Wingnut

I read that same quote, too. I really feel for that person. I feel for Kate Kelly and for John Dehlin. The events of the coming weeks (and months?) for these two will be difficult for me emotionally. I sympathize with many of Kate's ideas, though not her methods. Or at least, not the methods of Ordain Women. I don't know enough about John Dehlin to say the same for him. I experience a lot of cognitive dissonance as a Mormon Feminist. I empathize with those women who have difficulties in the Church, perceived or otherwise. I don't currently support female ordination, though if current policies (or doctrines) are changed, I definitely won't be sorry to see it happen. I love the prophet(s) and do my best to follow their teachings. But I also feel that there is a lot of room for change in policies, practices, and administrative areas within the Church. I have a strong testimony of the Gospel, but I also have strong personal opinions and feelings. Sometimes it's hard to reconcile those with each other. And so I wage war in my head. I trust the Church to be discreet with regard to disciplinary actions. They have strict no-comment policies in place for high-profile (and other) cases like this. John Dehlin and Kate Kelly each contact media outlets, it appears, and they're welcome to do so. I feel that doing so, to an extent, is digging their own graves, however.

Can we straighten something out in this thread, please? In case you only read the OP, but not the linked article, you might not realize that neither Kate Kelly nor John Dehlin have been excommunicated. They've each been notified, by their own individual local leaders, that they are now subject to official Church disciplinary action. Such action has not yet taken place. They are currently still members of the Church, in good standing, even, so far as we can tell.

Are "friends" relevant in the forum setup? You're welcome to add me if you want, but I don't actually interact with friends on here, outside of forum threads. :)

I think that there are only a handful of people in the world who have adequate information to make judgements on this topic, and I think that's mostly okay. In the meantime, I'm not one of them, and I'm just glad that the Bergdahl family can have some peace and closure to this period in their lives. If he stands court marshal, fine. But his family knows that he's alive and again on American soil (well, soon to be, I think). I can't help but be happy for them for that.

I would agree with the first part of this -- great idea. The second part I'd be willing to let slide where she's committed to join a Girl Scout troop. Assuming she actually does that with gusto, it will easily serve as a wholesome, enriching, and even uplifting (albeit not spiritual) alternative to Mutual activities.

She can't donate blood through Red Cross until she's 17 years old. If it were up to me, I might be willing to make some of the parental concessions, because at this point I can see how pushing back will only make things worse. However, if family scripture study and FHE were already part of the family routine, she would not be permitted to be excused from those -- they are family things, not church things. And if FHE is "boring," she'd be welcome to plan the lesson herself.

You may feel that way "on principle," but statistically, you're wrong. A child is far more likely to be abused by someone they know -- someone close to them, in fact, than by a stranger. I agree that they go hand in hand. I'm not a medical professional. I'm not trained to work with teens or talk with them about the medical side of these issues. As a parent, I have stewardship over my child, and I'm blessed to be able to teach them whatever I feel is necessary (theoretically). That's why I said that I would teach the moral aspects at home, but in the meantime, they need all the information as well. I don't expect a doctor to teach my child anything about the morality of sex -- I might be upset if a doctor did, because it's unlikely that his/her brand of morality would match my family's. If my child chooses to go against the morals that I teach her, I expect her to feel comfortable talking to her doctor about safe sex. In fact, if my daughter comes to me at 14, and tells me she's having sex, the first thing I'm going to do is make sure she's on birth control. We'll deal with the spiritual ramifications after we make sure there won't be a baby to deal with.

Your feelings aside, did you note that this is a local, state law, not a federal one? This has nothing to do with President Obama's physical stamina. My daughters are currently six years old and two-and-a-half years old. I consciously strive to develop the kind of relationship with them that they will tell me if they become pregnant at a young and/or unmarried age. But my husband and I are not the only adults that they should be able to trust. They need to have opportunities to confide in teachers or doctors or other appropriate mentors if necessary. This issue is completely separate from my parenting. I actually see it very similarly to why I'm against "abstinence only" sex education programs. Statistically, they do not work. I think (I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I read up on it) that they're actually less effective than no sex ed at all! My kids -- all kids -- need to have appropriate sexual education, including anatomy and reproductive processes of both genders, as well as birth control options. It's my job at home to teach them the moral side of their sex ed training. I just look at this issue differently, I think, than most others in this thread. This law is about my child, not about me. It's about my child's rights and safety, not my rights. I feel that this law is something that makes my (and others') children safer, even if that means keeping them safe from me or my husband. Having that perspective, I honestly cannot understand any objection to it.

