[Can a divorced girl go on a mission?]

I don't know if anything has changed but my first companion in the mission field in the early 1980s was a 27 yr old divorced woman from the US. She didn't tell me anything about it for a long time (either right before she got transferred or even after our missions- can't remember). She was a great missionary and eventually got married again in her 30s.

[Where do LDS fit in the Christian world?]

I know many who call themselves Christian who would say liberal=bad and conservative=good. So to use those labels will most likely make some people defensive or at least confused - those who think of themselves good through and through but having some qualities you've described in the liberal category.

Aren't you fudging a little on the Bilical literalist when you put "mostly" in parenthesis? Are there some stories or events in the Bible that conservative Christians DON'T take literally? I always thought they took everything completely the way they read it in the bible.

Anyway, I don't think your definitions of conservative or liberal labels are going to serve anyone but you. It seems to be a question that is attempting to trap or make someone look foolish or inconsistent.

LDS are what they are, niether one or the other in my mind. But the doctrines and admonitions are good. If good = conservative in your mind, then so be it. ;-)

[Do you think this is ethical?]

Just an observation. It's probably better to pose this question in hypothetical form if you want straight answers than to start it with "I have these two friend-families..."

Aside from that, honesty is always the best policy. One of the temple recommend questions is " Are you totally honest in your dealings with your fellow men." Hopefully being totally honest means being totally honest with ourselves, too. Perhaps they think they are being honest and ethical. MY opinion is that I don't think it's honest or ethical to walk away from a debt with no intention of ever paying it back. But I don't understand the financial world at all. So my approach to situations like this will be pretty simplistic.

[PBS Documentary "The Mormons"]

I remember that show. I thought it was about the best someone who was outside of the church could do at trying to be unbiased and paint both adherents and critics in the most charitable light.

One thing I think they did goof up on, was some of the artwork. For the life of me, when I think of the Angel Moroni coming to visit, I really don't have this image in my mind:

Me neither. I thought it started out rather spooky. I didn't get a good feeling about it from the get-go. And didn't like them spending so much time on modern day polygamy when it isn't even part of our church anymore and hasn't been for so long. That part was just distracting from the true message of the church.

I thought it portrayed much more controversy than was necessary. For me, a typical life long member, my life and activity in the church have very little to do with all the deep, dark questioning and negativity they showed. I think they only followed one typical, happy LDS family through a day or week, whatever, I can't remember the details.

Here's a small sampling of what they didn't show-

The joy I or anyone can get out of teaching little kids in Primary each week. All th funny comments and the cute prayers they offer and the beautiful singing voices they develop from singing so much in Primary

The strength and fortitude our teenagers get from seminary every morning.

The quiet (well depending on how many toddlers there are in the ward LOL) peace of renewing our faith and committment to Jesus Christ every week while taking the sacrament.

The moments of pure guidance and inspiration from the Holy Ghost

All the cool things our 8-12 yr old daughters learn in Activity Days

All the cool things our 12-18 yr old daughters and sons do on youth nights

The rigorous goals our kids reach

The protection they and we get from living a high moral standard

The blessing of being sealed together as a family for eternity

Generations of righteous, productive, fun loving, clean, wholesome family members enjoying each other's company at a family reunion

I could go on and on. Too bad they felt the need to focus so much on the ones who have intellectualized themselves out of the church and out of the warmth and protection of the Holy Ghost. Just sad.

[Soul Mates And Eternal Companions-- Same?]

Well, I didn't take the time to read all the posts. But glancing over them it seems there is a lot of hair splitting going on. But in any case... I know many couples who met while one or the other of them were serving a mission. My MTC companion and my cousin got married. They met while he was teaching in the MTC. Re-met at my own wedding. OK maybe that one doesn't count. But I know so many very happy secure couples with children who first met when one was teaching the other the gospel. Whether or not those feelings and attractions were present while the one was in full time missionary service- I don't know. But I can't imagine that it's wrong to marry someone you met while on your mission.

