RMGuy

Zuko, I'm happy to share my thoughts on your latest question. I'm sure others will do so as well. I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that Patriarchal Blessings are not fortune telling. I know that you know this, but feel it is important to reiterate. I mean no offense, but it is impossible for us to know for certain what will happen or will not happen with regards to this, or even what the timeline is for these promises. I can tell you that based on church doctrine as well as your blessing, that you will have the opportunity for a temple marriage. When or to whom I do not know. How can you influence that outcome is usually the next question that one asks. Live worthy of the blessing. Not sure if that helps, but hope it provides something of value for you. On Edit, and with all respect to our dutiful moderators who have given you some good advice above. I would also submit that the Lord is omniscient he knows the challenges and struggles you would face. They have a good point above, that we have agency to choose and that our choices have consequences. I think our Father understands us very well. -RM

The first year of our marriage was hell on earth. Each successive year has been better than the last. I'm looking forward to many, many more. Perhaps somewhere in the eternities I can get it right. My spouse already has. -RM

I'll add one other point, for in the future. I have observed that sometimes individuals who have gone through a situation such as the one that you describe can begin to build a temple marriage or sealing up in their own mind, and then when that great day arrives and things are not the wonderful world that they envisioned it can also lead to disappointment. Don't allow that to happen to you. Should your husband come back around, and should things work out tha tthe two of your are sealed, then you have been granted a wonderful blessing, the opportunity to continue this family relationship into the eternities. It doesn't however change the nature of the relationship at all. The two of you working together is what changes the relationship, and you can do that now. Then the sealing can be a fulfillment of what you already have (a loving relationship). -RM

Vort. I'll tell you what I will do. I will offer you a public apology. I don't know what I have done, or what I have said that seems to have offended you so greatly on these boards. Perhaps some things that I have said have hit a bit too close to home. I apologize. I am not one that always tows the company line. I know that. All I can do is speak from my experience, my understanding, and my own judgement. I make no claims that I am always right, or that I have all knowledge. I recognize that we are led by prophets and apostles, that they are inspired men, but that they are men nonetheless. If my Heavenly Father and my Savior choose to condemn me for that, then of course that is their perogative to do so. My knee will bow. My tongue will confess, as it does today, that Jesus is the Christ. So Vort, you have my apology. More importantly, to those that have had to read our exchanges, you too have my apology. Many times we mortals can care more about our egos than about being submissive, meek, humble, and Christlike. I'm not sure what I have done that has upset Vort so much in previous posts. I'm not sure that it is important. After all, it is a message board....electrons on screen. But the impression that these messages leave with members of the board, and lurking visitors is something else entirely. I choose for them to not see this kind of contention between two brothers in the Gospel of Christ. Vort, if you want to reapproach I'm open to that. If it is better than we agree to disagree and leave it at that, then I am ok too. Your Brother.

Message removed by author. With apologies. -RM

For what it is worth I will take a stab at this. I hope you can find something helpful in it. If not, please feel free to ignore it as well. I can't claim to have all the answers. I think it is important to remember that this is early days. Your return to the church is still in its infancy. It has only been 4 months since your return. For you husband I'm sure this has been a pretty dramatic shift from the you that he was used to. Have you talked with him openly and honestly, listening to him as opposed to trying to defend or be defensive, about what happened here? I know of several people who have put Moroni's promise to the test and claim to have gotten nothing by way of an answer. This can be frustrating, upseting, or even faith killing, especially if the individual has done all that they have been instructed to do and have been faithful and worthy, yet still do not feel like they have received an answer. Similarly while he was away on AT he could have come into contact with information regarding the church that concerns him. He might have concerns regarding church history, authority, or revelation. Listening and helping him to find answers, while taking his concerns seriously may be a help. This is understandable, but remember who moved in the relationship. At least from where it originated. It was you. Now this may very well have been a good move, BUT from you husbands perspective it will still feel as though you were the one that changed. This, along with the fact that he knows you are upset (crying) etc. probably is reinforcing his concern that you talk about below. He needs to know that you are not going to leave him for someone else. You need to share this with him AFTER you listen to his concerns, none judgementally. This is something that you need to address sooner rather than later. Otherwise it will fester and be a much more difficult bridge when you do get to it. Not saying this needs to be today or even this month...it should come after some of the discussions above, but soon. Good. Tell him that! He needs to know that. Though you sound unconvinced of it yourself up above. So if you mean it, then share it so you both believe it. With that being said, Zuko, best of luck. This is a very difficult situation for both of you. Just because your husband has pulled back doesn't mean he has rejected the church. Even if he does reject the church remember that doesn't mean he is rejecting you. It also does not make him a bad individual. There have been millions, even billions of individuals on the earth that have lived wonderful, productive, and even Christlike lives that were not members of the church, and we are blessed because of them. You married a man that you loved, I presume. Build on that. -RM

Radical concept.....maybe its not what we call ourselves, but rather what we do and who we are. -RM

