Okay I followed the Original thread and a few things were remarkable for me.
First I would buy her story. had some similar cases in my stakes where husbands and fathers having also affairs. One was a bishop though and had x children.
OP had mentioned that she was about going to church again after being inactive. another argued what has this topic to do with recovery from Mormonism? A lot. OP doesn't say anything about her own testimony - maybe she decided to become active again and then this story happens. She wonders how he can still claim to be worthy by having her in bed. A legit question to me. Also a legitimate question to ask why the wife will endure instead of saying anything.
Only because of the children? My parents were divorced when I was 11 - our family was released after the separation. My Father refused to pay any child support to his 4 children from 2 month up to 11 years. My mother made up alone. raised us with love and did two jobs to survive. All of us become reliable academic persons. Maybe a good point to start exploring a morgswife selfworth and selfrespect and her role.

I don't think having an affair with a married guy is a good idea - but besides that - Both are adults, right? As I got it they were somehow dating ten years ago? shared memories can be a great booster. This is no excuse for them but; when he is unhappy with his decision and now see what he maybe could have instead and she maybe desires deep down inside the idea of having a husband and being a mother what brings up an unhealthy mixture of unfulilled longings.
Who are we to judge them? Who are we to wish her cancer? To call her nasty or psychopath a person with no moral a liar? Noone of us knows their both deeper motivation to act like they do. Maybe even they dont.


Do you think she is really that coolminded - then she wouldn't post here but in a po rnsite to present him as a trophy. Have you ever tried to see her maybe desparateness with this situation? Two sentences concerned me: " I know he wouldn't leave his wife. That's my guts feeling." and " I have an affair (I'm rational) he's talking about love. " between all the I take it so cool and I'm not accountable to anyone this two sentences breaks my heart. And show the other side of the coin.
I don't excuse the affair. Cheating is always wrong. But this again shows me there is not only black or white, good or evil.

I resisted posting the first time, but my overall thought is that this is the kind of thing that gives TBM's and apologists ammo for dismissing RfM as apostate city and The Adversary's playground.

I'm not interviewing the OP, the hubby, wife, nor the kids, and don't have video so I can't say what exactly is going on.

If true, the OP is a shallow manipulative person,( going to church for the missionaries, fucking an old boyfriend with 6 kids as part of a "game" WTF?). if untrue the OP is a shallow manipulative person.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 04:44PM by ladell.

I dont think the OP is wrong at all. I think that people here cling to judeo-christian 19th century morals while they brag about. No one owns another person. The guy is a douche, but notthe devil himself. She is not a whore. They are doing what they want, as long as people are responsible for thir actions the it is none of anyone business if they are married, gay, polygamous, into leather and dwarfs...let people be.

So WTF was the point of this tittilating tale?

Why is it that when people bring up the whole "consenting adults" argument they conveniently forget others just as involved in the relationship?

This isn't just two people fucking, this is nine people fucking. Seven of which don't get a say in the matter. 19th century Judeo-Christian morals don't tell me that it is wrong to hurt someone, my mind tells me.

I missed the part where she is fucking the kids and the wife. I said the guy is a douche, since he is going to hurt people he allegedly loves.

But I dont think that consesual adult sex itself is wrong in any context.

Open marriages are common, cheating is common, swinging is common, prostitution. Sorry to break that to you, pope Francis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 03:33PM by erictheex.

I suggest you read John Mill.

It is naive to suggest that actions that can effect and harm individuals beside yourself are somehow contextually right because the harm isn't direct.

I have read that bunk.I never said that there is no indirect realationship of cause effect. All I am saying is that people who call this woman (OP) a harlot should not be casting stones. She is not married to him. Sure there are better ways to find sex, but morally she did not make promises to anyone in this to be faithful. it's ugly, but its true.

He is a dick. and he will have his consequences and his kids and wife will too, becuase he made promises and is acting undr the trust of his wife. But althought I would never do these type of things, I am not in their shoes and cannot judge people, at least learned that much from christianity.

