Leaderboard

I’ve been following this thread for the past week or so, and having quite a bit of personal experience with disciplinary councils (both bishop and stake) I've wanted to participate. But I've been reluctant due to the fact that I couldn't see a way to do the subject justice without a lengthy post. I've decided to give it a shot, and while long, hopefully my post won’t be a waste of space. I don't have an exact count, but I'm guessing I've been involved in somewhere around 18 (front end) disciplinary councils. None resulted in probation, one resulted in no action (temporarily), two resulted in disfellowshipment, and the rest resulted in excommunication. Certain sins require a mandatory disciplinary council, but for the most part the decision is left up to the Bishop or Stake Presidency based upon various conditions and circumstances. The bishop and his counselors normally handle cases involving women and non-Melchizedek Priesthood holders. If the case may result in the excommunication of a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood (particularly if he has been endowed) the case is transferred to the Stake. Palerider wrote: “Another thing....there are some leaders who don't enjoy Displinary Councils and they will do what they can not to hold them.” This is true. In fact I have seen bishops bend over backwards to avoid holding a disciplinary council; ignoring egregious situations until a Stake President literally had to say "do it or else!" It's been my experience that the most difficult cases, and the ones most bishops try to avoid, are those that involve women who have committed fornication or adultery. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why. Three men sitting in a room alone with a woman who is confessing to such things is extremely uncomfortable for all involved. Been there, done that, and don't wish to ever do it again. The thing I really wanted to touch on though is the concept of the "double standard" that a few here have postured. In regards to that I'll note what priesthoodpower wrote: "I would think that the church DC is the same thing and the Bishop/Stake Pres/council members are listening to the spirit as their guiding factor." Listening to the Spirit SHOULD, and I believe in most cases IS the guiding factor. And sometimes that results in actions that appear to be unfair (or a double standard) in the eyes of those who see things only through a "glass darkly" so to speak. I'll give you an example. While I was serving on a Stake High Council we had a case before us respecting a gentleman who at the time was serving as a bishop’s counselor. The man had been in an adulterous relationship for quite some time before it was discovered, whereupon he was released from his position in the bishopric and subsequently a disciplinary council was convened. The man refused to appear before the council, but he did send a letter, which was read by the Stake President (minus the 4-letter words). The letter informed us that he no longer believed in the Church, no longer wanted to be a part of it, had no plans to leave his adulterous relationship, and that all 15 of us were more than welcome to do something anatomically impossible. After reading the letter the Stake president opened the meeting up to comments and concerns. Those who wished to speak did so, it was determined that the case was a "simple one", numbers were drawn to determine who would speak in behalf of the Church and the accused, the two men who drew the numbers had their say, and the Stake Presidency retired to an office to pray about a decision. While they were gone the members of the High Council discussed the case among themselves and it was clear we were all in agreement---the man HAD to be excommunicated. After quite some time the Stake President and his counselors returned to the room. The Stake President then said words to this effect: "Brethren, we have supplicated our Father in Heaven for His guidance in this matter and we want only to do his will. And the three of us agree that it is NOT the will of our father in Heaven that Bro. _____________ be excommunicated at this time. Therefore we propose that no action be taken against him until we receive further instructions." You could have heard a gnat burp in that room at that moment. All twelve of us were dumbfounded. None of us could believe what we had just heard. The Stake President then went on to say words to this effect: "Brethren, we understand this decision doesn't make much sense to you, and honestly it doesn't make much sense to us, but we believe the Lord has spoken and we ask for your sustaining vote." The vote was unanimous to sustain the decision, and we all left the meeting in complete bewilderment. What was even more bewildering is that the woman who Bro._________ was having the adulterous relationship with WAS excommunicated! Fast forward about four months later. Another disciplinary council is convened. We arrive not knowing what it will be about. We find out soon enough that it pertains to Bro. __________ who sent us the nasty letter four months previous. This time, however, he is present at the meeting with his bishop in tow. His bishop relates the story about Bro. ___________ receiving notice (from him) that the decision was NOT to excommunicate him. He tells us that when Bro______________ received that information he proceeded to break down and bawl like a little child. The bishop tells us that his entire demeanor changed and he suddenly became humble and penitent. Over the next four months Bro.________ made further changes until he was finally ready to appear willingly before another disciplinary council. And there he was; standing before us a changed man. And the story he told was heart wrenching. And his closing remarks were humbling to all of us. He said: "Brethren, I just want you to know that I know that you were following God’s will when you declined to excommunicate me four months ago. I was angry and bitter and hateful and I couldn't wait to be free from God and this Church. And had you excommunicated me I do not believe I would be standing here right now. When the bishop told me that you had decided not to excommunicate me something changed within me. I don't really understand it and I don't know how to describe it, but all of the hurt and hate and anger just melted away and I no longer wanted to be without God and the Church in my life. I am here today to tell you that I am now ready to be excommunicated if that is what needs to take place for me to come back, and as a matter of fact, I believe it does.” And he was excommunicated. And he did come back and was rebaptized. And as far as I know he is still in full fellowship with God and the Church. The point I want to make with this story is that there were many people in his ward and within the Stake who knew of this man, knew his circumstances, and were extremely put out when his girlfriend was excommunicated while he wasn't. For four months we endured wholesale carping and murmuring from members who decried the "double standard". Now I'm not going to claim that every decision to excommunicate or not to excommunicate comes from God. Obviously Bishops and Stake Presidents aren't infallible. But what I will say is that all of us need to be careful before pronouncing a "double standard" when it comes to disciplinary councils. We should remember that God's ways are higher than our ways; and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. And since none of us knows what goes on in a disciplinary council that we have no part in, we should be willing to give a bishopric or a stake presidency and high council the benefit of the doubt.

