sensibility

Please take this in the gentle, non-judgemental tone that I mean it. I don't think your fixation on this girl is healthy, nor is it backed up by doctrine -- somebody becomes your eternal companion only after you marry them, not before. The prophets have been clear that we don't all come to earth with an 'assigned' spouse. I would recommend that you do seek professional psychological care to help you untangle this fixation. I think that will bring you much of the peace and freedom you are so desperately craving. Best of luck.

I suspect it has far more to do with the school's financial relationship with its food supplier than with the principal genuinely caring what the kids eat. Less to do with the nanny state, more to do with unethical business relationships and practices. I'd be extremely angry too, especially as I've never seen a cafeteria produce genuinely healthful food. What a disgusting situation.

Well, I'm normally quite strict about not going back to internet conversations after I've left, but since I was obviously very, very unclear in my last post -- That sentence was not my advice to gay members or my personal conclusion. Again, I'm an active member in good standing, and I don't plan on ever leaving the Church. I wrote that because it is the inevitable conclusion if you believe that anyone who has enough faith will be healed of homosexuality. I was merely trying to show how deeply harmful that suggestion is. Hopefully that helps make it more clear.

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate that it comes from a place of deep faith in the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement. I applaud that, because, obviously, I believe those things too. But again, I see that you're assuming that an unconscious physical reaction (sexual attraction) is on par with a conscious behavioural decision, and I simply can't agree with that. I see that you consider any physical attraction -- to anyone but one's spouse, I assume -- to be lust, a sin. I personally strongly disagree with that. Sexual attraction is instinctive, God built it into us to inspire holy marriages and lots of babies. Lust is when we misuse that attraction by choosing to dwell on or fantasise about inappropriate people. I'm attracted to women; however, I dismiss those thoughts when they come to me. Because of that, I don't in any way consider that I am guilty of the sin of lust. My conscience is completely clean in this matter. Anyway, now I'm going to say something which is deeply offensive to much of the mainstream gay community, but which I personally believe: homosexuality is a physical abnormality. There is something wrong with my body which means that I'm not driven to mate with those I can actually reproduce with. One study found that lesbians tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers; the researchers suggested that both could be caused by exposure to high levels of androgens in the womb. My ring fingers are longer than my index fingers, as it happens; I didn't choose that. Shock therapy can't cure that. It's a physical phenomenon, and this study suggests that my sexual orientation could come from the same thing. In the next life, I expect a perfect body which doesn't have the abnormality of homosexuality, and who knows, maybe I'll get a more feminine finger length ratio as well. But for this life, I am in an imperfect body, and I am limited by its imperfections. Homosexuality is a physical state of being. It isn't a behaviour. Anyway, these conversations are always very upsetting to me, as I've indicated previously, so I'll be bowing out now. But as I do, I would like to suggest to all my lovely straight brothers and sisters in the Gospel that conversations on this track do much more harm than good, especially at Church. You may feel very safe having these conversations at Church, surrounded by the bright-eyed faithful, but I promise you that some of those bright-eyed faithful have SSA, and this sort of thoughtless pontification hurts them. When you tell us that SSA can be cured by faith, you're setting up an enormous false dichotomy: we can either be sufficiently faithful, or we can be gay. We can't stop being gay. Almost without exception, we will be gay for the rest of our lives. And if that means we can never be sufficiently faithful, then what is the point of staying in the Church? That's the message this conversation sends to gay members every single time it comes up. I would respectfully ask that you stop sending it. Over and out.

Traveler, I'm not going to try to argue the basis of homosexuality with you, as frankly I can't even wrap my mind around comparing human sexuality to a Pavlovian response. What I'm wondering is this: let's pretend that we all suddenly saw the light and agreed with you. Absolutely, homosexuality is learned, at some point that no actual gay people can remember or influence! The fact remains that it cannot be unlearned, despite your protestations to the contrary. Many people more qualified than you have tried and resoundingly failed to "retrain" homosexuals. Everything from prayer to counselling to severely unethical aversion therapy has failed. So why does the origin of the homosexuality matter so profoundly? What would it change about the discourse? What meaningful purpose does this question serve?

