ryanh

I have lived 15 minutes away from Lagoon for 8 years now. Never once have I heard of any sort of tickets, or even any mention, of Lagoon in anything connected to the Church. Where do you get this idea that each ward and stake get tickets? Are you talking Farmington? Seems a bit broad of a statement. Perhaps are there owners/top managers in the stake where you reside that often pass out tickets?

LM, I fully agree with the factors you point out as matters for consideration. And they relate well to the thread being referred. However, I think we can all agree that the suspicion factor is much higher when we see a 20 or 30 something that shows undue interest in a young child than a 12 year old. Probability and suspicions are not going to be equal. And, the issue of molestation is clearly a concern to be considered in regards to females also. Females are perpetrators too, and some studies of the reported disparity indicate that underreporting of female abusers is likely driving some misperceptions, but does not necessarily represent reality.

The 12 yo playing with the 4 yo would not be tolerated in my home. Interacting and playing in the yard, or in the presence of parents, perhaps, but I would still be very hesitant. Such age disparity is prime territory for sexual molestation. You have a duty to protect the 12 yo from any potential appearance of wrongdoing as well to protect your son from actual acts. Even if the 12 yo simply has the emotional maturity of a 5 yo and gets along with younger children better, it is just a bad idea. At 12, his hormones are likely well ahead of his mental maturity, and you have no idea what patterns he may have experienced at home, with family, or friends. It is just too dangerous for both boys. Am I paranoid? Perhaps. But it is based on education of the phenomenon, not a baseless phobia. DON'T let it continue! Re the younger boy, often a child behaving like that is looking for love/attention. It may be safe to presume that since his mother appears to want to get the kids out of the house a lot, he may not be receiving adequate attention at home. The sneaking out after making the mess may seem counter-intuitive to the idea of attention seeking, but it really is not (he likely has conflicting desires [attention vs not getting in trouble] that he doesn’t know how to handle - very closely related to the whole issue of not understanding how to appropriately seek attention). Does it seem that he is just a busy 'pull everything out and look at it but don't put it back' type of kid? Or is the connotation you gave that he is on a seek and destroy mission more accurate?

I find it rather humorous when anti-LDS individuals such as yourself pull talking points from various sources without understanding. Did you know, by asserting that was a false prophecy, that you are asserting that one of Jesus the Christ’s prophecies in the NT is also false? Really, the fact that Joseph Smith was able to prophecy that it would be during the same "this generation" as the Savior was referencing, speaks more to Joseph's calling as a prophet than against it. Now, please Intrigued, back to the topic at hand rather than trying to insert irrelevant and untrue anti-lds discussion in various threads. If you have something to contribute that is good, praiseworthy, and relevant, it's greatly welcomed.

Of course 'we' remember Melissa! Do you think the school funding may still be an issue with the parents when you tell them?

Horse with blinders? Pontificate? Hummm. I speak from the experience of having to made those real life decisions like Victoria is facing. You know nothing of what I have faced, but are willing to dismiss it out of hand, apparently because it is contrary to the choices you have made. I am not responsible for your cognitive dissonance. Deal with that on your own, and don't involve me, thank you.

For someone that rants about others not reading every post in a topic you started, you sure missed reading and retaining it all yourself! In that thread I already tossed out my pearls about chosing the right when it appeared it would offend my non-member family.

I find it very curious that when there are two factors against going out on Sunday, and only one for going out on Sunday, there are so many willing to advise bending a basic commandment. Seems to me that Victoria is in a no win position between alienating her sister/family or alienating her husband. I don't understand how severe each case of alienation may be. Perhaps the husband would understand, perhaps he would be offended. Perhaps the sister would be estatic to have some alternate to Victoria's attendance at the Sunday dinner such as a 1 on 1 lunch date on Monday, and not mind at all that Victoria keeps the Sabbath holy. For those who suggest not fully observing the Sabbath, or in other ways try to rationalize that it is "ok" to make others work, why is the concerns of alienating her husband not even a consideration? In my mind, spouses should take serious heed to the admonition of leaving father and mother and cleaving unto one another. No, that doesn't mean that family becomes unimportant, but it does tell us where the priority should be. If this choice of Sabbath activities would alienate her husband in any way, I think there is no contest. The priority should be on maintaining and building her current family, the one that should be first. Not only is there the competing interests of current and blood family, but then you add Sabbath day observance on top of that. I identified with Hemi's initial question. What is more important to you? Your relationship with your family, or your relationship to your God? Whom do you wish to please more? Where are your 'eyes' focused - on the past, or to the eternities? I know some automatically assume that family would be alienated by choosing to do what is right. I have seen in my life, and in the lives of others, great changes brought about doing what is right in the face of a difficult decision. Often, people are impressed, even if not happy about it. Lastly Victoria, go to lds.org and search general conference talks and ensign articles on keeping the Sabbath day holy. You will find lots of guidance from the Lord’s appointed leaders, not the opinions of us here. The topic of Sabbath day observance and patronage of businesses on that day has been very pointedly spoken to on a number of times in GC over the last decade.

