Anddenex

I remember when my beloved almost ended our engagement three times before we were married. These are the principles I was taught while going through this: 1. Agency - God provided us agency and it is the most important aspect in any relationship ripening toward marriage. I had learned from a previous relationship that I wasn't very accepting of a women's agency to say "NO". Fortunately, I changed. 2. Confirm your feelings. In saying this, I can only speak for my life, the first time she almost ended our engagement I felt a strong impression, to accept her agency and to confirm my feelings. I simply said, "I love you. I want to marry you, however, if you don't think I will make you happy, then you need to go and end this engagement." I then confirmed my feelings for her. This also lead to one of my most distinct revelations. Now, in saying this, this wasn't easy to say, because it had the opportunity to end the relationship the moment we returned home from visiting my parents, and I was thinking to myself, "Am I really saying this???" 3. Trust in the will of the Lord. If you are a good person for her, the Lord will confirm it, and you only need to relax and go about your daily tasks. 4. Be watchful and prayerful. Best Wishes!

Ha, back home in California one of the missionaries I used to play basketball with purchased a tattoo of the CTR shield, while on his mission, specifying it was his way of saying to the Lord, "I am coming unto you and truly changing my life." Now, what type of Mormon tattoo, I am going to be cheesy and say a tattoo of the San Diego Temple, I am sorry to anyone else who disagrees, the most beautiful temple of all the temples built thus far.

As long as a Mother covers up, she can nurse anywhere in the Church. Nothing in the handbook specifies anything about breastfeeding, that I am aware of.

Falling Sky Person of Interest Doctor Who Terra Nova (not happy they aren't coming out with season 2) Ha, dang, it after April, so I am a little late.

That is awesome!

Very interesting, I remember the talk being as such that the EQ is NOT a moving company. We have a very transient ward, and when I was EQP, we helped people move-in and out at least twice a month, sometimes 3-4 times a month. There isn't anything wrong with helping people move, it is when Elders, perfectly capable Elders, think the EQ is their moving company. In other words, they expected the EQP to plan everything, get everybody there, and all the trucks they need. Sometimes we would show up and nothing was packed. They expected the Elders to box everything up, and then move everything. At the end, which is now still instituted in our ward, the Elders only help with major furniture (e.g. couches, entertainment centers, TVs, Bookshelves, etc...), unless it was a single mother or a widow in the ward. If a widow or a single mother we expected them to box things up, at least the easy stuff, and then the Elders would arrive and assist in putting everything in. The worst experience I had was when the family expected the EQ to purchase a utility truck, and sit there while the Elders moved all the stuff in. They called the night before, and expected everybody to show at 10am in the morning the next day. I no longer feel it is a good show as to the desire a person has for service. There are plenty of other activities within the quorum and wards that express a person's desire to serve, even as simple as accepting the call to say a prayer during sacrament (excluding phobias).

When the Church no longer provides "meat" as a source of nourishment, i.e-anybody ever helped at the Church's "meat packing plant" (which by the way makes some of the best hot dogs), I am not going to worry regarding the amount of meat I eat. If people want to make this choice themselves, great. I am in line with Eowyn, " eat meat and enjoy it." Nothing I will consider until the church no longer provides meat as a source of nourishment, and I am no longer taking a service shift at the plant.

I think it better for me to start with where we are similar: 1. I don't believe our genetics have any part as to our inheritance and relationships in the next life. If we, Kristi and I, were to adopt a child he/she would be no different than any of our other children. No "rights" would definitely be sacrificed. 2. Yes, we definitely are one with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, should we be found worthy of the Celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory. 3. Higher Law, there are definitely higher and lower laws, and lower laws definitely prepare us for higher laws. As pertaining to the interpretation of the above statements, is appears we feel differently. Although we are "one" with God and His son, I don't believe this oneness changes, or dilutes the relationship of Father/Mother and their offspring in the next life. I agree, it means, we have all, and not a part, yet I don't see how this will ultimately change my relationship with my children. If the sealing binds on earth as in heaven, then my children are not only my children here, but they are my children in the eternities. I don't see any difference between the "oneness" of our Heavenly Father, our Savior, and myself as compared to the relationship with Kristi, my wife. Although, we are "one" it doesn't mean that I and other women have the same "spousal" relationship. As Kristi and I are independently sealed, this will not change due to our "oneness" with Heavenly Father. As such, I don't see my relationship with my children changing either. I agree, that we are one huge family, no different than if all my relatives were on one island and we were one. We would know whose children are whose. I am curious why you share "Remember the story of the prodigal son." I would be interested in hearing your interpretation since I am not seeing the correlation. Thank you for your thoughts and and insightful discussion.

