Leaderboard

Honestly, I would approach each person involved in the "joke" separately and privately and let them know that the joke offended you. I wouldn't get angry or respond in a harsh way. "Hey, Jack, something happened that has bothered me since. Last week, you joked about Starship Troopers and how it would be funny to have a couple of missionaries dead. I'm a Mormon and I take my faith seriously. I didn't say anything then because frankly I was taken aback. But I wanted you to know that while I can joke about my religion some jokes are just offensive. Please don't do that in the future." If he apologizes, then just say thank you and move on. If he responds in a negative way, keep your cool and just reiterate what you said. I think their response after this exchange will show more of their character and disposition. Sometimes, we get caught up in things and don't realize how we sound to others. By keeping it private and congenial, I think shows him you are serious and is a kinder way of confronting it.

I think the video is a hoax. I will admit to finding breastfeeding in public....unusual, but would never approach someone and insult them. I think most would just ignore....especially if there was a man with her. That said, the ...militant breast feeders are out there and I think look for confrontation. My wife is a High School Principal and there are some militant mom's that have come to parent meetings and breastfed....not infants, mind you....but small kids.3-5 years old. Bleck.........

It's easy to second-guess and offer hindsight advice. In reality, your non-reaction may have been the best course. Who's to say the Holy Spirit was not moving you to bite your tongue? I agree that it's too late to revisit the incident. However, if you anticipate it happening again--or something similar--then perhaps, cutting it off near the beginning and saying something like, "Hey...I know lots of those missionary-types. If you want, I can have a couple call on you?" :::wink::: :::nod::: They'll probably laugh, but get the message.

My wife and I get around this by being the first to make the joke about ourselves. Self-effacing humor - it costs nothing, breaks the ice, eases the tension. I highly recommend it in situations where the other option is to get offended, or feel like you need to figure out present yourself as something else. Here's a bunch of stories when I'm the only Mormon: I remember when the Olympics came to SLC. I was in Denver at the time, talking to my dad over the phone at work. "Yep - the Olympics coming to SLC is the best thing to ever happen to us Mormons. It's our big chance to prove to everyone that we're not crazy." I heard a chuckle from a co-worker over the wall, who was in many ways an exact opposite of me and my values. We got along remarkably well after that phone call, and had a few good discussions about important things. Next job (Colorado Springs) I was in charge of ordering the stuff for the office party. I kept asking people what kind of beer I should order, they kept telling me "you pick" and "just get what you like". I finally said "Ok, look. If you let the Mormon pick the beer, we're all gonna end up drinking lime coolaid." They were immediately concerned that they'd offended me, but when it was obvious that wasn't the case, everything was just fine. I now had a team of nonMormons that were more protective and supportive of my desires to follow the WoW than I actually was. Wife had a friend. One day she found out we were Mormon, and she actually ducked her head and took some steps backwards as if she expected us to attack her or something. My wife didn't know what to make of it. Anyway, friend also did petsitting and was taking care of our dogs. When we got back, friend was very nervous - apparently one of our dogs had gotten out and run around the neighborhood for a few hours, before finally getting caught. Friend was worried we'd be mad. My wife got a very serious look on her face, and said "Well, I'm glad you caught her, because it's against our religion for you to lose our dog." The friend looked sad and anxious for a full three seconds - then it finally dawned on her and she finally laughed and relaxed. Last story: Going to lunch with a buddy, who is talking about the issues he's had with his church and picking a new pastor. Stuff like that can divide congregations - folks will break away, attendance will slow or grow, it can mean big changes for people who just wanna go to church. I said "We Mormons don't really have problems like that - we go from Bishop to Bishop and nothing changes. We just have a big schism once every 150 years where a bunch of people break away and then a dozen people go to prison for child abuse, and then everything is back to normal." Stuff like this builds bridges. It helps. It opens gates to people's fertile gardens where genuine seeds can get planted. So much better than getting upset or uptight or offended.

Or "My sons served missions, wearing those white shirts with black nametags. So did many of my other relatives and closest friends."

This lady's approach to this scenario is humorous: But be careful, she uses the word, "boobs," -- oh no.