Maybe his wife is cheating on him. Or has caught him before and told him it is ok as long as he keeps it to himself and is safe, maybe they are swingers, maybe she is a lesbian.

I dont know hte whole story and neither do you.

Clearly if you have read "that bunk" you didn't understand.

This really isn't an issue of morality. Morality is a societal construct that deals primarily with such nebulous ideas as intent and desire. Arguing that something isn't moral is like arguing that green should be red. You would first have to define every term so that you understood what the other person thought green and red were.

This is about normative ethics, and I maintain that the ethical stance is that I have the right to swing my fist, but I don't have the right to swing my fist at someone's nose.

Ok lets follow your flawed, idealistic, school grade logic toits conclusion. Since Christ's explanation was not clear enough for you or maybe you have not had enough time to thhink about it.

Aren't you, as an enlighted and ethically superior being (qualified by reading and beliving bunk) obligated to stop such things? Should you not do everything within your power to at least send all involved a copy of you book?

Becuase if not, then you are complicit and therefore a hypocrite.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 04:04PM by erictheex.

Further proof that you don't get what I am trying to say, or it might be you don't want to get what I am trying to say.

Let me circle back to the original point, and I will phrase it as a question. Do you think it is ok for this woman (we both agree that the man is a huge douche) to indirectly cause harm to this family?

Please don't tell me again that this woman isn't married to the wife and children, and please don't make this about the morality of adultery. I am utterly unconcerned with whether you think it is right or wrong to have sex with a married person.

Yes, totally it's ok. TO ME. I get the point you are trying to make, its just....pointless.

Its ok becuase the alleged "harm" is not her fault. Are you up at night concerned about the moral impact that yuor life has on others? Do you make up for your car creating pollution of haiving parts that were build with non union work? do you care that you tomatoes were picked by people paid under minumum wage?

If he divorced his wife, has a relationship with the OP and remaried would the kids be less hurt? They are his action and HIS actions alone. is she facilitating? sure, so are you.

You are missing my point so I wont try to explain it. But suffice it to say that we can't apply, personal beliefs universally.

Sure we are all tied together, but looking thru Mill's 19th century ignorant, theologian, generalized, and abstract morals is akin to trying to explain the wickedness of the iphone using 14th century anti-wizardry laws (if they had such).

You can call them what they want and think what you want, as I reserve the right to, even under your superior intellectual and moral supervision (roll of the eyes), however you have no right to juge them or to try to impose your moral code on them.

If you are looking for theology from the 1800, I have two representatives I can send to your home.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 05:11PM by erictheex.

Nobody here is missing your point, you are just wrong.

'Its ok becuase the alleged "harm" is not her fault'

Yes it is, she targeted a married man. They are both at fault. One doesn't have to believe in God, to see how awful this situation is. Fortunately, most of the exmos' that are posting (the PO is posting with more than one name) see it as an awful situation as well.

Your opinion.

Your obsession with assesing fault and your cognitive dissonance to claim others agree with you as a lifeboat for your inability to make a point.

Now let the grown ups talk. Go pray.

Being adult implies maturity. The OP has not shown any, or have you by excusing her bad behavior.

No praying here, I am just being a human being that hates to see adults acting like selfish teenagers.

I love that because I brought up Mill you assume that I am some sort of disciple. I suppose that I could bag on Plato and you might assume that I am an antiplatonist.

I find a lot wrong with Utilitarianism, one of which you have brought up. Of course I pollute with my car, and I buy my S4 knowing full well that it might be the result of child labor. I feel a tad embarrassed that I am not ashamed of my clearly harmful actions. None of that means that I get to dismiss all of the ideas from Mill solely because some of them aren't nor were ever applicable. It would be just as hypocritical as the person who only eats free range chicken that was murdered in a humane way.

However in this case, even if adultery is not inherently unethical, doing something that might harm another cannot be accepted as universally ethical. It doesn't matter that we cannot analyze this on a micro scale, her actions have potential to cause harm, and that makes her actions questionable.

