[The "ex" relationship]

8 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Um..yeah. Jesus was raised in a broken home, he had step-dad and half-brothers and sisters, but I think he'd make a pretty good husband. I don't find anything wrong with expressing caution, but hopefully we also teach our kids to look deeper. 

Wow . . . that is so far out-of-line, that is just rationalization and justification for saying it's totally cool to have a broken home in today's society . . .and you know it.

To compare Christ's upbringing to a broken home . . .just wow.  Shame on you.

If any comparison is to be made (which I think is foolish), it would more be like Christ was adopted and raised in an adopted family.

[The "ex" relationship]

And I would amend this that there are circumstances where warning would not really be warranted.  Say for example when you were 3 dad left mom and at age 7 mom remarries and from 7 on mom and dad (or step-dad) have a great marriage.  I'm not sure that is a "broken home".  During the formative teenage years, a stable marriage is at the heart of the home.  Mom and dad love each other, demonstrate love, kindness etc and demonstrate what a good marriage looks like. That I'd say is probably not a big deal.

Mom and dad get divorced at age 7, mom goes through 2 other husbands (or never remarries, works outside the home,etc.) that I would run from. 

However the vast majority of broken homes do not proceed like the first paragraph, more likely the second.

[The "ex" relationship]

1 minute ago, Windseeker said:

I'm sure there were those who avoided knowing the Savior because by all appearances he came from a broken home. 

??? Huh . . . . 

[The "ex" relationship]

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

That's a really interesting notion.  My wife and I both come with our own particular brands of horrible childhood baggage - which would make us "bad stock", but "equally yoked".  We're in year 20 and things are not easy.  Come back in 20 years, and we'll see if the yoking wins out over the stock thing.  

I don't say "good stock" or "bad stock" in a denigrating fashion, I personally just think that more than good stock or bad stock-it is more important to be equally yolked.  

It certainly can work out if one person comes from a horrible childhood and the other doesn't.  But I think it's really, really hard-harder than if both came from different brands of horribleness.

I personally think the yolking in the long run and in higher percentage of cases wins out over stock, i.e. it's not about whether you are good stock or bad stock but if you are equally yolked.  And by coming from a similar background, similar culture you can understand better one another and hopefully better work together.

Being unequally yolked means someone is either going to have to step up or someone is going to have to step down for the marriage to last.  It's why IMO generally for people who have been married for a very long time and have a good marriage if you meet one of the spouses you have in many ways met the other.  They are definitely different, but they have a very similar mindset, outlook on life, life goals, etc.  They have become one through their differences and worked towards something greater.

[The "ex" relationship]

15 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

If you want to talk about red flags, not liking country music is a red flag for me.  I mean, what kind of "spouse" doesn't like Merle Haggard, or Hank Williams, or at least Johnny Cash?  Not liking country music is a red flag that there is something seriously wrong, perhaps even evil, about someone.   

All joking aside, I do agree that people have a right to choose how much baggage they want to deal with in a marriage (and we all have baggage, whether we would like to admit it or not).  The thing I would find to be troubling wouldn't be the microeconomics (e.g., @Vort would not want to marry a girl who came from a broken home) but the macroeconomics, that is to say, if everyone decided that children of broken homes should not be marrying good Mormon kids, you would be cutting very good people out of very good blessings over something that is really not their fault.  You would create a Mormon underclass, which would be most undesirable indeed.

I guess that is where people like me come in.  I couldn't care less if a girl came from a broken home - I care about who she currently is.  It wouldn't even be a yellow flag for me personally.  If we started dating and I realized she likes to fight and quarrel a lot (maybe she learned that from her parents' failed marriage), that may be a red flag.  But for DoctorLemon personally, coming from a broken home would not be a dealbreaker.

No you wouldn't have everybody being unmarried.  It's called do not be unequally yolked.

For the last paragraph . . .that's great, bully for you. . . except come back to me in 10 years when you want to complain about this or that in your marriage and you realize . . .oh well her mom hated her dad b/c he did xyz and divorced him b/c of blah and now she hates me b/c of xyz.  

It's actually quite funny, people like to deny that this happens (and IMO they deny it b/c they don't want to seem "judgmental or discriminatory" and/or they think they are the exception-yet it does-it happens all the time.  Divorce rate is 40%, 40%, don't you think you'd want to do everything in your power to make sure your marriage isn't in the 40%.

And then people think that after a year of dating, they really know someone-I got news for you-you don't. As if in a year of dating, you are really going to know how they are going to act when they have kids, when they get in fights, when they are taking care of a house, when they are working, etc..  You don't and you can't.  All you can go by is the current way they live their life and by how they were raised.

