carlimac

No it is not. The OP said her kids have chores, and that's how it should be. It is not the kids responsibility to look after the house. When her kids grow up and have their own house then it will be their responsibility.
 
As for her husband's comparison between her PMS and his previous infidelity, there is no comparison. nraikmom, let your husband know that you do not appreciate that comparison, it is hurtful and insensitive.
 
As for your PMS. Check out this link.
 
http://www.webmd.com/women/pms/features/diet-and-pms
 
M.

I'm talking to everyone like they're my enemy. I have PMS!  :)

Didn't you read her post where she said she DID ask him what he meant by issues and he referred to "those" five years.  She knew exactly what he meant.   

OK - if that's what you're after - 
Yes, I experience PMS but luckily for me (and hubby) not for an entire week.  I won't go into what I deal with physically but all I have to do his let my husband know it's the "time of the month" and he knows to be a bit more understanding, etc.  He knows that until he goes a day every month feeling like he's been punched in the gut or stabbed in the back, he doesn't have room to complain about it.
Also, as mentioned previously - magnesium may be helpful.

Certainly infidelity is not comprable in magnitude even to extreme PMS symptoms.  From what you said about him clarifying it is he is looking at the duration of the issue as a bigger factor in measuring it than the magnitude of the offense and doesn't have much appreciation for the emotional scars infidelity can leave on others.
 
He may not even really mean it and just be trying to protect his ego when he knows he is in the wrong.  Either way you slice it though, it is not acceptable behavior and you guys need to work some things out still.

I don't think everyone that has responded has read the original post.
 
I was originally asking my question, because my hubby has brought up HIS past. He is comparing it to issues I have now, and saying that we're basically even. The hurt I felt was in him actually thinking that his infidelity was comparable to PMS that I suffer monthly. I DON'T suffer from extreme PMS, and this is where I got confused with his comparison. My thoughts were similar to Eowyn's, in that I feel that every woman suffers from PMS to some degree, but I know that not every husband cheats on his wife. I don't bring up his past--to him, and maybe I shouldn't have brought it up here. I only thought it was ok, because he was the one who originally brought it up. 
 
I guess I just wanted some ladies on the board to empathize with, and relate to, as I know that I am not alone in PMS. Right? 

I've been thinking about this, too. I think the reason the sealing rooms are smaller doesn't have anything to do with reverence but more because when the temple was built, most people who were sealed there were already married. So it wasn't like a one time deal of marriage and sealing all in one. They didn't need the space because the focus was all on simply the sealing ordinance and wasn't the same celebration as a wedding was. It was meant to be a more private, personal ordinance. But I still don't see why, in 2015 when this is the only actual "moment" the couple gets of saying "I Do" (in essence) and becoming man and wife, that more people aren't allowed to witness it if they are worthy and have a recommend. I still don't see the point of limiting the numbers. 
 
I also disagree about the reverence thing.I don't believe having a voice that carries, or chuckling together with a family member equates being unworthy to be there.  I don't know how they could possibly keep people from greeting each other with joy that turns to exuberance for some in the waiting room. It does get a little loud sometimes, but no louder than all the chatter before and after Sacrament meeting.  I don't think that detracts from the spirit at all. I just see that waiting room as a reunion type place. It's not where any sacred ordinance is being performed.  Some people don't feel the same need to be as quiet there.  In contrast, when the family is asked to go to the sealing room, no matter how many people are there it is almost without question nearly silent as people walk the halls. Same while sitting in the sealing room till the bride and groom come in, and then the "talk" from the sealer commences. NO conversation at all! That's where it really matters.
 
 I've never been told or heard that family who are deceased are in the waiting room of the temple in spirit. It's always only in the rooms where ordinances are being performed. 

You said you've gone through therapy but maybe you haven't received the help that you need? Might be worth talking to someone again about it, and expressing what your concerns are, then tackling the issue with a new approach?
 
I will agree that intimacy should not be used as punishment or a bargaining chip, however, it is perfectly valid to postpone intercourse when menstruating, feeling unwell, or your body is exhausted. Now, if you're in the middle of fighting and then you go to bed and your husband expects you to make love to him, that's just awkward in my opinion, especially if it's purely a physical thing he's wanting and not wanting to resolve the root of the fight.

You mentioned that you're a stay at home MOM so no, it's not "your job to keep the house neat and tidy" - it's the kids! How else are they going to learn and be ready to be on their own and be good companions/roommates/spouses?
 
With that said, it sounds like you don't ask him to help out enough during non-pms times.  If he were helping more, he wouldn't complain about it during that time of the month.  As far as 'no intimacy' playing a part - he should be able to handle a week (didn't he have to handle more than that after having the kids - assuming they weren't adopted?).  
 
So basically, I'd turn this into 2 weeks than 3 etc till he got a clue.  Honestly, you're doing him no favors by doing too much. I know a couple who is currently apart (valid reasons) and the husband has no clue how to clean up after himself, etc. and the wife doesn't want to go visit because she doesn't want to have to play 'maid'...
 
Also, did your husband not grow up with a mom or sisters?  If so, this shouldn't be a new concept for him.  Maybe he needs a reminder.
 
I'd be telling him that you need support not attitude and give him a glimpse that it could (and might) be worse.

That's a loophole big enough for a Star Destroyer.

I feel it's legitimate. I know some people who are too (what's the word??) to consider anything from Deseret Book, especially fiction to be worth reading.   One of my Relief Society presidents was that way.  Oh well. Her loss. 
 
Are you talking about Deseret Book as a store or as a publisher?   I can get some LDS books cheaper at Seagull Book and Amazon. But for the most part, with, their Platinum program, I have gotten so many free books that overall it's been worth it to shop at DB. 
 
LIke Pam, I read at least 20 times more books not from Deseret Book.
 
Curious. Why do you ask? 

I agree with Carlimac on this one.  I used to think as most posting on this thread - that marriage should be more intimate.  One of my daughters changed that for me when she was married.  It was not just the sealing she wanted everyone at the endowment session to take place prior.  Understanding that what takes place at the temples has eternal symbolism my daughter and her husband invited everyone - family, including grandparents, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cozens and also friends and others meaningful to them.  The invited group filled an entire session.
 
Entering the Celestial room that filled with family and friends was an experience I will never forget.  There were my parents,brothers and sisters along with our children and nephews and nieces and friends - as well as the same from the grooms family.  There was a lot of pressure on certain individual to not be the only not temple worthy ones - and that pressure made differences in lives.  It was spiritual and a miracle.
 
I realize that the temple is not to become a production and lose focus on the sacredness of a marriage.  I realize that such things can happen as many want to make some kind of statement that is not in line with the spirit of what is taking place at the temples.  But all that should not distract from those committed to and dedicated to this great time of restoration and work being done - including the work being done in the temples.  I do agree that every effort should be done to accommodate those worthy to be there that ought to be there being able to be there.

Except that a civil marriage between a man and a woman does not, by its very existence, forestall the possibility of a temple wedding down the road.
 
A straight, non-temple wedding between mature, committed individuals is a step in the right direction--just not as far as we'd like them to go.  By contrast, a gay wedding is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

I very much agree with bytor2112 on this. By the world's standards I am a textbook homophobe (and a textbook male chauvinist as well). This doesn't bother me much. I care what I am by the Lord's standards of love, not the world's.
 
I also believe that in many ways we could seriously use a 50 year or more step backwards. The idea that anything newer is better is garbage. There are things, of course, that were worse 50 years ago. There other things that are, without question, significantly worse now. The world's concept of morality and sex is one of those things.
 
Our standards of truth and right should never change, not matter how "progressive" the world becomes.
 
Most everything about this new-found, worldly, so-called understanding of homosexuality is a lie.

Assuming that I hate gay people is a wrong assumption and my two sons do not have any hatred toward homosexuals or anyone else for that matter and neither do I. 
 
I think that homosexuality is certainly a sickness of the mind and of the spirit....you are free to disagree, many do, That said, I was referring specifically to people like Bruce Jenner who is apparently attempting to become a woman. Call me crazy, but that sounds like mental illness to me. 

Granted, from a legal standpoint; but I'm still interested in the moral/ecclesiastical perspective.
 
Your aged, widowed grandfather wants you to join him at a family dinner in honor of the call girl he's been seeing regularly.  He maintains that she has made him supremely happy and that it's very important to him that the extended family share in his happiness. 
 
Do you go?  If so, can you at least understand and sympathize with the positions of those of your cousins who elect to avoid the event?

Isn't this an argument to approve (whether legally, ecclesiastically, or simply morally) the hiring of prostitutes by straight men who are physically or emotionally incapable of marrying?  After all, it alleviates the "misery" of celibacy.  (I represented a prostitute about a year ago who wanted me to make that very argument to the judge--that she was actually performing a public service for the benefit of lonely old men.  It wouldn't have ended well.)
 
