Crisis of Faith - Dear John Letters

[eddified]

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

[eddified]

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

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eddified said:

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

Ummm, what if you are middle aged and centerist?  Not that I would personally know anyone like that . . . 

[Lostboy289]

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Forgiveness is there, mainly to help the person who was injured.

You are correct in that forgiveness is going to a huge part of this process.

However the onus should not simply be on the injured party to forgive. It is expected yes, but that doesn't absolve us from all blame in whatever we choose to do to one another.

22 minutes ago, eddified said:

It's OK to disagree. Your devotion to your friends can be considered a huge asset. But please don't lose faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ because we have different outlooks on the dating game.

When I was in college, my best friend and roommate was interested in Girl A. So he told us that he had "dibs" on her. I respected that. I had "dibs" on Girl B, and had gone on a few dates with her. However, Girl A showed interest in me, not my roommate. And I wasn't so sure things were going well with my relationship with Girl B. Neither my roommate nor I had committed relationships going on, but we did respect each other's dibs. Since I'm such good friends with my roommate, I offered to swap our "dibs"... I let him have dibs on the girl I had previously had dibs on, and he let me have dibs on the girl I previously had had dibs on. Things worked out so well, I married the girl that he originally had dibs on, and he was my best man at my wedding! My roommate and I are still friends to this day. I've been happily married for 12 years. 

You are correct in saying that this is a different situation. In this case neither of you was attached to either girl, and both of you agreed. Ive been in this situation myself a few times and there usually aren't too strong feelings involved.

I expect if your friend and Girl A had been engaged instead of just attracted to her, and if he had been in love with her and not taken kindly to another man asking her out, I expect this would have been a very different conversation. Frankly, I would have expected to get punched.

There may not seem like much difference between "attracted" and "engaged" in a culture that sees married/single as a simply binary rather than levels, but IMO the situation makes a world of difference.

Quote

In the case of long distance relationships, the "do the right thing, regardless of the outcome" advice is applicable: breaking up when one party decides they don't want to continue the relationship, rather than drag it out to honor a "24 month commitment", is the right thing to do.

I think we just disagree over what the right thing is. Personally, I don't think it is right to break your promises regardless of how much of a drag they are to keep. That there is nothing at all unfair about being responsible for your word to other people.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

6 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Ummm, what if you are middle aged and centerist?  Not that I would personally know anyone like that . . . 

I'm 32 and score a perfect 0.0. on the POlitical Compass quiz.

Therefore, middle-aged and centerist is perfection.

[NeuroTypical]

18 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

You are correct in that forgiveness is going to a huge part of this process.

However the onus should not simply be on the injured party to forgive. It is expected yes, but that doesn't absolve us from all blame in whatever we choose to do to one another.

Here's something to learn about life - if you have your opinion about someone else's onus and a nickel, what you have is worth exactly five cents.  No more.  

Put more charitably, it sounds like this:
We all have a sphere of influence, and a sphere of concern.  The SOI is always smaller than the SOC.  SOI is a place containing things we care about, and power to influence things.  SOC contains things we care about, but we have no power, no influence.

Basically, a secret to a happy life, is to focus on changing things in our spheres of influence, or maybe making that sphere bigger.  A secret to a sad, miserable, 'crisis of faith' life, is to devote energy to try to make changes in our sphere of concern.  By definition, we have no power there.  

I wish you a happy life.

[Lostboy289]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

We all have a sphere of influence, and a sphere of concern.  The SOI is always smaller than the SOC.  SOI is a place containing things we care about, and power to influence things.  SOC contains things we care about, but we have no power, no influence.

Basically, a secret to a happy life, is to focus on changing things in our spheres of influence, or maybe making that sphere bigger.  A secret to a sad, miserable, 'crisis of faith' life, is to devote energy to try to make changes in our sphere of concern.  By definition, we have no power there.  

But the thing is, we do have a sphere of influence here. We have complete influence on the feelings of our friends and S.Os. Even more so than we probably want at times.

In this case it seems that a lot of us are turning a blind eye to the fact that our Sphere of Concern can often be smaller than our Sphere of Influence, justifying that we are not responsible for how our actions affect others, when we absolutely are.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[eddified]

37 minutes ago, eddified said:

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

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have shared the quote.

