Midwest LDS

Yep I went ahead and got my permit a little while ago. In my state once you get it, it's good for life so I figured it was a good investment. I purchased an M and P Shield 9mm and I carry it when I am traveling (by car), and occasionally when I am somewhere I feel unsafe at. God knows I don't ever want to have to use it, I agree with @NeuroTypical's response about avoiding danger, but if it came to the life of my wife and daughter or some criminal, I'm going to choose my wife and daughter and deal with the emotional consequences later.

That would be a tough choice for me, but if she had truly repented of her sin and was remorseful? I would have to say yes. I believe in the power of the grace of Christ, and I believe someone can be changed by his power. Many sin in ignorance, and I would consider this example to be the same as the Anti Nephi Lehi's who repented pf the murders they had committed in ignorance. If she was in any way proud of, ambivalent, or dismissive of the avortion that would be an instant deal breaker for me. Abortion is a hideous sin, and I would have to KNOW she was remorseful and repentant of the action before I would ever move forward with dating her. If she lied to me, and I found out afterwards as per your second scenario (which is a big lie of omission to me), I would be furious. That's a trust issue, and it would seriously harm my marriage. I'm not a believier in divorce, and I would hope we could work through this, but a lie that serious before we even got married would make me question the basis of my relationship with her.

No it's everywhere in the US except Arizona and maybe Florida (I believe they have a bill moving through the state legislature that would get rid of it there).

Me too. Even when I was very young (I would have been 7) I remember discussing politics with my mom, and trying to get her to vote for George H.W. Bush instead of Perot. I also remember staying up late to see if Dole could upset Clinton, and being ecstatic when George W. Bush won in 2000. It's definitly been a source for a lot of fun discussions in my life.

Agreed, I like talking about politics in a non contentious way. I have friends and family across the political spectrum. Admittedly that has been difficult recently, which is frustrating because election season is my playoff season and I love talking about it. But too often it ends in an argument, so I've held off most of the time (at least since 2016).

I mean yes, in that case I would not vote for the person. I mean that those are dealbreakers for me, so I won't vote for a candidate that disagrees with me on the issues I outlined. In a situation you pointed out, where both candidates are equally objectionable, I vote for either some third party candidate, or myself as a protest vote. Basically I usually end up voting for whoever I think is the lesser of two evils anyways, but I am flexible enough to vote outside of party lines if no one meets my basic expectations☺.

Good question. Really I have 3 main priorities when I vote. I have an opinion on a myriad of issues, but these 3 positions are dealbreakers for me if a candidate disagrees with me. 1. Religious liberty. As a Latter-day Saint my right to worship God as I please, and the rights of others to do likewise, is the most important thing in my life and is the most important issue I base my vote on. I believe the loss of this right would destroy this country faster than any other. 2. Pro-life. It's really hard for me to see the opposite side of this issue. Killing babies for convenience is the greatest act of barbarism perpetrated in the United States, and I won't vote for a pro-choice candidate. 3. A strong armed forces. I've studied too much history to support anyone who wants to slash the military budget. I believe firmly in President Teddy Roosevelt's maxim "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Now I make an exception too these rules at the local level, because my mayor or county auditor has no power to affect these issues, so my vote is more flexible there. But in state and national elections those are "lines in the sand" for me so to speak.

Definitely Zelda, you can't go wrong with a classic Nintendo game.

First of all @Aspiring Nurse, I commend you for recognizning a problem and trying to seek out advice on the matter, rather than just acting impulsively. You have some very important building blocks to a healthy relationship already. You, yourself say that your wife is a loyal and dedicated wife and mother, and that she was willing to ignore your past, and see the better person you have become. Do you know how many men would give anything to have a wife with the traits you described? You have found a special woman, a choice you confirmed through the Holy Ghost, don't forget her amazing qualities. I also see that she has faults. No woman you will ever find will be faultless. They may be different faults than your wife's, but she will still do things that annoy, bother, and frustrate you just as you would do to her. Finally, and most importantly, you swore an oath in a holy temple of God, before God, that you would be her husband forever. I want you to imagine getting to the other side, looking God in the face, and telling him "Well I broke my eternal covenant with you and her because I just wasn't feeling that spark." It won't work brother. Take divorce off the table. You made an eternal choice, and honestly it sounds like a good eternal choice☺. Remember all of your wife's wonderful qualties and take to heart the words of president Monson "Choose a companion carefully and prayerfully; and when you are married, be fiercely loyal one to another. Priceless advice comes from a small framed plaque I once saw in the home of an uncle and aunt. It read, “Choose your love; love your choice.” There is great wisdom in those few words. Commitment in marriage is absolutely essential" God bless you in your trial brother. Keep praying, and know we are all praying for you!

