Gwen

Ethical or not it happens all the time. Insurance companies raise rates on ppl that have "pre-existing conditions" or unhealthy lifestyles. They can still get treatment but they have to pay for their choices. When my mom discovered she had thyroid cancer she also discovered she was pregnant. She was turned away by many doctors that refused to treat her unless she would have an abortion. She (after a lot of prayer) refused the abortion and had to go from dr to dr until she found one that would treat her. It is probably why she is alive today, the other doctors probably would not have gone to the lengths that this dr did to save her life. I had to switch neurologist for my son who has epilepsy. He has issues with the medications and the dr refused to believe me that they were there. It was atypical and he didn't like dealing with the fact that it wasn't going to be straight forward in treatment. He became very cold and hostile toward me and then outright said if I wasn't going to do as he said then he was done with me. Now we see a new dr.

We prefer camping too but most folks I know think we are crazy when I say we go camping with all of ours. I second the cabin rental option. It gives you the park environment of camping but with the comfort of a building. beach house rentals and such can be affordable if you get off the big ticket locations, it's also nice to avoid the major tourist traffic. As for hotels when we really need one we just lie about the number of kids we have..... I know it's wrong to lie but I'm not breaking the family up over a one night stay. If we were to get a hotel for more than a night (which we've never done lol) then we would get 2 adjoining rooms. However, our kids are getting older and that's more logical than it was a few yrs ago. I also suggest going places like nauvoo.... other than food and where to stay everything was free. That was very affordable fun for our family. Another thing we do is find an attraction within a couple of hours (for us it's the zoo or science center) and buy the yr membership passes. It cost about the same as one day visit and then it's free the rest of the year. It's far enough away that you can't go all the time so it's a treat but close enough you can plan mini "day vacations". We alternate the locations. A lot of such places are part of a group and you can get in to many places free (or discounted) on the same membership pass. Make sure you know which they are and then when you do travel you can plan around those for even more free fun.

I think it's a fair sized library for a small town. And that is why they can be so heavily involved in anti lds activities, it's a small town. Most of the churches here have some kind of anti lds class every year.

My daughter didn't like my joke. I don't usually do them but she spent a full week "practicing" April fool's jokes and talking about how she was going to really "get someone". She is 6 so her jokes weren't anything big. When brushing her hair Sunday morning I stopped and started picking through her hair. Then I told her that it looked like she had lice. One of the boys jumped in and said "What is lice?" so I started telling him it was a bug that is really hard to get rid of and we'd have to shave her head on Monday because of it. I knew that would bother her but expected some protest and a chance to say it was a joke before she got to upset.... I was wrong. She just burst into tears. I told her right away but it didn't matter she was already upset. I felt bad but still laughed about it. lol

Around here the only law about needing to pull over and let someone pass is if you are going significantly under the speed limit and creating a back up in traffic.... mostly applied to tractors. I do get annoyed when tractors going 15 mph don't pull over and let me by. I've never heard of tailgating as a way of "informing" someone to move and quite frankly find it very rude. It can take a lot of time to pull off the road and back on, I have somewhere I'm going too. If I'm going the speed limit or more then I don't care if there are 100 cars behind me, I'm not pulling over so you can pass. If there is more than one lane and I can move over then I will but if I can't reasonably move you get to slow down (I typically won't go more than 5 over the speed limit - I don't like driving under). And yes to my knowledge we have laws against tailgating. This idea might explain something that happened to my sister though. lol She was on a back road and a cop was tailgating her. She was going the speed limit and the roads were empty other than them so he could have passed safely if he desired and his lights were not on indicating he needed to get by. After a mile or so he turned on his lights. She pulled over and he pulled up behind her. He says "Didn't you see me tailgating you?" "Yes" "Don't you think you should have pulled over and let me by" "No, it was clear to pass and you did not have your lights on indicating the need to pull over for an emergency vehicle. As soon as you turned on your lights I moved out of the way." "What if I was trying to get to an emergency?" "I assumed if that were the situation you would turn on your lights and I would move over and give right of way, which is what I did. Are you issuing me a citation for something?" "No" "So if there is an emergency why are you standing here clarifying the road laws that I was following?" The cop then gave her a look that could kill and got in his car and drove off rather quickly. lol I have had cops obviously annoyed that I was going the speed limit turn on their lights, and as soon as I pulled over they turn their lights back off and zoom past me. What annoys me is when ppl use their emergency blinkers and are not stopped on the side of the road. Emergency blinkers are to notify of a stopped vehicle. If you have them on and are moving it can be very deceptive to other drivers. For some reason around here (I don't remember ppl in FL doing this) when the rain is blinding instead of just pulling over and waiting a bit they turn on their emergency blinkers and then continue to drive in the lane at like 5 mph. I've also seen ppl driving at night with no headlights so they use the emergency blinkers to be seen. Ummm if you don't have headlights don't drive your car at night... maybe?

