ryanh

It isn't a "funny feeling" from my perspective, but evidence of the whisperings of the Spirit prompting you to leave the natural man behind (Mosiah 3:19). What specifically makes you think it will be "very hard to return"? Is it the behaviors you outlined that need to change and/or be repented of? Or is it more about social fitting in (such as the comment about tattoo’s might suggest)? It might be helpful to talk of specific feelings for advice to be of the most help. Whatever the specific concerns are about returning, just know that Satan won't want you to make that return. He most definitely will try to persuade you from doing so. Realize that a lot of your concerns may simply be promptings from him to try to make a return seem insurmountable - an inflating of reality to make it seem like it will be harder than it really will be. Remember: The wonderful news is that "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18 Remember: The Gospel is about Love. Most members I have ever met are truly trying to love their fellow brothers and sisters. Don't expect the same attitudes from members of your ward that your parents showed to you. Kicking someone out of the house for not attending church would seem quite contrary to the Gospel. You can expect to be shown much greater love and acceptance from members as a whole than your post indicates you were shown by your parents. (besides, members in general are not so emotionally fused to unrelated members of a ward as to be unable to separate their own personal value from the choices of another person - so, there is little motivation for ward members to act as your parents did) What I think you should do is go to LDS.org, go to: Tools -> Maps, input your address to look up your local ward and the Bishop's phone number. Call the Bishop (likely need to leave a message) and let him know you are thinking about attending. He will let you know what to expect, and I feel confident will be very welcoming, loving, and supportive.

I have printed most of them, and do not have them with me, so it would take quite a bit of effort to reproduce them. The one that I have with me today that I was reading while on the train (and is a good article worth reading) is: Choosing and Being the Right Spouse If you go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and BYU Speeches Website you can search to your heart's delight. You might even check BYUtv - Home where you can search Education Week talks where the topic of selection of marriage partners is sometimes discussed.

Well, I sure hope it's not so much that quote, because it doesn't at all say "any two worthy people". If you feel that people butcher the intent behind the quote, why on earth would you perpetuate it?

Wing, I'm not following you. I asked Soul about where "any two worthy people" came from. I provided the relevant part of Kimball's quote which you so kindly provided a link to. I still don't see in Kimball's quote "any two worthy people". The connotations of "almost any good" is different, esp when taken in context of other comments by President Kimball on the subject. The problem I see is that too many are ready to paraphrase quote into a meaning that carry connotations not intended. "Any two worthy people" is something I have heard referenced a number of times. Repeated often enough, LDS begin to think that take two people with temple recommends of the opposite gender, throw them together, and it will work out. Thus, you get courtships that are extremely short, and not at all reasoned out as we are instructed is proper and appropriate (let alone simple common sense!). Even two very good and 'worthy' people may make give it a try, but a lack of maturity may sink them before they are capable of establishing a sound relationship. We just had a potential case in the making on here within the past week where, fortunately, the young man called off the sealing. Both appeared to be good and 'worthy' (presumably they had their recommends already from the way it was talked about), however it was clear to many that the union had some serious challenges to overcome, and may very well have been DOA. There is too much aggrandizing of the statements of leaders into forms that lead some to think they can just hook up with anyone that is cute and holds a recommend and "it will all work out if we just persevere and have faith". It is not so. Poor decisions usually lead to poor results. Marriage decisions even more so! On the issue of timing of courtships, and another LDS myth is that RM's are to get married quickly. Often the term of 6 months is thrown out there. I've seen it referenced here on .net (without citation of course, because it doesn't exist!) President Monson said in 2004: I have been perusing many articles on LDS.org and byu.edu in regards to marriage decisions and courtship timing. The ideas that LDS can just choose "any worthy" person, or that there is any push by leadership for speedy courtships is false. It is my opinion that propagating these ideas is one way the adversary is undermining the family from within.

Well, that's fine for you. However I prefer to base my understanding of successful eternal marriage on the counsel of Prophets and Apostles rather than personal pontifications on the internet. I know of individuals that are "worthy" (what does that even mean? so general that it can't be defined) to enter the temple, have a recommend and all, but would make lousy marriage material. They simply don't have the skills, or the staying capacity.