50 years ago this was known as "they come from good stock".  If you come from "good stock" and they come from "good stock" you are more likely than not going to be "equally yolked", if you come from "good stock" and they don't, a higher likelihood that you will be "unequally yolked".  This isn't hard, it's not complex---it's just common sense (which unfortunately in today's world has gone out the window).

Shoot, it's why the saying goes, if you want to know how a man treats his wife, look at how he treats his mother and a whole host of other pithy sayings about looking for a spouse and their family.  But common sense has flown right out the window in the modern culture.

[The "ex" relationship]

31 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Regarding Children of divorce, I honestly think it really depends. They have an opportunity to see and experience, in a way, how a marriage can fail and take steps to ensure success in their own marriages. In my experience those who come from broken families are far from doomed. In my immediate family of 6 kids there are two divorces and in both divorces, myself and my brothers, the parties all came from intact homes. The four remaining marriages that are going strong all involve spouses that come from broken homes. This same trend extends to my cousins as well. The other two divorces were couples who came from intact homes. So I can't agree with yjacket. 

BTW, my Father was molested for years by his uncle. Nothing even close to that ever occurred in my family. Same with my ex wife, she was never inappropriate with our kids in anyway.  

Not so certain about the sins visiting on the heads of the children with that atonement thing getting in the way.

Okay, that is great you are using an anecdotal case (I understand that for some reason with humans, anecdotal cases carry at least twice the weight of raw facts and statistics). Bravo for those who stayed together.  Statistics say that your anecdotal case is not normal-it is an exception.

What part of statistics do people not understand?  If statistics say children from divorced home have a 15% higher likelihood of divorce, yet your anecdotal case shows the opposite . . .congratulations count yourself lucky to buck the trend. 

Just know that your anecdotal case is not the norm. Just like the statistics show beyond a doubt that a child raised in an abusive home is more likely to be abusive.

Count yourself lucky that the abuse did not pass down to the next generation. Just know that it is more an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

[The "ex" relationship]

13 minutes ago, miav said:

I went and changed because I meant first impression. And I know there is nothing I can say to make you understand why you are wrong.  

Because I'm not wrong. What part about statistics do you not understand? I quote the facts, but you ignore them.  

It's the one thing I've learned in life-people make the emotional decision and then ignore facts that counter their emotional decision.  The facts, the statistics, everything we know about divorce shows that it leads to major, major problems for children and when they are adults.

Point blank, do you dispute the statistics?

"Heavenly Father makes it so all his children can be successful in their lives, despite that challenges or trials we face."

Please, point me to where I ever said anything contrary to this.  I firmly believe this statement.  We all have free agency to choose and to become successful regardless of how we were raised or by whom.  Yet, the truth is that one is more likely to be successful if raised in a stable home.

[Church Leaders on Mental Health]

13 hours ago, pam said:

What was said and what I was responding to was this:

While I can agree with some of what you wrote...I was talking about what was said. The wording never going to be depressed is a blanket statement.  Everyone gets depressed at some point in their life.  Everyone has their down moments.  So to say that no one will get depressed is a falsehood.  

Now as far as the more severe forms of depression, I love Elder Holland's talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/like-a-broken-vessel?lang=eng

No, I think the point being that if we are always following gospel principles, those types of things don't happen.  Do you think Christ was ever depressed? I think in the Garden He took upon himself the sins and feelings of the world so He knows what it is like to be depressed, I don't believe he dealt with depression.  I think if we followed Gospel principles 100% of the time we wouldn't be depressed, just like if we followed gospel principles 100% of the time there would be no malice, no murder, no wars, etc.

Living the Gospel perfectly is the solution to the world's problems; but we live in a fallen world and are unable to do so, therefore depression, etc. will occur.

I understand this is controversial, but I do believe that we have the ability to act and change how we view the world and how we feel.  While depression and other things can act upon us, we also need to act back. This isn't saying one needs to just "snap out of it", it's just a recognition that we have the power to change our thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. and that bit by bit we can change our very being (through the help of God). 

And while Elder Holland didn't mention it in his talk (which is an awesome talk), it only takes a little bit of thought.  Where do good feelings, light, joy, laughter, happiness come from? Does God want us to be miserable?  If God can send to us good feelings, through His spirit, is there not another power in this universe? Who seeks for us to be miserable, like unto himself? Who seeks to influence us to do evil things?  Recognizing the source of light, goodness, in this life is essential . . .as well as recognizing the source of miserableness. It doesn't mean we are evil or have done horrible things if we feel those feelings . . .not in the least.  There is a War that is going on on this earth for the battle of men's souls-both physically and mentally.

[Church Leaders on Mental Health]

Maybe, just maybe 100 years in the future, the actual science of mental health will be advanced enough to give better information.

