NOM

Thanks to all of you who have contributed, you have made a horrible conference bearable. God Bless

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:19 am

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:01 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:48 am I can't take it anymore. Logging in only to give Mr
Nelson -1000 because he deserves it. His condescending tone is unbearable. He stopped just short of saying punch out of your marriage with us covenant breakers. I am mowing the lawn during the next session. Eff the Mormon Church.

An excellent point. I am not looking forward to talking with sister M about this nonsensical and horrific talk.

Actually it went over better than I thought it would with the missus. She actually took what Nelson said that God would prevail to mean she needed to stick with the apostate for as long as was needed. I'm grateful for that, but what about those who came to another conclusion? She agreed that it could be a problem, but it wasn't for her. I was tempted to say that was myopic of her, but I resisted. Sorry to all those whose spouses come to a different conclusion, I have a lot more empathy for you than Nelson does.

I took it more like Mrs M. That if you let the Lord prevail, the love wins. Because Christ taught that love is more important that rules or formal religion. The New Testament recommends that the believer stay with their non believing spouse. This would be letting God prevail rather than letting organized religion prevail.

w2mz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:56 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:48 am I can't take it anymore. Logging in only to give Mr
Nelson -1000 because he deserves it. His condescending tone is unbearable. He stopped just short of saying punch out of your marriage with us covenant breakers. I am mowing the lawn during the next session. Eff the Mormon Church.

What did he say? I wasn’t listening.

I think the gist of that part of his message was that those spouses who remain faithful when their spouses have "broken their covenants" will be OK in the end because their covenants will survive despite the acts of the covenant-breaker. He then left it out there open ended. When I heard it, it felt like he walked right up to the edge and it was what he didn't say that really lead me to feel like it was giving faithful spouses permission to dump their covenant-breaker. Based on the other board feedback, seems like some may have felt like that was the message as well, and others might have thought it was encouragement to stay. The problem (like always) is what the leaders of this real estate corporation DON'T say. They could easily say some really helpful stuff over the pulpit to help the mixed faith marriages, but they absolutely choose not to do so.

I am currently in a pretty rough spot in my marriage with DW, so perhaps I am hypersensitive to the LD$ bull s#!?

I am still not rescinding my -1000 for Rusty. He deserves it.

Me: wow, that was uncanny. I felt like the Spirit was telling me, through President Nelson, that it's okay for you to divorce me.

Husband: you can't receive revelation on my behalf.

Me: why not? You receive revelation on MY behalf all the time.

Husband: ...

Me: oh right, genitals.

Alas, I think in some cases, that could be true. But my husband didn't marry me because he was in love with me. He married me because the church was telling him it was time to check the box marked "marriage."

Also, want to say that I am pretty sure I heard Rusty say something about those with "sincere" questions during his address during this session.

The first time I heard "sincere" as a qualifier needed for questions about the Mormon church was coined many conferences ago by the person that was kissing his a$$ earlier in that session...Neil Anderson.

They welcome questions from the "sincere inquirer" (the phrase coined by Mr. Anderson)...this is the source of my handle on this board and elsewhere.

However, if your questions aren't sincere, don't bother...then you are just being "anti".

I hate the Mormon church, and I am really feeling it this weekend. Conference brings out the worst feelings in me.

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:38 am

w2mz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:56 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:48 am I can't take it anymore. Logging in only to give Mr
Nelson -1000 because he deserves it. His condescending tone is unbearable. He stopped just short of saying punch out of your marriage with us covenant breakers. I am mowing the lawn during the next session. Eff the Mormon Church.

What did he say? I wasn’t listening.

I think the gist of that part of his message was that those spouses who remain faithful when their spouses have "broken their covenants" will be OK in the end because their covenants will survive despite the acts of the covenant-breaker. He then left it out there open ended. When I heard it, it felt like he walked right up to the edge and it was what he didn't say that really lead me to feel like it was giving faithful spouses permission to dump their covenant-breaker. Based on the other board feedback, seems like some may have felt like that was the message as well, and others might have thought it was encouragement to stay. The problem (like always) is what the leaders of this real estate corporation DON'T say. They could easily say some really helpful stuff over the pulpit to help the mixed faith marriages, but they absolutely choose not to do so.

I am currently in a pretty rough spot in my marriage with DW, so perhaps I am hypersensitive to the LD$ bull s#!?

