdom of God and Christ here on earth. 2.) Knowing that the Bible is true tells you God is real. Knowing that the Book of Mormon is true also tells you that God is real, but it also tells you that God has once again sent living apostles and prophets to this world and re-established His living Church. 3.) If the Book of Mormon is true, then you know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God because of the circumstances of the Book of Mormon's discovery and translation. 4.) If Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God then this religion was built from bottom to top under the constant direction of God himself and that it is still under His personal direction. The Book of Mormon is the most tangible item that makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints distinct from all other Christian religions. It sets us apart and makes us different. But this does not mean that the Bible is undervalued in the LDS Church. While the Book of Mormon contains the record of a branch of Israel that was broken off, if we want to know everything leading up to the first page of the Book of Mormon (in 600 BC) we must turn to the Bible. If we want to know what Jesus Christ did during his mortal ministry here on earth, we must rely on the Bible (this alone skyrockets the importance of the Bible.) The Book of Mormon references the Law of Moses and teaches that it was filled with types and shadows of the life and sacrifice of Christ, but if we want to study the Law of Moses to see this for ourselves, we must rely on the Bible. If we want to read about the creation of the world, the life of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so forth, we must rely on the Bible. If we want to read the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Malachi, etc -- we must rely on the Bible. If we want to read the book with more prophecies of the life of Christ than any other - Psalms - we have to turn to the Bible. If we want to come to know God as completely as we possibly can, we rely on "every word which proceeds from the mouth of God": The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the words of the living prophet and apostles, etc. And in all these things, we pray to God and get to know him better first-hand. Hope that helps. If it doesn't just ask questions, etc.

From the Church of Jesus Christ's perspective, we would give those passages a grade of "Incomplete." Yes they are true, but no they don't tell the whole story. Consider that the revelation that introduced Eternal Marriage to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Doctrine and Covenants section 132. This revelation contains almost exactly the same wording as the New Testament passages you cited (bolded below). The difference is that it offers what we believe is the full picture instead of just a small part of it. (Tried to shorten it a bit so I'm not assaulting you with a giant wall of text. Feel free to read the whole thing here.) So essentially all of the instances where a marriage or any other connection) will not continue after death are enumerated first, then the one and only way for family relationships to endure eternally is explained. We believe this was taught in the time of Christ in the same manner. The Biblical record has some of the information but the most important parts are missing.

The problem with making generalizations about atheists is that there are so many types of atheists. There are those who believe it is immoral to insist that there is a God, which they view as perpetuating a lie, and those folks are very determined to prove to anyone who cares to see that they can be a good person while rejecting the existence of God at the same time. In my experience, these are a a small minority among atheists. The greater bulk of atheism is a jumbled mess of things. Some saw terrible tragedy strike in their life and decided that God doesn't exist because if there was a God, he would never allow horrible things to happen.Some are atheists of convenience who are really more interested in discarding the rules and consequences associated with God than they are in discarding God (but they have to put a good face on things if/when challenged.) . Some of them focus on cases where horrible things were done in the name of God and religion and decide the world would be a better place without religion. In the face of overzealous religion at it's worst, these sorts of atheists tend to seem like the voice of reason in the midst of insanity in far too many cases. Take the recent massacre of UN workers in Afghanistan for example. The protesters were angry that Rev Terry Jones held an official Koran burning in Florida, but an atheist might easily point out, "The morality of the Judeo-Christian God is less than useless when all it takes is a book burning halfway around the world to incite you to murder." Every world religion has seen similar idiocy in it's history, so no religion gets to say "that doesn't apply to us."It's the last case of atheism that is the hardest to rebut. It creates a complete role reversal: Religion is the morally reprehensible entity, therefore ending all religious belief would make the world a better place. I'm not saying any of these ideas are valid, but it's worth a thought. Atheism is simply too inconsistent to make any blanket generalizations stick.

Wow, somebody dug up a pretty old thread. To SeattleTruthSeaker's point, one of the words commonly used in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to reference God was "Eloheim" which absolutely implies plurality. A more accurate rendering of each passage where Eloheim is invoked should have been "The Gods" instead of "God." for example: Exodus 20:1-3 And the Gods spoke all these words saying, "I am Jehovah, we are your Gods which have brought you out of the land of Egypt. You shall have no other gods before my face." Taking a more literal approach when translating the text seriously shakes the absoluteness of many passages that other faiths believe contradict our beliefs. The wording in English should never supersede the original Hebrew wording -- the Hebrew came first. But since the more literal translation for "Eloheim" didn't jive with the accepted modern theology of Christendom (or Judaism for that matter), the word ended up singular in our English Bibles. Interestingly, Trinitarians point to this very plurality in the Hebrew text in order to defend their own beliefs against Unitarian criticisms.