Real live experience. I was distracted by a young man I met on my mission. We never discussed feelings for each other in person but it was pretty obvious the attraction was mutual. I discussed it with my MP and was transferred within a week. My heart broke. The young man's did, too, I found out later through letters. But it was the best thing. 4 months later at the end of my mission, I discussed the situation with my MP again. He smiled and said that when we are serving the Lord, it's easy to "fall in love" with just about anyone or anything. We fall in love with the country, the people, the children, even the trees and flowers and the dusty road we are walking on. He told me to not write to this young man for 3 months and see what happens.

So after three months we wrote some. This young man told me he wanted to marry me, but the cultural differences became so clear that I knew it would be foolish to try to pursue the relationship. I prayed about it. The answer was no. It was so sad. We would have made the perfect couple. We would have had beautiful children. I don't think I have ever been as physically attracted to any other man as I was to him, (not even my eternal companion [husband] that I've been married to for 25 years.) When I first saw him it was like an electric buzz and a warmth spread over me. And he had the perfect personality for me. We talked and laughed together so easily (with my companion right next to me of course.) He was so great with kids. Everyone loved him. He was a returned missionary. I loved his family, I loved his generous but humble spirit. He was athletic and musical and a great dancer. (I never danced with him, obviously, but I watched him dance with his sister at a stake YA function.)

BUT...we lived in completely different parts of the world. He hadn't even a high school education , but I had a college degree. He lived in a shack without any running water or electricity. We spoke different primary languages. We came from totally different life experiences.

If there was ever a man in my life who felt like a soul mate, it would have been this young man from my mission. I haven't communicated with him or his family since sending them my wedding announcement. But occasionally I think about him and that warmth and fluttery heart feeling spreads through me again. Even now 26 years later.

So I think it's possible to *think* we have met our one and only. But during the time we have committed to serve our Father in Heaven with all our hearts and minds on a full time mission is NOT the time to be thinking about making a match with someone. My one regret is having wasted any time, emotional energy or even possibly teaching opportunities by being distracted by this sweet wonderful young man. I was miserable my last 4 months of my mission not being able to see him. Not good!!

I would suggest your cousin get on top of her thoughts and re- commit herself to the work till she's done with her mission. If it was meant to be, it will work out.

[Is Early Morning Seminary Deprivative?]

I hated having my kids go to early morning seminary the first few years. I felt bone tired for them, watching them stay up late to complete assignments after spending literally 12 hours at school with after school sports and activities- then Young Women's and Young Mens activities. It was all too much. BUT all three of my kids have/ are graduating with high GPA's (one kid never got less than an A, even in honors and AP classes) and have gotten scholarships to college. I think the Lord first blessed my chldren with bright minds (they all know there is much reqired of them because of it), but then helped them out also because of their seminary attendance.

I know it hasn't been this way for all their friends. Some have struggled much more with grades. But it truely is amazing how many LDS kids have graduated with honors from our town. So seminary must not be hurting them academically too much.

So now we are moving to a town with released time seminary and I've done a complete 180 over this. We'll miss early morning seminary so much. Not only that but school doesn't even start till almost 9 AM in our future high schools. It will be interesting to see how it affects the younger four kids. Will they become too lazy? Stay up too late and end up with poor grades because they aren't being challenged enough? Time will tell.

[God has a wife in heaven???]

I've always thought emotions were a part of being human.

That's what I thought, too. All humans (most anyway,) have flesh and bones, blood, arms, legs, brains, etc. I always thought that was what was meant by those scriptures. I'm sure there are parts of God's image in us that we can't even comprehend at this stage of the game. But I feel pretty safe in saying that being both male and female aren't part of it. My husband has emotions. He relates to and understands womens emotions pretty well. (WE have five daughters so I think God eqipped him that way.) But he is most definitely not part female.