Funny topic. I remember one time when I was a teenager and my mom told us -- all six children -- that she hated us. We had driven her to insanity (almost literally), and She. Had. Had. It. This was not the only time she said something nasty to us, but it was one of the more egregious. I can hear the mothers (and many fathers) on this forum shaking their heads in sympathy, commiserating with her and ruing that any mother should be driven to such an extreme by selfish brats. I doubt anyone would condone my mother's statement, but would anyone here seriously say that I and my siblings would have been better off without her? I assure you, we would not have been. She was (and remains) one of the great blessings of our lives. Yet many would condemn men for pretty much the same conduct, getting frustrated and saying something stupid. Better that he was absent, completely uninvolved in the children's lives, than that he might sometimes say something nasty. Fathers are important. Fathers are important. Yes, even we fathers who are less than perfect. Even we fathers who sometimes raise our voices. Even we who are impatient when we shouldn't be. Even we who exhibit our immaturity when the situation calls for adult judgment. I daresay even those fathers who sometimes curse or who might even call their kids "stupid" on occasion -- evil though such actions are -- are still important, and that their children are still MUCH, MUCH BETTER OFF with them than without them. I am disappointed that any Saint, much less those I admire, might not agree with this most obvious truth.

In the literal sense of the word, yes, I think it's abusive. But you said that absence is better than abuse. If this is what you meant by "abuse", I strongly disagree. Shame on any father who calls his child stupid -- but a present father who occasionally loses his temper and calls his child a nasty name is still a great deal better than an absent father.

So I live in an area where LDS members are relatively few, so consequently most of the people I know and associate with aren't churchmembers. In my bi-weekly D&D game, I've got about half LDS and half miscellaneous. For about an hour before each game, people socialize, eat dinner, chat about stuff, prepare for the game session, etc. Well, last session one of the players was talking about a RiffTrax event he'd attended the night before featuring the movie Starship Troopers. Apparently it was hilarious to him. Especially the part about Ft. Joe Smith... For those who don't know, there's a mock newscast in the movie describing a colony of "Mormon radicals" being massacred by the aliens on a distant planet. It features a futuristic looking colony fort complete with the Angel Moroni on the top of it, and a bunch of mutilated bodies scattered around the place. ...I've seen the movie. It is an objectively bad movie anyway (read the book. It's 10,000% better) so I generally don't sweat stuff like this, but I was feeling dismayed that my friends started a line of joking about how funny it woul dhave been if they'd featured a couple of bodies next to bicycles wearing nametags... Now, by this point, the other LDS players hadn't arrived which is probably why this line of "humor" went as far as it did, but I still felt irritated that, for a bunch of people who profess to be all about sensitivity and inclusiveness (yes, there are a couple of bona fide social justice warriors in this group) they felt perfectly at ease with this line of joking in my home in front of me. The next day I discussed it with one of them (the most reasonable and easygoing of the bunch, and who wasn't involved in that banter) and he agreed that it was inappropriate, and suggested that I let it go this time but be sure to speak up, diplomatically next time. His advice is good, and I will take it, but I've learned a couple of things, and need some advice for the rest. I've learned that I need to be more clear about how serious I am about my beliefs. Apparently these jokes were told in front of me because I project an air of laid-backness that, while usually good, seems to make people complacent around me in a way that they wouldn't be around my "stricter" LDS friends.I've learned that my desire to avoid "rocking the boat" is a contributing problem because I sometimes fail to speak up when I should around them.I think the problem goes deeper though. Maybe I need to re-evaluate who I'm spending my time with. I hate to cast friends aside, but at the same time if they're so casual about things I find abhorrent, and who knows what they're like when they aren't around me, then maybe I wouldn't be losing much? They're well-meaning people, and don't carry around a bunch of malice (despite the quality of the "humor") which is why we get along so well generally, but sometimes I wonder if I'm just seeing masks. Was last Friday a fluke, or did I get a glimpse into something that's much more typical? I don't want to be one of those people who refuses to befriend anyone who isn't LDS, but with the political atmosphere around us, and the vastly differing views between some of my friends and me, the strain on the friendship sometimes feel like it's ready to snap. Should I just cut it off?

Not so; small town of 10 people. You have income of 10 million dollars. 9 people vote for the 1 person who says they should tax all income over 1 million dollars and then redistribute evenly among everyone. Hey 9 people voted for it . . .it's legitimate!! The "rule of law" is nothing more than a thin veneer to allow very smart thieves to steal from other people and have the people who were stolen from say "oh well it was the rule of law".

"To rat out" is a phrase that originates in organized crime, like calling someone a "stool pigeon". If the despicable Gadianton robbers don't like an action, that's an indication that it might be a very good action.

That kind of stuff does work, and it's what I often do. The only problem is occasionally it backfires around people who get carried away and take it too far, like in my case here.

