gree0232

Mayube you should read. When someone says the wife is right, that would be a point - correct? Or, I suppose disagreeing with burning a Calendar like a four year old throwing a fit is a defensible position. By all means, defend it. Use logic. Demonstrate something besides pique that ... because someone making a case might be making a strong case and ... well, what case are you making? "I hate you!" Well, thanks.

Why don't you try a PM - I have had quite enough of righteous 'Temple Cleansings' from people who think that challenging people and castigating them arethe correct way to disagree. How about instead of attacking me, you try a rational disagreement with the position? I have participated in exactly four threads ... and here was have a sweeping generalization about 'the forum' after only three days. Nice. I am sorry, perhaps, as a head moderator you could change the rules to, "Only those who think and agree with me need apply. - Your decades of experience must also be fully vetted with me, to my standard, or I am allowed to castigate you repeatedly." Case in point, this the third time in this thread alone that you have taken a personal pot shots taken at me - and I have had enough. Now, would anyone like to challenge my thesis that castigation and blame casting are successful communicative tools in relationships? Perhaps we could realize that this is a discussion and the the intent is to discuss. In fact, as we have this new standard E, as a leader in the forum, why not lay out your credentials in relationships counseling? What training have you received? What certifications have you received? Professional education? As we are now appealing to expertise in others ... by all means, begin the process - or please, knock off the personal pot shots. They help no one in this thread. I am sorry E, but I am allowed to disagree with you. You are not President Monson issuing prophetic guidance. 12 Ways to Have a Happy, Healthy Marriage No where in there does it state that castigation is critical to a healthy marriage. Silly me. I have clearly swept into the forum with unhealthy ideas that have no bearing in our literature. By all means E, make the case that castigation is the correct path. Go right ahead. In short, what makes me think my credentials are better than yours? The fact that I am making better case.

Here is the problem statement: Advice here is about how to overcome that problem set and difference in values. Education is key - and learning how your husband learns will help you, indeed the wider community, show him the error of his ways in a way that he will understand. Prioritize. Pick the issues where you think you ar elikely to make headway and understanding FIRST, even if there are more pressing issues. As he begins to see the error of his choices in small things ... well, planes begin as sheet metal and bolts ... and as he begins to connect the proverbial dots ... the bigger issues become smaller issues for him to overcome.

And there is the way to go about getting around the issue. Since speculation both is and is not acceptable ... trying to figure that out. Why do you think the husband is making such a big deal out of the Calendar? We do know that he is feeling 'controlled' correct? What we don't have any idea about is what he said as he tore it up? Perhaps scantily clad women in a Calendar that is mostly football players, and underage at that if it is indeed a high school football Calendar ... I don't think its a stretch to imagine that the husband thinks a bunch of sixteen year old girls in a picture, wearing cheerleader outfits, is much of a sexual issue for him at all. If the real issue is that he is indeed having sexual fantasies about 16 year old cheerleaders, a do believe that something other than 'advice' is in order for a potentially criminal situation. Scripturally, the Calendar may be frowned upon, but its a high school football Calendar - its not a church product and it does not, therefore, reflect the church's position on modesty ... nor is it a position we can force the school to adopt ... that long patience and suffering, leading by example, etc. comes back again. Again, we are turning a Calendar into a huge issue, and the more I learn about this, the more I once again see these issues as symptomatic of a systemic breakdown in communication. A husband who rips something up in front of his wife? Buys another Calendar anyway? He is in open rebellion. The question now is what to do about it. If a husband is in OPEN REBELLION, woudl burning the Calendar help? No. Would demanding that he share all his passwords and completely give up any semblance of privacy help? No. Would lecturing him about what a terrible priest holder he is help? No. All of those things are likely to make a man in open rebellion fight that much harder, and the goal isn't to break him -- its to call him to repentance and rehabilitation. With that in mind ... Would a potential breather help? One in which the couple sit down and analyze themselves and each other? Perhaps. I may not. I have no doubt that the husband is venting to his friends. Would perhaps having the wife reach out to one of them help? In the spirit of, "Look, everything I do lately seems to send him into orbit. What can I do differently?" The thing is, I fully support the standards that you espouse, but I also realize that the best way to have a standard 'enforced' is through conviction. The standards become learned and strong when we exercise our agency and choose them of our own free will. That is not a process of force or browbeating, it is one of patience, effort, duration, and example. It is not one that the wife here has to do by herself. Two final points: #1 - This man is probably not dumb, and given the demonstrative ripping up of the Calendar, its a fair bet that the 'standards' here are part of the larger problem. The couple if going to have to figure out how to compromise or correct to return to equilibrium. I doubt very seriously that if the husband were to throw away pictures of the girls that the marriage would be fully healed ... a supposition that is further strengthened with the greater contextual knowledge of the situation. Advice should be less about 'right' and more about moving beyond the problem set SUCCESSFULLY. #2 - Sometimes marriages fail. I speak from an unfortunately broad experience that one of the most profound pieces of guilt that a person can feel is to abandon a marriage without having tried everything humanly possible to salvage the marriage. That could include a healthy dose of confronting the grass is greener scenario with the husband - invite him to talk to few of single men, especially recent converts, about what the single scene is like out there. I believe he will realize quite quickly that relationships with women outside the gospel involve issues of far more consequence that Calendars, and the further away those women are from the church ... the more intractable and consequential those 'issues' tend to be. If he is drifting because he is feeling oppressed ... a little education may help him realize that he is far luckier and blessed than he imagines ... may help him understand how incredibly foolish he is being to disrespect his wife ... and may lead him to conclude himself that he is 'being stupid' and produce the required repentance. Please take it from an infantryman, who just spend ten years running trying to 'force' people to do what we tell them to do - force and castigation are really about the worst ways of bringing about compliance or altering perceptions.

And this is why I joined the thread wit the admonition to avoid speculation. I say this plainly, I have pruchased things for one reason, and found out later that they had things in them that were 'inappropriate'. In the trash they go. Sometimes we just do not see them. If its a local football team's calendar ... well, there have been cheerleaders at every football game I have ever been at, from high school on up. In fact, from the perspective outsid ethe church, those cheerleaders are in the Calendar for reasons of equity - as in teh cheerleaders are part of the team - and the parents of daughters get the acknowledgement that their daughters are not subordinate to the football players. Yet I cannot, as I sit here rememer not a one of those cheerleaders. They simply were not impotant to me ... and thus I pay them no mind. When someone points out that this is there ... it is a surprise. A mistake. Not an on purpose to piss off my wife. And the way to do that is not by burning it my face. Not my screaming at me. Not by questioing my preisthood (that is a matter for God and my worthiness) ... and we ALL make mistakes - even those who hold the priesthood. If we are stuck on the inadvertant mistakes ... which ones are we going to forgive? The Calendar is not that big of deal. Burning it to throw a 'mistake' in your spouses face? Tell me, if you bought a blouse that exposed your garmets inadventantly, would you want your husband to burn the blouse in front of you and question your worthiness before God? Why would we give that advice to a woman as a valid method of correcting her husband when he is wrong? Gentleness, patience ... Love. These are the centers of our relationship with Christ, and a daresay that these principles apply to our spouses.

