Gwen

It is up to her to decide how to handle what to tell him and when. I understand from your position why you would want her to cut it off but you don't know where this guy is or what it would do to him right now on his mission to get such news... especially if y'all aren't serious. She will know best what to do and when and what is best for her. On the other hand if y'all are that serious and you are reading the situation right, then this may be a red flag to you. You are getting a chance to see how she deals with difficult situations/conversations. She isn't being forward with him and may not be forward with you every time something uncomfortable comes along. Is that a trait you can live with in a partner?

from the link lol misery loves company? I guess if he can't have his toys or fun no one else will either.

Did he make it or did he get taken by someone else? He might have really thought it was real, the article doesn't say..... or I missed the obvious. lol

I knew a family that had a no more than 2 consecutive dates rule (while in high school). They could go out with the same person twice in a row. After that if they wanted to go on a third date with that same person they had to go out with someone else first. I thought it was a neat rule from the first time I heard about it (I was a teen at the time).

I can see the validity and usefulness of this, as well as the possible extensions of this law applicable to the children involved. Especially where parents or step parents try to alienate a child from their other parent. Totally agree with this part However, even with all of that I see some possible troubling extensions as well. This bothers me Could he also turn around and sue the wife for denying him his "entitled ... conjugal rights". Why not put the responsibility where it belongs, with her. But if a man can sue his wife/ex for having an affair then why not for saying no? She could deny him his "rights" without having an affair. But then you bring up the question of if one is "entitled" to "conjugal rights" with their spouse then there can be no such thing as rape within a marriage. Which throws us back into an era of oppression I'm not sure we want to entertain.

One of my issues with the whole thing wasn't that they kissed them on the lips. I don't kiss my kids on the lips but I know ppl that do and see it as a personal preference. I have no issue with the parents that walked up, put hands on cheeks, and gave them a peck on the mouth (even if it was held a couple of seconds). My issue was with the ones that grabbed tight, moved kids hands to their butt, the one who had their kid on the floor, stroked the kid's hair after, etc. Those behaviors are a conscious decision as well as very sexual in nature for teens who are at a hormonal high. There are age appropriate physical affections. Kids naturally pull away and start limiting certain kinds of contact. That is natural and good. I will scoop up my 3 yr old and give her a bear hug, kisses all over the face and pat her bottom as she runs away. Not so with my 10 yr old; bear hugs, kiss on the cheek, tousle his hair (which is different from affectionately stroking). My 16 yr old stepson I'm lucky to get a "man hug" and a firm pat on the back. Which is all ok, I can promise if I treated the 16 yr old like the 3 yr old he would be very disturbed by it. My other issue is even if it's done right I don't find it a funny prank. But then I always hated pep rallies so maybe I'm just a scrooge. lol

I would be very worried about the temptation to break the law of chastity. Unfortunately they don't always learn lessons from the experience. I know a girl that is not yet 18 and pregnant with #2.

Do you know when they are actually doing the drugs? You could call the cops at that time and report the drug use, or that they are driving under the influence. If the adults are arrested then the children will be sent to cps until a family member can be found to take care of them (if none then a foster home). That gets a ball rolling.

This was my first thought as well. I don't recall which article I read (it was a few days ago) but I vaguely recall something about it not being made a big deal because none of the parents kissing or the youth being kissed complained or said they were uncomfortable. All the complaints came from onlookers. Though personally I have a hard time believing that, they just didn't voice the disgust they felt knowing mom/dad kissed them that way. However, if it is true the kids didn't have a problem with it there needs to be an investigation based on that alone. Any teen should have a problem with what happened (as should the parents).

My personal opinion... I can see some of what they are saying. However, I'm still no fan of day care no matter how exhausting it can get being with the kids all the time. I think the greater key is to make sure the stay at home mom is getting a break to do things she likes (volunteer, hobby, book club, etc). Getting out and doing those things will cut back on some of the depression symptoms some stay at home mom's experience. I can see how once the kids are in school a part time job could help and have thought about it myself. Could be there with the kids but also get out and feel like an individual again. However, all that is contingent upon it being a part time job mom enjoys. I noticed they didn't say what kind of part time work. I would not be a happier mom working part time at a fast food place. lol There are a lot of factors to consider when talking about happy mom and working than they give in the article. I'd want more details than just taking it at face value. Also are the kids happier?

I heard it from our CES director (or whatever they call the title lol). For those that did not get the chance to attend seminary there are institute and "make up" courses available. I'm sure if they were absolutely needed in such an area they would find a way to meet the qualification. But odds are they would just be out of the running for those countries. There are lots of places to serve.