We also have to remember how much symbolism is in the scriptures, temple ceremony, etc. Everything can't be taken literally- within the limits of our human minds. If we try to do that, we'll be badly led astray.

[God has a wife in heaven???]

Genesis.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

"This says to me --if God created man in his own image, and the result is male and female, that would leave a clue that God has both attributes."

Pretty far out conclusion in my opinion. God created man in HIS image and then created women separately. Women and men are different for good reason (procreation is one good reason). I have a very hard time believing that God is literally both man and woman.

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

D&C 68: 25

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

The Traveler

I understand this. I said I agreed we need to teach them. And if we don't teach them, then we as parents are at fault. But I'm posing a different scenario. I'm talking about when we DO teach and they STILL mess up. (Which is more likely the case than not. No matter how much you tell a kid not to lie or steal, some of them are going to do it anyway. ) How are we then still responsible for their actions? Like I said before, we can't FORCE kids to behave. That's Satans way. Sometimes kids just have to learn the hard way- by making mistakes, making poor choices and then learning the consequences.

So say we have done all the teaching possible, kid messes up anyway, kid never quite learns what we're trying to teach, Kid dies tragically somehow before turning 8 and being baptized. Are the parents still supposed to carry the kid's mistakes into eternity? I don't think it's that cut and dried. I think our Father in Heaven is much more compassionate than that. There are still unpaid dues when the kid dies- parents may not even know what they are. The only one to take them on would be Jesus Christ, in my viewpoint.

LIke I said, mind games. All we can do is our best. I don't think it's a good idea to heap guilt on kids or parents. Life is a learning process and lots and lots of mistakes will be made, sins committed, even by well meaning parents. I think the Lord will take our individual cases into consideration on judgement day and I think He will be loving and fair.

Back to my OP- I just don't like the image that might be in some kids heads on baptism day that they have done all these bad things for 8 years and now they have to be washed away. I think a better approach with children is downplay the "washing away sins" part , but to teach them that they are following the Savior's example by being baptized and that baptism is necessary to enter God's kingdom(to become a member of His church) And from that point on, they need to repent after committing sins and help them to understand how the atonement can work for them. Also teach them the pro-active approach of reaching out to people who need help and comfort. That will come more naturally to some than others. But if it's part of our baptismal covenant, and kids realize the seriousness of covenants in the first place, maybe it would help with problems like bullying, cheating, oh- the list is so long of all the rotten stuff kids are capable of doing. Maybe it would help, maybe not.

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

One important principle that you are missing is that parents are responsible for the sins of the children prior to them becoming of the age of accountability. Failure of a parent to teach a child and prepare them for baptism is something that they must answer to before G-d. I would strongly suggest that as parents we take every opportunity – including family home evening, family prayer and in every way provide example and encouragement for our children to be baptized at age 8. The parents that think they will force their children to wait until they know exactly what they want to do concerning baptism are putting themselves at risk, as much as or more so than they are putting their children at risk.

I taught my children and prepared them for baptism at age 8. Some of my children have had problems with their covenants since then – but I have made it clear to them that what I taught them and prepared them for was the right thing. What they do with it now is on their ticket but I love them and desire that they keep their covenants even as I do.

The Traveler

Hmmm. The way you worded that doesn't quite jive for me. How can parents absorb their children's sins? Does it work retroactively? I fully agree that we are responsible for teaching them while they are young. But even with the best, most concientious teaching, little kids still mess up. Sometimes the teaching just doesn't "take". This is probably where the atonement comes in. Parents can only do so much teaching and exemplifying. We can't force our kids to do the right thing all the time. Does the agency principle not kick in till they are eight?

So my original point was that if little chldren truely are incapable of sin, why do we teach them that their sins are washed away at baptism? They wouldn't have any sins to be washed away. Older people would have plenty but not barely 8 yr olds.

It's all a mind game anyway. We could make ourselves crazy trying to figure it all out. I just want to be sure I'm teaching my kids the right principle and not make them feel the heavy weight of sin where it's not necessary. Nor do I want them to feel like they have been bad little persons before their baptism. I think it's just that song that bugs me. I always have a hard time singing the second verse- so I usually just dont.

