classylady

I disbelieve the idea that we do not need to live the law of consecration. We most certainly do need to live it. It's part of the covenants we make in the temple. It is as important as the law of chastity, and as applicable to us.

We dedicate all we have, all our spiritual and physical gifts, all our money, all our effort, to the establishment and building up of God's kingdom on earth. Everything we do is to further this end.
 
Naturally, this encompasses such things as paying an honest tithe, but is far more comprehensive. It means that we seek to be the best spouse and parent we can. It means that we fulfill our callings and seek to magnify them. It means we perform our daily devotions, repent of our weaknesses, go to the temple, be good neighbors, do missionary work, and otherwise center our lives around Jesus Christ and his kingdom, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think it's "Jn" with a period, and perhaps an apostrophe or other elision mark, or maybe just a stray ink blot.

The first name could be "Jno".  I see that a lot as shorthand for "Jonathan"; but this is the first time I remember seeing it used for "John".

I just read this earlier this week in the account of the Prophet's martyrdom.
 
 
Hyrum is also identified as Patriarch Hyrum Smith, so it sounds like they were contemporaries.
 
EDIT: and look - your copy even says it was done in Macedonia!

I agree; this sounds like "Uncle John" Smith--Here's his Wikipedia article and here's an interesting Dialogue article on him.

Here you go, Vort.

A couple of observations that may or may not be of any help at all, from a guy who's been divorced and for whom some of what the OP said rings familiar...
 
It seems like the husband has done an absolutely thorough job of convincing her that all of the problems are ultimately her fault.  He's probably either convinced himself of this as well, or is using it to shield himself from having to look honestly at his own failings. The divorce threat seems to have been used as a lever, or perhaps a club.   It's entirely possible that he's just a jerk, or it may be that these manipulations have arisen as a coping mechanism for something she's done.  I'm not talking about the "I don't love you" thing at the beginning.  This kind of pattern comes from a long history of issues, not one singular moment. If he's truly given up, then it's over.  If, on the other hand, he moved back with mom & dad just to prove he means business, then it might be that the divorce  threat mallet quit being so effective and so he had to up the ante.  If that's the case, then he hasn't given up, he just wants some concession or another that she's unable/unwilling to provide.  That concession may or may not be a reasonable one. divorcedat28:Thing is, and this is just my useless advice... You're in a no-win scenario, my friend.  Right now, your "victory condition" is to get him to get back together with you, and you've said you're willing to do anything to make that happen.  What that means is that even if you get what you want, you'll be living with a man who has demonstrated a willingness to manipulate you through the threat of divorce.  You give him what he wants, he does you the "favor" of staying married to you.  You cross him, and out comes the divorce card.
 
It may be that he's had a history of living with a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, because the type of manipulations he seems to be using against you are typical side effects of being exposed to such a person for an extended period of time.  Perhaps a previous relationship, or a parent in his life had NPD and he's been damaged by it.  I used to be guilty of acting like that myself before I realized what I was doing and stopped.  My first wife had a severe case of NPD and I've observed some of the same side effects in our kids.  Fortunately for me, my current wife was very understanding of my issues as I was working them out, and we're very strong together now.
 
If you have any chance at all of saving that marriage, then you need to be able to reunite with him with an equal level of "power" in the marriage.  If I'm right about his having dealt with an NPD sufferer, then he's going to need counseling most likely as well.  He mustn't be able to hold the divorce threat over you to get you to do what he wants.  Period.  Living under the Sword of Damocles is no way to having a healthy and fulfilling marriage, no matter how well you might be able to cope with the issues involved.  So either he needs to learn not to manipulate you in this way, or you need to be ready to call his bluff if he threatens divorce again.

Another thought--and this isn't directed towards the OP; but is a reflection on people who take the suggestion that obedience and conformance to Church norms is "easier" and use it as battlespace prep with the intent of introducing secularist practice into the Church--
 
IMHO, it sure takes a lot of chutzpah to suggest that staying celibate until marriage; paying a 10% tithe; staying aloof from a number of social views that happen to be embraced by the opinion-makers in business, politics, academia and entertainment; and being ready to drop everything to fill whatever need your bishop needs filled at the drop of a hat regardless of how inconvenient to you--it takes a lot of chutzpah to suggest that that kind of attitude towards the Gospel is actually "the easy way" of doing things.

