Leaderboard

Am I the only one who finds this story a bit over the top as it goes on? Seems someone's getting played and maybe not the bishop

This family is amazing. I listened to an interview with the mother on another podcast, and her family went through some serious cr@p in her previous ward after her son came out, so much so that they had their records transferred to a different one to escape the drama. (things like, people refusing to accept the Sacrament from her gay son, even though the Bishop had declared him worthy to pass it, parents demanding that her husband be released from his calling with the Youth because he might be a "bad influence" since he was supportive of his son, etc. Lots of contention) Those kinds of attitudes are what they're trying to "change". Actions speak louder than words, and I think sometimes the hurtful, judgmental actions of some members speak louder than the message of love coming from the top. I think they're embracing the old addage of "be the change you want to see in the world" (or ward, in this case). She bares her testimony in the podcast I listened to, so there is definitely more to their being members than just wanting to change things from the inside.

Is there anything you've done from childhood onward, that you still believe in, that you'd be willing to 180 on for a month... As an experiment? Such as - wearing underwear - using silverware - not picking your nose in public - shaving your legs - ? I'm picking morally ambivalent habits, here. But, even so, you will find it EXTREMELY WEIRD to go commando, eat without implements, talk to the mailman while picking your nose, or whatever action you choose. You'll also find yourself forgetting to do so. Changing something you don't even think about anymore, that's pure habit... Generally takes about 7 years. But... Imagine if it IS a moral imperative you've practiced from childhood onward? Somehting you associate with being a Good Man? I'm not going to suggest you DO any of these.... But reflect on if you were asked now to - kick puppies - slap your wife across the face - not allow your children to eat - etc. Could you do any of those things on a daily basis? Weekly? Monthly? It doesn't matter hat after 20-30 years of doing X that we TELL ourselves X is no longer the right thing, Y is the right thing... For some, X has become both habit and ingrained into their self worth. Which generally means 7+ years to change the old way of thinking/believing ... If ever. Q

I think they are amazing too and I'm sorry for what they had to go thru. I'm glad they chose to remain members of the church, I just think the message they sent was a little too "seeking the praise of man" then it needed to be and it rubbed me wrong.

I'm with others that 1) it's a decision for you, your husband, and the Lord to make; 2) siblings (especially those close in age) can be great friends and have someone to lean on throughout the years; 3) (my personal opinion) having a sibling helps a child learn to not be so selfish. Everyone has selfish tendencies, but children can especially find it difficult not to look at everything as happening to/for them. Having a sibling almost "forces" them look to another. I recognize that some kids are selfish while some are not--only child or not. But, I personally believe that having a sibling(s) helps them to be more selfless. I, personally, would not want just one child. I know that parents won't be around forever and it's nice for them to have that family bond with someone else.

I don't think one explanation can cover everyone's situation - really - when has it ever? There are always unique circumstances that go against the norm, some of which, might be so neatly dusted underneath the rug that it's not commonly considered a valid reason. There's countless factors to throw into this mixing bowl. Culture is one. Even though most of us live in mainstream western society, it's interesting that there are still places around the world where sex (let alone public affection) is considered taboo, even among married couples. National Geographics does a great job of highlighting these areas (certain parts of Africa and Turkey, for example) where men and women eating together is considered rude and crude behaviour. A couple of these women were asked about intimacy with their spouse, especially, considering that they did not share beds! While they agreed that sex is a wifely duty, it was not an act of affection nor did it contain any amount of closeness with their husbands, it was just another household duty along with the cooking and cleaning. This is perhaps an extreme scenario given but it's still one to contemplate. I think a woman coming from a culture where women take "the backseat" to men, and sex is solely a duty and not an act of affection, it could be perceived differently if she were to marry outside of her culture. Makes sense why she might avoid intimacy if it's not initiated by her husband, for example, or why she might respond "un moved" during intimacy. That was the way she was programmed, after all. But reeling it in where it's more applicable to us and our culture, specifically within LDS members, I think trauma plays a big part in how one gives and receives affection. I think this trumps the generation card (those from the 60's era and earlier) where sex was kept private and no one knew your marital intimacy problems because the topic was locked behind bedroom doors. It just wasn't polite conversation, so folks didn't gossip about it, or talk candidly about it. BUT despite this, I don't believe in American culture that it was ever made out to be that sex was dirty. So, going back to trauma, I think a child that has experienced unhealthy domestic relations (sexual abuse, incest, etc.) is likely to carry that pattern over into his/her adult life - or - completely avoid it like a hermit. My last thought is some kind of imbalance, possibly chemical, where someone just isn't responsive to affection or gives much of it. This isn't because they hate touch, but because they're indifferent about it, and don't feel the urge to engage in it. Depression could do this, hormones could do this. I think the public overlooks this sometimes and marriages that could be resolved are instead abandoned because of chemical imbalances that prevent someone from expressing their needs and wants well.

