MrShorty

No justification intended.  Right now Marijuana is illegal.  If and when (sooner than we think) it becomes legal for medical use in every State then the legal barriers will be gone.  Personally I will still have a hard time if I'm ever prescribed it.
 
However, ALL herbs were put here on this earth for the use of man.  The problem becomes if we're wise enough to use them correctly.  Marijuana has not been used correctly.  There are correct uses . . .  medical uses.  
 
Its still not a complicated issue for me.  As long as its Illegal, then that's that.  As for the WoW and the OP if its legal where he lives and he has a prescription from his doctor then its perfectly ok and legal to use it.  It really is that simple.

... so you think it should be used prudently then?
 
 
Or, if you prefer, (Church Handbook of Instruction 2:21.3.11)
 

Well that defines wholesome accurately (conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being) but it doesn't necessarily dictate which herbs are, actually, wholesome.
 
How do we classify a specific herb as "wholesome"? Just on a leftist doctor's say so?
 
It's complicated with marijuana. There is a long tradition of abuse, recreational use, and illegality that makes it distinctly difficult to view it in a wholesome light. But are those traditions mere bias? I suppose that is the question. For myself, I'm skeptical that there is any wholesome use to it. But I'm moderately (and by moderately, I mean extremely ) uneducated on the matter. So....
 
The point remains. I suppose if there came a point where marijuana was commonly prescribed, legal throughout, etc., that we could certainly accept that it is truly wholesome. As it is, I'm not so sure.
 
Certainly, simply claiming wholesome use is insufficient to your D&C submission, however. Someone claiming they are using an herb wholesomely (for the purposes of health) does not make that usage wholesome.
 
It's very interesting.

I would say it is circumstantial. Not in all cases, but yes in others. Certainly it isn't black-and-white, as in  it's always or never Satan's influence.
 
 
 
I think it's too complicated for the church to consider making statements like these. And most certainly it would be abused by by some to dominate and control in inappropriate ways. It's a very interesting thought though.
 
Really though, the principles are there and sufficient if one is striving for humility and righteousness in all things. I can't reasonably see a person striving to have a wholesome, righteous marriage seeing sexless marriage as generally acceptable. The proper lessons are there. Taught by the church: Physical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in a marriage. Check. Sex is not only for procreation. Check. Put your spouse's needs above yours. Check. Etc., etc...

I was listening to the introduction to the Book of Mormon while driving yesterday. The first paragraph states: 
 
"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel." There are several other places where the Book of Mormon is indicated to contain the fullness of the gospel as well. (D&C 20:9, for example) So the thought I had, which I felt might be interesting to discuss, was: If the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, where does that leave things that are not in the Book of Mormon? Take, for example, Eternal Marriage. Nothing in the Book of Mormon, right? But would it be accurate to say that eternal marriage is not part of the gospel? Hardly. I know there are reasonable ideas to be had concerning this. I have a few. I also haven't done any level of research into it. Yet. But I thought it would be interesting to pose the question without any conjecturing to begin with. Just to add to the conversation: The version I have on mp3 (which I presume is pre-2013 changes) is slightly different (see bolded): "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."

Not to take away from the more modern architectural styles, but I have always had a preference for the old pioneer temple architecture -- Salt Lake, Logan, Manti, St. George.

http://lds.net/forums/topic/54066-did-women-ever-hold-the-priesthood/#entry777367
 
We've acknowledged that women have been given authority to perform saving ordinances in the temple every bit as binding as though they were performed by a priesthood holder. Why stop there? What is so different about washings and anointings that they can be authorized to perform that ordinance but not baptism?

Okay...I know Emma bashing is taboo it our current culture of Mormon-dom, so I'll be careful (sort of).
 
Per "Whatever decisions she made after her beloved Joseph died, she never lost her testimony of the church and the divine restoration of it."
 
Whereas there is obvious truth to parts of this statement, I think it needs to be qualified a bit. I'm not entirely sure that Emma had a testimony that the church as led by Brigham Young remained as the "true" church, this somewhat, perhaps, being supported by the support she threw behind the Reorganized church. To be fair, this may have been simple misunderstanding on her part, rather than evidence of testimony focus, but....well....there it is. Regardless, if I decided to leave the LDS church and go join the Community of Christ instead, I think it might be valid to say I lost my testimony of the church. Even if I claimed to believe that both churches were just as true as the other, that still falls into the category of loss of testimony at some level, imo.
 
