MarginOfError

I'll buy the Faith in God and On my Honor medals from you. My younger daughter finished the Faith in God award just before they discontinued its use in Scouts. Even so, at the time there was no award for it other than the certificate in the back of the book (pretty lame, if you ask me). It'd be nice to give her _something_ to acknowledge the award. The On My Honor award (top middle) is one that I earned as a youth. I still wear it on formal occasions, because I was never eligible to earn it as an adult. It'd be nice to have a spare in case mine wears out. Send me a message if you still have them.

I've always fancied myself more of a purple-commie

I've not bothered to read most of the thread, but happened to see this in my notifications. You're right that putting it in terms of life expectancy is kind of silly. It is a little alarming, but only in the sense that if only old people are dying, life expectancy shouldn't drop that much. To get a big drop in life expectancy, you'd need a significant number of young people to die. But life expectancy doesn't mean much compared between two adjacent years. It's a metric that has more meaning as a long term trend. A more meaningful way to look at it is-- and I'll do so without looking up the reference-- but the CDC's preliminary report on 2020 mortality estimated a 15% increase in total mortality in 2020 compared to 2019. That's a pretty big jump. Especially considering that most causes of death saw lower numbers. For instance, automobile deaths were something like half of what they usually are (at least through July; I stopped paying attention after that). For a different way to look at it, the current estimate for COVID deaths is 618,000. Certainly there's some wiggle in that number depending on differences of "died of" vs "died with", but let's go ahead and assume that, generally speaking, most of those deaths are related to complications from COVID and round it down to 600,000. The estimated US population is about 331.5 million. numerator, meet denominator and you get 0.18% of the population has died of complications from COVID. In other words, a little bit shy of 2 out of every 1,000 people. Okay, I looked this one up, because I was curious. Leading causes of death in the U.S. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm) COVID would take 3rd place on that list in 2020. It was pretty bad.

Speaking of Banned Members...I'm back! Probably only briefly though. I'm mostly only here because I'm in desperate need of escapism at the moment. I could probably say more on this than anyone cares to, but I'll go brief. I'll also be lazy and not bother putting together sources or references. (See previous comment about escapism) Simply put, under my advisement--after having read a news article and spoken to all our nursing mothers-- I convinced my previous bishop to establish a practice of the young women passing the sacrament in our ward. It was limited in scope to exactly one of them sitting in the foyer, taking the tray from whoever came out, and then walking it into the mother's lounge (we had 7 children born in the span of about four months, the mother's lounge was constantly occupied). The only complaint I ever encountered was that "women can't administer the sacrament." So I pulled out D&C 20: something and showed them where it said that neither Deacons nor Teachers were authorized to administer the sacrament. Therefore, preparing and passing the sacrament must not be "administering the sacrament." The section of the handbook which Colirio cites mentions priesthood holders passing, but that isn't a doctrinal limitation and could be changed relatively easily. That was really the only obstacle, which we dismissed with the fact that the women being served had a clear preference for a young women coming into the room over a young man. As described by someone else, the issue with the missionaries holding Sacrament on a Wednesday really isn't that the sisters helped to pass, it's that the missionaries authorized themselves to do it. They just don't have the authority to do that.

Some of these are fair criticisms. Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years. But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point. By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k. Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work. As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago. It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power. Things not relevant to the main point: - A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem. Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know) - Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit. Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving. So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point. The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage. He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children. Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old? Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present: Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home. In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000. Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed. At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment. And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options. And they really boil down to 1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control) 2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high) 3. A combination of 2 and 3 4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care) Keep in mind that these values represent the median. By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk. Perhaps we should give these families a break. Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth? Absolutely. I'm not going to deny that one bit. But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics [2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218 [3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state [4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget [5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state. [6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities [7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248. [8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf [9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches [10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

You're more or less demonstrating my point. It's pretty hard to make an argument against the interpretation of equal partners not being the same as equal responsibilities. It's also hard to make an argument against equal partners and equal responsibilities. It really depends on how you feel about the transitive property, on which the Family Proclamation is pretty silent. And I find your comment about "problem causer vs problem solver" to be rather amusing. I mean, the entirety of our standard works create more problems then they answer. It's one of the strongest similarities the Family Proclamation has to scripture. And just as there are people that will fixate one one phrase to justify a woman working out of the home, there are others that will hyper focus on the mother's primary responsibility to the detriment of their family. I am personally familiar with a family where the husband, unable to hold a job and at times physically unable to work refused to let his wife get a job because "if we follow the counsel of the prophets, we will be blessed." Without going into the details, you'll just have to take my word for it that it was tantamount to spiritual abuse. The abuses of these things go in all sorts of directions.

