Leaderboard

I suffer from depression. In the last two years or so, it's been clinically classified as "major depressive disorder." I actually found that reading that diagnosis came as a relief, because I had initially (12 years ago?) been diagnosed with "mild depression," but I had been struggling a lot more than "mildly." I've been taking an anti-depressant that has helped temper my stress and mood swings, but hasn't done much more than that. In the last two months, I've added a stimulant to help with my ADHD, and in the last month I've noticed a change. I've shared with more than one person on this board already, but I feel like I've come up for air from being underwater for so long. At first I was gasping for breath because I needed it to stay alive. But soon I found myself gulping down breaths just because it felt so good to breath again! I feel happy! I can't pinpoint when the change happened, or what specifically may have been a turning point for me, but I feel happy! It's no longer putting on a good face so people don't know. It's no longer suffering in silence. It's no longer commiserating with other friends who are also struggling (though I still do that, but more empathizing than commiserating). It's no more fooling myself into thinking I'm happy. It's no more one or two good days a week. I FEEL HAPPY!!! I feel it inside, and it's the best thing I have felt in a very, very long time. I had forgotten what it felt like to be happy. It feels so good! I'm happy that I'm able to feel happy again. And I'm so excited to share it with people! I feel like I'm in a good position lately to help others who are still under their own waters, because I've seen the surface, and I know it's there. A small part of me is scared though, worried that this won't last long. I pray that it will.

Some Background: Recently the CEO of Mozilla (makers of Firefox) resigned from his position after he was attacked by the media and other same-sex advocates when it came to light that he supported California's Proposition 8. Those who went after Eich wanted him to "apologize" for his views. Instead of recanting, Eich resigned. There have been many views since then as to what this completely unreasonable attack on a person's conscience means and how hypocritical the same-sex marriage camp is. Even many who are fierce advocates of same-sex marriage have been disturbed by what happened. In any case, I came across this article which I believe makes some very important and relevant points and shows how the ideology of same-sex marriage is being used in our society to rule, control, and destroy freedom of thought. The author of the article uses an essay written by Vaclav Havel, "Power of the Powerless" to make her point. I quote a portion below and provide the link to the full article written by Mollie Hemingway: Quote To explain how dissent works, Havel introduced the manager of a hypothetical fruit-and-vegetable shop who places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” He’s not actually enthusiastic about the sign’s message. It’s just one of the things that people in a post-totalitarian system do even if they “never think about” what it means. He does it because everyone does it. It’s what you do to get along in life and live “in harmony with society.” (For our purposes, you can imagine that slogan is a red equal sign that you put up on your Facebook page.) The subtext of the grocer’s sign is “I do what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me.” It protects him from supervisors above and informants below. Havel is skeptical of ideology. He says that dictatorships can just use raw power, but “the more complex the mechanisms of power become, the larger and more stratified the society they embrace, and the longer they have operated historically … the greater the importance attached to the ideological excuse.” We don’t have a dictatorship, obviously, but we do have complex mechanisms of power and larger and more stratified society. In any case, individuals need not believe the lies of an ideology so much as behave as though they do, or at least tolerate them in silence or get along with those who work with them. “For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system,” Havel says. She further writes: Quote OK, let’s step back. What does any of this have to do with views on marriage? Well, I know that we’ve had years of criminally one-sided media coverage, cowardly political leaders and elite cultural views that have conveyed to you that the only reason anyone might think sexual complementarity is key to marriage is bigotry. You may have even internalized this message. You may need to hold on to this belief for reasons of tribalism or pride. But in the spirit of Jon Stewart’s poster shown up at the top, which reads, “I may disagree with you but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler,” let’s go on an open-minded journey where we seek to understand the views of others without characterizing them as Hitler-like. It’s difficult in these times, but we can do it. So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships?OK. We probably already understand relationships have value, right? Assuming we’re not sociopaths, we do. So what is the difference between marriage and other relationships? There’s no question marriage has been treated dramatically differently than other relationships by governments and society. Why? Is it that it features a more vibrant or emotional connection? Or is there some feature that is a difference in kind – that marks it out as something that ought to be socially structured? We usually don’t want government in our other relationships, right? So why is marriage singled out throughout all time and human history as a different type of recognized relationship? Well, what singled it out was that sex was involved. Sex. Knocking boots. The bump and grind. Dancing in the sheets. Making the beast with two backs. Doing the cha-cha. And so on and so forth. And why does that matter? Well, there’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system. It’s the one that involves sex between one man and one woman. It’s with respect to that system that the unit is the mated pair. In that system, it’s not just a relationship that is the union of minds, wills or important friendships. It’s the literal union of bodies. In sexual congress, in intercourse between a man and a woman, you are literally coordinated to a single bodily end. There’s one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system.In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh. Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — makes the unity here. This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense. It’s not something that’s wrong, but should be protected speech. It’s actually something that’s right. It’s right regardless of how many people say otherwise. If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together. Consider the significance of what this means for all of humanity, that we all share this. Any my favorite quote: Quote Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater. Please read the article and share your thoughts: The Rise Of The Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents EDIT: I can't get the link to work either so here is the URL: http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/08/the-rise-of-the-same-sex-marriage-dissidents/ -Finrock