We are hardly as forgiving of others who went and joined or started other branches of LDS based groups. Whereas it would be fairly valid in their cases to also say that they never lost a testimony of Joseph Smith's divine mission and/or the early church, in determining that the current church was not the proper path to continue down, they still undoubtedly lost their testimonies at some level.
 
I want to be clear, lest someone accuse me of something unfairly, I am not contending, nor do I believe one way or another, that Emma lost her salvation or became wicked or something. That is between Emma and God. But I do believe that we should look at Emma's later life as an example of what not to do, rather than some shining example of steadfastness.

I had good girl syndrom even though i am a guy lol But i believe god made me understand in a way that i wouldnt live again. And a lot of good books and therapists in the church can help you understand what is wrong or right. Also theres a lot of scriptures that i dindnt even know about it. I believe the adversary is not only using bad stuff to make us confused but also he uses good stuff that we think its bad cause of our lack of understanding. When i was young i had a bishop myself that i believe didnt understand the way of the lord on that subject.That got me lost and i got the good girl syndrom. But today he understands more.He told me last week lol. Our children and ourselves need to be taught on the topic. And there are good people working in the field out there. Would be great to have conference on the subject at church for the class of relationship and get a professional invited. A professionnal with same believes as we have.
 
2 books and a therapist helped me a lot (im not doing advertisement- just trying to hep out others that have the same issues i got):
 
- And they were not ashamed - Laura m. Brotherson
- sensible sex
 
And dr Jones
 
Its just funny to see that it happens, as told in a thread before, in evry religion or believes  

I hope the first thing your Bishop does is help you get over hating yourself. From statistics I have seen, masturbation is likely one of the most common "sins" we are guilty of. In this day and age, porn use is also very common. Neither sin is anything to "hate yourself" over. You are not perverted, hypersexual, gross, disgusting, or any other form of bad. You have succumbed to a "temptation that is common to man" (1 Cor 10:13). I would encourage you to talk to your bishop and work on developing a healthy and proper relationship with your sexuality.

I can't talk about the LDS experience since I was raised Catholic (I'm the son of a Catholic School teacher, so I had the very Catholic upbringing experience). My parents had a very open approach when it came to discussing sexuality. That didn't mean they brought it up at inappropriate times, but that if we wanted to discuss it, they would and would not hide the beautiful thing sexual intimacy can be. In public they were very affectionate, showing a healthy loving relationship. I was taught," Not yet, but when you do, after marriage, it will be a beautiful sacred thing."
Now, I've been trying to move away from citing Catholic sources, but I think this is important. One of St. John Paul the Great ' s greatest accomplishments was "Theology of the Body", looking at human sexuality through a Christian lens. There are editions meant for teens, which I was taught in high school.
That is my own experience, I wasn't raised LDS nor currently have children (let alone married) so I can't speak as to how LDS children are raised. I just wanted to share the approach I grew up with which I think is a very good and Christian approach.

Well sexuality is not a switch one can flick, some people who are taught that way can't bring themselves to think any differently even when married. It still seems bad to them.
I mean you can apply that idea to a lot of things, the human brain is a complex thing.
 
Growing up I was never taught about modesty or chastity or anything like that, and the idea of modesty and chastity are strange to me. I never grew up with that idea of thinking, and I can't just flick a switch and think that way.

This is a spin off the Sexless Marriage thread.  A reference was made to the Good Girl Syndrome.  I take that to mean girls have been taught to be modest, chaste, and even sexually shy.  Good girls do not look for such things.  They may internalize the idea that marital intimacy is "dirty."
 
I get it...kinda.  However, at least consciously, that line of thinking should be easy to oppose.  After all, do we not also teach our daughters (and sons) that within marriage intimacy is commanded by God? 
 
1 Corinthians 7:   2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (New International Version)
 
Once the lie is exposed, it should be relatively easy for a couple, within counseling, to begin working towards intimacy.  Yet, I sense from some posts here that such is not the case.  Why?

Like classylady, I too never really saw my parents be physically intimate.  Nor did we ever talk about the birds-and-the-bees (and the very idea of such a talk filled me with mortified embarrassment).  My teachers at church also didn't talk about their married relations, for obvious reasons.  So I never got a idea of what "good" sexuality was like. 
 
