LittleWyvern

Yeah, I should probably use the Thank button more often

I generally use the Thank button for two reasons: Somebody expressed something I was trying to say in a better/clearer way than I could.A post taught me something new or deepened my understanding on a particular topic.I suppose #1 happens when I agree with a person and #2 can happen when I don't agree with someone but learned something new about an opposing viewpoint anyway. #2 can also happen when I just plain learned something that I didn't know before, too (which happens often, considering I'm a Computer Science major in a religion forum ). EDIT: If I thank someone in a thread but don't post in it, it's because #1 happened and I lazily use it as an excuse not to post.

Yeah, it's not the Hostess that we knew last year, but I was expecting Little Debbie or somebody else to buy the rights to everything and rebrand Twinkies as Little Debbie Twinkies. I'm mostly surprised that the Hostess name still exists, but I guess brand recognition is that powerful.

I'm pleasantly surprised Hostess is giving it another shot. Twinkies is a great brand and I knew some company was going to buy it and get it going (much to the disagreement of the "Unions Destroyed Twinkies!" hysteria), but I wasn't expecting Hostess to restructure and try picking up where they left off. From what I've been hearing about the changes, I think we'll see Hostess do much better over the next few years than the last few years.

As far as Java goes, it's a rare language in that not only are there official tutorials, they are also quite good. All she'd need to get started with Java would be the JDK, an IDE--a program that makes developing code easier (either Eclipse or Netbeans are great, it's really just up to personal preference), and a desire to experiment. As far as apps go, Java is a good place to start there too because Android apps are programmed in that language. Google has some great tutorials, and the only other thing you need to develop Android apps is the Android SDK. There's also Android plugins for both Eclipse and Netbeans which makes it really easy to get started. EDIT: If she wants to get back into web development instead, she probably just needs to brush up on PHP and javascript.

If you're talking about computer programming, there's loads of excellent and free resources out there to get up to speed on modern concepts. Udacity is the first site that comes to mind, but if there something specific she needs to learn then I can suggest sites more focused toward a specific subject. If you're not talking about computer programming, then I'm really embarrassed.

Apple users wouldn't dare keep a light bulb long enough for it to burn out. Why keep your iLight N around when Apple just released the iLight N+1 that's totally* different and better? * Not really.

You're missing a zero there.

Sorry - I thought I had made it clear, but I was responding to something bytor said. Perhaps I should lay off the multiquote button for a bit.

Of course there's a balance between being too inclusive (being "too nice" or overusing "everyone's a winner") and not being inclusive at all ("tough luck kid," etc.). I'm trying to say that it's important to try to find this balance. All of these names you've been using--whiny, weak, entitled, mamby pamby(?), jack wagon(??)--don't sound very tongue in cheek to me. You're using them as the basis of your arguments. I hope it does too. However, I still don't see how making little Johnny and/or Sally feel bad because we can is somehow required for this to happen. It's not their fault, and they probably make themselves feel bad enough on their own.

I know life isn't fair, but I'm worried about that fact being used as an excuse to not even try to be sensitive to people's needs/situations (and then call them all sorts of names). I think kids will develop backbones even if we try to be nice to them. I think we can just fine. Like I said before, I'm not opposed in the slightest to having separate Mother's day and Father's day (I just don't think Family day is some sort of gay/lesbian apocalypse). I think making allowances as needed will satisfy the concerns of those worried about children feeling left out of Mother's/Father's day, but we won't help anything if we use "life isn't fair" to conclude that children are going to become whiny, weak, entitled, etc. if we try to make any allowances for them. As a sidenote, I never knew that political correctness implied that you had to be nihilist.

I disagree here, because I don't think that celebrating both fathers and mothers (and grandparents) in the same holiday somehow reduces the family to some amorphous grey blob. As I understand it, this holiday tries to recognize all the members that make up the family that we live with and stay in contact with, even if it's a kid that lives with an aunt/uncle. There's more people in this crowd of "people we're honoring" now, but I don't think that makes anybody in it less important or visible. Now, don't misunderstand me here: I'm not defending this holiday because I disagree with the concept of having a Mother's Day and a Father's Day. I like those two holidays, and I don't think we should change them to be this combined holiday. All I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to toss away this holiday as some sort of gay/lesbian relativism attack that turns kids into wimps/psychos (I'm not sure which one of those you meant). Especially now, any holiday that is aimed toward honoring and supporting families seems to me like something that should at least be viewed positively. I'm not entirely sure how honoring biology or emphasizing that a child's parents may have passed away or are gone are sufficient and necessary conditions to honoring parents. They're part of the experience, of course, but not mandatory. You may consider this hiding, but acknowledging that some things are optional is much different than hiding something. In other words, we can be sensitive to different family situations (and thus know when it may be a good time to discuss things explicitly and when it may not be) without trying to hide reality. If anything, a combined holiday makes it easier to include the idea of mother and father figures, making the scenarios you've created easier to talk about. Although I know you've emphasized "replacing," I don't see how mothers and fathers are not implied in the word family (and thus the word should be "including"). You speak as if the word family somehow hides the concept of mother and father, but I disagree with that. When I use the word family, it's implicit that I'm talking about my Mom and Dad, and perhaps other people depending on the context (maybe my Grandma, maybe a cousin, etc.). "Family" does include more people, but I don't think we have to restrict ourselves to just mother and father to honor them. Again, this is the difference between "this isn't mandatory" and "hiding." I don't think pointing out the stupidity of adults in a child's life or blaming said adults (or others) is necessary, but I'm not arguing for hiding them either. Children should of course acknowledge reality and understand what they lack, but I don't think that's mandatory for honoring the parents/guardians that they do have.