Some more subtle approaches (not that I'm generally known for subtlety, but...): How is the area where you play decorated? Are there churchy pictures on the walls, decorations on the shelves / tables, scriptures, Ensign, or similar books laying out? Maybe this sort of thing could serve as a subtle reminder. (Of course, it won't work if they don't notice, but it's a thought.) I find it easy to recognize some Mormon homes just from their pictures. There's also the question of how often your church activities come up when talking with these friends. If, when they ask what you did over the weekend / last night, you mention everything but church-related stuff, that could lead them to think church is a "Sunday-only" thing for you, like it is for so many people. Personally, I found it liberating to give up self-flitering and mention a really good Sunday School lesson or talk. No one's reacted negatively to that (in my presence) yet. I like Vort's reply for that specific "joke".

Beware the dark side, anatess. You can be plenty effective without hate. Several years ago, one daughter had double foot surgery and was in a wheelchair for a while. If we ordered a handicap tag to hang in the window, by the time the tag showed up, she'd be out of the wheelchair. So we didn't bother. My wife parked in the Whole Foods parking lot, halfway down the row of cars, and was carrying our kid from car seat to wheelchair. She was accosted by some well-meaning dogooderer who felt the need to instruct my wife on proper parenting. "You're not doing her any favors by treating her like she's normal, you know." My wife ignored her. Didn't even make eye contact. Just started wheeling towards Whole Foods, even though the lady kept talking. But when the lady started following them, and started directing her comments to our daughter, my wife had enough. She turned and made one of her rare-but-effective aggressive "come at me bro" moves towards the lady and yelled "BACK OFF!!" The lady backpeadalled into a car and almost tripped and spilled her organic soy-hazelnut musli all over herself. That event, and others like it, have prompted many discussions with our kids about what happens when cops get called, and what they should and shouldn't do in various situations. My wife rocks.

You might not care for certain poster styles but I think the question is valid. Certain things are very horrid. Abuse is one of them. However it seems now a day we are calling everything abusive. When we do that we justify taking equally horrid actions ourselves (destroying families)

This was shared by a friend today on Facebook. I don't know if it is viewable, but if not it is a collage of photos of Officer Doug Barney. So sorry for your loss. https://www.facebook.com/NicoleVowellNewsReporter/photos/a.726239214055544.1073741828.726172047395594/1156059044406890/?type=3&theater

God has no wants?

Speaking of health care, I got a letter in the mail yesterday from the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the letter, I make too little to qualify for an insurance subsidy. Yeah...

What kind of a friend are you to him if you let him continue in self-destructive behavior? Does it matter to you that he's damaging his life? Are you and/or your roommate close enough to him to talk with him about it seriously? If you don't feel like you are, maybe you need to let someone close to him know so that they can confront him. I don't know if the first person who needs to know about it is the bishop, but *someone* needs to talk with him... preferably someone he cares about and who he will be more likely to listen to than just a casual friend or acquaintance. As for "ratting him out" .. This isn't grade school and he's not just some little boy on the playground who stuck his tongue out at you. So how does your telling someone who loves and cares about him make you a rat? If he were my son, I'd want to know. And I would thank you for telling me.

No problem, "Lehigh" "Cellars". I'll be sure to keep that in mind during our next discussion about the religion of Moron-ism.

Thank you all for the advice. I have been really needing it lately. I really do need to do a lot of thinking, praying and fasting on the matter. However, you all have brought points to my mind that I had not really considered as of yet. Thank you for that. I have just been so lost on the matter, but all of your answers have helped me a lot, and I really appreciate every one of them! Thank you!

Wear your big armor suit and tell them not to say that again. That should do the trick.

From what I understand about mothers, they will occasionally seek out and be receptive to feedback and suggestions, often from people who are there or have been there. Something about needing a safe environment and a trusted person first. My marching orders are to not seek them out, but march to them when my wife directs them my way.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the warm fuzzies. I think I needed them more than I had realized. The room is decorated in a medieval/fantasy style theme with dragons, banners and a decorative suit of armor. I also display my family's coast of arms and family history. There are even castles in my aquarium. There is a book shelf where I have several Church related books and scripture, and right around the corner is a picture of the Washington DC Temple. There's also a framed bit of art with a quote from the Book of Mormon and a knight, which fits the medieval theme and shows off our Church side as well. I think the idea of approaching everyone individually is best, but I also feel inclined to mix that with my other friend's advice and let this one go, since I should have spoken up sooner. If it happens again, I'll speak. I think what frustrates me, and I know I should expect this, is that if that movie had featured a colony of dead people under a tattered rainbow flag, these same people would be up in arms.

