Leah
-
Posts
1159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Leah
-
-
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!
-
I'm curious. How is it that you go to the temple and are also shacked up as related in the other thread? http://www.lds.net/forums/marriage-relationship-advice/42506-something-nice.html#post623631
It seems to me that in most places you can't get a temple recommend if you are living with someone. Unless I misunderstood and your definition of being in a common-law relationship is different from mine.
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.
-
Your situation is indeed sad Leah, but I have no idea how you have understood mormonmusic's post as saying "I love you, but not THAT much, I'm outta here"; because he didn't say anything close to that.
M.
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.
-
I think this is a deeply personal decision. 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 impact on their Alzheimer-ridden spouse of staying or leaving, the legal and financial impact, their interpretation of their covenants, and how they feel as they pray about the decision. These are not easily determined without actually living in the situation and knowing oneself.
As you know from other threads, I'm concerned when we try to come up with answers to questions like these that "paint everyone with the same brush". We are complex human beings, and we are all different. And we must ALWAYS be on guard about being too judgmental when people make decisions that on the surface seem wrong to us.
Someone once said:
"When you go to heaven, you will be VERY surprised who you will see there. And many people will be shocked to find YOU there too".
Let us all love each other, and stop judging people simply because we think we have a common set of values. In a huge number of cases, we are incredibly different from each other, and multiple solutions to the same problem are likely completely acceptable to God who knows us personally.
If it is okay to abandon a spouse with Alzheimer's because we lack the "capacity" to live with someone who has that particular disease, or because it is financially difficult, the "intensity of their love", or any of the other reasons you gave, then wouldn't it be okay to abandon your spouse for ANY reason? Maybe I have the "capacity" to live with someone with a broken leg, but not diabetes or cancer? No, I don't have that "capacity". (Because...wow...that would require more on my part and why would I want to do more?) Or we should abandon a spouse because their illness is expensive? Or abandon them because we have "intensity" of love for the easier illnesses, but not the tough ones? We should abandon them for eternity simply because things got a little difficult in the mortal life?
My husband died two years ago Sunday. He had health issues for a number of years. They started even before we were married. He had a leg amputated just a few months prior to our wedding and died just before our first anniversary. I guess I should never have married him and I certainly should have abandoned him when his health took an unexpected turn - a terminal turn - after our marriage, especially because his mind started to go as well. I guess I could have simply said that I didn't have the "intensity" of love or the "capacity" for something THAT hard, but hey, give me a husband with a broken leg instead and I will stick around.
I was diagnosed with MS after he died. But I guess if he had been alive and healthy, it would have been okay for him to say..."I love you, but not THAT much, I'm outta here".
I don't see how it is okay to abandon a spouse in their time of need, just because that need might cause some inconvenience or hardship for us, or some ill-defined unhappiness.
-
And you have not heard me interpret scripture that way. The Church is not a building. The Church is the people of God, the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head. If we have a group of people who gather in the name of Jesus, they are followers of Jesus and therefore the people of God, his Church. How can one be a follower of God and yet be outside of his Church? That is like someone claiming to be a part of my family who has never been a part of my family.
How are you defining "church"? I define it as a body of believers and I do not believe that the Holy Spirit dwells within those who do not believe. Its pretty much as simple as that.
I have read your words as you have written them and simply asked for clarification. Why so testy?
You stated that it was not possible for the Holy Spirit to be with two or three who are gathered in his name unless it is within the "context" of "church".
It doesn't matter how I define church - it was your statement, not mine Your answer here is not making sense. Why would two or three "gather in His name" if they were not believers? There was no reference to non-believers previously, why would you pull that out of thin air?
You stated -" Get a couple of your buddies together and you're good to go. We know that is not true." Are you now saying you were referring to people who don't believe? Why in the world would you think "wherever two or three are gathered in His name" would refer to non-believers? That makes no sense.
I wonder if you are here to learn and discuss or are just here out of some need to tell other people that you think they are wrong?
-
That sounds very Trinitarian and I would agree wholeheartedly. Jesus didn't say "wherever two or three are gathered, there the Holy Spirit will be in the midst of them". If they are separate and distinct gods, that is exactly what he should have said. Jesus said he would be in the midst of them. If Jesus is in the midst of them, yet his presence is through the Holy Spirit, it means that they are one and the same God, not separate Gods united in purpose.
