Leah

Lawyers don't use foul language? Then the law firm I work at must be an anomaly. It has the foulest language of any workplace I've ever been in.

The way this is written is confusing. It sounds like the bishop is looking for (minimally) a 6 month patter of paying tithing. Yet you refer to having paid four months' worth of tithing. If that's the case, 4 months is not 6 months no matter whether it's separate payments or lump. And January to April is not six months. Could he be concerned (given something in your history), that you may just be coming up with a one-time sum in order to get your recommends to get sealed, but then will revert back to your old patterns once the sealing has been accomplished? Nothing personal, but these kinds of behaviors do happen. Perhaps he's looking for more than just a dollar amount satisfied.

I am still trying to figure out why birth control coverage is mandated...but health insurance companies are free to deny whatever other health care they feel they want to. Any of us can look at our plans and see a list of we-don't-cover-this. Plenty of us have stories about being denied coverage by our insurance companies of one thing or another that a doctor (or multiple doctors) say is medically necessary. What's so special about birth control? Here's a thought...if you don't want to get pregnant, either don't have sex or go out and purchase the birth control method of your choice. I worked at a private, Catholic university. One year, the students were up in arms, demanding the university provide them with free contraception. Funny, they could all find their way to the bars, but not to the drugstore? (And, yes, it's ironic, it was a Catholic campus). Maybe I'm just not bright enough to get it.

I think what Palerider was saying that you need to be attending sacrament and your other meetings at least twice a month if you want to receive a recommend. I don't think he was saying that you have to attend the temple twice a month in order to keep your recommend. Obviously, that would be impossible for some people because of sheerest distance from tha temple.

And you aren't being the least little bit judgmental in any of YOUR views, right? Nothing at all judgmental about calling people derogatory names and asserting that your views are superior to theirs.

Negotiating tool? So a spouse should always be wiiling to have sex no matter how the other party is treating them? No matter what their behavior? I can understand a spouse not feeling romantic towards someone abusing alcohol, etc. Are we blaming the wife for the husband's infidelity? Seems like sex is more important to him than his wife.

Women in the church are NOT second-class citizens nor do they do "lesser work". Different roles do not mean "lesser" roles. I cannot think of a single woman I know in the church that I would describe as subservient.

Only posts that agree with everything you say are "supportive"? You are unwilling to hear points of view different than your own? I see people here being loving and helpful (Anatess) and you dismiss anything they would have to say because they have a different point of view than your own. That's not uncommon on this forum, actually. Did you come here looking for honest feedback or did you come here for approval of your point of view? That's not uncommon on this forum, either. It's been made abundantly clear to you that no one is going to throw you out of church for wearing pants. But it is still true that it is more common for women to wear skirts in church. That's just how it is. But you are taking the minhag ha'makom (the custom of the place) and making it into something it is not, reading things in that aren't there, and making judgments about people. You don't want people to judge you for wearing pants, but you are passing judgment on the skirt-wearers. Back to minhag ha'makom. I converted from Judaism. This was a concept that was taught as important...to respect the custom of the place. Whether it was someone's home (like not smoking in a non-smoking home) or a place of worship (respecting the customs of the individual places of worship), etc. So, as a Jew, if I went to an orthodox synagogue, the customs are different from a synagogue way over on the liberal end of the spectrum. Either way, you RESPECT the custom of the place. You don't go in expecting/demanding that everything be changed to your satisfaction (why even be there, if that is the case?). I am NOT saying don't go to church in pants (although some will insist on seeing it that way). I am not saying it is "wrong" to go to church in pants (although some will insist that they know my mind better than I, and that that is what I am trying to say). I am not saying that the mere act of wearing pants is disrespectful (again, some will insist that I am saying otherwise). I am saying that the attitude is more important than attire (but attire is not completely meaningless) and if you go with an attitude of judgment and condescension of those who think or dress differently than you....then you will get reactions to the attitude, not the manner of dress.

You asked about wearing pants to church. Another poster responded by asking if you are gay, seeming to make an assumption about your sexual orientation. Which was silly and irrelevant. Not all tomboys are mistaken for guys, so the clarification that what you were talking about is the fact that you can look like you are a guy was a good thing. I think - at worst, and just based on your self-description - that there is a slight possibility that someone might initially mistake you for a guy - again based on your description of being mistaken for a guy sometimes and not simply on the fact of wearing pants - as may happen anywhere. But the reaction beyond that should be one of welcoming and kindness.