It's true, I wept like a babe. But to be fair I was listening to Enya at the time and was pretty emotional already 😉

Since I'm a history teacher, I figured I may as well weigh in here😉. The biggest problem we tend to face when studying the past is exactly what @Just_A_Guy said, presentism. Let's take Southern motivations in the Civil War for example, since it's already been used. States Rights seems like a clear cut way to connect modern conservatism with seccessionist sentiment found in the South. Seems pretty cut and dried, modern conservatives frequently talk about states rights and limiting the power of the federal government. Until you take a step back and realize that modern conservatives, especially in the U.S., tend to be strong nationalists, and would reject early Southern notions of states having the right to leave out of hand. For modern conservatives, patriotism is such a core part of their being, for good or ill, that breaking the country apart would never occur to them (beyond the usual bellyaching conservatives and liberals do about states they don't like). Just the mere dismissal of secession alone prevents a useful comparison between conservatives and mid 1800's Southern Democrats, and that's before you dive into other political beliefs that have very much not transfered forward in time (Slavery being most obvious, but I could also use Southern desire for lower tariffs to protect their agricultural interests from the North among many other differences). I could give hundreds of examples of presentism that I find in most political arguments about history, I've spent far more time in my life than is entirely healthy studying the past😁, but I think the point is made. Generally, when we try to impose our current values on the past, we are trying to show how our side in a debate is just, righteous, and pure, while the other side is truly evil and has been since the beginning. It actually detracts from a legitimate understanding of history, as can be seen in the example provided, and I advise my students to avoid using modern political ideas when interpreting the past (climbs down off of soapbox).

Thank you for posting that family story. What a beautiful testimony from these two women! I always appreciate testimonies that show it wasn't just these poor, oppressed women being forced into bondage, but a living and breathing part of their testimonies. In fact, quoting the Institute manual on the history of the church, which is itself quoting an earlier work by Joseph F. Smith, we see that Latter-day Saint women were opposed to being thought of as victims. This section is talking about opposition to the Cullom anti-polygamy bill. "“While they opposed all the features of the anti-‘Mormon’ legislation, their action was principally in protest against the measures, and the remarks of would-be reformers, in which the women of the Church were spoken of as being ‘down-trodden’ and ‘degraded’ by their husband-oppressors.” Opposition by Latter-day Saint women was a great surprise to politicians and suffragettes, who saw them as the epitome of suffering and bondage." I actually read this manual on my mission. I bought it for 3 dollars in 2005 from the church, and the history within is detailed and thorough, disproving claims that the church was ever "hiding" it's history. I'm not blind, and I know polgamy was difficult on women, and some men and women abused the practice terribly. But the vast majority of faithful Latter-day Saints of both genders did their best to live the law according to God's command. This was not coercion but faith. I think it would be a hard law to live and I'm glad God does not require it today, but it WAS a divine commandment from God to his prophet when it was enacted and I fully support and admire these early brethern and sisters for attempting to follow God's commands, no matter how difficult.

I apologize if I missed this, but have you tried meeting with the SP and explaining your concerns? I believe in obeying and sustaining priesthood leaders, but they are mortal and sometimes make mistakes, even with good intentions. For example, on my mission, my mission president asked us to write out our prayers before saying them. His intention was to get us to think about what we were saying, a laudable goal. What it felt like was reading a prayer book for personal prayers, and it was awful. We let the president know it wasn't working, and he rescinded the requirement. By talking to him, rather than just being angry, the Elders and Sisters honored his priesthood, while at the same time pointing out something that wasn't working. If you have not done so yet, sit down with him and talk about your concerns. Remember what it says in the scriptures about when we have issues with our brother. Matthew 18:15: "15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother" I feel like too often we rail against someone from afar, without ever truly talking to them about our concerns. We stew and rather than fix the problem, let it fester until it comes exploding out of us. I can't tell you how many problems I've solved following this scripture's teaching (and how many problens I've escalated by not doing so). If you haven't, set up a meeting and talk with your SP. Explain your concerns. He may see his idea was in error, or you may better undertsand his reasoning behind the direction he gave you. Either way, you will have gained your brother, and you can resolve the issue. Just my random two cents.

I understand what you mean. Some wards do have some Pharisees that love to pounce on the smallest mistake, rather than trying to strengthen their brothers and sisters. I am sorry your ward has more of these than others, but I don't think it's super common everywhere. It depends on the congregation I imagine.