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -- Gandhi It is really, really painful to be gay in the Church. I'm in a straight marriage, so I'm positively swimming in straight privilege. I have the easiest situation imaginable. And I still find discussions of homosexuality deeply painful, so I can only imagine how much worse they are for most gay members. I'm sorry for what you've experienced, and I hope that we can see the Church membership move towards greater charity in our lifetimes. I think we're headed that way, at a rate approximately on level with continental drift . . . but that's where we're going. Hopefully the Saints will continue to become more worthy of the God and the Gospel we represent.

I've heard them all. Like I say, I do think there will be a reckoning. And I think God will compensate those who were failed by the Church members who should be acting in His name. But that doesn't stop the harm it does now.

That's a terrible story. I do wonder how often he went to Church, looking for solace, and was instead bombarded with people's theories of what gay people did wrong to become gay, or are failing to do that would cure them, or whatever other things straight people say to try to convince themselves that their sexuality is their reward for being inherently better than gays. Perhaps we were less valiant in the pre-existence? Who knows. But in all the theoretical shuffle, it is easy to forget that you are talking about real live children of God, and those theoretical discussions are deeply, deeply harmful. It makes me think of this, from President Kimball -- Many members of the Church who would be the first to leap up to support one another in illness, in bereavement, in poverty, have metaphorically washed their hands of the responsibility to support gay members. I don't think God will let them off that easily, and I do believe there will be a reckoning one day. But meantime, there are a lot of people whose needs are not being met, because the people who have a responsibility to meet them have turned away. And we wonder why gay members don't want to hang around?

Rameumptom . . . mate . . . it's been a long time since Lamarck. Can we leave him in the past? Traveler, I hope you didn't really recommend National Geographic for scientific research? National Geographic is not a scientific source. Anyway, as a card-carrying clergy-recommended temple-married Mormon in good standing, can I please add my voice that my same-sex attraction was not acquired, learned, adopted, imitated or affected. I'm attracted to women. I have been for as long as I've known what attraction was. I'm married to a man, but my marriage is a miracle, and just like God doesn't see fit to heal every Saint who has an illness, God doesn't arrange a miraculous marriage for every Saint with SSA. If you are straight, that's great for you. Congratulations! Please don't try to teach those of us who are gay what is going on inside our heads, because I promise we know better than you do. Soulsearcher, is patience your superpower?

My parents were strongly opposed to my marriage; they respected my decision and didn't actively try to stop me, but they thought it was a really bad idea. But I have a fantastic marriage. My husband and I are a fabulous match. However, we'd been best friends for nearly six years before we got married. We knew each other very well indeed. Their doubts didn't shake me, because I knew they were wrong (after all, I was eighteen/nineteen. Teenagers always know better than their parents. ). I wouldn't be concerned about their opinion, especially considering they scarcely know you; I would be concerned that it's shaken you up so badly. If you're not very secure in your relationship, marriage might not be a fantastic idea at this point. How soon is the wedding? Will you spend a while together in a non-long-distance relationship first? Oh, and if you do decide to go ahead with it, make sure you have some very clear conversations about where to set boundaries with your respective parents. While his parents' concerns might be genuine and even warranted, it's equally possible that they're just very controlling people who can't stand to see their son making his own decisions. In-laws can be a huge stress in marriage, so do proceed with caution. Best of luck.

I don't think using specific buzzwords equals respect. I don't feel disrespected when young people call me by my first name, and I wouldn't want them to call me ma'am. Society has changed, and I don't expect that people of my generation will demand the same markers of respect that older generations did; more casual forms of address are becoming the 'proper' protocol. And I don't feel any obligation to correct kids to your comfort level. I agree that gossiping about other adults, complaining about the parents' own authority figures, etc, are much greater factors in how children respond to adults. And if my children only behaved because they feared what I would do to them, I would consider that I had failed in every respect as a parent. The military is a terrible model for the rest of society.

