RMGuy

Oh, I like that solution. I think that I shall recommend that to the SYWP. They can have all the girls self-report. -RM

Does it? Thank you for the insinuation John. Since you are so curious I will share with you that it came up as a question raised in our stake...by a parent of a daughter that has one. The question raised though, I think is a good one. Since we are making the rule, are we going to check and enforce it, or are we only going to penalize those that are in obvious violation? Now that we know that this YW has this piercing who should we volunteer to check her as she registers? -RM

Here's an interesting conundrum for you. We are supposed to follow our leaders council, and our leaders are supposed to use the Spirit in interpreting the handbook. My Stake President has expressly requested that I carry while at church. -RM

Based on the original wording of the WoW, all beer is acceptable, but hot chocolate is not. You are asked if you keep the WoW. You get to answer it as you see fit. -RM

You maybe able to find some informaiton from Canada. IIRC, the church transferred a very significant amount to BYU last year from Canadian tithing funds. The church is required to report finances in Canada and parts of Europe, but Little Wyvery is right, you won't find the information you are looking for anywhere. -RM

Some of the questions that I encountered included: 1. Why are we going to hold the girls to a higher standard for girls camp than that required to attend the temple? 2. Are we going to strip search the girls to make sure that they comply. After all, it is pretty easy to tell if they have in a nose stud, but more difficult if they have a nipple pierced. 3. Are we only worried about outward manifestations? After all, many girls that probably have more severe sin problems including chastity, wow, etc. could easily attend camp and the leaders don't know. Why single these girls out? -RM

I'm curious as to what evidence he has that this is originating out of DAMU or NOM? -RM

JAG, I have to say I usually enjoy your posts. They are well reasoned and thought out and seem to be pretty objective. On this one, it appears your bias is showing just a bit. -RM

Recently I was having a conversation with some individuals regarding requirements for attendance at girl’s camp. One of which was that the girls must remove all body piercings except one pair of earrings prior to attendance. I am curious as to everyone's thoughts here. Not just what you think, but why you think/believe what you do about it? -RM

It is interesting to me that when individuals raise this as an issue we sometimes struggle to see why it upsets them so much.....after all if they don't believe in it, then it has no efficacy right? But we get upset if someone refers to the ordinance as 'necro-dunking' or something similarly offensive. Why? Because it makes a mockery of something that we hold to be sacred. I think we can all do a better job of empathy, and understanding that for many other religions the ordinances that we perform in the temple on behalf of others kindred dead are in fact seen as making of mockery of the things that those individuals held sacred during their life time. -RM

I think then that we need to be very clear. There is a distinct difference between individuals that do not grow up in a two parent home, and children born to parents that are not married. Christ himself fits the latter category, but not the former. Others fall into a wide variety of situations in between: Children born and put up for adoption to two parent families Children born and adopted by single parents Children born to a single parent Children born to two parents that are not married and never become married Children born to two parents that later get married Children born to two parents that are married and stay together Children born to two parents that are married and later get divorced and then are single parents Children born to two parents that are married, get divorced and later remarry to provide a two parent household. The possible permutations of this are almost endless. To blame the downfall of society on one of these groups tells me that someone hasn't put a lot of time and effort into thinking this through very well. Thomas Aquinas wrote on this in the 1200's. Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining how a baby born to two loving parents, and raised by these same two individuals (living together but not leglly married) to adulthood is iinherently more of a menace to society than an indivdual that is born in the covenant to two parents who divorce a few months after the baby is born? The first child is illegitimate, the second is not. -RM

Maybe I am confused and someone can help me out. JAG, and many of the other posters as well, seems to be talking about single parents. The original question was asking about illegitimacy. While a child born illegitimate may indeed grow up in a single parent household, these two are not synonomous. Are we talking about a child born without benefit of legal marriage or a children of single parent homes? -RM

Welcome to the group KRCP, you can't be considered a real member here until you have been hazed a few times. it seems to go with the territory. -RM

