SpiritDragon

It's true that not all victims of this type of crime will come forward quickly or even at all. I personally know one young lady who was raped while in high school, She does not know that I know, but someone close to both of us that she disclosed the incident to confided in me at a later date. The victim was insistent that especially her parents could never know because they would never her let go out and do anything again. To my knowledge nearly 20 years later her parents still don't know and no legal charges have ever come forward. I doubt they ever will. That being said, I can appreciate the frustration of sexual misconduct allegations that certainly appear to have been weaponized in recent years more than I ever recall in the past. Maybe it's simply because all white males with a Christian or Conservative/Republican background are just scummy, but having know many such men personally I find that conclusion hard to believe. In that, I absolutely agree, it gets more than a little tiring to hear allegations thrown out at such men when it seems the motives are disingenuous to seeking justice and all about pushing an agenda. The Mckenna case seems much more believable to me than others that have taken place in the political theatre over the last couple of years with the Kavanaugh allegations being suspect at this time. I just wish it didn't seem like her motive is to attack the church. Other allegations seem so suspect because of the timing always lining up with political campaigns and so on. In fact, I find it even more so suspect in these cases when suddenly multiple women start coming forward for the simple reason that I can appreciate how one of them might not have said anything, but for multiple women to suddenly start coming forward with the same serious but tired story every time a political or ideological opponent is gaining ground is just getting to be too much and it bothers me because it makes true victims less likely to be believed and less likely to come forward. This is not to say that all of the allegations are false either, simply that our current environment around it makes it low hanging fruit to attack with and these men seem to automatically be guilty in the court of public opinion which when it comes to politics is the court that possibly matters the most.

I thought you might appreciate that 😄

From my perspective, saying that the problematicness of a behaviour is debatable is the same as saying the behaviour is questionable. If it were clearly spelled out so that there was no question there would be no real issue to debate if the source spelling it out were revered equally by the parties involved. That being said, I think this leans toward the side of not being questionable, but being plainly taught against as we can see in the For the Strength of Youth Standards that would certainly apply before endowment and should be built on and not diminished from afterwords. OTHER STANDARDS Your body is sacred. Respect it and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ and that you love Him. Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act. Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval. HIDE Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change. It seems to me that the question of short shorts and tank tops is being laid out specifically as something we can do better than, and should not lower our standards because of a special occasion or sport participation. Personally, I see these definitions encompassing while exercising and therefore believe that standards of modesty should not be lowered for the occasion or participation in the activity. I think when we don't follow the counsel given by prophets we are moving into problematic territory and that is questionable. We need not be asking how close to the line can we go before crossing it, but should be staying well clear. Again, my perspective. It's not my place to judge what is in other's hearts directing the decisions they make in such matters.

Sounds more like an Asian Moses than an American Moses 😜 (sometimes typos are fun, my sister wrote a report on me in high school and all throughout I was touted as being very involved in and excelling at marital arts instead of martial arts)

I should also add to my above remarks that I realize you're not specifically asking about wearing garments yet, but asking about wearing clothes that would not cover the garment. I think an important step in preparation to wearing the garments is to already be wearing clothes that will cover them so you don't have a dramatic change requiring to get an entirely new wardrobe and possibly resenting the garment which should be a blessing and not a curse. I remember in preparation for wearing mine I started wearing undershirts all the time to get used to always having that extra layer and ensure that my shirts would cover the undergarment.

