redtide

I think that the view counselors should not tell people what to do is correct, and in harmony with the Gospel.

Dr. David Schnarch would completely agree. The counselor's role is not to tell you what to do. It's to help you in making YOUR decision.

I googled the quote and found the book. You had recommended it to me, and we have it at home on loan. Clearly not LDS, that much I agree. But that doesn't mean the author isn't right. I'll tell you this much, I had not found this gem as I had not yet taken the book seriously. But this is a huge revelation to me.

That is one of the most enlightening things I've ever read regarding relationships. All I can say is, "Wow" and "Thanks!" That goes a loooooong way towards explaining some of our difficulties. One of the things that has bothered my wife immensely is that in the run up to the emotional affair, she had felt SO close to me and felt our marriage was becoming perfect, with a life-changing moment for her in her feelings towards me. But I did not feel that way. Things WERE better. We didn't fight as much. But I was not where she was. Now, she's mad at me because I did not feel as she did. She wonders how her feelings could have been so wrong. Well, they weren't wrong. She WAS right. Her feelings WERE correct. But HER feelings were not MY feelings, and the fact that I felt different doesn't mean that her feelings were incorrect or false. Wow. What a wonderful revelation. I look forward to sharing it with my wife tonight. I hope that she "gets it" as I just did.

It's part of the mission to perfect the saints. I completely agree that priesthood leaders are woefully undertrained to deal with many of these issues. The bishops that I talk to readily recognize this. But the Church doesn't WANT them to replace the marriage experts. Nonetheless, it would be better if they HAD more knowledge.

Thanks for sharing.

I think that she's just saying that the first responsibility when dealing with a situation in which there is a victim IS the victim. That's to counter the perception that many felt that the confessor was attended to more than the victims. It was a very real and unfortunate perception, sometimes perpetuated by the actions of well-meaning leaders. >How is that all applicable to this thread? May be my fault. I've been all over the place on this thread. My bad.

>I still say whited sepulchers, though, because I believe that there is a lot of lying to ones self that happens deep within before these giganitic falls from grace. Yes. I agree. And often we will never know. With my friend, maybe he was in the depths of sin. It didn't FEEL or LOOK like it. And we certainly can't judge. How did the First Presidency miss the deceit of the apostle for so long??? But they did. Is it any wonder that a bishop or SP lets an unworthy person get a temple recommend, or that an unworthy person is called as bishop or what have you? (Note: We still have to follow their advice, but that doesn't change the inner flaw of the called person. God will make things right in the end, even if we DO follow flawed advice.) Completely with you on just continuing to pray, study and stay close to God. If we do that, we should be okay. >I don't evaluate a person's righteousness anymore based upon what they do only. There are many mormons who know how to keep up appearances -- myself included. I think I was trained, indirectly of course, from the time I was very small. Bingo. Gets it. Totally agree.

By the way, in our own stake we are upping the awareness of what can happen because of this LDS seminary principal. In fact, we are instructing bishops tonight. No adult is off limits. No adult is "safe." We have to protect the youth first, and help the adults avoid situations that lead to this stuff. Another subject, but in my craw right now.

>No these issues of communication and honesty/disclosure are not cut and dried. Some things are just said on a "need to know" basis. They are not a "one size fits all" sort of thing. And in my experience with marriage, it seems to be an on going learning process where we have to sometimes learn and apply updated ideas and tools to make our marriages better and to meet the needs of the present as we mature and develop into, hopefully, wiser and more capable beings. Completely with you on that. And thanks. I'm learning that, and learning to be patient. >My communication style at the beginning of my marriage certainly wouldn't work today. And I don't need to know all the details of my husband to feel close and supportive and a deep commitment. I trust him to tell me if something is important for me to know -- even if it is painful. And I trust myself to ask when I need to know something and that I will receive the information in compassion and with wisdom with regards to what to do next. I also trust that if there is a question or some issue is weighing heavily then we always have prayer to help us select the proper course. That's a lot of trust. And that takes time. Thanks for sharing. On the other issue you raised, about the feelings vs. the Spirit, I'm certain that you are close to the truth. Part of the problem is that we relate to the Spirit via feelings, and that is one of the criticisms of the LDS Church. Other churches say that we have to follow the Bible (at least the interpretation of a given church) and reference to the "Spirit" to reveal the truth is flawed. Of course, we disagree. And, I think that the LDS Church is right (obviously). But, trust me, this guy was solid. He didn't have pornography issues. He magnified his callings. He certainly SEEMED to love his wife. It was a happy family. The wife was dumbfounded. She died a few years later (though she did remarry) and I'm convinced it was of a broken heart. Here's another example (beyond the former 25-year apostle and my friend). I have solid information (I can't tell you how, so just bear with me) of a former LDS seminary principal who had inappropriate contact with a 16-yo girl. He violated the law, that seems clear. The sheriff has texts FROM the principal of inappropriate sexual comments made to the girl, and descriptions of genitals and what to do with them and these texts DO violate the law (even if the principal is truthful in denying sexual contact, something that I believe he DID engage in). This guy was SOLID. Great family, and described as a spiritual GIANT by those who knew him. But he screwed up. I'm not sure whether he thought the Spirit was saying it was okay. But he did. Great people and righteous people mess up. They do. And, often, they justify their acts at the time being led astray, I believe, by promptings that THEY believe are from the Spirit. Obviously, they aren't. Maybe it IS the Spirit, but they are misreading what the Spirit said (as you infer might happen). Deseret News | LDS seminary principal is arrested in sexual abuse

