MrShorty

It seems to me that the lines of sealings do not necessarily follow along genetic lines. Cases of adoption might be the most obvious examples where non-biological children are routinely sealed to non-biological parents. I expect that, especially for medical history reason, it is valuable to note when a child is adopted (or otherwise non-biological) with information -- if available -- about biological parents. It seems, however, that the Church is more concerned with actual, lived family experience for determining who should be sealed to whom and not mere genetics.

It seems to me that the lines of sealings do not necessarily follow along genetic lines. Cases of adoption might be the most obvious examples where non-biological children are routinely sealed to non-biological parents. I expect that, especially for medical history reason, it is valuable to note when a child is adopted (or otherwise non-biological) with information -- if available -- about biological parents. It seems, however, that the Church is more concerned with actual, lived family experience for determining who should be sealed to whom and not mere genetics.

The beard episode on 3 Mormons seemed to follow closely on the heels of curious mormon's beard thread here, and this episode comes a month after SilentOne's thread on the law of chastity -- Are the 3 Mormons taking topic ideas from the forum ?
Since I usually am not impressed with how we tackle sex and chastity in the Church, I thought I would comment on this episode. I recognize that it is only a 10-15 minute recording, so topics cannot be covered thoroughly.
I liked that they seemed fairly comfortable and "real" about the topic. They called it "intense" at the end (and the topic usually is), but they were able to talk about sex without a lot of hemming and hawing.
I liked that they thoroughly rejected any of the "damaged/used goods" analogies for sex. We have been rejecting them for at least 20-30 years, when The New Era ran an article rejecting the nail in a board analogy, but these analogies still stay alive in our culture. I think part of this is that they are also prevalent in broader Christian culture and keep trickling into our little corner of Christianity.
As usual, it seems that our dialog around chastity is always geared towards singles/youth, and this discussion seemed to aim towards the same audience. As an adult (married, divorced, widow/widower), I find discussions at this level less than helpful. I also think there might be some things in here that are less helpful, even for youth.
I took exception to the "there is not such thing as too prudish" idea that was presented. I think there is such a thing as too prudish, though it might be called something like "Good Girl Syndrome" in the Church. Looking back on years in a sexless marriage, I can see how the idea that "prudish is good" contributed to those years of frustration. Abstinence is good, but prudishness is not. There is probably room to expand the discussion to talk about how prudishness and abstinence overlap and don't overlap. Ultimately, I would hope that we learn how to have these discussions in a way that really help us grow and develop our sexuality in the way that God wants us to grow it.
These three seem fully invested in the idea of porn/sex as addiction. Where the secular psychological community is trending away from this view, I worry that we will lose credibility with our youth (and lose effectiveness in dealing with sexual challenges and compulsions) if we don't at least acknowledge the existence of the other side of this debate (I know that most who adopt a porn/sex as addiction model as a foregone conclusion tend to lose credibility in my eyes). In some ways, I thought that the pizza example that was brought up is a good example of how overusing the addiction model can trivialize it.
I also took exception to the idea of regrets. I think sexual regrets are a lot more nuanced than we tend to acknowledge. Sure there are those who regret sexual activity before marriage, or wish that they had been more restrained when they were younger. For myself, I often regret that I did not know enough to do more to grow and develop my sexuality. Perhaps if I had been more aware of the challenges that come from a sexless marriage, I would have been more proactive in avoiding/preventing it (but I believed "you can't be too prudish" -- see comments a couple of paragraphs up). I recently read a history of St. Augustine and found it very interesting how his sexual regrets shaped and molded a couple of thousand years of Christian attitudes towards sex and celibacy. While they talked about how one should avoid sexual activity because you will likely regret that activity when you are with your (future) spouse, I could not help but think of those in 2nd marriages and wondered how they view those kinds of sexual regrets.
There's probably more I could say. All in all, it was an ok episode, especially considering their time limits. I liked that they were not overly shy about things. It also seemed that they over simplified some of the issues (as we tend to do when talking to youth). I still think that there is room in our dialog in the Church to improve our dialog around issues of chastity and sexuality.

