Vort

Semperrideo, please remember your name and just laugh when reading foreverafter's posts. Your wife's abusive treatment of you is not your fault. You do not have "the greater sin" just because she acts in an awful manner.

In what sense do you believe an innocent newborn babe to be "a despicable person meriting scorn"? This much is true, and Biblical. That totally depends on what you mean by "believe". If by "believe" you mean accept the word of Christ and let it act on you such that you repent and come unto Christ, then of course I agree with you. If by "believe" you mean acknowledge with words alone that "Jesus is my Savior", then go off and live however you like because you're magically "saved", then no, I don't agree. I, too, would love that. In fact, there are any number of historical figures in addition to John the Baptist with whom I would love to talk about that statement.

Semperrideo, Please take all counsel you receive here with a grain of salt. Men who come here seeking counsel are typically treated rather roughly, while women who come, even if guilty of grevious sin, are treated with a great deal more respect. I don't know why this forum seems to attract so many man-haters, but so it is. Don't take such vicious comments personally; it's not you, it's them. As for your situation, I am very sorry for you. Good for you that you recognize the emotional affair for what it is. Now you must flee from it. Keep yourself above such things. I actually agree with some of what's been said: If you can manage to keep from fighting, talk nicely to your wife even when she's bat-poop crazy, and always keep yourself above reproach, that will do a great deal toward helping things heal. Impossible, you say? No, it's not impossible, but it is very, very hard. But I believe you can do it. DO NOT LET HER HIT YOU AGAIN. That is utterly unacceptable. If she does so, call the cops immediately. I am not kidding. Your children absolutely cannot be exposed to such things. Call the cops and insist that action be taken. Set up a surveillence camera, if you can. Above all, DO NOT RETALIATE. If she hits you ten times and you hit her back even once, you can bet your life that you, not she, will be the one in handcuffs. Sometimes life sucks, but so it is. As the man, you will ALWAYS be considered guilty until proven innocent. I believe your marriage is not beyond salvation, and that it can still be an immeasurably great thing. But without your wife on board, that won't happen. Here's an idea: Set a time limit for yourself, six months or a year. During that time, try your very best to be the man you should be. Never act in anger. Never speak in anger. Accept all insult and abuse (but NOT physical abuse!) from your wife without retaliation. Try to act in every situation as Jesus would act. After your time limit is up, if things are still the same, then consider divorce. You will at least know that you did all in your power and really, truly tried to act the part of a Godly man, however imperfectly. But who knows? Maybe your wife's heart will soften and she will seek to find the beauty of your marriage along with you. God bless you, brother. I wish you the very best as you walk this difficult road. Whatever else happens: Do not give up!Pray!Seek after God!You WILL get past this, eventually. Your life can still be amazing, wonderful, beautiful, and fulfilling. Maybe you can eventually even enjoy these things with your wife. But however that turns out, keep on with your efforts, and don't give up. Seek after God; he will never abandon you. PS Remember your name. Always find the joy in life, with your beautiful babies and with your life outside your marriage. There is much beauty to behold and to laugh with, even in a miserable situation.

So true. Thank God he has restored his kingdom (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) here on earth so that we can find the Way. I've noticed you use the term "wretched" quite a bit, Jim. Judging by its inclusion in the hymn Amazing Grace, I gather it's a common and popular term among some Christian sects, but it's not a term much used among Latter-day Saints. As I understand the word, it means a despicable person meriting scorn. Is that what you mean by it? If so, understand that we Latter-day Saints don't typically think in such terms. While we acknowledge our unworthiness before God and our inability to save ourselves by our own power, we think of human beings as children of a divine Father. We don't dwell on the fallen, "wretched" condition of mankind so much as we recognize and strive for the Godly potential inherent in each of us. Saying, "Well, you know, we're all wretches anyway, so don't worry about such-and-such a sin" doesn't really carry much weight with Latter-day Saints, since we don't see our fallen nature as a legitimate excuse to live in squalor. As for pointing fingers, there is a world of difference between saying "So-and-so commited Sin X, which is a grevious sin; punishment typically consists of Y and Z", and saying "So-and-so commited Sin X, the scumbag!"

Very true. For her, that was sufficient. For others, it would not be. You keep talking about people being "punished". I reject your classification. Excommunication is not about punishment, but repentence. Of what "barriers" do you speak? You mean, the Church leader might remove membership or refuse to reinstate membership at the moment? I would argue that for a person who wishes to find God through his restored gospel, these things are not barriers. If the leader sees fit to impose that "barrier", then we must assume that the leader is being led by the Spirit, who knows much better than you or I what ought to be done. I think the question is non sequitur. When a man who holds the keys of Priesthood leadership exercises those keys, he is acting within the power given him of God. It is as if God is acting. If there is evidence of malfeasance by the Priesthood holder, there is a system whereby that can be corrected. But to sit here and second-guess hypothetical situations, calling excommunication and such "barriers", is not helpful. Then you are mistaken.

