Dravin

Be the strange you wish to see in the world.

As long as you don't try and respond to his phone conversation and he thinks you're the one trying to chat people up in the bathroom.

Heh, as long as they aren't trying to start a conversation with me in the restroom I'm happy. Someone trying to chat you up from the next urinal over is just awkward.

Heh, as long as they aren't trying to start a conversation with me in the restroom I'm happy. Someone trying to chat you up from the next urinal over is just awkward.

Have you talked to him specifically about how you feel like he'd benefit from the occasional friends/guys night out? If he doesn't want to get out and about and it's not causing any problems (or stemming from them) I'd be inclined to just let him know that you're happy to support him if and/or when he gets an itch for a monthly (or what have you) evening of X with friends. If he's an introvert* then over encouraging him to get out there and jump in with friends where relationship dynamics may have changed significantly may make him feel pressured and a bit grumpy.
 
*That he had friends and went out regularly doesn't necessarily mean he's an extrovert. However, you know your husband better than anyone else here on the board.

At it's heart a union is the freedom of association and the right to control your own labor (aka if you're going to work or not). I'm disinclined to pass laws preventing people from associating with other individuals in their field (or even workplace) and telling them they can't quit en mass (we seem to have no problems letting employees cut people loose en mass).  Now where today's unions go past this conceptual nugget is where they have legal protections that essentially change the balance between employer and employees and change it to employer versus employees + government, I think lively and healthy debate can be had about those legal protections and advantages and if they should be eliminated. I can even see lively and healthy debate over if a particular union is doing more harm than good for it's members. I find generally speaking people hone in on those last two subjects, but they are somewhat different than discussing if unions themselves should be allowed.  
 It would take what they offer, short-term and long-term, to be equal to or greater than the investment (monetary and time) they would require of me. In short, they must offer a net value.

Have you talked to him specifically about how you feel like he'd benefit from the occasional friends/guys night out? If he doesn't want to get out and about and it's not causing any problems (or stemming from them) I'd be inclined to just let him know that you're happy to support him if and/or when he gets an itch for a monthly (or what have you) evening of X with friends. If he's an introvert* then over encouraging him to get out there and jump in with friends where relationship dynamics may have changed significantly may make him feel pressured and a bit grumpy.
 
*That he had friends and went out regularly doesn't necessarily mean he's an extrovert. However, you know your husband better than anyone else here on the board.

Have you talked to him specifically about how you feel like he'd benefit from the occasional friends/guys night out? If he doesn't want to get out and about and it's not causing any problems (or stemming from them) I'd be inclined to just let him know that you're happy to support him if and/or when he gets an itch for a monthly (or what have you) evening of X with friends. If he's an introvert* then over encouraging him to get out there and jump in with friends where relationship dynamics may have changed significantly may make him feel pressured and a bit grumpy.
 
*That he had friends and went out regularly doesn't necessarily mean he's an extrovert. However, you know your husband better than anyone else here on the board.

What are your thoughts on stipends for clergy?

The rational against informing your spouse because, "It'll hurt them to know." has always seemed a bit convenient to me. Particularly when paired with, 'It'll be difficult to get their trust back.'

As in living expenses?  
 
I think the GA's should pay their own living expenses or be released if they can't and go back to making money until they can. Heck they expect 19 year old kids to pay their own way, why not everyone else?  You could argue that some GA's have a 40+ year calling and could never do it.  That's fine, just rotate them for shorter duration.  It's not the church of a man or of a few men. Nothing wrong with changing up the leadership every few years. 

According the Mayor:  From: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/March/City-Under-Fire-for-Requiring-Church-Business-Licenses/ Going to the Lake Worth Municipal website does appear to have it set-up as a dual form, at least it does mention Use & Occupancy ( https://www.lakeworth.org/business/business-tax/ ). That might explain some church seeing the form and complaining but it doesn't really explain the investigation. Even if it was intended to be an investigation into if safety and maximum occupancy requirements were being met the snippets of the report available online don't make it sound like that at all. Which makes it sound like someone or someones decided to do a little axe grinding. As far as the general question instead of the specific incident: I'm comfortable with for profit business ventures of churches requiring a license if a secular one would as well, but I'm not comfortable with requiring some sort of church license (be it a unique to churches license or requiring them to get a business license). I am okay with buildings that hold large regular public to semi-public meetings being required to meet certain safety requirements such as maximum occupancy and sufficient points of egress in case of emergency. That'd be something that applies to the building though not the church itself.

English doesn't necessarily need to be particularly compact. Translations often take more space/time than the original. Even skilled translators can find themselves having to take a two or three word idiom and turn it into a sentence to properly communicate the meaning fully in another language. Also consider if you want to do a standard video that it needs to account for the translation that takes the longest for each particular scene. If German needs an extra 5 seconds for a scene, Spanish an extra 23 seconds , and Norwegian an extra 13 seconds it doesn't really mater if the audio is actually shorter in Japanese ( compared to English ), the scene needs to give room for the 23 seconds extra needed by the Spanish audio.

English doesn't necessarily need to be particularly compact. Translations often take more space/time than the original. Even skilled translators can find themselves having to take a two or three word idiom and turn it into a sentence to properly communicate the meaning fully in another language. Also consider if you want to do a standard video that it needs to account for the translation that takes the longest for each particular scene. If German needs an extra 5 seconds for a scene, Spanish an extra 23 seconds , and Norwegian an extra 13 seconds it doesn't really mater if the audio is actually shorter in Japanese ( compared to English ), the scene needs to give room for the 23 seconds extra needed by the Spanish audio.

