mdfxdb

So, given that she rebuffs your advances, she needs to be put on notice of the detrimental effect this is having on you and on the relationship. It sounds like she is living in a vacuum of consequences. She wants what she wants when she wants it, and doesn't care what you want if it doesn't coincide. If I had to be "in the mood" to do most of my stuff: go to work, clean, bathe, change the oil in the car.........none of it would get done......oh, and there would be very real consequences.........

But that's my point. She should do it because you are asking, unless you are being unreasonable. I do lots of things I don't "want" to do, but they need to be done. Sometimes it's out of a feeling of obligation, sometimes it's out of need. This isn't about her or her sexual needs. From what you are describing she is completely satisfied, and that's enough....FOR HER. Unless you are a total brute (are you a total brute?) she should want/need/feel obligated to do this with you regardless of her actual drive/desire/satisfaction level. It is part of a healthy normal marriage, and a physical manifestation of love. You can't make her change. She likely will not change. She can decide to behave in a different way, and this may or may not have an effect on her sexual desire. She needs to understand this is not about her, but about the relationship, and it's continuity. Have you said that to her? Oh, don't say that to her unless you mean it. If you are not going to put a nuclear option on the table then you have to learn to deal with what you have. Keep in mind she will likely never change. How are you going to deal with that now? How are you going to deal with that for eternity? I suspect there are many other areas in your marriage where she is very selfish as well, this just happens to be the one that hurts the most.

I would disagree with the statement that you are asking her to change fundamentally. It has been my experience that as a whole most people do not change. To ask her to change would be unsuccessful at best. I do think she needs to modify her behavior to come into line with your expectations. She may not desire sex more than once a month, but her husband does. She therefore needs to modify her behavior to satisfy her husband. If as you say she is completely satisfied with each encounter then she has no downside to the experience.

Sounds like your income is not in line with your needs. That being said, you might consider moving someplace where the cost of housing is cheaper.

Addiction and Abuse Often times two or three of them combine.... In the OP's case I would argue that multiple bouts of infidelity, coupled with pornography problems constitute Addiction (to behaviors), Abuse (where the spouse/and family are negatively impacted), and of course Adultery.

Adultery is one of the three A's in justifiable divorce.

Matthew 5:28 - "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." If you think it, it's like you did it? It's an elevated law.

seriously. He cited no direct tie to a specific person, place or thing in the Book of Mormon. All the evidence is coincidental, and circumstantial. He talks about fortifications, writing, swords, but his references are to many post-book of Mormon writings and ruins. His evidence of writing on gold plates comes from one part of a plate with nonsense written on it from a cenote at Chitzen Itza. His geographical proof for the travels of Lehi I do not doubt, but they do not prove anything other than maybe Joseph Smith (more likely Sidney Rigdon) could read a map.

Did not see any evidence at all. Please point it out.

Gordon Hinckley on tattoo's and piercings: "I promise you that the time will come, if you have tattoos, that you will regret your actions. They cannot be washed off. They are permanent. Only by an expensive and painful process can they be removed. If you are tattooed, then probably for the remainder of your life you will carry it with you. I believe the time will come when it will be an embarrassment to you. Avoid it. We, as your Brethren who love you, plead with you not to become so disrespectful of the body which the Lord has given you. May I mention earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look better without them, and I believe you will feel better without them. As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient." This is a Prophets talk given to young single adults in the year 2000. Based off of his advice I would not say someone should get a tattoo or extra piercing. I would not say they have sinned either. Something that is not a sin can still carry consequences for us throughout this life.

The divorce rate is 50% because people do not make good foundational decisions when it comes to choosing a spouse. By your logic it doesn't matter who you marry because 50% of the time you're getting divorced anyways, so why not just marry the first cute guy/girl who comes along......Your chances are pretty good right? Kind of like flipping a coin? You would tell your 12 year old to find someone who shares his basic principles? How could he share those basic principles if they are not the same religion? It's not stupid to tell your kid to marry only within his religion. It would be smart to tell him that he can learn from the mistakes of his parents, and forego any potential future heart ache by marrying within his religion.

Not contradicting, someone who gets a tattoo has not necessarily sinned. That doesn't mean I think they did the right thing. By the standard held on these forums no one is temple worthy, let alone someone with a tattoo.......

Someone who is contemplating getting a tattoo, or an extra piercing needs a fuller understanding of their bodies as temples. The prophets have counseled that we not do these things because they understand the detrimental effect it can have on our self-image (in the long run),the detrimental effect it can have on other peoples image of us (short and long run), as well as the temptations, and people it attracts us to and people who are attracted to us. Getting a tattoo is not necessarily wrong, in fact you can still get a temple recommend. This doesn't make it correct behavior.

