Leah

You have a very skewed idea of "discussion". Anyone who doesn't agree with your closed-minded, distorted take on something is dismissed as not being part of the "discussion". Coming to a forum filled with members of the church that you rejected, to tell them how 'wrong' they are and how 'right' you are is not a discussion. We will never know if you have the ability to actually grasp the very simple teachings in the talk that you referenced because you have zero intention of trying to understand. Your views are crystal clear. It comes across in your arrogant, dismissive approach to "discussion". You seem to want us to believe that you are deliriously happy in your new choice of church. Yet, nothing of the sort shows through in your posts. If you are so confident in your new beliefs, why the inability to let go of your past? Why the need to feebly attempt (and failingly so) tell Mormons that not only are they "wrong", that you know more than active, practicing Mormons do about the church and it's teachings? What is missing from your life that compels you to do this?

The irony is piled high here.

The talk you linked to is being woefully misinterpreted by you. It is a simple talk, with a clear, simple message. The message is either beyond your grasp or you are choosing to misunderstand it because the real message does not fit with your agenda. So much irony in your last paragraph.......

There is so much wrong with your post that I hardly know where to start. "LDS view material wealth as a blessing, which indicates righteousness". As others have pointed out, you haven't a clue about this. It is clear that you are ignorant when it comes to actual teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have a very negative viewpoint about it. And, yes, that can be true even if someone is an ex-member. Are you open to learning truth about the church or do you prefer to cling to something you latched on to from sources that are also ignorant? Are you here to learn or are you just another in a line of people who come here to tell members of the church how "wrong" we are and how right and superior you are? I am constantly baffled by people who leave the church but can't leave the church alone. Whether it's to rant and rave on ex-Mormon sites or come to forums like this one to proclaim their superiority in having joined a different church. I converted from Judaism. I have zero need or desire to run around to all the Jews telling them how "wrong" they are. Maybe if I were insecure in my new faith? Nope, not even then. As far as being an RCIA instructor automatically making you an expert in everything...or even in anything....I have enough experience with RCIA classes through family members and my own employment at a couple of Catholic institutions to know better. And in the particular instance of your knowledge versus Anatess'....if I were a betting person, my money would be on her.

A friend posted a quote on FaceBook from Samuel L. Jackson (the actor) that I think was a good take on the situation. I am not intending to start a gun control debate, but he talked about growing up in the South and everyone had guns but people weren't running around shooting each other like they are today. His take on it was that it's not about guns or gun laws, but it is about those who don't value human life. That that is what we need to address.

There is also the option of having them made to order. Body proportions are unique and some people have challenges with the "stock" sizes. I think Anatess gets her garments this way, so she might have some advice. I still find it kind of weird that the fit can vary so much from one material to the next, but it is what it is. When I went to buy garments just before my endowment, I took a friend from the ward and between her and the woman at the distribution center, they did a pretty good job of guiding me. And the temple worker assigned to me gave me some invaluable advice (feel free to PM me). Even so, a lot of it boiled down to just trying the different fabrics until I found what works best. I found I like a wider array of the bottoms than I do the tops. Oh....and then just when you have it all figured out....they change the sizing...they change the material.... :)

They do have petite sizes intended for those who actually are. They are not intended to allow average/taller women to wear shorter skirts. I know women who are 5' 9" and taller who brag about buying the petite bottoms so that they can wear short skirts and shorts. Obviously, that is not the intention of making petite sizes available. My skirts are always mid-knee or just below the knee. For whatever reason, yes, the different fabrics seem to hit at different lengths. I just experimented until I figured out which ones work best for me. Some of the cotton-based fabrics seem to "grow" during the day and end up longer on me later in the day, so I am careful about those. But I do wear Dri-Lux most of the time. They didn't make Carinessa bottoms in petite when I was first endowed, but they do now and I find those to come down the furthest on me of all of the fabrics. I can't remember any specific names right now, but there are at least a couple of companies that cater to the LDS world that make these slips that have various kinds of material at the bottom to extend your skirt. I know they advertise in LDS Living, but you could probably find them with a Google search. Some I think aren't so great - it just looks like your slip is showing...badly. But others look like a layered-skirt effect. I saw a woman at church one day who really made it work well. It just looked like a cute, layered skirt.

Sacrament meeting first is the only experience I've had in the two stakes I have lived in. I like having it first. It's the most important meeting of the day and I think it sets the tone for the rest of the day. It just seems to me a natural order of things, but I don't know how to really define/explain that.

Some people have a hard time keeping track of details when they are writing fiction.

