MrShorty

I see two issues here: 1) What is modesty? and 2) How much influence/control should one spouse have over the other? Based on what little information given here, I ask myself, is this modest? A picture would be worth a thousand words, but I can think of any number of outfits I see at church that would fit this description and that I would consider acceptably modest. Apparently, you disagree with me, and that's fine. My opinion doesn't (and shouldn't) mean anything to you. The problem appears to be that your wife also disagrees with you, and her opinion does and should matter to you. Which brings us to question 2), the much more difficult question to answer. I don't really know how to answer it. If I were in your shoes, I think I would: a) Carefully and respectfully and accurately state my position ("It makes me uncomfortable when you wear that shirt, because I am uncomfortable with what other men might think"). Do not try to convince her that you are right and she is wrong (I don't think this part is really a question of right and wrong). Just state your position so that she can understand it. b) Have the courage and trust that she will consider your position, weigh it against her position, and make a good decision. c) Do your best to reconcile yourself to accept her decision. If you are still uncomfortable and can't reconcile yourself to her position, go back to (a) and repeat. At some point you have to realize that you are both adults and cannot force each other to do anything. If she chooses to completely ignore your position on this matter, and you feel that you can't be happily married to her under those conditions, it might be time to visit with someone who can act as a kind of arbitrator/counselor/mediator to help you both come to a mutually agreeable compromise. I hope that helps. Good luck.

I don't remember exactly when it was, but it was a few months before Dr. Dobson left Focus on the Family. They were talking about child abuse, and Dr. Dobson said that, in his opinion, Parents should never allow a young man to babysit their children (boys or girls). He felt that, where boys are much more likely to sexually abuse children and it can be very difficult to determine who will do such things, it is safest for parents to draw a "line in the sand" against young men as babysitters. I remember when I heard it, I experienced several thoughts/feelings: 1) I was somewhat offended by the statement. As a young man, I picked up a few babysitting gigs for neighbors. Looking back, I wasn't a good babysitter (didn't enforce bedtimes very strictly and stuff like that), but I would never have hurt the kids I was entrusted with. If I were a young man today, Dr. Dobson would be essentially lumping me in with all the other child abusers, and I didn't appreciate that. 2) On the other hand, I am a father of four girls, and I know it is difficult to identify a child abuser from the outside. Child abuse occurs in and out of the church, and I would be devastated to think that I had allowed someone to harm my children in this way. As a parent, the policy seems prudent. 3) I thought about what message this kind of policy could have sent to my younger self, and maybe to our young men today. Maybe something like, young men aren't capable of child care, which maybe later becomes, men in general aren't capable of child care, and young men don't bother learning basic child care on the way to becoming fathers. Does it encourage them to be "disinterested" in child rearing at home? 4) Does it also send a message to women/young women that boys/men are untrustworthy/incapable of childcare? Do you create the possibility of a wife who won't leave the kids with dad because she sees all men as incapable of taking care of children. These last two points obviously kind of perpetuate the stereotypical gender roles around raising children. Is that good or bad? I'm reading Dr. Dobson's book Bringing up Girls where he repeats the same opinion. For myself, I can see the wisdom in the advice to not allow young men to babysit my children. But part of me is saddened to see young men lose out on those opportunities to learn and practice basic child care. I thought I'd present the question to this forum. Would you hire a young man to babysit your children? (To be clear, I'm thinking of young men other than your own son babysitting his siblings. Though it might be interesting if you think it makes a difference whether the young man is related to the children in his care or not).

IMO, this concept, taught so forcefully by Abinadi, is one of the important principles that ties the Old Testament and New Testament together. So many times it seems that we treat the Old Testament as "ancient history" and no longer relavent. Or we have the attitude that, because Christ's atonement "fulfilled" the law (without fully understanding what that means), we view the Old Testament as theologically interesting, but not relevant. When we accept this principle that Abinadi is teaching, we can then read the Old Testament and the law of Moses and realize that God was trying to teach the same principles to the Israelites as He is trying to teach us.

In one of the many "Do Mormons really believe man can become a god?" thread, Prisonchaplain made an interesting observation. He observed that Mormons have a different view of the "chasm" between human nature and the nature of God. In the Mormon worldview, we were created spiritually by God as his children before we were born. Being God's children in this way means that we carry within us a "divine nature" that can lead us to become like God, in much the same way that a child can become his earthly father's peer and equal, while always being his son. PC's comment made me wonder if this debate isn't just about what happens in the next life, but also about what happened in the previous life. So I thought I'd ask this group. What is the Christian and/or Catholic view of our premortal existence (if any)? Did we exist as "personalities" or "spirits" before we were born? Or did we only "exist" in God's mind because of his perfect foreknowledge? Or is there some other picture of what we were?

On a recent road trip, we listened to The Great Brain by John D. Fitzgerald. It was a popular book among my peers back in elementary school, and I thought it would be fun to remember this story. Synopsis: The story is set about 1896 in a small town in southwestern Utah. Told from the point of view of the youngest boy of three (John or J D), it tells of several experiences where his older brother Tom (or T D) uses his "Great Brain" to take advantage people and situations. John is about 8 years old. Tom is about 10 and very, what we might call, "entrepreneurial." From selling tickets to see a working toilet, to selling puppies that technically aren't his, to selling his services teaching boys to fight, Tom uses his "Great Brain" to find financial advantage everywhere he can. This tendency finds him frequently on the wrong side of swindling others instead of making an honest penny. Through the experiences described, Tom learns a little about doing things just because they are right and not always about making money. A few observations: For an LDS forum, the book is told from the point of view of a non-Mormon living a dominantly Mormon small town. Some of the differences between Mormons and non-Mormons are mentioned, but they don't take center stage (except maybe in the case of the death of Avy, the Jewish shopkeeper). The chapter where Tom teaches his friend to fight highlighted for me a theme I've seen discussed occasionally over the last few years how boys might be at a disadvantage in modern society because we try to prevent them from developing like boys (where fighting is a way to develop self-confidence and social standing, for example). It doesn't appear that the youngest boys name of J. D. Fitzgerals id an accident. The cover of the book claims that the book is based on experiences the author had with an older brother named Tom. It doesn't claim to be autobiographical, so it is difficult to know what really happened and how much is "poetic license." It is a pretty good book about life in rural Utah around the turn of the 20th century told from the perspective of a young boy.

Isn't "taking offense" somehow tied into our sense of right/wrong, just/unjust, fair/unfair? I don't think God wants us to have no sense of right and wrong. If someone puts up a billboard next to a school showing a naked woman selling beer to underaged kids, I think God would want us to be offended and to express our offense in a way to effect change. It seems to me that there's a certain social skill that needs to be developed to identify when it is appropriate to take offense, and when we should exercise tolerance.

Interesting statement. Another coincidence related to this thread: I came across a book on Google called The Superior Wife Syndrome by Carin Rubenstein. I have only been able to read small bits of the book (and some of it sounds like she has an axe to grind), but she claims that in about 2 of 3 marriages, the wife is the "de facto master of the marital domain." She is the one who, "develops expertise in nearly all aspects of modern life," manages and organizes the household, makes sure the kids get to where they need to be, and so on. The husband may bring home a paycheck and pitch in a few chores, but the household would fall apart without the wife/mom. So, this might be a possible reason why men are "called" to preside -- so they can develop skills they otherwise would not.

Statistics I've seen actually say that 2nd and 3rd marriages have a higher divorce rate than 1st marriages. While I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence like bcguy's that show a better 2nd marriage than 1st marriage, it seems against the statistical norm.For that matter, while marrying young is statistically significant in predicting divorce, there are certainly many anecdotes of people marrying young who don't divorce. I can see the logic behind this. I, too, wouldn't let some kid fresh out of high school make such a decision for me. At the same time, I wouldn't let some kid fresh out of college make such a defining decision for me either. I guess the idea then becomes, how do you tell when someone is mature enough to make that kind of decision?I haven't been through the statistics/studies in detail, but it seems like age at marriage is a statistically significant predictor of divorce, but I don't think it was the most significant predictor of divorce. On a completely unrelated train of thought. I remember being intrigued by Dr. John Gottman's claim that he could predict to a high accuracy (like 80% or something) whether a couple would divorce based on observing them. As a scientist, he would naturally focus less on unobservable "feelings" like selfishness and more on observable behaviors, but he identified several patterns that contribute to divorce. I'm not going to remember all he wrote about, but I remember things like turning away from each other when difficult times come. Or arguing with "harsh startups" (he identified "four horsemen" that are bad when arguing). Some reading this thread might find his books interesting.

Might be a good picture of what "preside" means. If this is the picture of preside that we want, why is it always assigned to the man? Why couldn't a couple get together and decide that the Mrs. is a better manager and/or teacher and let her wear the "preside" hat?For those who like to talk about egalitarian marriages (which sounds good), why do we even need someone to wear the "preside" hat? I don't really have any answers to contribute. FWIW, I thought it was an interesting coincidence that about the same time as Vort started this thread, Focus on the Family took on basically the same discussion on their daily radio program. If anyone is interested, it might be interesting to listen to the podcast of their discussion.

This is another book in John Gray's popular "Mars and Venus" series. In this book, he specifically deals with sexuality in long-term monogamous relationships. As with his other works, Dr. Gray takes a "bipolar" (for lack of a better word) and stereotypical view of how the sexes view sex. In general, men view sex one way and women view sex another way. To the extent that you find yourselves "in line" with his stereotypes, you may find this book a useful way of understanding sexual differences. On the other hand, if you don't match up with his stereotypes, you will likely find the book frustrating because you don't line up with his view. A couple of warnings. Dr. Gray can be a bit graphic (all written, no pictures, if that makes a difference) in this book, so you might want to avoid it if you lean towards the "prudish" (again lack of a better word). I also got the impression that Dr. Gray was a little promiscuous at some point in his life, so, if you judge the message based on the messenger, you may not be overly impressed. The best use of the book will probably be to facilitate dialog between a couple on what is often a touchy subject to broach.

As the Primary has been learning "Praise to the Man" this last month, I've been wondering where the music comes from. The Hymnbook attributes it to a Scottish Folk song. Anyone know the song?

I'm not quite sure if you are looking for reasons to engage in inter-faith dialogue or reasons not to. I'll put both: Reason to avoid "inter-faith dialogue:" Too often, it seems that "inter-faith dialogue" is synonymous with "let's see if your debate skills and logic will stand up to philosophicial rigor." I know enough of myself to know that, while I know enough to understand for myself how to defend a certain position, my debate/rhetorical skills are very weak and I will lose any "debate." I figure this scenario is what apologetics is for, and I'm not an apologist. So, when "inter-faith dialogue"="debate," I don't want to be deeply involved. Reason for "inter faith dialogue:" 1) To learn truth from whatever source. I believe the LDS church teaches the "fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ." But, for whatever reason, I find I learn pieces of the gospel better when taught by someone outside of the LDS church. I almost hate to admit it, but I feel like I was best taught about the centrality of Christ's atonement by an evangelical Christian. I'm not sure why, but Christ's atonement didn't become personal for me until that discussion. Sometimes we just need an "outsiders" view to help us see something clearly.

Like xforeverxmetalx, I'm not sure about the words "self-esteem" "self-confidence" etc. Whatever label you put on it, I tend to think of Ammon's response to Aaron in Alma 26 as the end goal of the concept: to boast/glory in God's strength, not our own strength. As with Aaron, sometimes I think it is hard to see the distinction sometimes, especially in someone else.

That's probably true. It seemed to me that this book intends for the reader to put himself/herself in Rick's place, and gain understanding for oneself. Not to point out Carol's/spouse's faults and what Carol/spouse should do to reconcile. I hope your husband managed to get something out of the book for himself. If all he got was a better picture of your faults, I think he missed the whole point of the book. This might demonstrate what I thought was both the strength and weakness of the book. The strength in the sense that it did a good job of making the atonement and it's place in our relationships understandable, in a "big picture" sense, while leaving out enough detail to be flexible enough for most to apply it to themselves.Without the details, though, it might be difficult to really see how it applies personally. In general, Abigail's gift to David caused David to see that he should not pursue vengeance against Nabal, but rather forgive him. In David and Nabal's case, forgiveness takes the form of a change of David's heart/attitude, and David wishes Nabal well and leaves. One has to be careful not to take any analogy too far, but, in marriage, a "wish him/her well and leave" result is generally considered a failure/lesser of two evils result. What we want to see in a troubled marriage is full blown reconciliation. I guess it comes down to this: the ideas in the book, such as forgiveness, can apply to a "marriage" whether the couple reconciles or not. It doesn't really show the path to reconciliation, but shows the importance of the atonement/relying on Christ whether the couple reconciles or not.

I'm not certain if this is the effect that you are talking about, but Dr. Gary Chapman in his Five Love Languages makes a big deal out of the "in love" infatuation that exists in the first few months/years of a relationship is short lived, then goes on to talk about (using the five love languages) how we should develop skills and attitudes that will create a "mature love" that will last.

