Josiah

Hey changed! Interesting story from my mission. As a missionary, I often had a hard time telling people what they needed to hear. I was fine with using gentleness and meekness, and for some people that was all that was needed for conversion. But I had a hard time with boldness and sharpness, and so many of the people I taught saw no need for change. Eventually, my mission president and I ended up talking about it. I haven't forgotten what he shared with me - here it is: In Alma 38, Alma tells Shiblon to use boldness, but not overbearance. Overbearance is nothing more or less than using boldness without showing love for someone. That's all it is. Boldness without love. By contrast, if a person feels your love for them, you can be as bold as you need to be. It is impossible to be too bold if they feel your love for them. Interesting, right? Yes, some people choose to be offended when we are bold, even when we do show love in doing so. Why? Because the Light of Christ tells them that we are right and that they need to change. That's not a pleasant feeling, they've been ignoring that feeling, and we just reminded them it was there. But it sometimes is necessary to do so. And it can be successful, as in the case of Alma and Amulek converting Zeezrom, or that of Abinadi converting Alma, to name a few. Additionally, consider the Savior's words to the scribes and Pharisees here: Matthew 23 Jesus Christ is the perfect teacher. He also has perfect love for all of us, including the scribes he denounced. He said what he said because they needed to hear it. This wasn't the only time he spoke boldly to them either - a thorough reading of the Gospels quickly makes that clear. Christ was among the martyrs you mention who were killed for testifying plainly of the sins of the people. I know His methods weren't inappropriate.

I think we're basically on the same page now TFP. This is why I like forums. :) I'd still say it's possible to be tempted, and therefore have some level of desire for the sin, and not give in on any level. The Savior was, after all, "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." He was without sin because His righteous desires were such that the natural man desires were rendered completely and utterly irrelevant in what He did. If we're talking about immediately repenting of momentary, minor infractions as in your example, the difference between the two is made of little consequence by the Atonement. But it still happens, and I'll grant that this does mean we need to constantly strive for better in order to actually be repenting in the first place. And that bears heavily on our discussion. I guess you could say that the problem with my point of view is that I've been looking at it like death is the end - as if at that point any imperfection is instantly gone if we've been repenting during our lives. But that's not how these things work. The process must continue on until it's finished, so it's important to have the end goal or purpose of that process fixed firmly in mind and in heart. Probably much more important than I've been giving it credit for. Back on the topic at hand. The danger I'm still seeing is that we (the membership as a whole), just by the way we talk about homosexuality, cause people who struggle with it to feel as if their momentary "yeah baby" thought is grossly sinful, or at least quite a bit worse than everyone else's, despite their best efforts to repent. This just ends up piling on undue amounts of guilt over the issue and actually impedes the repentance process. This stuff happens - a lot. Some begin "trying too hard" and don't accept needed divine forgiveness over minor incidents. Others flat out get offended over our insensitivity and leave. Now, I say all of that loosely because it's 100% their choice whether or not to get offended or stressed over what we might say, but it's still on us to make sure we're sending the right message. The right message is not "having the temptations you have is a sin". That's the one I think we have been sending in the past, and are making good progress on getting away from. The right message is what you said earlier: "having temptations is not a sin, but accepting that one just 'has' temptations without a constant effort to remove, diminish, and change these is." The new problem you have raised is how we do that while avoiding sending wrong message number 2: "You don't have to change who you are, you just have to control your thoughts and actions for the rest of your life."

This is a great question. In my view, it's probably closer to the core of the discussion than we've been so far, so I want to talk about this point before I get to anything else you posted. I hope I can be clear. I think there's a difference between someone's core desires, or desires of the heart, as opposed to the more fleeting desires that come from day to day. They are closely related and deeply influenced by one another, but I still see them as distinct (I'll admit that I could be wrong in that view - your thoughts are welcome as always). Those Lamanites found an entirely new perspective and purpose, and it is evident based on their later actions that in their hearts they loved their Father and wanted nothing more than to do His will. But I don't buy that they never faced another temptation in their lives, and temptation can't exist without desire. It's just that those relatively superficial desires were overruled by the more meaningful desires of the heart. Why? They repented. So when we talk about repenting of, say, homosexuality, I would expect that the desire to submit to the will of the Father will develop and grow in the heart. I expect that, consequently, the desire to say, do, think, or be homosexual in any way will be driven out of the heart. But I also expect that the body and mind are used to doing things a certain way, and so the superficial desires will still go on for a while - even a lifetime in many cases - before they are actually removed. These desires are enough to enable temptation until they are gone. But the pain of not satisfying those sinful desires is swallowed up in the joy that is found in satisfying the righteous desires of our hearts - if repentance is complete and the temptation is ignored. I'm with you here. I agree with the rest of this first section as well, just using this sentence as a sort of summary. Publicly declaring in detail our struggles with temptation and how we're overcoming them and still remaining faithful is pride/boasting at best, if not holding on to the sin in our hearts as part of who we are (the "I am ____" phrase). I particularly like the last paragraph - I feel like I understand that principle a lot more fully having seen it written out this way. I just want to distinguish between the process of repentance (the things we do: controlling thoughts, focusing on positive desires rather than sinful ones, stopping unrighteous behavior, etc) and the fruits of repentance (including the change of heart itself, the reduction and eventual end of temptation, etc.) The process is within our direct control. While we certainly need the enabling power of the Atonement to do so, we are the ones responsible to make it happen. The fruits come from the Savior, and while I believe the change of heart is given to us rather quickly to the degree that we truly repent, I don't feel that the same is immediately true of eliminating temptation. This seems to me to be done on the Lord's timetable so that we may continue to learn to overcome temptation, and perhaps for other wise purposes. Essentially, whether the topic is homosexuality or any other sin, I don't like to see much focus placed on what's not in our direct control (the temptation).

In the general sense, it was clear enough for me to tell. You did seem to be hinting that they were holding back on homosexuality, but you also plainly said that you weren't criticizing their methods, and that the relevant issue there was the perception the rest of us have on their approach. You also made it obvious that you didn't fully endorse what the articles said. My post was not meant to imply that you disagreed - just to clarify where I saw the problem and where I did not. This was done in light of previous discussion on the thread rather than directed at you. I apologize if it came across as meaning anything else. Also, no rush on responding. I could use the time to think this one over anyway.

That might be the recent mission talking in my case. It's a minority, but there are definitely missionaries who are driven to declare repentance by other stuff. I suppose I'm just used to making the point. Anyway, I do agree that the perception is out there, and applied to members as a whole it doesn't make sense. Still, when someone tells me for my own good that I should change, I admit that my knee-jerk reaction isn't to think, "Wow, they really care about me!" I tend to get a little annoyed instead. Illogical as it is, it's the natural man in action. Maybe a more relevant comment would be that we should generally try to make sure our love is very clearly shown both before and after an invitation to change, as per the instruction given in section 121. That clarifies your meaning a bit for me. I do see that tendency in the membership as a whole, and also very often in myself when someone close to me needs a firm nudge in the right direction. In that context, the reason for the decline might be our fear, which has been nurtured by the recent cultural atmosphere promoting tolerance and acceptance of sin (bad) in addition to the sinner (not so bad). I would tend to disagree with the idea that the same thing is happening with our church leaders on a large scale, and I don't view most* of what you've shared as evidence that it is (*a few tidbits do catch my interest, and for now I have a vague sense that it does signify something, but that's for another post). TFP, always focusing on insignificant details. That doesn't help, you know. Alright, you got me. But my point was that parts 1 and 2 are both necessary for part 3 to happen in a meaningful way. Do we tend to focus on part 1 (make absolutely sure they/we recognize the problem) to the extent that we forget part 2? Particularly when we're emotionally invested somehow in the issue at hand, I think we do. Of course, as you said, we also tend to do the opposite - probably when we're emotionally invested in the relationship, or just downright afraid. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

A few thoughts: #1: You can cry repentance with boldness and sharpness, but you can also do it with gentleness and meekness. Both can be effective, both encourage people to turn to Christ and change, and therefore both qualify as crying repentance. #2: Sometimes people need it given to them straight to snap them out of their sense of carnal security, and other times people have simply lost hope, and need comfort and peace rather than confrontation. The Savior used both methods, according to the individual needs of those He taught. There's no sense trying to discuss which is the "better" method of crying repentance. #3: As Christ did, we are to rely on the Spirit to know what method to use at what time (see D&C 121:41-43). #4: Love is a prerequisite to crying repentance in either form. Whether you choose to be direct or to give support and understanding, it won't work if charity isn't behind it. Why the decline of declaring repentance (in the more direct way)? Perhaps the Lord feels that right now, we as a church need the softer method, and so He has directed our leaders accordingly. But they're still crying repentance. Alma needed both to recognize his failings and to find the hope to turn to the Savior as part of his repentance process. I wonder if we sometimes place too much emphasis on the former, and not enough on the latter. Regarding homosexuality and the OP links - I'll admit I fail to see how someone necessarily must eliminate the temptation of homosexuality in order to repent. I'm not saying it's impossible to do this or that it shouldn't be a goal, but what does someone really need to do to repent? Stop sinful actions? Absolutely. Change thought patterns? Of course. Align the true desires of their hearts with God's will? Crucial. But end temptation? I thought that being tempted by something, in and of itself, isn't sin, and our temptations and weaknesses may not always change in this life. If that's the case, isn't it appropriate to focus primarily on ending the behavior, coming unto Christ, and changing the heart instead? Or am I mistaken here?

For the record, I completely agree with you. I don't personally understand how any other view can be logically justified, and I believe 100% that the Book of Mormon is a literal record for these very reasons, as well as a witness from the Spirit. But I am also aware that there are a few members who openly feel that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, but that not everything in it literally happened, and that these members are still able to hold a temple recommend if worthy. That was his question, after all. :) But you're right, I should probably have been much more clear on why it is accepted and taught as literal, and how the implications of that are important - because they are.

Alrighty. So in response to your long OP, I have a fairly long reply. So prepare yourself. Question #1: There's a whole spectrum of reasons to come to church. As a whole, your motives seem really good considering what's been going on in your life. So no, nothing wrong at all! Is seeking camaraderie and edification the #1 absolute best reason to attend, as opposed to devotion to Christ? Maybe not, but it's a huge piece of the puzzle at minimum. Besides, I seriously doubt that I've truly found the #1 best reason myself. Just keep coming, and you'll keep finding better and better reasons to come. Question #2: Already been addressed. Talk to the bishop. You may be advised to work toward not using even medical marijuana as an eventual goal. Then again, maybe you won't. In any case, I would very strongly consider whatever advice you are given. As you've seen, God can work miracles if you leave it in His hands and try to do His will. Question #3: I believe the question we are asked is "Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God?" If you believe that and still feel like it's solely metaphorical, you'll probably be fine for now. You should be aware that it is widely considered to be and taught throughout the church as a literal record. But as far as I know, that's not an issue that will get in your way. Now, regarding the Atonement: it absolutely applies to you. You know that. You have seen pretty irrefutable evidence of its power working in your life, giving you physical, mental, and spiritual strength beyond your natural capacity. You have also felt of God's love for you through that same Atonement. All of this was made possible by the Savior, who volunteered to suffer all that you personally have suffered, and much more. He did so because He loves you, and because He knew that without that sacrifice on His part, you would never recover physically or spiritually from your mistakes. He wanted to give you that opportunity, and to enable you to feel a measure of His love for you. You have seen many of the blessings that come from the Atonement on your path to recovery. The thing is, there are blessings and then there are blessings. In many ways, the Atonement isn't an all-or-nothing deal. The Savior is constantly giving us everything we are able to receive. But there are some blessings we can't receive or use until we prepare ourselves and are ready for them (think 6-year-old with car keys ). God, knowing the state we need to be in to receive His blessings, has given us commandments. These commandments are a guide to preparing ourselves to receive the blessings critical to our happiness and eternal progression. As an example, you've seen from your own experience that "the Word of Wisdom is no joke." It's for our own physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well being. Consider the following scripture in D&C 130: So, what does all this have to do with you? There's been discussion so far about choices, consequences, the Atonement, being allowed to receive Christ's blessings, etc. Some of the advice given so far you have taken harshly. If I'm reading you correctly, part of that is because some of that advice seems to imply that you are still "forbidden" to receive the blessings of the Atonement, for whatever reason. The thing is, in a sense it's partially true, at least for the moment. There are blessings and then there are blessings. You have made some major changes, and been blessed greatly as a result. But there's more, my friend. There is much, much more your Savior wants to give you! That's good news!!! But some of what's left for you to receive requires more preparation than you've made so far. And that will take time, therefore some of the blessings of the Atonement will have to wait, as has been said. The same goes for everyone at some level. That's why the potential issue of marijuana, for example. The question is, will it prevent you from being fully prepared to receive and utilize some of these crucial blessings made available to you by the Atonement? Tough question, since we don't exactly understand divine law too well yet. So the fact is, I don't know. Those on this forum don't know. You don't know. Your doctor doesn't know, and the politicians don't know. But God knows, and the role of the bishop is to find out from Him what needs to be done in cases like this. The more we align our lives with the teachings of the Savior, the more strength and power and peace we allow Jesus Christ to introduce into our lives. And the best news of all is that, as you've seen, the things we can't change about ourselves, Christ can handle. But again, it requires us to be in the right state. We have to be trying. We have to exercise whatever faith we have, turn to Him, and follow the direction we are given. As the scripture above says, it requires obedience, especially when we don't understand it, don't like it, or don't see how it will work. To me, this is one reason it's so meaningful that Christ has suffered the very things we suffer. He understands perfectly our doubts, our shame, our guilt, our pain, our fear, and so on, because He chose to feel them. I don't understand exactly how the Atonement can have the effects it does, but this little piece of it makes sense to me, at least. There's great comfort and strength in knowing that He is right here in the trenches with me, and He doesn't ask me to do anything He won't do Himself. Well, I hope some portion of my rambling has been of help to you. You're well on the right track, and there are even more great things ahead for you. I wish you the best of luck, and I'll do my best to clarify anything I said, answer more questions, or help however else I can. Keep at it!

I have inborn desires to commit adultery/fornication. It's true! Guess what...I've never done it, and I'm not planning on doing it. Doesn't matter if I ever get married or not, or anything else. It won't happen. What does that tell you? I've got more inborn desires for sin too, if you need more examples. Everyone does. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay the difficulty of temptation faced by those who are homosexual. I'm fully convinced that their challenges in the chastity department are quite a bit tougher than what I deal with. I acknowledge that. My point is, the fact that a temptation is inborn doesn't justify giving in to it. President Packer's point is that it is completely possible with the Savior's help to resist homosexual temptations, whether they are inborn or acquired.

President Packer doesn't take a position on nature/nurture in this quote. All he is saying is that some people think they have no choice but to give in to their homosexual temptations, and that those people are incorrect on that point. That's all. He never says whether those temptations originate in nature or nurture. The church also hasn't taken a position on that. As far as I can see, neither has anyone on the thread. We just don't know. Do you see where we're getting this omega? Or is it still unclear?

Str8Shooter nailed it back in post #5. Hmm, prophetic. How'd you know Str8? Seriously though, don't get too worked up over stuff people say, especially on the internet. There's basically always miscommunication somewhere rather than bad intent. And that all applies doubly when controversial/political stuff like medical marijuana is involved. Listen to the 10 or so others here who told you that the bishop can advise you on this issue based on your individual circumstances. I've got some vague thoughts on the Atonement and some of your concerns running through my brain as well. It's getting really late though, so I'll come back tomorrow sometime and see if I can get a coherent post together then. For now, welcome!

Easier said than done, but so true.

'End' doesn't only mean a final point or conclusion. It can also be defined as a goal or purpose. What is the 'end' or purpose of the gospel? It is immortality and eternal life - or exaltation in eternal families. To me, "endure to the end" very literally means "continue on to exaltation".

The Holy Ghost will be your best guide. The Lord knows your situation and your heart, and we don't. Pray about it! But honestly, I'm not too worried. Unless you are given specific promptings, the Lord's will for your relationships at this stage of your life is outlined in For the Strength of Youth and other teachings from the prophets and the scriptures - not the missionary handbook. Therefore, short of a prompting to the contrary, I wouldn't do anything drastic to your friendship. But I also wouldn't break the rules you've set. Bottom line: If you're committed with all your heart to keep the commandments, counsel, and promptings you have been given for this time in your life, you're probably already giving 100% to the Lord. If you're giving 100% to the Lord by doing His will now, you'll be able to do it on your mission too. If you do need to change something about this, the Spirit will tell you if you ask. Meanwhile, date mostly other people. Enjoy your friendship. Learn what you want in an eternal companion. Have fun.

I'm all for context. Otherwise we'd read D&C 132 today and conclude that we should go find a second wife. The point is not to use "context" or anything else as an excuse for disobedience. It's easy to say "well, in context, this advice on home teaching doesn't apply to my situation because I'm so shy" or whatever it is. Speaking of context, while I can't seem to find a link to the full book your quote came from, I did find this little tidbit from the page before: https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/mate-selection?lang=eng “… “The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 302)." True enough, right? It also sheds some light on what he meant by the quote you provided. I'd be interested to read everything he wrote on the topic all together if you have that link. As you say, in full context it might be more clear what he's saying. But even without that, we can put some things together. Also from the same source linked above: “I have warned the youth against the many hazards of interfaith marriage, and with all the power I possessed, I warned young people to avoid the sorrows and disillusionments which come from marrying out of the Church and the unhappy situations which almost invariably result when a believer marries an unbelieving spouse. I pointed out the demands of the Church upon its members in time, energy, and funds; the deepness of the spiritual ties which tighten after marriage and as the family comes; the antagonisms which naturally follow such mismating; the fact that these and many other reasons argue eloquently for marriage within the Church, where husband and wife have common backgrounds, common ideals and standards, common beliefs, hopes, and objectives, and, above all, where marriage may be eternalized through righteous entry into the holy temple. … "… We recommend that people marry those who are of … somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” 142–44). To me, that last paragraph makes it a bit more clear where he stands. So yes, context is important. Your point is well taken. :)

Having just finished a mission a few months ago, let me fill you in on what I saw. Elders who had steady dated up until their missions, with a few exceptions ('few' meaning one or two), were distracted by that relationship. Some actually went home over it, most stuck it out but never really committed themselves to serving, some had to end the relationship before they were able to focus, and the one or two managed to adjust quickly. Why the difficulty? Their hearts were still at home with their girlfriends, so they weren't available to give to the Lord. Whether or not anything was inherently wrong with the relationships themselves, they had slowly and quietly become more important than the Lord's will for most pre-mission steady daters. And that's a problem. My 2 cents: Keep doing what you're doing. Date others, but by all means go on one together occasionally. Spend some time together as friends. Don't worry that you like each other - that's good! Enjoy it for what it already is, and don't try to build on that foundation before it's stable. Write each other when you're on your missions, but offer support rather than distraction. And last but not least, try to arrange it so that she leaves on her mission within six months of the time you leave for yours.

The difference between mindless obedience and humble obedience: We don't need to question every bit of counsel that comes out of the prophet's mouth to be thoughtful and engaged (assuming we have revelation that he is truly a prophet whom we are commanded to obey). Faith is trust and confidence, and while our faith absolutely must be centered in Jesus Christ, we also must develop faith that the prophets do not lead the church - He leads His church through them, and whether it is by His voice or the voice of His servants that He counsels us, it is the same as far as we are concerned. Exercising faith in this fact when it is revealed to us by the Spirit, and acting accordingly with no room for doubt, is not mindlessness. It is humility. No, mindless obedience means doing as we are counseled to do, but never doing more. It is failing to consider the purposes and goals behind the counsel. Seeking direction from the Spirit shouldn't be focused on questioning the validity of the counsel we receive - that will waste a whole lot of time and effort - but instead on questioning why it was given, pondering the principles involved, and seeking to know how we can apply it most effectively in our particular circumstance. This will help us to see what the prophets see.

I think it relates to faith that has been tried and proven. To make the concept more concrete, I like to think of it as perfect trust in the Savior, as here: So at a basic level, when we have developed trust in Him to the point that we would literally do anything He asks, that could be considered perfect faith. That might be oversimplification, but it's enough for me to have something to work on! Also consider: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2015/01/tasting-the-light?lang=eng and Ether 3

I'm very sorry to hear about this. I don't have children at this point, but I know it's hard to watch any family member make harmful choices - I'm sure it's on a whole different level when it's your son. I know that the Savior will help you through the trial, but it still isn't easy. I wish you the best, and I'll pray for you and your son. As for advice, others here can be more helpful I think, but here's a thought or two that come to mind: First off, while you may be able to force him to attend church for a time, you'll never be able to force him to believe a single thing that's taught or done there, much less to actively apply and internalize the principles. I've seen discussion on agency and parenting before - "how long do I make my kids come to church, when are they old enough that they should make their own decision" etc. I won't get into that here because while I have my opinion on this situation, I really don't know the answer and I'm not entitled to revelation on behalf of your son. You and your husband are, as is your bishop. I'm sure the three of you and the Lord can come up with better solutions together than a bunch of internet weirdos. So that's advice #1: Counsel together as a couple, as well as with the bishop, and seek revelation. What I do know, though, is that his beliefs are ultimately going to be his choice and nobody else's. I'm also fairly sure that his soul, like anyone's, will be dependent on his beliefs, what he does with them in his life, and his relationship with the Savior rather than a check mark on the attendance sheet. Whether you decide to bring him to church or not, it feels to me like it's still treating the symptoms, not the disease. And as hard as it is to swallow, only he and the Savior can effectively treat the disease. Because of that, advice #2 is this: whatever path he's taking, make sure he knows that you love him regardless. If you feel like you can, see if you can talk with him and especially listen to what he's thinking and feeling, and why. I don't know your son, but I'd bet quite a bit that there's more to this than he's told you. Continue to show love in simple ways, and don't stop if he keeps moving the wrong way. If he knows and feels your unconditional love for him (if not for his decisions), it will be an influence toward the Savior. Advice #3 is listen to this talk, and apply what the Spirit tells you. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng Best of luck to you.

I've wondered this kind of thing from time to time as well. As the system currently stands, they kind of just play different roles. As you have said, ward missionaries (and any other members) are generally much better suited for lasting support and for making initial invitations to nonmembers. The full-time missionaries are there more in the roles of teaching and calling to repentance. I feel like the latter in particular would generally be more difficult for a ward missionary. Sometimes as a full-time missionary you have to say what needs to be said, and there's a certain benefit to not having known the person beforehand, and knowing you'll be transferred within a few months. I can also say from personal experience that a full-time mission is as much for the missionary as it is for those they teach. If you're willing to serve well, it's a life-changing experience at worst and an eternity-changing experience at best. You'll see what I mean soon. Still, it's an interesting question to consider. Maybe one day this system will be changed when the time is right and when we're ready for it. Even now, if all happened as it should, the missionaries would do nothing but teach and baptize because we would be doing 100% of the finding. I guess we'll see.

Yep. Congrats and welcome!!!

How could I forget Bang! Risk is awesome too, but sadly my family thinks it takes too long.