I have only changed wards/stakes once since joining the church. I gave my new address to my current ward before I moved. On moving day I received a call from the membership clerk at the new saying he heard I was moving into the ward that day and did I need any help? I did. Shortly after the U-Haul pulled into the driveway, guys from the new ward started showing up to help. Someone from the Relief Society dropped by later to welcome me and see if there was anything I needed. It was awesome.

Yes, let's imitate the ways of the world and "try out" marriage before truly committing. Why even marry as a member of the church if you have doubts about wanting to be together for eternity? And I am calling for a CFR on your statement that "so many people in your shoes who were converts....". Surely you have hard data to back that up. The exact number of "so many", that it specifically applied to converts, etc.

What an ironic first sentence. If you read the OP's first post, he states he 'had' quit for 80+ days and then asked if he would get kicked out for smoking. If he is not currently smoking, why ask the question? It could reasonably be read as he had successfully quit for x amount of time - as in 'had', past-tense - and was now smoking again. Again, why ask about getting kicked out for smoking if he is not smoking again? Is he planning on starting and wants assurance that it's okay to smoke - violate the Word of Wisdom? As for his standing in the church - that is not up to you or me to judge. Bytor was trying to be helpful, not judgmental, in cautioning the OP that violating the Word of Wisdom can potentially create an issue - such as not being able to hold a temple recommend as he mentioned. He was trying to prevent a disservice being done to the OP by a random stranger on the internet who has no real knowledge of, or stewardship over the OP. You could very well do more harm than good by your response. The right place to go for an answer to his question would be to his bishop. And I would venture to guess that the bishop would be able to help him on a larger basis than just whether or not he is currently smoking.

I have a very specific (most would agree very legitimate) reason to hate the police with every fiber of my being. Some of the scars will probably never heal. BUT....I still think that for the most part, I think people like our own Mirkwood are a more accurate reflection of people in law enforcement than are the few legitimate bad cops (and you will find similar bad apples in any/all professions), or the picture that our media and johnny-wanna-be-famous-with-his-cell-phone-video want to paint. There are too many people who think it's baloney, but the truth is that every day that a cop puts on his/her uniform to start his shift, they know there is a chance it may be their last one. How many of us go to work risking our lives every single day? How many of us go to work wondering if today is the day that I get shot at? Sure, some of you will jump on here with statistics pulled from somewhere of how "not that many" cops actually get shot at/shot. You'll say it's not "that" risky of a job. But the fact remains that the risk is there every single day. And I would daresay given the current mentality of our society, that it will simply get worse. Far worse. Just look at this video for instance. You have teenagers who have NO issue with trespassing, assault, vandalism....and even when confronted by police officers they continue to think they are above it all. Rules don't apply to them. The law doesn't apply to them. And they are furthered rewarded for their behavior by fame in the media and being treated as though they are the victims...not the people whose property they trespassed, nor the people they assaulted. This incident was part of a known problem in the area. Rogue parties instigated by one person who has a thirst to make a buck and a name and to incite chaos. Apparently, it's not enough that the cop never fired a shot. He was supposed to have never drawn his gun. There is all this holier-than-thou speculation that the guy reaching for his waistband wasn't actually a threat, the cop should have waited... Waited for what? Until after a gun was drawn and fired? What would the reaction have been if he had hesitated (which could happen more and more these days because cops know there are people out there who think no shooting is ever justified, no matter the circumstances) and the guy did pull a gun and start shooting and people other than the cop had been shot? I mean, you all are doing what-ifs and your crystal balls seem to know exactly everyone's mindset is from a few seconds of video, so why can't this possibility be considered? There was a large, out-of-control situation. Clearly, there were a number of people there presenting a real and present danger. You can't do some sort of psychiatric intake on each individual before you decide who is involved and who is an innocent bystander. You're outnumbered. People are in danger. Someone has already been assaulted. You work quickly to stop the threat. You get everyone under control first, whether it means handcuffs or face-down on the ground. When the immediate threat has been neutralized, THEN you can sort out who's who and what's what and send the innocent on their way. And in situations like this, those are usually the ones who already left per the police instructions. Not the ones who stayed and aggressed against the police. And it is not because the cops are concerned about their own safety, they are there because they are trying to protect you and me. I am sure this incident is not going to stop the instigator of this "party". It was probably an ego boost. Look at me! I'm famous! We fought the evil police and we won! Thanks to the you-poor-babies reaction from the media and society, they are going to feel invincible and it's going to fuel their already existing mind-set of being able to do whatever they want with no consequences to themselves. How many more instances of trespassing and intimidation and assault are they going to perpetuate this summer? How would you feel knowing that you can be invaded and assaulted by a large group of teenagers and when you try to defend yourself by calling in the police, all of the sympathy and support goes to the perpetrators instead of the victims? It seems there are an awful lot of people who think they know far better how this situation (and other situations) should have been handled by the police, even with no training and no experience in anything like this. If that is the case, why aren't you in law enforcement? Put your money where your mouth is and prove that you have all the answers.

