I have serious issues with this attitude in the church and statement's like this:

[All-American]

I know a 1st q of 70 elder whose only son is a meth addict. It cuts both ways.

Don't go there. Really. Don't.

[Viking]

Don't go there. Really. Don't.

Why? Don't confuse you with the facts? Clacka-dumbass-Coug clearly asserts that two parent strong, jesus-loving, joseph smith adoring parents (tic) are necessary and folks like us (cancer) should be excised out of a relationship for the sake of the (sniffle) children.

Do you know this person I speak of? He's quite open about his son and his challenges...my point is that a dual-headed Mormon (monster) parental structure may or may not have any bearing on the outcome of the children. My kids, for example, are the best kids I've ever known, better than I or my siblings (and let me tell you, Doctorcoug is a seriously good guy) ever were. And I think Joseph Smith probably made up most of what he said and go to church at best 1-2 times a year...should add: I'm not even on the rolls any more (by my request). In your parlance, I'm a denier of the truth and by some interpretations, among the eligible few that will spend eternity in outer darkness. And my kids are sacrament meeting superstars.

[clackamascoug]

Oh my.

Of course your argument conveniently skips the trauma inflicted on the kids by a divorce.

Every situation is unique, but this attitude ("cut out the cancer") seems completely at odds with the gospel that I believe.

We're talking about degree's of crisis management. The baseline I'm working from is that being married in the Temple is the pinnacle of a desire for your children.

Is the trauma of divorce worse than the consequences of ordinances ending at Baptism? It's a matter of picking your poison. Every ward has examples of part member families whose kids are on the fringe of activity and progress.

In my opinion, being traumatized by a parents divorce, and ending up being married in the temple with 3 kids married in the temple, is better than being non-traumatized and having a few generations not being married in the temple. That's just me. Sure its a harsh stance, but we're talking about the blessings of literally generations of people.

On the other hand.... we can just do their work when they're dead.

[UtahDan]

We're talking about degree's of crisis management. The baseline I'm working from is that being married in the Temple is the pinnacle of a desire for your children.

Is the trauma of divorce worse than the consequences of ordinances ending at Baptism? It's a matter of picking your poison. Every ward has examples of part member families whose kids are on the fringe of activity and progress.

In my opinion, being traumatized by a parents divorce, and ending up being married in the temple with 3 kids married in the temple, is better than being non-traumatized and having a few generations not being married in the temple. That's just me. Sure its a harsh stance, but we're talking about the blessings of literally generations of people.

On the other hand.... we can just to their work when they're dead.

I don't mean to be dismissive but this sounds a bit like a point of view that will mellow with more gray hair. How old are you?

[cowboy]

Why? Don't confuse you with the facts?...

Maybe just because he asked you not to, and it would be the polite thing to do. You've proven that you can be a good guy when you want to be, so show a little Christmas spirit and extend AA the courtesy he deserves. Please.

[clackamascoug]

Lebowski, can you change my handle to "Excised Cancer"?

Signed,

Not the Balm of Gilead.

ps
Clackamas, suck my big toe.

You may have been excised from one body, but you'll find another host.

(I'm pretty sure your foot fetish is the least of your problems.)

[Viking]

Maybe just because he asked you not to, and it would be the polite thing to do. You've proven that you can be a good guy when you want to be, so show a little Christmas spirit and extend AA the courtesy he deserves. Please.

Yes, AA is a sweet spirit.

There is simply no argument that breaking up a family over the church is the right thing to do.

I have an ironic story here: one of my wife's friends divorced her hubby, who by our take, was a very good guy, because he left the church.

They had two kids and remained close. Really close. As in, sleeping together post divorce from time to time. She would tell my wife how gut-wrenching the decision was to ditch the guy and also talk about how she couldn't stop screwing him. We would get big time laughs out of it.

[Viking]

You may have been excised from one body, but you'll find another host.

(I'm pretty sure your foot fetish is the least of your problems.)

Merry Christmas, Clackamas. My 8 year old says she thinks you're an idiot. I agree.

[All-American]

Why? Don't confuse you with the facts? Clacka-dumbass-Coug clearly asserts that two parent strong, jesus-loving, joseph smith adoring parents (tic) are necessary and folks like us (cancer) should be excised out of a relationship for the sake of the (sniffle) children.