A thought that seems relative is if Christ was not the first to rise, then he would not have the one to overcome death. Someone else, beside him, would have done so. The Lord being the first to rise, all the more affirms, that He is the one which overcame it, and thus others can now follow. 1 Corinthians 15: 23, "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." 1 Corinthians 15: 20, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

No. Does it happen, yes, however the Bishopric isn't always in the easiest of positions. They have callings they need to fill. They have Presidents and Group Leaders of Quorums constantly saying, "We need a calling filled." If nobody is in that calling, then typically one of the leaders will step in, taking more time from their families, and then they can get anxious. This, at times, will trickle down, and as Applepansy said, "They will ask and they might ask repeatedly, they might even try to find ways to help so you can accept the calling. Sometimes we feel manipulated or we feel guilty which then makes us feel manipulated." The nice thing the Lord knows our capabilities. He knows when we are running faster than we have strength and need slow down. He also knows when we are being slothful. When I served as the Elder's Quorum President, one particular brother had major back problems. When I would discuss with him regarding his service he would say, "President Exon, my back doesn't allow me at times to fulfill my callings." I simply responded, "Brother the Lord knows our hearts and our true capabilities. If your back is hurting sufficient enough that walking or other activities is too strenuous, the Lord knows this, and you don't need to feel guilty. The Lord also knows, if we are using certain circumstances as an excuse to not fulfill our callings. Either way the Lord knows. It's your choice and decision to make." Overall, you know your circumstances, the Lord knows your circumstances. In the end, we won't be able to pull a fast one on Him, and we are in good hands with Him. Applepansy also provided good counsel, "Make this issue a matter of fasting and prayer. Then decide what to do. If its right you'll know by the sweet peaceful feeling which is confirmation from the Holy Ghost." Best wishes!

An intriguing thought, however, I, personally, am not able to see the relationship I have with my son and daughters, being the same type of relationship I would have with others. It is not to say, however, that this question doesn't have any truth, it is that this idea, according to the knowledge I now possess, doesn't ring true. The question that comes to my mind, as shared previously, if my relationship with my children will be no different as with others, then why would a parent's righteousness have the potential to spare an heir from the Terrestrial or Telestial glories, if there is no difference. Why a parent, and not a brother or sister, who died 1,000 years before me? I fully agree with the principle shared here that we are given little so that we are able to receive greater in the life to come. This is a similar thought as presented in the aforementioned question. Our minds eye interprets this very differently. If I am understanding your statement correctly, it appears you are presenting that if there is a difference, then this cannot be a perfect love, or a perfect equality. The best way I can share my thoughts is the example of a ward. When I get older, and my children have children, and their children have children and if, hypothetically, we are all in the same ward the ideal is that I treat my children no differently than I treat others. I would agree with this statement, however, although I would treat them no differently the bond is established between my children and my grandchildren, assuming I have reached perfection. Yet, the bond is not erased due to a perfect love for all. Jesus is God's only begotten son, yet I do not believe this relationship between God and Jesus, denies any love he has for me. Yet, I won't deny the bond that exists between the Lord and His and our father. I believe it refers to both, however more so to the posterity in the next life. My children will still be my posterity in the next life, due to the sealing. However, as I now have a life of my own, separate of my parents, they too will have a life of their own, separate from me in the next life. The sealing binds on earth as in heaven. The question then, what does it truly mean that the sealing power can "bind" in heaven? That is an interesting thought about "posterity" being a connection to our relationships with connecting fathers, on down to Adam and Eve. I agree, it isn't limited and pertains more to the generations of posterity in our future lives should we find ourselves worthy before our Lord at judgement. If, posterity only referred to this life, then children or anybody who died before they were married and had children would be limited, yet we have been taught, that these blessings won't be denied in the next life, but will be granted. So we know it isn't just in this Earth life. However, in saying this, I don't feel it negates my relationship with my sons and daughters that I have now, and by which I feel the promise is both temporal and spiritual. Thank you for the discussion.

