Emotions are just Over-rated.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Emotions are just Over-rated.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:
The whole concept of polygamy does not lend itself to any type of intimate relationship with one's spouse. Or with one's children, for that matter

In our present understanding, anyway. I suspect God's perspective (and our's, when we enter His Kingdom) will be quite different. He manages to have an infinitely close and personal relationship with all of His children, no matter where they live.

My own belief is that probably any two people who love the Lord first can have an intimate and passionate relationship with each other. True Love is something we build together through sacrifice, not something we fall into.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Okay, nice theories.

I'm talking about this life, before we get to the Celestial Kingdom, if we ever do. I don't doubt this world is different than the next. Jane GAVE UP an intimate and passionate relationship as a TRADE for an eternal reward, see? She felt she was making a SACRIFICE of the things of the world, for the things of the NEXT WORLD. She was hoping for a REWARD for her SACRIFICE, i.e., unquestioning obedience to Brigham Young.

What about the married women that Joseph Smith proposed to? Was there some special reason to break up an already good relationship? Some reason that involves passions, emotions, etc.? I'm thinking specifically of the example of Zina Huntington Jacobs.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

:sigh: I guess it's been a few months since we had a polygamy debate, so apparantly it's time to start a new one.

I won't be participating. The Lord commanded certain members to practice polygamy for a time, and then the Lord commanded members to stop practicing it. I don't know why. And I'm certainly not going to start pronouncing judgment upon the actions of prophets, apostles, and members who were obedient. Regardless of their individual trials and "lack of intimacy" or "unrealized romance" that we want to interpret into their lives, the Lord blessed them for their obedience.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Okay, sorry I jumped on you. I just got sort of "involved" as I was reading this bit of history and what this woman went through and it got me ticked off. I'm not trying to pick a fight. And really, polygamy isn't even the issue here. It's just the idea that you don't question - sort of goes along with paying taxes, at least, it's a similar mindset. I also sort of felt for her first husband who came back to find her "assigned" to another man, his letters having been deceitfully confiscated... thinking, What kind of religion is this? 'Course, maybe it was mostly punishing him for "leaving" her in Utah for a while, alone. You snooze, you lose? They just didn't seem to put much into "love" as we think of it, back then.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Do you know the full circumstances of what went on? We have even less to go on, because there is no link to what you are referring as being shown at the church's website. The rest is family story, and well, every family's story is going to have a tinge of rose-coloring to its history and tales as they get passed down generation to generation.

Why did the husband go to California? How long was it after the husband left / was perceived as abandoning the family that the wife remarried? I fail to see that a grown woman who still considered herself married would let herself be "married" off by an outsider to someone else. Perhaps there were mistakes made due to assumptions that could have been the result of some duplicity on the part of husband 2.

My great-great grandmother was much younger than my surname great-great grandfather. In fact, she was equivalent to a generation younger. He had a son, by his first wife who died in England, who didn't join the church and was a doctor in the Civil War that was actually a year older than her. She was 30 years younger than her husband. She was a plural wife. I know things were not peachy between them as husband and wife, may never have been. I don't know. She and the other wife (who was also like 26 years older than her) got along okay, apparently. But, I don't judge my ancestors for their faults, their problems, or anything. They did what they were commanded to and made the mistakes they did when not living up to what they probably should have or could have. That is all between them and The Lord, just like anything else from anyone else in church history. It is next to impossible to objectively compare even our own parents world social conditions when they were young to what we experience or what our children will experience. So in some things, we may not be able to understand what went on until the viel of mortality is lifted and we can learn directly from those individuals.

That is just my thought though.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I wouldn't have believed that cat of all people could settle me down on something, but I say there ole' chap, that was one of your best posts.

You're right, we don't know all the details and it seems to be "fun" to liven up stories a bit. According to kids' birthdates, the last baby from #1 and the first baby from #2 were 2 years and 8 months apart.. And I guess we don't know all the reasons he went to California in the first place. Maybe he stayed longer than he said - maybe he was having second thoughts about the Church even then... it just appears he felt very betrayed upon his return, mainly by Church "leaders."