Drive southeast until you see roadside fruit stands with spray painted plywood signs advertising boiled peanuts. Stop and get you some. :) I like to get boiled peanuts for road trips.... though keep some wipes handy. lol I'm kinda biased to the beaches on the gulf coast.

Do your research on what kind of birth you would like now, make a few decisions (or more than a few). It's easier to think with a clear head and read the "dangers" of different birth plans/interventions now than it will be with hormones constantly changing. I know, not exactly diet but.... lol

My understanding about wearing the temple ceremonial clothing is multiple reasons (mostly symbolic and out of respect for the endowed person). The body is a temple and that is how we dress for/in the temple. The symbolism about being prepared to return to god's presence (that is where we are headed when we die). In the temple the whole process is symbolic of preparing to enter the celestial kingdom and the ceremonial clothing is part of that process. It's not about what our spirits will be "wearing" on the other side though I have heard myth like stories (not from church leaders or confirmed by them) about such being the case. I have heard and can't find a reference for it so now I'm curious if anyone else has heard it, can provide the reference, or knows it's a myth.... We will be resurrected into the body we had when we died (I know that is taught) including the clothing we were wearing, if we are worthy of the celestial kingdom we will rise in our temple clothes so we do need them on or with us (that's the part I'm not sure about). Personally it would be nice to know I won't be resurrected in the nude. lol On a side note I personally think the process is more for the surviving than the dead. I have had opportunity to help dress or prepare clothing for the deceased on multiple occasions. It's a very powerful experience. For those that had family there you could see the closure the whole process provided. It was truly an honor to be there with a daughter as she dressed her mother in the clothing of the temple. The temple was something they shared in their testimony, they had spent cherished time there together, it was a reminder that they had been sealed and would be together again. When we entered the room you could see the heavy grief on the daughter's face, she expressed concern that she would not be able to participate. When we left there was still sorrow but you could see a light in her eyes again as she smiled and caressed her mother's face and told her how beautiful she was and how much she loved her and seeing her again one day. The spirit was very powerful even for the funeral home director who respectfully observed from the corner and offered advise on the logistics of dressing a body. Even though she did not understand the temple and the covenants shared between this mother and daughter she knew what was taking place was different than anything she had experienced. I know her grief was lightened by the process. I know the process can help to heal those left behind.

My understanding was that if they have been endowed (no matter their standing - excluding excommunication) they were not only to be buried in their garments but the entire temple ceremonial clothing. In cases where there is no endowed member to dress them or a family conflict issue the packet of clothing can be placed in the casket with them upon burial. My mom is an inactive endowed member. She was talking to me about what her wishes were and so I asked her about the temple clothing. She just assumed when she went inactive that she would not be allowed to wear them and said she needed to think it over. If she never gets back to me then I will probably just request to put them in the casket with her.

Our community does a safety thing at the hospital every yr. All the emergency groups participate. They teach fire safety, bike safety, etc. The kids get to see the fire trucks, an ambulance, police car.... The police always do an id kit if you like, it has a picture and they do the current weight, finger prints, etc. It's nice to be able to just show up and get it updated.

We did end up putting the snapstone in our dining room a couple of months ago (I think, it's been awhile lol). I love it. It looks great and was easy enough to do ourselves. We are doing our kitchen in a couple of weeks.

I think hording has a technical definition that would put any kind of storage under that term. However, it has a connotation (and possible clinical definition but i've not looked that up) of being very negative. To me "hording" is when you stockpile things you don't need in a way that it interferes with your life. It may interfere by how you store it (all over the house like on that tv show) or by how you spend your time trying to obtain it or how you spend your money to obtain it. When things get out of hand and you can no longer function/think as a normal person you have crossed lines.

reminds me of this one that I saw the other day Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com I have mixed feelings on it but totally understand it. We are in a world where if you use a physical discipline of any kind for your kids your neighbors can report you for abuse. The world is constantly trying to take away the ability of parents to do their job (they have already done it to schools). What options are left? I remember a judge making minor crimes have to do this instead of jail time to prevent over crowding in the system. Shoplifting, graffiti and the such was a fine and community service in the area of your crime while wearing a sign telling the world what you did. I remember tons of ppl thinking it was a brilliant solution to the problem. I'm not a fan of shame as a form of punishment but I'm not out to interfere with another's parenting without more information. I do think, as already pointed out, the wording needs to be carefully chosen. The children also need to be safe; food, water, appropriate breaks, etc. Unlike the stepmother and grandmother who made a child run until she collapsed with dehydration and ended up dying because of it.