I'm not talking about the likelihood that someone wants to listen to you talk about football versus religion, I'm talking about the how in many business/professional environments and situations talking about your religion, which is not the same as being religious, is considered unprofessional whereas talking about football is not. My point is not, "Never bring up your religion, people may judge you." my point was, "One cannot simply do a "find replace" of talking about football with talking about Mormonism because the propriety of these things for all situations is not the same, for example professional interactions."

While I support the general idea, not turning certain aspects of yourself on and off, it is worth noting that in American society the propriety of discussing football versus religion is not the same. It's socially appropriate to discuss football in a lot more circumstances than it is to discuss your religion. This applies less to truly social interactions than it does to things like professional or professional-social interactions but even then it is still applicable. We could argue if it should be the case, but it is the current status quo.

Clap along if you feel that happiness is the truth! Clap along if you know what happiness is to you!

I am very happy. I have two energetic daughters, a spouse that is finding more excitement in the world than ever before. I have one of the greatest jobs in the world working with highly engaged collaborators with incredible opportunities. I get to work alongside brilliant and committed scout leaders doing activities I live and watching young men transform into teachers and leaders. And I am in a calling right now that is allowing me to be myself and have the support and validation from leaders that find value in my unorthodox methods and beliefs (finally). I'm under an awful lot of stress right now from various sources, but I love where I am in life and the things I am accomplishing. There's very little I would change.

This is why you "win" the most civil award. :) I find myself ashamed. I am so often caught up in winning with words. Thank you for the advice.

One trick I use is to discern the overall meaning of a post. If I get caught up in particular phrases, or single sentences, I may find a weakness I can exploit. However, will I persuade or influence? Doubtful. Instead, at minimum I will appear a winner, but offend the very one I'm trying to win over. Sure, I beat them at the battle of words. But I lost any hope at influence. Worse, I failed to do any learning or teaching. Far better to ask myself: What did s/he mean? What was the main idea? How are they understanding me? Have I communicated clearly and respectfully?

Which means, you believe that people respond differently to Mormons by reading proselytizing into every "mormonism" used. But that's their problem, not the Mormon's who uses the word "ward" instead of "congregation". I think also, to the greater point, (and to be clear this is my opinion) that fear of offending others is not a valid reason to alter proselytizing methods. Conversely, to be fair, is said altering of that method provided a greater chance to convert, then it is valid. So I suppose it really comes down to intent. My sense is that you feel it is more effective to speak in the terms that you do. And that is valid. Um...that was exactly my point. Hmm. Mayhaps I wasn't as clear as I meant to be.

Just came across this: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-aim-to-shut-down-oregon-health-food-store-over-owners-support/ Unbelievable!

