Leaderboard

Metaquestion: Why is this poster (a man) being treated so differently from many other posters (mostly women) who voice objections here to experiences they claim to have had? The statements of the other posters (mostly women) are generally taken at face value, and people here commiserate with them -- to the point of making truly nasty statements about their selfish, good-for-nothing husbands. In contrast, this poster's statements are treated with skepticism and his motives questioned from the get-go. Is it as simple as the fact that he's a man, and therefore not as trustworthy as the anonymous women who post here?

Gals tend to come in and express heartache about their spouse's cheating, porn viewing, yelling, etc. This guy comes in with cherry-picked quotes from a licensed counselor, endorsed by the church--accusing the counselor of apostasy. The temptation to read into the OP was truly overwhelming. If nothing else, it struck me as inappropriate to come to a forum with snippets from a private counseling session, seeking affirmation (ammunition?).

The most recent revealed word on the roles men and woman play in a family is in the proclamation of the family. It states clearly that a man is responsible for the "necessities" and the women are responsible for the "nurturing" It further states that both man and woman are to help each other in the fulfilling of their roles and adapt as necessary to the reality of the situation they find themselves in. This is the revealed word of the Lord on this matter as far as we know it. This allows for both structure and flexibility. However no where does it state who has the responsibility of cleaning the toilet, mopping the floors or doing the dishes. If you view such as "necessities" then it clearly falls to the man. If you view such as "nurturing" then it clearly falls to the woman. If you view it as crap that needs to be done then it can go where ever it best fits. No matter what, the couple chooses, always remembering the command to help each other. As for cleanliness yes it is a command. However remember the direction of President McKay. If you think his remarks of about Success in the home was based on how "clean" it was you really don't get it. Success in the home is when the people who live in that home are thriving and growing closer to Christ. Failure in the home is when the people who live in that home are not thriving and not growing closer to Christ. That is the success that matters, not how clean it is. Now in my personal experience a young child who is thriving... one of the signs that they are thriving is that they are a chaotic little mess makers (My little daughter has the nick name The Hurricane for precisely this reason). Part of the nurturing process is the teach them to clean up after themselves while still having them thrive, but that takes time. So sometime a Successful home is not the cleanest of homes, but I will take success any day and be content

Is it okay to cheat...sometimes? "The Ogden Utah Temple was the first temple dedicated in the state of Utah; the four previous temples were dedicated in Utah Territory over 78 years earlier."

I appreciate teachers trying to change things up. Nothing distracts more than monotone reading from a manual. (following the manual is fine)

The funeral was probably one of THE most beautiful funerals I've ever seen. I did go and watch the procession pass by close to where I live. To give you an idea of just how many police officers were in the procession..... When the beginning of the procession came to the exit of the freeway that would take them to the cemetery in Orem, there were still officers driving by at the location I was at. I was in Sandy, UT which is 25 miles away. That's how many officers were there to pay their respects. I appreciate mirkwood sending me texts letting me know where they were in the procession so I knew when to go find a spot. :)

Mizzou's Melissa Click is reportedly being charged with assault for an incident that took place last November, so that's one special snowflake who may finally have to face a harsh reality.

I fear the day when this might come -- not because I think the counsel would be wrong, but because it would mark an important point where the Brethren themselves think children would be better off outside of public schools than within them. At least some already think so, but if they all agreed to it enough to state it, that bodes ill for our society. Like a death knell.

I am sure many of you have seen all these "be like bill" memes that are now flooding Internet and facebook. Today when i came home from church i made my own version. What do you think? :) Feel free to use it and spread it if you want. And for those of you who are not familiar with "be like Bill" you can read here: http://www.boredpanda.com/be-like-bill-funny-meme-comic/

The command doesn't apply to you, TFP. It applies to The Folk Prophetess. (Running away now.)

What I've heard is that code names were also sometimes used in revelations dealing with the United Order or Church-initiated business ventures, for fear that enemies of the Church might try to torpedo the plans by filing strike suits against their principals.

