derblitzenator

There was a talk given on this topic by Elder Holland. It is called "The Best is Yet to be" given in 2009 at a BYU devotional. Here's one quote: And another one: It's a pretty good read if you can find it.

First of all, I appreciate the thoughtful response. I do have a couple comments though. There is a big difference in a girl having someone as a friend with porn issues and someone who she is dating. The "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet advocates dating someone of like standards. Porn use would be a big red flag in that regard. On the other hand, reaching out in friendship to anyone with issues in general is not necessarily a bad thing. Like your son, as a teenager there were a couple kids on my street who were unsupervised and were given access to movie channels with adult movies. My brother and I were invited to watch one day, but guess what? We declined and then drew some boundaries in our relationship from then on. That's basically the same thing I'd do as an adult if someone offered me something outside my moral boundaries. Pretty soon the entire neighborhood knew that we had LDS standards. We never again were offered anything like alcohol, bad movies, etc. We weren't always invited to parties either, but when it was time to start a baseball or football game we were the first ones picked. The neighborhoods kids respected us and to this day, several of the neighbor kids were really happy that they had good influences on them. The question of friendship for me comes down to whether the person will respect me and the boundaries I set up. If the person tries to bring me down or can't respect boundaries, then I walk away from the friendship. If they respect the boundaries no matter what their issues may be, the friendship might have a chance. I've had dozens of friends with different standards who were really great friends, nonetheless. Sometimes personalities mesh even though we have different backgrounds and different life trajectories. My friends are a diverse group that aren't all cookie cutter LDS standards. I think it's prudent to learn early how to set boundaries in relationship, but at the same time not exclude someone from my life merely because they have different standards. Some of my siblings have close friends who got baptized primarily because they were so inclusive of them who were struggling when they first met. Eventually, those friends wanted what my siblings had and investigated the church and changed their life. This may not happen to very many, but it certainly gives the church a good name when members are inclusive rather than judgmental of their neighbors.

It's a bit hard to draw conclusions without knowing the exact majors and how much the tuition rate is and cost of living. Essentially, you described 3 options: 1) Take the free route with work. Why would you not be financially stable for 6 years if he's working the whole time? Does the job not pay the bills? It would really matter to know how much he's expected to make at graduation. Most of the time, double majors have very little value. I would go the quick route to graduation with one major and then get a graduate degree instead, because they usually bring a better return on investment. 2) Work and go to school full time. I've done this before without kids. I spent about 2 hours/day at home. I'm not a big fan of this option because your family life will suffer. I suppose there are worse things than investing in his future career, but it won't be easy. My brother went to law school full time with 4 kids and worked full time. He survived and they are doing great now that he's done. 3) Quit the job and just go to school full time. This analysis requires knowing how much debt you'll take on what his earning potential will be when he is done. It's a risk to take on debt in this economy, which may extend financial struggles a few more years. This is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road that the government is doing now. Whether the debt is manageable depends on starting salary when graduated and debt load.

Doesn't everybody have things they struggle with? Do we all not do things that drive away the Spirit? I would love to know the justification why looking at porn makes somebody not worthy of your daughter's association? Why not somebody who watches violent movies? or somebody who forgets to pay his tithing or doesn't read scriptures? They might not have the Spirit with them either. Most importantly, how can you prevent her from associating with anybody that struggles with the Law of Chastity if you aren't even on notice in the first place? Most people aren't exactly shouting their issues from the rooftops. What if a boy she knows commits self-abuse once per week? Yet, the rest of the week he is polite, good hearted, etc. You either must think that somehow the person will introduce your daughter to porn or that he'll turn into a rapist. Either logical leap is far fetched at best. Please provide additional insight as to what you are afraid of.

Here's a sampling of what Uchtdorf had to say: "But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify...our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick. I can quote scripture, I can try to expound doctrine, and I will even quote a bumper sticker I recently saw. It was attached to the back of a car whose driver appeared to be a little rough around the edges, but the words on the sticker taught an insightful lesson. It read, “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.” This was one of his key questions: Do you exclude, push away, or punish others because of something they have done?

Are you really lumping porn addicts with drug dealers, child molesters, and murderers? First of all, looking at porn is considered a very minor sin and not subject to disciplinary councils. The others you listed will get you excommunicated rather quickly. Something like 70% of men look at porn regularly, so chances are you are friends with someone with the struggle that you have no clue about. When I lived in Florida, there were a lot of guys that were open about their addiction to porn. Many of them were upstanding individuals worthy of friendship. Based on your comments, I'd rather be friends with any number of porn addicts than someone as judgmental as you.