Good Afternoon The Folk Prophet. I hope you've been well! :) If that is indeed the argument, then it is circular and self-serving. It is dependent on the proposition that opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed bigotry. This proposition is a lie and it is this lie that has permeated our society. Some simply believe because they don't take the time to consider what it actually means while others, because of pride and selfish reasons, propogate the lie knowing full well that it is false. -Finrock

Anatess: I have always been able to understand you - your 'tone' and probably the feeling within your words/phrases. I am American. Born to a norweigian man who was the first generation of his family born in the USA, and a woman whose Grandfather & GGrandpa immigrated here from England & Ireland. I only know one language and that one I boggle up enough as it is. Yet, pretty much every post you have written, I have understood and agreed with upon the first reading. As to the OP - I rely heavily on the gift of discernment that our Father has blessed me with. When I read a thread and am instantly *Enraged* by it - I do NOT respond right away. I will read the responses or more accurately skim through them. If I feel the prompting to reply, then I copy and paste the entire thread to my Word program, and pick apart what I am responding to. Often this process will take me days or even weeks, and seldom do I ever post when it is finished. It is out of my system. My responses would not have accomplished anything constructive. Doing the Cut-Paste-take-my-time-responding exercise has helped me tremendously. When I do respond to a thread - I edit heavily before I post - sometimes to the point of not posting. My husband has always counciled to *Give it (your response) ten coats of time.* - I find this to be good advice. When he was in the hospital, waiting for all the specialists to find out why his blood was not clotting, the woman who was the Hospital Chaplain added: *Put it on the altar, and give it ten coats of time*. So, before I post to a thread that inflames or enrages me - I put it On the altar - giving it ten coats of time.

"Genocidal" may be too strong. However, their litany of alleged crimes against them is lengthy. The article I read lamented that government leaders regularly compare them (LBGT) with pedophiles. That same writer said he fears that even a meaningless glance he might make could be misconstrued, leading to an angry--possibly violent--encounter. Additionaly, they are quick to tie the rhetoric of some ministers with acts of violence and murder committed against them. Bottom-line: traditional marriage advocates are like the KKK to them. We are in the wrong and must be re-educated. My concern then--what is the agenda now?

I very much disagree with this. I am Mormon. I am very much Mormon. But I choose not to deliberately pepper my conversations with references to LDS-specific language, particularly in casual or professional conversation. If I'm talking with non-member neighbors or friends with whom I have an established relationship and have talked about church things before, I'm less likely to censor myself because the relationship is already safe, and it's already established as a non-taboo topic. I'm not afraid to be a Mormon, and it's offensive that you would suggest that I am. I choose to use language that is comfortable and relatable to the people I'm speaking with. I try to meet them where they are. Instead of "ward" (mental ward?), I use "congregation." Instead of "young women" or "young men," I use "youth group." It allows conversations to happen naturally without having to detour for explanations in the moment. But it still lets people know that I'm involved with my church, and obviously it's something important to me. It may not open doors immediately, but it lets people know they can knock whenever they want to. In the meantime, I continue to build relationships of trust and understanding. Note: I'm not saying that "everyday missionaries" don't build relationships, or that they are doing it wrong. I'm agreeing with Dravin as to the propriety and context of such language and conversation. For me, constant "foreign" language (and subsequent over-eager explanation) would be a huge turn-off in a casual relationship conversation, or a professional setting.

First, your husband is not a sport. That hyperbole out of the way, your example of your husband include him talking about football. If, as you suggested, we replaced NFL with Mormon we end up with a hypothetical in which one is talking about Mormonism. Which is why I pointed out the propriety of the two topics is not identical in certain situations, football is considered an acceptable topic under broader circumstances.

Yes, I'm happy... happy in all its nuances. I have struggles but they don't affect my happiness. I know that my faith is what helps me stay happy. Without my faith my struggles would get the best of me and did for awhile to the point that I questioned my faith and beliefs. But I got over it. When we have faith and act on that faith its really easy to be happy. Laying my burdens at the feet of my Savior makes life so much easier.