So, your husband has to be perfect? He has no room to commit error, indeed the entire concept of atonement and forgioveness is bereft in your marriage? You of course would be willing to sign up for the same standard in reverse? That you will be perfect before both God and your husband's expectations? SHould you fall short, rather than expect forgiveness you expect righteous wrath and condemnation? Again, to make the point, there is a hug difference between 'being right' and needing to be acknowleedged as right. If theCalendar boters you so much, simply throw it away. That's it, be done with it. Your husband will most likely forgive you and move on. But, in the spirit of forgiveness, you must also forgive. THe instance that is perhaps most clearly indicative of you legitimate frustration is the photo with the other woman. There is no doubt, in an objective sense (regarless of your interpretation) that this was going to far. Your husband messed up. He was, as you say, stupid. He also, basedon what I read here, apologized, and was open an honest about the fact that he talked to her - attempting to be transparent and respectful of your wishes on the matter. There has evidentally been no forgiveness - for the issue continuesto come up in a litany of 'stupid' actions your husband has done - a list that continues to mount not matter what he does. Tell me, how does he get out from under that list of condmenation? How do we, as individuals get out from under that list in our relationship with Jesus Christ? THrough atonement, grace, and forgiveness. Luke is very clear, that we must forgive those who repent, and I dare say that those of us that it should be easiest to apply this principle to are the ones we love the most. I urge you to apply this aspect to the 'stupid' things your husband has done. I urge you strongly to take a pause and take those tests. I will wager that you will discover, however inadvertantly, that there were things you were doing hat were just as annoying to your husband as his have been to you. You have to find a way to let go of old hurts and forge a path, together, to equilibirum. There are a couple of alternatives to this process: Being miserable with one another as the communication process breaks down, and you avoid one another. Divorce. The two of you can forsake the commitment to one another you made before God, forget the love you had for each other that lead you to marriage, and just call it quits. THat is really the crux of the issue: do you want to 'be right' or do you want your marriage to work? When I see things like, "I should not have to compromise!", well, in a relationship that involves two people ... yes, you do. Sometimes, even when you are right. Sometimes, you must choose forgiveness over righteousness. God's perfect love does this for us over and over and over again. If your husband of all people does not deserve this from you, who does? Your husband can be brought to your standards, but learning is sometimes a gradula process, and, as I mention earlier, if you are not speaking his learning style, then hisprocess of attempt8ing to close the gap is going to be a frustrating for him as it is for you. Again, I strongly urge you to take that self analysis and share the results with one another. Take the ananlysis to a professional counselor, and help close the gap ... rather than widen it. Many people will tell you that you are right, and have indeed done so on this thread. Let that be enough. Now, its your marriage that needs to 'be right'.

In a lesson for the OP, is it working out well to first disagree with the IDE that speculation is unhelpful to speculate, it's necessary, then find fault with speculation and providing a personal illustration to demonstrate a professional position ... Well, it all we care About is being right ... That does tend to happen does it not. Is E giving you advice or fighting me, and is our communication getting better or worse? Hence, the admonition, now perfectly demonstrated to avoid being right. Now for E, if attempting to clarify something offended you, I apologize, it certainly isn't my intent. You will also notice that I, relationship experts, and indeed the church all recommend the ability to say the same thing. I believe that E is wrong, and I am right, yet she is clearly upset at me. Apologizing to her cost me nothing. Best advice I every got from a member on relationships.

I other words, you do not trust your husband. Believe me I understand. The question is about finding a way to rebuild that trust between the two of you. Him surrending everything may find some issues - but it may push hm further into a rat hole as well. (proverbially speaking at any rate). Again, I do not know your husband. He may be fine with it? I can say, as a man, that if such a request came to me I would be reluctant, but not because I was doing anything, but because when there are problems I both vent and seek advise, and sort though the good and bad advice, to try and ensure the 'anger and frustration' stay away from my spouse. In this case, I srongly recommend that there be some analysis. We all have varying levels of comfort regarding privacy, but total trust and transparancy is an end state in th trust process ... its earnd and agreed. I will also say this. I understand your frustration, your frustration is entirely legitimate. You are indeed reaching out, but I ask you in all seriousness, are you looking to be right ... to be 'proved right' by a solution ... or to find a working relationship that restores the affection and trust of your husband. Without knowing you or him, my best advice is to learn about one another. Take those tests and share the results with one another. Don't burn the Calendar though ... there are far less demonstrative ways of removing a Calendar ... like simply throwing it in the trash. And please, I offer this only as a personal insight because of what I do. When information is put before me, I see the data. I am very good at finding holes in data, in timelines, and synchronizing those things. I am absolutely terrible about finding ancillary, or what I would term ancillary issues, like formating, font, presentation, etc. What you see very clearly, your husband may not. He may be oblivious to it entirely. If that is the case, then it becomes a learning experience to 'train' him as you will. And the best way to do that is to find out HOW he learns, and help him along that learning path. Again, I understand your frustration and it is totally and completely valid. BUt your husband married you not to drive you nuts, he married you because he loves you. He loves you more than any other woman on the face of the earth, and that should be the basis of building trust. How you do that? Look for the way that works.

I other words, you are now attack 'me'. I used a personal experience to highlight why its its bad to give advice as friends. Because we don't have a full knowledge of contextm and are indeed not seeking input from HALF the problem set here. Not only have I seen this distructive tendancy in many relationships, watched it cover up serious abuse (indeed enable it), and it is a practice that is univerally considered unheathy by relationship experts. You feel that is not relevant? And indeed, there are many relationship that are built on trust and do not require one to suddenly change who and what they are to make a relationship work or to build trust. Your opinion is an idea, and for SOME couples it works. For others, it does not. Which goes right back to the initial guidance I gave - learn about one another. Do some analysis. Take the five love languages, take a personality test, discover what your learning style is and you may soon disciver that people, being wildly different, are not covered by a one sized fits all solution - and we should look for solutions that will work rather than force a particular solution set onto the couple. Of course, declaring such advice to be rant is apparently far more helpful advice to young couple here? Its a relationship, not a rubber stamp - and its a solution SET that will vary from couple to couple as opposed to a A SOLUTION. THey are people. They have personalities. They have communication styles. Most importantly, based BOTH on experience and PROFESSIONAL advice, is to avoid falling into the 'best friend' advisor. Indeed, OBJECTIVE advice is not about taking sides - it about helping people devlope the proper solution set for THEIR marriage. I daresay that not all marriages run on the same compromises and solutions. Indeed, if a woman came to this forum stating that she felt oppressed by her husband who was constantly demanding to know where she was, what she was doing, and whom she was talking to, feeling aboslutely oppressed ... I doubt very seriously that we would consider the husband's actions to be in line with how a good husband should act. I'll bet, being speculation is fine, the husband's narrative probably sounds something like that. The decision to share data and have complete openness is one that is arrived at over time and ACCEPTED by both parties, not forced under 'threat' from one spiouse onto another. It's not a quid pr quo because, as I have seen in this thread, it'll ... out the husband. Are we attempting to 'out' the husband? Shame him into compliance? Is that his learning style? Or are we pushing him further into a hole when, by the wives own admission here he is already feeling controlled? Add more control measures then? If the marriage is frustrated right now, the husband needs a honest sounding board giving him objective advice as well ... including the opportunity to vent his frustration in a manner that does not damage his spouse. Your solution is an end state, not an immediate solution to the problem. Again, I ask the question, is the solution aimed at being right? Or at being happy? At making the marriage work. THe problem set as I see it is a woman who feel disrespected and is losing trust in her husband, and a husband who feels like nothing he does is right. Indeed, just by bringing in an admonition to avoid taking sides ... I am being attacked - acussed of ranting? Telling someone to burn a Calendar to make a point, is, according to the church, sage and wise marriage advice? My advice, begins and ends the same: Take some time. Take soem deep breaths, and do some analysis. Learn about yourselves, take the love language analysis, take a personality test, take a analysis of your learning styles ... then shar ethe results. The FIRST conversation therafter should be about what you learned about one another. It should end in an apology for those things where you inadvertantly were stepping on one another. Then move forward. But don't burn a Calendar. Find ways to support each other, to love each other ... and critically important, to FORGIVE one another.