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

How did this come to be, when so many other places use the ages of 18 or 21 in this determination of accountability? I know among the Jews, the age of accountability is 13 for boys and 12 for girls with their respective Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs.

The number eight does come into play in that infant boys are circumcised on the eighth day.

The Baha'i faith goes with the age fifteen as the age of responsibility. In China, twenty is the designated age. Japan also uses age twenty. In Vietnam it is age eighteen for girls and twenty for boys. In South Africa it is 21 while in the Philippines it is 18.

Using age eight makes it ten years earlier than even high school graduation.

Well if we waited that long, there would cetainly be more sins to be washed away.

[Why did this happen?]

You totally misread or misunderstood my post.

My desire was to get married in the temple from the get-go. Wanted it, believed it was ready to do it -- no uncertainty about wanting to be married immediately in the temple

However, enter the non-member family variable. All of a sudden, I have a choice -- either get married now in the temple because I want it, or appease my family and get married civilly now, and then wait a year for the temple marriage, thus introducing risk that something might happen in that year that might encourage my wife and I NOT to go to the temple.

And if I may speak frankly, something DID happen that would've pretty much ensured that we didn't go through the temple during that year, if I had've decided to get civilly married ffirst. My wife and I, clean and pure from all sexual experience before marriage, found AFTER the sealing that my wife had a condition that prevented intercourse. This lasted 10 years.

You know, if the policy wasn't in place, forcing you to wait a year, I would never have considered introducing the risk of things not working out and not getting a temple marriage by getting married civilly first. Do you see how that policy of excluding my family had me considering the year delay which probably would've led to me not having a temple marriage at all?

Now, we managed to stay together and are still together in spite of that condition, because we both felt we made an eternal commitment. We both agree we would not have gone through the temple a year later with that new knowledge in our experience as husband and wife if we were only married civilly. The first year was absolultely terrible for both of us.

Now, do I have to say this five more times for you guys to get it -- we didn't want a civil marriage because we weren't certain about our marriage success at the time. We wanted it to create a solution that was respectful to parents, yet also confirmed our commitment to eternal marriage.

Forgive me, but Sheesh! You need to read the posts above and understand them before you get all defensive about the policy!

Well, yours is probably an unusual circumstance (your wife's condition). I'm sure we're all impressed you stayed true to her. I hope things have gotten better.

But it sounds as if the consternation on the part of some of us posting here lies in the practice of people worrying too much and trying too hard to appease the non-member family. Yes we understand you ultimately didn't. Kudos to you for going ahead with your temple marriage. But your parent's reaction to completely abandon you on your wedding day and to continue to use it as a reason to turn their backs on any interest in the church, AND for you to continue to feel guilty about it is a sorry state to be in. Do you think they were justified? If so, this will probably always be an issue for you. I doubt there will be any policy changes any time soon. But if you can see that maybe they were over-reacting just a tad and that they are holding onto their grudge for whatever reason, it may help you to approach the whole memory of your wedding a little differently, yank that blight out of it and remember your wedding as the blessed event it was. YOU tried to involve them with a ring ceremony, but they rejected your offer. You tried to reach a middle ground and compromise but they wouldn't go for it. Sounds like it was "their way or the highway".

That said, from what you've described, they sound like good generous people. But they have hurt you with their close minded attitude. Somehow you'll need to come to terms of peace about your decision.

Sometimes there are church policies or work policies or school policies that we don't agree with. Often it takes a little more digging to understand the reason for the policy. This policy isn't just a result of controlling sargeant-like leaders of the church with no compassion (as would be the case with many annoying school and work policies) It's probably a policy that has been thought and prayed about sincerely by those who set it in place. All we can do is trust that they have come to their conclusion for a reason. And then pray our non-member families will have their broken hearts consoled and softened. But heaven forbid we say anything negative about it to our families. The long lasting results of that may be far worse than just humbly accepting the policy and doing the best we can with it.

