estradling75

Indeed that is what I took from his statement.. A simple declaration that mix marriages were too much effort and to likely to fail to be worth it in his opinion Which you responded with Please note that at this point you are the one equaling mix faith marriages and the struggles that come with it as 'single little things' Not mrmarklin. No where in his post can that exaggeration be supported.

Are we even talking the same language here? "Don't do it" is a perfectly valid opinion. You don't like it and don't agree with it which is also perfectly fine. But if you are going to argue against it you need to target what was said. Not an Exaggerated, blown out of all reasonable recognition, mockery of what was said.

Right it does cause friction... but it is entirely unfair to assume that mrmarklin was equating the friction that comes from fundamental differences in religion as the same friction as liking different flavors of ice cream. As for what makes one ok over another the other. It comes down to personal preferences. When it comes to choosing a marriage partners people have different things that are deal breakers. Some might require being of the same faith, some might require same understanding of having children. Others will not care. So one person saying 'don't do it' is just as valid of an opinion 'sure go ahead' or 'make sure you talk about it first.' Personally I think mine is best, 'Ask God' but you know that is just an opinion like everyone elses

Which when looking at the potential issues is a valid opinion to have. Hardly fair to equate it to needing to agree on every little thing like you did.

Wow that is quite a reach off what he said. The subject is Mixed Faith marriages and a good number of the issues that brings up are hardly little things. Given that the church strongly encourages people to marry within the faith, its clear these issues are anything but trivial

Which evades the question that you were asked. And that is why are you asking? It sounds like you already have your answers.. Which means you are not looking for advice...(which is the board you are in) If you are looking to discuss various aspects and differences between believers and non believers, then that should be in the discussion forums.

Right but in the case of the OP, according to her own posts it appears that she did something to shatter his trust in church related things. Therefore to me it seems very unlikely that he will take her desires to be active and raise kids in the church seriously. Worse case is that he will humor her until it comes right down to the wire thinking she'll back off when pushed on it.

Anatess you are making the primal mistake of thinking that everyone one lives like you and your husband. They do not. All you have to do is listen to the stories of people that where blindsided by the actions of there spouse to know this. While I agree with you in that it should happen I think the 50% divorce rate speaks pretty loudly that many times it does not.

At that level I have no idea....It is bridge I hope to never have to cross. I prefer to keep my relationship adjustments to the trivial annoyances

While I think you have been given alot of good advice and things to look for. I am kind of surprised that the hands down best advice has not really been given. And that is have you prayed about it? Who we marry is easily one of the most important choices we will ever make. I can only think of maybe one or two other choices that could possibly top it for how much of an impact it will have in your life. Marriage is full of unexpected and unforeseen challenges on top of the ones we expect. Yet time an time again people get married simply because they are 'In Love..' and other related emotions and ideas. Without talking to the Guy that sees how everything fits together and knows the best path for them personally. Take it to God in prayer, fasting, and humbleness. One you have your answer then you can follow the advice given that relates to whatever path you are to follow

Its not always about trust... Its about people being alive and growing (and therefore changing) He could be perfectly honest and trustworthy and still reach a point were he comes to you and says, 'you know that agreement we have... I doesn't match my interests anymore, and I wish to renegotiate'

Given that you called the other missionary smart... and imply that you wish you would have done so yourself... Makes it a valid point. You don't really get credit for obeying the law if you would have clearly broken it if you had thought of it first.

Its a balancing act. You don't want to be the guy on his roof during a flood that turns down the chances of rescue because 'God would Save him' only to find out in the after life that god sent the rescuers and he didn't take the chance that he had to be rescued. On the other hand you also don't want to be the person who reads everything that happens as a sign that you need to do something to fulfill the blessing, because not everything that looks like an opportunity is going to be one or the one the Lord has planned for you. You need to walk the middle road between the two extremes. You need to be living in harmony with the gospel so that the spirit can be with you to guide your path on when you should act in the fulfilling of the blessings

We will have a 1000 years (give or take) to finish up between the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Which will include direct revelation for those that need it but we don't have the information for

It seems nice and having a dedicated room seems like a good idea. The only problem I see with it is the slippery slope potential. Basically the gradual replacement in the hearts of the people using it of the need to go to the temple. Or worst the idea that if you have a 'Celestial Room' in your home what about other temple rooms and then the how about ordinance work? Admittedly that is far down the slope but it would be a slow slide of gradual acceptance. People would need to on watch and guard for that.

