MarginOfError

Several years ago, we had a young woman join the Church. I believe she was 19 or 20. The first ward council meeting after her baptism, one of the counselors in the bishopric asked who was going to talk to her about removing her nose piercing, because she was a member of the church now. She had stopped coming to church within two weeks of her baptism. Believe it or not, some of our cultural dress expectations become a barrier for some investigators. When someone walks in the door and feels entirely out of place because they are the only person not wearing a white shirt/suit jacket/tie or dress, it feels isolating. From that first experience, they can start thinking, "oh, I don't belong here." or "there's no one like me here."

I know. So crazy. Prophet-guy says something. MOE prays: "God, that seems a bit odd. How do you feel about that?" God gives a metaphysical shoulder shrug MOE wears a blue shirt to church Grunt confirms that MOE is a non prophet following heathen.

So wait, your complaint is that, in an article in the Mormon Culture column -- written by a woman about her experience wearing pants to church -- she didn't talk about dress expectations for men? And you're claiming that somehow makes her disingenuous? I'm not sure I follow.

Because I've felt zero confirmation that the Lord actually cares.

Forgot to add the quote....ignore and proceed to the next post.

This isn't true. Many of us do talk about it. And some of us even refuse to conform. The day that I'm released from my present calling is the day that I start wearing jeans and a polo to church.

It's funny how easy it can be to throw these kinds of things in the direction of those with whom we disagree when we're very often two sides of the same coin.

1. Alrighty then. 2. I'd love for you to point out any one instance where I've advocated for someone else to wear pants to church, or to wear a colored shirt, or to not shave. I've advocated for people to wear whatever they're comfortable wearing, and against using a dress code as a litmus test for faithfulness. 3. I also type lds.org when going to Church websites. I worry it might cost me my temple recommend.

Anyway, my point is, the statement "Church is not the platform for your social justice agenda. You deserve what you get if you go down that path." comes off as pretty self-assured, implying that there's only one place that path leads to. It would seem the truth is far more nuanced than that. And I'm also willing to make it personal. If those who go down that path deserve what they get, please, explain to me what I should be getting.

I'm not sure those trends are as strong as you might think. Truthfully, I think the only thing that I've learned from the fates of those particular individuals is that bad publicity is more likely to get you in trouble than the things they stood for. I participated in Wear Pants to Church Day. I rarely wear white shirts. I refuse to shave unless I'm going into work. I am vocally feminist and unabashed about my social preferences. I am highly critical of many of the Church's policies, and have refused to serve in youth programs on the grounds that I refuse to run a program bound to all of the constraints the Church imposes. I have publicly complained about the language used in temple ordinances (prior to last year's changes). When the November policy was first released, I described it publicly, in Church, in front of the bishop and the entire ward, as a foul and disgusting policy. The penalty for all that behavior has been more influence, more responsibility, and more trust. And I'm not the only one. I've seen more and more men and women in my stake move in similar directions (with varying extremes). Heck, I've even watched my bishop get asked if women are treated fairly in the Church and give the response "[chuckle]. No, of course not." So it seems like the hash tag you're looking for is #butitsdifferentwhenitisntinthenews

Curious. Those certainly aren't the consequences I've had to pay. Quite the opposite, actually.

I'm curious what you think these individuals will "get" on this path.

Holy Necrothreading, Batman!

Looks like I'll need to start reading more of the articles here

Meh, the only people I consulted when I had mine were the spouse, the primary care physician, and the urologist. My procedure was on a Thursday. I was still feeling a fair amount of discomfort on Sunday. I managed to get my pants on, but then just really didn't feel like making the effort to get proper shoes on. So I went to ward council (and church) wearing slacks and water shoes (and a shirt...I'm not that nutty). People laughed at me. I said I'd had a procedure done and wasn't feeling up to a lot of movement yet. There were a couple of questions of "are you okay?" I simply answered that my procedure was elective and that there was nothing to worry about. I think most people got the idea, but one pressed a little more, so I answered honestly: "I had a vasectomy on Thursday." After that, no one cared what shoes I was wearing. The bishop couldn't have cared less. In fact, knowing the bishop as well as I'd do, he'd just as soon not be bothered with these kinds of questions. That's what EQ presidents, RS presidents, and friends are for.