In my experience, about 99% of cases where LDS theology is accused of "contradicting the Bible" it actually isn't contradicting the Bible at all. The only contradiction comes when certain long-accepted Christian tratitions are rejected by LDS theology. Those tradtions we reject are usually based upon, "What the Bible clearly implies" (according to accepted traditional Chritian theology) but doesn't actually specifically say. Nowhere does the Bible actually say, that Adam and Eve were fully capable of procreation prior to the fall nor does it say that they weren't. The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn't clearly say one way or another. Similarly, nowhere does the Bible say that the Bible is the complete and perfect word of God and that no further scripture/revelation would ever be possible/necessary. But the accepted general practice among your more traditional Christian faiths is to use "the word" or "the word of God" and "the Bible" interchangeably. So if a passage says, "the word is complete" or "the word is perfect" or anything like that, the more traditonal thinking Christian just assumes that the passage is referring to the Bible and saying it is "perfect," "complete," etc. But in order to unequivocably say what most traditional Christians insist that it already says, there would need to be a passage that says something very much like this: "The Bible is perfect, flawless and complete, providing humankind with everything God intends for us to know. No further written scripture is necessary, nor is it possible." No such passage actually exists, nor does the word "Bible" appear anywhere in the Bible. Again, the vast majority of contradictions happen when the Latter Day Saints reject beliefs Christianity had always assumed the Bible was "implying" but that the Bible didn't specifically teach/state/say.

The answer is quite simple. If he is completely single and you are too, then there isn't a problem. Do the usual things: Pray about it and see if the Lord thinks it's a good idea. Ultimately, for every set of circumstances where this would usually be a bad thing, there are going to be some cases where this is exactly the way it was supposed to work out. Many single adults have trouble enough finding a worthy spouse without adding a bunch of extra rules to the game. If he isn't single, then the advice is also quite obvious: Don't be an idiot, no it isn't appropriate under any circumstances. Biggest problem is that you didn't provide much detail. Are you in a singles ward? Family ward? Is there a significant age difference? Has the gentleman in question been married before? Is the attraction mutual, or is this only one-way attraction (as far as you know)? Is this about you or somebody else? Is this just hypothetical?

Sometimes it's a matter of "as a man (or woman) thinketh, so is he/she." Sometimes seeking to divert focus away helps. Sometimes realizing that Satan is trying to trick you into believing you are something that you are not is all it takes. This has been true from what I've seen a few times with people very close to me who had the beginning glimmer of same sex attraction. Sometimes it's just a trial that doesn't go away just because we want it to. The attraction is still there and never seems to go away. Your duty to God is the same regardless. You don't let impure thoughts about boys remain on your mind's stage when you find them there. Likewise you don't let impure thoughts about girls remain on that stage either. You're at an age where your hormones are going crazy so it's not easy. If you can honestly say you're doing your best, that is all that God asks. Above all else, I think you need to know in resounding fashion that God loves you anyways. I would focus a lot of prayer into getting that answer above all else. You need to know it right down to your bones. We all have our weaknesses. Some are because of bad choices that we made, some are just thrust upon us. We all need to have a burning knowledge inside of us that God loves us anyways. It is with that knowledge clearly in our minds that we can pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and keep moving forward. The same is true of the drug addict, the alcoholic, the physically handicapped, the mentally ill, etc. Everyone can confront their trials best after they realize that God loves them no matter what. One thing is clear enough in all cases: God does not make us feel worthless, miserable or hopeless. Those feelings come from Satan, who seeks to make everyone just as miserable as he is. Recognize the source and pray for negative and despairing feelings to depart from you. Learn for yourself that your Father in Heaven loves you no matter what. All he asks is that you never give up and keep striving to do what is right and the Atonement of Jesus Christ will take care of the rest. It's possible that this trial is taken away from you, but if it is not then just remember he loves you and never lose hope. God is merciful, he loves you, and he will take care of you as long as you simply never give up and never stop trying.

From my wife's and my personal experience, I think the best way to think of it is this: LDS Social Services marriage counseling is just like any other professional marriage counseling, but it's potentially on the Church's dime, so the Church approves the counselors in the system. Any marriage counselor anywhere would end up focusing on the religion aspect of your marriage if the religious things are a major source of friction, hurt feelings within the marriage, etc. Their job is not to take sides and they shouldn't, but either version of marriage counseling, you do run the risk of a counselor that takes one side of an issue over the other. They're only human. But you can expect a higher level of quality in LDS Social Services counselors than your average counselor not in their system. You need to understand, the goal of LDS Social Services is to save marriages wherever possible. As such, the system is not overly concerned with your level of activity in the Church. If you want marriage counseling and your wife isn't willing to do it -- but having the LDS sticker on it marriage counseling is enough to get her to go then I'd strongly advise a visit with the bishop to see about setting it up.

75% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

You never have to go far to find a "news reporter" who wants to bash the Mormon Church. As a general rule, if the "news article" sounds far fetched, it probably is. If you can independently confirm the details of such an article, there might be something of substance to it.