Seanette

Basically, pick something a woman might dress up as. For example, a nurse. Then make the costume as revealing and sleazy as possible without violating indecent exposure laws.

I do ask about food allergies or major dislikes before figuring out the menu (I'd rather not have to explain to the mission president about putting one of his guys in the ER, and don't want one of them to have to be polite about choking down a food he really hates). Once that's sorted out, I'll pick something DH and I will like that fits with their stated needs. I always make BIG batches, since guys in that age range are basically stomachs with feet .

I've seen the comment made that costumes for adult women all fall into the "slutty _______" category. Sounds about right to me, seeing costumes promoted that back when I was a kid, prostitutes might well have found overly skimpy and/or tacky. Probably not bothering with costumes this year, hoping I'll at least see some trick-or-treaters showing up. I live in an apartment complex with a good number of kids, but not a single cute little costumed mooch :) at my door last year.

It's really starting to look like the OP is desperate to get faithful LDS to agree with her that a civil marriage ending at death is every bit as good as an eternal sealing by priesthood authority in God's House, obeying His commandments. I really doubt that notion's going to get a lot of buy-in around here, at least from believing Church members.

I'm puzzled as to why the wedding day is supposedly so much more important to the OP than the married life, and whether it CAN last beyond death.

I worry about you sometimes, Vort.

So because you knew ONE couple who couldn't keep their covenants, the entirety of Gospel teaching on marriage and the Temple is invalid? (shakes head) Sorry, you won't convince me that a marriage doomed to end at the death of one spouse is at all preferable to eternal covenants made in the Lord's House in obedience to Him.

Huh, what? Either you had an odd sealer or you misunderstood something. DH and I got no such demand from ours. As for what was missing, well, I'd consider eternity to have been missing from this otherwise lovely ceremony you attended. At the death of one spouse, that marriage will end, while if she'd held out for a man who could take her to the Temple, she'd have at least had the opportunity for a marriage to last forever.

My confirmation was included in my baptism service (in 1994, procedure may well have changed since then. Besides, I was going to be out of town for several weeks). I've had mixed experiences with different wards as I moved. The first stake I was involved in, my husband had grown up in. Rather cliquish, but somewhat friendly. Next stake/ward was in another city. Smaller, quite warm and welcoming. Next move took us into a horribly cliquish stake. We attended several different wards, and all of them had an attitude that anyone who was not lifelong LDS and a lifelong resident of that stake was just an intruder to be shunned. We wound up inactive due to a combination of DH's, shall we say, lack of enthusiasm and my inability to cope with feeling so totally unwelcome. I also would absolutely NOT have brought anyone I actually liked to church in that stake. The way members were treated, I wouldn't have wanted an investigator to see and be scared away from the Gospel by. Most recent move was within the same city, but a different stake. I LOVE these people! Incredibly friendly and caring bunch who treat new faces at church as another child of God to know and love. I'm sure this stake is a lot closer to how the Savior would have His church.

I'll confess to a fondness for Mt. Dew myself. :) DH does have a bit of an energy drink habit, which started when he was working an irregular schedule that was not compatible with his body's functioning as far as sleep/wake pattern. We're working on it.

Seems to me like a certain adversary is having a VERY negative reaction to the increase in missionary work and is trying to fight it. Not that that's going to work, of course.

Peel off one cookie, eat filling, eat cookies.

Sounds healthier than the "no, don't ever be alone with anyone other than mommy or daddy, everyone else in the world is dangerous" approach.