For me it's not just an issue of marijuana and the damage it can cause to a person taking it. Instead, it's about allowing a person the freedom to do what they want with their life. I don't force an obese person to eat fewer calories even if those calories will kill him. I expect government to stay out of such a personal matter. Government should only get involved when externalities cause risks to a third party. In the case of marijuana these externalitites may include certain aspects of advertising or driving under the influence which may harm another person among others. For that reason I have said that it makes sense to control the distribution and sell but that an adult should be free to take marijuana.
It scares me when a person advocates that the "intelligent" group forcing the "unintelligent" group to do what they say. Where does such a belief end? 

Here are some random thoughts drawn on my own experience:
1)  At least in Utah, my experience is that you probably won't do jail time on a first- or second-time marijuana possession offense (other than perhaps a night in jail while you sober up/make bail) so long as you keep to the terms of your probation.  (It's not a matter of getting a pricey attorney; this is even true with LDAs.  In fact, many LDAs are better at negotiating plea deals than private counsel; because the DAs see the LDAs much more frequently and will probably be on friendlier terms with them.)  If you violate probation, or if you had intent to distribute, or if you were busted in a drug-free zone; then yeah, a few months becomes more likely.  But this notion that our prisons are full of non-violent offenders who did nothing worse than have a couple ounces of weed on their persons, is generally incorrect (at least as far as Utah goes).
2)  I'm not convinced that prohibition was as fruitless as some folks like to claim.  I've seen studies saying per capita alcohol consumption went down (and didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970s); and other studies debunking the first studies.  But common sense says that if a product is illegal, it will be harder to obtain and fewer people will use it.  (If potheads are really able to get as much pot as they want, then why do they care whether we legalize it or not?  Answer:  They know darned well that it will be easier for them to get pot, and they'll be able to increase their consumption.)  One thing to bear in mind about statistical evidence is that it's only as good as its gatherers.  I was at the Utah Heroin and Opiates Summit a couple weeks ago, and one of the presenters was a coroner from Tennessee who mentioned, in passing, that one of the issues in analyzing our current heroin epidemic is that a lot of county coroners can't identify an overdose victim--because in a lot of jurisdictions, all you have to do to be a coroner is to have a high school (yes, high school) degree and win an election.  
3)  I've dealt with both users of marijuana, and users of much harder stuff.  The general trend I see is that the meth/opiates/acid users already know that they're into some bad stuff and want to get away from it--but they just can't.  The potheads, by contrast, doggedly insist that there's nothing wrong with what they are doing and that the guvmint should just leave them alone.
4)  Inpatient rehab is horrendously expensive. If you're paying $3K per month for your treatment, you're probably on the lower end of the spectrum.  
5)  Not all rehab facilities are created equal.  Part of my practice involves being assigned to represent parents who are going family dependency drug court.  Our clients typically works with a handful of local women's residential facilities who have contracted with the state to provide the service; and even among them and there is a notable difference between their treatment approaches and success rates.  My impression is that there is still work to be done in developing a consensus as to best practices in the field of addiction recovery.  (@LiterateParakeet aren't you a mental health practitioner of some kind?  You might know more about this than I do.)  
6)  When you're talking about putting people through rehab at government expense, there's going to have to be a cost-benefit analysis.  I honestly don't know how unhealthful or addictive marijuana is--the issue is heavily politicized and it's hard to get trustworthy data; but there's certainly a wide and growing perception out there that pot isn't much worse than tobacco.  I believe that with harder drugs, the success rate of inpatient rehab is somewhere in the ballpark of 40-50% (I'm almost certain it's not as high as 60%).  As much as I dislike tobacco, I wouldn't want $3-$4K/month of my tax dollars being used to put smokers through treatment with only a 50% chance at long-term success; and I'm not yet convinced marijuana is worth that level of public investment either.  It may be that, with a few relatively minor tweaks, our current program of catch-and-release might wind up being the best thing we can come up with.
7)  Re medical marijuana:  Again, harking back to the Utah Heroin and Opiates summit, one of the presentations was by a Dr. Jennifer Plumb, a professor at the U of U medical school and director of the Utah Naloxone Project.  (Naloxone is a drug that can be administered by injection or nasal spray, that will bring you back from a heroin OD.  If you've seen those Utah billboards about "Heroin Kills.  Naloxon Saves.  Get it." on Utah highways--her agency is behind those; and the kid in the picture is brother, who died of an overdose back in the '90s.)  Anyways, someone asked Dr. Plumb about the use of medical marijuana for pain management as an alternative to opiates.  Dr. Plumb--who, one would think, would have been eager to recommend the use of non-opiates and who one would expect to be reasonably informed on the topic--was open to further research; but she stated that there just isn't any scientific data (anecdotal stuff, yes; statistical data, no) supporting the use of medical marijuana at this point.
8)  This was something that was said at the summit about opiates generally, but I presume it's also the case with marijuana:  It used to be that there was a clear distinction between drug pushers and drug consumers; and between drug consumers and non-drug consumers.  If you wanted drugs, you had to go to the seedy part of town, or talk to one of the "bad kids" at your school, or whatever.  It's not that way any more.  Users are just as likely to be supplied by their romantic partners, siblings, or parents; you can get your product delivered to your door via UPS; and kids from "good families" are nearly as likely to be using as kids from "the wrong side of the tracks".  

