Backroads

Has anyone ever done this? lds.org has a map section that can, among other things, locate your ward/stake/branch based on your address. I wind up using this all the time in my office.

I drank an energy drink today... I definitely see the health risks, though. That's a heck of a lot of caffeine. I tend to get them in emergency situations where I just cannot wake up.

On that note... I think all of the no-nos of the WoW are probably just fine... in moderation. But when culture/chance of addiction are at such an increased risk, it's best to avoid them when there are so many other things that offer plenty of health. I don't think the severity of moral sins should completely shadow out the law of health, but I think this is an area where members are simply going to have to become more aware.

Sometimes I wonder if I overuse those buttons, but if something is funny and/or useful, I feel that person should be informed!

is there a source on this?

But it saves water/energy rather than tossing the garments in the washing machine...

So if I'm reading you right, you are not against lingerie/being attractive persay, but are against certain things being a requirement to intimancy, as in "wear this piece/do this or I don't want you." Is that what you're talking about? If so, I would definitely agree with you. But there is something to be said more a mutual attempt to please each other. Caution is always advisable, but in itself there is nothing wrong with spicing things up.

Another question... I suppose it can be agreed that some things are more important than others, but it does seem that the Church could focus on healthy lifestyles more than it does.

But part of sex IS exciting the spouse. Frankly, I'd be offended if my husband did not like my body.

When the Word of Wisdom came out, it was pretty much a suggestion. Obviously it has changed since then, and I am definitely in favor of an emphasis on a healthy lifestyle. However, as has been said, we are on different planes of spirituality. Sometimes you need to do away with what you are doing wrong before you can focus on doing what is right. Abstaining from such-n-such sexual sins are extremely important. It might be best to work on that part of your life before you start on other forms of perfection. That being said, I agree with you: It is essential to take care of our bodies. I believe we should take more from the WoW than "do not drink coffee". But when one has to make a choice between not having sex or not eating a candy bar...

But what I said had nothing to do with a church quote. I was merely referring to the thoughts of the people here.

Did I say otherwise?

Question: When churches are against contraception, do they take any particular stand on natural family planning?

Optimistically, the trend would be encouraging intrinsic motivation to take control of one's spiritual and religious life rather than "Whine whine, the church makes me do this, whine whine."Pessimistically, how far does this go? Could it lead to completely ignoring the rules of the Church and just going with "it feels good"? At what point does an individual stop listening to church guidelines altogether? At that point are they really a Catholic/Mormon/insert other church? In my limited experience I know of a few individual congregations. I don't see why not.

So according to the unofficial gospel according to lds.net members, lingerie seems to be perfectly acceptable. For what it's worth, I thought those patterns were very pretty...

Are you asking if we have to wear the garment to bed? The answer is yes. When we take the garment, we covenant to wear it day and night. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but just not wearing the garment to bed because we don't feel like it doesn't really apply. I tend to wear just garments to sleep, but nothing prevents me from wearing something over them.

Goodness me, I'm the same way. Would never get up and give a talk on as much and probably wouldn't care one or the other on this, but it's a nice thought.

I believe so. Whether or not we accept the thought is another story altogether.

I've heard similar things as to "This little nightie doesn't cover my garments!". I personally don't know why it should. I think those who claim to wear their garments literally 24/7 are nuts. If we branch away from that to justify removing the garment for exercise and whatnot, I like to imagine sex would be an appropriate time. I haven't heard any church policy, but I think one can make up her own mind about what is appropriate as far as individual pieces go.

Bingo. I think you are going to be hard-pressed to entertain/educate every single kid in the group. I don't know if the presidency expects you to, but I doubt it will happen. Take some tips, but don't beat yourself up.

UPDATE Brother and Sister-in-Law are currently in counseling. We spent last weekend with them and as far as I could tell they were very much in love and affectionate and playful and all that...

I personally come to church for spiritual upliftment...

If I may, I would like to recommend HiJolly's statement of faith on his profile...

I think it's possible they might have some good points, but I can definitely empathize with you. Especially when they are not giving you details. I think their goals for what can be done with the kiddies are commendable, but it sounds here like they are throwing all the responsibility on you. I like knowing who said what so I can get to the root of the problem, so it bothers me you don't get to know who said what. I would get back with them, pick a a couple of things to focus on (couldn't hurt), and try to roll this off as well. Though I always hate the insincere "we appreciate you".

I believe there is a nugget of truth in many of the anti literature. What makes it anti is how much bias with which it is written. An historical fact is an historical fact. A teaching by a general authority is a teaching by a general authority. Really, they contain little if any emotional connection. I too have stumbled upon anti stuff. In fact, it's one of the things that lead me to this forum. I have come to the conclusion that anti-Mormong literature stumbles upon something that, yes, is technically true, applies an emotional opinion to it, then throws a hissy fit over everything. I've also come to the conclusion that the amount of hard core, salvation-important, totally officially doctrine of the church is quite small. So you find something some venerable church leader said. It surprises and bothers you. There are two main approaches to take here: 1. Believe it to be ultra-important information that is crucial to your salvation and was presented to said church leader by the chorus of at thousand angels and wind up at a huge crisis of faith. 2. Accept it as merely something a venerable church leader said. You are perfectly welcome to ask questions: Why did he say it? Was it his opinion? Was it the result of his own pondering and studying and perhaps even prayer--but still not the result of a text-book thousand angel/Godhead revelation? Was it something that could possibly contain some or a lot of truth but just isn't that big of a deal? I have noticed that people get upset when they find out stuff that a few decades ago was common knowledge--such as Joseph Smith looking at rocks in a hat. No one had a problem with it years ago, it appeared in a church magazine article or two as hardly as secret, but nowadays it can cause people to leave the Church. Why the Church doesn't stress these things anymore, I don't know. But if it didn't bother my grandparents and their ancestors, why should it bother me? Also, I believe we are all responsible for our own learning and we can't blame the Church class or seminary or whatever for not doing all the work for us. Stay away from anti sites. Everything has a bad slant that forces you to be offended. Look at church sites. Heck, look at original sources.