 
Really, Omegaseamaster75?  You're going down that route?
 
Really?

If it's not healthy, then why do you jump all over Bytor for supposedly thinking it's an illness?  The lack of health, by definition, is illness.  An illness is not less of an illness just because it is congenital--or even, in some cases, incurable. 
 
Now, in this case, same-sex attraction may no longer be a clinically defined mental illness (it used to be); but what Bytor said is--by your own definition--true, even if it is also politically incorrect.
 
 
If an affinity for gay sex (aka "homosexuality") is not an illness, then logic suggests that you don't think there's anything wrong with gay sex itself.
 
But it sounds like you agree that an affinity for gay sex is an illness; so--never mind.
 
 
I agree with you there; but acting on that attraction is clearly not part of that plan and as far as I can see, it's the act that's under discussion.

I find homosexuality revolting. Am I a homophobe....I guess. But, I don't wish them any ill will or harm and would never consider being rude or hateful to them.Though if looks could kill, I shot a lesbian couple a look that would have many years ago when they were acting out and I was with my then very young sons. They stopped....
 
We live in a world ripe with iniquity and have become so cowardly that wehave to pretend that same sex marriage is a okay or that homosexual behavior isn't unnatural and all the other classifications that have united with them are somehow something other than mental illness. See Bruce Jenner....

I'm unsurprised at your shock, seeing as how being "shocked" at "homophobia" has been all the rage for the past decade. But you are badly mischaracterizing the arguments and completely glossing over the underlying points of those who have expressed opinions contrary to your own. Before you call names and shout people down, you should at least understand their point.

I feel it's legitimate. I know some people who are too (what's the word??) to consider anything from Deseret Book, especially fiction to be worth reading.   One of my Relief Society presidents was that way.  Oh well. Her loss. 
 
Are you talking about Deseret Book as a store or as a publisher?   I can get some LDS books cheaper at Seagull Book and Amazon. But for the most part, with, their Platinum program, I have gotten so many free books that overall it's been worth it to shop at DB. 
 
LIke Pam, I read at least 20 times more books not from Deseret Book.
 
Curious. Why do you ask? 

I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in for what it's worth.  I fully understand and support the Church's position in its statement regarding homosexuals and job and housing discrimination.  However, the statement was not an acceptance of homosexuality or homosexual marriage.  I do believe that attending a homosexual wedding is an implied statement (intentional or not) of support for something that is an abomination in the sight of God.  I realize that if it is a homosexual relative getting married, you feel you are supporting the relative, but, again, it still is an implied statement of support for homosexual marriage in general.
 
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not necessarily because both cities were entirely homosexual; they were not.  It was that homosexuality, along with other gross sexual sins were completely accepted by everyone except for one family.  It was accepted as normal  by everyone.  Remember that sexual sin is the absolute worst thing you can do and still not go to outer darkness.  It is the grossest of sin next to the shedding of innocent blood and denying the Holy Spirit.  Homosexual sex is just as gross a sin as is heterosexual pre or extra marital sex.  Each is just as bad as the other.  I am against a man and woman having an unmarried sexual relationship just as much as I am against homosexuality.  I condemn both just as strongly. (I keep repeating myself, but I can't help it)
 
The Supreme Court has taken up the issue of homosexual marriage.  I have no doubt that it will be upheld in a 5-4 decision making it the law of the land.  As it is, a near supermajority (60%) of Americans believe that homosexuality should be accepted.  When SCOTUS approves it in June, watch out, because I believe it will be the straw that broke the camel's back.  God won't be happy; not just because of the legalizing of homosexual marriage, but because sexual sin (homo and hetero) is so commonly accepted as normal, just as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.
 

Jesus did indeed eat with publicans, sinners, and prostitutes. I'm guessing that Jesus never encouraged the publicans to ruin widows, congratulated the sinners on their sins, or sat in the prostitutes' bedrooms.
 
I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, and I may not know until and unless I'm confronted by the situation. But apples-to-Buicks comparisons don't help.

I'm fairly certain that no one has said this, or even implied it.
 
My concern, for example, in attending or not attending such an event is less about my own state as an apostate or not (though I expect there is a concern for some along the lines of "We first endure, then pity, then embrace"), and more about what I stand for, who I represent, which way I face, and what message I am sending to others, including my loved ones.
 
 
I'll happily eat lunch with a gay friend or associate any time. Going to their wedding is, simply, a different matter.

The child, relative, friend, etc., who responds to a moral stand by calling another hateful and intolerant is engaging in manipulative bullying, plain and simple.