Backroads

Here is a link to an article that describes how to log into a site to find who you are related to.
 
Article titled:  Those clever Mormons http://www.nauvootimes.com/cgi-bin/nauvoo_column.pl?number=102356&author=kathryn-h-kidd#.VBd9c_ldVqh
 
 
I'm the 14th cousin to President Hinckley--that really surprised me.  Dravin is the one that comes from pioneer stock, not me.  I was hoping to be related to Elder Holland, so I could call him up..."Hey, cuz!  Can I get some great tix to General Conference??"  
 
I also have many great grandfathers that were kings of various countries--England, Scotland, Hungary, etc.
 
It's fun to dink around on this site.  Who are you related to that delights, scares, or surprises you?

This is very interesting to me; I can see how a sense of belonging and fitting in can be very unnerving.  I can see on physicality but personality . . . . each person born has their own unique personality and it's not necessarily biological.  Each one of my kids is completely different than the other personality wise and they are completely different than my wife and I.
 
I also wonder if you might be focusing on the wrong aspect.  This family brought you into their home, they wanted another child so badly that they took you in and gave you everything they could.  They gave you the gospel, they gave you a secure home, they gave you love, when your biological parents could not.
 
Unfortunately, my wife and I will never have more biological children . . . it just isn't in the cards.  If the time comes, we would be open to adopting.  If that happened; I would be so incredibly heartbroken to know that one of my children later in life does not feel like they are apart of my family.  That is the whole point of adopting to bring another child in . . .so what if the blood is different; if I adopted to me it would feel the same as my own flesh and blood rejecting me.
 
If you have children, the above will make sense, if you don't have children then it won't.  I would say, to not project feelings of being unloved and unwanted from your biological parents onto your adopted parents and not to reflect those feelings onto your siblings.  Because I can tell you from a parental perspective, they brought you in, gave you home, sacrificed of themselves and will love you like only a biological parent can . . . .to throw that away, or to want to throw that away is I believe to focus on the wrong aspects.
 
Maybe it would be good to seek out your biological parents, to find them and talk to them to help give you closure.

I wonder if he is still clinging to his beliefs, then, or if he just is using the label.

I agree.  I also think, though, that the OP is entitled to meet his wife's new beau, considering that she's apparently engaged and will have access to the children.  He may not approve of the fiance, but he deserves to be allowed to meet him.

I like Dr. Laura's rule: no dating while you're legally married, especially if kids are in the picture.  But you can't control other people.
 
I would approach your wife and tell her that she's setting a bad example for the children by failing to uphold and honor marriage.  If she shrugs you off, I would talk to her parents and tell them the same thing in a respectful, constructive way.  Ask them to help get the divorce accomplished swiftly, if necessary.
 
If they all blow you off, I would then tell your kids that their mother is doing something you think is wrong, but that you'll try to stay on the best terms possible with her for the kids' sake.  Get through the divorce and then start rebuilding your life and let the past go.  Limit your relationship to your former wife and her new husband to only things that are connected to the kids' welfare.
 
I agree with FunkyTown's advice about bad-mouthing.  My father was a terrible alcoholic and did many awful things to my mother.  He pawned her jewelry to get cash for beer.  He abandoned her and me and never sent a dime of alimony or child support, and this was back in the days when employers could legally pay women less then men for the same job.  For my entire childhood, my mother never said a bad word about my father and simply let his acts speak for themselves.  Because of her wisdom and refusal to start warfare against my father and his side of the family, I had a fairly decent relationship with all the relatives on both sides of my family... at least with the ones who didn't commit suicide or die of alcoholism, sadly. 
 
The thought of a blended family with stepchildren and stepparents may scare you, but my mom later married a nice man who I grew to love more than I did my biological father.  (My stepbrothers not so much, but they were usually in jail so I didn't see them a lot.)
 
Wishing you strength for the journey... and never defocus from the good things in your life, like your kids.  May Heavenly Father bless you and your families, too. 

It's clear your wife has moved on. I would do the same. Trust that she wouldn't endanger your children regardless of your personal feelings for one another.
 