Well said, and very true. Half of what we as a people through is due to the lack of trust through the merits of Christ. I think Joseph Smith's statement about him being a polished stone by falling down a mountain is a good analogy with this statement. However, I am thinking right now, while I am rolling down my Mountain, I would like to be steered toward more "grassy" areas, then the boulders I seem to be connecting with. I can views these boulders in a number of ways: One, "God first started out with small rocks and grassy knolls and that wasn't working." Second, "I am such a stubborn man that even the small rocks I was hitting only polished me a little bit." Finally, God is saying, "You are one stubborn child, this boulder should do the trick." Last paragraph, is in good humor

Thank you Vort, and Dravin. By the mouth of two or three witnesses, the word is established. Then, as you said, Dravin, I believe it to be a "faulty argument" if I am quoting you correctly from your previous post. Dumb Merriam, it is supposed to help me

Merriam-Webster dictionary: Straw Man "A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted." I definitely could be misunderstanding a straw-man's argument, however I have never heard that a straw-man only relates to another's argument. I have understood it to mean an argument presented in connection to: another argument (as you suggested), or simply in reference to an idea (i.e. "Texting while driving") and the arguments provided for or against. Is there a source you review, which would provide a more accurate definition for a straw-man, than Merriam's definition?

Thank you Dravin for the thoughts. I agree with your last statement, however my question whenever this type of question is addressed is: If there are other means by which people are put in danger, why is there no law being made about them? Example, why do we still have car radios when car radios, stereos, cause accidents? Why no law regarding smoking while driving? When I was 17 I was rear-ended by a woman going 55, I was at a dead stop, who bent over to pick up her cigarette? Why no law against talking while driving? I have a hard time with this argument presented by individuals, "Stop texting so you don't put your life in danger and others." The premise is "texting puts your life in danger and others, so don't do it" is, at least to me, a straw man's argument. The moment you step into your car each day you have already put your life in danger and somebody else. The moment you begin talking to somebody else in the car, especially if they are in the back seat, you put yours and other people's life in danger. So, I personally, find the argument against texting, lacking, and more of a controlling law verses a sound law. However, thank you Dravin, for providing the statistics (it seems very similar to the ones I read 3 years or so back, except I don't remember phones being 23%, thus it has risen), and the thoughts regarding it.

This has always been an interesting discussion. I, personally, don't have any problems with people texting, listening to the radio, talking on their phone, etc... while driving. Heck, my sister just talking while driving is more dangerous than the majority of the people who are texting while driving. I remember having this conversation at work, a few years back, and one employee was so adamant that texting is the worse action someone can do while driving and is the main reason for car accidents. So, we took the challenge, looked up statistics, and here is what we found: Number one cause for accidents on the freeway: Listening to the radio, or better said, people playing with their radio while driving. This resulted in 11% of all the accidents, according to this statistic. Next was talking on your phone, with about 6% of the accidents. Texting was actually at the bottom, with only 2%. To be fair, this was 3 years or so back, and statistics tend to change. I am amazed at how people feel about texting, but have no problems with a radio in the car, which 3 years back was the number one source for accidents. I used to text, all the time while driving, never had a problem with. I never swerved into any other lane. Once, it became a law, I don't do it anymore. I think it is a dumb law, because at the time when seeking to make it a law in Utah, it was 9% lower than the number one cause, and yet no law was made or has been made regarding our radio, or stereo systems in our cars.

