Praetorian_Brow

You came here to be convinced of what you already had inklings for. Well done, even if you may have disrupted some peoples logic tree and your own. It is quite a splendid thing that your objective was accomplished in a fairly diplomatic way and only the few people who felt that their toes were trod on, stayed accommodating. Bravo.

What? You want him to still pay even when she asked? Then that determines his character? In the interests of gender equality its usually the person asking who does the paying, or its split as generally both people should have a job. Its not 1670 anymore. Even she plays the games and transmits the woman signals that she believes is obvious, then I doubt he will pick that up. Woman signals are for women, not men. Men can admire a woman who has the courage not to play games and speak their mind, with a degree of diplomacy, as sometimes I would prefer not to hear how petty some women are, or how they think about everything. I personally hate when I feel manipulated in some fashion and am turned off by a woman who I feel is manipulating the situation in her favour. My advice, have a pleasant conversation and then ask him out, which would eliminate you thinking about it all the time and get a result. Or you could sigh about him for the next 5 years and watch him with someone else. I sighed about my first crush and she cried when I made a move, as I failed to notice that she got herself engaged to a missionary at 18. Chances and people are not constant.

Liberal and socialist means something different in the States. Using those terms seems to tie into their notions of remnants of cold war propaganda and expect a strong reaction. Yes, it is possible, despite politics being separate from religious ideas.

Yes, I understand that. Point well taken by the suicide pact notation, however, if people plan on staying married in the next life, then I wonder if that is really what is should be of sorts. I was remarking on the distorted idea of how a marriage covenant is warped into self interest, regardless of the need for self defense. Self interest is necessary in order to pursue a relationship, but if each party holds the covenant with God and determines their actions based on their interpretation of what the other person should be doing, in my personal opinion, the point of a covenant held with God is missed by a wide margin. I guess it was my self interest that made my posts more about the purpose of covenants, rather than the original posters intent for constructive advice and I offer many apologies for that.

Ah, now I understand some of the logic tree. Although, I am still baffled as why some would gauge another person's worthiness or covenant status more important than their own. Spouses are supposed to be team players, not dismissive onlookers. If you hold the covenant with God, how is the other persons actions influence your covenant? lol... Yes, I understand the family perspective and anything done by a family member does impact the family. Yes, before I get fire breathed on me, I do agree that there are circumstances, that almost everyone will say applied in their case to merit a divorce. I see the perspective on the whole....."blessings" thing, despite me choking on the word blessings, but its as if people see the situation as some kind of reward action, in that they marry for the sake of some kind of reward, but that reward is based on the other persons actions and if the other person disappoints then they believe the other person broke their covenants, so it justifies them in breaking from their covenants. Warped. This about your relationship though, so I would suggest that you both see a marriage counsellor together.

Everyone has addictions, whether constructive in nature or reaching a new level of a downward spiral. It saddens me when I see people scream for divorce as an easy fix. Naturally, there are limited circumstances where this is an obvious choice and given the stress of your husbands gambling problem, leading to financial ruin, I can understand how divorce would be considered a choice. However, I still believe those who have overcome an addiction are far stronger people than those who are screaming, rid yourself of him because he is addicted to an activity that is a warped way of compensating for emotional distress. I am not defending him, as I have no doubt I do not understand the circumstances the way you do, but it upsets me that so many who believe in eternal marriage here are quick to suggest divorce as the first option. A covenant is not a contract, but a promise that regardless of what the other person does, I will hold true to the dictates of the covenant. There is far more going on here than simply the fact that your husband is a gambling addict and you know that because you have stood by him for years. Any addiction is just a symptom of emotional distress, or unresolved issues, but yes, facing the addiction and owning your husband owning up to the fact that he is powerless over his addiction is a start to recovery.

It takes a light touch, as perhaps gender difference plays a role here, as my father forced me to attend church in a disciplinary way to which lasting harm was down to all us kids, as we have associated church attendance with resentful feelings, discomfort and anger at how we were treated. To this day, 4 out of 7 children are inactive and harbour deep issues against the church, because my father forced us to attend and didn't really practice what he preached. The carrot and the stick approach is necessary, not just the stick. Offer incentives and reasons as to why they can't stay home. They are too young to be alone at home, etc. I can remember being seven when I refused to go to church and my five year old brother went along with it. Instead of explaining anything to us, my father angrily picked both of us up, kicking and screaming, in our underwear, carried us to an unheated panel van in the dead of winter and threw us in. The details are hazy as I can't remember how we got dressed, but church was half an hour drive away and I think we were able to dress ourselves in the van after my mother got our clothes. My brother says my mother drove back to get the clothes after unloading the other 5 kids. Use a light touch.

