guast

Vort, it's been a while since I've been here and I forgot you existed or that you seemed to like to stalk my comments in a creepy way. Just to save you some time, I'm not going to read/respond to you.

I agree and would say that the church policy is pretty unequivocal that there is no dating before the divorce is finalized. Skippy, though, said something that, despite completely agreeing with it, brings to mind some of the hypocrisy of post-divorce dating. I don't think anyone would disagree that a temple sealing is infinitely more significant than a civil wedding. Yet, even though it's absolutely verboten to date someone whose divorce is not finalized it's perfectly acceptable to date a divorcee who is still sealed to someone else. That's ridiculous and completely hypocritical. And to complicate things, as I understand it, unless something has changed, you can't be considered for a sealing cancellation UNLESS you are doing to be sealed to someone else (as in you have a person, not in a hypothetical 'I hope there's someone for me in the future...' sense). I feel sympathy for divorcees caught in that unsolvable dilemma. As for me, I keep things simple - I will not date someone married (of course), going through a divorce, or someone sealed to another person. Those are absolute lines I will not cross.

It was called "Remember Lot's Wife" when he gave the talk at BYU. The abbreviated version in the Ensign is called "The Best is Yet To Be." Link: Remember Lot's Wife

A good marriage is a good marriage, regardless of where a person gets married. A temple marriage does not inherently make a marriage "better" than any other marriage or more importantly, happier. There are plenty of horrible marriages that are temple and that are civil. In this context, forcing a temple marriage when someone is not ready isn't going to make a happy marriage just because it was a temple marriage. That's why it can be incredibly important to figure out the baggage a person is bringing with them, sort it out if necessary, before simply running off to the temple. I never said a good civil marriage is preferable to a good temple marriage. Frankly, I don't really care what someone else thinks is preferable. It's his/her life and his/her choices. I stand by my position that a good marriage is better than a horrible one but that's kind of self-evident. I would take a happy civil marriage over the temple marriages I read about in this forum. But that's me. Everyone has to figure out and do what's right for him or her. Stop pulling garbage out of thin air. I get that we are all making assumptions and conclusions based on very limited information about people we don't know but for goodness sake, at the very least use what is actually written in the OP's post rather than just coming up with nonsense. Here is what is said: "An emergency way out of the situation probably caused by the abuse that she saw her mom take as a child." OP said she was abused as a child, she saw her mother abused, her dad cheated on her mom. She is concerned about the lasting nature of marriage... and you jump to the conclusion she wants to know she's not trapped " if the marriage doesn't go exactly as she wants... if she gets bored?" Really?? That was the first conclusion you could come to? How about she's a little gun-shy because she doesn't want to get trapped in a marriage in which she is abused or cheated on, like she experienced and witnessed during her whole growing up?? I'm making an assumption here but it's sure a lot more logical then yanking stuff out of no where. But maybe I misunderstand you, maybe "what marriage is truly about" is you commit no matter how many times you get cheated on or how many times he puts you in the hospital. If that's not a marriage that is going exactly the way she wants and she wants out... well, I'm in her corner, not yours. I do (in a qualified way) agree with you on one point - she may not be ready for marriage. As I said before, it sounds like, understandably, she has some some things she experienced growing up that she still needs to sort out and counseling may be a good avenue. I don't know, that's for her to decide. But quit swinging the condescending she "hasn't a clue" around as though you are in any position to be patronizing about this girl you don't even know.

Eh...? I'm not sure where you got that I think marriage is something you do for compassion. Please explain. I don't recall saying marriage is anything less than a commitment, civil or temple.

