Leaderboard

The irony of this statement causes me to chuckle a little bit.

Don't date an atheist.

If you consider yourself a Mormon, act like one. Quit seeing him, especially since it is leading to fornication.

Here's a paraphrased story from one of my best friends. ******* I was in a Primary meeting where a bishopric counselor was talking to the children about using good language. At one point, he asked the children, "What kinds of words shouldn't we say?" The children looked around at each other silently. One hand timidly crept up, and the bishopric counselor said, "Yes, Bobby?" Bobby said, "...butthole?" Immediately, two dozen small hands shot up.

"The law" here gets kind of a bad rap. In practical terms it would be extremely difficult to impose the death penalty for adultery under Jewish law, because such executions were subject to meeting the following conditions: There had to be two witnesses in capital crimes, not just one (Deut 17:6) (who's going to commit adultery in front of multiple witnesses?); The witnesses had to begin the act of execution (Deut 17:7); and Both parties to the adulterous act must suffer the same fate (Deut 20:10).Executions under Jewish law were supposed to be rare, and Jesus simply reminded the Jewish leadership of that. "Okay", He says, "if you want to apply the law, be sure you're applying the entire law, or else go home." (Foreshadowing James 2:10, by the way). This created a double-dare for the prosecution: First, to try to get a conviction under circumstances they knew to be impossible under Jewish law; and second, to try to impose capital punishment even though their Roman overlords had specifically denied them that prerogative. The "pricking in [the Pharisees'] conscience" wasn't some "well, golly gee willikers, I guess nobody's perfect!". It was "Oh, crap--this Galilean hick called our bluff before the Romans, and schooled us in the Mosaic law!" It was a humiliation twice over. And, more to the point of this discussion: It was the Mosaic law--and Jesus' argument thereunder--that saved this woman's life.

Deathbed repentance--and thereby gaining a greater reward than that received by the consistently faithful (how many of Alderaan's residents were able to come back as force ghosts?)--has no place either in the parable of the prodigal son or in the gospel as a whole.But, to the larger question: Star Wars never did a whole lot for me, so meh. (Then again, I thought Episode I wasn't half-bad and Jar Jar Binks at least mildly funny, so what do I know?)

It has been my experience that these discussions tend to run into two serious issues. The first issue is an attempt to justify not keeping the Letter of the Law by claiming the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law should always contain the Letter of the Law. The second issue is an attempt to convert the Spirit of the Law (which is highly personal) into the Letter of the Law (which is for everyone). The Lord can do that. The leaders of the Church can do that. If they have not done it, then we should not attempt to do so. We should simply live according to the truths the Lord has seen fit to give us for our personal betterment. And allow others to do the same

I'll give you the advice you don't want to hear. You already know the answer-you just are refusing to accept it. That refusal to accept the answer you know to be right will lead to much heartache in your life. Obeying the Law of Chastity when you are young and in love is hard enough as it is, you make it even harder on yourself when you are the only one who believes in it and the other person does not. For an atheist there are only two reasons not to have sex out of wedlock; STDs and babies and both of those are overcome by "protection". No matter what he claims or how strongly he claims to say to you about how he might believe sex before marriage is wrong--deep down in today's modern society there is absolutely no way he can be an atheist and firmly believe it. Not believing in a God, means not believing in scriptures and the scriptures are the only thing in our modern society that makes the claim, definitively sex before marriage is wrong. I'll tell you the other thing you don't want to hear; continue down this path and you will have sex with him. If that is what you desire then you will get it; if you desire to stay true to God then you already know what you have to do.

Then why are we taught that David irretrievably lost his exaltation?

I found this quote from BYU.