Are you really this misinformed or do you just not let reality get in the way of your obvious negative view of women?

These cousins of yours.....any middle-aged, single men who would be amenable to joining the church?

Just as I thought. You do not grasp the concept of integrity.

Boy, what a messed up, selfish, woman-hating view of life. If you're for real. If not, I'd give you a D- in the creative writing department.

Do YOU understand the concept of integrity?

My gut reaction is this....let kids be kids! Are these parents really signing their children up for all of these camps for the children's sakes or does it fulfill some sort of need in the parent? (One of which just might be not having to deal with the kids themselves). Our lives become so structured as it is with schooling and then employment. And it starts younger and younger. Even stay-at-home moms put their very young children into pre-school. So much of their lives are spent away from home, with strangers, in a structured environment. Why does every minute need to be regimented? I could see one fun camp-type thing during the summer, if the child wants it. But I would rather see kids get a chance to be kids. A chance to play and have fun. A chance to create their own fun rather than have their creativity be limited and structured every minute of the day. I had one of the crappiest childhoods a kid could ever have, but I still have fond memories of summer vacation. Days to have fun and explore and just live. I grew up in the olden days when kids roamed all over on their own. You'd head out the door in the morning, come back home for lunch (and other days have some sort of picnic with your friends), and head back out again until dinner time. You'd wolf down your dinner as fast as your parents would allow, and head back out to play again until dark. We rode our bikes all over. We'd play down at the river-front. (Looking back, that makes me a little nervous). We'd go to the school playground or to the park to play. There were mom-and-pop grocery stores everywhere, that you would take your allowance or the money you scrounged from finding pop bottles in the alley for redemption, and you would get a summer-time treat of a popsicle or ice-cream bar. We built things. There was a piano and organ store around the block from us, and they would let the neighborhood kids have the big wooden shipping crates (would probably never happen today!), and we'd use our imaginations and whatever we could scrounge at home to turn them into things like the Starship Enterprise and spend hours and hours letting our imaginations soar. Do accidents happen? Sure. With five kids in our family, we had our share of stitches, concussions (mine happened in my own yard!), bumps and bruises, but those things happen even under supposed parental supervision. We've all heard stories about kids who wandered off and drowned in a neighbor's pool. Are there parents who are irresponsible in this regard? Of course. But you are not that kind of parent. You are raising your children with important skills and common sense. And you use common sense when deciding how much freedom you give your kids and where the boundaries are. Don't feel pressured by the current trend to over-schedule, over-structure children's lives. Again, I think a lot of this comes from the wants of the parents more than the needs of the kids. Probably some keeping-up-with-the-Jones' mentality in there, too.

For me the answer would be "it depends". I am guessing for most people, their exposure to evangelicals - or people who identify as such - has been to (what I would consider) the more extreme end of the spectrum. The you're-evil-and-sinful-and-going-to-hell-holier-than-thou kind of evangelical. That kind of religious practice (or whatever you want to call it) is a huge turn-off for me. Especially being Jewish, I would run the other direction. That was a large factor in my initial reaction to having a member of the LDS church share their testimony with me and invite me to read the Book of Mormon and come to church. I immediately reacted negatively. I felt angry, insulted, and a host of other negative feelings. I thought they were nuts. Obviously, my feelings changed. :)

I live in Oregon and this doesn't surprise me one bit. And it's going to get worse. Here in Oregon and all over the United States. I am glad to be closer to the end of my life than to the beginning. What's right versus what's wrong has become so messed up in this world, that I'm sometimes scared for what is yet to come.

I really don't understand the parents' reaction. It's just a simple kiss in greeting between an engaged couple. What's the scandal? Surely these women kissed their spouses before marriage! If it were some sort of make-out session in front of the kids - even if a married couple - that would be another matter. But this sounds like a simple, affectionate kiss. Heck, lots of people exchange pecks on the cheek in greeting in a non-romantic relationship. I used to have a brother-in-law and nephew who greeted me this way. I grew up in a household where affection - physical or otherwise - was pretty non-existent and wasn't in the habit of greeting people this way myself, but I just went with it in the spirit it was given and didn't clutch my pearls over it. Is this a particularly conservative group of moms? I can't fathom what their issue is unless they just love to wallow in gossip about anyone and anything. But even in a conservative group, this seems like an over-the-top reaction, especially in today's society when we have some completely irresponsible single mothers who think nothing of having a parade of boyfriends in their bed, exposing their children to something that's truly messed up (I've had a few co-workers over the years that I just wanted to shake some sense into for their childrens' sake). Maybe they are jealous/envious. I have known women who weren't happy in their own relationships and couldn't stand to see anyone else happy and affectionate. And if the moms are gossiping in front of their kids or making an issue of this in front of them...well, then...double shame on them. (I am home on medical leave for six weeks so excuse my verbose posts. I am not getting much human contact! LOL)

