Just_A_Guy

In order to afflict you with spiritual paralysis, Satan will use your fears and insecurities to play both sides against the middle. First he tries to convince you that you've already fully repented. Once you recognize that lie, he'll try to bog you down by telling you you haven't repented enough. That's why the Bishop's role is so important--he isn't emotionally involved in your sin, and so he can listen objectively to the whisperings of the Spirit and receive revelation for you when your own doubts and fears keep you from doing so.

Not to you. But it apparently matters a great deal to your wife.

Your interpretation of Wall Street, like your interpretation of this parable, is flawed due to your insistence on interpreting it through the lens of class envy. The parable is not about maximum return on a capital investment. It's about fiduciary duty, and serving one's master with honesty and integrity.

The parable doesn't say that at all. Matthew 25:14 says the Kingdom of Heaven is as the man who traveled into the far country--the master. Not the servant. In addition, the third servant is rewarded with weeping and gnashing of teeth (v. 30). Scripture does not usually attribute that kind of fate to the righteous. Moreover, the servant knew clearly what was expected of him and nevertheless took the money under false pretenses, converted it to a use contrary to the instructions given by the master, did so for the express purpose of inflicting fiscal harm on his master, and justified himself with a scripturally-unsubstantiated form of pseudo-Marxism. When I worked at the AG's offfice, we used to call that embezzlement. And we put people in jail for it.

Incidentally, I showed this video to my primary class just today. The penalty for sin would have been an eternity cast out of God's presence. Somehow, by virtue of His divine parentage and His own sinless life, Christ was able to suffer that penalty and yet (unlike us) still emerge from hell to claim His place as God. That is why the Atonement is infinite and eternal--because through that transaction, an infinite and eternal debt was miraculously paid in full.

I don't have too much to add here. I've been there, where internet porn is concerned. But my experience probably won't be too helpful to you, because for me entirely kicking the habit entailed an intensely spiritual conversion (a major element of the Church's addiction recovery program). It's probably possible to kick the habit without spiritual help--but I have no idea how to advise you on that one. From my standpoint, though, your wife does have every right to make your future avoidance of pornography a precondition to continuing the marriage. My opinion is that no woman should have to put up with a husband who uses pornography to any degree; and if that means subjecting the kids to a divorce--so be it. But assuming you are willing and able to quit viewing pornography completely, where your kids are concerned I pretty much stand by what I said earlier. There's a vast likelihood that your wife won't succeed in getting them away from you completely. So it's basically a choice between keeping them in one household and both of you determining to make that household as happy as possible under the circumstances (if the relationship is still bad when the kids are grown, you can divorce then), or shuttling them back and forth between two households every other weekend. I'm a hopeless traditionalist, but all other things being equal I think the first option is the better one. It's easy to say, "Well, my kids are better off without all that tension". But divorce is almost universally catastrophic for children. If it can be avoided, generally speaking, it should be. Best of luck, my friend.

Don't know how Shriner's treats its animals, but I've seen video of what happens to some circus elephants when the spectators leave. If Shriner's uses the same practices, then for my money I'd say PETA did everyone a favor.

Logically, then, any bug that goes into MoE's house is a da**ed bug.

Looks like things are getting nasty over there. Mahdi, if you're reading this, keep your head down; good luck; and please let us know that you're OK.

Well, I can see it ingratiating her with the "all soldiers are baby killers" crowd, but even in California I wouldn't think there are enough of those to create an electoral majority.

No kidding! She divested herself of quite possibly one of the loveliest private yachts ever built. (Thankfully, I understand it has been preserved and put on public display.)

Let me clarify, before anyone gets excessively offended, that I am not saying a woman should put up with all kinds of behavior just so that she can have a man around the house. I'm just saying that if her sole reason for wanting a divorce is because she thinks she can find a better man elsewhere--that's pretty slim odds to be betting the farm on.

Not much car buying experience, but the best service I ever got from a mechanic was when I went in for a tune-up right after work having forgotten to remove my work ID badge, which had "Utah Attorney General's Office" plastered across the front in big letters.