The public needs to be educated on this matter. Lagalization does not mean right, and wrong does not mean illegal. Part of the problem is our laws have never been consistent in this regard. 
Certainly, the one thing we must not do is bow to this misunderstanding and make things illegal just because they are wrong. This cause countless problems and inserts the state into issues they should not be involved in at all, including religious freedom. 

Issues of individual rights, such as marijuana use have been on my mind lately. As you said, marijuana use is unhealthy and I would add addictive, and mentally damaging (particularly to children). So clearly it is self destructive to recreationally use marijuana. But more and more I believe people should have the freedom to do wrong, so long as what they do does not harm another person or limit another persons freedom. In some instances it pains me to say that, but every rule laid down by government ultimately must be enforced at the point of a gun. If I absolutely refuse to pay my taxes my free will must be taken away and I be forced, into a jail cell.  The same goes for marijuana use, or prostitution between consenting adults if they are illegal.  
That is why it is important that personal moral issues not be mandated by the state. If a person smokes or views pornography, government should not prevent them from doing so. In such situations we must separate church and state. The state protects my freedom to life, liberty, and property but otherwise it needs to get out of my life. The church tells me God's laws and helps me live a moral life. I must be free to live these moral laws. On the other hand, the state should not get involved in religious matters. If a church does not want to marry a gay couple they are completely free to do so. The state has no right to mandate marriage requirements to the church. 
Now having said all that, I believe it is within the rights of the government to limit the sale of harmful substances. I do not want a big tobacco 2.0, or gummy bears laced with marijuana readily available, both of which put children at risk. So I would argue for the decriminalization of marijuana but not the legalization of it. In other words, the government should not be able to put a person in jail for using marijuana but companies should not be able to put out adds enticing people to buy it. This seems clear. I think it makes sense to push for education regarding the harmful use of marijuana. I also agree that rehab requirements should be in order for people who abuse the drug. Although, in reference to my earlier point about people having the freedom to do wrong, I am still working through some of this in my mind. 
 
 

@Sadwife I feel the pain emanating off you post and your wounded heart.  I applaud your courage to reach out for help.  You seem afraid to reach out for help when you're hurting-- you should NEVER be afraid for that.  If you had a friend who's husband forbid her to go to the hospital when she was seriously ill, what advice would you give that friend?  To go to the physician she needs, regardless of what her abusive "husband" thinks.  
Likewise I'm going to advise you to go to the physician that you need, regardless of what your abusive "husband" thinks.  You NEED counseling for this wound and to keep your bishop in the loop.  Now I'm guessing a couple of thoughts are going through your head here:
* "But what if he divorces me for getting help?"  If he is so threatened by the idea of you getting healed that he runs away (aka files for divorce) then...I'm sorry but he is a cowardly abuser.
* "But what if he refuses to go with me, or mocks me for going?"  Then go by yourself.  Getting healing with strengthen you to be a better person, mother, and wife (or divorcee).
* "But what if he says we can't afford it?"  Then look of the price of divorce lawyers: they are MUCH more expensive.  Getting yourself the medical attention (aka counseling) you need is a priority and should be treated thus in the budget.  

