boxer

I have never bought into this "think for themselves" idea. A child is obviously going to "think for themself", they do it all the time! Anytime your child disobeys, doesn't turn in their homework, teases the dog, gets in a fight, does something they aren't supposed to they are "thinking for themself". You don't need to teach a child to "think for themself" they already do! It's just like this idiotic notion that a parent must tell a child all the reasons why when they are told to do something. If you really want to get a child to "think for themselves" don't give them a reason! Bedtime is at 8pm . . .but why Dad? The "but why", is most certainly not a request for information. You can either give them a long-winded answer that they won't accept, don't care for and won't listen to ooooorrrr just say "Because I said so", and when you're old enough to figure it out you won't have to ask me. Don't feed a kid all the answers all the time and they will most certainly "think for themselves"

Worse than that it was 20! years ago. Man that's a long time to let pride stand in the way if blessings. I too am skeptical of the abuse claim. The only thing that comes to mind is a sp giving counsel on certain sexual practices to avoid. Considering that back in the Kimball Benson era they spelled out very clearly certain practices should be avoided in marriage this doesn't surprise me. You can still find their advice in the marriage institute manual at least you could 10 years ago. If an sp counseling a woman about to get married against some sexual practices is abuse.... Man we must be abused all the time with the filth that is promoted everywhere about sex....

False. Unfortunately, too many people do not understand how sexual abusers operate and thus they come up with all sorts of meaningless modes of protection that make them feel better but in the end do absolutely nothing to curb actual abuse. The best way to reduce sexual assault of minors-have strong families. Abusers are very, very smart and are exceptionally socially aware. An abuser never picks the kid from that has good parental ties that are secure in their relationship with their parents. I never, ever, ever worry about sexual abuse of my kids. This is simple easy and effective, I've taught my kids to be strong, if they are in a situation they are uncomfortable with they are to leave. If they are in an uncomfortable situation they come talk to me about it-they know that if anything bad happens I will defend them. And more importantly, predators know that! Predators are very, very good at picking up on body language from kids and adults. They pick out the ones who are weak and who have weak relationships with parents and attack them. A predator wouldn't dare mess with my kids because my body language and my demeanor with my children shows a strong relationship and any predator knows that a child with a strong relationship to parents means they are dead meat if they mess with it. I'd kill someone who messed with my kids. And there are always warning signs, people will feel "creepy, unnerving" etc. around predators. And no, I would not sustain someone into a leadership position such as a Bishop, if I felt they were a "creepy" person. I'd say no, find someone else-if they asked me why I'd say the person gives me the creeps. People say, "who would have know" . . .that's false, there are always warning signs-always. You may not notice them, but they are there. I have yet to see one example of where 2-deep leadership has actually stopped abuse from happening. It's nice and pleasant to think that's all we need to do to stop it . . .the problem is much, much deeper than just 2-deep leadership.

Umm, actually it's probably one of the best ways to live your life. Helaman 13:38 " 38 But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. " We do not know the hour nor the day when our own personal "2nd Coming" happens. One day (probably sooner than we think) Christ will come again . . .but it is guaranteed we will all go to our Maker soon. It absolutely is the best way to navigate that our own life is on the brink of ending-it should motivate us to only pursue those things that are really meaningful, necessary and true.

Okay . . .hubris, it's an amazing word.

I just think it's fascinating that so many members don't really believe in the 2nd Coming anymore . . .it's like they willfully ignore the signs of the times. Or make comments like "every next generation is wicked". Boiling pot and all . . .fascinating, really fascinating.

The Scriptures refute you. It is plainly obvious that some generations are worse than others. And we know that in the Last days . . .aka Latter-days the world will become very, very wicked so wicked that Christ will come an cleanse it. You are a "Latter-day" Saint right? Unless you are one of those new age Mormons who just think it's just some good stuff that some guy wrote and it maybe real, maybe it's not. Or unless you don't really believe we are in the "last days" . . .so I guess you really aren't a "Latter-day" saint, just a middle-day saint?