Here is the on-line version of the Church's CES manual, "Eternal Marriage". It will contain the mainstream LDS view on a variety of topics pertaining to marriage, and (conveniently for you and your wife) has an entire chapter on divorce. Now for my own opinion: When the two of you got married, you were both active members of the Church and there was most likely an underlying assumption that you would both remain so. Even if you still live your life in accordance with Church teachings, to some degree your wife is simply not getting what she bargained for. There's going to be some shock, hurt, and (probably) resentment. That said: As long as you haven't committed adultery and aren't bringing verboten items into the house (alcohol, porn, coffee, etc), divorce isn't going to solve any of the problems that your lack of faith has (from your wife's viewpoint) caused. Does she fear your "corrupting" influence on the kids? Guess what--even if you get divorced, you will still get unsupervised visitation unless you've done something very heinous. And at the risk of sounding horribly sexist--a thirtysomething woman with four kids probably has as good a chance of reactivating her husband than she does of finding a new husband. (Marital tip: Do not make this argument to her!) I almost suspect there's something else going on here that you have forgotten to mention. But if there isn't, then my guess is that she's just going through a phase of shock-induced irrationality. Stick it out, and she should come to her senses eventually.

I think the common view is that whereas polygamy is a possibility in heaven, polyandry is not. That being the case--yes, the wife is going to have to choose which husband she'll share godhood with. As for the kids (and this is my own opinion)--they don't "go with" either parent. They're (hopefully) gods too. Each one is off in in his/her own universe with his/her own spouse. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't plan to have my kids living under my roof twenty years from now--let alone in the eternities! We get this notion in the Church that "eternal families" means we're all together, never to be separated again. But if you listen closely, that's not what the sealing ordinance promises. The sealing establishes a patriarchal lineage that has two functions: 1) through which you claim the blessings of exaltation (much like we claim the blessings of the gospel in this life through our Israelitish lineage as pronounced in our Patriarchal Blessings), and 2) to which you establish a bond that, in part, allows for your ancestors' own eternal increase. Certain posters here (*cough*) will tell you that a divorce will not be recognized in the hereafter; and the couple is still stuck together as long as one righteous spouse still desires to remain married to the other. Personally, I don't find any support for this view in current (or even past) teachings of LDS leaders. As I've said above, all this is my own speculation. Your results may vary.

I think a lot of it comes down to simply not dwelling on the thoughts. You can't control whether they come into your head--but you can control whether they stay there. The "which dog do you feed" conundrum, and all that. (Easier said then done, certainly. But it's do-able.)

We also know from our biology classes that life and good health are not the results of a curse or a blessing. We also know from our economics classes that financial prosperity is not the result of a curse or a blessing. We also know from our history classes that liberty and security are not the results of a curse or a blessing. And we know from our physical geography classes that good soil, plenty of rain, and a long growing season are not the results of a curse or a blessing. Is anything the result of a curse or a blessing?

True--but you can become a general without having compromised your core principles. Not sure you can say the same about a senator.

Video here.

Well . . . assuming that Lehi's family actually wasn't all that "white" to begin with, and assuming Laman and Lemuel started dressing the way Arnold Friberg portrays them . . . I can see it happening quite quickly. :)

$582 and a class on "thinking errors", for patronizing a prostitute? Heck--I've seen people get in almost as much trouble over a speeding ticket.

Wow, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the President opens that package from PETA! (Actually, maybe not . . . )

For my part, I suspect that there were already people here when the Nephites/Lamanites arrived; and that the Lamanites were willing to intermarry with them whereas the Nephites were not. If the previous inhabitants of the Americas had a different complexion, this would naturally influence the Lamanites over the course of a few generations. It would also explain why it was so important that the Lamanites and Nephites not mix--IIRC, the Mosaic code in-force during early Nephite history prohibited the faithful from marrying non-Israelites. My "intermarriage with the natives" theory would also explain why the Lamanites outnumbered the Nephites for most of Nephite history.

LDS culture can be a little insular, but (bearing in mind that there are two sides to every story) these neighbors of yours are sounding like jerks. (Yeah, we Mormons have our share of 'em.)

I think you're stretching, SoJ. Unless you'd also object to a kid showing up at school to excuse an absence with a doctor's note in lieu of a parent's note.