Winners! Winners! Turkey Dinners! (no leftovers from the Chicken dinner, sorry) "Some of the earliest revelations received by Joseph were directed at specific individuals in the Church. During the winter of 1831-32, secular newspapers in Ohio, after acquiring some of the revelations, began ridiculing Church leaders whose names were mentioned. To lessen embarrassment to his officers, Joseph began in March 1832 to identify certain individuals in revelations by code names. Joseph himself became "Enoch". He gave such names as "Ahashdah" to Newel Whitney and "Pelegoram" to Sidney Rigdon. Years later the real names were added in parentheses and the 1981 edition of the D&C no longer listed the names at all."

My own self-image is that I am one of the talkers, though to be fair to myself, that is not always true. As a rather poor student trying to survive in a college environment, I found that sitting in the front row and involving myself in the lecture or discussion was a good way to help me to learn the subject. I applied that to my Church attendance with great success, and often sit near the front and enthusiastically participate. I have no doubt that I often come across as a know-it-all, as I surely do here on occasion. But the alternative is that the world passes me by while I glance out the window on occasion before going back to reading my book. However irritating my "participation style" might be to others, it helps me to connect a little more with the lesson and with the people in the class, and draws me a little more out of my introverted nature.

I think it has something to do with the D&C and original names if my memory serves me but I can't remember anything more than that.

I'm guessing they were all used as substitute names in many of the published revelations.

Counselors with LDSFS are human beings, with their own understanding of the gospel. They are not called and set apart to my knowledge, so while there is an expectation that their counsel will be in harmony with church doctrine, they are not authorities on what is and is not church doctrine. They will make mistakes, and give advise based on their training and experience influenced by their imperfect knowledge of the gospel. There is a big difference between apostacy and being honestly mistaken about something and I don't see anything so major in what you described to think apostacy is a good description. If he was telling you guys to watch porn together or try swinging, then you could start calling it apostacy. If this person is being helpful to your marriage you might want to continue with them. You have to decide, but understand that it is up to you to test the truth and value of anything they say and rely on the Spirit to guide you. You are not obligated to accept their views and agree with them on every point. They are not church authorities, they are marriage counselors who happen to be LDS, that's all. It will be the same with anybody else too, they will just have different points where their understanding of doctrine is different from yours. On the specifics of what they said: Scripture is what you find in the four standard works, and you won't find what David O MaKay said in there so in that sense they were right. However, the standard works do not contain all the inspired word of God so it is common for members to take what GA's say in General Conference or other settings as being scripture. Members should take counsel from the prophet very seriously, but members are not obligated to take it as scripture like they are with the standard works. We are told to seek confirmation about the truth of what they way, and what it means in our life. If we get that confirmation it becomes scripture to us, but that is not the same as it being canonized scripture for the whole church. What does this person mean by 'dictate responsibilities'? I think it's a pretty safe bet that the GA's know the meaning of the temple covenants well enough that the proclamation on the family is not in conflict with temple covenants. It says in there that husbands have a divinely appointed role to preside over the family in love and righteousness, and both spouses are to work together to fulfill their responsibilities to provide, protect and nurture the children. The temple covenants say nothing about who should be providing, who should be doing the dishes and laundry etc. The Proclamation says each spouse has areas that they are primarily responsible for, but there is flexibility and spouses should work together to help each other as needed. Not sure what they mean by 'season' so I can't comment, but I would say that the list of priorities in life should be God first, then spouse, then kids, then extended family, then country, then self. Putting the kids ahead of the spouse weakens a marriage. Abuse of over the counter medicines, or some addiction or obsession used to avoid a problem is not good. If it gets in the way of getting to a solution, it is not a 'coping mechanism', it is part of the problem. A clean and orderly home is desirable, but the time you devote to it has be balanced by whatever other priorities there are. It is no sin to have dirty dishes in the sink, carpets that need vacuuming etc. if the reason those things are not done is because more important matters had to be attended to, or obstacles got in the way of getting it done.