I find it interesting to see the different positions on the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. On my mission other missionaries liked to use the term spirit of the law to refer to a more lenient version of the law. For instance they would look at the curfew as a loose guideline with the intention to avoid getting into trouble, but as long as they weren't doing anything against the commandments they felt there was no reason to rush back "home" for the night. I always felt that simply staying out past curfew was in fact breaking a commandment specific to our situation and was therefore self evidently "getting into trouble" in a sense. Missionaries also have a rule about sleeping in the same room, but not the same bed. I generally feel that this rule is two-fold in spirit - A) it is a protection for missionaries for a variety of reasons - they can witness better as to the others whereabouts and it also makes sneaking out alone a bit more troublesome for those so inclined to do so. B) not sleeping in the same bed should essentially go without saying as to why it's in there, but the spirit of the law would seemingly dictate that it is to prevent unchaste encounters with your companion. I developed a tendency to bring this up when I had new companions explain to me that they were "spirit of the law missionaries"; I would refer to this particular rule and ask them if they would like to break the letter of the law by sleeping in the same bed, but uphold the spirit of the law by not fooling around. I got some weird looks, but they quickly caught on that I wasn't of the belief that the spirit of the law should be anything less than the letter of the law. I do think any time we try to justify one way or the other using the rationale of the spirit of the law we are in potentially dangerous territory, because we might not understand what the spirit of the law is in its entirety. There is safety in obeying the law period. Possible examples - Is the spirit of the law of tithing to remind us that everything we have comes from God? Or is it to teach us something about sacrifice or something else entirely? A combination of more things? Is pornography breaking the higher law of chastity to look on a woman and lust after her in your heart? Can appropriately dressed women be pornographic? where is the line drawn? Is it Sabbath breaking to do dishes on Sunday? You have six days to do your work and labour? The point is to do what you believe the spirit of God dictates while keeping the letter of the law. I myself don't think that I fully understand the law of tithing - I just pay it based on gross income (you can pay on net income, and I won't judge - I think about switching from time to time) I don't know really what blessings I get from it, but I don't plan to stop paying in order to find out what I lose. As for porn - I think it is important to guard our thoughts always, but certainly important to avoid provocative images and content designed to create lustful thoughts whether the individuals involved are fully dressed or fully exposed or any where in between. Some may contend that nudity can be artistic, and maybe for some it can be - for me I think it should be avoided. Sabbath breaking is such a wild area - my father-in-law seems to believe that home teaching is Sabbath breaking. I find it to be a perfectly uplifting Sabbath activity that keeps my focus on the Saviour. Does anyone want to touch face cards? Several general authorities have condemned the use of "playing cards" and "face cards" as evil time wasting vices that can lead to problems with gambling and other unwholesome activities by familiarity with the tools of the craft. I don't know too many members who follow this counsel though. It seems to be all but forgotten. As for the caffeine and the word of wisdom issue I find it intriguing. The word of wisdom was not enforced for something on the order of fifty years after the revelation was received "not by way of commandment" as a preparatory phase to when it would become mandatory for a temple recommend which is a requirement for important ordinances. I wonder if just as the early saints were given a long time to break into the idea of following the word of wisdom before it was later enforced strongly if the caffeinated beverages category could one day be a requirement, but is not at this time. I don't actually think it will ever be officially made policy, but having prophets and apostles say to avoid it is enough for me whether it is part of the word of wisdom or not. Does the church have any official policy on ear rings? I remember Gordon B. Hinckley giving a talk and letting the brethren know that ear rings are not for men and that sisters should only where one pair of ear rings. I wouldn't want to with-hold temple blessings from a sister because she wheres two ear rings in one ear or drinks Pepsi, but when I was looking for a spouse these things would have struck me as red flags that this individual doesn't follow prophetic counsel the same way I plan to and therefore isn't who I'm looking for.

You may think it a quibble, but Christ did not "forgive" her. The words are "Neither do I condemn thee." There's a difference, and I believe it to be significant. Lehi

IMO, this only happens to those who have the wrong attitude. Obeying the letter of the law 100% of the time is exactly what is asked of us, as in, "Be ye therefore perfect..." (despite our inability to accomplish it). If we heed Elder Scott, and do it in the right spirit, we will also be living the spirit of the law 100% of the time. Without both, "obedience" (which isn't true obedience) does us no lasting good: Moroni 7:6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing. Moroni 7:9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.

