JudoMinja

From cover to cover, I've only read the entire Book of Mormon a few times. I'd like to do better about that, because like Eowyn, I've found that when I do read it all the way through, especially in large chunks like reading a novel, I tend to pick up on things I would not otherwise and get a real good feel for the "big picture" message. I also know that the prophets are advising us to do just such a cover-to-cover read every year and I feel bad for not doing so. However, I do "sup" from the scriptures every day, and tend to do more topical studies. I read "from" the Book of Mormon everyday, as well as the other scriptures, because I like to search for particular things that are on my mind and really dig into certain topics. With this, I feel I get a very rich study of the gospel, since I will also pull from talks, past words of prophets, ensign articles, and so on in order to go really in depth on whatever is on my mind. Since I tend to study this way, I can't really pinpoint a number of times I've read anything in particular, but I feel I am very familiar with my scriptures and where I can find verses on certain topics. This actually helped just the other day when I overheard some members at church in between sacrament meetings trying to remember where they could find the passage about putting on the armor of god for a talk. I knew off the top of my head that it was in Ephesians, and with a quick glance at chapter titles was able to direct them to what they were looking for. I've also found that I tend to come back to the same or similar topics over and over again, always approaching it from a slightly different angle and reading some of the same passages over and over again. With this, I always pick up on something new and gain deeper and greater insights than what I'd had before when reading the same passage. I love studying my scriptures, and I know my life is better for it. I feel stronger, more focused, and more spiritually minded because I strive to understand deep and simple topics and always want to learn something new that I hadn't noticed before in the hopes that I can share my knowledge and understanding with others and do a better job teaching when I am asked to cover a class or give a talk.

I know it's a Parenting book for help with little kids, but your post here makes me think of "Love and Logic: Magic for Early Childhood". In the book, some parenting stereotypes are described that can cause problems, especially once children get older. One of those stereotypes is the "helicopter" parents who hover over their children, trying to prevent every hurt and rushing in to help when something happens. "Enabling" is a behavior of a "helicopter" parent who has never stopped hovering, even after their child has become an adult. It will really help you communicate with your wife about this if you find the answer to this question. It sounds like your parents raised you with "love and logic", so it is easier for you to see that pain and suffering are often necessary for learning. If we suffer consequences for our little mistakes as children, we learn from them and are less likely to make big mistakes as adults. However, it sounds like your wife's parents were "helicopter" parents, and because her brother never learned from small mistakes, he continues to make bigger and bigger mistakes. I highly recommend reading "Love and Logic: Magic for Early Childhood"- especially the chapter about different parenting styles, so you can better understand where your wife and her family are coming from. It may also help your wife to read it, as she will recognize it when she reads it and may be more open to pulling back the aid. It's a very simple book- extremely easy to read and amazingly straight forward and to the point. It's the kind of book that makes you feel like "well, duh- why didn't I think of that? It's so simple!". Remember, the important thing isn't to be right and find people who agree you are right. The important thing is learning to effectively communicate and come to agreements with your wife- so reading this book would be a big help, as it would help the two of you better understand your different backgrounds and be more likely to find a good solution/compromise for how to handle this situation with her brother.