Don't sweat it Mormonmusic. I made a comment about the fact that there are a lot of sexual problems in the church (to a greater extent in many cases than outside of it) in a previous thread and was attacked for there is no way I would know that, unless of course I was a bishop or a gossip. The reality is (whether we choose to acknowledge it or not) that in many cases our fixation with a very strict moral law can cause problems for a couple once the inhibitions are removed. As an example, yesterday my leaders told me that open mouthed kissing was bad and now sex is fair game. I am NOT advocating sex before marriage or anything like unto it. I AM saying that we cannot expect individual who have never been allowed to touch a piano to suddenly be able to play Bach for the concert tonight. There needs to be some explanation and preparation. What we are currently doing does NOT work for everyone. I recognize Vort's comments that if she knew this before marriage she should be obligated to tell him, however, if she was paying strict attention to the strength of youth and had not allowed anyone to arouse those passions or aroused those passions in her own body, then she simply didn't know. I take issue to the earlier statement that we don't make regulations for the exception, but rather for the rule. The fact is that our Heavenly Father knows each of us individually. There is not a switch on a young man or a young woman that automatically means they are mature enough, or not, to date at 16. The reality is that we all mature differently. As recently as the 1970's the guidance from the church regarding dating was different than it is today, and remains the standard at our home. What is reasonable? How mature are the individuals? Some members of the church are VERY Black and White. That is ok. I hope and trust that it works well for them and for their families. I would hope that they can see that it is not the case for all members. That all of us are individual beings, sons and daughters of a loving God, and that as such one size does not fit all. -RM

Zone, Welcome. You have some good advice listed up above. One way of course is to just show up. If you don't feel worthy to take the sacrament, you can just pass on it, and talk with the Bishop later. Or, you could look up your ward information and give the number a call. Set up an appointment with the bishop and meet with him even before attending sacrament for the first time back. Whichever makes you more comfortable. Glad to hear you have found some peace and joy in the gospel. -RM

There is no doctrinal requirement to report a WoW lapse to authority. With that being said, and with your admitted history, it might be a good idea to share your on-going struggle and lapse. Perhaps the bishop is the best place to start, perhaps it is engaging/reengaging with your local AA chapter, or the church's own addiction recovery program if one is active in your area. It is good that you recognize the challenge and the slip. The question is what do YOU need to help keep you firmly on the wagon? Determine and act accordingly. -RM

Garments are a symbol of a covenant. I agree that putting them for sale on ebay or craigslist or in your garage sale is in poor taste, for oh so many reasons. But proposing that the church rent your underwear to you, or require that you sign an agreement to not sell them, would only exacerbate the problem. This generally occurs because members or ex-members find no value or efficacy in the covenants, have simply lost faith, or are endeavoring to make the church look bad. Placing any of the above suggestions into play is not going to help resolve this underlying problem. -RM

Actually, I look at children as children, full stop. -RM

If you have decided to serve a mission, then I would recommend not getting too attached in any form of serious relationship before you go, and for different reasons than you might otherwise hear on this site. 1. It will be harder for you to concentrate on the mission. 2. It will be harder for her as well, to be committed to you, but not have you around (if you care for her, I don't know that you would want to put her through this). 3. The more serious and close you become that more likely that you will be tempted to be closer physically and this could result in a church leader deciding you are unworthy to serve, OR guilt on your part. If you are not committed to a mission, and both of you are more committed to developing the relationship then that is a different question than what you asked. -RM

Nothing illegal about it whatsoever. In poor taste in my opinion, even if you are not a believing member any longer, but not illegal. -RM

What you have experienced, if it happened as you have described it, is pure evil. -RM

Not being "SA'd" at all Vort. I'm supposed to tell my friends that I am a Latter-Day Saint as explained in Elder Ballard's talk. Explaining that Mormon is a nickname etc. But I'm also supposed to refer those same friends to MORMON.ORG where they see my profile that states "I am a Mormon." Those are conflicting messages. I don't do gymnastics either physically or mentally. -RM

Well: In order we were called: Church of Jesus Christ then Church of God then Church of the Latter Day Saints (this is what is still on the Kirtland Temple) then to its current name in 1838. What I got from the talk is that we shouldn't call ourselves "Mormons" unless we are told to by SLC, as exemplified by the I am a Mormon videos. So if it serves our PR interests then we are Mormons otherwise we aren't. Does that help? -RM

My personal take is that it is a poor argument. Something does not need to be entirely good, or entirely bad. There are many things that can teach good principles but not be entirely true (Paul Dunn talks anyone). I'm not saying it is or is not what he claimed it to be, but his logical is faulty. Even the analogy of a line between two points. He claimed that the reason we have so many interpretations is because there is only one point (the bible). Yet, if we have two points (bible and book of mormon) then we can have only one interpretation, but then how to explain the Community of Christ, the Strangites, or even Warren Jeffs. In otherwords, we have other faiths that accept the book of mormon, but have a different interpretation of doctrine. I understand what he was getting at, or at least I think I do. That the book of mormon is a good book that brings us nearer to Christ. His logical however is flawed IMO. -RM

Of course it is not outside the realm. He did it with Martin Luther and many others throughout time. I have even heard leaders of the church pray for inspiration for government and civic leaders. Individuals can indeed receive inspiration for others, just not revelation that trumps the prophets.....see the results of seer stone ground to dust just talked about in conference. In otherwords, you are not going to receive revelation for the church that trumps the President's of the church. But it is possible that a Christian sunday school teacher could receive revelation for their sunday school class the same as an LDS sunday school teacher could receive inspiration for their class. -RM

Well, since no man knoweth...... -RM

Makes sense. My understanding is that the Provo temple is the most heavily utilized in the church. -RM

My apologies if this has been posted previously, but what are everyones thoughts with regards to the cross that will be on the main doors of the new Rome Italy temple? Particularly, I ask the question in regards to what has been past teachings regarding the cross in the church. -RM

As you so aptly stated Talisyn, some times our actions have unintended harmful consequences on others. -RM

The OP's question however is whether there is a stipulation in the handbook that would allow him to baptize his own child, in his own ward, while under church discipline. That is not the purpose behind a limited use or living ordinance recommend. -RM

Umm, I don't think that was the OP's intent Skippy. This has nothing to do with the temple. -RM