Backroads

+1 to everything you've said here.  If this was my daughter, she'd be in so much trouble!  I would not be concerned about the bishop -- I'd be focused entirely on her manipulation.  I'd also be concerned about where/how she's learning such detail that she can just spout off extemporaneously.

I'll be blunt.
 
Something is seriously wrong in this situation and it's not the bishop.  Your child has some serious issues that if not resolved now will lead to misery down the road.
 
Obviously this teenager is quite frankly rebellious and is playing you like a fiddle.
 
You are more upset at the bishop for asking for details, rather than being more upset at your daughter for a) deceiving the bishop and actually explaining "tawdry fornications".  I can only imagine what that might be, if it goes beyond just "having sex".  
 
I think I might be more upset at any of my kids for making up such stuff, actually feeling comfortable explaining such stuff to an adult (especially a religious leader when it didn't happen) than doing it.  At least if they did it, they could say they got caught up in emotions, etc.  But planning something like that shows a complete lack of respect for authority, religion, and a total disregard for the actual sin of fornication.
 
If she feels comfortable talking about it now . . . there is very little doubt in my mind that later on it won't be just talk.
 
Again, I'm going to be perfectly blunt,  you need to wake up and take control . . .and even if you do now it might be too late.

I'll sit on the fence on this one.
On the one hand, your Bishop could be a creep.
On the other hand, your daughter could be doing the obnoxious teen girl thing.
No way for me to know the difference.
On the one hand, that's exactly what a Bishop is FOR, a trusted adult with whom to share things one might share with no one else (teacher, doctor, counselor, priest are the Big4, right?). So it's not only natural, but required by the job description to fully understand the details of what is at play.
On the other hand, there are teachers, doctors, counselor so & priests who cross the line. In a variety of ways.
On the one hand, The teens could be all over the recording because it's salacious and Herbert the Pervert
On the other hand, the teens could be all,over this purely because it's taboo (Catholic teens often have groups of (usually girls) make bets on how flustered they can get their priest in Confession (or Mass, etc. It's so culturally expected -frowned upon / unacceptable,, but expected you'll see reference in movies all the time. Like in a League of their Own when "May" gets her priest to drop his bible 4 times in one confession).
I could do this all day.
It's neither inherantly wrong, nor inherantly right, from what you've described.
Your daughter is also neither inherantly wrong, or inherantly right from what you're described (esp if she's creeped out by your Bishop).
Q

Not in the relationship or able to properly view it, but I'm more concerned about the fact he was unwilling to get a job than his weight. 
 
So are you more bothered by laziness/apathy or his actual weight problem?

Your son shouldn't reach 400 pounds if you don't have junk food in the house and you prepare nutritious meals.  Sure, he will get some junk out of the house, but if you make your house a healthy haven then he should be fine.  It would also help your husband. 
 
And if he (your husband) is the one buying it, just tell him you will pitch it.  Totally reasonable under the circumstances.
 
Here's the hard truth.  Your husband isn't going to do anything about his weight until he wants to.  No amount of pestering or nagging will change that and probably makes it worse.