Let's look at the whole question in another setting, shall we? Since this seems to have been interpreted as the beginnings of a polygamy debate, which I did not intend.

I served a mission, like many other bountifullers, and had a wide array of companions. Some I truly gelled with, some were "whatever" and some were more difficult. I remember thinking during one of my companionships, I wonder if marriage is sort of like this? I mean, if I have a comp that I really, really love and we gel and get along, the work doesn't quite seem to go as well... maybe we get along too well or it's just too easy to have fun together cuz we totally hit it off...?? My most "effective" companionships (and I define effective as getting the most actual work DONE) were with comps that I got along with okay, but were not my awesomest buddy-types. Is the whole "best-buddy" idea overrated? Does it distract from the Lord's work?

Any ideas on this angle of the question?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Sometimes I wonder if the strong emotions we experience here are mostly due to physical emotional response. Perhaps resurrected beings don't experience strong compelling emotions. Perhaps in the next life, we'll all be in a perpetual mild mood, cheerful, but not bubbly.

Here's another angle to your question -- does true love require strong emotions?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

They've got those cool mood patches like in Doctor Who. We'll all be wearing "Bliss".

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Sounds like a good way to get dead.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Only if you live above ground.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Yes. And also, stay out of the fast lane.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Yes, the Macra will get you if you use the fast lane.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Coco: Perhaps I need to sing you a song...

"Follow the prophet, Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't burn in hell..."

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Trying to picture this from the first husband's perspective:

- I leave the state for a several months on business.
- I write letters filled with love to my wife, but never hear anything back.
- I return to find my wife married to another man at the direction of a church leader.
- It turns out that the other man had intercepted the letters.

Well, in my eyes, that's wrong no matter how you look at it. I'd quit the church and move away, too. After I had sued the church and its leaders for breaking the law--no official divorce. And after I'd been reunited with my lawful spouse and children. And after I may or may not have killed the SOB who slept with my wife.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Yeah, I can see that scenario too, roper.

But, we don't know the details, other than H2 seems to have been a real winner by most accounts. All coco has said is that last child by H1 was 2 years 8 months older than first child by H2. (Coco, you ever gonna give us a link to the info concerning this you referenced is at the church's website?) We don't know how long it was before H1 even returned to Utah. All we "know" is that there were apparently letters to her from H1 that H2 had hidden from her up to 6 - 8 months after the second marriage occured. It doesn't mean he came back 6 - 8 months after the second marriage occured. Based on the ages of the two children, we know H1 was there to conceive last child... say he takes off right after conception... that adds probably another 9 months, which could also be interpreted as he was gone (perhaps presumed dead?) as much as 2 years 8 months before she remarries if the first child by H2 was a "honeymoon" baby.

Divorce / abandonment may not have been the only reason for her remarrying. Incorrect news may have come back that he had died, in which case she would have been free to marry again, and being a widow with however many children, would have needed someone to take care of her from a stewardship standpoint, and in those days in frontier Utah / Deseret, that often meant becoming a plural wife.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Whatever you have to tell yourself to avoid facing the possibility that H1 and the wife were wronged by H2 and/or church leadership.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

emotions... I remember when I thought they were useful...

-- Edited by rayb at 11:01, 2007-07-28

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I like emoticons... oh, wait...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Okay, the lds website to which I refer is familysearch.org. I merely took my dates off this geneology resource as I'm piecing together her story. I don't think linking to family names, etc. would aid in this discussion. (See: Coco is paranoid, besides.

) The other facts of the story/photocopies of letters, etc. is in personal histories, spiralbound books, that circulate within the family.

I really like the points bok has brought up. Does true love require strong emotions? Well, does it? Huh? I think this is an excellent question. I'm still sifting through all the possible answers I could bring up... I also like the idea that these "emotions" we feel may be tied into the physical, temporal body/brain that we now possess. Very interesting and I would imagine encouraging to those who have mental challenges. (ray? --just joking!

