Wildflower

I know usually it is not the right thing for people to just outright recommend divorce, but..... From everything you have said, it is my opinion that you should end this marriage. He has lied repeatedly, and has taken things far beyond just viewing porn. He tried to hook up with swingers, and has developed a relationship with at least one other woman.....and he has stated himself that he is going to keep doing what he is doing, and that you have to get used to it. This kind of behavior has been going on for years, and he clearly does not want to change this part of his life. I'm sure that aside from that part of his life, he is a great man, and there is a lot to love. But you deserve a man who would at least have the desire and willingness to work hard and change. As it is right now, he has no intention of changing. Are you willing to accept that? Divorce is a very rough, painful, scary thing, but you can get through it, and get past the fear and the pain of it. He will owe you alimony and child support and that along with the support of friends and family and heaven above will get you through this. He has been so dishonest that for all you know he could easily have a separate phone and email that you don't even know about. Get a lawyer and serve him with divorce papers.

I don't get why the term 'hot drinks' isn't interpreted for what it says.....hot drinks. Studies have shown that hot drinks are associated with an increased risk of cancer, and that is enough validation for me. It makes perfect sense. But the way that church leaders have interpreted 'hot drinks' has lead to all kinds of various interpretations and confusion. This tea yes, that tea no, no tea at all, soft drinks yes, soft drinks no, caffeine is ok, caffeine is not ok, caffeine is ok in some scenarios, but not others, hot chocolate no, hot chocolate yes, coffee no. I disagree with the church stance and interpretation of something that in and of itself is right on point. Perhaps in trying to offer expanded guidance it became adulterated it in the process. The doctrine could not be spelled out in a more straight forward way.

I see temple recommend holders who stuff their faces with meat, unsparingly, while knowing and even openly admitting that they are going overboard. They are knowingly going against the word of widsdom, but they don't really care because it is not enforced. These behaviors result in disease, premature death, and extreme pain of loved ones who have lost someone too soon. A person could have one cup of coffee or a cup of green tea every day, and they will be doing less damage to their health than the gluttonous meat eaters, but they cannot go to the temple. It is wrong, and I can't wait to see policies change on these issues. And they will, someday. I just wish it were sooner rather than later. For the record, I live in obedience to the word of wisdom. But I disagree with the hypocritical way it is enforced. I see members do damage to their bodies, flat out disobeying what is in those verses, and doing so knowingly, but they do not get held back in the church the way other disobeyers do. If a person can't be baptized because they drink tea, then why aren't tea drinking members excommunicated? I know someone who wanted to be baptized for years but was not allowed to because she just couldn't quit smoking. She finally quit and was baptized. But she wasn't able to quit for very long and now she is back to smoking. But at least now she can at be accepted as a member of the church, which she should have way before she was finally allowed to get baptized. She goes to the 12 step meetings and her struggle with smoking will probably be lifelong. She should not have been denied membership because of this struggle. Period. She believed, and she was doing her best, going to church and everything else she could do. What is sad is that most people in that situation would have felt so rejected eventually that they would have given up, and that is a tragedy.

What I just don't get is that if the word of wisdom is considered a commandment, then why are people who eat too much meat considered worthy to go to the temple? I understand the concept of us not being commanded in all things. But if the word of wisdom is a commandment that our worthiness is judged by, then why is one aspect of it treated differently than other aspects? Its like saying its ok to disobey some of the commandments. I think it does come down to church policy, and it is a policy that to me is damaging and hypocritical. I wish it didn't bother me so much, but it does, for so many valid reasons that I will not go into here. I don't want people to think badly of me for the way I feel about this issue. I just am hurt that people who truly believe in Christ and try to follow Him and want to be baptized would be prevented from being part of the Church because they are struggling with a word of wisdom issue. I know of cases where true believers have been denied membership because of not being able to quit smoking or because of struggling with a drinking problem, and I feel it is wrong to keep them from the fold because of it. I also truly do not believe that Christ would want it that way either. There are worse sins that people commit by the way they treat people, and yet they can be baptized or go to the temple. I didn't mean to go on this much, and am not trying to be negative. This is just a very sore issue for me that has been painful and upsetting for so many reasons.

I have begged my dad to change the way he eats. At his age he could have a heart attack any day! He cannot control it and it really worries me. No matter what anyone says, he still eats what he craves, and it is just like a drug addiction. And yet, I consider him a worthy righteous man. We are all sinners. One thing that bothers me is that if a person like my dad is not following the word of wisdom (in the sense that he does not eat meat sparingly and is a glutton), he is still considered worthy to enter the temple. But if a person does not follow the word of wisdom in other ways, like smoking or drinking coffee, then they cannot enter the temple. They can't even be baptized! The disconnect really gets to me. It comes across to me as hypocritical and even pharisaical that people get a free pass for disobeying certain aspects of the word of wisdom, but not other aspects of it. I personally believe that if a person struggles with certain things such as smoking or drinking coffee, that should not be reason enough to bar them from joining the church or going to the temple. To me there are worse sins that weigh far more heavily on ones worthiness, like cheating or not loving one another.