Like classylady, I too never really saw my parents be physically intimate. Nor did we ever talk about the birds-and-the-bees (and the very idea of such a talk filled me with mortified embarrassment). My teachers at church also didn't talk about their married relations, for obvious reasons. So I never got a idea of what "good" sexuality was like. Instead, I saw/heard disgusting/stupid things about sexuality from teenagers in public high school. Seckuar teachers were mute on the subject and I didn't talk to my folks. Church teachers said "Don't do that" and I said "DUH!!". I watched so many of my friends get terribly burned by sexual mistakes, and I graduated high school with zero desire to ever go 'there'. I knew that someday my husband and I would have sex... but that day was so distant. How was I to know what "married healthy sexuality" looked like? What did it feel like? How do you find it? I had no idea, and I wasn't sure I wanted to know— every passing year I saw misused sexuality hurt my friends get hurt more. I was afraid. That's one way how "good girl syndrome" can come about.

The rules are more to protect the adult in question than the child. We have a multifaceted problem in this country, - the legal system doesn't protect people (kids or adults) / there is almost no recourse... (Granted, rapes are notoriously difficult to prosecute ...RAINNs stats are 97% failure rate, but that's part of the problem) - most people have given up on reporting them (RAINN stats are 67% unreported, but I've read as high as 87% / 1:8) - vigilante justice is all but extinct (not so long ago even copping a feel meant risking life & limb to daddies and brothers) = All of which equals parents are scared. There's nothing they can do, except, as you say... Drill their kids. Make it their responsibility to protect themselves. And because child & teen judgement is soooooooooo lacking (for good reason, they're kids), that means that adults dealing with normal kids and scared parents need to protect themselves. __________ Now... I'm a big bad combat trained ex-US Marine... And I've been raped. I look at my little ones? No way. No way can I depend on them to avoid what I couldn't. I not only don't expect them to be able to fight off an assault, I don't expect them to report, either. Quite simply, because most don't. And if they were sexually assaulted? I'd love to believe that my kids would be the exception to the rule, That mine would come straight to me... But while that would be the best of a bad situation... I can't count on it. So, while I find the 2:1 & other rules sad... I think it's for the opposite reason. Because we've lost faith in our justice system in this area... And instead depend on little kids & teenager's judgement & ability. World gone mad. Q http://www.rainn.org/statistics

This is a spin off the Sexless Marriage thread. A reference was made to the Good Girl Syndrome. I take that to mean girls have been taught to be modest, chaste, and even sexually shy. Good girls do not look for such things. They may internalize the idea that marital intimacy is "dirty." I get it...kinda. However, at least consciously, that line of thinking should be easy to oppose. After all, do we not also teach our daughters (and sons) that within marriage intimacy is commanded by God? 1 Corinthians 7: 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (New International Version) Once the lie is exposed, it should be relatively easy for a couple, within counseling, to begin working towards intimacy. Yet, I sense from some posts here that such is not the case. Why?

It's not a mystery to me where he's coming from. I get it. "Know" and "believe" are different words with differing meanings, despite, the common misuse with interchanging them. Saying that though, I also understand where people are coming from when they use both words interchangeably. For instance, I know God loves me just as I know my husband loves me. Can I "prove" it? Not really, other than I can FEEL his unconditional love through his actions, which gives me a sense of "knowing" it's something real and not just wishful thinking. The same could be said about God. I can't prove He's real but I have felt His grace, blessings, and warmth - I might say I "know" His presence is very real.

