Leaderboard

Spending all day outside exploring without adult supervision. We were sent out to play and we came home for lunch and dinner. We had fun. We never thought of danger. I feel so bad for kids now. It's all structured activities or video games. Spontaneous play and exploration seem to be a thing of the past.

115 Just thought I'd share this:

People actually live in Bakersfield? One thing about Bakersfield is that they have the busiest Hobby Lobby in the western states. That's because there is nothing else there. :)

I cannot speak to what others have experienced but from my own experience, I would speak to this post and clarify some of I have found to take place concerning my experience with the Holy Ghost and have received revelation of knowledge. At times of my life I have come to know things to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost. At the moment of this experience the knowledge was like a vast flood completely overtaking me in my understanding to expanding my comprehension. But like being overtaken by a flood; some time later I also experienced a "receding" from the vast knowledge that was once very clear to me. This receding from vast knowledge was not so much doubt as not being able to remember the full extent of my previous insight. From my experience it would seem that knowledge experienced through the Holy Ghost ebbs and flows in a manner that seem to be directly related to my ability to be connected with the Holy Ghost. If for whatever reason I continue to remain distant my diminishing comprehension will become doubt and eventually disbelief. Then should I find myself surrounded again by a flowing of the spirit - I discover again what I knew before. For me understanding and knowledge is not a constant or a one and done thing but in reality a continual struggle to stay connected. For this very reason I welcome gathering with other Latter-day Saints on any given Sunday regardless of where I travel and find myself. I also find benefit in associating with other of honest and compassionate demeanor. Strangely I find the opposite to also be the case - especially if I allow myself to become angry - anger will cause doubt and confusion to creep in. For this reason I believe Satan uses such tools to dissuade us from truths that we once enjoyed.

For a very un-diplomatic take on the situation: What you call privilege is just me being better than you.

Since you are asking from a position of fear... lets talk about what will not happen. You will not be kicked out of the church. You will not be laughed at. You will not be publicly humiliated. You will not be told you are a horrible person. While we can not tell you details of what will happen, in general your bishop will listen and learn about what you are struggling with. Then he will recommend certain actions and changes for you to make to help you overcome your issues. Then he will follow up to offer encouragement and support as needed.

It just finished about 5 minutes of sleety snowing here in Colorado Springs.

It must have taken FOREVER to send a text.

Oh yeah...Bakersfield is miserable (weather-wise, at least).

I think one luxury for me would be the ability to go from at least one payday to another without having to count pennies to makes sure I have enough money to the next payday. That would be a luxury for me.

I think the heat is a factor for getting the fire started, once it's roaring the wind is the greatest factor. I've heard that fire has had some really close calls. It's all relative, when you drop from 101 to 79 in the span of 3 days, yeah, it feels chilly. We should have 3 days of triple digit highs then a plummet of just over 20 degrees. Our A/C has been on for over a month already haha.

A chilly 79? Lol. It was about 86 here yesterday and we were roasting! I'm grateful for the cooler 60-ish right now. I'm enjoying spring, and am not ready for summer yet. Actually, it hit 83 in my house yesterday, but I was determined not to turn on the A/C yet. I hid in the basement instead.

I crunched across the snow to get to my car in Colorado this morning.

Right. And if one is spending the time to research doctrinal concepts, even with the end goal being to refute an idea on the forum, it practically constitutes scripture study, in many a case. The same can be true of reading responses that have been well supported by scripture and other church materials. Of course, descending into incivility quickly renders even those efforts inappropriate...but that would be true of any day, not just Sundays.