First I'll start off saying hi. I used this site several years ago on another account*. The layout is totally different, but at least I see some familiar "faces" around. Anyway I'll get to it. Background: I was raised Mormon, in an active family that regularly attended and basically did everything right. My life growing up wasn't exactly sunshine and rainbows, but whose is? Growing up, I was largely disinterested in the church. Everything made sense to me though, even if I didn't get overly emotional most of the time like others did. Going to church was boring though, so after completing seminary, I slowly became less and less active. By now, it's been a good few years since I've gone. I've been largely content with this. I still felt like I believed deep down, but I just didn't really care. Fast forward a month or two ago. My dad tells me he no longer believes in the church. He said he spent the past three years trying to figure it out. I was surprised, because like I said, he was active - he did the whole two year mission thing, he was even bishop for a time. I didn't think much of it though. At first I was actually worried about my mom, because I figured that would be really hard on her. For a little bit it was okay. But over the past couple weeks, I couldn't help but think about it myself. I always thought that people who fell away from the church just weren't doing the things you were supposed to be doing. Going to church, reading the scriptures, praying, following all the "rules" and recommendations and all that. I figured people just didn't try hard enough. The fact that someone I knew and respected had spent years trying to do everything right, and then concluding that he didn't believe - that has impacted me severely. To be fair, I'm not all that close to him, so maybe I can't really judge. All I know is that I don't know what to believe, and that I've had a whole ton of new insights on life, death, and religion in general. I'm not talking about the LDS faith, or even Christianity - I mean faith in general. A belief that there's something out there. Is there something out there that directed the workings of the universe? Or is it all just a series of coincidences, science and all the forces of nature coming together, because if atoms smash together zillions of times, it can happen? I can see both sides. They both have their arguments. I've been pondering this for the past few weeks - and the thoughts terrify me. I can't figure out whether or not there's more to life or not, and the result is that I think about what if there isn't. What if this is the end? What if I die, and then there's nothing? I stop existing, and that's just the end? Death scares the hell out of me now. I want so badly for there to be more. I want to believe in something - anything. One day in particular, I was so terrified I couldn't sleep, so I texted a friend of mine who was really religious (not LDS) and vented everything. She helped a bit, enough to ease my mind for a week or so. But the thoughts returned. It's not pure terror anymore (still scary though, if I think about it too long) so I guess that's better, but instead it's constant obsessive thoughts. Every other thing I see, every other thing that happens, my thoughts go to how that thing factors into the argument of whether there's something more or not. Is it a good sign? No maybe not, it could be a bad sign, it could mean this, or that, etc. It's like a war raging in my head that I can't forget about. And I really wish I could. I'll also say that the thoughts aren't all bad. I've found some motivation in this too, like living life to the fullest, etc. I can also look at the world and see how amazing and complex it is, and the miracle of life, and all that. So I have some hope. But it isn't enough. I'm largely pessimistic about this. I know from my past churchgoings that the standard answers here are to pray, go to church, etc. Maybe I can work up to that. I'm still afraid that I'll go and just wind up debating in my mind the whole time being scared, or thinking that if I find something that I wanted to hear, that it's just confirmation bias (I'm fairly logical). Like that whole thing where you open your scriptures and look, you can find something that helps you. So instead what I'm asking here is for convincing. Help me believe. I want to be optimistic. Even if it's stupid to be optimistic. If there's nothing more to life and I die believing that there was, I won't have lost anything. I just don't want to be scared anymore. I want to ease my mind. So if anyone reading this has anything to say that can reassure me, even if it's just something small, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks for hearing me out either way. --- *If this is a problem, I apologize, I'm more than happy to message the mods with the old account if you want to make sure I'm not banned or something, I'm just paranoid about linking personal problems to that username since I've used it on other sites.

