RanMan

I blessed all of my children at home. I told the Bishop that I felt it was a private family matter and he readily agreed to come over for the event. :)

Those are not very encouraging facts for would be LDS authors. Although, I suppose if you can finally get in with one of the big two, then you probably can expect to see a regular printing of upcoming books. :)

I think you make an interesting point. Definately, many pg-13 films should be avoided as much as those with an R rating. And there are a couple of R rated movies that I think are not as problematic as others. However, I find that on the rare occasion that I make an exception to see an R rated movie, I regret it. I feel the disruption of the spirit even when it doesn't have crude content or nudity. I feel that it is good advice to avoid all R rated movies as has been suggested. :)

Hmmm, I have not had such experiences. No visits, no spiritual hugs, no weeping. Although, my dad was having dreams when I first started doing the family history work. He said that faces of people he didn't know personally, but knew in the dream were family members, kept coming to him. About three months later, when I had done a significant portion of the genealogy work, the dreams had stopped and he hasn't had one since. :)

Interesting idea. Sounds like it would make a great book. :)

How about war of words, or a war of ideals. Not to mention, losses can be in the form of spiritual death. And I think that there are more ways of determining win and loss rather than by casualties. :)

I figured he would have a way to contact him if you did a web search. Good luck with it. :)

I think this is a tough one for me to answer. If there was no chance to learn as an LDS what I've learned, I'm not sure how that would shape my understanding of Christianity. So who knows where I might be. However, the truth is that I have problems with the doctrines presented by all of the non-LDS christian churches I've encountered. So probably I would be a home-study Christian, believing in Christ but thinking that worship can be done in my heart, at home. :)

I know that Michael Flynn is pretty active in LDS films as a producer and an actor. Why not contact him and see if he has any suggestions for you. :)

Well, thank you for sharing a couple of your experiences, they helped make my day. :)

I prefer to read quotes within the context of which they were given. Here is the full paragraph from which this quote was taken. "While marriage is difficult, and discordant and frustrated marriages are common, yet real, lasting happiness is possible, and marriage can be more an exultant ecstasy than the human mind can conceive. This is within the reach of every couple, every person. "Soul mates" are fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price." In summation, he uses soul mate as someone who can be most compatible and beautiful. He then follows up with the advice that almost any pair can have happiness if both are willing to pay the price. That strikes me as contradictory. If soul mates are fiction, then there is no difference between marriages; all couples apparently will have to pay the price in order to get along. I guess I disagree with Kimball. I find that there is a great deal of differences in how people get along. From my own personal experience I can state that there are women whom I had a very hard time getting along with and there is my wife who I have an extremely easy time getting along with. I will go as far to say that there is even a woman out there that, for me, is the most compatible and beautiful. Now, if you want to think that there is no gradient involved, I'm perfectly willing to allow you to think it. What I do get out of Kimball's talk is that couples who are more compatible do not gain a higher level of happiness than couples who must work to get along. That all couples can join the same pinnacle of joy and love in their marriage. Perhaps Kimball meant this rather than being dismissive of some people being naturally compatible with one another. This is very adversarial wording. I am used to it from people who enjoy attacking others. There is nothing wrong with my intelligence or my ability to understand. I'm not having trouble understanding anything you say. My disagreeing with you does not mean I am having trouble understanding. I'm quite aware of that. That is exactly why I posted unbiased sources for the meaning of the term - to get away from the spin. And in this case, the spin is that "soul mates" indicates that there is only one possible pairing for a blissful relationship. I have actually stayed with the unspun textbook understanding of the term. The fact that your experience demonstrates a different understanding of the term indicates that you fall into the category of people who put a different spin on this. And once again, I am not responsible for the meaning that others put to this term. I can only attempt to use it correctly myself. So what source do you normally use when you want to understand the proper meaning of a word? I don't remember making any statement like that. Perhaps you can stick to comments that I actually make on the forum. I'm pretty sure I asked for clarification of what Kimball meant and was entertaining any responses given on the subject. Which precludes my "honestly thinking" that Kimball was talking about affinity. However, after looking at the quote in context, it sure reads that way to me. By purposefully coming into this thread? I thought this was a forum where members were allowed to have discussions and even introduce related topics. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place. I didn't realize that attempts to discuss a topic that interests me was somehow wrong. I certainly didn't have sinister plans when I made a conscious decision to participate. What have I obfuscated? Did you find my comments hard to understand? I didn't realize that looking to a dictionary for a definition was an obfuscation tactic. That's your claim. Care to back it up? What rightness have I ignored. What wrongness have I ignored. And if using the dictionary term is going to result in misunderstanding, I feel that all hope is lost for this generatin to be able to do any thinking for themselves. Really? No stipulation? So the words: love, intimacy, and sexuality have no stipulatin for "soul mate" being applied to couples and marriage? That's odd because I find these to be qualifiers by which I would exclude my brother as a mate. When combined together it gives a specific picture of couples. Context is important. As far as being Australian, unless you are, this appears to be a red herring argument. Or just an indication that perhaps you are just wanting to argue. Ah. Name calling. I hadn't realized that this forum allowed that. How sad. Being obtuse is pretty much in line with calling me stupid. I find it really unfortunate that you feel my comments in this thread deserve for me to be insulted by you. As far as intentionally obfuscating - I'm so glad you can read my mind and my heart to be able to make such judgments. And may I say - so very caring and Christian of you as well. I guess you don't like dictionaries. How do you feel about algebra books? Do they send you into a rage? Perhaps you can arrange for a book burning in your neighborhood and toss in all the dictionaries.