Instead, I saw/heard disgusting/stupid things about sexuality from teenagers in public high school.  Seckuar teachers were mute on the subject and I didn't talk to my folks.  Church teachers said "Don't do that" and I said "DUH!!".  I watched so many of my friends get terribly burned by sexual mistakes, and I graduated high school with zero desire to ever go 'there'. 
 
I knew that someday my husband and I would have sex... but that day was so distant.  How was I to know what "married healthy sexuality" looked like?  What did it feel like?  How do you find it?  I had no idea, and I wasn't sure I wanted to know— every passing year I saw misused sexuality hurt my friends get hurt more.  I was afraid.
 
That's one way how "good girl syndrome" can come about.

A few comments, if I may:
 
1) Good Girl Syndrome -- though the term seems to have been coined by and LDS therapist (Laura Brotherson), I see it discussed in many non-LDS contexts, so I don't think it is a uniquely LDS problem. Christian bloggers (such as J at hot holy and humorous, Shiela Gregwoire at tolovehonorandvacuum, and many others) often discuss these principles. I even frequently see these discussions in secular sources. (Think of discussions around mild expressions of the Madonna/Whore complex -- where we can talk about the difficulties in seeing a righteous person as sexual and a sexual person as righteous). I sometimes think that it might just be a normal part of "growing up" sexually -- is learning how to reconcile our sexual/erotic selves with the rest of what we think is good. Some have an easier time of it, and others will struggle with it more.
 
In some ways I think Dr. Schnarch expresses it so well when he talks about marriage (and sex in marriage) as a "people growing machine." Marriage relationships (and the sexual relationship within marriage) can force us to grow in ways that no other relationship can.
 
2) On 1 Cor 7 -- I see this verse used a lot more in Christian circles than in LDS circles. I'm not sure why, but it seems that the LDS people I have interacted with have essentially neglected these verses -- especially in trying to use them to imply any kind of obligation on sex. As I followed the "sex as need/sex as obligation" discussion that I started a month ago, one of the things I observed is that we (LDS and, I think,many non-LDS as well) are rather uncomfortable making sex out as any kind of obligation.
 
 
 
I recognize that this was probably asked as a rhetorical question, but, in some ways, I think this is at the heart of my own struggle to understand sex in marriage and Good Girl/Good Boy syndrome. Do we really teach that sex in marriage is a commandment? Or is it a necessary evil? Or is it a "perk"? Whatever the couple decides? Or is it something else?
 
3) I think Quinn and Lakumi hit on an important part of the difficulty -- It is not as simple as flipping a switch. The constant "abstinence" teaching we emphasize can make that switch rather rusty. I'm also not sure that we do a good job overall in giving our youth the tools, skills, and attitudes that will simplify the flipping of that switch. I also don't think it will ever be completely painless, because the first time you do anything (especially something as vulnerable as sex) is going to have some anxiety around it.
 
4) I don't know whether to "blame" the church, or the parents, or the broader culture in general. Sexuality seems to be such a complex part of ourselves, with so many influences that go into it, that I don't know. It does seem that those with the healthiest views of sexuality tend to have good influence and instruction from parents. But I don't think the church has zero influence -- the church can have a significant influence on a person's attitude towards sexuality, and can have a significant influence on the parents' attitudes towards sexuality (especially in multigenerational families). I think it is hard to separate out the Church's influence alone. And then, of course, we have the broader culture's influence -- both in terms of what it directly teaches and the ways that the broader culture influences the messages the Church and parents choose to emphasize.
 
Another aspect of this is how much should the Church be involved in sex education. I see some calling for the Church to take on more responsibility for sex education and sex therapy type instruction, and I see others calling for less involvement of the Church in the marriage bed. I see some encouraging couples to appeal more to secular sources (using appropriate discernment) for help and education, and I see some who believe that secular sources should be shunned in favor of more religious sources.
 
I don't really have any answers. I sometimes wonder if we need to take the time to really articulate and understand the root principles underlying the law of chastity, then we will be in a better position to discuss some of these issues.

