Being Faithful - What does it mean?

[CV75]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Being faithful to yourself over being faithful to God is a form of idolatry.

In President Hickey's talk, he does qualify being true to ourselves as being faithful to "the very best that is within us." Considering the audience, I'm sure this relates to the light of Christ.

When @smac97 brought up politics and ideologies, and I added science to that, it made me think of the various "-isms" and "ities" that some may try to inject into the Church in the name of tolerance and goodwill. When they identify themselves or their aims in such terms, it is like the "-ites" that undermined the oneness enjoyed in the kingdom of God as organized among the Nephites (4 Nephi 1:17). This I see as idolatry. They also present the classification or grouping, and not so much the individual, to the point of focus, while the Gospel of Jesus Christ focuses on the individual.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, they often are, but as you can see, some do distinguish between them as well as treat them the same -- and subjectively so in both instances, as you observed by your use of "pretty... actually". I'll refer you to the subsequent posts about that.

A key difference I see in the two main definitions you offered from your source: assessment versus judgement* and the focus on "merits and faults" when criticizing, suggesting a comparatively more objective set of standards to attain the level of detail required when critiquing. You didn't provide "other definitions" for critique, which might reflect the flavor for criticism. This is why the subsequent posts addressed the subjective nature of most interpersonal communication over the subject of religion, and what works best, whatever one calls it.

* My online thesaurus has judgement listed as a synonym for assessment, but not the other way around. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/judgment . In the definitions I looked up, judgement emphasizes decisions and conclusions, while assessment emphasizes the process of evaluation. Of course that distinction can always go back to the same kind of dynamic we see between criticism and critique. But it might end up a bit more off-putting to others when someone favors criticizing and judging over critiquing and assessing -- depends entirely on how he comes across (tone and approach)! I think taking a council approach helps smooth these differences and brings people together better.

 

Yes, I can see that "critique" seems less loaded. We lay people are used to using criticism in the negative sense.

[CV75]

@hope_for_things -- I've been reading through this thread to catch up and thought I would respond to a number of points you made:

I think God is grateful when someone challenges, asks, transcends culture and bias (the traditions of men) and uses the temporal tools at his disposal in the right way, the “right way” being God’s way. God is interesting to me in that He can be grateful without owing us anything because He has paid us already for doing things the “right way” (Mosiah 2:24).

I think the relationship with God informs our relationship with others, and when that relationship with God and others is formalized within an organizational structure (“proper channels” and all!), councils allow them to function best in addressing and managing the realities of life. This goes I think for marriages, families, communities and the Church at all levels (I’ve been harping on the new first Sunday quorum and RS meetings), all forms of divinely instituted organizational structure that use the council as a governing body and a “proper channel!” Any of His children has the inherent right to speak out against His Church, but I think He would rather we frame our communications in a particular way (3 Nephi 12:1, and all that follows in His message to the multitude, which extends a number of chapters), recognizing that we are all fallible in leading and in following.

I would want my very best Friend in the world to tell me what to do to be considered faithful to Him, since He was faithful to me long before I ever considered Him a Friend (1 John 4:19).

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

@hope_for_things -- I've been reading through this thread to catch up and thought I would respond to a number of points you made:

I think God is grateful when someone challenges, asks, transcends culture and bias (the traditions of men) and uses the temporal tools at his disposal in the right way, the “right way” being God’s way. God is interesting to me in that He can be grateful without owing us anything because He has paid us already for doing things the “right way” (Mosiah 2:24).

I think the relationship with God informs our relationship with others, and when that relationship with God and others is formalized within an organizational structure (“proper channels” and all!), councils allow them to function best in addressing and managing the realities of life. This goes I think for marriages, families, communities and the Church at all levels (I’ve been harping on the new first Sunday quorum and RS meetings), all forms of divinely instituted organizational structure that use the council as a governing body and a “proper channel!” Any of His children has the inherent right to speak out against His Church, but I think He would rather we frame our communications in a particular way (3 Nephi 12:1, and all that follows in His message to the multitude, which extends a number of chapters), recognizing that we are all fallible in leading and in following.

I would want my very best Friend in the world to tell me what to do to be considered faithful to Him, since He was faithful to me long before I ever considered Him a Friend (1 John 4:19).

Thanks for the thoughts.  I'm not sure what you mean by doing things the right way, I'm assuming you mean choices that are in alignment with our conscience and our values.  But you also say God's way, and since none of us can read the thoughts of God, saying God's way is just another way of saying the moral values that we have.  

