The Folk Prophet

I am not suggesting cutting off the relationship. I am suggesting not formalizing it pre-mission.

Here's the thing...and what I assume your husband means...you cannot change someone else's behavior. You can only change your own. All you can do is look at yourself, your reactions, your interpretations, etc., and make them as Christlike as possible. That is my advise to you. React to the meanness in as Christlike a way as possible. Could this mean standing up to the son or suggesting that your husband do? Maybe. That is a question between you, your husband, and the guidance you receive from the Holy Ghost on the matter as you study, pray, and ponder over the matter.

What are you waiting for? You aren't engaged. You aren't promised. You have no formal level of commitment to each other. Right? Did I read it wrong? So...the way you handle it is...go on with life and do what is right, let the consequence follow. Always. If I misread and you are formally committed to one another somehow, I would advise, break it off - formally speaking. It is a distraction to a missionary. Not having a formal commitment does not hurt anything but can be a negative thing for a missionary. A missionary should be focused on their missions and not have to worry about the girl/boy back home. All your support to him should be in support of his well being in the Lord and his well being as a missionary. Entirely, completely, and unrestrained. Support this and you will find that all else will work out as it should.

This is an interesting subject PC, and I've been doing some consideration on it lately, but without a lot of personal insight as of yet. In some ways there seems to be a level of playing down the severity of sin in LDS theology in the idea of everyone being saved but the sons of perdition (of which there will be, theoretically, few from mortality). In some circles much of the nasty warnings in the Book of Mormon spoken to those who sin are accounted only to the sons of perdition as well. I wonder about that, mostly in that the theme of "watch out or be cast off" is very consistent through the scriptures, and it seems strange to constantly repeat a strong and dire warning if only a relative few are really ever in danger of said punishment. We do know that those who do not accept Christ and sin on any level without repentance will be required to pay for their sins -- and that payment comes prior to the assignment of a kingdom of glory -- and it will the full measure of hell (though we do not believe in literal fire...but the agony -- yeah...that we believe in). How long our stay in this hell will be prior to moving on to glory is unknown, I think, though it is likely relative to the sins committed. Not sure on that, actually. That being said, I think that in the end when one finds themselves in a lower kingdom than one could have attained if only -- well, I believe personally that that will constitute its own level of agony that in some ways may be less bearable than the 'hell' that came before. As pointed out, we all came here with a hope in Christ, having chosen Him, and with the great desire to become more like Him through the great plan of salvation. When we come back to ourselves and learn that we have failed in that regard...... Oh...and as to the bloodletting on the cross vs. the garden... Mankind likes to envision horror in terms that it understand. Mankind can relate to the horror of hanging from a cross with nails in one's hands. So it is easy to relate to the drama. The suffering Christ had in the garden, on the other hand, is incomprehensible. The agony He felt when He took upon Himself the suffering of the world.... The pain of hanging from the cross was likely nothing relative to that. Death and physical suffering is, in the eternal scheme of things, probably fairly insignificant. I do not mean to say that in terms of lacking compassion to that end, but only theoretically. The scriptures use the example of a woman travailing in childbirth. It is but a short moment of suffering to a greater joy and purpose. So is the physical pain of life in many ways. But the pain of suffering from sin is a much weightier pain that will constitutes the reality of hell.

I agree with Anddenex. Return from Tomorrow hardly constitutes doctrine. Same appetites and passions. Yes. I'm sure there are other sources...but for a quick one from Gospel Principles - chapter 41: They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth. But I think appetites needs to be qualified. I do not think it can apply to mortal appetites of the physical world. Otherwise we will all be walking around in the spirit world craving food all the time whether we are righteous or not. Maybe. But I think it refers more to the idea that we will still desire good or evil at that point, more than specific cravings for chocolate or the like.

Compelling? How so? Convincing to what end? Do you mean compelling to suggest that psychics are real (I find myself skeptical), or is there a suggestion herein that some psychics might be, in cases, in tune with the "right" king of spirits?

Having a large family is like any other valuable trial. It's hard, but it brings great joy. This is the gospel. We sacrifice, we give, we work, we suffer -- all to have joy. I agree with those who say that practicality is irrelevant -- at least in terms of what most people mean when they say practicality. We should be wise in the size of our families. But if we're limiting our family size so we can afford vacations? Hmm...maybe the priorities aren't quite straight there. In general, we should have as many children as we can. What defines "as we can" is up to the husbands and wives. But as a general rule, we should favor looking to increase our family size and sacrifice to that end rather than the other way around.

