carlimac

Well Jane, Don't feel too bad. Mine is to find someone to make a cheesecake wedding cake for my daughter's wedding. I also have a few closets that need cleaning out. 
 
Besides that, I'd like to take up dance again (which I abandoned at age 3 because the stretching out exercises hurt)  This is what sparked that idea:
 
 http://theberry.com/2015/03/17/this-mashup-of-famous-dance-scenes-is-your-new-favorite-video-video/#VuKTlqFJ18Zzedxp.01
 
I should probably get re-certified as an RN although I don't really want to work as one.  And I want to get at least a Bachelor's degree. I only got an AD.
 
Save up to take a vacation at a dude ranch.

Read the top 100 classical "must read" books. 37 so far. 
 
Visit every continent.. three to go.
 
Perfect my sewing skills to the point where I could make formal dresses for my daughter(s) someday. 
 
And the newest addition, I think I should like to be a casual birder. I'd like to be able to recognize bird calls by ear, at least just the ones that live in my area.

The only way I can reconcile it, as we still live and function in a fallen state in the telestial world...When the woman taken in adultery was brought before the mortal Christ, He did not judge her. He simply told her, "go, and sin no more." When we are ready, He invites us to "Come, follow me." He gave man agency and did not, does not and will not infringe upon it. 
 
Our church leaders made a deal with Babylon. That's the only way I see it, fundamentally speaking. I have many LGBT friends/coworkers. Some are friends, one whose parents were in my former ward. He finally felt comfortable sending me a friend request on Facebook. Another is a young gal who is not at all religious. She recently married another gal and is very happy. We greet each other with warm smiles and sometimes a big hug. I love her and all my fellow man/woman no matter what. I do not judge. I just love them. I do not and cannot bring myself to support their lifestyle, but I agree that they should have agency to do as they wish, just as I do as I wish. Therefore, I just love them. I can be happy for them only as long as they find happiness in this life. It won't last past this life. The same for anyone of any background, lifestyle, whatever. We are all God's children. I only judge my own walk before God. 
 
Forgive me Lord, a sinner.

Been following this thread for a while. Not sure what to say until now.
 
Being converted to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as an adult, perhaps I see things differently than others. I have to ask, in all sincerity, how can anyone who claims to have a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ (and all that implies) stand up and proudly say he supports gay marriage (and all that implies)? The two declarations are diametrically opposed. In all honestly, it's beyond my ability to comprehend.

Some members probably have different opinions on adultery too....

This is one of those fun places where extreme gay/transgender rights and extreme feminism clash.  One the one hand, you've got the former group saying that their constituents have an absolute right to use the girls' bathroom.  On the other hand, the latter group is saying "I don't care what she calls herself now--she WAS a man, and all men are rapists!!!!!"  For us conservatives, it's a nice time to sit back and watch the fireworks.
 
In a more constructive vein:  Even LDS Churches have "unisex" bathrooms--they're just designed for use by one person at a time.  I think that's ultimately the direction that public schools, and places of public accommodation generally, are going to have to take. 

I have a close family member that worked in church security for decades. I can tell you that the church monitors temple security and missionary security very closely. Everything from chapel break-ins are reported pretty far up the chain. My family member would meet with the FBI when needed.
 
I cannot guarantee, but would imagine that items like terrorists and other threats of the like have already been discussed. The church is all about preparedness. 

if something is felt important enough to do so they'll pull missionaries from an area. If it's not quite that important they'll advise the mission president and it will be his responsibility to figure out how they should operate in an area that's deemed risky. Otherwise its up to the mission president to watch and be receptive to inspiration. But also too its up to the missionary to also be watchful and receptive.
I think tho that a lot is just that God knows how to work his church and knows when and where people will be and that affects when and where people get called too.
I've tracted areas in Detroit where people said i was crazy stupid to be there (and also said that even the police don't get out of their cars there and don't come around once it gets dark). been near a few shootings and even a store robbery (slight chance that I might have even been on TV even)…. but always it wasn't an issue because we were somewhere else right when the dangerous stuff happened.
Ya the church has members that have been with FBI, CIA, or even criminal organizations before they converted.