)

roper- interesting comment about killing the SOB, when iirc, you sounded almost alarmed that someone could entertain the same thought but in reference to child abuse, I think it was... at any rate, glad to see your moxie is alive and kicking.

What roper described as H1's point of view was exactly what I, too, was thinking. How could I have much to do with the Church when this is the extent of my experience with it? Should I just put this event aside and accept these men as prophets *unconditionally*? After all, that is what they preach, you accept them *unconditionally*. "Unquestioning obedience" is the order of the day.

What say you, ray? Do you have any sympathy for H1? Would you have told him to basically shut up and follow the prophet?

So does true love require strong emotions? I'm interested to know how roper's thoughts on this have evolved with his changing personal circumstances. Not trying to put you on the spot, but...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

bokbadok wrote:

Whatever you have to tell yourself to avoid facing the possibility that H1 and the wife were wronged by H2 and/or church leadership.

Oh, I'm in no way implying that H1 and wife may not have been wronged. They probably were by H2. I wouldn't categorically say that Church leaders above the local level wronged them though. All I'm saying is that we, as the rest of the forum not privy to the recorded events from one branch of your family several generations ago, don't know the whole story. Nor does anyone alive within your extended family know all the unrecorded parts of what surrounded the events.

I certainly know very little about the circumstances of my great grandfather being excommunicated because he ended up on the wrong side of water dispute in SE Idaho where the Bishop was on the other side that prevailed. Family story has it that the Bishop ex-ed all the men who were on the losing side.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

I've read over this thread a couple of times Coco and was wondering what I would say and think.
I don't know if this will answer your question or not, but here's my humble opinion.
Love of course, is a strong emotion even of itself, and it can certainly "involve" other strong emotions. Sometimes love causes us to feel all sorts of things. Anger, rage, jealousy, happiness, sadness, compassion, contentment...etc.
In my opinion love does require other emotions, and any emotion can be a strong one. But, not all "true loves" involve the "same" emotions. Depending on the circumstances, it is up to the individual how they will handle those emotions and what emotions they may actually be feeling. Sometimes certain circumstances and events influence the love we are experiencing and cause us to feel or do things we may not have done otherwise. I mean, haven't most of us all been "crazy in love" at one time or another? Sometimes being in love can be downright painful.
I don't believe emotions are over-rated. We are not vulcans they have been given to us for a reason. But, we must learn to keep them in check sometimes.
I also don't believe that back in your ancestors day and age that people ignored and didn't care about emotions, they just reacted to them differently and sometimes circumstances overruled emotions. If for no other reason than out of necessity.
Of course, after reading your story I was trying to figure out how she could marry a second time anyway. Something obviously must have happened to make them feel she needed to marry a second time, and she obviously agreed. I don't think they forced women to marry back then.
Maybe she felt she had to, who knows?
Back in those days marriage was completely different. Alot of times people only married out of convenience and not necessarily for love. Even today arranged marriages still happen in certain cultures. Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I statement I heard once- "If you can control your emotions, you can begin to learn to control your thoughts."

Since we're judged on our thoughts, of which I have many that are sadly not up to what I'd like them to be -- makes me think getting to the lower-Terrestrial might be alright, after all...

Love causes us to feel all sorts of things... interesting thought, poncho. Almost like love is the "white" emotion - containing all the other emotions within it? Crazy in love, hmm....

"I don't think they forced women to marry back then." No, but they were "forced" were they not, to obey unquestioningly the priesthood leader over them? And certainly Brigham Young. Sort of like the income tax thread - sure you have a choice - do what I say or go to hell, how's that?

I'm wondering if the feeling of "being in love" or "loving" someone is something that could potentially get in the way of one's quest for eternal life. I like that little phrase "quest for eternal life" it's in my PB

. I know for me personally, I have experienced times when emotions have made it more difficult for me to hear and discern the Spirit of personal revelation... Just some more thoughts...