Sounds to me like the mom is pretty uptight. Her daughter is 17, and Mom is completely deluded if she thinks that the daughter isn't getting information about sex and drugs from anyone but her. Laws like this make people who have nothing to hide, completely uncomfortable, but they are absolutely necessary. A doctor who offers a 13-year-old girl birth control isn't encouraging her to have sex. He's assuming that that she already is having sex, or is likely to do so soon, which is, like it or not, accurate. He's helping prevent her becoming a teen mom, which is a responsible thing for him to do. Same thing with a boy and condoms. Children who are abused by their parents aren't going to accuse the parents while in the same room. Many won't accuse the parents even in a safe space, largely because such a thing doesn't exist in their minds. Parents who abuse their children are also the least likely to permit those children to be in a room alone with an authority figure who could do something about. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to hide. So why am I going to get upset about it?

Lol at the last part. Regarding the workplace, because it's simply inappropriate. I suppose I probably should have specificied "a male boss/supervisor." If your boss is a female and you've developed a good relationship with her, and you even occasionally get together or "hang out" outside of work, and she comments on you losing weight, or a flattering blouse, etc., I think that would be a different circumstance, because there's an extended relationship there. But an opposite-gender boss should not be making remarks about your physical appearance, pretty much ever. A simple observation, "nice haircut," for example, might be alright. Maybe it's overly PC on my part, but it's also against the law.

Bjjulie, I'm sorry for your experiences. I'm sorry they've been so seemingly universal as well. That's not only unfortunate, it's also unusual. I've only had one bishop I can think of that I had personal problems with, and they were -- I think -- issues less misogynistic and more, quite simply, thoughtless and insensitive on his part. I've never in my life, until that bishop, hard a hard time sustaining any of my leaders. I tried to separate the personal man from the bishop man, and that helped a little, but not much. I also worked with a branch president on my mission who was, to a T, exactly one of the descriptions you listed above (though I won't say which). This is why I was somewhat concerned with the second bullet point in the letter from public affairs (full text here: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-lds-church-responds-to-criticism-and-details-efforts-to-reach-out-to-women/). That is, "Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive." I feel, unfortunately, that the point was completely missed here. When a woman doesn't feel safe in her ward, and it's because of a feminist-related issue, it's usually that she doesn't feel safe in regards to ward leadership, and in particular, those of the male gender. When she doesn't feel safe in that context, she certainly won't go to said leadership to discuss her concerns. Going to a RS president (as suggested in the letter) could help, emotionally, but I still see several potential issues with that: (1) a man who is in a leadership position where he tends to demean women beneath him (whether intentional or not) is likely to call a RS president who is more of a puppet or conformist than someone who will challenge him. (2) women can often be worse to each other (emotionally) than men can be toward women. (3) while it might help emotionally, talking to the RS president isn't likely to actually accomplish anything. I know what it's like to not feel safe, sheperded, or wanted at church, though for issues aside of feminist ones. It's not a good feeling. It made me not want to come back. I really struggled for a few months about whether or not to continue coming to church. I knew I could feel the Spirit and learn and be uplifted in other faiths, as well as be accepted as I am. In the end, the same as bjjulie, I decided to stay because of my testimony, and because I wanted to honor the covenants I'd made. I can't quite tell from bjjulie's post, based on one negative experience after another and another, if she feels that all local LDS leadership are like this (anti-feminist, misogynistic, etc.), of if she just isn't going to take a chance again. I certainly don't feel that it's a blanket condition, though I know that it does, unfortunately, exist. I saw this shared by a friend this morning on Facebook, and I felt it was appropriate. In case you can't click through to see the image, it's a meme that says, It's not about "not all men harass women." It's about "all women have been harassed by men." I'm still not sure it's accurate to make that blanket statement either, but consider this: If you're a woman who's ever been cat-called, you've been harassed.If you're a woman whose boss has ever make a remark about your physical appearance, particularly if it made you uncomfortable, you've been harassed.If you're a woman who's been told that you need to keep your arms covered, your necklines high, and your skirts long to prevent men from having lustful thoughts, you've been harassed.I could go on. And it's not just about harassment, but also about belittling, dismissing, and ignoring. It's real, and it happens, even in the LDS Church. It's regrettable and it needs to change. This letter, generally, is a step in the right direction, but I feel that in some areas, it misses the mark, widely.

My dad bought me a Ninja blender for Mothers Day (eeeee!!!!), and it finally just came in the mail on Tuesday. So I'm in smoothie mode right now, except that I don't have smoothie fruit in the house... I need to go to the store. I remembered this morning, however, that I had a smoothie packet in the freezer from when I had put a bunch together with my mom during one of her visits to us...two and a half years ago before my daughter was born. The Ninja blended with ease, but the smoothie just tasted kind-of freezer-burned. Major let-down!! Lol.

