The Folk Prophet

I don't think you need to worry about being called as a bishop Lakumi. :)

This is a bit finicky...but... The View New Content button in the Full Version theme is so close to the user dropdown that I find myself accidentally opening the user drop down often when going to click it...which then covers up the View New Content button and I have to mouse off it and wait for the menu to go away. It's not a major deal...but a bit annoying. (Edit: or the search dropdown)

Just a bit of formatting....mostly to be a wiseacre: if (horrible) { make unhorrible; }

To be clear, I was not suggesting that missionary dating take place. I was suggesting that, in my opinion, for an evangelical to try and date someone LDS is, to me, different than an LDS trying to date an evangelical. It's more of a statement of theory than practicality, and is clearly based in my bias towards the LDS religion as true.

I did not say immediately. But I don't think it's line-upon-line either. When the veil is removed it will be, I think, all of a sudden. It will be, I think, at the judgment day, when all remembrance is brought to us. And it will be, I think, a pretty great shock to us all. Weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth indeed.

It only sets up a false dichotomy if one chooses to read things into it that aren't there. Clearly there is room for tender, chaste, and delicate withing sexuality. I disagree that the church needs to put thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. The church teaches these principles very clearly, and it is on us to learn them, just as it is with any principle. It is invalid to blame the church when we misunderstand sexuality because we are not well informed about it. There is information a-plenty about it, and that information does not need to be stretched to be more candid, nor do I believe that it should be, because it is not meant to be. There are plenty of parents in the church who raise their children on church principles, teach their children to be wise, selfless, and Christlike, whose children grow up with a healthy understanding of marital relations. And there are plenty of parents who fail at this. Such is life - both in and out of the church, and with teachings on physical relationships as well as other principles in (and out of) the gospel. The required information and understanding is out there. It is on parents to discover this information and pass it on to their children. And it is upon the children, once they are to be married, to avail themselves of this information as well.

Maybe. I'm not sure we can add specificity to the way anyone's sexual relationship should work. That is between themselves, the Lord, and if necessary, perhaps the advice of a good therapist. We can speak in terms of Christ-like principles. But to apply those principles in the bedroom on behalf of others would be quite inappropriate. In point of fact, we cannot even apply them on behalf of our spouses. We can only apply them to ourselves and our choices and behavior.

Fair enough. But, then again, what criteria are you applying for determining what is and isn't inspired counsel? Shouldn't be head scratching with application of the LDS-only teaching of Eternal Marriage.

Iron Butterfly, on the other hand...

Ah...but you forget that Superman's suit is also Kryptonian.

The concern is, of course, that one leads to the other. If they don't go on casual dates, they're unlikely to become their own little item, and thereby unlikely to marry. As I understand it (and I believe this has been clearly taught...though I'd have to do some reading to validate it) the church suggests that even casual dating outside the faith, as it were, should be generally avoided.

Wise counsel is wise counsel regardless of a parents reasonings. I would counsel a Bishop to stick to his guns, with as much kindness and friendliness as possible. And if offense is taken, that is each person's prerogative in this life. But we hold to right principles regardless of how others decide to take it. Frankly, any parent that complained to a Stake President that their Bishop was giving them counsel that not only aligns with church teachings, but is also designed to lead that person to peace and happiness.... Well...that parent is asking for trouble. LDS teachings do not forbid dating non-LDS. But they clearly counsel against it. Any Bishop or Stake President would be right in sharing similar counsel. As to the evangelical youth counsel...that's a bit more complicated. As we (LDS) believe we are the only church with the fullness of the gospel, we would hope all youth find means to explore the truthfulness of our gospel. If a desire to date an LDS person were motivating them to explore to that end, then that is good. So I hesitate to say I would want evangelical leaders to discourage dating LDS. And yet, I do not think it wise to date and marry outside of one's religion, and so I only hesitate to say it in terms of hoping for them to explore the LDS religion, and not because I think cross-religious dating is wise.

As an exalted being I'm fairly certain you could design them perfectly. :) I'm not speaking of anyone's spiritual maturity. Finding garments comfortable or uncomfortable has nothing to do with that. I'm talking about a presumption of understanding a state that we can not even begin to pretend to understand. Who knows. Maybe clothes bunched up in our armpits will be a great pleasure. Were I guessing...and it is nothing more than that...I'd guess we don't have any use for clothing, but adorn ourselves when appropriate, like appearing to mortals, etc... But that is a total guess. Clothing may have important and special meaning in the Celestial Kingdom. Who knows. And that's my point. Who knows. But I'm not going to say that I refuse to wear clothing if I'm secretly a nudist. And I'm not going to say I refuse to not wear clothing if I'm extra prudish. I have no idea what I'm talking about (as none of us do) in speaking of what will and won't be ideal in the Celestial sphere -- with the exception of that which has been explicitly revealed to us -- like the knowledge that we must be married.

Our final estate will be established by the choices we made in this life. The keeping of our first estate determined our right to have a second estate. All of us will pay for our sins except those who are redeemed by the atonement through repentance. I think it safe to say that the agony we face in the payment of those sins will teach us pretty clearly the wrongness of our ways. The idea that people will still be running around in the Telestial kingdom with strong desires to lie, cheat, steal, and murder is inaccurate. But you do bring up an interesting thought, and it's a bit of a doctrinal conflict for me. I need to think about it and do some reading.

How is the above not a policy? Even "decide for yourselves, the church has no opinion" is a policy. The above is very, very clearly a policy. The church does not normally encourage but the family must decide, particularly as relating to laws, and if cremated they should be dressed.... That is a policy.

Yes it was. That's why I said the stuff about us all approaching things in ways that work for us....