Of the games you have listed I have played Ticket to Ride, 7 Wonders, Dominion, and Agricola. All fantastic games. If you enjoy them, some of my other favorites in the same category are Stone Age, Saint Petersburg, and Alhambra. I've played them all again in the last month or so, and I'm never disappointed. They're more than worth a shot if you get the chance. Tichu is an interesting trick-taking card game played in two teams of 2. It's a blast if you happen to have exactly 4 people interested, but otherwise you have to leave people out/you can't play, so it can be inconvenient at times. Pandemic is pretty good as far as cooperative games go. There's a lot of depth to the strategy, and it requires quite a bit of teamwork. You can also adjust the difficulty to make it harder as your family/group gets better at the game, which is great. As for the more mainstream games, Apples to Apples is my first pick for those rare occasions when I don't want a game that makes me think very hard. I also enjoy Boggle and Scrabble, and I'm a chess nerd too.

Hi Amy! As usual with relationship threads, I'll qualify my opinion by saying I'm still a young single adult and haven't exactly got experience with this topic. But that hasn't stopped me before! Regarding accountability - I think there are better ways. I suppose if weekly accountability to you is what the bishop recommended for some reason, that's different, but I seriously doubt it would be. Your best way to support him is to love and serve, which can be done in simpler and more effective ways. Don't get me wrong; openness is great! Your situation is certainly much better than the many cases out there where this kind of issue is hidden away and kept secret until marriage or longer. And of course, to the degree that you are considering eventual engagement and marriage, he needs to make you aware of what's happening. Because of that, I would say occasional (not weekly) updates are good, but that's not so much for his accountability as it is for your sake I think. Your support to him isn't dependent on your knowledge of every mistake he makes. His bishop and the Lord can handle accountability for repentance purposes. (Important side note: because his repentance is in no way dependent on you, there is no need to feel guilty if you decide it's best to move on for any reason. You aren't in any way obligated to stick around and take these emotional risks. It's entirely your decision. Don't forget that.) While I strongly echo the words of caution given in this thread (more on that next paragraph), I first want to mention that there's something critical to consider in yjacket's post, and it's part of the key to knowing how to move forward I think. If you're looking for someone who's never had any issues with this, it's not an easy search anymore. It can absolutely be done in many cases and is ideal. Having said that, the sad fact is there aren't exactly enough people who fit that requirement to go around. The good news? It isn't necessary to find such a person because repentance is possible. The Atonement can completely cleanse a person of pornography, or worse. Without Christ it can't be done; with Christ, true and complete purity is not out of your boyfriend's reach. I think it's wrong to suggest otherwise by saying not to marry him under any circumstance. The fact is, we all need the exact same cleansing and purifying as much as he or anyone does, whether we've faced pornography or not. That's why the importance of being sure the problem is actually in Christ's hands. That brings us to my main point; one I haven't seen made directly on this thread yet but which you'll need to consider very carefully moving forward. If you don't listen to anything else I say, listen to this: It is completely possible for someone to achieve temporary sobriety without turning the problem over to the Savior! It is possible to go through the motions of talking with the bishop, 12-step, etc, etc, without ever leaving the issue with Christ! So the good signs you have seen are awesome, but they're not enough. His sobriety over X months/years is necessary but still not sufficient. The change cannot be superficial in any way. It has to be given to the Savior. You have to be sure on this one. I can't effectively tell you how you'll know either way, but pray often for the gift of discernment as you're considering this relationship. Learn to see and feel and discern virtue and light in a person, and make sure he's got it before you even think marriage. Yes, I'm sure there's already some light in him - he seems sincere enough from your post - but don't be fooled. There's a difference between that and the purity and virtue you're after - a difference between getting back to the iron rod versus actually tasting the fruit of the tree in some measure. We're talking about that which can only be restored by the Savior once lost. We're talking about deep, powerful, abiding virtue and light. Learn to see it in the prophets and apostles and others you would see speaking in general conference. It's the easiest to see in them. Then find it in other people in your life you know are on the right path. Then see if you can find it in him later, when he's got a recommend. If you never find it in him, never marry him. Ever. The irony is that even if you're sure about this, you still need to be willing to love unconditionally for up to a lifetime if the problem should resurface. Only when you have discerned virtue in him and unconditional love in yourself (and him) can you even consider marriage. It's a lot to ask of all involved, but it's what's needed for this to work.

TFP, if you crack this you are going to completely ruin the suspense of wondering which film I'll be seeing. It's all I live for.