How much error is ERROR?
 
"I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."  (History of the Church, 6:366; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on May 12, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Thomas Bullock..)
 
I think we need to be real careful even in how much we publicly state opinions that even imply our local leaders are in error.  To openly come out in disagreement with leaders on any level, but especially apostles and prophets, is risky at best... VERY thin ice...  The longer we persist and/or continue on that path the more likely we are to set ourselves up as a light and disregard counsel from the Lord's anointed.  It doesn't matter, even if a revelation comes out the next day or two months from now confirming what we have been teaching all along... If we're not appointed to teach such we're still in apostasy... not from what we're teaching so much as for the timing of our teaching...  and for our unwillingness to obey the Lord's timetable.  
 
Grassroots lobbying is viable way to effect change in a democracy.  But....the Kingdom of God is not a democracy.  (The word "kingdom" should be the first clue to those that still might be wondering...)  

I am in agreement with Vort and JAG...
 
Most of the time when this topic gets thrown out in a discussion its intent is to try to shut down those that choose to follow.  It a nicer version of calling people Brainwashed, sheeple, kool-aid drinkers, etc.

My observation is that those who decry the supposed practice of "prophetic infallibility" almost always want to deny or talk their way out of something important and meaningful. I have recently seen this canard hoisted in talking about homosexual "marriage" and women being "ordained" to the Priesthood.
 
The whining about those silly old Mormons worshiping their prophets is almost always agenda-driven. When I hear such complaints, my guard immediately goes up even before I hear what they're whining about. It's a rare event, not one time in ten, when the thing the complainers are really complaining about has any merit at all.

Interesting.  A white cop kills a black person and it's racism.  Two cops get killed and it's called mental illness.  I think it was just down right evil.

One must go into a marriage with their eye's wide open, then squint while married.

Portrait of slamjet:
 

This year's Christmas Eve will be Germany. We'll be making rinderrouladen with rotkraut and bratäpfel for desert (recipes are untested).

When I was running the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, I was particularly interested in documenting the process by which a faithful member of the Church turns into an anti-Mormon apostate.  There are people who drift away from the Church because of depression, unworthiness, discouragement, worldliness, or because life's trials overwhelm them, just as Jesus described in the Parable of the Sower.
 
However, there is a peculiar process that I documented whereby many exMormons fall away and try to take others with them.  Like Prisonchaplain said, it begins in college for many of them.  A very typical case was a guy who joined the S.P.A.M. social network back around 2009 who went by the screen name "Ishmael."  Ishmael wrote on our site:
 
"Fast forward a few years. I'm home from my mission, I've graduated from BYU, I'm married with a couple of kids. I'm a little battle-worn, some of my illusions about the mission, BYU, and the Church itself have been shattered, but that's all part of growing up. My testimony is still strong. I probably don't need to tell you that it wasn't long before I was delving in the world of online Mormonism and anti-Mormonism."
 
Ishmael became a sort of case study because he evinced a pattern that showed up over and over.  He had some illusions about his faith that were challenged and didn't hold up.  Instead of praying and studying for further understanding and truth to correct his errors, he begins to let go of the iron rod.  He allows men to instruct him instead of the Holy Spirit.
 
You have to realize that, when S.P.A.M. was functioning, it became a target of anti-Mormons.  Many former members joined us with the intent of either trying to shake us in our faith or justifying their own apostasy.  Ishmael was one of them.  When you give these guys a chance to tell their story, they start "monologuing" and it always falls into this pattern.
 
1. Establish rapport
2. Establish credibility
3. Build sympathy
4. Tell of an "awakening"
5. Rationalize the loss of commitment, disobedience, etc.
6. Reveal the deception that snared them
7. Issue either a disclaimer that excuses them or a hateful rant that vindicates their choice to leave, blaming others.
 
