mirkwood

I'm thinking you should get in touch with President Monson and lecture him on his duties to be more inclusive. The Brethren clearly aren't doing it right. Set them straight.

I'm thinking it's an anti-female agenda on the part of the Brethren. Someone should notify Kate Kelly immediately.

How about "min"?  Do they like being told how they should be feeling?  (Just checkin'.)

Well, actually, you were kind of assigning feelings to them...
"That can't make women in the church feel good."
I don't know much about wimmin (despite being married to a wimming for 20 years), but I know it's rare to have them enjoy being told how they should be feeling. 

There weren't any gay speakers either. That must make the gays feel bad.

Oh was it conference weekend....oops...

Oh was it conference weekend....oops...

I guess the next step in apostasizing is listening to Anvil.

Oh was it conference weekend....oops...

Well, they rearranged the ward boundaries (all the wards in the stake), so there was a lot of work to be done - priorities, you know.  I should be there this week, though.

We are free to decline extensive processes or procedures that only serve to preserve life at any cost.  
A couple I home teach had a sister who developed a condition that required such procedures.  Basically, she had to have her blood changed 3 times a week.  It would have been expensive and painful.  She declined to begin those procedures, and died shortly after.  We figure that was an appropriate decision.
"Pulling the plug"-type decisions aren't murder.  Administering injections or taking a pill that ceases the functions of life, well, the law may or may not call it murder, but we oughtn't to such things. 

If you listen to Anvil, will you need Advil?

If @MormonGator's band sounds anything like Anvil, everyone will move out.

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

I just find it bewildering.  My dad was an immigrant to this country in 1962 and he did it legally.  He was the classic example of the dirt poor immigrant coming here from South America and building a life for himself.  This year, at last, he's going for citizenship.  (about time.)
Every single illegal alien is a slap in the face to people who did it right the way my father did.  It's like they think they're too good to follow the legal process.  I'm sorry to go on a rant here but this is something I feel very strongly about and it sickens me the way the left has turned an entire group of lawbreakers into a protected class.
And now churches are protecting them as if it was the Government that was the Big Bad(TM) coming after the poor innocent [sic] immigrant who just wants to make a better life for himself.
Contrary to the popular narrative:
Illegal aliens are not law abiding people.  They have already demonstrated at least once that, if it's convenient for them, they'll ignore the law. Violating immigration law is a Federal Crime.  Trump has introduced *no* new orders or policies.  He's only enforcing existing law. Nobody has a right to be in the United States other than United States Citizens.  Everyone else is a guest.  Is it too much to ask our guests to obey our laws? While I agree that non-citizens should be protected by the U.S. Constitution just as much as citizens, that still means they have to obey the laws. These opinions apparently make me a xenophobic racist. 

Do we care about he human indignity of someone being arrested at home or at work because they shoplifted?
Do we concern ourselves with the effect on the children and family of a drug dealer being put in jail to await trial?
No, of course not.  We would say that this person brought those troubles on themselves and their families by choosing to break the law.
When did breaking immigration law turn into a moral act?

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

At work we generally say that 10% of the population is the problem.  That probably is reasonably accurate.  That means the other 90% are not the problem.  Yes there are monsters, but you most likely will never deal with them or even be exposed to them.  Live cautiously, but not with paranoia.

I have a buddy who tendered his resignation the morning he heard about the new policy.  He hadn't been inside a church in two decades, and has been loudly critical of the church and it's policies and members for a long time.
Despite what people want to think, only a tiny fraction of a percentage of people left the church over this policy.  It barely made the tiniest ripple in our membership numbers.  I would guess, hearing the online stories from dozens of these people, that the majority of them are like my friend - inactive and unbelieving for a long time, just finally got ticked off enough to do something about it.  

"...you can’t please all of the people all of the time." ...But with a little effort, you can make them all angry.

Is this what we're talking about when we're talking about Anvil?