Hang in there. You'll most likely find that different family wards are better for including singles and other wards don't know how to handle singles. Individual members are still all over the map in their view of singles. Some members are really empathetic and others are super judgemental. I wouldn't worry about it, because nobody ever says anything to your face. The good news (or bad news depends on perspective) is that single adults over age 30 is one of the fastest growing demographics in the church, so you're not alone. Mostly men go less active, so the ratio of active women to men at your age is super high. Go to a single adult conference and you'll see 3:1+ ratios. If you're interested in marriage, there is going to be demand particularly if you can get back active for a little while.

While it's true you don't know what the person you are interested in thinks of you with 100% certainty, that's OK. It's a part of dating. You do your best to send the signals to the person you are interested in by flirting (for women) with them. Guys should also be watching body language before asking a woman out. If they don't take the bait, then just move on to the next guy or gal. Pinning them up against the wall and forcing them to reveal their cards doesn't work (hardly ever). As a general rule of thumb, guys don't want to be pursued unless they are very interested in the woman. In almost every instance, the guy just isn't that into her and that's why no date invitation was extended. Let's not overthink a process that has worked for millions of married couples where the men was the pursuer. That doesn't mean that the women shouldn't make the first move. I encourage them highly to be aggressive just not to the point of asking guys out (in most instances).

My contention isn't that women should never ask a guy out, but that it's generally ineffective in starting a relationship in most cases. If the guy already is interested in the woman or the guy is just a passive guy, then it could be effective. Nonetheless, in most cases it's women making a last ditch effort to get a guy's attention who isn't interested. A guy will step up the plate if a woman drops enough hints or just flirts if he is interested. If he isn't interested, well the date invitation is unlikely to sway his opinion. The other aspect to this is that guys are generally the pursuers and being put in the opposite role is sometimes awkward. In the instances when I got asked out by women, I was out of my comfort zone with her taking lead. That combined with my limited interest guaranteed no more dates.

Women in general should not be asking out guys, except in rare instances where the guy has a passive personality. If he likes you, then flirting will be enough to get his attention. Despite what was stated earlier about games, it's significantly better to play moderately hard to get. If you just come out and say that you are crushing on him before the first date, it takes away the thrill of the pursuit and he may lose interest. Dating has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. My advice to women is to look your best, take care of yourself, flirt with men you are interested in, and be open to dating different kinds of guys. You'll get dates just by being visually stimulating and showing interest. Some women think priesthood holders are above looks and value spirituality more. That isn't true! Just spend 5 minutes in a singles ward and you'll realize that the best looking women who flirt get 2/3 of the dates. After a guy is lured into a date with you, then your spirituality and other good traits is what makes him want to keep you. The direct approach is out. The indirect approach is in.

ever so slightly. The church used to kick vocal and open gays out of troops. This usually only happened in reality when they were 16 or 17 and already had their Eagle and wanted to remain in the trrop as a leader. Based on the new policy, the church is more likely to retain them in the future. But again, open gays in troops are extremely rare.

My take is that the church is picking its battles. To save the BSA program from liability, it had to compromise and allow openly gay scouts into the program. In all practicaility, this will affect very few troops. Most troops will have zero openly gay members. Most gays don't come out until late teens and I'd assume they'd lose interest in scouting too in most instances. I would guess that they'll instruct the scout leaders not to allow gay scouts to be in a tent alone with another scout. They'll probably put them in bigger tents of 3 or more, so there's less temptations all around. Parents will weigh in about taking certain precautions around the gay kids.

There's nothing wrong with buying a starter home. Starter homes generally cost less and are much easier to liquidate than homes in higher price ranges. You also can save a lot of money in mortgage payments that can be applied towards savings/investments. You can keep it as a rental property after you upgrade and let it be a source of cash flow through retirement. Of course, I am an advocate of buying as many properties as possible when the market is down and to sell off when the market is up like it is now and take advantage of the last 2 out of 5 rule as many times as possible in your lifetime.

I personally would walk away from this guy based on him having poor character i.e. it didn't bother him to have an affair with a married woman and not being a member of the church. What happens when you get married to satisfy your hormones and then start having kids? Your future kids will have this guy as their role model and are exponentially more likely to not stay active in the church. It seems very short-sighted to rush into marriage because you need physical intimacy. Break it off. Work on yourself to adhere to LDS standards. That gives you a better shot at finding a husband with a temple recommend and the opportunity to have kids within the covenant.

That's only partially true. As a full-time employee, you can get your HR department to allow you to set up a self-directed 401K. If they don't allow it, then you can convert it to a self-directed IRA tax-free. In the alternative, you could open up a side business for a couple years and get the 401K account open. You can lose money and write off expenses for 3 years before the IRS scrutinizes your business model. There are plenty of ways to get this done.

Have you looked at the possibility of converting your 401K into a self-directed 401K and then using the proceeds to finance the rental property? I personally wouldn't withdraw 401K funds unless it was the December of a year that I had no income, because otherwise you get slammed with fees and taxes. However, if you keep it in place and convert the funds to buy a property, it may be within the parameters of the 401K uses without accruing penalties.

