• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


eddified last won the day on May 28 2017

eddified had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

1687 profile views

eddified's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)



  1. I apologize, I did come out swinging, so to speak. It was petty of me to take such issue with a simple disagreement, and I'm sorry. That said, it really seems you misunderstood me. My original post (the one you disagreed with) was left unchanged (I never once edited it after you posted your disagreement), and in it, I said, "supposedly". In other words, there is wiggle room there. So, I could be wrong, but it sure seemed you were disagreeing with something I didn't actually say. But without you saying anything on the matter, it's pretty hard to actually tell where you stand. If you don't want to hash it out, I understand... we all usually have better things to do than argue with strangers. For the record, I did not surreptitiously change my opinion on the matter, I merely didn't want to go into all of that when I was only using it to make a point (point was, the church's message on food storage has changed [or clarified, you might say] -- changed slightly, while many perceiving the change as being larger than it actually is - but still, the message changed a little bit). So I'm unsure what your point is by saying I edited my post. Oh well, have a good Sunday evening.
  2. I find posts made merely to express disagreement with someone pretty unhelpful and basically, contentious. <Ahem>. I would suggest giving reasons for the disagreement, thus making the post worth reading. As it is, it's not worth reading. The perception among some portion of the members is that food storage counsel has softened. I would say it has been clarified in such a way as to make it seem, to those not making a careful study of the teachings, as if they had been softened (that's why I used the word "supposedly" in my other comment). See: https://askgramps.org/how-much-emergency-preparedness-is-enough/
  3. I love this. I'm very sympathetic to this line of reasoning.
  4. Well, I can think of some designs that are immodest. For example, I've seen lots of designs that outrageously flaunt the female chest, and basically call attention to the breasts in a very immodest way. I'm not talking about size or shape of the chest, I'm talking about thinks like words saying "Why don't you look at my face?" right across the chest, or other such nonsense. Then there is the large, oversized shirt which has a cartoonish curvaceous torso wearing a bikini printed on it. ..basically a funny shirt when juxtaposed with the actual figure of a large person wearing it.
  5. Um ok. I didn't say it was. You're missing the point.
  6. From the Church's website: https://www.lds.org/topics/modesty?lang=eng In addition, the Bible teaches us in Matthew 15:11: I personally think this can be related to language. Filthy language coming out of a man's mouth "defileth a man".... which I would say reflects on an individual's self-respect. In like manner, as language is an expression of one's character and state of mindfulness, so too is one's manner of dress. So in my opinion, the Matthew 15:11 scripture also applies to what we wear. And similarly, what we wear does in fact say something about our self-respect.
  7. Ah, this is refreshing. Saying it like it is. Preach! Bingo. The hyper-individualism taught by modern culture doesn't mix so well with teachings of "love each other and be mindful of their weaknesses", does it? Yes, my ultra-strict uncle judges me when I wear a button-up shirt of the wrong color (i.e. not white) to church. As someone who doesn't sit on the stand, nor serve the sacrament, I don't really think it should matter what color of shirt I wear. That said, I now choose to only wear white shirts to church so as not to offend/distract others sitting in sacrament meeting. It's not just about me, it's also about who will be seeing me and what I'm wearing. In all seriousness, perhaps you'd be surprised how many people think "modest clothing" (by church standards) "looks weird at venue X". Sometimes we don't like what the church teaches - in those cases it's up to us to do careful introspection about submitting our will to God's.
  8. But, you can tell everyone "I'm an alcoholic", and still remain a valid temple recommend holder. And the ward members should still keep you in fellowship. But yes, I do acknowledge that if you are sinful, you should normally be ashamed of the sin. Wanting to shout from the rooftops that you are an alcoholic (or homosexual) indicates a problem on your part, not the church's. I do believe the church has always had to change it's methods to suit the audience. "Build up a year's supply of food storage" has supposedly changed to just a few months. They teach what we're willing to hear. The tone of the messages of the church says something about the audience - it doesn't indicate a waffling on eternal truths.
  9. Sorry I just meant that she honestly believes she does not love her husband, by her definition. I don't think we can just chalk it up to ppd.
  10. @NightSG @Vort As this is an advice forum, and seeing as how we have just a few paragraphs of material to work from, assumptions must be made. I personally try to assume the best in people. But at the same time we should be realistic. If we apply these rules to this case, I think we do come up with a picture of a woman that does not love her husband -- or at least, doesn't think she does. It is entirely possible that @mormondad doesn't realize there are other things at work here: perhaps his wife is using him and he doesn't realize it. Perhaps his wife is rather cold-hearted and wouldn't love her husband under any circumstances. Perhaps his wife has mental or emotional issues that are preventing her from loving fully. Perhaps she just wants to leech off a man as @Dillon suggests. Who knows? There are pessimistic assumptions that could be made. There are also optimistic assumptions that could be made. I tend to try to make more optimistic assumptions, hence my guess that maybe OP's wife just doesn't realize she loves him, and may in the future. Christ did teach long suffering and patience. That's why I take this angle in this situation. Without any other evidence of abuse (though there may be that, we just haven't seen evidence of that yet), I personally won't start recommending the OP get a lawyer (etc). As for whether we can attribute the "never loved you" statement to ppd only.. I think we can't. The OP made it clear that she has never loved him. I say take her at her word.
  11. If we consider the men who want more sexual partners and want to stay married, but are unrepentant in their adultery, then yes it makes sense that the women are the ones asking for divorce. Same for cases of physical abuse. I guess it seems likely that whoever is causing the problems is usually less likely to be the one asking for the divorce. Just guessing here....
  12. My advice to the OP ( @mormondad ): Have you seen the film "Fiddler on the Roof"? There is this song-- Tevya is singing to his wife "Do you love me?" She keeps answering back about everything she does for him, yet as far as I recall she never says yes. I think the viewer is led to believe that Tevya's wife does love him, she just doesn't like to say it. I guess my point is that even in arranged marriages, couples often learn to love each other. Don't give up. Love her. Love is an action (another lesson from that song in "Fiddler on the Roof"). Do it. And have hope that she will learn to love you.
  13. It sounds to me like @Dillon has met quite a few of the women with ill motives. Has he perhaps dated a few of them and gotten burned a few times?
  14. Again, not buying it. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I've just never beard this. Where did you hear this? My anecdotal experience in my family tells me it's usually the men who cause the marital problems leading to divorce.