lagarthaaz

I didn't get that from char's comments at all. In fact, it seems to me that anyone struggling with infertility feels that way because they DO value parenthood, perhaps even more than most for whom parenthood has come easily or as a natural progression of life. She's simply asking for some understanding of her struggle, and some sensitivity in how the church approaches holidays like Mother's and Father's Day. That's not detracting from any major doctrines about the sanctity of family and parenthood, but rather it expands on the edict to 'love one another' and 'bear one another's burdens'. I do agree with her that we do not need to have entire blocks of church meetings devoted to 'mothers' or 'fathers' - the subject is amply covered in our regular church curriculum anyway. And regardless of what one's opinion is on the matter - adding to a person's pain when they have related deeply personal feelings of hurt about an issue like infertility is just not ok.

My Primary is just fine - we love and care for the kids and take their individual circumstances into account as much as possible. Our bishop is mindful of the needs of the ward members. And the kids are wonderful and a lot of fun, I'd much rather hang out with them than adults on any day of the week

That is something I would do if I felt there was a need. But as I stated at least a couple of times in this thread, I haven't seen the extremes of singling out mothers and women with no children in my ward. My local leaders weren't born and raised under a rock, and nor was I, so things are handled pretty well on Mother's and Father's Days where I live. We still have sacrament talks honoring those roles, we make cards for parents in Primary (and if there is no significant parent in their lives, we get the children to draw a picture for a man or woman who is important to them), and so on. I know that this is not the case for all wards - and obviously char has had to deal with some less than sensitive people on occasion.

I don't actually care if you agree with me or not - quite honestly. 'Say what you wanna say, yeah' as the song goes. I will clarify my comment to Jane, since you decided to comment on it. What I didn't express terribly well, was that people (especially those from relatively sheltered backgrounds) do find it hard to know what to say if I ever reveal my childhood experiences to them. For this reason, I don't talk about it much. I am ok with that discomfort, I get it, I understand it - and I'm also ok if anyone wants to tell me what they think. What I meant when I said that most people 'can't relate or have an opinion on' my experience, was that most people feel uncomfortable and don't know what to say - not that I don't think they can have an opinion. The wording came out wrong. Some people are also quite the opposite, they are interested and curious, and empathetic and loving. Either way I'm ok with what anyone has to say to me. The only reason I brought it up my experience on this thread was because of the comments I was reading that were directed to our sister here who has suffered hurt feelings from those who consider just the 99, to the exclusion of the one. For me, caring about 'the one' is a tenet of basic human kindness, of showing Christlike love and 'mourning with those who stand in need of comfort'.

It's 'silly and extreme' to be mindful of the varied needs of children in Primary? You can't be serious. No-one is suggesting that we don't teach about families or sing mommy or daddy songs - just that on occasion we may need to consider the circumstances of our children. Holy cow, this is 'dealing with children 101' - there is nothing controversial or difficult to understand about this concept!

You haven't upset me at all - I simply disagreed with the self-congratulatory comment about how great it is for YOUR kids to feel happy to sing any Primary song. That's great for them. But let's not forget about the others who aren't so lucky. On reflection I don't think that you intended for your comments to come across that way, and I'm sorry too for the sarcastic response.

This is the most sensible response I've read in this thread. I totally believe there is a happy medium...we can be aware of the children and their needs without losing any of our important gospel messages. We can't walk on eggshells for sure, but we can (and should) be mindful of the children's circumstances as they occur. Of course we don't do away with songs about families, mothers, fathers; but if we know (for example) that a child has lost a parent to divorce, or even death, then of course we would make every effort not to add to that child's pain at that time. I do have a reasonably large Primary to watch over - we average about 30-40 kids each week. Ours is a diverse ward, both culturally and socio-economically, and many of our children are from sole-parent families. We have some regular foster children too. One little boy in foster care I've now been teaching and meeting with each week for a couple of years (he gets rotated around foster families in the ward because of his high behavioural needs) is just the kind of child I'm mindful of. During a lesson on being a 'child of God' one week, I told the children how Heavenly Father loved each one of them and he flat out told me that 'no, God does not love me'. Then I told him that I loved him too, and he shook his head and said 'no you don't'. Imagine what it's like being that little boy - who believes that no-one loves him? It's just heartbreaking. What's really nice now, is that after a couple of years of seeing me every week and showing him individual attention, he now loves to sit by me and put his arm around me while we sing Primary songs or do activities. I always give him a cuddle and tell him I love him and lately he hasn't been saying 'no, you don't'. He recently started putting his hand up to come up the front and lead the actions to songs in Sharing Time and when I told his carers, they were gobsmacked because he just doesn't open up like that. It doesn't take much to show love and compassion for a few hours on a Sunday - the other children still get the usual round of favourite songs with gospel messages; and kids like him get to feel normal and safe and accepted as he should be in the Lord's church.