I am sorry for you pain and suffering.... I have only one bit of advice... You can not hold on to someone that does not want to be held on to. Scratch that I have two... Talk to a lawyer, you might not want a divorce but you might just get one anyways... So talk to a lawyer so you can be prepared, to challenge the lies that seems almost guaranteed to show up (From what you say) if she follows through

A little bit of a story with a happy ending to share-- For me, the most difficult part about being in an interfaith marriage is not the non-member husband, but handling the evangelical mother-in-law that comes with him. When hubby and I started dating, MIL was a huge fan of me… except for my “Mormon problem”. Needless to say religion has been a rocky subject. To learn about Mormonism, MIL signed up for a class on the subject at her church, entitled “Mormonism and the Evil Cults” (or something like that). She got a lot of bad information, and doesn’t really listen to what I say because she honestly thinks I’m brainwashed and hell-bound (roll eyes). Though, to be fair to her, I haven’t been perfect on the issue (like not inviting her far enough in advance to baby girl’s blessing). Anyway, the purpose of this post is to celebrate: last night we chatted and had a great discussion sharing testimonies. I learned a lot more about her and feel that she learned a lot more about me. Not only did she not stone me for sharing me testimony, she liked it! I’m still kind of in “wow” shock…. Just wanted to share good news with you all J.

I call foul on this example... In the example the Leader is clearly violating the Church's standards and therefore the correct course is to bring it to the proper authorities and make sure they known by those who need to know. That is a totally different case then saying.... The Church has this very clear Standard that I don't like or agree with... But instead of finding a more like minded group I am going to raise a stink until they adjust their standard to my liking... Two very different cases

jbl, we all sin. Please don't think you need to distance yourself from your Father in Heaven, just because you're in the middle of sinning. Do everything you can to communicate with Him. Seek His influence in your life. By the way, if I knew who you were in real life, you'd be welcome to sit next to me and my family at church.

This thread is now closed. We've been tag teamed with sock puppets.