On a side note, why are you so offended by the idea that she might have acted in an unethical manner, and why must you take things so personally?

newnameabigail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - then
> she wouldn't post here but in a po rnsite to
> present him as a trophy.

Two questions:

1) Why would this story be appropriate for a porn site?

2) Why is the word "trophy" used? It seems completely out of place (and out of context) in this story.

1) Okay more details would be needed to added to make it a po rnsite story

2) during my profession I came to know that some women loke showing off their squeeze like a trophy in the one or other way especially when it is an "untouchable" one like priests, obviously honorable husbands, teachers.... If simply attention was her goal she wouldn't do it here in that manner.

Find a single guy, anon, you dimwit.

A woman that targets a married man (and vice versa) is sleazy. This has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with human decency. Neither people in this affair has much decency.

I do not feel bad for calling out OP. She was calling it a game for fucks sake. She wasn't taking any responsibility for her actions and instead kept shifting the blame to him. They are both involved and both should take responsibility. She needs to realize that she is effecting his family just like he is.

Yes both affecting on the family. I agree. But again who are you to judge them? yes calling it a "game" isn't nice but maybe easier to handle for her?
you don't know their deeper motivation. nor do I but seems to me like it is more than getting laid by a random cock. He is a douche for not making up the truth and face all consequences it might bring (again the quote: "He is talking about love") and makes at least a bunch of people plus himself unhappy.

They are both douche's

When someone posts this on a site like this, aren't they asking for judgement? Or are we only allowed to congratulate her for exersizing her liberty and of course, consent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 04:43PM by ladell.

You don't have to agree with me, but I stand by what I've said. They are both being childish and fucking with other people's lives.

I question the woman posting here about this. It seems very voyeuristic. Her affair with him seems very cynical and cold to me. She's just as much of a douche bag as the TBM family man.

I know several on this thread have said not to judge, and live and let live--but I can't wrap my head around it ever being okay to have an affair with a married person and endanger a family.

Or maybe this gal is doing research for a porn novel. Still cold and cynical.

Let us not forget that she is telling the entire goddamn world about this, all it takes is for someone to read her story, remember the single woman that came to church with the missionaries, and didn't Brother Dickwad with the six kids seem happy to see her? Next thing you know, BOOM! The always efficient and ruthless ward rumor machine kicks in, family sunk. Nice Work



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2014 05:16PM by ladell.

I don't think the "other woman" here is sleazy. In my opinion, it is a mistake for a woman to get involved with a married man (or vice versa) because it will only result in hurt for her. Notwithstanding his promises, the odds of his leaving his wife for her are very very slim. The odds of his entering into a committed monogamous relationship with her if he does leave his wife are even slimmer still. And the odds of such a relationship working are very very small. Is it possible this could have a less than tragic outcome for the "other woman"? Yes, it is possible. But so is winning the powerball lottery. I don't criticize or condemn her. I don't think she is a sleaze. I don't criticize her yearning for love and relationship, even if it is with someone "forbidden". I just think it is very very unwise for her and will almost certainly result in pain or great pain and hurt for her (apart from others who might feel hurt). I wish her well and hope she is able to think things through clearly and do the healthiest thing for herself (and others).

tend to be psychopathic - extremely self serving. This IS possible.

How many people descended from Joseph Smith (or the polygamous families pioneer linage, since his children often were hidden in others' legal names & marriage) tend to be extremely self serving? or rationalize self serving constructs rather than express concern for the highest good of all those involved?

some people, doing spiritual work, state after every prayer (or for some, spell) "for the highest good of all those involved"- would brother Joseph have been concerned about that? or solomente his own way, his best interest, his choice first above superceded all others'

Are descendents of Brother Joseph typically like this? or struggling against severe self serving for a life time?

Being religious has ZERO to do with being a good person. One can have morals and standards without having a church.

I felt her post had nothing whatsoever to do with recovering from Mormonism and should have been deleted.