What concerns me is the number of articles doubling-down on the Mozilla approach. Boundaries are being drawn. The most adament of the LBGTQI folk have come to believe that they were/are an oppressed minority, and that those who disagree with them are genocidal. Thus, they may indeed call for tolerance and accommodation, while affording no mercy to traditional marriage advocates. They see no hypocrisy, because they are defending a weak minority. The evil bully majority deserves no support. They must be isolated, astrocized, and even 'disappeared.' I've seen this argued. Lord Acton was right. Power does corrupt.

???? Did you even read the article?

grr sorry lakumi but new forums is really messing with my attempts to reply >.< Should you believe? That's up to you, no matter how much evidence or lack thereof is. Only you decide what is enough evidence or what is not as to whether something is "proven" to you. As for WW1 or 2 you are using faith, believe it or not; you have faith that all the many sources of information that you've received (whether from peoples accounts, locations you've been to, artifacts seen, and etc..) are not hoaxed or in error. you also have faith in certain processes and once an item can go through those processes it becomes "fact" then from there you have faith that this fact is then "correct". not only but the foundational process which items go thorugh to become fact is also open to change. Everybody has these processes, for some it's more tightly controlled, and have different standards (IE like scientists) than others. Suppose the Australian gov were going to remove the aborigines from their lands and someone went to warn them... If that person who's warning them has only himself and what he's heard, should he be believed? Why or why not? Creationism or deism have not been proven or disproven mainly due to their vagueness and considering that presented evidences are few and don't convince much one side or the other as they can be used for evidence for either argument. As for Noah's ark it tends to be that better evidence comes that shows supporting evidence to be something else. For Native americans- are you aware that while DNA evidence majorly supports an Asian influx and a slight middle eastern influence (found in north eastern US tribes), the technology trail actually points to east European? Or why have all the evidences from various sources (especially oral histories, artifacts found and events that occurred during early settlement times) generally discarded or forgotten? (seriously there's more evidence for a jewish influence into parts of pre Columbian native americans than there is evidence for black holes).... altho there may be more of that according to some Indians for the mere fact that people do not ask or consult with them. For book of Abraham- book of Abraham was destroyed in the Chicago fire, the only other things that have survived were the items used for the facsimiles. Again with Egyptology its still a changing science that is no where near perfect and that as new things are found out and old "facts" end up having to be corrected... like I've said earlier JS has gone from being totally wrong about the facsimiles to mostly wrong if going by what the experts say... which may prove he's wrong in the short term but that over time he ends up being right. Sure big claims require big proofs.. problem is, is that many evidences tend to get missed, dismissed or passed over (or in a third yet to be found). Which makes it convenient for one side or another to say "oh hey yo, you don't have proof" And what some see as big others see as small.

If someone can tell me how to fix the quotes or even fix them for me, I'd be very grateful. -Finrock

While I'm a fan of not hiding you are LDS, or even just religious for that matter. under generic euphemisms at a certain point it becomes forced if it just isn't particularly relevant to the conversation. It becomes the equivalent of the guy who takes every, "How was your weekend?" as an opportunity to give you a blow by blow account of his D&D session or basketball game. That said you can't really fault a principle for breaking down when taking it ruthlessly to extremes in a hypothetical. So the general idea, don't be afraid to talk about what you actually do and don't shy away from the fact you're Mormon and you believe certain things is good. Just exercise a degree of sense in to whom you apply it and to what extent. When my fellow geology students ask why I don't drink I respond with a simple, "I'm Mormon." or "Religious reasons" because I'm not ashamed of that and if they want a deeper explanation they'll ask. If I was responding with, "Oh, I follow the Word of Wisdom.", which most of them don't know about by that name (or at all), it'd come off like a fishing expedition or that I'm so myopic I can't image people don't know what that is. Obviously, if I'm having a lunchtime discussion with them on the topic of religion then it is more likely a good time to mention and explain the Word of Wisdom. So in short, it's a good idea, just try to exercise (un)common sense.

If it's any consolation her reply comes across as defensive to me, so it's not just you.