When I moved to Houston from Salt Lake for work, I already new about 4 or 5 people in my new Job. Only one was active LDS and he has since moved back to Utah. The others however all grew up in Utah, some raised LDS others not, but all knew about the church and standards although they do not follow any of it's teachings. Some of those that I work with that are from Houston and not familiar with the church think of me as highly religious. They know I don't swear, don't drink or smoke, don't drink coffee and that I served a mission. I talk regularly about the church or church functions as it applies to our conversations as I would with members. Some have even asked me advice concerning questions they have had about the Bible and general moral dilemmas because I am "the most religious person" they know (flattering, but perhaps they do not know many? :) ). Now those that know me from Utah and are not religious know the same things, but say that I am a "laid back Mormon" or more liberal. Why the contrast? I act the same way around both groups, yet I am labeled by one as strict and highly religious and the other as laid back? I admit that I am very easy to get along with. I correct people about the church when needed, but otherwise try not to stir the pot. Perhaps compared to members of the church they knew from Utah I am not considered strict? I sure thought I was. I think I come off a little like the OP to those that know me better, as "laid back", although it is not intentional. This post has made me think about that, perhaps time for a self evaluation.

I laugh at these stories, but just yesterday I found myself about to spill my Good Parenting Sanctimommy speech on someone's Facebook post. It was terrifying to find myself about to do something I hate. In other news, I breastfed my daughter during Relief Society the other day. Our mothers room has no sound system, and other ladies have done the same thing. As for the natural question, I go back to work in February and plan on pumping during recess. Our classroom doors were supposed to get locks someday... I keep wondering what I'll do if one of my students feels passionately about entering the classroom during recess....

http://www.pbase.com/unifiedfire/placingflags

So then, my appropriate place in a discussion on this list is to listen to and accept at face value anything you care to write? Anything I say in response is now considering arguing? Wow. I honestly had no idea that you thought that way about me. This is not the first time I have had such a surprise on this list, but it is no less unpleasant for not being the first time.

Abuse is no excuse. It absolutely isn't. And I feel qualified to say that, having been sexually abused myself for several years when young, and living with and overcoming the ramifications of that. The implicatIons still color some of my personality traits (such as being reluctant to unilaterally seek my gratification, even if spouse is encouraging it - that is a turn off when for many it is fine). As heinous as such abuse is, it is the individual that chooses what to do with it. Are they going to make lemmonaid,or continue to suck on sour lemons? I know that if I were more emotionally mature two decades ago when the abuse really hit me (about 12 years after it ceased), I could have moved on much faster, healed better, etc. But I'm certainly no Elizabeth Smart. Nor was I entirely willing to wallow in self pity and make excuses either (although I certainly did from time to time!). I absolutely don't intend to criticize her for not moving on yet. We all have our own paths and capabilities, And no one is wrong or better. It just is what it is, and progress is not a matter of comparison to others, only to our former self. What matters is for you to understand who she is, and what her capabilities are, and if that is ok to you. Will you really have endless patience if you marry and she decides to wallow in self pity long term? Does her difficulty in progressing indicate an overall incapability to cope? Or was the abuse particularly heinous and the amount of progress so far indicates she can handle any thing life can dish up? I'm guessing based on your post, and the anxious/avoidint attachment (breakup - makeup, breakup - makeup, repeat), she is more of the type (currently) to wallow and make excuses, and not tackle the issue internally where it really resides. That is concerning for success in marriage, where challenges are sure to arise.

Sorry about that. I get a stab in my heart every time I read about a LEO getting killed.

Eowyn, where do you think the line should be drawn? How "regular" must "regular behavior" of calling a child "stupid" be before the father's important presence is better done without? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? What's the magic number? Do you apply the same standards to imperfect mothers who do stupid and hurtful things to their children? Does "She's doing the best she knows how" have any application at all? Because bad is bad, even if it's someone's best. If it matters, how about "He's doing the best he can"? Even if his "best" is calling his own children "stupid"? The obvious gap in how we treat men vs. how we treat women rankles, I admit. But the bottom-line question is: How bad is too bad? And who is to make that judgment?

1. I've basically done a 180 on the topic over the years. I don't care if women breastfeed in public any more. 2. I still, however, am totally upset with the immense double-standard in society. Whether I walk around with no shirt at all, or one man-boob hanging out, I get the same comments and looks.