Joseph Smith saw a vision of God the Father, and Jesus Christ. This was clearly a profound and spiritual event for him. When he told others about it he was derided and told it was impossible. There was no way he could prove such an event... But his response was that he knew it and that he knew that god knew that he knew it. Do people sometimes overstate what they believe and hope for as knowledge? Sure. But at the same time it is very possible for people to have such a profound spiritual witness that it is correct for them to say, "I know" For those of us looking from the outside we simply can not tell the difference barring a spiritual confirmation of their word

I don't agree with him telling others what they should stop saying. Having said that, I understand what he probably tried to say. A lot of people in Church when sharing their testimonies use the terms "believe" and "know" as the same and they are surely not the same.

We can know, but for others it may be more complicated. It's ok to just believe. One thing I've noticed in my soon to be nine months as a member of the Church is that there is this tendency to use the word "know" a lot, in testimony meetings, at the end of lessons, missionary lessons. Very rarely do I ever head the word believe. I'm not saying that it's wrong, I'm just stating my observations. Now, what he might mean is that for some, they can't say they "know" but they can say, I believe. As a personal example, in something I really never shared, I can say I know that God exists and I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our savior, but honestly, I believe in heaven, I believe in the afterlife. I can't say I know. When I was baptized, I believed the Church to be true. I now know the Church to be true. Using the word know may be off putting to those who don't know (through no fault of their own) or are going through faith struggles. Or those who are cynical can say, "Yeah, right, you 'know.'" Though these are not good reasons to say we can't use "know." But then again, for those who do only believe but don't know, if you are surrounded by people who only say they "know" and not believe, it can make you feel as if something is wrong. We just have to say that it's ok, and just as valid, to get up there on the first Sunday of the month and say "I believe" because for some, that's where they are.

I would ask in return, what harm does it do to use the wording "I know" when you only literally "believe"? From a certain perspective, we know nothing. Everything we experience could be false. We only believe very strongly because of the consistency and power of our experiences. So how is testimony any different?

So says the mother. I tend to discount sob stories of this nature as a bit too one-sided. Get a pod-cast of the other parties involved and we might get a very different story. The first is just plain stupid and does not require LGBT advocacy to change but simple common sense and righteousness. The second is a legitimate concern (with the removal of the word "demanding" which is never our place as to ward management) based on his clearly messed-up ideologies concerning the issue. I would be concerned about these folks being leaders over my youth as well. Regardless, advocating for LGBT Mormons is not required to persuade others to be good Christians. Hurtful, judgmental actions, once more, according to them. According to the gay community everything religion does and says about homosexuality is hurtful and judgmental. Whereas I'm sure there are clear moments of inappropriate hurt and judgment, my guess is that a large portion of what is being viewed as hurtful and judgmental is nothing more than people standing for righteous principles, which is in turn viewed as hateful and judgmental by those on the other side of the issue. I am unwilling to take the so-called "abused" gay's word as the end-all in these cases. Here is the message of "love" coming from the top, including a clear warning against condoning sin and against advocacy for it in any regard.

To be clear, I sincerely and ferverently believe we should be Christ-like to all. In no way do I support bullying a gay child (In no way do I support bullying!) But when your Church membership becomes more about your soapbox statement than your faith, you've lost focus.

To be fair, I'm not sure the entire list was meant as a punishment, but rather a laying down of the law, including punishments. But I agree with your thoughts. I think a more important issue is that punishment of this nature is unlikely to fix the problem. I'm not expert on raising teenagers, but it seems to me that this approach may increase the rebellious attitude, rather than help it to improve, which I believe is part of your point. If having FHE is viewed as a punishment in response to misbehavior it's hardly likely to teach a love of FHE.

I watched through the youtube vid so I could knowledgeably comment on it. My opinion: Everything the family says therein is a lie, a half-truth, a twisting of truth, or a woeful misunderstanding of truth and doctrine. This is Satan hard at work.

May I suggest that this may (and I emphasize "may") not be the best idea. Girl's camp can and should be a highly spiritual influence for good with a large focus on testimony building. Would it be appropriate to add in there: "Cancelled: church" as a punishment? Know what I mean?

