askandanswer

I think that when you are living in England, dealing with a (presumably) English Bishop and English Stake President, and an English husband, you would do well to a) follow the prevailing cultural norms, and b) expect those cultural norms to apply to yourself.

What is more important to you - her friendship with you or the quality of the relationship between her and her husband? it seems to me as if the relationship between you and her might be adversely impacting on the quality of the relationship between her and her husband and if that is the case, this would point to the conclusion that there is an element of selfishness that is motivating your behaviour, ie, you are acting on what is good for you rather than what is good for her. I think it might be time to stop and reconsider things.

I think that when you are living in England, dealing with a (presumably) English Bishop and English Stake President, and an English husband, you would do well to a) follow the prevailing cultural norms, and b) expect those cultural norms to apply to yourself.

@JayKi
You can be a friend to her without hanging out with her one on one. You can hang out with her in group situations, with your fiancé present, or her husband present. You can hang out together at the ward during ward socials. 
Do you find it interesting at all that not one single person has agreed with what you are doing? Maybe something to think about. 
You came to this forum to ask for what other people thought. You've gotten your answers. If you came with the intention to get validation for your feelings, I think it's clear you won't find that here. If you want objective advice from other faithful members about your behavior and the situation, you've got plenty of it. And it might be wise to look at those words with a clear mind and a desire to understand why everyone disagrees with your way of thinking.

@JayKi,
From the time I returned from my mission to Italy, I had an Italian pen pal. She actually was sort of "in love" with me, but after I made it clear that we weren't going to go in that direction, we had a very nice, years-long letter-writing relationship. (This was in the years before email.) Though I didn't want romance with her, I really cared about this young woman.
When I married my wife, she objected to my Italian female pen pal. Like you, I didn't understand this attitude. Like you, I thought I should be able to be friends with whomever I wanted, and it was really not any of her business. I mentioned this to my mother one day in passing, and she quickly set me straight. I decided that if my wife and mother agreed about that thing, it was probably myself that was not seeing things right. So I wished my pen pal well and stopped writing her.
That's the kind of thing we do to safeguard marriage. The marital state is a sacred thing, and we should sanctify it.
Honestly, friend, if this woman's husband doesn't want you seeing her, You Should Not Be Seeing Her. Her marriage to her husband is vastly more important than your friendship with her.
Look, you're a smart guy. Be smart enough to realize that when two dozen people tell you the same thing -- two dozen people who, by the way, probably wouldn't find anything else to agree on in a year of conversation -- that means that you are probably the one who's wrong.
Don't be prideful, friend. Be humble. Tell your friend you are happy to keep hanging out with her, as long as her husband is there, too. Maybe you can bring your girlfriend/fiancée with you and make it a double date. Just keep it on the up-and-up.

It's not your responsibility to make anyone agree with you.  It is your responsibility to respect her husband as a human in love with and married to her.  It is your responsibility to respect their marital, presumably eternal, covenant.  It is not your responsibility to dictate her behavior.  It is your responsibility to control your own.  Intentional or not, your relationship with this woman is causing contention in this marriage - per your own words:
Both you and she are showing great disrespect for her husband.  It doesn't matter whether he has a just cause to worry, whether his worries come from misunderstanding, or whether he has a personal weakness in this area.  She has made a covenant in relation to him.  You are his brother and as such it is your duty to help him come unto Christ.  Spending time with his wife when he is not there is harming this.  So STOP IT.
Apparently we need a woman in here to explain one of the risks involved in this, so...  While you may not ever have felt any sexual attraction to this woman, it is almost guaranteed that unless you're kinda disgusting, the more time she spends enjoying herself with you rather than with her husband (RED FLAG), the more likely it is that she will begin to (a) complain about her husband to you (RED ALERT! RED ALERT!), (b) rely on you for comfort (THE SHIP IS SINKING!), (c) start to feel attracted to you (DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!), and (d) fall in love with you (AND SATAN REJOICES).  This then risks exceedingly dangerous things for you, for her, for her husband, and for the woman you intend to marry; also for any children involved, and other family members.
I personally don't care how much she may deny any of the above, the fact that she already disrespects her husband enough to continue a relationship that causes problems for her husband puts us on dangerous ground, and would make any such assertion questionable in my mind.
So STOP IT!
Because pretty much every post you've made in this thread oozes it all over the place.

Yes. Exactly right. Husband not happy? No go! 

What is more important to you - her friendship with you or the quality of the relationship between her and her husband? it seems to me as if the relationship between you and her might be adversely impacting on the quality of the relationship between her and her husband and if that is the case, this would point to the conclusion that there is an element of selfishness that is motivating your behaviour, ie, you are acting on what is good for you rather than what is good for her. I think it might be time to stop and reconsider things.

My friend, casually hanging out with a woman is going on a date.

So you have differences with your friend's husband and you take her out to lunch and the movies?  Don't you see anything wrong with that?  You're lucky Mormons are so kind.  A Temple recommend would be the least of your immediate worries around here.   Take our word for it.  What you are doing isn't acceptable in this culture.  You need to either find male friends or include her husband when you see her.  Honestly, this isn't fair to your fiancee, either.

@JayKi I suggest that one of the things that should be high on your priority list is learning what it is that others might consider to be flirtatious, whether it is text, talk or actions. It seems as if you might have some learning to do in this area. 

The problem sounds like you are engaging in a relationship with a married woman that the husband doesn't support.  This will strain any marriage.  You are either willfully or ignorantly causing issues in someone's family.

@MormonGator has it nailed down, are you close friends with her husband? was this a long standing friendship that preceded their marriage? Are you respecting his wishes? 