Is there anything you've done from childhood onward, that you still believe in, that you'd be willing to 180 on for a month... As an experiment?
Such as
- wearing underwear
- using silverware
- not picking your nose in public
- shaving your legs
- ?
I'm picking morally ambivalent habits, here.
But, even so, you will find it EXTREMELY WEIRD to go commando, eat without implements, talk to the mailman while picking your nose, or whatever action you choose. You'll also find yourself forgetting to do so. Changing something you don't even think about anymore, that's pure habit... Generally takes about 7 years.
But... Imagine if it IS a moral imperative you've practiced from childhood onward?
Somehting you associate with being a Good Man?
I'm not going to suggest you DO any of these.... But reflect on if you were asked now to
- kick puppies
- slap your wife across the face
- not allow your children to eat
- etc.
Could you do any of those things on a daily basis?
Weekly?
Monthly?
It doesn't matter hat after 20-30 years of doing X that we TELL ourselves X is no longer the right thing, Y is the right thing...
For some, X has become both habit and ingrained into their self worth.
Which generally means 7+ years to change the old way of thinking/believing ... If ever.
Q

Maybe it's just me, but aren't we all adults here?  The site is open to ages 14+, but even the teenagers here know what "it" is that we're talking about.  Is there a reason we can't just say "sex?"

While I agree with most here that the bishop is probably the greater victim here that the child, I would caution you against entirely dismissing your daughter's concerns.  While it is possible and likely that some level of discipline (not necessarily church discipline) will need to be levied against your daughter, it needs to be done with respect to how she went about addressing her concerns.  While doing that, you should also acknowledge her concerns and validate her feelings on the subjects. The goal needs to be teaching her how to respond to these matters appropriately. 
 
And to put a fine point on it, this should have been done two years ago.
 
I can sympathize with your daughter on her feelings about the bishop's interviews with the youth being uncomfortable and potentially inappropriate.  You need to find out what aspects of the interviews make her uncomfortable and help her define limits on what are and are not appropriate questions for her bishop to ask her.  If she feels uncomfortable answering a question, she has every right to say "I'm not comfortable with that question."  She also needs to know that if her bishop is unaccepting of that, she has the right to get up and walk out.  After doing so, she should go to you, the parent, to discuss what just happened.  
 
Then it needs to be made abundantly clear that the way in which she handled this was childish and rude.  Making the recording alone may be illegal, depending on your state.  
 
On the bishop's side of things, I see a couple of issues that he may need to address in himself.  First, he needs to spend more time with these young women.  He needs to attend classes with them, mutual activities, visit the families in their homes, if necessary.  And he needs to get to know every child in Primary that will be in the youth program within the next two years.  If he doesn't already have a relationship with these youth where they are comfortable talking to him by the time they turn 12, he's compromising his ability to serve them (that's an 'easier-said-than-done' thing).  But that fact that your daughter was able to stage a revolt with nine girls at the age of 13 tells me that the majority of them had similar feelings about the interviews.  That's a problem.
 
Second, he needs to rethink the level of detail necessary when pursuing people's transgressions.  While calling the police with respect to this interview may be overkill, the school psychologist is doing her job, which is to protect the child from potential abuse.  If a professional psychologist is concerned at the level of detail brought up in this interview, I think it warrants some review*.  Also, let's keep in perspective that the psychologist's concern is the level of detail he was asking for while alone with a young girl.  There is an age and power imbalance in this situation that is ripe for abuse and it's generally in the best interests of all parties for someone to be present in the discussion that can normalize that imbalance.
 
It's a crappy situation you're in, and I don't envy you.  But I'm hesitant to go all crazy over what your daughter did.  Her actions are a symptom of deeper issues, and it is those issues that you need to work to understand and address.
 
 
* To be fair, bishops receive almost no training about this, which is something I think really ought to change.  

When I die I shall finally overcome my oxygen addiction.

For some reason, I am reminded of what Tweedle Dee (or Dum) explained to Alice -- perhaps she was just a part of the Red King's dream, and as soon as he woke up, she would cease to exist.
 
I'm no expert on philosophy, but I recall that this was part of DesCartes "I think, therefore I am." axiom. He was trying to find a bedrock principle that could serve as an anchor for his view of existence. Perceptions through the senses could not be fully trusted, because our senses can "lie" to us. Even when dealing with spiritual promptings, sometimes it is possible to misinterpret or to deceive ourselves. I do not know if we can ever know for sure that something is true.
 
 
Perhaps. I agree that God and truth should not be confusing or contradictory. On the other hand, I don't want to be guilty of limiting God/truth to my finite, mortal, imperfect reasoning. As God explained through Isaiah, His ways/thoughts are higher than our ways/thoughts. When something doesn't make sense, is it because it is false, or is it a failure of my logic engine.
 