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

To be frank, beloved sister, I doubt you even now fully understand what it means. I don't fully understand what it means; I doubt my bishop doesn't fully understand; even the Prophet would, I believe, claim that he doesn't 'fully understand'. I'd wager the only person who fully understood what it meant in mortality was the Savior, after having performed the Atonement.

Covenants and commitments are guideposts as well as initiatory rituals, I think.

You're right. We can't fully understand.

What I should have said was that I wasn't really aware that Mosiah 18: 8-10 was part of the baptismal covenant till I was an adult.

8 ...", as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?"

That's a pretty big commitment to be making at age 8. I think kids can understand it in a very elementary way. But it really isn't emphasized in Primary or any of the songs they sing about baptism. They sing generally about "trying to be like Jesus" but not in relation to an actual covenant we are making to do these specific things after being baptized. I honestly heard nothing about this prior to my baptism. I felt sort of stupid (having been a life long member) when I did learn about it in terms of it being "what we promise at baptism". I thought...I promised that? Not that I wouldn't gladly do those things anyway, but I honeslty had never heard of that particular aspect of baptism before. (Sheesh- what else don't I know? ) Maybe it's a relatively new emphasis in the church. The scripture reference has always been there but not taught in such specifics as it is now. Ever since I learned about these promises I've wondered why we don't teach this to kids more as part of a rigorous baptismal preparation. If it's such a serious covenant, we shouldn't be treating it so casually - or at least approaching it as something we just do in the church almost without thinking about it- getting baptized automatically at age eight just because everyone else does.

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

Maybe you should check your footnotes and/or do a study of the word "whole." What exactly is a "wrong?" Is there a difference between "sin" and "transgression?" What's the purpose of baptism? Why was Jesus baptized if he had no wrongs to wash away? Just some rhetorical questions to get you thinking and perhaps aid you in your study. This may also be helpful.

We all know Jesus was baptized to set an example. But that's not why 8 yr old children are baptized. So the answer to that questions doesn't help. But thanks for the advice anyway.

[Why did this happen?]

Awesome response Lilac! Thank you for that perspective.

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

Are there any scriptures that use the "wash away" metaphor regarding baptism? I know we hear it a lot in church, but my understanding was that it's actually receiving the Holy Ghost that cleanses us of our sins.

Beyond that: I think the eight-year-old thing is a general indicator of a point at which the vast majority of children have become accountable for their actions. But I don't think it means that at 11:59 PM on the day before his 8th birthday a kid is sinless, and then all of a sudden the clock ticks and--blammo--he's lost his innocence.

Odds are that by the time the baptism actually occurs, the kid has committed at least a couple of (minor) sins that need to be purged.

Ha ha! So the longer the child waits to be baptized, the more sins he gets washed away for free? (jkjk)

We just make such a big deal about not baptizing infants. The reason for that is clear. "Men are punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgressions." But is age 8 too soon?

I understand the age of accountability. That makes sense. It's an appropriate time for kids ( more or less) to understand the whole repentance process and take responsibility for their actions. But I also KNOW children understand far sooner than age 8 when they are doing something wrong. My 7 yr old told me yesterday she knows she's a troublemaker (she's right ) and she knew without a doubt that she was in deep doo doo for taking some money that belonged to another family member. But that isn't sin? Well, OK. If it's just a lack of judgement or a little slip up, then I wish we would emphasize the need for baptism at the age of 8 MORE for becoming a member of Heavenly Father's church rather than the washing away sins thing. The pat and standard answer in all the Primary manuals to "Why do we get baptized?" is "To have our sins washed away." ( I'm a Primary teacher of 7 yr olds. I know. ) But if little children can't sin...?? Hmmm!

