Daybreak79

They will hit the US.  It is only a question of when and where.

Everyday is "hug an engineer day" for me...my wife is an engineer!

But for all the other engineers I have to deal with on almost a daily basis, I like to stick with this quote:
"There comes a time in every project where you just have to shoot the engineer, and get the project done!"

Heh...  I like it.
 
If I understand correctly their goal was to try to get some one on one time with high level church leaders.  By redirecting them back to their Stake Presidents they are making sure that disruptive tactics do not pay off.

I don't think President Monson is in the best of health these days and as the article mentioned, they are preserving his strength for General Conference.  Besides he's met President Obama before.  :)

I would.
 
Reasoning: she is hired to represent a certain view (the company's thats paying her) and she's not doing her job.  That doesn't invalidate her personal opinion, but she's not being paid to tell her personal opinion.  

Someone is bored

To me contention is when people who disagree begin to fight and are no longer receptive to reason, empathy, and the exchange of ideas.

I say go, he is your friend....Just stick to your standards... Be a friend...

I say go and be in his wedding.  It doesn't mean you are condoning his lifestyle but being a friend.
 
I have a son who is gay and in a relationship.  I've had a really hard time coming to terms with this in how I can still show my son I love him and still support him but also stand by my beliefs.
 
I have discovered I can still do both.

I have been thinking about this thread and decided to add some more thoughts:
 
In the parable of the 10 virgins Jesus is talking about their preparing for and attending a marriage.  The symbolism is not that lots of people should not attend but only those that are worthy.  In essence not all invited and intending to go are worthy.  The focus is on worthiness not numbers.  I honestly think that one possible reason for limiting has to do with worthiness.  Unfortunately, I also believe that by limiting number we do not prevent the unworthy from attending but to limit the unworthy.  This thought bothers me greatly because I often ponder if it is really even possible to be worthy to enter the House of G-d
 
Second thought:  I do no know why but as numbers grow so does the propensity to be irreverent.  I have been at the temple when wedding guests have to be asked again and again and again to please remember where they are and to please speak only when they must in softer reverent voices.  Big smiles, back slapping and boisterous greetings and conversations are not helpful and distract from the spirit.  It is possible to express joy in a reverent manner.  I am convinced this is the #1 reason that the numbers are limited.  And that the simplest solution is to limit those attending.
 
Next thought:  I have been at temple sealings when the officiator has given witness that what looked like a partly empty room was fulled with many (number not specified) attending from beyond the veil.  I have pondered that at such times that there were possibly thousands attending.  I have also pondered that lack of reverence from this side of the veil limits greatly the numbers from beyond.
 
Next thought:  I do not remember the date this occurred nor the name of the temple president but it was the president of the Manti Temple.  Early one morning as he arrived at the temple he was greeted at the entrance to the temple by Satan.  He asked Satan why he was there - Satan responded that he intended to be in attendance during  several "events" at the temple that day.  This greatly surprised the temple President.  Satan then informed the president that he would wait for someone unworthy that would be his invitation to enter with them.
 
Final thought:  I am always surprised at all the difficulty that takes place whenever my wife and I try to attend from cars that will not start to leaking plumbing to injuries to family members.  I guess after all these years such things should not be counted as unusual.  I believe that there are many different reasons for someone to find it discouraging to go to the temple

I'm going to call pure culture on this. The sacred nature of the temple does make a large wedding attendance, if not inappropriate, at risk of becoming so. I've been to some huge family weddings that were incredibly solemn and sacred and joyous, so it can be done. But, as it stands, the LDS temple sealing isn't set up for a huge number of attendees. It's not about condemning families and friends. It's about a building of God that serves many purposes, only one of which being a sealing. None of the temples are exactly cathedrals in open space for weddings.
 
To say anything but a small and intimate wedding is wrong isn't fair to the many amazing marriage celebrations out there. But to say a wedding must include all loved ones or it can't be joyous isn't fair, either.
 
carlimac and Traveler have experienced large gatherings of loved ones and saw the beauty in those moments. Those are nothing but good moments.
 