I knew the church discouraged the use of sperm or eggs that do not belong to the couple and can understand that for the most part. Something else I heard but don't know how accurate it is (of it it's changed) was that surrogacy is discouraged as well. That is one I have never understood. Paid surrogacy I'm not a fan of but I don't see the wrong in situations where say two sisters, one has good eggs but can't carry the pregnancy to term, use the husband and wife's sperm/eggs but implant in the sister for gestation. I figure it's one of those issues that I don't know how much is doctrine and how much is policy. I am ok to let it be until it becomes my situation. At that time I will research and pray and seek my own answers on what is the right decision to make.

Around here it's never been a big deal to get a special dress for the baptism day. I've seen pictures of girls that looked like they were in mini wedding dresses and personally really don't care for that. I'm not against getting a new dress but formal and over the top is to much and distracting in my opinion. I will probably let my girls pick out a new dress, probably not white, and appropriate for future sunday use. We did not get our boys new suits. However, we keep our kids in good suits all the time so it's not really necessary. We did buy white slacks and tie (which all our boys have used) so they could be baptized in a suit rather than a jumpsuit. I will also buy a white dress for my girls (when the time comes) instead of the jumpsuit. I think the ordinance should be the focus, not over the top but special. In my mind jumpsuits are for proxy work, personal ordinances should be special and stand out.

Sounds like you are doing good. Right now everything is "teaching" her something. She is learning about the world around her and how to operate her body. I have always talked to mine like little ppl (no excessive baby talk or modified words). I usually use a lot more expression in my tone with little ones, try to get some face to face conversation so they could see my expressions. It's fun when they can start copying your face. lol Engage her in the things you are doing and she will be learning. If you are really into "teaching" her things then you may want to consider exposing her to different languages. When a baby babbles they have all the sounds needed to speak any language, they filter out the ones they need based on what they hear around them. If you expose her to other forms of speech the theory is that she will retain those sounds (instead of dropping them out) and it will make learning a second language easier for her.

The issues behind the reason there are so many issues (including pregnancy) among many black americans is very complex. I don't pretend to understand it all but I do have a closer relationship to it than I'd guess most lds. To understand it you have to embrace the ugly parts of our history and then be willing to act on it. This isn't a problem that can be changed by public policy (though can be greatly influenced). It requires getting on a personal level and reaching ppl one on one, changing one life at a time. I don't know how many have tried to reach out and help such women but it's not easy, it's not for the faint of heart or anyone that wants a quick outcome. I would say if anything has taught me the true meaning of charity it has been trying to help some of these women.

As I read this (and Klein's other posts) I think I had moments of deja vu. We were all standing around listening to a very charismatic man. Only he finished his speech with something like "Out of the goodness of my heart I will implement this plan and in return you will give all the glory to ME". On the other hand just a few of the ppl that probably would not have made the cut in such a world.... Abraham Lincoln Beethoven Mozart Vincent van Gogh Sir Isaac Newton Michelangelo Leonardo Da Vinci Aristotle Theodore Roosevelt Lewis Carrol George Frederick Handel Martin Luther Tchaikovsky Socrates Alexander Graham Bell Hans christian Andersen Thomas Edison Walt Disney George Patton Albert Einstein I would say that it would be a very different world indeed...... just not sure I buy that it would be better.

I know there are bigger problems and they are not being ignored. I'm doing all that I can to address them. But it would help a lot of at the minimum she would stop having babies. I can't make her gain a testimony or self worth or anything else that addresses the bigger problem. All I can do is lead her to those opportunities. It will be up to her to do the work. I don't think bc solves the problem but it takes a major piece of the puzzle out of play, it prevents creating more victims, and changes the situation so that the other issues can be addressed. On the other hand I would say that any time you have a teen that is sexually active you have a situation with bigger problems than the risk of pregnancy. The fact that this is a topic of discussion shows how big the problem is.

If the kid is already taking care of the precautions then let them continue. Tell them you are disappointed in their choice to have premarital sex but very proud of them for being responsible and you expect them to continue to be responsible as long as that is their choice. Make it clear you are not condoning it and they are not welcome to bring that choice into your home. I have no issue if the parents find out the kid is making poor choices and saying the child has to help pay for it. I don't see a difference in that and making them pay for their speeding ticket or other foolish choices teens can make. But I do think parents should take some kind of responsibility if the kid isn't. Again I will reference the girl I already mentioned, under 18 and 2 kids... obviously she won't choose to not have sex and she won't choose to take her pills... time to put in a 5 yr iud. When you expect others to take care of you and the consequences of your choices then expect them to get involved. Now if she moved out, got a job, supported her kids etc then if she chooses to have more kids is her problem/decision. But right now she expects mom to raise her kids while the gov't provides for them. This isn't good for anyone, especially the children being born into this situation.