Building on estradling's point: I believe you are right that it is wrong to enable improper behavior. If someone is in need of help due to a problem, addiction, etc. they should be doing something to "earn" that help and show that they are striving to improve their situation so that such help will eventually no longer be needed. That is why the church welfare system works the way it does- those who request and need help from the church work on a budget with their bishop and present a plan for how they will help themselves out of their situation. Help is provided as long as they continue to show effort and progress, and they are often asked to do some form of service for the church in return for the help. Now, the important thing right now is getting you and your wife on the same page as far as assisting her brother is concerned. If you just tell her that she shouldn't be helping him and/or refuse to let her use your hard-earned money to help him, you are going to be creating and/or deepening a rift in your relationship. Offer an idea similar to how the church welfare system works and see if you can get your wife to agree with it. Hold her brother to it, and if he fails to follow through, as you predict he will, help your wife stay strong in refusing to further aid him in a loving and supportive way. My parents are going through a similar struggle with helping my brother. He has been very irresponsible with his time and money and my mother, driven by her love and desire to "save the day", keeps bailing him out of his troubles. My father is getting fed up with it, and they recently had a very serious argument in which my father finally drew a line- telling my mother that she needed to choose between her marriage or helping her son- trying to open her eyes to the serious damage this is causing their relationship. She has a very hard time letting go and offering "tough love" when it is needed. They are working on drawing lines and limits, and my brother's situation does seem to be slowly improving, but it has been a very difficult and bumpy road that would have been easier on everyone if my mother had been strong enough to set limits in the first place, just say no when it was too much, and held my brother to a requirement for improvement. This has been going on for several years now, and any sign of progress has been very slow. I know of some others who have been sucked into situations where they've tried to help others out of their problems by paying off debts or in other ways "enabling" them to continue with the irresponsible behavior, and they've ended up in just as dire straights as those they were trying to help because they failed to set limits. This happened to me too- I ended up on academic probation with college, losing my job, and in a slew of debt because I tried to help someone who really just wanted to stay in his rut and suck all the help they could get out of whomever he could so that he wouldn't have to "grow up". I learned my lesson the hard way, and had the chance to learn a better way when I sought assistance from the church to help get me out of the mess I'd pulled myself into. I hope you and your wife can work together in coming to an agreement on how much help is allowed and what steps her brother should take to keep receiving help, so that you don't also have to learn the hard way. It will be hardest for your wife, because she loves her brother and love often makes it hard to see that sometimes NOT helping is the better way, as such will not only protect you from falling into a pit but will permit the consequences to teach her brother how to be more responsible.

From what you've described, I would say that your wife definitely shows signs of abusive behavior. This means things could go one of two ways- if she is like anatess and willing to work on it, and you are equally willing to work on it, the two of you can start making the necessary changes to make your marriage more healthy by getting some much needed help and exercising love and patience- then your marriage will improve albeit slowly. If either of you, for any reason, start backing out and "quit" on the marriage by being unwilling to work together or change inappropriate behaviors, your marriage will either forever be unhealthy or end in divorce. Your most important step right now is to change the pattern that is causing the problems. You can only do this by changing your own actions and responses, and a big part of that is deciding what you will and will not tolerate and how you will handle it when it happens. Your wife hits you? Big no-no. Don't tolerate it. That means letting her know you won't tolerate it, letting her know how you will respond when it happens (going for a drive maybe), and then following through. She threatens divorce? Another big no-no. NEVER bring up divorce in a fight. That possibility should not be on either of your minds right now. Again, let her know you won't tolerate it, and then respond when it happens. Next, the two of you could really use some outside help. I highly recommend seeing a marriage counselor together, and if she won't go see a counselor then go for yourself. If you are a reader, I suggest either buying or finding in the library Emotional Blackmail. I would also start researching on the topic "domestic violence" in order to identify just what constitutes abuse, what signs to watch out for, and how you can work with your wife to start making some changes. You are right to be concerned about what your son is seeing between the two of you, and I think it is wise to avoid having another child until the two of you can better your methods for conflict resolution. Please don't let your mind wander to divorce, and don't tolerate your wife bringing up the topic either. If and only if your situation seems to be getting progressively worse and/or dangerous after the two of you have sought outside help to try and remedy your issues, would it be okay to even start considering divorce. Such should be an absolute last resort for a marriage that is doing more harm to those within it than good.