So you know lots of people who have broken marriages, or problems.....and.....half the people I know who are married, or single either are divorced, or getting divorced, or never married......That's because the divorce rate is 50%. Your evidence is meaningless. Would you advise your child to marry someone who believed in faith healing? Someone who believed in practicing plural marriage? How about someone who didn't want to ever pay tithing, or someone who didn't want their 12 year old to receive the Aaronic priesthood because it's stupid to give the priesthood to a 12 year old? If you are in a marriage, fine. But, if you are choosing a spouse, why would you choose someone of a different faith. In a previous example, someone speaks of "professional women", and then mentions they wish their spouses would convert....... Another previous poster cited his wards statistics. I can say that my ward is no different, there are over 300 households in the ward, and 198 of them do not have a Melkezedik (sp) priesthood holder in them, the one thing those households have in common are part-member families, and they also make up the majority of our inactive pool....... Marriage, and respect, and all that other stuff is hard enough when you are the same religion.

This is not really about Mormons marrying Mormons it is about two people of the same religion marrying each other. Marriage is hard enough without having fundamental commanilities. Why marry with the difference? OK, so you know "lots of people" who are married and are different religions.So what. You don't really know happy they really are or how happy they could be. Or even how religious they individually are. And maybe everything is fine until you want your child to be blessed and your husband wants your child to be baptized soon after birth. What happens then? Peace and harmony? Likely not. You can focus on exceptions all day long but in the long run those fundamental differences do not make for a long term happy marriage.

People do not change, and it's even harder to change after we pass on. Why would you even marry someone who has a different religion if you know the troubles, and heart aches it brings? Same as I wouldn't marry someone who was promiscuous early in their life, or someone who was not educated, or someone who was not from a stable family, or someone who had mental illness, or someone who had a degenerative disease.

I can say that this happens all the time, see your bishop, usually if repentance is a big deal to you, and your significant other is not helping by not repeating, then the relationship is in big trouble. Someone who doesn't share values, or want to help you keep your values is not a good companion, and the relationship is toxic.

If someone responds to this thread in the positive, then they are speaking of the exception. Religion is one of the most impactful driving forces in an individuals life. Not sharing that with a spouse has effects that are not positive on a marriage relationship. Not sharing core beliefs, and not practicing core beliefs with your spouse is harmful to a marriage, especially when you belong to a church such as ours that teaches you will not be with your spouse in the next life if you are not sealed, and if they do not live up to their covenants. The impact of not having a common religion is not only harmful to the marriage, but is harmful to the children as well who will grow up with religious confusion, and ambiguity.

It appears so because one of the first responses of the thread was: "Per the first 2 questions (prevent from mission and entering MTC), the answer is going to be yes, per prophetic direction." Wind seeker refuted nothing. He stated he had a problem while on his mission, not what his conversations were like with his bishop and stake pres prior to leaving. For all I know they didn't ask, or he didn't tell....

While Handbook 1 does not mention masturbation it does mention that missionaries who have committed serious transgressions may have to wait past their 18th birthday to serve. In fact, as long as a year to three years. My point however, is that this particular transgression doesn't rise to that level of seriousness, and unless it is pervasive and habitual should not impede an otherwise worthy person from serving his/her mission. It has been opined that the missionary will suffer loss of the spirit. I do not discount this. Is that missionary any more bereft of the spirit than the missionary who makes fun of his companion, the missionary who doesn't follow mission rules, the missionary who goes to movies, etc, etc.? It appears the church has a zero tolerance on this particular transgression, even if happens once, or heaven forbid twice anywhere with any type of mission window then you cannot serve. I do not think this is right.

"Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission....." Pres. Kimball Note he says fettered, and habit. I am talking about neither. Just an individual who has occasionally slipped up, and maybe had a relapse. You may call it insincere repentance, I call it a temporary relapse. When I am bishop I will let those who are not fettered by weakness and habit serve their missions. Those that are fettered by weakness and habit will not serve.

If I were a bishop, and a young man came to me and wanted to serve a mission, and confessed that he had masturbated within the last month, and was truly repentant and felt horrible about it, and it wasn't a habit, nor was it frequent I would probably sign his papers and send him on. If prior to leaving he confessed he had a relapse, I would discuss the relapse with him, and unless there were any other circumstances surrounding the relapse I would probably send him on his mission..... Am I wrong?

"We are not asking for perfection. The work of the Lord is done by ordinary people who work in an extraordinary way. The Lord magnifies those who put forth effort......." Pretty sure 18 year old men are imperfect. Also, is a relapse really representative of lack of sincerity in repentance? At some point it may be, depending on the sin and level of transgression. I'm not sure this particular sin rises to that strict of an interpretation. I would not categorically state that someone who relapsed with this particular problem is unrepentant, or was unrepentant. It seems like we as LDS in general take a pretty extreme line on this type of stuff, and is there a possibility we are stifling progression? If this is the great sin that prevents someone from serving a mission how much better off is that potential, otherwise worthy missionary at home?

I'm not so sure it is entirely 100% reasonable for us to expect an 18 year old man to control himself. Obviously we do not want them committing major transgressions. However, if a young man commits this particular sin, feels bad about it, repents, then goes to see the bishop for a mission call or something else of the sort, how reasonable is it for the bishop to withhold the missionary opportunity? Let's say the young man has had a relapse post mission interview, is ready to leave on his mission, genuinely feels bad about it, and commits to not do it again. Should he not go on his mission?