scottyg

Loss of their control over people’s lives.

A lot of times people paint someone or themselves as having a mental health disorder when it's just their personality that they can change if they put their minds to it.  It's like they want to have an excuse for behaving the way they do.
And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

The old standby:

Yep.  A real example of homophobia, is a guy who can't get out of bed and go outside because he is paralyzed by the crippling fear that there might be a gay person.  People with phobias struggle to hold down relationships, jobs, marriages, and otherwise have a hard time functioning as a self-sufficient adult.
 

True. Most disorders are not accurately understood by the public at large. With regards to phobias, a "phobia" is defined as a fear or aversion to something, and yet homophobia is used all the time as a term for those who simply dislike or are prejudiced against those who are gay. I wish people would use proper terms and not skew words/definitions to fit their narrative. The word gay is a prime example...used to mean happy and carefree - now means homosexual. I am not saying actual homophobia doesn't exist, but by proper definition I have never met anyone who is actually afraid of a gay person. As far as narcissists go, I think we all tend to be one at different points in our lives. 

I haven't had a chance to watch this, but I think it seems to be the in thing to do...  label someone as a narcissist.   
I think it is useful to be able to spot a possible narcissist, sociopath, etc.  But often I think people are prone to give someone a bad label for their own inadequacies.   If you have a bad relationship with your spouse.... they must be a narcissist.  And of course some of the time they are.
But I think we really need to be very careful about these things and look at ourselves very closely before making such accusations. 

Doctors practice Eugenics now?  "Your baby has a heart condition and down syndrome... put him on the death column."
 

 
 

You only think that because liberal media filters the message you receive.  Right to Life, Fetal Heartbeat, et al have been passed in other states.  Personal views will be irrelevant when humanity is standing before Heavenly Father explaining infanticide.

The problem there is the change from “Life at risk” to “Life and Health”.  Health is a very broad term.  Pre-partum depression, for example, is health.  You can kill your baby if you’re suffering from pre-partum depression.  Gestational diabetes is health.  Heck, swollen feet is health.  Do you see where this is going?  
The law changed so that a viable baby is only required to be saved AFTER live birth.  So there’s no provision to prevent a viable baby to be killed prior to it passing the birth canal.
The change comes with removal of the requirement that abortions after 24 weeks have to be performed in a hospital as an inpatient procedure.  This removes the checks and balance of a hospital team setup.  You can now get late-term abortions at Planned Parenthood.  The change also removes the requirement for a 2nd attending physician.  And to top it off, the procedure is covered full protection of medical privacy.
It would be very naive for anybody to think these changes secure that abortions only occur to remove non-viable fetus or to save a mother’s life.
 

Yay Piers!

Just finished my nightly reading from The Lord of the Rings to my twelve-year-old. We started The Hobbit early last month, and today we read Chapter 8 of The Fellowship. It's the chapter where the hobbits are taken by the barrow wight and saved by Tom Bombadil.
When I first read these books back around 1980, I remember skimming over the Tom Bombadil stuff. Kind of boring, or so I thought. When I read them again much later, to my older sons when they were still young (maybe 15 or so years ago), I enjoyed Tom a lot more. But on this reading, I remember so little that it's almost like I haven't read these before at all. And I'm enjoying Tom Bombadil a great deal more than ever before.
Here's the thing: My twelve-year-old loved it. He got really excited when Tom came to cast out the barrow-wight, literally jumping up and down, smiling and laughing in excitement. When I finished, he said, "That's my favorite chapter!" High praise indeed.
In the Vort household, Tom Bombadil is officially Awesome.

We have that same joke in our ward between 4 or so young families.  I personally enjoy it because it shows couples are having children and bringing them to the place that they should be on Sunday, which is pleasing to the Lord.

Just come back to church. Almost all wards are used to having loud kids in the meeting...it really bothers no one. Families are what the church is all about. Plus nursery will be coming up for your child soon for the 2nd hour. We have 4 kids and a set of twins that are 13 months old and sit near the front in the chapel every week. If they get too fussy, we just take them out...no big deal.

We have that same joke in our ward between 4 or so young families.  I personally enjoy it because it shows couples are having children and bringing them to the place that they should be on Sunday, which is pleasing to the Lord.

We have that same joke in our ward between 4 or so young families.  I personally enjoy it because it shows couples are having children and bringing them to the place that they should be on Sunday, which is pleasing to the Lord.

Personally, I am very grateful for all those times someone else's kid screams louder than mine.  And there's some weeks they are the one's being grateful for my kid screaming louder than theirs.  

Just come back to church. Almost all wards are used to having loud kids in the meeting...it really bothers no one. Families are what the church is all about. Plus nursery will be coming up for your child soon for the 2nd hour. We have 4 kids and a set of twins that are 13 months old and sit near the front in the chapel every week. If they get too fussy, we just take them out...no big deal.

This premise is ridiculous.
There is no "other than". There is God's will as given by ancient and modern prophets and apostles.
There is following, and there is rebelling against. There is faithfulness, and there is unfaithfulness.
There are covenants and there are the breaking of them.
The "they might be mistaken" nonsense in nonsense. A. Unlikely. B. Even if so it is irrelevant until God wills to make it known otherwise. There is still following or rebelling, faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Following, faithfulness, and the keeping of covenants leads to peace and happiness, rebellion, unfaithfulness, and the breaking of covenants leads to misery and destruction. Period. It's not complicated and nuanced. It's as straightforward as it can possible be, and those who take the simple and try to make it complicated and nuanced are embracing dishonesty.
Then you don't understand eternal marriage, and the purpose of fidelity and commitment therein. You're under the impression, apparently, that sexual fidelity is a virtue in and of itself. It's not. Faithfulness in the marriage covenant is directly tied to the purposes of eternal marriage. Sex outside of marriage is a sin because of the importance of eternal marriage. Why else would it be? What could possible be wrong with an unwed young man and woman engaging in protected non-impregnating sex if it wasn't that sex was directly tied to the value of eternal marriage and commitment WITHIN that state? Take away the eternal marriage aspect and fidelity has no more meaning than a contract -- the breaking of which may have it's own sins (honesty being one of them), but the actual contract itself has no purpose. Why, with the removal of eternal families as the point, would there be value in committing sexually to a single individual?
There is none. There is no wholesomeness in the unwholesome. There is only man-made counterfeit pseudo-virtue masquerading as wholesome as a lie to further Satan's goals of destroying God's plan...which plan is eternal families.

This astonishes me.  I don't even have words to describe it.

Either you believe that Marriage is designed as a foundation of Families that anchors the next generation or you don't.
Either you believe that Gender is not a component to Marriage - that is, Gender is interchangeable such that there is no distinction between a Female Mother or a Male Mother and no distinction between a Female Father or a Male Father that poses any societal disadvantage to the Family... or you do.
 

If someone were recovering from drug addiction and relapsed, we know the right response. "So sad--hope you return to recovery soon." Isn't that the appropriate response to this too?

To be sealed?  I went a week or so ago for my endowments.  She has to wait at least a year.

I"m surprised they are being so strict on something like this.  Circumstances happen when family members have to travel. There is always room for making allowances.