This relationship with God is entirely a subjective experience, so again, this is like saying we're doing things God's way and having a relationship with God, and this relationship is really just a distillation of the self talk we do and our values.  My values about how to criticize the church are exactly what I've done to date.  I've written a few letters, and talked to local leaders and made comments on a few message boards.  Too much sensitivity in our culture about criticism.  

I asked what kind of faithfulness would someone want out of their friend.  If you just turn that question around and ask your friend what he/she would do to be considered faithful, then the friend could turn it back around and ask what would you want that friend to do, and you'd get in this fun little circle of nobody making a decision.  What would you want out of a faithful friend, I think is a relevant question to consider.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Then perhaps you're not truly being nice.  Still seems simple to me.  Feed my sheep, that is the gospel in a nut shell.  

"Nice" is defined as being "pleasing" and "agreeable"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nice?s=t

When I am being nice, I feed my daughter the foods she wants.  When I am being loving, I feed her what she needs, even if she hates it and it makes her angry.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the thoughts.  I'm not sure what you mean by doing things the right way, I'm assuming you mean choices that are in alignment with our conscience and our values.  But you also say God's way, and since none of us can read the thoughts of God, saying God's way is just another way of saying the moral values that we have.  

This relationship with God is entirely a subjective experience, so again, this is like saying we're doing things God's way and having a relationship with God, and this relationship is really just a distillation of the self talk we do and our values.  My values about how to criticize the church are exactly what I've done to date.  I've written a few letters, and talked to local leaders and made comments on a few message boards.  Too much sensitivity in our culture about criticism.  

I asked what kind of faithfulness would someone want out of their friend.  If you just turn that question around and ask your friend what he/she would do to be considered faithful, then the friend could turn it back around and ask what would you want that friend to do, and you'd get in this fun little circle of nobody making a decision.  What would you want out of a faithful friend, I think is a relevant question to consider.  

By the “right way” I mean the way God has set forth in the scriptures. I often look to 3 Nephi 11 and the several subsequent chapters as the most comprehensive source of how to deal with Him, His servants and each other. Hence, we can literally read the thoughts of God, at least those He wants to share, and to the best of our ability :). Of course, we own our interpretations just as we do our testimonies, and through council we can come to a common understanding and own them together.

Which cultures in the world are not sensitive to criticism, or where the respective denizens are typically impassive to criticism?

I certainly think the thought-experiment question is relevant. But friendship requires at least two partners enjoying faith in each other; friends reciprocate; and, but one at a time can initiate an expectation, thus my response wherein I defer to my all-powerful Friend, who blesses me immediately, to answer this question first. But another way of looking at it is, to be considered faithful to each other, we keep the promises we made to each other (He having made them first!). Neither of us, established as friends, will say, “You are required to do such and such, otherwise I will not consider you faithful to me (nor would we say, do such and such and I will then consider you faithful to me).” This is why Jesus calls us to repentance, to get us to this point. Is that a good way to make friends? It is when He has been the one-way faithful and friendly light within us all along.

I think councils are designed to build friendships so that such questions needn’t be raised. I think friendships need to first be built to facilitate open, honest and vulnerable communication.

[Eek!]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 10:58 PM, The Nehor said:

Jesus was asked what was the most important commandment in the Law/Torah as a “gotcha” question. Both of his two great commandments were quotes from the Torah.

There is a connection between the two of course. With God we are to love completely and trustingly with no reservations. With love of others we are to love them as we love ourselves, a more caveat filled statement.

Can you explain what you mean by the part I bolded?

Thanks. 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Can you explain what you mean by the part I bolded?

Thanks. 

That you are not commanded to love others with all your heart, might, mind, and strength as the command to love God requires.

A good way to know how we should love others is how to good people love themselves. Not because they think themselves as amazing exceptional people who are wonderful and deserve everything. They love themselves because they are a person and see their own potential and, if not their lovability, at least their potential lovability if they are healed through Christ.

[Eek!]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That you are not commanded to love others with all your heart, might, mind, and strength as the command to love God requires.

A good way to know how we should love others is how to good people love themselves. Not because they think themselves as amazing exceptional people who are wonderful and deserve everything. They love themselves because they are a person and see their own potential and, if not their lovability, at least their potential lovability if they are healed through Christ.

Interesting. 