What's with the "punishment" infatuation? It's not about "punishment". It's about "repentence". Why is this so hard to understand? If a man has broken his temple covenants and committed adultery, that's serious. If he is repentant and wants to come unto Christ, the Church's duty is to help him do that. Such repentance will include overcoming the effects of previous sin, including (especially) something that serious. Of course, if you don't believe that the LDS Church is God's kingdom and that LDS Church leaders are subject to inspiration from God, then none of that is meaningful. But why would someone who disbelieves the LDS Church's authority participate in the LDS Church, or even on an LDS-oriented discussion list?

Of course it is. This young woman deserves the same opportunity to repent and cleanse herself from her fornications that any other person deserves. God doesn't love her less just because she happened to get pregnant from her fornication. Yes, it is absolutely right that she be allowed a church court. How so? If the girl can withstand the stress of having knowingly violated her covenants, having found out she was pregnant, having admitted it all to her family, and having decided to keep the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption, then surely going in to talk with the bishop is small potatoes indeed. All repentance is done to God. All forgiveness is granted by God. Therefore, all sins are indeed dealt with by prayer to God. Some sins, however, are serious enough that they potentially impact your ability to remain a member of God's kingdom (aka the LDS Church). Obviously, these must be dealt with by representatives of God's kingdom that are empowered to make that judgment. In addition, I believe some sins are so damaging in nature (for example, fornication and adultery) that they cause spiritual damage that literally cannot be corrected by the individual's efforts; they require direct physical intervention by God himself, usually done through his anointed servants, those called to act as judges in Israel. The "church heirarchy" is the leadership of God's kingdom. In other words: "I know in the eyes of God she has sinned." That is because you don't understand what a church court is for. "Coerced"? What, did someone tie her up and smack her around until she tearfully agreed? Or do you believe it coercive for a bishop to tell her, "You should carry this child to term and allow him or her to grow up in a loving family that wants him/her and can teach him/her to be a happy, loving person"? Surely. What do you think is "unmerciful" about what you've described? In talking with the bishop, this young woman will undoubtedly receive careful and loving counsel. "Punishing her"? Sounds like a much more Catholic concept of repentance. We Mormons don't really think in terms of "penance" the way many Catholics do. To a Mormon, the point of repenting is to put yourself in a position to approach God. In that sense, there is no "punishment", only steps to help the person regain that position with God. Any divine consequences of sin will be meted out by God, and by God alone; the leadership of God's kingdom will do nothing beyond modifying, or in egregious cases terminating, the person's membership in that kingdom. This girl needs God in her life as much as she ever has. Certainly you agree with that. What could be more loving, caring, or important than helping her to receive God into her life from this point onward? As long as you think of "church courts" or "church discipline" in terms of stern-faced men glowering down at a helpless girl, I'm not surprised you feel that way. But if this is true, your mental images are incorrect and unhelpful in understanding what's going on.

With all due respect, I disbelieve this. Does anyone really believe God will say, "Look, you alllllllmost made it -- but sorry, you only scored 98.99%, and you need to get 99% or better to make it up here with me"? That's absurd, and surely anyone with a spirit will find that spirit offended by the mere thought of such inanity. It's not a matter of "you didn't try quiiiite hard enough", it's a matter of "what kind of person have you become?" Those who can endure and rejoice in the presence of God will do so; those who cannot, will not. While on my mission, I was talked into participating in something called "Flight to Eternity". A bunch of investigators (and some members) sat in a room that was called an "airplane", and for the "in-flight movie" they watched something like "Man's Search for Happiness". Then the airplane dramatically "crashed", with flashing lights and pilots screaming, leaving the audience in quiet darkness. An "angel" in a white dress then escorted the "crash victims" from room to room, viewing their possible eternal fates. This included the solitary young woman screaming her condemnation in a darkened room with nothing but a candle to provide light for her (telestial kingdom), a pair of young men hanging out in a somewhat dimly-lit room and expressing their wish that they had been more valiant (terrestrial kingdom), and a family dressed in white in a bright room enjoying each other's eternal presence, and apparently for the children, eternal childhood (celestial kingdom). I was furious, and I let the mission president know how sorry I was to have participated in such a manipulative lie. Will members of the "lower kingdoms" be totally hunky-dory with their fate? I do not know that; maybe they will, maybe not. Maybe they won't even have complete awareness of "higher" states or kingdoms. Will they spend all eternity screaming their lungs out at their missed opportunities in mortality to become something better? Of course not. I don't know what the afterlife looks like, but I am very confident it doesn't look anything like that. To represent that to investigators is no less manipulative than the "Christians" (or Muslims) who dredge up visions of eternally burning in flaming liquid sulfur for all those who aren't believers in their particular brand of "Christianity" (or Islam).