I am only saying that if Christ is in you, then you belong to his Church, the family of God. If what you are saying is true then what does any church matter? Get a couple of your buddies together and you're good to go. We know that is not true, therefore we must look for the proper context. If any number of people "gather" together in his "name", they would be followers of Christ. A church is not about me and God, it is about us and God. Gathering together in his name has to be seen in the context of "church", a body of believers, in my opinion. By the way, a little disclaimer here. This is not an official Catholic statement, it is my own statement based upon my own logic, so take it for what it is worth. You, obviously, disagree. I have no problem with that. I do think it is an interesting statement that probably has ramifications I may not have considered.
I appreciate your comments.
If I understand you, you are saying that the two or three that are "gathered together" can only have the Holy Spirit with them if they are literally within the four walls of a church? Or in some way officially a 'church'? I have never heard anyone of any denomination interpret that scripture in that way. Very much the opposite, in fact.
As for your "We know this is not true" statement, can you prove that? Can you demonstrate that there has never been an instance of the Holy Spirit being present with two or three people except within the confines of a church? You state it as a flat fact, so I am assuming you have lots of back-up for that. I think the millions of us who have experienced otherwise would be curious to see your documentation for this 'fact'.
-
These are all very good responses. I was just wondering if I needed to start wearing make up or something to get guys to notice me more. I'm not overweight, so that's not a problem for me, yet. I just feel like I'm too plain or something. I really don't style my hair besides washing and brushing it. I've also wondered if I'm not girly enough for guys.
Don't try to be someone you are not, just to attract a guy.
If a guy won't date someone because she doesn't wear 'enough' makeup or doesn't have a fancy hairstyle.....he's not a guy worth dating.
-
Isaiah 46:9
"..........I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is NONE LIKE me."
Smith taught that men can become gods. God Himself never taught that though. In fact He said that that will never happen because He said there is NONE like Him. So why is that Smith said otherwise?
Here's a quote from Smith in the Journal Of Discourses.
JD 6:4, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
"Here, then, is eternal life − to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves........................."
Also Brigham Young said that.
JD 3:93, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852
"Man is made an agent to himself before his God; he is organized for the express purpose, that he may become like his master. You recollect one of the Apostle's sayings, that when we see Him, we shall be like Him; and again, we shall become Gods.................."
I come here as a friend. As someone who cares. If I didn't care I would not come here to share this with you.
I am a little confused. You state "....to share this with you". What is the 'this' that you are wanting to share? You start out by saying you are asking a question, but end your post on a different note. You stated your question clearly - wanting to know why the LDS Church teaches what it does on a specific topic (and got great answers from other posters, I might add), but I don't understand that the 'this' is that you are referring to.
-
I'm not sure where to post this.
I've heard from several men lately say there's very few prospects because women have let themselves go. What does this mean exactly, too much weight gain, not enough make-up, sloppy clothes?
I'm just curious.
Those men are focusing on the wrong things.
Also, I find it not uncommon that the men who make such statements, don't hold themselves to quite the same standard that they hold for women. They feel they "deserve" a supermodel for a girlfriend/wife, no matter where they themselves fall on the physically attractive spectrum.
I once knew a woman who was seriously considering marriage with a man who told her that her current weight was "acceptable", however, she would "not be allowed" to gain any more weight! I wonder how he expected her to bear the many children he desired without her gaining an ounce!
-
Thank you for the kind words. This website has been very helpful in my learning process. I am excited to continue learning and growing and am really looking forward to baptism!
-
I have been lurking for a while now, but Dahlia just nudged me into introducing myself.
Long story short.....my life completely fell apart a couple of years ago. Widowhood and joblessness happened within a few weeks of each other, followed a few months later by a diagnosis of MS.
Over the last couple of years I became quite confident that life would never get better. Previously - when bad things happened - I always knew life would get better. This time I "knew" that it would not.
But a conversation with someone who also has MS - and I thought was only going to be about MS! - led to an invitation to read the Book of Mormon. My immediate reaction was to dismiss the notion. I was Jewish, why would I read the Book of Mormon?
But I started reading it.
Then I started going to Church.
Then started meeting with the missionaries.
And next month I will be baptized.
No one is more surprised than I am!
temple worker... to be or not to be?
in General Discussion
Posted
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.