KScience

@Grunt & @Midwest LDS - thank you both so much! Your kind-spirited and uplifting words have encouraged me a great deal. I still have a lot to learn about the culture and about the doctrine of the church, and there is a lot of confusion on my part at times. I've found this forum to be tremendously helpful as I've been reading through posts, and I usually love the spirit in which information is shared. I had a friend suggest that I just watch the endowment ceremony on youtube, and I immediately felt like I should be extremely careful about the sources that I choose, and that I shouldn't treat such a sacred ceremony lightly. 
I've got to keep this brief as I have to head to work early this morning, but my heart is now at peace and I know that I can fully participate in the endowment ceremony and get sealed to my wife without any reservations at all. 
God bless you for being willing to share, and for your kind & caring spirits.

I appreciate the fact that you take your covenants with God so seriously, and I am sure God is well pleased with your desire to honor him. First off, remember that your relationship with God is what matters. Don't concern yourself with how closely Tom, Dick, and Harry are following the commandments, just worry about you (and your family of course). The church is a hospital for sinners, and all of us are trying to overcome our weaknesses and sins through Christ's grace.
As far as the temple covenants are concerned, I can't talk about the specifics (I and everyone else who has been to the temple have made a covenant with God not to) but I feel inspired to share a scripture with you. Doctrine and Covenants 1:30
"30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually"
You said you made a covenant to devote all your time, talents, and gifts to pursue a deepening relationship with Christ. This is Christ's church. Anything dedicated to his church is dedicated to him, as he created and continues to run this organization. So the question you have to ask yourself is do you truly believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored Church of Christ? If the answer is yes, you should have no problems making the covenants in the temple as they will not conflict with your personal covenants. If your answer is no, work on gaining that testimony before going to make your covenants. Best of luck in your spiritual journey brother.

It's not that I disbelieve you, mirk. I don't disbelieve you. But I have seen dozens of instances where adults who say or write something in defense of an apostle or who reinforce the importance of inconvenient obedience are immediately tagged as prophet-worshipers. I assume there are some adults in the Church who truly do not understand that even apostles are just men ("just" in both senses), but I don't think I know any of them. Pretty much everyone I'm familiar with knows that apostles (and all other Priesthood leaders) are men and not God, that sometimes their opinions might be incorrect, and that they might even implement less-than-optimal policies, or implement them in a ham-fisted way. Most faithful Saints acknowledge this, but maintain that we sustain our leaders anyway.
In any case, little of this applies to President Oaks. When people are offended by what Elder Oaks teaches, the problem lies 100% with those taking offense. Even Jesus offended people with his teachings, and I dearly hope no Saint would suggest that Jesus simply was not empathetic enough or sufficiently careful in his choice of words.

And isn't that the real point?  We should not need someone like Heather to point out that we need to really understand things before we jump on the "I'm offended", "This person is wrong", etc, etc bandwagons.  Doing so leaves us vulnerable being manipulated, used and lead astray.  We are instructed to listen, to ponder, and pray, and that is the answer we should be giving to everyone that might otherwise be struggling.

For those of you who feel they may not belong here on these forums, please, please, be aware that you may be a tool in the Lord’s hand in helping those who come here with their questions. You are wonderful! I know you have helped people to come closer to Christ. Some may not be on the same spiritual rung of the ladder as you. There are those who are struggling. I appreciate every one of you who are so stalwart in defending the gospel. Thank you! Thank you!!! You are needed! You are appreciated!

We are suppose to follow the leaders because we have a spiritual witness that they are God's chosen.  Sadly too many neglect that witness.  If we follow because we like and agree with them then we will falter when they tell us things we do not like (which will happen).
We also recognize that God's chosen are also flawed humans like everyone else so we do not take every act and every word they utter as God breathed or expect God to be puppeting their every action.  Rather we consider what they say and do in their official capacity.  Even then we acknowledge that they are a flawed delivery system and therefore we should focus on what God is trying to tell us through them, rather then getting hung-up because they did not express themselves the way we would have wished.

So...MGF exists to abandon the wisdom the church employs?
Great.
I think (strong emphasis) I understand what you're getting after, and I don't believe it tracks.
If the idea was, say....preaching in China when the church "can't or won't" then I'd buy the reasoning, though it would involve other concerns...
When the idea is, say...cussing more so members that cuss feel more comfortable...um... sure...let's all go get tattoos and extreme piercings and drop F-bombs here, there, and everywhere. That'll bring more people to Christ for sure.