If he's endowed, he will deal with the stake president for any excommunication procedure.

What? It's April Fools Day? Seriously? I had no idea.

We do not know the nature of the "veil of forgetfulness". For example, it is possible that upon birth, we are in a sense "remade", such that our memory of previous lives (to use the prophets' words) is destroyed. In this scenario, we would never "regain" those memories, because they are no longer a part of our intelligence (though the effect of our previous choices obviously would remain upon us). Following this idea, perhaps we don't gain "permanent" memory until we are resurrected or exalted or whatnot. Then again, this could all be completely misguided. The point is, until we understand the nature of our spiritual "past" and "memories", the subject cannot be intelligently addressed.

Thanks for sharing some cyberspace with me the last few months. On Sunday I received a rather weighty calling, time-wise, and won't be able to participate much if at all. Wish me luck as stake president; I'll surely need it.

This is so true...men need to be worthy in this life to receive that same level of power & authority as women already have...women have a "Superior faith, commitment, morality & spirituality & more trust in the Lord than men usually do...So men do need to be given something in this life (as Elder Cowley said in Gen. Conf.) to help them learn to be equal with righteous women.Congratulations, Dravin! Your reward for voicing such opinions is that you get to be married to someone like foreverafter. Enjoy! :)

I just tried it, and it's still there. Give it another shot:

Not a very creative ad hominem. Why didn't you acknowledge your husband as such when I asked you about him?

Yeah, I think I remember you. Oh, my. Aren't we just having a pity party? My conversation with said "lady" is separate from my conversation with you. Mind your own business. What do you mean, your "wife"? When I asked about you as her "husband", her response was: WHOS MY HUSBAND?:confused:rolleyes: So either you're not married, or she's not claiming you. Heh, heh...and you call me a liar...

Actually, no, you could answer my questions.

Hmmm. If ceebooboo is not your husband, forgive me. I didn't mean to insult you. How am I "outta line"? Is ceebooboo "outta line"?

How so? Do you think your husband is out of line?

What is that supposed to mean?

Correct. If you do, please elaborate. Do you honestly not see the difference between a prophet saying "Thus-and-such is false" and "I condemn President So-and-so"? Ceebooboo, it is impolite to talk that way to others, and it is cowardly to talk to a man on a list in a way you would never dare talk to him face to face.

All too common. Who ever said this? I don't recall any prophet condemning another. Right. But then, you call me a liar, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

As I recall, Nibley thought that Brigham Young's teachings on the matter were widely misunderstood, that he used somewhat ideosyncratic definitions of terms like "Adam", and that properly understood, his teachings were perfectly in line with what we commonly accept. But I can't produce any evidence of this; it's just what I'm remembering. I do think that it is worthwhile to remember that, until we are absolutely sure that we understand what the prophets meant with any given teaching and we are absolutely sure they were wrong, we would do well not to discard anything they say or label it as "false doctrine". I have little doubt that "Adam/God", as it is normally presented, is a false and baseless doctrine, but I do not know that President Young was wrong in what he taught on the matter. I have read what he said (or at least what he was written to have said) on the subject, and I have never quite believed that his words line up with the typical presentation of "the Adam/God theory". Iow, I'm not convinced that President Young actually taught what he is commonly said to have taught in the matter.

Nonsense. It does no such thing. That's purely you adding that emotional baggage, no different from saying that if God allows a child to die, he's a despicable murderer. The idea is absurd, and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of who and what "God" is. I'm no defender of the "doctrine" you mention, but calling a goat a pig doesn't make your case against the goat any stronger.

Agreed. There is no doctrinal teaching on this subject beyond "God is the Father of Jesus Christ and Mary is his mother." Any other public expression is speculation of a type better left in private, or simply avoided altogether. How so? How so? I understand how they might be offended by the idea, since most other faiths do not envision God in physical terms. But since we know that God does indeed have a literal physical body, and that our bodies are made in his likeness, how is the idea "rightly" offensive?