It sounds to me like you are focusing on the quantity/quality of love one might have for one's neighbor, and limiting it to no more than how much a person might reasonably love himself (and what about if a person does not love himself - does that absolve him of the injunction to love his neighbor?).  Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

I suppose that could be a justifiable interpretation, but imo it leaves us with a gutted "second commandment" that doesn't require very much of us at all.  If I understand your interpretation correctly, the second commandment is not even remotely "like unto the first", in which case I have a hard time seeing how it managed to make Jesus' top two list.

In hopes of proposing an alternative viewpoint and possibly bridging the gap between the First and Second Great Commandments, let me toss out King Benjamin's thoughts:  "When you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God." (How literal do you think that statement might be?)  Or maybe this idea from Jesus:  "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these thy brothers, you have done it unto me."   Jesus even told us to go so far as being quite unreasonably loving towards others... like if someone persuades you to do something you'd rather not, do twice as much as he asked.  Or if he unreasonably asks something of you or unjustifiably takes something from you, give him even more than he asked for.  And so forth.  I think there's a pattern there (and I think explaining it would take a while).

Imo neither King Benjamin nor Jesus are advocating holding back as the correct interpretation of the Second Great Commandment.  Especially if "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". 

Of course I could be completely wrong.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Eek!

[mollymoron77]

I'm not sure my question is on topic, but this topic is about being faithful so I'm hoping I am in the correct forum. My question is this - I just found out my 7- year -olds new primary teachers  (Man and Woman) are not married, but living together. The man was the only one called to be the primary teacher, not his girlfriend (both in their late 40-early 50's and previously divorced from other spouses), they just called him to be the teacher not her because they are not married  -   but they teach as a couple.  I found out through doing a little research of my own and asking around that they actually living together in the same house - not in separate homes as they have been telling people. She has lied about her home address,  (on lds.org my Ward Directory) she has listed her home address  different that his, but the address she listed as hers is actually His elderly parents home address.  So here is my burning question - I don't feel comfortable having them teach my child the gospel when they are living in sin. I'm not judging - its none of my business if they want to live together, but I don't feel they are worthy for a primary calling. What are your thoughts? I am going to tell the Bishop next week, and would like any advice. Thanks

Edited just now by mollymormon77

Your screenname is inappropriate for this forum. Open another account if you want to continue posting.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, mollymoron77 said:

I'm not sure my question is on topic, but this topic is about being faithful so I'm hoping I am in the correct forum. My question is this - I just found out my 7- year -olds new primary teachers  (Man and Woman) are not married, but living together. The man was the only one called to be the primary teacher, not his girlfriend (both in their late 40-early 50's and previously divorced from other spouses), they just called him to be the teacher not her because they are not married  -   but they teach as a couple.  I found out through doing a little research of my own and asking around that they actually living together in the same house - not in separate homes as they have been telling people. She has lied about her home address,  (on lds.org my Ward Directory) she has listed her home address  different that his, but the address she listed as hers is actually His elderly parents home address.  So here is my burning question - I don't feel comfortable having them teach my child the gospel when they are living in sin. I'm not judging - its none of my business if they want to live together, but I don't feel they are worthy for a primary calling. What are your thoughts? I am going to tell the Bishop next week, and would like any advice. Thanks

Edited just now by mollymormon77

If it were me, I wouldn't worry about it personally.   If you feel like you need to tell the bishop so that he has all of the pertinent information then I can understand that though.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Eek! said:

Interesting. 

It sounds to me like you are focusing on the quantity/quality of love one might have for one's neighbor, and limiting it to no more than how much a person might reasonably love himself (and what about if a person does not love himself - does that absolve him of the injunction to love his neighbor?).  Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

I suppose that could be a justifiable interpretation, but imo it leaves us with a gutted "second commandment" that doesn't require very much of us at all.  If I understand your interpretation correctly, the second commandment is not even remotely "like unto the first", in which case I have a hard time seeing how it managed to make Jesus' top two list.

In hopes of proposing an alternative viewpoint and possibly bridging the gap between the First and Second Great Commandments, let me toss out King Benjamin's thoughts:  "When you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God." (How literal do you think that statement might be?)  Or maybe this idea from Jesus:  "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these thy brothers, you have done it unto me."   Jesus even told us to go so far as being quite unreasonably loving towards others... like if someone persuades you to do something you'd rather not, do twice as much as he asked.  Or if he unreasonably asks something of you or unjustifiably takes something from you, give him even more than he asked for.  And so forth.  I think there's a pattern there (and I think explaining it would take a while).

