Crisis of Faith - Dear John Letters

[Vort]

57 minutes ago, NightSG said:

restraining order

Experience must be a brutal teacher, NSG.

PS In case it wasn't obvious; 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Vort

[Latter-Day Marriage]

8 minutes ago, yjacket said:

What the heck??  I hope he is getting ex'd. What is this a reality TV show?

One reason why I do not let my kids watch TV. They see this crap, think it's acceptable and then end up living their life like a drama reality show . . .so much bad crap in today's society (le sigh).

The guy was a new convert, I'm not sure if he is ex'ed or disfellowshiped or what.  I think he considered himself to be joining the church of pretty girls.  One bad apple can cause so much damage.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Good. He doesn't deserve death. He deserves to walk the road he's walking.

Your daughter should count herself lucky to be out of any relationship with such people. Yuck. And at two weeks, it's not like she even invested any serious time. Such nominal "Latter-day Saints" who live just as the world lives, if not worse, are a disgrace to themselves. Sounds like both her ex-boyfriend and her engaged friend are very good people to avoid in a dating scenario. Hopefully, her friend's fiancé has found out how much of a moral scumbag she is so that he can free her to pursue her own agenda while he looks for someone decent.

Sadly she fell hard for him and was over the moon happy with being with him up until his happened. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Sadly she fell hard for him and was over the moon happy with being with him up until his happened. 

That is rough. Hopefully, a lesson was learned: Don't set your heart on someone you don't know yet.

[Backroads]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is rough. Hopefully, a lesson was learned: Don't set your heart on someone you don't know yet.

I think that lesson may be general enough to encompass everything in this thread.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

Or how about meeting her face to face, looking directly into her eyes, and saying something along the lines of "Listen, I have been praying a lot about our future together, and I have felt a strong impression that this relationship is not what Heavenly Father has in mind for us.  I am so sorry."  (You DID pray about it before breaking up, RIGHT?  If not, you should - you owe it to your significant other to at least spend a few minutes in prayer and asking Heavenly Father what is right or not).

Should you say more or not?  Is there more to say?  I have seen many relationships where there is nothing "wrong" - the parties just prayed about it and felt a prompting like it was just somehow not the right thing.  What more is there to say in these cases?  

If there is more to say, weigh carefully the words, and be kind.

Any sons my daughters can date in a few years?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Any sons my daughters can date in a few years?

Lol!  Afraid not - just one daughter!  And she won't be sixteen for twelve more years.

Edited April 20, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[mordorbund]

30 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Any sons my daughters can date in a few years?

Date?! You're halfway there already. Just tell @DoctorLemon his family is in the short list of prospective husbands if he can start producing.

[NightSG]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Experience must be a brutal teacher, NSG.

PS In case it wasn't obvious; 

Actually it happened to a friend who made the mistake of letting his girlfriend have access to one of his bank accounts.  She did some stupid stuff, his lawyer advised him to do the paperwork for the order, (after he'd frozen that account) and he felt bad about the process server being the one to let her know it was over, so he arranged to call her about ten minutes before it was served.

[estradling75]

 

7 hours ago, Lostboy289 said:

Haha, I never turn down I've cream.

She didn't promise to marry me or anything (though we have talked about it and said we thought it was going there), but sticking by me literally while I was in the thick of this shouldn't have been unreasonable.  That's atleast how I interpreted the promise.

This is the girl who only a month ago cancelled her mission a week before she was about to leave because she was in love with me (NOT my idea). 

I just wonder why we even make promises in the first place if we are free to abandon them the second they don't suit us.

 

It time you will see that there are people that keep their promises...  They are the ones that blend into the background and you never really notice, because they don't suddenly change direction.  If and when you notice them could be described by the words dependable reliable etc.  And you really only notice them when for whatever reason they are not their any more.

Oh and now you know first hand that you should not be flattered by the thought that some one picked you over the Lord...  You should see it as the big red flag that it is.

 

[askandanswer]

I've only read the first two pages of this post so what I say here might have already been said.

I think that everytime someone makes a better choice they should be congratulated, not condemned, even if making a better choice means overturning a previous choice that might have simply been just good.This is how we grow. I also can't help thinking of all the Latter-Day Saints who were once formally committed Catholics, Episcopalians, etc. 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

 I think he considered himself to be joining the church of pretty girls.

Well, he was.  But that's not the reason to join the Church.  Lamanites were charmed, not converted.  So, this guy wasn't even as good as a savage Lamanite?  Let him go.