When I am a student, I hate it.There are always one or two who say nothing, one or two who take the group over, and one or two who just go along to get through the period. (Yes, I know who you think I am, but it ain't always so.) The problem with this method isn't that each group reflects on only a couple of thought, but that other processes get steamrollered and ignored. There is no way to measure this, but it just may well be that the ideas not expressed may be the ones most useful to others in the class. That, and it seems as if the teacher loses control of the schedule, since "five minutes" is always ten, and ten is always fifteen. Lehi

LeSellers, I'm largely on your side in this debate, but the way you're trying to make your argument -- basically belittling the other position -- alienates not just your opponents, but many of your friends. Of course education is a reason for government. The government absolutely must disseminate information in an understandable format, else there is no free society. That does not mean that a government's proper function is to provide publicly funded schooling. But it also doesn't mean that it is wrong for government so to provide. The idea that we can choose God's Government or something awful is false. We cannot choose God's Government in this world, because God's Government is not of this world. I do not see that schooling is a necessary part of government, but I also don't see such publicly funded schooling as necessarily evil. I think it is absolutely vital that government require parents to see to their children's education. I also find it eminently reasonable that government provide a "fail-safe" method for parents to see to that education. In my opinion, public schools should not be anywhere near as ubiquitous as they are, but I also don't see the advantage in doing away with them completely -- and I see a lot of disadvantages. I think it's reasonable for the government to fund public schools to provide a decent minimal level of education to those children whose parents cannot (or will not) provide them with a better education. In principle, this is no different from the government feeding children whose parents cannot (or will not) feed them. That some past educators (and perhaps current ones) might have had nefarious ends in implementing public schools does not imply that public schooling itself is therefore corrupt, or even that our implementation of it is evil. (Though I happen to think our implementation is pretty awful.) By this logic, religion is an evil thing because some people want to use religion to achieve evil ends. Here you hit on a topic of agreement with me. One of the primary reasons we homeschool is because we blanch at the idea of giving our children up to strangers for six to eight hours a day. Hear, hear. Filthy lucre pollutes everything it touches. Funding is used quite brazenly as a weapon to force compliance. This is as old as government, and with a population that loves money, is insurmountable. I think your terminology is unnecessarily divisive and tends to cloud rather than illuminate the issues at hand. But I fundamentally agree with this. Public schooling's first priority is to protect public schooling. This is why filthy, corrupt organizations such as the NEA continue to battle homeschooling, despite clear evidence of its usefulness. The NEA and other such organizations do not want to find a way to incorporate homeschooling into a larger educational structure. They want to do away with it, marginalize those who practice it so as eventually to make it illegal. In this case, I think you will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

The “last radio call,” sometimes called the “end of watch call,” is a tradition in funerals for fallen law enforcement officers. In the call, a dispatcher makes one last attempt to contact the officer, and often says a few words in memoriam. Use the player above to listen to the last radio call for Officer Doug Barney. http://fox13now.com/2016/01/25/listen-to-the-last-radio-call-for-officer-doug-barney/

Hmm. Seems like we sure are all jumping to a lot of judgmental conclusions.

It seems you may be over reacting to the words, because I don't see it as "blame", []per se. Being a victim of the theft of a bag in one's car is, with obvious and significant differences in magnitude, no different in quality to being sexually assaulted: both are crimes perpetrated against an innocent victim who bears no responsibility for the crime. But having a clean car makes it less likely that the car owner will become a victim. And we all want fewer victims, whether of sexual assault of burglary. The message is that there are what you call later, people who are "twisted inside". Irrespective of whether women have the right to go anywhere they choose anytime they choose, those twisted inside people exist. That's something neither you no I can change. But, to this point, they are somewhat predictable. That is, just as we can avoid having our cars broken into by taking precautions (the so-called "clean car"), there are precautions one can take in the face of the reality of twisted people. Not taking those precautions does not change the fact that the blame for the attack rests solely on the attacker. But an attack avoided is a victim who isn't victimized. Again, as I read it, it is not "blame" that is being apportioned, it is simply a reflection of the fact that wisdom does not always take every opportunity since some choices put one the way of danger. No one blames the victims of a home invasion where three or six evil men force their way into a home, brutalize the family and may end up killing them, as well. But we are justified in telling others that you don't open the door to strangers, even strangers with an injured cat. You have the right to open your front door, but it is not always wise to do so. But, if you do, it is wise to be wary, and to be able to protect yourself, and I don't mean with 911 on speed dial: when seconds cont, the police are mere minutes away. It doesn't seem to me that people are thinking "this way". What we are reading is that it is wise to take sensible precautions to avoid this kind (or, indeed, any kind) of crime. If a crime happens and the victim could have done something to avoid it, the criminal is still the only one responsible for his choice. A threat avoided is a crime deterred. None of which applies here. Victims are not responsible for their plights. That's the reason we call them "victims" rather than "criminals". So, whether women who want to avoid rape or a family who wants to avoid an invasion of their home, or a car owner who does not want his car broken into, there are things he can do to make himself less "target-like". That may mean (and often does) not taking advantage of every liberty he is entitled to. That is not "blaming the victim", it's "counseling prudence". That said, not every rape, not every crime can be avoided. But that does not negate the counsel to to what we can to avoid becoming a victim where possible. Lehi