It depends on the mission. As already stated in some countries you have to be "clergy" to preach. Seminary counts as religious schooling to allow to apply as clergy.

I've experienced that. The more distressing situation for me is when I've looked in the mirror and realized the person looking back at me was a stranger.

Personally I would say if there is anything you "must" believe in to become a member of the church I would say it is the doctrine of revelation. That god does speak to to individuals, and he does speak to the world and church as a whole (through a prophet). Why revelation? Without it you can not answer any of the above questions in the baptism interview. To know there is a god you must receive that through revelation, science won't prove it for you. To accept Joseph Smith or any other prophet (biblical or modern) you must accept the doctrine of revelation. All the rest of the questions deal with commandments/rules, to be able to embrace them you must have a belief in god and his prophets. Also without a firm understanding of revelation and how it works in your life you will never be able to fully successfully deal with the trials of life. Much of the church doctrines revolve around prayer. Take your problems to the lord and seek answers. "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves" kind of thinking. There are some commandments and guidelines to follow but in the end you have to figure out what it is god wants you to do. That requires personal revelation. Good luck in your journey. Make sure you can be honest in any commitment to the church before making a commitment to a your girlfriend. Marriage is hard enough as it is, finding out you got married on the foundation of a lie will make it near impossible.

I see billboards all the time advertising divorces for $100-$200, of course that's assuming you aren't fighting over anything and don't have to see a judge... just paperwork filling and name changes if desired. And I agree with the others, stop waiting on her and move on with your life.

There is a contradiction. He was legally married to 2 living women, which the church does not support. I would suspect the rejection of his desire to be sealed had more to do with that than her wanting reconciliation. He needed to get his ducks in a row and they weren't. He didn't have to be remarried because he was never divorced*. He could have just as easily properly divorced the first wife, gotten that in order and then reapplied for the sealing to the second. *if the country he was married in recognized the over seas divorce and it was properly filed with the courts then he would have been divorced. The man just didn't fill out all paperwork properly.

ok juan_p.... lol this is just getting muddy (as in unclear not spiteful). There is a lot here but I'm only commenting on 2 things. I think what is being missed is when things are worded wrong there is a perception of claim or being stuck with another person. Which is the impression given when someone says the sealing of divorced ppl is in effect. We both seem to be saying reconciliation is the key, if it be here or in another time/place permitted by the lord it must happen. For me I will assume if 2 ppl divorce they will not have claim upon the sealing covenant later. If they work something different out with god then good for them. A divorce seems pretty firm of a stance to me, I'll take their word for it that they (or one of them) don't want to be together. So if there is someone that is obsessing over an ex that has left them, left the church, moved on to a new relationship, whatever they are wasting their time. That person does not want reconciliation and the sealing covenant gives the one obsessing over them no claim on them in the next life (no matter how righteous they are otherwise). If something different happens in the hereafter that is between them and god. On another note in your first comment about the govn't recognizing the sealing as a marriage, that isn't accurate. When you get sealed you must fill out all legal paperwork before going into the sealing. The govn't does recognize the sealers (or temple pres) as having the legal authority to marry and thus they can sign the legal documents needed for a civil marriage. In countries where the couple must fill out the civil paperwork outside the temple and then go and do the sealing ceremony that is because there are laws about marriages needing to be public not because they recognize the church sealings more or less. When I was sealed we had to bring all the paperwork to the temple (marriage license, etc). We went to the temple president's office before the sealing, he reviewed everything and then we signed the papers in front of him and he signed as a witness. After that (which was the legal marriage) we proceeded to the things of the temple. If we had just gone and done the sealing and not sent the legal paperwork back to the state then the state would not see us as married. If the paperwork got lost we would not have been able to show our sealing certificate as proof of marriage, there is a different form you fill out that you take back to the temple pres and they sign saying they witnessed you marry on the date etc you claim and they will back date the state records when they enter the fact that you are married.

I don't take others comments as personally as I used to. I usually know when to laugh and say "they are just stupid" and let it go. lol (forum participation helps a lot with that lol) However, my personal self talk could be better and I tend to rely on outside feedback to counter it. And thank you, I like to think that's who I am too. I took the home schooled comment as saying there was no escape from the abuse rather than abuse being a characteristic of home schooling. But maybe I didn't understand the meaning behind it.