[Guest]

Overall, I thought this thread was much ado about nothing.  An engagement is NOT a promise or commitment to marry.  If you think it is, that's your own fault.  

It is an agreement to change the nature of the relationship to a more serious level.  It is an understanding that during this next phase, we're going to be keeping our eyes wide open and look for anything that is a deal breaker.  It is an agreement that if anything goes amiss, that we can call the whole thing off for whatever reason.  Why anyone thinks there is any promise being broken here is beyond me.

Being a long distance gf/bf is even less than that.

Any missionary who proposed to his girlfriend before his mission is an idiot and does not have his mind on the work of the Lord.  His focus is to be on the Work, not his personal relationship with his gf.

My BIL was dating a girl LONG term.  Like, they were pretty much the only people they dated since 16.  On his mission, she got married to someone else.  He received the dear John.  He wrote to our family and said,"So, I've been here a year, had a couple of trainees under my belt, and got dear john'd.  So, I guess that makes me a pretty seasoned missionary now.  You can't call me green anymore."

And that, my friends, is how you're supposed to handle it.

NOTE: the girlfriend actually had every intention of waiting and marrying him when he got back.  But her parents absolutely hated him.  So, they pressured her into marrying another guy who was a complete loser.  She's not very happy.  I'm not sure if they're now divorced or not.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Overall, I thought this thread was much ado about nothing.

It's easy for married people to say that. I feel for the OP, and it's obviously not much ado about nothing for him. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's easy for married people to say that. I feel for the OP, and it's obviously not much ado about nothing for him. 

It's a question of "HOW BAD?"  His line of thinking was like saying that EVERY person who speeds 1 MPH over the limit should have a 10 year prison sentence.

At the risk of being judgmental, I'd say that about 82% of his posts on this thread were simply the rantings of a child who has been hurt by his own unreasonable expectations and he further expects the world to change around him so he or anyone else never gets hurt again in the same way.  And he even went so far as to call out individuals as sinners for doing so -- that such behavior is "the very definition of un-Christlike".

My daughter was screaming (as she often does) because her brothers, yet again, did something to bother her.  Sometimes it is reasonable and I discipline the boys.  This time she said that she screamed and caused physical harm to her brothers and some physical objects because the movie they wanted to watch (it was their turn to pick) was one she didn't like.  I consider most of the OP's points and arguments to be at that level of maturity.  

It's not that it didn't hurt him.  I'm sure it did.  And I'm not saying it wasn't real.  I'm sure it was.  I'm not saying that the first example he gave was of a girl who was not callous or immature.  She was callous and immature.  I'm saying that the LEVEL OF RESPONSE is WAY out of line for the offense.  And, yes, I believe such a dear John is equivalent to going 1 MPH over the speed limit.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It's a question of "HOW BAD?"  His line of thinking was like saying that EVERY person who speeds 1 MPH over the limit should have a 10 year prison sentence.

At the risk of being judgmental, I'd say that about 82% of his posts on this thread were simply the rantings of a child who has been hurt by his own unreasonable expectations and he further expects the world to change around him so he or anyone else never gets hurt again in the same way.  And he even went so far as to call out individuals as sinners for doing so -- that such behavior is "the very definition of un-Christlike".

My daughter was screaming (as she often does) because her brothers, yet again, did something to bother her.  Sometimes it is reasonable and I discipline the boys.  This time she said that she screamed and caused physical harm to her brothers and some physical objects because the movie they wanted to watch (it was their turn to pick) was one she didn't like.  I consider most of the OP's points and arguments to be at that level of maturity.  

It's not that it didn't hurt him.  I'm sure it did.  And I'm not saying it wasn't real.  I'm sure it was.  I'm not saying that the first example he gave was of a girl who was not callous or immature.  She was callous and immature.  I'm saying that the LEVEL OF RESPONSE is WAY out of line for the offense.  And, yes, I believe such a dear John is equivalent to going 1 MPH over the speed limit.

I understand totally what you are saying, I just don't really see it the same way. 

And I think we can all agree that anyone who speeds 1 MPH over the speeding limit should be immediately shot. DUH. 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Overall, I thought this thread was much ado about nothing.  An engagement is NOT a promise or commitment to marry.  If you think it is, that's your own fault.  

It is an agreement to change the nature of the relationship to a more serious level..

I'm not sure I agree with this statement fully.  I think about what the term engagement means.  When used in a non-dating fashion people say, "I have a speaking engagement on the 27th".  Or "I can't I have a prior engagement".  IMO engagement comes with a date.  If one is engaged but there is no date, I personally don't consider that an engagement.  