There isn't an official stance on the reason for the policy, but one thing you should note is that the pressure was off the church by 1978. If it was merely repealed for public opinion purposes, the church could have avoided a whole lot of scrutiny by repealing it 20 years earlier. By 1978, everybody had just accepted that the church would never change and the protests had stopped.

Just because one prophet teaches a principle, it doesn't make it doctrine. There is no record of it being practiced and it isn't taught in the church today or by subsequent prophets. My take is that it was Brigham Young's opinion only.

Based on the scriptures, it's clear that God reveals laws as the people are ready for them. Adam and Eve had much of the higher law, but then the Law of Moses was later instituted. Moses was planning to introduce additional commandments (other than the ten), but when he saw the wickedness of the people he knew they weren't ready for the second tablet and ended up breaking it. God introduces His laws in certain time frames and reverts to lower laws in other time frames. Check out this quote by Wilford Woodruff:

My understanding of this quote was that Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered the night before and several members of the audience were in the mob that did it to him. Thus, it appears that Joseph was being flippant towards them. Look at another part of that speech and you'll see that he was talking directly at them: After that rant, Joseph wanted to state unequivocally his vital role in God's plan probably to send the members of the mob that attacked him on a guilt trip. Was his boast blasphemous? It doesn't appear so unless you take it out of context. In fact, Joseph's boast was indeed accurate that his mission is to restore the church for the final time. When comparing and contrasting his mission to Christ's mission Joseph pointed out a stark contrast between the two. I'm sure that if Joseph was pressed, he would have conceded that Christ could have accomplished his mission if it had been part of God's plan. Here's Joseph's full quote that appears to be in line with the tone of his entire speech: Put in context with all the statements Joseph ever made about Jesus, it's pretty clear that Joseph understood that Jesus's mission was infitinitely more important than his own. However, that doesn't mean he didn't understand that his own mission was both vital and different in the Latter Days.

There's ldsplanet, ldsmingle, ldssingles, and ldslinkup. As was mentioned, ldslinkup is free. None of the sites are great, but can be useful to find an occasional date. You never know if you'll find someone motivated and compatible, so it's worth a shot.

Remember that we have a choice whether we let the actions of others affect us or not. If your path is like mine, you are going to come across a lot of doubters, haters, and/or antagonists who will try to whittle you down to their level. Your job is to drown out the negative voices and embrace those people who build you up. If this means limiting contact with her until she changes her tone with you, then so be it. I wouldn't be afraid to let her know that her relationship with you will be limited until the time comes that she treats you with respect. If that never happens, then the relationship will always be limited. It sounds like a lose-lose relationship now, so the boundaries need to be set that you can co-exist in the long-term.

Tithing is a principle that you need to try for a while to gain a testimony. Even the scripture in Malachi says to "prove me now herewith...if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." The easy way out is to just throw up your arms and give up without ever testing your faith. You'll stagnate in nearly every gospel principle with that approach. Try it for a while and then return and report what you learned.

Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. "Everyone is shy --- it is the inborn modesty that makes us able to live in harmony with other creatures and our fellows. Achievement comes not by denying shyness but, occasionally, by setting it aside and letting pride and perspiration come first."

Thoughtful…people should, before they start dating, avoid the danger of entanglements and date only those who are of their own faith. All experienced counselors know that religious differences are among the root causes of incompatibility and unhappiness. by President Hugh B. Brown Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said, “The right person is someone for whom the natural and wholesome and normal affection that should exist does exist.” But he went on to add, “It is the person who is living so that he or she can go to the temple of God and make the covenants that we there make.” “In choosing a companion, it is necessary to study … the one with whom you are contemplating making life’s journey. You see how necessary it is to look for the characteristics of honesty, of loyalty, of chastity, and of reverence.” President David O. McKay Date only those who have high standards and in whose company you can maintain your standards.” For the Strength of Youth, 24. by President Gordon B. Hinckley: Your chances for a happy and lasting marriage will be far greater if you will date those who are active and faithful in the Church. Such dating is most likely to lead to marriage in the House of the Lord. by President Spencer W. Kimball Clearly, right marriage begins with right dating. A person generally marries someone from among those with whom he associates… Therefore, this warning comes with great emphasis. Do not take the chance of dating nonmembers, or members who are untrained and faithless. [You] may say, "Oh, I do not intend to marry this person. It is just a 'fun' date." But one cannot afford to take a chance on falling in love with someone who may never accept the gospel. True, a small percentage have finally been baptized after marrying Church members. Some good women and some good men have joined the Church after the mixed marriage and have remained devout and active. We are proud of them and grateful for them. They are our blessed minority. Others who did not join the Church were still kind and considerate and cooperative and permitted the member spouse to worship and serve according to the Church patterns. But the majority did not join the Church and, as indicated earlier, friction, frustration and divorce marked a great many of their marriages.