hyohko

Here is a question - and not to derail too heavily from the OP - but what would be everyone's advice if the poster was Male instead of Female? Would there be nearly as much sympathy and/or encouragement?

Lurker coming out, be warned. As a single, mid-20's guy currently struggling with a rather recent Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis that has so far cost me two jobs, I occasionally despair over that kind of attitude. I know Alucar is a guy, but I know that some women also share that sentiment concerning health issues, especially in the church environment where women are taught that Husbands are to be the Providers. (I know all don't feel that way, necessarily, so don't interpret that as a blanket statement.) How am I supposed to find someone if something I never wanted, never chose, and will never lose will prevent me from gaining that great blessing? I've experienced several relationships break down shortly after disclosing my illness (no cane yet, thankfully), and each time I wonder if I will ever actually find someone willing to go on this adventure with me. I know that my time being a productive member of society is dwindling at an accelerated rate. I know more permanent disability is in my future. I know that there is little I can do but take my medicine and pray that it actually works. I'm sure women in similar situations feel much the same, like they're the broken toy left on the shelf during the Christmas rush.

I haven't yet officially "announced my candidacy", as it were. There may be some opportunity for that over the next few days, but I need to snag time alone - and that has been proving to be somewhat difficult since Sunday. We'll see how this goes.

As to that, well, I'm not sure yet. I don't know how well he would take to the idea that I'm interested in her. Perhaps he may see it as a challenge, an attempt to steal her away. He's aware that we've spent a significant portion of the last few weeks together, and yet he seems like he's trying to patch things up between the two of them. Do you think coming clean with him may be a good idea, or is that going about it the wrong way?

We've all heard about these kinds of stories - when two guys love one girl, or vice versa. Too often these situations mean hurt feelings on the parts of multiple people, as whoever ends up together will be at the expense of that third party. I'm in one of those situations right now. I've fallen head-over-heels for someone, and I feel trapped because of the things I know, and the people involved. The biggest single issue: she is dating my room-mate.* Added to that, he spent Christmas break at home, while she invited me to spend time with her over the holidays here where I live. We were good friends prior to the break, but when we were together over those few weeks, she trusted me enough to talk about her relationship problems with him (things have been rocky). Plus, I felt something that I rarely feel myself, like I could trust her completely with things on my mind. For me, that is a rarity. We have so many of the same life goals, share common beliefs, want the same kinds of things in a marriage partner. She's one of the most selfless people I've ever met. She has, single-handledly, helped me to become a more open and confident person, and has encouraged me to make several large changes in my own life. I feel compelled to help her in all she does, to be kinder, to look outside myself more. (And she's quite attractive. Just sayin'.) But what do I do? First, I haven't yet said what I'm feeling to her. Second, the room-mate and I are good friends, I like and trust him as well. If they break up (seems somewhat likely at the moment), I don't want to be the cause of it, as that would really mess everything up. Any thoughts? Anyone been in a similar situation? *I say dating - up until now he's been so busy that they don't formally date much.

