JudoMinja

I found a link that gives a more detailed account. I just had such a hard time believing something like this could happen, and after reading the full article it's just frightening. This girl really worked out all the details about her lie, and I can see how the jurors were fooled. It wasn't just a case of someone claiming "rape" and the guy getting quickly imprisoned without a thorough investigation. I don't see how her getting away scot-free does her father any justice or encourages people to be truthful about such serious allegations, but if her father isn't pressing charges then I guess thats that. It's so sad.

Vort used a smilie!!! Ahem. Back on topic. There are different levels to testimony. It's just like building on any other kind of knowledge, and it how quickly or easily it comes to you will also depend on how strongly rooted you are in your basics. Start off slow and see where it takes you. The articles of faith are a great tool for study, since they build on one another in a manner similar to how a testimony develops. Ask yourself if YOU "believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost". If there is any wavering, any uncertainty, start studying. Dig up everything you can find on the topic of God, His existence, and His nature, and study it out and pray about it. When you feel that you can strongly say that "Yes, I DO believe this", you can move on to the next step. Ask yourself if YOU "believe that man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adams transgression". Same process. Etc, etc, so on and so forth until you reach article 13. Much of what you will need to read and study to strengthen your testimony will be in the Bible and Book of Mormon, so reading them will just naturally come as part of your study. However, a testimony of the Book of Mormon and Bible themselves are only step 8 in your testimony- if you follow the path with the articles of faith. It is perfectly possible to have a testiomony of say... tithing, or Joseph Smith's vision without actually reading the scriptures- but the scriptures give you a greater foundation on which to build your testimony. As you read them again and again, you will find yourself digging out more and more that supports your faith. So, yes, it is possible to have a testimony without reading the BoM... but making study of the BoM a fervent and important part of your testimony building experience will give you a stronger and more sure foundation, and more deeply root your testimony within you.