Well, thank you for providing an opportunity to prove the point. Not only did I read the OP, I read most of teh responses before jumping in. All the adice I gave is in line with professional counseling advice on just these issues - and if they are percieved as a rant? I go back to the issue of whether this is about gfiving advice or whether this is about 'being right'? Only one of these things will help a relationship. I also have personal experience here, my now ex-wife was extremely abusive, and she utilized just this tactic, even after professional counselors admonished her tro stop. She too like dto go with friends and saythings like, "He raised his voice to me ... when I was just trying to talk." Left unsaid was her swearing, being caught in one lie after another, string of false and degrading accusations, and physical violence. Now, what advice did her 'friends' give her about a husband who is raising his voice in conversation? Was the advice, devoid of context, the correct advice? Or, if known that one was behaving irrationally, would the advice have been different? Again, I watched as members of this forum invited a total violation of trust, which is to surrender any notion of privacy by surrendering passwords, etc. Why not instead, invite the husband to give his two cents on this forum instead? Its a marriage, and the issues brought forth here are not marriage ending issues, they are normal turmoil of a young couple who is struggling far more with communication than they are with ... calendars. Again, I strongly caution, both from experience and from professional advice, to beware of issuing advice as a freind. Beware that there is not a one sized fits all solution and that te issues will be solved by the couple ... not us. If that is considerd a rant to you? What exactly do you think professional marriage cunseling is about? They too will tell us when we are on the right track, and those who truly care about us will tell us what we need to here ... not what we want to hear. There are two people in that marriage.

THere is an alternative methodology - asking clarifying questions. Speculation may still be necessary, but should be limited to the extent possible. If not? We risk creating versions of the story that are totally removed from the actal situation ... and then what we really get is the advisers 'issues' with relationships rather than advice. THere is also, as I diverge (but then, as per previous post - that is my learning style), something I learne dthe hard way about some of teh difference between men and women. Sometimes, and correct me if I am wrong, there is something called venting ... where we just want to verbalize the frustration as a method of cartharsis. The problem, partcularly with husbands, is that we DO listen, but rather than JUST listen, we immediately attempt to problem solve. The upshot, when someone is venting about a Calendar ... is that really that big of a deal? As a guy, I have some sympathy with the husband. If he got the Calendar just to support his local football team without even noticing the girls in the Calendar ... He might feel a little henpecked to be called 'stupid' for making what amounts to an oversight. That is of course speculative about the husbands motives though is it not? I will say that, both within and without the church, there is this expectations that marriage somehow magically makes everything work. I would speculate that the husband's flirtatuous behavior existed well before the marriage ... is there any reason to think that the flirtatuous behavior (which was apparently cute in a single guy) will magically change into a version of pure chastity and abject loyalty? Even as he commits, I see very clearly the need for the young couple to really learn about each other - I doubt most husband deliberatrely irritate their wives, just as I doubt most wives deliberatrely irritate their husbands. When I see things like the husband coming home and telling the wife that he talked with the woman from the photo ... I see a man attempting to be open and transparaent with his wife. Perhaps not perfectly, but that is something that warrents praise ... not a demand for full access to everything the husband does in a complete and total violation of trust. I for one have trusted friends that when I am frustrated I trust enough to both vent, and, knowing they are objective and honest with me when I need them to be, I would neverr in a million years grant access to my wife to than venting process and seeking of counsel. If that is what is needed to validate trust ... we have a serious trust issue in the relationship, and that is as much about he insecurity of the one demanding access to 'everything' as it is about the husbands behavior. Finally, there is the spiritual aspect. Or workplace has changed significantly since the 1800's and it is no longer, in even my line of work (I routinely interact with women who are both higher and lower in rank than myself). The couple here most definitely need to set some red lines, but the conversation has to get to the point where they can engage rationally and in a way that they can communicate understandably with one another. When one is using the word stupid, and the other controlling ... I think its a safe, albiet speculative bet, that they are simple talking over one another. People DO view thinsg different, and as I was advised as I joined the church, there is a difference between a scriptural Mormon and a cultural Mormon. Levels of modesty that are 'enforced' through church law are often different than levels of modesty that are culturally mormon. No two people in the church are going to blend these ideas in the same way. Rather than fight about it, I would offer a word of caution, if you really think the issues are bad ... take a step back and look at it. I daresay, having a 'good' lds man is a true blessing, (as is having a true lds woman), and in this case ... the grass is definitely not greener on the other side of the pasture. Beware of blowing up minor issues nto major ones ... or, if we are, take that as a warning sign that something needs to change - the proper tool needs to be found - because you love ne another, you are good people, and you BOTH desreve the work, the respect, and time born of the love and committment. For teh young lady in question here, it really comes down to a question of venting vs seeking advice. There is nothing wrong with being even tremendously frustrated, but your husband is your husband - you love him. He loves you. You BOTH desereve the utmost respect of one another. You BOTH deserve the respect of allowing the venting and anger to be jettisoned in a diorection AWAY from one another. Perphaps easier said than done ... that though is why we seek advice ;-)

There is an awful lot of speculation here, and really, its inappropriate. There are two people in a marriage, and I would bet pennies to dollars that the husband in this one has a point of view. There is a point to being blissfully ignorant, and I will tell you pointedly as I have read this, that describing someone's actions as 'stupid' isn't helping, any more than is hanging a potentially disrespectful Calendar up. My advice here is to talk to to your Bishop. What I see most clearly here is a lot of frustration on both sides, and a communication gap. The Bishop is an honest broker, he can talk to both sides separately about issues with 'spiritual aspects and standards', but these appear to be secondary issues to good old fashioned communication problems. If you haven't done so yet, start with the love language test: Home | The 5 Love Languages® Focus on affirming one another rather that fault finding. (Studies indicate that we should generally have 5-6 positive things to say for every negative - which can be very hard when we are frustrated and hurt. Nevertheless, the old adage of catching more flies with honey than vinegar does apply) There are also personality tests, that not only reveal things about ourselves and expectations but will also help us identify things that are going ... awry as we go with what we know and unintentionally wind up walking all over people. We sometimes do not see the effects of what we have always done ... it can be eye opening for both of you. Learning styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are also learning styles. If you are asking him to change some of his actions, I do not recommend the Pavlovian approach to behavioral modification. He is your husband, and I have no doubt that he loves you. But there may be things both you and he can do to better communicate what you expect him to learn and how BEST to go about helping him learn that lesson. Its work, there is no doubt about it, but IMHO, its about finding the right tools to be effective. If you are trying to turn a screw with a rock ... its bound to be frustrating, and analogous in this situation, it may be best to stop and find a screw driver to turn that screw, rather than dropping thr rock and just banging the screw with your head in frustration. Take a breather ... let it rest for a bit. Study what you both have been doing. Try something different with a fresh perspective and cooler emotions and see if t works. I will also offer one last word of caution. Beware of taking the issues to 'friends' - or, if you do so, understand that the 'advice' you get is bound to be more about coping rather than problem solving. They are your friends and they will support you. There is, however, a springboard effect where your friends tell you that you are right, and the resulting communication becomes ... intransigent as both sides turn to their friends ... who tell them they are right, and then the discussion becomes about how friends view 'you' as right and the actual issues gets buried. Ensure that the source you turn to is objective, and ensure he is doing the same. Finally, I got one very good piece of relationship advice from a member regarding relationships. "Learn to say you are sorry." It truly costs nothing, save pride, and its benefits are amazing. It comes down to a simple question as to your goal: do you want to be right, or happy?