Sometimes the counselor you "get" (location wise) isn't a perfect fit for you, perhaps a different one would work out better. You are not limited to just the one or having to travel hours away. While not in person, there are LDS Fam. Service Counselors who can meet with you via the internet: Skype, etc. Also, suppose Skype sessions didn't work for a moment (pretend)... Is working on/saving your marriage worth driving several hours away? I would hope so. Make a trip of it. See some sights, go on a date with your wife while you are there and go to an extra long session with your new counselor. People drive for sports, camping, events... surely working on your marriage would be a top priority? Finding a counselor you enjoy/trust will be vital to you even caring about what they have to say in the first place. I would never avoid a counselor because they gave you advice you found hard or difficult to swallow. If you (myself included) had all the answers, you wouldn't be at a counselor's office in the first place. You are not looking for someone who simply agrees with you on all points. I'm not taking sides on this subject, you vs. the counselor, just saying there are alternatives. If this were me, I would be asking myself, "How bad do I want to work on/save my marriage" and then act like I better jump through hoops to get it done.

Family life can be an incredibly nuanced thing, and I can easily imagine a family counselor trying to contextualize pretty much all of LDS teachings the OP mentions in a way that I, as a Mormon, would find particularly problematic if a) I were unable or unwilling to pick up on the nuance, or b) I expected to be able to use those LDS teachings as a bludgeon to get my wife to do "her job". I'm reading between the lines here and perhaps making an unwarranted/uncharitable assumption, but . . . It sounds to me like you wanted someone to fix your wife, not your marriage. Family counseling isn't primarily about who's right and who's wrong. That's what divorce court is for. And if you spend most of your counseling sessions debating theology with the therapist . . . you're doing it wrong.

Yes, I believe so. But it would be worth reviewing to see what's already available so that you avoid rewriting what someone else has already done a good job of getting down on paper, or at least write it in a better (more accessible or whatever) way.

Second idea I looked over the topics/lessons of the entire year in advance. I took one thought provoking question from each lesson. I then compiled an anonymous survey of about 30 questions. I spent the very first Sunday doing the survey with the entire class, NO lesson, just the survey. Then each week I would share the results of the survey question that pertained to that week's lesson. Example if the lesson was on following the Prophet: Question: If the prophet asked us to all move to Utah today (we don't live in Utah currently) what would you do? a. Pick up and leave immediately b. Pray about it first, wait for your own personal revelation and go only if you received your own answer. c. Wait it out in town and let others go. I would read the anonymous results back to class that would tie into the lesson. It almost always generated deep discussions and the class could go on auto pilot often. I personally learned a lot about my fellow members by studying the survey, not all of it was heart warming either :)

This thread bores my brain.

In 1875 David Whitmer said it had been washed to the bottom of the hill, and a Smith family acquaintance said the stones had been removed as of 1893.

And...my wife's depression level just increased ten fold.

Who said you can't learn something new on lds.net?

Connie, I didn't watch the video (yet), but I know the name Ron Meldrum. If you spell it backward, it's Murd Lemnor. Furthermore, Ron is the guy who insists most fiercely on the so-called "Heartland Model" of Book of Mormon geography, going so far as to condemn as faithless or unbelieving those who hold to a central American setting. His extreme devotion to this relatively unimportant point (whether or not he is correct, which I think he probably is not) marks him in my mind as something of a crackpot. So I would tend to take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Too bad, especially if he is providing solid reasoning; but as I have found on this very forum, when you gain for yourself a reputation, even if you think it undeserved, you won't live it down.