Another tripe that is just spit out with no statistical backing to make you feel better about the state of the world. If you believe in the Scriptures the above is patently and demonstrably false.

I never said I think my generation is better than the previous generation. I tend to agree that the current generation does believe it is better than the previous generation . . .there is a word for that-hubris. And yes there is something called wisdom. I understand the current generation can't seem to grasp that concept but wisdom comes from experience and listening to those who come before you. It's also called respect-something this world is sorely lacking. You seem to think that the Gen Xers or Boomers think they are "better than" the current generation. I have no idea where you get that silly notion from. "Better than" is a waste of time. What I said was that objectively measured the current generation is worse off when compared to the same age of previous generations (i.e. when the boomers were 20-30s, when the xers were 20-30s)-this is absolutely statically true . . .unless you want to deny reality. Which sadly is what so many of the current generation have been indoctrinated to do-deny reality-no wonder more of them are nuts than previous generations.

Then why respond?

Notice, I didn't say anything about the Church capitulating . . .only that let's talk in another generation. It is objectively true that today's current generation is worse off in every single aspect compared to the prior generation. Academics, mental health, spirituality, etc. You may be right that the Church "capitulates" but it won't be a good thing for society. And all hands on deck for what exactly? Who really gives a flip if the Church doesn't "grow"? Unless you think of the Church like a consumer product . . .omg it's not GROWING!!!! hurry quick, let's change to conform to the "consumer" so we can "grow". If that is what religion is all about then it doesn't mean anything and it's total trash.

And thus why the problem is never solved. You can't live your life in fear of what "might" happen if you do the right thing. It's the same reason why parents have so many problems with their kids. Child doesn't complete their homework on time, so the parents sit there with the child cajoling, begging, pleading, etc. for the child to finish the homework. A wise person comes along and says, hey why not just not help the child and let them do their homework, if they don't complete it then they don't complete it. But then they will fail!!! wails the parent, yes you are right they might fail . . .but they might also succeed. If her husband initiates divorce, then that is on him and his sin. I never said this is an "easy" problem. But if you want to fix the problem, then fix the dang problem and let the chips fall where they may. The root problem in a sentence is this: "Wife has a job, she doesn't want to work and wants to stay home with kid and she wants her husband to work and he doesn't want to work." No amount of begging, pleading, cajoling, hoping, wishing, threatening, etc. is going to work. So if wife really wants to stay at home with child, then she needs to quit her job and stay at home. The outcomes from that are going to be either a) husband steps up to the plate and gets a job b) husband does nothing and they go on welfare c) husband leaves her. First option is better than what is currently happening. 2nd option is worse than what is happening. 3rd option is a wash-why is it a wash? Well, based upon what the wife has stated she doesn't really have a marriage right now anyways and she is already working. If her husband leaves, she'll need to work to provide for her child and will be in no worse situation than she is in right now. I'm not advocating for divorce, only that the fear that "her husband might leave her" is not a valid argument. In fact, it might actually be a real turning point in their marriage-is the husband going to step up or are they going to be stuck for the next 15 years and then finally get a divorce b/c they could never come together? Which is worse, have a marriage in name-only now, do something drastic to shake it up to possibly make it a real marriage with the risk that it might dissolve or continue down the same path for the next 15 years be miserable and then have your husband leave you? And counseling for game addiction . . .that won't work. Unless you want to drag out the problem for 5-10 years.

You are only looking at the short-term. Come back in a generation and then let's talk.

Read the Proclamation. Men and women are different-I know drastic, outrageous, dangerous thought in today's androgynous, transgendered world Clearly if men and women are different then if a woman stays home with a child they will gain/learn different things than if a man stays home with a child. This should be obvious . . .unless you claim men and women are the same. If you want to know specifically. For starters woman are much more early child protective than men are. A woman is biologically engineered to specifically nurture a child-how, a babies cry. A mother instinctively knows/feels/understands a babies cry better than a man ever will. Studies have been done on this. Women specifically know their babies cry, men do not . . .but men are much better at picking out their children from a crowd of children than a woman. For the first several years a child is extremely vulnerable to the world. It's one reason why breast-milk is so important, it provides tons of protection to a young child that can not be gained any other way-except through breast milk. For thousands of years it has been this way, our bodies, emotions, brains were built for the survival of the species. That instinct is specifically for woman to be nurturers at the start of a young child's life and then the father takes over and throws the child out into the world to sink or swim. Modern society has upended this process in the past 30 years . . .it's a huge experiment that is just mind-boggling that we do it and accept it. All because we buy into the lie that men and women are the same.

?? I fail to understand how I personally "attacked" her. Pointing out what should be an obvious mistake is not a "personal attack". I jumped off a bridge and broke my leg. Someone comes along and says, hey you shouldn't have jumped off a bridge that was a mistake to jump off the bridge. OMG PERSONAL ATTACK!!!! Chill. I'm pointing out (what should be the obvious), that there is a reason why the Proclamation on the Family exists, it lays out clearly what God has ordained as the proper roles of husband/wife. Any deviation from that is going to cause problems-period. It doesn't mean that deviations can't work, just that it won't work as well. Clearly, had this young lady thought 5 years ago that when children came she would want to be at home and had discussed it with her potential mate-this issue would have never come up. That was obviously a mistake. She is trying now to rectify that mistake. Yes, people change. I'm glad she has changed so that she would like to be the nurturer-that's awesome. But drastically changing the role you want to play in your marriage 5 years in, isn't something that you can just do with the snap of a finger. Is the world so bubble-wrapped in today's society that we can't plainly acknowledge a mistake without someone claiming it is a "personal attack"?

I don't think Iggy or my suggestions are extreme. The God-ordained marriage has the husband as the provider (i.e. as the breadwinner)-see the Proclamation. This wife and husband have the marriage roles backwards and it is causing major problems (duh!). The wife finally realized (after 5 years-it's a mistake she didn't go into the marriage with this attitude) she doesn't want to be the provider and she'd rather be the nurturer. So she is at a major impasse and a marriage that is upside-down, inside-out and backwards. So now after 5 years, she has decided she'd like to try a more traditional God-ordained marriage (good for her! better late than never!). The problem is wife wants a traditional role, husband (after thinking he'd hit the jackpot) doesn't. If I understand Iggy correctly, iggy and I aren't suggesting she reduce the allowance, cut-back, etc. We are both suggesting that if she wants to assume the traditional role . . .then DO IT!!! Stop working, tell your husband, I'm going to be the traditional wife, and you are going to be the traditional husband, I'm not going to be the breadwinner. If you want to play video games with money you've earned after you've provided for us, fine, but I ain't going to carry your slack anymore. Yes that transition period will probably be very, very rough. But it's the only way. The husband isn't going to magically wake up and just say "gee, you know my wife has been making 100k a year and I can only make 50k, so just to please my wife I'll work making 50k so she can be the traditional nurturer." The only way that is going to happen is if the wife says, I'm okay with you making 50k/year, and to prove to you I'm okay with that I quit my job!. Unfortunately what Alia doesn't realize, (maybe it's lack of maturity, maybe it's unwillingness acknowledge reality . . . I personally think what it really boils down to is the fact that she doesn't really want to stay home with the kid, or more accurately she is unwilling to make the sacrifice to make that happen. She knows that her husband can in no way bring home as much money as she is making (and so does he) and unless and until she demonstrates to him solidly that she is willing to make the financial sacrifice to set things right, the situation will continue. She married a beta male and when she married him she probably married him specifically b/c he was a beta male, maybe b/c alpha males scared her (or they were afraid of marrying a woman that they'd have to fight to get into a traditional role). Now she wants an alpha, when she married the beta. There are only two solutions to this, either she continues to be the alpha or she says full stop-I'm not going to be an alpha anymore, you are my husband I expect you to be an alpha-go out there and kill the wolves! And if you don't kill the wolves we die. You'd be surprised what survival instinct will do when it's forced to kick in. There are a lot of social-cultural issues at play that have brought this couple to this point . . .I truly wish it were different, but that's why I raise my kids differently than modern society so they won't get into these problems. Best of luck to this young lady, I truly mean it. The third solution . . .which is possible is that eventually after another 5-10 years her husband wakes up-doubtful but possible. Without a drastic change on her part there is absolutely 0 chance that he will change anytime soon.

Not surprising. The current generation raising kids is really screwing up next generation. Lawnmower and helicopter parents . . .so when kids actually get out on their own and are away from mommy and daddy doing everything for them it becomes "too hard".

Unfortunately, whether you want to admit it or not your husband is an adult child. He is a child in his maturity but an adult in his body. We all have childish parts that we keep for longer than we should, but that is the process of becoming an adult. 1 Corithians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Clearly your husband has not put away childish things and therefore is not a man-based upon scripture. The problem you have is in not being willing to face the truth. You will learn this as you grow older and as your child grows, but the most surefire way to help a child to "grow-up" is to not hold their hand. You help a child grow-up by allowing them the ability to fall flat on their face-you give them enough rope to hang themselves with. After they've hung themselves, they come back to you and (hopefully if they've learned the lesson) say . . wow that was really dumb what I did. The only way your husband is going to grow-up is for you to stop enabling him; yet you don't want to stop enabling him b/c you "hope" things will naturally change. Hope is not a strategy. Good luck to you b/c you are going to need it-plenty of wise people here have given you good advice and strategies for you to implement, but you discard them and all you seem to want is someone to tell you "it's gonna be alright?". Okay, I'll say this, it all works out in the end. Of course the pain you have to go through to get to the end is in a large measure dependent on you. Good luck!

That scripture is actually really brilliant. He actually isn't saying that one should pay taxes or one should not pay taxes. He is taking it from a very logical perspective. Ceasar's image was on the coins, specifically because it literally was Caesar's money. It was the coin of the realm. People don't realize but Kings of old the Caesar's were actually private, i.e. the King literally owned it. The King's highway-it was owned/maintained by the King. The concept of "government" like we know today was unheard of hundreds of years ago. The Kings/Caesar were very, very rich men (who acquired wealth either through business or other means), they basically minted their own money from their own stores and then paid their employees with their own private coins. So when Christ say's render under Caesar . . .literally Caesar created the money others used, so if you don't want to "render unto Caesar" don't use Caesar's money! He wasn't saying taxes are ethical. This is especially brilliant when considering that the Jews up until very recently in Christ's time were an independent nation. They became subservient to Caesar and used Caesar's money so they paid taxes to Caesar. One could almost see Christ's response as a call to action/revolt. Basically telling the Jews, hey you guys sold your souls to the Romans, if you don't want to be taxed, don't use his money (i.e. revolt). It's crazy how much meaning there is in a simple verse . . .

