Maureen

From the Elder Morrison link above, myth #4:
 
Now, to Anatess's point, I have recurring duodenal ulcers that cause an incredible amount of pain.  Sometimes I find they've recurred, because I wake up at 3am feeling like someone is driving a steel spike through my gut.  When this happens, I don't yell or scream or cry or demand attention.  I quietly get out of bed so as not to wake up my wife, go to the bathroom, down a swig of pepto, and then silently rock myself back and forth in pain for the 15 minutes it takes to work.  Then I quietly get back into bed and go to sleep.  Next day when she's awake, I can ask for hugs and sympathy and love and everything - but my pain shouldn't wake her up at 3am. 
(And when I come to her for sympathy the next day, she doesn't lecture me about how I should just tough it out.)

If the author was truly experiencing Clinical Depression, then there is no worse or more useless reply than "buck up and get over it."  That really is damaging, because a person who is struggling with CD (and I'm not just talking about being in a blue funk because it's hard to adjust to mission life.  I'm talking about actual, diagnosable Depression) then they're already struggling with a variety of difficult emotions, not the least of which being "this is my fault."  So the reply of "get over it" just reinforces that idea, no matter how delicately or diplomatically it's phrased.
I think in this case what went wrong was that the author (by her own acknowledgement) had expectations of this leader that weren't reasonable.  It sounds like she expected that this reply would be a sort of magical elixir that would just make the problems go away, but that isn't how CD works.  To be fair to the leader, unless he had a background in mental health, it isn't likely that he would have recognized the symptoms for what they were, especially if the author herself didn't realize it was at a clinical level. 
This is just one of those situations where nobody was being mean or insensitive, it's just that nobody had all the information they needed to deal with the situation better.
 

Out of all the things I've heard church leaders state over the years in the capacity of their calling, 99.9% of it is good advice, nothing objectionable, sound principles, gospel truths, etc.  There is a tiny, tiny, miniscule handful of comments I've gathered over the almost-5 decades, that are problematic in some way.  I could probably count all of them on both my hands. 
I'm guessing that most of that small amount of problematic stuff have come from the leader's stuff-they-were-always-taught, cultural knowledge, incorrect assumptions, etc.  In other words, even in that tiny small handful, they were trying their best to do good, they were just letting some of their imperfect show.  I have never personally encountered a church leader trying to do ill, work evil, be unhelpful, etc.  Once or twice I've seen one lose their temper and speak out of negative emotion, but they've recovered and apologized later. 
But anyway, more than one of these comments have been clueless, ignorant, even harmful advice when it comes to mental illness.  The human race has just naturally sucked at having this stuff figured out.  We struggle to know what to do about it, or even to acknowledge that it exists.  And when we're actually face to face with someone who is struggling with some form of it, and we can't empathize because we've got no clue what that's like, sometimes we, in our attempts to help, say something stupid.  The last comment I encountered was from a counselor in our Bishopric, giving a talk on how to have peace in our lives.  The offensive quote, which stood out and overshadowed everything else he had to say, was "You don't need a pill to feel the spirit."  I looked over at my wife, who has been on a maintenance dose of brain pills for most of her adult life, and she just rolled her eyes.  She had heard it before, from umpteen clueless idiots trying to help, and now she was hearing it taught across the pulpit by a member of the bishopric.  Fortunately, she was at a mature point in her life when she didn't look to church leaders for help living life, and could identify and forgive the occasional slip.  Maybe someone else less grounded heard it and gave up.  It happens.
The church tries hard.  Elder Morrison has published stuff on the topic:
Valley of Sorrow: A Layman's Guide to Understanding Mental Illness
Myths about Mental Illness - October 2005 Ensign 
I've joked more than once that once they make me emperor of the Mormons, you'll have to read that book and pass a quiz before being ordained to any priesthood office.  Book report for any Melchezedic office.  Over the years, I've bought a dozen or more copies of the book, and handed it to new Bishops, Stake Presidencies, anyone who wanted a copy.  The feedback was immediate and overwhelmingly positive.  "I wish the church gave us more training on this" was a regular comment a couple of decades ago.  These days, I'm told the church does indeed have training easily accessible for leaders on these subjects.  We're doing better.  But humans are still humans.  
Yeah, lots of people hear stuff wrong, have a chip on their shoulder, a persecution complex, a problem with authority, hate men in power, try to justify their complacency, are looking for a reason to be offended, are thin skinned and brittle, hurt by truth, offended by good advice they don't want to hear.  Those are all things that happen.  A lot.  Probably 99% of the time, when I hear someone grousing about counsel from a leader, I'd be willing to think there's a problem with the person receiving counsel.  But you know what else happens?  Sometimes this or that leader might give imperfect advice. Sometimes even downright clueless, false, harmful advice.   Almost never.  But yeah, it happens sometimes. 
The solution isn't to blame the person complaining. Or blame the person who tried and failed.  The solution is to spread the truth.
No really - go read that 2nd link.  Go get a copy of the book.  If anyone wants to PM me, I will personally mail you a copy.