I had someone very, very close to me accuse me of being a sheep when it comes to the church. And I confirmed that accusation. I am a sheep. A free thinking and free to choose sheep, but a sheep, nonetheless. 
I understand that there are people in the church who feel marginalized because they feel differently, think differently, struggle differently than what they perceive others to feel, think, or struggle. And I will always try to be loving, kind, and thoughtful to them. But, we are warned time and time again to be very careful with our criticisms of the prophets--and the members of the First Presidency and 12 Apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators. 
Are they fallible, mortal men? Of course. But, any criticism I might feel, I'm very careful to either share with a trusted, faithful friend to work out my feelings/thoughts or I keep it to myself. While that may be construed as sheep-like following, I'm ok with it. Christ thinks of me as His sheep, so I embrace that name calling. 
Put me in the camp of not appreciating the beginning of this article. I understand the overall thought and even agree with it. But, I do think it could have been approached differently. I am really ok with being accused of being a TBM (or is that now a TBLDS?) and a sheep. That's exactly who I want to be. I wish others were just as ok with being a sheep (which now appears to be a curse word or awful accusation). 

My correction for the opening paragraph:
I'm firmly in the Elder Oaks fan club. I've seen the world point the finger of scorn at God's servants, but Nephi of old taught that the wicked would take the truth to be hard. I can't recall a thing he has said that I don't agree with, and if I could find one I suspect I'd need to repent and align my life with the word of God. Many times he has spoken where I felt he could say with Jacob, “Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts...Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds. “ Although, I have never held these men to a perfect standard, I realize that when an Apostle of God speaks he does so from a place of love and concern for the welfare of souls. He is reaching out to save his brothers and sisters. The delivery may not be perfect and people may get offended, but the intent is good and the message is not wrong. I am in the Elder Oaks fan club! 

These type of threads truly causes me to ponder how I would have responded, if I were one of his (Christ's) disciples (particularly Peter), and the Lord said the following to me (although my heart and thoughts appeared to be in the right place):
1) "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Ouch -- I mean this is where Peter was walking on water and saw a storm and began to sink and was told he didn't have enough faith
2) "But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."
The individuals that are having a hard time with the given message from Elder Oaks, “But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members," would be people who would have the same issue if the message came from the Lord himself -- wait -- it did come as from the Lord himself -- "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
At this time Elder Oaks was speaking as the voice of one of Christ's servants. Elder Oaks is correct. There is only "one" spirit that seeks to stir up hearts to anger toward the Lord's servants, and it isn't the Spirit of the Lord -- it is the adversary who stirs up the hearts of the children of humans to anger against the Lord's servants. I am amazed at how quickly this teaching in the Book of Mormon is so easily forgotten. I am reminded of the non-Israelite who heard of a prophet who could heal him. This mighty man went to this prophet. The prophet told him to bath in dirty water and he would be clean. This mighty man was initially upset that such a mighty man would be asked to do such a simple task. The simple task though wasn't the washing and bathing in the river Jordan. It was the simple task of faith.
I am honestly puzzled how anyone would be upset or mad at the given quote in this article from Elder Oaks. I assume people who are upset at this would also be upset at Spencer W. Kimball's statement "Faith precedes the miracle," which is what Elder Oaks is also stating.
I will be honest though, and for those that know me on this site, I am not very compassionate with people who want to stone the prophets because they disagree with how they phrase something. We see the following prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled in our day, "And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught."
The overall article is trying to let people know its OK, continue to move forward even if you don't agree. Great (that is wonderful). I just think opening an article with "I’m not part of the President Oaks fan club," isn't a very good opener (as others have suggested). I hear this thought and I automatically hear the spirit of my heart and mind say, "I am totally within the fan club of Jesus Christ, and I know Jesus Christ is a fan of Elder Oaks and loves him. I don't want to be that person that has to stand before my Master knowing the covenants I have made pertaining to the Lord's anointed." I can find no evidence in scripture that indicates a state of opposition toward God's chosen servants as a good thing.
I do find plenty of evidence of how the Lord feels about prophetic "weakness" and "fallibility" and it appears those who call them out for "weakness" or "fallibility" might be wise to remember the following discussion Moroni had with the Lord and his (Moroni's) known weakness of writing and how people would take his writing, "And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;" Yes, not a position I want to be in when that time comes that I will stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, and my Heavenly Father.
EDIT: Just as a side note. I am OK with the opposing views on thirdhour.org, because their are moderators that are willing to stop or comment in a thread when things are not within Church doctrine. I also admit I don't like this type of article opening, and it appears this is happening more with Thirdhour articles. I also don't know the objective that happens behind the scenes. The articles though seem to be trying to find the fence sitters, those struggling, and trying to appeal to them to bring them on the good (good being covenant keepers) side. Just not sure if this is the best way.
 