I am still not rescinding my -1000 for Rusty. He deserves it.

I also think it depends on HOW exactly the “covenant breaker” breaks the covenant. Spouse abuse is one way of breaking the covenant that needs to be specifically labeled as breaking the covenant and is too often minimized into a little misunderstanding. Adultery, I think that one should be left open because it depends on what are the circumstances around it and how repentant is the “covenant breaker.” Lack of faith, well I would suggest following the New Testaments advice. So, since he wasn’t going into detail about how the “covenant breaker” exactly broke the covenant, I think he should have left it open. It is kind of our fault that we personalize it to the covenant breaker is us.

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:53 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:38 am

w2mz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:56 am
What did he say? I wasn’t listening.

I think the gist of that part of his message was that those spouses who remain faithful when their spouses have "broken their covenants" will be OK in the end because their covenants will survive despite the acts of the covenant-breaker. He then left it out there open ended. When I heard it, it felt like he walked right up to the edge and it was what he didn't say that really lead me to feel like it was giving faithful spouses permission to dump their covenant-breaker. Based on the other board feedback, seems like some may have felt like that was the message as well, and others might have thought it was encouragement to stay. The problem (like always) is what the leaders of this real estate corporation DON'T say. They could easily say some really helpful stuff over the pulpit to help the mixed faith marriages, but they absolutely choose not to do so.

I am currently in a pretty rough spot in my marriage with DW, so perhaps I am hypersensitive to the LD$ bull s#!?

I am still not rescinding my -1000 for Rusty. He deserves it.

I also think it depends on HOW exactly the “covenant breaker” breaks the covenant. Spouse abuse is one way of breaking the covenant that needs to be specifically labeled as breaking the covenant and is too often minimized into a little misunderstanding. Adultery, I think that one should be left open because it depends on what are the circumstances around it and how repentant is the “covenant breaker.” Lack of faith, well I would suggest following the New Testaments advice. So, since he wasn’t going into detail about how the “covenant breaker” exactly broke the covenant, I think he should have left it open. It is kind of our fault that we personalize it to the covenant breaker is us.

Yeah, yeah I am giving Rusty all the benefit of the doubt. Bad habit of mine. I actually do think there was a lot of judge mental crap in his talk, just that I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because me being angr is just hard on DH.

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:56 am

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:53 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:38 am

I think the gist of that part of his message was that those spouses who remain faithful when their spouses have "broken their covenants" will be OK in the end because their covenants will survive despite the acts of the covenant-breaker. He then left it out there open ended. When I heard it, it felt like he walked right up to the edge and it was what he didn't say that really lead me to feel like it was giving faithful spouses permission to dump their covenant-breaker. Based on the other board feedback, seems like some may have felt like that was the message as well, and others might have thought it was encouragement to stay. The problem (like always) is what the leaders of this real estate corporation DON'T say. They could easily say some really helpful stuff over the pulpit to help the mixed faith marriages, but they absolutely choose not to do so.

I am currently in a pretty rough spot in my marriage with DW, so perhaps I am hypersensitive to the LD$ bull s#!?

I am still not rescinding my -1000 for Rusty. He deserves it.

I also think it depends on HOW exactly the “covenant breaker” breaks the covenant. Spouse abuse is one way of breaking the covenant that needs to be specifically labeled as breaking the covenant and is too often minimized into a little misunderstanding. Adultery, I think that one should be left open because it depends on what are the circumstances around it and how repentant is the “covenant breaker.” Lack of faith, well I would suggest following the New Testaments advice. So, since he wasn’t going into detail about how the “covenant breaker” exactly broke the covenant, I think he should have left it open. It is kind of our fault that we personalize it to the covenant breaker is us.

Yeah, yeah I am giving Rusty all the benefit of the doubt. Bad habit of mine. I actually do think there was a lot of judge mental crap in his talk, just that I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because me being angr is just hard on DH.

Thanks alas. I actually appreciate the perspective so thanks for the comments.

I admit I am hurting right now due to recent events with my DW, and after hearing the "sincere" questions earlier in his talk, then the "covenant breaker" language, I immediately personalized it to my situation and thinking how DW probably was processing the message. It is good to get different perspective here.