There's a part of me that wants to say if you're not endowed yet, have at it. But, then I think to myself that modesty is modesty and should apply the same either way. The next thing that comes to my mind is that I find when anyone is needing to ask about something like this it is by definition questionable. This is related to the point above. Now it appears the search for justification has begun. I mean, we don't where garments in the bath among other places, but just because we don't wear them in one context doesn't make it right to skip doing so in any other circumstance. It's going to be one of those between you and the Lord issues, but I would suggest that unless the garment is actually in the way of completing the task at hand that it should probably be worn. I will add to this that I wear my garments while exercising and I wear clothes that cover them as I also agree with others that keeping them covered is a very important consideration. Almost always, yes. If I chose not to wear garments when I exercise I'd not be wearing them five days of the week because it would be ridiculous for me to constantly change in and out of them throughout the day teaching various fitness classes and working out with clients. Even at that, I have made a far greater mess of my garments sweating while roofing, and getting dust and filth stuck to the sweat working in the deathly heat of an attic or painting my house. It is my choice to wear them at such times because I feel the covenant that I made encompasses wearing them *all* the time with the exceptions being very few and essentially requiring the garments to be removed. I didn't get the sense when making that covenant that if the garments were at risk of getting dirty or that I found them inconvenient that the wearing of them became optional. Take that for what you will, it's simply my thoughts that you asked for and not meant to be a judgment against anyone else.

I feel that this article expresses my current feelings on the matter quite well. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-most-obvious-creeps-in-the-kavanaugh-circus-are-the-journalists I just wish more people would wake up to the fact that journalism is in a sad sad state.

I still remember seeing a dash of sodium burst into flames on water in chemistry in high school - I know I wasn't the only one who thought of raiding the science closet for mischief 😀

I imagine almost everyone that knows me or has remembered some of my posts here would be aware that I have a very big interest in health and fitness. What they may not know though is that I have had a lifelong love of building with lego blocks, but I'm not a brand snob, I'll happily accept Mega Bloks (now Mega Construx for the standard lego compatible blocks) and Blocktech, but I've never had the opportunity to try Tyco Super Blocks, in any event the "knock off" blocks I've tried have been quite compatible and comparable. The one thing I could count on for Christmas for years was a new addition to my Lego Collection. My oldest daughter (3) loves to watch DinoTrux on Netflix and enjoys building various Trux with me and then playing with our creations to build more creations or rather "Trux it up." I have also surprised people because I enjoy Chess. It's one of the first games I remember learning to play and look forward to teaching my children. I haven't played in forever, but I used to be able to play a respectable game playing a former Chess Champion of the City of Calgary (a city of 1.5 million people - though more like half that at the time) to a stalemate (draw). I was unofficially rated playing a computer to score in the low 2000s on the ELO scale. Up until then I just played with my brother and friends for fun, but apparently I wasn't half bad. Perhaps with a bit of brushing up i could be again, but it's likely been at least a decade since my last real game. Oh it always goes over well as one of my quirks as well - my first major purchase (around $300) that I made as a teenager when I could start earning my own money was an upright vacuum cleaner that I was in love with. Their is just something about a clean carpet with nice crisp and fresh vacuum lines... I love it.

Thank you for clarifying.I believe nothing of the kind and don't believe I said I said anything of the kind. I don't believe in the trinity, but do believe in the oneness of God while also believing the Father and the Son have individual form and substance, even if they share the express image of each other. To try to sum up the whole point is to get to the idea that people operate with different definitions and connotations to what it means to be polytheistic vs monotheistic vs (insert) theistic. This leads to confusion because some like yourself can look at the LDS godhead and say we are polytheistic and someone like me can say we are monotheistic either due to a different understanding of what the terms mean, different comfort level using them for whatever reason and perhaps a different understanding of the scriptures and words of the prophets could come into play as well. LDS teaching is clear that there is one true and living God who we worship, and yet also teaches the godhead with three, and also teaches that those who are true and faithful will be exalted to godhood. You're apparently happy to simply say we are polytheistic, whereas I see a point that needs reconciling between there being one god and multiple gods and I see that happening via some form of oneness that takes place, not a physical oneness, but a becoming one nonetheless.