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

As the heads up: I'm the "Yep. Get divorced. Yesterday." person on this board.
(The lovely & brilliant Annatess my foil).
My three cents?
1) Your husband deserves someone who loves him. If that's not you, please stop wasting his time, and making him feel terrible in the interim.
2) Take all the blame squarely OFF your child's shoulders. YOU control your child's diet & exercise& medical regime. Worrying that "at this rate he'll be 400 pounds by college" totally abdicates all parental responsibility, while blaming your husband for your failure to act. Don't do that. Good diet, good activity & if it's a glandular disorder, take him to the durn doctor and get his levels stabilized!
3) Some genetic lines (think Viking & Polynesian & Russian wrestling) spawn BIG people. Big HEALTHY people, so long as they keep their activity up. 350 pounds of "Never gonna be ripped like Batman, but I can make a quarterback wish they were never born" fast, strong, HEALTHY. These people are never going to be the nimble thin runners you see darting all over. These people WILL be the TANKS in underarmor (and other stretchy clothes, cause tailoring custom clothes is expensive, and their size isn't sold off the rack) who have to replace "flimsy" shoes and furniture on a biannual basis, as they make you giggle with their terminator impressions. I knew a few of these guys in the Marine Corps. (350+ pounds of grizzly bear ya never never never wanna face in a fight). Football, & hockey players, & wrestlers the lot of them. Even running 3 miles under 18 minutes 5 times a week, with about 20 hours of gym time, and 40+ hours of constant motion...my hese guys never thinned out like the rest of us. 15-20 years later... I still know a couple of them. Those who have stayed active (physically), playing sports every day, cops on the street, gym teachers, etc... Are still as healthy (and TANKS) at 40 as they were at 20. Those who moved into desk jobs & non movement? Well... They waddle a bit. If they manage to stand much at all.
You met a BIG physically active guy in college. Whatever his diet & exercise program was... It was obviously working for him, as he was playing college ball. You've tried to completely change his diet, and clearly that hasn't been helpful. Have you considered encouraging your husband to go back to what WAS working? Eat as he was... But go back to training. Do something he LOVES, and is good at, and kept him fit.
__________
Ahem. As a former athlete: I need 10,000-15,000 calories a day when training. Of I don't have that level, my body starts to eat itself. We're not talking "lose weight". We're talking bone loss, organ damage, heart damage. I also start stacking on weight (because my body hoarders calories) if I'm eating too few calories when exercising. It looks INSANE to people who aren't doing similar training (I remember my family -all athletes- snickering at people with jaws dropped over Michael Phelps talking about the 10k-20k he eats, all whipcord thin). In the military? Your rations depend on your environment. I never worked in the desert, I worked in mountains & jungle. Our rations were 6,000 kcal per package. 3x-5x per day. Yep. For some exercises we were stoking 30,000 calories a day. (The army moves on its stomach).
Just some food for thought.
Q

Marriage is more than just a pretty shirt to wear, and when it gets stained you toss it out.
 
My husband is 200 pounds overweight. He wants to lose weight, but he easily gives in to eating JUNK food.
 
I am 65 pounds overweight. I love breads and pastas. I also love fresh vegetables and fruits. Husband does not. He loves vanilla cookies, ice cream, chips, flour tortilla's.
 
As the cook, food *gatherer* (shopper) - I need to NOT buy the junk food, and to have the healthy food available to him. When I ended up tossing a lot of spoiled raw veggies out because I could not consume enough of them, we bought a NurtriBullet and I attempted to juice them. I flopped, BUT he did like the Whey Protein shakes with the berries and chia seeds added to them. 
 
When he writes down cookies and ice cream on the shopping list, I start making him more protein shakes. 
 
Empty the house of the junk food. Have healthy foods available. When the banana's get too ripe, DON'T make banana bread, mash them up, put in ice cube trays, freeze them, pop them out into vacuum seal bags. Then when he and your son are 'wasting away' for want of a sweet junk food fix, whip them up a banana, milk shake. Using 1% or 2% milk. NO ice cream. My diabetic nurse/nutritionist suggested that we have one night every two weeks, where it is junk food night. Pizza, ice cream, pop corn (for him he can have pounds of pop corn, I can only have 3 Cups of popped corn). 
 
Be sure to change your attitude too - being disgusted, disappointed and angry with husband is picked up and magnified by your child(ren). 
 
Go to a Paleo diet. I do eat beans and legumes. I do not avoid glutens. We have not been diagnosed as celiac, so I eat glutens. There are fruits I simply cannot have because they are naturally too high is sugars (carbs). 
 
In the past two months Husband has lost 13 pounds (quite a bit of it was water retention, that he lost by getting off the salty chips). I have maintained. 
 
So, rather than think and obsess over ending your marriage, think and obsess over having healthier foods in the house, healthier treats available and including husband in the process of setting up menu's, preparing the meals and clean up afterwards. 
 
Nagging and negativity is not only discouraging it eats away at the spirit. Remember he is an Adult - feed yourself and your child good healthy foods, exercise with your child. 
 
Good luck. 

I'm not surprised. Seems like just about everyone here is into Harry Potter, Star Wars and all that jazz.
 
And why do you think they brought comic.com to Utah?  Because there is enough of a following to make it successful here too.

