Wingnut

Here's the fun almonds recipe I use (haven't done it in a couple of years, though). I've never dipped them in chocolate -- just the caramelizing process. And it's fun, because you can flavor them however you want. I've done a few variations: cinnamon and sugar, dark cocoa powder and sugar, chili powder and lime juice. http://www.chefeddy.com/2009/12/caramelized-almonds/

Thanks! I'm trying to remember when I took this picture. I think I actually just stuck my camera inside a giant (like 4 pound) bag of Nestle chocolate chips while making pancakes one morning...lol!

My younger daughter (she'll be three in November) always asks me for "chocolate 'puter." She taps the screen on a good-looking morsel, and then brings her finger to her mouth, pretending to eat the chocolate chips. She does it three times, and then goes back to whatever was entertaining her before. Also, I took that picture. I'm pretty proud of it. :)

I didn't screen shot my desktop, but here's the photo I'm using for my background.

Introduce them to their local SBA and a bank.

An old man is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old man simply replied, "The one you feed."

I agree. I also think, though, that the OP is entitled to meet his wife's new beau, considering that she's apparently engaged and will have access to the children. He may not approve of the fiance, but he deserves to be allowed to meet him.

In the wake of the Ray Rice incident, a new pair of hashtags has emerged on Twitter. #WhyILeft is empowering, but #WhyIStayed is just as important: stories of women who either couldn't get out of an abusive situation, or who didn't feel they deserved to get out. Some of the #WhyIStayed stories are from women (and men) who weren't prepared to face down their demons yet.

Isn't one woman sexually assaulted (whether on or off campus) one too many?

Hmmmm...I see that all as equally uninvited, and equally inappropriate.

What do you see as being the difference between a whistle and a cat-call? Your comparison doesn't stand up. "Wow, he's a hunk" is something you say privately to the friend who is with you -- it's not a forward or uninvited comment made to said hunk.

You can be a feminist without being a female...

+1 to everything JAG said about changes.

You're kidding, right?

It's a piece of jewelry, so storage isn't an issue. And it's probably not interesting enough to go on display. :)

This is where I am right now, really. My great-grandfather passed away about seven years ago. (Technically he's my great-step-grandfather, but he and my great-grandmother married when my grandfather was less than 10 years old, I think.) I had a good relationship with him when I was a child, and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend his funeral on the other side of the country. About a year later, my parents gave me something that they found as they had been going through his effects. It was a gift meant for me, from his mother (my great-great-grandmother), who passed away when I was 6 or 7 years old, but who I vaguely remember. It was something that she had for many years (nearly half a century, in fact), and that she left specifically for me, though I never received it until I was 26 years old. As such, the only meaning it really holds for me is that it's a family piece that should feel important, but I'm not actually terribly attached to it. I think it would fetch a decent price, and I just was thinking about the idea of selling it.

I just finished reading a series by Michael Scott, called The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel. I actually read the first book four years ago, and really enjoyed it, but never got around to finishing the series. So I re-read it and kept going. The first two books were really great. The third was slower but still enjoyable. The fourth wasn't as good as at the beginning, but was still decent. The fifth was odd and the sixth was just all over the place. And the ending was disappointing, and left a lot of loose ends. And, as happens when you read any series straight through, there were a lot of minor inconsistencies. Now I'm on to reading the Divergent series.

Family history is something that's important to me. Particularly important are the stories and people, not the dates and facts. I enjoy learning new things, and hearing new stories. I tend to have some amount of reverence for items that have been in the family for a long time, or that have a significant personal history attached to them. Would you consider selling a family piece that was specifically gifted to you? It could be for a number of reasons: maybe you aren't particularly attached to the item, maybe you need the money, maybe you're just purging your belongings, maybe some other reason. Why or why not? Does your answer change depending on what the item is (jewelry, furniture, book, etc.)? Does your answer change if it's an item that is expected to be passed on sometime in the future (like maybe there's a tradition attached to it), versus a gift that was given just to you? Does your answer change depending from whom you received the item?

