Leah

All I can say about the first post is that it's quite the combination of two styles of such posts one sees on forums such as this - the standard I'm-perfect-so-everything-is-everbody-else's fault post along with here-are-all-the-things-wrong-with-Mormons post. Sort of a two-for-one deal.

Wow. I can't find polite or ladylike words to express what I think about these husbands. Wow.

I'd like to see this documentation, too. I have MS. Going by JojoBag's claims, this disease is caused by evil spirits (and to think that the medical world is wasting all that money on researching a cause!). Soooo...would that mean the cure for MS would be an exorcism? Get rid of the evil spirit, get rid of the disease? How did the evil spirit give me this disease? WHY did it give me this disease? Did I somehow attract this evil spirit and was therefore complicit in getting this disease? I don't necessarily doubt that there are such things as evil spirits (I'm pretty sure I work with one), but claiming that they are the cause for all the things listed above....not convinced.

Are you saying that a drug addict is never responsible for any of their choices? At what point precisely does the releasing of them from all responsibility occur? With their first drink or joint? I know more than a few experts and addicts who would disagree with you.

I understand the point you are trying to make and don't necessarily disagree with it but.....this guy has a history of lies, deceit and of cheating with this woman. If it were my husband, I think I would - at the minimum - be looking cross-eyed at his story of not wanting the sex this time, and it was all the other woman's fault because even though he did go to her for "drugs", she somehow forced him to take more of these mysterious drugs than he wanted to and that's the only reason he had sex with her. Sure, it could be true. Or it could be his way of trying to shirk responsibility for his actions and place the blame elsewhere. Oh..and the OP refers to the drug-seeking and infidelity as a "mistake". This was not a whoopsie-doodle-I-meant-to-do-x-and-not-y kind of moment. He made repeated CHOICES to do drugs and have sex outside his marriage.

Who customarily walks out with him along with his security person. I am saddened - but not surprised - that the online speculation about President Monson's health began anew after conference. People certainly didn't waste any time, did they? But the "not buying into this"? It's one thing to feel concerned regarding his health but to basically say that the Church is lying about something and covering something up - that's a whole different attitude.

I don't understand the point of this thread. Speculating on a wildly hypothetical situation when the only answer to the question of anyone's fate in the next world is up to Heavenly Father.

So your definition of "pro-life" is narrowly defined by no abortion for any reason ever. My understanding then is that the Catholic Church would oppose of an abortion even in a situation involving a young girl who is pregnant as a result of rape and whose life is endangered by the pregnancy. The Church would forbid the abortion and condemn the girl for her "sin" and would rather she - and therefore the life she is carrying - die instead. The Catholic Church would consider that a just punishment for her "sin" then? How is allowing two lives to be lost considered "pro" life? How is that the Church has the authority to impose the death penalty on this young girl? Is that not a mortal sin?

I listened to law enforcement today talking about how the response to these kinds of shootings has changed since Columbine. At that time, the approach was for law enforcement to wait outside for specialized teams, etc. The approach/training now is entry into the building as quickly as possible by whichever law enforcement personnel arrive first, to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible, thereby reducing the number of casualties. From my understanding, this is exactly the approach that was used yesterday, and two officers were able to neutralize the shooter within 11 minutes of arrival on the scene. I have no doubt that that did indeed reduce the death toll. That helps to illustrate why I have no opposition to trained citizens, be they active law enforcement or private citizens, carrying in most places. I feel it would increase the chances of neutralizing the shooter faster than waiting for armed "official" personnel to arrive from elsewhere, and again reducing the number of casualties.

Having come from Judaism.....we always had heightened security measures for High Holiday services and other occasions of Jews meeting in large groups. (YMMV in the "liberal" end of the spectrum). In addition to obvious police presence, there would be a number of members who would conceal carry in addition to other methods of heightened awareness and plans for response. Protecting one's family and community with the use of firearms (if necessary) was not seen as a grievous sin. While refusing to cower in fear, threats were taken seriously. Going down without a fight was not an option. I worked for a time at a Jewish day school, which was across the street from the Jewish community center. We had regular visits from the FBI on credible threats and support on protection. But something like what happened yesterday...how do you see that coming? I would have NO issue with someone like Mirkwood carrying at church. I also had a conversation today with a police officer who was shot in the line of duty...but my break is over!

Am watching the latest news conference. It is striking in the comments of the sheriff, who refused to name the shooter and stated that the shooter's name will not be spoken by him, ever. He made additional comments regarding this point and I have to say his words and manner were striking and powerful. His concerns and energies clearly lie with the victims and their families.