I finished reading The Peacegiver by James Ferrell. I'm not sure what to call this book. Parable doesn't seem right, though it is definitely fiction. Basic plot: Rick is in a troubled, temple marriage to Carol (whom we really only see through Rick's eyes). In the midst of Rick's troubles, his deceased grandfather (who also had troubles in his marriage) visits Rick in a series of visions/dreams. In these visions, Rick visits situations from the scripture (David/Nabal/Abigail, Jonah, Christ in Gethsemanee) and is taught about the Atonement and how, as the book's subtitle says, Christ offers to heal our hearts and homes. For those who read this as pure fiction, you will be dissappointed at the end, because brother Ferrel doesn't resolve Rick and Carol's conflicts -- the conflict is left open. Overall impression: I identified with Rick in many ways, so there was an emotional connection while reading the book for me. Brother Ferrell doesn't go into the specifics of Rick and Carol's problems, which makes it relatively easy for each reader to put themselves into Rick's shoes. The book has a good message, and I thought the situations and discussions between Rick and his Grandfather did at good job at demonstrating how the atonement works in an overall sense. Because the book doesn't go into the specifics of the relationship, there aren't any real relationship skills or other specific skills taught.

What I was really after wasn't about the possibility that Platonic marriages can't exist and be happy -- I'm sure they can and do exist. You said that any good sexologist can explain how to make a happy and Platonic marriage, but I must be reading all the bad sexologists, because I haven't come across anyone describing them or how they came into being.

How about this one from this last February (though I'm sure he would be appalled and offended that I'm using his statement on an LDS message board to defend LDS doctrine, given the animosity that exists between many Protestants and Mormons.) In his February 3 (2011) radio broadcast for "Grace to You," John MacArthur, speaking about what will happen to us in heaven, said, "...there's one more component -- they would be made like the Son. As much as it is possible for redeemed humanity to be like incarnate deity, we will be like Jesus Christ." I expect the podcast is still available somewhere on the internet if you want put the statement in context. The "as much as possible" part leaves plenty of room for, "That isn't what I/he meant." I still found it very interesting.

Any references? I've spent years trying to be happy in a sexless/low-sex marriage, and can't seem to figure out how. It would be easy if she was just a roommate, or a sister, or just a friend, but she could be any of those things without being my wife. Almost everything I've found has said that sex is an important part of marriage, and this includes LDS counselors like Laura Brotherson and Gary Lundquist and Christian therapists like Willard Harley and Gary Chapman. John Gottman, though he doesn't make sex a specific issue, insists that it is how we deal with conflict (and sex is often a point of conflict) that makes/breaks the marriage. If you know of someone who has figured out how to be happy in a sexless marriage, I'm interested. An interesting question. Something Dr. Harley wrote resonated with me. In responding to a similar question, he talked about how past resentment plays a role. If my wife were in such an accident, as much as I would feel bad for her, there would be a lot of resentment left over from the years when she was physically able, but unwilling/uninterested in developing/improving our sexual relationship. It is more the lack of desire/willingness/interest in our sexual relationship that creates the resentment. As shdwlkr said, there's more to sexuality than intercourse, and a couple should still be able to find ways to be sexual, even if physical injuries limit the ways sexuality can be expressed.