You are in need of repentance. This is clearly cankering you more than you admit here, or perhaps even see yourself. Causalities? I HARDLY see my position as one that had to choose between mortal family and eternities as a "casualty". What an incredible opportunity you've been given, and you are pissing it away in a bath of self-pity. It's a dangerous road you are on. The gospel is NOT given for our convenience and comfort. Policy is NOT given to conform to the ways of man. If that is what you would prefer, then there are plenty of other churches to join that will mingle scripture among the philosophies of man.

As one whose parents both were not allowed to attend my wedding, may I offer a potentially different perspective. . . You state very clearly that your father/family was alienated. And I don't doubt all indications point to that. Do you really know that was the result? How can you know when the end hasn't even been reached to know what the ultimate result of you choice will be? By small and simple things are great things brought to pass. Had we eyes to see the eternal perspectives, perhaps we would see that these "alienating" choices actually plant the seeds that later result in acceptance. There is power in examples of people that will not compromise their values, and expose their testimony by making difficult choices. Although my father won't say it, I have seen glimpses at times that he respects my beliefs all the more simply because I would not compromise them. I know that is more powerful than any other way I could possibly communicate to him that God is real, and that the LDS church is the restored church. As much as it 'alienated' him, it appears to have also been the greatest factor in endearing him to my beliefs. Perhaps your father/family is not at that point . . . yet. Perhaps the seed still needs time to grow. Perhaps our Heavenly Father has other plans and purposes in the way things worked out. It is arrogance (a type of which I am often guilty of) to think we really understand such causes and effects. How can you possibly say with honest integrity (rather than simple obstinance) that such is the cause of being involved in anti sentiments? With our limited understanding, how is it that you know they wouldn’t be deeper into the anti sentiments? Your parents are responsible for their own choices. Quit beating yourself up already. Your choice to do what was right cannot possibly be the cause of their sentiments. Their choices to harden their hearts is their choice, and theirs alone. Even if their hearts ‘appear’ hardened, I would again say you can’t possibly know that – esp given self profession that you don’t even confide in them about church matters! Meekness is what we need in these situations, not manmade divinations of the ‘purpose’. I would say, if you want to know why, why don’t you ask Him? But, there is a lot of bitterness to let go of before I would think you could get such an answer. Why should we all be spared from having to make difficult choices? Alas, we are not, but given our own opportunities to make Abraham-like sacrifices to prove ourselves herewith. Be grateful, not resentful you so far have taken the right steps. Don’t disown your own passing grade.

There is no "deficit" of attention. It is a matter of regulating where attention is focused. The name would lead a person to think there are truly "deficits". That is a narrow line of thought in defining what we currently understand. The name was coined in a era when all that was understood was 'hyperactive grade-school boys that wouldn't pay attention'. ADHD is so much more than that. I don't even name most of my pets! So, I'm not the one to ask about a proper name. But I can clearly recognize the current label doesn't fit.

I'd send you a PM Gwen, but your settings don't allow that. Currently, under the DSM IV, there is no distinction between ADD and ADHD. It is now all lumped into one name - ADHD with three subtypes. Obviously, Amen and other's would argue that there are only three subtypes. DSM V is currently under development. Whether the powers that be maintain it as is or change the name/designations remains to be seen. Personally, I really wish they would start afresh and quit calling it attention deficit. That is a misnomer IMO. To relate to the OP, just because someone interrupts a lot does not mean that ADHD is present. As Wing pointed out, it may be a learned communication style. Also, what many in the general public have no understanding of is that many people with ADHD have no hyperactivity symptoms. Just because this person you are dealing with Shiz may have no hyperactivity doesn't mean it's something they can't control. They may, or they may not be able to. You'll just have to work your way through it and see if you two can meet somewhere in the middle. A label won't solve anything anyway. Mormonmusic has some good suggestions.

First, research shows that ADHD is significantly under-diagnosed, not over-diagnosed. This is largely because understanding of ADHD is still developing. And, it will take time for the current research to filter to the front-lines of clinical practice. There will always be miss-diagnoses, but don't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater over anecdotal ideas. The key difference is the ability to choose to be a multi-tasker, and be able to switch one's focus to something that needs attention without distraction. ADHD is a spectrum disorder. Perhaps you don't have it too bad. But, for many, it means they can't get critical tasks completed, spend their time spinning their wheels jumping from one task to the next, or can't hold a rational conversation without diverting onto a dozen tangents. So, there is a good basis for generically labeling the disorder as "bad" similar to how we label depression or diabetes as "bad". There are lesser cases that are not debilitating, but that does not mean the label is incorrect.