So according to you "cold, insensitive, haughty, self-centered, harshly critical" are traits of "Utah Mormons". From that description then, you wouldn't have any problem with someone identifying you as a "Utah Mormon" for displaying those very same qualities here, right? How ironic.

I feel your pain and understand your frustration...from a female point of view, at least. I am in the same age range, a convert of four years, and have found no support from the church for us "older" singles. I hear the same from my contemporaries. It is disheartening that the church doesn't recognize the sincere desire of those of us at this age who still desire to find our eternal companion....while still here in mortality. The most common response I get is that I should just abandon that thought and wait for the next life. But I'm kind of stubborn, so I refuse to give up! :)

"Rightfully" stereotyping and judging people? And denigrating them? Where is that "right" given exactly? The Bible? Book of Mormon? The Constitution?

You're not the crazy one, the people you are arguing with are. What possible good could it do to call the parents first? That is simply going to delay the arrival of help in an emergency when seconds can count. I cannot begin to imagine what these parents' thought processes are and what they think calling them is going to accomplish. I think children should be taught how to call 911 in an emergency as soon as they are able to understand. Haven't we all seen stories over the years of very young children calling 911 for situations such as an unconscious parent? And what if the parent doesn't answer the phone because they are unavailable in a meeting or something? If you call 911 you are guaranteed that someone will answer. I have to say that this is some of the stupidest - and potentially dangerous - advice that I've ever heard.

"Wow" right back. The belief that "Bottom line is that the church is a social organization" is so far from the truth that I scarcely know how to respond. That may be all it is to YOU, but that is absolutely not what the church is. As far as church or pastor shopping goes...that's a terrible argument and example. People who do that are merely confirming the fact that what is most important to them is not what the Gospel says or what Heavenly Father wants - but what is most important to them is that their own selfish needs - having a "social organization" for example - and if the church they attend doesn't do everything the way they want, they'll act like a child who doesn't get his way and pick up the ball and go home.

That last sentence is absolutely spot-on. It describes the situation accurately. Couple that with the guy dictating how many "squirts" of face wash his wife can use - it sets off all sorts of alarm bells in my head. As for the references to "interfaith marriage" by some - they were both of the same faith when they married, so it is not like she knowingly and willingly entered into an "interfaith" marriage. Yes, people change....people sometimes leave the church after marriage, etc., - but not all of the same precepts that apply to two people knowingly and willingly entering into an interfaith marriage apply here. And I don't know how the word interfaith pertains to this situation. The husband has no faith and is demanding that the wife not show hers.

I saw this yesterday in Deseret News. I wished I had known about it earlier in the day when the subject of the refugees came up at work in the lunch room when one of the attorneys was reading the local paper and commented on the tragedy. I would have loved to have the opportunity to point out to my wildly liberal, anti-religion (and some flatly anti-LDS) the amazing humanitarian efforts that the Church regularly engages in. I am sure most people haven't the slightest clue. Including an awful lot of members of the Church.

I drive by a police precinct on my way to work. As I was coming up the block today, I noticed a man walking back and forth in front of the precinct carrying a sign. My first thought was.....now what are they protesting? (It's Portland. People here protest just for the sake of protesting). I was surprised and pleased to see that his sign bore a statement supporting the police. I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of 'protest' catch on across the country.

I don't see anyone saying that the wife has to deal with this alone. That is what professionals are for. That is what the bishop is for. I agree that it is a betrayal of her husband/marriage to tell something like this to a friend. It can actually compound the damage to the marriage. What happens when the husband is able to overcome this problem, they stay together and have a strong marriage? That does happen, you know. So now the friend - in this case, you - knows this personal information about the husband. It's always going to be the elephant in the room. Should he be forever forced to wear a scarlet letter, so to speak? Do you want him to feel your scorn and to feel humiliated whenever he sees you? Is that supposed to be part of some punishment process? Or is the atonement not available to those who have struggled with porn? No one is perfect. Some people have done far worse things than look at pornography. Do you think everyone's sins should be announced to others? Maybe we should all wear some sort of pin denoting our particular failings. I think women in general have become much too quick to share the personal parts of their marriage and do so to the detriment of their marriage. And other women enable them. It's like a new sport or something.

To answer the question posed in your last sentence....yes, that would absolutely be wrong of you. You would be way out of line.