So I just did some google searching regarding blood atonement. I found that some of the things you quoted (copied and pasted) were taken not only from the Tanners (we all know Sandra Tanner is an apostate) and from another author who wrote The Mormon Delusion. Not very credible sources. In fact far from it.

You do realize work you are calling crappy anti-Mormon literature... is the very source you claim for an example the Blood Atonement written by Lee??? And you still seem to have problem with providing proof of your claims of murder. This one is easy if FARMs acknowledge Blood Atonement Murders by church leaders it should be really, really easy for you to cite them. If you have such a source you really should have started with them rather then what you acknowledge as crappy anti Mormon literature.

I agree. I can do nothing but help me now. Which is what I AM doing. I'm not planning it. I'm doing it. That is my only hope here. But I also want her to have this time to help herself. I can want both can't I?

Koawinter, I am an attorney and I do a lot of divorce. I'm not going to presume to give you legal advice, but I would note that I was at a continuing education seminar in the last year hat was held by some family therapists. One of the points they made was that it usually takes about five years to emotionally recover from a divorce--but that in their experience, the party who files the divorce paperwork is already about three years into that process. Now, I have no way of knowing whether your wife is actually serious about this, or whether this is just some huge drama thing calculated to get your attention. If the latter--your family's right, that's not healthy; and the drama/threats of divorce are going to have to end before your marriage can be rebuilt. If the former, be aware that it's very probable that she's already emotionally checked out of the marriage, and has been checked out on some level for quite some time. I can add my own experience to this and say that in five years of divorce practice, I have had two clients whose divorce proceedings were dismissed due to their reconciliation. It's very uncommon--certainly possible; but rare. If you're hoping to reconcile, you need to understand that from her perspective getting back with you would not be "saving" the marriage; it would be building a new one from scratch. You've got a lot of work to do; and I do wish you all the best as you try to figure out how to move forward. Oh, and the porn addiction? Addiction recovery groups.

Just a reminder that the "waiting room" is very much a part of the temple which is the House of G-d - his personal residence. It is not a place for speaking in a voice that carries or for chuckling any more than the Celestial Room even though both places are for gathering and reverently communicating the importance of what is taking place in the temple. When my youngest son returned from his mission my wife and I attended an endowment session with him and reverently (in subdued tones) discussed sacred things concerning the temple (mostly answering his questions) - the discussion went on for over an hour as sever patrons and temple workers came to listen (including a member of the temple presidency). The member of the temple presidency afterwords address us personally and took us on a personal tour of the Salt Lake Temple. His response to me personally was appreciation - indicating that very few take advantage of the temple as a place of learning and receiving revelation. That too often we come with other agendas that interfere with the L-rd being able to draw near and commune with us.

I believe the biggest problem in having religious discussions with other faiths is centered around just a few things. 1. When they are ignorant to basic constructs of their own beliefs. 2. When they are incapable or resentful of introspection especially when it come to their chosen religion. 3. Do not understand that the "Golden Rule" taught by Christ applies to the criticism of others sacred religious beliefs.

I'm not a cannibal.

Well, yeah; and your earlier comment to the effect that history is written by the victors was also apropos. But it begs the question: To what point and purpose is history written and used? How did "history" even become an issue in this thread? Quite simply: To justify disobeying a Church-imposed standard of obedience that carries the endorsement of every. single. one. of the Church's current leadership corps.

In addition to what TFP said.. We have always been a missionary focused website (although not exclusively so) so we are not going to let rampant attacks against the church or it leaders (We even have rules to that effect) where opinions are trying to masquerade as facts

palerider on 6 Mar Lol!!! I will have to watch this go down.... The protesters are probably planning on General Conference being held in early April, but I know that Pam is working on having it held in May, so despite palerider's lack of faith I'm sure the protest will fail, thanks to Pam. :)

I tread very careful waters here. As a chaplain, I know that we have to be respectful of other religions, perspectives, and mores. We do not have to agree, but we should tolerate and respect that others beg to differ. Military chaplaincy is different from corrections, so I am hesitant to claim too much expertise. We may well be looking at apples vs. oranges. Nevertheless, the reality of this chaplain having served in very intense environments, and having received mostly commendations and kudos, and now, in the final stretch, to be facing this seems odd. He obviously knew what he had to do--the balance he had to maintain, to have made it 19 years. Most chaplains do not serve that long. So, were the rules changed on him? Did new leadership bring new expectations to him? Like I said in the OP...I'm praying for him and his family.

