Leah

If you are Mormon, then you know that having sex outside of marriage is wrong. If he is Mormon (why are you not sure that he is?), then he also knows that it is wrong. If you don't want to do it, then don't. Any guy who would push you to have sex - especially when it is agains what you both have been taught - is not a guy you want - or need - to be with.

Why do you want to know?

Still waiting for documentation of that "contract" you speak of, so I can read the part wherein gaining weight violates said "contract". You made the statement in the context of this thread, so how am I out of context for asking you to back up your statement?

So you are going to live at home until you get married? Why would you do that?

Since you are so certain about your 'facts', please provide us with the specifics of this "contract", so that we can see for ourselves the part wherein one's weight is addressed. My late husband was a "poor provider" in the sense that he was unable to work due to health issues. I guess he broke the 'contract' and I should have been able to dump him and go merrily on my way due to the breaking of this supposed "contract"? He was also overweight at one point. Definitely breaking the 'contract'. Or does that only apply to women? Oh...and he also lost a leg. Definitely not the same man I married, according to your definitions. I guess it was just ignorant and silly of me to stay married to him. To address the question asked by the OP...yes, a real man can love a woman, no matter what her weight is.

Granted, I have not yet been sealed to anyone in the temple, but I had no idea that part of the ordinance included the woman agreeing to not weigh more than X number of pounds. You learn something new every day! And if women should be required to address the "issue" of their weight...shouldn't we also address the issue of men being bald? Or gray haired? Or gaining weight? I mean, if a guy goes bald, he is "clearly no longer the same person" she married. Shame on him!

So...you think you are wiser and more knowledgeable than God himself? You know more about cannabis than the creator of cannabis? If you truly believe that, I daresay you've already destroyed more brain cells than you can afford to lose. What is the point of your thread? Simply a feeble attempt at justifying being high? Do you really think these arguments will win over Heavenly Father when you are called to account?

Pretty evasive/vague answer. Why are you reluctant/unwilling to answer this in the straightforward manner in which it was asked?

It is clear that you cannot handle any criticism of the catholic church. That is your problem, not mine. For you to call me "jaded" for offering some facts from many years working for the catholic church...well...it is laughable. I related some factual experiences to illustrate that all priests are not as perfect and self-sacrificing as you would have us believe. I have far worse examples of far worse behavior that I could relate, but they are not relevant to the discussion. "This here forum"? Did I say anywhere that all bishops are perfect and blameless? What has that to do with my post? Just because I make factual statements about the behaviors of priests I worked for/with, doesn't in any way equate to my saying that everyone else on the planet is perfect. Nor did I say that all priests act in this manner. I guess it is okay to say negative things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but not about the catholic church. You have no idea what the totality of my experience with the catholic church is. You would probably be very surprised if you did. I am still dismayed at the attack upon the OP (not just yours). It's really over the top. But then, that is the way some people react when others dare to disagree with their viewpoint. I happened to have the opportunity this afternoon to discuss this question with a gentleman from our ward who, among his various callings, has held the calling of bishop. We had an interesting discussion on how some people are drawn to the Church, even say they have gained a testimony, but there are some things in their lives they are unwilling to give up. He related a number of examples he encountered as a bishop. I would think it not a far stretch to imagine that for many people who join the Church, they give some thought to those parts of their lives they will have to change if they join the church. I don't think it's inconceivable to imagine that someone who has made their living as clergy in another church, in making the decision to be baptized in the LDS church, will have the thought at one time that they will need to find another way of making a living. It is a purely practical train of thought, and one they will have to address at some point in the conversion process, in order to start making plans to find another way to earn a living. For those who choose not to join the Church because of this (if there are any such), perhaps they haven't gained a true testimony. I knew a Christian pastor who converted to Judaism. In fact, he made the decision in the midst of giving a sermon one Sunday (his story is quite fascinating). Obviously, he had to find a new line of work. Fortunately for him, he was not judged harshly, the way he would be here, for asking himself the question "Do I believe this enough...is my faith strong enough...to abandon not only my previous religion, but my very way of earning a living?". That is not a minor thing to give up. I would venture to say that it has a bigger impact on one's life than giving up coffee. They are walking away from a whole way of living. Instead of judging...we should be grateful for their faith. But even though there are numerous posts on this forum chastising people for judging others....I guess some people think it is okay to judge as long as they get to do the judging.