EDIT: After writing all this, I realized DJ will probably not be responding because the original post was from 2008. DJ- I would like to know what your purpose is in coming here. Really. It sounds like you've done your study and come to your conclusion that the LDS faith is false. You are certain there is no God. You are certain Joseph Smith was a fraud. You seem willing only to accept the scientific evidence, findings, and conclusions of scholarly experts who are faithless. So why come to a community of people who do rely on faith and their feelings to make conclusions about truth, when you are just going to discredit it? Are you sincerely looking for some kind of answers or understanding from people who believe differently than you, or are you just trying to convince us you're right? Because if you're goal is the latter then I think you need to do a little introspection. I consider myself a scientist and a scholar. I am certainly not an expert- I am far too young to have learned enough to consider myself such, but I've devoted much of my life to studying the sciences, psychology, and the various world religions. I've read quite a bit of the "anti-Mormon" stuff out there in my pursuit of truth- with the desire to understand what about our faith makes it difficult for others to accept. I've studied some of these topics in detail, and the answers I've found have only strengthened my faith. Let me explain this to you in a way I think you should understand: Scholarly and scientific experts dig deep into many writings before writing anything of their own, conducting any experiments of their own, or reaching any conclusions. Why? Bias. No matter how un-biased you strive to be, everything you ever write or do is going to contain a bias. This is especially true of scientific pursuits due to the funding issues. Without producing results pleasing to the funders and scientist may loose their funding to continue their research. So, we have to examine far more than just what is written to come to any sort of conclusion about the facts. We have to examine the biases and how deeply engrained they are into whatever we are reading. An important thing to examine when looking at these biases is the goal, intent, or purpose of the writer. The things you were told to stay away from, that were called "anti-Mormon", are considered "anti" material because the goal of the writers is to discredit the faith and to cast doubt in believers. They use some very interesting tactics to do this. First- much like politicians- they strive to sully the name of their opponent (the Church) by cutting down the character of past leaders or claiming that anyone who believes what the Church teaches has been brainwashed. They claim that the Church hides information from the members to cover up their wrongness. They claim that the only source of information that can be trusted is physical proof, and then they provide information that contains partial truths so that they can dig in their lies. Then, when engaging in a discussion with someone who still believes, instead of continuing to discuss the information they seek to discredit the believer or dig up information that this believer has not yet studied in order to have a "Ha!" moment to prove their rightness, and then laugh off any testimony the believer shares as phony. The problem is not that all the anti-Mormon stuff is wrong. Interestingly, much of the information anti's use to write their doubt-casting material is from records preserved by the Church... which would mean the Church isn't really hiding it like they claim. The problem is not that their information isn't scholarly or intelligently thought out and concluded. The problem is in their extremely heavy bias and desire to throw off any ability to make an un-biased assessment of the truth by examining and comparing BOTH sides. You cannot reach an unbiased conclusion about the Church without examining ALL the evidence. But members are taught to avoid the anti-literature, because most do not have the skill, knowledge, or even desire to see through the shady tactics and the lies. Faith does not require scholarly pursuit and understanding. For those who desire to seek it out, there is certainly nothing wrong with doing so- but you need to recognize the biases of the writers and do some serious digging instead of taking what they say at face value. Aside from this caution against reading anti-material, members are encouraged to seek out the truth from ALL sources, to seek from the "best books" words of wisdom. The Church does not seek to sully other faiths but instead recognizes that truth can be found in many sources and that many have good, uplifting, truth-full materials from which we can learn. This encouragement to look outside Church sources for information is exactly the opposite of what anti's do and exactly the opposite of what a group seeking to brainwash people would do. Now, if you do a thoroughly un-biased study, taking this information you've delved from "anti" sources and then comparing them to the scholarly writings of non-believers who are not considered anti as well as the information provided by the church, and if- after you've completed this thorough study- you still conclude that there is no God and all religion is nothing more than a false structure striving to give people hope... then what is so wrong about people having a desire to cling to that hope? What is so wrong about a religion that teaches people to give and serve and help one another? What is so wrong about a faith that encourages people to be compassionate, forgiving, and loving? I encourage you to give a bit more credit to your "feelings" as you strive to make your conclusions about the Church. The Church is not scholarly in nature. There are many scholars who have faith and believe, and there are many scholars who are faithless- but their faith or lack thereof is an issue entirely separate from their scholarly pursuits. You cannot examine a belief system quite the same way you would examine a scientific experiment. God does not provide "proof" of His existence. We cannot examine Him with our senses. Our goal, in having faith, is not to rely on just the information we can see and know. It is to have hope and believe in what we CAN'T see, because we have received a spiritual witness of it's truth. Only after you believe, only after you have faith, will the "evidence" line up in your sight. If you WANT to have hope, if you WANT to believe, then this is a wonderful place to try and foster your faith. But whether you believe in an existence outside of our sphere of influence and understanding matters little to me. You're a big boy. You should be able to reach your own conclusions and follow your own path. If that path is a purposeless existence that will not continue beyond your mortal life, so be it. Go your way, and let us go ours. And if there really is no God and my belief has been false, then when I die my faith won't matter. But my life NOW is what is important, and I have found the most joy and comfort and happiness and peace in pursuing my faith and holding true to my hope in a brighter, greater, and more glorious future.

