eddified

I suppose the upside of feminism is that maybe more men are realizing how women feel. I think it's a good thing if men become more understanding that women feel scared out at night, for example.

I don't really mind black history month. It can be a good thing. But I totally agree today's racial politics has the effect of driving a wedge between the races rather than uniting them. I believe it would be called "masculinism".

Wow, thank you! This is what I was feeling but couldn't put into words. It *is* sad what violent men do to women in dark alleys at night, but that stuff is already illegal. Why do we need feminism to teach this? And as you pointed out, as long as violent men do violent things in dark alleys, it is a *good* thing women feel unsafe there - it's a tool of self-preservation. We *do* need to teach our boys and men to respect women - and I think the church does this! We *do* need our boys and men to learn modesty - and the church helps with this too! When it comes to swimwear, apparently victorian-era swimwear was much more modest -- men covered their torso just as much as women. I'm ok with that. If that's the way we want to go with swimwear, I'm totally fine with it. It sounds to me like men bare-chested at the beach is a cultural norm. In the victorian era, men wearing bathing suits which covered their chests -- that was also the cultural norm at the time. I guess I'm agreeing with the author after all -- let's stop the bare chested men. It's something I can get behind, but it's really not a huge problem. There are much bigger issues to worry about, which is probably why people don't really care to get on the "let's stop bare chested men" bandwagon.

On second thought, I suppose an LDS woman complaining about a man jogging shirtless is somewhat similar to an LDS man complaining about women wearing short shorts. So I think that is a more fair way to interpret what she is saying-- i.e. give her the benefit of the doubt.

From the article I linked: I certainly don't feel like men jogging shirtless is acceptable to the church. (I've always heard that the garment should be worn whenever possible -- jogging and garment wearing aren't mutually exclusive in my mind.) And the modesty teachings I've received have imbued themselves in me so that I would certainly feel immodest if I were to jog shirtless. I always thought tank tops were immodest, even for teens showing up at mutual. Does the church not teach this? That said, this statement just feels strange to me because it tends to ignore differences in basic biology of the sexes. If we compare a woman jogging shirtless, and a man jogging shirtless, would we really say that they've achieved the exact same level of immodesty? That's what it sounds like she's saying. Maybe she wouldn't actually say that, but whenever women complain about men jogging shirtless, it either sounds like they're ignoring basic biology, or they're jealous. I just don't get it. It's statements like this that make feminists sound silly. -- Not saying they're actually wrong... just saying it sure sounds silly to probably a sizable proportion of conservative, red-state Utahans. If she really wants us men to wear shirts while swimming, she should own it and just say that. I'm actually not necessarily opposed to that point of view. If bare-chested men at the swimming pool is a problem for women, it would be helpful to know that. Men can wear rash-guards at the pool (I sometimes do).

Well how would you know? You've never even talked to one!

Well, well! I found this interesting. The writer of the following article has written a rebuttal to this *exact* forum thread! https://mormonhub.com/blog/life/mormon-culture/why-i-need-feminism/

I appreciate your distrust in the DSM. The DSM was written by sinful humans who didn't necessary have any spiritual guidance when writing it. Many people look to it as a source of truth, but its origins remain fallen (in the sense that humankind is fallen).

We've sent out plaques on spacecraft that attempt to communicate ideas to extra-terrestrials that may happen upon them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque WARNING: the link contains nudity of drawn human figures, male and female. I do not consider it pornographic, (or else I wouldn't have linked it), but YMMV.

Spouse coming out with Gender Dysphoria - how to handle it? Divorce OK or not? (Not my spouse.) I just read this article: Title: Former Mormon leader is building a new life -- as a woman Link: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/former-mormon-leader-is-building-a-new-life--/article_cf474980-6cb2-5282-97fe-0da9e068f585.html My summary: This person was a former stake president, who struggled their entire life with gender dysphoria. This person has now been excommunicated for "being a woman". This person has not stopped attending church, and apparently wishes to be re-baptized. This person also attends church with this person's wife. My purpose in posting this is to find out what the community thinks the poor wife's valid options are. I've heard some in this forum say something along the lines of, if there is no abuse, addiction, or adultery, then divorce shouldn't be considered a valid option. I'm just wondering if in this case of a husband & former LDS stake president, dressing up as a woman and taking hormones, etc, and being excommunicated, .... would this be a valid reason for divorce? I'm NOT asking about the gender issues, at least not directly. In this thread I do not wish to discuss this from the point of view of the person suffering from gender dysphoria. I'd only like to see what the community has to say if they put themselves in the wife's place in this story. Please discuss. To be clear, I'm not asking what the wife should do. That's another question entirely -- it's up to her and God what she "should" do. I'm only asking what you would consider the valid options for her -- is divorce on the table, or should it be off-limits in this case?