I want to build on this point started by RMGuy and Anatess. What is ringing out to me as the real problem here is that family as a whole is falling apart within America. The number of illegitimate births is only a part of that, something we can measure that isn't really at the core of the issue but is a result of it. When an illegitimate child is an anomoly within a family, there is still a great support system. Take my own situation for an example. I made some bad decisions, got into a bad relationship, and ended up having to become a single parent in order to protect the safety of myself and my child. Though this is a struggle, it has been made lighter because I have a supportive and strong family. I was raised in a stable two-parent home. My father was raised in a stable two-parent home. And my mother was also raised in a two-parent home, although her situation was not so stable with problems with abuse present and her parents divorcing after all the children were grown. This is as far back as we can trace the stability of our family on both sides, but it was enough that I was able to have a strong support system to help me get back on my feet. Without the help of my family in my time of need, due to the dire circumstances I brought on myself, I would have wound up stuck in a rut and raising a child in poverty. As it is, I have only very slowly been able to recover the social and economic stability I had before I'd screwed up. My circumstances are still not what they could have been, and never will be. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything though, because I've learned and grown and been pushed to better shape and mold my character through adversity. If situations like mine remained rare and abnormal, it wouldn't really be a problem because the family as a whole would still be stable, strong and capable of helping. However... My brother is going through some harder circumstances than my own. He is from my mother's previous marriage and was raised solely by her until she married my father. He struggled to connect with his "step-dad" and wound up getting himself mixed into more chasitity trouble than he could handle. My family has been helping him, trying to get him back on his feet and support his now four children, but the effort has been a major strain, since my brother is doing little for himself to better his circumstances. There have been many discussions with my parents where they've wondered if it would just be better to let him fall on his face, as he might finally then "grow up", but they fear doing it because they don't want to see the grand-kids suffer. Now. Multiply these "anomolous" situations so that they are no longer rare but the norm. If 50% of children are born illegitimately, it doesn't matter exactly what the scenarios are for each one- it is clear that the family as a whole is falling apart in America. Where is the support? Where is the strength? How are the children born into these situations going to be raised? Will they have any extended family to turn to for support, or will they be all alone? That, I think, is the real problem. LDSJewess provided another great example of this. She was raised with little to no support from anyone. She has made the effort to better her circumstances, and an enormous part of that betterment was building a strong family. She may not be able to trace anything back through her ancestors, but she started a strong chain that will be their to support her own children's children. But what happens when 50% of the population is born into and raised in circumstances similar to those she experienced? I think jayanna hit the nail on the head with her quote from "The Family":

I've never really had a problem with getting angry or feeling defensive when the topic is something I still know little about or am uncertain as to what I believe. That tends to be when I am the most open- I like to pull everything in, weigh all the thoughts, information, and opinions so that I can come to a better understanding of the topic and become more comfortable about what I personally believe. I also haven't really felt that I struggle when it is a topic with which I am familiar and comfortable, since- as you said- I feel confident about what I believe. There's no reason for me to feel threatened, and I have absolutely no desire to be pushy- just to make sure others get a chance to hear my thoughts and opinions. I don't really struggle with the control slamjet described. The few times I have found myself growing angry during a discussion have been when I feel like I'm talking to a "brick wall". When the other person engaged in discussion just keeps repeating and reiterating the same points over and over again without any sign that they've understood or even acknowledged any counter points or arguments. I start getting frustrated with their lack of flexibility, and if I'm not careful enough to step back and not let myself get too emotionally involved, I start getting angry. It doesn't really have anything to do with my confidence in my belief or any desire to have any kind of control over the situation- it's much more to do with an inability to communicate effectively due to a barrier that cannot be crossed.

I personally don't really find that difference significant enough to be noteworthy. Maybe... If your survey was answered by an enormous number of people, like at least several thousand. But that difference is very small, and I'm guessing it would be almost null if your survey had been answered by more people. The trend I find interesting is this one: Because the m/f age difference for each is approximately 1 year, with the male being older. So it seems pretty unanimous that no matter the age people think ideal for marriage, we all generally agree that a man should be about 1 year older than his wife. Why do you think that is?

Happy Birthday!

My favorite one from the show is the truck driver who gets his truck stuck under an overpass. When the cop shows up he asks the truck driver "You get your truck stuck?" The truck driver responds "Nope, I was delivering that overpass and ran out of gas."

