yjacket

I completely agree, teaching can go on in many forms and an interview can be a perfect time for it. I was commenting that if for example a 14 year old youth comes in an interview and doesn't understand the LoC (which honestly isn't that complex) and the Bishop has to explain it in the interview than leaders (mostly parents) haven't done their duty.

I think this is more likely the case. There are on the order of 30,000 Bishops (not quite b/c a lot of those are branches and BP don't have authority of LoC issues, if someone answers No to LoC question, they are supposed to immediately stop and refer the person to the District President). Say there are 5 youth in each ward (very low number) and they get interviewed twice a year, that's over 300,000 interviews a year. The internet gives anyone a microphone to blast out anything they want and make it seem like the truth. With 300,000 potential interviews a year, if you scour the internet you might here 10-15, maybe as much as 100 bad interview. Just ballparking but that is .03% of interviews conducted in one year would be done inappropriately. Given that Bishops are human, that number wouldn't surprise me in the least; if that is accurate I'd say the Church is doing pretty darn good as you know some interviews will be done inappropriately-it would be expecting perfection to think otherwise. I remember reading one girl who was interviewed "poorly", well first off she taped the conversation and then put it on the net, then if you listened to the recording she was specifically trying to goad him into asking bad questions, she basically set the poor guy up, then trashed him. Some people (even the youth) have an agenda to get what they want-which is to badmouth religion, authority, etc.

Maybe things have changed but I never remember a "required interview". I certainly had interviews but it seemed to go along the lines of "hey there is a temple baptism, every youth who wants to attend must have an interview with the Bishop". From my recollections of those interviews they are pretty simply the temple recommend questions with one or two removed that don't apply. I can't ever recall an interview with the Bishop that was just to talk about "stuff", they always had a purpose (i.e. a temporary recommend) and always involved the recommend questions. Bishops are counseled to stick to the interview questions and to not deviate from them nor to put additional requirements on them. I don't see why it would be any different with youth. The most that I can see a Bishop doing is a) Do you obey the Law of chasity? or b) if he feels inspired, "what does the Law of chastity mean to you" then do you obey the LoC? IMO if the Bishop is having to teach in an interview what the LoC means to a youth then we (i.e. parents and church) have failed in raising our children properly to understand what it is. The Church's interview process has always been on the Honor system vs. an inquisition. If I answer yes to the LoC question but I'm not really doing so, unless the Bishop has a very strong reason to do otherwise he is pretty much obligated to move on. If someone answered no to the LoC, I think the conversation would go of understanding the nature of it, i.e. is it porn, and other related sins, was it with another person (hopefully opposite sex-otherwise that's another conversation), is the other person married, are you married (for youth wouldn't apply) what level was it, was it sex, simulated, petting, or simply very passionate kissing (i.e. necking). Once he knows the level then he can appropriately determine how the rest of the conversation should go. It isn't important to know the details-only the severity, b/c looking at porn is quite a bit different than fornication which is different from adultery. I can only imagine though that in actuality the Bishop probably ends up getting more details than he really cares about.

Something I learned many years ago with my kids is that I cannot control them, I can only help to mold and shape them. Ultimately, some children simply go bad regardless of the proper parenting. They have their free agency and I have learned not to judge parents by their children, but to judge parents by their reactions to their children and as such I have learned not to judge myself by the behavior of my children but to judge myself by my reactions to their behavior, i.e. do I continually teach my children that I will not tolerate certain behaviors even if they continue to exhibit them. Some children no matter what you do will turn out bad-but it is incumbent upon parents to continue exhibiting loving leadership and discipline to such child.

So much wisdom here Vort in your comments. It is interesting, when one of my kids misbehave many times the entire family suffers. We've not gone to activities simply because one child misbehaves. Some might think that is unfair, but it is a very important lesson to learn at a young age- your actions have direct impact on other people, no man is an island. Bad behavior of one person in grown up land can absolutely affect many, many people. However, sometimes I wonder if parents punish themselves unnecessarily. For example, my wife sometimes will feel bad and upset when one child causes them to miss a kids activity. I have to remind her, you are not the one who needs to feel the pain-the kids do. Sometimes it will affect you (i.e. you wanted to talk with a friend at the activity) but the point of discipline is to have the child feel the maximum psychological impact. The best thing about being a parent is I can show my displeasure to my child, then turn around and have a pleasant conversation. I am not responsible for my children's behavior-they and they alone are responsible for their behavior. I however am responsible to demonstrate to them the consequences of their ill-advised behavior :-).