Ben: We are all at different stages in our development, so I share this story with you so you will understand some of the scope and procedures as to how this happens - that our masculine concepts of strength matters little when predators are lurking, and can in fact be a great hindrance to this process. Hopefully, it will also let Blunder know that he is not alone in his experience. I sat down one morning for a conference next to a close friend and fellow commander, who, in a normal meeting, was detached, and angry - for no apparent reason. Upon asking his whether someone had forced him yo drink prune juice or something, that the comment produced absolutely no change in his bearing. Something clearly had his goat. After the meeting, he invited me to his office, where it was clear he needed to vent. It turns out, that morning, a Monday, one of his Soldiers asked to speak with him privately - a not common thing. He accepted, closed the door and the Soldier reported to him that he though his Squad Leader had sexually assaulted him over the weekend - he was unsure because he could not remember anything, but he did remember waking up naked after a night with the squad leader (who had taken him on the rounds to introduce him to the country under the guise of a trusted mentor). Not only was he naked the next morning, but there was significant pain in areas that indicated sexual assault. When he confronted the Sergeant, he was laughed at and dismissed as merely a drunken lapse and 'to be careful next time.' Still uncomfortable, he reported, as he should, the incident to his commander who promptly initiated an investigation - including immediate medical examination that confirmed a sexual assault. During the course of the investigation, six other Soldiers admitted to being sexually assaulted by the NCO. In each case, the Sergeant had taken the new Soldiers, in a clear case of abuse of authority, to tour the 'ville' in what was supposed to be an introduction to the area to show the safe areas and avoid the dangerous ones in a foreign country. In each case, playing the 'easy going leader' he bought the young Soldier a drink and spiked it with Rohypnol - the date rape drug. Later, as the drugs took effect, which mimics drunkenness in early stages, he was again the good Sergeant who would 'take care of the Soldier' (ostensibly take them home) but instead took them to a local motel, where bereft of both memory and the ability ti defend themselves, he raped them. Only one of the six Soldiers agreed to testify with the seventh - the only one to report the sexual assault. The others, to a man, well trained infantrymen, were too ashamed to testify against their attacker - only ONE had the requisite bravery to report the incident. Perhaps even more interesting in terms of scope is that the Sergeant, even in a foreign country, had no problems getting his hands on Rohypnol. One can only guess at the full scope of the problem in an area already overrun with loose morals and prostitution. Incidents like this happen far more often then I think most of us imagine, and figures that report one in every three women being sexually assaulted during their life ... along with a 20% reporting rate begin to demonstrate the enormity of the problem. The problems do not stop with rape or abuse, they continue and, in my experience, ONLY professional counseling precludes a degenerative situation from following a sexual assault. I apologize profusely for what you are surely enduring BB, but I urge you strongly to reach out both to the police and a counselor as soon as you are able.

You should indeed file a report with the police immediately. Perps who do this do not stop without consequences. Additionally, as shameful as it might appear, the police will put you in touch with a sexual assault response coordinator where you can talk with professionals about the guilt and shame you are experiencing. It's also important to realize something: it is not your fault. I strongly urge you to report the incident and then avail yourself of the available resources to help in the healing process.

There may be another angle in looking at the issue: Addiction. I have been around at lot of PTSD cases, and I have never seen masturation as part of a treatment plan. There are different methods for dealing with PTSD then there are with addiction. If you replaced masturbation with ... drinking, as in, "I've tried to quit drinking as I struggle with other issues, but I just HAVE To have to shot now and again ..." I think the matter becomes a little clearer in terms of effects. Perhaps your counselor can help deal with the issue less as a matter of moderation or more as a matter of addiction. I daresay that if the issue were excessive drinking, to the point that it was affecting your agency, moderation might be advocated ... but so would treatment for alcohol addiction. It may prove fruitless, but it is a venue worth exploring before succumbing to the idea that our agency is beyond our control.

There may be a couple of additional thing sto check here: #1 - I strongly urge you to talk with your boyfreind about his past. Patterns of sexual misconduct often have roots in something more than simple disobiedence. (Often not as well). If there is something in his past that is untreated or requires professional help, this can, and indeed should be, submitted for consideration as part of the disciplinary process - as a matter of extentuation or mitigating circumstance. It's worth having the discussion to see if there is more to the situation then is easily identifiable. #2 - If the relationship itself is part of the difficulty, there may be solution short of simply not seeing the young lad. Very often in courtship, to prevent or reduce the possiblity of these slips, a chaperon often comes along. As you have indetified issues on this one, it may be worth asking for 'help' rather than simply not seeing him. The discipline process is going to be difficult and trying, but, perhaps, if we can get at root issues and get eth correct assistance in place, it may be a beneficial process in the long run.