I wonder where the millennium part of the question asked comes into play. Probably from the idea that there are quotes along the lines of people who have young children die will be able to raise them in the millennium (though, personally, I think this idea is more akin to folk-doctrine). As the article suggests, no one will be denied promised blessings if faithful. But in the millennium? It is an interesting thought though, and it really comes down to, and pertains to, the idea of raising physical, mortal children. In theory, the sands-of-the-sea posterity promise refers to the having of spirit children. But -- there is a certain feeling of missing out that comes from not being able to raise physical, mortal children. I guess the question is, when all is said and done, will having missed out on that opportunity really matter in the eternities or not? Or will it be more like a child complaining that they never got to...I dunno...color with crayons as a child. That doesn't mean that when they're an adult that they're going to want to spend their days coloring or that they'll want to revert back to their childish state so they can enjoy childish things once more. (Maybe there's a better "childish" example than coloring...but hopefully my point comes across.)

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Re-activation of members is a branch of missionary work. I would treat it as such and start by reading Preach My Gospel. I would then add serious prayer and fasting to it and press forward as you feel inspired.

Oh...and when He said it is when Mary Magdelene saw Him by the tomb (John 20:17). Edit...speaking of dumb: I misread your question, "Why did the..." as "When did the..."

The JST changes it to "...hold me not..."

How is asking follow up questions wasting your time? I implied nothing. I asked questions. I gave no advice whatsoever.

You're asking if someone will advise you to leave your husband because he's fat? How would you feel if your husband was going to leave you for the same reason? What would you advise someone asking the same question?

On my wife's side it was Newell Knight. On my side...??? That's more complicated as I had many many ancestors join in the time frame where all the Scandinavians were joining and crossing the plains. I think I have just a few on both sides (mom and dad's) that were part of the initial exodus from Nauvoo though. I'll have to look into it.

See. MoE and I can agree.

Here is the statement you made that I was referring too. In re-reading your post you did try and strike a civil tone. I can appreciate that and I apologize for reacting more defensively than I should have. I was feeling repeatedly attacked. But it was not, in any regard, hostility for hostility's sake. I apologize for the defensive tone. That's on me. But I do think you were attributing ideas to me that I never said.

I have been bothered enough by this to speak up. Simply put, from a gospel perspective, this is not an option. Do not deceive yourself. You could be forgiven...but it is not guaranteed. This is not a cavalier thing and you run great, great risk. You know better. Forgiveness for intentionally ending a life when you darned well know better? Well...no one can say absolutely. It is the Lord's to judge. But the risk you are taking in approaching it with this as an "option" is beyond monumental. I cannot state this strongly enough. Take this option off the table!

I'm not sure constant questioning of the beliefs held precious by those in a community qualifies as "healthy" discussion. I'll admit to a bit of an annoyed mood today because of a different thread, but we get it. You don't believe the Book of Mormon is true. You do not have to keep hammering on that here.

I agree with notquiteperfect. Being pregnant is not a good reason to get married to someone and be miserable the rest of your life. Oh...and by the way. Everything will be okay. Particularly if you turn back to God and the gospel.

Hmm...looking through the thread....yep. No one said these things to you. Hence, I claim bitterness - perhaps defensiveness would be a better word. Someone mentions the Book of Mormon and you jump into the same old rhetoric. Why? This is not even the point of the thread. The only thing said to you at all prior to this was that we don't know what color Jesus's skin really was.

From the point of view of someone in a marriage where we have infertility issues, I can't help but wonder why giving the child up for adoption is not on your potential list?

Not the point. The tradition, as applied to worship, celebration, or just story telling around the fire, can still easily tie back to another culture, time and place. Edit: Note, I do not necessarily think equating Quetzalcoatl with Jesus works. I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing as a stretch of logic.

Elaborate on which part? Your bitterness... Every time we're in a conversation related to ancient America and the Book of Mormon you come down on it pretty severely. Your stretching...well, I would think that point was clear in the preceding sentence. You're implying the worship of Jesus must needs have passed down and worked its way up north, etc., etc. I'm saying, "What? Worship? What does worship have to do with a tradition?" Once there was a bishop in Myra who was considered a wonder worker. Today, on a completely different continent, we have the tradition of Santa Claus. Worship is irrelevant.

This is very insightful. Thank you.