carlimac

Maybe a rotating of parents into nursery every week to help.

See.  Maybe it's just because I look at it from what I know.  We don't have enough people for all the callings now, so making the ward smaller would really increase the load on the individual members.

I just want to throw this out there to see what you think. 
We have a very spiritual and meticulous stake president. I fully believe he wants the best for all in the stake. I think he loves us. He says he does but...this keeps coming up and I don't know what to do with it. 
Last night at a stake auxiliary training and leadership conference he came into the Young Women break out session and said, " We have been told in the scriptures and by our church leaders to "not go beyond the mark".  I looked that up on LDS.org and found a few references. Didn't read the whole conference talks or whatever to find the exact quote but the gist I came away with was that we are to keep things simple and forgo all the elaborate, showy stuff we (especially women) get caught up in as we serve in our callings. ( I think this is what some women just do by nature in and out of the Church. We are prone to decorate and entertain by nature. )   But our stake president has interpreted it differently.  He thinks it means we should NOT be doing anything at all beyond enriching our knowledge and "relationship" with our Savior. So last night (2nd time I've heard him say this in the last month) he said that ALL our mutual activities should be centered around Christ.  This isn't a bad thing except , I quote, " all these things that we keep doing like having spa nights and playing board games are a waste of time. They are going beyond the mark of learning about Christ." OK this kind of jars me because-1)  I think he's interpreting this saying in his own way and  2) I feel hes' really out of touch with what the youth, and especially the young women need.  
He's known to be a very controlling person, extremely disciplined AND only has one child- a 13 yr old daughter. He is very invested in what she does at every activity ( they are in our ward.) I used to be the Beehive leader but thankfully have been moved to be secretary. So I don't have  to worry anymore about the very picky stake president judging me for the activities we would do at mutual with his daughter. But I'm still involved and I see this rigid attitude toward youth activities being detrimental to them. 
I have two daughters of my own in Young Women. I've raised three others. They have so much pressure in high school right now!!! They are losing sleep to get up and go to seminary at 5:30 every day. They hear the same lessons over and over every year and every week at church. They supposedly have scripture reading with their family every night and now will have even more gospel study with families on Sundays ( if they happen to have a family that wants to do this.) I feel very strongly that they need some down time with their like minded and same believing pals at mutual. They need to play and  chill and interact and have a spa night if that brings them closer to each other and builds friendship and love. 
Thoughts?

Probably depends on who's talking and what they're saying.

I didn’t read much of what was already discussed... but here are my thoughts.
1) The fish’s sex organs will naturally and literally change. A human’s will not.
2) it is a matter of survival for the fish. It is not for humans
3) A fish doesn’t care what gender it is, nor  any other animal/insect/etc.. humans do

What do we know about gender?  One thing we know is that the female gender requires male gender to reproduce.  Likewise the male gender requires the female gender to maintain and propagate its species. 
Something we should know is that in the human species - regardless of whatever physical changes someone born as a male or female can accomplish concerning gender by whatever means possible to appear to alter their gender or act like the other gender - it will not increase their probability of propagating more of the human species - rather it will likely result in no reproduction what-so-ever.
 
The Traveler

In fairness, I guess I kinda am. When I see a headline that clearly seems intent on making POTUS look bad, and I find that the source is CNN or NYT, I'm pretty quick to lose interest. I know what will be said, and it's not interesting. Perhaps I'll miss an occasional blockbuster news item, but considering the hours and hours I do not waste, I've got to triage the information I take in--and looking at sourcing is one of my methods.

Sorry to here about your struggle with your son.  Children can be... difficult, to put it lightly.  Even the Father had a third leave His ways.
If your son was interested, I could talk to him (bytheway- I also believe in evolution AND creation), but it sounds like he'll need to find his own way.  In that case, if you ever need anything, please feel free to contact me anytime.  

Sadly? Probably. 
Remember the shooting at YouTube Headquarters? The minute it came out that the shooter was a Middle Eastern woman who believed that the company was censoring her, most mainstream outlets suddenly found better things to report on. 
The FLDS compound here in Texas? Once it was revealed that the initial phone call that prompted the raid was a hoax call from someone in Colorado, all national-level news coverage ceased; only news outlets in Texas and Colorado continued to cover the story. 
And so on. 
The less the facts fit a narrative, the less a news outlet is going to cover it. 

What do you mean by living as a homosexual in healthy ways? Do you mean by not having sex? by abstaining and learning to be happy without? Or is there some secret, quiet way of living  a homosexual lifestyle that is healthy? 
If it's not for sex, I can't imagine that a person is really homosexual. Perhaps they just identify more intensely with their own gender. Maybe they like things that are culturally assigned more frequently to the opposite gender. But it's the sex in "homosexual" that puts them truly in that category.   Unless it doesn't. I have a friend who's sister is married to another woman. but she insists she's not homosexual but came out of a very bad marriage to a man and got extremely close to a woman in the recovery period and ended up married to her. She is not actually attracted to women. (Yikes!! That is so messed up.) 
I think women are beautiful- more than men. I talk and associate more closely with women.  I'm not extremely feminine in my dress and behavior. I prefer jeans, t-shirts and button downs.  I have a hard time talking to men. 99% of my close friends are women. I identify with women.  I hate to cook.  But I am not homosexual in any way.  I have no desire to marry or be intimate with a woman. 
So what is it really that puts a person in the category of homosexual if sexual interest isn't the driving and defining force? What are "the other more important ones"?

Even though boxer is no longer with us, I have to say something here.  @Godless has been on this forum for years and years.  One of the nicest people you could come across.  While he may not totally believe any longer, he is still very respectful.  He served our country for years and has one adorable little family.  So while one person may be so judgmental, it is definitely not Godless one would say evil called good.  He's just a good guy and one I'm proud to call a friend.  

1.  Sincere thanks for the kind thoughts.  
2.  I acknowledge they are ugly words. They apply to ugly behaviors and, in the case of a specific post by @Tyme, ugly sentiments and ugly reasoning with deeply horrific implications.
And more broadly, we have reached a stage of sexual mores that people like Nero and Caligula could only fantasize about—what they had to pay massive sums of money for, the victims of the Sexual Revolution have been encouraged to give away for free—and they don’t even realize it’s a problem until youth and beauty pass them by and they find themselves paying scads of money to therapists and psychologists—the latter-day father confessors, many of whom fleece their flocks more thoroughly than the old priesthood ever did—to work through (or at least numb) the bankruptcy of their relational histories and restore some semblance of functionality to their lives.  Not only is the emperor naked, but he’s shooting up the schoolyard with an Uzi and trying to bust his way into the cafeteria; while  the faculty are in the lounge celebrating the fact that Principal Fuddy-Duddy just got demoted and giving detentions to anyone who utters the word “gun”. 
3.  As I indicate above, the Church’s rhetoric has only softened in the past few decades—and as thanks, posterior-clowns like the Mama Dragons and other “mainstream” gay-rights groups are now accusing us of murder (and using made-up numbers in the process).   This is calculated to bring about a very particular end, and our playing nice isn’t going to stop it.  Speaking anecdotally:  Professionally, just the facts that I a) continue to oppose gay marriage, b) assert the Church’s right to enforce its own community standards, c) assert the right of parents to encourage their children to refrain from gay sex, and d) express personal skepticism of adoption by gay couples and singles in cases where adoption by equally qualified straight couples is an option—regardless of the tone with which I have made my arguments—would cause me a lot of discomfort amongst my colleagues and quite possibly put my job at real risk.  None of that is going to relax any time soon, so we may as well tell the hard truths now, while we still can.
4.  When you ask whether it matters who started the shooting since the battle is destructive to all:  YES.  To continue your metaphor by looking at historical wars:  One side bombed Pearl Harbor.  One side fought for the preservation and promotion of slavery.  One side set out to rule a continent and exterminate ethnic “inferiors”.  One side declared unrestricted submarine warfare and invaded Belgium.  One side crossed the 38th parallel.  For those sides to simply tell their victims “look, we wouldn’t have to do this if you’d just lay down their arms”—
Screw that.  Intentional or not, it’s horse manure.  It’s victim-blaming.  It’s bullying.  It’s promoting the ultimate victory of evil. 
Their ranks may include decent people who are deceived to some degree; but that number diminishes as the agenda becomes clearer and the demands more extreme. The leadership, those setting the agenda—and those who stay with them and keep parroting their arguments as the mask comes off—are, in the main, tyrants who demand complete obeisance, and they’ve manipulated the situation so that every gay suicide feeds back into their cause.  I think it’s high time gay Mormon kids understood which side wants them alive and which side profits from their deaths; and if the left doesn’t like me pointing out that they use gay suicides to advance their agenda, then maybe they shoul quit using gay suicides to advance their agenda. 

First, i am very sorry for your client.  That's devastating.  And i don't claim to understand how it feels for you.
But sexual meat market, filthy sex-crazed ghouls, pederasty, pedophilia, don't care if it's wrong or destructive, sex uber alles, no sexual restraint?  
Are those sentiments any less correct or hurtful than the one that says Oaks has blood on his hands for doing what he feels is right?
i mean, if this is the kind of tension between the two sides of this issue, then it's no wonder that people are taking their own lives.  It's like dropping someone in no-man's land during a war.  Does it really matter who started shooting first?  Or does anyone really know which side's bullet did the killing?  Or maybe they got clipped from both sides.  Does any of that change that they're dead?  
Maybe the people caught in between will only stop dying when both sides quite trying to kill the other one.  Because you know, the gays and the Christians have both been here for thousands of years.  And the only thing our indignation has purchased so far is an increased amount of hate, a decreased amount of understanding, and an escalating number of dead bodies and human tragedies. 

I read the article, I find myself hoping that he intends to live up to his covenants with God. The fact that he went to the Lord in prayer makes me hope for this outcome, some of his wording I'm trying not to over analyze.
I really hope he can find a way to stay on the covenant path.

(I’m dealing with the fallout of a client suicide right now that I just heard about yesterday, so excuse me if I’m not my normal warm-fuzzy self.)
First:  FIFY.
I realize you find the comparison objectionable; but the truth is that the reason I make it is the same reason you hate it:  because it serves as a stark reminder that both God and society can and do expect at least some people to live full, engaged, fulfilling, happy lives even while telling those people that they may never expect to be able to have sexual intercourse in the precise manner, or with the specific class of partner, that their libidos are geared to prefer.
The simple fact is, you don’t want to believe that a life of sexual restraint is, or can be, worth living; and when you spout nonsense like what you’ve written above you inadvertently show that—in spite of your feigned horror at pedophilia and your hifalutin talk about “consent”—you don’t want to believe that God would expect sexual restraint of anyone for any reason, period. You’re just a few academic white papers and a slick PR campaign away from supporting legalized pederasty, because you have no moral grounding other than sex uber alles.  There’s no point in engaging you over whether gay sex, or even pedophilia, is wrong; because with you it’s all a red herring.  You don’t care if it’s wrong or destructive, and you won’t care when it’s proven wrong; regardless of what the “it” happens to be.
When we look at gay suicides, the question few are asking is:  cui bono?  The rash of gay suicides has not increased due to the Church suddenly telling gays that they have value independently of their sense of sexual fulfillment—we’ve been doing that for almost two centuries, and if anything our rhetoric has softened of late.  It’s you guys who have started telling gays in the last 30 years that the unsexed life is not worth living; and then when they start believing your bullcrap and end their lives—either out of a sincere belief they can never be happy in abstinence, or out of despair when they reject the values of their youth and experiment with new sexual practices, only to find them a hollow foundation on which to build a life—you turn around and blame us; even though you created the tension and you’re the one trying to leverage their deaths to muzzle the Church and get more formerly-abstinent young Mormons into the sexual meat market for use and abuse by your allies.  
We mourn these youth and plan the funerals and dress the dead and pay for the undertaker and the coffin and the burial plot; while other filthy sex-crazed ghouls trot out their victims’ names at $500-a-plate fundraiser galas.

My daughter grew up with one of the original Studio C group. That girl isn't breaking with church standards although she is very supportive of Stacey Harkey.

My daughter grew up with one of the original Studio C group. That girl isn't breaking with church standards although she is very supportive of Stacey Harkey.

My only rebuttal to this would be (which maybe someone already shared) is the ability to make the monies themselves instead of BYUtv via endorsements. If they are on their own, then their contracts and increase in monies would definitely be a temptation in my situation.
Continue to make what BYUtv gives you, or have the opportunity to earn a lot more through a different avenue.

I've had people tell me I must be gay/straight because:
I'm "anti" gay I love musical theater I love Metallica I ride big beefy motorcycles that make tons of noise I ballroom dance I dress nice (this not so much any more) Every one of those holds about as much value to the assessment as your list.

I have a friend from Church who is gay.  He lives celibate, has a calling, etc.  He "came out" publicly to our gaming group a couple years ago but had already told me about it a few years before that.  
I once mentioned him to a gay co-worker and my coworker said "what a shame he has to suppress who he truly is to be a part of your church."  That comment bothered me a little at the time he said it, but the more I thought about it the more horrible I realized that comment is.
My friend never, ever expresses his thoughts about same-sex attraction as being "who he truly is."  He's already being who he truly is... a faithful son of Heavenly Father who is doing his best, under very difficult challenges, to be obedient and pure.  I know he stumbles sometimes, as we all do, but he's still at church and still enduring to the end.  My friend is being exactly who he wants to be and how DARE that co-worker or anyone else cheapen that by making it seem like whom a person wants to have sex with ought to be their most important defining characteristic!
Frankly, I admire my friend.  I don't think I'd have the level of strength and self-control he does were I in his place.  

I read it as there still being age-specific Sunday School classes.  “Sunday School” technically encompasses *all* post-Primary instruction (other than quorums/Relief Society/Young Women, of course), not just the grownups.  

It sounds to me like he doesn't even see the mark.... it's like he's completely missing the mark.... Jesus Christ..... 2 Laws.....Love God FIRST.....Love your neighbor as yourself.... where does all this other stuff come from? It's legalistic and suffocates faith... law of men.... I'm not hearing the law according to God in your story. Where is the love in your stake president's rigidity?
 
Blessings

Carlimac- my heart goes out to you and your son, thank you for sharing your story- it may help others who are living through the same thing. 
Addictions are so hard to understand for those who have not had to deal with an addiction themselves or have not had to deal with a loved one who is dealing with an addiction.
My son-in-law found faith in God because of his addiction (drugs)- but it took 4 or 5 stints in rehab for him to be able to learn to deal. He knows how lucky he is- knowing that there are those who are not able to kick it.
I have learned through life experiences how hard it is to deal with an addict, with addiction, and how hard it is on the family.  I pray your son can regain his testimony.

One of my sons was exposed to it at his friend's house- the home of youth pastor from another church, at age 11. We were just so naive, thinking that "our family doesn't do those kinds of things", that his addiction went on for 6 years before his brother discovered it on the family computer and told us. He's 26 now and we don't talk to him about it anymore. I don't know if he still deals with it or not. But when we first found out he had counseling. We didn't punish him- just tried to get him the right kind of help. When he confessed to our bishop he was essentially dis-fellowshipped. Couldn't take or pass the sacrament for months even though he wasn't viewing porn at the time. He tried so hard to quit and would for awhile- months at a time, but he always found ways to access it again.   He wasn't defiant- just addicted. We moved to a different state. Son went to BYU but wasn't perfect during that time. The new stake president was less hard on him and helped him get ready for a mission. He went, served honorably although struggled with masturbation during his mission- he'd wake up at night in the middle of it. It was really frustrating for him. After his mission he returned to porn off and on. His BYU bishops tried to help but there was a limit to what they could do. This was all during the time when the addicting nature of porn was less stressed than the sin of viewing it. So my son felt really lousy about himself most of the time. 
Ultimately he left the Church.   I think it may have been too hard to keep feeling so bad about himself because of the external pressure. He also lost his testimony of God- at BYU of all places. But he remains a very good-hearted person who tries his hardest to help those in need and is studying medicine. He keeps the Word of Wisdom and doesn't sleep around- hasn't even had a girlfriend for 4 years. 
It all makes me so sad. But even if he didn't see it in the home of this particular friend, he would have encountered it somewhere else- teenage boy parties were notorious for viewing it and he would probably have had this problem anyway.  

The interesting thing here is that I fundamentally agreed with you that a) Romney had acted somewhat mercenarily, b) that he is not an ideal Senator, and c)  and that he’d be a bad candidate to throw against Trump in a hypothetical 2020 primary.  
But since I dared to say something uncomplimentary against Trump and offered a half-hearted check against some animal-crackers anti-Romney conspiracy theories, you find it necessary to go on the warpath with an atopical, combative reply that borders on unhinged; and accuse me of “minimizing” concerns about Romney in what was fundamentally an anti-Romney post.
And THIS, dear @Tyme, is what we are up against; and it’s why we in the GOP have no choice but to stand back and watch this crazy train run right off the rails.  
But, no cult of personality here; nosiree . . .