My youngest daughter just called me "a dolt" -- think real hard what she was really trying to say.

That sounds like a great Christmas anatess. I really like the part about your Mom. Our dining room has been table-less for over a decade, so this year we finally bought ourselves a dining room table and chairs and ate Christmas dinner in the dining room. It's strange how when you haven't eaten around a table in a long time, you can forget how things work, like passing around the food. :) It was a really nice Christmas dinner. M.

Agreed. How a trivial movie like "The Sword and the Stone" can be available in release while a true classic like "The Song of the South" is suppressed for political reasons escapes me.

And they want a pony.

Ugh. That's disturbing.

Remember, Ren was already badly injured by the time Rey got to him. Chewie got him with the bowcaster, then Finn got him a few times as well. Between his injuries and the likely loss of blood, he wouldn't have been anywhere close to full power.

Hi Strangesquirrel, Doubt is good. Lots of us start from a position of "I'm a good Mormon because my parents believe and I keep the commandments pretty well". That's not really the foundation for a testimony though. You need to figure out for yourself: Do you believe in God? Jesus? Do you believe the restoration was brought about by Christ through Joseph Smith? I'm guessing you may not know if you believe that stuff or not. Again - this is normal - we grow up just assuming, running off of the testimonies of others. Then your dad's testimony disappears and it rocks your universe. Totally understandable. A quote that helped me: You need to figure out what you believe, and why you believe it. God bless and good luck!

Not in the way you are suggesting, no. But then, the fact that President Monson cited this event as an example of "forgiveness" does not mean either that (1) he (President Monson) meant to say that Jehovah granted forgiveness and cleansing to this woman of her filthy adulterous behaviors at that moment or (2) Jesus actually granted the adulteress such absolution. That Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee" at that time doesn't mean he meant "I fully forgive thee"; we are granted a space to repent, as both the Book of Mormon and common-sense observation teach. Many times, I have heard leaders misuse teachings or historical events to illustrate a perfectly true principle -- such as the 180° misunderstanding of the Isaiah passages reading "his hand is stretched out still" as being some sort of confirmation of divine love and forgiveness for those who abandon their sins, or telling an oversimplification of the story of the apostasy of Thomas Marsh and his wife as being an example of allowing a small, insignificant thing (and our own pride) to drive us away from God. There is in fact divine love and forgiveness to all those who would turn away from their sins, even if that is not what the Isaiah passages actually mean. We can in fact allow insignificant minutiae couple with our own pride to drive us away from God, even if the Thomas Marsh history is significantly more nuanced than the simplified story would suggest. The book of Matthew is full of such misapprehensions and downright misstatements of Old Testament passages, attempting to show Christ's divinity (a true principle) through what can best be described as a wholesale slaughter of the literal meaning and context of many Old Testament passages. If President Monson meant to suggest that Jesus eternally forgave the adulteress right there on the spot, then that might well be true. But I could also understand it as an attempt to explain a true and important gospel principle using an example that doesn't actually fit, as has often been done before. Whether or not President Monson meant to suggest such a thing, I am pretty confident that he did not mean to declare new revelatory doctrine that we should thenceforth teach.

lol, depends on how boring the teacher is

In the end I really enjoyed it and will happily shove money down Disney's throat for more. Parts that bugged me: get more new characters! Sure it was nostalgic to see the same fish guy (General Ackbar) in the exact same setting but I could have just watched the older movie for that. Same with Nien Nunb (another fish looking guy). I actually felt bad for Kylo Ren that he, a trained sith, was beaten by someone so new to the force. Sure Rey knew how to fight, but what did she really know about the force? She was an infant, yet took Kylo to town. I don't mind at all that she kicked some but, but it just didnt seem she was ready for an all out battle like that.

The notion is already explain, I think you would agree (could be wrong), the letter pertaining to Christ is that he came to fulfill the law. His compassion toward this woman was indeed following the letter of the law which was prophesied of him. A returning to what was done previously before the law of Moses was in place.