Hopefully God is slightly less judgmental than some of the posts in this thread... She had a rough experience with her family life and that makes her struggling or even lack of faith in marriage or temple marriage a bit less than acceptable to contemptuous, anonymous strangers on the internet. Honestly, I would be less concerned about whether she wants to delay temple marriage and more concerned about how what she experienced is going to affect your relationship and her perception of marriage. Even if you could push her into a temple marriage that would do little to address the UNDERLYING reasons for why she feels the way she does. Sounds like she may need counseling to work out some of the stuff she's gone through. A good civil marriage is infinity happier than a horrible temple marriage -- if you have any doubts about that read any number of the threads in this forum (don't misinterpret this statement to mean anything more I'm saying that a relationship is a lot, lot more than just where you get married and it includes all the baggage a person brings so be mindful of that baggage rather than just idiotically saying "yay, temple"). I can hear someone saying, "yes, but a horrible temple marriage has the potential to become a happy marriage." And so... what? It also has the potential to end in divorce. If you don't have two people working at the marriage it doesn't really matter where you get married. So what if a person has to come to faith in a temple marriage step by step? It's sure easy to say "hurray for temple marriage" when you haven't been through a childhood where it has fallen apart again and again in the context of abuse. I'm not sure I would be very excited about temple marriage if that is what I'd seen either. If that doesn't work for you, that's perfectly fine, move along to the next girl. But it doesn't mean this one is failing at the gospel because she, let's assume, is trying to live the gospel but is still struggling with her faith in temple marriage. Figure out what works for you and what doesn't. I dated some girls who had HUGE emotional problems and eating disorders and whatnot. It wasn't a good fit for me. Can't say that it wasn't a good fit for someone else but it just didn't work for me. You have to decide what you can be okay with and what you can't.

According to Just a Guy you are FAILING your responsibilities as a social networker and are not meeting the minimum requirements for internet addiction! I wouldn't have expected to you have read that threat, I don't expect you to read it. I was just commenting on its existence, that was all. Yes, I have decided what I am doing in relation to my actions but that's a separate issue from struggling with a doctrinal point. Two different things there. You can comment if you want, up to you. I'm open to listening to whatever anyone wants to say but don't confuse that with being open to agreeing with everything everyone says. There's a lot of garbage on the internet and these forums are not exempt. That being said, I will listen to anyone and I may get after someone for how they respond but I'm not going to take issue with a person believing what they do (just as I would have preferred an actual response that actually addressed my comments than something to the effect of "you're being arrogant and disrespectful..."). There seems to be quite a few people, and I'm not attributing this to you because I don't think you've weighed in, who have said to the effect it doesn't matter who you end up as long as you are sealed. And I don't think that's necessarily inconsistent with the doctrine of the doctrines as I understand them. I would have been fine with no doctrine about sealing and just being told get married and be a good spouse (I can do that) but what I can't reconcile is the "give all of yourself to another person and if you both live righteously you can be together forever" with the caveat of "not really, we have no idea who ends up with who and the fact that you gave all of yourself to this particular person... it's the principle of it, not about actually being with that person." It, to me, diminishes everything about any promise of being with whomever we are sealed to.

Actually had a whole thread asking for help understanding what I struggle with -- the reason I even got a username in the first place. Found no help. I would never, never get sealed because I struggle with that doctrine. It's not that I struggle with understanding how it works (as much as any person can understand it) as much as I struggle with reconciling the "you get to be with this person forever if you both live righteously" that we teach in Sunday school in such absolute terms with the "well, actually we just really don't have any idea who ends up with who or how it works out." And the answers to those kinds of questions are frequently "it doesn't really matter." Well, if it didn't matter then why are we teaching the doctrine in the first place?? The vast majority of people may end up with the person they are sealed to but the reason I said all bets are off is because even if that is true we still do not know who ends up with who are who is part of the majority and who is not, regardless of whether we live righteously and try to do all we can. Historically we have at least one example of where a woman was married to one man who by all accounts appeared to be righteous and was certainly in good standing and then she was married off and sealed to another while she was still married to and continued to have children with her lawful husband. I can't explain that and wouldn't try except to say it certainly shows that simply marrying someone and being righteous doesn't mean you actually get to be with that person. Any exception proves the rule isn't the rule any longer unless the boundaries of the rule are readjusted. If the fundamental goal is to be sealed and it doesn't matter whom I am sealed to then I can just as easily pull a name out of the any number of the records of the dead and get sealed to whoever has an appealing name. Then I accomplish all that is required and expected and what I have heard repeatedly is it really doesn't matter who you are sealed to -- just get sealed and don't reject the doctrine! At least then I'm not investing and investing all of myself in something with someone who I actually want to be with that may not work out for reasons that have nothing to do with either of our choices.

Your words, not mine.

