Maureen

Banned
  • Posts

    5658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maureen

  1. But how do you know if what a person wears to church is their "Sunday best"? Have you been given the "Calling" of wardrobe checker to make sure everyone conforms to what you think is appropriate? M.
  2. So there is no actual rule that says women can't wear pants to church. Is there a rule that says a man must wear a white shirt to church or he will be disciplined? M.
  3. The author of the article did not complain about her bishop. She merely mentioned how she was surprised by his question, thinking that even now, after all these years, someone would think that a woman wearing pants to church is a sign of rebellion. When in actuality wearing pants is a lot more comfortable to a lot of women than wearing a dress. From what I read, that is precisely why the author wears them. M.
  4. @mikbone, I count 13 people in that picture. None of them look old enough to be the parents of eleven children, so I'm assuming two are in-laws. Nice family, BTW. M.
  5. You're making this more complicated than it actually should be. Go re-read what @MormonGator actually wrote. M.
  6. @mikbone did mention a neighbouring Stake and I asked in a round about way what that means. @Jane_Doe answered my post and I assumed from her answer that "neighbouring Stake" just meant mikbone's Stake. M.
  7. Just because I'm curious and ignorant. What is a Stake Conference (I assume it's a meeting of some kind but would like specifics) and why would a member of that Stake be asked not to attend? M.
  8. A neighbouring Stake Conference? Does that mean this is not your Stake? If so, are they letting people of that Stake attend? M.
  9. Are you allowed to have pancakes? A banana on a pancake is wonderful. M.
  10. I am asking as a non-member, even though you are being released, can you not still attend the Beehive camp activity? M.
  11. So? The show is still set in the 80s. What was the demographics of your Church at that time? M.
  12. I didn't want to start a new thread so I'm putting this story here. Yesterday I was watching the Wimbledon Men's Doubles game. It was between France and Columbia. I was cheering for Columbia because one of the French players had already won 4 Grand Slams so it was the other mens' turn. Early in the game the French player Mahut got hit with the ball just above his eye. Play was stopped for about 10 minutes so he could be looked after. He was fine and play went on. In the 5th set the same player gets hit again, this time in the collarbone and then the very next play he gets hit again, but this time in the groin. I know it's not nice but I couldn't help myself I started to laugh and the first thing that came to my mind was Scott Sterling from Studio C. It was just so crazy that this same player got hit with the ball 3 times during the match. M.
  13. I'm glad you explained better because even to me as a non-member, only one pair of garments sounds strange. M.
  14. @hellosun, what do you do to show your husband you love him? M.
  15. Why do you say "ambushed"? This was not an antagonistic interview. As you can see her son asked her the questions. M.
  16. I'm glad the missionaries are safe. What would be the reason that SIX missionaries would visit one person? Is that normal? M.
  17. This is slightly OT because it doesn't concern hockey but basketball. 😊 Congratulations Toronto Raptors!!!! M.
  18. I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying you have no interest in taking your son to places where he can do activities with other children? Are you even interested in your own son, his personality, how he's changing and learning? M.
  19. Google "Toddler activities in 'your city'". I would hope that doing a google search should give you some ideas. Most libraries have toddler activities. Can you go to a play ground or water park? M.
  20. Congratulations St. Louis Blues! They were not the team that I was originally cheering for but I was cheering for them in these final games. This is the Blues first Stanley Cup victory. Yay for the right team winning. M.
  21. I think more details are warranted. Adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom was not made a requirement for entry into LDS Church temples until 1902. However, even then, church president Joseph F. Smith encouraged stake presidents to be liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea.[40] Of those who violated the revelation, it was mainly habitual drunkards that were excluded from the temple.[40] Around the turn of the century, the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom were not strictly adhered to by such notable church leaders. Anthon H. Lund, a First Counselor in the First Presidency, drank beer and wine; apostle Matthias F. Cowley drank beer and wine; Charles W. Penrose, who also served as a First Counselor in the First Presidency, drank wine; Relief Society general president Emmeline B. Wells drank coffee; and church president George Albert Smith drank brandy for medicinal purposes.[40] In 1921, church president Heber J. Grant made adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom an absolute requirement for entering the temple.[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Standards_of_adherence Footnote 40: After the inauguration of Heber J. Grant's administration in 1918, however, the advice became less flexible. In 1921, church leadership made adherence to the Word of Wisdom a requirement for admission to the temple. Before this stake presidents and bishops had been encouraged to in this matter, but exceptions had been made. Apparently under this new emphasis, in March, 1921, George F. Richards, both as apostle and president of the Salt Lake Temple, phoned two Salt Lake City bishops about two tobacco users who had come to the temple and told the bishops "to try to clean them up before they come here again."15 http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf M.
  22. I was struggling too and looked up some possibilities like, From outer Space or French onion Soup. But it looks like @Barrett Maximus figured it out. 😊 M.
  23. You don't have to take my word for it, just go read the old thread. And anyway, I already admitted that I exaggerated "the speech" description to make a point. M.