That is a pretty unfair assessment of the OP's position. Perhaps it doesn't bother you, or perhaps you have never had to deal with it in a similar situation to the OP. But invalidating someone whom is feeling like a victim is neither a way to help, nor a way to get them to consider your advice.Like Gwen, I was thinking ADHD. There are many people that simply cannot help themselves unless they seek medical treatment. And, yes, that does cause serious troubles in their lives (yes, harmful, not just an annoyance). One of the major complaints of those married to a pwADHD is the inability to communicate - it short circuits problem solving, collaboration, and emotional intimacy. As a consequence, the divorce rate for those with ADHD is double the rate experienced by the general population! And a pwADHD is 4 times more likely to have complains of poor-quality relationships!!! Clearly harmful. ADHD in Adults How did the meeting go last night Shiz? Do you have to work with this person? A calling? One strategy to deal with people that cannot control themselves is to write the topic on a sheet of paper, and place that between the two of you. Keep that topic right there, in sight, to assist staying on topic.

Take a few minutes and think about your eternal relationship to them. What is more important - our worldly pursuits; or the welfare of our brothers and sisters? When we were baptized, and again every week when we take the sacrament, we covenant to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort. Sometimes, the best way to refill our compassion reserves is to show forth compassion.

Well, thanks for that useful advice, but I have read them. And while I see some random guesses and pontifications - as I pointed out previously - repudiation of the baseless assertion by the OP is lacking.The fact is this is not an LDS factor. It is natural and normal across all facets of society and all cultures. Some is societal, some is in-born. But it certainly exists across all groups.

Perhaps I missed it, but I'm surprised not to have seen a post pointing to the obvious fallacy of the OP's conclusions from a simple anecdotal observation. How on earth does the OP's biased observation support the assertion that LDS men care more about looks that non-LDS? I could just as easily argue several other assertions that her experience could be supporting - i.e. that the non-LDS are far more willing to look for a one-night-stand with someone they are not truly attracted to, whereas LDS are more honest and ethical in their choices of who they become involved with. Why has everyone been willing to jump on the bandwagon and assume that LDS men are more picky than non-LDS? In my psychology classes, we reviewed numerous studies regarding attraction and autonomic perceptions because of attraction. Let me assure you - attractiveness is a key factor among ALL of society, not just LDS.

Do those who are baptized by proxy in the temple require baptism while living first? Of course not!!! Neither is marriage in life a precondition. But, who among us is qualified to determine to whom to seal a previously unmarried person? There will be more open communication in the millennium, and those things can be figured out. For now, of course we stick with who they were married to in this life.

That's the key difference. Those who wanted, but had not opportunity (either though chance, or ignorance) are in a far different place than those that KNEW but chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity. Would we think any differently of someone that chose to reject Jesus Christ? Would we not feel in some sort of way, that a person that rejected the Savior was not qualified for the Celestial Kingdom? What about if they had a testimony and rejected baptism? Or if they had a testimony and chose not to enter into the highest order of the priesthood (temple marriage)? What I hear in conference frequently as of late is the comment to the effect of 'those who desired, or would have desired had they known, will not be denied the blessings in the eternities'. One could spin that to say it is a different message, but I don’t' see it that way. I see it as another facet of the same truth.

That passage is easy to be misintrepreted, and frequenly quoted by anti's. It would do you better to seek truth rather than to disprove slander. I would suggest reading Jesus The Christ by Talmage regarding an understanding of what the parables true intent was. Here is a partial quote that I was able to find on lds.org.

Something is wrong. Either your Bishop misspoke, or your husband or you misunderstood. The handbook is very clear that priesthood leaders are not to advise one way or the other, only to help individuals understand the consequences of their own decision. I suggest you go to LDS.org and search for talks on Divorce, such as Elder Oak's talk.

A story from Steven Robinson's Believing Christ may be of use in understanding swearing (and other sins) in our lives. Before I post that though, I would give my opinion that judging others based on their weaknesses precludes us from heaven far sooner than a weakness such as swearing.

We all had the agency before coming to earth to choose good or evil. Lucifer is the obvious example of that. The third part that also chose to rebel against Father's plan also illustrates it. Just because we have a veil placed between us and our memory doesn't mean that our fundamental ability to choose for ourselves has changed. Finrock, I think your scenario simplifies too much the ability of God to judge. If He is omnipotent, and knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts, what is to prevent Him from judging between 'succumbed to temptation' and 'chose of free will to sin'? Just because there is the existence of extenuating circumstances does not preclude the ability to discern. I do not believe temptation by an adversary is for the purpose of mercy. Mercy could exist exclusively of such circumstances. I feel the presence of temptation is far more about growth, and opportunity to prove oneself. God doesn't need this temporal existence to understand who and what we are made of. This estate is to progress and, IMO, to prove to ourselves that our final estate is just.

You are responsible for yourself Kate, and have to work out your own salvation. Your ex has to work out his own. My personal feelings, while he may not be ready to face issues himself, and is content to live a lie, that does not give him the right to impede your own personal repentence and progress. I don't think you really have any choice if you wish to progress and set your life aright. One other thought. When are you two going to finally emotionally divorce? It's been 3 years already.

It's spam of sorts. The whole purpose of the post is simply to post the link in the signature, in an effort to boost search engine ratings.