Do you really think that when someone is struggling with a doctrinal concept that the way to endear them to your point of view and make them feel better about the gospel is to call their comments disrespectful and arrogant? You think that you're a good representative for the church when you jump into a you must think you know better than God and his leaders attitude when you take issue with what a person is struggling with?? C'mon, use a little common sense and get past your ego for a second! You've fixated on one particular phrase that you seem to have pulled from context and put words in my mouth: when I referred to "childish imaginary desires" (seriously, at least quote me correctly...) I was speaking out what we want sealings to be and not what they actually are. Because simply put, we don't exactly know what sealings mean as a practical matter in the next life or even what the family organization is going to look like. Let me point out a couple things that shouldn't be very difficult to deduce from my comments: 1) I'm to whatever degree involved with the church -- shouldn't be too hard to figure out because I'm in this forum and by the fact I'm not here making anti comments or similar; and 2) there are some key points of doctrine that I struggle with and tried (unsuccessfully) to get some better insight on through this forum, as I referenced in my post you quoted. What may not as easily be deduced but I'll go ahead and share is that I'm teetering between whether I stay in the church or leave. Why is absolutely none of your business (and with the way you responded to my last post I would NEVER share those reasons with you or seek support from you, even if you were my Bishop) but I bring this up because someone may actually care about your responses in the future and people who are struggling with where they fit in with the church or with doctrinal points leave the church over people responding the way you do. Their choices are their choices but it doesn't excuse you for having a patronizing attitude towards another person's struggles.

Your comments are made in a vacuum because there are those of us (I'm not sure how limited of a group) who don't pore over this forum and don't average over a hundred posts a month. I visit occasionally (more appropriately "infrequently") and post even more rarely. Primarily because I don't have time to funnel substantial amounts of my life into any online forum. I'm also not going to search for his past post for the same reason (with the added caveat "I really don't care" because I am responding to a post and not whatever issues the person has had in other threads that I don't know about). Maybe that poster is misogynistic, I don't know, but my comments are directed to the posts in this thread. When your comments are less about what he posts in this thread and more about whatever baggage you have with him from other threads then not only are we no longer discussing the subjects of the thread (isn't that the point??) and instead moving onto personal attacks but it leaves the rest of us in the dark who don't track every comment in every thread in this forum.

I don't see how this has anything to do with misogyny and/or vengeance. I'm not sure I entirely understand Rabboni's (who apparently has been banned...) sentiments but I don't see how you jump from acknowledging you didn't understand what he was saying to stamping your interpretation of what is behind what you apparently don't understand. I think I had a better understanding of what he said than you and I'm not claiming to understand the feelings behind the statements. The fact that you ascribe a misogynist attitude to his comments is insane given that he has stated that the standard he would apply in relation to his wife is no different than the standard he would expect would be applied to him by his wife. You may not agree with how he views things but to state his comments are misogynistic or vengeful is just... well, it'd be nice if your attack was rooted in what he actually did say. I don't know what his motivations were for his comments but I can appreciate the general concept or concerns. And it has very little, at least for me, to do with sexuality (and yes, I know for him that was apparently a big deal). If husband were to die and wife remarry then she moves on. If there is one thing I have figured out about life it is that people have an amazing ability to "get over" someone that they are no longer with. Absence makes the heart move on. When a person doesn't get over someone it is less about love and more to do with the loneliness. I would expect that if I died and my wife remarried that her love for whoever she married would replace whatever she had for me. I would never want to be stuck or sealed to someone who has moved on to someone else simply because I was "sealed" to them. To use a simply comparison, I would never want to in this life want to be dating or married to someone who either didn't want to be with me or more to to the point was in love with someone else. Who would?? I asked for people's opinions in this forum some time back about sealings and whether there was any point to getting sealed, given that everyone can just about be sealed to everyone else (I know that's a bit of an exaggeration but the point being men or women -- after death for women -- can be sealed to any number and all of the people they were married to in life) and the answer I frequently heard was it is more important that you are sealed to someone (or anyone) and matters much less that are are sealed to a particular person. I think that's sad, that who you end up with is so much less important than making sure you get sealed -- pretty much is demeaning of the whole concept of eternal love and make the idea of "families are forever" a joke because all it means is that there is some form of forever family but it doesn't mean the one you are actually sealed to here on this earth. But if spouses die, those who live heal, move on and in some cases find someone else so I think the appeal of a forever family for me is just one of those things that is more rooted in childish imaginary desires than in reality. Before we jump into the whole "we are promised we get to be with who we are sealed with" etc, etc, look at how this thread started -- it's one of those, "who ends up with who and how does it all shake out when x person is sealed to y person BUT..." And what is the response? We don't know, God is good so it will all work out but we have no idea how or who or what. So let's skip the whole "we get to be with our families forever" bit because NO ONE actually knows what that means or more importantly who we end up with or any of that. It's just a guessing game and all bets are off in the end. So I can appreciate the idea that Rabboni put forth in some degree, or whatever degree I understand it. I probably have very different reasons behind the feelings but I can relate to the feelings. I would never, never get sealed to someone (I know this is going to sound bad but sealings remind me of fascism in the sense that it shares the basic concept that the institution is and always will be more important than the individual). I'm perfectly fine with the "til death do you part" because at least there you know what you are going to get into and if one person dies, if I were to die, there would be no confusion about how it all ends and she can move on to the next guy without any messing strings from the past.