I think there may be some angles that are not well known on Korea. #1 - Militarily, North Korea is not exactly strong ... they do however have a very large Army, and that, unfortunately, takes time to reduce. Any resulting fight would be a bit like a sprinter in a marathon, but they do have a large and well trained force of commandos, in addition to oodles of infantry in some very rugged terrain. Few doubt the end result, bit a fight would still be a fight, and given the population density of Korea ... a lot of innocent people would wind up hurt. #2 - There has been a pattern to North Korea that has lasted years. They threaten and posture, we (collectively as the rest) sit down and talk, and then North Korea takes its side of the bargain and fails to deliver on the promises its made - while telling their people that the concession rested in the process are proof positive of their 'strength'. Having rewarded the bully, we should perhaps not be surprised that bully is again acting out. And make no excuses, at least one key leader, in order to maintain discipline in the ranks, brought senior military officials in for a meeting to listen to their concerns ... and instead had them taken into custody, lined up ... and run over by a tank. Its not likely tat reasoning with people is likely to produce anything of good result. Ignoring them certainly seems to have produced a great deal of rhetoric. #3 - The real danger here, in this current situation, is not North Korea, its South Korea. We should remember that South Korea has shown incredibly levels of restraint even as North Korea has fired artillery into South Korea, sunk a South Korean Naval Vessel, and routinely sends commando forces South, all while firing ballistic missiles and detonating nuclear weapons under a constant drone of threats. South Korea, if we are to believe their new President, has had enough. Even as North Korea ratchets up the screaming, the South Korean President has stated publicly that any further antics will 'result in a response'. Now given that among the councilmen of Kim Jung Un are those who are willing to run over critics with tanks ... what happens when North Korea again acts out? And South Korea responds? And the situation escalates? Unfortunately, the bully is at a cross roads. We are unlikely to renew diplomatic accords with a Nation and leadership cabal that has proven distinctly untrustworthy. What is the point? Its effectively extortion, wherein we 'pretend' we have an agreement that all sides know North Korea will not follow, and failure to provide our side in honor gives the bully the excuse to be a victim and act even worse, while compliance with honor leaves the bully with his ill gotten gains. A no win situation there. Ergo, North Korea threatens even louder. Only know, like a may a bully before them, the neighborhood has grown quite weary of the antics ... and we are at a point where the bully either backs up his threats and backs down. It would be wrong to state that North Korea is beyond rational thought, and that they are unaware of the risks they are running or the natural end state of large scale military action. Nevertheless, when the issue is about retention or expansion of power there is certainty only that those engaged in the game of power will push the situation to its absolute limits. Given the situation, there may very well be a miscalculation. U.S., South Korea Sign Military Contingency Plan - WSJ.com It is exactly that knowledge that drove the signing of this pact, ensuring that North Korea's leaders engaged in high stakes gamble understand that responses to likely military actions are in place ... resources ... rehearsed ... and ready to go. I personally believe that North Korea will back down, but it may very well be at a price paid by China to keep them quiet ... and allow the bullies within the ranks to claim 'victory'. It'll keep them quiet for a time, but only a time.

Oh, one last thing ... as for being shy, I would not worry about it too much ;-) Before I joined the military, I was one of the most painfully shy people you could ever have possibly met ... right up until the day a crusty old Sergeant Major thrust me in front of a platoon of young men, most of whom were older than I was, and told me, "OK Sir, you are in charge now." And then promptly walked away. Years later, I have little difficulty getting in front of a group. The point is not the join the military to overcome shyness - that seems, even in my esteemed position, to be a rather brutal methodology for overcoming shyness. You will however be assigned priest hood duties that will require you to give direction and motivation (sometimes not well - which may be painful). As you grow into greater responsibilities, that shyness will naturally recede over time, and as that shyness recedes I daresay that, whatever your profession is, that confidence will lead you to positions that will further prod that shyness ... the one sharpening the other. Again, part of the reason that I came to the church was exactly for seeing things like above in the systems the church has created. The benefits that many may not even realize they are getting until they are MUCH older and wiser, or, if they are fortunate and truly gifted, they will see it when they are young ;-) I myself have the Irish curse of stubbornness, and it took a battlefield or two for me to understand the processes of developing people to accomplish very difficult tasks. Upon joining the church and seeing that methodology solidly embedded in the organization ... from missions to relief society to priesthood assignments ... well, I would strongly recommend in the aftermath of such needless stubbornness the church over a journey a battlefield ;-) If you are concerned about overcoming shyness, you are in a very good place.

Well, there is a huge difference between 'love' and 'sex'. For instance, my best friend is as good a man as I know. I trust him implicitly, and we both know that in a crisis each of us would drop everything on a moment's notice to help one another should the time arrive. There is genuine warmth and affection between the two of us, and I can say with no small amount of guile, that he is a handsome man (a fact that his wife no doubt agrees with me on). I 'love' my best friend. I also 'love' my dog. I intend to have sex with neither, and, in the off chance that something popped into my mind in which consideration of sexual intercourse with either one arose ... I would have a choice to make would I not? To act on that impulse, or bury it. That is the crux of sexual choice. There are of course instances in which these impulses can be quite powerful, and for some of us, these temptations are powerful indeed. Yet the same challenge is faced by a married man who finds himself beset by an unnatural sexual attraction to woman not his wife, as a homosexual man faces in finding himself with sexual desire for another man. To be very clear succumbing to that desire alone in either of the above cases has far less to do with 'love' than it does with 'lust'. And uncontrolled sexual desire is a matter for counseling - its as much as impulse control issue as it is anything else. It is the same category, at some level as compulsive shopping and hoarding when we find that we are UNABLE to control our sexual activities ... when they in fact get a hold of us to the point that they interfere with our agency? This is known as sexual addiction ... and again, a full examination of the homosexual community must include that knowledge compared to the comparatively higher incidence of promiscuity in the homosexual community. I realize that there is a larger debate about the concept of 'praying away the gay', which is not one that I subscribe to ... but we owe the concept of sexual addiction in impulse control a mention ... particularly in light of such facts that the American Psychiatric Institute removed pedophilia from its list of deviant sexuality at the same time it de-listed homosexuality. Now, if you find yourself struggling with unnatural impulses toward children ... our counselors are already being taught that this is not actually a problem. You would to have to be blind not to see, in a world that tolerates groups like NAMBLA under the guise of free speech, where that particular decision is headed. That however, is another discussion entirely. In terms of homosexuality, I think we as a church must bear in mind that God allows agency. We do not need to see the wayword wandering of the Jews or Nephites to realize that man is fickle. Our duty is less to 'force' others to accept God's will, it is to preach it and adhere to it as examples. As teh country slides toward homosexual marriage, we can point, as I did to history as a guide, we can point to scripture, and we can, as God in his patience has done many, many times, watch our contemporaries walk off in their own 'wisdom'. I realize it sounds a bit like, "I told you so," but gay marriage may be a trial for the church in the short term, we should be mindful that this is not the first time that this question has been put before God, and I doubt very seriously that it will be much of a trial for him. The consequences of those who choose homosexuality will arrive, as prophesized and indeed warned, and we will adjust with a great many more of our contemporaries understanding the importance of first acknowledging God's wisdom, and then the wisdom of following it. We should be mindful that the church allows people all the choice they want, but what we do not tolerate is those who choose to openly reject the council of God ... who wish to remain bearers of his testimony on earth. Atonement applies to even the worse of us, and our duty is to remain firm in the council of God. As for your last part there, you may indeed shape the church, though I doubt very much (and as my own testimony bears out) that how you effect the church in terms of change will be what you thought it would be when you joined ;-)

