Windseeker

I feel that DCFS is generally corrupt.

A recent study shows that the greatest thing that affects the levels of violence and crime is "Social attitudes".
 
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-historians-scientists-reveal-real-decline.html
 
 
What does it say about our current "Social Attitude" regarding Christians?

Err...uh...:::cough:::  Society did not make gay marriage a crime.  There was no such thing as gay marriage.  Marriage, by definition, was the legal union of a man and woman--most often solemnized by a religious authority.  The cultural battle today is not because of aggressiveness on the part of traditional marriage advocates, but because of assertiveness on the part of gay marriage advocates.  If you support gay marriage, then assertiveness may be appropriate, but lets call this what it is, and not pretend that traditionalists tried to take away something.

I have a theory about this whole 'Ordain Women' thing.
 
If you believe that President Monson is guided by God, then pray to God for women to receive the Priesthood. If it's the right thing to do, he'll get the message. If he doesn't, he won't.
 
If you don't believe he's guided by God, then why are you in the church in the first place?
 
It seems to me that the big problem here isn't asking for the Priesthood(That could definitely be a righteous desire. Heck - I wanted the Priesthood. ) or in questioning the Church(We're a diverse people. Nothing wrong with questioning).
 
The problem here is demanding God's will be subservient to yours - Asking a question and only accepting one answer. That way never turns out well.

I found it humourous that the article called the excommunication "very public" when in fact, it was they who publicized it. 
 
Also, excommunication isn't just about kicking people out, but it's about releasing the person from the covenants they are willfully breaking. 

I read that same quote, too.
 
I really feel for that person.  I feel for Kate Kelly and for John Dehlin.  The events of the coming weeks (and months?) for these two will be difficult for me emotionally.  I sympathize with many of Kate's ideas, though not her methods.  Or at least, not the methods of Ordain Women.  I don't know enough about John Dehlin to say the same for him.
 
I experience a lot of cognitive dissonance as a Mormon Feminist.  I empathize with those women who have difficulties in the Church, perceived or otherwise.  I don't currently support female ordination, though if current policies (or doctrines) are changed, I definitely won't be sorry to see it happen.  I love the prophet(s) and do my best to follow their teachings.  But I also feel that there is a lot of room for change in policies, practices, and administrative areas within the Church.  I have a strong testimony of the Gospel, but I also have strong personal opinions and feelings.  Sometimes it's hard to reconcile those with each other.  And so I wage war in my head.
I trust the Church to be discreet with regard to disciplinary actions.  They have strict no-comment policies in place for high-profile (and other) cases like this.  John Dehlin and Kate Kelly each contact media outlets, it appears, and they're welcome to do so.  I feel that doing so, to an extent, is digging their own graves, however.

It's not that simple.
 
The chess club is very well funded.  The non-club-members respect the chess club because they play chess, not checkers.  There might be a few cool kids in the chess club who prefer checkers; but the kids who show up consistently and plan the activities and really make the club work, all prefer chess.
 
The checkers kids are simply incapable of building a club with the resources, clout, or devoted membership that the chess club enjoys; and they know it.  Besides--someone already tried to set up a checkers club.  It still exists, and it's sort of hobbling along, but it's not even in the same league as the chess club and everyone knows it.
 
But the checkers kids don't understand that it's their hobby that's the problem.  They think that if they could just get their maws into the chess kids' money, respect, and devoted members; that they could really make the most awesomist checkers club ever.  But they know the chess club kids won't stand for it; so the short term plan is to blur the distinction between checkers and chess. 
 
And the Chessmaster has just spoilt their game.

Loved American Gods, but it's been several years since I read it. Can't wait for the tv series to be made. I'm about to start the Outlander series.

I think that there is still a clear and distinct level of "bridling  passion" that must needs occur even within marriage. I absolutely agree with you that it is not meant to limit the enjoyment of marital relations though. It is meant to limit abuse, improper thoughts, degradation, etc., and to maintain control.
 
Bridling passion does not mean to restrain it. It means to control it. A bridle controls. Even with a bridle on, a horse can still run full speed when guided to do so. Restraint is a part of control. It is not synonymous with it.
 
This remains true even before marriage. We are not meant to feel no passion. We are meant to control our passions according to the dictates of the Lord's law and standards.

One thing Dr. Schnarch says a lot is that "marriage is a people growing machine." Yes, you are asking her to "change" and "grow" sexually. That is difficult, but it just might be an important part of what marriage is. On the flip side, she is also asking you to "change" and "grow" sexually. It often seems to me that the real skill is how to take two sexually different individuals and blend them together into "one flesh".
 
Sister Brotherson (in a podcast on her strengtheningmarriage.com website) talks about "awakening" versus "bridling" sexuality. The basic premise is that some of us (maybe you) need to work on "bridling" our sexuality, and others (like your wife) of us need to learn to "awaken" and develop our sexuality.
 
Try not to give up. It's a long and sometimes painful road, but this can be overcome.

This situation has felt like a slap in the face to me.  Maybe it's because my brother was serving in Afghanistan less than a year ago?  I think about what was sacrificed to put these Taliban commanders away in the first place.  How many were injured?  How many died?  I worried for a year and was so blessed that my brother was able to come home.  I'm sure there were families whose worst fears were realized.
 
Not only are these men extremely likely to return to their terrorist activities against us, this administration has taught them that abducting U.S. soldiers is a great idea.  If we're willing to trade 5 of theirs for one deserter, how many would we trade for a loyal soldier?  How many innocent Americans will suffer when they succesfully plan another attack?
 