He knows that you dislike propping him up and the way he paints life, is probably how he sees it, despite your thoughts that he is tearing it all down. I used to think I was pragmatic about things, but other people saw it as negative. Loss of confidence in oneself can lead to "bemoaning" and when people around you only add to the feeling of guilt, it only adds more baggage. My ex blamed me for who I was, guilt tripped me to death, considered me lazy and zero potential and do you think I felt motivated enough to become what she expected? Nope. The irony is that everything I taught her about a relationship in a constructive fashion, she is now applying to the hypocrite that she cheated on me with. It took me years to realize that seeking therapy wasn't weak, or that no, I couldn't do it alone anymore. Ironically, after me ex told my in confidence at how she was being mistreated by her hypocritical Mr. Right, that she finally said something that was constructive enough to encourage me to seek therapy. The idea of attending therapy and confronting social stigmas is more of a block than whatever the "condition" is of the person needing therapy. I find it interesting that you fault him for who he is, but only remark in passing on your own issues. I would hazard a guess that you stopped listening to each other and he resents feeling alone, as your sole focus seems to be on the kids, while he does the grind. My thoughts are you both need alone time, both need therapy and marriage counselling as you suggest that your husband is now a burden that is dragging you down.

My advice, stop thinking about your marriage day with him as an accessory to your fantasy. Everyone fantasies, but it quickly shatters when someone resents that the other person doesn't match up to what they were dreaming of in their head. Your idea of what a man is your idea and not the reality. I always laugh when women speak of the man "asking" or being a "man", when the women resent being defined by a man. Irony and a game. Ask him out and learn who he is, not unlearn who he is because you have to work back from your fantasy images of who he is. Mutual terms, or mutual interests is what you need, not some fantasy.

I just failed YSA, as I just turned 31 and didn't graduate with a wedding ring, so I can understand your feelings. I have no desire to attend a family ward, but I have no options, so I am currently not attending church. Contrary to public perception, there is nothing wrong with single people, even if I have a huge chip on my shoulder. Find a friend, as that helps keep it comfortable. For a long time, I just stubbornly went to YSA when I reactivated myself, but I trod on a lot of toes because people tried to place me in their molds. As well, I didn't share the social cliches, so I probably pushed some peoples buttons, but at least it got them thinking. Find someone who you think looks as awkward as you feel and go introduce yourself, as no doubt there is always someone like that and its surprising how you can connect.

I have my doubts about lithium and who and why its prescribed, as in my mother's case it only made her manic depression worse. According to my own therapist, there are many instances where Lithium or even prescriptions push someone from mild depression into manic depression, which is one reason I did not speak to my physician about my mental status. You don't go into detail about self harm, but I am curious as to what that entails, because generally speaking the act of self harm, or destructive behaviours is a symptom of an event or a serious of events that traumatized the person. If its suicidal, I would hazard a guess that there is more going on than simply a family history of mental illness. It appears that you are distancing yourself from mental illness in some fashion and want to fix your child in some way. Your concern and worry are obvious, as is your quest for input or anything that may help, but I wonder if you really listen to your child. My parents were not emotionally available to me when I was a child and when I speak of circumstances with my father, he puts up a wall and speaks of other people. I have since learned that he is living in denial, as he has not come to terms with his own issues and there are many, so he is incapable of actually listening. My mother on the hand, has accepted her depression and is making progress, but the fact that my father blamed my mother for who she was or what she was experiencing, made it that much worse for her with the irony being that my father appears to be stable, but only because he lives in denial. Perhaps if you attended therapy together, or examined the family environment it could help you as well as your child. As for the church thing, most teenagers rebel in some fashion, as I did. If anything, its a scream of independence or some form of control, as your child no doubt feels that she has no control over her life and probably feels smothered.

Thanks for answering the rhetorical questions. Again, the point is being missed and if you feel entitled to judge, then nothing I say will be informative, as your mind is already made up. I am saddened that you feel entitled though, as I am confused at how your intent merges with your position, but perhaps I misread your intent as you did mine. I already share your opinions on the ridiculous nature of the white shirt so some of your observations are moot and your assertions about the nature of sacred is of course a personal opinion, which highlights the initial purpose of my observations. I always wondered about the defensive need to justify ones own opinion on the degree of sanctity, rather than realizing that the function of the said item is more important than the physical manifestation, but what do I know, as I don't even possess garments and am keen to walk into the jaws of public disdain. In the interests of self preservation, I shall not comment further as no doubt there will be an avalanche of critical thinking tossed my way as the masses decide I don't understand the context, as I don't posses them and therefore assume I don't understand their sacred nature. That assumption would be in error.

White shirts are required because they represent purity. If we were simply striving for a uniform look, there are far less stain attracting shirts available and far more fashionable choices. I have sat in enough classes were people have passively aggressively attacked me for wearing non-white shirts that I can say what I have said with confidence. Wear clothing as you will and judge not what other people choose to do, because the far greater "sin" is ones judgement of another, even if you consider their covenants wanting. Modesty is another discussion.

Is the cloth covering the Sacrament on the stand sacred? Or is its function sacred? Does a white shirt symbolize purity? Do garments denote worthiness and a reminder of covenants or are they in fact the covenants themselves and therefore meeting your idea of sacred? There is no disrespect intended, despite your tone being on a warning level.

Why is that? Its trying to accomplish essentially the same thing, even if one is less obvious than the other.