Imo neither King Benjamin nor Jesus are advocating holding back as the correct interpretation of the Second Great Commandment.  Especially if "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". 

Of course I could be completely wrong.

 

No, it is less about quality and more about method. One does not obey their neighbor completely or give in to their every wish. That is not a gutted commandment. It avoids a kind of humanist idolatry. It is not possible to love someone too much. It is possible to hold a defective kind of love that leads to bad actions that hurt yourself and/or others.

I think I take King Benjamin’s admonition quite far to the point of being pretty much literal. In the LDS conception of the atonement Jesus Christ suffered not just for the sins of the world but the pains and suffering of the world. When you serve someone or,alleviate someone’s suffering you are also alleviating the suffering of the Savior in a small but significant way.

I was not suggesting that the Savior’s commands to help others were ‘going too far’.

 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, mollymoron77 said:

I'm not sure my question is on topic, but this topic is about being faithful so I'm hoping I am in the correct forum. My question is this - I just found out my 7- year -olds new primary teachers  (Man and Woman) are not married, but living together. The man was the only one called to be the primary teacher, not his girlfriend (both in their late 40-early 50's and previously divorced from other spouses), they just called him to be the teacher not her because they are not married  -   but they teach as a couple.  I found out through doing a little research of my own and asking around that they actually living together in the same house - not in separate homes as they have been telling people. She has lied about her home address,  (on lds.org my Ward Directory) she has listed her home address  different that his, but the address she listed as hers is actually His elderly parents home address.  So here is my burning question - I don't feel comfortable having them teach my child the gospel when they are living in sin. I'm not judging - its none of my business if they want to live together, but I don't feel they are worthy for a primary calling. What are your thoughts? I am going to tell the Bishop next week, and would like any advice. Thanks

Edited just now by mollymormon77

I would not worry about it. You can tell the Bishop confidentially if you feel it necessary but then leave the decision to him. Do not be surprised if he already knows or suspects. Has he always been active? The calling may be part of an attempt to reactivate him and integrate him into the ward.

Also, please do not make a habit of snooping like that. By asking around you have probably already spread this information around and it could do all kinds of damage.

Edited January 8, 2018 by The Nehor

[Eek!]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is less about quality and more about method. One does not obey their neighbor completely or give in to their every wish. That is not a gutted commandment. It avoids a kind of humanist idolatry. It is not possible to love someone too much. It is possible to hold a defective kind of love that leads to bad actions that hurt yourself and/or others.

I think I take King Benjamin’s admonition quite far to the point of being pretty much literal. In the LDS conception of the atonement Jesus Christ suffered not just for the sins of the world but the pains and suffering of the world. When you serve someone or,alleviate someone’s suffering you are also alleviating the suffering of the Savior in a small but significant way.

I was not suggesting that the Savior’s commands to help others were ‘going too far’.

 

Thanks for clarifying.  Good point about alleviating suffering.

Must confess I still don't see how your interpretation of the Second Great Commandment leaves us with something "Great".   I think there's more to it, perhaps even a lot more. 

[Eek!]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would not worry about it. You can tell the Bishop confidentially if you feel it necessary but then leave the decision to him. Do not be surprised if he already knows or suspects. Has he always been active? The calling may be part of an attempt to reactivate him and integrate him into the ward.

Also, please do not make a habit of snooping like that. By asking around you have probably already spread this information around and it could do all kinds of damage.

I think your advice here is EXCELLENT. 

I was in a branch one time where the acting ward mission leader was a non-member, living with a woman that he wasn't married to.  His divorce from his first wife had been delayed for years for reasons that went over my head, but the couple couldn't be baptized until his divorce was finalized so that he could marry his common-law wife (the woman he had been living with for years). 

So at first glance the arrangement broke all kinds of rules, but imo the situation was handled extremely well by those in positions of authority.  Eventually the hurdles to his divorce were cleared and the couple was legally married and then baptized. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Eek!

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Eek! said:

Thanks for clarifying.  Good point about alleviating suffering.

Must confess I still don't see how your interpretation of the Second Great Commandment leaves us with something "Great".   I think there's more to it, perhaps even a lot more. 

It is the second greatest in importance, not in grandeur or depth which is what I assume you mean by "Great".

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is the second greatest in importance, not in grandeur or depth which is what I assume you mean by "Great".

Actually I do think it's in the top two not only in importance, but also in grandeur and depth. 

That being said, I'm content that we found common ground on "importance". 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Eek!