A big family size of Stouffer's Lasagna with a bag o'salad and some ice cream. Haven't met the kid yet who wouldn't eat lasagna or ice cream, especially if the ice cream is a little different such as a push pop or Klondike bar. I don't know if it's the right thing in terms of food ethics, but I will buy foods for others that I personally wouldn't bring in my home, for example, a cheese-laden lasagna. So, while my son loves my tofu lasagna, I hesitate to foist that on unsuspecting new moms.

I have become braver at doing this. The grocery clerk asked what I was going to do over the weekend, now that the 20' of snow has melted and the skies are blue again. I told her I was Mormon and this weekend was Coference, when we get to listen to the Church leaders, etc. It must have sounded good, because instead of just nodding, she said, "That sounds like fun." Well, yeah. : ) Then I told her about the women's meeting. I guess not hiding what we're doing, by saying up front, 'I'm going to a Relief Society activity," etc., would be 'Mormon words.' We also had a discussion in class about an activity that takes place in libraries, I forget what it's called, but they take old books that are going to be tossed anyway and black out words on a page and make a poem out of what's left. Interesting stuff. Apparently some people who see this get all bent out of shape because they are marking up books. I mentioned that I almost fainted when the missionaries opened their BOMs and there was highlighting all over. : ) I sent out a picture of a highlighted BOM, which also took the students aback. It's a librarian thing. You don't want to mark up a book, but then, it's just a book, it's a thing. Do what you want with it and don't get caught up in materialism (man, that hippie stuff dies hard, doesn't it?). Anyway, I've used LDS examples in class before, but have only 'come out' to a few people. These days, though, I'm feeling more OK about saying, "I'm Mormon..." to students. Hey, I've found some less active LDS amongst my students that way, as welll as peoplel who have questions. I just always feel I'm walking a line because it's a state school and I don't want people feeling I'm foisting religion on them.

Hi skippy I see u down there.... :)

I hope it lasts a while too. But, I'm a realist and I know that life is such that happiness can be fleeting. So, like we are taught to store food, store feelings, testimony, strength, etc. I'm convinced that as you strive to live the Gospel to the best of your understanding and ability, that you and your family are blessed. There might be times that you don't feel it, but they are there. Have trust in Him that is worthy of your trust.

That's crazy talk! It's my ringtone and I'm thinking about asking people to just randomly call me just so I can hear the song more. I love it--it makes me smile each time I hear it. I'm so glad to hear an upbeat song with good lyrics be popular on the radio today. And it's just peppy!

^All that said, I'm so sick of the song "Happy."

Holland's. Why? First, it was Holland. But the subject and approach set very well with me. I think there is a lot of false philosophizing in the church (and out of it) toward the idea of love that entirely miss what true love is. The end-all of righteousness is not a hippie philosophy. I have often thought, myself, how people misuse Jesus as an example of love, claiming...for example, that Jesus would accept such-and-such sin because he loves everyone, and entirely ignore the fact that Jesus said some majorly harsh things, and ran people out of the temple with a whip. The end all of righteousness is God's will. This is what Jesus taught (keep my commandments), and Holland, as is his forte, expressed this so very well. Moreover, we must stand for right regardless of who we offend. This must be balanced with an honest and sincere effort to be kind, loving, tolerant, etc. But those things can never be used to justify falsehoods.

You are the paramount example of civility in these forums PC.

Yep, that's me. I figured the old name was limiting my artistic range.

WIne is overrated. Beer is gross. There is no point to hard liquor except to get drunk. I guess, aside for the occasional recipe, there is no reason to consume alcohol. Most recipes with wine are just fine if you substitute wine vinegar, apple juice, or broth for the wine.

I am quite happy and content. This doesn't mean my life is perfect. It just means I feel truly blessed by all God has done for me and given me. We aren't rich. Our home is small. Our cars are old. I am frequently sick, thanks to lupus. But, I have a husband who loves me, wonderful children (two grown, one almost grown) a darling doggy, good friends, peace in our home and most of all the complete assurance of God's love for me as an individual.