When I was on the Ward Council, we had 60-90 minute meetings, twice a month. They were great. In fact, I think they were really good. I was on the WC before the 2010 Handbooks and training came out, and we used to only have WC once a month, and it was mostly calendar/activity discussions, and missionaries. After the training and new Handbooks (which all focused a LOT on WC and other councils), we switched the twice monthly meetings, and changed up our format. We still struggled with missionaries droning on and on, but eventually that improved. We also tabled discussion about every.single.calendar.item, and began discussing ward members instead. We still talked about activities, but less in terms of planning specifics, and more in terms of: "how can we include primary children in this activity, other than as tagalongs?" "How can we improve activity attendance of the older widowed population in our ward?" "Is there a way that we can make this activity a motivator for less-active families to come?" We discussed needs of families, regardless of auxiliary. We made assignments and followed up. We had good working relationships with each other because we spend real time together. We became a council, instead of an event planning firm. Twice monthly can be a good thing. But when each meeting is over two hours long, it has probably ceased to be very productive, even if for no other reason than that no one wants to be there anymore, and everyone has mentally moved on to other things. Perhaps in your ward's case, you need to be aiming for a 60 minute meeting, and hope that it doesn't go longer than 90, rather than planning for 90 when you know you're going to go over. Personally, I see it as Christ would rather go and do something than sit around and talk about doing it. I think what MOE is saying is that he would walk out if he didn't like how long God was saying it. Not much better, but still...

Plain and simple, your leadership is not following the Handbook. https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/the-ward-council?lang=eng#46

My experience with ward council meetings that ran long could all be attributed to one thing: the ward mission.

I heard about this a few weeks ago, actually. I read about it on a personal blog or FB post or something from someone who was trying to adopt. They had been informed that as of September (or October, maybe?) that LDSFS would no longer place babies with adoptive families, but would still facilitate placement from single moms, etc. This was a friend of a friend, so no one that I know personally, but she also said that it was only affecting the Eastern US.

I had an Institute teacher/director once say that "character is following through on a decision once the emotion of the moment has passed." It may not be a unviersal definition, but I liked it, and it's stuck with me for years. As for the difference between your gut instinct and God, here are a couple of thoughts I have: God talks to us in ways that we will understand. Usually, that means in the form of our own thought process. Instinct is also an innate, God-given gift.

I read a nice write-up this morning, that I felt gave a fairer treatment than what I read yesterday in the NYT, and which also gave more background information. It also includes links to the letters that were sent to both of these members. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58056757-78/kelly-font-scribd-dehlin.html.csp It turns out that I was wrong earlier when I said that both Kate Kelly and John Dehlin were still members in good standing, as far as we knew. Kate had received a letter from her stake president last month, following up on a meeting with him, that placed her on informal probation, but which specifically stated that she was no longer able to say that she was a member in good standing. John had recently requested no contact from church members, missionaries, or leaders, and had also requested no home teachers. Effectively, he's removed himself from the Church already, all but formally. I do still feel for Kate, but less so for John, now that I'm aware of actions that he has already taken.

I was also wondering what you meant by the "the 'peter priesthood' view of women," so I appreciate the clarification. I'll tell you that your daughters' experiences are definitely on par with mine: that the 1950s housewife model is perpetuated by women in the Church far more than it is by men. It's disappointing to me, because I feel like women limit themselves with that attitude. Want to stay home with the kids? Great. It works for you, and you choose it. But don't push it universally on everyone, and don't judge people who make different family choices. Yes, I read today that she is currently living in Utah, while waiting to move to Kenya. The council is to be convened in Virginia, where she's recently moved from. Her bishop acknowledged knowing that she's moved from the area, and provided information on how she can still participate if she's unable to appear in person (letters, etc.). I think I agree with you on this, but only in a very literal way. I think that MOE is correct about Mormon Feminists in general -- that a definitive response to the effect that "we've inquired of the Lord, and He said no, at least for now," with perhaps some other discussion -- would be placated. Ordain Women as a group is more extreme than the general body of Mormon Feminists, and I think they would be greatly disappointed, and some might be satisfied, but the organization as a whole would likely just change tactics. I think the Church sometimes leaves ambiguities in place deliberately. Such an idea is in line with what we're taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, that "it is not meet that [the Lord] should command in all things." It also allows for personal interpretation of scripture, and personal revelation. Without ambiguity, neither would be necessary or helpful.