OK, so it's safe to say, " I approve of gay marriage" on facebook. Now I just wonder what the motivation is, as a Latter Day Saint, to want to make that public statement. 
 
I have relatives that do but they are mostly "Millenials" who enjoy the shock value of showing of their liberalism. They are also the ones more likely to use profanity on facebook. I believe they don't care what others think of them. They are closer to the fringe than they care to admit.
 
I have a gay friend, no longer in the church at all who of course is very pro-gay marriage. He's "married" to his...friend...whatever.   And his family, mostly active LDS are pro-gay marriage, too. At least pro- HIS marriage. I suppose that approval carries over to his friends and associates who are also gay. But I wonder if they think it's OK beyond their acquaintances. Do they really believe this is what's best for society?
 
I can understand why my friends who aren't religious put up that marriage equality sign.  But my curiosity, (which always gets me in trouble) makes me wonder what point any LDS person is trying to make by being boldly pro-gay marriage in public. 

So defending a loved one makes sense, as long as that loved one isn't trying to live a hypocritical lifestyle.   I'm not saying there has to be an agenda. I'm just simply wondering how a member of the church 1) arrives at the point of accepting gay marriage as good and 2) wants other members of the church to know that and throws caution to the wind by announcing it. I just can't get my head around it.
 
I mean can you imagine a faithful member of the church posting on facebook, "I'm all for everyone having an affair if they want one. "  or "Hey I believe in gambling. It's good and wholesome."    

I agree that things have been clarified.  But of course Facebook posts can count.  
 
Example of not teaching false doctrine on Facebook: "I think guys should be able to marry guys."
 
Example of teaching false doctrine on Facebook: "I'm a Mormon, and the church is wrong about this one.  Joseph Smith had no problem with gays marrying."

I find that people tend to put way too much into whether one technically qualifies for a temple recommend or not, and whether one technically qualifies for excommunication or not -- as if these things are the key measurements of our standing before God and how we're doing on the path to salvation.
 
Just because the church won't kick you out for something and/or you can hold a temple recommend for something does not mean it's righteous or wise.

The Church does have a security division that monitors global threats--an ex-ward member of mine used to work for them.  But I think it's more of an analyze-publicly-available-news type of thing; no cloak and dagger stuff.  And I don't think it's the Church's style to put out major threat alerts--more likely, they just quietly tell the mission presidents "hey--make sure your missionaries don't go to this spot".

People have said much more objectionable things than that, even among the higher echelons of church leadership.
 
Putting aside my personal feelings on the matter, the objective statistical evidence is clear that relationships that cross cultural boundaries are more prone to failure.  This is largely due to differing expectations about communication.  And it is true when those cultural boundaries are racial, geographic, religious, political.....the list could go on forever.
 
People who have similar backgrounds have a more natural understanding of each other and their communicative patterns.  That make it much easier to resolve conflicts.
 
The other source of conflict in cross-cultural relationships tends to deal with values.  This is usually more starkly seen in the religious context, but can be true in racial contexts.
 
So, while I'm not a big fan of this quote, I'm not particularly bothered by it.  There is some objective value to it when discussed properly.  But every time I've been in a position where it's come up, I've either ignored it or pivoted to talking about communication issues.  

I don't find anything terribly objectionable about the quote.  Even within the US, there is often a "subculture" that accompanies each particular race; and marriages across such cultural norms can create tensions that may make marriage more difficult--as no less a figure than Michelle Obama's mother understood when she realized her daughter was marrying someone who was half white.
 
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”

Michelle Obama's mother was just re-quoted on her comments about not liking that her daughter would marry someone of mixed race. People surfaced the quote with the hope of raising some controversy. Myself, I understood her concerns and wouldn't criticize her for them. Marrying someone from a different backgound makes a marriage more difficult. Not impossible, just more difficult.

To me, this simply sounds like an updated version of the Lord's instructions to the ancient Israelites that they not intermarry with the people in surrounding territories.
 
