Itchy writes redundantly, " . . why don't you accommodate the Church by respecting its beliefs even if it bites?"

Your church then is not all that family oriented if it denies family members from weddings, is it?

Wren wrote:
Itchy writes redundantly, " . . why don't you accommodate the Church by respecting its beliefs even if it bites?"

Your church then is not all that family oriented if it denies family members from weddings, is it?

Oops! Check back...That wasn't me. That was someone else, Wren.

Trying to keep everyone straight, particularly when they quote each other, can be difficult.

itchy peaches wrote:
Wren wrote:
Itchy writes redundantly, " . . why don't you accommodate the Church by respecting its beliefs even if it bites?"

Your church then is not all that family oriented if it denies family members from weddings, is it?

Oops! Check back...That wasn't me. That was someone else, Wren.

Trying to keep everyone straight, particularly when they quote each other, can be difficult.

Thanks, Itchy Peaches! You beat me to the punch. That statement is mine, Wren. What is wrong with asking LifeRocks to have respect for entrance standards to the temple? Why do YOU think the Church is not family oriented? Because you, LifeRocks, and anybody else without a current temple recommend can't go inside? Do you have beefs with other religions as well?

Wren wrote:
Itchy writes redundantly, " . . why don't you accommodate the Church by respecting its beliefs even if it bites?"

Your church then is not all that family oriented if it denies family members from weddings, is it?

The whole point of the temple ceremony is to seal a family for eternity...so I'd say it is very family oriented. So if the ceremony was altered so that anyone could attend and lost it's significance it could actually be less family-oriented than it is now by including the immediate family.

I think when looking at the LDS doctrines you have to keep in mind that they are eternal principles and not just earthly. Bear in mind that by LDS believe God is your father and your children are essentially on loan from Him; parents are given the power of stewardship but ultimately they will be held accountable to God for how they raised His children.

That is my understanding.

Wren, in response to your last post, which you addressed to me.

When you say
Itchy, you are walking the Dubbs road, and that is stupid. Once again I ask that I not be catagorized in anyone's camp - Dubbs or otherwise. My comments stand alone. I do not like being compared to anyone on here, as many of you have long-standing impressions/feelings/etc. of each other, and I'm not a part of that.

The person has the right to make the right decisions,... I absolutely agree that LR has "the right to make the right decisions" - even the wrong ones if he wants! No one was telling him he doesn't have that right.


...and his love for his children should not interfere with that.
The love for his children "should not interfere with that" - huh? Whatever. How would his love "interfere" with making decisions? Maybe I'm missing your point here. I was just suggesting that a man who loves his children should consider his children before acting in ways that will affect them. If you're saying he shouldn't take them into consideration before acting, I guess we must disagree.

The love of the children for the father should inform their own decisions.Maybe it is a language difference, I don't know. But this "sentence" is confusing to me. Can you please explain what you mean by this? Or maybe someone on this forum who knows you better understands and can put it into a more understandable sentence?

My comment was to LR. I really don't quite see the need to pick apart my suggestion that he considers his children and the effect it will have on them.

itchy peaches wrote:
Betz wrote:
Pretty presumptuous to question whether he loves his children, isn't it? Are you taking lessons from Dubbs?

I assume you ask that based on when I said: But you say you love your kids - or did, anyhow.

I don't believe my comment is calling into question whether he loves his children - I see it as reminding him and others that he said he loves his kids. He claims to love them - yet now finds himself doing things that his family feels are....who knows? Though asked several times, LR hasn't yet really told us how they feel (and that would be subject to his interpretation anyhow, as they aren't here, speaking for themselves). I was suggesting that he take the love he has/had for his children into consideration as he plans his next move. Otherwise - it's all still about him and his hurt feelings.

As for whether I'm "taking lessons from Dubbs", don't pull me into that turf war - I'm not interested. My comments stand on their own. Dubbs has made many good comments on this issue, as have others of you. I see no need to turn this into a forum for personal attacks. My comments are based on LRs posts, and building on other comments posted here. Don't assume I'm on anyone's "side".

I'm not assuming anything about "sides". Sorry for the insinuation. I guess if someone questioned my love for my children, I would take that a little personal, but that's just me.

Anyway, I don't think there is any question that he loves his family. Would a religious disagreement change your feelings for your parents or your children?