Great article. The elephant in the room, given the current controversy--and I'm not sure Gramps hit this quite as hard as he could--is that there is zero evidence of any female ever being ordained to a priesthood "office" as we currently understand the term, in Joseph Smith's ministry or later. Church records are completely devoid of any references to females being ordained to the priesthood offices of deacons, teachers, priests, bishops, elders, seventies, high priests, patriarchs, or apostles.* One can argue generically that women were more "empowered" in the early days of the "church" (I'm not sure I agree with the argument, but I can sympathize with it to some degree), but as I understand it Kate Kelly and her merry band of agitators are asking for ordination to priesthood office and seats in priesthood quorums up to and including the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. That goes far beyond anything Joseph Smith even suggested implementing. *Of course, you do have the NT references to (allegedly) deaconesses and a purportedly female "apostle" named Junias/Junia; but those references aren't conclusive and beg the question of to what degree NT uses of words like "deacon" and "apostle" always denote an equivalent to the modern priesthood office, versus to what extent they simply refer to their generic Greek meanings of "servant' and "one sent forth", respectively.

My short answer to such a question is, "yes, they did, they have, and they do." But that's a gross oversimplification of church history, and we need to also discuss which order of the priesthood to they hold and what right, privileges, and authorities are they authorized to use? That's a much messier question, as is the question, does it have to remain the way it always has?

Your not 80 now ???

Every once in awhile, Mirkwood just comes along and makes my day. "...take out the pos that has your child." & done. Q

We still have that! It just all depends on where you live. Q

I take my daughters to the library regularly!

Do kids even know how to climb a tree before? Anyone who didn't know was ostrasized for being lazy or fat. Sure it was kind of mean, but these kids did nothing but sit around all day playing video games (the ones who could afford them) they could never keep up with us and our games. Sometimes we just thought hey lets go pick rasberries, or, lets go to the big hill and make a fort in the forest. There was no adults, there was no "oh call us at so and so time" it was "be home by dark" Mom cut the cable in the summer and we were outside.

It's immoral. Yes...so right. The phrase makes me want to slap its annunciator. "Check your privilege," is another way of saying I have no right to speak, or that my thoughts must needs count less than that of people of other classes (poorer, darker, more female). Oh, and the book definitely gets judged by the cover. I took the quiz for fun, but this whole thing stinketh. Nevertheless, congrats to Anatess for out privileging me. :)

In your scenario it would likely be a self defense issue, so it would not be murder to take out the pos that has your child.

By the way, there's a great story of President Kimball helping his missionary son come to terms with "know" vs "believe". The entire chapter is worth a good read (and a better ponder).

My children will never know the joy of climbing freely around the car, over seat, under sister/brother, whilst mom and dad cruise it down the freeway joyously seat-belt free. Okay...cynicism a bit there. I do think the car-seat thing has gone a bit far though now-a-days. I do support car-seats and seatbelts, however. :)

Some of the comments in this thread make me think of this song: Automatic - Miranda Lambert

I'm just happy to talk to other adults! My HTs just visited last week. That was the first time since joining the church. My last two, one I never met or spoke to, the other was a flake. Never met him either. But my VTs have always been great! My last ward, they kinda of didn't visit my last month there, but I was fine with that. I actually became really great friends with one and she was going through a lot at the time, so I spent time at her house letting her talk through some problems. I think VT and HT can be a blessing for all involved in both directions! I was super nervous the first time I visit taught. But now I look forward to the adult interaction!

Is there a limit on how much we can post in one post? :)

As much as you like and love the missionaries your bishop is the one with the keys and authority to deal with the issues members have. Around these parts the question of "should I talk to my bishop about..." is answered with. "That is a good question to ask your bishop." Do understand that unless your bishop is brand-new your problem will not be the first of its kind the bishop has handled. He can help you and will help you, if you will let him.

I hope the situation IS fake. If it isn't there is a family and a ward with major issues. Unfortunately there are people who like to play off of perceived "peculiarities" of the LDS and try to cause trouble. It is terrible because it gets in the way of honest communication and learning. I have grown from animosity to love towards Mormons in my months here. Not that I'd ever convert- I just have a greater understanding and appreciation for them as individuals and I can't wait for my hubby to find a job in Utah.