Meh, it happens. In fairness, there are some in the conservative circles that are claiming it isn't _really_ done, because the House _could_ choose not to certify that electoral college. The House won't vote on that until 6 Jan, I believe. Rejecting the electoral vote, if I understand correctly, would require a sponsor in the House and in the Senate, as well as majority votes in both chambers. So doesn't seem likely, but the most DedicatedToTheCause (TM) are saying that's the only vote that matters. Of course, most of them were saying the Electoral College vote was the only one that mattered when they thought they would see swing states with Republican legislatures send their own electors. Seems like the "what really matters" goal posts keep moving....

Like or hate it, the above ^^^ statement still exists. Like it or hate it, the statement "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." still exists. Like it or hate it, the Family Proclamation is quite ambiguous and doesn't answer nearly as many questions as it creates, and is open to a wide array of interpretations. I tend to agree with @JaneDoe, and let families and individuals strive to make decisions that best suit their own and their families' needs.

Point of order, the Electoral College cast their votes yesterday. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-senate-republicans-biden-president-elect-electoral-college Doesn't seem inappropriate to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the President-elect. Even Senator McConnell has done so at this point.

You'd agree with me more often if you wanted to be right about things. This happens to be an area in which I have a lot of experience, being over 15 years into my own faith crisis.

First and foremost, don't fall into the mistake of thinking this is something that can be fixed. There is nothing broken with your son. I consider what has happened with your son to be a breach of trust. I believe we all experience these breaches at some point, and it can be extremely unsettling (whether it is intended or not). The primary advice I would give your son is to lay out every concern he has about the church and his leaders to you. Give him room to speak and be heard without judgment. When he is done, say nothing more than, 'can I have some time to think about this?' Let your discussions about flawed leaders (and flawed disciples) and the possibilities of mixing up revelation with what-we-really-want for another day. Ultimately, I would guess that there are other concerns that have quietly existed for some time. The first step to helping is listening, understanding, and showing that you still love.

Dibs on the role of Town Drunk (er, hyper from too much root beer)

I'm not sure I understand the difference. Wow. We actually _do_ have something in common

still waiting on the Primary calling, I'm afraid. I thought this would be the year. Now it's looking like it will be about another 10 before it happens.

Good guess. #1 is outrageously false.

Seems everyone current has been guessed out. 1. I have straight A's in graduate level statistics courses from Harvard. 2. I have never served in Primary, despite asking to be called there multiple times. 3. I once dated a stripper

I'll bite. I normally prefer chocolate. Unless it's my home made vanilla ice cream. My home made vanilla ice cream uses my home made vanilla. I've had vanilla beans sitting in a half gallon of bourbon for about 8 years. Bourbon vanilla has a rather pleasant flavor to it.

I've refused to participate in tithing settlement for probably a decade now. I don't object to tithing settlement or it's purposes. I object to the time frame in which it must all be done. Requiring a bishop to meet with each family in the last three months, while also requiring at least a clerk or other bishopric member to be present (if done by the books) seemed anathema to reducing the administrative load on the bishop. I'll return to tithing settlement when the bishops are permitted to take these declarations throughout the year. I still review my tithing statements to make sure I'm paying a full tithe. I've been pretty open with my bishops that I don't consider the ten minutes he could spare for me worth his time. They've never complained.

Assuming that what my local council has told us is accurate*, these claims are not an existential threat to the BSA. The bankruptcy was filed specifically to restructure in a way that preserved the the ability of BSA to operate. Previous to the bankruptcy, BSA had no limits or safeguards on any of their money from legal claims. Every asset they had was available. The bankruptcy was filed to place a firewall between the operational expenses and real estate holdings and legal proceedings. The courts granted this firewall on the conditions that 1) it only applied to cases of abuse that occurred prior to 1982 (I think--that was when BSA implemented its youth protection training), and 2) BSA had to fund and operate an advertising campaign with the goal of reaching at least 95% of males in the USA between the ages of 25 and 50 (I might have those ages a little mixed up). This means that the court has agreed to a finite pot of money available to victims of abuse prior to 1981. Operational accounts are not available for these settlements, nor can camps or other real estate be liquidated. 2020 is a larger threat the the BSA than anything else. Cub Scout retention in our council is about 40%. When my Pack wrapped things up last year, we had about 6 or 7 Webelos. Currently, we have two participating. The loss of membership combined with BSA's unwillingness to restructure itself (most notably, reduce staffing) is what will kill it. It either needs to run a massively successful recruiting drive next summer, or prepare for some lay offs. Their current strategy of raising costs on everything isn't sustainable (unless they just want to be a rich kids club) * My council is particularly incompetent. It isn't unheard of for us to get chastised for not showing up to some event they never told us about. Despite being a registered scoutmaster in their ScoutBook software, they still can't seem to figure out how to send me an e-mail unless I go up to a Roundtable meetings and write it down on a piece of paper.