I don't get the over-reactions to the terms used. I think Brother Ray's point was clear - that there are clergy who are paid to be clergy. If they were to convert to the LDS church, they would no longer have the job that they support their families with, thus necessitating finding a new job. He is simply wondering if that might be a stumbling point for some. I don't think he was making any sort of judgment, as having the thought - if even for just a moment - of "How do I support my family now?" is perfectly natural. And don't even get me started on Catholic priests. I worked for the Catholic church for many years, along with a large Catholic institution. While there may be some orders who take a vow of poverty, their residence (some parish priests even having their own private home) is provided, housekeeping is provided, food, clothing, car, health care....and I knew plenty of priests who had more disposable income than most "civilians", complete with very expensive hobbies. They don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or if they can afford medical care. Something their parishioners worry about a lot. I had the audacity to ask one priest that I worked for about it, and he became irate and shouted about a 'promise', not a 'vow', as if that somehow explained things.

If you are woman #1, have you ever thought about leaving? Since you are the only one working, you will not suffer the loss of his income (one reason some women stay in bad marriages). Why do you stay if he is beating you and your child? What prevents you from leaving? Do you think it is a good idea to stay with someone who is beating your child? It may not feel like it, but you do still have choices. You do not have to stay with someone who is beating you and your child.

That's kind of a tough one. I think genunine misunderstanding is pretty simply and easily identified. And I think both parties are able to acknowledge the misunderstanding. Willful misinterpretation is frustrating. My personal opinion is that it, too, is usually easily identified. Perhaps I am a cynic, but I think when this happens, it is more often dishonesty, than a lack of intelligence. I don't think I will ever understand those who think they know better what someone else is saying than that person knows themself! For me,,,they are my words, I said them, I am the one who knows what I meant to say! If someone repeatedly insists that I am saying something I am not...it is hard to feel respect for them.

But wasn't that exactly the point of your posts? To tell Vort and others here that they/we are wrong? Or are you just mad that not everyone agrees that you are "right"? What is a discussion forum fo, if not debate and "tit-for'tat"? Isn't that how it works? Someone makes a statment, someone else responds to that statement. Or do you just expect to make statements and not have them responded to or - horrors! - challenged?

It is confusing that you accuse Vort of not having humility, but when he asks for evidence of that, you respond that you are "not too interested in getting into that". Why make the accusation, then? I see nothing prideful in Vort's words. I see him standing up for the teachings of the church. If you think his experiences with his ward are "prideful", then I guess I am "prideful", too, as I have never had any experience with the people putting down other churches in my ward...and especially not in talks in sacrament meeting. Indeed, I see the opposite, where the good and the truth is other churches, is acknowledged and respected. It almost seems that you are asking us to feel ashamed of our church. Isn't it a little (or a lot) prideful for you to come here and purport that you know better than the church's teachings? You want everyone to agree with your personal viewpoint, and when they don't, it "isn't worth it" for you to engage with them. Yet you are the one who made the claims that are being responded to. Did you just expect everyone to say "Oh yeah...the Church is wrong and you're right!". I am sure you will say it is not. I find it ironic that you will bring forth quotes from church leaders to try to "prove" your point, yet at the same time, you purport to know better than these leaders.

I looked at some of these sites when I was investigating the church. I found that many posters didn't even have their facts straight about what it was they were so incensed about! And for people who want nothing to do with the Church anymore....some sure do spend a lot of time and energy on talking about it. It causes me to speculate about why they can't let it go and move on with their lives.

Again, excellent advice. I like this approach because it also allows room to be guided by the Spirit on the actual day.

I totally get what you mean about reading your talk. I practiced this afternoon and - if the nerves don't get to me - I think I strike a good balance between having the general thoughts written down and not just standing there reading it word for word. To me, there is a difference between a "talk" and a speech. Your advice about personal experiences is encouraging. Generally, in my ward, a convert's first talk includes their conversion story. We are not assigned topics in my ward, but this seems to be a general understanding. So I prayed about it, and thought about the reference in my patriarchal blessing to my conversion and the impact the story would have on people...and that was the direction the words seemed to flow when I sat down to write. Besides, I am far from expert on any topic, but I am "expert" on my own conversion story! I found it far easier to fill up the time than I thought. I don't know if that is good or bad! :)

I fail to see where the above quote is at all relevant to my post. Some people are afraid to read the Book of Mormon. Some people are afraid of the truth, as they would then have to change behaviors that they are not interested in changing. Some people are afraid of finding out that they are wrong about something. It is this kind of fear that keeps some people from reading the Book of Mormon. There are heterosexuals who do not want to recognize that sex outside of marriage is wrong, because they don't want to have to give up having sex with whomever they choose. Some people don't want to read the Book of Mormon, learn about the church, etc., because they are afraid that it might be true after all, and there are things/attitudes/behaviors they are reluctant to give up. No kettles or pots here.

Wrong. You have no idea what I know about biology. YOUR approach to 'biology' seems to be seeking out those sources - legitimate or not - that "prove" your theory. Others here have pointed out to you that your links do not, in fact, prove your theory. You choose to ignore that, because it doesn't fit your needs. If you had ANY understanding of this church, you would realize it is loving to all. However, you think anyone who does not hold your personal point of view is not loving. You are being judgmental and are attempting (badly) to shame people into accepting your viewpoint, implying that they are not "loving" if they don't share your mindset. Of course you came to a conclusion. You cherry pick your "facts" and "conclude" that which you have already decided. I still challenge you to read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and an open mind and seek honestly to know if it is true or not. Or are you too scared?

Also excellent advice. I'll never forget the woman who basically took all but a couple of minutes of the last speaker's time, in addition to her own time. It was really awkward. I do not want to be that woman!

Great advice! After procrastinating this afternoon, I simply sat down and started writing. There is definitely some polishing to be done, and more to add - including scripture and GA references - but it is starting to come together. I am just a little panic-stricken still, as I really wanted to finish it this weekend because I am moving the day before I give the talk, and so don't have much time to prepare the talk. I thought about asking if I could put it off a few weeks, but didn't feel right about that. At the moment, I am more nervous about getting it written than I am about giving it!

From one of your links: "But Dr Hamer said it was far from certain that any man who inherits the "gay gene" will become homosexual". So according to your own sources - AND the man who conducted the study- even if a gay gene exists (and the research is not conclusive on this, it is no guarantee that someone will be homosexual because of it. This would indicate that there is still the possibility of choice being involved. By the way, Dr. Hamer was under investigation for scientific misconduct, which leads me to wonder how trustworthy his research is.

So if just as much opposing evidence can be provided, how can you come to the conclusion that you are right? Or is it simply that you choose the 'evidence' to support that which you want to be true? Anyone can do that, but it proves nothing. Your last statement is rather ironic, as I don't see you displaying the qualities that you insist others need to have. You have not come here seeking any kind of discussion or with a heart open to learning, you come here to chastise us and tell us we are "wrong". How much love, kindness, and tolerance does that show? If honesty were important to you, you would be open to hearing opinions other than your own, but you are not. You are only interested in proving that you are "right" and hide it behind protestations of wanting to be "loving". Do you think it would be "loving" to go on a forum dedicated to being gay and telling people there they are wrong? If not, why do you consider it "loving" to be doing that here? If you are genuinely interested in those qualities, I would suggest opening your mind and your heart, read the Book of Mormon, and HONESTLY seek to find out if it is true.

I have been asked to give a talk in sacrament meeting and I think I am having first-timer's panic/brain block. I really do not like speaking in public. Really. Haven't done it in years. So part of me is terrified. A big part. But part of me is excited. I'm not sure why, though. I am getting down to crunch time and need to get this written. I have had moments of inspiration here and there, and jotted notes as that inspiration comes to me. But to turn it into an actual "talk"? One that is coherent? One that won't have everyone rolling their eyes and looking at their watches? I am also worried about committing some sort of first-timer's faux paus. At this stage in my attempts at writing, I am guessing I no longer have to worry about being one of those who goes on and on and far exceeds their time allotted....but I am beginning to worry that I will never pull this together! Any advice for a first-timer?

If there is "clearly" a "gay gene", I am sure you can support that statement with documentation. Please do so for our edification.