eddified

@zil Really not sure what you mean by "Vulcan sounds better". This sounds like it has some meaning from another thread that I wasn't a part of, perhaps?

You're right, the language sounds bad. But it was innocent enough. The "dibs" stayed within the apartment and was not a "thing" in the ward. I note your sensitivity to such language, I respect that.

Maybe it was immature to use "dibs" like this. But that's what we were -- immature. It was the best we could do at the time.

@zil My roommates and I used "dibs" as a way to respect each other and stay friends. I did not feel that it in any way caused us to view the females in the ward as objects. I did not ever feel like I was using "dibs" as a tool of ownership. I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the situation very badly. Of course we should not treat other people as objects to be owned. Let us be quick to see good in others instead of judging them. I agree with most everything you are saying.

@Lostboy289 yes my situation was different but it proves a point -- that mormon dating culture isn't so far off of what you might be used to. There will be differences though since Mormons generally assume there is no sexual relationship going on until marriage. I'm just trying to show you that we're not all dating callously, indifferent to other people's feelings. That's all. I was afraid you might get that feeling from what has been posted in this forum.

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have shared the quote. I shared it to make a point, but I don't think it makes the point very well. I also don't agree with the false dichotomy that the quote presents.

The church does not say "don't hurt other's feelings". In fact, they say "do the right thing, no matter what". This means even when it hurts other's feelings. Doing the right thing should trump others feelings any time of day. In the case of long distance relationships, the "do the right thing, regardless of the outcome" advice is applicable: breaking up when one party decides they don't want to continue the relationship, rather than drag it out to honor a "24 month commitment", is the right thing to do.

I worry that the emphasis on FEELINGS will lead you down the wrong path. I apologize for getting political, but the saying "if you're young and republican, you don't have a heart ... if you're old and a democrat, you don't have a brain" comes to mind.

It's OK to disagree. Your devotion to your friends can be considered a huge asset. But please don't lose faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ because we have different outlooks on the dating game. When I was in college, my best friend and roommate was interested in Girl A. So he told us that he had "dibs" on her. I respected that. I had "dibs" on Girl B, and had gone on a few dates with her. However, Girl A showed interest in me, not my roommate. And I wasn't so sure things were going well with my relationship with Girl B. Neither my roommate nor I had committed relationships going on, but we did respect each other's dibs. Since I'm such good friends with my roommate, I offered to swap our "dibs"... I let him have dibs on the girl I had previously had dibs on, and he let me have dibs on the girl I previously had had dibs on. Things worked out so well, I married the girl that he originally had dibs on, and he was my best man at my wedding! My roommate and I are still friends to this day. I've been happily married for 12 years. So, by being open with my roommate, we were able to keep good feelings between us in our relationship. The situation is a little different because we didn't have serious relationships before swapping our "dibs". I share the story though to show that if people are respectful of one another, things will work out. I think that's what you really want, right @Lostboy289? Respect. The church does teach that we should treat each other with love and respect. We're just saying that if your girlfriend starts to prefer someone else over you, then the respectful thing to do is for her to rip the bandaid off and tell you she now prefers someone else. I still maintain that it might be OK to break social norms, and it can be done respectfully. In dating relationships, it sounds like you think there are these black and white situations all the time, but the truth is, life (and especially dating) is not always black and white. Because of this, "loving and respecting" one person can perhaps seen as "disrespecting" someone else, from some point of view. However, I maintain we can love and respect everyone through a breakup. I also please ask that you kindly refrain from using strong language. We're just trying to help. I do think many on this board are too harsh and too sarcastic in their advice, so I ask you, @Lostboy289, to please forgive them. We are here to learn to love, repent, and forgive. I wish you the best, @Lostboy289.

