its_Chet

I haven't got time right now to read through all these replies to the thread originator's initial post, but the replies I've read so far have been what I was expecting to see. For people dealing with this situation, I've found that this isn't the best place to come for much else than a reprimand. I don't have time right now, but when I do, I'll return and explain why someone like jjsmith99 actually is not the devil incarnate and deserves a little understanding. It may be that he is wrong for feeling the way he does, but it doesn't make his pain go away to rub his face in it, and that's assuming he's as guilty as the first page worth of replies would imply. This is all I can say at present. I'll be back later.

Whatever you do, just remember that you catch more flies with honey. Gamers like me get addicted easily. We don't see the problem. We wonder to ourselves why we're being hassled when we provide for our families, aren't abusing anyone, make it to Church every Sunday, etc. We feel like our spouses are trying to be domineering and control us because they see us doing something "unfashionable". We see pettiness in those who criticize us, but not ourselves. The addiction blinds us. The last thing you want to do is confirm those suspicions. Overcoming gaming, or dealing with a spouse who is addicted, needs to be a delicate process. I would recommend taking steps. First, maybe start with suggesting no new games. The addict will only play the same games over and over again for so long, and then they'll get bored with them. That will help break the addiction. Next, I'd try to find something to lure the addict away from the addiction. It has to have a powerful enough attraction to lure the addict away. What that is for every person may be different. What worked for me was spending time working in the yard, with the lawn and the trees. After having to live in Arizona for six years, it was a blessing and a relief to have a yard with trees and grass. Nature has been very theraputic in my case. But the lure from the games needs to be tailored to suit your spouse's interests. All men are suckers when it comes to one thing, and while I wouldn't recommend using it to get what you want, if you dangle a particular shiny object in front of any man with a pulse, he'll become a lot more pliable. Again, I wouldn't recommend using it to get what you want, but it does have the ability to get a man's attention in a hurry. Just a thought. Be prudent with this approach. Be careful and judicious. Another thought: it helped me to see my addiction as not being the typical behavior of a man, and I was allowed to come to that conclusion independently. To a point, gaming was how I dealt with feeling like a shut in and a prisoner in a desert suburbia (I'm from the rural midwest). Plus, I didn't really fit in with anyone out there, but when I came back home, I noticed that I didn't know the things that a man should know because I didn't spend time doing the things that most men do. In other words, I felt kind of "un-manly". This motivated me to spend more time doing more "manly" things like yard work, fixing vehicles, home repairs, etc. And the fulfillment I felt at feeling more like a real man helped keep the cravings for games away. Whatever you do, don't withhold your love as punishment for the gamer. Don't make him feel judged or persecuted. Encourage him to redirect his attention. I wouldn't advise trying to make him see himself as strange for being a gamer, even if he's not paying enough attention to his family, but if you can very carefully help him see that his addiction is unhealthy, that might be a good idea at some point. But you have to help him see, not make him see. You have to be very careful too, otherwise you'll do more harm than good and you'd actually be better off having left him alone. Just let him know that you love him, that you need him to spend less time on it, and make it clear why. Make sure your reasons are more compelling than "it makes you look dorky to me." If you don't he will probably assume that you just want to control him. Gamers don't think they're hurting anyone. If you suggest otherwise, you need to be careful about it and have some convincing evidence or testimony. In my addiction, I'd have gladly stepped away from the computer to spend time with my wife when I felt loved by and emotionally safe with her. If she asked me to step away, I needed to feel it was because she wanted me to be with her, spend time with her, etc. If I thought she wanted me to step away just because she didn't find what I was doing to be cool enough, I'd stay at it out of protest. Love will lead the addict away from the games a lot faster than anger or contempt (real or perceived) will. Wear the kid gloves and be patient. Chastisement, derision, bitterness, impatience, judgmentalism, pomposity, etc., will all make things worse than if you just left the gamer to himself to game for as long as he wants. Your gamer may be able to still game once in a while without it being a problem, once the addiction is broken. You need to let him decide what's best, ultimately. I still game once in a while, if I'm bored and can't think of anything else to do, if I'm home alone for a few hours, etc. And maybe I'll feel the need to beat the game and will continue it whenever I can find the spare time to do it, but I always end up putting the game away and going back to normal. Feeling free to game or not to game if I choose is absolutely necessary. Feeling like I had to get my gaming in during "permissable hours" made it feel impossible to stop. Freedom, on the other hand, seems to dull the desire a lot. If I can play my games anytime I want, I don't feel the need to do it right now. I can always do it some other time. And some other time normally never comes and I'm okay with that because I've got other things I'd rather do anyway. Someday, after your gamer's addiction is broken, he'll realize how he's treating you right now. You'll have to wait until then for justice. First you need to show mercy, and help your gamer overcome his addiction. You can't do it for him, but you can help him. Remember to lure him away from it with pleasant things. Let the decision not to game be his. He will respect you for it. He will feel freedom instead of persecution. He will have a better chance at letting go of the addiction. Good luck to you. Remember to be patient and loving. God bless.