Well, there is a methodology to the church's views on sexuality, and, like you, I was initially skeptical of them until I sat down and thought them through - at the end of teh process, I was struck both at the depth and wisdom of teh church's position on sexuality. In short, it answers the question of sexuality, does sexuality control us or do we control our sexuality? In the churches view, it is most definitely US, as individuals, that control our sexuality. I strongly agree with that position. Here is why: I will start with a few 'extremes' to demonstrate the validity of the question. #1 - If a man came to you and told you that he was just 'born' a pedophile, so his sexual interaction with n eight year old girl was neither crminal nor a sin before God, would you buy that explanation? #2 - If another man came to you and told you that he committed adultery because he was just born that way, thus he was totally unable to control himself when a young tart smiled at him - his commitment to his wife be dambed? This is not sinful? If we add to this the fat that things like the human genome being mapped, there is no gay gene, and the the best genetic analysis can only point in the direction of 'influence' rather than causation ... well, that too begs the question, are we slaves to our genes? Or, even with genetic leanings, are we able to overcome even inate challenges? For example, sociopaths have a HUGE genetic procivility toward violence - should we lock them all up as a precaution? Or do they, as the church teaches, have agency? SHould be judged on their actions and not their genetic makeup? It is that standard that the church applies to homosexuality. There is a huge difference between sexual attraction and 'love', and homosexual tendancies do not necessarily equate to 'marriage' anymore than do abherrent attraction to animals. That is no way disparages the depth of feeling or commitment in a homosexual relationship, but it does bely the position that homosexuality is just 'born'. I have littel doubt that there are things beyond the immediate impact of agency that influence sexuality - yet it returns to that standard - do we control our sexuality? Or does it control us? If we believe that we are, to borrow a phrase from Seinfeld, masters of our own domain, then e have to give serious consideration to the challenge of avoiding sexual temptation. Put another way, we have to realize that the scriptural referrence crosses all volumes of scripture, from OT, NT, BoM, and beyond. If God is giving us this clear and clarion warning, there is probably a reason for it. In the OT times, our society was governed by 'tribes'. Homosexuality was a dire threat to the very existence of the tribe in often hostile lands. If you doubt the veracity of this analysis, there are places on this earth that live much the same way, and by much the same laws, as the ancient Jews. Places like Afghanistan, Somolia, etc. In these places, if you were a son, you basically forsake your duty to your family as head of house hold, as the inheritor of property, title ... and the progression of such t following generations. To abandon that responsibility for 'love' was an immediate threat and, in many cases, ivites immediate attack from adversaries who, seeing the writing on the wall, will attempt to get their spoils through force rather than wait for the inevitable. Its a rough world. Yet today, as we grapple with homosexuality, we would do well to realize that we are not the 'first' to struggle with this issue. Times in history, notably in China and Spain (which is surprising given its past with Inquisition) have been very open and tolerant of homosexuality. In each of those cases, that tolerance eventually evaporated. It doesnot get talked about as much but it goes back to the same basic point, the inability to subsume your sexuality for teh greater good. POlitical adversaries, sometimes correctly and sometimes opportunistically, seized power from 'boy lovers' more interested in filling their fetishes than in administering to their duties gave them an opportunity. If you were God, and you duty to was to warn you flock of potential dangers involving sexuality, would leave homosexuality off the list ... and expose your flock to the dangers of exploitation though sexuality? Seems a tad obvious as a vulnerability does it not? Additionally, there is, IMHO, an examination of the homosexual community that must take place. Once agin, bear in mind that this examination begins with the premise that we are masters of our sexuality. We then must grapple wit the highly sexualized atmosphere of the homosexual community. Levels of promiscuity are often orders of magnitude higher within the community than outside the community, as is indeed the incidence of high risk sexual behavior, as evidenced both by Senator Craig, and by the blight of AIDS and its particularly high damage among the homosexual community. There are undoubtedly individuals that fall on either side of teh generaic bell curve, but the fact remains that top of the curve indicates a strong problem of promiscuity with the homosexual community ... and all that details in terms of higher risks of infection and suicide. There is one final bit of analysis here, if the church is wrong on this one ... it will change. It may not change as fast as we would like, but it will change. The ordination of black preists is a case of point, something the church prayed about long and hard before finally being given the go ahead to do just that. In the meantime, perhaps your conflict is a conflict for a reason? A quick view of scripture indicates that Jesus spent a great deal of time with sinners of all strips. There is nothing stopping you from exploring the homosexual community to either validate or contradict your feeling with experience. So long as your exploration remains within the bounds of the church, i.e. you do not violate the law of chastity, there is no reason not to follow through and answer your own questions. If you are right, perhaps you will be provided with a testimony thathelps the church change direction. If you are wrong, you will understand the value and depth of the church's wisdom on sexuality as I have come to. But, it took courage to ask the question, and for that, you have my praise.

You are denyinh the veracity of the story that I brought to a ofrum of my peers because ... you don;t like it. Noted. That does not make it true. And, as you have been ever so illuminating on the disciplinary process, I have been forced to do the research entirely on my own ... where I note that the erstwhile shortcomings I see are indeed ... not there. I really did not come here to be denounced by a zealot. I really couldn't care one whit whether your emotional attempt to angrily denounce someone again for the thought crime, i.e. not blindly agreeing with you because you scream, I retain my agency. I know that girl is telling the truth, and from what I have learned of the discipline process ... its entirely plausible. I had quite enough of abuse from ex wife, and certainly do not need it from a supposed Mormon for daring to inquire about the discipline process ... when a demonstrated injustice was dumped in my lap. You disagreement is noted, your condemnation ignored. Now please, carry through on your threat and kindly ignore me. Or is that too hostile a response to your ever so patient explanation of the process. We are not lead to repent through fear and anger - perhaps, as you lecture me on the scripture, you would do well to read it and heed yourself. I believe it has a thing or two to say about hypocrisy.

That is just it. Those who are most unable to do this are abuse victims. I have seen too many rape victims struggle to think that this is a black and white issue. It is not about a failure to recognize standards ... though it certainly is about a failure to adhere to them in many cases. And that just makes the entire process MUCH worse. There is tremendous guilt, there is genuine repentance, and then ... there is another slip for reasons you cannot explain. Already questioning your self worth? What happens when you are repeatedly slipping with standards before God himself and you do not know why and cannot stop? That is the cycle that young abuse victims get trapped in. They know what worthiness is, but the aftermath of assault often totally denudes self worth, and seeking is desperately, they often find 'worth' in the arms of men who whisper sweetness in their ears to take advantage of them. And even that makes it worse. The guilt of the assault, the guilt of the failing, of having been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous man ... I watched this happen with a very good friend when I was younger and had no idea what the heck was happening. My own experience with abuse shed light on what was happening and some understanding of the situation. A case in point, in my last ward, when a young lady made a very inappropriate pass at me, it was exactly the understanding of that cycle that allowed me to know that there was a little more going on than merely an inappropriate advance. It turns out that she was raped by her prom date a few years earlier, and is so often the case, because her attacker valued only her flesh ... that is all she thought I would value as well. In that case she went to the Bishop. She did not confess the assault. That guilt and self blame remains and I have no doubt that it will again manifest itself in something inappropriate. We as a church are more than a court. We are the body of Christ, his agents on this earth, and we owe abuse victims help in identifying and breaking this process. I have witnessed close friends struggle with this process, I have myself struggled with this process, and I cannot believe for a second that I was brought through that process - saved from the worst effects of it by a timely prayer and intervention of the Holy Spirit - with understanding of the causes and effects of the process ... to do nothing with that knowledge and understanding. A case in point, in the military we have removed as many barriers to the reporting process as possible, for example declaring ancillary 'sins' associated with sexual assault a form of immunity. We will no pursue them. If a young woman was not 21 and drinking when she was assaulted ... we will not pursue the underage drinking, which has stiff penalties in the military, including lose of rank, pay, and extra duty. To not report a sexual assault because you fear grave punishment for drinking? Its happened, and the sexual assault only comes to light when the discipline process is well underway ... very often AFTER the Soldier has been separated from service under other than honorable conditions. We have acknowledged in the military that this is grave injustice and failing. Correctly so IMHO. For example, and relevant to the discussion, coping with abuse may very well drive someone to all kinds of actions and antics. It may still be necessary to separate them from service for ... the good of the service and maintaining the good order and discipline of the ranks. The church has the same task. Yet we, as the military, separate them involuntarily under other the honorable conditions, these victims, often veterans, lose benefits ... including access to the very counseling that will enable them seek and receive treatment. We have acknowledged that this is a mistake, and that, should it be necessary to separate, we can acknowledge the abuse and separate under honorable conditions - ensuring the Soldier has access to required resources when they are ready. Its a simple change. Its a little bit of compassion that is not just best for the Soldier, its best for the Service in that it denudes the legitimate criticism of our critics. We demonstrate that we listen and act on wise counsel, and when necessary, appropriately change policy based on information. That is a good thing. I think our church, understanding this process, can remove similar barriers. Yes, fornication is wrong and subject to discipline, but we owe those struggling with these issues a promise of something more than judgement of them in the struggle. Again, I say this plainly, Bishops are the correct adjudicators of level of mercy and discipline, but we owe our 'judges' the proper preparation in seeking out appropriate context and the wise application of appropriate levels of mercy and discipline. Having met one of the young ladies who was separated from the church under conditions very similar to those I know have happened in the military ... seeing these kinds of stories line up in our critics ... well, there is something to the criticism. The fix isn't terribly difficult. Pride. It causes more than fornication, as per Ezra Taft: "Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous."