My empathies are with you. However, I would suggest something a little different. I mean this in kindness but in truth. You need to take some responsibility for being in this situation, which I do not see you doing. You are 28, been married for 5 years and are a lawyer. Becoming a lawyer is a professional degree, meaning that's not just getting a bachelor's degree. No getting a law degree requires at least 2 years. Which means that at the best case scenario you met your husband in law school. As far as taking a break from work? What did you possible think it was going to be like when you decided to get a law degree? Yes, busting your butt every day, getting up earlier coming home late . . . welcome to the working world! Welcome to the man's world. You got a degree that requires a significant amount of time-investment. I'm sorry that you put yourself in this situation, I truly am. I realize that in the modern world, women have been sold a bill of goods over the past 20 years; they want all the freedom, but the responsibility . . .that's another topic for discussion. Unfortunately, your story for women is not uncommon, in fact it is very, very typical. Women do much better than men at school, so they get degrees are told everything is great and wonderful, finally get married, then they want to have a kid (clock is ticking, starting kids at 28 means maybe you get 2-3??? before pregnancies become high-risk), then realize . . .oh crap . . .I'd really love to spend time with my children (motherly instincts!), and now they are stuck with massive regret, anguish, turmoil b/c they can't quit their job to spend time with their kids. And you sold your husband a bill of goods too. Again, getting a professional degree is not something you do "lightly" . .unless you are a flake. When you get a professional degree, generally you stick with that profession (or a derivative of it) for the rest of your life. Please put yourself in your husband's shoes . . .he think he's hit the lottery-someone to work and take care of him. Did you ever discuss with him 5 years ago that you didn't want to practice law in a few years? Did you ever tell him, once kids start I want to quit? Your exhaustion has been felt by every single male husband/father from the dawn of time. That is what we do-work, work, work, work to provide for our families. Unfortunately, because you didn't make your expectations clear at the start of the marriage, you decided to reverse the roles God ordained for the family . . . and that doesn't work out well-at all! I don't have really much advice for you, except that you need to stop molly-coddling yourself and your husband. The Truth shall set you free! You need to be honest with yourself and take responsibility that you changed the rules of your marriage in the middle of the game. People do that . . .but you need to admit that to your husband. Finally if you want your husband to wear the pants in the family (which is figuratively meant to mean actually provide for), then the only way it is going to happen is for you to stop picking up his slack. If you REALLY want him to provide-STOP WORKING!!! Tell him, look honey, I've realized I have taken over the "head-of-household" roll that should really be your role. Part of the "head-of-household" duties is to provide. You need to provide. Within 3-6 months (whatever), I'm quitting my job and if you don't have a job we will go on welfare. If you aren't willing to do that, then you will never force him to take his God ordained role as provider. You want him to be provider, but you aren't willing to take the risk of what that might actually mean. Necessity is the mother of invention. That's my suggestion, give a period of time and quit your job, let the chips fall where they may and tell him, he is the head of household and provider. If you aren't willing to do that-then you will never be willing to let him actually lead the family b/c you will always be wanting to do it for him.

Very good points. I pray that is the case. It will require a people who are alert, attentive to the scriptures and to the True Spirit of God and who are not deceived by false spirits.

I most certainly don't like disputations, contention, etc. However, this topic is an important topic, it is an important issue, not talking about it will not help resolve questions or doubts or problems people have. I think Tyme has some very key points that he is making. I think it is in the dialog that people can really find out if what they believe is really true or if their beliefs need modification. I have tried to engage Tyme on a much deeper level than merely a superficial level. I've tried to ask deep meaningful questions related to the why, the hows, the very deep core of why he believes the way he does. Why does he believe his opinion is the right opinion, why he believes he is being lead by the spirit and I am not being led by the spirit. I am most certainly open to the possibility that I am deceived-I have been before so it wouldn't be the first time-yet I have not been able to engage him on a deeper level to really get to the heart of why his position is from God . . .except for that he just feels it deep in his heart. In my opinion, feeling it deep in your heart is absolutely no basis for a fundamental religious principle. Religion is a way of looking at life, it is an overarching framework through which we are able to interpret, view and interact with the world. So far, the only thing I can get from him is that the fundamental basis of religion should be that it needs to be something I feel deep, deep in my heart. I've had plenty of experiences in my life where I've felt something deep, deep, deep in my heart and that feeling turned out to be wrong. In fact not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong-so far wrong it made my head spin. So if you are going to explain a religion principle to me, such as homosexuality is morally good, then it needs to have some other theological backing to it besides . . .I just feel it.

You are welcome; I agree, it should be self-evident. But in today's world . . .

I am most certainly willing to engage with you in a respectful conversation. Unfortunately, you have not answered several of my questions and therefore a conversation is not possible.

Oh just wait; you ain't seen nothing yet. It is being promoted as virtuous. That those who engage in homosexuality aren't just people who struggle, they aren't just sinners, no they are actually the best of us. They are sent here to teach the rest of us how to be better. They are more spiritual then the rest of us, they are closer to God, they love better, are more pure, etc. etc. etc. Of course with that rhetoric, anyone who disagrees is an evil person for hating on the literal angels sent here to help us.