My dad is addicted to meat. He definitely doesn't eat it sparingly. Should he not be going to the temple?

My mother has always said that there is nothing she loves more than a grown man who isn't afraid to cry. To her it is very manly. My father is one of those men. He is one of the most wonderful men I have ever known. He is also no sissy. He is very expressive, and as far as I can remember, I have seen him cry many times throughout my life. I think mormon men do have a tendency to cry more than men in the general population. I believe it is because of the Spirit that is in the church. I'm sure it is also partly because of cultural acceptance. I think that society has conditioned a lot of men to keep their emotions buried, and I don't think it's healthy. Men are made to feel that they are weak if they cry, but they are human beings with emotions, just like everyone else! It is not something to be ashamed of.

I think that family members would watch out for that - hopefully! And if the family members aren't mormon or supportive, hopefully someone would be around to monitor the comments.

Furthermore, what if someone posted a bunch of negative comments with links to anti-mormon websites? The missionary wouldn't be able to do anything about it for a whole week.

Here is another example of a missionary blog that I think is inappropriate: elder riley harper: THE HARDER THE ADVERSARY WORKS, THE MORE I KNOW THIS GOSPEL IS TRUE I'm not saying that I'm completely against missionary blogs. But there should be some very strict rules about them. I feel bad about posting these blog sites. I don't want to do anything that would harm these missionaries. I will not post any more examples. There are so many out there. I just think that something needs to be done about this, to protect investigators, missionaries, and the Church. All of these could be harmed by irresponsible blogging.

All I know is that if I were an investigator and came upon a blog where I was being talked about, it would upset me a lot. Perhaps even to the point of not wanting to meet with the missionaries anymore. The missionary I used as an example says "...I'll explain their little story the next time I write". While their little story might not be anything juicy, I still feel it is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because whoever is being written about probably doesn't know about it, and if they came across the blog and recognized themselves being described, it would probably feel like a violation of trust. At least, that is how I would feel if it were me.

I am curious what other people think about missionary blogs. I have mixed feelings. Every now and then when I am doing a blog search under the word 'mormon' I come across a missionary blog. Here is an example of one I just encountered: Elder Floyd's Missionary Blog: 7 October 2009 Perhaps others don't see this as a big deal, but here is a minor example on this blog of something that bothers me. The missionary writes, "I just thought I’d inform you that we’ve found a great young married couple: Allan and Camile. I’ll explain their little story the next time I write." What bothers me is that these people probably have no idea that they are being talked about online. Perhaps the names are changed for confidentiality, but that doesn't mean the story wouldn't be recognizable if the person discovered that blog. I have seen other missionary blogs that go into much greater detail about the people they are teaching. I don't like it. If I were investigating a church, I can tell you right now that I would absolutely not be happy to find out that the missionary was writing about their experience with me online, even if my name was changed. What do you guys think? Do you have a problem with this?

I have always liked this website and it has a lot of information. I usually recommend it to anyone who is struggling - it has a lot of good info on book of mormon evidences and various issues that critics tend to bring up Answers About Mormons and Mormon Belief (LDS FAQ - Latter-day Saints)

Walktome, I understand where you are coming from. Don't beat yourself up. If you say no, it will not make you an unworthy member. I had a bishop once who had a painfully shy wife and she never accepted a calling that required her to get up in front of others. She is one of the most Christ like women I know. My grandmother was so shy, she would not pray in front of others. I have no doubt that God will not hold this against her. If you do your best to love one another and follow the example of Christ, the Lord will make up for where you fall short. Do not take the atonement for granted! Shyness and anxiety are some of the worst things to have if you are a mormon. Believe me, I know. I am very shy, and I used to beat myself up all the time because I felt so guilty if I turned down a calling. I had the same feelings of inadequacy every time I saw others going above and beyond what I could ever do in the church. Sometimes I would have a calling and just live in dread over it. I developed a complex about it. I have been told by a bishops counselor once that one should never turn down a calling. I think there are many members who have this mentality. I also think it's wrong. God doesn't want your life to be miserable. He doesn't want you to beat yourself up. If that is what this does to you, then stop fighting it. Just stay close to God, follow the Lords example, and you will be led in the right direction. The Lord knows your heart, and does not want you to worry about this.

The father of one of my best friends has recommended that she read the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Krakauer. Although I have never read the book, I have heard that it is very negative and biased against Joseph Smith and mormonism. I also am surprised, because I have had a very good relationship with this family, have spent time with them on different occasions and they have always treated me like a friend. What should I make of this book suggestion? The father has approached me in the past about mormonism and has said he would some time like to have a dialogue with me about it. But now that I know he has read the book and highly recommended it to someone very close to me, right in front of me nonetheless, I am wondering how sincere he really is. What would be a good book to recommend to him and my friend that would help to counter Krakauers book?