My post was more a comment to Irishcolleen's statement of (paraphrasing) "if you oppose a (potential) leader than why not just leave the church." If a process is set up to either sustain or oppose a calling, then if a member knows of a reason why a calling should be opposed, they have every right to do so. M.

The three points above all emphasize the role of advisor and counselor, which implies the possibility of criticism. From what this article has said, it appears this man has done literally nothing wrong.

If you want to have her come back to you, be the husband she should come back to. Whatever form that may be.

I don't understand how mainline Christian churches operate, so that might color some of my take here, but . . . I sort of agree with Godless on this. On the one hand--I think the military should make sure that believing service members have access to ordained clergy of their own faith where practicable. On the other hand--I'm not sure that interdenominational military chaplains necessarily fill that need. And, let's be blunt: From a pragmatic standpoint, the value to the military in having a chaplain is to make sure that a serviceman continues to be willing to do what the military orders him to do even in the face of certain death. A chaplain who warns servicemen that no, they aren't really ready to meet God at all; is at cross purposes with our secularized military. I don't want the guy (or any other person of faith) muzzled; but I can see why the military wouldn't want to bend over backwards to accommodate his ministry either.

Be it known there are some members out there with the warped notion it is their duty to change the Church from the inside out. I don't believe it's a matter of peaceful disagreement where one should graciously bow out and start one's own church. These people believe they are right and therefore must change the system.

So, how big ought sealing rooms be? I certainly wouldn't complain over larger sealing rooms, but I can't help but think the rooms will always be too small for some parties. I don't mean to be facetious, I'm just looking for what the most practical size would be in consideration of the temple size and the average size of wedding parties.

Actually there are almost certainly better times to pray than while sinning. (I.e praying while NOT sinning.) That being said.. Most of us sin so frequently that we're well-advised to pray ALWAYS .. But especially when it might, at the very least, interrupt us IN our sinning. :)

I think I read everything but I don't see what you are "asking" for. What I get is she didn't leave you, you left her. You describe your behaviors to the point where I can't see past your fault in the marriage. Did she have fault? Yes. But honestly you describe a train wreck of a relationship. It doesn't sound like there are children involved. I suggest you take some time and mature a bit more before expecting to be in a marriage. You are young enough and poor enough that there is no loss here. Don't tell us you love her and need her. If you can't keep your finger off a computer mouse, you can't keep a wife and job and children.

I don't think that would be practical. For example, if a certain man was called to be the bishop of a certain ward, and a member of that ward, knew this man practiced polygamy secretly and therefore opposed this man's calling. His leaving the LDS church would not deal with the problem of this other man's bishop calling and his secret polygamous life style. M.

I don't think the problem is that the man has to go without sex; the problem is that one marital partner is deliberately withholding something that (s)he knows the other partner considers important to a continued fulfilling, healthy relationship. Expecting a man to just deal with a wife who withholds sex as a punitive measure for weeks on end, seems rather like expecting a woman to just deal with a husband who gives her the silent treatment as a punitive measure for weeks on end. I can understand, to some degree, a simple "I'm really, really sorry; but I'm just not in the mood" (though I note, that line doesn't get me very far when I don't feel up to a prolonged conversation!). But I have a difficult time sympathizing with a "you don't deserve me right now".

You all are sick talking about eating the cookie.

PC, you would obviously know more about chaplaincy than I do: but isn't going to a chaplain optional? If the solders didn't like what this man said, they could have just not gone to him...

It is really sad that things has degenerated this far. My prayers also go out to the chaplain and his family.