I believe and look for the good in people. I don't believe that an individual is who they are because of who their parents are. I dont' think it matters whether they were born in wealth or in poverty, to a liberal family or a conservative one. While all of those things have an influence in life, I have seen too many people overcome humble or less than ideal births to lead lives of greatness. I have also seen individual with every opportunity amount to very little. I believe that who an individual becomes, and what they contribute or take from society is more a function of the choices they make, and who they wish to be, than any other external influence. Look at individual like William the Conqueror, Opray Winfrey, Sophia Loren, John Audabon, Pope Clement VII, Fredrick Douglass, T.E. Lawrence, Booker T. Washington, Leonardo Da Vinci, to name just a few. I think the fact that the child is loved and nurtured and cared for, or if they are encouraged to explore, learn, and grow plays a bigger role than whether or not Mom and Dad have a wedding certificate on the wall. -RM

Hmmm, so did this plant die 32,000 years ago? -RM

Short answer... No. -RM

I've really come to have a testimony of not making others work on the sabbath. In order to do my part I have stopped going to church on Sunday. If everyone did this there would be less traffic on the roads and less need for police and safety services. This would allow more people to keep the sabbath day holy. See what happens when we over analyze? We need to make sure that we are right with the spirit. I know some that shop on Sunday. I don't generally, but I'm not going to judge them either. You need to do what works for you, but be careful of just justifying something because it is what you want to do. A great quote I heard recently, "Let's not judge our brothers and sisters because they choose to sin differently from us." -RM

That seems to assume that the logical decision making or thought process was completed prior to our sojourn here, and that in effect since we made that decision in the pre-existence then all we need to do is to be loyal to our previously made decision. Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding your words/intent. That sounds great, insofar as it goes, and it does fit into a nice neat box. However, I think that this leaves out a large part and scope of mortality. For example, we were given a brain in order to think are reason. The gospel should make sense in light of evidence. From the standpoint of a faithful member, of course the gospel is true. Hence, nothing that you can show me or demonstrate to me will change my mind. But that isn't the only view point. I can see someone looking at the evidence and saying in effect that if the evidence doesn't support what I was taught, then perhaps what I was taught is not true. For that individual, mortality is not a test of loyalty or integrity at all, but an opportunity to exercise our intellect...to learn, ponder, and make decisions. Some of those decisions may be contrary to the world view of the typical member. From my standpoint, I think mortality is actually a bit of both. I believe that we are expected to reason our way through, to use our intellect and rationality, but then to be faithful to what we believe to be ethical and moral. Many of the atheists and agnostics I know are among some of the most moral and ethical people I know. Because they have made a CHOICE for themselves to be this way, and not simply been loyal or obedient to what they have been taught. They have discovered that morality and ethics are based in eternal truth and they have reasoned it out for themselves. I believe there is a lot of power in this, and while we are on the topic, an awful lot of integrity as well. -RM

This probably deserves its own thread, but how can an institute of higher education limit access to information and be considered a legitimate player in the realms of knowledge? -RM

Perhaps if we were concerned with what the students were learning, or if they were acting in a Christlike manner, being good citizens etc. and less interested in what they were wearing...then we wouldn't have these kinds of stories. Something about teach them correct principles... I think there were others that had rules about who could where what and when and how...seems like it was somewhere in the old testament. -RM

Of course....Jesus was all about making as many rules as possible for others, and loved to throw around his authority......oh wait, nope that wasn't Jesus. That was somebody else I knew once..... [end sarcasm] -RM

Isn't it interesting though that if there was a family of (insert religion of your choice here) and the missionaries knocked on the door, taught the family, and only one of the parents elected to join the church while the rest remained faithful to the existing religion...that we wouldn't see that as sad or heartbreaking at all. In fact, we have no problem whatsoever with the missionaries doing exactly this thing. Yet if an LDS parent leaves the faith for another, or for no religion at all, we see that as someting bordering a disaster. Without seeing some of the things that the previous posters pointed out. Like it is still a loving family. Don't get me wrong, families sealed together forever is a beautiful concept. In practice I would take a loving family that is striving to live Christlike principles everytime over the one that has the right ordinances and isn't living up to that ideal. While they aren't mutually exclusive, it sounds like the OP has good family relationships. I would be surprised if that doesn't count for more than we think at the judgement bar. -RM

My take....we need to be a bit less uptight. -RM

Gospel principles #31 has this to say...."When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest." -RM

Perhaps someone that takes the atonement at face value? -RM