Definately. The whole family went to see it in 3D and it was utterly fantastic. The story was great, seeing it in 3D was great. It was probably the best time my family has ever had going to a single movie. :)

Who are you addressing this to? If me: 1. Did Spencer Kimball state that he was addressing people who have a strong affiinty? Or was he addressing people who thought there could only be one potential eternal companion for them? 2. If you consider your brother your "mate" then I guess so. I would classify that as a "kindred soul" since I reserve the term "mate" for my spouse. But feel free to work that any way you want. And it seems to me that I haven't "turned" soul mate into anything other than what it is. I have provided two sources which identify the definiton of a soul mate. It is not my doing if you, the OP, and Spencer Kimbal decide to use a meaning that varies with the textbook. Is there a reason why I should be criticized for understanding what the term actually means? Have I committed some faux pas on this forum by being informed?

Ah, thank you. For some odd reason I hadn't thought of either. Let me add yet another. My patriarchal blessings states that I covenanted with my parents to be my parents. This means that they arranged with one another to be married here in mortality - and did. My mom is from South Dakota, my father is from Arkansas and they both met in Arizona where I was born. How amazing it is that circumstances brought both of them here where they could meet. But it didn't prevent them from exercising their own free will. In addition, my patriarchal blessing stated (before I was married) that I knew a young woman in the pre-existence and had promised to marry her. That would be based on both of us living worthily and doing as we were supposed to do. I believe that the woman I married is the one I promised in the pre-existence. I have a feeling that my children will also turn out to be people that I covenanted with. My patriarchal blessing is filled with statements about knowing people in the pre-existence and interacting with them here on Earth. With God - all things are possible. :) I can see what you're saying. But it doesn't have to be that way. :)

Here is the wikipedia entry for soul mate: A soulmate is a person with whom one has a feeling of deep and natural affinity, love, intimacy, sexuality, spirituality, and/or compatibility. A related concept is that of the twin flame or twin soul – which is thought to be the ultimate soulmate, the one and only other half of one's soul, for which all souls are driven to find and join. However, not everyone who uses these terms intends them to carry such mystical connotations. Here is the dictionary.com definition for it: –noun a person with whom one has a strong affinity. I grabbed the first two results that came up. Both echo what I presented. At this point I have to conclude that it is your definition that is not consistent with the worlds. :)

Please explain. Why does being opposite have to bother people? I think that there are not any two people who have ever lived that are completely opposite on all things. There is always some common ground. My wife and I have some similar backgrounds and we share a belief in the Church. Our personalities are very different. Our interests probably have more differences that similarities. Our views on many issues differ. I find very few of these differences to be bothersome. I embrace the diversity. Have I been going about this incorrectly all these years? Should I be bothered by the diversity in our relationship? I thought it was a strength.