There really is no better time to pray than while you are sinning. The world would be a far better place if more people would take time to pray while they sin.

It is NEVER a sin to pray.

2 Nephi 32:88 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man topray, ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray. Never listen to the thought that you are to unworthy or much a sinner to pray... Pray always

My second paragraph was in answer to your question about if things "trouble" me... The answer is yes they do. You know what I do with my troubles and concerns?... I do what the scripture and prophets have taught me. I study it... I ponder it... I pray about it and I read the scriptures looking for answers and inspiration. And I have faith that the problem lies with my knowledge and understanding... Not in Christ nor the Father's plan for us. I feel the whole point is for me to wrestle with it and seek the Lord in so doing... Not to seek like minded individuals whom are in no better position then I am to resolve the concerns Unlike others I do not think it wise to vent those concerns to strangers on the internet because I have no idea if one of them might what Christ called his "little ones" and I might drag them down. And never say that you called Brigham Young a murderer... I said that Duffman was making a bold claim that (as of yet unnamed) Church Leaders were murders. That they held the knives and slit the throats. I was hoping that I was mistaken in my understanding of Duffman's position. I was hoping when I called him out he would say I was horribly misunderstanding him... and why would he "prove" a point he was not trying to make. Instead Duffman cites as evidence that the Account of Bro Lee whom the church found necessary to excommunicate for actions that he took. In spite of the excommunication Duffman finds Bro Lee's account of the murder of the adulterer so compelling that he ignores the fact that there is no other support for the action happening. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of the scriptures clearly requiring Two or Three witness to establish anything. Instead the church leaders he claims to support and sustain, get thrown under the bus, and those that the church has excommunicated he raises to the level of sayers of truths

And there are people who have been killed through justification of the writings of John the Revelator, Daniel, and pretty much any other prophet you can think of. As for Lee--As long as we're attacking people based on uncorroborated statements: do you know what John D. Lee allegedly did to teenaged sisters Ruth and Rachel Dunlap at Mountain Meadows, right before he shot them? It's interesting to me that you are so deferential to Lee, but so skeptical towards Heber Grant or the other modern LDS General Authorities who--for all their shortcomings--never killed anyone, and were never accused of double-rape.

I've been thinking about this, too. I think the reason the sealing rooms are smaller doesn't have anything to do with reverence but more because when the temple was built, most people who were sealed there were already married. So it wasn't like a one time deal of marriage and sealing all in one. They didn't need the space because the focus was all on simply the sealing ordinance and wasn't the same celebration as a wedding was. It was meant to be a more private, personal ordinance. But I still don't see why, in 2015 when this is the only actual "moment" the couple gets of saying "I Do" (in essence) and becoming man and wife, that more people aren't allowed to witness it if they are worthy and have a recommend. I still don't see the point of limiting the numbers. I also disagree about the reverence thing.I don't believe having a voice that carries, or chuckling together with a family member equates being unworthy to be there. I don't know how they could possibly keep people from greeting each other with joy that turns to exuberance for some in the waiting room. It does get a little loud sometimes, but no louder than all the chatter before and after Sacrament meeting. I don't think that detracts from the spirit at all. I just see that waiting room as a reunion type place. It's not where any sacred ordinance is being performed. Some people don't feel the same need to be as quiet there. In contrast, when the family is asked to go to the sealing room, no matter how many people are there it is almost without question nearly silent as people walk the halls. Same while sitting in the sealing room till the bride and groom come in, and then the "talk" from the sealer commences. NO conversation at all! That's where it really matters. I've never been told or heard that family who are deceased are in the waiting room of the temple in spirit. It's always only in the rooms where ordinances are being performed.

I will agree that name calling needs to stop.

I need to start remembering not to have a drink in my mouth when I read your posts. This is the 2nd time I've bust out laughing. Stop it!!