I'm not sure if your comment was directed @MaryJehanne or myself. I see that you quoted her, but reacted confused, possibly because of my post that she was quoting? Otherwise I'm equally confused as to why someone saying thank you is confusing in the context of this discussion. Who said anything about believing God doesn't have a son? Is that an assumption about the trinity? Perhaps some view it that way. I've learned that I don't appreciate people telling me what I believe and I try to avoid doing it to others in kind. So in order for me to be consistent and avoid making assumptions about what you are trying to convey I would like to give you the chance to clarify what you're trying to say. (If you like that be sure to read Oh say can You Say by Dr. Seuss 😋) If I were left to assume I'd believe you are being rude suggesting that that your assumptions about someone else's deeply held beliefs about deity must be a joke because they don't conform to your own current beliefs. Can you please try to clear this up by clearly stating who and what you are referring to?

I think a large part of the confusion that one will encounter on this topic is simply semantic. Some are willing to accept certain usages of terms while others don't see it the same way. What one might consider polytheistic is clearly not accepted by all. In some cases, it appears that a strict definition of only one God as seen in Judaism and Islam would be indisputably monotheistic whereas Christianity is definitely more nuanced if not apparently convoluted from an outside perspective and LDS teaching is no different in this respect. We teach for sure that God is our Eternal Father, the literal father of our spirits, Jesus Christ is the First Born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh, The Holy Ghost is a divine personage of spirit who has not as of yet been tabernacled with a physical body. Those who are true and faithful will become joint heirs with Christ and receive all that the Father hath, even a fullness. It is absolutely LDS doctrine that faithful members can become gods in their own right, but will continue to reverence their Father and Christ forever. From there things can get hazy, because it's doctrinally not spelled out. For instance, @prisonchaplain asked: This appears to be at least two questions. The first is will the faithful exalted become part of the Godhead? The second is will they all be united in purpose with Heavenly Father? The second question can be definitively answered with a resounding yes. They will abide a Celestial Glory having chosen to abide Celestial Law and will have an eye single to the Glory of the Father. However, when it comes to becoming a part of the godhead, I think any answer one way or the other would be speculation. Whether multiple godheads are formed to govern over the affairs of their own creation or they are all brought together in one, or both we just don't know. What we do know is that we will always worship the one true God which includes God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as seems more common in lds vernacular as per our first article of faith. I agree with @anatess2 that those who go on to be exalted and attain godhood will be perfectly united with God and one of the best examples in scripture is the intercessory prayer where the Saviour petitions the Father that His followers can be one with them even as they are one. To me this very much seems as something that is attainable. It makes little sense to me that the Lord would pray for something to be that cannot be. So while I accept that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, I also accept that they are ONE. Where I likely differ from others is that I'll admit I don't understand how. For me, being of one will or one purpose or one family or one office doesn't quite fit perfectly to explain just what it means to be one, I simply accept that God is one because He has declared it to be so. Therefore, I have no qualms accepting that any other number of perfected persons or beings (individuals) can also be one. All that being said, I see no reason why LDS teachings would not fit into the monotheistic umbrella using the definition you have given above. If we can accept that God has three persons why can we not accept that God has an infinite number of persons? If the different physical entities becomes a problem for oneness, let me just say that I am more open minded as to what it might mean to be one than to try to pigeon hole what God declares to be one into my mortal understanding of mathematics.

Congratulations on the weight lost so far. Forty pounds is huge! I totally understand how challenging it is to stick to any kind of eating restriction when you live with others, and one of them is to a great extent in charge of the menu. Also, who can turn down their own child wanting to a share a masterpiece made with love, even if it is killing them slowly? Infantile or not, your concerns are valid and they are yours. No one can stand the idea of being told they can no longer eat foods that bring them pleasure, and must eat food they don't enjoy at all. What I often recommend to clients is to experiment with higher amounts of veggies and veggie dishes. For some, it works best to have a daily goal of X servings of vegetables, while for others it works best to try new veggie heavy recipes each week and develop a menu based on favourites. Weight-loss in and of itself is helpful for reducing the risk of diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. If you find that nothing else works for you to help bring the weight into a healthier range, than I fully agree with the idea that losing weight on a meat-heavy ketogenic diet is still going to be healthier than continuing on the path of least resistance right into an early grave. My hope is to both encourage you with taking initiative and personal accountability for your health, while also trying to share some potential options that are more safe and effective long-term. I'd be more than happy to share plenty more research on eating to prevent and reverse disease and achieving and maintaining a healthy weight if you'd be interested, but I don't want to overload you or come across as preaching at you. I will say this, that given a chance, taste preferences can and do change and what may seem as drudgery at first can become enjoyable and preferable. This supposedly happens faster when more radical changes are taken and maintained, but in my experience adherence is often higher when people back into it in the manner I explained above, by trying more plant-based recipes or beefing up the vegetable content of existing meals and gradually working towards eating a much higher proportion of nutrient-dense vegetables and much less refined garbage with inflammatory sugars and cancer-promoting animal protein and heart-disease promoting animal fat. Again, all the best. I truly wish you well in this journey and would be happy to help to the extent I can virtually assist an anonymous internet acquaintance (though I think of you as a friend). Feel free to pick my brain about diet and nutrition and exercise to your heart's content or tell me to take a flying leap, whatever is more helpful.