You had a traumatic experience. It's understandable that you are scared and freaking out. When I was on my learners permit, I mistakenly made a left turn going the wrong way on a one way and totaled the mini-van I was driving when I panicked seeing a car coming toward me and turned into the barrier. Luckily, nobody else was hurt, but for me the experience was very traumatising. After that, I had to work up very gradually to be able to handle even just making left-hand turns, eventually faced that intersection to prove to myself I could drive through it safely, but will never drive a mini-van again. Just sitting in the driver seat of one brings everything flooding back and I can't handle it. Your experience sounds like it was worse than mine was. Just the thought of being in an accident while pregnant gives me chills. I think I would have been too afraid to get in a car again, until after I'd had the baby. I applaud your courage for even being able to drive to work today. This is more a long-term help, but overcoming the trauma of the accident could be helped by going through a defensive driving course as this would increase your confidence in your ability to drive safely and avoid dangerous drivers on the road. I went through some private drivers-ed instruction after my accident, and that really helped me. As for now, here are some comforting words from the Savior "Fear thou not; for I am with thee" (Isaiah 41:10).

The most important thing that pops in my mind is that there was a very large portion of the plates that was sealed and not translated. If we had the plates, what would stop scholars from unsealing it and attempting their own translation that wouldn't be through the power of God? God has determined that we are not ready for what is in there, and any attempted translation would contain information we are not meant to have and would likely be incorrect, because the translation would be imperfect. Also, Joseph Smith had to protect the plates because people would have used them for their own devices, or more precisely- the devices of Satan. If they were in the hands of men, they would aslo be in the hands of Satan, and he would find ways to use them to tear down the faith. Remember the characters of Reformed Egyptian that were shown to the "learned man"? And the portion that was lost by Martin Harris? The biggest problem with both these situations was that people would try to translate it on their own. No matter how close we get to the truth, no matter how accurately we can translate something, our ability to understand "dead" languages is limited and flawed. To preserve the Word of God from misuse and misinterpretation, it had to be taken away to protect us from our own pride and curiosity.

So that's the purpose of a swirly! Who knew? I don't see anything wrong with posting that.... as long as you remember to say please and thank you . I miss reading his posts too, along with a few others who are no longer with us, either because they were banned or because they requested their account be deleted. But I also trust that the mods are very careful about being fair before dishing out a ban, so I've never seen any reason to question it. I also feel that it would be rude/nosey of me to go asking for the details on these situations, because they are none of my business. I just trust that whatever the reason was, it was a good one, and I move on.

Oh, my. I knew I was nerdy, but I'm even nerdier than I thought. That pick up line really cracked me up, and every time I see 42 I start singing in my head "So long, and thanks for all the fish!" Yup. I may have gone overboard on the nerd scale.

We have Milkbones!

So you're saying I'm real nerdy? And way to go PC! It does feel interesting when you see yourself hitting a mile-marker in your posts. Brings on a bit of nastalgia, a sense of accomplishment.... and also maybe a feeling that you spend too much time online.

Hmm.. That explains why I have some blogs that say they have one more comment than they actually do. I didn't even think of that. :) Thanks!

Others have already replied with the basics of what I was going to say, but I want to touch on what I bolded. I think the problem is probably the "perception", which is why I started this thread. In all the posts I've read where someone is trying to understand bans, it seems to me like there's some "between the lines" message between the complainee and the moderator that is getting lost somewhere. The two seem to be talking past each other, with something like this happening: Complainee: Why was so-and-so banned? That seems rediculous? Moderator: Any ban was for a violation of the Site Rules. Please read them. Complainee: Gosh the rules must be awfully strict, and no warning? This seems like a really unfair site, and the mods are kinda trigger-happy. Moderator: If you have a problem with a mod, please address it through PM, as complaints on the forum are a violation of Rule #6. Please read the rules. Complainee: (snark) Ha! So, I have to talk to the mods privately about a problem with the mods? Like that will ever get resolved. I'll probably get banned now too since breaking the rules gets people banned and I just broke the rules which I couldn't even find and haven't read. Thanks! Moderator: (closes thread) I've seen this basic format over and over again and it was starting to bug me. I started thinking- if the complainee is unobservant enough to not see the link to the Site Rules at the top of every page, then said complainee is also probably unobservant enough to realize that any offensive posts or reason behind the ban has been cleaned up so they won't see it, and that the "Banned" label remains on the okay posts that weren't deleted so that we know the member who left that post is no longer on the site. Hence, this thread. I wanted to try to clear up the misperception and get out the message that was being left unsaid on both sides: On the side of the complainee- I'm just trying to understand what leads to a ban, because it looks to me like this site is oppressive and I'm worried that I might end up banned for something silly. On the side of the moderators- Every ban has been for a good reason and is just not visible because we've cleaned up the offensive material. If you want to know the reason, you can go over the rules yourself to get an idea of what may have happened, and if you are still unsatisfied can ask us in PM.