I hope this isn't of imminent concern for you . . . I haven't, but I'm booked in to have one at a midwife-run birthing centre -- hopefully quite soon, since I'm due tomorrow. You aren't allowed to use the tub if you've had drugs other than laughing gas, so yes, it's drug-free by definition. Water is considered a form of pain relief in and of itself; whether that's just because the water relaxes women so they don't tense up as much or what, I don't know, but I would say 99% of women I've spoken to about it said that being in the tub was much less painful. (Also, the midwives have put up a disco ball above the birthing tub. That pretty much clinched it for me. ) I have spoken to a couple women who said the water didn't actually make much difference for them, though, so there are no guarantees. Why don't you want to go to a hospital?

True. But it is not a guarantee in any way, shape or form. God does work miracles for His children, no denying that, but sometimes the miracles take funny shapes. For some people -- none of whom I have ever spoken to personally -- He might work the miracle of completely ridding them of same-sex attraction. For some people, such as myself, He works the smaller, quieter miracle of helping them find one person they can be blissfully happy to marry, even if they can't even imagine being with anyone else of the opposite sex. For some people with same-sex attraction, just as for some who are straight but never find a partner, the miracle is giving them the strength to get through life without a spouse. I think it's very clear in our doctrine that SSA is a challenge, not a sin. And a lot of times, maybe even most times, the challenge is here to stay for this life. It's dangerous at best to insist otherwise. HappyGuy, I wish you all the best. I know what a dark place you're in right now. My advice to you would be to, first, pray for comfort and the Spirit's guidance. Then go to the scriptures and study everything you can find about the Plan of Salvation, the laws of justice and mercy, our eternal destinies, eternal marriage, and why we need to grow in faith and righteousness to reach exaltation. Try to see how it all fits together. Draw diagrams and charts if you have to. Then pray some more. If you truly do want to understand it, it will come together for you. If you don't want to understand it and you go in looking for reasons to declare it bogus, you probably won't. But understanding the Plan is absolutely vital for a true testimony, especially for those of us who struggle with SSA, so I hope you can find the sincere desire to understand why God set it up the way He did, and that you can begin to see how every facet of it is a reflection of God's absolute love and mercy towards His children. You won't find that understanding from talking to us, from looking at websites about the Church, from Sunday School or from Sacrament meeting talks -- you'll find it through scripture study and prayer, and asking the Spirit to be with you at all times.

They've been reading the letter for years too. I remember it when I was a Beehive, which means that the current crop of kidlets mostly weren't even born when they started saying this. I think parents should definitely teach their children to bear testimony -- at home. I've seen very little ones who could bear strong testimony, and who knew to bear testimonies of the things they personally believe -- one adorable little boy in my last branch once bore testimony that Adam was a prophet, and the first person on earth (along with bearing testimony of Christ, the scriptures and our current prophet), bless his little heart. But mostly I see little kids who just want to do what the grown-ups are doing, and that's not what testimony meetings are for. Family home evening is a much better setting for kids to practice and for parents to teach what a testimony is, and what it isn't.

We sustain the prophets and apostles as prophets. However, that doesn't mean they're the only people in the world with the gift of prophecy; Joel 2:28-29 says, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." You could even argue that we've all been commanded to seek after the gift of prophecy (D&C 46:8). However, yes, the president of the Church is the only one authorised to lead the world. Anyone who received the gift of prophecy and then attempted to usurp the president's role of leadership would distance themselves from God, the heavens would withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord would be grieved, and that person would lose their gift. So basically I see it as a moot point. God gives people the gifts they need to fulfil their personal stewardships. So while an individual could well receive prophecies about the world, they will be for the benefit of that person only, perhaps their family, as only the authorised president of the Church receives revelations for the world. People who try to extend themselves beyond their stewardships open themselves up to Satan's influence, and I wouldn't touch their prophecies with a barge pole.

