Backroads

Form handbook 1
 
Observing Sealings of Living Brothers and Sisters
To observe their living brothers and sisters being sealed to their parents, children under the age of 21 must be born in the covenant or sealed to their parents. In addition, children ages 8 and older must be baptized, and males ages 12 and older must hold the Aaronic Priesthood. If children do not live the majority of the time in the same house as those who are being sealed, First Presidency approval is required for them to observe the sealing.
Members who are married or are 21 or older must be endowed to observe such sealings.
 
I assume this includes adopted children as they by law are leagally brothers and sisters in the new family
 
Adopted or Foster Children Who Are Living
Living children who are born in the covenant or have been sealed to parents cannot be sealed to any other parents unless approval is given by the First Presidency.
Living children who are legally adopted and were neither born in the covenant nor sealed to former parents may be sealed to their adoptive parents after the adoption is final. A copy of the final adoption decree should be presented at the temple; a court decree granting legal custody is not sufficient clearance for a sealing. There is no obligation to identify the natural parents of these children.
First Presidency approval is necessary for a living member to be sealed to foster parents. This requirement applies even if the natural parents of the foster child are unknown and cannot be identified by reasonable effort. Such requests are made by the stake president.

We have big families, we're high on the spirit, and we sing "rock of ages" as a hymn.  I believe we got it covered.

For some reason I envisioned a live band playing the disco guitar (because, of course) that gets quiet for an exuberant sermonist to read 3 Nephi 19:26.
 
And then the disco guitar cranks up again. 
 
 
Now that I type it out, I realize it's just Bill Cosby with The Book of Mormon.
 

I'm sure a lot of people would join the church if we changed a lot of things.
 
I say we go through all our policies, doctrines, and views and find out how to change them to attract the greatest number of converts.

It was an interesting article.  I am a bit uncomfortable with her harping on "Eve didn't sin" and stating unequivocally that this is "LDS doctrine."  While i suppose that one could argue sin versus transgression, the consequences of both are the same--separation from God.  However, she does not even do that in this article.  Instead she claims what a good this was and that she was rewarded for it.  Having to leave the presence of God is a reward?  I think she is skipping over a big part of the picture here.  She's right in that LDS doctrine does not condemn Eve or Adam.  And yet, scriptures such as D&C 29:40-41 and 1 Timothy 2:14 are still part of the canon.
 
My favorite explanation of the Fall comes from Tad R. Callister's book The Infinite Atonement.  He states that Adam and Eve lived under four conditions in the Garden of Eden; two positive and two negative.  The positive are they were immortal and lived in the presence of God.  The negative were they were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil, and that they could not have children.  After the fall these four conditions became reversed.  The positives became negatives and the negatives became positives.
 
 
I would have to conclude that she has decided to skip over the negatives and instead focus solely on the positives.  And if that is the case, and while i personally disagree that is the way to explain the fall, i guess i can see where she is coming from and would probably grudingly agree despite what i consider to be some unfortunate choice of wording.

Pam's right. I have a few friends and cousins who adopted.  They usually had the kids sealed to them within days of the adoption finalizing. 

According to this link adopted children can be sealed as soon as the adoption is finalized and legal.
 
Now someone can correct me but I believe that the other three biological children would not attend the sealing of the two adopted children.  I only know this because of some friends who were in the same situation and they weren't allowed to bring their other children.

I understand that position to some degree.  My concerns are
--a) as you point out, it becomes foundational to later efforts to deny religious conservatives the right to disagree and to pattern their behavior on the basis of that disagreement;
--b ) marriages--as you point out--are essentially subsidized by state benefits, most of which were instituted because marriage meant something more than a mere legal announcement of who was in an ostensibly monogamous sexual relationship with whom.  Those benefits were often calculated based on the fact that the relationship was likely to produce children; and/or that one party to the marriage would not be in the workforce full-time.  If we're going to re-define marriage to remove those elements, then naturally there needs to be a conversation about whether modern "marriage"--however we define it--is worth subsidizing and whether the benefits traditionally granted to "married" individuals need to remain in place.
--c) if there do wind up being social effects to gay marriage (more volatility/divorce among such relationships, for example; or more domestic violence, or a tendency amongst children raised in these homes to act out criminally or have mental health defects or be able to establish stable marriages of their own over the long term)--in a society that embraces "rugged individualism" we can just say "well, that's there problem, not mine", or widespread abuse of same-gender marriage as a sham to get student benefits, or Social Security benefits, or whatever)--I'm going to be paying for those; and so yes--it is my business.  Most of the studies I've seen claiming that there are no ill effects on children raised in same-gender households seem to get there by taking the traditional problems of children raised without a father or a mother, and saying they aren't really "problems" at all--for example "yeah, the kids become sexually active earlier--but what's wrong with that, really?  Yeah, the kids need counseling more--but don't we all have undiagnosed issues?  Yeah, the kids might have divorces down the road--but these days, divorce just a rite of passage en route to middle age.  Yeah, the kid might not learn proper respect for women without a female role model in the house--but males are naturally misogynists anyways."
 
