bl8tant

Sean1427, I think you've nailed it-- thanks for that insightful post. I was going to hunt around for the source of the (probably apocryphal) quote about the smell of cigarette smoke in sacrament meeting, but I couldn't find it. However, I did find an article that I liked quite a bit at mulling and musing: On Smelling Cigarette Smoke in Sacrament Meeting. It has some great quotes from Elder Wirthlin that I personally need to ponder and take more to heart.

Hey, I resemble that remark. Oh wait... did I say that out loud? /looks for delete button

Good luck. You're doing the right thing, and I know the Lord will bless you for your courage and faithfulness. Do let us know!

Welcome, Todd, and congratulations on your baptism!

I thank you, kind sir, for helping me choose my new signature.

This probably refers to the changes in the Duty to God program for YMs. I haven't seen any information on the changes yet, although I believe they have been released at least in some areas.

Maybe you should try wearing different clothes then :)

Women are shaped differently from men. Heck, most women are shaped differently from each other. There are so many different compound curves, diameters, and angles that I get dizzy just thinking about it. This is why there are companies that make huge sums making custom-fitted jeans for women while most men get theirs off the rack in standardized sizes-- there just aren't as many variations in body shape and size among us menfolk.

I hope so, 'cause that's an automatic "gimme" for me at the rate my hair is leaving.

What Johnnylingo said is true. I've found that counting calories is helpful, but mostly because it forces me to account for what I eat. I'm more likely to pass up something if I think "but hey, that's another 200 calories or whatever." Getting a divorce is also a great way to lose weight, but not one which I recommend.

Calm down, Dravin. Don't have a cow.

This thread needs more cowbell.

That is awesome, and in the unlikely event I'm ever called as bishop I'm going to ask for the same thing.

Bacdoc, as I was reading your post I remembered something that I was told at a ward Scout meeting shortly after I joined the ward: our stake president frequently tells people that Scouting is the activity arm of the Aaronic priesthood, a statement that echoes a bunch of other similar-sounding quotes here. Some stake presidents and bishops drink more of this particular flavor of Kool-Aid than others. In my current stake, the leadership puts a lot of horsepower behind the programs, and they are well supported by the families. We try to focus on helping the boys earn their Eagle rank by age 15 or thereabouts, before they start smelling perfume and gasoline. We still have some boys who aren't interested, but we also have about 20% of our troop who are non-members. That's the flip side o f the integration between Scouting and church. I think that to the extent the stake and ward leadership embraces this principle that Scouting can be a wonderful experience, but there has to be more to the exercise of, and learning in, the priesthood than just Scouting. As the father of three sons, let me say that I appreciate your willingness to serve even though this isn't your favorite calling. THe Lord will bless you for your efforts even if the YM don't seem to appreciate or recognize them.

Clearly y'all are determined to milk this thread for all it's worth. Normally, I'd say that's OK, but in this case I have a beef with it.

Get in line, pal. I would say that I'd flip you for it, but I'd rather flip him... like, off a tall building or something. (and yes, I realize that's not a very Christlike attitude. I'm working on it.)

I figured it'd be more productive to have this conversation in PMs instead of inflicting it on everyone else, but for some reason the site completely disclaims all knowledge of a user named "crazypotato". You're 100% right that my friend needs to get out of her current situation, and luckily we live in a country where that's possible... to an extent. She can't got to a shelter because there are no shelters in her area (a large US city) that will allow her to stay with her kids. Why? She has two teenage boys (and an 8-year-old daughter, but who's counting.) Most women's shelters won't allow teenage boys to stay there. I could go on for hours about how unfair and broken this is, but it is what it is. She currently has no income. Why? She's a school worker, so until the school year starts, she doesn't get paid in the off season. Luckily she just got certified as a teacher, so if she can find an actual teaching job (big if, with the current economy) she will be able to become independent much faster. She has a major health condition that would bankrupt her were it not for her husband's health insurance. All of these obstacles are things she can overcome, given time, and she's working on them. I just think it would be easier for her to work on them if she also had the assurance and support of being a church member, and it still doesn't seem fair to me that her jerk husband can cause her to be denied that. She can still attend her local ward, do service projects, attend RS, and so on. Those things are all good, but they're not the same as entering the waters of baptism. If they were, we wouldn't be working so hard as a church to find and baptize people.

I'm not saying that the church is the bad guy, merely trying to understand whether this is a policy and exploring, if so, why it exists. As for the rest, well, until you walk a mile in someone's shoes... that's all I have to say about that.

Dravin, I think that someone who refuses permission for their spouse to be baptized may be exercising unrighteous dominion. I say "may" because I'm sure there are circumstances where refusing might be appropriate, though I can't think of any off the top of my head. In this case, were my friend's husband to refuse it would clearly fall into that area IMHO. As for the church itself, to me it seems that deciding who may and may not join is part of what it means to be organized as a church. I may disagree with the guidelines, but not with their responsibility to set and enforce them. I know that the priesthood leaders who are responsible for those policies take their responsibility with the utmost seriousness, and I uphold them in doing so.

I'm really glad you liked it! We took our kids to that area a few years ago and it was a fantastic experience, though we didn't see the pageant. Maybe next time!

In the long run, we're all dead (or at least that's what Keynes was claimed to have said.) It seems a shame that she, or anyone, should be denied the immediate blessings of baptism and membership. However, as Mr T said, probably the best idea is for her to consider whether she wants to stay married to him and to make the necessary changes if not. I can't say that I'd recommend divorce to most folks but in her case it would be well justified.

Two words: unrighteous dominion. I can more easily understand the church requiring spousal permission before someone takes out their temple endowments. IMHO, the step from "ordinary member" to "endowed member" can be much bigger than the step from nonmember to member. Consider, say, a faithful Baptist who tithes, doesn't drink or smoke, and remains chaste-- if they join the church, their changes are not all that great compared to the covenants we take on at the temple. It seems to me that denying someone who would otherwise be qualified the opportunity to be baptized is fundamentally interfering with their agency. Furthermore, we're explicitly warned in the scriptures not to deny an otherwise worthy person the chance of baptism, membership, and full fellowship. Look at Alma's teaching to the Zoramites in Alma 32. It strikes me that this is the same thing, only with a different criterion. It also raises the question of what other decisions can the church require me to subordinate to my spouse's approval. For one instance that comes to mind, is it OK to require spousal approval before someone accepts a calling? I've seen passionate arguments that (particularly for women) it is insulting and unnecessary to ask a husband to approve of his wife's calling to a position, and I tend to agree. How is this different?

@crazypotato: that's sort of what I was thinking, but PMG flat-out forbids it-- it doesn't say "prayerfully consider..." or "ask the bishop" or anything equivocal. @dravin: in this case I think he would withhold approval solely because it's something she wants. I'm not sure that he would do anything because of it, but then there's the rub: with someone like that you're never really sure what will set them off.

A friend of mine in another state is seriously considering being baptized. This is wonderful news, of course, but even more so because she is married to an abusive drunk. The blessings of the gospel will be extra helpful in her case. She told me today that she'd found a statement in "Preach My Gospel" (p. 207) that says "Do not baptize a married person without the consent of his or her spouse." I'd never heard of that restriction before-- is it new? I'd love to understand the rationale behind it; it seems that most spouses would grant permission, but it seems unfair to deny someone the benefits of membership in the church if their spouse withholds permission unrighteously.

I LOL'd several times. (if this doesn't make sense, look on YouTube for the new series of Old Spice commercials featuring that one guy.)