Get the divorce done as cleanly as possible. Wish your wife well. Apologize to your kids and make sure your children understand it was both your failings that led to the divorce. Bad-mouthing does not work and will not make your children feel good.

Banana Split
 

What amazed me was my 5 year old watched a minecraft youtube video then made a McDonalds in creative mode. It was pretty good, had a spot for the cashier, a spot for the kitchen, places to sit and tables there. Had a huge M outside. I was impressed! (it's my kid though, it's my job to be impressed )

Because as a state actor, a public university should not be discriminating against particular groups--and in particular, limiting their right to assemble on public property--based on, among other things, religion or ideology. 
 
 
The key distinction here is that the Church is not currently viewed as a subsidiary of the state, and is therefore allowed to govern itself and promote its agenda more or less independently of outside interference. 
 
Although I acknowledge that the intellectual foundations are being laid (by, inter alia, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and President Obama) for the view that due to their use of state-funded infrastructure and their existence in a majoritarian-run society, all institutions, organizations, structures, and individuals are in fact property of the collective (read:  the state).  We're not there yet--but how will your noble statements about the Church's right to govern its own affairs evolve once it has become the mainstream Democrat position that church and state aren't really separable?
 
 
Not quite true, as far as I know.  They can't meet on campus.  Not formally, anyways--I suppose they could get together over lunch or meet covertly in a library study room, but they have no guarantee against their meetings being disrupted because they cannot reserve a space for their exclusive use.  And it seems that neither they (as a club), or their members (acting in their capacities as individuals) can use conventional campus communications methods to advertise their activities or disseminate their message.
 
If I'm misinformed, please feel free to correct me.  But the way I see it is that a state entity is giving using its power and prerogatives to limit the activities of groups that embrace and live a particular message that the state doesn't like.  There's no way around this, and I repeat my earlier point:  If gay rights or feminist or racial minority groups felt that this nondiscrimination policy, in conjunction with demographic and political trends, would undermine their club's purposes--this policy would never have seen the light of day.

Many individuals here seem to be taking the stance that an organization should be free to determine its own rules and then simultaneously denying that right to the larger organization.
If a student organization is allowed to set its own rules governing its operation, then why is not the parent organization permitted to do the same?
The problem here is that these are not independent student organizations but rather organizations that are sponsored by and affiliated with the attendant university and as such different laws apply to universities (particularly public ones) than apply to religious organizations.
Should a bishop be allowed to ordain women if the majority of his congregants support that? No! Why? Because the affiliated with a larger church organization that sets other guidelines. That bishop and ward membership would be free to start their own church and set whatever rules they want, but they are not free to call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor to continue to use the ward building. The church is and probably would excommunicate them for not "following the rules." Rightly so.
It is the same thing here. No one is saying that these groups may not form, nor that these groups may meet, nor establish whatever rules that they see fit for membership or leadership. What is being said is that the parent organization (in this case the university) gets a say in what those rules are. If you don't agree then you cannot be a UNIVERSITY Club.

I'm going to say this, and let folks either say, "Oh, yeah...common sense," or, "What ya smoking, PC?"
 
Religious groups, by their nature, are lead by people of that religion.  To call this historic reality bigotry, and rescind the kind of club status that goes to all other groups, is a back-door attack on religion.  The beauty--they get to call us the bigots!  And...some of us even agree.  Yikes!

That seems rather like the gay marriage opponents who say "look, we aren't discriminating.  Straight men can't marry other men, either".
 
It is possible for a law to be facially neutral but still calculated to have a disproportionate impact on a particular religious, ethnic, or political minority--poll taxes and grandfather clauses being two of the most notorious examples. 
 
As to the situation at hand:  I daresay that if anyone seriously thought that it were politically and demographically possible that California's new law might force black members of a black students club to accept a Klansman as the club's leader, or a LGBQT-alliance club to install a duly elected leader who was also a practicing member of the Westboro Baptist Church--that law would never have seen the light of day.

HEY!  You watch your mouth, bud; I'm married! 
 