I know someone like that. I met one of my friends when she was a single mother, mid-twenties, she had a 4 yo daughter. Her place was always spotless and she was a wonderful cook, always baking. I was always in awe of her talents.
M.

IF he said this, I'd say he MAY be FAR out of touch with a LOT of people outside of Utah.
For example....a prime example...99.9% of them are anti-LDS (but not anti-Mormon)...as a majority of the people outside of Utah STILL refuse to stop calling Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons.  In fact, the common idea of members of the Church is that they are all Mormons.  Those non-members that are not part of that Utah culture just simply refuse to stop calling members of the Church...Mormons.

A little more seriously though, this is reflective in some ways of an attitude that does exist outside of Utah at times.  It is seen that sometimes the Church leaders are so engulfed within the culture found in Utah that policy changes arise from their experiences in Utah more than the rest of the world. 
It's understandable though, he basically lives in Utah and most of the changes are seen as stemming from UTAH problems rather than anything dealing with the rest of the world in most cases. 
In fact, that IS something that you see outside of Utah in regards to things changing.  Sometimes people will comment on changes and indicate that it's due to things in Utah and Utah culture rather than anything that has to do with the rest of the world.
Not EVERYTHING, mind you, but many things.
I find the further you go East and out of the US, the more prevalent this idea gets.  In California, it doesn't seem as big as it is in Georgia...for example.  I've always seen this, so I don't know when it started to exist or if it always existed since Brigham took the Saints to Utah and some went to California or others stayed out East.
I think this also reflects and idea that Members outside of the Mormon Belt are in someway different than those who ARE in the Mormon Belt (an area extending from Southern Idaho to Northern Arizona), or the idea that those who are not in areas with a LOT of members are different in culture and action than those that are in those areas (and sometimes this extends to other parts of the Western US as well).
Overall, I think that the attitudes in the US are actually very similar outside of Utah as inside of Utah in regards to the Culture of the Church.  I think it is a tad different in slight ways when you go outside the US, but overall, the atmosphere is still the same in church.
Thus, you will have those that are inactive, those that are super active, those that close knit, and many other commonalities between all members in the US.  I would say that even the activity rates are similar to a degree, but are a little more drastically different in other parts of the world (by drastic, I mean over 5-10% difference, whereas in the US, I think most places probably hover around the same activity and inactivity rate within 5-10% of each other).
That attitude has been around since at least...well...as long as I can recall and that's been a pretty long time.  It may be that you just notice it more.
Utah itself HAS changed in some ways over the past 20 years. 
Brigham Young once told the Saints not to sell their land and to stay on it.  He prophesied that if they sold their land that Non-members would move in and they would lose the control they had over the various policies, regulations, laws, and morality within their current areas of living. 
I find that this is coming true in our day.  Ironically, Utah is trying to attract far more people and in the process there are a LOT of non-LDS people moving to Utah.  This is not a bad thing, but it means that in the large areas such as Salt Lake City the influence of the Church culture is growing less.  It is still there, but these days there is a LOT more pushback.  Whenever a visible entity (and in the Mormon Belt the LDS church IS a visible entity that wields considerable influence still, as opposed to outside of it where it is barely even noticed) there will be those who speak ill of that entity.  This has always been true of the Church in Utah, but as the non-Mormon population has risen and grown, the impact of this pushback has grown more noticeable.
Salt Lake City has it's Mormon quirks, but is very much like most other medium sized cities in the US.  It still has a somewhat smaller city feel while still hosting most of the culture available to a larger city.  One can find either great good or great evil, depending on what they seek out.  If one wants to have a lot of LDS culture in their life it is probably easier to find in Salt Lake City than elsewhere in the US outside of the Mormon Belt.  If one wants to find decadence and sin, it is also easily found in Salt Lake City.