First of all, I too want to impress on you that his porn addiction is not your fault. Even if there were issues that left him vulnerable to temptation, in the end the choice was his and his alone, and pornography can be powerfully addictive. When a person has an addiction it drives them to seek to fulfill it even when they know it is self destructive, it has that much power over them. The church has a really good series of videos about addiction and recovery that you may want to check out. The first one is at Second, his hostile reaction is a combination of the fact that he already knows he is in the wrong, and your actions are a bit on the bossy side. Making rules for him and pushing him to do things your way is not going to work. He is feeling guilt and shame and one of his fears is losing your love and respect. When you try to push him around you are partly making that fear come true in his eyes. He needs you to reach out with compassion for his weakness, he needs gentle persuasion, long-suffering, meekness, and love unfeigned. Not rules and condemnation and anger. I know it's hard when you feel personally hurt by his actions. When you realize it is not about you personally it will be easier. Be his team mate, not his opposition. At this point he is not willing to admit he has a problem, and that is the first step he has to take. You can't beat a confession out of him or twist his arm to get it though. You can tell him how you feel without accusing him and plead with him in a loving way to do what he knows is right. Ask what you can do to help him, make sure he knows that you love him no matter what he does. Make him feel safe admitting his problem to you. If he fears admitting it will destroy his relationship with you, he has a pretty big motive to not admit it.

Its not her burden to bare, she needs to hand it over to Jesus, her husbands sins can be paid for by our Savior, and our Savior does not give us only one chance at repentence he offers it to us every day and every sunday through the sacrament. She should be rejoicing knowing that fact. I wouldnt tell her she has a problem rather I would say she has a new project. It might be years that her husband suffers from this addiction, it may never go away (hopefully it does and it can) but life is no fun if you are going to look at the glass half full. If she can learn to walk with him through this issue they can learn to get through it together, Our savior made it possible for this young couple to inherit the celestial kingdom even if it takes her husband 50 years to overcome his addictions. Christmas was last week so dont forget the whole reason we celebrate it, The birth of our Savior! On the LDS.org website they are running a campaign "The Savior was born so I can...." ..have hope ..have joy ..forgive others ..repent of my sins etc.. here is the video - Its a daily struggle and the Savior knew this, that is why we go to church weekly because we constantly need to repent and work toward our goals. Everyone is at different levels of spirituality so dont condemn her for habits that you dont have. Lets give this young mother hope and encourage her to look at her husband and even her marriage relationship through the eyes of our Savior. For the record I have been in her husbands shoes and continually battle with that same issue, it can be years that im clean and somehow someway I relapse. Pornography for me is a physical stimulant similar to why a pot user or drug addict takes that one hit, for a temporary high. It has nothing to do with my wifes looks or behavior. When she understood this she had more compassion and love for me in trying to understand my problem. Satan wants me to feel bad and give up on my eternal goals but it is because of the Savior that I can have hope through all the adversity. This is the message of hope that we need to be sharing with our brothers and sisters, yet for some reason in our LDS culture we focus more on the "doom-n-gloom", or, "you are not good enough."

Who's law is this? And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12 Was this not the law in effect at the time Gator is speaking of? I'm fully in favour of supporting both the spirit and letter of the law, and I would tend to agree with what you have said about your feelings on it as well, but in this case I feel like Gator has a case. I'm not saying Christ broke the law in any way, but I am saying that on the surface it appears a contradiction that could be worth discussing. I mean the written word or "letter" of the law does seem to say that adulterers should be killed, yet in this case when asked for His thoughts on the matter He chose mercy instead of punishment, albeit without taking a stand one way or the other at first to avoid being trapped - on the one hand I suppose he would break the command "thou shalt not kill" and on the other hand break "such should be stoned to death" so He opted for the impasse of he who is without sin let him first cast a stone.