See that is exactly the kinds of comments there are talking about. It couldn't possibly be that the "parents" you are repeatedly condemning have got on there knees and prayerfully studied the issue on what the Lord would have them do, and are doing it. Nope clearly we must follow "Lord Lehi LeSellers" instead of the "Lord Jesus Christ" I am not sorry that I absolutely refuse to engage in such blasphemy... and regulate you and your opinions to the role of the many mocking voices in the great and spacious building

Haha...Now I have to clip mine too so I don't look like a... ...okay...fine! Edit: If you clip out my quote too then we can really hide our sins...er...I mean repent...

They are but the principles are the same . . . considering the massive destruction of the family with divorce rates, unhappy wives, husbands, mental problems, etc. Just maybe, people in previous generations knew how to live better lives then we do in harsher conditions. Think about it-we have all this modern technology that spares us from so much work-yet the family unit is falling about; just maybe the ancients were a little wise.

If what you shared with us is true ....my advice to you is ....go directly to your Bishop and share with him the things you mentioned here. Your Bishop and that Councilor will or should at some point get a report about your sessions.

Good job! Pat on the back to you! I find things go better if I pray do before beginning to prepare the lesson. Funny how that is!

Eowyn, I apologize for the sarcasm I injected into the discussion. It was inappropriate.

Everybody already agrees with this. Depends on what you mean by "blame". A year ago, I left my bike outside my garage. It was stolen. A few months ago, I left two bikes outside my garage again. They were stolen. My wife blamed me for leaving the bikes outside. She said that I knew what might happen, and she was right. Was she "blaming the victim"? That's the question I put to her. I was miffed that she was cussing me out because of what some slimeball lowlifes did. But guess what? Though it was not my fault that the bikes were stolen, it was my fault that I left them outside in a position to be stolen. So while I in no way "deserved" to have my bikes stolen, and while it was not morally or legally my fault, I was foolish to do what I did. If we tell women, "Don't get drunk and then run around the streets naked at 2 AM, or you might get raped", and then one of them gets drunk and runs around the streets naked at 2 AM and gets raped, what exactly is wrong with pointing out, "You acted unwisely, and you were warned against that"? It is saying no such thing. That is simply false. No one is suggesting the victim is to blame for being raped. They are suggesting minimal common-sense actions that, if followed, dramatically reduce the risk of being victimized. I cannot believe you would maintain such a position. I have a daughter. I don't want her to be raped, so I tell her very explicitly to avoid certain actions and activities. And you are suggesting that, instead, I should just say, "Poor darling, I certainly hope you don't get raped while doing all these unwise activities that you have a legal right to do, or that in any case don't merit you getting raped for"? I love my daughter a lot more than that. So I arm her with specific information of what to do and what not to do. And if I hear a story of a women being raped while involved in foolish activities, I will point it out to her and say, "Don't be like that! Don't do those foolish activities! They could lead to you being raped!" I will go so far as to proclaim that any parent who loves his daughter will tell her the very same things. FALSE, FALSE, FALSE! This sort of fatalistic thinking is part of the problem of powerlessness. "Oh, dear, bad people will do bad things no matter what, so therefore there is no use in taking any sort of precautions. We just need to destroy all bad people and force society to be such that no bad people exist." It. Will. Not. Happen. Ever. In almost all cases, BAD PEOPLE ARE OPPORTUNISTIC. In 99.9% of cases, if you don't give bad people an opportunity to exercise evil upon you, THEY WON'T DO IT. Now it's possible to go too far in such self-protection. "I will never leave my house, because I might get assaulted" is a nonsense way to live. But "I won't go to parties that last past 11 PM, and I won't ever get drunk in public or in a party situation" is not nonsense. It's common sense. I am sincerely sorry for the evils you have experienced. I wish I could make them go away. But the fact that you have experienced such horrible evils does not mean that such evils are utterly unavoidable, and certainly doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands in despair and refuse to take common-sense actions to protect ourselves.

I've noticed the same thing here often. That said, the way this particular poster said things didn't sit right. Some things as reported I can't imagine any qualified councilor saying under any circumstances, let alone an LDS councilor, leading me to kind of want to call BS on the OP's post.

It went well. I forgot to take a picture of my centerpiece, and the toddler that kept escaping her mother knocked it down anyway (it was at just the right moment, too, very funny). But I felt the lesson went well as it led to a lengthy discussion, which I take as a sign of a good lesson.

I wanted to strangle someone over Facebook the other day. The woman has a newborn baby and was driving herself into the ground trying to keep her kitchen perfect. To be fair, I have over the past few years worked very hard on becoming a neater person and I would say that having a clean and orderly house is now a high priority to me... and yet my house is still not at Better Homes and Gardens level. I just can't understand why someone would place scrubbing the kitchen above caring for a newborn and resting. Anywho... To the OP... Yes, I think the majority of those lines, phrased as phrased, are a little odd.

Berlin has apparently been taken over by Currywurst restaurants. It used to be just a selection among many. There's even a Currywurst museum! Munich's a great city. Did you know that the second largest (by sales) McDonald's restaurant is located at the Stauchus? Too true. Better you go to Augustiner for down home German food. Dallmayr's on Residenzstrasse for Gourmet delights! Best deli in the world AFAIK. Upstairs for the restaurant. Great museums here.

Let's just assume for a second that the husband is under the impression that his wife is a slob and he wants her to change because he feels the gospel preaches that she should keep the house clean... How is that unrighteous dominion? It may be naive, but as long as his efforts to persuade her are done with love, gentleness, kindness, etc., then it doesn't exactly make it unrighteous dominion.

We seem to have gone far afield here. To the OP, ther are plenty of non abused young women to marry. Marry one of them. Trust me, it's a lot easier. Knowing what I know now about people who have been abused as children, I would have never married my wife. It's a hard road. Not only will you be affected, but so will your children. Think of them, if nothing else.

As TFP stated, it really could be that the wife is a total slob. I know in this new modern age of "enlightenment" the roles of men and women are messed up. But unless they are making a lot of money (enough to hire a maid) someone has to do the cleaning of the house. If both spouses are working then both should have the responsibility to clean up-however if the husband works a full-time job and the wife stays at home then she should probably have the primary responsibility for the upkeep of the house. I would dare say that it is highly likely that the wife doesn't really understand her role completely and I would add the husband doesn't understand his role either; just like a lot of mothers out there (and even some LDS mothers) have absolutely 0 clue as to what it means to actually be a mother. It was very, very eye-opening to me when I went to an awesome parenting class, the man presenting didn't actually spend too much time addressing fathers, 95% of the time he spent focusing on the responsibilities of wives and mothers. I'm a husband first father second, like my wife is my wife first and mother second. The greatest thing I can do for my children is to love my wife. Unfortunately, not taking on and embracing the God-given God-mandated roles in husband and wife has caused more destruction to the family than anything else.

That too, I suppose. I guess I've stumblied into some kind of Zone here. Not only the son has no apparent means to provide himself certain basics, but I'm told that by adding a wife he will somehow be able to take care of her as well as himself. Sounds like drivel.

Quite simply, if they are teaching things that you believe are out-of-line with the Church (and from what you have said I would agree)- don't see them.

I'll be watching the funeral on tv. I'm glad they are broadcasting it. Then I'm going to find myself a spot along the frontage road of the freeway so I can watch the procession go by as it heads to the cemetery.

In the OP, the son is not even supporting himself. Your comment is facetious.

I'm not an atheist, of course. Nevertheless, if I was one it's not hard to imagine how quickly I would become irritated by my spouse thinking I needed salvation, 'God,' or to join a particular religion. There would be a constant sense of distance, of a holding-out. The problem is obvious enough that the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that when an unbeliever wants out of a marriage, let them go in peace. The difficulty is likely to be less evident during the dating phase, and really come out after the marriage is up and running. Bottom line: Don't start down a road that scripture warns is fraught with danger and failure.