Loyal opposition a sin? Hmm, if memory serves, there have been times in our history when Apostles vehemently debated points of doctrine with each other, in addresses as public as General Conference, no less. Take, for example, the heated rhetoric over Evolution between Joseph F. Smith, and B.H. Roberts/James E. Talmage (seelthis link here for some references). Other cases of well-known disagreements between even prominent church leaders over important doctrines include the controversy over Blacks and the Priesthood, especially between Hugh B. Brown and Harold B. Lee (See Prince, Gregory, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, pgs 60-105). Further public disagreements between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young provide a rather dynamic look at 19th century LDS theology. That these men could (and often did) disagree about doctrine that we might consider fundamental and unchangeable did not necessarily brand dissenters as traitors to their religion. Absent the very voice of God dictating the exact resolution to the question they were debating, they certainly felt free to discuss it roundly. The spirit of free discussion feels, around here, constrained as of late. I understand the desire on the part of some to stamp out heresy immediately, as they see it, but perhaps this is heavy-handed approach is not correct. Such methods have several possible consequences: First, if the one dispensing righteous judgment, as he sees it, will (if he is right) not endear others to his cause. Sometimes denouncing sin requires all the boldness and directness of a decapitating blow or withering "Prove yourself right, I dare you" attacks. However, I have become convinced that such an approach is more likely to enlarge wounds than to heal them. What we need is more persuasion, by gentleness and love unfeigned, rather than a show of anger by one who is offended. Second, if the one dispensing "righteous" judgement is wrong, then he is the heretic himself, attempting to spread priestcrafts and his own doctrine above those of others. He uses this show of confidence to demonstrate his "rightness", which, even if he was in the right, is an ugly display of unrighteous dominion. So, someone disagrees - okay, fine. Use your powers of persuasion to convince them of your argument. Straw men attacks, attitudes of feigned (or unfeigned) offense, arrogance, and the power of unfettered condescension are not a Christlike way to win souls back for He whose name we (supposedly) bear. Remember: "For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: "That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." Have patience and compassion on those who do not understand, who wander, who seek healing and not a sword for their wounds. Remember also that, in the end, "They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine." (Isaiah 29:20-21, 24)

Looks like I'm going to earn a reputation of agent provocateur. In any case, my post did its job - it got you to re-clarify your position, with the side effect of drawing out some vitriolic retorts, none of which were necessary. ("Dingleberry"? How mature of you. I shall not reply in kind.) That's all I wanted as a response: I wanted you to be more clear about your statements. As you well know, guilt is a poison, and if we can both remove the poison while simultaneously ending the harmful behavior, then true healing can continue. So often, the (obviously disastrous) vices of sexual unrestraint become an inescapable trap when larger and larger amounts of guilt are infused into the system. Labeling habitual offenders "addicts", immediately and without consideration to their individual cases, can make the problem worse and not better. Addiction is a dangerous thing, and it is infinitely better to avoid the source than to tempt such a dragon. In no way do I condone those gateway behaviors that ensnare so many in the throes of chemical slavery. But common sense (and a good deal of observation) tells us that not everyone who starts down the path will be trapped in the addictive behavior, at least not immediately. And those who stop before they get "too deep," while in no way innocent, should not be infused with more shame by those of us standing on the side, trying to help them back up. The SIN->GUILT->MORE SIN TO DEADEN PAIN->MORE GUILT cycle is precisely the one we should try and avoid heaping on those who have strayed some. That cycle has to be broken somewhere, and a good place to start is to stop the overuse of the term "addiction". Tell these broken souls who are NOT ACTUALLY ADDICTED, that what they have is a BAD/SINFUL HABIT that can become addiction if not treated soon. Teach them to let go of their past mistakes. Have them start to believe, to have faith in the idea that they are not enslaved to this demon, that they can break free. Teach them that Christ is stronger than any pattern of sin in which they might be ensnared. If they believe that they can stop, then there is hope. Then we have the chance for real healing. If we are going to get there, then we must learn and understand the proper definition of "addiction" as a much more extreme and harmful version of "dangerous/sinful habit". TL;DR: For heaven's sake, don't jump to "addiction" so quickly. That is all Saintish and the others on this forum who agree with him want.