Which is why Star Wars is morally bankrupt. :-)

Well, the argument was whether Vader was worthy of being equal to Yoda. I think clearly the parable of Star Wars, says yes. And barring covenants (which can be made postumously via proxy), there is nothing that says otherwise doctrinally (IMHO)

I suppose he meant exactly what is recorded that he said: That he did not condemn the woman. Christ's purpose in mortality was not to condemn, but to save. That doesn't mean condemnation is never appropriate, only that it was not appropriate at that time.

I know that's the takeaway we are supposed to have, but I don't see it. The Anakin Skywalker of episodes 2 and 3 was a conceited, self-absorbed, grasping twit; and could have been wooed by Palpatine with relative ease even if he'd never met Padme.And, Padme was still alive when Anakin killed the younglings.

Not really. The younger brother was welcomed back into the father's household, but his inheritance was gone. All that the father had left, was now reserved for the faithful son (v. 31). The elder son certainly had a duty to extend compassion and fellowship and love to his brother--a duty at which he failed miserably--but the rewards were not equal. "In my Father's house are many mansions", and "even as one star different from another in glory", and all that.

And Episode VII was a retelling of Episode IV but with a twist in the nature of the antagonist. Darth Vader and the Empire were competent and ruthless. The First Order and Keelo Ren were inept, amateurish and immature. That was obviously by design, and will likely be explored in future movies. But the message of the Dark vs Light side is really the message of love vs hate, and that hate is very powerful and easy to use, (and it was interesting that the female protagonist won the battle on the emotion of hate), so it will be interesting to see how they explore these themes. And, by the way, Lucas' first Star Wars (Episode IV) was a rehash of this movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress and all the space battles were lifted directly from WWII dogfight footage, frame by frame. And Lucas consulted "Power of Myth" author Joseph Campbell on how to weave his story with mythical cues.

You sound like the brother of the prodigal son, jealous that the son was redeemed with forgiveness that you didn't think he deserved. Sounds to me, the lessons of Star Wars are deeper than you think.

IMO, the Savior using parables was an act of pure mercy. Each person understood as much as they both chose to understand, and were capable of understanding. In many (perhaps all) requirements of the gospel, the same principle applies: each of us have our own ability, experience, and understanding of the WoW (beyond the clearly obvious). Each of us has different abilities (at present) to obey it, and may struggle with different parts of it. As we make sincere effort to obey, our ability and understanding will increase. When it comes to other people, we set examples, we teach the doctrine, and we leave the implementation to the individual (unless our stewardship requires something else).

Because they don't conflict with each other - indeed, cannot. If you understand the spirit of the law - the reason for which it was given, the things it is intended to teach you, and how you can follow it more fully as you grow line upon line - then you obey the letter, you do so willingly, happily, desiring to do that growing, and as you grow, you see more ways in which you can live the law. E.g. Instead of the Word of Wisdom being about consuming these substances, and not consuming those substances, it becomes about striving to be healthy physically and spiritually, about recognizing the gifts of God which enable these things, about not wasting or abusing those gifts, about recognizing the connection between obedience in a seemingly physical command, and spiritual benefits and blessings. When you approach the law in that spirit, you obey it to the letter, and the spirit of that law.

It's both, 100% of the time (because you can't truly have one without the other), but with the understanding that as fallen mortals, we will fall short of 100% in varying degrees, which is why we have the Atonement and a Savior, so that we can recover from our falls, and try again, and again, and again, until the perfect day (which will come long after mortality).

How does on define or truly understand "the letter" of the law and "the spirit" of the law? Using the WOW as an example, we have a couple of food allergies in my family, which puts me in contact with many in the local "natural foods" community. This means I come across some who would use "the spirit of the law" relating to the WOW to argue that all LDS should follow a strict paleo diet, because that is most in keeping with the spirit of that law. Or they will argue against all refined sugars or all GMO products, or argue for strictly organic diets. I have not found myself convinced that any of these represents some kind of "higher Word of Wisdom" or is otherwise more righteous or anything like that. So, which is more righteous -- letter of the law or spirit of the law? I don't think I know. I think there is danger is rationalizing sin. I also think there is danger in extending commandments beyond what God has actually said.