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yeah, I agree. I think that being in love or loving someone can potentially steer us away from the celestial kingdom. I used to be engaged to a non-member once. I loved him dearly. But, don't they say that you need to be sealed in the temple to get to the celestial kingdom? Or at least the highest realm in the celestial kingdom?
So, after awhile the spirit kept quietly trying to tell me it was not right for me to marry the guy and so even though it was terribly painful I broke off the engagement. Though I didn't fully understand why at the time, because at one time I believed it was right for me to marry him.
But, six months later I met Cat and I knew why, and I never regretted that decision again.

And, yeah I guess back in those days people were expected to follow the priesthood leaders counsel without question. But, I don't think all of the leaders were horrible, unfeeling monsters
that sometimes they're protrayed to be.
We're expected to follow priesthood leaders counsel today, but there is that little thing called "free agency." They just couldn't exercise it the same way back then I don't think.

Oh, and incidentally after I did break up with that fellow and I admitted the real reason I was ending it, he was silent for a moment and he said, "Well, you love God more than me and that is how it should be." And, when push comes to shove that's the person we all should always be putting first. Just my take on things.

arbilad · Head Chef

We are not vulcans

We're not?

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:

We are not vulcans

We're not?

Judging from what goes on around this crazy place we'd all be kicked out of the Vulcan academy. Why we'd all have to be doing some serious purging of emotions or something. Either that we are all constantly going through a state of pon farr. (Boy, I hope I quoted that vulcan phrase right).

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:
I know for me personally, I have experienced times when emotions have made it more difficult for me to hear and discern the Spirit of personal revelation...

Me too... but then other times when my emotions we the thing that saves me a lot of heartache... I believe there is a fine line sometimes, because I agree that we need to school our thoughts and emotions... it's kind of that "subdue our passions" part of the earth life experience...

I do not think emotions are overrated if you are talking about their purest level... I think we do allow them often to have way too much control over us (our actions), at least I do.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Poncho29 wrote:

And, yeah I guess back in those days people were expected to follow the priesthood leaders counsel without question. But, I don't think all of the leaders were horrible, unfeeling monsters
that sometimes they're protrayed to be.
We're expected to follow priesthood leaders counsel today, but there is that little thing called "free agency." They just couldn't exercise it the same way back then I don't think.

I disagree with some of this. It is easy and convenient for us to look back at generations past and say that they were expected to follow without questioning. That is simply not true. There were many who questioned. Even Brigham Young questioned things Joseph taught and counciled, but he moved forward with faith. Even Joseph Smith can be said to have questioned things he was taught and commanded by various messengers from God and revelations. But, he likewise moved forward with faith even if he didn't understand the whole picture.

In fact, the same litmus test was applied to early Church members as it is to us today when it comes to following Church leader's council... make it a matter of prayer and receive personal confirmation it is right and move forward in faith. Were it not so, there would be no value in likening the ancient scriptures to us, or likening the experiences of the early saints of this dispensation to our own situation.

A more precise term for the concept being referenced should be used. Then, as now, following our priesthood leaders counsel is expected to be done without dissension (as in discord, contention, quarrel, strife), not without questioning. Questioning and dissension are two seperate concepts, and too often our society has made them one and the same. When we read sermons from that time period, it sounds very much (in our contemporary cultural context) as if there is no room for questioning. But, I think that is simply the type of language that was used in those days to decry dissension, which dissension can be absolutely devestating to an organization's success.

This is the exact same thing that many non-members and antagonists of the Church level against us, and yet we know better, don't we?

The early saints could exercise their agency then just as freely as we do today.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

roper- interesting comment about killing the SOB, when iirc, you sounded almost alarmed that someone could entertain the same thought but in reference to child abuse, I think it was... at any rate, glad to see your moxie is alive and kicking.

Actually, I wasn't alarmed in the child abuse situation, my point was that I don't believe unlawfully taking the life of another can possibly help the situation for anyone involved. That said, my deep-down feelings about the subject are more in line with Mirkwood's. If it was my child, or one for which I had stewardship, somebody better stop me before I and my good buddy Sig send him back to Father and then castrate him for good measure.

So does true love require strong emotions? I'm interested to know how roper's thoughts on this have evolved with his changing personal circumstances. Not trying to put you on the spot, but...