I watched it to the end - and found his recommendations a bit empty. (Are you a '6' too?). And yes, the preschool at age three idea is stupid! He is talking about way too much state intervention in children's lives there. The video he showed, btw, is shown to foster families to help sensitize them to the background of children who have been removed from their families. In my experience people don't like talking about childhood abuse, especially if they've never been exposed to it through someone they know. I can imagine it's very hard to know what to say to someone who has been through something that is foreign to you on every level. I remember once chatting quite casually to a friend about an issue I was having with my mother and being pulled right back to earth when she said in a shocked tone 'I just cannot imagine talking about my mother in that way!'. I had made a commitment to myself to stop feeling dirty and ashamed and just be honest with people if ever the subject of my family came up.This was one of the first times I decided to talk openly about my childhood, and afterwards I realized that most of my experiences were only ever going to be heard by a therapist and God. I liked the title 'How do we stop childhood adversity from becoming a life sentence?', that is a huge question. I don't even know where to go with that because every child's ability to cope with abuse and adversity is different. We all have different levels of resilience and intelligence and coping mechanisms. Is there anything we can do really? The only way to stop this is to fix society's ills and where do we even begin with that. Removing children from their families needs to happen in some cases, but then what happens if they get shunted around lots of different foster families, or even worse, become abuse victims a second time. I ended up in foster care a few times, and spent most of my childhood in a horribly dysfunctional family situation, and yet I managed to get away and make a 'normal' life and family for myself. I know that for me, the influence of the gospel played a huge role in that. What do you think we can do?

Thanks Jane :) I do appreciate you even acknowledging what I said since most people find it hard to say anything at all. I get it - my story is uncomfortable and confronting and so it's not one most people can relate to or have an opinion on. You area a lovely 'stranger' on the internet to say such kind things. I do know that the knowledge that I have a Father in Heaven who loves me, along with a sure testimony of my Savior Jesus Christ, has sustained me through the years it took to work out the 'why me?' questions I had. I love the ideals of family that are taught in the church and I truly enjoy hearing people speak about loving parents and families growing up. It is those ideals that I have tried to incorporate into my own family.

Silly, extreme examples that are not reflective of what anyone in this thread has suggested.

How good for you, how nice for you that your children can 'belt out' any Primary song they like and never have to feel 'different', excluded or hurt when they hear certain lyrics. Give yourself a big pat on the back. Your examples are extreme and not at all what I think anyone in this thread has suggested. Of course we should sing songs about families in Primary, but if we have a diverse group (which my Primary certainly is), then we need to be sensitive to the needs of all the children. It's not a difficult concept - show consideration and love for ALL the children - not just 99, not just 1. I don't know why anyone finds this idea so hard to wrap their heads around.

As someone who has served in Primary for many years, I'm grateful for those really do care about 'little johnny' who has no father, and who sensitively approach their callings with love and compassion for the children. I can also tell you there are more than enough songs to sing.

Do you honestly believe that it's ok to sing certain songs regardless of what the background of the Primary children might be? Have you ever watched the face of a fatherless, fostered or abused child crumple up in hurt when certain lyrics are sung in Primary? I have - and there is no way I would ever deliberately do that again just because I want to blunder along in my own sense of self-righteousness that this will somehow teach them a better way. There are far kinder ways to teach the sacred concept of families. In fact, Primary materials from the church do tell us to be 'sensitive to the needs' of children who are in non-traditional family environments.

I am cringing just reading that. Any ward I've been to on Mothers Day gives a gift to ALL women over 18, be it a flower posy or small crafted item. The message is to honor ALL women as having the potential to be mothers, even if they aren't right now. We should be sensitive to the feelings of women who don't have children, just as we should be to those people who don't have spouses in the church, or the many little children who live with only one parent or who are in foster care. A little forethought in planning these events never hurt anyone. I understand how you feel on some level, although I'm coming at it from a different perspective to you. When I hear those stories about fathers and mothers, I rejoice to hear about the love people have had from their mothers (and their fathers), but my feelings are always tinged with a feeling of loss as I never had parents who cared for me. My father left my teenage mother when she was pregnant, and my mother became a welfare statistic (five more children to different fathers came after me). She was an alcoholic, prescription drug addict, and violent person who exposed me to sexual behaviors no child should ever see (no, you could not make this up). She once tried to suffocate me with a pillow as I slept, woke me another time with punches to my head while I was sleeping, threw a hammer at me and generally made it clear she hated my guts from the day I was born. When I did go searching for my biological father years later, I hoped to find some kind of 'normal' in my background, but instead I found a washed up former professional boxer who became a violent criminal and who had spent more time in jail than out of it. You name the crime, he did it - including shooting his first wife. At least he was honest with me about it when we did finally speak. All of that is the Reader's Digest version, but you can imagine there is a bit of a void in my head when talks are given in church about expressing gratitude for being raised by loving mothers and fathers. I understand the sentiment and am happy for others, but I have never had the experience of being nurtured by loving parents. Does that mean I think sacrament talks about parents shouldn't be given or that Mother's/Father's Days shouldn't be honored at church? Not at all. In fact, those ideals and experiences gave me hope for a better way of life. It was just those kinds of testimonies and the teachings in church on the subject of families and parenting, that provided me with guidance and examples about how I could raise my own children. Having said that, I do believe we can honor Mother's Day sensitively at church. Speak on the divine role of mothers for sure, but to get the mothers in the congregation to stand up and be honored over women who are desperate for, but don't have children? No way. I hope Mother's Day is better for you this year and the organizers of Mothers Day in your ward try to be a bit more empathetic to the needs of women like yourself who are in the congregation. Maybe you could get involved yourself and make some suggestions? They probably don't even realize that their lovely intentions my inadvertently cause hurt feelings.

