Leah

There is a difference between "ribbing" and disrespect. There is nothing wrong in speaking out against disrespect. It is often the person NOT of the religion that is being "ribbed" that declares that those of the religion being disrespected are being "too serious". Not their call to make.

Just consider for a moment where that information is coming from....a site that is against the Church. Do you honestly think they are going to say positive things about the Church? Do you honestly think they are going to tell the truth? As for being "inquisitve about members private ecomony", yes, my Bishop is very inquisitive about my "private economy". He knows that I am struggling financially and that I do not make enough to pay my bills each month and that I do not have health insurance. He is so "inquisitive" that he has been putting his head together with my Home Teacher, trying to come up with solutions to the situation, and even offered to pay my rent and provide groceries.

One doesn't "just" fall in love. It's a choice.

I will never understand having 'respect' for someone who turns his back on children being raped. I don't see how that is behaviour that is to be respected. That is just my opinion.

So...you've become a moderator and can put limits on posts? I will "castigate" whomever I choose. Joe Paterno was far more than "the guy who heard about it second hand". Just because you believe it is okay for those who have information about years of ongoing child rape to be complicit in covering it up, doesn't mean we all have to agree with you. I didn't twist any words of yours. But you do have quite the habit here already of being aggressive with those who disagree with you...or even those who are simply asking for clarification of opinions you post. You seem to take great issue with anyone who doesn't agree with you. No, I do not respect your opinion in this instance. Joe Paterno does not deserve our respect in this situation. I will not respect anyone who puts his career ahead of the safety of young children. Do you think he will be "respected" on Judgement Day for having turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the ongoing abuse of children? That is my opinion because I believe the safety of children is more important than any sport. I am not "pissed off" at you. You give yourself too much credit.

Please don't purposely misconstrue what I wrote. I never wrote that Paterno was an actual witness. Don't chastise me for saying something that I did not say. I was not referring to Paterno when I wrote of witnesses. There was at least one witness to a specific incident of a ten-year old being raped, but I never wrote that Paterno was the witness. Don't twist my words to fit your agenda. But Paterno was still very much in the wrong. I don't know who the "most of us" are that you seem to think are "trained" to turn a blind eye to child rape. I find it horrifying and disgusting that you live in such a world (and seem to be okay with it). Apparently the people in that world are unable to think for themselves or take action without their boss's okay. Anyone who is witness to children being raped or has information regarding it should be picking up the phone and calling the police. Believe it or not, you don't need your supervisor's permission to do the right thing.

I don't "feel" for any of those involved in covering this up. And I have no respect for those who just shrug it off by thinking they have done their duty by reporting it to the person above them. The principal and/or Superintendant are not the only mandated reporters in the educational system. The raping of children was known and known for years. How anyone could think they had done their duty by reporting it to their superior is beyond me. How anyone could witness a 10 year old being raped and not immediately intervening to save the child and also picking up the phone is beyond comprehension. What "good" has been done by turning a blind eye to the rape of children? Football is more important? Having a winning team trumps raping children? No one involved in the crimes OR the cover-up deserves anyone's respect. Edited to add: I wonder how those who support/excuse the cover-up would feel if it were their child being raped? As long as someone reported it to their boss, everything would be cool, then? It would be okay that no one actually did anything?

I don't understand why some people are taking such strong offense at the opinion that 'most' people can safely fast. There is plenty of evidence to back up that opinion, but people are still free to disagree. If someone is taking that opinion to the extreme of saying they are made to feel guilty...well, no one else can "make" you have feelings. The only person responsible for your feelings is you, so it might be useful to think about WHY someone else's opinion is "making" you feel a certain way. As fasting is not something we're supposed to be boasting about (the reasons for this should be obvious), some might be suprised by exactly who does fast. We shouldn't automatically assume that because someone has x or y health issue, they don't fast. And don't confuse the effects of fasting for two meals with the effects of fasting for an extended time. Most admonitions/studies against fasting are meant for the latter. And before anyone says "you don't know what it's like", I do have serious medical issues. Medical issues do not automatically preclude fasting. I think some people equate feeling hungry or a little crappy for a few hours with "harm". Fasting is between the indivicual and Heavenly Father. If you "can't" or don't want to fast, work it out with Heavenly Father. His is the only opinion that counts. I don't understand the need for approval from others or why some people feel it necessary to proclaim their fasting status. On Fast Sunday, I have no idea which of my brothers and sisters are fasting, and which had a bite to eat before coming to Sacrament Meeting. That's Heavenly Father's business, not mine.

Why should following WoW be 'private' and how is doing one's best to abide by WoW making a "big deal"? That doesn't make any sense. Discussions about garments and what goes on in the Temple should be private, but the WoW is not a 'private' thing. Plenty of people know that LDS don't drink tea or coffee or partake in alcohol. It's not a secret, nor should it be. It can often be an opportunity to open up a discussion and share the Gospel. I have no qualms about sharing the fact that I don't consume certain things is because I am LDS. If there is something in particular that I don't eat - whether it be for religious, medical, or other reasons - I am certainly going to perform due diligence BEFORE consumption. It's not a "big deal" and nothing to be secretive about.

I've spent many an hour in the foyer, the atrium, and on the Temple grounds at the Portland Temple. I'd say every minute qualified as a "good time". That is, if you consider spending time in prayer and contemplation and drawing closer to Heavenly Father a "good time".

I am confused by the OP and this thread. I have always been taught that we don't discuss what happens in the Temple outside of the Temple. Yet sharing details about the endowment is okay on a public forum?

If I were you, I would keep the videos. I really wish I had video of my husband, even if they were of him after he was sick. I totally understand that it feels like it would be deleting part of her. It doesn't sound silly, it makes total sense to me to feel like that.

My husband died a little over two years ago. We also knew it was coming, but I don't know that anyone is ever prepared for this. How do you get through it? With the help of Heavenly Father. I didn't think I could keep going after my husband died, but you either keep going or you lay down and die. But you won't do that...you can't do that...you have children who need you. I think the ache will always be there. But it will lessen in intensity and the time will come when you notice it less and less. It doesn't seem possible now and I can't really explain it...but the ache will always be there, but you won't be aware of it every second like you are in the beginning. I think when the time comes to move on, you will just know. When my husband died, I didn't want to move on. I didn't want to go forward without him. I still hate the fact that I have to. But...again...you either move forward or lay down and die. One day you will simply realize you have already moved forward, and you'll probably wonder how that happened. I am so sorry for your loss.

Welcome! I converted from Judaism (Orthodox) and was baptized last month. I think you will find that it is just as Skippy said....there are many ties to Judaism within the LDS church. I was quite surprised by this. Just keep an open mind and heart and try to put aside any preconceived notions. Chances are they are wrong! The members here can answer any question you might have.

Where does your perception of "many" come from? I worked for ten years at a Catholic institution, worked at one time for a parish and formerly had Catholic in-laws....I never heard of rosary beads being worn as a "fashion accessory" by any actual Catholic. I was also taught the same as Dahlia, it's not to be worn, it is to be used for prayer. Every Catholic I've known and worked with would consider it extremely disrespectful to use a rosary as a "fashion accessory". If you mean as a cincture, that is one thing. But that is not a "fashion accessory".

Perhaps you might want to consider why you felt it necessary to harass and judge two strangers on the street and then come here to also judge. And I seriously doubt that you caused any 'emotional distress' here, and I didn't see a single defensive response.

I am speechless at your judgementalism. And at what lengths (and lows) you went in order to find a 'reason' to attack missionaries/the LDS Church.

But how can YOU leave this life unmarried, when you've repeatedly claimed that your live-in boyfriend- you know, the one who has no interest in getting married - is actually your common-law husband? How can you be unmarried and receive a Temple recommend when cohabitating? And here again you call him your boyfriend while insisting you are "married" in order to qualify for a Temple recommend. I understand that you want to work in the Temple, but fudging the truth is not the way to get there. You do everyone a disservice, including yourself. You've made repeated claims that you are "married", but no common law marriage is a legal marriage without taking the proper legal steps, which you have not done. And even then, you would be only legally married from that time onward. So if you haven't done the legal steps to have your common law marriage legally recognized, they you simply aren't married no matter how much you might think so in your head. And if you are married, as you insist, why are you taking comfort for your "personal situation" regarding something that is being addressed to the unmarried?

I have not seen anyone being hostile. Not even close. I have seen them be concerned so as to HELP YOU in your wish to do Temple work. I have seen people trying to clarify, trying to help you (which you clearly do not see), trying to understand the situation as it does not square with anyone's experience. I am trying to understand how an unmarried woman living with her boyfriend (as you routinely refer to him) qualifies for a temple recommend. I have found no one other than you who says this is possible without a legally recognized marriage (and here is why). You have provided no information as to how that is possible (all of these bishops you have spoken with must have it explained it to you) other than to pretty much say that as long as YOU consider yourself "married", that's all that matters. I am out of this thread. You hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see and don't consider other people's knowledge or experience, other than to view people who disagree or ask for clarification as somehow attacking you. There is no discussion to be had here.

I still do not understand how/why the Church considers you married when you are not married by any legal definition (despite what you think or what you read on Wikipedia, you do not have a legal marriage, not even a legally recognized common law one) and when one party has no desire to be married. I've not heard of sealing being allowed to someone to whom you were not legally married to in the mortal life. And, no, Dravin is not judgmental as you implied elsewhere. When I had my interview for my Temple recommend, after the interview, the Bishop asked me why it was important to be worthy for the recommend. He explained that it is not just for those for whom you perform ordinances, he explained how it is also important for the person performing the ordinances. For without being worthy for the recommend, they will also not receive the full blessings of the work they are doing. Your own welfare is also under consideration here. If you are living with someone and there is any doubt (which there seems to plenty) of whether you are legally married, wouldn't you want to clear that up so as to protect/benefit yourself, as well as others?

I would definitely talk to another attorney if I were you. It sounds as though you are common law married in your eyes, but have done nothing to have it legally recognized by the state. From some of the research I did last night, a common law marriage is not a legal marriage unless you have taken the necessary steps to have it legally recognized by the state you live in. (And as another poster pointed out, not every state recognizes common law marriage) If you complete that process, you are recognized as having a legal marriage ONLY from the time it has been formally recognized by the state. Just because someone says they are common law married or qualify for it, doesn't necessarily make it true, nor does it make it a legal marriage. Nor does the fact that YOU consider it a common law marriage make it one. My understanding is that the Church recognizes legal marriages (of course, not legal gay marriages) and in that instance, could recognize a common law marriage as long as the proper steps have been taken to make it legal. But if you haven't taken those legal steps...... Another concern is the fact that you stated your boyfriend does not want to get married (and you have referred to him as your boyfriend several times). Is the Bishop not concerned about that? Is he aware of that? Is he aware that you haven't taken the steps necessary to make this a legally recognized marriage? I don't understand how one can be considered to have a common law marriage if one party has no interest in being married. That would be a problem with having a common law marriage recognized.You refer to him as your boyfriend and he has no interest in marriage, so I am confused as to how you would meet some of the requirements of intent. If you consider yourself married, why not take the legal steps necessary to make it a legal marriage? I must admit the whole common law marriage thing perplexes me in general. If a couple thinks of themselves as a married couple and presents themselves as one, why not get legally married? Where is the intention of commitment? How is this different from couples who live together for years who do think of themselves as having a common law marriage? Is the difference having the common law marriage card to pull out if and when it becomes beneficial in some way down the line? To obtain some legal gain or - in this case - a Temple recommend? I guess I just have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of people considering themselves to be married, but do not wanting to bother with actually getting married. Where is the up-front commitment to being married? Does this give a pass to cohabitating couples? If they have been living together long enough, the Church can just call it a common law marriage and it's all cool? I think some of the other posters gave you great advice in recommending getting married. If you consider yourself married already, it shouldn't be a big deal to make it legal in one way or another. Either get the common law marriage legally recognized, or go to the Courthouse and get married. But then you've said your boyfriend doesn't want to get married, so I am back to being confused again.

I am still confused. All a couple living together has to do is state that they are not engaging in any sexual activity and it is okay to live together? You have to live together so your boyfriend can "administer medication", but you are healthy enough and do Temple work. I am curious as to what the Church's guidelines are for allowing couples to live together prior to marriage. If I had been LDS when I was engaged to my late husband, I could have lived with him without the benefit of marriage and been okay with the Church as long as it was for medical reasons? I am surprised that the Church is okay with common-law marriage in that you are therefore living together for a number of years before you are recognized as married. So it is okay to live together unmarried just so long as you eventually live together long enough to qualify for common-law marriage? I guess I have some research to do, in order to understand all of this!

Color me confused. She stated clearly that she lives with her boyfriend and they are not yet married. When I had my (limited) Temple recommend interview a couple of weeks ago, I was most definitely asked if I was living the Law of Chastity. I know the questions are the same for everyone. I am having a hard time imagining that an answer something to the effect of "I live with my boyfriend, but not 'that' way" would get the stamp of approval from the Bishop. Or is there something I just don't get?

I don't think the message was complicated or confusing at all. He was distinguishing what the actual name of the Church is from what the members are sometimes referred to as. As he said, it is not the church of Mormon, but the Church of Jesus Christ.

In disagreeing with earlier posters who said it was wrong to leave, Mormonmusic stated "A person should consider their capacity to live with someone with Alzheimers, the impact on their own mental health and happiness, the intensity of the love they have for the person"" the legal and financial impact". He is saying it is okay to leave an ill spouse if they lack the "capacity" to live with an ill spouse. He said it is okay to leave due to the "impact" their mental health and happiness" He said they should consider the "intensity" of their love. Seems pretty clear to me. Consider the "financial impact"? My husband's illness left me heavily in debt. Should I have left him to avoid that debt? Should money have been more important to me than my husband? One can decide they don't have the "capacity" to live with an ill spouse. One can decide to leave their ill spouse because their "mental health and happiness" is more important than that of the ill spouse, and one can also decide to leave if their love is not "intense" enough. Hence, I love you 'this' much, but not 'that' much. I will stay through x or y, but not z. The focus is a very selfish one. My 'situation' is not sad. I loved my husband and stayed with him during sad and difficult times and much suffering for him. Staying with him wasn't sad, it was an honor and privilege and the right thing to do. What is sad if the fact that some believe it is okay to abandon an ill spouse....and some people do exactly that.