We can thank Descartes for for giving us that load of dualistic crap that places reason and emotion at the polar opposites of human experience. Research from several different disciplines shows that emotions are far more complex and far more integrated then we have believed. Every cognitive function and most physiological functions involve emotion. It is impossible to subdue our emotions. We can, however, and we should "bridle our passions." I believe that like the rest of what makes us children of God, our emotions too will be perfected (not eliminated) when we are resurrected.

Now to answer Coco's question: I don't think require is the right word. Cause might be more accurate. I believe that as love grows stronger, it causes emotions to grow stronger. You can have strong emotions without love, but you can't have true love without strong emotions.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Roper wrote:
"bridle our passions."

Thanks rope... I had the words a little wrong but that was my thought too...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I'm with Roper, I'd shoot the SOB.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

So, you cannot have true love without strong emotions... but love is apparently what CAUSES the strong emotions...

Okay, time to stop. I feel like I'm entering the Ray Zone.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

...welcome to my world...

...a world in which we battle the emotional baggage of others... because we don't pretend it's inconsequential...

...and we follow the prophet... all at the same time... :)

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Cocobeem wrote:

So, you cannot have true love without strong emotions... but love is apparently what CAUSES the strong emotions...

Okay, time to stop. I feel like I'm entering the Ray Zone.

Love does not cause strong emotions. Love is a decision one makes based off mutual strong emotions, and in the case of romance, a certain initial interplay of hormones and pheremons...

This is where, IMHO, folks like stalkers have it wrong... they feel their strong emotions are justified because of the unilateral "love" they feel...

That is why you can love someone deeply, but not like them very much at a given moment.

Must... fight... falling... into the... Ray Zone... doh

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat, read "Four Essays on Love" by Truman Madsen. You might change your perspective on the love and emotions connection. I did.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Can't... read... have... fallen... into... Ray Zone... of... confusion...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Okay, so we have one for love causes strong emotions and one for love being a decision. Ooh... now I'm going to cut off all the why's of the decision, and just leave it. Love is a decision. Hmm.... Now there's something to chew on.

Also interesting how men, who tend to be less emotional, make up the majority of stalkers... hmm...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Four essays on love? FOUR?? Oh, brother...

Why don't you give us the jist of it, roper... what changed in your belief system?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

True love is always a choice. That's why I've argued that emotions, while related, are not the cause of love. Lust, maybe.

When I choose to love someone, I make an emotional investment. I love, and that choice causes strong emotions about the relationship.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Okay, so if you're, say, fixated on someone that's not necessarily love. So we're using all kinds of other names here, like -- obsess, respect, deify, idolize, lust after... I'm still kind of fuzzy on this idea. I get that you're making the decision to love someone. Is this after you've like made-out and decided you must have them? Like when someone posted before - Men pretend at love to get sex and women pretend at sex to get love...

What kind of emotional investment are you talking about?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:
Men pretend at love to get sex and women pretend at sex to get love...

And neither understands what love really is. Romance or affection might be better words.

A few phrases from "How to be Loved and Beloved", one of the four essays by Madsen.

1. The prevention and murder of love is the most highly paid occupation of our time. Yet it is billed in bright lights as the worship of love.

2. Yielding to this feverish idolatry is more deadening than the Mafia. Yet the healthist response is not to take it seriously but lightly.

3. The way to overcome the fake fires that are omnipresent in our culture is neither wet blankets nor cold water. It is to burn with a brighter, richer flame.

We're on the verge of the secret now. Love is Fire. That is the great secret. It is Fire with a large F. It is Divine Fire. When it is in you, it lights you. All of you. And transforms. No self induced flicker can compare with it.

You cannot "make" love. You cannot love and be loved until you are Beloved. His flame burns and encirles, reaching the self at its core, its spiritual center, and then moving outward.

A little unreachable and ethereal you say? Agreed. Let's relate it to some fashionable attitudes about love. Some of them are exactly upside down.

"Love is a special way of feeling." Rather, it is a special way of being, of which feelings are a rich and intense part.