I recognize some of this behavior in myself during my first marriage unfortunately. I remember during a counseling session she told the counselor I would call her names. I remember I said I never called "her" stupid I was just saying what she was "doing", "thinking", "acting" was stupid. He told me flat out I was being emotionally abusive. It was a major wake up call for me and I'm happy to say I changed. Unfortunately it was too late and she shortly after went off the deep end. 
Threatening divorce is abuse as well. I did this also, it was how I expressed how angry and hopeless I felt. But it was wrong and there is no place for it. 
Your husband needs a wake up call. He may be so caught up in his own thinking he doesn't realize what he's doing or what he's about to lose. He needs to learn to channel his feelings in a healthier way and he needs help. You seem very afraid for him to find out how you feel. He has to know if he's going to turn this around.
Please know this, you don't deserve it. Not any of it. At the least you need to get some counseling and see the Bishop. It is abuse and it needs to stop. Nothing is going to change if you don't start addressing this.
If I were you I would put some plans in place. The next time he threatens divorce, go in your room, pack your things and leave. You don't need to live day by day wondering when the axe will fall. Time to take some courage and put him to the test. A separation for a determined time period might give him time to think and in some ways it's giving him a chance to wake up. I don't believe in divorce except for when it comes to Adultery, Abuse or Addiction. You need to come to terms that you are dealing with Abuse. If it ends up in divorce, it's not the end of your life or eternal life. 
I have learned thru much hardship to turn to Heavenly Father and say, "Here I am in this life where I chose to be,  with these challenges that I'm sure are a mix of what was promised in this life and those that I created myself, surrounded by people I'm commanded to love, what is it I'm to learn here?, Here I am". Somehow thinking this has provided some perspective on things. 
Perhaps this is an opportunity to learn to stand up for yourself and to overcome your fears and trust your Father in Heaven.
 
 
 
 
 

Well, in Hagar's case we have an angel telling Hagar to return to the institution whence she had fled; and we assume therefore that God sanctions the institution (polygamy).
In Philemon Paul tells Onesimus to return to the institution whence *he* had fled--slavery.  On what basis do we avoid concluding that God sanctions the institution of slavery?

This is a great point, but how do we distinguish between that scenario and Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon?
As a church we are slowly getting better about avoiding presentism in our approach to the scriptures; but the downside to that is that we sometimes tend to--for lack of a better word--infantilize, or de-humanize, the subjects of scriptural stories.  We assume that Jacob didn't love Rachel as a modern man loves his wife; that Laban wasn't concerned for his daughters' financial well-being; that Moses and other Israelite men thought it entirely natural for a woman to have to marry her rapist; that Joshua had no problem perpetrating genocide.  I think perhaps there is a trace of that going on in Turbogirl's post.
To me stories of polygamy turn up in the scriptures not because its practitioners thought it was easy; but because it was terribly hard.  Life is less of a material struggle now than it was then; but I don't think human nature is really all that different.  After all--if Abraham wanted to marry Hagar, he would have taken her as a concubine from the time she entered his household rather than waiting until he learned of Sarah's barrenness.  Similarly, Jacob only asked for Rachel--not Rachel and Leah.  These are not the actions of men who thought women to be interchangeable or expendable; and I think we do the scriptural authors (and ourselves) a disservice when we duck the hard questions these stories invite us to ask.  Marital love and romantic passion existed long before Byron and Shelley started writing about it.