You said you've gone through therapy but maybe you haven't received the help that you need? Might be worth talking to someone again about it, and expressing what your concerns are, then tackling the issue with a new approach? I will agree that intimacy should not be used as punishment or a bargaining chip, however, it is perfectly valid to postpone intercourse when menstruating, feeling unwell, or your body is exhausted. Now, if you're in the middle of fighting and then you go to bed and your husband expects you to make love to him, that's just awkward in my opinion, especially if it's purely a physical thing he's wanting and not wanting to resolve the root of the fight.

I think it's such a wonderful progression when two people with completely different views on things can find a respect for each other. I remember my husband and I went on a trip with my parents, and we rode on a gondola with another family, they were Buddhist. The ride was almost an hour, maybe just under, so naturally conversation started. It was neat to see my parents (who are LDS) and the parents of the other family share their culture and beliefs, asking sincere questions, and listening to each other.

Somehow it was easier for me when I stole my wife from the Presbyterians.

Young, and every other prophet, also taught that no people could attain salvation without an innocent third party spilling His blood. That doesn't trouble you? A gifted rhetoritician can make pretty much anything sound shockingly horrible; especially when they have a gold-mine of terms like "blood atonement" to deal with. I reserve judgment on that aspect of Young's teachings; and I don't fault him for the activities of Lee & Co. at Mountain Meadows or any other fringe Mormon moonbat of the 19th century any more than I fault John the Revelator and the prophet Daniel for authoring the books that gave David Koresh his apocalyptic ideas.

Did you just quote this book as a source? If you can't see the image, the full title of the book is: Page two is a hoot: "The Mormon Leaders were so greatly alarmed at the prospect of the publication of Lee's writings ... that they sent their "Blood Atoners" to threaten the life of Mr. Bishop..." These kinds of books were all the rage back in the day. I own a similar book, similarly named and themed, handed down by my father. It chronicles the life and times of a guy who got suckered into polygamy, and then escaped Utah. In the book, Brigham Young sends Porter Rockwell to kill the guy, but our hero buys his way past Porter with some good quality alcohol. My point, of course, is that the period's "true story written by the person who saw the whole thing" books, aren't true and weren't written by the person. They were that era's version of today's 'Marry a Millionaire'-type shows. They are works of sensational fiction. Duffman, if you believe such stuff is reliable as a source, it speaks volumes about the trustworthiness or soundness of your opinions. I hope I'm not speaking too condescendingly or harshly.

book is called the preexistence.....

Hello and welcome. Its a pleasure to be able to get to know you. I have been a member o the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints for 35 yrs now. I want you to know that my membership is the best gift that I have been given!! Sunday is the best day of my week, also anytime Im at the temple is my best days as well. Id suggest you ask your friends if you can attend church with them. Im sure your friends will be very happy that you asked and will be happy to share more of the gospel with you. LIke others have said baby steps are the way to go, don't be so hard on yourself....God is in control...Hence you see you have been blessed to have LDS friends....God has put them in your path.....its a blessing....after 35 yrs I know a lot more then I did when I joined....but still do not know it all.....It takes a life time and more to continue to learn and grow and its all worth it. After sacrament meeting, theres a wonderful sunday school class for investigators and new members a few older members go as well...Its a wonderful class teaches the basic's. When you are ready you can take the missionary lessons....who knows maybe your husband will join you in this...miracles do happen...!!.... It is a good thing that you are opened minded and searching, pray to God(Heavenly Father) pour out your thoughts to him, your concerns, ask Him questions, etc...etc...He is very much aware of you, you are His daughter and I want you to know that He loves you sooo very much.....more then we can even comprehend.....Im here for you as well, Im sure all of us here are....though I want you to know I am not on the site very often...so if you want you can message me....here.....and when I get on here and see it ill reply.... Best wishes on your wonderful journey........ :)