Right now, mental health "science" is no better than ideas back in the 1700s about "blood-letting".  If you want to call ideas about blood-letting science and that it had real, measurable effects on healing people's diseases, then sure I'll go with calling modern psychology "science".

Until then, mental health medical treatments and drugs have no more validity than the power of fasting, prayer, blessings and the Power of God.  In fact, with the current state of mental health "science", I'd absolutely put the Power of God up against psychology's atheistic ideology any day of the week.

[Church Leaders on Mental Health]

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's a wonderful thing that ever year, there are fewer and fewer opinions like yjacket's.  From what I've heard of yjacket's story, there's good reason to be ticked off, but not nearly good enough reason to be saying nonsense like this:

"Mental health medicine, practice, psychology, etc. is in the dark ages and in the realm of basically voodoo medicine."
- Insulting language, incorrect analogy. Modern brain health science may be far from perfect and complete, but it's totally unwarranted to broaden yjacket's bad experience across an entire branch of medicine. 

"Instead voodoo doctors simply say"
- Insulting language, unwarranted blanket statement.  Many of us on this board, myself included, have firsthand experience that directly contradicts yjacket's blanket accusations.  Yeah, there are good doctors and bad doctors, but yjacket paints with so broad a brush the comments are basically useless. 

"if you were honest, you don't have a freaking clue."
- Baseless accusation that become one holds a medical degree and an opinion, one must be dishonest.  The whole "doctors/scientists/the government/NASA doesn't want you to know this" stuff is the realm of fake news, anti-science snake oil salesmen, flat-earthers, people who think magnets heal you, and people like yjacket who had a bad experience and assume the whole world is that way.   

"no one, not the doctors, or psychologist have a blasted clue as to what is the real problem or why this or why that."
- Just plain false.  There are plenty of clues, much research and study.  Here's hoping yjacket can some day understand that there's a range of possibilities between solid unassailable fact, and throwing darts while blindfolded and full of wishful thinking.

"you don't need a therapist to solve your mental health issues."  
- Yeah, what yjacket has documented elsewhere, is that yjacket ended up not needing a therapist to solve yjacket's mental health issues.  I'm glad, but again, baseless and unwarranted extrapolation across an entire branch of medicine based on an anecdote or two is just plain illogical.  

"the best way to solve mental health problems is through God."
- Matter of semantics, but ok.  God gave us brains, and thought, and stewardship, and agency, and expects us to learn from the best books and study things out in our minds before we seek spiritual guidance.  The right way to approach things is to seek competent medical advice as well as spiritual blessings and guidance.  Gut-reflex anti-medical rejection is not a Christian virtue.

Again, I'm really glad that yjacket got away from the docs and found healing through spiritual channels.  Got nothing to say against yjacket's personal experience - other than I believe it's totally valid.  But when you start flicking boogies from your ivory tower at people who find their burdens eased by taking a road that didn't work for you, well, go jump in a lake until you grow up a little, friend. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/10/myths-about-mental-illness?lang=eng

 

 

All I've got to say Neuro, is CFR baby, CFR.  All you come back with is more talk.  You just want to believe what you want to believe with absolutely no basis in fact.

Show me a webMD article that details a "chemical imbalance"; I'm not talking something that tells me what it is.  I want charts, I want graphs, I want numbers, I want ratios. I want a webMD that says STTE of "in cases with bi-bolar, we measured chemical xyz to be > 1000 and in cases without bi-polar we measured chemical xyz to be 10, based on a p value of .86 we assess that elevated values of chemical xyz are indicated of a bi-polar chemical imbalance". And "when we gave 1000 patients who had measured chemical xyz above 1000 apironiton for three months, chemical xyz dropped to 10". 

I've dealt with both in my life . . .cancer and mental junk.  I've read the articles on both.  And I guarantee you in one minute, I can easily find articles telling me what is wrong with someone has cancer . . .can't do it for voodoo "chemical imbalances".

One is actual real science, the other is made-up mumbo-jumbo psuedo-science made up by atheistic individuals as a construct to describes what they think is going on.  One is backed by real hard data, the other simply a made-up mental framework for describing symptoms. And what is amazing is how they have fooled an entire society to believe their made-up mental construct.

Note, I have never said it's not "real", oh it's real alright-mental issues are real alright.  

The thing is that even though my viewpoint is the correct viewpoint; it is a dangerous viewpoint.  It is dangerous b/c it actually admits that quite frankly we don't know what causes these mental issues, we don't have a "fix" for it.  In the world of "google" not understanding or knowing how to fix something is a very, very scary proposition. It makes us vulnerable and scared to think "wow, the doctors really don't have the answer to this"

What we have is symptoms, classifications, diagnosis, and hypothesis on ways to treat (that are no better than placebos). Some "therapies" are good therapies, but therapy isn't cure. If a chemical imbalance really is the problem then no one would ever need therapy b/c they could just fix the "chemical imbalance" and be good.