Wow, she seems really wrapped up in the idea of a hierarchy of friends. I think it's a bit unhealthy to be offended that your friends and family share things with people who aren't you. There's no reason baby pictures should be restricted to grandmas and, you know, closest bosom buddies. I'm glad she's not my mother-in-law, that's all. She also projects an awful lot of very sleazy motivations on other people. How does she know people are posting to brag about their awesome lives, and not just because they want to share something with their friends? How does she know whose pages other users visit and why? Well . . . she doesn't. She's assuming, and it's a little disheartening that she chooses to assume they have the worst possible motivations. What a sad way to view the world. Facebook isn't bad; it's ubiquitous. It's so big and so multi-faceted that it can be used to do really good things (my visiting teachers make appointments with me over Facebook!) or really bad things. Saying that Facebook is bad because of the way one married woman used it is like saying newspapers are bad because some married people post personals ads. Trying to generalise something about "Facebook users" is like trying to generalise about newspaper readers; it's pretty much a non-starter. I don't really want to be defending Facebook, because I don't actually like it. I think the website is pretty clunky, I hate games and apps and fan pages for everything and 'I dropped my cell phone in the toilet, please leave your number here!' groups. And I think most people would benefit from a bit of spring cleaning on their Facebook pages. But Facebook is a tool just like any other, and it's not inherently bad. (Ironically, when I googled the title of a book she wrote, one of the first pages to come up was a Facebook page which recommended her book. What does that imply about Facebook users, I wonder?)

I was told the same thing when I made my first garment purchase (and I didn't get a discount on the garments, though I did get half-off on the white clothing and the ceremonial clothing). At ~$7 a pair, though, they are still much more expensive than the underwear I bought before (does that make me look like a cheapskate?). I'm looking at having to buy maternity garments in the very near future, and I'm actually really struggling to see where the money's going to come from. I'm sure I'll find a way, but it truly is a lot of money for us at the moment. Possibly I'll have to rig up some sort of corset out of duct tape to make my normal ones last longer . . .

I agree. Most of the Church service projects I've been involved in have been chosen for how enjoyable/social it would be to render the service. I especially remember one year at EFY where we coloured car mats for orphanages -- I'm sure they made some little kids happy, but I can't help but feel that with the thousand or so hours of manpower we had that afternoon, we could have done something a little more solid. I don't know -- maybe I'm wrong. I do have fond(?) memories of one year of girl's camp, though -- the leaders wanted us to do some sort of service project for the people who ran the campground we were using. So they asked what we could do to be of service and got back the prompt answer: we could clear some trees. The poor leaders tried to find another project, explaining that we were a group of teenage girls, but that was the only thing the campground wanted done. So we cleared trees. I still remember watching tiny little Beehives struggling to drag trees (small trees, obviously!) along the ground. It wasn't a popular service project among the girls, but it was a real service. I think, especially in youth, it can be difficult to coordinate a decent service project during normal weekly activities. You only have an hour and a half; if you want to go to someone's house, you have to coordinate transport and get parents' permission for that. If the project sounds too very boring, some youth definitely won't show up. You still have a pretty small budget to work with . . . I don't know. It's difficult. But I've noticed the same thing, and I agree completely. Though if anyone wanted to bring me cookies, I certainly wouldn't object. Mmmm, cookies . . .

Well, I think initiatories are my very favourite to perform -- I love listening to the promises in the sealings, but the kneeling does tend to make me a bit woozy. Both of those ordinances are absolutely amazing, though. The temple's great. I've definitely had some pretty chatty sealers. The man who actually performed my marriage, though, wasn't -- I think he talked for literally about two minutes before jumping into the ceremony. Which suited me just fine (and probably suited my seven younger siblings who were waiting alone in the annex even better -- especially the six-year-old, since it was his birthday and he was being very brave and unselfish to share the day with me, but he was definitely ready to move on to his party. ), but caught my parents a little off-guard, I think!

I'm very confused. Are we still talking about Obama's obesity program? Because all I've been able to find is that he's ordered a review of the existing government obesity programs, earmarked some funds to improve the free meals given to low-income children, and there seems to be some change in food labelling proceedures. And Michelle Obama is heading what appears to be essentially a (very large!) public-awareness campaign. I'm not a particular fan of Obama, but I'm really struggling to see how any of those infringe on anyone's civil rights. What have I missed?

