Cassiopeia

I guess I'm just naive or something but I do have a lot of non-LDS friends. All of them say the kindest things about our church. They giggle at the young elders and commend them for their sacrifice. Statistics are always skewed by the people conducting the research. It can be as simple as the questions or choices being flawed. I'm not overly concerned about how to make the image of a Mormon more favorable. In my mind, it's how we live and treat others that creates that image. Every member can be a missionary by serving our neighbors and community without it being our calling to do so. My mother was a Presbyterian her entire life. She did so much community service that no one questioned her motives. She didn't just serve in her church, she served on school boards and PTA's and for our local volunteer fire department. Once when I asked her why she was taking food to this lady who had horribly misused my mother and gossiped about her, my mother said, "God expects me to give to those who don't have. If I have a shirt and my neighbor doesn't, then I'm to give them the shirt off my own back. That's what your Grandpa taught me and that's what I expect my kids to do." I learned from her, service isn't a calling, it's a way of life. If we want to change something that some statistician came up with then it will be because we don't limit our vision to the scope of our church callings and brothers and sisters in the church. We will raise our eyes to the horizon to see more of our father's children that are encompassed in this life.

And I can't help but ask, to what ends would you limit your market and client base? It doesn't make sense from a business stand point to limit the profits in that manner.

From the stand point that our constitution was set forth to separate church and state and to establish and protect the rights of each individual, I don't have a problem with a gay couple having rights under the law. Marriage has multiple definitions: Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross> I heard of an interesting discussion in which someone said yesterday, they didn't mind if gays were civilly united but insisted they not be allowed to use the word marriage or have a ceremony in a religious structure. Given that religious practice and religious entities do not own the rights to the definition of marriage they can't dictate what the federal, state and local powers-that-be label the union as. They can however manage the affairs of their properties and religious practices and simply disallow such unions within. If those of a mind to object to the term, marriage being used by gays, I propose it is the religious entity that needs to change the terminology they use and not demand an entire nation be forced to comply with a religious demand. Is that not what our constitution is to protect us from? One does not have to agree with the morality surrounding the choice to act on same sex attraction but as citizens we need to stamp out discrimination wherever it rears it's ugly head. Our government (however flawed) protects the rights of each and everyone of us. Not just the few we call elect.

LOL. Where's the laugh button when you need one. Some might think the mayor or other public officials to be evil dictators? I'm just sayin'.

Here's the thing, I said, if the person or situation does not involve us, we shouldn't let it affect us. However, let me say this, if something someone has done to you is affecting your testimony, and you feel your Bishop can help, and you can't get passed it, then by all means talk to your Bishop. It is very hard to NOT let what someone has done to hurt or offend us affect our testimony but, I've found in recent years I have to safe guard my testimony from outside influences that would rip it from me otherwise. Many times, I have to remind myself that my Lord and Savior is not the people of this or any other church. That my relationship with him and Heavenly Father can never be taken from me by the actions of those who are mistreating me and that their membership in the church has nothing to do with me or my relationship to my God. I have met one or two Bishops who aren't "nice". But it isn't their calling that gets in the way, it's their own personality. Bishops are people too. However, the majority of the Bishops I've met are very kind and most of the time outgoing. I think what people are afraid of is the possibility that he might them an unworthy member and often times they haven't done anything. There seems to be a trend in some people to think the worst of themselves. So they fear not only anyone in authority over them but people in general. My studies in interpersonal communications this last semester were very interesting about how our upbringing brings into play the fear of rejection when there is no one there to condemn. (But I digress) I think that each Bishop probably has what he allows members to come to him about. But in this instance it feels like tattling on the couple. It's a private matter between them. I don't remember who said it but I agree with them that the young couple if not having intimate relationships now should hurry up and get married. And I think they should stop what they are doing. We are only as strong as the temptations we consistently make an effort to resist.

Your husband's in the bishopric, my HT has been in bishoprics and is a young mens president. They can duke that one out. And I did not say my HT commented on child abuse did I? I was relating the story of a man who claimed to have cut out the tongue of another person and left them to die in the desert. I apply his answer about that to any serious crime that is committed. As far as bringing up child abuse that is the responsibility of Child Protective Services and I'd be careful taking such info to the Bishop or any other member without the ruling from CPS. Law suits for slander are an ugly thing if you can't prove your accusations to be true. I also am very much against people running to the Bishop with things like the original post. Would we take away their agency and their personal growth in taking away the opportunity to do themselves. We must mind our own back yards and let people do the same. And let me say, we should never let the actions of others that we are not involved with have anything to do with our testimony. That's their problem not ours.

which is why I approach scriptural writings and interpretation with caution. I've been accused by a lot of people for picking and choosing what I can accept out of the standard works. I clearly wihtout any hesitation say it's my right to do so. I do not worship the God of the Old Testament because I believe that the writings are in error. If that makes me a fluffy bunny who doesn't believe in the harshness of God's horrible wrath (which btw, I've never experienced, on the wrath of those who claim to represent him) then I'm a fluffy bunny and will go buy a nice pink pair of slippers with bunny ears tomorrow.

IFirst, I'm not sure he'd have the physical strength to do such a thing , but hey I'll play along. I'd have to say that he was having some sort of break with reality. I can't speak for the church or speak for society, but I can say I believe it would send ripples through out the church and world that would split this church apart. And he's be arrested for murder and no longer be able to lead our church. But he wouldn't do it. Things just aren't done that way today. :)

Fair enough. All I'm asking is that people not use sarcasm when they do disagree. That's a personal attack. I'm quite happy to discuss opposing points of view. I learn that way. But what I did was actually stand up for myself, retain my boundaries and from her visit today, I've got her respect and she mine and our devotion to each other as sisters is clearly greater than before. A good relationship, church or otherwise has to be able to bear up under someone speaking honestly and respectfully about their needs.

You know what's interesting, I don't like scary movies because well, they scare me. And in addition to that, I'm not too pleased about their subject matter and the gore and graphics these days. I love me some old fashioned Dracula black and white movies but I don't like being scared and nauseated at the same time. :)

Oh hey, Buffy, how ya doing?

But this does pose the question as to why wouldn't God use his servant to accomplish the deed?

Not that I'm a fan of Snow's and I can't believe I'm about to ask this, but are you saying he shouldn't be here if he's losing or lost faith? Because I can't think of a better place for someone to talk about that. Or are you saying he should go somewhere else because of his contentious approach to discussion and debate?

Oh did you miss the post where I said she was here for 2 hours today, because I was in the ER last night? We get on so well.

Now this is the way I'd like to approach this. I just don't like that approach, I adore her. It was hard for me to tell her how I felt and I did my best to soften that for her by telling her how I know she's so amazing and I love her. Like I said, the truth of my honest feelings. Sarcasm and lecture always feels like we are being jumped on.