Eh, that depends. I don't endorse this if your M.O. is racking up consumer debt with no intention of paying it back. On the other hand, if you had every intention of paying it back, and then circumstances changed and you were unable to, I find this preferable to a lifetime of financial ruin.

Indeed, these are often companies buying up old, unpaid debts. Their goal is to make a settlement with you. If the debt is for $10,000, they may buy the loan for $1,000 and hope to settle with you for $5,000. If it is a debt you actually owe (not the case of @person0), and you can withstand the hit to your credit score, your best option is to wait it out for a few years. Eventually, you'll get a call from some collections agency that says the total owed with interest and fees is now $30,000, but they are willing to settle for $1,000 (or less). By this point, the debt has been resold multiple times, and the current agency has purchased the debt for a handful of dollars. Never make a payment without the agreement in writing and signed.

It seems you are correct. The government is able to garnish protected accounts under some conditions, but generally only if you qualify for withdrawals. It can also be garnished if you owe alimony or child support, according to brief internet searches. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/090915/can-my-401k-be-seized-or-garnished.asp

What is most frightening is that these are the numbers for those that have any savings at all. More than half of American households have no retirement savings. That's going to come back to bite us.

One of the major advantages of 401Ks (and 403Bs) is that they are protected. If an person goes through a bankruptcy or foreclosure, all of their assets can be gleaned over by creditors, except for retirement accounts. Not even the IRS can touch your retirement accounts. That reason alone is a good reason to make use of a retirement savings plan. Should you come on hard times, it doesn't decimate your retirement savings.

There is an inflection point where one has advantages over the other. But it requires knowing how much you expect to live on in retirement. If your current salary is higher than your expected withdrawals, then it is to your advantage to to use the traditional IRA. If your current income is less than your expected withdrawals, it is to your advantage to use the Roth IRA. How this usually breaks down is that young, early-career workers should be using a Roth IRA and somewhere mid-career, switch to a Traditional IRA.

Readmission is the term the Church uses, for what it's worth. There are a lot of branches you could chase down in a hypothetical discussion. The general premise is that readmission requires that the person demonstrate a commitment to the Church and repentance of their sins. They should expect to have a pretty detailed discussion about their journey out of and back toward the Church. This process may be handled by the bishop, regardless of gender of previous priesthood office. The bishop has the full authority to authorize readmission. No requests to the stake president or First Presidency are required. Things that may slow down the process include having been in the midst of Church discipline at the time of name removal, or having committed any transgressions that would warrant a disciplinary council before or after name removal (though these will not necessarily imply a disciplinary council will be held prior to readmission). All-in-all, it doesn't strike me as a very intimidating process. I think your friend may be surprised at how cordial and pleasant it could be.

I just read the letter again and realized that I missed that it included a deadline for those currently serving. We are supposed to have this done by 22 Sept. I guess I'm sending out an e-mail with new instructions today. And now I'm mad at all of you for not pointing out my error!

This is precisely what I'm arguing for in my ward. Consider, if something were to happen to a child at the hand of or under the supervision of an untrained adult, and it were found that the bishopric did not enforce the policy that all leaders receive this training. Guess who is now liable*..... Quite frankly, anyone who is so inconvenienced and put out by a 30 minute video every three years doesn't deserve the privilege of working with youth or children.

It is important to note that bishops and their counselors may have exemptions from reporting requirements in some jurisdictions. But only those three people have the possibility of those exemptions (at least in the U.S.). One of the reasons bishoprics call the Church's abuse hotline is to discuss whether the clergy-penitent privilege applies in the jurisdiction or in the situation, and whether the bishop(ric) can/should/or wants to waive the privilege and report anyway. Other leaders in the ward don't have clergy-penitent privilege and may be mandated reporters. If a youth leader were to report that they had learned of abuse, reported it to the bishopric, and then figured, "well, the bishopric will handle it now"--and then the bishopric chooses not to report--that can leave the youth leader on the hook for failure to report. That can be unpleasant. This is something I actually intend to bring up in our Ward Council meeting and make clear. While a leader may choose to consult the bishop when they learn of an abusive situation (sometimes you need the moral support), both bishop and other leader should be clear that the other leader is expected to file a report of the abuse.