I like your user name, "xforeverxmetalx" Rock on

Thank you Hemi. I hope any non members who happen upon this thread get the impression that most of us are like you. And I'm not just saying that because you were complimentary just now. I've seen plenty of your posts and they always reflect well on the Church and yourself as an individual.

God bless you all, including the ones who are inclined to bash other people and their ideas. You too are children of God. But then, so are the people you ridicule. You would do yourselves a tremendous service to ponder about how He feels when you belittle deride His own children. Allowing one's self to be wrong once in a while is an opportunity for growth. It's really not that bad an idea to be careful about how we speak about the children of God almighty. No sense in offending him by mistreating His children. If, however, people still feel the need to be hateful to each other in these forums, consider this my appeal to the website administrators to step in and do something about it. If we want to watch people treat each other the way satan wants us to treat them, we can always go to a political website, and witness venom to our hearts' content. I think it would be really neat if all us Latter Day Saints either started acting the part, or increased whatever efforts we're already making. There's nothing non-doctrinal about being nice to people and behaving the way we all know we're supposed to. As for the legitimacy of this book and the right of its author to be treated the way we should all treat everyone (in a Christ-like manner), I'm not asking anyone to believe anything they're not comfortable with, but I sure would appreciate not being told that because I try to understand things that aren't taught in Primary I must be chasing after false doctrine. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Joseph Smith knew all kinds of things he never taught, because the people weren't ready. Part of being ready means having an open mind. I do not apologize for having an open mind. If a General Authority ever comes out and says this book is inaccurate, I'll accept that cheerfully, and will comply. But until and unless that happens, there is absolutely no reason why I can't believe it. Every true thing is crazy talk to someone. Ask any convert how their relatives feel about the Gospel doctrines that we rightfully consider beyond reproach. Disbelief proves nothing but its own existence. If someone gets prideful, and assumes that they know something the General Authorities don't, yes, that is a problem. And let's remember that just because they don't teach something doesn't mean they don't know it. They teach what they're led by God to teach, which is probably only what we're ready to hear. Joseph Smith knew about things that he didn't teach, because he knew the people just weren't ready for some of it. And some of the things he did teach caused people to get offended and leave the Church anyway. According to Brigham Young and others, Joseph Smith delayed teaching plural marriage until after an angel appeared to him with a sword pointed at him, commanding him to delay it no longer. I do not claim the Kolob Theorem is Gospel. It is, as the author clearly states A THEOREM. It is an attempt to explain something that has not been explained to us yet. It happens to make sense to some people. It is one man's effort to understand and explain something that has no other explanation, at least beyond difficult metaphors. If it doesn't make sense to some, does that require vilifying the author and those who agree with him? Where is it written in the scripture that persecution is okay, as long as you believe your opinion is correct? If we can't allow each other, within the Church, to explore the mysteries of the universe, especially when we feel that they have an impact on our lives and the lives of our loved ones, what kind of people are we? I'm not talking about ideas that contradict established Gospel. False doctrine is not acceptable. But nothing in this book goes against established doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sure, it may be hard to believe. It may even sound a little crazy. But that's not enough to make it false doctrine. There are many strange and unimaginable realities waiting on the other side of the veil. Again, if we can't refrain from deriding each other, within the Church, how can we call ourselves Latter Day Saints? If we are not one, we are not the Lord's. If we are going to be fit for Zion, we have to rise above silly bickering and arguing, ESPECIALLY among each other. If I've offended anyone, it was not intentional. I don't feel I've said anything wrong or insulting. But I do apologize if I've offended anyone. I don't have to be perfect to be right. I don't have to be without fault to be a beloved child of God. And if I am wrong, it will be made known to me in due time. Until then, there is no need to condemn my beliefs. They've served me well so far, having gotten me into the true Church. I believe in nothing that has ever been condemned as false doctrine by the Gospel or the Prophets. My conscience is clear. God bless you all.