This morning I listened to an interesting and informed radio broadcast of a discussion about marriages between people of different cultures. The person being interviewed is in the final stages of completing her research which focussed on intercultural marriages, for which she interviewed 44 people. There was also some excellent phone-in listener contributions from the audience. It’s a good insight into, and discussion of, some of the issues that can arise with interracial marriages. The segment goes for about 20 minutes or thereabouts. It can be listened to at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/the-impact-of-moving-overseas-for-love/6332456. 
 
ps
I note that in the quote above, President Kimball didn’t say we had to marry someone of the same sex...........
 
 
but I guess that went without saying back them.
 
pps
and the fact that he didn't have to say it back then, but that it might need to be said now, or in 20 years time, would be an example of how counsel on marriage may need to change from time to time.  

I don't either. I wonder if we'll need to wait till something bad happens before some really concrete precautions are put in place. 

It amazes me that when something like this happens nowadays ....the media has to look at political affiliation before anything else.

I could let it go at that...except there's been this narrative that conservative Christians are chomping at the bit to oppress Muslims, and that it's the enlightened secular liberals who are peaceful, reasonable, and tolerant.  Supposedly, it was family members of the victim who insisted this was an anti-Muslim killing.  Only when the killer turned out to be a secularist himself did the mainstream media grow silent.  Is it "stirring the pot" to occasionally point out that this particular stick and stone were poorly aimed?
 
For an example of the initial "This was an anti-Muslim hate crime" coverage, see this CNN article:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/living/muslims-chapel-hill-hate-crime/index.html

I am definitely missing estradling's point, that's why I'm asking the questions.
 
You guys are painting the picture of the Temple likes it's some sort of factory with an assembly line and family celebrations at the Temple are out of the question. I'm sure in the real world that Sealings at the Temple are very joyous. I have family that have been sealed at the Temple and all who were there (at the Temple and grounds) were very joyous. I am sure that there were more on the grounds then were invited into the Sealing Room, but at least my family sees the people just as important as the ceremony itself.
 
M.

I think carlimac is just wanting to have family on both sides to be able to attend the sealing. I don't remember her mentioning the Quorum Secretary. :)
 
 
 
Proven? Where?...on this thread? I understand that Mormons don't view wedding ceremonies the same way the majority of other religious and non-religious people do - as a celebration. And maybe that's the problem; as soon as you view celebrating something good and wonderful as baggage then it's time to question whether you are making the sealing into a duty rather than blessing.
 
M.

For maybe 15 to 30 minutes longer? Most people attending a sealing are there because it's a wedding. There are pictures to take, food to eat and a reception to attend. I doubt that extra 15 minutes is going to cause too much trouble.
 
M.

But the preferred order would be to get married first before giving birth; and the celestial goal would be to have a temple sealing. If "families are forever" is the ultimate motto, why not show that true and make it possible for families to witness that celestial goal.
 
 
Human beings like to be a part of special occasions. Watching a couple get married is a joyous time. Whether the wedding or sealing ceremony is the one that is being witnessed doesn't really matter; it's the fact that people like to be a part of these joyous occasions.
 
M. 

Can't believe we're still debating on when it's acceptable for a woman to say NO.
 
If I'm feeling like crap (mentally, emotionally, physically) and intercourse is not a priority for 7 days, my husband isn't a jerk about it, in fact, he's very understanding. Guess I'm lucky! Again, I support the idea that a spouse should never withhold affection as punishment, but there are times (sex is especially an invasive bodily act) when a woman needs a break due to X-Y-Z and that might span a few days, or a week, or a month - and it'd be nice if more husbands were understanding where they are coming from.
 
Also some food for thought. When I am angry with a friend, I give myself space, and I avoid having to deal with that person until things have resolved. It makes NO SENSE to me that if a man and woman are fighting, then they go to bed, and the husband starts making moves on his wife expecting sex - when they're still fighting! I believe it's her right to say, NO, not right now. If he were to attempt to resolve the fight beforehand and the air was clear, then makeup love making can be in the cards, but expecting your wife to have intimacy with you during a fight just cos you're in bed is blegh. So technically, there are times when if you are feeling upset, you can say no to having sex. I don't think that's wrong.