The mental health profession is full of snake-oil salesmen-fact.

[Church Leaders on Mental Health]

12 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I absolutely agree with @MormonGator and @pam.  Mental illness is a very real thing, often caused by very real (sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent) chemical imbalances

CFR on the Chemical imbalances.  Please CFR.  Just show me 1 . . only ask for 1 documented journal article that details what exactly a "chemical imbalance is", that actually describes an actual chemical in the body that is measurable that we know causes these problems. 

It is made up bogus pschobabble.

I'm not asking for hypothesis, or conjectures.  I'm asking for real, hard, science.

For comparison, if you have cancer, I can show you hundreds of articles that detail exact chemical, medical markers that demonstrate cancer.

Show me 1, just 1 article.  You can't, you won't, b/c it doesn't exist.

It is all BS

[The "ex" relationship]

10 hours ago, seashmore said:

I've looked deep at the collapse of my parent's marriage, and what I found is a big part of why I live so far away. I felt I would become more like my mother if I stayed, and I am confident that her misguided priorities and inattentiveness as a wife and mother had a lot to do with my dad's affair.

Kudos to you to understanding this, recognizing it and working to change yourself, that is very wise and shows great insight into your past.  You appear to be much older and thus more aware of life in general.  Now the question is? Would you have this understanding at age 20? at age 25?  Most people (at the time of marriage) would not be aware enough of this and would fall into the same trap.  In fact, even if you are aware of it, if you are married you will most likely have to work very hard to ensure that you do not do the same thing as your mother-even if you are consciously aware of it.

[The "ex" relationship]

4 hours ago, miav said:

From their grandparent, aunts and uncles, leaders from their church or community.  A child's view is much larger than just mom and dad. (Although mom and dad do make the impression) I guess it's hard for people to understand if they haven't gone through it themselves (and I know they will argue there point to the end) but there are many other ways to model and shape your ideas of life besides mom and dad. 

No, it's not just that the make the impression, it's that they make the main impression  . . .prob. somewhere around 75%. Why do you think totalitarian governments across the world and history always attempt to take children from their parents as soon as possible and indoctrinate them. There are other ways to model and shape life besides mom and dad and for those who grew up in broken homes, are self-aware enough to understand what caused it, change within themselves to ensure it doesn't happen.  I say Kudos! Bravo! your task is so much harder and it is fantastic that you have succeeded against the odds.

All I'm saying is to just recognize the odds-that if you have done so the vast majority of your peers in similar circumstances would not do so. There are always exceptions to the rule and I can't say enough good things about those who do succeed against the odds; it shows tremendous amount of grit, determination, self introspection, etc.  That road is very long and very hard but worth it.

But for a generic child of divorce-the odds are not in your favor.  Again, just look at the statistics-they are horrific. IMO much of life is about odds, probabilities and chances. We each like to think we are special, that we are the one who will beat the odds, that the person we marry who comes from a divorced home .. .they aren't like the others. But reality shows that train of thought is just fantasy-maybe the child from a divorced home is different . . .but most likely they aren't.  

I've found much of life is setting ourselves up to succeed and then when the opportunity strikes we are ready and able to do so; luck is just when preparation meets opportunity.  The same principle applies in work, marriage, school, life in general. People say "oh you are so lucky you have a good job, or you are so lucky you have great kids, or you are so lucky you have a great wife" . . .most of that saying is utter crap. You aren't "lucky" you have a good job, you studied very hard, worked very hard, went to a good school, prepared well for interviews, worked hard at lower paying jobs so when the opportunity came to have a good job or a great job you were well prepared, ready and able to jump on it. You aren't "lucky" you have great, well-behaved kids. You took the time to understand what it means to raise children, you disciplined properly, you taught correct principles and your children follow them.  You aren't "lucky" you have a great marriage, you married someone who is dedicated to the idea, principle and concept of marriage who works together as a partner and who has prepared themselves to be a great partner, they have seen great marriages in their life, understand what it takes to make one and do it.

Just b/c you did well in school doesn't mean you'll have a great job, just b/c you marry someone who comes from a stable home doesn't mean you'll have a great marriage, just b/c you raise your kids properly doesn't mean they will be awesome.  But you'll have a lot better chances and much better "luck" in life if you do!

[The "ex" relationship]

3 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think you (and anyone else who is a child of divorce) have all the potential in the world to have a successful marriage!  (Your answer hinted that your own parents divorced - if I am making a wrong assumption, I apologize).

I do think that you need to be aware of picking up undesirable traits from your mother and father.  Why did they divorce?  How can you avoid making the same mistakes?  Are there any negative behaviors or attitudes you learned from them that perhaps you can do something about now before they explode into major problems?  Self awareness is the key.  Remember, you can overcome just about anything with the help of Christ and the atonement, but you may have to put some effort into it.

If my daughter were thinking about marrying someone from a broken home, I would not tell her to run for the hills.  I would tell her to pray about it, see what Heavenly Father has to say about it.

 

I understand this and I respect this point of view . . .from my perspective I don't need HF to answer a prayer about whether I should date someone who has previously done drugs or been excommunicated or comes from a different culture.  HF expects me to be informed enough that I should be able to make a whole host of decisions without specifically needing to pray about it . . . . this is what training a child and teaching comes about.  I teach them these things now so that if it comes up in the future they already have a good idea of what choice to make.  If HF wanted me to marry someone from a broken home . . .well He better bring a lightening bolt.

I guess where I'm going is that I think too many times in life we say "well just pray about it", there is truth to that, but quite honestly we should also be taught well enough the order of things in life so that some things should be more self-evident rather than revelatory.

[writer: "stay-at-home moms are criminals!"]

I watched this video and I think there is a lot of wisdom in it. Sidenote: I don't advocate for either men's rights or women's rights, I think either one is pretty stupid and pointless, but I appreciate the viewpoint and I think there are a lot of very good points the author makes.

 

[writer: "stay-at-home moms are criminals!"]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Drat! And to think all this time I had you pegged as a radical 1960's era true blue believing radical! 

(just playing everyone!) 

If we all agreed on everything the internet would be incredibly boring. I think we all can agree on that. 

MG . . .I love your humor-very similar to mine . . .yeap it sure would be a boring place.

[Church Leaders on Mental Health]

3 hours ago, pam said:

Yeah I would have to totally disagree with the comment about never being depressed if you obey gospel principles.  

I'm not so sure about this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, mental health is not the same as physical health.  I'm not claiming that it's not real, that people don't feel these feelings or are oppressed by mental health issues . . .it's very real.  

But the solution to the problem is not the same as the solution to physical health.  Mental health medicine, practice, psychology, etc. is in the dark ages and in the realm of basically voodoo medicine.  For mental health issues, all we have are symptoms and diagnosis, but no real measurable data.  Someone is depressed, okay I believe them-but there are no objective tests that say "you're salomine level" is at 1.0 and it should be at 3.0.  Instead voodoo doctors simply say "you have a chemical imbalance" and should take xyz drug to fix it . . .oh really?  I have a chemical imbalance.  Where is the test?  Where is the data that tells me I have a chemical imbalance?  Oh there isn't one, you just want to give me xyz drug.  No thank you doc. you are an idiot and a quack  You don't have any clue what is wrong with me, you just have 3 letters after your name, spot some fancy terms, try to make me feel good and say "here I know how to solve your problems". When if you were honest, you don't have a freaking clue.

And I think that is the point that really people should take away, sure we can talk about it (and I love Holland's talk), but when we really strip away everything, the answer boils down to mental health that no one, not the doctors, or psychologist have a blasted clue as to what is the real problem or why this or why that.  I can get as good a therapy talking to my wife as I can from some idiot doctor.  You don't need 3 letters to help someone help and the sooner we stop thinking that the only way to "solve" mental health problems is by going to a "doctor" the better we will be.  A therapist may help . . .but they may not, and you don't need a therapist to solve your mental health issues.  

Quite honestly, the best way to solve mental health problems is through God.  Which is why I disagree with the above statement; unless someone can show me demonstrable proof of something being wrong (i.e. something we can measure), resolving mental health problems through God is going to be better than resolving it through the arm of flesh.

[writer: "stay-at-home moms are criminals!"]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I agree totally. I'm a guy and I've always associated myself with feminists, just not the real radical ones. Feminism is about choice. The choice to stay at home or work, the choice to change your name or not, the choice to have babies or not, etc. 

I actually disagree with this.  If you claim that feminism is about choice then women have always had that choice over the last 100 years.  Just b/c you make a choice that you want to work doesn't mean you will actually get a job.  I may make a choice that I want to be an astronaut . . .but in order to be an astronaut I must do a lot of things and someone must want to hire me.  Forcing someone to hire me b/c I'm black, white, male, female and I want to be an astronaut is morally wrong.  Identity politics is evil.

 I can't think of one thing that women were forced do to over the last 100 years.  Feminism is not about choice, it is about changing cultural expectations and norms-it is about moral equivalency; i.e. saying that the choice to work outside the home has the same moral equivalency as the choice to stay home, that th e choice to have children is the same moral equivalency as the choice not to have kids etc., etc. etc.

Quite frankly, feminism doesn't have any place within the LDS church; why? B/c they aren't morally equivalent.  Sure a woman may make the choice to work outside them home . . .shoot I support the ability for women to work a 9-5 job if they so choose. I disagree severely with the choice, just like I disagree with drug use-but if you want to screw up your family life, be my guest.  

The Church has always and will always teach the same principles about the Family enshrined in the Proclamation on the Family.  That proclamation and the truths declared where-in are 100% opposite of feminism and it's goals-which is about moral equivalency (i.e. that choice to stay at home is the same value choice as to work outside the home . . .and that is just patently false).

[The "ex" relationship]

8 hours ago, seashmore said:

 

@yjacket are you honestly serious about the advice to run from someone who comes from a broken home? That's just absurd. What about the sins of the parents not being on the heads of the children? I understand that home may be the ideal place to learn about marital and family relations, but is it the only place? I would say not. Some of the strongest youth I know come from blended families while some of the most self centered youth I know come from two parent homes. I know a young man raised by a parent and a step parent who, in the same weekend, was sustained as a stake mission prep leader and married the daughter of one of the stake presidency. I know someone born into the covenant his parents are still keeping, and he's been twice divorced before 35. 

Lol . . .nope I am dead serious.  Actually the scriptures says the sins are passed down to the third and fourth generation.  And the reason for this is not that God curses them, but that the second generation learns from the first generation and it takes a huge amount of energy and will to ensure that the mistakes of the first generation do not happen with the second generation.  I've seen it in my own life; I have seen how sins from 2 prior generations have affected and caused misery in my current generation; eventually though it can be weeded out.

I am 100% dead serious about advising my children to not marry or date someone from a broken home-they can ultimately do whatever they want ..  .but my advice is very, very sound.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I have learned a lot in my life and one thing I have learned is that the main mechanism whereby men and women learn relationships about how to treat, act, honor the opposite gender is in the home and from their parents.  It's certainly not the only way, but it is the main way.  Certainly there are plenty of anecdotes like the ones you stated above, but facts don't give a rip about your feelings.

https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/Family-Law-Blog/2012/October/32-Shocking-Divorce-Statistics.aspx

http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html  

Children from divorced homes are more likely to get divorced themselves, more likely to have emotional/mental problems, more likely to do worse in school, more likely to drop out of school, more likely to commit suicide.  Nothing good comes from divorce-it is a blight, a curse, and an evil upon this land.

Ultimately, the main reason why I would advocate my children run from children of divorced parents is that it tells me that the parents did not focus on their marriage, but something else (be it children, money, other individuals) was more important in their life than their spouse.  Children pick up on that and ultimately will (subconsciously or not) replicate that in their own life.

It's one of those things as you get older (i.e. mid 30s) you look at yourself and say . . . dang I'm just like my dad!!! or my mother!!! And once you recognize that as an adult, it takes a lot of very hard work to reprogram yourself to not be like your father or mother, etc.

Your anecdotes are quite frankly crap and are the exception not the rule.  The absolute best environment for children to be raised, to learn how to be a responsible adult and responsible marriage partner is in a stable marriage with no divorce.

But this advice would go for other things, do not be un-equally yolked in marriage.  The most important external factors in a stable marriage are 1) being raised in a stable family with mother and father, 2) coming from a similar culture-including religion, 3) coming from a similar economic background.  It might seem "discriminatory" or whatnot, but I don't really care-the objective is to have stable families and the best way to have stable families is to have two people who join together who come from a similar background who's personality and traits compliment each other.  

Divorce rates for first marriage is already at 30-40% . . . . wouldn't you do everything and anything in your power to lower that rate??  The more in dissimilar two people are, the greater likelihood that the marriage will have conflict and lead to divorce.  Difference is good, but too much difference leads to major conflict.  Men and women are already plenty different, so one would want to keep the external differences to a minimum.

Actually, probably one of the biggest reasons is that it distorts the view of proper male and female roles in marriage.  A girl raised from a divorced mother will more likely than not want to have a career (not good for a marriage), a boy raised from a divorced mother will prob. be okay with his wife working (not good for a marriage).  It will completely mess up how they think about marriage, what it means and what roles each person plays in the marriage-thus leading to conflict and more likely than not divorce.  

Why do you think people today are delaying marriage so much, delaying having children so much?  It ain't just b/c they feel like it.  It's b/c they have learned from their divorced parents (40% of children come from divorced homes) that marriage doesn't work, so why get married?  Why have children?  If you have children and get divorced life becomes very, very rough.  Best just to enjoy the "hook-up" culture with no commitments.

Divorce is evil and will be the ultimate root of destruction for this nation; destroy the family and you destroy a culture and a nation.

[The "ex" relationship]

To the question about remarrying or courting; I think of a divorce like a death (and it is a death) and it is advised that when a spouse dies one should wait one month for every year you have been married before your date. . . I think that is probably a good rule of thumb for divorce; married for 10 years- probably want to wait about a year before you start dating.

As far as interacting with a ex-spouse with children . . .good luck!!!  That is a ball of weeds, you are now going to have different parenting styles, activities to coordinate, shuttling of children back and forth (what a nightmare!).

I don't know that children change the scenario much, except for the fact that getting divorced (without a legitimate reason-i.e. abuse/adultery) is a really, really dumb thing to do when it comes to children. The statistics back it up, children from broken homes have a whole host of problems that occur from a divorce.

Look a 5 year old, or even a 14 year old has no clue what divorce means-all they see is that the two people most important to them in their world do not value each other much anymore.  Their world-view on what it means to be a father/mother on what it means to be husband/wife will be dramatically distorted.

It is one of the few things I will instruct my children to do . . . if you meet someone from a divorced family- RUN, do not walk, RUN away; under no circumstances marry someone from a broken home.  The other aspects are marry someone from a similar ethno-socio-economic background- I guarantee your life will be much, much better off, you'll be much happier and be more likely to avoid some dangerous pitfalls in life.

[The "ex" relationship]

This is something about the modern day culture that I really don't understand.  My attitude is this, if after a divorce I'm able to maintain a decent relationship, i.e. celebrate birthdays, express appreciation on Mother's Day/Father's Day, Facebook friends, etc. then why did they get divorced?  It's a real enigma to me-IMO most marriages are not "easy", they take effort, work, dedication, etc. and IMO the only legitimate reasons for divorce is Abuse and Adultery.

If Abuse has occurred to the point that it has destroyed my marriage, why in the world would I want to talk to this person after divorce?  If Adultery has destroyed my marriage, why would I want to talk to this person and maintain any relationship after marriage?  

The only things that should cause a divorce are acts that are so irreconcilable that maintaining any type of relationship after a divorce (besides those where it is necessary, i.e. kids) is pretty much impossible to the point where it is just forgive, forget and move on with life; if the divorce didn't occur for a reason that causes any relationship after the divorce to be irreconcilable .  . .. then why are they getting divorced?

I guess I just have a real bone to pick with the modern day "well we just didn't love each other anymore and didn't want to be married so we got divorced, we are still friends we just wanted the freedom to go have sex with other people".  Seriously, what kind of crap is that?

[My love life has been a failure!]

3 hours ago, classylady said:

Flirting is overrated. The trick, I found, when in my singles Ward, was to just be friendly.

Truth . . . rather than learn how to flirt, learn how to be a good person.  A good person will be friendly, complimentary, helpful, etc.  Flirting isn't about pick-up lines or dopey catch phrases-it's about genuinely being complimentary.  Besides most "normal" flirting in this modern world ends up having some sort of sexual innuendo and if the girl you are trying to date is into that stuff do you really want to be dating her???? 

Most good flirting (i.e. the non-sexual innuendo type) really just comes down to being comfortable and playing around (i.e. having a good sense of humor).  We do it all the time with people we know and love, except we don't call it flirting b/c we know them, they know us and we don't have an ulterior motive-we just want to enjoy the other person's company.  

The best thing you can do is just to be comfortable in your own skin-that principle works not just in the dating game for for all sorts of "games"-it works in the political arena, it works for work, networking, business,etc.  We don't call it flirting in the other areas b/c the intent isn't to date, the intent is to develop a business relationship, to get a job, to get a promotion etc.  But ultimately, you've got to be comfortable and confident in your own skin.  

You find in live that sometimes (many times) your personality doesn't match up with the business relationship you are trying to develop or the network or the job, or whatever. In those instances,you just accept the loss, learn from it (if you can) and move on-there is always another opportunity, another relationship, another whatever.

Then the only way you really get good at it is through practice . . .some people just have a natural talent and knack-but most of us have to practice and the only way to practice, i.e. to be comfortable in your own skin is to just simply do it-no amount of reading, studying, etc. will ever make up for just doing it.  So no matter how many times you get shot down, you just keep working at it, find a girl you're interested in ask her out on a date and then just learn and be introspective.  

Don't ask her "what did I do right or what did I do wrong", no one is going to tell you-sometimes you've just got to learn it on your own.

[I've Made a Mistake]

12 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

The looks on peoples faces and some of the conversations I have with ward friends and leaders is that they care so much for her welfare that we must be doing something wrong. That is when church feels like its a toxic environment when people cannot use their Christ eyes and Christ mouths.

Unfortunately, I think this may be a product of the modern world.  If you have a bad kid people look at you like your a bad parent; if your spouse is not at church sometimes people think there is something you are doing wrong.

Loving someone, demonstrating kindness, etc. may help someone come back to church-but that shouldn't be why we do it.  Disciplining a child because they hit their sibling may help them to learn not to hit, but that shouldn't be why we do it.  We do these things b/c they are the right things to do regardless of whether the outcome is the desired outcome.

Human beings are not rats, if I do this or if I do that, if I say this or if I say that then this person would be obedient, then this person would come back to church. We all have the ability to choose what we want in life and an essential part of being a parent and in being a spouse is understanding that we can't control the individual we love.

We do the right things not b/c we want them to change their behavior, but simply because they are the right things to do.  I guess this is a long way of saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If we all realized this life would be much better.

[The Crossroads of My Dreams and Destiny]

On 6/1/2017 at 6:24 PM, Gazing at essence said:

 

@yjacketI noticed that you mentioned the severity of the situation increases when we consider the fact that many of her sexual sins were committed after her mission. I have to say, more than anything I am worried that she and I have different attitudes towards the covenants that we made with the Lord. I am not sure I understand what the word even means to her. 

This is really what I've been trying to hit home.

[HELP ME SAVE MY MARRIAGE]

First off I would say to just chill.  The world isn't going to end in the next hour, day or week.  No matter how bad this seems-it too shall pass.  So take a big deep breath. If you need to release some energy, go to the gym and workout go for a run, go do your favorite hobby, etc. Do something to get your mind off of this for a bit.  

Now, there is a lot here so just calm down before it being addressed. So I'm going to approach this trying to give you a different perspective.  A possible perspective of your wife, it doesn't mean you or I agree with it-but an essential part of life is understanding another's point of view even when we don't agree with what they do. You've been together for 6 years, so that means basically since the time she was mature enough to date (~17) -you are the only man she has ever really got to know.  IMO it would not be a shock that after getting married she questions if she made the right decision (I don't have to agree with it to say that it doesn't surprise me or even that in some cases it might be a given). Especially if things have been a little rough.

Now you are both young and immature (why people use snapchat, I'll never know). Technology especially in a marriage can be a very dangerous thing.  It is way, way too easy in today's society for people to communicate with former Facebook flames, random strangers, etc. on the internet.  Even if one has a good moral standing-most of the rest of the world doesn't-so it is very easy to find someone to talk to during a rough period of time in a marriage.  That initial "innocent friend" or stranger can easily lead to something not innocent if one is not careful.

Now first off you stated that you worry that she will cheat or lie. The interesting thing about people and our expectations is that much of the time people will end up conforming to them.  If you think she will cheat or lie, then any instance in your mind that could be cheating will instantly be converted into is cheating.  So the first thing you must do if you want to save your marriage is to banish this idea that she will cheat or lie (you are unfairly setting her up to fail by doing that).

Now, unless you actually have a text or an e-mail from her to this man stating she would like a picture then all you have is a he said she said.  You wife says she didn't ask for it. He says she did.  If you have an initial approach that your wife lies about it-you will automatically assume she is lying about this. However, why would the dude lie?  Think about it.  If you just sent some random chick (or even some girl you barely met) a porno picture and this girls husband asks you about it, what would you say?  Obviously, you would say . . .well she wanted it and you would obviously say she said she wasn't married.  You are going to do everything you can to absolve yourself of any improper behavior . . .why??

Well, b/c if some random dude sent my wife a porno picture, there is a high likelihood I'm gonna be opening a can of youknowwhat on him!!!! 

So you can't trust what this random dude said, period, end of story.  You admit you're wife never opened the Snapchat, so it absolutely is plausible that your wife never solicited this from him and doesn't know him or barely knows him. It is possible your wife is telling the truth.  Unless there is further evidence you should give her the benefit of the doubt.

So what should you do.  You're wife may be cheating, but she may not be cheating . . . but if she isn't cheating this type of behavior could certainly drive her to cheating.

If you want to save your marriage, you really need to re-think your approach.

Unless there is more to this story, I would apologize profusely to me wife, admit what I did was wrong, stupid, that I should trust her more.  I would then say that as part of this we should both be more open about our technology use to each other.  That she should have come to you about this picture 1st, that by not being fully open with you it breeds mistrust, that you and her need to be more fully open about your communications with other individuals.

Now if you have other texts, or e-mails or snapchats of her seeking this type of stuff-that's a different ballgame.  But unless and until then, take this as a wake-up call that all is not right in your marriage and that if you don't drastically change the way both you and her approach it, bad things could happen.