#1 - Excommunication is not talked about in the scripture. The scriptural references are to 'caste out' those who will not repent. It says absolutely nothing about the formal process of doing so. #2 - You seem to think that justice is about castigation and blame with no place for mercy, context, or understanding. You are simply wrong. As I have pointed out the adulterous woman is not ... excommunicated or stoned ... even though she falls short of the church's standards for repentance in that she does not come voluntarily and confess her sin. She is drug before a 'judge' who then grants mercy ... which you say is incompatible with the church? As per the vice president, that is simply malarkey. Indeed, does King David not commit both adultery and murder with Bathsheba? And yet he is not excommunicated? He is certainly subject to discipline. I daresay his sins are quite a bit higher up the sin tree than fornication. In fact, the very situation I saw, a woman placed before an ... imperfect judge is indeed addressed in our scripture. In fact, its D&C 101: 81-95 80 And for this purpose have I established the aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the bshedding of blood. 81 Now, unto what shall I liken the children of Zion? I will liken them unto the aparable of the woman and the unjust judge, for men ought always to bpray and not to faint, which saith— 82 There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man. 83 And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying: Avenge me of mine adversary. 84 And he would not for a while, but afterward he said within himself: Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 85 Thus will I liken the children of Zion. 86 Let them importune at the afeet of the judge; 87 And if he heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the governor; 88 And if the governor heed them not, let them importune at the feet of the president; 89 And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his ahiding place, and in his fury vex the nation; 90 And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and aunjust bstewards, and appoint them their portion among chypocrites, and dunbelievers; 91 Even in outer darkness, where there is aweeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth. 92 Pray ye, therefore, that their ears may be opened unto your cries, that I may be amerciful unto them, that these things may not come upon them. 93 What I have said unto you must needs be, that all men may be left without aexcuse; 94 That wise men and rulers may hear and know that which they have never aconsidered; 95 That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my astrange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may bdiscern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God. Amazingly, that section lists nothing about listing someone struggling with pain and called them a recidivist fornicator and excommunicating them. It does not say to castigate them as a liar because they speak something that makes you uncomfortable. It does not say to respond to difficult questions by assuming that someone has an anti-Mormon agenda and attacking them. Nor does it say to make comments so disparaging of abuse that, were I to make the comments you did yesterday in profession, I would be relieved immediately. A I should not find a better understanding of trial and tribulations of abuse in the military than I do in my church - which is born of the compassion, mercy, and deep love of ALL God's Children. The scriptural referrence is pretty clear that when we judge, particularly while using the authority of God, we do so while seeking a full knowledge of context and circumstance - that our decisions be made in righteousness ... a failure to do so produces nashing of teeth and frustration EVEN IN THOSE CASTE INTO OUTER-DARKNESS. The idea that we should treat rape victims EXACTLY THE SAME as an immature fornicator is simply wrong. Its no different that treating a man who steals bread to feed his starving family the same as Bernie Madoff. If we are incapable of making such discernment we have no business pretending that we are the rightful judges of Zion. #3 - I am going to say this again because you are clearly either not comprehending or simply do not wish to hear it. Until you do you have no business pretending that your judgement on church policy is anything more than an opinion. Abuse has consequences - horrible consequences. One of those consequences is deep, deep pain. Until you have experienced it, and it is clear you have not, you have no idea of the powerful influence it can exert over someone ... particularly those who are young ... particularly those who lack the maturity and wisdom to connect the dots and understand what is happening. As wise judges of Zion, we have a duty ... a righteous obligation to help those stuck in horrific pain with something a bit more merciful, compassionate, and potentially helpful than castigation. We owe it to them to seek out the dots and connect them and determine whether the ROOT CAUSE of a sin is willful non-compliance or whether there are other factors at play. Whether you wish to admit it or not, coping with the aftermath of abuse is doubly dambed difficult. Again, I tell you truthfully, it is harder than going into combat and watching your friends be killed. That we understand - we understand that going into battle entails risks and we STILL struggle with what we see. Imagine the same level violence, perhaps greater in terms of sexual violation, thrust upon those who have no idea about what or why something happened? I tell you again, and in plain English, that struggling with the aftermath of abuse is something that can have a powerful influence on your agency. That effect is even greater when we are unaware of influence. We as judges certainly need to ensure that as these people slip there are consequences and discipline to HELP THEM RETURN TO THE PATH AND MAINTAIN REQUIRED DISCIPLINE. We also owe them referral to professional counseling, mentor ship, if what they are struggling with is rooted in pain rather than simple disobedience. #4 - I did a little research last night trying to figure out the discipline process. As I suspected there is no required check in the process to help identify root causes. That is, IMHO, an easily remedied mistake. In fact, a young lady - and I have unfortunately met more than a few - who was raped or otherwise abused is in no position to defend herself, at least not without counsel - which you do not get in the church's disciplinary process. Abuse is not rational - nor, very often, is the reaction to it. Ergo, when a young person find themselves jumping from sexual relationship to sexual relationship for reasons they cannot explain and cannot stop? Its a safe bet that there is something else going on. Something not entirely rational. Before we caste those MOST IN NEED OF MERCY out, we owe it to them to help them connect the dots and see if we cannot bring them out of that cycle of pain. Indeed, there are members of the church who have suffered through this process and returned to the path of righteousness through healing. Any Bishop, upon discovering that there is a potential abuse issue, could as easily seek this person's counsel (judges often do this) and if necessary assign them as a mentor. Again, and which you appear willfully blind too, if NECESSARY, discipline might still include disfellowship and excommunication, but we owe those most in need of help ... well, help - rather than just righteous judgement and castigation. #5 - I was a little surprised at the veracity of some of the reaction to this question. Let me re-phrase that - I was shocked. There is a reason that the testimonies of the young lady feature prominently among our critics. They are effective in undermining the church. Granted, I am just a big, dumb infantryman, but I do understand a think or two about dealing with an adversary. For example, when our enemies adopted IED's, oh how unfair we cried. Why don't they stand and fight with HONOR!?! Because fighting well trained infantry, with artillery, Apache helicopters, fighter jets with a rifle is a very good way to lose and lose quickly. Our enemies adapted a technique that was more effective in resistance. The same thing happens with our critics. When they find a line that reduces our spokesmen to pitiful claims of lair and wave of the hand dismissals ... they have a pretty effective tool do they not? Now, as a church, when some is bashing us with an effective tool we have two choice. We can scream pitifully against it and nash our teeth about it ... or, like IED's, we can acknowledge that our critics are using this tool and find ways to reduce or eliminate its effectiveness. If we find ourselves stung by criticism, we owe that stinging rebuke a solid examination. We may be judges of Israel, but that does not mean that we are free from judgement of our own shortcomings. Indeed, the VERY LAST LINE - our bottom line in the Articles of Faith is: "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I think helping abuse victims overcome the pain and hurt of abuse is a little more praiseworthy than castigating them for their struggles. And the entire point is that there is an easy policy change we can add to handbook #1 that help our Bishops and higher seek after abuse with the proper treatments ... including, when necessary and appropriate, discipline. The correct people to make that decision remains the Bishop, as a church, our COLLECTIVE duty is to set them up to be successful and wise judges of Zion.