I disagree, and here's why. You are forgetting that our entire existence prior to this life (a rather insignificant blip of time in the grand scheme of things) will be remembered. We are not only who we are in this life. Yes...bad habits we have developed will continue. But we will, for example, remember quite distinctly how much we love our Father and each other. We will remember those things we loved and cared about for what may have been millennia upon millennia upon millenia -- billions upon billions of years and more (we don't really know how long we lived with our Father in the pre-existence). So, yes, you're right, it won't "magically" change. But we will, undoubtedly, remember who we really are, and undoubtedly regret the stupid, mortal, selfish, sinful desires that we succumbed to in this life. We do not know what we do and don't want because we don't remember who we really are. It will be like coming out of a very short-lived amnesia. Moreover, applying something mortal and physical in this life (something we wear, etc.) to a state of physicality that we cannot possibly understand does not make sense. We don't know what it will feel like to be Celestialized. We don't know what will be comfortable or not. We have no concept of this whatsoever. To say something like "I won't like wearing _____________" is invalid. In some ways it reminds me of the 3-year-old in our ward that just hates to wear pants -- rips 'em off every chance he gets. I'm afraid I can't take his pants-hatred very seriously as an indication that he'll never like to wear pants though. He's 3. We are less that 3 compared to an exalted being. We are less than ants. Less than the dirt. I'm sure that's how our ridiculous mortal attitudes come across to Heavenly Father. He smiles, but He also knows better.

There are those who do not naturally love their own family though. I would think that in the scope of "love thy neighbor as thyself" that the most important "neighbor" that we work with on this life is our own families. But I do find it interesting that you view it differently, and I don't think that is wrong. We all approach things in ways that work for us.

I would think that this would be obvious. Of course it is.

This is helpful to understand the direction you'd like the discussion to go. I think that, quite commonly, expectations are not properly set for either the male of the female. Men, I think, tend to go into marriage thinking they'll have unlimited access from that moment on. Women, in some cases that I know of, might go into marriage thinking things even along the lines of how they'll only have sex when they want to have a baby. As to the potential solution? Complicated. Many men are unlikely to believe it or accept reality even if taught it. It's like how I believed I'd be rich someday when I was a teenager, and no amount of reasonable talk meant a thing to me. I was different. I was special. With the converse problem it becomes a challenge as to how to speak to sons and daughters openly about sex and yet still maintain propriety and sanctity of the subject. There are those that would discard all decorum in favor of the solving of the above problems. And yet we learn from the Book of Mormon "And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;" (Jacob 2:7) Tender, chaste, and delicate feelings are good. Yet this conflicts, in many cases with the problems discussed in the thread. Should we tear down our daughter's inhibitions with frank talk at the expense of also damaging their tender, chaste, and delicate feelings? I dunno.

People do feel this way, about many things. But it reminds me of the story of Fanny Young when she said to Joseph Smith concerning eternal marriage, “Now, don’t talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor I wish to perform. I don’t want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.” To which Joseph told her, “Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” We simply do not know what we will want and it is, as Joseph put it, speaking "very foolishly" to presume what we will and won't want.

Why wouldn't it include our kin?

Is there a parallel between your example of wanting a new truck and sex? Looking specifically at the question of "obligation", would your wife have an "obligation" to work it out together if she disagrees, or can she simply exercise veto power and say "no truck and no discussion about a truck and no mutually agreeable solution on a truck. just no"? Of course she "can" say that about anything. But it would be very selfish. Selfishness is detrimental to a good marriage, from either partner. When one partner desires something the other should do their best to understand and accommodate. A good marriage is one where both partners strive to this end. If either partner does not, the marriage can still work, but it is a one-sided arrangement, held together by the efforts of one. I think it fairly reasonable to view desire for sex (particularly for the male) as significantly higher than desire for things like a truck (I used the truck in my analogy because of Elder Bednar's conference talk about a truck, not because there's anything significant to a truck itself), but desire is desire. We all want things. Some are driven by one thing, others by another. In the case of a truck and sex as parallel...well...both might reasonably be considered as driven by testosterone. Heheh. That being said, don't get me wrong. I think a healthy sexual relationship is important to marriage. I just don't think it is necessary. But problems in the bedroom are possibly indicative of problems in the marriage. But not exclusively by any means. There are physical factors to consider. Libido does wane and does differ in the sexes and does differ from individual to individual. In point of fact, the only real difference in this regard between men and women is that men require libido, whereas women do not. However, with the little blue pill advent (and/or similar drugs) this becomes less of an issue. In other words, a man can literally be incapable of relations due to libido problems. The psychological desire plays much more into the physical ability for the man. This puts an natural physical imbalance into the relationship in that the woman can move forward even not being in the mood as a sheer act of selflessness, whereas the man cannot, in every case, do the same. But the little blue pill may be the act of selflessness required in that case...maybe. Depends on the relationships, etc... However, even what I'm saying here is only a small part of the psychology of libido. It is complicated by many factors. In the end, the only thing we can really do for our marriage is to give up ourselves in favor of God's will and our spouse's well being. If both partners strive to that end then the marriage can succeed. If either spouse does not then the marriage is likely to struggle.

How rude!

Speaking openly of one's desires is not selfishness. Asking for someone to do something for you is not selfish. Going to one's bishop for financial help, for example, when one loses a job is not selfishness. Asking the Lord to bless us is not selfishness. Expressing a strong desire (or "need") for something is not selfish. If I tell my wife, for example, that I want a new truck it is not selfish for me to tell her that. If she disagrees, we work it out together and come to a decision that we can both be comfortable with. But the desire, even very strong desire, to buy a truck is not selfish in and of itself.