I have just one more comment and then I am done with participating in this gossip mill. So you know with absolute certainly that the girls "kept quiet" to protect the family reputation? Have you spoken with them? We talk about forgiveness and the atonement but most only give it lip service. Is it totally impossible that the girls aren't talking about it publicly because they have dealt with it (it did happen years ago), worked through it, been able to forgive him and it serves absolutely no purpose for them to speak about it publicly now? Does the public have the right to know the identity of every single person this happens to? One of the reasons the records were destroyed was to protect the girls! I am a survivor of child sexual abuse. I dealt with it and moved forward with my life. Must I trot out that information forevermore? Should I wear some sort of identifying badge? If I become a celebrity (yuck) am I somehow obligated to reveal this information about myself? Do I not get a choice about who, when and if I reveal this?

Why exactly does it need to be discussed here? How is this particular story relevant to this particular forum? Why discuss this and none of the other "celebrities"? I don't see where he or any of his family made excuses. Everyone acknowledged that what he did was wrong and took steps to make sure it never happened again. There are plenty of families out there who just look the other way when something like this happens, much less bring in the authorities. Please share with us that law that states that is okay to release sealed juvenile records simply because one is in the public eye? The hypocrisy in applying different standards to a "celebrity" is very telling. It's the other side of the same hypocrisy that you are whining about. Juvenile records are sealed for very valid reasons. One of them has to do with the opportunity to be rehabilitated. Apparently, the majority of the people commenting on this story don't believe in that opportunity, or seek to deny to those whom they would choose. I hope they all remember that when they are seeking forgiveness and a chance to right their wrongs. "Everyone" cares about the girls? Really? Even those who took sealed records and made them public to the world for their own personal (and probably monetary) gain? Did they - or all of the people obsessed with this story - ever stop to consider that the girls involved did not want the whole world to know? Was it okay to take that choice away from them to fit someone else's personal agenda? Was any consideration given to re-opening wounds from years ago would have on them? I have been in a similar situation myself, worked hard on moving forward and healing. To have the public gossiping obsessively about something I successfully moved past is abusive and selfish and causes harm. But, hey, let's not let the needs of someone else get in the way of our need to judge and condemn and gossip about those we don't even know. Please show me exactly where I said that the existence of the crimes of Lena Dunham and Woody Allen make this situation okay. Even Josh Duggar is not saying it's okay! But let's not have a thread about Lena Dunham because hey...it was just non-consensual sexual contact against her own sister and that's cool, cuz anything same-sex related is politically correct and acceptable and no one was harmed, right? Let's not lynch her and cancel her show because that would be perceived as bigotry against the LGBT community. Because we all know that everything there is natural and normal, don't we? And let's not talk about the incestuous Woody Allen. I mean, geez, the man's an artist! Let's not pick on him! Apparently the atonement does NOT extend to everyone. We have a person who recognized their wrong-doing, took steps to change his direction, repented....all of the things we are supposed to do, but because what? He's a Dugger? A celebrity? We are going to sit in judgment of him and revel in our condemnation? I can't help but think about the funeral I attended of the young man here who brought a gun to school and killed another student and then killed himself. No one was in denial about what he did but the Christlike love that was present at the funeral was powerful. It was so palpable I would not have been surprised to see Jesus himself sitting in the chapel with the rest of us. I am comforted to know that real justice is not decided by this world.

Where was all of the public outrage over Lena Dunham (an actress) when she bragged about what she did to her sister? Was she given a pass because she's not Christian? Because everything related to same-gender sexual contact is A-Okay in today's society, no matter the circumstances? Have we banned Woody Allen movies yet? Why was this thread even started? Is it for the same reason people are gleefully discussing this elsewhere? Yay, those disgusting, modest-dressing Christians are BAD and that just proves that religion -especially Christianity - is bad? Why were juvenile records unsealed? Does no one care that they are putting the girls through a public trial that is not in their best interest? That they are also being subject to being judged and gossiped about? Does the atonement only extend to those we approve of? Is it not for everyone?