 
With all due respect, your explanation of different "statuses" seems wholly arbitrary and based, in essence, on the whims of the people running the institutions.  There are plenty of grounds on which one could argue that the students have different "statuses" (for example, one individual has a particular interest and agenda, which he shares with a particular group.  The other seeks to undermine that same interest or agenda, but nevertheless wants to be allowed into the group).  And indeed, administrators are (for now, at least) happy to make "distinctions" about who can use the women's locker room. They make a point of putting specialists in the same academic disciplines, in the same structures.  They're happy to make distinctions about why a particular piece of ground is dedicated to players of football and not players of soccer or swimmers--and, moreover, go so far as to exclude non-athletes from that piece of ground entirely.
 
It's just that most university administrators don't care to make a distinction based on people who self-select for religious (rather than gender, professional, academic, or athletic) reasons, because most of 'em get their kicks out of seeing those uppity religious nuts get their comeuppance.  "Might makes right", and all of that.
 
Let's be clear:  Universities can, and do, condone discrimination.  Otherwise they would have to stop penalizing males for rape.  Because what right does a young woman have to discriminate against a particular male who wants to have sex with her, really?
 
The problem isn't discrimination.  The problem is discrimination against Administration's pet groups.
 
 
You mean, besides the fact that students are banned from peaceably assembling on a public university campus because of a particular political or religious viewpoint?   
 
   
 
 
Over the past two decades, the slippery-slopists have had an uncanny propensity for being right.  Remember how repealing sodomy-bans wasn't going to lead to domestic partnerships?  And domestic partnerships weren't going to lead to strikedowns of DOMA.  And the strikedown of DOMA wasn't going to lead to judicially-enforced gay marriage.  And judicially-enforced gay marriage wasn't going to lead to compelling individuals to participate in those gay wedding ceremonies.
 
 
An exception that proves the rule.  The general efficacy of the Church's procedures to keep the public out of temples, is what makes a few isolated individuals go to such lengths to get into them. 
 
 
No, but the make it harder.  And the "you can't completely eradicate the problem, so you shouldn't try to address it at all and you should cede your constitutional rights in the process" is a pretty tenuous argument to make, whether the "problem" is sexual assault, drug use, poverty, or any other social ill.

So, what?  The U of U has faculty meetings on campus all the time.  But I can't go to those meetings--even though my tax dollars go to the State of Utah, and thus the University--because I am not a member of the U of U faculty. 
 
If I am a student and wish to use U of U facilities to facilitate the meetings of a group that I want to form, I am free to do so.  But I don't think I should have a right to use state ownership as a bludgeon to force my way into a group people who don't feel my input is relevant, and compel them to tolerate my antics anyways.
 
 
What if Jim isn't an atheist, he's a Fundamentalist Christian; and the university is in Louisiana?  And after the first meeting (where twenty or thirty actual Muslims attend) Jim goes to his next off-campus meeting of the Ku Klux Klan and says "Hey!  There's Muslims at that thar campus!  Let's git 'em outta there!"  And he rounds up about fifty of his Klan buddies and they start going to the Muslim group meetings.  They pay dues and demand to be admitted.  They won't leave.  They insist on the club's having activities like a "Bacon Night" and book discussions on The Satanic Verses and other texts that actual Muslims find reprehensible.
 
What then?  The real Muslims can go start a different club, I suppose--but the Klan-infested organization retains the rights to the name "Muslim", and they can do the same thing to the new club that they did to the old.

..or consider it this way.  I would like to bring my non-member neighbor in to see the celestial room.  I pay tithing after all so I should be permitted to do this, correct? 
 
No?  Why not?  Because the building is owned by the church.  They are permitted to set the rules governing who is admitted or not and under what conditions. 
 
The university or college is permitted the same right.  They own the buildings and the power to recognize registered student organizations or not.  That doesn't mean the students can't organize, and it doesn't mean they can't meet.  It just means they can't reserve a room at the university or call themselves a university group if they aren't willing to abide by the rules the governing organization has set, which rules are not based on a whim, but in compliance with applicable law. 

Let's try this from a slightly different standpoint though completely hypothetical. 
 
Let's assume for a moment that a muslim group forms on a local campus.  Their stated goal is to study the Koran to better understand the words of Allah. 
 