This is a very interesting question seeing that I just read in this mornings news about a 6 year old girl who was killed, sexually assaulted and left in a canal. I have asked myself this question, many times, since 2 years ago when I was fired from a job by those who are supposed to be my brother's in Christ. It was difficult to hear them make up excuses as to why they were letting me go, while pretending to understand and know how I felt. I believe the answer is more easily understood however, when reading 2 Nephi 2: 11 - 17. It is also easier understood when we understand the first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is faith. If God, intervened with every aspect of our lives, even the most hideous, then faith would eventually be destroyed. I noticed in scripture there are times God has intervened, and times he has not, and it has usually been a result of: 1. The faith of the individual 2. Obedience vs. Disobedience 3. God allows men to face their own consequences as a result of their own choices 4. To save God's purpose 5. To allow a righteous judgement in the end 6. We need to learn to trust I have noticed in scripture when faith was evident, when a promise was made, if there was no other person to intervene, God would intervene to fulfill individual promises. For example, Nephi and Sam being beaten by their brothers. At this time, my feeling is if the Angel did not interfere then Nephi probably would have been killed by Laman and Lemuel, however, if so then God would not have been able to fulfill a promise made to an honest and faithful servant. In order for righteousness to be brought to pass, opposition must be allowed, even the most hideous of all crimes, otherwise we would be living laws as designed by Satan. All would be saved, all would live, yet agency the ability to choose ourselves to be Godlike would have been lost. I also believe the statement is incorrect that "God looks away", heavens NO, I believe the tears Enos saw God shed, are because God is very much aware and is constantly looking. In closing (ha, like am giving a talk) I will share a personal experience with regard to an answer prayer and trust. When I knelt down regarding my temporal affairs I said, "I am not as strong as you think, and this is more than I can bear." I received one word, clear and distinct, "Trust." I at that time thought I understood the word "trust" and realized how little I understood this word, and am still trying to understand it, in application, not just because it sounds good.

That is simply how the Lord through Brigham Young taught it: "If he has only ten dollars he can pay one; if he has only one dollar he can pay ten cents...if he has a hundred dollars he can possibly pay ten." Teaching of the Prophets: Brigham Young As already stated by Modorbund: "The First Presidency has explained that 'one-tenth of all their interest annually' refers to our income." Gospel Principles Chapter 32. So if my income annually is $300, then the math is simple, I pay $30 in tithing. This is not how I define it; this is how the Lord defined it through his prophets. My comment mentions nothing of gross or net, or by some other method. I am reminded of President Hinckley's words regarding the law of tithing and comparing it to the income tax we pay as Americans. He simply stated, "One need only compare it [tithing] with the income tax to recognize the simplicity that comes of the wisdom of God in contrast with the complexity that comes of the wisdom of men." He further states, when as a boy meeting with Bishop John C. Duncan, "The amount may have been only twenty-five cents, but it was an honest 10 percent as we had figured it in our childish way, based on the little couplet that we would recite in Sunday School, 'What is tithing? I will tell you every time. Ten cents from a dollar, and a penny from a dime." From this it would be easy to gather the 25 cents resulted from an earned income of $2.50. Tithing is a simple mathematical equation, and the more complex we make this simple equation the less likely we will fall under a "honest tithe" when the Lord requires an accounting at our hands.

I would definitely agree with the posts provided by Vort and Modorbund. I think tithing is a simple mathematical equation: If person A makes $300, and tithing is 10%, how much does this person pay in tithing? $30. Tithing is so simple I can teach my 3 year old, and he even knows, if I make $10 dollars we pay $1 dollar to tithing. If I have 10 pennies we give one penny to the Lord. Now, I truly have compassion for people who own their own business, they need to keep better records than I do to pay a full-tithe. Mine is really simple. I make "X" amount of dollars, every month, and I pay 10% of that "X" amount of dollars. The story I remember of paying tithing is from a member back home who is now the Patriarch. He and his wife were inactive, and they started to come back to church. They knew tithing was a part of the law of the gospel, they also knew that if they paid tithing they would be in the hole every month. They ended up paying tithing and they to this day have no clue how they were able to survive except by the grace of God. He would always say, "We ran the numbers." If I were, or they accepted, the idea presented by this guy, then they would not have had to pay tithing at all, because they needed all their income to sustain their living, and their was no interest afterwards.