 
 
I don't think you'll be "eternally damned" either, at least not in the sense of never-ending hellfire/lake of fire and brimstone/etc.  But as has been implied here: I think you'll find at some point that by not bridling your procreative powers as the Church suggests and by not seeking out an eternal relationship with someone of the opposite gender, at some point you will come to understand that you have significantly limited your options in the world to come.  And--forgive me--but I think that realization will be very painful to you.  Alvin Smith missed no eternal blessing, because he had patterned his life according to the (limited) divine knowledge that he had been given.  We in the Church will have no such excuse.
 
But I think it's awesome that you're keeping ties with the Church--you're definitely walking a very difficult road-- and I hope that your continued association with it will continue to bring you contentment and peace.

Confession to a Bishop is indeed a confidential matter and the sins are not shared with the membership. That said, in matters of serious transgression, the Bishop may inform the appropriate Quorum or auxiliary leader if the member is going through some kind of discipline so that the member is not called upon for prayer etc. No details or why's are given, just that Brother or Sister such and such should not ..... There are occasions when the Bishop may give further details if necessary to help the member.

I think if you go to the bishop looking for help and he doesn't have the ability he kinda needs to seek consul from people who can help. Otherwise it is a bit pointless and your issue isn't going to get solved and I am sure he will feel frustrated as I genuinely believe the vast majority of bishops are good people who want to help. 
 
Seeking consul is obviously very different to gossiping or sharing info that doesn't need to be shared. If this is what you feel has happened I would suggest you say to him dude I think you were out of order and if he ignores you go further up.

If you feel as though the bishop has violated your trust please do voice your feelings to him. A bishop is there to listen and give counsel/guidance but sometimes the bishop himself needs advice from others on certain matters. 

Eternal Life is Exaltation, it is the kind of life our Heavenly Father lives as one of HIS names is Eternal and it is only obtained by entering into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. So, Eternal damnation...is indeed being "damned", prevented, stopped, if you will from progressing towards your Exaltation.

Re Samuel the Lamanite--
 
One other point to bear in mind is that Samuel did not contradict the institutional church as it existed in his day.  Rather, he buttressed its teachings; and those who believed Samuel went to Nephi (son of Helaman, and head of the church) for baptism (see Helaman 16:1).
 
For Kelly to legitimately claim the mantle of Samuel the Lamanite, non-Mormons would have to come away from her website or her podcasts and think "Ooh!  I wish I were a Mormon!"  But non-Mormons who see her website or hear her podcasts seem to be getting quite the opposite impression; and I think that's a major reason she's no longer a member of this Church.

I think a couple of Neil Maxwell quotes would be helpful to Kate:
“Faith in God includes Faith in God's timing.”
― Neal A. Maxwell
“The submission of one's will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God's altar. The many other things we 'give' are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us.”
― Neal A. Maxwell
“Never give up what you want most for what you want today.”
― Neal A. Maxwell
"Those who turn against the Church do so to play to their own private gallery, but when, one day, the applause has died down and the cheering has stopped, they will face a smaller audience, the judgment bar of God." - Neil A. Maxwell

If you're known me long here on lds.net you know that the subject of garments is near and dear to my heart.  :)
 
I have removed ink stains from a lot of things.  I start with Aqua Net hairspray because its least expensive and I've sometimes used the whole can.  Spray the stain with the hairspray and work it through until all the stickiness of the ink is gone.  You'll be left with a black, blue or brown stain.  Next soak in hot water and Oxiclean as many times as needed.
 