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

[zil]

49 minutes ago, eddified said:

So he told us that he had "dibs" on her. I respected that. I had "dibs" on Girl B

Holy property ownership, Batman.  The last thing I had dibs on was a corner of the couch.  When I was younger than 18.  Here's the biggest problem I see in all this:

Girl is dating GuyA.  One day she meets A's friend, GuyB, and finds herself attracted to B and liking B more than A.  She prays about it and learns that GuyB is the one she should be dating.  But in Lostboy289's world, she has to ignore revelation lest it harm A and B's friendship and/or hurt A's feelings.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I'm 32 and score a perfect 0.0. on the POlitical Compass quiz.

Therefore, middle-aged and centerist is perfection.

Perhaps a more accurate self-description for me would be a center-right Republican, but one who honestly tries to understand, or at least hear out, all sorts of political positions.

Anyhow, threadjack by Doctor Lemon!  Nothing to see here people.  Back on topic...

[Lostboy289]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Holy property ownership, Batman.  The last thing I had dibs on was a corner of the couch.  When I was younger than 18.  Here's the biggest problem I see in all this:

Girl is dating GuyA.  One day she meets A's friend, GuyB, and finds herself attracted to B and liking B more than A.  She prays about it and learns that GuyB is the one she should be dating.  But in Lostboy289's world, she has to ignore revelation lest it harm A and B's friendship and/or hurt A's feelings.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Or more that Guy B should stay clear and not interfere with his friend's relationship or feelings or else he would be wrong, wrong, so very very wrong.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Or more that Guy B should stay clear and not interfere with his friend's relationship or feelings or else he would be wrong, wrong, so very very wrong.

Either way, the Lord's will is ignored in favor of Guy A's feelings.  Wrong, wrong, so very wrong.

[Lostboy289]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Either way, the Lord's will is ignored in favor of Guy A's feelings.  Wrong, wrong, so very wrong.

That's not the Lord's will. Just people seeing what they want to see.

If the Lord tells you to go around your friends back and date that specific girl, you should probably reevaluate how you are interpreting the answer to your prayer. Il admit that the girl may get revelation that Guy A is not the guy for her, but he will never ever tell Guy B to destroy a friend to get what  he desires.

Church leadership has spoken completely contrary to this practice. ANY worthy man and woman can form a union. There isn't just one person for us.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

6 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

If the Lord tells you to go around your friends back and date that specific girl, you should probably reevaluate the answer you receive. Il admit that the girl may get revelation that Guy A is not the guy for her, but he will never ever tell Guy B to go for the girl.

Church leadership has spoken completely contrary to this practice. ANY worthy man and woman can form a union. ANY.

So you're saying the Lord submits to a relatively new dating social rule?

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

If the Lord tells you to go around your friends back and date that specific girl, you should probably reevaluate the answer you receive. Il admit that the girl may get revelation that Guy A is not the guy for her, but he will never ever tell Guy B to go for the girl.

Church leadership has spoken completely contrary to this practice. ANY worthy man and woman can form a union. ANY.

Who said to go around anyone's back?  The Lord told her to switch from A to B in my scenario.  She doesn't have to go around anyone's back to do that.  You need to make up your mind what you're objecting to: deceit, or changing feelings and relationships.  They're not the same thing and one is not required in the course of the other.

And in my scenario, the girl was not an inanimate object to be "gone after" and GuyB wasn't the one receiving revelation - Girl was.  Holy property ownership, Batman.  Perhaps you need to get your head around the concepts of "sentient" and "agency" before you continue down this path.

And just because we believe there's no such thing as "soul mates"¹ doesn't mean the Lord doesn't lead us to specific people - even if he has to use our friends to do it.

¹ And if there's no such thing as soul mates, why all this life-ruined tragedy over breakups?

Edited April 19, 2017 by zil

[eddified]

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

[eddified]

@zil My roommates and I used "dibs" as a way to respect each other and stay friends. I did not feel that it in any way caused us to view the females in the ward as objects. I did not ever feel like I was using "dibs" as a tool of ownership. I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the situation very badly. 

Of course we should not treat other people as objects to be owned. Let us be quick to see good in others instead of judging them. I agree with most everything you are saying.

