Dravin

You see this pop up repeatedly, that it's "not fair" for someone to grow or change as a person once you've married them. Fair or not it isn't realistic to expect people to remain unchanging from the point of marriage. Also, you rarely see it trotted out when someone is growing or changing in a direction the spouse approves of. People will bitterly complain that their spouse is going from X -> Y but jump with glee when they go from X -> Z. This makes it read less about there being some sort of underlying unfairness to changing that must be resisted at all costs and more not liking the change they are seeing. Which is fair enough as far as it goes but it should be realized that's the issue, not "marriage means never changing!"

Per Preach My Gospel a missionary's purpose is: Preach My Gospel is the manual that missionaries currently use. If you are interested in the more involved answer, there is an entire chapter dedicated to the subject intended to help missionaries understand their purpose. You can find it here: https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/what-is-my-purpose-as-a-missionary?lang=eng

Do you mean avoid using lethal force when force is called for? If a cop isn't justified in using lethal force he shouldn't be pulling the trigger. Ideally all shootings are in a lethal manner and no shootings are in a non-lethal manner. Indeed 'shooting to wound'* can be prima facie evidence that you didn't feel lethal force was justified, in which case you used the wrong tool for the job. *If you meant something else by 'avoid shooting in a lethal manner' I'd welcome clarification.

The rational against informing your spouse because, "It'll hurt them to know." has always seemed a bit convenient to me. Particularly when paired with, 'It'll be difficult to get their trust back.'

Possibly, did you go running in Michigan?

It depends on exactly what she believes, she may feel the Church is wrong but not harmful either because the doctrinal distinctions aren't important in the long run, or because she feels that it's a harmless untruth. In the end though, why she's okay with it is something you'll need to ask her, not a bunch of random people from the internet. Do you know what she believes now in general beyond 'not-LDS? Does she even know at this juncture?' This is an important point, there will be many who will give advice and comfort and often buried in it somewhere is the assumption that she'll return. If you make any decisions you'll need to make them with the understanding that she might not return else you risk rising resentment and frustration if she doesn't. This may be a storm she and you have to weather, it may be a major paradigm shift she's not returning from.

Agnostic or some sort of vague theist.

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

The temple preparation classes are based around these manuals - Instructor: https://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual?lang=eng Student: https://www.lds.org/manual/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple?lang=eng On top of the class, if you know someone who is a temple attending endowed member who you trust and know I suggest a conversation with them after the class, or to clarify aspects of the class, are worthwhile, and ideally after you attend. Some people find the temple like a warm fluffy blanket the first time, it just feels right and natural, while others find it a little alien to begin with, and both types of people often feel with a little hindsight there was some thing or another they'd considered or known beforehand (be it spiritual, conceptual, or practical). There are threads on the board that touch on advice for people going the first time, but they are going to be lacking compared to a close and trusted confidant. http://lds.net/forums/topic/49065-anyone-here-who-has-received-their-temple-endowments/ http://lds.net/forums/topic/44054-any-and-all-advice-about-going-to-the-temple-for-the-first-time/ http://lds.net/forums/topic/38718-temple-prep-lessons/?hl=endowment

Even if it was about the caffeine the fact that other beverages contain caffeine doesn't make coffee contain any less caffeine.

That's really a discussion you need to have with your husband. A fundamental aspect of telling your kids what is going on with your husband is knowing what is going on with your husband. The only source for that is him. To be able to tell the kids, "Dad now..." you have to know what replaces the ellipsis. Two additional aspects is that your husband has to be able to communicate what is going on with him (he may not understand it himself or know how to articulate it), and then you need to agree on how to characterize it. It's really easily for faithful members to characterize a loss of faith in ways that rub those they are talking about the wrong way, and that's something you'll want to avoid while still struggling to be honest in communicating with your children. If you bury it in euphemism and hope I can see it annoying your husband because it feels like you aren't recognizing what's happened* and it'll also likely annoy him if he feels he's being cast as a bad guy or a failure. *If it starts sounding like you're describing it as a phase he's going through it doesn't recognize it as the fundamental paradigm shift he likely feels it is.

You could possibly look into the caffeinated holly teas such as guayusa or yerba mate.