Provo/Orem has grown more towards what Salt Lake was like around 30-40 years ago.  There is still a LARGE LDS population, but the worldly influence is growing by leaps and bounds. 
I think Ogden has remained about the same to be honest in the past few decades, but it always had the base there to influence it.
Logan I feel is somewhat like Provo, though you'll find a looser culture of sorts and easier to find those who are somewhat rebellious, I think it is also very easy to find those who are DEEPLY immersed in the culture of the Church as well.  In fact, some of the best and greatest Saints may be found in that area.
Southern Utah above St. George is still very Mormon.  You move there and you'll be in the heart of Mormon culture.  They still live, eat, and breathe the church (though yes, you'll still have inactives, and the rest, the influence of Mormon culture is still very strong there).
You'll only feel "oppressed" if you WANT to feel "oppressed" in Utah.  There is a greater influence of the Church and it's culture in these areas for obvious reasons, and those who do NOT LIKE this type of culture may tend to dislike it somewhat.  However, I find even those who are very anti-LDS love Utah for other reasons.  Some love to ski, some love the outdoors and what Utah has to offer in that regards, and various other reasons.  Only those who want to feel oppressed or really dislike a heavy Mormon influence will find it.  Many of those I think who dislike the atmosphere may be Mormon and because others are Mormon, do not feel unique or special in that way.
Outside of the Mormon Belt when you may be the only Mormon around (ahem, I mean, Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) it is far easier to feel as if you are special, or unique.  It is easier to feel that because there are so few of you, that you stand out and that makes you stronger.  It is harder to hide in the crowd if others know you are Mormon outside of Utah because many may expect things of you.  On the otherhand, because there is such a HUGE number of Members in Utah, sometimes it CAN be easier to hide.
There are many benefits to living in Utah today.  Underwear is easier to get (this actually is a big thing to be honest) if you are looking for a special type that applies to many Members.  Church books are more prevalent and easier to find.  Church tourist sites are normally easier to access (unless you are living in parts of the Northeast, or Nauvoo where there are also Church tourist sites).  Many neighbors will be Members and share your values. 
There are many benefits to living outside of Utah.  For example, I LOVE the environment of the South (US).  Utah is a very brown place compared to the South.  You do not realize just how green and vibrant the South (and much of the East coast I suppose) is until you've visited Utah and stayed there for a while.  Utah has very dry air and for someone that already has dry skin, that can actually be a detriment to healthy skin.  It is much harder to keep your skin from peeling and cracked in Utah than it is on the East Coast.  Unless you go into the Mountains, Utah lacks trees.  Even with the trees in the Mountains, Utah lacks the underbrush which grows so heavily in the South.  Utah has cold rain.  In the South, in the summer, the rain is warm.
Utah is RICH in LDS history, but doesn't have as much cultural richness in US history as the Eastern US.  You can't go visit the revolutionary war sites or the Civil War sites like you can out East.
I think there are benefits to Utah, and there are benefits to not living in Utah.  It boils down more to the individual than it does the area, I think.  Those who love to study the scriptures, to attend Sacrament meeting, and other things Saints do will be able to find it no matter WHERE they live. 
What matters more, I think is what type of area they want to live in.  The Green and Vibrant South, the Urban cities of the North, the quiet countryside of the North and the Midwest, the rolling fields of the great plains, the Deserts of the West, the Green Conifer Forests of the North West, what type of area and environment does one want to live in I think is far more important than whether they will have LDS influence or the impact of it on the culture they live in.  That is more up to the individual and their outlook than the area they live in itself.

Yesterday, I went with the missionaries to visit inactive families.  We got invited into one of the families’ home and I was knocked over by how beautiful her house is, like it was straight out of the Reveal portion of Fixer Upper.  Then I found out she has 2 rumbunctious boys under 8 years old.  Then I found out her husband just left her not too long ago and she’s been sick for a week.  And I almost bowed down chanting, “I’m not worthy”. 