I think we can all agree (or at least mostly agree) that going dishonestly behind your S.O.'s back to date someone else is wrong, not because of the "dating someone else" bit, but because of the "sneaking around" and "being dishonest" bit. It seems to me like most people here are just saying "the dating game is harsh, it just is, and broken hearts are just a necessary evil in the dating game". This, to @Lostboy289, sounds like we're all saying "go behind your S.O.'s back all you want, it's fine!" when in fact we are NOT saying that. We are just saying that the longer a commitment is made to honor a pie-in-the-sky commitment to stay true for 24 months, when in fact the feelings are already gone, the worse the situation gets. It's best to rip the bandaid off sooner. There is no reason whatsoever in "staying true" to a 24 month commitment when the feelings are no longer there. It's better to rip the bandaid off and let the S.O. know that feelings are no longer there (at least the vast majority of people with 20/20 hindsight would probably agree -- but not everyone, I guess). This however does NOT give license to be dishonest and date around while making the S.O. think there is no dating going on. If the girl wants to date other guys while the S.O. is on his mission, she should tell him that first. @Lostboy289, I'm really sorry about your pain. I really am. I've been there. I got a Dear John letter when I was on my mission*. I suggest you hold tight to Christ and His gospel for both your healing, and for strength to your faith. How others live the gospel (or rather, how they fail to live the gospel) shouldn't affect your faith, since our faith should be in Christ and His gospel, and in his priesthood leaders (who aren't perfect, but we should have faith in them anyway). Our faith should not be in the culture of the church, nor how the people in your ward behave with respect to dating. I think it would be best if you came to just accept the church dating culture, warts and all, because the sooner you do, the sooner you can come to find peace, and the sooner you will be able to make the best of the situation. (Disclaimer: I also found the dating game to be very difficult. It was hard for me to come to terms with the culture.) However, I think you're getting the wrong idea from this thread. I am a lifelong member. I dated girls at BYU. So I know some things about Mormon dating culture, and I can tell you that yes, there is still respect for your man-friends. There are social constructs that help us to keep our relationships with our man-friends. As you mentioned, going after my buddy's S.O. is still considered cold and is considered betrayal. This is true in the church and out. However, is it a sin? I'm not so sure it is. Social constructs are there for good reasons, but breaking them doesn't automatically mean I've sinned. Perhaps if I wanted to go after my buddy's S.O. then the righteous thing would be to tell him, "Hey buddy, I'm going to ask your girlfriend out. I understand it will probably harm our relationship, but I'm willing to take that risk." At least in this case there is no dishonesty going on. So, while breaking social norms, I'd say it could actually be considered morally fine to do this. *While I did get a Dear John letter, it didn't really hurt that much because I was mature enough to know the odds of her waiting were low, and I realized that it was probably unwise for me to bank on her still being available after my mission. In other words, I came to terms with the fact that long-distance relationships just don't usually last. It's just how it is. It did hurt, but it certainly didn't ruin my life.

@a mustard seed You can do it !

I agree with @zil . The more you tell us, the more it sounds like you should leave. Not just for your benefit though, but mostly for your benefit. I mean this in the kindest way possible: have you been inadvertently enabling her dysfunction? It might be in your best interest to only tell her once you're gone, if you strongly suspect you will be too weak otherwise.

The dishonesty that the YW leaders exhibited is appalling. Yet, the teenage girl *does* fall under their stewardship, so as a parent I wouldn't be completely against the YW leaders offering some sort of advice/correction to my child, as long as it was offered in a more appropriate setting. Perhaps the YW speaking with my child in a room at church, just after the 3 hour block. I could see that being much more palatable. That said, my preference would be for the YW leaders to just notify the parent about it, and leave it up to the parent to have a chat with the child. I also agree that a video like that should not be on social media. If it were my daughter, I would definitely have a short chat about it's appropriateness. Nothing stern, as it seems there was no evil intent -- it was innocent enough. Sometimes people make unwise choices without really understanding why the choice was unwise. If my child did this, I would not think too much of it; I would have a quick chat with the child, but no discipline per se.

I do not believe it to be equal "freedom", either. I would like to read the material from which you are getting your definition of "agency". Would you mind please posting a reference?

@Traveler I appreciate the explanation. I also wondered why you did it, but not enough to say anything about it. To me it is a little strange that you feel it shows respect for God, since none of the church materials, and none of the general authorities that publish books ever do this. However, it makes perfect sense that you feel it shows respect for people of other religions and cultures.