I don't post enough here (normally only around GC time, when for whatever reason my hatred of the Mormon church is at its peak). I lurk all the time. I should really engage more because doing so helps me remember to keep perspective.

Sorry, slight thread-jack here, but my fingers won't let me not type this out.

MoPag wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:40 amGong has to self quarantine because of a possible COVID exposure. Or maybe he just doesn't want to be there.

After reading the Gong quarantine news yesterday, and with the news surrounding Gong's son this last little while, my fluffy little conspiracy brain did it's thing, and this morning I imagined that there was a conversation like this last week:

Secret Q15 Spy-Cam wrote:
Rusty: "Gerrit W. you must give the anit-LGBT speech this time around in conference with all the bigotry you can muster!"

Gerrit: "No, I don't think I can do that dear leader. I love my son."

Rusty: "NO!?!?!?. Well Junior-Level-Q15-Gong... NO CONFERENCE FOR YOU!!! You are officially quarantined!"

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:53 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:38 am

w2mz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:56 am
What did he say? I wasn’t listening.

I think the gist of that part of his message was that those spouses who remain faithful when their spouses have "broken their covenants" will be OK in the end because their covenants will survive despite the acts of the covenant-breaker. He then left it out there open ended. When I heard it, it felt like he walked right up to the edge and it was what he didn't say that really lead me to feel like it was giving faithful spouses permission to dump their covenant-breaker. Based on the other board feedback, seems like some may have felt like that was the message as well, and others might have thought it was encouragement to stay. The problem (like always) is what the leaders of this real estate corporation DON'T say. They could easily say some really helpful stuff over the pulpit to help the mixed faith marriages, but they absolutely choose not to do so.

I am currently in a pretty rough spot in my marriage with DW, so perhaps I am hypersensitive to the LD$ bull s#!?

I am still not rescinding my -1000 for Rusty. He deserves it.

I also think it depends on HOW exactly the “covenant breaker” breaks the covenant. Spouse abuse is one way of breaking the covenant that needs to be specifically labeled as breaking the covenant and is too often minimized into a little misunderstanding. Adultery, I think that one should be left open because it depends on what are the circumstances around it and how repentant is the “covenant breaker.” Lack of faith, well I would suggest following the New Testaments advice. So, since he wasn’t going into detail about how the “covenant breaker” exactly broke the covenant, I think he should have left it open. It is kind of our fault that we personalize it to the covenant breaker is us.

What are the covenants you have to break?

AdmiralHoldo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:52 am Alas, I think in some cases, that could be true. But my husband didn't marry me because he was in love with me. He married me because the church was telling him it was time to check the box marked "marriage."

If this was addressed to my comment, I am sorry that I didn’t notice it sooner.

Unfortunately, this is true that sometimes Mormons marry the role of “righteous Female with which to make babies” or “righteous priesthood holder”. They are married to the role and when you no longer fit that role, they see no reason to stay married. This is sad and I have seen it end in divorce more than once on NOM. I don’t think when this is the case that it matters what the church tells them to do about it because they don’t even KNOW the human they are married to.

Such marriages have one of two possible outcomes. 1. They fall in love as they get to know each other as human beings through being stuck together for long periods of time. 2. They continue as long as their role playing is adequate.

The saddest is when one partner really loves the other person.

The “NOM advice” is the same, you continue to be the best wife you can possibly be. Really love him, and that increases the possibility he will fall in love with you rather than just loving the role.

I think my own marriage was that way for a long time. I kept my doubts hidden for some 30 years because I was pretty sure that if I was not the righteous Mormon wife, he would divorce me. Then I hit the point where I realized that even going to church as a Christian but not Mormon was not working. There was too much shame, too much conformity, too much blaming the victim, too long of a to do list, and that the Mormon church was not actually Christian. It was based in salvation by works, and not grace. And I just couldn’t do it even if it meant he divorced me. If he didn’t love me for me, then he really didn’t love me and I didn’t need fake love. So I told him I no longer believed. He actually thought about divorce. Then he realized he wanted me more than he wanted “good Mormon wife”. Things changed. He accepted that the Mormon church was not good for me and that I was happier out of it and he supported me in dropping out. He wanted for me what was best for me instead of wanting for me what he wanted.

Nothing outwardly changed, but something real changed.

Anyway, I wish you the best and know it is a tough place to be, being married and loving someone and not feeling that they love you as a person, just that they love what they think you should be.