Garments have nearly the same significance as the unwritten rule of wearing white shirts for men. People are more interested in what other people do and its ironic that how they see other people treat the matter determines their perspective. Its a personal matter, as most clothing is. Wear at your own discretion.

I love how we attempt to justify this...cultural phenomenon, but if you ask anyone that you explain this "only truth" to, they will most likely think you are boasting and slightly crazed as I am sure they believe the same thing about their religion. Funny how we bend over backwards to explain this to people, yet fail to realized that if we modified the zealous statement, it would achie a more diplomatic approach. I guess no one else sees the irony in being zealous and then having to explain the zeal to avoid offense.

Octave testimonies. It seems to be a popular thing to change the tone of voice when the speaker believes they are talking about something deeply spiritual. It seems to be assumed that making yourself breathless or speaking in more hushed tone makes ones testimony more spiritual.

You sound like my father, as he is inactive and married a Catholic. My father would talk of how he was wronged in some fashion by church members and ironically enough, gets offended when the missionaries or home teachers do not contact him. However, when they did contact him and spent time visiting, he would make light of their efforts to ingratiate themselves into his company. It seems to me, that you want to benefit from the church and all that it offers, but are not yet willing to adapt your perspective to reach a middle ground within your mind. Best of luck, as I struggle with that notion myself sometimes.

I respect your position more than some, as others positions tend to be thoughtless and adopt their positions because that is what everyone else is doing. Your participation is voluntary, but your desire to attend and your attendance is validation that you feel that most of what is spoken of at church sits well with you. Regardless of your belief about the authenticity or authority of the structure of the church, its important simply because without that shared belief that so and so is a leader because of such and such authority, the church would not function. Someone can speak of divine authority until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't mean squat, unless I credit them that position. If I didn't accede that they have some kind of authority, I wouldn't bother listening. It takes some courage to walk into this forum with your perspective and I am pleasantly surprised at the reception.

So we are to conclude from your initial observation that anyone who sleeps around, cheats and has or will look at pornography is some kind of perceived threat to children? Perhaps there is more information that you are not sharing, but its obviously quite outrageous to say a large portion of the world is a threat to a child, based on assumptions about their sexual habits. My sister has a friend who is originally from Utah and before she could sleep over at my parents house, the friends parents came over to interview my Father and Step-Mom. My step-mom is on the board for her Catholic church and my Dad was a bishop, so their perceptions and assumptions were not only ridiculous but insulting and had no merit. I understand the theory about spiritual danger and protecting ones kids, but man, I think some take it too far. Mormons do shun people on a regular basis and its sad to see the effect it has, on the ward, the person being shunned and the family. It still astonishes me that so much hypocrisy exists. In my case, I was shunned and labelled as dangerous by drug addicts and unworthy people who declared themselves worthy, all because I was honest about my porn use, mind you it was a select few, but they seemed to have the most emotional impact. I am still amazed at how sheltered some people are, which can be a good thing, but talk about the Scarlet Letter treatment.

Its pretty messed up, even with the open invitation to use the house. Bringing a date over abuses the invitation. Even more awkward is having a family friend date the older sister, get dumped, spend holiday's at with the family, hit on the middle sister, try and date that sister and then hang out exclusively with the younger sister when the middle sister has left on her mission. Key word is hangout, as apparently that nullfies him trying with all 3 women, regardless of age.

I don't know how God speaks to her, or how she speaks to God, but I do know its against the Word of Wisdom and an Article of Faith so...I doubt it would be approved by God.

What are you asking? A forum dedicated to a religious observance to obeying the law of the land is not going to justify your wife's drug use. There is a more relaxed attitude to it here in Canada, but it is still illegal in most cases. Its a complicated set of laws in regards to its use. I can suggest that prescription drug abuse is more of a problem than say something suffering from some acute ailment, smoking it for relief. Some days I prefer the weed smoker over the soccer Mom that is addicted to oxycodeine or some prescription that makes her high. In some ways, I agree with what you stated about its safety and it does seem less self destructive than other legal means. Yet, I wonder about how it was obtained and by whom. Even if its harmless, how it was obtained is sometimes more important than what was obtained. I prefer not to think that I support the local crime family, with all its nastiness and associated crime. I am not saying thats your case, as maybe you grow it yourself, but its something to consider. No, I have never smoked the stuff, nor will I ever.

Nope, its not weird. I still don't believe in this talk of absolute truth with regards to the church. Some people would say my testimony is rocky. The thought process is that the church is directed by God, so everything about it must be true, regardless of whether someone disagrees. I have asked myself time and time again, what is true about it and if every religion says that, why would we be any different in regards to hubris? That being said, I do find our version of events and the direction of our gospel to be a lot more fulfilling than other versions. Yes, you can have a testimony about a single subject. Its assumed by man within the cultural setting of our religion that one must cover all points in order to have the ideal testimony. Someone else will give you the much used adage about "precept upon precept" or "milk before bread", but really, if you have a solid background in Christianity, I have no doubt your new found perspective will merge with your background.