While I agree that much of what we believe is perception, the content of the article you posted is seriously flawed. Because it doesn't make much sense to me, I am finding it hard to make a comparison with gospel principles. Ok, inner history student coming out here on the problems with the article... it's really pointless to speculate on a practice merely by referring to 'the Greeks' since their culture spans thousands of years and multiple societies. Even if the name of the color 'blue' isn't identified as such, the color itself is evident in artwork all over the world dating from many thousands of years ago. The author claims that "It seemed the Greeks lived in murky and muddy world, devoid of color, mostly black and white and metallic, with occasional flashes of red or yellow" and "The only ancient culture to develop a word for blue was the Egyptians — and as it happens, they were also the only culture that had a way to produce a blue dye." Neither of those statements can be true - the ancient Minoans who were precursors of what we tend to think of as the classical Greeks, lived thousands of years before Homer wrote the 'Odyssey' in 750BC. Minoan art uses plenty of blue in their frescoes - blue dolphins, dresses, hair ribbons, as well as blue sky and water. Blue can also be found in the artwork of various eras of ancient Roman history. The oldest civilizations in Mesopotamia (4000BC at least) used blue in artwork as well: http://www.academia.edu/2026013/Colour_Symbolism_in_Ancient_Mesopotamia I'm pretty sure if someone expert in ancient languages looked hard enough they would find a word that labels the blue dye and pigments used by ancient artists. I don't know why anyone would write an entire article on the supposed lack of 'blue' in the ancient world - it's not at all a supportable hypothesis. You made the general statement stereotyping 'feminism' as 'bad' and therefore the antithesis of gospel truth - "For example, feminism as a whole is an ugly disease, not because it contains no truths -- on the contrary, it contains many truths -- but because it teaches its adherents to sense things in an ugly way." Again, the term 'feminist' (like the term 'ancient society') has many interpretations, and is certainly not an 'ugly disease' for ALL women. I don't need to tell anyone that if it wasn't for certain feminists who have gone before us, we wouldn't be enjoying the rights we have to education, work and the freedom to determine our own futures. If it wasn't for those who believe in women's rights today (if that sounds less 'dirty' than the word 'feminists'), no-one would be fighting against domestic and sexual violence, the sexual exploitation of women and girls in western society, and the terrible acts of abuse and mutilation that girls and women endure in third-world countries. Yes there are extremes in feminism, but let's not throw out the proverbial 'baby with the bathwater' since we have much to thank 'feminism' for. My understanding of early Utah history is not extensive, but I have read that women in the early church were no shrinking violets and the Suffrage Movement was alive and well in Utah. In fact wasn't Utah also one of the first states to give women the vote? The tenets of feminism were alive and well - certainly not 'ugly' and most definitely used to improve the rights of women. *steps off soapbox* "In contrast, the gospel is as true at least as much for how it teaches us to view things as for what it teaches us to believe." - and on that point I completely agree with you :)

I love that you mention this, as I did quite a bit of reading on the subject some time ago and it really changed my perspective on the consumption of meat. It's not just about eating meat sparingly, the JST of Genesis also states that we are accountable for every creature we kill for food: And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.(Gen 9:11) The prophet also stated: And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need. (D&C 49:18-21). I personally found this very confronting when I first read it, especially when I thought about how casually we all eat meat from fast-food outlets. A living, sentient animal had to feel fear and die so that I could woof down that $2 cheeseburger in a few minutes. I realized that as stewards of the earth, we are each accountable for every creature that dies either directly or indirectly because of our consumption of meat. I am not a vegetarian and definitely not a food purist, but for ethical and spiritual reasons I now eat very little meat, and what I do eat I make sure is labelled as pasture-raised and organic. Same goes for eggs - after learning about the conditions of battery hens, I decided to keep two chickens (who make great pets for my kids) and provide us with two perfect eggs most days. If they don't lay enough, I buy 'cage-free' eggs. Cruel treatment of animals even for raising food is wrong - “a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10). Jesus also taught that not even the sparrows are forgotten by God (Luke 12:6), so if it's good enough for God to care about even the smallest creatures of the earth, it's good enough for me. Luke 12 also tells us to beware of hypocrisy... which I am when it comes to the spirit of the WoW. I don't eat much meat, I don't eat much fat, I don't drink or smoke or take coffee/tea - but I don't eat many veggies in season and oh how I love sugar and salt on pretty much everything