I believe the lack of a profile leads to a deleltion, which I thought was different from a ban, but maybe they are the same?

What does it mean to be perfect? Many have formed in their minds this impossible preconceived notion that perfection means someone must have never been flawed, never incomplete, cannot improve because there is no longer any need for improvement, and cannot or would not create anything that is not also perfect. With this idea of perfection, of course one would think that God cannot be perfect and therefore there cannot be a God. However, Matthew 5:48 (thank you Dravin) clearly states that perfection is possible, not only for God but for us as well. God would not give an impossible commandment, and He has commanded us to be perfect. How can we be perfect when we are so obviously flawed, incomplete, and sinful? Perfection is possible because it is not a singular state of being that must always be. It is a process. Think of learning an instrument. One might consider the best violinist in the world to be a "perfect" example of violinist form and skill, but this person was not always perfect. He or she had to practice, starting from the very bottom and working their way up the scale through gradual improvements, step by step, line upon line, "precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:13). A "perfect" computer design had to be gradually built, starting with a very basic understanding of mechanics. A "perfect" loaf of bread had to be constructed and cooked by putting together incomplete ingrediants and practicing the art until it comes out satisfactorily. A "perfectly" behaved child had to be patiently brought up with caring love and discipline. A "perfect" body has to be built with careful dieting and exercise. And so on and so forth. Perfection is a process that we are all subjected to- yes even God, or He would not command and require it of us. Since we are made in God's image, our ability to choose right from wrong (our agency) must be a Godly characteristic that is necessary for our perfection. Unfortunately, this ability to choose also means we can choose the path that leads away from perfection, but just think about it for a moment. Would we really be perfect, if we did not first choose to be perfect? And how can we choose, if we are not presented with both sides of the coin? If we are not given opposition? We may be imperfect now, and the world we are in imperfect, but this is through no fault of God. This is part of the process that will ultimately lead to perfection. We make mistakes and learn from our mistakes. We fall, and fall, and fall again... so that we can pick ourselves back up, grow, learn, and eventually be perfected.

Those who wish to go on a mission are encouraged to save up enough money to pay for it on their own. If they cannot do so, they are expected to turn to their family for contribution, and if that won't cut it to their ward. I don't have enough experience with it to know if the church will deny someone going on a mission if they cannot secure enough to pay for it through these means, but I do know there have been several who have gone on missions "fully funded" by the church. However it ends up being paid for, every penny goes toward necessary expenses for the mission. Missionaries get a very small "paycheck" every month that is supposed to cover their needs for rent, utilities, clothing, and food, but it is a very small amount as members are expected to sign up to have the missionaries over in their homes to help with feeding them dinner and providing a setting for invetigators to intermingle and receive discussions.

I know I'm speaking for them when I say that's the thought process going through their head, so I may be incorrect. But that is the impression I get after reading the posts where they are questioning the decision to ban someone. I keep seeing complaints coming off as someone seeking an explanation, because they can't understand why someone was banned, and since the reason is usually not visible the brain tries to fill in the blanks for them.