Any updates? I'm happy you have found something that seems to be working for you, but I do have concerns about the method used. This study shows how a meat-based low carbohydrate diet appears to be associated with increased mortality including heart disease and cancer deaths. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/pdf/nihms-247461.pdf The good news is that if you're finding that low-carb eating is helping, you can still enjoy the benefits by moving to a plant-based version which the study above showed to be protective against all-cause mortality. Please understand, that I'm genuinely interested in your results and concerned for your well-being and not trying to use your personal experience as a platform to start any kind of argument about diet superiority. Here are some quick links to learn a little more about low-carb plant-based eating using the Eco Atkins plan which is the model used in the study above. https://www.atkins.ca/how-it-works/library/articles/the-eco-atkins-diet https://www.livestrong.com/article/424438-50-grams-of-carbohyrates-a-day-diet/ In fairness, while this plan is indeed a low carbohydrate eating structure, it won't be ketogenic under normal circumstances at roughly 26% energy coming from carbohydrates which would be close to 163 grams of carbohydrate or 650 calories from carbohydrates based on a 2500 calorie diet. All the best!

I've been a member of the church all of my life and I don't know of a teaching that says to stay away from red meat. However, the Word of Wisdom does speak to limiting meat of all kinds - the extent to which it's limited is highly debatable, but we do even have a hymn with the lyrics, "drink no liquor and they eat but a very little meat." So perhaps that's what your referring to and chose words inaccurately. As for sugar causing diabetes, it likely can, but it is less of a culprit than meat. fats in the bloodstream and muscle cells gum up the machinery that allows insulin to do its job. This causes insulin resistance leading to high blood sugar, not the consumption of sugar. sugar does have the capacity when over-eaten to build up fat on the body, which is also associated with insulin resistance leading to type 2 diabetes. In this way sugar is certainly indirectly implicated as a causative factor as well. When too much fat is on the body fat stores are frequently mobilized into the bloodstream causing the conditions leading to insulin resistance. Diabetes is a disease of excess food and insufficient physical activity. I don't disagree that we should be careful with sugar, but let's not fool ourselves into believing it is the primary cause of type two diabetes, even if it is indeed the most direct cause of blood sugar spikes. The difference being that in an insulin sensitive person the blood sugar will respond to the insulin dump and come back down and in the insulin-resistant-diabetic the insulin dump will not bring the sugar down the way it should. For interest's sake you might like to review some academic literature on insulin resistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1394223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15297079 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23122836