I found this quote: Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/using-our-free-agency?lang=eng It seemed you took issue with how I discussed agency as being "limited". This quote (particularly the last sentence) is what I was getting at when I said "it sounds like there are some limits."

I don't object to forgiving adulteress spouses. I don't think the church ever taught that wives are required to forgive their adulterous husbands instead of divorcing them. Basically, you and I agree on this.

Yeah, everyone in the family advises divorce. But my sister-in-law just can't decide. She says she feels like a zombie-- she's going through the motions of life and just isn't feeling much towards him. She is attending therapy I believe. I know that the statutory rape is enough reason for divorce by itself. But, the perp does sound very remorseful. In fact, he called the cops and turned himself in within 72 hours after the statutory rape incident. (It was consensual-- the abused teen just adores him and loves him, to her it was a total love story.) I can see my sister-in-law forgiving the adultery, but... the emotional abuse is the part that I have a really hard time with. I guess as I type this I realize that maybe I can't forgive him for treating her this way. Ugh. I have a hard time forgiving anyone who abuses daughters of God this way. I will work on that.

@yjacket, kudos to you for buying your house with cash. I think that's commendable. Good job!

I would say that for sure he " destroys [her] dignity as a human being".

Sure, I also tend to think of psychology as a lot of quackery. In this particular case, though, I think the label "emotional abuse" is warranted. I'll give you a taste of what this man (who is currently in prison) does to his wife [when not in prison]. He demands sex every. single. night. Doesn't matter if his wife is sick with a burning fever, tired, whatever. He does not force himself, physically speaking, on her. He gets it by not allowing her to sleep. He will poke her and bug her until she relents, not allowing her to get any rest. This has gone on for hours and hours into the middle of the night until she gives in. Because she has been forced to give of herself (albeit while not being physically raped per se) no matter her feelings/circumstances, she has become emotionally controlled and abused. She has stated she hopes she never has sex again, ever. This man committed adultery with an underage teen and is now in prison for a few years. His poor wife has suffered his adultery and his abuse, but she hears all these talks in church about wives forgiving adulterous husbands and so she still can't make up her mind whether to divorce him or not (they have 6 children together, oldest is only 12). I feel so bad for my sister-in-law, but her decision to stay with him or not is her decision. I do not know what is best for her--I can't pretend to know--but I just wonder about her submitting to his abuse for the rest of their lives.... <sigh>. I'm just venting.

To the original question : I do believe the church advises against consumer debt. This could be credit, or it could be financing a new car you don't really need. Or it could be something on layaway. The point is these types of things are not in your financial best interest. I don't believe I've ever heard the church speak out against credit cards as a tool, but they have spoken out against the debt that can come with using a credit card unwisely.

I feel like a credit card is a tool. As such it has bad and good uses. If you have a hard time managing money or have gotten into trouble with credit cards in the past, then stay away. But I never, EVER pay any high rate credit card interest, yet use credit as often as I can. I've never had an issue of going into credit card debt. I've not once carried a balance* in my entire life. (For the uninitiated, "carry a balance" means not paying the debt off before the grace period is up. The way credit typically works is when you charge something to your card, you have a 30 day (or so) "grace period" to pay it back with 0% interest. So as long as you pay your bill in full every month, you will never pay interest. "Carry a balance" means you did NOT pay in full and will therefore start paying interest. ) The two main reasons I use it: safer than debit, and I earn cash rewards on all purchases. In other words I get paid to use credit. A credit card can be dangerous in the wrong hands. If can also be very useful when used carefully. I never charge something to my card that I don't KNOW I will be able to pay back within the grace period. So credit is not a way to get things now that you can't afford. I still have to save up cash for large purchases. Then when I have the cash, I charge the large purchase on the card so I can get the benefits of using credit. *Except one time when I merely forgot to pay the bill on time -- I paid about $4 of interest that month. Nothing to worry about.

Ok just read the article. It makes me very sad. It sounds like sexual assault to me. I mean, if it's not actually sexual assault, it's pretty close. I really wasn't uplifted by that story, and certainly not amused. But it's supposed to be amusing right ? Sigh.

We just abbreviated "virgin lips" to VL. I'm kind of disgusted that I used terms like that when I was young(er) and stupid(er).