mordorbund

I think this one best fits the tone of the thread title.
 

I think this one best fits the tone of the thread title.
 

And let's not lose the larger point. There has always been some sort of limitation to who has access to true religion. For most of history (from the biblical record), God has only been dealing with people in a small geographic area. While it's true that some had the means to travel to the holy land and thereby gain exposure to the covenant people (and the covenant), for the most part, the sound majority had no such access. And that's just those that lived on the same land mass. There was also a huge plot of land with countless people who had no access to the covenant people or the covenants (again, strictly following the biblical narrative) because of vast oceans. How is God still just?
 
If you are uncomfortable with the belief that God created a temporal (time-based) barrier to accessing His truth and covenants, you should also be uncomfortable with the belief that God created a spatial (geographic) barrier to accessing His truth and covenants. If you find a way to be at ease with the spatial challenge, you'll find the same argument then works for the temporal issue.

No, you did not. I am not sure why I wrote that (senior moment). I got confused because I read Orson Hyde's view about it (mainly related to the wedding at Cana) and then compared it to the explanation given by Talmage.
 
In my view, Jesus and the Father fulfill the same laws they require of us to fulfill, they are our leading examples. They do not approach it as: "Do as I say and not as I do". The scriptures seem to be very clear about what the Lord desires of us with regards to marriage and frankly it would be odd to me to find out that he wasn't, not only from the point of view of him being our Savior but also from the cultural standpoint of him as Jewish man.  In the scriptures we have a few examples of his disciples being married as well.
 
 When Jesus started his Ministry, he was 30 years old, if he was single, it would have been an oddity and I can only assume if that was the case, the rest of the religious groups would have criticize him openly about it.They called him "rabbi" which I recall studying was a title given mostly to married men.
 
Then we have the relationship Jesus had with Martha and Mary but I think I am going offtopic.

I would focus less on the "eternal" aspect of the ordinance and more on the doctrines and blessings taught and promised as part of the ordinance. You'll find that it is the Abrahamic covenant all over again (and some portions of the Adamic covenant of redemption). And you can find that in all four of the standard works. Genesis and Abraham along with D&C 132 define it; 1 Nephi shows it.
 
 
I think living the marriage covenant accelerates sanctification. Additionally, many of the stories we hear about the premortal existence play out within the family: councils, unity, defiance, etc. If you want to run a heavenly council, learn the principles with your spouse. If you want your dominions to flow unto you without compulsion, then learn the principles of godly governance (and working with your spouse is a great way to learn these).
 
The simple answer is that God is married, and exaltation means we are like God.
 
 
Back to #2, look for the ones that talk about the Abrahamic covenant.

I think I should put him in charge of all the old dead threads.  I think he would fit in well there.

I think Traveler's "minions" is a typo for "millions"

And let's not lose the larger point. There has always been some sort of limitation to who has access to true religion. For most of history (from the biblical record), God has only been dealing with people in a small geographic area. While it's true that some had the means to travel to the holy land and thereby gain exposure to the covenant people (and the covenant), for the most part, the sound majority had no such access. And that's just those that lived on the same land mass. There was also a huge plot of land with countless people who had no access to the covenant people or the covenants (again, strictly following the biblical narrative) because of vast oceans. How is God still just?
 
If you are uncomfortable with the belief that God created a temporal (time-based) barrier to accessing His truth and covenants, you should also be uncomfortable with the belief that God created a spatial (geographic) barrier to accessing His truth and covenants. If you find a way to be at ease with the spatial challenge, you'll find the same argument then works for the temporal issue.

I am very surprised by your reply. I just asked a question and you did not answer it. No offense but I really dislike your style of discussion, you take things too personal and most times, the discussions turn a little too dramatic for my liking so I will put you on my "ignore" list to avoid a similar situation (since this is not the first time). I apologize if you felt offended in any way. Take Care and wish you all the best.

I don't doubt things will be set right, it's just that I sometimes think the things I have doubts about, that scripture reading and conference talk studying hasn't help me receive a testimony, where church history is either silent or confusing, is perhaps something that the Lord will be "setting right" in the future. (I think of people in my family who once struggled with the priesthood ban before it was abolished. They never gained testimonies of it, and it was a relief when they no longer had to).
(And please don't assume I'm taking about Ordain Women here. There are still several things about the gospel and the church that are works in progress for me, as far as a testimony goes. I'm choosing to follow Elder Holland's excellent advice to hang on to what I *do* know)

In the back of every Catholic Missal are instructions for receiving the Eucharist, which Catholics take more seriously than any other denomination takes communion. For those not receiving they ask that during communion to pray for the moment when you can receive and to take a "spiritual communion".
When I was investigating, and didn't take the sacrament, I listened to the prayers, reflecting on their words, when the bread and water came around I prayed that I may take them someday and until then, I pray that God will give me the graces and forgiveness that the sacrament represents.
Outside of that moment, Sacrament Meeting provides some great and spiritually uplifting talks that I hate missing, sacrament or not.
Not sure if any of this helps.

You should have held out for more pay.......Lol!!!

This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood quotes of Smith. Noticed he said "their creeds" which is different from "All Churches that are not LDS are an abomination in his sight".
 