I haven't read the book. But I assume "Mormon Words" are words commonly used that other people, even Christians wouldn't necessarily know out of the gate. For example, we use the word temple. But what would someone not in the church think of? To me this would scream of something other than mainstream Christian. Or if you are asked to do something on a Monday evening instead of saying that "we have plans" say "we have family home evening on Mondays" and it can open up a conversation. At work I was asked what I did over the weekend. Instead of just saying "church stuff" I said that I watched General Conference and then explained what that was.

With old forums theme, I knew I was in mormon land. With the new "full version" theme, it's very nice, consistent with the rest of the site, and at least has a lds.net header at the top. Heck for me it really just lacks one feature, showing me all new threads I haven't viewed. This ip.boards theme, while it's got all the buttons one would need for their daily foruming, it just looks like the generic theme, it has no custom lds.net logo's anywhere, no artwork, etc....

What about eloquent bluntness?

I'm feeling a bit ill at the moment. *cough* *cough* :)

What you're talking about is authority, and in that regard, to think otherwise does boggle the mind. But the term "keys" are most often related to priesthood offices and are a specific term to such. Whereas we can (and sometimes do and have) use the word "keys" interchangeably with authority, it is not necessarily inaccurate to say parents have keys to their take care of their home...but realistically, they have those same "keys" regardless of priesthood. By virtue of having a child together they have that authority. The priesthood is not necessary for them to have that authority. Tell me what a home with an ordained priesthood male can do that a home without cannot? Heal the sick? No. Miracles happen by faith, and the prayer of a single mother is as valid in faith to healing the sick as a priesthood blessing. Revelation? Guidance from the Lord? All of these things come by the Spirit and by faith. So what "keys" are we talking about in the home that fathers (and mothers) have by virtue of the priesthood? Generally speaking, when talking about priesthood keys, almost every reference I've read, speaks of them in terms of specific offices in the priesthood, and that cannot be applied to home. And usage of the word in that regard is perfectly reasonable without mind-boggling. So I both agree with you and disagree.:)

This is one of those situation where a the old wisdom of the basic black dress can help. People probably won't be able to change the older ladies' attitudes. But, they will be dead or wearing diapers at some point, so the issue of dress won't be permanent. Until then just wear a classic little basic black dress. I still feel every woman should have one in their closet. They are practical and can be worn in almost any situation.

We had a problem getting our oldest daughter to sleep in her bed. We were exhausted and out of options. We had tried everything. One night she came into our room (she was almost 3) and I just felt like groaning. Then I had a burst of inspiration. I told her that Daddy was going to fart really loud and it was going to smell. I also told her that after Daddy farted we would start picking each other's noses. She looked at me like we were crazy, turned around and went back to her own bed. She never slept with us again. It was a gross thing to say, but it worked.

PS. A part of what makes clothing look "cheap" is the style of it and how you put it together and wear it. This can make the price tag irrelevant.

Backroads, I'm just not truly convinced that these "old toads" would know the difference between a Vera Wang and something generic brand. I can tell you that some of my designer stuff doesn't parade their brand all over the item, which is what people always think, that you'll see a tag or something embroidered across it saying: MICHAEL KORS. Now, if you're trying to pull off a diamond encrusted cocktail dress with plastic rhinestones, then yeh, obviously cheap. But a simple elegant black cocktail dress can be difficult to separate from cheap to expensive by the eye alone. Just sayin'.

I would abstain from even tasting. If I was booted off a show because I refused to taste, so-be-it. If I worked as a chef in a renowned restaurant, I would probably learn about wines and such from others, and then just trust their judgment..

It's my choice....I would abstain. I don't want anything to do with alcohol.

Minor peeve: The "directory path" at the bottom of the page that shows what sub-forum the current thread belongs to--could we that get the same thing put at the top of the page too, like the old forum had?

Thanks for the hard work on the site Pam. In case you would like a new avatar I suggest this one:

The Temple here in Fort Lauderdale had very little opposition. I drove past it last night and its absolutely beautiful. The Church not only built a temple here they are developing Shotgun East Estates a bordering 13-lot residential development of one-acre equestrian lots.