Hey there Kestrel I think the most important thing to remember when making your decision is that the heart and the head don't always agree in situations like this, and since that will probably make following the Spirit a little more challenging, extra care should be taken. It sounds like in your current marriage, your husband is making this decision for both of you; whether or not to end the marriage. If he files papers, there's not really a lot you have to decide. Of course the correct thing for him to do would be to not file, fix his inappropriate attitude toward your and your daughter's participation in the Church, and accept the Gospel himself. But it doesn't sound like that's what will happen, and there's only so much you can do about that. I firmly believe that we shouldn't worry about anything we cannot change or control (to be clear, that's "cannot", as opposed to "will not"). To me, that is the defining characteristic of something that is someone else's responsibility, and for which they and not I will be held accountable. I encourage you to keep your focus on what you can change, and it sounds like in that department you're doing great. You and your daughter both. As for your ex husband, it doesn't sound like he's much of an improvement to your situation. Perhaps you feel you get a lot more respect from him and are treated better, but you should probably remember that if you're not willing to leave the Church for your current husband (and you absolutely shouldn't), it may not be wise to get back with your ex husband if he is inactive. You should probably ask yourself what the chances are that your ex husband will return to the Church. Regardless, I'd encourage you to make it clear to him that the man in your future will be an active member of the Church, and that you and your daughter require that kind of support from a responsible Priesthood holder in the home. This is really a decision that only you can make, and you and your daughter will be the ones to live with the results, good or bad. I do feel that the Lord will bless people like you who are willing to choose the Church and the Gospel over family, in the unfortunate cases where it comes to that due to the decisions that other people make. God should always come first, period. Looks like you get that. I guess the best advice anyone can give you is don't let you heart write a check that in the future you won't be able to cash without unreasonable difficulty. Marriage is a matter of the heart, no getting around that. And that's the way it should be. Just don't let your heart talk you into boarding the Titanic.

This has already been brought to my attention and I already acknowledged it.

I make no claim to be the brightest light bulb in the chandelier, so could you explain what you mean by that to me?

Ah..... That's different. Good point. In that case, I apologize to Maya.

I know a little something about living with someone who has a mental illness as well, but I think my point may have not been made very well. I don't recall seeing anything in this thread about RealDeseret having a mental illness until now. Let me know if it's in here and I just forgot about it or missed it, but it sounds A LOT to me like Maya was just throwing the accusation at him. And let me just state here and now, with all due respect to whomever it concerns, that I think that when a person says something unfairly critical, mean, etc. about someone who is the victim in a situation like this, it is simply unacceptable behavior for a human being, let along a Latter Day Saint. I know there are people out there who like to blame the victim, and I think it's despicable. If we are going to take it upon ourselves to pass judgment, can we at least direct it toward the antagonist? Or perhaps Maya genuinely feels that RealDeseret has antagonized his ex-wife into leaving him and finding someone else (and not necessarily in that order). Perhaps she feels RealDeseret's ex-wife is justified for what she did prior to her alleged repentance and desire to go to the Temple to be sealed to the man for whom she left her husband. My concern about gender bias comes from seeing someone with what appears to be a feminine user name blaming RealDeseret for his wife leaving him for another man, on the basis of an allegation of of mental illness, (for which I have yet to see any foundation). If I'm missing something here, please connect the dots. So far, it just looks to me like a woman is fabricating a charge of mental illness against a man she doesn't know, to excuse his ex-wife (whom she also doesn't know) in leaving him for another man. As I said before, none of us know the whole story, but if we're going to go by what is revealed in this thread so far, everything I've read indicates that RealDeseret had a wife who left him for another man and now wants to be sealed to that man in the Temple, and RealDeseret is clinging to the hope that if he refuses to give his consent he will be able to remain sealed to his ex-wife in the Celestial Kingdom, contrary to her present wishes. I think we can all agree that won't happen. I missed the part where it's his fault, or where he said anything about having any form of mental illness. It appears to me that he's being charged with it out of thin air, and pardon my saying so, but that just sounds sexist to me. And I'd be saying the same thing if the tables were turned. RealDeseret deserves compassion, support, and encouragement to let go. He does not deserve ridicule and blame. I apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings with what I've said, but I don't have much patience for perceived sexism. Being a man doesn't make anyone less of a child of God, but occasionally I get the impression that some people in the Church would disagree, and it makes me very glad that I already have a testimony.