[mollymolly]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would not worry about it. You can tell the Bishop confidentially if you feel it necessary but then leave the decision to him. Do not be surprised if he already knows or suspects. Has he always been active? The calling may be part of an attempt to reactivate him and integrate him into the ward.

Also, please do not make a habit of snooping like that. By asking around you have probably already spread this information around and it could do all kinds of damage.

Thanks for the advice, but to clarify I didn't snoop around,  I asked their home teachers (my husband and his partner) who confirmed they are living together,  after the couple  introduced themselves to the primary class that they were not married. I just put two and two together, no damage done - yet anyway, lol!  As far as this man always being active, I'm not sure, I know he left his wife,  became obsessed with pornography and wanted to be a porn counselor (that's all he talked about in priesthood before they called him). It sickens me the lackadaisical attitude of some LDS members, sin is sin - if it's ok for this man to teach primary, why not let him be the bishop too. I could care less if my bishop thinks a primary calling will reactivate him or integrate him to the ward -  don't use primary children to do it, give him a different calling! There are plenty of callings that would be safe, away from innocent primary children. Maybe if it were your child being taught by this couple  your response might be different. I don't think teaching children the law of chastity, the importance of baptism and being clean is appropriate when they are clearly not living it. Wouldn't you agree!

[mollymolly]

10 hours ago, Eek! said:

I think your advice here is EXCELLENT. 

I was in a branch one time where the acting ward mission leader was a non-member, living with a woman that he wasn't married to.  His divorce from his first wife had been delayed for years for reasons that went over my head, but the couple couldn't be baptized until his divorce was finalized so that he could marry his common-law wife (the woman he had been living with for years). 

So at first glance the arrangement broke all kinds of rules, but imo the situation was handled extremely well by those in positions of authority.  Eventually the hurdles to his divorce were cleared and the couple was legally married and then baptized. 

  It sickens me the lackadaisical attitude of some LDS members, sin is sin - if it's ok for this man to teach primary, why not let him be the bishop too. I could care less if my bishop thinks a primary calling will reactivate him or integrate him to the ward -  don't use primary children to do it, give him a different calling! There are plenty of callings that would be safe, away from innocent primary children. Maybe if it were your child being taught by this couple  your response might be different. I don't think teaching children the law of chastity, the importance of baptism and being clean is appropriate when they are clearly not living it. Wouldn't you agree!

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, mollymolly said:

Thanks for the advice, but to clarify I didn't snoop around,  I asked their home teachers (my husband and his partner) who confirmed they are living together,  after the couple  introduced themselves to the primary class that they were not married. I just put two and two together, no damage done - yet anyway, lol!  As far as this man always being active, I'm not sure, I know he left his wife,  became obsessed with pornography and wanted to be a porn counselor (that's all he talked about in priesthood before they called him). It sickens me the lackadaisical attitude of some LDS members, sin is sin - if it's ok for this man to teach primary, why not let him be the bishop too. I could care less if my bishop thinks a primary calling will reactivate him or integrate him to the ward -  don't use primary children to do it, give him a different calling! There are plenty of callings that would be safe, away from innocent primary children. Maybe if it were your child being taught by this couple  your response might be different. I don't think teaching children the law of chastity, the importance of baptism and being clean is appropriate when they are clearly not living it. Wouldn't you agree!

I think it would be inappropriate for any teachers of 7 year olds to teach the Law of Chastity whether the teacher is keeping it or not. They are 7. 

You may want to recuse yourself from teaching your own child if you are so willing to disparage and cast aspersions on your Bishop’s ability to give callings under the guidance of the Spirit. That is a sin too.

[mollymolly]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think it would be inappropriate for any teachers of 7 year olds to teach the Law of Chastity whether the teacher is keeping it or not. They are 7. 

You may want to recuse yourself from teaching your own child if you are so willing to disparage and cast aspersions on your Bishop’s ability to give callings under the guidance of the Spirit. That is a sin too.

Wish that were true of my bishop but he gives callings to anyone who can fill a position. I have plenty to say about my bishop that I won't discuss because it wouldn't do any good. I will say however I am shocked that anyone who thinks its ok for a a man or woman living together think its ok to hold a calling (especially Primary) knowing they are not living worthily. And let's not all get uptight and say "we are all sinners" attitude, duh, that's a given,  but the church has standards and rules, they apply to everyone! Otherwise why not let gays hold callings, let them have overnight scout camps, we wouldn't want to offend a gay couple trying to come to church or serve. Why not  toss all the rules and commandments out the window for fear we might offended someone. And  forget about the temple worthiness interview,  give all members temple recommends, because after all we are all sinners, right!  You can't just look the other way when it comes to sin, sure we are human and we all sin and make mistakes, but where do you draw the line?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, mollymolly said:

... knowing they are not living worthily.