The other thing I wonder sometimes (I don't sit around feeling bothered by this all the time) is that the covenants and committments we make at baptism are rarely taught to pre-8 yr olds. I don't think I fully understood " mourning with those that mourn and comforting those that stand in need of comfort" till I was about 40. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that's what I was committing to do when I was baptized. My parents were very devoted members of the church who took their church responsibilities seriously, but truthfully, The only thing I remember being taught at age 7 3/4 about my baptism is what it would feel like to go under the water and that I'd get to go out to dinner with my family afterwards. I DO recall a very peaceful feeling during my confirmation that I recognize now was the gift of the Holy Ghost being given me.

Anyway, this is just observation. Not really complaint. 5 of my own 7 children have been baptized and I'm not sure I did any better a job of preparing them than my parents did for me. Maybe it's time to change that for my last two. I remember being impressed many years ago by the amount of preparation it took for a nearly 13 yr old boy I was aquainted with who was about to go through his Bar Mitzvah. He had to memorize scripture and song and be thoroughly knowledgable about what he was doing. I would feel better about 8 yr old baptism if our children were a little better prepared. Some are, but generallly I think most have a pretty vaugue understanding of what it all means.

[Why did this happen?]

Carli I think that is precisely why they discourage us having a civil ceremony, I have a strong testimony, value my husband etc but its very easy for the civil ceremony to overshadow the temple one

Are you saying you don't think there should be any celebration at all after the temple sealing?

[About 8 yr old baptism...]

In Moroni 8:8 it says, "wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin.."

So why is there so much emphasis in Primary about children's sins being washed away when they are baptized at the age of eight? For example, I think of the song in "I Love to Look For Rainbows" which is a pretty little song, but technically, isn't it teaching an incorrect principle in the line, "I know when I am baptized, my wrongs are washed away"?

[Some say they are overloaded...]

This reminded me of the Bishops wife saying in her testimony today how she thought it would be easier having 50 babies than being the wife of a Bishop. I looked at the Bishops face and I could tell he was getting a wakeup call to spend more time at home and less at the chapel.

Wow, I never felt that way when I was wife to the bishop (he just got released this week). I kept waiting for things to get really bad and lonesome but they never did. I only felt blessed. Guess I lucked out.

[Why did this happen?]

As I've thought more about this, it occurred to me that many people who are beloved to me, dear friends and family members weren't in attendance at my actual marriage- the sealing ceremony in the temple that was short - the sealing words take about 2 min. for the officiator to say. There was no grand processional down the aisle or flowers or music- all the things that most people think of in traditional weddings outside the temple. What did occur in the temple was very personal and quiet and sacred- the sealing words that 25 years later I'm still trying to comprehend and grasp. But what happened after - the celebration, the pictures, the food, gathering of hundreds of people, laughter, smiles, well wishes, cutting the cake, tossing rosebuds, and even bagpipers! All that was part of my wedding, too. If non members chose to be offended and miss out on all the joyful celebration simply because they couldn't be in attendance for the 15 min sealing ceremony- how sad for them and me. I had aunts, uncles and many friends who still chose to celebrate with us- to be a part of our wedding to extent that they could. I didn't attend my older siblings temple ceremonies because I hadn't been endowed yet. But I still was very much a part of the wedding.

Point being- the temple rooms can only accomodate so many people anyway. There are many - even members of the church who would like to be there for the actual ceremony but have to be cut from the list. The ideal situation would be for those closest to the bride and groom- the parents, grandparents, siblings, etc., to be there. But if they can't- they can still participate in the "wedding" by graciously congratulating and offering love and support before and after the actual temple sealing.

[Why did this happen?]

I actually thought the same thing when I saw the conviction you have about my internal state of mind and emotions based on a few lines in a discussion forum! If there's an example of making assumptions -- that's it!

That's what I meant. I am the one making assumptions. This is the way the situation appears to me.

[Why did this happen?]