Could a temple create a larger sealing room for larger wedding parties and still maintain that solemn beauty? I'm sure.
 
But, that's not what there is now.
 
Your daughter and her fiancé need to cull the guest list or perhaps rearrange wedding plans to be sealed later on. But I don't think that solves the problem of wanting all these loved ones to attend a sealing, whenever it happens.
 
I'm not saying these tiny intimate weddings are the way to go. I'm just saying that declaring larger weddings as better isn't fair.

You two need therapy.  You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other.  What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.

I asked for clarification right after he said it, because I was so surprised he would feel that way. He basically justified it by saying, " You only had to deal with my issues for 5 years, but I have to deal with yours forever."    Even though he's not being unfaithful to me anymore, I still feel like I deal with "it". I feel like I'll be dealing with it till the day I die. (It's not an easy thing to get over.) 

It really isn't a democratic system.  But it isn't an all-must-consent system either.  Those with they keys to set apart a person to the calling in question have the ultimate say in the matter.
 
On a local level, if a person were to oppose the sustaining of a bishop, the stake president would meet with the dissenter to determine the reason behind the opposition.  The stake president then has to decide if the reasoning is strong enough to prevent the sustaining ("that man had an affair with my wife last week") or not ("he wouldn't help me install my surround sound system, so he must not understand the meaning of service.")  If the stake president sees no reason to put a halt on the sustaining, the bishop may be sustained over the objections of the few.
 
In the case of the president of the church, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve would hear out the opposition.  If he felt there were a valid cause not to sustain the prophet, and he could gain the support of the entirety of his Quorum, then the Quorum of the Twelve could move not to sustain the prophet.  Such an action would likely precipitate excommunication of the prophet, however, and would probably require a very grievous and substantiated case for opposing the sustaining.

We will probably never know what was discussed because that is not information that would be put out publicly.

Well they won't be anonymous if they oppose and are invited to meet with I'm assuming President Packer since he is the President of the 12.
 
When those opposed the sustaining of President Kimball they were invited to meet with President Hinckley who was president of the 12 at the time.

'70s all over again, but probably worse.
 
Pathetic losers. I should feel compassion and pity, but I feel only disgust.

I've had a couple of friends go through Cedar Fort publishing company.   They publish a lot from LDS members.

I do check out Deseret Book first before going to Seagull.  Many times (at the downtown SLC location) you can find many books with a limited number of signed copies by the author which I think is kind of cool.
 
The last one I purchased was signed by President Monson.

I feel it's legitimate. I know some people who are too (what's the word??) to consider anything from Deseret Book, especially fiction to be worth reading.   One of my Relief Society presidents was that way.  Oh well. Her loss. 
 
Are you talking about Deseret Book as a store or as a publisher?   I can get some LDS books cheaper at Seagull Book and Amazon. But for the most part, with, their Platinum program, I have gotten so many free books that overall it's been worth it to shop at DB. 
 
LIke Pam, I read at least 20 times more books not from Deseret Book.
 
Curious. Why do you ask? 

Yes I like the content that is published through Deseret Book.  If I am wanting to read a book from one of our General Authorities or others within the church, that's where I would go.
 
I disagree immensely that most members would only purchase books if published by Deseret Book.  The ratio of my book buying experience is probably 20-1.  The one being from Deseret Book.
 
I think Deseret Book focuses on those things that would be uplifting to read. Whether fiction or non fiction.

I know on a strictly local level,  my stake has been pushing back on the whole idea that the actual ordinances are a "family event"  They are a priesthood event to which close family and friend are invited.    The family event can be held after (or before I guess) in a place more suited to such.

...................

I'm a heartless jerk, which is why I've always been baffled by the notion that all of the cousins and friends and youth leaders and anyone else who might have had a bond with the bride and groom need to be invited to the ceremony.
 
Here's a really simple solution.  Grandparents, parents, and siblings of the bride and groom are all invited to attend with their spouses.  Everyone else, we'll see you at the reception.

Aren't we all?