What????? Leaving him for another man isn't wrongdoing? I thought Vort was exaggerating about gender bias on this site, but I'm beginning to believe he wasn't.

Revenge? Sounds like quite an assumption to me. The tone I inferred from RealDeseret's posts on this (and I also infer that others have as well), is that he still loves her and doesn't want to lose her, at least not more than he already has. He can't control what's already happened, but he still has the option to give his consent to having their sealing dissolved or not to. I perceive that he's holding on because he still loves her and wants her back if at all possible. We all can see it's not possible, but when you're in a lot of pain and you're desperate, you'll hold on to any hope you have, no matter how slim. And yes, I think most of us believe that if she doesn't want to remain sealed to him, Heavenly Father will not force it, even if she's at fault and he's done nothing wrong. But maybe RealDeseret doesn't know/understand/believe this, and thinks that by holding on, he can remain sealed to her after their judgment day too. Sounds to me like the man is in a lot of pain that isn't going away with time. Rather than browbeating him, I'd encourage some sympathy and compassion. This could happen to anyone of us. How would we want to be treated? Let's just share with RealDeseret our belief that his ex-wife will not be compelled to remain sealed to him in the Celestial Kingdom, assuming they both make it there, of course, and that a loving Heavenly Father will eventually provide for RealDeseret a loving spouse who will bless him with all the affection and companionship that we all deserve. Let's give him hope that even though it feels like he's paying the price for her mistakes and she's getting the happiness he deserves, he will eventually be better off than he ever was before. Let's see how supportive we can be, and save the browbeating for the Jerry Springer show or the political internet forums.

Probably the single most eloquent statement on the Gospel that I've ever heard, bar none.

To a point I would agree, but when you see people organizing nationwide and this is how they're behaving, I think common sense dictates that you be more vigilant than you were before when they trespass or appear to be trying to start trouble. Something's coming. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year. But this is no time to fall asleep at the wheel. Most of these people are probably just expressing themselves poorly. Some of them are inadvertently giving us a warning.

Now I'm looking for the laugh button. Not laughing at anyone, mind you. I haven't got an opinion either way.

I don't know about you, but when I sing "We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet", I mean it.

I just realized that might sound a bit exclusionary. Let me add this: If I were a woman, I'd say instead that If I could be half the woman that Eliza R. Snow or Vilate Kimball were, I think I'd probably have my calling and election made sure. :)

I, for one, am inclined not to imagine that I know better than the Prophets. When I hear of something that happened in Church History that sounds wrong or strange, I dig deeper and I always find an explanation that makes sense of it. But even if I didn't, I have a testimony which is stronger than any misunderstanding or misconception that results from mortal observations or short sighted interpretations in books. When the Holy Spirit says the Church is true, it doesn't matter if someone thinks Joseph Smith was a philanderer, or that William Law's or Warren Parrish's hypocritical allegations were true. I know better, courtesy of the Holy Spirit. If I could be half the man Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were, I think I'd probably have my calling and election made sure.

Looking that way.

Not only damning, but insulting. Perhaps not intentionally so, but HEP needs to understand that his accusations are offensive to most members of the Church.

How profoundly Christ like of you. My opinion does not require your validation, just so you know. It is an opinion, and nothing more, and I never claimed it was anything more. But your criticism of it is worth nothing more than my own opinion. And my opinion stands: It is wrong to move into a community and disrespect its prevailing culture. It is wrong to move into a community and insist that the entire community's prevailing culture adapt to your own whims, rather than the individual adapting to it. If I moved to Rome, I would not start taking shots at the Catholic Church and harassing its members. It is also wrong, if one finds himself or herself born into a community with a prevailing culture, to attack it and demand that it change to suit that individual, should that individual fail to appreciate their own community's beauty. The individual should adapt to the community, not vice versa. And no, I did not suggest that a line from Star Trek is the law of the land. But I see no problem with citing wisdom wherever I find it. And unfortunately, the law of the land is becoming more and more devoid of wisdom. I have an opinion, and it is nothing more than an opinion. Same with your criticism of it. If you disagree, that's your right, but dismissing it as summarily as you have doesn't change anyone's mind.