The question is does your son want to go on rafting trips and such? If he does I agree he needs to be registered. But if all he wants to do is show up at the church on wed night (a church activity) and then youth conferences and temple trips etc then the church insurance is fine for that. The BSA insurance won't cover injuries at youth conference anyway, they aren't scout activities. The yw are covered for regular mid week activities. So what activities does your son want to do? Decide on registration from there.

In a perfect world (ok not perfect because it wouldn't be an issue in a perfect world lol) the teen would take the responsibility. Odds are they are not doing things openly and therefore the parent can't supply it.... unless the parent is going to supply it on the assumption that their child is going to go behind their back. Doesn't show much confidence in the child or your parenting skills, that never goes well. However, after the parents know about the actions of the child then I think they should step up and supply it.

I disagree that it tells them they do not have to be responsible for the decisions they have made. Taking the pill or any other form of bc is exactly being responsible for the choices you are making. Being sexually active as a teen will have it's own consequences even without getting pregnant. It will have psychological consequences, preventing pregnancy won't stop that. Is forcing her to have a baby about responsibility or shaming her into doing "what's right"? On the other hand I do believe passing out free abortions is avoiding consequences. If you want to choose to have sex, you are responsible if/when you end up pregnant (with or without efforts to prevent).... you have an obligation to that child. Being responsible has 2 parts, prevention to begin with and then dealing with the consequences if you lose the gamble. I promise you there is no avoiding the consequences of premarital sex. All this focus on pregnancy is exactly where I think we fail in teaching sex ed to our teens. Ask most teens out there (lds included) why we teach that you shouldn't have premarital sex and the first thing they will say is to avoid getting pregnant, second is about STD's. Those are the wrong answers and side issues to what the law of chastity is about. I think if we spent more time teaching teens about the sacredness and the psychological aspects of sexual relations as the first and most important part, procreation a close second and then STD's etc as a matter of health facts things might be a bit different.

Update.... I know it's been awhile. lol So I went to the director to discuss it face to face. She apologized that the list "appeared to be bigoted and the last thing they wanted was for anyone to feel uncomfortable at the public library" She made it very clear that it would not change and that it appearing to be bigoted was my personal issue and that I was welcome to come anyway and suggest books for the next 6 months. I left and haven't thought much about it since. I also haven't been back to the library or taken the kids back in that time. So yesterday my son says there is some activity at the library they were talking about at school and he wanted to go. So I went to the library webpage to see what it was and found out that not only did they go through with their book club choices but next week for their monthly movie they do they are showing "The 19th Wife". In their add for it no where does it say it's a historical fiction. They are also requesting suggestions for the next 6 months of books. Sooooo book suggestions for a small southern town (with a shade of bigotry)???? lol It doesn't just have to be pro lds... anything that shakes up their bible belt perspectives I'm open to.

I think putting teens on the pill simply because they are teen girls is a horrid idea because it does mess up her hormones. Teen years are hard enough because of the hormone changes. It's a vital time in development and we don't need to be playing with that. If a girl is having issues when starting her period then they need to find the problem not try to do a forced fix with the pill. What happens when she gets married and wants to have children and still has no clue what is wrong with her body because they just put her on the pill instead of figuring out what was going on? All that said if you have a teen that you know is sexually active and won't listen to guidance and make wise choices I do think it's fair to take some action and help prevent those unwise choices from ruining a second life. I know a girl that is under 18 and has 2 children. There are now 4 generations living off the government and dropped out of high school. Something needs to be done to break this cycle. After the first baby she was given the pill but she didn't take it. I think if it's decided (through actions not fear of what a girl could do) that others need to intervene for her they should do something that doesn't depend on her choices to follow through (iud or the new bc rings, etc). I also think if they are living off the gov't then they shouldn't be able to get their checks until they show proof that they went to the dr to get the replacements as scheduled. I also know a mother that chose to put one of her girls on bc and not the other one... it was after learning that one was sexually active and not using a condom. Once they get to a certain age they will find a way to do what they want. The daughter knows exactly how mom feels about her having sex and that it's not approved. She is also constantly reminded of the dangers of STD's. She also knows that her mother can't stop her from messing up her life but she can stop her from bringing another life into the mess. The daughter who follows the rules isn't on the pill. I don't know what I would do in the mom's shoes but I can't say off hand that she is wrong to do things the way she has. Decisions based on actions not potential is in my opinion the only way to handle this issue.