 
 
 
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng
 
Hinckley:
 
 
 
 
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang=eng

Prison systems are increasingly focusing on re-entry preparation.  What can we do for those inmates who desire to turn around that will help them do so?  Requiring GED, offering parenting classes, making various spiritual and morals/ethics programs available, etc.  The charitable and faith-based communities are redirecting their energies.  Since the 1960s/70s the focus was getting religious education volunteers into the prisons.  Now, the effort is more towards aftercare and transition assistance.  That is, how can we help those inmates returning to our communities to make the change from prisoner to citizen?  Job search assistance?  Skill development?  Transitional housing, perhaps with a religious training component?
 
Bottom line:  I'm not so sure prisons are ineffective.  Some folks really do need a time out.  Or, we need a time out from them.  The question is how to make that time more effective, in a manner that is financially sound?

I tend to agree... But I can't help but wonder if my thoughts are biased by the fact that the option to buy a 50k watch is also WAY past my means now or in any really possible future I can image.

I did infer that from the statement that you were planing to keep it and past it down.  Sorry if my inference was incorrect.
 
And wasn't wanting to pick on you... I simply wanted to spin off your example to the point that we really do not have any kind of universal agreement on what is too much.  We have a bunch if individuals who saying "Well that is too much for me"
 
In all honesty if I were to reveal what I have paid for somethings I am sure you would find something you thought I paid to much for.  Its simply the nature of this kind of discussion

A lot of gymantics because we still have not found a better definition of wealthy other then "more then I have".
 
Lets take the example TFP gave us and expand it both ways
 
If someone said his wife found a $3000 watch and got a good deal to bring it down to $750 and bought it as a gift for her husband...  Well most of would agree that she got a good deal but we would clutch our hearts at the idea of paying $750 for a watch.
 
TFP story is a $300 watch for $75 and he seems ok with that.  It does seem to be a good deal.  But I can't help but think I am not the only one going "seventy five dollars for a watch???"
 
Whereas if my wife found me a $30 watch for $7.50 I'd be all like "score" and "totally worth it".  But I am also sure there would be people who would think there was something better that my wife  could have spent that $7.50 on.
 
We are all going to find reason why what we want is ok but why someone else is over the line

I don't think I like that combo.

I just want to concur with this.
 
My wife is an US citizen. She currently lives in the UK with me and has done since late 2012. We applied for my US greencard in May 2013, which is when we both felt we were ready to move back to the states. At that time, we were both naive enough about US immigration to believe what was stated on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website that it would only take around 8 months from start to finish to process our application, and therefore we'd be moving by January 2014. 
 
Fast forward to today, 439 days, dozens of lengthy application forms that take days to fill in, dealing with three different US government agencies and thousands of $$ in fees later, we'll both still in the UK waiting for the processing of our applications to complete. I don't anticipate that our application will finish completion until September 2014, bringing the total waiting period to over 500 days.
 
Believe it or not, I'm one of the higher priority applicants, being an immediate relative/spouse of a US citizen - there is no limit to the amount of these visas that can be given out each year. Other types of immigrants have to wait much, much longer, as PC stated. Also, my spouse and I are lucky that we've been together throughout this process, and have no children yet. Most of my fellow applicants are in their home countries, with their US citizen spouse still in the states along with their children throughout this process - over 500 days is a very long time to be separated from each other. All of this because a US citizen and a non US citizen had the "audacity" to get married to each other. How dare they?
 
Even for us, it's not been at all easy. For 95% of the process, we've had no idea of what the timescales for completion are - even at Christmas 2013, I thought we'd have moved by May 2014. This lack of knowledge creates havoc and destroys relationships with jobs, family, friends etc. because I had absolutely no idea when I was actually going to be leaving them all - not even which year it was going to be. My wife hasn't seen many of her friends and family for well over a year, and misses her home immensely. Both of us have been suffering from stress and depression bought on as a result of the issues we've had due to these delays.
 
And then on top of that, we've had to watch Barack Obama grant pathways to citizenship to undocumented illegal immigrates currently living in the US (know as deferred action applications) which was given priority over spousal applications, adding a delay of about six months for us and all other spousal applications. In other words, those that had moved to the US illegally were being given higher processing priority over those that were following the legal process from the outset. And yet they want people to follow the legal routes for migration to the states?
 
PC is correct. Sort out legal migration, and then sort out the problem of illegal migration. The former will go some way to sorting out the latter anyway.

I'm going to have to double-down on my offense.  It's possible that one or more of her husbands died--but all five?  Okay, possible, but not likely.  More importantly, "shacking up" is a bit old-fashioned.  It's not modern.  It's between one and two generations old--back when it was shameful to live together outside of wedlock.  "Shacking up" is derogatory--it's meant to be.  If you prefer the older-fashioned "living in sin," we could go with that, I suppose.  :-)
 
Mind you--I'm not casting condemnation on the woman at the well.  She ended as an evangelist (missionary) to her own people.  Talk about an "I once was lost, but now am found" story!  It's beautiful.  Redemption and grace are powerful.
 
BUT...how can we wax eloquent about grace, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, and redemption if we keep being politically correct and nice about how we label sin?  If we refuse to be "judgmental" about sin, then what exactly are we hoping folk we get saved from?

South of St Louis, huh? Have you ever made the trip to Nauvoo?

Perhaps this is why "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

Help me reconcile these two points.
 
 
If a woman is not responsible in the way she dresses for men's thoughts and lusts, how can the men in the class be accountable with their words for the discomfort your daughter felt? Both are forms of communication, apparently expressing a message.

QED--carpers gonna carp.

Yes we should...  But we need to learn to deal with it in our youth... and that requires instructions, guidance, direction from (hopefully) more wise adults.  And that brings us back full circle to teaching the youth what it means to be modest and how to do so effectively.