I think we need to back up from the homosexuality thing for a minute and get a better picture of what exactly the "International Day of Families" holiday (which this school is using to replace Mother's Day and Father's Day) is. Take a look at the picture on that page as well: a boy with his grandfather. Forgetting for a moment the controversy over the specific school, this sounds like a holiday anybody can get behind, and I think that was the point. What I don't understand is how celebrating mothers and fathers (and grandfathers and grandmothers and...) all at the same time somehow "ruins" honoring mothers and fathers compared to celebrating mothers and fathers separately. Now, I'm fine with celebrating these separately (and because Mother's Day is a official federal holiday in the US I'm confident that they will always remain separate in the US), but I don't see how combining them into one holiday makes the point of both holidays (honoring mothers and fathers) any less effective.

I can see what you're worried about, that homosexuals are out to destroy "well grounded" cultural traditions and Mother's day is next up on the target list, but let's consider a few things first before concluding things: This is one school in Canada. Mother's Day is still an official federal holiday in the US and never was an official federal holiday in Canada (but is still well observed).Considering how commercialized Mother's Day is, I don't see how much we can say it represents cultural traditions (with my sincerest apologies to Ms. Jarvis, of course: I'm not trying to cheapen Mother's Day, instead I'm recognizing it for what it is).You're talking about this as if homosexuals have banned saying the word "mother" or something. This is one school in one place in Canada where the concepts of Mother's Day and Father's Day have been combined into a sort of Family Day. That's it. I suppose we could also have, as a new federal holiday, "Parents and Legal Guardians Day" but I don't think it would sell cards quite as well.

Well, combining Father's Day and Mother's Day into one holiday for school purposes doesn't seem too unreasonable. People in the comments are quick to blame homosexuals for some kind of attack on the family, but I think that's the wrong conclusion. This change is more inclusive of kids with a single-parent household or who are raised by stepmom/stepdad/uncles/grandparents/etc. I think this will help make them feel more included and help them realize that their family still counts as a family even if it's not the most ideal situation.

Since new converts to the church can always get their patriarchal blessing, I don't think there's ever a "too late" for them. In my opinion, it's always an important thing, and its relevance doesn't diminish over time. I think it's customary to get it near the end of teenage years because that's the time people start making important life decisions. This time period of important life decisions does have a start, but it doesn't really have an end.

I think this question is weird to ask at its core. People, when mentioning this topic, usually say something like "we don't focus on Jesus enough." Is there any point at which anybody can say they've preached or focused enough on Jesus? I don't think there is. Teaching more about Jesus Christ is something everybody can always do more of, LDS Church members included. Now, people use this to compare our Church and other churches, but I don't think it's meaningful to do comparisons with a measuring stick that doesn't end on one side.

I'm sorry for the misconception. The point I was trying to make is that the comparison may not be entirely helpful because we can change things by simply receiving new doctrine or teachings, while other churches must change things by making an appeal to tradition or commentaries by those in authority to do so. The process by which corrections to past practices are handled is different between the two.

Something about starting facebook posts with "I know a bunch of you are going to be mean and nasty and attack/unfriend me for this, but..." seems odd to me, but it seems to be a common trend. Am I missing something?

I think we're comparing apples to oranges here. We can't do this comparison directly to a church like the Catholic Church where the canon of what constitutes doctrine is essentially closed. It's a lot harder for them to admit to have done something or taught something wrong, because where else are they going to go? There is no concept of continuing revelation, so arguments against the practice or doctrine now considered wrong must somehow find a foothold in the past. In the LDS Church, we have the concept of continuing revelation, which allows our knowledge of doctrines to grow and improve over time. Therefore, we don't say a past practice is wrong, but instead that it was incomplete an action that lacked the knowledge that has since been revealed. This is why President McConkie can say something like this: ...and be completely consistent. Such a statement would make much less sense in a church with a closed canon.

Here's the seagull image for those of you having problems with the original post:

But... just think of all the fun stories you can tell! The second one isn't me. I promise.

If I could make a quick point about the tent thing, in Boy Scouts activities I either brought my own tent or arranged to share a tent with a friend beforehand. I was never forced to share a tent with anybody. Some of you are making it sound like all we do in Boy Scouts is take showers together and participate in synchronized round-robin tent sharing.

I think you misspelled "popcorn."

Also, keep in mind that the core of the Church's decision was to not change its standards in any way whatsoever. Anybody who is trying to convince people that the Church has "caved," "acquiesced," or "wavered" in any way either aren't paying attention or are looking for ways to discredit the Church.