Right now I'm working on the results of an experiment where the results in many ways don't make sense -- don't follow expected patterns. There are a lot of variables involved, so I am really struggling to decide if it is because the experiment is wrong, or if I have not yet come upon the correct mathematical relationship to describe the relationship between the variables.
 
In many ways, I think some truth, especially religious/theological truth, is in interesting interplay between reason and faith. There are several religious truths that I would be tempted to discard if I refused to believe something that didn't make sense to me. At the same time, there are some religious claims that I reject because I find them irrational. I'm not sure I can explain how those judgements get made, nor do I always feel like they are a "there that is decided" kind of thing. Part of being penitent might be never being quite satisfied that a specific question is definitively answered -- to always be willing to think through concepts again to see if they are still something you want to believe.

I agree with Pam, I don't think there's much to say until the actual numbers are published. After the study is published, it will be interesting to see:
 
1) If 6000 people, spread across multiple Christian/other religions, is large enough really draw the kind of conclusions he will claim. If religious affiliation is randomly representative, the LDS sample will likely be smaller than Catholic/Protestant.
 
2) Will the results also be correlated to some measure of "activity level." I have seen this effect in other studies -- often things are more closely related to activity level than to self-reported affiliation.
 
3) The usual rate of sexless marriage (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year) across the US is about 20%. If LDS really have a lower incidence, it will be interesting to see just how much lower.

So you are seeing "needs" as referring to the things needed to keep a person alive. As you say, clearly sex is not needed in terms of someone surviving from day to day. Pres. Kimball is often quoted as saying that the most common cause of the divorces he was seeing was disagreements over sex -- "not getting along in the bedroom." Therapists say that by far the most common "sexual dysfunction" they see is differences in libido. An individual husband or wife can certainly continue living without sex, but if their marriage is dying because of a lack of sex, does that make sex a "need" for the marriage? (Because singles/unmarrieds are not in such a covenant relationship, this need would still not apply to them.) Analogous to the "real needs" you describe (a person needs to eat to stay alive and healthy), many claim that marriage "needs" sexual fulfillment for the marriage to stay alive and healthy.

I agree with Pam, I don't think there's much to say until the actual numbers are published. After the study is published, it will be interesting to see:
 
1) If 6000 people, spread across multiple Christian/other religions, is large enough really draw the kind of conclusions he will claim. If religious affiliation is randomly representative, the LDS sample will likely be smaller than Catholic/Protestant.
 
2) Will the results also be correlated to some measure of "activity level." I have seen this effect in other studies -- often things are more closely related to activity level than to self-reported affiliation.
 
3) The usual rate of sexless marriage (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year) across the US is about 20%. If LDS really have a lower incidence, it will be interesting to see just how much lower.

In general, I would agree with your state, a father should have rights in these situations. Why do you say that he would never consent to an adoption? Is it because he is ready and willing to be involved in this child's life both financially and otherwise? Or is he planning on being one of those deadbeats?
 
I know next to nothing about family law, so I would ask you and anyone here who is familiar with family law -- if marriage, abortion, and adoption are all completely off the table, would there be real value, before the baby is born, to sit down with a lawyer and start to discuss/negotiate:
who will be the primary caregiver for the child?
visitation/custody arrangements for both primary caregiver and the other parent?
who will pay for what and how much child support each parent will pay?
and so on.
 
If adoption is off the table, then both of you, in one way or another, need to take responsibility for this child and figure out how you will together raise him/her. It seems to me that these things may be easier to start planning and preparing for before the child is born than after.

Maybe it's just me, but the OP seemed pretty clear about not getting an abortion.  The extent of her mention of it was that it makes her sick, despite what she's been taught.  I don't think she's entertaining the idea at all.
 
 
 
To the OP:  I'm going to take a different tactic here.
 
(1) Are you taking a prenatal vitamin yet?  The early weeks are the most important for getting adequate folic acid (as well as iron and other vitamins).
(2) Have you seen a doctor yet?  You should see one for the first time around 7-9 weeks at the latest.  The doctor can also help counsel you (non-spiritually) on your options, and will likely (hopefully) respect your wish not to abort.
(3) Educate yourself.  My favorite pregnancy book is Your Pregnancy Week by Week, by Glade Curtis and Judith Schuler.
(4) Make sure you have an adequate support network.  Family, friends, church leaders.  Don't try to isolate yourself and be alone in your trouble.  Do your penance in other ways...you will need support.  When you see your doctor, ask about local groups affiliated with the hospital.