Sorry, I have sometimes started a talk with a joke - but one that highlights the topic I've been assigned to speak on. I have also started with a story, a scripture, or a rhetorical question related to the topic. I always introduce myself as we are in a ward where people move in and out quite regularly. One thing I hate is when people with a superiority complex offer up a 'challenge' at the end - ugh.

This is a tricky one - because while the book has a bit of swearing and 'adult' content, it does challenge the reader to examine his or her values in our materialistic society. You can learn a lot about yourself from evaluating Chris McCandless experience. In the book, this young man questions what he sees is the soul-less materialism in society. He gives away all of his possessions, including $25,000 and sets off on an existential quest to 'find himself' or his purpose in life. (As Latter-day Saints we also have to find our own truth at some time, and not simply accept what we've been told, so we can all relate to this experience.) Some readers interpret Chis as brave, others as bit of a spoilt brat. Either way he doesn't come to a good end. I have not met a teenager who didn't enjoy this book, although my students are predominantly non-members who aren't sensitive to swearing. I don't know how old you are, but I personally wouldn't want anyone under 16 to read this book because the themes are quite mature (it was after all written with adult readers in mind). I'm sure your teacher can offer you an alternative text on the topic of self-exploration that you can read for your assignments. Maybe you could ask to read 'Life of Pi' instead - it too is a story of survival, morality and perceptions of truth. 'Into the Wild' is an easier read though... If you are taking an AP literature class, be prepared for this issue to come up at least a few times. Many of the texts we consider classic literature, even ancient ones, contain content that you may not feel comfortable with.

Jordan are pretty angry with ISIS right now and have been bombing them to smithereens - instead of sending in US (and Allied) ground troops - give the funding to countries like Jordan for a while.

Looking at attractive people is NORMAL - and this goes for both sexes. We all look at pretty things, and pretty people - both male and female. I think that women look at women just as much, if not more than men look at women - we admire other women's hair, figures, fashion sense and confidence - doesn't mean we want to sleep with them. If I see a handsome man (even if he makes me go 'phwarrr!', that doesn't mean I'm lusting after him, it just means I think he's good-looking. If my husband looks at other women, I could not care less. Because the fact is, as others here have pointed out - if he wanted to be with another woman - he would be. If I wanted to be with another man - I would be. We all just need to stop being weird and paranoid about glancing (even more than once) at someone beautiful that walks by. We admire landscapes, cute animals, shiny objects - and people who either by nature or intent - are noticeable. It's not a big deal. There will always be people who are prettier, sexier, smarter and whatever-er than us, and you know what - we may also be that person to someone else. The pretty girl down the road is lovely - if my husband thinks so, that's ok - because at the end of the day, I know that when it comes to his love and devotion in a committed relationship - it's me he wants. So to me, there you are with a husband who is a member of the church (mine isn't), and you have sex five times a week (all I can say is, lucky you), and he's openly communicating with you on this issue (lucky again) - from the outside looking in from my internet screen I'm already thinking you've got it pretty good. Be grateful for what you have - enjoy your marriage and don't let being clingy, needy and insecure drive a wedge in your relationship. I've been in a relationship where the guy was as paranoid as they come - I'd glance out the window of the car and be accused of lusting after someone I hadn't even seen. It became suffocating and annoying, and it all stemmed from his own personal insecurities about his body and sex. In fact, I discovered this person had a pile of pornography stashed away that made him feel guilty (for his own immorality) and suspicious of all women (in his eyes so many women were willing to be sex objects in pornography, so no women could be trusted because deep down we are all Jezebels). Finally I broke free of him - even now it makes my skin crawl to think of how controlling he tried to be about even where my eyes were looking. Having someone make you feel guilty about your every movement or glance is not conducive to a healthy relationship. It's stifling and downright unattractive. The fact is that to some extent we all look - it doesn't lessen YOUR worth that there are other beautiful women in the world. You are no less beautiful and desirable just because others are beautiful and desirable too. The sooner we as women (collectively) accept that we are good enough just as we are - the better!

It is very common for people in my ward to end their talks and testimonies with 'in the name of thy son...' It's an English as a second language thing for them I think.

Why would any children born to Mary and Sam belong to her previous sealing to John? He's not their father!