MrShorty

I should know better than to contradict Vort, but I recall a Bishop or Stake President who said that we should sustain ourselves -- assuming that we believe that the calling really comes from God. Sustaining myself in callings is a way to publicly affirm that I believe God has called me to this calling. Like Vort, I don't know what Handbook 1 or any other official source says. My thought, and worth about what you paid for it.

A better question: "how did you get your mental illness treated?"  The self-harm was a symptom of the illness, and this is not something you fix by just treating symptoms.  You got to go after the real cause.  
The short answer: LOTS of self-reflection, prayer, good relationships, and professional therapist to help guide.
 
 
The long answer/story---
 I was badly abused as a kid, which left me very scared and messed up at a very young age.  I had no sense of self-worth or love-- to be honest I felt like a defective monster that needed to be killed for everyone's safety.  Yes, I hurt myself both physically and (very commonly) emotionally as a way of... I HURT so bad inside, to physically bleed and hurt-- it was a release, a coping mechanism, a way punish a person I felt needed punished and... frankly it felt REALLY good in the moment.   All drugs feel really good in the moment.   And then a hour later the high fades and... you look at the ruins of your life and want nothing more than to escape it again and reach for another round of drugs.  Self-harm is an extremely addictive and destructive cycle that way.
I did try to just quit the cutting and treat the symptoms while turning a blind eye to the disease.  In drug recovery circles this is known as "white knuckling"-- and it can work for a season, until something goes wrong and you're back on the cycle again, usually worse off.  I mustered up a titan's will power, came up with all these 'rules' for myself (all about leaving no physical marks that another person could see), and I did successfully stop leaving marks.   I was really really proud of myself for this-- felt that with my own will power I had slain the demons.  In 20/20 hindsight: I was SO self-deluded!!!  True I wasn't physically cutting, but I was still hurting myself regularly, especially mentally.  I still ached inside, even more than before.  All my 'demon slaying' really was me lying to myself--- I wasn't better at all.  I was just hiding the problem from the world and myself. 
Still, I lied to myself and the world for 15 years.   Until something happened and it all came crashing down.  Everything.  My social life, my schooling, my ability to think, my testimony, my shattered heart.  I was truly a broken human being.  
Getting out of that state... it was a long road.  I tried to just ask friends for help- I felt that I had good friends.  But my friends, while loving, were not the doctors to treat this illness, and that turned into a disaster.  I tried self-mastery alone... yeah that went nuclear too.  
The biggest changes to actually make progress were:
- the humility to admit how ill I was.  Admit it to myself.  Admit it to others.  
- the humility to actually meet with a doctor to address my ills.  To... trust another person close enough.  To trust myself to be close enough.  My therapist was.... a therapist is a guide to help you get where you want to go.  I wanted for SO long to be better, but I hadn't known how to get there.  Having that outside perspective and experience... I cannot find words to express the change and relief.  Knots in myself I had battled for years to undo, suddenly I had a solution.  The battle... .  I didn't have to fight anymore.  I didn't have to wake up every morning and fight the urge to hurt a monster--  because I really wasn't a monster.  I wasn't a monster.  I was/am a child of God.  Like for real.  Really real.  I was someone to fight for-- to celebrate and protect.  I forgave myself of the old hurts-- my perceived sins.  I fought for me, the reborn child of God.  And with that... the desire to hurt myself... it's just not there, instead replaced with real Christ-like love for myself and others.  

(Speaking as a person who's been there)
Harming ourselves (physically, mentally, or spiritually) is going against God's wishes-- He loves us and never wants us to harm ourselves.  
However, we must also remember that self-harm is usually the symptom of something else going on-- usually a mental illness.  To effectively address this issue, we should focus on treating the illness, while of course dealing with symptoms.  Treating the illness should come WAY more important than doing things like shaming the sufferer.   Mental illness is a real thing and can be very serious, and there is NO shame in seeking treatment for this illness-- in fact you *should* seek help.  If you'd like, I can provide you with many LDS resources on this subject, including Elder Holland's GC talk where he as spoken about his own struggles with mental illness and seeking aide.  Christ wants us to get help for all ills, physical and mental.
This is not a topic covered in the TR interview.  Personally, I don't think so.  However, I also think that this not a productive question -- again, our focus should be having the person get help they need and not shaming.
A bishop is not a mental health magical fixer (just like he's not a physical health magical fixer) but he can indeed be a great resource for connecting a person to that counselor they need, and also being a spiritual-support person.  

So, with some of the topics I have felt a bit of negativity recently (probably on my own part perhaps) and so I thought I'd create a positive thread.  In this thread we compliment those we know of in the forum.  I'm going to try to give everyone compliments (and if Somehow I miss you, PLEASE, tell me in the thread.  It is not due to maliciousness on my part, but I'm a older and sometimes my mind is not as sharp as many others around her.  Forgive me for my bad memory and jog it with a post so I can include you).
So, I'll start...
@JaneDoe I appreciate your thoughtful replies
@NeuroTypical I enjoy your snark at times, and though I may not understand it, your little Pony enthusiasm
@CV75 I enjoy your willingness to discuss things with people who have questions and your recent posts in the Resurrection thread.
@zil I appreciate that you are active on the forums and, though I do not understand it fully, that you are so enthusiastic about fountain pens
@BJ64 I think it is great that you pick up on small details and want to help those that are striving to do better
@Traveler I appreciate you injecting a more scientific approach at times and explaining things from a more technical mindset
@MormonGator I like that someone from a rival team is here (LoL), but I also enjoy that you can relax the forum and spring in some humor when we all get too serious
@FetherI think that you do wonderfully at striving to do good, and this is an extremely commendable thing
@Iggy I think your staunch support of standards and your desire to help others up is something that is wonderful
@MrShorty You seem to be able to navigate the middle ground at times and try to create peace.  The Lord said, blessed is the peacemakers.
@Grunt I appreciate how you bring up the gospel so plainly and point out how these we should know.  It brings us back to how we should be, rather than trying to dodge around commandments.
@Just_A_Guy  I think you look great in a suit ( hah).
@Just_A_Guy I do think it was good you wore a suit, but there is more to compliment you on, just making a joke because I know you can take it.  That's what I like about you, you can take all the abuse and still be nice.
@Carborendum  I think you and I are more alike than we may think at times, and I like how you stick to your guns and your morals.
@Anddenex  You bring in thoughtful injections into conversations that note that you really think about the subject and consider what is said or not said
@Scott I appreciate how you like to go back to sources.  You like to check to see where something is sourced and give a source for your comments
@Blackmarch  You are blunt at times, but we all need the blunt truth to bring us back to reality.
@Laniston You have a smaller post history so it is harder to define what I enjoy, but from what I've seen, I think I appreciate your willingness to share personal experiences with the rest of us.
@unixknightI enjoy how frank you are in admitting your own difficulties which helps us to understand our own and help prop others up in there striving to be good.
@estradling75  I not sure I understand the carebear, but I do appreciate your willingness to share your opinion, even when others may be hostile to it.  It takes courage to do so at times.
@SilentOne  You are exceptional and you speak through listening and only say something when it is important.  We all could learn more from your approach.
@Vort  I love that you stand for something (the gospel).  Gordon B. Hinckley instructed us so and it is good to see someone doing that.
@Emmanuel Goldstein  Not a ton of posts to know you well yet, but you seem to convey a lot with very little.
@mrmarklin  I like that you are able to converse with those who need advice and share with them in order to help them
@pwrfrk  I think it is good that you bring us to recognize how blessed we are and strive to help others with your advice and words of peace
@theplains  Not a long time member, but it seems that you enjoy talking about the gospel with others and I think that is a good thing to do.
@wenglund  I appreciate how you are normally trying to discuss hard subjects without condemnation or judgement, but rather understanding and hope.
@Jersey Boy  I think that you are willing to share your feelings in the open which is a hard thing some of us have doing.
@Rob Osborn  You point out the plain and precious things of the gospel at times.  Even if we don't agree with all your opinions, I think it is terrific that you point these things out
@NeedleinA   You are a wonder to read in your posts.  You try to help others on the forums and have some interesting perspectives
@Crypto  I see you post infrequently but people genuinely like you and your posts here
@warnerfranklin  I haven't seen you around much recently on the forums, but I appreciate how you share your views and opinions and how thoughtful you can be
@Lost Boy  I like how you express sympathy for those in need and empathy for others.  I appreciate how you can make us think about how others are and how we should be.
@Midwest LDS  Thank you for how you interact with others and taking the time to listen
@Backroads  I also enjoy how you show empathy for others and how you, despite your troubles, try to listen.  I hope that you continue to enjoy your new job also
@askandanswer  I find your answers refreshing at times and your injections in conversations interesting
@mordorbund  Tis an interesting name you have.  LotR connection?  I think you express your humility at times and I appreciate that willingness
@mirkwood  Another reference that seems it could be a Lord of the Rings thing?  Anyways, I think you try to make things lighter on the forums and make others laugh.
@anatess2  I like how you tell it how it is.  You come right out and tell us what you think and I feel that is a good thing.
@person0  You have things to share with us that enlightens our minds, though you also tend to joke around as well at times
@classylady  Your name bespeaks for itself.  We would all do better if we had as much class as you
@Maureen  You help us to recognize that we are mistaken in many of our assumptions and point out the good in others
@bytebear  I find your comments fun to read and at time enlightening
@seashmore  I look forward to reading your posts and enjoy what you have to say.  I enjoy how you share your experiences and your thoughts on things
@DennisTate  You are another that I cannot say I have read a ton of your comments, but from what I see you are thoughtful and reflect on what you write.
@LiterateParakeet  Your posts are refreshing on these forums as they try to see the best in people and view the best possible things about others
@MaryJehanne  Your willingness to share about the Catholic Church is appreciated
@Lindy  sharing experiences from your life is good in showing us examples and ways to be.
@Sunday21  Your enthusiasm is a beacon for us all.  Your love for the temple is also something I admire greatly
@SpiritDragon  You are a wonderful person that seems to be Canadian. 
@Jeremy A  I'm not sure how many have participated in your trivia but you keep on trying and going.  You are like the energizer bunny.  Perserverance is a positive quality.
I'm certain I've missed many, I've tried to include as many as possible and yet I've probably still failed.  If so, be aware it is NOT because I don't think you are wonderful, but simply because there are so many names and so many people and remembering them all is sometimes very difficult.  I probably forgot some of the closest and dearest ones that are on these forums.  I apologize, but if I did miss you, just tell me in the next day or two and I'll hopefully have that to jog my memory.
Don't let me be the only one, if you have people you want to compliment on something they did on the forum, go ahead and post it!
We should recognize people for doing good!
 

What do I think?  Three things:
1) I think I'm grateful to belong to a church where the Young-Earth-Creationists and Intelligent-Designists and old-school-Darwinists and Punctuated-Equilibriumists and Evolutionists can all be sitting next to each other in the temple through the endowment ceremony, blissfully unaware of each other's seemingly bizarre notions about the age of the earth and stuff.  In the end, this is all that really matters to me.  The rest is just yellin'.
2) Scientific ignorance is not a Christian virtue.  And most people with a handy diatribe against Darwin I've encountered, tend to be pretty dang scientifically ignorant.
3) #2 is quite the pity - the creationists could easily claim this video for their own, if only they'd chill for a second and let some light into their dark and closed minds.
 

I have come to realize that many people who fall away from the church do so because they feel they have a testimony in the church, but not in the gospel.  Furthermore, their testimony in the church is one which is based on a false reality of what the church is, rather than what their wording actually means.
There are many who go up to bear their testimony and in that testimony they state, they know the church is true.  What does this mean?  They might never say they know the gospel is true, or that the gospel is revealed truth, but I hear all the time how people know the church is true.
D&C 1:30 states
But what does it mean when he says the only true and living church?
Joseph Smith himself answers this in one way when he talked about when he was young and seeking to know which church was “right.”
Joseph Smith History 18-19
So what does this indicate?
It means that when we talk of the church being the true church we mean that it is the right church, the church which has the correct doctrines and commandments of the Lord.  It is the church which has the correct gospel.  It is also a living church, a church which the Lord still leads actively and gives revelation to.
Another way to look at the church is that the church is true.  When one states that this is the true church, it is different than saying a church is true.  What does it mean when we state an object is true.  We can say that the Bible is true; meaning that it has correct truths, but we can also say a sword is true.  If we say it is a true sword that simply means it is actually a sword and now something else.  If we say the sword is true, in many instances we mean that this sword will not fail when put to the test.
This can also apply to the church.  When we say the church is true, it can also mean that this church will never fail, that it will stand till the millennium comes.
I’ve come to the realization that in many instances when someone says the church is true in their testimony, they are talking about something entirely different than what I stated above.  They either believe that the church and the gospel are ONE thing inseparably the same, OR that the church is infallible. 
Both are incorrect and I think is a major reason for some falling away from the church.
I came to this realization this summer while abroad.  Part of that group were 3 graduate students that were helping me in research.  What was unusual was that these were three ex-members of the church, or so they claimed.  They were VERY opposed to the LDS church and had many arguments against it.
I came to realize that all of their arguments lay in regards to the history of the church itself.  Their discussions pertained to things such as speeches Brigham Young gave, discrepancies between what church leaders stated previously and what they feel church leaders stated today, policies the church had in the past towards woman, minorities and others which are changed today, focuses on the character of Joseph Smith or other church leaders, and many other things.
When categorizing what their complaints were it universally seemed to come down to complaints about the church itself, but not necessarily about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Their focus was on things in history that they felt proved that the church leaders or that Joseph Smith or other things with the church had sinned or changed.
Their problem did not seem to be with the actual gospel at its core, but finding things in the history of the church that they felt was wrong, or a horrible item that they attached to.  These things they felt broke their “shelf” as they put it and they were attempting to convince me that they were correct and that I should follow suit.
They were not successful.
The question then is WHY?  I acknowledged to them on some instances that they appeared to be correct.  In some I didn’t agree, but there were things that bothered them tremendously, but did not bother me.  Why?  Because while they had their picture of an infallible church torn apart, I have never had the illusion that church leaders themselves need to be perfect, or that they are infallible.  My testimony isn’t reliant that Joseph Smith never sinned or never made mistakes.  It is not dependent on the idea that Brigham Young was infallible or perfect. 
My testimony is that the gospel is true, that it tells us the true principles and commandments and that it lays the foundation for us to return to our Father.  My testimony is that through the gospel and revelation to a prophet that we have been given the correct ordinances that help us receive salvation and exaltation. 
It is NOT based on the idea that Joseph Smith himself was perfect and never committed sin.  It is NOT based on the idea that the church leaders are infallible and have never made mistakes in policy or administration, or even in their personal lives. 
We KNOW throughout the Bible that many prophets and apostles made mistakes.  Peter himself who is perhaps one of the greatest apostles had several times when he was admonished by the Lord.  If one focused on the faults of Peter many times they would miss the indelible truths he brought forth.
One of my favorite stories is when Peter looks out upon the stormy waves of the sea and finds the Lord walking on the water to them.  Peter, in his exuberance jumps out of the boat and starts walking towards the Lord.  Then, as he walks, he starts to notice the wind and starts to sink.  The Lord reaches out and saves peter and admonishes him,
Many thus find the story about doubt and about Peter.  They focus on Peter failing, but to me the story is the exact opposite.  Yes, the Lord is speaking to Peter, but if Peter had to improve, what does it say about US?
Peter had enough faith to actually WALK on water.  Think about that.  Peter was literally walking on the water.  No invisible planks underneath (many magic tricks that show this have an invisible plank they walk on), no illusions, he was literally walking on water.  How many of us have enough faith to do this?
Personally, I’ve NEVER seen anyone do this in real life, and yet Peter had enough faith to actually WALK on the Water.  Yes, his faith began to waiver and he began to sink, but he HAD the faith to walk for a bit.  That’s a TON of faith.  This story then is a reflection on us much more than Peter.  If Peter was of little faith, than for us who cannot walk on water…we surely lack even more and doubt far more than Peter.
However, as is the world, many focus on this as a failing of Peter and not so much a commentary on ourselves.  In many ways, when we look at our own history and the mistakes of prophets, people do not see it as a reflection of how we ourselves need to be better, but as criticism of those leaders instead.  As it shows that our leaders were NOT infallible men the same as the Lord, they let it tear them apart.  As their testimony is BASED upon the idea that a true church is infallible and that the leaders of it therefore are also infallible and perfect, when they find out this is not true, they fall away.
After this experience of many weeks of these three students discussing this and throwing many of these things at me, I feel that people need to start focusing MORE on bearing their testimonies of the gospel itself.  It is the GOSPEL that we need to have a strong testimony of, as it is there we find the commandments that lead us to the Lord.  It is there we find the correct principles that guide us to heaven.
The church is led be the Prophet and thus by revelation from the Lord, but other than that, it is STILL led by men for the most part.  This is because the church is NOT for the Lord (the Lord could raise up children and followers from the stones of the earth if he wished, he does not actually NEED us for anything), but FOR MEN (which means men and women).  The church is a vehicle which has men as its leaders, to lead other men and women in the ordinances of salvation.  Hopefully this means those men are LED by revelation themselves, but this is not always the case, and when men make mistakes due to not following revelation, or not being led by it, or making decisions of their own volition, this only shows that they are still people like the rest of us with flaws and tendencies to overcome.  They are still trying to achieve perfection just like everyone else.
Only the LORD was perfect in this life, and to base one’s testimony on the idea that all leaders of the church and thus all their decisions are also perfect is the “perfect” way to lose that testimony because it is a FALSE testimony to begin with.
On the other hand, having a testimony that the gospel is true is what keeps you with the church and the gospel itself.  To know that Jesus Christ is our Savior and through him we are saved, to know that Jesus loves all of us and gave us our free agency to choose good or evil, and to know that Jesus Christ gave us commandments and knowledge to make us more like him is important. 
The church on the otherhand is the vessel in which the gospel is contained, but it is NOT the gospel itself.  It is the only vessel in which the fullness of the gospel is carried, and it is the only place where we can find the correct ordinances.  Thus, we can say the church is true or that this is the true church.  It is the only “right” church,  or where the full gospel is contained or preached.  However, it is NOT the same thing as the gospel itself.   This IS the Church of Jesus Christ, meaning it is led by him.  It is NOT the first variation of the Church however, this church has come before, and all those churches that were led by Jesus Christ were ALSO True churches that contained his gospel.  However, this is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, as it is for us in the Latter days. 
Bearing testimony that this is the true church is important, but it is also important that when we bear this testimony that we KNOW what we are saying. 
I feel it is of even more importance today to bear testimony that the gospel in the church is true, that the GOSPEL is true.  WE also bear testimony of the atonement, the book of Mormon, and many other things within the gospel, but it is important to base our testimony upon the Gospel and the Holy ghost  which bears witness that the things found in the Book of Mormon and the gospel principles themselves are true and correct.
I bore my testimony to these young graduate students this summer.  It was of little effect.  They had already made up their minds.  They were very bitter towards the church.  However, it seemed that they were bitter towards the CHURCH overall, and it was this that led them to debate gospel principles.  When faced with the actual gospel itself they either disavowed it entirely (including the existence of the Lord), not due to proof they had, but ironically, out of an almost faithlike devotion to the belief that the Lord did not exist...OR…they acknowledged that they still believed in the Lord and his ability to save mankind from sin, but not necessarily the LDS rendition of it.  Thus the core value of the gospel, the Atonement of Jesus Christ to save all men was something that they could not refute of themselves in the same way that they held arguments against the church.  The gospel was STILL stalwart and something that cannot simply be proven to be wrong or that the precepts of men hold sway.
If one prays to know that the Book of Mormon is true and receives and answer from the Holy Ghost that it is, I feel this is a VITAL thing we need to remember and hold onto.  Too often, these young people then try to reason away that this feeling was of their own making or try to dilute it.  On their own they thus make it so that they forget the feeling and dilute their own ability to feel it in their lives to reinforce their own testimony of the Book of Mormon of the Lord’s atonement.
If one KNOWS without a doubt that the Book of Mormon is true because they KNOW that the Holy Ghost has told them this, they know that it must have been translated and revealed to Joseph Smith correctly.  That he IS a prophet and that he thus talked and communed with the Lord.  In this we can KNOW that the church that the Lord brought forth through him IS the True church, or the church which was established is the one that teaches for doctrines the commandments of the Lord and that it is the RIGHT church.
So, the thing on this overly long post (and yes, it’s been a while, I’ve been away, and then jet lag was a killer when I got back, been a while trying to get back on schedule) I want to impress is that we NEED to have a testimony of the gospel, and we NEED to include it in our testimonies just as much as when we say the church is true.  We need to base our testimonies NOT on just the idea that the church relays the correct gospel doctrine, but that the gospel itself is correct and teaches us the truth. 
Hence why my topic is, we need to testify that the Gospel is true…because after seeing how these young people fell away from the church and how it seems it was due to them having this illusionary testimony that the church has never had differences or changes and was infallible, I feel impressed that if they had focused instead on the truths found in the gospel itself rather than focusing on church history, they would still have at testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the prophets today.
Just my Looooong post making up for lost time this summer while I was away…J

I think this can be a good question. As noted, it shouldn't be just about caffeine. As another example, (for those of us in Utah), if we choose to vote for prop 2, will that be a sin? Was it a sin for those in '33 who voted for the repeal of prohibition?

I hope that the Church isn't always on the "wrong" side of EVERY issue. I hope our discernment is more nuanced than "the World (TM) says X so the Church must say the opposite". When the World takes up a rallying cry against sexual assault and abuse, I hope the Church has and will take up the same cry, for example.
Perhaps the main problem I have with something like this, that I think my example illustrates, is that we always talk about "the World" without ever really defining who or what the World is (other than some idea that the World is those who are opposed to us). Of course, that kind of tautological "we are always on the wrong side of the World's issues because we define the World as those who are on the opposite side of our issues" may be true, but it doesn't help with discernment.
In the end, I hope the Church is always on the right side of what God wants. The real challenge is the discernment part -- knowing what God wants. And, accepting the fallibility of prophets and other Church leaders, is the Church always in every detail on the side that God wants?

I hope that the Church isn't always on the "wrong" side of EVERY issue. I hope our discernment is more nuanced than "the World (TM) says X so the Church must say the opposite". When the World takes up a rallying cry against sexual assault and abuse, I hope the Church has and will take up the same cry, for example.
Perhaps the main problem I have with something like this, that I think my example illustrates, is that we always talk about "the World" without ever really defining who or what the World is (other than some idea that the World is those who are opposed to us). Of course, that kind of tautological "we are always on the wrong side of the World's issues because we define the World as those who are on the opposite side of our issues" may be true, but it doesn't help with discernment.
In the end, I hope the Church is always on the right side of what God wants. The real challenge is the discernment part -- knowing what God wants. And, accepting the fallibility of prophets and other Church leaders, is the Church always in every detail on the side that God wants?

Only as long as there is no mule

Psychohistory is exact.  Trust in Seldon and the path he carved.

It is only extreme when people refuse to watch The Princess Bride.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting - it is my experience, but not always - just most that I have known (including immediate and extended family members) to leave the church did so because a "good" member (sometimes more than one) - told them that they did not belong in the church.  Sometimes it was because their hair (guys) was too long, sometimes it was because of facial hair, sometimes because of tattoos or too many piercings in their ears.  I was once told that scientists that believe in evolution do not belong at church.  It is my personal feelings but I believe that with very few exception it will be worse for some seemingly faithful and active member to have encouraged someone to leave because they did not belong than for someone that left because someone convinced them that if they did not believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal historical record - that they do not belong at church.
I do not agree with a lot of things I have encountered that many good people say are true and unquestionable - some religious - some political - some social and some economic - and when asked I will share my personal opinion about a lot of things.  But I would never insinuate that someone ever give up coming to church.  For all those that doubt if the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record - do leave church because of that!  If you have a science background and have a hard time with a 6000 year old earth, evolution rejected by a lot of religious people, a global flood or even Adam and the Eden epoch being literal.  Do not be discouraged from coming to church and mingling with the Latter-day Saints.  Do not give up on being kind to your neighbor, do not turn from helping those in need of assistance and even those that scoff at your personal beliefs - come and lets us "reason" together that we may learn but above all, come unto the household of G-d where we are all brothers and sisters and regardless of what you believe (even the really weird stuff) - I will welcome you and always listen and when we disagree - I will gladly explorer with you why - and never tell you or deliberately even hint that you do not belong - because you do belong.  I will never turn away my brothers or sisters - even if you will not have anything to do with the Church or any of its doctrine.  You will always be my brothers and sisters and I will always gladly discuss with you - what you believe and why you believe it to be so.
 
The Traveler

It appears that the OP is working out of the Gospel Principles manual, chapter 5 (which is now page 22, must have been page 28 in an older edition) https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-5-the-creation?lang=eng
I don't think I can add anything to what others have said. Any of these details we try to fill in would be speculation. This is the internet, where we like to speculate, as long as one recognizes that it is all speculation.

I would say that conclusion doesn't understand the significance of the marital covenant.
There's the marital covenant and there's the ceremony.  2 different things.  The covenant is what needs to be made in the temple for an eternal marriage.  Anything beyond that - the wedding rituals of exchanging rings, traditional ceremonies like you see in Bridezilla, etc. etc., including the involvement of parents are not part of that marital covenant.  They can be done outside of the temple.  
So, if the marital covenant is so irrelevant as to decide to unnecessarily put it behind in importance from the desires of parents, then you have failed in teaching the significance of such a covenant.
And about retention - if you are "retained" with a faulty understanding of a very important foundational principle of the Church such as Eternal Marriage then I'm not sure if sacrificing covenants for such a retention is more beneficial than harmful.

This may not be what you're looking for, but here's my opinion in case it makes a difference.
I believe that the policy of a one-year waiting period after a non-temple wedding before a couple can be sealed was put in place because far too many Latter-day Saints were considering the secular wedding as the "real" wedding and the sealing as a sort of afterthought. This is upside-down.  The Saints need to understand and acknowledge that the only "real wedding" that lasts beyond the grave is that contracted in the temple.
Children who are sealed to their parents have all the blessings of those born in the covenant. This is explicitly stated during the sealing ceremony. But note the order: Those sealed to their parents have ALL THE SAME BLESSINGS AS those BIC -- not the other way around. BIC is God's standard. Sealing to parents is God's way of helping everyone receive the standard blessings.
These are eternal concepts. We take them lightly at our own peril.

