Dravin

The logic is the same as for a University Ward. A lot of the point of a YSA (or SA for that matter) is to get people of simular age and value together to mingle and become friends and ideally get them married off to each other, this doesn't work if everyone stays in their family wards. So if you have several feeder wards you have a greater number of YSA or SA mingling and interacting. Additionally some people have an easier time identifying with people of their own age and marital status and can feel out of place in a marriage ward, this can be especially true of converts and investigators. Think starting new ones (ideally of course), if you live at home going to a different ward then your parents isn't exactly ripping the family apart (no more so than moving into a new ward and going there is). I'm living at home and go to a different Stake let alone ward than everyone else in the house it hasn't hurt my relationship with my family one bit. Now transportation is a legitimate concern, and in my experience nobody is forced to go to a YSA or SA ward. Heck, when I reactivated and was thus YSA material I didn't go because I was preparing for a mission and dating wasn't on the agenda, nobody hasseled me about not going to the right ward. Of course that was an established ward, if they create a new YSA or SA ward and everyone opts to stay in their family wards that fails so that may be why it is being stressed so much.

I wouldn't know the feeling, the only foreign country I've been to is Canada (drove through it when I moved from Fairbanks, Alaska to Utah), it was pretty much the same thing except with a different system of measurement (which only matter for speed limits and distances) and different money. :)

Wouldn't they get sunburn? Edit: I realize that probably sounds silly, but I know that cats for instance will get sunburn if you shave them and pit bulls, I seem to recall somebody warning me once they can get sunburned as well.

I just looked at a least of supposed hypo-allergenic dogs and didn't like what I saw except for a basenji, that looks like a dog as opposed to a furry toy. Only problem is I'm more of a get a dog from a friend or a pound type person and not that excited about pure breeds, they all seem to have endemic health issues with their breeds (kinda like European Royalty ) and they cost money. And then what happens when you shell out several hundred for a pooch and find out you are allergic to it anyway. I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to give a dog a test run, pit bulls definitely failed (stayed with my sister who had two, had to go home early as after a couple days as I was having trouble breathing). P.S. I knew somebody in Spokane who had some golden doodle puppies (they bred them), they was cute little buggers, but puppies are like kittens (or babies), they have an inherent cuteness going for them.

I wouldn't have minded a lab, or even a pit bull, some of the nicest dogs I've encountered have been pit bulls. Sadly I seem to have developed an allergy to dogs, I could visit a house with one for a few hours, or say hi to one on the street, but alas having one in the same domicile as myself is a no go. Its kinda strange to, dogs give me issues even if short hair, but it seems only longer haired cats give me issue, and then only when I pet them (in the same house is just fine).

And as a Mormon is amazes me how compatible they are despite claims to the contrary. *shrug* All comes down to interpretation in cases like these.

Depends if the first study was done in Logan and the second in Provo right after a USU vs BYU game with the former winning. :)

One of my favorites, "The beach was too sandy." Click Here to enjoy.

Trust me, I understand that (endowed member here). Its just my own thoughts at the idea of something that takes an hour and a half (or longer) being accurately represented in a few minutes. Even if they'd taken the whole show (which wouldn't have made for a well written well paced show) they'd only have been able to get half of it in there. Its kinda like if somebody said they were going to accurately represent the Constitution of the US (or Bible, or War and Peace or what have you) with utmost attention to detail in 10 words or less. Gives you the, "Uhuh, riiiight." reaction.

None of that proves the spiritual component though. I can visit places mentioned in greek mythology, doesn't prove it true. *This is technically false nobody last I checked knows where Sodom is. I understand the sentiment, a lot of them have been found, but every is an absolute statement and is false.

When I and my Mom were talking about it and she quoted that someone or other involved it would be as accurate as possible I pointed out the real deal is like 1.5 to 2 hours (I've never paid that close attention to just exactly how long it takes), no way they can show all of it let alone a significant portion of it in a TV show.