That's all well and fine when you are only representing yourself and your personal beliefs. When you are teaching your kids, speaking with your friends, neighbors, etc. go ahead and let the Spirit guide. That is what it is for. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to share what knowledge and understanding of His gospel truths we have gleaned for ourselves with all those who will listen. The problem lies in relying on this "free-flowing" method of being guided by the Spirit when you are speaking/teaching in an official capacity as a representative of the Church. In these cases, it is very important to clearly state when you are deviating from official doctrine to speak your opinion or when you are interpreting what you believe a specific doctrine means and/or how it could be applied. The reason it is so important to make this distinction is that you could be wrong. No matter how certain you are, no matter how much you are relying on the Spirit to guide your words/actions, you are a flawed individual and could be mistaken in your understanding or interpretation of His Truths. Even some of our past leaders have been mistaken in their opinions and interpretations of doctrine/scripture, and these mistakes are used by those who would tear the Church down. But when we let go of our pride and recognize that we are flawed in our ability to interpret the Spirit and that even our leaders can have flawed opinions, then these attacks mean nothing- because we can easily identify what we truly KNOW to be true and what is mere speculation if we will seek out the answers in the doctrine and scripture we have been given. I once made the mistake of giving a lesson in Relief Society for which I had not sufficiently prepared and speaking something I believed to be true but was not found in any of our scripture or doctrine. Normally, I am very prepared. I study the topic thoroughly, make sure I am familiar with what has been revealed to us, and I seek out any further insight that the Spirit could guide me with as I teach. That week, I failed to prepare adequately, and when I spoke this speculation of my own, I got called out on it. I firmly believed and still believe that what I said was true, but as I sought out the "official" answer to relay the next week, I couldn't find anything to support it. I'd made a mistake. In my capacity as a teacher I had to say that "I believe this is true, and you can seek out confirmation for yourself from the Spirit, but there is no scripture or prophetic words that say this is true". This website, for another example, is a wonderful place to glean knowledge and insight concerning the gospel from those who can share their personal experiences and insights. We can "teach by the Spirit" here in sharing what we feel guided to say. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page of the site that reads: "LDS.Net is not owned by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the Mormon Church or LDS Church). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. The views expressed by individual users are the responsibility of those users and do not necessarily represent the position of the More Good Foundation. For the official Church websites, please visit LDS.org and Mormon.org." This disclaimer is necessary, because it is possible that we will share information with others here that is wrong. With all our well-meaning, Spirit-led, good intentions, we could still be wrong. We strive to lead others closer to Christ and to seek out more truths in our personal journeys, but we cannot bind our personal testimonies on anybody else. There is more truth to be revealed. We don't have everything. We don't have all the answers. It is possible to seek out more knowledge and more answers than the Church officially provides through the Spirit. But it would be wrong of us to state our opinions or speculations and claim that what we've said is the official position of the church, when it may not be. For that we must turn to the scriptures and the doctrine.

I think that comments pertains more to physical hardiness than just hardiness in general, and I think I'd agree. I've heard that said before myself, and I really think that people in general now live too plush a life to be able to handle something like a handcart trek across the plains. Ceratinly there are individuals that could handle it, and there are certainly many who probably think they aren't capable who could do it if they had to, but I really think most people just don't have the same physical hardiness that our ancestors had. We've become too comfortable with all of our technological conveniences. Now, as for handling major losses in life- It's hard. I won't deny that. But when it comes to physical loss it's really only as hard as we make it. When you think about it, everything we have here on this earth is so fleeting and will eventually be lost to us when we die. That is why we are to "store up treasures in Heaven" as opposed to material wealth.

Probably only if the comment was directed at someone also living in AZ and this person was the one annoyed by it. And probably only if the facebook server is based in AZ, just to make things difficult.

I agree. Jurisdiction dilemmas are probably going to be the hardest to overcome with a law like this. Just look at how difficult it has been to enforce national internet laws with regards to copyright and/or pornography. But then, even if we completely ignored the problem of jurisdiction... Let's just say, for fun, that this law gets incorporated world-wide... Can you imagine trying to police the entire internet? What evidence would be sufficient in identifying intent? Where sites allow the use of profanity, what exactly crosses the line? And, of course, I'm sure a number of the "troll" type people who just plague sites with rediculous comments are all minors. How would that be handled? I think whoever wrote this law had a good idea- trying to clean up all the immaturity and rediculousness out there on the internet- but its an extremely lofty goal that will be almost impossible to enforce.

Wouldn't that reduce forum membership to single digits?

Sorry pam. Looks like it's only if they have the intent to annoy and use obsceneties or threats in the process. I imagine though that a law like this would be very difficult to enforce.

You have to touch there when you shower, yes? Have to soap and lather it up and thoroughly rinse to make sure it is clean and won't get infected? What about when you put in a tampon? (If you use those) How about if you have to apply cream for a yeast infection? As others have said, if simply touching your private areas constituted masturbation, everyone would be in trouble. I don't think you have anything to worry about if you are just readjusting to avoid itchiness and improve your personal comfort. Now, are you holding yourself there longer than necessary and causing arousal? Then you may be touching the border-line. Masturbation is strictly sexual and can technically happen without any touching at all. If you are allowing your mind to linger on "heated" thoughts and working yourself up, I think such could be constituted as masturbation, even if there was no touching involved. Just avoid anything that would cause self-arousal and you will be fine. Touching that is necesary for cleanliness/comfort? Not masturbation.