I've been in the church building exactly twice since March. The first time was to help set up for a baptism back in June. The second was to do some administrative stuff yesterday afternoon. I've not attended any services. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I will anytime in the near future. My social network consists of the following conditions A niece with no immune response (literally, when parents dropped off their kids in Primary with the sniffles, it wasn't uncommon for her to develop pneumonia within a week) A father with a hospital acquired, medication resistant infection (going to the hospital is a risky ordeal for him without the complications of a respiratory disease) Several Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA participants whose primary adults are their grandparents. We're trying to stay available to be the social outlet for my niece, because her social sphere is so restricted now, which means we have to be pretty careful about where we go and in what ways we interact with people. One of the choices we've made is that we will only participate in activities where masking is required and we can have a reasonable belief that attendees will adhere to best practices. Unfortunately, we have a handful of families that are avid anti-masker, don't-tread-on-my-freedoms type people. Despite the bishopric's best attempts to persuade them that masking up and keeping a little distance would be enough to help a non-insignificant number of people be able to attend, they just refuse. So we won't be going back, because I just can't trust that other members in my ward will have any concern for the health concerns of my family and scouts I am committed to serving. We'll go back when one of these three conditions is met The bishopric enforces masking expectations The CDC declares that preventative measures are no longer necessary The WHO declares the pandemic is over. I suspect that the both wards will be meeting in the building weekly long before any of those conditions are met. If I'm honest, I'm struggling with resentment. It's a new feeling for me. Not sure I like it.

The policy description under Birth Control was updated just a few weeks ago. The current policy is in the General Handbook, section 38.6.4 This does not represent a major change from the previous policy; with the only noticeable difference being that the previous policy explicitly encouraged members considering surgical sterilization to seek counsel from their priesthood leaders. The new policy implicitly removes priesthood leaders from the decision making process.

Sounds to me like both of you are being jerks. It's very rare that the tensions in a relationship are the fault of one person (and when it is, it's usually an abusive situation). Every relationship deals with these conflicts. Successful relationships talk about them, negotiate priorities, and come to compromises that minimize the tension for both parties. From the sound of it, the two of you prefer to ratchet tensions higher in the face of conflict. Start talking to each other more, and learn to say difficult things calmly and with compassion. Get hired help if struggle to do so (ie, marital therapy).

I have committed a significant portion of my adult life to volunteering in community scout programs. One of my few frustrations with being in community troops was that I was ineligible for the LDS adult religious emblem, as it required participation in a Church (capital C) sponsored scouting unit. With the Church having disbanded scout units, a new religious award program has been introduced by the Vanguard International Scouting Association, which is an organization promoting faith-based scouting for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's taken me a couple of months to get started on this, but I'm starting now. There's a significant portion of journal writing associated with this award, and I have a tendency to lose journals. So I'm going to do my journaling here. Anyone who would like to come along for the journey, I'd be interested in knowing what you discover in the process. The award requirements can be read at: https://www.vanguardscouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Vanguard-Awards-Booklet-5-13.pdf Building Faith and Testimony - Requirement 2 For various reasons, my mind has been preoccupied with thoughts of how to server everyone in my ward, not just those that are easy to serve. Because my mind is primed to think about these things, there were two phrases in The Living Christ that stood out to me Jesus taught "the potential for the sons and daughters of God in the life to come" "I am your advocate with the Father." It struck me that in order to be an effective leader, I must see the potential of each individual, not just for what they are now, and not what they could offer to the ward in the future, but what they can become in the eternities. And I need to give them opportunities to develop and grow in accordance with that potential. When I have recognized that potential. I need to follow the example set by Jesus and be their advocate. I must look for ways to promote the best in them so that I can recommend them to God. And I must be careful not to put unnecessary obstacles in their way to achieving that potential. When I act as a servant of God, I must make Christ's priorities my own priorities. So my goal for the coming week is to pray daily to see the potential of certain members in my ward that I struggle to serve effectively. I will ask for God to help me see them as He sees them, and to guide me to be a better advocate for them.

And then you have me, whose political positioning is best described as Socialist Libertarian. But I don't have a political party that represents my political beliefs.