There may be a bit more to their decision to remain affiliated with the Church, but when people are repeatedly declaring something as their Most Significant Reason... what am I to do but take them at face value? It would be disrespectful to assume their speech and thoughts aren't aligned. Sure, they might have a testimony, but based on what I'm finding their testimonies and faith are the furthest thing from their focus right now.

Okay... Still not supporting a lot of your daughter's actions. Also not agreeing with a lot of your bishop's comments. Get the stake president involved pronto.

I think the line-upon-line, don't run faster than able, approach to fitness and eating is the right choice. It can be terribly difficult to jump cold-turkey head-first into a strict diet and exercise regime. Some personality types can. But for many, a long-term plan to get there over a set time is wise. I recommend always pushing yourself just past where you're comfortable. In doing so you will consistently improve.

I've known people who join a religion (including LDS) because they want to change the things they think are "wrong" in that religion. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Perhaps between you and me it is semantics. I think of punishment as revenge or a matter of getting even - giving someone an extra dose of what they deserve. I also do not think of justice as punishment even though we will sometimes say justice is its own punishment or reward. There are consequences or results - I do not consider a result or a consequence a punishment. To me punishment is something extra going out of one's way to bring about revenge beyond the consequence that must follow it's just course. In my thinking - there cannot be mercy in punishment and that punishment is counter to mercy. To me punishment is a manufactured consequence. "Manufactured consequence" being an obvious oxymoron. To me there is agency and consequence - exercising of agency must according to justice always end in the exact same result. If not then there is no justice nor is there agency. Let me compare this to taking a test in college for a particular subject. Punishment is - you failed to answer enough questions correctly so you not only fail the course but you are no longer considered worthy to continue with a college education. I see excommunication as saying that someone answered too many questions incorrectly. But what we are going to do is allow someone to start over and retake the particular class - their previous performance in the class will not be held against them (no punishment). Therefore they will not get any credit but be allowed to start over and if they pass the tests - answering the questions correctly their record will no longer show failure - if they drop out it is not because they were not given opportunity but rather chose to disassociate themselves with their studies. They were not punished for not answering the questions correctly but given a chance to start over without extra punitive or additional requirements that anyone taking the course of study is not required to complete. Please note that when I said they have their slate wiped clean - I did not say they were forgiven - what I intended is that they do not have additional commandments or requirements. Only that they do what they should have done in the first place. To me punishment is something that must be completed - outside of the requirements of everybody working to accomplish the same thing. I apologize if I have not explained this as well as I understand the principle. Or if I have not understood you well enough in what you mean by punishment - thinking that you view punishment as a requirement beyond just consequence in a manner you really did not intend.

Implying that there are other true churches with which the Lord is not pleased? Seems at odds with JS-History 1:18-19. I read "true" in the same sense as "right", and "false" in the same sense as "wrong". There is only one church which is right and all others are wrong. That does not mean that they are completely wrong. It just means, as a whole, they are wrong. The only way to be the right (or true) church is to be completely right. There is only one true church and only one right church. The meaning of "true" is mathematical. Take a series of similar complex mathematical equations that claim to come to the same conclusion and ask which one is true. Even if they all contain elements of truth, only the one with all the correct methods, numbers, and mathematics will generate the proper response. That one, therefore, is the true equation. The elements of truth in the others do not render them true. The fact that the Lord is well pleased with the right and true church is incidental to the meaning, imo.

Hey if that was off the top of their head then her and her husband have wonder twin powers. It was totally prepared. Do you think a Mormon could receive an Ally Voice award and stand for traditional marriage? Me thinks not.

I can't talk about the LDS experience since I was raised Catholic (I'm the son of a Catholic School teacher, so I had the very Catholic upbringing experience). My parents had a very open approach when it came to discussing sexuality. That didn't mean they brought it up at inappropriate times, but that if we wanted to discuss it, they would and would not hide the beautiful thing sexual intimacy can be. In public they were very affectionate, showing a healthy loving relationship. I was taught," Not yet, but when you do, after marriage, it will be a beautiful sacred thing." Now, I've been trying to move away from citing Catholic sources, but I think this is important. One of St. John Paul the Great ' s greatest accomplishments was "Theology of the Body", looking at human sexuality through a Christian lens. There are editions meant for teens, which I was taught in high school. That is my own experience, I wasn't raised LDS nor currently have children (let alone married) so I can't speak as to how LDS children are raised. I just wanted to share the approach I grew up with which I think is a very good and Christian approach.