You could share your testimony or your thoughts pertaining to the monthly VT message. If you feel more open to sharing things about yourself when you write, you could also share any particularly uplifting experiences you had that month or a hardship you feel the Savior helped you overcome. I have had a few sisters on my routes before that prefered letters, and I would just try to think of what I would like to receive if someone was writing to me. Something heart-felt and personal is always a blessing. Seek revelation from the Spirit- that whatever you write will be inspired and will be of particular help or interest to the sister to whom your writing. Sometimes, when I've done this, I've found myself writing about something I never would have thought to write on my own.

My most recent ward, previous to the one I attend now, was one where they were hard pressed to assign enough visiting teachers to everyone. Our Relief Society president put the priority mostly on the weak and inactive members, assigning visiting teachers to those she felt were more in need of help than those more active and with a strong testimony. While I would have liked having a visiting teacher and probably could have used a bit of help from a nice sister in the ward interested in my welfare, I was not assigned a visiting teacher. I was, however, called as a visiting teaching supervisor in that ward, and it was probably the most difficult calling I've had. I had about 50 sisters (25 companionships) to check in on every month. NONE of them would call me to report their visiting teaching. I would have to call/contact them, and most of them I had to contact several times over only to find out they had not done their visiting teaching. I prayed and prayed and tried my hardest to find ways to encourage these sisters to do their visiting teaching and get more involved in the work, but it felt like nothing I did got through to them. It is very disheartening when you see almost an entire ward struggling like this- most of the sisters attending were too caught up in themselves and uninterested in reaching out to others, and the rest were either getting burnt out trying to extend compassion and service to everyone they could or had become inactive due to the lack of love and charity in the ward. I know I haven't always done the best with my own visiting teaching, and it can be difficult to reach out to those you don't know to show them you really DO care and want to help, and I certainly didn't want to focus on the mote's in the eyes of my fellow ward members when I needed to take the beam out of my own, but it was hard. I know it must have been even harder for that Relief Society President to trouble shoot and figure out where visiting teachers were most needed, where they could do the most good. Certainly, we don't want to cut anyone off, for the worth of every individual soul is great- but when a leader is struggling with so many in the ward unwilling to do their part... it must have been heart wrenching to have to make those judgement calls. I'm sure those hard working leaders and individuals who truly care would love to reach out to everyone and help all the members of the ward, if only they had the capacity to do so. I could truly sympathize with Alma, as he said "O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!" (Alma 29:1). But alas, we are also mortal and can only do so much. We need to diligently take upon ourselves the work we have been called to do and reach out to those we can, but we can only reach so far. I can understand why many go inactive feeling as though nobody cares. I understand that even someone with a strong testimony of the gospel might struggle with attending church if no sign of love and compassion is extended to them. But we have no control over our fellow members. We only have control over ourselves. Instead of expecting others to serve us, we need to reach out in service to others. I am sure that those sisters who were so unwilling to do their visiting teaching probably felt the same as those who had gone inactive- that nobody cared. Instead of expecting others to care, I propose that we each need to look inward and determine how much WE care. Then act on it. The field is white and ready to harvest in more ways than just missionary work. There are many in need of our love, devotion, and service, and there are few who are taking up their sicles to reap and do the work. When we feel burnt out, we need to turn to the Lord for our strength and continue with all diligence to do all that we can. If our efforts can bring a change of heart to just one soul, one person, it will all be worth it.