I agree the military isn't a place of praise. From what I understand the idea behind most of it is to break the person down so they can build them up as a cohesive group. Given what you have said I'm not sure you would survive the first part. I would suggest counseling. I know that coming from a critical background can make a person very dependent on positive reinforcement (comments and praise from others). It's called emotional abuse and overcoming it is as real as dealing with physical abuse. I deal with some of this myself. My father was very critical of everyone around him. I learned to very negatively self talk. I used to make mistakes and I could hear him in the back of my head telling me how stupid I am for doing that. I never learned to say I did a good job or I was good at something or it was ok to make a mistake. I depend on others for that. I'm getting better at being proud of myself but it's hard. I don't hear his voice anymore. I am still very self conscious of a lot of things and fear making mistakes. It holds me back from a lot. My biggest focus right now is letting myself believe ppl. I have such a negative self talk that it's hard to accept when someone says I did a good job. I'm learning to believe them and let myself say good job to myself instead of brushing them off as "just being polite".

Yes the sealing and the civil marriage ceremony are 2 different things. However, they are connected, part of the sealing ceremony is to be civilly married. If you are not civilly married you can not live the sealing covenant, if you can not live the covenant then you have no promise on the blessings. The key (and you state this yourself, I put it in bold) is if they reconcile. Which is what I said. They must make up, re marry civilly and live a righteous marriage for there to be any claim upon the blessings (eternal marriage). If the lord allows that reconciliation to take place in the millennium or the spirit world is up to him, I know of no such statements. However, sometimes couples that were married once, divorced and died single can be sealed by their children so there must be some assumption that they may still want claim upon that in the next life. but those details are for god to work out. One of the issues other churches have with us is the focus on works. We do believe in works. We don't get "saved" today and have a promise no matter what for eternity. Every covenant we make in this church is a potential not a guarantee. We promise to..... God promises to..... If you don't keep your end of the deal you have no promise. The promise of the sealing ordinance is eternal marriage. If you don't have a righteous marriage here you have no promise. There are ppl that will die married and will not have an eternal marriage, their marriage here was not righteous. As an interesting side note that also supports this connection is that the law of chastity (which you covenant to in the temple before a sealing can be performed) is that sexual relations are between someone you are legally and lawfully married. Civil marriage. So if a couple is married, gets sealed, divorces, and then has sex they are breaking the law of chastity even though they have not gotten a sealing cancellation. Being sealed isn't enough, there are mortal requirements. If the couple is not married there is no sealing to "restore". I find it tends to be predominately men that cling to this false thinking that they can divorce and still have claim upon the woman in the next life. The idea that a man can marry/get sealed, divorce, and then do it two or three more times and then have claim upon all those women in the next life is degrading and not doctrinal. He had his chance and he blew it. If the women are worthy of the blessings of the sealing they will be given the chance to be with someone that will love and appreciate them. Being forced to spend eternity married to someone that abused you in this life is not celestial glory, some might even say it's hell. How is that a reward and a blessing? The potential of the temple can not be realized and blessings received until the relationship has been sealed by the holy spirit of promise. Until then it's something you must work for. The spirit will not seal the ordinance if you are not married and can not/will not live the covenant. If the spirit has not sealed the ordinance (which is not done in the temple) then there is no eternal marriage. I'm not sure why that's so hard for some to grasp. From my understanding women have been, can and are sealed by proxy to more than one man. For example, women who started the trek across the plains with a husband they loved dearly. He died on the journey and she remarried when she got out west and also loved him dearly. They die before receiving their temple ordinances and the family does her work sealing her to both men. How that is worked out in the eternities is up to god, but bottom line is she is sealed to more than one man. Disagree all you like. The reason the paperwork process was designed doesn't change the doctrine. Paperwork processes get changed all the time to meet the needs of our changing world. The doctrines don't change. No one will be forced to be with another, it doesn't matter the "work" that was performed. If you divorce you do not keep your covenant. If you don't keep your covenant you have no promise. Cancel the sealing or not you have no claim. Sealings are not automatically canceled at divorce to allow ppl to keep their individual covenant not trap them with someone they can not live a celestial marriage with. We have to remember we claim blessings not ppl. If a couple divorces and does not cancel the sealing, they both die and have properly repented to be worthy of an eternal marriage but never reconciled they may claim an eternal marriage, not their ex. If a couple divorces and when they die only one is worthy of a sealing then they can claim an eternal marriage, you can not claim the person. One good spouse will not get both into heaven. They will have an opportunity for an eternal marriage to someone else that is also worthy to claim the blessing. God obviously recognizes what happens civilly or the law of chastity would be no sexual relations to someone you are not sealed to. If God didn't care what happened civilly there would have been no fuss over prop 8 (we don't allow gay sealing so who cares what the law does?). The reason the sealing date does not change (or the sealing does not need to be repeated) after the remarriage is for the same reason we don't have to be re-baptized every time we sin. That process is part of the repentance process. A couple gets married/sealed and makes a covenant, they make mistakes and divorce and don't live that covenant, they repent/reconcile and start to live the covenant again (get re married). At death they are living the covenant and have claim upon that blessing. You can not fully repent to reclaim a sealing with a specific person unless you are civilly married to them. You can repent in many other ways and have claim upon many other blessings (those you make individually) but you have no claim upon the person. Judgement doesn't happen until the end of this life for a reason. As long as you are living there is time to fix things and still reclaim lost blessings due to sin.

