Pale Queen

@jmomPlease consider these scriptures: John 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Ether 12:6 "And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith." Alma 32:28 “Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.” (emphasis added) Matthew 5:46-47 “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?” Love is an action. We expect the feeling to be there first, but as the first three scriptures point out, you do the actions first, THEN the feelings, knowledge, etc. comes. Consider: you are not holding hands, hugging, kissing… and then saying that you feel like close friends instead of something closer. How CAN you feel closer to him with those actions? You are dreaming about the perfect husband and then comparing your husband to this NOT-REAL illusion. How can he even compare? What we choose to think about and dwell on is ALSO an action. While we aim for the ideal, this is a Telestial world and no one (Sorry, not even you. Not even me!) is going to meet the ideal. Yes, your husband has his faults that he needs to work on. He also has some noble characteristics, and according to you, has made great changes. As long as everyone is safe, and you two actively work on your relationship, there is no reason why this marriage can’t be saved. In the last scripture, Jesus points out that the higher law is to love our enemies. It’s easy to love those that we have good feelings toward. The majority of people can do that. However, those who can love people that they feel enmity toward are closer to becoming like our Savior and Heavenly Father. Even though we don’t feel loved or feel like loving people, we are expected to dig deep within us and sincerely (not insincerely or grudgingly) love them. And then it gets easier and those FEELINGS of love grow stronger. You are making a LOT of assumptions that hurt my heart just hearing. All these “what if” questions are taking you further from reality and into some warped rabbit hole. You are worried about getting your child sealed to YOUR new spouse? This child is HIS child as well! I have a “what if’ for you: What if he kept going to church after your divorce, got temple-worthy, and found a wonderful LDS woman to remarry before you found someone else to remarry? Would YOU allow your child to be sealed to your husband and his new wife? I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, I just want you to understand exactly where these seemingly innocent thoughts WILL LEAD you if you continue to feed them: to cruel and hurtful actions. They aren’t helping you. Rip out the roots of anger that have planted themselves in your heart. It is choking the roots of love that you planted years ago and that love is dying. I’ve heard stories of people who have married quickly and they stayed married. The rush to marry is only negative because you have judged it to be so. If you are constantly building and reinforcing your marriage, it doesn’t matter how rocky it was when it started. Focus on loving your husband and family in the present. I hope the best for your family, whatever that may be.

If she's having an emotional affair, she's definitely not going to call it that. She'll downplay the relationship so that she doesn't get in trouble (just an "emotional bond" whatever that is). It's important to look at her actions. Pieces from this article on http://www.dearpeggy.com/emotional.html It's an emotional affair if… --I'm keeping the details of my relationship secret from my spouse --I'm saying and doing things with the other person I wouldn't do with my spouse present --I'm sharing things with the other person that I don't share with my spouse --I'm making an effort to arrange to spend time with the other person Emotional affairs either end or they escalate. It really doesn't matter whether someone thinks an emotional relationship is totally harmless. The fact is that in most instances emotional affairs are just affairs that have not YET become sexual. They either end or they escalate. So (as with any type affair), it's critical that all one-on-one contact with the third party be severed—before it escalates. It's all about the secrecy and where they are directing their energy. This is not exclusive to affairs. If you find out your spouse is secretly drinking/smoking, secretly obtaining credit cards and maxing them out (huge debt), buying rich property in the Cayman Islands and hiding the profits, etc., it's a betrayal. If your spouse is putting all their energy into work, a hobby, etc. instead of being with you, it hurts.

If you are having anxiety attacks, my advice is to quit NOW. Four years ago, I was having a lot of stress in life, and my calling at the time pushed me over the edge and I started having panic attacks regularly. They were so bad that sometimes I couldn't even go to church because I would get anxiety attacks while driving/riding in a car. Yours may manifest differently, but the point is that panic attacks are a response to thing(s) that is/are extremely stressful for you. The fact that you are getting sick of church and want a break is a sign of being spiritually worn out. This is not an "Oh ye of little faith" situation. If you feel guilty about resigning, remember the oxygen mask rule: You have to make sure YOU have your mask on before you put others' masks on them, otherwise you will pass out before you are even able to put theirs on them. If I were in your situation, I would tell the bishop that I have to quit because of health concerns, and if they press for more details, I would insist that my health details are private, and if I need help with them, I will let them know. Put your health and your family first. Then you'll have the strength to help others.

@OverwatchGreat post. Thank you for your perspective. Thanks for not giving up. 😍

@Vort I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others. First, I agree that the law of tithing is not a lesser law. According to Steven Harper, who wrote the articles on the Law of Consecration for the Church History section of lds.org, affirms this idea. Harper said in an LDS Perspectives Podcast that "It didn't get revoked or suspended or rescinded or anything else. It's still here. We often, though, get confused because we've heard lots of times, 'Well, the law went away,' or, 'They couldn't do it so God took it away.' He doesn't do that, so the law is still there, but what changes over time is what we might call tactics, or methods for carrying out the law, ways of enacting the law." However, I disagree about the 10%. Harper says in the Church History article "The Tithing of My People" this: "Saints at the time understood tithing to refer to any amount of freely consecrated goods or money. In September 1837, Bishop Whitney and his counselors in the Kirtland bishopric declared that 'it is the fixed purpose of our God . . . that the great work of the last days was to be accomplished by the tithing of his saints.' Referring to the promise in Malachi 3:10, they urged the Saints to 'bring their tithes into the store house, and after that, not before, they were to look for a blessing that there should not be room enough to receive it.' A few months later, the bishopric in Missouri proposed a similar but more specific policy: each household should offer a tithe of 2 percent of its annual worth after paying the household’s debts. This, the bishopric in Zion wrote, 'will be in some degree fulfilling the law of consecration.'" For this reason, I concluded that at least in the early years of the Church, tithing, despite its etymology, was ANY offering. Also, it seems at that time that a bishop could define what an offering was. As far as I know, Bishop Partridge's proposal for a 2% tithe was never put into practice, but was on the table for consideration, with no mention of any problems with the idea of offering less than 10% tithing. Less than a year later, Joseph asked the Lord how much the saints should give and received D&C 119, and that became the method of practicing the Law of Consecration. Sources: http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/04/12/tithing-law-consecration/ https://history.lds.org/article/the-tithing-of-my-people?lang=eng

Thanks @zil!

The wording is obscure. When the saints were living the law of consecration, everything was supposed to be given (100%), and they received back what they needed. Tithing as we know it today was instituted to the restored church only after the saints as a whole did not live the law of consecration. It wasn't until 1838, when Joseph Smith asked how much was required for tithing, that the Lord defined tithing for the saints as 10% of interest annually. Any mention of tithing before then meant not only a 10% offering, but ANY offering given freely to the Church. (See the heading to D&C 119).