Jim Jones from backwoods middle of nowhere is attending the university.  He is an atheist.  In his required math 101 class he meets Ibrahim, a member of our muslim group.   Ibrahim invites Jim to their next meeting.   Jim decides to attend why not, he is friends with Ibrahim and is curious about his religion and culture. 
 
A.  He shows up at the meeting and is told he may not join because he is not Muslim.  Even though the group is meeting in a building funded by Jim's tuition dollars and his parents taxes. 
 
B.  He shows up and is welcomed to join the group. 
 
We go with scenario B.  Jim attends the meeting and at the end decides to join the group.  He is still an athiest and there is a lot of suspicion among some members of the group. 
 
Jim attends meetings and activities regularly.  He makes a number of friends.  Though he still doesn't believe in Allah or Islam he still finds value in his participation.  3 years later Jim is a senior.  Some of his closest friends on campus are members of the group.  He decides to run through the election process for treasurer.  That is when is is told:
 
A.  Sorry, no one can have a leadership position in this student group unless they are Islamic and appointed by the local Imam. 
 
B.  Please feel free to run.  The members of the group will vote you in or out as they deem fit. 
 
Why are we so afraid of second option in both of these instances?  All the school is saying is that if you want to use our facilities then you have to provide equal access to all students.  The group is still free to not vote for the atheist in the second instance.  If you want to discriminate against LEGALLY PROTECTED CLASSES then we cannot be a party to that discrimination.  You will need to do so on your own time, your own location, and at your own expense.  
 
If this muslim student group meets at the local mosque they are free to not allow anyone in their doors they choose.  They are free to select their leaders anyway they like. 
 
Seems pretty simple to me. 

Just to show that universities can choose reason, the Huffington Post article on this same story (9/9/14) points out that some schools have made allowances:
 
Ohio State University rewrote its student organization registration guidelines to read, “A student organization formed to foster or affirm the sincerely held religious beliefs of its members may adopt eligibility criteria for its Student Officers that are consistent with those beliefs.”

I don't see an problem with a latino group being led by a white guy, or a woman's group being run by a man, so long as the members of the group have chosen to be led by that person.  Nor do I have a problem with a christian group being led by an atheist or a lesbian so long as the group chooses that person to be the leader.

Statistically, children who grow up in the aftermath of a divorce, are more likely to get divorced themselves, more likely to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned, less likely to start or finish college, and more likely to live under the poverty line.
 
Not saying that any of that stuff would happen to your kids, but if he cares about them, you'd think he'd want to tilt the odds in their favor instead of stacking the deck against them.

two months is not enough time to quit in, but he's been thinking about it for 4.5 years.  He admits he's been faking it.  I would put pressure on him to produce actions and answers.  Go to counseling individually, and as a couple.  If he wants to make the marriage work he has to invest, that's just the way it is.  If he is unwilling to invest then you don't really have to decide much, he will have already made that decision.

My advice would be to stand back a little bit, give him the space he needs (make plans for you and the kids every now and then to give him his solo time), get some counseling for yourself, and try to be understanding. Don't pressure him to fake a testimony, but do encourage him to be respectful of the church in front of the children.
 
But I would also advise you to give yourself (and your husband) a deadline to change tactics and reconsider things so you aren't stuck "hoping things get better" forever. You are his wife, you are committed to this relationship, and that means you may have to try different things.
 
If he were asking for advice, I'd tell him to sit on the divorce question awhile longer before jumping into it. Is it really what he wants?

Mahone, would Scotland join the British Commonwealth, then; or would they just cut ties with the Crown completely?
 
And, aren't the English royal family also lawful heirs to the Scottish throne as well (via James I)?  How would that work out?
 
The Scots have to do what they feel is best, I suppose; but I don't see the UK holding on to Northern Ireland for long if Scotland leaves.   And if the British can't stay together after having had four hundred years to work things out, it seems a troubling harbinger of increasing balkanization worldwide.

In Utah and the South maybe, but the real name is crayfish (using my snooty voice of course)

My friend just told me they go for hotdogs tied to a string, maybe I should try it :)

And let me tell you those little buggers are delicious! If you get them from good water they taste just like lobster.