I find it would be a similar situation today.  If the Lord came among men, not in an angelic progression from the heavens, but just to visit, and did miracles among them as he did for the Nephites and the Lamanites, how willing would people accept him?
If a prophet came among the Latter-day Saints but did NOT get authority from the Twelve or the First Presidency and then proceeded to command a mountain from one spot to the other, healed the sick, taught to the poor, and mingled with those we see as destitute and sinners as he taught them and criticized the Leaders of the world...how many of you think the Church leadership would LEAP to SUPPORT him.
Do you think they would proclaim him?  Or is it more likely they'd either ignore him or warn members that as he had not followed their specific chain of priesthood authority that he was not to be adhered to, despite the obvious miracles?
How many other Christian churches do you think would proclaim this visit?
And then he left again as it was just a visit prior to his official coming...how many do you think would actually support that he had a visit?
Many expect that when the Lord comes he will arrive and talk at General Conference or that the General Authorities will be made instantly aware...but what if that didn't happen.  What if, when he came he proclaimed that the Church Leadership was to no longer be the Church leadership and only he was to lead...what would their reaction be today?
I think in that instance, it will be MORE on what we hear from the Spirit and whether it confirms his words.  So far, everyone who has said something like this has been an imposter...but what about the day, if it comes, when it actually is not?
Do you expect that unless he arrives by some miraculous manner, that the Leadership of the Church would suddenly give up their leadership and bow down to an individual who had not received the authority in the prescribed manner as dictated by our Priesthood lines of authority and ordination to office that we do today?
Hopefully, today, they would...and will when the second coming arrives (which we do expect to have a glorious arrival), but this describes the type of situation that the Jews had when he came originally.
This is the situation we are talking about in the New Testament. 
They expected someone to come as a Savior from their enemies in glory and a great manifestation to their church leaders.  Those Church leaders expected someone who would be one of THEM, and had the authority granted by the measures granted in the church, as well as having constant glorious manifestations to THEM.
That is NOT what happened.
Thus, he represented a direct challenge to their authority and power as well as to the organizational lines of the Church of the time.  For all intents and purposes, with his Twelve Apostles, his ideas would be disbanding their leadership and replacing it with new ones.
It was a hard thing to accept for a normal Jew, much less a Church leader who had much of their identity engulfed within the current Jewish religion. 
When faced with such things people want to either keep to the Status Quo and get rid of the challenge, or if in power, keep their power and prestige and do all they can to diminish the power and prestige of the challenger.
Just like today where those in power might try to retain that power and diminish the impact of the Lord if he should come, which would make those who are the normal individual also wonder whether to believe the media and their leaders or not...this is very much like what happened anciently when he came to them as their Savior and Messiah.
As we see, some listened to the spirit or felt it and followed him, but many did not.  I think in some ways if it had happened today (rather than the meridian of time) it would actually turn out very similar in some ways.
 

It’s wonderful to see old friends are still here! ❤️

Hey @StrawberryFields, it's nice to see you here. So sorry for your health issues. I will be sending prayers for you.
M.

My problem with this thread is the not-so-righteous side of me usually wins out over the righteous side.
I had a beard right up until I was required to shave by my employer (for the next few years, I must be prepared to wear a respiratory mask). I only shave on days I go to work, though, so I'm always stubbly on Sunday.  And I don't care.
I've stopped wearing white shirts. period.  The very day I am released from working on the ward council, I will probably start wearing jeans and polo shirts to church. Mostly because I think somebody should be a little dressed down so that those who don't have the tie and slacks don't feel quite so out of place.
We are having a talent and interest night soon.  One of our members signed up to bring smoked meat.  I wrote down on the sheet "Brother Theta: Smoking"
My meeting agendas often have things like "Sister missionaries are now allowed to wear pants. No word yet on when elders may wear skirts."
About my only limit is I will not do something if I think there is even a small chance it will inhibit the ability for someone to have an uplifting experience during their worship. Other than that, anything is fair game.

I have wanted to pick up a well used coffee pot from Goodwill to sneak into the kitchen when no one is looking.  Accessorized with all the basic supplies and a few moderately stained mugs. 
Right up there with putting a bag of popcorn in the microwave and setting the timer to pop it during meetings on Fast Sunday. Or the same with some bread dough in the oven. 

Help an outsider. What's this inversion you guys are talking about? Is it popular to talk like Yoda now?

Respectively? You mean in some kind of order?
M.