Not only were their reasons poor, I just don't understand why they felt it necessary to even mention or justify their reasons for remaining LDS in the first place. Where in our faith are we told anything other then to exercise Charity for our fellowmen? This was a lost opportunity to be an "advocate for change" in how these organizations view the Church and shred some of the stereotypes LDS suffer from.

Where did you read in that article about Steve Young?

I supported Prop 8 and my son is gay as well. Would you be laughing at me as well?

By daughter is in that toddler stage (and is an only-child of course) so she definitely has "me me me" streaks...

Personally for me, I think it's great to have siblings. I have two kids. I have a niece that is an only child and she has two kids of her own. Bini, I think you would get a kick out of the relationship your daughter and any future children would have with each other; especially watching them interact together; it can be fun. M.

happy mothers day n happy Sunday. I hope you enjoy your time with your family. Mother's Day has always been hard for me, the void I have felt and do feel since I lost my mom when I was 3. and now the ache of not having my own children most of the time I skip out on church on Mother's Day but I have to teach tomorrow so I guess I'm going. what will you be doing for Mother's Day I hope that you will feel the love from your children and your spouce. and know how special that you are mothers.

I disagree that it can be categorized as a fault of the home. To be clear, that is not to say that it is never the fault of the home. I think, in general, however, that trying to blame peoples neuroses on specific thing is a mistake. Unless that blame is that people are mortal and thereby emotionally and mentally weak, fallible and generally prone to problems.

Oh, I see! I'm too absent to get the behind the scenes jokes. :)

"Let's eat Gramma!" "Let's eat, Gramma!" Commas save lives. Q

It was a hard one for me. I had to get up and leave before we sang the closing hymn because I was just overcome with tears. I lost my mother last month. My family and I went hiking and had a picnic in the woods. My children gave me a blueberry bush.

What, I can't get a few right once and awhile?!

When I, as a non-member, hear a member say, "The LDS Church is true," I understand that to mean mine is not--at least not in fullness. Where some of my fellow non-LDS may be mislead is in failing to understand that a non-restored church is not necessarily a condemned one. In traditional Christian teaching there is heaven and hell, right and wrong, Christian and not Christian. So, if a church says they are the true one, we immediately assume they mean all others are "false." If so, the others are condemend. Today, I do not hear all of that. It's more like when I say I am a "Spirit-filled" Christian, or I believe in the "full gospel." I do not deny that other Christians walk with the Spirit. I do not mean that others are lacking a sufficient gospel. Instead, I believe that my church allows a free reign of the Holy Spirit that most others would attempt to restrict. I mean that we not only preach salvation, we pray for the sick, and may even cast out a demon, if need be. Initially others were offended by our claims to the "full gospel" and to being "Spirit-filled." They thought we were saying they did not have the Spirit at all, and that their gospel was empty. Today most Christians acknowledge our orthodoxy, and even admit that the manifestations of God we see are authentic. Personally, I would not bother with hesitating to make the statement. Further, I argue against saying "I believe." It implies an uncertainty, or at least an unwillingness to defend the statement. If it's your faith, proclaim it confidently. If someone wants to take offense, but asks you how you could say such a thing, then tell them. Be kind but confident, and let agency do the rest.

Well sexuality is not a switch one can flick, some people who are taught that way can't bring themselves to think any differently even when married. It still seems bad to them. I mean you can apply that idea to a lot of things, the human brain is a complex thing. Growing up I was never taught about modesty or chastity or anything like that, and the idea of modesty and chastity are strange to me. I never grew up with that idea of thinking, and I can't just flick a switch and think that way.