I've been trying to organize my thoughts about this subject and I am still not sure I am going to be articulate, but..... What I am gathering from this thread is that the church and most members of this thread feel that it's necessary to have two-deep leadership only when those leaders are male, and in order to prevent sexual assault because statistics show that the majority of sexual crimes are perpetrated by men. And that this policy is not necessary when the leaders are female because...well, gee golly gosh...women sometimes commit sexual crimes but since it's less often than men...nope, no need to worry at all. On the face of it, it doesn't appear very balanced. We assume every male teaching in Primary is a potential pedophile? And we assume no woman ever is? I have actually in my personal/professional/volunteer life have unfortunately encountered situations in which the perpetrator was a female. A female babysitter. A female teacher. Just a couple of examples. If the concern is to protect the Primary children from sexual assault, why distinguish between the two sexes? What level of risk does there have to be before it's considered risky enough? Sexual assault by a female is going to be just as damaging to the child. And if we are reducing the risk from males, is the risk from females even higher because we think nothing of leaving our children alone with a female, so that situation happens in a child's life far more frequently than being left alone with a male. And for most people, the thought of sexual assault from a woman doesn't even enter their minds, so they aren't looking for any warning signs as they would with a male, and they aren't picking up on the signs after the assault has happened. Because they left their child with a woman and therefore they must be safe, right? I babysat a lot as a teenager. It's how I made my spending money. But any teenage guy who wanted to babysit was looked at with suspicion. Yet I am aware of a female babysitter in that town and era who did molest her charges. Were these children at less risk because she was a woman? I can understand two-deep leadership with males from a liability point of view. If you have two adults in the room, you have a witness for those occasions like the one mentioned above where the child makes a false claim. (And of course this policy works at all ages, so you don't have the random crackpot who accuses the bishop, teacher, pastor, etc of inappropriate conduct). If that is part of the reasoning, I don't necessarily disagree with that. But - again - I have to ask - why the idea that the same approach is irrelevant when it comes to female leadership? It's like any kind of statistic. My doc can tell me there is a less than 1% chance that X scary thing will happen. But then when I get that diagnosis - and I am part of that less than 1% - I am not any less sick than if the chances had been greater. The child who is sexually assaulted by a female is not somehow less damaged because the initial odds were so low as to be dismissed by the church (and others) as too insignificant to worry about. Sexual assault is a terrible, terrible thing to endure. Especially for children. The effects can be devastating. Yes, victims can go on to have a happy, functional life. But it's like the person who becomes a paraplegic after an accident. You survive. You thrive. You overcome. But you still have legs that don't work. Yes, we can potentially go overboard in protecting our children. I've seen this in other ways where parents go such extremes in protecting them from physical injury, for example, that the children are hardly living a normal life. But if there are simple, reasonable ways that we can protect our children from the devastation of sexual assault, then we have an obligation to do so. Is two-deep leadership across the board - regardless of the gender of the leadership - really so onerous as to be impossible to achieve? Are there no creative ways to address this? And aside from the sexual assault aspect of it, I can think of a myriad of reasons to have more than one teacher/adult present when dealing with a classroom full of children. Plenty of things simply require an extra set of hands...potty breaks, falls, out of control kids....I'm surprised to hear that any adult is left alone to cope with a classroom full of kids. Is the goal to protect our children from sexual assault by men only? It sure seems that way when the two-deep policy only applies to men. I'm with Backroads on this one. two-deep is simply a good policy across the board and shouldn't be used solely to protect against sexual assault by males.

It is definitely not just your ward, I've seen it in both wards I've been in since joining the church in 2011. In those wards, it's been skirts more than dresses, specifically a certain style of skirt that is definitely casual by design and more suited for a weekend at the beach. But it appears that many women think that any skirt that comes to the ankles is by default modest, no matter the design of the rest of the skirt. It seems to be a peculiarly Mormon fashion, as I've not seen these casual, clingy skirts being worn in other settings where a modest "Sunday best" kind of attire would be common. Indeed, there have been a few such strange "fashion trends" that I only see at church/church functions. Modest clothing is not hard to find and doesn't cost any more than immodest clothing.

Your anti-Semitism is showing. And to the OP - the correct spelling is Israel.

I still don't get it. You say you are worried that you are going to be excommunicated but you continue to make, deliberate conscious choices (such as planning on moving in with your girlfriend) to break your covenants and ignore the teachings of the gospel. Your actions -again, deliberate and conscious choices - would indicate that your membership in the church isn't actually important to you. At least, nor more important than having sex.