Do you have a reference for that counsel Soul? I haven't seen that one, and that is not quite consistent with statements on the subject I have read. almost any and if both are willing to pay the price That is a good bit different in my mind than the connotation of 'any two worthy'. There is a whole lot more involved in it than worthiness. There is 'goodness' (i.e. capability), and willingness to sacrifice and pay the price necessary on both persons' parts. I strongly second Hordak's thoughts. Time isn't so much the factor as it is the tenor of the interactions. Heavenly Father can and will confirm/deny our decision as right/wrong, but first, just as Oliver learned in D&C 9, we must study it out in our minds to come to a decision first. And one is not in a good place to make a decision when in that infatuation stage, and not experiencing 'real life' with the potential spouse. Short of that, I think the decision is in essence a crap shoot. We may think we are making a good and rational decision, but it isn't based on reality - just emotion that will change over time.

If this is a common reply, even among devout LDS, then perhaps there is something wrong with the way the message is being shared. Perhaps it would be more effective to state your opinions rather than come right out insinuating that everyone using colloquial phrases has evil intent, or is simply serving an evil purpose. For many, using these colloquial phrases is a way of maintaining modest speech, not objectification. You would be better off using honey than vinegar to attract. See, this is a case in point. You may throw a disclaimer on the end there, but that doesn't matter. You effectively alienated honest readers with the first 2/3rds of the paragraph. After metaphorically kicking sand into their eyes, do you honestly think ‘non-socially-driven’ readers will even give any weight to your attempt at a disclaimer? The breakdown in attempting to have a mature and intellectual conversation may not begin with “most people” in the case of this thread.

Part of what you are missing Mute is specific to LDS. By priesthood ordinance, we are given the Gift of the companionship of the Holy Ghost. By sinning, we are no longer worthy of that Gift. Thus, we find ourselves much further from God than we were pre-sin. Sure, our hearts might still be turned towards God (as much as they can be given our state of open rebellion against His commandments), but we are most certainly further away. I know of people that have pre-marital sex and have great lives. I know of people that have pre-marital sex and have terrible lives. So, what does pre-marital sex have to do with being "better off"? Nothing!!! SaturdayLove, how about you expound a little bit more about what is really going on? We can't help with how generic your post is. Are you having envy for sexual activity of friends? Are you depressed about prayers not being answered? Are you struggling with your testimony and whether the Plan of Salvation is real? What specifically are your thoughts that prompted this post?

Curious that you would bring such self-awareness topics into the foray, yet seemingly fail to grasp one's judgments of another, or assignment of meanings to their words or actions are often more a reflection of what one is, and how one perceives the world, than those judgments are of the reality of what was said or done. In short, it would seem to me the reason you perceive preference and sexualization of larger body parts is precisely because that is the way you think of the subject. Other's words are filtered through your mental paradigm in order for you to conclude what it was they meant. Not only that, but it is curious that the point would be so belabored in a public forum. Given the way I watch it play out, I see more going on that simply trying to contribute to public opinion/perception. Rather, it would seem the motivation is to vicariously carry out the battle in public that is occurring within your own mind. Sometimes the things people post, and the way it is posted can be so incredibly telling of the inner turmoil and struggles. Curious.

Both perspectives are important. They are not an either or when framed correctly. Yes, we have divine potential, and are precious in our Father's sight, but we also must remain humble and recognize that we are utterly dependent upon Him for all we have, and any potential to progress. The proper perspective is not that we are "scum", but that we recognize that we are nothing by ourselves. One of the facets of the Gospel that contributes to my understanding of its divinity and truth is that is can guide all personality types. There are teachings that lift the downtrodden and self-loathing individuals. There are teachings that debase the proud. It is not an ala carte Gospel, where we choose the angle we like, however, there is an element of recognizing which admonitions are directed towards our particular circumstances. Some need to be reminded of their nothingness. Others - no so much - they need reminding of how special they are. Follow the Spirit's promptings when internalizing one admonition or the other. I have observed a few circumstances where the adversary likes to use one message or the other to lead astray. He will tell the meek and abased that they are "scum", and drag them down to depression. He will try to tell the proud that they are already noble, and puff them up into an unrighteous frame of mind. Seek the Spirit's influence in determining what you still lack, and He will lead you into leaving behind the natural man (whether that is the depressed or the proud).

Counseling doesn't change a person. Willingness to go to counseling doesn't really cut it. Counseling only helps a person change if they want to change themselves. She has to want to change the dynamics with her parental relationship.

Serve a mission young man!!! You will never go wrong with that decision. And if you two are right for each other, you will be so much the better off and ready to marry when you get back.

And I would like to see statistics on how many kids from bad/abusive marriages end up repeating that abuse cycle as compared to those who live in stable marriages. There are two sides to every coin. Looking only at the divorce leading to divorce side gives a skewed perception.