I've read all of your posts in this thread a couple times over because I wanted to make sure my response was appropriate and taking into account all of your posts. Problems with temper may result in emotional abuse but it not in itself abuse. I don't know if you are emotional abusive and your posts don't provide enough to indicate whether you are or not but a person can have a temper problem and not be abusive. The "I don't see it" is minimization and/or dismissal. Whether intended or not it comes across as "I don't really believe that struggle is real" because you are essentially saying, I don't understand how that could be possible. Not everybody has a marriage with two people working towards a better marriage and if one person in non-participating then that creates an extremely painful and difficult situation for the one who is committed. And comments discussing how you don't get it because you and your husband work things out are neither comforting nor helpful. If you don't understand because you haven't been through it then offer your sympathies, try to offer support, whatever - but don't get into the "I don't get it" commentary. Someone else posted a comment earlier that she has since removed that discussed how she was in the same situation as the OP and how these kinds of comments were incredibly hurtful to her. I have absolutely no doubt that you are making these comments with the best of intentions and don't realize how hurtful this comments are... so here's my different perspective for you: they are. I used an example pertaining to weight loss earlier. Let me frame it another way - if a person finds himself lost, in need of direction and asks you for help then both of these responses are inappropriate and insensitive: 1) why did you get lost? and 2) I don't understand how you could have gotten lost because I've never been lost. And when someone finds herself struggling with a situation in her life, whether brought on by choices she has made or completely unrelated to choices she has made (and it doesn't matter which one it is), the inappropriateness and insensitivity of those questions is no less. One thing I've figured out is that it was easy for me to be skeptical of another person's struggle from the outside but when I found myself going through it myself and discovering the depths and darkness of the struggle I found myself much more sympathetic to how difficult a struggle can be. Hopefully you will never have to experience the struggles others have had in their relationships in order to learn how painful and lonely they can be. But even if you are that fortunate you still chose to be sympathetic and try to be understanding rather than calling struggles you haven't had to face into question.

anatess - It's great that you haven't had to experience what the OP has experienced and that you've been able to escape some of the struggles that others have had to go through. Consider yourself fortunate and don't take that for granted. BUT - because you haven't struggled with the things others have gone through doesn't make another person's struggle any less real or any less difficult. And to be blunt, saying "I don't get it" or "it doesn't make sense to me" or "I've never had to go through that" isn't offering another perspective. It's simply myopic and incredibly insensitive. Doing that is no different to saying to someone who has struggled with lifelong weight-loss issues that they should just lose weight and you don't get why it's a big deal because you've never struggled with weight gain. It's insensitive and just makes the person feel worse. If you don't understand a struggle another person is going through, try. But even if you can't, don't minimize or dismiss someone's struggle simply because you don't get it.