A few thoughts and responses: Are we trying to read too much into this? Would you say that failure to keep a spotless house makes a failure of the home overall? I can see where someone who keeps a spotless house, but fails to teach and nurture their children has "failed" as a parent. On the other hand, someone who manages to teach and nurture their children to be healthy, productive adults, while failing to maintain a spotless home, has done ok, in my book. I guess in my mind there are some aspects of "home" that are more important than others, and failure in the less important aspects does not make a total failure of the home. But how do we decide which are the eternal responsibilities from which we will never be released and which are temporal and subject to release? For example, as I approach the tender age of 40, I would not even begin to presume that my father is still responsible in any way to provide clothing, food, and shelter for me. Even if some challenge comes along that leaves me destitute, I would not expect him to assume that responsibility -- I would retain that responsibility to the extent that I am able. I would certainly be grateful for any assistance he could render under those circumstances. Even in terms of teaching, his role as teacher is different than it was when I was younger. He will always be my father, but at this point, I am pretty much responsible for myself, and I'm not sure I can see what responsibilities he still carries and will carry into the eternities. Interesting question. This feels to me like too much of a division of responsibility. At some point as husband and wife, we are commanded to become one -- if it's not too cliche, a team. In my mind, this means I try to do everything I can to make the home a success, and spend less time worrying about which duties are "his" duties and which duties are "her" duties. I have tried to live my marriage trying to help my wife in any way I can to help her fulfill "her" duties, because "her" duties are also "my" duties. Some tasks/duties she fulfills because she is better at that task than I am, or because she thinks it's more important than I do, or because she is less averse to it, etc. I don't want her to feel alone in any of her responsibilities. As a disinterested third party observinig from the outside, I would say yes, this is true. As a husband, I find it difficult to judge when my wife is "taking advantage" of my generosities in helping with her responsibilities, and when her requests are genuine. I believe it is possible to sacrifice too much and become a "martyr" in a marriage, which is damaging/unhealthy. I think both spouses need to feel like they are contributing to the marriage/home, and that they are being supported in their contributions. As a husband, I find this is sometimes difficult for me to judge because I am too close to the situation or something like that. An opinion from a disinterested third party familiar with the situation might help. There's no question that, "to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven." I don't think I'm quite as enthusiastic about traditional gender roles as some. I would be very careful with the attitude that "homemaking is primary." If it really is her "primary responsibility," then maybe I need to butt out and let her fulfill her responsibility in the way she and the Lord decide best fits rather than trying to micromanage her responsibilities. Or maybe I need to be more concerned with how I can help her fulfill her primary responsibility than worrying about whether she's doing it right or not. How do you judge which talents we should wait for a calling to develop, and how do you judge when developing a talent will you better able to serve in future callings. For example, I play the piano in primary and accompany the choir. There's no way I would be successful in either of these callings (if they would have ever been extended) if I had not developed those musical talents years ago. A person who learns how to delegate may be a better RS president (or bishop) out of the gate rather than have to learn how to delegate "on the job." IMO, if my wife claims that she feels she should be doing something, and I feel differently, then we need to either figure out a compromise position, or I should try to figure out how I can support her, rather than trying to claim that my "revelation" is superior to hers based solely on gender roles, even when those gender roles seem supported by revelation. I don't believe that these "revealed gender roles" are intended to be used to force a "square peg" wife into a "round hole" wife role. There's no question in my mind that anyone can get their priorities out of order. Exactly how to judge when our priorities is out of order is more challenging. Within the context of a bunch of scriptures/GA quotes, it is easy to say that home and family should be our #2 priority (#1 being God). Without really knowing your wife, it is hard for me to say that she has put something else ahead of home and family. It's also hard for me to know if you are putting gender roles/homemaking in front of home and family.

Recently read through Gideon's story (Judges 6). It is interesting to me that Gideon "got away" with asking for the signs that he did. A few things about Gideon that maybe make it ok? Most of those who are condemned for seeking signs are seeking for proof of God's existence. In Gideon's case, he had no doubt that God existed and could perform marvelous works in his life. However, Gideon was being asked (and would later be asked) to lead the Israelites in battle (in one case with no more than 300 men). He needed something more than "I think God might have called me to lead this people" in order to accomplish what he was called to do. If God called me to do something difficult, I would want some kind of experience that would confirm to my heart and mind that I really was called of God.

One of my favorite stories from the OT is where the Lord sends serpents to to bite the Israelites, then Moses makes the brass serpent, and whoever looks on Moses's serpent is healed (Numbers 21:6-9). In vs. 7, the Israelites ask that the serpents be taken away. I guess it struck me that, rather than removing the serpents as requested, the Lord provided an alternate "salvation." The serpents remain, but the Israelites need not be killed, by looking to God for deliverance. I guess in someways, life is like that. Rather than removing/eliminating sources of sin or difficulty in our lives, God provides a way to overcome the trials and temptations that we face. As described so well by Alma (Alma 33), the serpent created by Moses is symbolic of Jesus.

I saw this book recommended by a local therapist on a blog. I was just wondering if anyone here has read it and could comment on whether or not it was useful. I've been able to kind of preview the text in google books, and it looks like it might be useful.

"Bart, you do know what happens when you mix acids and bases, right?"

There are some interesting commentaries in there. I didn't read everything, but just looking at some of the "canonical" writings that are in our current Bible: They claim that 2 Peter is the "newest" of eveything in the Bible, and clearly couldn't have been written by Peter. Their discussion of this book even seemed to have the tone of "should it even have been canonized?" The authorship of many books seems to be in question. It would appear that some of Paul's writings are the oldest we have. Of the gospels, Mark is the oldest written. Matthew seems to borrow from Mark, suggesting that the four gospels aren't necessarily independent accounts. On the other hand, considering that we are trying to go back 2000 years to recreate what happened, it is remarkable that we have anything at all. My comments are probably only worth $0.02, but there they are.