I will address two parts of this statement. Whoa, time out. Did you just imply that abuse victims feel guilt because they've been doing something wrong? Let me see if I get the logic straight. First, you acknowledge that abuse victims frequently, if not universally, feel guilty. ("Why do you think sexual abuse victims feel guilty"). Then you state that "[Guilt] comes from the Holy Ghost to let us know that what we're doing is wrong." You state that the feeling of guilt is frequently the result of sin, which I will accept as an assertion of truth. Thus, we will reduce this to a logical argument. A: If I sin, then I feel the Holy Ghost leave me. B: If I feel empty\guilty, it is because the Holy Ghost left me. C: Thus, I feel guilty when I sin. If SIN, then SPIRIT LEAVES. If GUILTY, then SPIRIT HAS LEFT. This implies (correctly), that SIN means GUILT. But lets take that a step further, and use that as a premise for our next argument. A: I feel guilty when I sin. B: When someone physically/emotionally/sexually abuses me, I feel guilty. What is the logical conclusion, the one that so many abuse victims wrestle with? C: When someone abuses me, I must be sinning. If SIN, then SPIRIT LEAVES. If ABUSED, then GUILT. Thus, BEING ABUSED is MY SIN. What is wrong with this? First of all, I hope you agree with me that the victims of abuse are innocent of that sin in the eyes of God and of the laws of man. The problem is when people automatically charge all feelings of guilt to some sort of sin. This is not ALWAYS true, although I acknowledge that in many cases, it is. ALL SIN leaves SOME GUILT. But the opposite is not true. Not ALL GUILT is the result of SOME SIN. Thus, people often feel guilty when they have no reason for it. Anyways, done with that statement. The second issue is one of clarification and a little bit of nitpicking. You wrote, " If you are tied to the flesh, you can't advance spiritually." "And the spirit and the body are the soul of man." - D&C 88:15 "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy." - D&C 93:33-34 We are not Gnostics. We do not despise and decry the flesh. We preach not being subservient to our bodies, our natural man, but total renunciation of anything good and lovely that our bodies can partake of is not what God intended for this life either. We will have our bodies eternally; we cannot assume that they will be bereft of senses, functioning merely as confining vessels for our "purer" spirits. As for weighing in on the topic, I withhold my opinion for the time being, except to say guilt is a poisonous thing, but that it doesn't necessarily imply anything. Thread-jack complete.

I cannot believe no one has mentioned this yet, especially given the LDS culture. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, PEOPLE, IT IS "RETURNED MISSIONARY!" Not the present-tense "RETURN" missionary. There is no such thing as a "RETURN" missionary. Almost like the broken clock you bought at the store that is now sitting in the RETURN pile. RETURN implies something that is either in the process of happening or is has yet to happen. RETURNED, as in Elder Doe has RETURNED from his mission. He is not in the act of returning, he HAS RETURNED. PAST TENSE, PEOPLE!!! PAST TENSE!!! *huff, huff, huff* Okay, got that rant out of my system.

This is the first sign that the interview did not go well. Think about all the times you have ever received personal revelation, times when you have been in church, times when you have spoken with leaders and the Spirit was present. Did you feel confusion? Did you feel darkness and conflict? Perhaps if you were actually sinning, but I very much doubt that the desire to pursue a noble desire to serve others and aid in their healing constitutes sin in and of itself. Strictly opinion. He can disagree all he wants, and even invoke his authority in the matter. Even though a Bishop has spiritual authority over his ward, that doesn't automatically confer veto authority over the lives of everyone in it. And recognizing that this is the first time he has spoken to you, he certainly hasn't fasted and prayed on your behalf in giving you this advice. In fact, since you mentioned that his reaction was immediately negative, this shows some level of personal bias on his part. Anecdotally, this statement may have merit - he is probably reflecting on what he has seen personally - men who aren't confident enough in themselves and their own abilities to even allow the idea of marrying someone so accomplished. However, arguing by anecdote is politics at best, the fallacy of an appeal to emotion. Then who is he to tell you that your answers to prayers that you have made (on your own, well before meeting him) are wrong? He has no authority to override what God tells you about your own life. For the most part, the revelatory authority of a leader is specific to the administration of their duties. He gets the word on how to run the ward as a unit, who to call, what to teach, the things people need to hear as a whole, and how to succor the wounds of sin on an individual level. Since you are not a sinner in need of ecclesiastical confession, then it is possible that he has no business giving you such direction. If he had taken more time, gone through the fast-and-pray process along with you instead of just telling you to do it (presumably until you agree with him), then perhaps his counsel would carry more weight. But for now, just take it as his personal advice. My advice would be to disregard this particular item of counsel outright. This is the warning flag. This description of his action does not fit the ideal of "gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned." If you have received your own witness that the medical profession is the correct one for you, and such witness has come with the Fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith - Gal. 5:22), then by all means, go to medical school. However, don't hold this against your bishop. A soft heart is a blessing - heaven knows we need more of them. (Side note and disclaimer - I have a predilection for doctors, good ones at least. I - a nearly 26-year old bachelor - would have no problems courting and marrying one. It doesn't hurt my ego. I might be more threatened by dating a computer expert, as that is my expertise, but docs - no way.) Oh, and a slight threadjack - please don't let this thread devolve into another one of these: Monty Python - Argument Clinic - it seems like that's all this board is anymore.