I have been thinking about this thread and decided to add some more thoughts: In the parable of the 10 virgins Jesus is talking about their preparing for and attending a marriage. The symbolism is not that lots of people should not attend but only those that are worthy. In essence not all invited and intending to go are worthy. The focus is on worthiness not numbers. I honestly think that one possible reason for limiting has to do with worthiness. Unfortunately, I also believe that by limiting number we do not prevent the unworthy from attending but to limit the unworthy. This thought bothers me greatly because I often ponder if it is really even possible to be worthy to enter the House of G-d Second thought: I do no know why but as numbers grow so does the propensity to be irreverent. I have been at the temple when wedding guests have to be asked again and again and again to please remember where they are and to please speak only when they must in softer reverent voices. Big smiles, back slapping and boisterous greetings and conversations are not helpful and distract from the spirit. It is possible to express joy in a reverent manner. I am convinced this is the #1 reason that the numbers are limited. And that the simplest solution is to limit those attending. Next thought: I have been at temple sealings when the officiator has given witness that what looked like a partly empty room was fulled with many (number not specified) attending from beyond the veil. I have pondered that at such times that there were possibly thousands attending. I have also pondered that lack of reverence from this side of the veil limits greatly the numbers from beyond. Next thought: I do not remember the date this occurred nor the name of the temple president but it was the president of the Manti Temple. Early one morning as he arrived at the temple he was greeted at the entrance to the temple by Satan. He asked Satan why he was there - Satan responded that he intended to be in attendance during several "events" at the temple that day. This greatly surprised the temple President. Satan then informed the president that he would wait for someone unworthy that would be his invitation to enter with them. Final thought: I am always surprised at all the difficulty that takes place whenever my wife and I try to attend from cars that will not start to leaking plumbing to injuries to family members. I guess after all these years such things should not be counted as unusual. I believe that there are many different reasons for someone to find it discouraging to go to the temple

You mentioned that you're a stay at home MOM so no, it's not "your job to keep the house neat and tidy" - it's the kids! How else are they going to learn and be ready to be on their own and be good companions/roommates/spouses? With that said, it sounds like you don't ask him to help out enough during non-pms times. If he were helping more, he wouldn't complain about it during that time of the month. As far as 'no intimacy' playing a part - he should be able to handle a week (didn't he have to handle more than that after having the kids - assuming they weren't adopted?). So basically, I'd turn this into 2 weeks than 3 etc till he got a clue. Honestly, you're doing him no favors by doing too much. I know a couple who is currently apart (valid reasons) and the husband has no clue how to clean up after himself, etc. and the wife doesn't want to go visit because she doesn't want to have to play 'maid'... Also, did your husband not grow up with a mom or sisters? If so, this shouldn't be a new concept for him. Maybe he needs a reminder. I'd be telling him that you need support not attitude and give him a glimpse that it could (and might) be worse.

Having faith is a choice.

I'm going to call pure culture on this. The sacred nature of the temple does make a large wedding attendance, if not inappropriate, at risk of becoming so. I've been to some huge family weddings that were incredibly solemn and sacred and joyous, so it can be done. But, as it stands, the LDS temple sealing isn't set up for a huge number of attendees. It's not about condemning families and friends. It's about a building of God that serves many purposes, only one of which being a sealing. None of the temples are exactly cathedrals in open space for weddings. To say anything but a small and intimate wedding is wrong isn't fair to the many amazing marriage celebrations out there. But to say a wedding must include all loved ones or it can't be joyous isn't fair, either. carlimac and Traveler have experienced large gatherings of loved ones and saw the beauty in those moments. Those are nothing but good moments. Could a temple create a larger sealing room for larger wedding parties and still maintain that solemn beauty? I'm sure. But, that's not what there is now. Your daughter and her fiancé need to cull the guest list or perhaps rearrange wedding plans to be sealed later on. But I don't think that solves the problem of wanting all these loved ones to attend a sealing, whenever it happens. I'm not saying these tiny intimate weddings are the way to go. I'm just saying that declaring larger weddings as better isn't fair.

I believe there's a book called the life before