Men need to know that we need them to . And women need to allow them the opportunity to lead.Marriage requires such an enormous amount of trust that just isn't there in the world for so many. Everyone is trying to do everything on their own- trusting in the arm of flesh instead of trusting in God. Women, in general, no longer trust men, and as such also show a lack of faith in our Father. Marriage requires a sacrifice, on both sides, in that both men and women need to let go of their selfish desires in order to trust one another and work together in the rearing of a family. I know, due to my own past experience, that it is going to be difficult for me to place enough trust in another man to allow him the opportunity to lead me and be the presiding Priesthood authority in my home, but that is exactly what I want and am looking for- someone strong enough, capable enough, faithful enough, and responsible enough to lead. I don't want to be married to a "child", but that is exactly what our men will continue to be and act like if we do not trust them with the responsibility of leadership and give them the opportunity to prove their worth and value.

I always put a tiny dab of vinegar in mine, along with the mustard, mayo, and paprika.

Cadbury creme eggs, reeses eggs, and jellybeans.

God's house is a house of order, and there is a system established to prevent confusion among the Saints. The Spirit speaks through revelation to teach us His doctrine, but because we are all flawed in our ability to understand and interpret his whisperings, there has to be a Way established to make sure we are not caught in bickerings among one another as to what is true and correct. If I say I've received a revelation that drinking energy drinks does not break the WoW, but you say you've received a revelation that it does, we have a problem. We are both strong in our connection with the spirit and believe ourselves capable of interpreting his revelations through prayer and study, but we've fallen upon a disagreement. Which one of us is correct? Or is it possible that we are both correct? This is why there needs to be a system for doctrine that is binding to us all, with one voice and one scripture to which we can turn for clarification and understanding. We know that God shares His secrets through the mouths of His prophets. The prophet holds ALL the keys of the Priesthood and has authority to speak revelation for the entire earth. When he speaks, under his capacity as the prophet, his words are binding and become doctrine. That is why, the highest level on our "tier" for official doctrine is the scriptures- the writings here are all revelations given to us through prophets meant for the entire earth. For more specific direction applying to more specific areas, we have the break-up of church leadership with men holding the specific keys of the Priesthood they need to grant them stewardship over the people. That is why we have the break down into quorums of 70, general authorities, area authorities, stake presidents, bishops, and callings within a ward even down to home and visiting teachers, and finally the stewardship of a father over his family and individuals over themselves. Anyone who claims to have received revelation for someone over whom they hold no stewardship is either sorely mistaken or lying. They do not hold the Priesthood keys that would grant them such a line of communication with the spirit in order to receive that revelation. Now, it is possible that an individual may be guided to be the mouth-piece or hand through which an individual may feel the spirit and receive personal revelation or an answer to prayer, but that does not mean this person holds any bit of authority or stewardship over the individual they've helped. They were just a tool of the Savior in the relaying of a personal message of revelation to that individual. So yes, we are all taught, uplifted, and edified by one another. It is important to listen to the inspired words of our fellow brothers and sisters and seek out revelation that will guide us in understanding the doctrine we've been given and how to apply it personally to our lives. However, when we seek to communicate with those not of our faith what we as a church believe, what is binding to us as a whole, we need to be clear about what doctrines are officially binding upon the whole church and what we have merely received as personal revelation.

That's the view prevalent in society right now, yes. And when we look at the question of the OP "Why women don't marry", the answer is going to be very different depending on whether you are taking this view or the view of a faithful church member. Societal reasons why women don't marry in this day and age can range from wanting to pursue a career first, simply having no desire to marry at all, not finding any man mature enough or responsible enough to marry, believing she can raise a child all on her own better than with the help of a husband, wanting the freedom of promiscuity, etc. I believe though that generally within the church women have a desire to be wed and maintain their standard virtues of chastity and marriage within the temple. So why would a woman who has such a great desire to marry and raise a family within the bounds of matrimony, not wed? I think these reasons center more around not being able to find someone they deem worthy and compatible enough for marriage. Such women may be stuck seeking "the one" and "true love" or may have sincerely received no offers from a man. I think this applies to both single women that have never had children as well as to single parents. The fault can lie on one end or on both. Either the woman is not putting forth a sincere effort, or the man is not putting forth a sincere effort, or of course the outside factor- their time to marry has just not yet come. The kicker though is that I believe most men within the church also have a sincere desire for temple marriage. The idea that men just need to grow up, mature, act responsibly and stop playing with their games and toys is rediculous, in my opinion. Sure we could all do with some shaping up and responsible behavior. Sure we could all strive a little harder to not idle away our time and earnestly seek out responsibilities. But that isn't the root of the problem. That isn't why people aren't marrying. I think people in general are either being too picky or simply not being presented with adequate opportunities. The views of society take a big toll on this. While we hold ourselves to strong values of chastity, that doesn't mean we aren't affected by the plague of promiscuity. Feelings of inadequacy, rediculous expectations, addictions to pornography, and beliefs that our lives are meant to fall in place like a fantasy all stem from this growing problem in the media and society. We are struggling to maintain stalwart and stand strong on the rock amidst the turbulent waters of the world. I think it is only going to get harder, and we are going to have to be very strong as we prepare our children to face this challenge.

I don't think that really has anything to do with it. I'm sure some women are "stupid when it comes to men", but that doesn't relate to Funky's very good point. A male can easily shirk the responsibility of parenthood without facing any immediate reprecussions. Without a strong moral compass to guide him or laws to bind him, he can essentially escape any and all earthly connections he has to a woman and child should he choose the "easy" path of being irresponsible. It is much harder for a woman to make the same irresponsible choice. Society has made it a bit easier with birth control, adoption, and abortion options, and some women do take advantage of this so that they can be equally irresponsible. Yet these are all designed methods to allow women the freedom to make the same irresponsible choices that are more biologically natural for men. Once a woman is pregnant, if she is against abortion and/or adoption, she has no choice but to act at least somewhat responsibly in attempting to care for the child. Another important thing to remember is that if the woman chooses to shirk her responsibility in child-rearing, most likely the man gets a "free ride". If she gets an abortion, then there is no child for him to take responsibility over. I think it is probably very rare for a woman to give birth to a child, decide to act irresponsibly and not care for it, and then have the man step in. Things like this are probably more common when a couple was married, the man already had some time to mature through rearing a family, and then for whatever reason the woman "quit". The other side of the coin is that if a man chooses to shirk his responsibilities, the woman is still stuck, unless she also chooses the "easy" path. It all boils down to two factors: 1. Be more careful about entering into sexual relationships. The ideal would be to remain chaste until after marriage. Exercise self-control in bridling hormones and passions in order to act responsibly before a child is ever brought into the picture. 2. Once a child is created, whether within marriage or without, both men and women need to step up to the plate and act responsibly in order to care for and raise the child as best they can. If we all adhered to these two steps as best we could, single parenting situations would be greatly minimized, and those who do find themselves in such circumstances should be able to find plenty of support from family and church.

Beefche's post describes my situation perfectly. I let emotions and hormones lead the way and failed to exercise caution in a relationship. I am more to blame than any man for my current situation of having to raise a child as a single parent. While I would love to marry and have the "ideal"- I don't blame the single guys. Whether or not they could really use some maturing, it's a big step to expect them to handle parenting right off the bat. It's about much much more than just expecting the guys to put away their toys. Sure, my ex shares some of the blame with me, but that doesn't mean it needs to be extended to everyone else out there. And it's not like I divorced over a simple lack of maturity. If that were the only problem I'd had with my ex, I would have just dealt with it. I think the process of raising a family helps men to grow and mature, just as having to take on the responsibility of caring for my son on my own has helped me mature. It's a process that is meant to be taken on as a couple, so the two can help and support one another in that growth and maturing. But when put in a situation where one must parent singly, it can be difficult to find someone willing to so suddenly share your burden instead of gradually being introduced to it through the natural process of marriage and then children. People don't just become responsible without first being entrusted with something over which they must assume responsibility.