For personal reasons and via personal study I would very much like to see GMO labeling.
 
For the same reasons I advocate 100% truth in advertising and truthful labeling of all ingredients in a product, I likewise advocate GMO labeling.
 
I prefer being given the Agency to choose for myself, and alow others the same privaledge, whether I eat such foods or not.

I tend to agree.  Monsanto is a vile organization and is better shut down for their business practices, but the GMO's themselves are a boon.  I liked this article on it.  If you're anti-GMO, you're objectively pro-starvation of the poor.

My objection to GMOs is their parent companies business practices, including going on to non-customer's farms and stealing samples of the plants to test for patented genes from cross-pollination and then suing the poor farmers. The actual gene tampering to increase yields are a good thing, IMHO .
 
 
edit: I apologize for errors, apparently my wireless keyboard's batteries are dying.

See. MoE and I can agree.

My one interest in the article would be the opportunity to say "See?  Mormons aren't a bunch of fuddy duddies in such matters!" if the difference really is significant.
 
Though I think the tendency towards large families is enough of a clue as it is...

First, hugs for you.  This must be terrifying for you.  Indeed, find yourself a good support network and counsel both religious and secular.  And get that prenatal care!  You have some big decisions facing you.
 
My thoughts:
 
Yep, take the abortion topic off the table.  Don't even consider or the possibility of forgiveness. I, quite frankly, support states who support the rights of biological fathers.  This is also your boyfriend's baby.  He may not be marriage material for you, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be in his child's life.  If you don't feel you should marry him, don't!  But as soon as you can, bring up the pregnancy as well as your desire to break-up.  The father should hae say. And, my goodness, take care of yourself.  I can't stress the importance of a support network enough.

My one interest in the article would be the opportunity to say "See?  Mormons aren't a bunch of fuddy duddies in such matters!" if the difference really is significant.
 
Though I think the tendency towards large families is enough of a clue as it is...

I agree. However, there are two things to consider. First, a lot of the issues at hand are based on social conventions and the natural culture of the church. As the church grows this becomes more and more difficult to manage and keep in line, so to speak. Many complain about the authoritative bureaucracy that the church has become. Would we risk pushing that further for the sake of curbing these sorts of problems?  Or should we teach the membership at large to be wise, be forgiving, study, pray, etc.. (Note that this is the current approach as to sex).
 
Secondly, and more importantly, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say, when we push back on concerns like this. We see this in discussions like the recent one surrounding Tad R. Callister's morality/modesty talk. The responses, even if, perhaps, based on a semblance of right thinking, are so extreme so as to be the devil's advocate for discontinuing modesty, chastity, and morality all together. The prevailing liberal expression tends to account to the equivalent of "Don't teach your children to be righteous because it might make them feel bad when they sin."

See... This is where we go super complex. In ONE example of a sexless marriage:
WHY is PartnerA choosing to disengage?
There are hundreds of possibilities.
1-100 can be things that their spouse has done which are creating a cause & effect relationship
100-200 can be PartnerA physical problems
200-300 can be PartnerB physical problems
300-400 can be PartnerA mental, or emotional, or spiritual, or logistic problems
Et cetera.
And that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s STILL only one example.
Because the prerequisite is PartnerA CHOOSING to disengage.
There are a gazillion other examples where PartnerA isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t choosing to disengage, but instead is _______
(a ton of other possibilities... From loss of libido to decreased situational awareness to time management to prioritizing to, to to, to... But just to pick one of dozens of causes...the most common causes of loss of libido are
- sleep dep
- depression
- medication
- stress / illness)
So if partner A is undergoing chemo, and as such has suffered a loss of libido are they obligated to fulfill their spouses sexual needs?
If partnerB has been deployed,
If partnerA has been raped
If partnerB hasn\'t slept in 3 days
If partnerA is suicidal
If partnerB is working 4 jobs
If partnerA is suffering for dental pain
Gazillions of Long term issues just like the group where they\'re choosing to disengage
But there are even more groups than choosing to disengage vs suffered a loss of libido or logistical improbability.
____________________
Yes. No. Maybe. Depends ENTIRELY on the individual couple in question, and the individuals within the couple.
I really don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t think that there is a blanket answer that should even generally apply.
If you were asking about LITERALLY one couple,mans their specific circumstance, then yah sure. We can come up with a very good answer for THEM.
But that answer doesn\\\'t translate to every (or even most) other couples and their marriages.
Because there are too many variables at play that change the \\\"right & best\\\" answer. Yes, no, yes, maybe, in time perhaps, never, absolutely... It really all depends on the couple in question and their exact circumstance.
Q