Very often, these former members seek out those who are struggling and try to take them down with them.  You have to understand that there are people who are active "wolves" who are seeking to prey on the flock.  When an innocent person who might be struggling with some doubts encounters one of these apostates, they are unaware that there is a careful, manipulative process being worked against them.  
 
What amazed me is how consistent this pattern was.  I had to wonder if the consistency of it was because of the adversary's influence over them or whether it was rehearsed.  
 
If you want to read the whole article called, Ishmael's Monologue, check it out on the S.P.A.M. archives at:
 
http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/ishmael-monologue.html
 
It's not my intent to "pimp" my old blog, but I think it's an important aspect of understanding "shaken faith syndrome."  There are over 800 anti-Mormon parachurches and ministries out there.  They publish web sites, videos, and distribute their products (often for a profit) through Christian bookstores and pastors of other denominations.  There are also atheists who are dedicated to undermining all faith and they seem to take a special interest in destroying the faith of people who claim belief in modern revelation.  When you realize that the opposition is active, it takes on a whole new dimension.

Stallion-
I don't know about homosexuality; but I believe there are clinical studies out there to the effect that masturbation in conjunction with porn use re-wires the brain for addiction in a way that porn use alone does not. Sexual orientation is apparently the result of a complex stew of many, many factors. Who are any of us to say that masturbation doesn't play a part? What percentage of "practicing" homosexuals have never masturbated, do you suppose?
As for preserving virtue: first, the notion that Kimball is saying Mormons should resist rape even unto death is just plain wrong. Kimball himself points out, in MOF, that there is no fault where there is no consent.
Second; I know it has become fashionable to gloss over the temporal and eternal consequences of pre- or extramarital sex--but, working in the family law/child welfare legal world and also being in an LDS 12-step program for porn/sex addiction; I can tell you that the temporal and spiritual implications are real, horrendous, and not easily erased.
I believe Misshalfway is correct in suggesting that Kimball later expressed a wish that he had softened the overall tone of MOF; but I think a review of his ministry shows that his problem wasn't that he didn't understand the sins he condemned (or the people who committed them)--it's that he understood them far more clearly than most of us do today.

My biases:
I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the literal kingdom of God on earth. I believe that ONLY through the agency of that Church can people come to know God and his gospel and receive the covenants they absolutely need in order to again be one with their Father. I believe that the leaders of the Church will not be allowed to lead us astray, even if some idea they promulgate may be something less than the perfect mind of God. Based on the above, I believe that actions can be broken down pretty darn consistently into one of two camps: Those actions that seek to build up the Church and those actions that seek to tear it down. Thus, any ideas which serve to tear down the Church are by definition evil. They are also all wrong at their foundation, though they may be factual in some sense.
 
For example, those who pretend to "defend" the prophets by saying, in effect, "Hey, they are only men, and are as liable to error as anyone. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for teaching falsehoods now and then -- and by the same token, we need not believe anything they say and are free to reject anything we don't like by pointing out that they're only men." Such a teaching is technically true, at least the first part (before the "therefore"). Prophets are only men, and thus are indeed subject to error. But despite that truth, the above is in my estimation a devilish pronouncement, deeply false in the most important senses, despite speaking a (rather mundane and obvious) truth.
 
All members of the Church have covenanted to follow Christ. Those who have received their temple endowment have further made specific covenants to build the kingdom. Engaging in such activity as above is prima facie evidence of violation of covenant. I find such activity appalling. Moreover, I find it infuriating when such people then try to pass themselves off as "faithful" or "believing" members. Is that not the very definition of wolves in sheep's clothing?
 I have something close to zero tolerance for disloyalty. There is little that sets off my disgust meter more quickly and clearly than backstabbing false friends. I find an openly and even aggressively anti-Mormon attitude preferable to someone who claims the religion while denying the power and authority of that religion.
 