<delurk> Any anime fan worth his/her salt needs to see Haibane Renmei. It's only thirteen episodes, so you won't need a major marathon session to finish it. It completely blew my mind - no words can fully describe the experience - except that for me it was an almost spiritual event. However, the first few episodes seem a little slow, but they are just building the atmosphere. Watch it in subtitles for the best experience - I really can't stand the English voice for the main character. </delurk>

Ok - let's see that: And this: And this: A little bit extreme to start calling people whores, isn't it? I'm not sure her case fits the description of whoredom.

Ok, so Backroads asked this question in a more lighthearted manner, but I'd like to take the discussion in a more serious direction. This being mortality, at some point most of us will face at least one episode of serious illness ourselves or we will watch a dear family member suffer through something. However, on a more personal note, the following situation and questions: First, a disclaimer: I am an active 25-year-old male YSA (RM) with a college degree, and I'm about to start a graduate program in my discipline. I am not currently in an exclusive relationship, but I'm looking. I don't live at my parents' house and I have a pretty well-paying job. Last April, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. For those of you unfamiliar with this disorder, I refer you to Wikipedia's entry on the subject. In my case, the initial progress of the disease has been uncertain; there are many things I can still do, but most of my athletic ability is gone, I have some memory loss, and I am often hit with severe fatigue that occasionally makes doing anything nearly impossible. While I do not know how fast my disease will progress, based on the disease course so far I can estimate that at some point between three and thirty years from now, I WILL be confined to a wheelchair and be unable to work. Especially in light of the chastisement delivered by three general authorities at conference, I have been especially anxious about my situation concerning dating and relationships. Given my health, I cannot help but worry that knowledge of my illness will make me become a liability for an otherwise eager marriage-seeking woman. As such, I am reluctant to tell anyone the real reason I don't feel well most of the time, and yet, I know that as time passes within a relationship, I'm going to have to tell the truth eventually. So, my questions for this community: 1) If you are dating or engaged and your BF/GF suddenly tells you that they a serious, permanent illness, how would you react? If this has already happened to you, and you decided to get married despite the trial, please share your story. 1a) If you are the one with the illness, how did you bring up the topic? What was the other person's reaction, and how did you deal with it? 2) If you are married and then afterwards one of you is diagnosed, how did you handle the situation? If you are going through that right now, what helps you to cope? 3) How far along in a relationship should I disclose my illness? First date? Third date? At the "going steady"/DTR mark? 4) What happens if the word gets out into the ward? How should I handle damage control? Ok, lots of questions, but let's start there. ----Thanks in advance for replies. As you might have guessed, this has been on my mind for some time. EDIT - If the mods think that General Discussion or some other board is a better spot for this post, please feel free to move it.

Here is a resource you can send to your brother (and possibly your parents) while he is navigating his faith crises. I'd also recommend some - not all - of the stuff written by John Dehlin to him. HOW TO STAY IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS AFTER A MAJOR CHALLENGE TO YOUR FAITH Carefully read the disclaimers. The advice presented is not for the faithful or for those who may be doubting one or two principles. In time, he may not need the advice at all, having grown past it.