Aaron, Aimee & Adelaide: How much longer must we endure? Give that a read, won't you? When you're done, THEN let's talk about the Church's guilt in all this, if indeed there is any. And maybe THEN we can discuss just how members of the Church viewed their involvement in the support for prop 8. Maybe THEN we can discuss their rights as citizens to influence the outcome of elections in their community, using nothing more than their own constitutionally provided, civil rights. Maybe after that we can discuss just how many prop 8 opponents sought civil dialogue and understanding over this issue, rather than vandalizing Church property, or stalking private citizens for their civic involvement. Read that whole blog first. Then tell me the Church was wrong. And let's establish something right here, right now. Do you or do you not accept the doctrine that the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are duly authorized representatives of Jesus Christ? If you don't accept the doctrine, do you at least respect it, as our non member friends (like prisonchaplain, for example) do? I say our good friend prisonchaplain is right on this issue, as he normally is.

I'll go a step further. I think it actually makes sense of some of the prophecies I've never fully understood regarding the future of this planet and those who will inherit it. It presents a logical explanation of what it means for this world to pass from a telestial to a terrestrial to a celestial state. It replaces "poof" with reason, and the ability of the Gospel to do that is what attracted me to it in the first place. The logic inherent in the Gospel, compared the lack thereof in my previous religious affiliations, has always been a part of my testimony. I think this book lends logic to parts of the Gospel that I had previously been unable to understand. There is so much that we don't yet know, and much of it is referred to in scriptures we already have easy access to. It seems to me that every religion requires a certain level of faith, some more than others. And when they reach a point where logic runs out, some religions resort to what I simly call "poof" to explain things. I've never been a fan of "poof". I believe there are logical explanations, such as that rather than abandoning our bodies at death, we will be resurrected some day (why would we only have bodies for such a relatively short time, and for that time only?), or that rather than abandoning our families at death, families can be together forever (why would we have families only in this life?). I like to understand the mechanics behind the Gospel, whenever possible. It increases my faith and makes the rest of the Gospel easier for me to understand. It just makes me stronger. I do not regard this book as scripture, though I believe at least most of it is probably accurate. It certainly makes sense to me. But if I ever hear a General Authority say that this book is wrong, I will defer to that General Authority 100%, without question. Until that happens, I am inclined to believe this book to be correct. Having an open mind has gotten me this far. It's gotten me into the Church. It's gotten me through the Temple. It's allowed me to build a testimony in spite of what at first glance appear to be troubling things that show up in Church History. I choose to continue having an open mind. It's worked out pretty well for me so far.

This much I know: The members of the Church I knew in Salt Lake City were all, without exception, salt of the earth type people. So were most of the non members and inactive people that I occastionally came into contact with. But there were bitter non members I met who moved in from somewhere else and resented the high concentration of LDS and the prevailing culture that resulted, and every person I met who had a Darwin fish on the back of their car was the kind of person that makes you count the seconds until you can get away from them. That's not something I read in a book, but something I observed personally. I hear a lot about "those Utah Mormons" from uppity people in the Church, who live in other places where the LDS population is similarly concentrated, but I have found members of the Church from Utah to be truly wonderful people. More often that not, it's their critics who reveal signs of an attitude problem, especially people who come to Salt Lake City and are not charitable enough to grant the members of the Church the same cultural rights as Catholics rightfully get in Rome, for example. So I have a much higher opinion of LDS from Utah than I do of people with Darwin fishes on their cars as a result of my own life experiences. If you feel the need to be my optometrist, feel free, I guess. I really don't see what there is to get all worked up about though.:chillpill:

It's not mine to extend, but yes, I would. If I didn't love where I live, I'd feel the responsibility to leave, myself. The only other option history seems to exhibit is for malcontents to antagonize those around them and demand that an entire culture adapt to them, rather than adapting to the culture around them which was there first. Kind of reminds me of all those people I saw with "Darwin fishes" on their cars when I lived in Salt Lake City, except that some of them moved to Salt Lake City and expected it to conform to them rather than vice versa. You gotta respect the culture. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. No offense intended.