So you are seeing "needs" as referring to the things needed to keep a person alive. As you say, clearly sex is not needed in terms of someone surviving from day to day. Pres. Kimball is often quoted as saying that the most common cause of the divorces he was seeing was disagreements over sex -- "not getting along in the bedroom." Therapists say that by far the most common "sexual dysfunction" they see is differences in libido. An individual husband or wife can certainly continue living without sex, but if their marriage is dying because of a lack of sex, does that make sex a "need" for the marriage? (Because singles/unmarrieds are not in such a covenant relationship, this need would still not apply to them.) Analogous to the "real needs" you describe (a person needs to eat to stay alive and healthy), many claim that marriage "needs" sexual fulfillment for the marriage to stay alive and healthy.

The word that doesn't work is "needs". Very strong desires? Very, very strong desires? Very, very, very strong desires? Sure. But not needs. If it were a need, no one unmarried would be able to keep the law of chastity.
 
Compare to real needs. Eating. Breathing, Sleeping. Shelter. Etc.  No eating unless you are legally and lawfully married. See how that doesn't work? Even within marriage. If your wife doesn't feed you then going out and getting food from somewhere else is adultery. That cannot work. It clearly can work with sex however. The law of chastity only works if sex is not a need.

I dunno, this is a very sensitive and intimate topic, might be closed. I'll just say, there is NEVER a valid reason to engage in infidelity, period. Don't care if you're married or otherwise in a long term committed relationship, it is WRONG.

I agree with Pam, I don't think there's much to say until the actual numbers are published. After the study is published, it will be interesting to see:
 
1) If 6000 people, spread across multiple Christian/other religions, is large enough really draw the kind of conclusions he will claim. If religious affiliation is randomly representative, the LDS sample will likely be smaller than Catholic/Protestant.
 
2) Will the results also be correlated to some measure of "activity level." I have seen this effect in other studies -- often things are more closely related to activity level than to self-reported affiliation.
 
3) The usual rate of sexless marriage (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year) across the US is about 20%. If LDS really have a lower incidence, it will be interesting to see just how much lower.

I second the idea of talking to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.  First, because knowledge is power; and second, because you're going to need a court order to establish custody, parent time, child support, etc. sooner or later (and if you do try to push the adoption thing without his consent--that's possible, depending on the states involved; but it's a legal minefield and you shouldn't trust an agency to walk you through it).

First, hugs for you.  This must be terrifying for you.  Indeed, find yourself a good support network and counsel both religious and secular.  And get that prenatal care!  You have some big decisions facing you.
 
My thoughts:
 
Yep, take the abortion topic off the table.  Don't even consider or the possibility of forgiveness. I, quite frankly, support states who support the rights of biological fathers.  This is also your boyfriend's baby.  He may not be marriage material for you, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be in his child's life.  If you don't feel you should marry him, don't!  But as soon as you can, bring up the pregnancy as well as your desire to break-up.  The father should hae say. And, my goodness, take care of yourself.  I can't stress the importance of a support network enough.

First, hugs for you.  This must be terrifying for you.  Indeed, find yourself a good support network and counsel both religious and secular.  And get that prenatal care!  You have some big decisions facing you.
 
My thoughts:
 
Yep, take the abortion topic off the table.  Don't even consider or the possibility of forgiveness. I, quite frankly, support states who support the rights of biological fathers.  This is also your boyfriend's baby.  He may not be marriage material for you, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be in his child's life.  If you don't feel you should marry him, don't!  But as soon as you can, bring up the pregnancy as well as your desire to break-up.  The father should hae say. And, my goodness, take care of yourself.  I can't stress the importance of a support network enough.