For some kids this may work and for others it may not. With my first daughter, she needed morning naps (usually around 10 am) but has never been able to sleep while people are around. We had 9 am church and spent a lot of time walking the halls trying to keep her calm. She started to adapt to staying up until 12:30 -1:00 pm when we'd get home so she could nap and the time changed to 11-2, once again her nap was disrupted and 11 am is too early to have a nap before (she seemed to do best with 2-3 hour naps). When we again changed to the 1-4 time her usual nap time had shifted to being around 2:30 pm. Sundays and church always interrupted the nap schedule her body naturally preferred. We still went to church, and still tried to let her have naps at other times, it just made for a miserable day once a week. Our second child will just cuddle up and go to sleep for the most part and hasn't been bothered one way or the other by the timing of church. I've heard of plenty of other parents with similar experiences. It's not as much about revolving around the child, which would mean skipping church altogether in favour of napping, but realizing that small children do need certain schedules and don't have the patience or understanding of adults to simply adapt. Three hours is a long time to shift sleep. I do want to re-emphasize that I support the meeting format as it exists and will support keeping the status quo or changing if that's what the brethren feel is right.

So I guess putting some of the meetings back on week nights is out? I've gotta say, going back to Church on Wednesday night would be all kinds of troublesome - it can be hard enough to find a job that let's a person have Sundays off for church, but evenings as well? Not everyone has that luxury. Soon we'll all need to be dentists or work some other job that allows for bankers hours, and not the modern extended bankers hours at that 😜

I, too, only heard of linger longers ('snack and mack' in the singles wards) on my mission, we don't seem to have them here either.

I'm not necessarily for or against a two-hour meeting, but to answer why - at least in part - I can see a few reasons that may be of importance to the discussion. 1. The Church has declared in the past that too many meetings on Sunday are a distraction and to limit meetings to allow for more family time. On the flip side, ward councils and so on still need to take place and Sunday is simply the most likely time for some meetings to be feasible. Decreasing fatigue on lay ministry is historically important enough in my life time to change temple recommend interviews from annual events to every other year events to limit the time demands on ward and stake leadership. It is possible that such a change could take place with block meetings too. 2. In some areas it could save the church money on meeting houses allowing for more wards to share the same building. I don't love to think of the church as making decisions based on money, but it is a factor that I know gets considered. 3. I'm told that many branches have shorter meetings due to insufficient membership to run everything. A simplified meeting structure that is universal might appeal to the church as it also aiming for increased uniformity in other areas, even going as far as making sure that the hymn numbers match the same hymn in every language and country. In addition to these considerations there are also the rumours of wards piloting 2-hour blocks in preparation for the big announcement... whether the rumours are true or not, I have no idea. Also, parents the world over would rejoice at one less hour of nap interruption for small children. That extra hour can mean the difference between a child that takes a nap that day or is simply cranky the rest of the evening spoiling the remains of the Sabbath. Are there reasons to keep a three-hour block? Sure. It was an inspired change that has been great for the church, and may very well continue to be. I'll just go on record as saying that I'll support continued three-hour or two-hour blocks as long as the one I support is the direction the Lord states through His designated servants leading affairs here on earth. As for four-hour meetings, please think of the children. That's another hour of institutional torture being forced to do unnatural things like singing. Forget losing them between 16 and 30 years, we'll lose them between 16 and 30 months 😋

God operates a kingdom where His authority and reach are recognized and obeyed. This is not enforced by overpowering an individuals choice, but by teaching correct principles and natural consequences until people recognize what they want and act in accordance for the result, ultimately having a full understanding of what those decisions bring. Anarchy does not fit in the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom would not work properly without recognizing the authority and following the laws. It's perfectly ingenious because individuals have bought in of their own volition instead of forced to capitulate and follow while full of resentment inside and waiting for a chance to overthrow the structure.

If you care, you can read more on the origin of this monstrosity here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_(Doctor_Who) As far as how it would have evolved or survives is likely overthinking something created for entertainment purposes only

This is truly sad.

I'm extra sorry about the association I made now. No harm intended. (trying to pull foot out of mouth)

Is that actually you? Take it as simply I loved your previous blue cartoon guy and I was recently seeing a lot about how Alex Jones is being erased from the internet and your picture resembled the picture I have in my mind of the guy - however it's true, when compared side by side your new pic and his mug shot do not actually look all that similar.

@jerome1232 It appears you've traded in the happy blue cartoonish guy for Alex Jones. Better be careful, you could end up de-platformed