I believe this is the whole goal of sealing, that we are one huge family, and more evidence that in the gospel we refer to each other as Brother and Sister _________. Yet, I don't refer to my own children as Brother Exon or Sister Exon. No, I don't believe the sealing is more powerful than another. I also do not believe there will be a difference between grand-father and grand-son relationship as with mine. This is a parental relationship. I don't see how the sealing power would weaken or loose it's strength in comparison to relationships developed on earth. I agree, we will all be one big happy family, including those who chose not to live a life worthy of the Celestial Kingdom. I, myself, do not see the sealing power and relationships as one. The sealing power is just as strong for you and I, and in the end, and now, we are brothers and sisters. However, the relationship I have with my children is not the same relationship I have with another person's children. I find more evidence to the relationship of posterity within the temple, otherwise, if the relaionship of father/mother and children are no different than the power of sealing for all of us, the final covenant we make and receive at the veil is moot. If you draw your mind to the covenant, and the words regarding posterity... I think this speaks more about relationships which will also exist, even though we are one big family, due to the power of the sealing, which is like our priesthood, endless and incorruptible. I don't see much difference between the relationships which will exist in the eternities, as it does exist in a ward. One of my previous wards, we all being brothers and sisters, had four generations of family. The Bishop saw me as his brother, and did not treat me any different than his own son, yet for me to deny that relatioship, though we are brothers, I think would be inappropriate, at least to me. Great questions, and thank you for a thoughtful discussion.

Well, Seminary... you are one deep thinker and I like it . First, I hope that I am understanding your question correctly such that my answers actually answer your question. I would assume we would distinguish one Celestial family from another the same we we distinguish one temporal family from another. Although I am one member of a huge temporal family, my brothers children are not mine, and mine are not his. I would assume, the same way people are able to distinguish my brothers children from mine will be the same way a Celestial family will distinguish my children from theirs. Otherwise, I see no point to the sealing of children, if in the end their is no distingushing factor since we are all one big Celestial family. My mind draws to the words provided by Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, where he mentions that the righteousness of a parent may have the ability to draw a wayward child, after death, to live in the Celestial Kingdom, even though the life they lived on earth was telestial or terrestial (Note: he didn't mention a kingdom, except that the child was not in the Celestial Kingdom). This points to a connection between father, mother, and offspring even though we are all connected as one Celestial Family. I don't ever remember suggesting that a child would only be with his or her mother/father. Although my children are mine, it does not exclude them from being my father's and mother's grandchildren, or my brothers and sister's nephew's and nieces. Might I ask, where this conclusion was drawn from my words? I see the "value" in the sealing, and even more so in the sealing of a child that is adopted. One of my dearest friends, had the unfortunate experience of burying their 4 year old son. They tried for 5 years to have an additional baby. The day their other child was baptized was the same day they received a call that a child was available for adoption. I had the opportunity to be at the sealing of their new daughter. I have a hard time believing, or even seeing, that this child will just be another child in the Celestial Kingdom. It is more convincing to me, that a sealing seals on earth as well as in Heaven. If so, then this sealing that took place signifies that their daughter will not only be theirs in this life, but will be a sealed daughter "as in Heaven". Or better said, binds on earth as it is bound in heaven. To me, the sealing makes the whole difference. As to your analogy, I apologize, I think am totally missing it and I am not seeing the correlation. However, in what I am understanding and if this is correct, my brothers children will be just as special as they are to me right now, but for me to say I do not love my own children more, would be a lie. My own children are more special to me, but this does not negate my love for my nephews and nieces, which belong to another family or another kindergarten.

Great question Seminary, I revert to Scenario 1 and my answer there: "However, in this situation, I believe that agency is more important and the decision of which family the child will belong to, will probably be given to the child (or the adult). At least this is what makes sense to me." A choice to the child to choose which family he/she chooses to be with. If I had a child switched at birth, I would want my child in the eternities, however, if this child was raised in a loving home, loved his/her parents, and in the next life wanted to be with the family who raised him/her; then as a loving father I would accept the decision of that child. I believe, agency is one of the most important gifts we have, as such, I don't see the Lord forcing one of his children to be with a family who didn't raise him/her. I believe the decision will be left unto the child. So, a choice between the actual birth family, or the family he/she was switched at birth, but thoroughly loved and would still call them mother and father. Cheers.