I take it your son is home-schooled, thus not around any school staff he might be alone with? I take it he does not go to friends' homes, where he might be exposed to adult/teen family members of his friends without your presence? I take it you plan to not attend your own Sunday classes, but stay in his so other adults aren't around him without you right there? I take it you are always there when he's around any relative or neighbor? I myself am a child abuse survivor (between my parents, I got the full range), and would be much qualmier about my child being around some of my relatives than about him/her having the chance to learn that the leader called by God for his ward is someone he/she can safely talk to. After all, relatives, school staff, and so on are more likely to get out of line, statistically speaking. If he can't go anywhere there are adults without a parent there, scouting (which is a part of the Aaronic priesthood program, if I understand correctly) is going to be a bit of a challenge for your family. Aside from feeling like you're saying that you overrule church policy as set by those called of God and ratified with Him on how your son is allowed to interact with church leaders, it's probably not good for him to be so closely monitored that he has no privacy or autonomy. What happens when he's old enough to NEED some privacy and breathing room?

I'm glad you're healing up, and I'm certain you can do MUCH better than this sorry excuse for a man. (hug)

I'd hate to see how much of mine was drag grooves.

What, pointing out to her that worldly philosophies very seldom match with the Lord's wisdom is damaging and we should say, "Awww, that's all right, rebel against God's leading of His church all you want. The world's right, God's wrong"? I get rather tired of the "coddle the precious little special snowflake and never ever tell a kid he/she is wrong" mentality. This is NOT honest or preparation for real adult life. Reality is that God has arranged His Church as it is for reasons He understands, whether we do or not, and I do not think encouraging a teen in a formative stage to rebel against and defy that arrangement is in her best eternal interests. She may be all proud of herself here, but when she has to face God with her pride and lack of faith, it'll be a different matter. What perspective should a teen be taught, that it's all about her, or that God in His infinite knowledge has arranged matters for the benefit of His children, including Miss "Waaah, I wanna have the priesthood!!!!", and knows best for us?

I just hope Sister Smart will be able to resume her mission and move forward with her life once she's done with this creep.

Huh? I wasn't talking about polygamy (which I consider a historical note, but not relevant to the present workings of the Church), I was talking about feminist demands that the Church extend priesthood to women to conform to their philosophy without regard to the Lord's greater knowledge of what we need to learn here to be ready for the eternities. As I said, demands that the Church alter its doctrines (priesthood, gay "marriage", etc.) to accord to worldly philosophies are to me telling God that He is wrong and needs to be corrected in how His Church is run. That or it's a claim that the Church is not being run by God, but by mortals who are just being mean to the "oppressed" types demanding those changes.

[re: TLC's "Sister Wives", about polygamy] (stunned look) First, you cannot count on television to bother with fact when sensationalism draws higher ratings. Second, as previously stated in this thread, the practice of polygamy ended by revelation in 1890 (see Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants). These days, it'll get you excommunicated from the Salt Lake City-based "main" LDS church. We do have some offshoots that insist on clinging to a practice no longer authorized by God, but they're presumably not the church you say you're investigating. Third, I would respectfully suggest you be a LOT more careful about your sources. A TV show devoted to something we stopped doing 120 years ago, made by non-LDS, is NOT a reliable source for the true doctrines of the Church.

I'd suggest that you'll do better for official at mormon.org (which is run by the Church). Here, we're just a bunch of opinionated non-official types who can only be reliably assumed to be stating our own opinions. :)

For me, the whole "waah, women don't hold the priesthood" bit is basically telling God, "You're all wrong about how Your church is organized, and you need to get with fashionable human philosophies!" There's a lot we don't yet know about how the eternities function, but we do know that mortality is preparing us for that, and if you honestly believe this is God's true church and that He is actively involved in leading it via chosen leadership, then I consider it way out of line to tell God He's wrong about how His church works because it doesn't agree with our mortal whims.

Longtime Stephen King/Dean Koontz/Thomas Harris fan over here. I think God's going to look a lot more at our hearts than our bookshelves. :)

My thinking on suggesting FAIR was that she'd be able to find some of the more common anti-Mormon claims and sources for rebuttals. If she's having to go to sources biased AGAINST the Gospel, why not also use sources biased TOWARD it? No source will be totally objective, since human beings are involved. I'd think balancing the overall selection would be reasonable.

Other posters in the thread have made good points you should consider. I'd also refer you to fairlds.org (as far as I know, one of the biggest organizations of LDS apologists).