So you date married women, including going private places sometimes.  And then you flip out when a bishop takes away your temple recommend.  
News flash JayKi - your bishop isn't acting out of spite and jealousy and bitterness.  He's trying to get you to change your destructive marriage-destroying ways. 
JayKi - you are doing wrong.  Whatever was acceptable in whatever culture you come from, that stuff doesn't fly here.
JayKi, humble yourself and repent.

The mountains are high and the emperor is far away - Old Chinese saying found posted in remote outposts of Canadian civil service

@JayKi I suggest that one of the things that should be high on your priority list is learning what it is that others might consider to be flirtatious, whether it is text, talk or actions. It seems as if you might have some learning to do in this area. 

It's not even worth the paper it's printed on - 'cuz that paper can no longer be used for a good purpose, like printing a logic puzzle.

My speculation, which I think is similar to what others have expressed, is that God's key role in our creative process was combining a spirit, that He somehow formed, with a pre-existing intelligence, with its own personality, which He did not form, and thereby brought into existence a soul. He then created an environment conducive to growth whereby that soul could grow and further develop by making choices, to the point where no further learning was possible, and an Earth needed to be created as a venue for further learning. I don't think any destiny was mapped out in the creation process - we make our own destiny in an environment/context set up by God, who, I suspect, was also bound by certain rules in the establishment of that environment. 

My speculation, which I think is similar to what others have expressed, is that God's key role in our creative process was combining a spirit, that He somehow formed, with a pre-existing intelligence, with its own personality, which He did not form, and thereby brought into existence a soul. He then created an environment conducive to growth whereby that soul could grow and further develop by making choices, to the point where no further learning was possible, and an Earth needed to be created as a venue for further learning. I don't think any destiny was mapped out in the creation process - we make our own destiny in an environment/context set up by God, who, I suspect, was also bound by certain rules in the establishment of that environment. 

Can we make crap up like they do in love poems?  Like removing letters and adding apostrophes to make the meter hit right?

becomes

 
I'm reasonably certain JAG has written a plethora of love poems.  Which reminds me:

Oh - and a few years back when there was a forest fire in my ward, someone from the stake called me and "Activated the emergency communication network".  We sat there and thought about what that actually meant, and decided it probably meant that the stake had my cell phone number and could reach me if they had info to spread or gather.

I haven't answered your OP, @lostinwater, but I think what you express above really encompasses this thread's origin. So I'll respond to this, with an eye to responding to the foundational assumptions of the original post.
I dislike the phrase "becoming a God". I dislike it a lot. I admit that in some context, it might technically be a correct thing. But I think it conveys a wholly false impression, one that antiMormons eagerly grasp onto and disseminate, and that even faithful Saints sometimes think. The very wording is all about power and control, imposing your desires onto others, being the one in charge whom everyone looks up to and worships. <vomit>
That attitude is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It never was. It never will be, worlds without end.
Let me replace the phrase "becoming a God" with the equivalent but more descriptive phrase "receiving eternal life". And let's expand on what it actually means to receive eternal life. Receiving eternal life means receiving all the blessings God has to give to his children. It means receiving a fullness of joy. It means being happier, more content, more joyful, more excited, more optimistic, more belonging as a part of a family that loves and adores you, than you can ever experience in this life. It means that your eye has not seen, nor your ear heard, neither have entered into your heart, the things which God has prepared for you.
Take the happiest day you have ever experienced. The happiest hour of your life. The happiest moment you have ever felt. Multiply that by a million. Now make it last forever.
That's eternal life.
Now consider this statement:
"I have no interest in achieving a state of perfect happiness, power to bless my family and myself, and intense joy beyond expression, and have that at my disposal both now and throughout all eternity -- thanks, but no thanks."
Would you believe anyone would actually say that, and mean it? Would you say that and mean it? I don't believe you would.
I urge you to step away from the whole "You can be a GOD!!!!! And have your own PLANET!!!" paradigm, and not apply that idea to Church teachings. That is foolishness, and is most certainly not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is about becoming like our Savior so that we, as joint heirs with him, can receive all [the blessings] that the Father hath. This is not a question of riches or real estate holdings or admiring worship. This is a matter of becoming people who are capable of experiencing such overpowering joy that we don't have words even to begin to describe it.
Joy is our goal, and will be our end if we stay true. Or in Joseph Smith's original words (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 255):
Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.

@JayKi I suggest that one of the things that should be high on your priority list is learning what it is that others might consider to be flirtatious, whether it is text, talk or actions. It seems as if you might have some learning to do in this area. 

Outsider perspective here--so I may be more objective (or perhaps less). See if the following make sense and are true:
1. OP respects/believes in LDS spirituality. He wants to be married in the temple.
2. OP appears to respect LDS authority, in that he is appealing to the stake president (rather than storming away from the church in a huff).
3. OP believes his bishop is not objective towards him, and was unduly harsh in his decision to remove his recommend so soon before his wedding.
Lots of questions: Does the bishop oppose the upcoming marriage? Does he perhaps believe that OP is not yet mature enough? Is he truly a bitter, jealous, spiritual leader, determined to be anti-JayKi?
Whatever the answers, a course of action has been suggested. Humility. If OP is not at the place where he can respect/agree with the person who is his bishop, then perhaps he can simply honor the position of bishop? The man serves that role, and it is one established and sustained by the church and its members. If Heavenly Father has chosen a broken vessel for this position (aren't we all somewhat broken?) then He has his reasons. Submitting to authority doesn't entail agreeing. It means doing what authority has asked for a season, because those people have been given decision-making power.
Military folks say they must salute the rank, not the person. Perhaps that's the right course for this situation. After all, isn't the girl worth it?

Very much like me. Except for the "handsome", "cool", and "young" parts.