There was a very prominent 20/20 episode about Romanian orphanages in 1990; I know several people who were adopted from Romania after their parents saw that episode. I suspect that's what you're remembering. You're also right that many of these children did come out of the experience with Reactive Attachment Disorder, which is severe and heartbreaking but unrelated to autism.

Exactly -- one of them said something like, "we think these young women are pink." Their young women must be very different to mine, I suppose. I've always liked the fact that Personal Progress is so customisable (and rightly so, since it's personal) -- I think there are plenty of "boy things" that would make absolutely fabulous PP goals. I do like their increased focus on the temple and the Book of Mormon, though, so I'm looking at the positives! I think you're right about the busyness. I have the just-retired version, and I picked silver without thinking twice, so I'm also glad they kept that.

The most important advice I can give you is this: do not kneel for an hour straight. If you do (let's say your ward is scheduled to do sealings, and you are, hypothetically, one of two people to show up), make sure you take some time to sit down after you've finished kneeling. You don't want to faint in the temple, or have to sit down abruptly in the middle of the temple hallway to keep from fainting. It's a little embarrassing . . . haha . . . yeah. But seriously. Aside from that, I do love doing sealings -- probably one of my favourite ordinances. They're beautiful. I especially like doing family names, but of course that's always true. I hope you enjoy it! :)

Has anyone received the new Personal Progress materials yet? We're still waiting on them in our ward. So far as I can find online, the new changes are basically: 1) Updated books -- new cover, include the Virtue value, and minor changes to all the other values. They appear to be spiral-bound, which I think is fabulous. They're also pink. 2) Young Women will receive certificates when they move from class to class. 3) Young Women receive a scripture bookmark ribbon whenever they complete one value, along with the sticker emblems we had before. 4) The medallion has been redesigned to include the age group symbols -- beehive, rose, laurel wreath -- and a ruby. It's also round. 5) Young Women can now receive a bee-shaped Honor Bee charm after finishing their Personal Progress. The requirements are to read the Book of Mormon again and to serve others for 40 hours, including some time mentoring another Young Woman in her Personal Progress. 6) The torch logo is now all gold, presumably to reflect the Virtue value(?). I think it was blue and red before. Have I missed anything? I'm making a video about the changes to show to my Young Women, so I'd hate to leave out something important. I love the addition of the Honor Bee charm -- I think it's good to give Young Women something specific to work towards after they receive their YWR (and hopefully motivate them not to procrastinate finishing until their last few months in Young Women's!), and scripture study and service are two of the most important things I can think of. I also love the ribbons; you can always use more bookmarks in your scriptures. I don't like the new medallion so much, though -- I just think the old one was prettier. Perhaps I'm biased. Do you like the fact that they've made the new books pink? They're very excited about it -- I definitely preferred the purple. What do you think?

So I guess I'm in the minority here . . . I hate alcohol (as a beverage, not as a chemical compound). It does terrible things to people, and the world would be better without it. I wouldn't base my career around selling it any more than I'd base my career around, say, going around kicking people in the kneecap. I'd prefer to make a more positive contribution to the earth than increased liver disease, heart disease, cancer, alcoholism, accidental death and crime. So no, I've never considered bartender as one of my potential career paths. It doesn't really have much to do with the Word of Wisdom; I don't think drinking alcohol is actually a sin unless you've made a covenant not to (as all Church members have). I wouldn't have a problem working at Whittard or another tea shop, for instance. Tea isn't likely to cause many problems beyond yellow teeth -- in fact, my husband and I keep tea in our house for when my in-laws visit. I probably wouldn't work at a coffee shop, but that's because I know how tasty some of those coffee drinks look to me. And I wouldn't have a problem working as a waitress who occasionally served wine or beer as long as I wasn't working somewhere that people actually drink to get drunk. But I would never choose to dedicate a very significant portion of my mortal probation consciously promoting and encouraging something that will increase human suffering. I'd probably feel the same even if I weren't LDS. But speaking as someone who is, I can't imagine the Spirit would come to work with me, and I'm not sure I'd even be able to ask him to.