I'm not heartless.  I wouldn't want Bergdahl to continue to suffer even though it was his own fault for leaving his post, but negotiating with terrorists is the wrong way. 
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/obama-bergdahl-somebodys-child-no-apologies-swap-n123501

Whether it's leaving your kids at public school or after school care or involving them in sports..it's the parents CHOICE.
 
They could homeschool, they could watch the kids all day or teach them sports themselves.
 
The problem is that this is government enforced. This is where Anatess said very correctly that government mandated = you will be murdered if you don't comply (most likely from a gunshot to the head). Your child must have private time with a stranger and if you don't comply the police will be called, if you resist you will be taken into custody, if you resist incarceration with force you will be killed.
 
Q
what it really comes down to is those who trust government more then family. I could say if you want your kids having more private time with strangers, then go ahead. But that's not how progressives think, they think the solution to everything is more intrusive, invasive and powerful government. I don't feel that way. I think in general parents care more for their kids then "the village". I don't trust DSHS, the teachers union, the politicians etc, to care more about my children then I do. From what I've seen...if there is a mess somewhere..they step in and make it worse. If you don't see this, you really need to keep up on current affairs.

Wrong about what? I never argued the current statistics. But I don't understand your disregard of principle.
 
Could it be perhaps that these creeps molest those they have access too...and family members are the most accessible? So now you give strangers more private access and power and you expect what? Less family members abusing kids?

I agree that it's sad. I think that's my point. I just don't really want to have an argument followed by having my motives or sanity questioned when I compliment someone.
    ride...ride on little banana-man on a horse thingy

In other words you put your faith and trust in strangers and the state over the bonds of familial love.
 
What if the medical personel, police officer, public school teacher wants to molest your child? If we continue down this road not only will they be able to do so, but they will be able to blame you and throw you in prison.
 
My wife is in the medical profession and has seen horrible things. But in the end knows it's far more dangerous on principle to allow strangers, even professionals, unfettered closeted access to our children. 

In some ways, I will agree with applepansy, though I can certainly empathize with Windseeker. I am reminded of this post just a few days ago by Brad at One Flesh Marriage (http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2014/06/look-great-no-i-dont.html). For whatever reason, it seems that this is a common problem in our society. How to learn to give and receive honest compliments is difficult enough. Combine with the familiarity of marriage relationships and the outside world's fluctuating, irrational definitions of "beauty", "attractive", etc. and it is probably a wonder that anyone manages to get this right.
 
One observation on Charity Pierce: Even in her case (grossly overweight due to physical illness), we frame the discussion of "is she beautiful" in terms of finding a man who says that she is beautiful and worthy of love and affection. Maybe it is difficult to describe "hotness" without it, but it sometimes seems to me that some of this issue needs to be about our relationship with ourselves. Can we each learn to describe ourselves as attractive, beautiful, valuable, "hot", acceptable, loveable, or whatever on our own terms without needing someone outside of ourselves to prop us up? Can we learn how to do it without deluding ourselves?

Whenever I knew someone who said they were ugly or some such thing and I'd tell them they were pretty and they said I was wrong I replied with this "no, because my opinion is most important to me-the center of my own universe, you'll have to accept my answer"
and they laugh, I donno if anyone really gets that but, oddly it makes them feel a bit better...

What is it, where's it from, what's the full picture look like?

In other words you put your faith and trust in strangers and the state over the bonds of familial love.
 
What if the medical personel, police officer, public school teacher wants to molest your child? If we continue down this road not only will they be able to do so, but they will be able to blame you and throw you in prison.
 
My wife is in the medical profession and has seen horrible things. But in the end knows it's far more dangerous on principle to allow strangers, even professionals, unfettered closeted access to our children. 

Is it possible that I agree with windseeker and anatess both?

..one additional thought on this. 
 
In the last two Disney movies we've seen that true love is more then physical attraction or something that only occurs between helpless women and wealthy men. True love is caring more for someone else then you do yourself. I think this is a positive change. 

I miss having a classy first lady, a conservative family in the white house, and a President that is actually a real man(watch his newly released working out video...), not weak at heart. I saw this earlier and I find it very disturbing, just one of the many reminders that I was fortunate enough to have grown up in the time that I did so I would not have to encounter this stuff as a child. I fear for the junk my daughter will be put through though, but she is a die hard conservative just like daddy so we will see who she puts in their place.
 
We live in an invasive era that many would rather accept and deal with than fight. The government should fear its citizens, but that is not the case anymore.

Nobody going to the movies lately?
 
I just saw 'Maleficent.' Beautiful, thought-provoking, probably not good for very young kids, but tweens on up.

Wouldn't it be amazing if looking beautiful required far less work and time then you think. Well this dream can be yours if you do one amazing thing...LISTEN TO YOUR HUSBAND.
 
Women can sometimes be like the old dude with the comb-over, he thinks he looks great, but everyone knows it would look better if he just shaved what's left off. Instead he spends hours picking at it and getting each hair lined up perfectly.....
 
I've given up complimenting my wife when "I" think she's beautiful and now just keep it to when "She" feels beautiful.

I find the threads you get involved in and topics you start interesting and compelling. I stopped reading threads you are on because I don't feel the points I make are considered at all. I'm like static in the background.
 
They usually are really just a conversation between you and seminary snoozer anyway  who seems to have the time to write voluminous responses. 
 
I like both of you if that means anything. So it's nothing personal.