And how exactly do you know that they are 'not living worthily'??? When I was a full-time missionary, one of my ward mission leaders met his future wife when she was just his housemate in a share house. They 'lived together' through their entire courtship and engagement. 

[mollymolly]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And how exactly do you know that they are 'not living worthily'??? When I was a full-time missionary, one of my ward mission leaders met his future wife when she was just his housemate in a share house. They 'lived together' through their entire courtship and engagement. 

Both divorced, in their late 40-50's, and living together for over a year and all over each other in church. Before he was called  to teach he dominated several priesthood classes with discussions of porn and how he changed is profession to become a porn counselor and on and on and on about porn. When the teacher tried to stay on subject, he diverted back to porn, thought it was creepy when I heard about it.  I highly doubt two divorcies' are living together platonically, not sure I'd have that kind of willpower, would you? I really thought hard about it hard last night after reading everyone's comments and I'm trying to figure out what about this couple bothers me, the fact they are living together and holding a precious calling in the primary, or the fact that he seems obsessed with porn. I'm not perfect, not trying to pass judgement on these people, but I have a nagging feeling about them that won't go away. Could I just be paranoid, perhaps? But ask yourself, would you be excited about having them teach your young child??? The reason I love the LDS church is because we have standards, rules, and commandments that we are taught to live. Our church doesn't change with the passing popular ideologies like many religions that embrace current lifestyles - gay marriage etc. Members can't obtain a temple recommend if they don't pay their tithing or live the word of wisdom, etc., so why would this be any different? It tests my faith if we bend rules because we don't want to offend or to keep people active. This guy and lady represent me, my religion - what if none members learned about their living arrangement, how would anyone explain that to a non member..... Oh we bend rules for certain people and certain situations to keep people active, or because the bishop (who is human by the way) said it's ok.   The LDS church has standards, rules we must obey to maintain our membership, commandments we have to keep in order to obtain a temple recommend - why is this any different?  

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, mollymolly said:

Wish that were true of my bishop but he gives callings to anyone who can fill a position. I have plenty to say about my bishop that I won't discuss because it wouldn't do any good.

You are on the road to apostasy. I recommend taking the next available exit.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, mollymolly said:

Both divorced, in their late 40-50's, and living together for over a year and all over each other in church. Before he was called  to teach he dominated several priesthood classes with discussions of porn and how he changed is profession to become a porn counselor and on and on and on about porn. When the teacher tried to stay on subject, he diverted back to porn, thought it was creepy when I heard about it.  I highly doubt two divorcies' are living together platonically, not sure I'd have that kind of willpower, would you? I really thought hard about it hard last night after reading everyone's comments and I'm trying to figure out what about this couple bothers me, the fact they are living together and holding a precious calling in the primary, or the fact that he seems obsessed with porn. I'm not perfect, not trying to pass judgement on these people, but I have a nagging feeling about them that won't go away. Could I just be paranoid, perhaps? But ask yourself, would you be excited about having them teach your young child??? The reason I love the LDS church is because we have standards, rules, and commandments that we are taught to live. Our church doesn't change with the passing popular ideologies like many religions that embrace current lifestyles - gay marriage etc. Members can't obtain a temple recommend if they don't pay their tithing or live the word of wisdom, etc., so why would this be any different? It tests my faith if we bend rules because we don't want to offend or to keep people active. This guy and lady represent me, my religion - what if none members learned about their living arrangement, how would anyone explain that to a non member..... Oh we bend rules for certain people and certain situations to keep people active, or because the bishop (who is human by the way) said it's ok.   The LDS church has standards, rules we must obey to maintain our membership, commandments we have to keep in order to obtain a temple recommend - why is this any different?  

I can't say I agree with everything you've said here, but do agree that sometimes there are people put into the Primary to help them vs. the primary children. I've seen it in my ward, and I was called while inactive before I was married and it did help me, and I did become active again, but I was a lousy teacher because I was so nervous. Luckily I team taught with another two others that were single like myself and very TBM. 

I do agree that we have no idea if the couple is sleeping together though. But understand that you are having feelings that shouldn't go ignored.