My husband put a black Bic pen without a lid in my "mary poppins" bag.  In the bag was a crocheted table cloth that I had spent about 3 years working on and it was almost finished.  The ink went everywhere.  This was not a case of cut it out and fill in.  This was crocheted lace.  So . . . I did the hairspray and then the Oxiclean.  The hairspray worked fast.  The Oxiclean took a couple of times and I had to let it soak for hours/days.  The second time I soaked it I just filled my largest bowl (holds 50 cups) with hot water and two scoops of Oxiclean and then I left it and forgot about it until I had time to get back to it.  All signs of the ink stains were gone.  This tablecloth now covers my sweet neighbors table and unless she reads lds.net and knows this is me, she has no idea there were once bad ink stains on that tablecloth.
 
As for ink on garments or other stains.... as I've stated in other threads, my husband works construction.  He has work garments and church/temple garments.  I try hard to keep the work garments free of stains and as white as I can get them.  I soak them in Oxiclean and the Rit whitener at least once a month.  I also mend them.  He doesn't wear the work garments to church and the temple because they aren't perfectly white and sometimes it shows through a white shirt.  But .... if we think about it what are garments for?  They are to remind us of our covenants.  I do not think the Lord intended for our garments to be something that derails us because they become stained.  I can't afford to buy new garments every month.  I know the Lord understands.
 
(When we were newly endowed I accidently turned all our garments pink.  Something red ended up in the washer with them.  I cant' even remember what it was.  This was before Oxiclean.  We wore our pink garments because we couldn't afford to replace them.  I truly believe the Lord didn't judge us harshly for that.)

Right on. The church of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll!     

Oxiclean doesn't usually take the original color out of clothes but when I used it on coloreds I don't soak as long.
 
The table cloth was not white, it was ecru.

Equal protection jurisprudence only applies to state actors, not private ones.  So denying states the right to prohibit gay marriages won't affect churches, in the short run.
 
However, where marriage is concerned, I think the next step in the judicial campaign is point to existing precedent saying that churches who administering state benefits can't discriminate (this issue has already been dealt with regarding religious charities that receive state support), and arguing that by analogy a church also shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in administering the "state benefit" of legal marriage.  Thus, conservative congregations will be prohibited from solemnizing legally-binding marriages (to which the Church will say "meh--we never needed state-solemnized marriage anyways" and point to their history of non-legally-binding polygamous marriages).
 
What'll hurt more is when similar arguments are made--and accepted--that Mormon schools should no longer be able to get federal and state funding for student grants/loans, research grants, and the like.  Once that legal precedent is in place I think the next legal objective will be stretching the argument to say that tax-exempt status is also a "state benefit" that shouldn't be applied to discriminatory institutions.  The courts may eventually be in a place where they would buy that argument; but honestly I think widespread animus towards religious conservatives will grow so rapidly that Congress will yank the Church's tax-exempt status legislatively long before the courts develop the precedental infrastructure to do it judicially.
 
The Church will be able to handle the financial blow--barely.  I've crunched some preliminary numbers on these forums before, here.  But the end result will be ruinous for other conservative churches, especially the local mom-and-pop congregations whose chapels are mortgaged to the hilt.  They will yield, or they will be crushed.
 
And of course, the race is already on--here and abroad--to cultivate a popular perception that opponents to gay marriage should be disqualified from employment in any number of fields:  photography, baking, catering, event planning/hosting, mental health, medicine, law, law enforcement, social work, education, the arts . . . and that list is only going to grow.

Almost everything I do is fun.  I am very lucky in that I get paid to have tons of fun with robots. I also consider a daily 20 mile bicycle ride great fun (except when there is a stiff headwind - )
 
Will be doing some camping, white water rafting, some cycle expeditions in different states and some travel.

Going to Nauvoo this weekend.....:)

Spend as much time at my summer home as possible. The whole family will be there the week of July 4th.
Fishing, BBQ, swimming, riding motorcycles, hiking, and participating in local 4th events.
My travel vacations are usually in the autumn or winter. Exception this year was visiting UK for Chelsea Flower and Garden show in London. Also did Portmeirion and Scotland.

I also think it was cultural and if they wouldn't have gone they would have been shamed out of their community.

Completely cultural.  Children did not necessarily move out of their fathers homes, It was a very patriarchal society.  You did what dad said until you were married, even then you did what dad said.