I usually say that I 'believe' things. That's a personal and deliberate choice. There's a two-part explanation for my choice. First, I tend to think of 'know' as a word that suggests demonstrable, objective knowledge. The example I usually employ is that most people don't know that x * 0= 0. They think they know it, but they really only believe it. People often object and say that they know it, but when asked to prove it, they are at a total loss and reply "It just is." That isn't knowledge. That's a very strong faith put into practice. And there's nothing wrong with that. Most people simply don't need to know that x*0 = 0. The belief is sufficient. The second reason I avoid using 'know' is that I disliked the way so many youth in my area were coached to bear testimony. We were told to always use the phrase "I know" and never to use "I believe" because "I believe" implied doubt. I have spoken to others in my generation who were raised in other parts of the country and were taught the same thing. I object to the idea that "belief" is a sign of weakness, and so I am careful to state that I "believe" things are true because I want people to hear it more often. I want to eliminate that connotation that a mere belief is bad. But I think this young man when a bit too far in saying that we shouldn't say we know things that we can't prove. As Dravin pointed out, "know" has connotations beyond objectively verifiable truth. It makes a lot more sense to try and understand people's intent than to criticize their choice of words.

Shepard: I'm sorry to say that you've not handled this situation productively at all--even if this girl is just a scheming manipulator (and heaven help you all if she's actually right and the bishop really is a pedophile). Family therapy, my friend. ASAP.

Of course, there's no proof OP is a troll, but I think we're being taken on a ride :) Like I said, had that feeling from the get-go but felt strongly enough to respond concerning bishops interviewing underage kids on certain sensitive issues.

4 loosely related thoughts: The older I get, the less I know. Someday, said M2B will be sitting listening to another boyo, feeling the same way your were listening to him. Can't change the world, and always going to offend someone. Sounds like his heart is in the right place. His head will catch up. Q

It is called a day of rest for a reason, methinks.

I'm also a bit confused by the question. Is plum tuckered out or living alone meant to justify something that would otherwise be Sunday inappropriate?

Maybe it's just me, but aren't we all adults here? The site is open to ages 14+, but even the teenagers here know what "it" is that we're talking about. Is there a reason we can't just say "sex?"

I do not find the OP to be disrespectful, because begging to differ should not necessarily be viewed as disrespectful. In the same spirit, I do disagree with the OP. God has revealed himself through some very specific scriptures. Some doctrines are better than others. Some churches are more closely aligned with God's precepts than others. There is right and wrong, black and white, and not nearly as much gray as many seem to want. Having said all of that, our role is to respectfully state our cases, and to not be offended when someone politely disagrees. All views are not created equal, nor do they stand equally well to tests of fact and logic. However, everyone deserves a respectful hearing.

I don't find the question disrespectful. The questions we must ask ourselves is God an author of confusion? Or is God an author of order? I firmly believe God is an author of order and not an author of confusion. Thus, who then has the right to determine which religion is right and which religion is wrong? If all are right, then why are there conflicting doctrines which appear to be taught by the same God -- via different religions? If all the doctrines are right, then which path does one choose, when one religion specifies another religion's interpretation is incorrect? Each religion teaches something different, then the author (God) is the only person who has the right to say who is right and who is wrong. We profess simply that it is not us who has declared which religion/faith is correct, but God. Although, we declare the words of God pertaining to the truthfulness of this work, as Quin mentioned, "we allow all men to worship how, where, or what they may." Our Lord has given us the our agency, the freedom to choose between error and truth. We receive consequences and blessing according to our choices. The irony behind this question is that the question itself determines a "right" way that others should follow -- that there is no right religion; however, what we all should be considering is truth. If one bible teaches error (that God is not Heavenly Father), and the other teaches truth (God is our Father), then we have a choice to choose the truth, in order to accept Jesus Christ who is "the truth, the way, and the life." If one religion teaches from the Holy Bible that Jesus is not God, and one religion teaches from the Holy Bible that Jesus is God -- both cannot be correct -- these teaching by nature are opposites and both cannot be true. If one religion teaches that baptism is unnecessary, and another teaches baptism is necessary -- both cannot be correct -- and again one teaching is false and the other teaching is true. Who then decides? The author (God) decides. Thus, it is very important that we are actually desiring to follow the author -- Jesus Christ -- in order to obtain any blessing from him. This is why knowing which gospel is from God.