The problem as I see it is not diversity of opinion. The problem is the sense of comfort at leveling criticisms at God's anointed. Do we or do we not sustain our leaders? If so, taking potshots at them doesn't qualify. Ever.
It's one thing to say, "I didn't agree with President Oaks when he said thus-and-such."
It's quite another to say, "I’m not part of the President Oaks fan club. I have seen more than one social post over the years that is full of anger and hurt with a finger pointed at him... More than one quote from President Oaks has triggered the forgiving voice of Elder Uchtdorf to play in my mind, 'They are also painfully imperfect. They make mistakes. From time to time they say things they shouldn’t. They do things they wish they hadn’t.'”
The former may be unwise, but it's not beyond the pale. The latter is.
And for the record, I'll bet my house against yours (or Heather's) that if you made a line of people looking to stand with President Oaks and ALL that he said, without reservation, Elder Uchtdorf would be at the front.

I don't like the thought of a world where the only "Latter-day Saint" forums are 98% filled with progressive, "we know better than those old fuddy-duddy prophets" posters.

A lot of people have expressed that this site is more true-blue latter-day saint than any other they've found. If those supportive of the brethren leave, where do we go?

This is our own Heather?! I almost can't believe it. I am stunned. This is the most backhanded of defenses of our leadership, the equivalent of telling your date, "You know, for a fat chick, you don't sweat much."
I have to wonder very seriously if I belong on this site at all. I'm thinking maybe not.

If you aren't in an Apostle of The Christ's fan club, you're following the wrong band.  You should rethink your stance.

I don't quite understand it when an author starts an article with how much he/she (generic) doesn't like certain leaders of the church (I've seen this more than once). While this author actually ends up defending President Oaks, she spends the first few paragraphs talking about why she doesn't like him. Maybe this is just me, but I don't find such criticism of our leaders helpful at all. Are they human? Absolutely, and they make mistakes regularly just like us. But I don't understand why we don't just trust that the Lord is leading his church, and stop trying to steady the ark. President Oaks is one of my favorite speakers, he always has been, but even if I didn't like him for whatever reason I wouldn't criticize him publicly. He is an Apostle of Jesus Christ, chosen by God as a prophet, seer, and revelator. If he is in error, let God deal with him and I can focus on working on my own relationship with Christ. I think all of us could be a little kinder and more forgiving of our leaders.

The old standby:

Nice!
I'm retired, so have far too much time I could devote to posting here!  I hope to keep the lid on it.

Hey some of us come here to avoid the B word   ........   

As a single parent who moved to a new ward with a 2 year old baby after my husband left, I keenly remember this experience and felt your pain for a while. Before this I went to church alone with a baby as my husband was not a member.  I just went because I needed to take the sacrament. Children pass through this phase with a little perseverance and pre planning; although at the time it can seem like an eternity and things will never get better.
I had a very energetic son, so would take him to the park on the way to church so that he had time to run around and wear himself out. Being English this often involved wellies and a big coat and a change of clothes for when we got to the chapel, but it made the day easier for him.
I am naturally a reserved person and would prefer my own space, but found that my son settled best if I sat in the middle of a pew surrounded by people. This meant that I found out that members were very happy to have a "small" sit and quietly chat to them (to my surprise especially the older ladies who I had mistakenly assumed would be irritated by him). Crayons and paper would help him sit stiller, or sitting on my lap and playing boo with the members in the pew behind could keep him entertained for a good 10-15 mins. Finger games like incy-wincy spider were also a useful distraction
I also trained my son at home to have short periods (starting with just 1 minute) where he sat still on my lap and we had quiet time every day. This helped him to be able to sit still and learn to entertain himself with his imagination. It's a skill that helps children in school too and increases their concentration time.
Don't worry about what other people think - just do what's best for you and your son. On the worst days I just had to chant to myself "this too shall pass" 
We did survive this, and thinking back on this has reminded me of some of the fun times we had when he was a tiny tot - and now with the passage of time I find myself smiling at these memories.

I look at it more as "consequences".  There are eternal truths, just like there are mortal truths.   If you follow Christ as a mortal, you progress to exaltation. If you don't, you won't.  If you eat healthy and exercise as a child, you grow stronger and faster, if you don't eat and drink, you die.   
It's just actions and results.  He's given us the answers.