Oh apple. No words. Just hugs and love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T68TvdoSbI

I won't read Twilight. I enjoyed Hunger Games, until halfway through the second book, and I just couldn't deal with the politics anymore. However, I definitely didn't think that Katniss (other than her ridiculous name) was a "stupid female." She was strong in the first one, and then crazy and PTSD-ed in the rest. I've only seen the movies of Mortal Instruments (City of Bones) and Divergent, so far, and I'm inclined to somewhat agree on the first, but not the latter. Not so far, anyway. I plan to read the Divergent series this summer.

I am currently assigned 1 sister. I don't visit her at all. I visit taught this sister about 6 years ago for a year and a half. She's in her 90's and is now in a "home" and has dementia. I'm not comfortable with her (for many reasons), and I'm not particularly comfortable with my assigned companion, either. When I received this assignment about 3-4 months ago, I let the RS counselor and VT coordinator (who are both friends of mine) that I wasn't comfortable with it. I explained that I've taught this sister before and didn't think I could do it again. Although they both listened and were sympathetic, they haven't changed it since then. However, we have such a high turnover in our ward during the spring and summer months (we might as well be a student ward), the VT routes change every three weeks or so. I'm not exaggerating at all -- sometimes it's even more frequent than that, which is just ridiculous. So at this point, I'm just waiting for a summer change-up. If you've requested to not visit any sisters, particularly for specific reasons, the RS president should respect that. I would go to her again, explain that you are not able to visit, and that the sister(s) assigned to you is/are not being taught.

I wanted to plant about two weeks ago, but had a week of non-stop heavy rains. Then last week I just didn't get around to it, which turned out to be a good thing, because we had a frost warning overnight from Saturday onto Sunday this part weekend. I live in a suburban area with a small yard. But I've managed to make the most of it, garden-wise, such that even serious gardners in my area are jealous of me. :) I have a strip of raised bed about 40-45 feet long, and 2-2.5 feet wide along the side of my yard. Half of it runs between my house and my neighbor's driveway, and the other half runs between my neighbor's fence and the grass in my backyard. I've had the latter for five years now, but last year was the first year we did anything on the side of the house. We were worried that it wouldn't get enough sunlight, being tucked between tightly-sandwiched houses, but we did great over there last year! My plans for this year: Peas (I only did one row last year, not sure how they'd do, and they did great, so I'm going to do a lot more this time.)Green bell peppersCarmen red peppersJalapeñosZucchiniTomatoesCucumber (I haven't decided for sure yet.)SpinachGreen beans (I've done bush beans in the past, and successfully harvested two crops, which is impressive for where I live. Last year I tried pole beans for the first time, hoping I could maximize space. Instead, they just grew so thick and dense that nothing grew in between the first and fourth rows I planted, and they took until almost October to produce. Never doing that again...)Onions (I bought some Walla Walla starters!)Lettuce (I like a giant Caesar variety.)Potatoes (Might be too late by now...I'm not sure.)Garlic (I'll plant this in October)Hoping to get it all in this weekend! Oh, and I also have basil and cilantro.

Every time I've had hot chocolate from Starbucks, it's tasted coffee-ish. None of the other drinks (even those with caffeine) that I've had have even a hint of coffee or mocha flavor to me.

That one is confusing. Here's the text from the LDS.net article: Caramel Ribbon Crunch Creme Frappuccino – A creamy blend of milk and ice with four kinds of caramel. Be careful while ordering! The “Caramel Frappuccino” comes with coffee. That link goes to Starbucks' own page for the drink, where the first words in the description are "All caramel, no coffee." So really, I don't know why the author even wrote that it comes with coffee.

No, not really. You add mocha to coffee to make it not have coffee?

Take care that you don't give the Church a bad name, please.

Irreverent though it is, I often think of this. Usually it gives me a needed moment of release, and then I can think seriously again without simply seeing red.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones on Saturday night. Last Vegas last night. The first one I picked up because the description sounded intriguing. Not necessarily something I thought I'd like, but something that caught my attention and about which I was curious. The movie was okay. It's based on a book, and I could tell that there was a lot left out of the movie, that the audience was expected to know more than we were told. However, it got me interested in reading the books. I might pick up the series on audio for my road trip this summer. The second one was fun and enjoyable.

Oh yeah...Bakersfield is miserable (weather-wise, at least).

For an entire room, or spot cleaning? If the latter, I recommend Spot Shot. If the former, I have no idea.