"Love is doing what comes naturally." Yes, when combined with doing what comes supernaturally.

"There is love at first sight." More accurately, there is sight at first love, a widened world, not just for the eyes, but for the mind and spirit too. Only fake love is blind.

"Falling in love is sudden. It can happen to anyone." Maybe. But rising in love, which is a lot more exciting, is something else again. The brighter and more illumined the mind, the more profoundly expansive the spirit, the more sensitive (which is to say, pure) the body, the greater the whole shimmering response to the Flame in you and your beloved. But the rise is a slow, aching, anything-but-sudden process.

The most intense love is wild, unbridled, explosive passion." A grotesque myth. The demons must be in stitches as we dance their tawdry little tune. No. the most intense love is described by Alma who said, "See that ye bridle all your passions that ye may be filled with love."

Love, like anything that is harmonic and beautiful, requires endless discipline, terrible periods of the self at war with the self, tortures of involvement (you vastly increase your capacities for pain when you identify with someone else), and infinite patience. Is it worth it? Well, millions have compassed land and sea to reach the shrine of far lesser satisfactions.

That's probably a good place to start. smile

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

What makes Truman Madsen a subject matter expert on love and emotions...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

What makes anyone?

Okay, I'll pick something out... basically, I think he's saying to overcome the myths of the Hollywood type love, we must have a bigger love - fire with a big F - and that's how we overcome... almost like emotions are to be bridled SO THAT we can experience things on a more "real" level...?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

What makes Truman Madsen a subject matter expert on love and emotions...

Maybe he's not. But the endnotes for his essays reference scriptures and prophets, so I'll accept that he's at least basing his ideas on inspired sources. And to me, his ideas make more sense than those of Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Interesting that word "bridle." A bridle doesn't kill or subdue a horse. It doesn't lessen the intensity or speed of the horse. It guides. I take it to mean that when we guide our passions, those powerful and intense "feelings" that are part of this physical body God has given us, then we are filled with love. I don't know why it works that way, but I'll take it on faith that it does.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Probably the same idea as when we fast, controlling our desire to eat, our minds become sharper and we comprehend things we could not before comprehend. Very nice.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree with madsen (who I believe is in the Ray Zone in the above quotations...

) in most of the above, but I think that true love is blind in the regard that it is no respector of persons, and that when you wish you didn't have it for the pain it causes, you can't just break it off... it lingers and causes you torment... But then without love, one cannot truly see. So in that regard, Love is not blind, but is the only way to true sight.

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Alright, to lift us from our temporary drop into the Ray Zone, it's time for a light-hearted story under the chapter heading, When Love Goes Bad. Yours truly will start.

Once upon a time there was this boy and we were dating. He was getting ready for a mission and as his mission got closer and closer, he got weirder and weirder. We had no outloud commitment to each other. In fact, he knew I was going on a mission myself, which was coming up about a year later, if I recall. He entered the MTC. Things started getting even weirder. I started dated other people, having fun with my awesome roommate at the UofU (who also went on a mission

) and preparing for my own mission. He started calling collect from the MTC and then South America! Blew my spending money in the blink of an eye. So I pretty much wrote him off. Told him it was over, I'm going on a mission, don't call me or write me anymore. Continues to write... by the time I'm 1/2 way through my mission, he's calling me a devil-worshipper and all kinds of naughty names. I do not respond to him. He shows up at my missionary homecoming! Then he comes to my house afterward. I tell him I don't want to talk, we have nothing to talk about, I am in no way, shape or form interested in a relationship with him and would you please leave... 5 months later he shows up at my apt. door at the Y. I tell him I will not let him in or talk to him and please go away forever... After I'm married for a year, he calls my parents' house to see if I'm "still married"... After cocokid#1 is born he calls my parents' house to see if I'm "still married." Sick, sick, sick. This was something, but not love. Not sure what that was, really.

Alright, carry on. All embarrassing or fun stories of love gone bad or a variation thereon are welcome.

Serious commentary welcome, as well.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

And yet, I've managed to find you on Bountiful.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail