skippy740

I think "Saturday's Warrior" is way more popular than I ever thought.

I'm surprised that no one else posted this before.
https://www.lds.org/topics/blacks-in-the-church?cid=rdb_v_beone
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/be-one-june-celebration-priesthood-revelation
It'll be live-streamed on June 1st.

I'm surprised that no one else posted this before.
https://www.lds.org/topics/blacks-in-the-church?cid=rdb_v_beone
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/be-one-june-celebration-priesthood-revelation
It'll be live-streamed on June 1st.

I'm surprised that no one else posted this before.
https://www.lds.org/topics/blacks-in-the-church?cid=rdb_v_beone
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/be-one-june-celebration-priesthood-revelation
It'll be live-streamed on June 1st.

Let's talk about church culture:  We take pride (yes, there's that word) in being a service church capable of doing great things for others.  (I personally don't like service "being done for me" and perhaps we can blame the culture of doing good to others, but not wanting to be in a situation where we would also have to accept such service ourselves.... but I digress.)
There is a "church path" for our youth:  You go to primary (for the children). Young men get the priesthood at age 12.  They go on missions at age 18.  They return and attend BYU.  Then they marry in the temple.  This is "the path" for all those who have "followed the path".
Deviation causes concern by those who observe the deviation and ask "what happened?"  This is well-meaning, but it happens.  Just ask the parent of any missionary who came home too soon from their mission, as it can be ASSUMED (we know what that word means) what reason it could take for a missionary to return home too soon.
Back when I was 19, I was not ready to serve a mission (as was the traditional age at the time).  And it seemed that EVERYONE "got involved" and pestered me and my parents about it.  Why?  Because I wasn't following "the path".  I finally decided to serve at age 21.
Your husband may feel some embarrassment to "have to explain" what happened.  Yes, there's a bit of family honor at stake here and some personal embarrassment.  Why?  Because we have "the path" and we feel embarrassed when OUR family deviated from "the path".
No, I don't have a solution, only a possible explanation.

My EQ President just moved out last week.  Serendipitous timing!

Doing it for the report and doing it on time to report it back... sometimes just feels like it's about "looking good" and achieving "100% home teaching".  Statistics over numbers/message.
Plus, sometimes the message isn't always tailored to whomever is being taught.  

Anyway, every person's experience can be different, and I've seen it done on a true connection level with families, and those who are just going through the motions.  They might've been new or nervous, but you can't go wrong by simply caring, asking questions, sharing stories & testimony, and listening.
 
And I have more going on in my life than to entertain home teachers so they can check off a box.  I don't entertain missionaries so they can "practice" either.  Yes, that's how I can feel about it.

It'll still be a form of "planned and assigned friendship" in one form or another. 

My EQ President just moved out last week.  Serendipitous timing!

@MadMaddy, your husband's addiction has nothing to do with you not being a great wife.  He uses because he is an addict, not because you're lacking.  You are no more to blame than a wife who's husband is addicted to heroin.  You aren't heroin/porn and nor should you be.  Please don't blame yourself for his addiction.  
As to whether or not to stay with an this unrepentant addict.... that's a question you should contemplate deeply with the Lord.  Yes, you have justification to leave, but none of us here can tell you rightly because only the Lord knows the right move for you.

Okay, I skimmed through this thread, but I don't think anyone really noticed your age and history here.
You married at 18 and pregnant the next month.  
I'm assuming that you've never lived on your own?  If anything, THAT was what you missed out on.  Not being "rebellious", but in living on your own.  You went from your parents straight to married life.
I have no solution, just identifying a phase that many other people go through that you seem to have missed.

Okay, I skimmed through this thread, but I don't think anyone really noticed your age and history here.
You married at 18 and pregnant the next month.  
I'm assuming that you've never lived on your own?  If anything, THAT was what you missed out on.  Not being "rebellious", but in living on your own.  You went from your parents straight to married life.
I have no solution, just identifying a phase that many other people go through that you seem to have missed.

Okay, I skimmed through this thread, but I don't think anyone really noticed your age and history here.
You married at 18 and pregnant the next month.  
I'm assuming that you've never lived on your own?  If anything, THAT was what you missed out on.  Not being "rebellious", but in living on your own.  You went from your parents straight to married life.
I have no solution, just identifying a phase that many other people go through that you seem to have missed.

Okay, I skimmed through this thread, but I don't think anyone really noticed your age and history here.
You married at 18 and pregnant the next month.  
I'm assuming that you've never lived on your own?  If anything, THAT was what you missed out on.  Not being "rebellious", but in living on your own.  You went from your parents straight to married life.
I have no solution, just identifying a phase that many other people go through that you seem to have missed.

Okay, I skimmed through this thread, but I don't think anyone really noticed your age and history here.
You married at 18 and pregnant the next month.  
I'm assuming that you've never lived on your own?  If anything, THAT was what you missed out on.  Not being "rebellious", but in living on your own.  You went from your parents straight to married life.
I have no solution, just identifying a phase that many other people go through that you seem to have missed.

I've been away from the forum for quite some time.  When I last visited, there were (and I'm sure there still are) some threads addressing same sex attraction, family acceptance, and other topics.  I remember reaching out to a member of the Christofferson family a few years ago, but she never responded back to me.  (Wasn't sure if I was treading on something too hard to share, or if she never really got my message.)  I genuinely wanted to know how their family dealt with such a hot topic for so long.
This article embodies a GREAT example for us and how we can and should treat our family members - particularly those who have same-sex attraction.  I found the motives to be right - we are going to keep our family together through love and acceptance.
http://www.ldsliving.com/One-Gay-Man-s-Powerful-Journey-Away-from-the-Church-and-Back-Again/s/86366
I look forward to reading Tom's book when it becomes available (I prefer Kindle books whenever possible).  I would guess that it would be a decent reference for families and church leaders on how we should BE when relating to those with same-sex attraction.
 
I suggest, that for any family that is dealing with this, to consider this article as how we should be - not that it will change things - but so we can be the kind of people we should be, so others may want to be like us and see the Light of Christ shown in our lives.

And what's the opposite of morality?  Immorality - because it's not an organized religion.
Or as Neal A. Maxwell put it - irreligion as the state religion.

That's the problem right there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The government will not impose RELIGION - meaning a STATE RELIGION.  You know - a mandated religion for EVERYONE.
That does NOT mean that there shouldn't have been a standard of morality, but the 1st amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, not to abandon morality.
 
 

I'm going to challenge you on this a bit.  After proposition 8 in California was overturned, I had to do some re-evaluating on some things.
The war in heaven was fought over agency - the right to choose.  Who are WE to impose our way of life as the law of the land?  If the right to choose is restricted... then where is the test?  If that test does not exist, then it's the Lord's plan with Satan's method.  (Kind of like forcing your kids to go to church - right intention, wrong method.)
Yes, there are leftist values seeking to twist traditional meanings behind things... but if it doesn't occur, where is the choice?  Where is the test?  None of these outcomes, if and when passed, affects an individual from choosing the right path.  Changing secular laws, as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of religion and religious practices... won't interfere with anyone else living the life they choose to live.
Making marijuana legal... same thing.  Now it's just a LEGAL choice, not just a health choice.  Might as well have it regulated and collect the tax revenue.  Doesn't mean that people can't be arrested for being under the influence or fired from jobs for being unable to perform their duties.

If J. Golden Kimball can say it... 

You've already received the encouragement, guidance, and counsel, so I won't go there.
I cannot take away the hurt.  In fact, I'm going to make it a bit deeper: 
You physically became what you were afraid of your husband doing to you emotionally, virtually, that could also lead to physically.
Why?  Because you let FEAR into your marriage.  Sure, you can blame his habit, and I can blame the church for teaching paranoia about it, but you have to take responsibility for your own reaction.
2 Timothy 1:7  For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Personally, I think the women in the church are 'trained' to be 'parents' to their husbands, to withhold sex if he has a problem, to leave and abandon him when he could need her spirit the most, and to consider it grounds for DIVORCE.  (What happened to 'in sickness and in health'?  It's turned into "unless he has a pornography problem".)  The women in the church who think this COULD be cowards and spineless about all this.  This is why you think you're less attractive and he's less attractive to you - you changed into a PARENT instead of being his WIFE.  You're EMASCULATING him while trying to heal yourself.  How can that help anything?
Yes, pornography is far worse than it was 50 years ago when it was just magazines under the bed.  But the paranoia around it... I think is uncalled for.
Consider this:  there are healthy marriages where they both drink alcohol and smoke.  As long as it is not abused, their marriage is okay.  No, it's not a Celestial marriage, but it can be a fully functioning marriage with love in it.  How do I know?  I have non-member family and they smoke and drink... and they've been together for at least 35 years.  It can be done.  (Yes, he can get drunk, but he's still responsible about it and he's NEVER abused his kids or his wife.)  Of course, as LDS with the WoW, we also say "why take the chance?"
Can you have a loving marriage with pornography?  I won't say yes or no, but I will say that I'm sure it can be done, if you love him for him... and not just his worthiness.  Pornography will interfere with having a Celestial standard of marriage... with potential eternal consequences.  But to have to leave?  I think that's overkill.
 
Don't ask me how I know all this.  I just do.

I've had questionable relations with Bishops in the past.  I've been yelled at by a member of my Stake Presidency - and had my membership status questioned (he and the entire Stake Presidency has since been released a couple of years ago - and my then Bishop was called to be the Stake President).  I'm not always a "by-the-book" member of the Church.  I haven't had any problems with leadership for a while, but that doesn't make the feeling automatically go away.
I'm not saying my perspective is right.  I'm saying that it's how *I* feel.  Sometimes I just don't like "authority" "over me".  It may not make logical sense, but to me "no news is good news" from my church leaders - unless I initiate the appointment.  (Maybe I just like having certainty in my life, and being called into the Bishop's office for an UNKNOWN reason is just another variable that I cannot control and it makes me nervous until it's over and done with.)

You can find that book here (when the database is working): https://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/hugh-nibley/
Just something to ponder in your spare time.

Bishop probably wants to extend a calling to you. 

Bishop probably wants to extend a calling to you.