In the talk you have provided with Elder Bednar here is the sexuality quote, "Such relations are not merely a curiosity to be explored, an appetite to be satisfied, or a type of recreation or entertainment to be pursued selfishly. They are not a conquest to be achieved or simply an act to be performed. Rather, they are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. We are agents blessed with moral agency and are defined by our divine heritage as children of God—and not by sexual behaviors, contemporary attitudes, or secular philosophies."
Elder Bednar is referring to the husband and wife union on a physical (sexual and companionship), spiritual, and emotional level. He is hoping people will understand that we are not defined by our sexualitly not that our sexuality is not divine. The union between male and female is divine. This is why Elder Bednar once said, "We do not have any homosexuals in the Church." He is not denying their are people with this attraction and who act upon this attraction within the Church. He is saying we aren't defined by our sexual preference, nor any other preference. It would be similar to saying, "We don't define members by their righteousness nor their sins. We do not say, 'We have this many adulterers in the Church.'" Our defining trait is that we are divine ourselves, heirs, children of God. That is what is most important.
Scriptures which I find interesting in this discussion would be Moses 3:35 noting all things were created spiritually before they were created temporally, and this verse, "that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created." (Doctrine and Covenants 77:2)
Yes, I would affirm that our sexuality, our desire to be unified with our companions (in light of God's order, only male and female) are indeed of a eternal nature, and are divine. And as Elder Bednar stated sexuality is not to be performed merely for "curiosity", selfish appetite, simply to be pursued (reminds me of one-night-stands), not a conquest to be achieved, or simply to be performed (well, since I am to have offspring I have to have sex -- shoot). The sexual union between male and female (husband and wife, no other union), is to be shared as often as a couple agrees upon, and when this act is performed with love and concern the marital relationship is fostered both physically, spiritually, and emotionally, and why I believe (as all things were spiritual before they were temporal, or in its likeness) these relationships will be apart of our nature after the resurrection, but does not define who we are.

Nah.  The LDS divorce rate is clearly the fault of high fructose corn syrup: 87% correlation.

Oddly, though HFCS also seems to be the main driving force for marriage in Utah: 94% correlation.

My theory is that too much HFCS makes people make poor choices of life partners too quickly.

Another perfect example of a Utah Mormon problem -- choice overload paralysis. If we give ourselves 2.5 hours, we can choose one of at least half a dozen (or more) temples to attend. It can be overwhelming to have so many choices.
Kind of like when you go into Baskin Robbins or the BYU Creamery or the Aggie Ice Cream store (the worst I've been to is the Tillamook Creamery in Tillamook OR, but that's not in Utah) and have to choose what flavor ice cream you want.

Another perfect example of a Utah Mormon problem -- choice overload paralysis. If we give ourselves 2.5 hours, we can choose one of at least half a dozen (or more) temples to attend. It can be overwhelming to have so many choices.
Kind of like when you go into Baskin Robbins or the BYU Creamery or the Aggie Ice Cream store (the worst I've been to is the Tillamook Creamery in Tillamook OR, but that's not in Utah) and have to choose what flavor ice cream you want.

Another perfect example of a Utah Mormon problem -- choice overload paralysis. If we give ourselves 2.5 hours, we can choose one of at least half a dozen (or more) temples to attend. It can be overwhelming to have so many choices.
Kind of like when you go into Baskin Robbins or the BYU Creamery or the Aggie Ice Cream store (the worst I've been to is the Tillamook Creamery in Tillamook OR, but that's not in Utah) and have to choose what flavor ice cream you want.

Another perfect example of a Utah Mormon problem -- choice overload paralysis. If we give ourselves 2.5 hours, we can choose one of at least half a dozen (or more) temples to attend. It can be overwhelming to have so many choices.
Kind of like when you go into Baskin Robbins or the BYU Creamery or the Aggie Ice Cream store (the worst I've been to is the Tillamook Creamery in Tillamook OR, but that's not in Utah) and have to choose what flavor ice cream you want.

I think that, on matters affecting salvation, the Church does extraordinarily well--as @Maureen hints, having a living prophet implies that while our church need not be perfect--we ought to be getting more stuff more right more often, than any other church.
To the degree that errors remain, we need to bear in mind that what we think needs immediate fixing, won't always coincide with what God thinks needs immediate fixing.  We worship a god who had at least two different bona fide prophets/apostles, fifteen hundred years apart (Moses and Paul) who not only failed to condemn slavery; but openly endorsed the practice within their societies.  People who think the modern church is making some mortal error, may want to consider the possibility that God just has bigger fish to fry.