So true. Usually, people don't want you to fix their problems, they only want you to love them, listen to them, try to understand them.

BYU TV. If you have a Roku, you can watch BYU TV on it, get the BYU TV app. With the app you can watch both past shows as well as live TV.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657

My cousin smokes, has for years. I asked him if he was worried about the health effects. He said no; he thinks that as long as he eats healthy food and exercises, smoking won't kill him. Guess you can't convince people of the truth if they don't want to hear it.

I've followed the following advice and it has served me very, very well: when in doubt about whether to speak to the bishop, just speak to the bishop. Reasons: a) it can't hurt -- (well I suppose in extremely rare cases , it can , but.....) b) he wants to help you c) it will help to get if off your chest. If it's something you've really repented of, a good bishop will sense that and help you get work through any residual guilt... (not from a therapy side of things, but rather by reading scriptures regarding the washing away of repented sins) If it's something you don't know if you've fully repented of, I'm sure a good bishop will help you with that too. There really aren't any good reasons to not speak with the bishop when there is any doubt as to whether it's necessary. I think you'll come out alright if you follow this counsel. I know I always, always, feel better after speaking with the bishop, regardless of what I went to him for. Note: when I said "a good bishop" I meant any worthy bishop following the spiritual promptings that are sure to come to him as a steward over the congregation. By far most of the bishops I've spoken with privately were good bishops. .. I'm definitely not grading them on a curve.

I honestly can't tell what you mean. Can you please clarify? If I had to guess, this is a sarcastic statement basically saying what an unbeliever might say: "just because you're disregarding the prophet's teachings, doesn't mean you're disobeying!!" .. which from a believing perspective makes no sense. My mom taught face cards are evil. One time on a young men's high adventure activity (I was a youth at the time ) the Young Men's leader pulled out face cards and encouraged us to play poker using candy instead of poker chips. That made me really uncomfortable. But when I came of age, I concluded that face cards themselves don't pose a problem (and I play with them with my children ). I decided this because I had never heard any counsel from the church otherwise. What does make me uncomfortable is the playing of betting-style games like poker. I do not play such games. I like to steer clear of all such games so much that I do not know the rules of any of them. If the spirit of betting sounds like a negative influence to you, the reader, then I would encourage you to follow suit -- in spades. (Ok, ok, lame joke I know )

This thread has become quite the meandering thread! We've touched on all kinds of fun topics. From Cow Potions to Pizza, Missionaries to Root Beer, and prisons to guns. We've got it all! This is the place to be!

If there is one thing I've learned about this forum, it's that I must spell everything correctly. The alternative is to suffer through a merry-making post from @zil.

Have you guys tried Cock'n Bull ginger beer? My bro-in-law swore by it so I tried it. It's very strong and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I prefer to think of it as something along the lines of a "get out of jail" card.

I would prefer this terminology. Unfortunately I never hear it called that. The usual term is "stake center", which is really not quite as good.

No. If you're both present, it's fine. It only becomes an issue if male missionaries show up and your wife is the only one there. In that case, if they follow the rules, they should politely explain that their rules don't allow them to enter the building. In which case they may give a very short message on the door step, and then re-schedule. At least, this is how it's "supposed to" work. I think that you are "supposed to" still be taught by the missionaries. If you are going to be attending church, you can let the Elders [the missionaries] know that you'll be there, and that you would like to meet with them in one of the classrooms after meetings are over. This may resolve their concerns about going out to the boonies. Meeting you at the church may help them keep their appointments.

I personally take that as great news! I don't live in Texas but I grew up there and lots of my family members live there.

I'm pretty sure I heard it was a crime (misdemeanor) to accidentally show your gun in Texas while carrying concealed, and this may even cover just the gun "printing" on your clothes. On my mission, I would've been the one to politely decline Coke and ask for water. I simply choose not to drink caffeine, and I've been this way since I was a pizza delivery driver at 18 years old. My mother raised me with the idea that soda with caffeine is evil. One day as a pizza delivery driver, I decided to rebel against her teachings and buy a caffeinated soda beverage from the pizza establishment, to drink while I was out delivering pizzas. I drank it, and got a bit sick. I think I got a headache (I don't remember exactly - maybe it was an upset stomach). To me, that was sign enough that I shouldn't drink it. I don't think caffeine is evil (at least, not as evil as my mother thinks it ), but I do choose to stay away from it. Personal decision. I've never taught anyone outside my family that we shouldn't drink caffeinated soda*. I agree it is unwise to open that can of worms, it's really not a big deal. *Unless you count this comment as "teaching people to not drink caffeinated soda"??

Both. The state of Utah has laws restricting it. Elsewhere (and in Utah), the church handbook has a policy placing restrictions on them (as @person0 helpfully quoted).