This implies that I'm just not getting it or understanding you. I understand you perfectly MOE -- it's just that for me, the decades of antagonism it caused me and my family don't' seem worth the bit of weak symbolism found in making the temple ceremony the ONLY ceremony as a matter of Church policy.

I've never said that I think this policy was a result of stupid people. I do think it may have been the result of considering the issue from only one angle. And one that I hope changes eventually, just as other Church policies have changed over time.

It seems incredibly odd that the Church does purport to be pro-family, but only pro-family as it applies to families who are already united in the faith. Not to families in transition, like mine.

As I said, many times I've wished that policy wasn't in place so we could respect my family, draw them into our culture, and also have the commitment benefits of a temple marriage all at the same time, on the same day.

All these are good things, and would've removed a stumbling block to my parents in taking the Church seriously. They are good people, and deserved more than what they got at the time.

I actually apologized to my parents years later for the impact it had on them -- after the birth of my daughter. I had to word it carefully -- saying that I still believed it was important to be married in the temple, but I disagreed with the policy that forced me to choose between the commitment benefits of the ceremony and them. And I asked for their forgiveness for the hurt it caused.

It appeared to mean a lot to them.

I don't know. You say you aren't bitter, but the fact that you felt you had to apologize to your parents and that you think it is a weak symbolism doesn't sound very convincing to me. No wonder your parents don't want to consider the church at all when you apologize to them about it. When we make excuses or apologize for the church, it give people a reason to not take it seriously. Maybe you should apologize to your parents for making the church and it's policies look silly.

I'm taking the hard line on this because I really believe from what you've said that this little issue (in the eternal scheme of things) is just an excuse for them to not go to the bother of investigating the church. Your apologizing for the church enables their lack of interest. " Why should we be interested in a church that even our son doesn't think is right.?"

Assumptions, assumptions. But that's what it sounds like to me.

[Why did this happen?]

Heavenly Father every time -- but now my question -- why force me to choose between the two of them, for what appears to be weak reasons?

Anyway, I would never raise this question at Church, and as I said, I accepted it, in spite of my bewilderment about it. It's simply something I don't completely understand yet. To me, having both ceremonies is no less sacred than having only one.

It's not as if the two ceremonies are equivalent -- the temple ceremony is definitely more sacred given its place in the temple, the covenants made, etcetera. Having a civil ceremony beforehand doesn't cheapen the experience in any way. In fact, the blight of my parent's exclusion is a blight on the whole experience.

Your parents have chosen to continue to be bitter about it. What about THEM being happy For YOU, that with integrity you made choice as an adult and followed through with something you felt was important. Sounds like you are being drawn into their bitterness. Don't allow them to make you feel guilty about it. You made the right choice and will be blessed for it if you allow yourself to be blessed. If you continue to dwell on it, I get the sense that the bitterness will continue to grow and may really become a stumbling block in the path of the growth and progression of your testimony.

I think it's OK to question and be frustrated by things that we experience. But continuing to dwell needlessly on the negative for years can't be healthy. Why not focus on all the joys you can share with them right now! Do you have children? Involve them in as many aspects of your life that you can that will give them pleasure in seeing their child act in the role of a responsible, loving adult. In other words, put this behind you.

[Why aren't garments subsidized?]

Wait, the garments are to be worn fullly touching your skin? So how would anyone, male or female be able to wear regualr underwear also?

Over! The only time I wear underwear under my garments is during my female time. Obviously, "wings" don't work so well on garments. If you're not female, and don't know what I'm talking about...ask one.

[Utah House Leader Resigns:]

Maybe the ovation wasn't for what he did as a 28 yr old but what he did this week. He resigned immediately instead of trying to drag it out and defend himself. Though what he has done in the past is sick and deserves some serious repentance and apologies (and possibly therapy), what he did today shows integrity and deserves an ovation (as opposed to say Clinton or the governor of NJ- trying to go forward and hang onto their public office as if what they did was of no consequence or significance). Hopefully Garn's family can receive the help and the privacy now they all must desperately need to work through this.