I get the whole "wanting a different answer" thing and have been there many times myself. And as a simple matter, you can have whatever answer you want, you can ignore the problem and plow ahead into marriage because it is in some ways easier but read through some of the posts and threads of people who have been in your situation and married or married without knowing and discovered that type of problem later. Often ignoring a problem upfront and ends up becoming greater and longer lasting heartache later. I'm not here to say do or don't marry him but from a guy's perspective (for what it's worth) if he recognizes it as a problem then he isn't really being fair in dating someone until he gets it worked out. Nothing says that if you were to stop dating until he got it figured out you would never be able to date again. The thing about porn and porn addiction is that I chalk it up as one of two things: one, it isn't a true addiction (and for some people it is not) in which case it is more of a lack of commitment to gospel principles, OR it is a true addition (and for some people it is) and that is a situation in which stopping for a few weeks or a couple months isn't going to address the issue and there is some serious work that needs to happen for an extended period of time to develop the skills and abilities to deal with the addiction and not only stop but avoid relapse.

With no disrespect to any other commentators, the OP should not rely on any "this is how things go down in my state" comments because every state's laws are so different and so varied and horrible things can happen if you expect that because something is handled legally in one state that it will invariably be handled the same or similarly in a different state.

I was going to say essentially this but Vort beat me to it. The person isn't being "celebrated" as much as being used as an example to make a point. It's not about the person, the story has nothing to do with the person beyond providing an example of how one person has demonstrated a particular gospel doctrine. Without knowing exactly which talk you are referring to but knowing the general pattern of conference talks my guess is the speaker didn't even reference the person's name. If the point was to celebrate the person, isn't it kind of silly to refer to something a person did but not mention him or her by name?? And as for the issue of that person specifically - to be blunt, your friend needs to let go of it. If we are condemned by wrongs we've done in the past or even those we do now that we try to overcome then we are ALL going to be damned. Not to beat a doctrinal point to death, but if we can't forgive AND forget (that whole "I'll forgive but I'll never forget" isn't forgiveness and that concept is absolute garbage) then we have no place whatsoever asking for forgiveness from anyone else, let alone God, no matter how much we feel we have been wronged. The whole gospel program falls apart if we don't forgive. Carrying around the poison of a grudge in the end only poisons ourselves and can end up destroying us. And just to be clear, I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I'm saying as to mean that forgiveness, particularly for horrible things, is an instantaneous thing or that we are required be able to have that forgiveness immediately. But I absolutely believe we are expected to be trying to forgive and working towards it and making every effort to acquire that forgiveness.

Not true. It's a case-by-case thing and depends on a lot of factors but there are certainly laws against these kinds of laws. I prosecuted a woman who lied about something much less significant than rape which resulted in a man sitting in jail for 40-50 days until it came to light she had lied. I sent her to prison. (I just realized that I must have posted this in the wrong thread - I meant to post this in the thread about the article concerning the wrongful rape accusation, not the "Vort vs. Feminism" thread)

Eh? I just saw a guy go to prison for the rest of his life and when he was sentenced he said that he hadn't had enough money for rent and if the government had just paid his rent he wouldn't have had to shoot and kill a complete stranger in a robbery-gone-bad. That was the "other side" of that story. Cold shoulder ain't cool but blaming someone else for one's own sins is just weak. No cold shoulder takes away a person's ability to chose whether to view pornography. My take on it is that when it comes to our own choices there is one story: we are responsible for and have to own the choices we make NO MATTER what circumstances we are in. I'm not aware of any gospel principal that consists of "thou shalt or thou shalt not unless you're having a crappy go at things and then you're not as responsible for your choices.

I agree with you that a cold shoulder could be any number of things and doesn't inherently mean pornography (though it could). I'm intrigued by your comment that the majority of relationships in which one person views pornography or is addicted to pornography are "perfectly functional" primarily because your word choices. I'm not really sure what you mean. I know a guy who is a raging alcoholic and shows up to work everyday and is able to functionally continue to work and do his job. I would label him a perfectly functional alcoholic who is a very unhappy person. If that is what you are getting at by saying perfectly functional then I agree with you -- but there is much that someone can't do without being "perfectly functional." If you are suggesting that pornography use or heavy pornography use doesn't have an effect on a relationship and that couples can have just as happy of a relationship while one engages in that I'm going to have to call malarkey. MALARKEY! Because that's just absurd. Forget the gospel for a second - take a look at the NUMEROUS studies on the effects of pornography on an individual and his or her relationships. Sure, even addicts can maintain relationships and sexual lives but to say that the pornography doesn't have a negative and more often than not immensely negative effect on a relationship is just inconsistent with the studies on it.