Sure. But that point doesn't have anything to do with whether we should be doing things for the right reasons or not. This is plainly and clearly taught by the Savior himself repeatedly. As in the repetition of the idea in the Sermon on the mount. Don't give alms to be seen of men. Don't pray to be seen of men. Etc. Then you have your reward. Do so in private and the Lord will reward you openly. The idea that doing good to our fellow man is only for the sake of our fellow man is a major fallacy.

Officer Jon Richey was released from the hospital and went home today.

Another sad part to this story is the fact that he had volunteered to work OT that Sunday to help pay for his cancer treatment bills. He was a survivor of bladder cancer.

"Abusive" is a loaded term and has been redefined into irrelevance. When wrongly speaking sharply at someone or grabbing an out-of-control child is defined as "abusive", the term ceases to have any useful meaning.

That may be true, but what difference does it make, at this point, to the child(ren)? Lehi

go into debt or go into food storage? the former seems to happen a lot more than the latter

LRK99, for your son's sake, and for your spiritual side, even if your husband is negative with you, please be Christ-like in your behavior to your husband. Whenever you choose to be unchristlike, the Spirit will leave. How can you make the best decisions as to what to do for your family if you don't have the Spirit? I'm glad you're going to visit with your Bishop. I'm hoping he will be able to give you good counsel and advice. I'm hoping you and your husband can turn your marriage around, where the two of you model good role behaviors for your children. Your son sees and hears both of you. Please be the type of wife to your husband (no matter how negative he is) that you would want your son's future spouse be to him.

I may have overstated things, then. What I should probably have said is that I personally don't see anything wrong with wearing a cross as a decorative ornament such as an earring or a tie pin, and that I hope no one would make a fuss over such a display. I still do see a principled difference between wearing a small cross as jewelry and doing the sign of the cross. I also admit I'm not completely consistent in my feelings, since I would be much more uncomfortable with someone LDS wearing a very obvious cross sign (e.g. a dress with a large cross in its design, or maybe even a tie with a large religious cross shape prominently displayed). "Allahu akbar" simply means "God is great". We believe that. So is there anything wrong with saying "Allahu akbar"? With wearing a turban that conceals a dagger? With eating wafers and grape juice? With moving your hand to form a cross shape? With slaughtering a goat? None of these actions is objectionable per se; the problem is that each carries significant religious connotation. If that connotation is incidental, well then, fine, go ahead. But when people wear cross-shaped earrings to Church, that is a religious emblem in a specifically religious environment. I personally don't think wearing cross-shaped earrings crosses (no pun intended) any important line. But making the sign of the cross? To me, yes, I think that goes over a line. I do not condemn the person, and am sure it was done innocently. But I do think that the person making the sign of the cross should be made aware that the specific religious symbol s/he is using is not one that we normally use in the Church.

Agreed, Mirk. Any movie franchise that's going to have zombies, needs to have them in the first movie.

Frankly, I think it's a beautiful tradition and I wouldn't begrudge a convert for continuing it.

I just said no. I already have a Triple. :-)

Wearing a cross as a piece of jewelry is different from performing "the sign of the cross", which is a Catholic element of religious worship and prayer. Wearing a cross as jewelry is typically not done in Mormon circles, but there is nothing "wrong" with it, and I doubt that many people would make a fuss or probably even notice it. On the other hand, making the sign of the cross is like saying "Allahu akbar" or putting candles on the sacrament table -- not an evil thing per se, but a recognizable element of a completely different tradition of worship, and thus improper for a Latter-day Saint. Someone (missionaries, maybe RS pres or bishop) should privately and gently let the young convert know that making the sign of the cross is not needed and does not form a part of LDS worship of God.

Rather than a post modern nihilism, or even an existential-nihilism, this is why I like pragmatism as a response philosophically. Pragmatism can be quite compatible to religion.

If you marry a damsel in distress, you end up married to a distressed damsel. Don't do that. On the other hand, she can do the heavy lifting, delve into her past to the dregs, resolve stuff, and figure out her life's plan to deal with the scars and consequences, be open and honest with herself and others, and then decide she wants to marry. That can happen - she can do it. It'll probably take a long time (think years). Point here is, she'll be a very different person than she is now, and for all you know she might not even pick you. You might end up being the supportive guy she was fortunate enough to have in her life while she went through all her crap that eventually led her to her husband. Think about that as you consider what you're saying here.

In matters such as this, always take people at their word. She is not getting married. Don't wait for her.

No, he means all those weirdo food hoarders. I mean, seriously, who has a "72-hour kit"? Buncha paranoids.

Homeschooling is just wrong. Those places do not pay their teachers anywhere near a decent salary!