The creationists among would say that it is not only possible, but probable that radiometric dating is completely bogus. There is a report out there that Dr. Henry Eyring once sat down with Joseph Fielding Smith to discuss these issues, and he (a chemist) could not convince Elder Smith (a fairly staunch young earth creationist) that radiometric dating had any validity. They apparently agreed to disagree and went on their separate ways.
Those of us who have been blinded by modern science would probably say something like radiometric data does have uncertainty in it (like any measurement method), but there is not enough uncertainty to have dinosaurs and hominids co-existing on the planet at the same time (except for those who want to be pedantic and remind us that birds could technically be classified as dinosaurs and, obviously, we co-exist with birds even today).
From there, the long and painful and never ending debate between creationist and evolutionist continues with no resolution or reconciliation in sight.

I'm a convert (baptized the day before my 19th birthday). When I was newly baptized, I envisioned a temple marriage, but with all the "finery" of a "regular" wedding.My mom was an inactive member and my dad a non-member (and my siblings/family non members--I was the only active, temple recommend holding member). I knew that if I chose to have a temple sealing without any type of civil service, they would be hurt and disappointed. Once I was endowed, I began to realize that my covenants made in the temple reinforced my thoughts that a temple sealing had more precedence and vitality over any civil service. Fast forward 35 years or so after baptism, I was now faced with an upcoming marriage and how I would handle it. 
It is my personal belief (strongly held one, mind you) that the covenants I made during the endowment include sacrificing even family relationships to keep my covenants of the Gospel which include choosing to be sealed in the temple rather than civil service and temple sealing (obviously, I'm in the US as having this choice is just not possible in other countries). I chose to have a temple sealing with minimal "finery" for a reception. My dad did not walk me down any aisle, we didn't have anything more than a ring "ceremony" during the reception. My dad's home teacher (yep, a non-member has a home teacher--great man) who did the ring ceremony talked on temple sealing/marriage and the significance of that. We didn't exchange vows or say any words. 
I know that my family was disappointed and I'm sorry for that. But, I also know that my faith in the sealing and temple covenants enables me to believe that their disappointment will someday (most likely in the next life) be mitigated by knowledge. For those members in the US, their family relationships may inspire them to make a different choice. But as with all commandments or guidance by the prophets, I feel we should resolve to abide unless the Spirit directs otherwise. He didn't direct me otherwise, so I decided to follow. Not an easy choice (sounds easy to do, but in reality when faced with disappointing or even angering family it makes it difficult), but life isn't always about the easy.

(Checks lightning rod to make sure it is properly grounded and well above me)
Could it be that youtube got the "memo" a couple days earlier than Pres. Nelson's official statement, and this was all about the "Mormon" in Mormon Channel?
 

(Checks lightning rod to make sure it is properly grounded and well above me)
Could it be that youtube got the "memo" a couple days earlier than Pres. Nelson's official statement, and this was all about the "Mormon" in Mormon Channel?
 

(Checks lightning rod to make sure it is properly grounded and well above me)
Could it be that youtube got the "memo" a couple days earlier than Pres. Nelson's official statement, and this was all about the "Mormon" in Mormon Channel?
 

(Checks lightning rod to make sure it is properly grounded and well above me)
Could it be that youtube got the "memo" a couple days earlier than Pres. Nelson's official statement, and this was all about the "Mormon" in Mormon Channel?
 

What matters is that we are more open to the spirit to teach us things when we are able to see past literal to things that are symbolic.  For example; if all we care about is if  Moses was a literal person - we will never allow the spirit to testify to us (or anyone else if we can prevent it) from realizing that Moses was a "type and shadow" of Christ.  If we come apart at the seams when ever someone references a metaphor in scripture because all we want to see is literal and think any symbolism makes everything a myth and a fable - then we miss spiritual things that matter far more important than just literal interpretation of scripture.  In fact there is a scripture that warns about turning to myths and fables but that is another discussion which is more raveled in symbolism than the one already going on.
I would add one other piece of advice - Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught specifically in our temples that Adam is a metaphor - but with all the hostility over the Tree of Life and the Serpent - to speak of the specifics of such a metaphor would be casing pearls before swine. 
 
The Traveler