What we did, very often remains part of who we are even after the Atonement has done as much work as it's going to do in mortality.  Trauma victims may still have flashbacks, trigger points, or night terrors.  Unwed/divorced parents still pay child support, and have to coparent with their exes.  Fornicators may be dealing with STDs that can only be managed, never cured.  Divorcees may tend to be deeply suspicious of the motives and loyalties of potential romantic partners.
That said:  I can definitely visualize that a 20-year-old single Mormon's "minimal standards" for what they expect in a potential mate, may change if that Mormon remains single at the age of 30, or 40, or 50.  Part of that might be "desperation"; but there's also the fact that as they mature they may be ready to take on baggage that, as a 20 year old, they weren't ready to shoulder.

tesuji's response reminded me of the problem of finding the right building.
"We're looking for the Smith's baby blessing." "Do you know what ward or building?" "The 242nd ward." "This is the 142nd ward. The 242nd ward meets a block down on the NW corner of the intersection. Be sure to get the right building, because the SE corner of that intersection is the 342nd ward."

I don't want to take away from JaG's point that people should be able to choose for themselves what criteria (including virginity) they will use for choosing a spouse, because we each have that right. However, I don't think I am going to encourage youth to put virginity on their list. I would probably encourage them to look at the deeper character traits of self-control and selfishness/selflessness (both in their spouse and in themselves). I think it is because I am not certain about the connection/correlation between virginity and self-control and selfishness. I think NightSG gives some good examples.
Diverce(e)s/Widows/Widowers -- Do we really believe that these individuals lack self-control and selflessness because they are no longer virgins?
Converts -- Do we believe that their sexual histories pre-baptism are rooted in selfishness and a lack of self-control? Do we not believe that they could have developed these traits before and after their baptisms? How do we view repentance from sexual sin? I don't know how many saw the movie Charly based on Jack Weyland's novel. The one scene that has stuck with me over the years is when Sam was in the park wrestling with Charly's sexual history before he could commit to marrying her, and this seemed to be a big part of his hesitance. Could he marry Charly knowing that she had had previous sexual relationships before she joined the church (chewed gum seemed to go through his mind a lot, as I recall).
As JaG said, people can use whatever criteria they want to determine who they will marry. I am not convinced that this one (virgin/non-virgin) is a wise criteria that I would recommend.

I know it is cliche, but I think you might have answered the question yourself right here. I don't think that Virgin/non-virgin is the real issue. There are deeper issues (like obedience) underlying the surface issue. I think there is value in seeing past the surface issue and understand the deeper issues. The better the deeper issues are understood, the better our ability to make decisions.

I have recently finished reading the book Sexual Wholeness in Marriage by three BYU professors. They included a chapter discussing these kinds of object lessons. They divide our common object lessons into two types: Fear based (like licked cupcakes and chewed gum), and abstinence based (like the three mentioned here). When all is said and done, the authors of this book are not fond of any of these object lessons. Recognizing that no object lesson is ever going to be perfect, they suggest that abstinence based lessons like the ones mentioned in the Mormonhub article have three basic flaws -- 1) They suggest that chastity is a purely physical thing, 2) that chastity is individual (what happens when you wait your turn to drive the fancy car, but find out that your husband/wife did not wait?), and 3) that these object lessons set up a marriage "finish line" (now that I've waited, what happens next?).
They give 2 final conclusions/recommendations against using any object lesson. A) Don't use object lessons because all object lessons imply that the teacher is unwilling/unable to directly confront sexual topics. B) All object lessons fall flat because sexuality/chastity is more of an object lesson for our discipleship.
As interesting as these object lessons are, I think I can recommend these ideas from this book for your consideration. Maybe it is better to just be direct about it and stop trying to hide behind object lessons and analogies to try to teach about sexual purity.

tesuji's response reminded me of the problem of finding the right building.
"We're looking for the Smith's baby blessing." "Do you know what ward or building?" "The 242nd ward." "This is the 142nd ward. The 242nd ward meets a block down on the NW corner of the intersection. Be sure to get the right building, because the SE corner of that intersection is the 342nd ward."

Also, you need to consider how any lessons and examples will affect (and cause a potentially more problematic perception of) rape victims, converts, divorcees and even those who have lost a spouse.  It's not just the 24 year old widow; it's also the YSA men seeing that the cupcake was licked, regardless of the circumstances, and writing her off because of it.  She gets a reminder every time some guy starts to take interest then backs off when he finds out she's "used merchandise."