Thing is rights are rights, or at least the rights we are supposed to be entitled to we all are. If you say you have X right than either everyone has X right, or should have X right, unless of course one is maintaining one should have rights above and beyond others. A right is not simply a statement of how you think you should be treated, else I would agree. I don't want people to lie to me either, I just don't have a right to have them not do so at least from my point of view. I'd also like people to give me $100 when ever they see me, I have no right to people giving me money, they are free to do so of course but if they don't my right isn't being violated, because it doesn't exists. Sure, because it boils down to human rights, and while male, I am human. In the arena of equal rights its easy for a male to define what rights a female should have, because they should be the same ones as I have (there are of course a few exceptions, such as reproductive health and the like where where say a man having the right not to have anybody forcing him to abort his child doesn't really carry straight acrossed that well). The intent of the question was to nail down just what rights we were talking about women having so we could say, "Yeah, in X culture women could do that." thing is some of your rights I'd argue nobody has so it doesn't narrow things down any. Yes: Not that my right to say such means I'm correct, but then I covered that: In the end neither of our assertions that something is a right has more weight than the other, at least not on the face of it, thus the attempt to enter into a discussion on the rights so mentioned and their validity. I can say I have a right to a corndog at 3:15pm every Tuesday, I can also say I don't have a right to not be sold into slavery in the US, neither assertion has any bearing on whether such is actually the case or not. Things like equal pay for equal work. Not being able to be sold into slavery. Not being discriminated for job opportunities based on sex. Weight of testimony regardless of sex. Pretty much anything covered in the bill of rights (and yes, there is some overlap here).

Its pretty encouraged in my experience. Heck, the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood has been recited in every ward I've been to in the past couple years and one of the points is to prepare to serve an honorable full time mission, and its hit on quite a lot besides just that. I'm not so sure that's the best idea, one it can leave converts out in the cold, second it can create pressures that result in people going on missions for the wrong reasons. A missionary who is simply there because he feels he won't get married unless he goes isn't the best companion, I actually knew of a missionary where this was the case. Additionally, while missions tend to accelerate spiritual growth, I've known plenty of non-RMs who blow RMs away in the potential spouse qualities department. Most wards I know of (which admittedly is a small number) have had mission prep classes. I notice your location is Germany, so that may explain the differences.

Naw, I've just got the soul of a nitpicker combined with a muser. It results in all kinds of comments that don't necessarily have all that much to really do with the topic, they're just things that pop into my head while reading. Think of it as a damaged brain finger filter if you'd like. :)

I'm not sure I'd agree the temptations are new, they just have different clothing. The temptation to be lewd for instance just has another outlet. Before cell phones kids would talk etc. The new approach to age old temptations does make them easier to do without being notice and thus facing negative societal pressure to not do such though. Personally I think the key is to help them understand that texting your friend during the sacrament isn't any different then talking to him during the sacrament except you may disturb a few less people, the result on your spirituality is the same. Texting dirty jokes or inappropriate pictures is no different then doing it in person and so on. Just my 2 cents (which isn't worthy much these days anyway). T9 texting baby! I don't have a thumb keyboard on my phone, I can still text handily with it and don't find it such a hassle that it discourages me from texting.

To be fair I don't think that's what he's doing, he's just a nitpicker. Women can't do all the things men can, and men can't do all the things women can, doesn't make one sex superior to the other. He just has an abrasive manner which can be hard to see through.

That would make it easier to capture them in the wild.

Thing is just calling something a right doesn't make it so, of course the converse is true, saying something isn't a right doesn't make it not so. You don't want a discussion along the lines of what exactly a right is and what ones we are entitled to, that fine, nothing wrong with that. Heavens knows I don't feel like discussing every point some random person on the internet brings up. :) Oh! Oh! :) I found an even stronger one than that: In countries where divorce is legal there are a lot more divorces then in countries where it isn't!