I can't say that I'm any expert in Paleo. I have a friend, witch is more of the expert, that went Paleo to solve several health problems he was having. He had me read a book called The Paleo Solution and made a few comments and suggestions. After that I was on my own. This is some of the things I found. First some of the Science For me the easier things I have found to swallow(pardon the pun) was getting plenty of sleep and eating only when hungry. Most people don't see sleep as a part of a diet. The Paleo Solution makes it clear that the hormone levels are a big part of our health. Getting plenty of sleep and eating right helps to regulate that. Parts of the Paleo also encouraged having close relationships with family and friends. Most of the Paleo community don't seem to believe that "Being Paleo" means that they eat a lot of meat. It does cut the grains and legumes but it doesn't replace them with meat. In most places it seems to recommend a calorie content of 20-30% fruits and vegetables(carbs), about 20-30% protein, and the rest come from natural and healthy fats. A lot of people are scared of fats because they believe fat makes you fat witch makes sense but if you eat too much of any food it will make you fat. The big thing about fats and Paleo is that there are fats that our body can't make but needs to consume. A lot of these fats are best found in healthy meat and some go toward making things like the nervous system and parts of the brain. In Paleo grains and legumes don't work with the body. First theory is that as grain goes into the intestine it seems to cut the intestine wall allowing undigested food, toxins, and bacteria into the blood stream. Second is that the protein chain in grains and legumes look similar to proteins in the body but shorter. If antibodies try to attack the grain or legume proteins they could inadvertently attack different proteins in the body as well. I have herd though that sourdough bread if prepared correctly can change this. Now the Word of Wisdom This is what it's all about the important stuff doing the right thing and following the commandants. Spiritual health is just as important to physical health as anything and following the word of wisdom is part of it. When Paleo was first given to me my friend gave me his prospective of the word of wisdom and had me read it again. This is what I found. There is no question that fruits and vegetables are good. That part of it seems to be clear. I wold just like to point something out that is found in the foot notes of this part. (D&C 89:11). There is a foot note for prudence that refers to temperance in the topical guide. In the next verse sparingly has a foot note that refers to temperance in the topical guide. This got me to look up the definition of sparingly and its history. I found reference to frugality as in uses with the mind of conservation. The meat is somewhat more difficult. (D&C 89:12-13). There is a comma that may be misplaced. If the comma is taken out it seems to reads differently, it has no fragment, and its a complete sentence. Now the grain is more difficult but if you read it it seems to be straight forward. (D&C 89:14-15) The semicolon in thees verses is showing that you are meant to read the verses together. Grain can be used to maintain life, "to be the staff of life", and best "only in times of famine".

Mine is simple. True = Not false. I do, however, believe in multiple truths... Including the kind of truth that becomes so personal & complete that it does not translate between one individual and the next. The multiplicity of "bests". What is true for one is not necessarilly true for all. What is best for one is not necessarilly best for all. What is best for my son may not be what is best for yours. Which is part of what I love about this church. The catch-all is NOT "The ONE true church", but "This church is true". Q

Could she get her tubes tied?

I have a friend who can get pregnant, and desperately wants more, but has been told that she'll die if she tries to have more. On top of that, birth control doesn't agree with her body, so she gets really bad anxiety every month, hoping and praying that she's not pregnant, even though she really wants more kids.

There's no one way or right answer to the question, "how did you know...?" It's different for everyone. My husband knew we were done about six months or so before I knew. We've stopped with two, which is still fairly small in LDS circles. Sometimes the Lord gives you specific promptings or direction, and other times He waits for you to make a decision, and then lets you know either of His approval or disapproval. And still other times, as someone else mentioned, He's okay with either decision. But I've learned that sometimes you have to make your choice, and say, "Okay, Heavenly Father, this is what I'm doing...if it's not right, it's up to you to stop it. But I feel good about the choice in the meantime." And then don't be a guy who lived by a river (story ends at 3:08).

None of us have heard the audio recording. We don't know if the questions being asked were out of line. Was the Bishop digging deeper into the details because he was a perv? Or did he need to dig a little deeper to decide if some disciplinary action was required. We've always been taught that conversations with the Bishop remain confidential. Most Bishops respect that aspect of their calling. Your daughter betrayed him with her recording and sharing of the audio. If she really was concerned she could have taken it to you as parents. Not share it around the school to get a few laughs. Yeh something wrong with the daughter here. I actually feel for the Bishop here.

I read the headlines, if my interest is grabbed I'll read it, I've only read 3 or 4.

I look thru them and read it if it catches my attention

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.

if you use good ol' fashioned traps, bait them with peanut butter, not cheese rodents are much smarter then we give them credit for and can set off the trap without getting hurt to get the cheese, peanut butter they cannot.