Selek, are you attempting to Evangelize me? Because I got enough of that from the right wing ding bats last week. Once I realized what they were up to, and as angry as it initially made me to be a demon possessed cult member ... there is a point at which your realize that your are wasting time. If you are frustrated because you think I am not accepting your points? I am. I fully acknowledge that the Bishop is the right point of authority if you will. I was uncertain given context in the beginning of this thread, but no more. The point is conceded. If you are angry at being ignored? Then please understand how I feel at pointing out that sexual assault and abuse can gravely, in a way that heavily influences our agency, effect choices when we are ineffectively dealing with the aftermath of abuse. If we advise people to seek the Bishop post haste (which I fully support), we also should have some measure of assurance that we are not signing them up to scolded as young harlots and serial recidivists if what something is so heavily influencing their agency in this one. Again, I know first hand how difficult it can be when we are grievously wounded, and no sane man would call me either weak or a coward. An invitation to see the Bishop? It has the potential to be wondrous ... but also quite painful is it exacerbates that wheel of guilt and self destruction. And I unfortunately know what that wheel looks and feels like. As an abuse victim, one who believes that sending another abuse victim to the Bishop is the right thing, as I would with my friend who struggled with promiscuity, what exactly am I sending them into? Even as I tell you plainly that I believe going to the Bishop is correct, I am horrified by comments like, "Well, based on her actions she was righteously punished as a recidivist fornicator." She was also caste adrift in her moment of need. She understandably angry about it. I would be too. The idea that sharing a testimony of a failing is anti-Mormon? I AM MORMOM. Whatever would posses you to think that unquestioning adherence to guidance is the ONLY acceptable way in this church? We do not always get things right, and in the case of that young woman ... its not anti-Mormon to acknowledge a mistake. Quite the opposite, and I say that as a man who openly acknowledges his struggles with pride. So I will once again reiterate the problem set THAT I SEE. As is, its a real problem. There are people who sin grievously, whom I know for a fact do not do what you did. Are not doing it. Are not being admonished to do it. Indeed, the longer they wait the more uncertain of the response I am ... and have no guidance to give, no compelling case to make, no methodology of admonishment or gentle persuasion. Indeed, what does ... "They, too, were put on the path of repentance and forgiveness" mean? Were they put through the disfellowship process? Something else? There lies the problem though. I know people are not taking this advice. I feel ... like I am with holding information when if am to tell them, "You will be put on a path to repentance and forgiveness." Additionally, and I state this both from a professional and spiritual stand point, that testimonies like this young sisters are not exactly so uncommon as to be dismissed as anti-Mormon swill. That girl was angry. Obviously hurt. And palpable pain of being caste adrift in her greatest moment of need? Of having to connect the dots between rape and her actions by herself? It was genuine. I assure you of it. Having suffered abuse myself, I am very sympathetic to her plight - and I believe I have every right to be do I not? I also believe that there is no harm done is asking what we can do to prevent such things from happening? Of insuring that before we caste someone adrift we at least ask the question: are there issues of abuse or sexual assault at play here? If there is ... maybe there are some additional tools we can bring to bear? I really don't think having a policy to ask that question is damning of the church ... or particularly out of line. If indeed the young woman's story is false, we have knowledge of the policy and, without having to know details, can be assured that appropriate steps ad checks were taken as a matter of policy ... or if not ... that appropriate redress can be sought. As a minimum, even if they must be caste adrift, there is hope that they will return as some point when a spirit of repentance DOES take hold of them. And knowing that someone has struggled with issues of abuse or sexual assault makes that reintegration process a little more .. involved? not sure if that is the right word ... than say someone who just grew up and realized he was being an idiot. Even teh spirit of being cast adrift is different as in, "You are an unacceptable fornicator!!!!," vs. "I know that you are struggling with what happened, but you are choosing a path that is self destructive and we simply cannot condone it. We love you too much to sit aside and do nothing while you make these choices. We respect you enough to agree with your decisions. When you are ready, we will be here." Huge difference. One that when the dots are connected between fornication and abuse ... might make the discipline less angering and incomprehensible. I have seen abuse rip apart too much, and that young lady ... you cannot fake that kind of anger and genuine pain. It is not anti-Mormon in the slightest to seek a method to relieve it. We have a big tent. We owe our critics a Mormon answer - and a good one. Indeed we owe our members a good answer. In short, its can be a very intimidating process ... and particularly cases of abuse ... I am not so sure that is best. In cases of simple immaturity? It might very well be. Its the difference between knowing when one is putting their salvation at risk due to the inability to handle more pain than any of us should? And putting one's salvation at risk because one is to self absorbed, immature, or just plain downright stubborn? Its literally, do you understand what you are risking vs. one who is so much pain they do not care. A threat does nothing for the later. And punishment - as opposed to discipline and standards - can make that pain worse. Again, I may be beating a dead horse here, but I saw that exacerbated pain very clearly in that young lady. It's not something I would even inadvertently will on another. Christ is central to the healing process, and for her ... he is gone. In short, seeing that young lady and seeing the testimonies out there, knowing abuse for what it is, I guess I am just looking for some assurance that I am not making things worse? That I will not be creating another 'Ex-Mormon'?

Now, as I can see this topic is rather emotional - which is not really the intent, I will ask that the one hanging issue be addressed. What happens to those who do not follow the advice to see the Bishop? I am sure in the long history of the church there have been those who accept the wisdom of the church and repent ... albeit belatedly? I am familiar with the story of Oliver Cowdry and his drifting from and return to the church ... but that seems ... ill fitted? Advice to give in the modern context of sexual misconduct? (Not sure if that makes sense?) I would appreciate anyone sharing what they know, and what happens with issues like temple recommends, etc.? It would be of use as, seeing the Bishop is important, but it would also be nice to be able to offer some expectation about what to expect. Right now, I simply cannot answer that question. Once again though, I see it happening and the universal agreement seems to be to recommend that they see the Bishop. I would appreciate any insight.