Need your opinion

[_harmony]

Okay, so we've established that the bishop is in the wrong. He may be a good guy, but he's out to lunch on this one.

So now what? What does WK do/say from now on? (Liz, I like the point you had that WK's marriage is still a temple sealing and has in no way been dissolved. I think that's important to remember, from the LDS perspective.) Does he go to the SP with his concerns? (my experience is that the SP will support the bishop, not the member, 99% of the times a member will go over a bishop's head). Where can he get relief from this, should the bishop continue undermining this marriage?

[_Yoda]

Okay, so we've established that the bishop is in the wrong. He may be a good guy, but he's out to lunch on this one.

So now what? What does WK do/say from now on? (Liz, I like the point you had that WK's marriage is still a temple sealing and has in no way been dissolved. I think that's important to remember, from the LDS perspective.) Does he go to the SP with his concerns? (my experience is that the SP will support the bishop, not the member, 99% of the times a member will go over a bishop's head). Where can he get relief from this, should the bishop continue undermining this marriage?

I think he should talk to the Bishop directly and tell him how he feels.

[_Scottie]

I remember we had a Standards Night when I was in Young Women that talked about "the second kind of a kiss", I.e. the French Kiss, and how that type of kiss should only be reserved for marriage.

This is one of those things that drive me nuts. These leaders get up and start spewing off their version of the gospel, even though it has no doctrinal backing what-so-ever, yet they expect the members to follow it. Then, when we later complain that we actually DID follow it, the apologists scream at us for "not getting our own witness" of the truthfulness of what they said!! Aargh!!

[/rant]

[_Runtu]

I remember we had a Standards Night when I was in Young Women that talked about "the second kind of a kiss", I.e. the French Kiss, and how that type of kiss should only be reserved for marriage.

This is one of those things that drive me nuts. These leaders get up and start spewing off their version of the gospel, even though it has no doctrinal backing what-so-ever, yet they expect the members to follow it. Then, when we later complain that we actually DID follow it, the apologists scream at us for "not getting our own witness" of the truthfulness of what they said!! Aargh!!

[/rant]

I'm reminded of the "special" priesthood meeting we had with our bishop when I was a newlywed at BYU. He said he had some very serious and important things he needed to discuss with us, so we would be meeting in the chapel with the doors closed. During Sunday School people were speculating that maybe it was time to head off to Missouri, or maybe there was some major church announcement.

Nope. When he had us all in there with the doors closed, he said he was very concerned about two evil practices he was dealing with in his ministry as bishop. First, some married men were still masturbating. He told us in no uncertain terms that we weren't worthy to attend the temple if we hadn't freed ourselves from this pernicious habit. And then, he said, his face reddening and his voice choking with real anger, some men were doing something so despicable he couldn't believe he'd had to deal with it all. They were, he said, buying lingerie for their wives for use in the bedroom. He said this meant that they weren't satisfied with their wives' natural beauty and that they wanted their wives to look like "Hollywood prostitutes."

After that, I always made sure my wife was the one buying the lingerie. ;-)

[_Who Knows]

Yep,...that's it....... adultery is better in God's eyes than disbelief... What a wierd sense of ethics the 'church' seems to espouse at times...

Lol. Anything is better that disbelief.

I think he should talk to the Bishop directly and tell him how he feels.

I'll give him another chance.

[_Scottie]

I remember we had a Standards Night when I was in Young Women that talked about "the second kind of a kiss", I.e. the French Kiss, and how that type of kiss should only be reserved for marriage.

This is one of those things that drive me nuts. These leaders get up and start spewing off their version of the gospel, even though it has no doctrinal backing what-so-ever, yet they expect the members to follow it. Then, when we later complain that we actually DID follow it, the apologists scream at us for "not getting our own witness" of the truthfulness of what they said!! Aargh!!

[/rant]

I'm reminded of the "special" priesthood meeting we had with our bishop when I was a newlywed at BYU. He said he had some very serious and important things he needed to discuss with us, so we would be meeting in the chapel with the doors closed. During Sunday School people were speculating that maybe it was time to head off to Missouri, or maybe there was some major church announcement.

Nope. When he had us all in there with the doors closed, he said he was very concerned about two evil practices he was dealing with in his ministry as bishop. First, some married men were still masturbating. He told us in no uncertain terms that we weren't worthy to attend the temple if we hadn't freed ourselves from this pernicious habit. And then, he said, his face reddening and his voice choking with real anger, some men were doing something so despicable he couldn't believe he'd had to deal with it all. They were, he said, buying lingerie for their wives for use in the bedroom. He said this meant that they weren't satisfied with their wives' natural beauty and that they wanted their wives to look like "Hollywood prostitutes."

After that, I always made sure my wife was the one buying the lingerie. ;-)

Yes, one of my girlfriends before I was married and I were engaging in petting and occasionally oral sex. That is, until the SP gave a talk that oral sex was actually worse than sex itself. She wouldn't do anything of the kind from then on out.