Edited April 19, 2017 by eddified

[eddified]

3 minutes ago, eddified said:

@zil My roommates and I used "dibs" as a way to respect each other and stay friends. I did not feel that it in any way caused us to view the females in the ward as objects. I did not ever feel like I was using "dibs" as a tool of ownership. I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the situation very badly. 

Of course we should not treat other people as objects to be owned. Let us be quick to see good in others instead of judging them. I agree with most everything you are saying.

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

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

And just because we believe there's no such thing as "soul mates"¹ doesn't mean the Lord doesn't lead us to specific people - even if he has to use our friends to do it.

 

The Lord very much did in my case.  And then when I tried to exercise my agency to reject such he nailed me to the wall with the following thought.  "Really!?! you think you can make a better choice then ME.  You are welcome to try" (Sarcasm add in my translation process it was not in the original message)

[zil]

4 minutes ago, eddified said:

I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the situation very badly. 

I'm trying to point out that the language has meaning and impact.  To you and your friends there was no "ownership" going on, but it so does not sound that way.  (And yours isn't the language in this thread which sounds most dismissive of all the agencies involved in these scenarios.  If it weren't for the sheer volume of it flying around, and of a lifetime of similar comments wherein men discuss women in the same language used to discuss inanimate property, I probably wouldn't have noticed it.)

Truth to tell, I gave up on this long ago, but every now and then the volume tips the scale and I react.  And then men react.  And then women react.  And then Satan cackles, and I'm left thinking Vulcan sounds better.

[Lostboy289]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

Who said to go around anyone's back.  The Lord told her to switch from A to B in my scenario.  She doesn't have to go around anyone's back to do that.  You need to make up your mind what you're objecting to: deceit, or changing feelings and relationships.  They're not the same thing and one is not required in the course of the other.

They are the same thing when deceit and callousness is involved.

Quote

And in my scenario, the girl was not an inanimate object to be "gone after" and GuyB wasn't the one receiving revelation - Girl was.  Holy property ownership, Batman.  Perhaps you need to get your head around the concepts of "sentient" and "agency" before you continue down this path

And the guy used his agency to hurt a friend. In this case agency was involved, and it was used to hurt someone.

Quote

¹ And if there's no such thing as soul mates, why all this life-ruined tragedy over breakups?

Our lives can be ruined for a time. We may eventually move on, even if we are never really the same.

Sometimes the effects are more permanent.

I had to change jobs and bases since I went to mental health to vent and they decided due to the stress that I wasn't a good fit anymore for a flying job. Also my elderly dad's health has gone seriously downhill seeing his son suffer.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[zil]

1 minute ago, Lostboy289 said:

They are the same thing when deceit and callousness is involved.

Are you really convinced that when a person's emotions change that deceit and callousness must be involved?  That there is no other possibility?  Because if you are, everyone else in this thread needs to know that, because it changes everything.

[eddified]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm trying to point out that the language has meaning and impact.  To you and your friends there was no "ownership" going on, but it so does not sound that way.  (And yours isn't the language in this thread which sounds most dismissive of all the agencies involved in these scenarios.  If it weren't for the sheer volume of it flying around, and of a lifetime of similar comments wherein men discuss women in the same language used to discuss inanimate property, I probably wouldn't have noticed it.)

Truth to tell, I gave up on this long ago, but every now and then the volume tips the scale and I react.  And then men react.  And then women react.  And then Satan cackles, and I'm left thinking Vulcan sounds better.

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

[Lostboy289]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Are you really convinced that when a person's emotions change that deceit and callousness must be involved?  That there is no other possibility?  Because if you are, everyone else in this thread needs to know that, because it changes everything.

No, not at all. Read more carefully. But in the case of a Girl leaving a guy for his friend, and the friend going along with it, than yes, absolutely.

A girl can break up with a guy  for whatever reason she desires. (assuming there wasn't any prior cheating involved).

But the third guy doesn't have to go along with it. Especially when he is friends with the guy on the receiving end of this treatment.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[zil]

Just now, eddified said:

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

Thank you.  Actually, I'm not all that sensitive to it personally, but I have noticed that language has an impact on thinking, not just the other way around, and I seriously wonder what our linguistic choices do to us.  I find myself noticing trends, thinking about subtle influences which make gradual changes over time.  And I fail to keep my mouth closed as often as I should.  Feel free to consider me the crazy no-cats lady.