Well lets take a look at how this breaks down time line wise. October 09 The boy's parents and Susan Brock meet with LDS Stake President Mitch Jones. Why a Stake President? Most likely reason is that they didn't have a Bishop in common. The boy's parents had issues with how Brock was interacting with their son. The boy's father directly accuses Sister Brock of having sex with his son which she denies. This is the first time the church learns about it and what does the President Jones have? He has an accusation. No proof, no confession, just the worry of a parents that something is off. The article makes a big deal that the church should have reported it. At this point I ask report what? The parents had the concerns, and the worries. They were also clearly trying to work out the issue. Responsibility stays with the parents with the church supporting them as it can. The article also plays a what if. It says that if President Jones would have called in and talk to the boy they would have caught this a year earlier... Say what? Really that is quite a leap. First the worst case possibly (which turned out to be true) is that the young man has been groomed to lie and protect the relationship, and has been lying to his parents. Why would he suddenly tell the Stake President the truth? Most likely the President would have to push pretty hard to get anything. And the President has to consider the possibility that there is nothing. How hard do you push a kid if the lying answer and a potentially true answer are the same? The article makes it a given that the boy would have confessed, facts as presented and experience tells me its not a given, and the pursuit of it could have alienated the boy from church leaders entirely. So we move along The article reports that On Oct. 9-10, 2010: Susan Brock confesses to Bishop Matthew Meyers. Church instructions have Bishop Meyers calling the help line. I would guess that the law is read and understood. (ie he did not have to call police) and that the child needs to be protected. So Sister Brock's bishop (Meyers) calls the The boy's bishop (Hansen) that day and tells him what is going on. This happens on the 10th or 12th according to the article. Worst case is it took 2 days. Given that a Bishop can't just leave this information on a voice mail some phone tag might have happened. Bishop Hansen calls The boy's father and the boy in to his office to tell them.(Oct 19) For some reason this takes 7-9 days. We are not told why? Did the Bishop Hansen have problem getting an appointment for some reason? where they out of town or too busy to meet? The article is interestingly blank on this. The father knew on Oct 19, he reported on the 22 saying he was tired of waiting. Waiting for whom? Waiting for what? Someone else to take over his parental responsibility to protect his son? To me it looks like the church did everything it could to support and assist the family in it time of trouble based on what it knew and when it knew it. Technically the Bishop could have called the police after the confession. (October 9-10) But according to the facts found out later it would change nothing about what happened to the boy. Total time between confession (and the Church knowing) and jail time was 12 to 14 days depending on exact date of confession. Clearly there is room for improvement but thinking the church is some how protecting or sheltering child abusers simply is not there.

For those that were wondering what the law was in this case... (and missed in on the side bar) Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3620 (Edited for clarity [removing legalese redundancy]) "A member of the clergy, who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, in the course of the discipline enjoyed by the church to which the member of the clergy, belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, may otherwise make of the minor."

What I love is in the very first link the point they make about the Church knowing about the abuse was when the parents of the boy approached and had a meeting with the Stake President... In other words the boy parents had reason to believe their son was being abused... But some how it is the Church's fault that nothing was done. It would be different if the Church leaders knew while the parents did not. But the parents did and they are the first line of protection, not the church.

Here is something else that was only briefly brought up but never really looked at. What if the bishop did report it to the proper legal authorities? Tempe is pretty close to my local stomping grounds. And CPS (Child Protective Services) in this area has been in the news quite a bit for their failure to act. Of course the only newsworthy stories are the ones were the kid ends up dead. I am not entirely sure of the time frame but it seems like it is pretty close..

Seanroberts, I have read your posts and seen your 'enthusiasm' in posting. If it was my daughter you were focused on I would have a shotgun and a restraining order ready to put in your face every time you tried to contact her. Why? Because you are unbalanced, obsessive, fixated, on a singular event to the point that you can't have a healthy relationship. It seem that you think if you can be with her then she would 'fix' all your problems. This is simply not true. You make claim to personal revelation and that is fine, but it is just that, personal. No one is obliged to accept or otherwise change according to your personal beliefs. And you appear to be using that belief as a proxy for the relationship you should have with Christ, this will not work. Step back from the obsession to have this girl 'now.' Fix your life, get right with Christ, then and only then will any blessing the Lord has promised you come your way.

The Bishop does not have the authority to cancel it... He can only initiate the process. I have never heard of a Sealing actually being canceled for something like this.

Interesting... I also heard the same thing as UtahDave. I filed it under interesting bit of trivia at the time. If I am remembering correctly it came up during a discussion about resurrection and perfect bodies. I will be interested to see if it can be clearly sourced one way or the other

Silly Backroads... You are suppose to be drinking the Kool Aid... Not wearing it

Alright if you go on a mission you will not spend the rest of your life feeling regret every time the subject comes up at church

Which is why you list it as Volunteer Work when you have skills you want to make sure the employeer knows about while down playing the religious aspects.