So if the young lady got engaged but there was no date attached to that engagement, I don't consider it really an engagement.  I think with an engagement comes an understanding that the couple will begin preparations for a wedding that will occur on the pre-arraigned date and that they are both committed to seeing that event come to pass on that date.  Barring a change in circumstances, the intent is for on x day for the couple to be married.  That change in circumstances can be a whole host of things-timing issues, realization that you don't want to be married to this person, whatever.  But ultimately for getting engaged there should be a date fixed to it with the understanding that we will prepare for that date.  In spanish the word for your beau is "promitido" or promised.

That's why in the case of the missionary who left, it was a really dumb move on both parties and I'm not sure I can really see them as engaged.  They might have said it-but 2 years is a good while and unless they had a date picked out prior to him leaving I can't see how it is really an engagement.

I think all the missionary was really probably trying to do was to take her off the market for two years, so he could have a sure thing when he got back.  That shows immaturity, a lot changes in 2 years-especially for young adults.  To expect her to be engaged to him for two years was an extremely selfish move on his part . . . and it didn't work out well at all. 

[Just_A_Guy]

One thing I'll add because I haven't seen it come up yet (though I may have easily have missed it):

Do many people act dishonorably and un-Christian-like in relationships? Absolutely. (I like the line from the Kellie Pickler song, by the way--"I've got my pride, and she's got--you!"  Trust in karma.  There's no balm quite like a clean conscience.)

But frankly, it's going to be a cold day in Hades before the LDS Church starts punishing a woman for declining to enter into a marriage to a man she no longer wishes to marry.  The implications of such a regimen are just too fraught in 21st century western society.  Nor is it going to get into the business of apportioning "fault" for breakups (I mean, we don't even do that for divorces!)

That doesn't mean that God is OK with antics like some of those that have been described here.  It just means that because of worldly constraints, there are some forms of misconduct that the Church will not be able to deter very effectively.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And I think we can all agree that anyone who speeds 1 MPH over the speeding limit should be immediately shot. DUH. 

Well, that goes without saying...

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, that goes without saying...

It's like Punisher from Marvel comics when he goes insane. 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's like Punisher from Marvel comics when he goes insane. 

I'm actually reminded of Robocop III (or was it II).  He's programmed with so many politically correct directives (like saying a word about nutrition to some hoodlums instead of arresting them for vandalism).  He becomes the epitome of all that cops fear will happen to them because of political correctness.

But he sees some guy lighting up a cigarette on school property and he shoots the cigarette off his lips with that fully automatic canon in his hand.  "Thank you for not smoking."

Edited April 21, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm actually reminded of Robocop III (or was it II).  He's programmed with so many politically correct directives (like saying a word about nutrition to some hoodlums instead of arresting them for vandalism).  He becomes the epitome of all that cops fear will happen to them because of political correctness.

But he sees some guy lighting up a cigarette on school property and he shoots the cigarette off his lips with that fully automatic canon in his hand.  "Thank you for not smoking."

I'd comment on your lousy taste in movies, but one movie I absolutely love is Waterworld. So...

[Guest]

'Nuff said.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Guest

[NightSG]

26 minutes ago, yjacket said:

That's why in the case of the missionary who left, it was a really dumb move on both parties and I'm not sure I can really see them as engaged.  They might have said it-but 2 years is a good while and unless they had a date picked out prior to him leaving I can't see how it is really an engagement.

And why wouldn't they have a date picked out?  A missionary's return date is fairly well fixed, and allowing a few weeks after that for settling in gives them time to make final arrangements.  Most of the missionaries-to-be I've met had a more detailed schedule of what's happening in the 90 days after their return than for getting ready to leave.

[yjacket]

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

And why wouldn't they have a date picked out?  A missionary's return date is fairly well fixed, and allowing a few weeks after that for settling in gives them time to make final arrangements.  Most of the missionaries-to-be I've met had a more detailed schedule of what's happening in the 90 days after their return than for getting ready to leave.

That absolutely could have, I guess.  Maybe a different mentality.  I had no clue the actual date I was coming home-I knew it would be in two years . . .but it was so far out I didn't know or care about if I was coming home on the 1st of the 15th.  To figure out exact dates, you have to know the transfer schedule and then calculate the calendar, etc. pain in the neck . . .why go through the pain?    

IMO if you have a detailed schedule of what's happening in the 90 days after you return before you even leave-your heart is not in the right place for serving a mission.