​Fundamentally it comes down to how you identify yourself, if you define yourself by the things conversion requires and counsels of you to discontinue then I can see how one could feel, "I'd lose myself." If one identifies oneself by other qualities it's less of an issue. Mormonism would ask you to discontinue some things, but it also asks you to identify yourself not by your sins (within a Mormon context) but by your virtues and potential. If Mormonism, and Christianity in general, are what they claim to be then one should in a sense lose themselves and find a better self (Matthew 16:24-26 and all that). Indeed, one can make the argument that such is the sole goal.

His underlying complaint is going to be based on "fairness". So that's what your response needs to address. If your complaint has indeed been "too much TV" and not "too much of the wrong TV" then he does have a bit of a point. Not that you necessarily need to scale back your conference and church video watching (though I'd suggest one could indeed overdo those things) but you need to clarify your position. In short, I tend to lean towards PolarVortex. Be prepared for him to essentially accuse you of gerrymandering the TV rules though, he is a teen and, "It's not fair!" is pretty much their battle cry.

Heart is some tasty meat, it was one of my favorite things about moose hunting (the hunters got to enjoy themselves some heart and tongue). I don't think I've seen heart for sale outside of some fairly large international marts (and I don't trust the meat department at the one nearest me), though I suppose a real butcher could get their hands on some for you.

Wow, that's just bad. If there was any European country I'd expect Americans to be able to pick out from a map it'd be the UK. It's not even like a lazy graphics person accidentally put it in Ireland while slapping it together really quick.

It's a real kiss if you're going to be kissing as opposed to some sort of stage kiss where it's just the appearance of kissing going on (faces close together, twist away from camera or what have you). This is a separate issue from if it's acceptable or not.

On my mission this became such an issue that my Mission President felt like he needed to come out and correct the missionaries because they were going so far in their downplaying and backpedaling that they wandering into what he felt was false teachings. I remember engaging with more than one fellow missionary over the subject because I felt they were getting as close as possible to the line of saying, "Polygamy was wrong." without actually crossing the line.

On the other hand one could argue, based on 2 Ne 9:25, that he could withhold the Law to achieve such a goal. In such a case, he wouldn't have been forcing everyone to be good but rather forcing everyone to be ignorant. Of course both suggestions are operating from the premise that his plan would actually work in some convoluted fashion. That premise could very well be flawed, that is his plan could have been a very persuasive, "A wizard did it."

You tend to get it on both sides, where there are individuals who espouse the the Gilded Age or the Red October the reality is a bit more towards the center than the other side's talking points usually suggest.

I found it online here (look for section 9.2.6). The citation given at the above link is: (The Promise of Discipleship [2001], 119, 122) Edit: Looks like I was a couple minutes slow on the draw.

With respect to #3: I think a fundamental hinge-pin in the thinking of people being able to 'enjoy' sin and then repent later only really holds up if one believes there aren't benefits to living the higher law in this life. If all benefits are deferred, sure then the idea that, "They get to live it up, or at least live it easier and then get access to the same pension plan. That's so not fair!*" floats. If one believes there are benefits to living the gospel today then they are missing out, and the Church most definitely teaches that there are benefits of living the gospel today, that puts some holes in the boat. *You don't want fair. It isn't fair that Christ paid for your sins. If you could magically flip a switch so that everything was fair, make sure you're prepared to enjoy hell.

How is is usurping authority to ask? I could see that if they demanded, or simply went ahead and did it. If they're asking the head of the household that is present at the time though, the fact they are asking is an acknowledgement that it isn't their home and they don't have the authority to simple say, "We're all going to have a prayer know." The only way I can see an authority/priesthood issue is if they're asking the someone other than the head of household present. Don't get me wrong, I get it feeling weird as it is unusual behavior, but complaints about it being an authority issue come across like someone complaining, "Every time they're over they offer me a mint and a stick of gum before they leave. How dare they usurp my authority to determine the freshness of my breath!"

From: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/saltlake/

Sure... it's simply because of it's proximity to Christmas. It's in no way an attempt to insinuate: I'll buy its simply due to the proximity to Christmas just like I'll buy someone dressed in a confederate flag trying to explain their calling a grown black man, "Boy." because, "He looks kinda young."