And your point is.....what? I said gay and tomboy are not the same thing. Plenty of straight women are tomboys, plenty of lesbians are as girly as it gets. I was not the one who inquired about her sexual orientation, that subject was introduced by someone else. I don't see the need to inquire about a woman's sexual orientation simply because she said she wanted to wear pants to church and/or she stated she was a tomboy. I asked how that was relevant and didn't get an answer. No surprise there. Some people just need to be contentious with those who don't agree with every little word they utter, I guess. Women don't get tossed out of church for wearing pants, no matter what their sexual orientation is. She needn't worry about that if she's a tomboy, a lesbian, a lesbian tomboy, a straight tomboy or whatever label you want to slap on her. She's a woman who wants to wear pants to church. True, it's not the norm, but no one is going to bar her from church because she has pants on.

And again I am wondering why sexual orientation is relevant. Straight women wear pants, too, so why inquire about sexual orientation? Pants equals lesbian? Is that why you asked? What about those lesbians who prefer skirts? Some women wear pants to church. You have supported that. The only way I am seeing where her sexual orientation might be relevant is if she is deliberately trying to appear male. I could see where that would be confusing in some situations, whether it be at church or elsewhere. If pants are okay to wear to church, then pants are okay to wear to church. Orientation would be irrelevant.

I am curious as to why you started off saying that the reason you want to wear pants to church is because you are a tomboy. They are not the same thing. You can be a tomboy without being gay and vice versa. If you want to wear pants to church, then wear pants to church. I am not sure that your sexual orientation is relevant in that regard. Straight women wear pants. Gay women wear dresses and skirts. It's not all one or the other. Now, if you are saying you dress in order to look like a man, we'll, anywhere you go, you are likely to elicit some sort of reaction in people (spoken or not), so church might not be any different.

The OP is a man, so you were responding to a man. So I ask again, what did you mean when you told him not to be like Adam?

It would seem to me that these examples tell the kids that it is okay to lie in order to personally benefit from something. Is that really a good thing to teach?

Can you explain what you mean by your last sentence?

And you were there and you know what they were thinking, along with every other detail of the situation? You have a better grasp of it - based on a video - than the people who were there from beginning to end? You have magical powers that tell you that he was going to be compliant if released?

Obeying Heavenly Father's commandments is never foolish.

I've never encountered anyone who equated a class or a meeting such as RS with a "worship service".

Worship services? I haven't seen anyone post that this was brought up in Sacrament Meeting. Perhaps I missed that.

You should move the last ward I was in...and join RS. :) Last year - the new, young - announced that our husbands had received info on FOS in their priesthood meeting and we were to get the information from them. Groovy. That means we single ladies were off the hook - we weren't even to be trusted with the knowledge, much less be asked for our money. The year before that, there was a joint presentation in SS and we were all encouraged to donate. I haven't heard a thing in the ward I am in this year. But...I am still a woman, so perhaps that is why?

Well.....after freaking out, I printed off some forms and did it by hand and came up with the usual refund. I even left off a possible deduction to make sure I was paying every penny possible. Then I took a deep breath and went back into the software. It seemed to not have accounted for any of the tax I had already paid. But the weird thing is that the gross pay on my W-2 is higher than the number you get by multiplying the hours worked by my hourly wage. I am loathe to ask the office manager about. She is wrong about things on a regular basis and will never admit to it. But at least I don't owe any money! Whew!

I have been in the situation (more than once) of a woman seeking my counsel because she needed to talk to someone who had also been through a sexual assault. No way am I going to share that with my husband. Same with anyone who talks to me about some of the more private issues with MS. Does my husband really need to know that so-and-so is having issues with incontinence? What purpose does that serve? If his friend confided in my husband that he was having impotency issues, no way is that my business. You can a good and true marriage without knowing every bit of information rattling around in your spouse's head.

Just did my taxes and am about to have a heart attack. I NEVER have owed money on Federal. EVER. But I just did my taxes and the software is showing me that I owe almost 3,000 dollars! I usually get about $1100 BACK! What gives? The ony thing I can figure is that employer screwed up royally on my withholding somehow. But I don't even claim myself during the year, so as to have them withhold the maximum amount. And, as I said, I always get back a sizeable refund. My hands are shaking.

Me, either. I got mine about a week after I was baptized.

And how do you know that they have been revealed to the prophets? Why would the prophets be asked to withhold this information, while at the same time it is being revealed to others?