Out of everywhere I've lived so far, my favorite place climate-wise was Minnesota. I enjoyed the longer, cold, snowy winters and the mild summers. If I could live anywhere I wanted, I would live somewhere cold.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if LDS teachings share some similarities with Calvinist thinking. I haven't really studied Calvinist philosphy beyond the basics of the TULIP and our obvious differences, but I've found that as I've engaged in conversations with those who better know and understand the deeper points and teachings of other religions that there are more similarities than differences between us. Now the differences may be some big and important ones or minor details, but we are not so estranged from one another in our beliefs as we may think. Now- I'm seeing something in your response that is off- You have seen our answers to your question as attributing our salvation to ourselves and our own choices. This would be wrong. We, like you, believe that salvation comes through Christ and only Christ. He is the only path, the only Savior- without him, without turning to him with a humble heart, without the atonement and repentance, nobody could be saved and thus find their way into heaven. Getting into heaven is entirely reliant upon us taking full advantage of the atonement. Exhaltation, however, is different from salvation. Exhaltation is the reward of receiving the highest glory and being granted all that God has, to become a co-inheriter with Christ and be blessed with all light, truth, knowledge and understanding. Not everyone who makes it into heaven will be exhalted. This is what requires work on our part. We must prove ourselves worthy and capable of handling the responsibilities that come with the blessings of exhaltation. This is the narrow path which requires adherence to commandments, laws, and covenants. As we exercise self-control and purge ourselves of all ungodliness, through our own choices to engage in righteous doings, we can be filled with more and more light and understanding, and become closer and closer to the influence of the spirit. This requires discipline, self-mastery, and a desire to continuously draw nearer unto Him. This concept that salvation and exhaltation are two separate things is, as far as I know, a unique teaching of the LDS. We know that God is all merciful and that His gift of grace through the atonement is available to everyone who takes advantage of it, no matter their level of dedication. He is a wonderful and merciful God who wants to extend His blessings to everyone who will take it. He is also a just God, who will reward us for our efforts and grant us a place in heaven equal to our abilities and the amount of light we've opened ourselves to. Yes, our agency and our choices play an important role in where we end up. God created us with the ability to choose for ourselves so that we could progress and grow according to our own abilities. Our mortality is a probationary state in which we will learn from our own mistakes and have the opportunity to prove ourselves. Christ is our Savior. He is the Way. He has made it possible for us to receive blessings we are too imperfect to obtain on our own. And it is up to us to determine which blessings/responsibilities we will receive added onto our salvation as the work of eternity continues in heaven.

In most cases, I think separation eventually leads to divorce. Unless you have a very good reason for divorcing, I wouldn't do this. The idea behind separation should be that there are some irreconcilable problems that require distance for safety/healing reasons. Should the one causing the problems make changes to make things better, you could get back together, but since this happens so rarely the most likely result is that you would end up divorced. That all being said- My mother kicked my father out when I was just a baby because he'd hit me. She didn't divorce right away, giving him a chance to go to anger management and parenting classes. He did so, my mom let him back in the home and I never even knew about this until she told me as an adult. So separation CAN lead to change that will make a marriage better- but only if both parties want it badly enough and are willing to work at it.

I don't believe in soul-mates at all. How good of a match we will be for someone else depends on how much we work at it. It is certainly possible for there to be people out there similar and complementary enough to ourselves that the work needed for "merging" becomes minimal, but not everyone will find such a person in their life- nor does it make this person their soul-mate. I think a lot of it has to do with time and place in which you meet, whether the two of you have matured and are ready for marriage, and any outside circumstances that may influence you to get together. Most importantly though, I think the most successful and smooth marriages are those between two people focused on drawing nearer to God and maintaining strong family values.

I've been so absorbed in conference and family time, I only now saw this thread. :) You can bet I've been excited, and am just as excited for the rest. To go with Pam's common theme- I noticed that the talks focused quite a bit on family. There was a lot about the importance of families, of parental roles, of raising children in righteousness, and of focusing on spending time with the family. I think it is wonderful that we have such a strong focus on the family.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and advice. After some thought and prayer last night, I've decided to follow through with asking him if he is still interested in dating. Since I will be watching most of the conference sessions online at my parents place and only going to church for the Sunday morning session, the likelihood of me seeing him in person this weekend is pretty low, so I'm going to give him a call. I know he doesn't do subtle and just wanted to make sure that a sudden straight-forward change of the "rules" wouldn't be seen as too much from the male perspective- and you all have helped alleviate that worry. Thanks! :)