Personal revelation. And I'm not talking about people mistaking personal desire for actual revelation from the Lord. Through personal revelation we could come to this knowledge - if the Lord wanted it revealed. :)

Well, soul mates would exist because they exist, or would not exist because there are none. However, as I understand a soul mate, it would be an ideal match between a man and woman. If this was discovered during the pre-existence then it would probably result in an agreement between them in the pre-mortal life. That is what I'm saying. Since man is not perfect, there is no such thing as a perfect relationship. We have flaws and they will impact every aspect of our life. So this is not anything I've attempted to indicate. Just because two people are ideally suited to one another doesn't mean that there will never be difficulties. It just means it will be so very worth it to work it out. Which is also true for couples that do not fall into what I consider to be soul mates. Do you really need me to explain the principle of agency to you? I have said nothing about circumnavigating free choice. And as far as an agreement being made, I think you stack the deck for your example of being born in seperate centuries. You leave out the possibility that we may have known when we would be sent to earth before making these agreements or even that Heavenly Father because of His love for us, would be willing to work with us on making it possible. Your statement about God and when He sends a person down to Earth being a matter of predestination is wrong. Predestination means something will happen. Setting up circumstances so that something can happen does not force us into any particular action. Otherwise Fore-Ordination would be a violation of the same principle. And this stance ignores all of the input we have had to the contrary. Do you not believe the prophets when they say that this, or that, generation was held back to be sent to Earth at this time? How is that any different? Does that magically mean everyone who is sent here will succeed in their mission - thereby bypassing free will? I've heard it described that Joseph Smith was sent to Earth at the time he was so he could fulfill the mission he'd been given to restore the gospel. Did that violate his free will? Anyone can come up with scenarios to question any concept. If you want to find a reason to reject it - please don't bother. Just reject it. I don't base my arguments on western cultural ideas. I base it on revelation.

Ok. I don't know my children's pre-mortal status, but I do have some knowledge of my own and the relationship I had with my parents. And that is what I am basing my statements on in regards to this discussion. My wife is very opposite of myself. We do have the Church in common and similar family backgrounds. Personality wise, we are opposite though. In my case, I feel that this she is my soul mate. Her strengths compliment mine. As a single unit, we are much stronger than seperately. We benefit from these differences. :)

Not merely met, but knew each other in the pre-existence and arranged to be married in mortal life. This does happen. :)

I guess I just haven't heard a soul mate described as "only one." I agree that there are many good matches and as previously stated by the Prophet, any good man and good woman can make a marriage work. However, I still stick with the view that there can be one to whom you made arrangements with before coming to Earth. That could possibly make them the "best" option that will be available. :)

Or it could be factual. If you find the idea that there could exist a person out there with whom you have an exceptionally strong bond, or are intended to marry, to be dangerous - that's up to you. I don't find either dangerous. of themselves. Any situation, any concept, can be taken to extreme and become something that is unhealthy and dangerous. That doesn't make the idea dangerous, it just means that we should be warned against extremism. Depending on how you define a soul mate, I offer that they exist. My definition being a person with whom you have a high level of compatibility. That when you are joined it seems to be a very natural and logical fit for both. No magical tingle involved. No special feeling other than "this seems very right." It doesn't require that any fear or worry over not having found a soul mate - it's just a bonus when you do. :)

Interesting reveiw. I think it adequately points out the anti-LDS bias that I noticed. As such, I don't see much value in this film. It's propaganda. I'm not opposed to opening the eyes of LDS to better treatment of the gay community. I just don't see any value in watching something that is dishonest in its presentation. If the film maker is so opposed to hate, why is it acceptable to employ it against the LDS? :)

I think in most cases we are not likely to know which, if any, of the people in our lives were important associations in the pre-existence. However, I would guess that as it applies to soul mates, that this could be the case. A soul mate could simply be someone that we were very close to previously and when we run into them here things just proceed smoothly. They could even be a person we previously agreed to marry when we met them in mortal existence. :)

They have. . . what?