Ok, I thoroughly re-read the Site Rules before posting this, just to make sure I wouldn't be breaking any by making this thread, and I hope we can maintain discussion on this without breaking any rules. I have noticed, in my time here, a number of instances where people bring up questions about those who have been Banned from the site. Threads where this is brought up tend to get closed quickly, because the person who brought it up is usually complaining and failing to make sure they are aware of the rules themselves. You can read those rules by clicking the link in my first paragraph, and they are also easily spotted and readily available. The "Site Rules" button is at the top of the page, third across from the links with blue lettering (After "Home" and "Resources"). There is also usually a sticky thread at the top of most forum pages that can direct you to the rules. I bring this up because I want to clarify some of the questions and complaints that I have seen frequently, as I find it rather unfair that those complaining usually end up "attacking" the moderators. First off- when you see "Banned" under someones name that is simply an indication of their status on the site. If you'll notice, it is in the same place where you will see "Member", "Junior Member", "Senior Member", "Moderator", "Head Moderator", or "Suspended". It just lets people know what status the poster currently holds, and like your picture, signature, and other information it is updated and included with every post the person has made, even the old ones. Often, someone will see the "Banned" label and think the person has been banned for the post they see it on. They get confused if the post seems to be perfectly okay and then start wondering why someone was unfairly banned and why no explanation was given. The reason for the banning could have been anything and most likely is not at all related to the post you are seeing. Possible reasons for banning will all be found in the aforementioned Site Rules, and in many cases the post that resulted in the banning has been deleted. If you read the rules, you will also see that people can be banned for reasons that have nothing to do with posting, so the reason may not even be able to be found on the forum. If you are especially curious about the reason behind a particular person being banned, you can always ask a moderator through PM, but remember that as a third party they may decide there is no need for you to be privy to that information. You can rest assured that the one who was banned did receive an explanation before action was taken, since, as it states in the rules, moderators give them a warning for their infraction first, and if it isn't major they will go through a two-week suspension first before getting another chance, and if they still break the rules are then banned. I have seen far too many instances where someone accuses the moderators of being unfair and "ban-happy" just because they've seen someone's post (or several someones) with the "Banned" label under their name. They then assume that the rules must be very stringent or the moderators very uptight. If everyone will just read the rules, I think we could all agree that this isn't the case. After my own re-reading, I know I can think of many many occassions where the moderators could have taken action against a poster and did not. As far as I can tell, they are very leniant, and those who end up banned have been so for good reason. The moderators work hard to maintain a healthy atmosphere for us to continue posting here on LDS.net, and it just bothers me when I've seen so many instances of people questioning that just because there seem to be a lot of people who've been "Banned" and no explanation is obviously apparent.

Oh, my. I need a laugh button for you three. I saw that and some other grammatical errors in his questions and was actually tempted to write them correctly on here, but wanted to present the questions exactly how he'd worded them. He's a history teacher, so I didn't bring it up to him. I cut him some slack. I'm certain though that if some of the English teachers had seen his questions, they would have pestered him about his poor grammar.

So the classes went pretty well yesterday. I didn't stumble over anything and think I presented everything fairly well. Some of the kids seemed engaged and interested, others not so much, and some a bit immature, but it was all about what I'd expected. On the Joseph Smith background the book mentions he started the "Mormon Church" based on "visions", so I told them the actual name of the church, how Joseph had been looking for a church to join along the Bible Belt as a boy, and what his visions entailed- making sure to use the word claimed he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that those who believed his visions were real followed him and saw him to be a prophet. That led into his death and Brigham Young taking over and leading the trek west, as well as sending out the Mormon Battalion to help with the Mexican War. This was the part that was the point of it being mentioned in the text, but the majority of the kids didn't really seem all that interested in this part at all- until the polygamy got brought up. Though I know its not an entirely correct answer (because we were never really given a "why" behind the polygamy, but I was trying not to give a "because God said so" answer since I wasn't supposed to be teaching religion), I told them it was partially a type of "welfare" program to help the many who'd been widowed due to the hardships of the trek west, and partially to boost the population- and that when Brigham decided to have them ceded into the US instead of their own separate government, he had the practice stopped in order to abide by US laws. Personally, I still feel it was a "correct" answer, because I think that's why God had them practice polygamy then- I just left out the "because God said so" part. All in all, it went well. Thanks for everybody's thoughts and insights! I wouldn't have thought to bring up Brigham's vision for the Saint's own "Manifest Destiny" or the Mormon Battalion if I hadn't gotten input from people here, and I think that really helped me offer a detailed and succinct look into our little part of history that makes it into the textbooks. You guys are awesome! Thanks!

How about this for cake? :) Happy Birthday Dravin!