As many know this is one of my soap box issues lol and I have to correct this. The only way the sealing is in tact is if they remarry and live a righteous marriage. If they never remarry they have no claim upon the blessing of the covenant which is an eternal marriage. If she repents individually and becomes worthy of an eternal marriage then she and god and whomever she is to be with will work that out but there is no promise that it will be the man she divorced. The "celestial polygamy" you refer to is valid when you speak of a couple that was sealed, lived a righteous marriage that was worthy of an eternal blessing, one of the ppl dies and the living spouse remarries/resealed and lives a second righteous marriage until death. Then both of those sealings would have claim upon the eternal marriage blessing. Divorce is very different and destroys your potential at claim upon the blessing. The reason there is a sealing clearance vs cancellation is that the sealing covenant is a triangle. Each person covenants to each other (the base) and they also covenant individually with god (the sides). When you divorce you break the bottom side of the triangle but you still have the option to keeping your individual covenant to god. A cancellation removes all of the covenants. So to protect the spouses from having someone else "rob them of blessings" they do clearances any time it's possible. This allows the person to claim blessings between them and god.

Your husband can not stop her from being resealed if she is worthy. As things stand now he has no claim upon the blessings of that sealing and neither does she (in other words they can not be together in the next life).The sealing is a potential of a blessing. If A then B. A being the covenants you are supposed to keep. B being an eternal marriage. They have divorced and are not living those covenants therefore there is no A so there can not be a B. When getting a sealing clearance or cancellation they do ask for a letter from the ex. That letter is not for "permission" and it does not decide if or when that person can be sealed. The letter is for perspective and to give the person a chance to present their 2 cents. (Personally I think it also has a lot to do with presenting a healing repenting/forgiving situation for the couple so they can move on to healthier relationships. Dealing with baggage type stuff. But that's my opinion.) Your husband would request a sealing clearance. If/when the ex is worthy and desiring to be resealed then she would request a sealing cancellation. A child's sealing to parents always remains in effect. He will still be sealed to his mother and father (again all things are contingent on keeping the covenant). Your son is the only one that can break his sealing covenant and that is by not living worthy to claim the blessings of his covenants.

I'm sorry you are going through this. To speak plainly, it sounds like her mind is made up and you need to focus on your relationship with your children now instead of her. She does not need your permission to get sealed again. You will get a chance to write a letter but that letter will not be the deciding factor on what the first presidency does. Just be honest and let the lord direct them. I would be very concerned for my children's safety with her getting into such a quick marriage. I'd also be curious about the time line. If he's only been single 3 weeks then that is presumably the duration of the relationship. That is not enough time to prepare for marriage (especially one involving step families). There may be some legal action you can take to delay the marriage. I'm not saying this so you can "save" your relationship with her but to protect your children (some states also have a rule that you can not remarry before 1 yr following a divorce). If the relationship is more solid than a 3 week relationship can be then obviously there was an affair going on and they are not worthy to go to the temple. Your focus needs to be on your relationship with your children and their safety. Do not interferer with your ex moving on if it does not pose a real risk to the kids. Let her have her life. It's time for you to move on.

My first thought was PBS but I see you have been to that one. Is there a show he likes? My daughter loves dora so she plays on that (I think it's nickjr). It's not online but the jump start programs are good. You might want to try getting one of those. They have a toddlers and pre-k he could probably work on. Doing as well as it sounds like he is you may also want to try the spanish program they have, if you want to introduce another language.

Of the two I'd have to go with envy. One of the biggest problems today is the excessive debt that most ppl (including businesses and governments) are in. That kind of debt occurs because of envy in many ways. You want something so bad you have to have it now no matter the cost. Usually you want it because the world is in some way telling you you need it. That envy drives the debt market. Though I think there is a lot of conceit I don't think it's as great as it appears on the surface. I think most that appear to be conceited at first are really the most insecure, they are over compensating. They really envy everyone else and lavish themselves with things no matter the debt to appear greater than others.