If your understanding of modesty is limited to needing certain number of square inches of material to cover certain number of body parts... then your understanding of modesty is juvenile and immature.  Now we all have to start somewhere and that understanding is a decent start to modesty.  But if we lock that down as the end all and be all of what modesty is we have retarded our ability to progress in light and knowledge on the subject.   If in addition we start publicly berating the church  for not following our limited understanding we have compounded our ignorance, and retardation with pride and arrogance.  Repentance is needed stat.
Now lets tackle why the square inches of material covering certain body parts fails.  First we generally consider running around in public in just your underwear to be immodest.  This is true even if your underwear is a wrist to ankles one piece.  It was true back when that was fashionable underwear it is true now that it is not.  It would still be true if we considered a burka and face veil to be underwear... (which we do not).   That is one extreme...  Here is the others...  I can be perfectly modest without a stitch of clothes on.  I am not immodest just because I am taking a shower or a bath.  Nor am I generally considered immodest because I am changing my clothes in a bathroom or locker area.
From those extremes we can see that modestly can not be strictly defined by what you wear.  If it is we all (hopefully) fail to be modest on a regular basis.
Now you might point out the my examples are not fair.  There is after all a difference to what one might do in private and what one should do in public...  And that is exactly my point.  Circumstances can change what is modest and what is not.  For example  generally speaking if I am walking around town without a shirt on  I'd consider myself being immodest  (and no one wants to see that).  But if at a public pool swimming, I can feel perfectly modest in a pair of baggy swim trunks.  Circumstances matter, not just square inches of fabric.
So lets go to the subject of garments.  Garments are underwear, and therefore have all the modestly of underwear in general.  Garments generally have more square inches of material then most common underwear today but that does not make them innately modest because they are still underwear.  We are instructed to keep our garment covered for various reasons.  On the subject of modesty covering the garment is a good start.  But it is not the final word on the subject, it can not be.
The garment can't be the final word because the Lord looks on the heart.  Those who want to put up Pharisaical rules and laws will find themselves missing the heart of the matter. 
If you try it make the garment the standard rather then a first step, then you get people pushing the limit of standard as hard as they can (we all know people who have done this), and that is not what Christ wants.  Rather then trying to make the 'law' more restrictive (by resizing the garment) we should be helping people more fully understand what modesty really means. (And it is not the sum total of the number of square inches of fabric we are wearing)
 
 
 

My husband came with me and my son to church today and I don't know how he did it but he managed to quietly entertain our son for 30 minutes. Then he took our son out for the rest so I could stay in the meeting, it was a better week this week. 

Socrates 469-399 BC
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room."
 
 

I'm really excited about this. Homesickness was the hardest part of my mission, and it would have been a lot easier for me if I could have called home regularly. What a great change!
https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2019-02-15/latter-day-saint-missionaries-can-now-call-text-home-weekly-first-presidency-announces-49001

Honestly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that this could cause anxiety for someone. 

Yep, he sure was.

Was Sheldon Cooper in it? He did do an interview with Adam.....

First note that many of us who are giving you advice, have failed at some point.  A singular failure is not the end of the world.  We are talking more about repeated actions.  Second also note that your response needs to be age based.  For example you respond to a infant to feed them in the middle of the night when they demand it... whereas if your teenager wakes you in the middle of the night demanding food you have issues you need to deal with and it is not feeding them.
So as for tantrums the younger they are the less damaging it is to give in, but you must adapt and change as the kid gets older.  The older they are the more likely a warning (and follow through) of discipline can work.  Younger kids are less likely to understand such warning, but they are more easily distracted.  So those are options...  And of course there is always the option to basically ignore the tantrum.  If you are meeting the Kid's needs on a regular basis, a tantrum is not going to hurt them.  If you are in public get them where they aren't going to bother others and let them melt down. They spend a lot of energy and effort for nothing.  Then once they are done and back to normal... reward the restored normal and nice behavior  