I think (obviously) that my beliefs are correct. How to apply those beliefs to a given situation is much more debatable. While I am confident in my beliefs, I am much less confident in their application to a specific situation. Often, I have to back up and reassess both where a situation is at and what my perceptions are of that situation and the individuals involved.
 
But my self-imposed rules for participating here are that I will not respond to such situations. Either I am wrong, in which case I would be bearing a false witness and find myself guilty of a treacherous act against a fellow Saint, the very epitome of disloyalty; or else I am right, in which case I would be wasting my breath and sullying myself in the debate with such a person. I believe Covey defined that as "lose-lose". I need to adhere much more closely to my self-imposed rules.
 
Anyone who has been reading this thread knows where I stand and why I believe as I do. So that's good enough. If others want the final word, or wish to insist that the evils and foolishness of men are reflected in the doctrines and practices of the kingdom of God on earth, I suppose they have every right to believe and even to preach such ideas. I do believe that this site is the wrong forum for such preaching.

Just thought of another "tradition" we've done for a long time now. So, every year we find these local artisan expos where creators rent booths and sell their creations. I love going to these, seeing the talents of those in the community, and supporting the Ma& Pa businesses. My husband and I love talking to the artists, and hearing what inspires them. Sometimes they'll have demo booths and will show children their creative process. If you haven't been to one of these, check out local listings in your area, and go! You seriously will find one of a kind trinkets there, which make fun gifts if you're looking for something unique and not sold in stores.

I had to change the link.  It seems that they changed the URL to their article after I posted.

I hate when "friends" treat others like you are a disposable tissue. You are good when they *need* you and you are not, when they don't, I call it "convenient friendship". After reading your post Bini, it doesn't sound like they were making last minute plans. If I was you, I would still be normal with them when they contact me etc but I wouldn't force myself to them and I wouldn't go out with them anymore. Real friends behave differently.

I can understand why you're feeling left out.  I would too.  And, you wouldn't want to push yourself onto them if you're just the third wheel.  Maybe it really is just a last minute thing?  It's hard to know at this point.
 
I'm private too and dislike confrontation of any kind.  If it was me, I would let the friendship continue, but let them set the tone.  It could be that the friendship is going through an inevitable change and all you can do is let it go where it will go.
 
As I'm getting older I'm finding making friends more difficult.  I never struggled as a child or young adult with making friends.  It just seemed to come naturally.  But, as I was raising my children, I got so involved with my immediate family I let friendships slide.  Now, with 20/20 hindsight, I wish I would have nurtured my friendships more.  Now that my children are adults, and it's mainly just my husband and me, although he is my best friend, I miss the female companionship I used to enjoy.

My little boy, my 37 yr old pumpkin, is engaged!  I think they will get married at the end of next term.
 
They've been dating 2 years, she's a doctoral student as well - in education statistics, for crying out loud. Petite (former gymnast), a blond Swede to match my son's 20% Finnish background (we got tested).
 
She actually came with me to a church activity. I'd say the two of them are what I understand to be 'dry Mormons.' They like a lot about the Mormon lifestyle, but aren't ready to make the commitment, but culturally, at least, there's a meeting of the minds on modesty, family night, preparedness, homeschooling, the role of the father in the family, etc., which is good. Actually, other than homeschooling, this is pretty much how we lived before I converted. I'm glad he wants to repeat it in his own family, whether he's in the Church or not. 
 
She's 28 and ready to have babies (her words), so, perhaps I'll be a nana before they put me in the assisted living facility.
 
 

This is probably a terrible over-simplification, but I would say:
 
. . . meh.  If you like hanging out with them, go when you're invited.  If being excluded is bothering you even to the point where you can't enjoy their company when they do include you . . . maybe it's best to put the relationship on the back burner.
 
I don't affirmatively "cut people off"--I'll still send Christmas cards, do a phone call once in a blue moon, etc., and I don't formally tell them "I'm pulling back from our friendship and this is why"--but where people don't seem to be reciprocating and the reason seems to be lack of interest (as opposed to, say, a life crisis), I do tend to put in less effort and just let nature take its course.