This premise is ridiculous.
There is no "other than". There is God's will as given by ancient and modern prophets and apostles.
There is following, and there is rebelling against. There is faithfulness, and there is unfaithfulness.
There are covenants and there are the breaking of them.
The "they might be mistaken" nonsense in nonsense. A. Unlikely. B. Even if so it is irrelevant until God wills to make it known otherwise. There is still following or rebelling, faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Following, faithfulness, and the keeping of covenants leads to peace and happiness, rebellion, unfaithfulness, and the breaking of covenants leads to misery and destruction. Period. It's not complicated and nuanced. It's as straightforward as it can possible be, and those who take the simple and try to make it complicated and nuanced are embracing dishonesty.
Then you don't understand eternal marriage, and the purpose of fidelity and commitment therein. You're under the impression, apparently, that sexual fidelity is a virtue in and of itself. It's not. Faithfulness in the marriage covenant is directly tied to the purposes of eternal marriage. Sex outside of marriage is a sin because of the importance of eternal marriage. Why else would it be? What could possible be wrong with an unwed young man and woman engaging in protected non-impregnating sex if it wasn't that sex was directly tied to the value of eternal marriage and commitment WITHIN that state? Take away the eternal marriage aspect and fidelity has no more meaning than a contract -- the breaking of which may have it's own sins (honesty being one of them), but the actual contract itself has no purpose. Why, with the removal of eternal families as the point, would there be value in committing sexually to a single individual?
There is none. There is no wholesomeness in the unwholesome. There is only man-made counterfeit pseudo-virtue masquerading as wholesome as a lie to further Satan's goals of destroying God's plan...which plan is eternal families.

This astonishes me.  I don't even have words to describe it.

As a single parent who moved to a new ward with a 2 year old baby after my husband left, I keenly remember this experience and felt your pain for a while. Before this I went to church alone with a baby as my husband was not a member.  I just went because I needed to take the sacrament. Children pass through this phase with a little perseverance and pre planning; although at the time it can seem like an eternity and things will never get better.
I had a very energetic son, so would take him to the park on the way to church so that he had time to run around and wear himself out. Being English this often involved wellies and a big coat and a change of clothes for when we got to the chapel, but it made the day easier for him.
I am naturally a reserved person and would prefer my own space, but found that my son settled best if I sat in the middle of a pew surrounded by people. This meant that I found out that members were very happy to have a "small" sit and quietly chat to them (to my surprise especially the older ladies who I had mistakenly assumed would be irritated by him). Crayons and paper would help him sit stiller, or sitting on my lap and playing boo with the members in the pew behind could keep him entertained for a good 10-15 mins. Finger games like incy-wincy spider were also a useful distraction
I also trained my son at home to have short periods (starting with just 1 minute) where he sat still on my lap and we had quiet time every day. This helped him to be able to sit still and learn to entertain himself with his imagination. It's a skill that helps children in school too and increases their concentration time.
Don't worry about what other people think - just do what's best for you and your son. On the worst days I just had to chant to myself "this too shall pass" 
We did survive this, and thinking back on this has reminded me of some of the fun times we had when he was a tiny tot - and now with the passage of time I find myself smiling at these memories.

As a single parent who moved to a new ward with a 2 year old baby after my husband left, I keenly remember this experience and felt your pain for a while. Before this I went to church alone with a baby as my husband was not a member.  I just went because I needed to take the sacrament. Children pass through this phase with a little perseverance and pre planning; although at the time it can seem like an eternity and things will never get better.
I had a very energetic son, so would take him to the park on the way to church so that he had time to run around and wear himself out. Being English this often involved wellies and a big coat and a change of clothes for when we got to the chapel, but it made the day easier for him.
I am naturally a reserved person and would prefer my own space, but found that my son settled best if I sat in the middle of a pew surrounded by people. This meant that I found out that members were very happy to have a "small" sit and quietly chat to them (to my surprise especially the older ladies who I had mistakenly assumed would be irritated by him). Crayons and paper would help him sit stiller, or sitting on my lap and playing boo with the members in the pew behind could keep him entertained for a good 10-15 mins. Finger games like incy-wincy spider were also a useful distraction
I also trained my son at home to have short periods (starting with just 1 minute) where he sat still on my lap and we had quiet time every day. This helped him to be able to sit still and learn to entertain himself with his imagination. It's a skill that helps children in school too and increases their concentration time.
Don't worry about what other people think - just do what's best for you and your son. On the worst days I just had to chant to myself "this too shall pass" 
We did survive this, and thinking back on this has reminded me of some of the fun times we had when he was a tiny tot - and now with the passage of time I find myself smiling at these memories.