So men and women don't have access to every single blessing that the other does. Just as I'll never have the blessings of Motherhood, you'll never have the blessings of Fatherhood. Doesn't make either one of us better, but it does mean in details, if not in significance men and women aren't interchangeable in the which blessings department. You get the blue car I get the green one both of them get us to the Celestial Kingdom. *shrug*

There is no right to be happy though, the Declaration of Independance talks about the pursuit of happiness but if I'm miserable for various reason I'm not being denied a right. Additionally, one can have no legal rights and still be happy. Or is this some philsophical right to be happy (I can be happy no matter what), in which case I'm note sure this is some much a right as a reality*, nobody has control of your emotions but yourself. *Kind like the right to be affected by gravity. There is no right not to be deceived though. Some of Nephites tactics were quite deceptive, I'm not sure I'd say they was denying the invading Lamanites their right not to be deceived. Yes one could argue that the invading Lamanites were denying the Nephites rights (or at least trying to), but as a society we seem to accept the fact that just because somebody tries to (or does) deny another rights that all their rights don't go down the toilet with the attempt. The above is tricky, exspecially when we consider at least in western cultures the concept of freedom of expression, some people when told they are wrong on various subject I'd say suffer in the well being department (or even if you just tell somebody you think they are ugly, or yes that dress makes you look fat, which may go against your emotional abuse statement depending on how far you want to take it). Additionally, does this mean you have a right to prevent me from operating a car because it pollutes the air and thus effects you general well being? This one I can agree with. If your teenagers bicker are they denying you a right? Or do you mean peaceful in a more physical sense, but if your kids fight (physically) are they denying you a right? I suppose we may be on the divide of legal rights (the law says I have a right to X or do X) versus a more philsophical approach of, "Everyone should be able to do this." or "This is the way things should be." Cite? Or is this a generally people aren't respectful of one another, ergo women aren't being respected? Also, there is no right to be respected. Some atheists I've run into wouldn't respect me because I believe in God, they aren't trampling on any rights I have. Agency, same reason murder has been around since Cain. While you are correct, heck cats have rights, in some places if I tortured my cat for kicks I'd get in trouble, but I think there is an assumed unspoken "equal" inherent in the question. To be fair I was really, really, really tempted to make that kind of comment myself. Or that men will one day have the blessings of Motherhood. Unless the blessing and rights being talked about is Eternal Life, then yeah, both sexes can enjoy that.

I think it may be helpful to define rights here. I mean even in some cultures where we would say women have no rights they do have some at least to the degree that you couldn't sell them or what have you. So what are we talking about exactly? Being able to vote, own property? Not be divorced on a whim? Have abortions (most here I don't think would say its a right, the world at large (or at least parts of it) would however)? When we talk about women having rights, just what are we talking about?

Oh, I've never heard anyone try to claim this as doctrine (though I'm sure somebody somewhere has), usually the thinking is women tend to think of others more often, the priesthood is a call to serve so it helps the men serve thus developing spiritually and the like along those lines. *shrug* Or are you talking about the sentiment in general? Me I don't have any problems with the whole, "My wife is my better half" type comments, you are right though, it can be taken to far. I remember in the MTC they seemed to try to drill it into us that the Sisters were better than us in practically every way. Got to the point I wanted to scream, "We know already! God made a mistake when he called the young men to service, he should have called the young women!" I think that was just overcompensation for those Elders who felt they were superior though.

Actually no. We are saved after all we can do, and you've already agree that all we can do is our best. Currently the best we can do as fallible beings is not perfection, ergo perfection is not a requirement for being saved. Moroni's exhortation to be perfect is no different than this one: And you've just stated the Bible doesn't require perfection as a prerequisite for salvation (which is a silly concept, if one was truly perfect one wouldn't need to be saved). Stating something does not make it true. In fact if we are correct it is we who know Jesus and it is you who lacks knowledge and understanding of his nature and characteristics (though not completely). The I believe in the real Jesus and you don't game doesn't go anywhere. I'm curious, what would you say are the qualifications for salvation? The criteria that when met mean salvation.

You seem to be operating on the flawed premise that God will not give lesser commandments (aka lower laws) to his people when they fail to live up to the greater (aka higher laws) or that he doesn't give commandments to his children in regards to their time, place and situation. In your paradigm Moses is not a prophet because when bitten by snakes Christians don't go looking at brass serpents, or that its okay to eat pork.

All one can do is ones best. I think you may be missing the point of the scripture, which is that you can't sit there reveling in your sins thumbing your nose at the Lord and his commandments.