This is definitely a difficult situation, and I see two positives (if they can really been seen this way) that you are not sealed and that their are no children. Although, I understand others have mentioned giving a specific time period, and then decide. I have rarely heard or seen an ultimatum regarding a length of time actually be beneficial. I understand, for some men, this is all it takes, however for probably a greater number, I believe most people will change during that time period and then once it is over, or they have received their reward, back to their old self again and the cycle continues. I agree with others who have mentioned sitting down with your husband and having a detailed discussion about goals and objectives. I must say, I have a hard time having compassion towards your husband. Kristi and I have been married for 12 years. In our first six months of marriage we both worked part-time. As a suggestion, if there are no children, then you have a responsibility to work also, if that is what is needed to make bills, even if that means working full-time while going to school. After six months, Kristi was pregnant, and as a result, I begin working full-time. We put the money she earned from her part time job into savings, while we practiced living on my income (which wasn't much). By the time our first child was born, we both were full-time students. She quit her job, and in order to pay the bills because we couldn't live on one income, I worked a part-time graveyard on top of my full-time work, while going to school full-time. Yes, my grades suffered, yet I was still able to pull off an overall GPA of 2.9, which was fine with me having to work on average around 55 hours weekly to support our little family at the time. I think So_Cal provided some good advice in visiting with a neutral therapist, and others pertaining to counsel with your husband. Myself personally, would have a time by which he would need to change, unknown to him. I would be patient, explaining to him and encouraging him. If by the time there was no change, then it would be a difficult decision. Either way, I wish you the best.

First, I am sorry you and your children will be going through such a great trial. It appears you have received some good advice regarding the situation. I would add one thing to FunkyTown's response regarding visiting this young lady and being as polite as you can, however, I am not sure this will be very polite, but it will be frank. After you say this, "Tell her that you thought you'd want to know if you were in that position, then nod and leave." Before you leave her house then say, "I also want you to know, men have a tendency not to change and repeat similar behaviors. Should you need a shoulder to cry on, when this happens to you, I am there for you." But then again, that probably isn't good to say, even though I would really want to say it. Maybe you can pull a Ms. Lorena Bobbit??? NO, NO, forget I even said it. I am sorry. Our prayers are with you and may your soul be comforted during this hard time in Christ.

Scenario 1: First I would like to say this, thank goodness God is perfect and He knows best! The sealing is definitely a sealing guaranteeing, if we are faithful, your children will be yours in the eternities. Yes, children become adults, however just because I am an adult it does not mean I am no longer my father's and mother's son. I would like to believe that the sealing of my children is no different than the sealing of my wife. Just as she will be, and I will be hers, mine --- our children will be ours as a part of the Heavenly family. Otherwise, I see no point in the promise made in the temple, and as spoken by prophets, that the righteousness of the parent has an ability, in the next life, to bring salvation to their children (Both Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith spoke regarding these things, and it was mentioned in General Conference). However, in this situation, I believe that agency is more important and the decision of which family the child will belong to, will probably be given to the child (or the adult). At least this is what makes sense to me. Scenario 2: The sealing never took place with regard to the baby switched to the couple who are members. There is no guarantee that this child will be sealed to the parents, however this is why we do work in the temple, and probably one of those things that will be solved during the millennium. The sealed child, or BiC, as with scenario 1 will probably be given a choice. In this scenario though, my heart goes out to the child who was born in the covenant and then had to experience a life outside of the covenant. However, in saying this, I wonder if the Lord happened to put the "wrong" spirit in the beginning with the BiC family, knowing that the child would be switched anyway. Thus, the intended baby either way ended up with the right family. He does know all things, and is able to see all things, thus it definitely is plausible, however not saying it is, just random thought.