Have you fasted and prayed for guidance? That is conspicuously absent in your post. :) Wow, that is a tough situation!!! I don't envy you at all. Seems to me that two things could be going on. 1) This is just a terrible situation to be getting into. or 2) The advesary is working double time on you, your fiance, and her father to keep the union from happening. I'm leaning towards #1 based on the very little I know. A FIL that is willing to make threats of physical harm is a huge red flag! (promptings from the adversary or not, the willingness to make threats says a lot about where he is mentally/emotionally) That he can't let his daughter have her own life, that he wants to control what you and she discuss, and that she is allowing herself to be controlled by that rather than rejecting it, is some really serious dysfunctionality that will likely impact your marriage in very negative ways. My ex had a hard time completely severing the ties to her parents and cleaving unto one another. It wasn't nearly as bad as you portrayed your situation, yet, it caused significant harm in my marriage. Don't underestimate how destructive such a dynamic can be. Is your fiance willing to "[her] father and [her] mother, and shall cleave unto [her husband]"? And, if she is willing to, is she capable of doing so? Breaking out of a controlling and abusive situation as it would seem she grew up in can be very hard to do. How long have you two dated and been engaged? I say that unless you get a prompting to move forward, you seriously consider postponing marriage until all this can be sorted out. More time is rarely a bad idea. Moving forward when there are serious doubts is a recipe for trouble.

Suzanne, as I've gone through my experiences of a failed 14 year marriage, and heard many stories over the last year from women whose marriages failed, I do keep coming back to the idea that something is "fishy". Your SO isn't here to present his side, and I do try to think about the whole situation objectively realizing I only have one side of the story. But, even so, do it does seem your suspicions are valid. It does seem you seeing true red flags, and I do think you need to heed them. I wouldn't presume they mean 'run away' from your SO, but in my way of thinking, they do mean 'stop, and don't go forward without complete resolution of the red flags'. I've just hear too many women lament after the divorce about how they hope they never get so emotionally invested in a relationship again that they choose to ignore red flags. Mistrust, stories, not putting in requisite effort to build a relationship, etc, etc all seem like poor starts for a marriage. In regards to your situation, my mind just keeps coming back with thoughts of 'it won't work'. You can try, but if the warning signs are already there, the answer you need about whether or not a successful marriage is possible is right before you. And re your daughter . . . in divorce education classes in UT, they make it very clear that studies show that children are better off and have much healthier lives coming from a divorced (or separated in your case) family than to grow up in a home where there is an unhappy marriage. I don't agree with the idea that "You are training your daughter how to pick men. You will also train her to stay with or dump men after making a baby with one." is a valid reason to stay. Rather, in my mind, it is a reason to leave and show her how to make a right choice. That the right man to marry is not one that doesn't fight for a relationship, etc. Show her how to make that right choice. Show her that a true relationship is a reciprocal partnership, not just the woman leading and pushing the man along.

My only advice is to continue to reject any idea that having a child (either your own, or adopted) can inject cement into your marriage's shaky foundation. We all root for that to be the case, but the reality is that children introduce as many (often times more) issues and stresses than bond-building for the marriage relationship. Children are work and sacrifice. Can your marriage handle that additional stress? Is your husband as onboard with the idea of adopting rather than having his own as you are? No one but yourself and Heavenly Father can answer the questions you need answered, but those are some things to consider. Kids don't need perfect parents. Kids need loving, stable, spiritual, and consistent parents. But perfection, or even “ideal” is not a requirement for choosing to bring a child to a marriage.

This isn't "another" clearance. He never has applied for nor received a clearance to be sealed post cancellation of a sealing. The cancellation his ex applied for and received had nothing to do with your fiancé’s re-sealing. It is a misunderstanding to try to connect the two.

I read your nebulous phoey-filled writings, and then compare it to what modern day prophets and apostles (Oaks' talk on divorce foremost comes to mind), and I for one choose to reject the majority of your hard-line pontifications and follow the brethren. It is evident from your writings that you have failed to fully find the unconditional love you speak of, and continue to view others in an absolutist manner. You may not come right out and say it, but clearly you are judgmental and conditional in your acceptance. I'm glad God gave you some direction how to remove that from you marriage, as it is toxic to interpersonal interactions.

I really think that your Bishop gave you the most appropriate advice. What can we strangers offer other than our own ideas of men/women that may have been ok for our situation, but could be completely wrong for yours? Do seek the guidance of the Spirit. I myself did not have to complete an application, but was asked to write a letter in response to my ex's application. What helped me was to think of the letter from the perspective of the First Presidency. What is it you think they are wanting to know? What is pertinent to their decision to approve the cancelation or not?