Plus, and this is true of any history not just the history of polygamy, most stories that make it into the history books are the dramatic ones. People tend not to write or read stories about boring, everyday people whose lives were fine, but uninteresting. The history that tends to be recorded is the earth shaking, the tragic, the excesses. It's easy to judge all those who practiced polygamy in early church history by the lurid stories of those who handled it poorly, because those are far more eye catching and interesting to read than the stories where it worked or where problems existed, but no serious issues occured. That's why people tend to read stories of Hitler, Napoleon, and Caesar and not of John Doe who died at 77 and loved his wife and kids.

I can't speak for everyone, but the answer must be yes. After all, every active member strengthens the congregation and I can't imagine a bishopric or stake presidency that would be more concerned with dress than attendance. I know it always made me really happy, and it still does☺, when I see an old face come in who has been absent or a new person investigating the truth.

I love that series. I'm re-reading The Founding right now.

I believe this is only a problem in certain areas of the church. About half of the active members of my ward are converts, and honestly people don't say anything to anybody about what they are wearing (I didn't even know it was an issue in some places till I was in Utah for college). Obviously, most of us dress in our Sunday best but, speaking as a former branch presidency member, just having people show up made us ecstatic. Unless someone showed up wearing something truly obsene (which has never happened to me anywhere in the church so far), I just can't see it being an issue. Eventually people start dressing nicer on their own. As Joseph Smith said about Nauvoo " I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."

Agreed, although I think they were trying to give him a better reason than the one he has in the comics. I believe he wants to kill everyone to prove his love to the anthropomorphic personification of death in said comics. That's a worse reason than the one in the movie, but you think they could have given him a more realistic goal (like universal domination or something) rather than just killing half the universe. Also, I mean he can alter time and reality, why not just double the amount of resources available? I liked the movie, but Thanos's motivation was odd.

The Alexiad by Anna Komnene. A first rate history of the Emperor Alexios and Byzantine (or Eastern Roman as I like to remind everyone because I'm pedantic like that😁) views of the First Crusade(Anna was Alexios's daughter). Also, Moscow 1812 by Adam Zamoyski. An excellent history of Napoleon's march on Moscow, that also includes first hand accounts from the common troops.

I agree 100% @zil. I can think of numerous times (too many to count) where the Lord acted in a way that doesn't seem fair from a mortal perspective in addition to the ones you mentioned. 1. God commanding Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan 2. God restricting the Aaronic priesthood to only worthy Levites, excluding the rest of the children of Israel. 3. The Savior himself refering to a Canaanite woman who came to him for help as a dog compared to the Children of Israel in Matthew 15:21-28. 4. Millions, if not billions, of his children born in times and places where his gospel is unknown and would never be known to them in their lifetimes. There are many other examples I could give, but I think it illustrates an important point in regards to the priesthood ban. I think it's perfectly ok to study this from a historical perspective and an interest in history, but when people are allowing this to trouble their faith, I think it becomes counterproductive. As with the examples I presented above, there are always things the Lord does or has done that may seem troublesome when viewed through a mortal lens because as it says in Isaiah 55:8-9 "his thoughts are not our thoughts". I think rather than focusing on parts of the Gospel that trouble us, we follow Elder Uchtdorf's advice to "doubt our doubts before we doubt our faith". At the end of the day, gaining a testimony of Jesus Christ, his prophets and apostles, and the scriptures is what will settle concerns about church practices. At least that's the way I look at it☺.

Welcome @BlondeMormonBoyAdam! You've got it. Walk on in to your nearest ward on Sunday, ask for the Bishop, and tell him what you told us and you will be on your way. You will be welcome, and you will meet a lot of people who will be very happy to see you. Glad to have you back, brother!

Brother I understand your concern, but you must not live in fear. Yes the potential for great hurt exists in marriage, but the potential for the greatest happiness exists too. If you focus only on negative experiences, all you will see are negatives and God does not intend us to live that way. Remember what he says in 2 Timothy 1:7 "7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" Also 2 Nephi 2:25 "25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." We are meant to be hopeful, and live with happiness and faith in our lives. Marriage has brought me the greatest joy I have ever experienced. I've been married for 10 years and my wife has been a light and an angel in my life. She is kind, loving, loyal, and funny. She gave me my beautiful, little daughter who brings so much light into my life. She helped me become a better man than I would ever have been on my own. I can't guarantee you won't deal with infidelity, no one can. But would I trade the joy and growth I have only received from my wife for the safety of being single? No. Don't live your life in fear brother. God created you to be joyful☺.

Yeah it's one of those movies where to enjoy it you really need to forget it was based on a book lol. Although I'm still hoping for a decent Foundation series movie (I like space operas).

Agreed on the generational thing. I usually am not a fan of older movies, although I have a soft spot for old war flicks like The Longest Day and Midway. Those were pretty popular in their day, but I don't know how many people my age or younger would put them on a universally loved film list.