A lot of very wise counsel; I personally hate debt, but I also understand that there are times when it can be very useful. I do think co-signing for a child's educational loan is very, very stupid. If a parent signs they are liable for the debt, no if ands or buts. The kid doesn't get a job later (or simply decides to be a lazy loaf) and the parents are on the hook. Even worse, if the unthinkable happens and the child dies the debt is still the parents responsibility-it doesn't get discharged. Those Student Plus Federal loans are horrible. It is my contention that most people end up being debt-slaves and are more easily controlled. Having no debt provides an enormous amount of freedom.

Much of the modern religious beliefs on usury come from Thomas Aquinas http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/aquinas-on-usury Now in the history of philosophy, Thomas was certainly on the forward liberal edge (using liberal in the classical sense) and his thoughts opened up a lot of freedom-but on usury he simply got it wrong. Debt and interest are critical components of society-even in simple societies the ability to lend money at interest is critical. Debt is not more inherently a sin than drinking alcohol is inherently a sin. As LDS, we currently consider drinking alcohol against God's commandments and thus a sin-but it is not an inherent sin. Debt can be extremely useful-the good kind of debt is debt that is used to produce something. For example debt to start a business, debt to build a factory, etc. Bad debt is debt that only consumes. However, while debt in and of itself is neither moral nor immoral, how we respond to it can be a sin. For example, if I loan Mary 1k at 5% interest for 10 years, there is an implicit understanding that not only does the 5% ir encompass the individual's time preference (i.e. lower interest rates are indicative of a short term time horizon) it also encompasses to some extent the likelihood of default. If I know Mary to be a pretty good person, I'm going to give her a better deal than the Shady Joe b/c I have more confidence she will pay me back. Now, if Mary does default, my reaction to her default could be a sin-if I'm angry, upset, etc. that could be a sin. The other huge fallacy is that usury is charging "outrageous" interest. There is no such thing as an "outrageous" interest; it is all supply and demand. If it actually is "outrageous" than no one will get that loan, the person loaning money won't lend it and no transaction occurs. If the person lending wants to make some money through lending then he will lower his rate to attract a buyer. Getting upset at someone for charging more for generators during a winter storm or for charging higher rates is a logical fallacy-you'd be better off getting upset at the weather. When it comes to the buying and selling of any good (even money) the price on the market reins supreme-there is no such thing as a "broken market" where government must fix or where it is a sin to conduct a transaction due to the transaction itself. Now while I have said debt is not evil-the current monetary system we are under is absolutely evil. Debt comes from savings, i.e. I had to save 1k before I could loan it to Mary. Unfortunately out monetary system does not work like that and it is 100% an evil, immoral system and is probably one of the greatest evils in the world today. Our monetary system works like this. I make a claim I have 1k, where did I get it I just put the number 1k on a piece of paper and then I give it to Mary and tell Mary I need 2k back in the same paper. How does Mary get another 1k well she has to get it from someone else who I wrote 1k on a piece of paper and gave it to them. Our entire monetary system is built on fraud and theft-it is 100% a debt based system wherein if all the debt was actually paid back all the money would cease to exist (except for a very small fraction). The reason why the debt is never paid back is because it can't be, our monetary system must continually generate more debt-if it doesn't it would collapse. Fractional reserve banking/lending is evil and is a sin, but it is so insidious that very few people see it for what it is-plain theft and fraud.

A big, big loss for traditionalist. Let's pick the next Supreme Court Justice, must be a) female & b) not-white. Today I received a despicable e-mail about jobs hiring from a major private entity, but in the e-mail it said the jobs where "diversity hires", let me throw up a bit-no wonder we are going down the toilet. Private companies don't even want to hire the best they want "diversity". It's a long slow slide to servitude and tyranny-like boiling a frog then one day you look up and realize holy crap look how unfree I am.

I'm surprised no one has stated this, but why in the world are you working a full-time job with little children at home? And just for clarification, yes I know the common refrain is "but we both have to work"-IMO it is more of an excuse than a reason (there are some cases where it is necessary-but if "necessary" means a 2000+ sqft house that's not a necessity-that's a want. I moved out of a high-cost of living area specifically because I knew that if I continued to work in that area to have the things I wanted it would require my wife to work-I said no to that moved and things have gone very well. It's late and I'm tired-but the prophets have counseled and continued to counsel that the mother's primary responsibility is to provide for the nurture and care of the children and the father's primary responsibility is to provide the necessities of life for the family. Yeah, yeah it's 2016 . . . so what, God was right and the Bible when it lays out very plainly the proper roles between men and women. Get that right and things will go a lot more smoothly. Considering the way children are being raised with no mother in the home, divorce rampant, morality in the tank-I think I'd take the good 'ol days when people actually new what their role was in life and fulfilled it-instead of trying to be and do all. President Monson even said in a GC many years ago, STTE of the man is the head of the household and the woman the heart. Other than that your options are a) continue to be ticked at your husband, b) hire a maid, c) well you know what this option is.

They are but the principles are the same . . . considering the massive destruction of the family with divorce rates, unhappy wives, husbands, mental problems, etc. Just maybe, people in previous generations knew how to live better lives then we do in harsher conditions. Think about it-we have all this modern technology that spares us from so much work-yet the family unit is falling about; just maybe the ancients were a little wise.

Obviously you haven't read the Proclamation have you? "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." What to you think "provide for the necessities" means? What do you think "nurture" means?

Well you see once upon a time-prior to the current modern age society-the roles were more well defined, taught, and understood. There wouldn't be any question about this; it was simply understood. For my backup, just read what the Church was teaching young women with the Beehive program 100 years ago. https://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/history/history-of-young-women-recognition?lang=eng https://daymonsmith.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/handbookforbeehi1915.pdf It wasn't about relegating women to a lesser role (nothing of the sort); my goodness teaching children, taking care of a house are full-time jobs and extremely important. It was about functionality,survival and making a family hum. There is a concept in economics called division of labor; it means that each individual specializes in some field so they become an expert at it. If they become an expert, then they become very, very efficient. When many people become experts in some area it makes productivity skyrocket and more can get done with less amount of time. Now this doesn't mean an expert in one area can't help out in another-in fact helping out in another area it will increase productivity; but when 2 people try to do the same work-unless that each bit of work is well defined conflict arises and productivity drops. It is simple economic laws. I don't know why or where in the world people are blinded into thinking that raising children to be adults and taking care of the home is lesser, demeaning or not worthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once upon a time, women took joy in being called a housewife. Now no one wants to use that term-at best they use stay-at-home-mom.

Certainly . . . I'd like to know where you think there is unrighteous dominion here.

As TFP stated, it really could be that the wife is a total slob. I know in this new modern age of "enlightenment" the roles of men and women are messed up. But unless they are making a lot of money (enough to hire a maid) someone has to do the cleaning of the house. If both spouses are working then both should have the responsibility to clean up-however if the husband works a full-time job and the wife stays at home then she should probably have the primary responsibility for the upkeep of the house. I would dare say that it is highly likely that the wife doesn't really understand her role completely and I would add the husband doesn't understand his role either; just like a lot of mothers out there (and even some LDS mothers) have absolutely 0 clue as to what it means to actually be a mother. It was very, very eye-opening to me when I went to an awesome parenting class, the man presenting didn't actually spend too much time addressing fathers, 95% of the time he spent focusing on the responsibilities of wives and mothers. I'm a husband first father second, like my wife is my wife first and mother second. The greatest thing I can do for my children is to love my wife. Unfortunately, not taking on and embracing the God-given God-mandated roles in husband and wife has caused more destruction to the family than anything else.

Being clean and orderly is a commandment of God. D&C 108: 8 Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing, and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God; The challenge comes at what level is clean and order, my definition and your definition of clean might be completely different.

Quite simply, if they are teaching things that you believe are out-of-line with the Church (and from what you have said I would agree)- don't see them.

Specifically to the OP, Think long and hard about this decision, then pray, then think long and hard again. If she doesn't want to pursue it, then I would drop it. Having been (so far) successfully married for a little bit of time to someone who was abused, I'm here to tell you if you marry her you will be in for one heck of a ride. Before you leap on that ride, you better be darn sure that marrying her is what God wants you do to. Because if you don't have a very strong confirmation that you should pursue it from God (and she needs the same confirmation), it will break your marriage. Bank on it breaking you and only through God's grace surviving with a better understanding of the Atonement and true Christlike love. What I'm saying, all sounds ethereal and not too real and well it won't be that hard, probably clouded by those good feelings of being in-love. If she has fully applied the atonement and not made this part of her identity then maybe not, but if she hasn't yet, then it is very real and you will never know how very hard that path is until you walk it and if you have a good confirmation from God then that very hard path will be worth it in the end and it will make you a much better person, but if you don't then it will destroy you.

Boy you sure cast a lot of blame around don't you. You don't know who I am, what happened, when or anything about the circumstance-yet you in your self-righteous indignation castigate and condemn me. Maybe you ought to look at your own life and understand where all the hate is coming from. You know there is this funny thing called responsibility that actually enables one to be a well-adjusted adult. My wife was abused, she went through horrible things-but it wasn't some "abuse counselor" with 3 letters after his name that made her all better her 'cuz she went to one, while it helped open her eyes to what happened, it didn't help her really get better or what actually propelled her to be more of the person God intended. No it was that she finally realized that when those things happened she was ignorant and simply lacked any ability to make things different; those who abused her were also ignorant in many things and lacked the knowledge and power to change. She as an adult now has additional power, knowledge, sight, etc and as such every day she has the ability to determine through her actions the type of person she wants to be. When she stopped being a victim, applied the Atonement to the past and started taking charge of her life is when thing really started to change. You can lamblast me, like I don't know what I'm talking about that I'm a cruel person, blah, blah, blah. Listen closely-I don't care what your thoughts on my actions are- I have seen in my own flesh and blood living proof of what changed with my wife-and I thank God that it happened.

The way you are looking at it is to deny basic human nature. Yes, a "clean car" will disinvite criminals from breaking in-it is a fact and will help protect you. See what many survivors don't understand (and I married one and had to teach her this) is that not knowing that a "clean car" disinvites criminals and not practicing it doesn't make the owner to blame. It just means they are ignorant (not in a bad way, in a not knowing, lack of experience way). Now that one is older, wiser, has had a car broken into, etc. one thinks, hmm, how can I prevent this from happening again. So one doesn't park a car in a dark unlit allay in the seedy part of town, one doesn't keep shopping bags out in the open, etc. Again, it's not about blame it's about lowering the odds- your way of thinking completely denies actual human behavior.

I kind of think of it like this. I learned a long time ago when driving into very public areas to keep a "clean car", don't leave anything that looks like it might be valuable out in the open. Everything should be put away, no laptops, phones, shopping bags, etc. By doing so it lessens the chance that my car will be broken into; thieves will see nothing of value and think "move onto the next car". Now it doesn't always prevent a car from being broken into or stolen-it simply makes it less inviting for criminals to do so. Is it my fault if I don't keep a clean car and it gets broken into-no absolutely not-the criminal is at fault not me. Could I have done things to have made it less likely-probably. If I'm on the subway at night, I have a grumpy face-it's the "don't mess with me face"-I do it on purpose. It's not about blame or fault, it's about protection and lowering the odds of something bad happening-it may not prevent it-but walking around in a mini-skirt and a deep cut blouse at 2am in a seedy part of town sure ain't gonna help your odds.

Not so; small town of 10 people. You have income of 10 million dollars. 9 people vote for the 1 person who says they should tax all income over 1 million dollars and then redistribute evenly among everyone. Hey 9 people voted for it . . .it's legitimate!! The "rule of law" is nothing more than a thin veneer to allow very smart thieves to steal from other people and have the people who were stolen from say "oh well it was the rule of law".

Amen brother.

Actually it depends on how it is being used-it certainly can be abusive, but it may not be depending on the context and the situation. Because yes, kids can be really dumb at times; big difference in saying to a child "well that xyz behavior you did was stupid" vs. "you are stupid".

Neither you nor I are privy to what is actually going on-and the stats are quite clear absent a father figure is extremely detrimental to the overall well-being and health of a child. If the tables were turned and a mother did this-how many people would say that it is better for there to be no mother in the home?

Even if the dad is a crappy dad it would be better in the long run than a broken home. Broken homes without fathers are absolutely devastating on society.