We had a record breaking heat wave, with a bunch of temperature related weather records broken here last month. This is from the Bureau of Meteorology website. We had some visitors from the US in our ward last Sunday. They had come from somewhere where it had been about minus 30 C to where it was suddenly 35 C. Today it will just be a coolish 29 C
Australian Capital Territory in January 2019: A record warm start to the year
A series of heatwaves impacted much of Australia throughout January, with record warm temperatures observed in the ACT as a result. Thunderstorms brought close to average rainfall, with some strong winds and hail at times.
Record warm temperatures
Maximum and minimum temperatures were 3 to 6 degrees above average as a result of heatwaves which impacted much of Australia in January Further information about the heatwaves that have affected large areas of the country can be found in the Special Climate Statement Widespread heatwaves during December 2018 and January 2019 Canberra Airport's mean maximum temperature was 34.5 °C, its warmest January mean maximum temperature on record at 6.3 °C above average and 1.7 °C above the previous record set in 2017 Tuggeranong also observed its highest January mean daily maximum temperature on record with 34.1 °C, beating its previous record by just over 2 degrees The temperature exceeded 35 °C on 19 days at Canberra Airport, just over 6 times the January average Canberra Airport had a record run of four consecutive days of 40 °C or above from 15 to 18 January, which had not previously occurred (since records began in 1939) On the 16th Canberra Airport recorded a maximum of 41.6 °C which equals the record for the highest January temperature recorded at the current site, but is just shy of the highest temperature of 42.2 °C recorded at the now closed Airport site in February 1968 Tuggeranong also recorded its highest January temperature on record with 40.8 °C on the 17th Canberra Airport and Tuggeranong observed their highest January mean daily minimum temperatures on record with 17.7 °C and 18.0 °C respectively, beating their previous records by 1 to 1.5 degrees The minimum temperature did not drop below 15 °C on 25 days at Canberra Airport, surpassing the record of 23 days set at the closed Airport site in January 2006  

It's really interesting to read this thread, and I much appreciate the calming comment from the moderator. Not many people who have been commenting have read the entire article. This article had sound and timely advice on what to do when a spouse loses his or her faith, which is an earth-shaking event. 
Please know that ThirdHour is staffed by people who want nothing more than to help Christ's work progress according to His eternal plan and that everyone there makes sacrifices so that will happen. They are careful. They are not "progressive" but they are aware that many Latter-day Saints are going through hard things that can ruffle the feathers of people whose "box" in the Church is carefully defined. They want to help, so they need to address these things in the best way possible. Please give them the benefit of the doubt.

I did want to see what it felt like to be President Oaks and have your words over sensationalized. I think this happens to him more than probably any church leader, and I wish that it didn't. Even when he has a very progressive and inclusive message, like this one, he is taken completely out of context and hammered by the critics. I knew my words would not be popular with this group. I even called it out in the second paragraph. It wasn't worded for you. It was the thing I debated back and forth all day. I did not want to upset the faithful members of the Church, but I still wanted to reach those who are much further away. In the end, I landed with it's better to be raw and vulnerable and take the criticism in order to be real, in a hope that it would reach those who are struggling.

Despite the leadership constantly telling us that they are not perfect, that they do make mistakes, that they do not always speak for God, somehow the membership continues to insist that they are perfect. That their opinions are God's opinion. That when they speak, they say everything that God would have them say. We continually rob them of their humanity.  When the leaders tell me that they're human, I believe them. And so am I. When I open myself up, I will do so honestly. Despite statists showing that a larger percentage of the membership does not align on everything from the leadership, it's terrifying to hear someone admit that they don't always agree. Terrifying to some, and relatable to others. It's can be scary to realize that not even the Apostles agree with each other all the time. 

No, I do not have to be a fan of everything President Oaks says in order to sustain him. I can agree with things he says, and there have been sometimes I have a hard time with how he says it. That's on me to seek my own personal revelation. I don't like to see people hurting because they want to belong in the Church, but they feel that they are not welcome. Maybe that doesn't bother everyone, but it's a difficult thing for me. I struggle seeing the heartache people experience because their loved ones do not share their faith and beliefs, and how that can divide a family. And here Pres Oaks was fighting to heal that divide and most will never realize what his real message was. 

I am sometimes grateful for the young children wandering through sacrament. Sometimes speakers talk for 1/2 an hour on their memories of childhood Christmas traditions or why they love our country. I think that they mean to be heartwarming. I guess that listening to such talks is an exercise in patience but sometimes I am just dying for relief. Having small children wandering around is a blessing at such times.
I remember one long talk which seemed to the speaker’s response to a private discussion between two ward members about their differing opinions with respect to a talk given at a funeral in the early days of the church. The speaker had his own views about the interpretation of this funeral speech and while the ward member had another. My guess is that this disagreement was years old and this was an opportunity to recruit followers to his side of the argument. I have no idea what the actual bone of contention was nor any idea what general gospel principle was involved. The speaker was enjoying himself a great deal to the extent that he actually changed colour in his face throughout the talk. To obtain some relief,  my friend and I tried to capture a few children as they wandered by. No luck. There was a Mom in front of us who was struggling with 3 toddlers. We asked if we could help. Sadly Mom was too embarrasssed by her situation to share and even apologized for the behaviour of her children. 
Honestly if it were not for small children weaving their way through the congregation I think I would lose my mind at times.