That is not really love at all, but conditional love. The church, especially Rusty teaches that is how God loves us. That if we are not what he wants us to be then he doesn’t love us. I can’t worship that God.

2bizE wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:48 pm

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:53 am

SincereInquirer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:38 am

I think the gist of that part of his message was that those spouses who remain faithful when their spouses have "broken their covenants" will be OK in the end because their covenants will survive despite the acts of the covenant-breaker. He then left it out there open ended. When I heard it, it felt like he walked right up to the edge and it was what he didn't say that really lead me to feel like it was giving faithful spouses permission to dump their covenant-breaker. Based on the other board feedback, seems like some may have felt like that was the message as well, and others might have thought it was encouragement to stay. The problem (like always) is what the leaders of this real estate corporation DON'T say. They could easily say some really helpful stuff over the pulpit to help the mixed faith marriages, but they absolutely choose not to do so.

I am currently in a pretty rough spot in my marriage with DW, so perhaps I am hypersensitive to the LD$ bull s#!?

I am still not rescinding my -1000 for Rusty. He deserves it.

I also think it depends on HOW exactly the “covenant breaker” breaks the covenant. Spouse abuse is one way of breaking the covenant that needs to be specifically labeled as breaking the covenant and is too often minimized into a little misunderstanding. Adultery, I think that one should be left open because it depends on what are the circumstances around it and how repentant is the “covenant breaker.” Lack of faith, well I would suggest following the New Testaments advice. So, since he wasn’t going into detail about how the “covenant breaker” exactly broke the covenant, I think he should have left it open. It is kind of our fault that we personalize it to the covenant breaker is us.

What are the covenants you have to break?

Umm....? What are the covenants you have to break for what? For me to recommend divorce? For the church to recommend divorce? For God to approve divorce? Christ basically said there was no good reason to divorce, I think maybe with the exception of adultery. But I think he was talking to men because women in his day had no right to divorce but men could basically divorce for any reason. And the church seems to approve divorce for men for different reasons than it does for women, but let’s not get into church sexism right now.

As a social worker working with battered spouses, I never recommended. I didn’t make recommendations. What I did was encouraged them to explore options. To learn about domestic violence. To see the patterns. To learn better ways to communicate and recognize when their abuser was getting close to a blow up. I wasn’t the one who had to live with the abuser if she stayed and I wasn’t the one who had to figure out life if she left, so it wasn’t my decision.

With my kids, I don’t make recommendation, but kind of handle it like I did with clients, which makes them crazy because sometimes it is nice to have someone decide for you so you have someone to blame if it goes wrong.

My personal limits on what covenants MY spouse could break are that it depends. It depends on is it a one time slip up or a pattern? Abuse is a deal breaker. For me adultery is too. It is just something I couldn’t live with. I also could not handle financial irresponsibility. Alcoholism would also be a deal breaker. But for everything, I would try counseling and see if he would change. One instance of any of those wouldn’t be a deal breaker, but a pattern of any of them would be. But that is me personally. This will be different for everyone.

The being a good Mormon was never on my list even though YWs lessons emphasized that. On my list was that he live what he believed. No hypocrisy. No Jack Mormons or lapsed Catholic. But an atheist who was moral and decent was OK. I dated a Lutheran kid but when I found out he didn’t even know what he claimed to believe, let alone live faithful to it, I dumped him. I married a guy who does live what he believes, and that has made it both tougher and easier for me to leave the church.

Anyway, hope that answered your question.

If you are married to a companion who has broken his or her covenants, your willingness to let God prevail in your life will allow your covenants with God to remain intact. The Savior will heal your broken heart. The heavens will open as you seek to know how to move forward. You do not need to wander or wonder.

This is the quote from Rusty (at least from his talk posted on lds.org...I haven't re-watched that part of the talk to see if it is an accurate transcription of what he said) that sent me into my tailspin and resulted in me logging in solely to award him with a -1000 from me...

Am I a covenant-breaker under Rusty's definition? I have never been unfaithful to DW, but I don't believe anymore, I don't participate in or attend church or temple anymore, I don't wear my magic underwear anymore...you get the picture.

Is Rusty talking to DW about me?

What is Rusty really saying here?

I really don't like the guy. He is kind of a douche.