I suppose in many ways, it depends on how the situation is framed, and from what perspective it is being examined. Powerlessness to change may not equate to powerholding within the relationship. And, every person and situation is different. Generally though, it is the low desire partner than holds power over the high desire partner. If it wasn't the case in sweetiepie's circumstances, she wouldn't have made the op asking for advice. She more likely would have exerted power to get the relationship into a more fulfilling state for her. The reason that power inherently lies with the low desire partner is that stonewalling, dragging feet, etc are all much easier than actually changing. If the high desire partner wants something, they need to motivate the low desire partner to make a change. The high desire partner can’t (rightly) expect change, so the power over any change to meet the needs/wants of the high desire partner remains in the hands of the low desire partner (unless they decide to find satisfaction outside of the partnership).

________________________________________ It's frustrating, isn't it? My ex had a lower drive than I, and the zoloft prescription just made the situation more difficult. Fortunately, Prozac is just one of many options for treatment. And while the SSRI medications often do have the effect of lowering libido, each one reacts with each individual's body differently. It may be that one of the other similar medications will treat the depression just as well, but without the libido side-effect. I wouldn't suggest "force[ing] the issue", but if it were me, I certainly would bring it up and discuss options and hopes. You say he has a concern about sexual side effects of trying another medication. Does he think that trying another medication is any more 'permanent' than taking Prozac? If a new medication has the same, or other, highly undesirable side-effect, then talk to the Dr about finding another alternative. Seems like a simple concern to solve to me.

"no holds barred" sounds to me more like cage fighting than love and understanding. Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about love and concern for others, not for the purpose of condemning them.There is a scriptural basis for avoiding a "no holds barred" approach to sharing doctrine.

One thing that would greatly help in having a dialog that led to understanding would be to not use jargon that is not understood by the other point of view. "Imperishable" never appears in our King James version of the bible. Nor I have ever heard it used in relation to the Savior's teachings. It would appear to me that you are assigning thought and theology within that word that are lost on an LDS audience. Without using more specifics than generalities, not much is to be gained through such discourse. Honestly . . . To me, your entire last post is so general that I can only guess at what you are truly trying to convey. Are you trying to infer that by the existence of a living prophet, LDS are "desir[ing] to hear lessor [sic] things" (i.e. ignore Christ)? Or "deliberately noting [sic] facing up to the truth He gave"? Is that your point, to try to prove LDS are following after false christs?

Praying and asking forgiveness is not enough. Neither is talking to your Bishop. True repentance is more than just praying or confessing. Repenting includes change of behavior and nature. To put off the natural man through yielding to the enticings of the Holy Ghost, and becoming a new person. To have a change of heart. Obviously, this process takes time, and the help of God, but it's not a checklist of activities as it is often simplified to be. Those checklists represent steps that someone truly seeking to change will follow. But, the purpose of repentance is to become a different person, not just complete some steps. So, "having" unclean thoughts and what steps to take is not really a question that is easy to answer without more information. We all have/had thoughts come to us at times. It's what we do with them that signifies what repentance steps we need to take, and how far we are from the ideal of where we want to be. Are you talking about seriously entertaining and fantasizing on immoral thoughts? Severe or violent immoral thoughts? Perhaps it would be appropriate to confer with you Bishop and seek his help if that is the case. I dare say though, that if every member of a ward met with the Bishop ever time they had a bad thought cross their mind, the poor guy would never leave his office!

I think that instability of location preference could cast doubt on the reliability of God. Were we to hear now: "God changed His mind, the declared place in prophecy is no longer the favored site, it is now in X", wouldn't that be contradictory to the revealed nature of God? And what would it say if God didn't favor those spots where acts central to the Plan of Salvation occurred? Why would there not be greater fidelity to those sites than any other unless God did not value the Plan? At some point He had to figuratively strike His staff in the sand and say 'this is the place for Y event'. It probably could have occurred anywhere (10 miles north or south or in another country) but did occur at some point, and so now is fixed. Once it was fixed, there is a fidelity to it. I honestly don't understand the question of how any one spot could be more sacred than another. We understand temples are more sacred than downtown streets. So, why would it not be the case that the locations where the Creation, Fall, or Atonement occurred be more sacred than Brazil or China or Russia or wherever? To my logic, the locations where the three pillar events of the Plan occurred are far more significant than temples even. Without those pillar events, temples would be moot.