First off, let me say that I very much appreciate yours and the other comments. I have learned much. Based on what you've written, is it living the spirit of the law that separates those who attain the Celestial Kingdom from those who get something else?

First, let me make a distinction about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. The letter of the law contains well defined rules, commandments, and rituals. If we live the letter of then we must obey all the rules for if we fail to live one commandment we have broken the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is different. It looks at the intent of the letter and thus contains the spirit of what the letter points to. So, regarding your question as to whether it is just as serious to break the spirit of the law as the letter of the law, I would conclude that it is more serious to break the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ultimately the spirit of the law is what matters. The letter of the law is just a school master to lead us to the spirit. As to the WoW example you bring up, the spirit of the law certainly does not mandate that we must avoid caffeine. In fact, stating that it does defines the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.

People do have different styles. I'm in agreement with you LP, but my own mother would be the other extreme-- she tries to tell me "that's too late to drive" and I'm 30, married, and have a daughter. As my daughter is a toddler, and not a teenager, I'll approach this from a different angle: professionally I work in a university, teaching and mentoring undergrads (and the occasional high school student). There is HUGE difference in maturity between them. Below are some very general trends-- 1) There are those who's parents helicoptered the entire way. These students generally do well at first, but somewhere also the line have a "who am I and why am I here" crisis. From the crisis point, it's very variable where they go. 2) There are those who's parents were completely absent in the kids teenage life. These kids know how to do their laundry, but are still trying to find their compass and lack focus. 3) There are those who's parents let them do whatever and then picked up their messes for them. These students really struggle. 4) My favorite students (yes, teachers have favorites), are those whom parent's set structure (such as things which needed to be done), gave the kids deadlines, and then backed off and let the kids do them.

If you can do without the internet; do it!!! And yes it would help the problem a lot. Granted he could buy magazines (but that is much less likely and he could store the images-but both of those are extra steps that can inhibit someone from seeking it out). If all you are using it for is netflix-I'd say toss it, but that it just my 2 cents. If you have a library nearby, you can read books or even get movies from the library vs. the internet.

That's interesting, while my family actively schedules events to avoid conflicts with church callings, the excuse "I will be with family" is an appropriate response for not being at part of Sunday events in the local ward. (Not one day vacations, or I don't want to go to Sunday type events if that makes any sense.) I think it would be appropriate to find someone to sub,rather than cut it short. Though time set aside to ponder, pray, and silently read scriptures could be very appropriate.

Why not avoid the argument by discussing your desire to have the Spirit more in your life, and talking about goals you could set as a family to help you get there. Said with pure love, and expressing a desire to be an eternal family can encourage unity and more spiritual progress without having to argue over specific sins or conflicts. You could discuss possible things you could do together to increase the Spirit in your lives: regular church attendance and participation, family scripture study and prayer, family home evening, temple attendance, callings, visiting teaching (giving and receiving), home teaching (giving and receiving), etc. Pick one or two things you think you could do as a family. If he doesn't want to do any, then at least the discussion lets him know you want the Spirit in your home, and feel like it isn't there as strongly as you would like it. Trying to do these things on your own can be hard, but even that can help him, over the long haul, unless he resists the influence...

1) Addictions (or fascinations) don't get better over the course of a few days. You're in for a long road here (likely years at least). 2) What's "normal" for someone to do doesn't make it good. It's also "normal" for people to do things like lie, bully each other, and die of obesity. Forgive me if you said this earlier... but have you tried talking to your husband about this?

I don't believe this, but I am willing to be proven wrong. Please cite where Brigham Young ever told women that they need to leave an unrepentant spouse.

Not a big smiths fan has to be said bit too miserable for my liking haha. I love Motley Crue tho I went to see them for their final tour a few months ago.