Ryan. I'm addressing people who honestly believe that God has told them that engaging in sinful behavior is not a sin. They truly believe that the Spirit is guiding them. That can, and does, include adultery. After all, God sanctioned murder with Nephi, right? Take that and run with it and it's amazing what the Spirit can authorize. Consider the case of Elder Richard Lyman. He was an apostle for 25 years. >In 1943, the First Presidency discovered that Lyman had long been cohabitating with a woman other than his legal wife. In 1925 Lyman had begun a relationship which he defined as a polygamous marriage. Unable to trust anyone else to officiate due to the church's ban on the practice, Lyman and the woman exchanged vows secretly. By 1943, both were in their seventies. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943 at age 73. Richard R. Lyman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You can bet your bottom dollar that Elder Lyman believed that he was doing the right thing, and not engaging in sin. I also surmise that he "justified" his conduct by engaging in "secret vows." He didn't commit adultery because he "married" the woman. All of that is poppycock, of course. But certainly Elder Lyman knew what the Spirit was and know what it felt like. Similarly, certainly others felt the Spirit through the efforts of Elder Lyman. But he was wrong in that one thing, that's for sure.

I'm certainly not trying to disparage the Spirit, only man's failed efforts to work with the Spirit. An example: I know of a man who was solid - RM, great guy, great family, temple marriage. He began teaching the Gospel to a lady friend. They really were "just friends" at the time. She became converted to the Gospel and was baptized. Somewhere along the way, they developed strong feelings for one another. He prayed and searched his soul. He believe the Lord told him that SHE was his partner. They ended up having sex and he was excommunicated. I'm not sure what happened to the convert partner. The marriage ended in divorce. He remained convinced throughout the Church discipline that the Spirit had advised him. He was sure that he was following the Spirit. This friend of mine knew what the Spirit felt like. He was solid. And I'm pretty sure that the Spirit did not tell him to commit adultery and leave his wife/kids behind. But he did. That's what I'm getting to.

I am thinking more of generalities, now. In my situation, my wife has seen everything. It's a non-issue. I'm thinking on a more "grand" scale - a more eternal scale. And I am thinking more on HER need for privacy, not mine. I have pretty much taken the view that she should/can know everything about me (and I'm not just talking about my Internet affair of the past). I'm talking about childhood memories, discussions with a bishop, discussions with close friends . . . anything. But I feel pause, because I'm not sure that I SHOULD know everything about her. Perhaps she needs privacy in communicating with a professional counselor. My wife has issues that she believes needs pyschological counseling, entirely unrelated to anything that I have done. These are issues that have been with her for a very, very long time, and for which she has taken medication over the years to "deal" with. She is trying to "escape" the medication, and I'm not sure that's the right desire/answer. But in the end, I doubt that someone here can give me the "answer" to the detailed question. I think it requires an individual response. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Maybe I could individualize it well enough that someone here COULD give the right answer. I'm also hesitant to rely solely on the Spirit for guidance. I have witnessed many people being led astray by SOLELY reliance on the Spirit, likely because they didn't ask the right question or interpreted an answer different than the Spirit intended. The Church itself has fallen short in this regard, at one time demanding that there be full disclosure of all details of an affair to the spouse, but now taking a more tempered stand that is more in line with the advice of professionals (it MAY be necessary for full repentance but it MAY be more harmful than good and thus NOT helpful at all and NOT required for repentance). The Church has reversed itself on prying into the sexually intimacy in the marriage as well. So none of us are perfect. These might be policy issues, more than direct revelation was wrong issues, but we aren't perfect. In essence, I'm thinking that the line is drawn where the two parties are comfortable. And that if information cannot be shared without hurting the other spouse, than the information should not be shared. Caution should be used to not confuse fear of "hurting" the other spouse with a desire to "hide" bad acts. I do believe that there is some danger in individual counsel regarding the marriage, without the other spouse present. And perhaps the line is drawn there, in that if the counselor or the discussion ever turns to a termination of the marriage, or an attack on the non-present spouse, that the non-present spouse be informed. I don't have an answer. But I'm just wondering as I build a closer relationship to my spouse than I have had with any other human being. Before, I didn't really have this desire, and felt that we were close enough. Now, I'm afraid that I might smother her, because of overwhelming feelings to be "one". Learning.

I completely agree.

>but the definition of intimacy is not losing all of ones privacy and boundaries. That may be. I seem to like that, but part of me believes that we are not truly "one" in such a case. Frankly, I'm not sure that I'm READY to be ONE. I'm just wondering.