Not to sound trite but a lot of it is what you put into it, meaning if you pay lip service you won't get much out of it. If you are sincere and committed and make whatever changes you need to make in your life it probably won't be like you remember it when you were younger - it will be much better. The key, in my experience, is to trust and have faith that it will get better when you have -- and you will -- moments of struggle and self-doubt as you try to return to church. I hope that doesn't sound discouraging in the least because the rewards really are so much greater than any cost but you need to decide up front you are committed to returning and then do what you need to.

The problem with these types of threads is that they tend to be a lot of people talking about law they don't know in the context of a legal system they don't understand and making all sorts of conclusions. It's kinda like adding and coming up with the answer without actually knowing any of the numbers that are being added. Disclaimer - I am a prosecutor who has handled everything from little traffic offenses to, say, the first degree murder trial I am prosecuting right now. Why was it obvious why she was driving slow? My hunch is they probably pulled her over to find out why she was driving slow. Do people with bad wipers tend to be drunk or stoned? I don't know the stats on that but people driving unusually slow, even in whatever weather, is frequently a sign of impairment, among other things. For the record, it isn't a matter of whether there was "more reason" to stop her. The issue is whether there was enough reason to stop her. And the standard isn't probable (not probably) cause for traffic stops. Never, never has been. The standard is reasonable suspicion, which is much lower than probable cause. I'm not going to comment on the probable cause for the search because I have no idea what their basis was and if it was a consent search, for example, probable cause is unnecessary. It sounds like everytime you were pulled over for some sort of actual traffic offense. Granted some of them are pretty stupid but if it is illegal to go 51 in a 50 then it may be stupid to get a ticket for something like that and I'd personally dump the case but how is that an abuse of power? I've seen abuse of power and it doesn't look like that. Discretion. Police generally aren't required to ticket anyone for something like this in most jurisdictions. I think it's important to distinguish between what the police are doing: are they lying about evidence they found or what a person was doing? Not appropriate and police (rightfully) lose their jobs over such things. Are the police saying things to lead a suspect to be more open or truthful? What's wrong with that? The example you gave not only isn't improper for police to do but a necessary function of their job. I work with a lot of UC (undercover officers) who are very good friends of mine and who I can honestly say are as ethical and as good of people as they come. But their job would be non-existent if everytime they went in to make a drug purchase they lead into the conversation with "My name is _______ and I AM a police officer." I realize that your sister wasn't selling drugs but frequently police will say things like what was said to your sister in DUI stops because if officers say "have you been drinking" most drunks are going to say, "nooooooooooo" (not always) but if the officer leads the person to believe that the officer already knows that the person has been drinking the person is more likely to be honest about it. There seems to be more going on with the story then included in the description. Four police officers, searching the vehicle, testing brownies for drugs...? That's incredibly unusual and it's hard to make a judgment call without knowing all of what was going on and why the police did what they did (sometimes there is a lot more behind police behavior than the person pulled over is aware of). And to kayne, ehh... nevermind. I'm just going to wait until you show up on CNN in custody or dead.

I've been there and I know how intimidating it can be but I can honestly say that when I got back it was wonderful to be back and the only thing I could think was, why did it take me so long to figure out I wanted to be back. What specifically are you intimidated by and what kind of advice are you looking for? In terms of just general advice, call the bishop of wherever you are and set up a meeting, not any sort of confession thing but just to let him know who you are and that you want to get back into the ward. He'll be one of the best ones to help you adjust into a ward and it's always nice knowing that there is someone there who knows you and is concerned about helping you.

Recognizing that laws vary wildly between states, in many states this actually wouldn't be against the law. I think regardless of where this was going down at the bigger issue is that this is just one more example in a litany of what the OP has posted that demonstrates a very real lack of maturity on the OP's part.

I like this - very well said. And I would like to believe joy means having what we want in the depths of our spirit, not simply having what we are supposed to want. I don't think anyone is told to suck it up and pretend to have joy.