Do you know this person I speak of? He's quite open about his son and his challenges...my point is that a dual-headed Mormon (monster) parental structure may or may not have any bearing on the outcome of the children. My kids, for example, are the best kids I've ever known, better than I or my siblings (and let me tell you, Doctorcoug is a seriously good guy) ever were. And I think Joseph Smith probably made up most of what he said and go to church at best 1-2 times a year...should add: I'm not even on the rolls any more (by my request). In your parlance, I'm a denier of the truth and by some interpretations, among the eligible few that will spend eternity in outer darkness. And my kids are sacrament meeting superstars.

I would REALLY prefer that the personal lives of General Authorities not be made fodder for public discussions. That's all I'm saying.

[Viking]

I would REALLY prefer that the personal lives of General Authorities not be made fodder for public discussions. That's all I'm saying.

It's not his personal life but that of his son. He talks about it from time to time as a way of communicating with other members who struggle with their children. I think it's a wonderful thing. I grew up with his son and the GA was my stake pres for 10 years. Chill.

[All-American]

It's not his personal life but that of his son. He talks about it from time to time as a way of communicating with other members who struggle with their children. I think it's a wonderful thing. I grew up with his son and the GA was my stake pres for 10 years. Chill.

Oh, pardon me. Not HIM-- just his son. That has nothing at all to do with his personal life. Clearly, I am in the wrong.

Okay, then. Shall we go into all of the reasons why this argument is not only inappropriate, but just plain old lousy? ONE seventy has a son, his only child, who is a meth addict; ergo, a family with two active mormon parents isn't perfect. How many people here argued the point you have just "proven"? Would the argument be affected if I were to bring up examples of general authority families where all of the boys went on missions and all of the children were married in the temple?

Besides exceeding the limits of reasonable propriety, it's just a bad argument. You would do well to find another one.

[CardiacCoug]

In my opinion, being traumatized by a parents divorce, and ending up being married in the temple with 3 kids married in the temple, is better than being non-traumatized and having a few generations not being married in the temple. That's just me. Sure its a harsh stance, but we're talking about the blessings of literally generations of people.

This is what I call the literalist, "true believer" point-of-view.

If you see Church teachings in the very simplistic and literal way that Clackamas has outlined above, then you surely would divorce an inactive spouse.

[All-American]

For the record, my personal thoughts on the matter is that disparate viewpoints on religion probably ought not be grounds for divorce. On the other hand, I can see how being unable to share something so important to one individual in a marriage can introduce difficulties that a couple may find them insurmountable.

It may come to be that the main impropriety is in a group of anonymous posters who are completely unattached to the case at hand, given one snippet of fact without any context, evaluating whether or not a highly personal decision was correct or not.

[All-American]

This is what I call the literalist, "true believer" point-of-view.

If you see Church teachings in the very simplistic and literal way that Clackamas has outlined above, then you surely would divorce an inactive spouse.

If, of course, you believe that the decision is so simple as trading trauma for temple marriages. For all you know, the kids might be so bitter about dumping dad for the church that they want nothing to do with the temple. There is room even in the literalist viewpoint for dissent on the argument at hand.

[Viking]

Oh, pardon me. Not HIM-- just his son. That has nothing at all to do with his personal life. Clearly, I am in the wrong.

Okay, then. Shall we go into all of the reasons why this argument is not only inappropriate, but just plain old lousy? ONE seventy has a son, his only child, who is a meth addict; ergo, a family with two active mormon parents isn't perfect. How many people here argued the point you have just "proven"? Would the argument be affected if I were to bring up examples of general authority families where all of the boys went on missions and all of the children were married in the temple?

Besides exceeding the limits of reasonable propriety, it's just a bad argument. You would do well to find another one.

My argument is that two active parents isn't necessarily a predictor of exaltation of their children. Do you disagree?

I guess I would also argue that clackamas deserves a crisis of faith one day accompanied by a wife who decides to divorce him on that basis as well. Then again, I suspect he is 25 and deserves some slack and my righteous anger should likely be directed instead at the souls who raised him to be so shallow at this point in life.

Merry Christmas and here's to a great 2010