According the Mayor:  From: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/March/City-Under-Fire-for-Requiring-Church-Business-Licenses/ Going to the Lake Worth Municipal website does appear to have it set-up as a dual form, at least it does mention Use & Occupancy ( https://www.lakeworth.org/business/business-tax/ ). That might explain some church seeing the form and complaining but it doesn't really explain the investigation. Even if it was intended to be an investigation into if safety and maximum occupancy requirements were being met the snippets of the report available online don't make it sound like that at all. Which makes it sound like someone or someones decided to do a little axe grinding. As far as the general question instead of the specific incident: I'm comfortable with for profit business ventures of churches requiring a license if a secular one would as well, but I'm not comfortable with requiring some sort of church license (be it a unique to churches license or requiring them to get a business license). I am okay with buildings that hold large regular public to semi-public meetings being required to meet certain safety requirements such as maximum occupancy and sufficient points of egress in case of emergency. That'd be something that applies to the building though not the church itself.

According the Mayor:  From: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/March/City-Under-Fire-for-Requiring-Church-Business-Licenses/ Going to the Lake Worth Municipal website does appear to have it set-up as a dual form, at least it does mention Use & Occupancy ( https://www.lakeworth.org/business/business-tax/ ). That might explain some church seeing the form and complaining but it doesn't really explain the investigation. Even if it was intended to be an investigation into if safety and maximum occupancy requirements were being met the snippets of the report available online don't make it sound like that at all. Which makes it sound like someone or someones decided to do a little axe grinding. As far as the general question instead of the specific incident: I'm comfortable with for profit business ventures of churches requiring a license if a secular one would as well, but I'm not comfortable with requiring some sort of church license (be it a unique to churches license or requiring them to get a business license). I am okay with buildings that hold large regular public to semi-public meetings being required to meet certain safety requirements such as maximum occupancy and sufficient points of egress in case of emergency. That'd be something that applies to the building though not the church itself.

Does that cut both ways? If Bini posted materials and comments intended to lead her friends and family away from Christianity, because she's concerned about the welfare of those who believe in something she believes is false, would your advice be the same? That they should graciously thank her for thinking of them?
 
If yes, I commend you on your consistency. A lot of people aren't so consistent (on either side of things).

I find that it helps a lot if the first thing I do is hop out of bed and take a shower as soon as the alarm goes off. If I try to do the snooze thing, or if I just tell myself that I'll wait a minute or two before getting out from under the covers I'm likely to reconsider my decision to get up if I'm at all able. Showering first thing gives me both an immediate goal and helps wake me up.  
There was a time in my life that I was going to bed at 10 and getting up at 6. That would be 10 am and 6 pm, maybe it's just growing up in a large family but my enjoyment of the stillness of the night has stuck with me. Baring responsibility driven reasons I think I'm always going to tend towards being a night owl (though not that extreme). I don't struggle too much (though that might change with age) in forcing myself to get up so when I need to adjust my schedule I just get up early and let being tired adjust when I'm going to bed. If I try and force my wake-up time by going to bed early I just end up laying awake in bed until my customary time.

Many of our friends and neighbors believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction as well. I'm not commenting on the content of the book. I haven't read it. I'm commenting on the attitude that we don't need to read or watch to "know", that it is perfectly acceptable for us to judge content without reading or watching it, but not ok for others to do the same. Sorry folks, but that is the definition of hypocrisy. If you don't want to read or watch it...fine, I have no desire to do so either. But categorizing it when you haven't read it based on preconceived notions or the words of others is no better than your neighbor who knows you aren't Christians because their pastor told them that the Mormon bible is all about worshipping Joe Smith.
Sorry if that struck a nerve.

Yet the use of the term remains needlessly emotive when referencing people hunting to put food on the table. 

If we're talking trophy hunting I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking hunting to put food on the table then terming it bloodsport is needlessly emotive. 

Or hunt. The debate tends to surround pistols which generally aren't used for hunting, but if we're talking about guns something like a Remington Model 700 is generally directed at game not people. Also, even if we are talking about pistols only, a competition pistol isn't intended to kill, they're intended to hit targets. Sure a match grade pistol can be used to kill, but that isn't their intended purpose. I'm ignoring recreational purposes for owning a gun as those doing recreational shooting usually grab a gun designed for killing or competition for that purpose.
 
Also, I wonder if LDSG feels the same way about owning a bow. The purpose behind owning a bow maps rather well with the purposes behind owning a gun. Killing (admittedly not usually in self defense), competing, or recreation.

I suspect because such an outlook is comforting. If only people who don't have a strong testimony fall away/leave the Church then it reinforces that they, presumably in possession of a strong testimony, won't find themselves in similar circumstances. There is thread debating the doctrine and principles behind the idea that, "It can happen to anyone." that'd probably give you some insight into the thought processes going around. Putting aside the doctrine and principles that may be behind either viewpoint (for they have their own thread) the idea that someone with a strong testimony can have such a quick turn-around is frightening, and attaching conditions that don't apply to you is comforting in the face of that. 

The tone-deafness of written language doesn't help either*. In a face to face conversation a matter-of-fact tone can communicate someone is trying to be dispassionate, or a soft tone can indicate they're trying to gently introduce new ideas into the conversation for consideration rather then trying to declare as if they were coming from on high. Not that all tone and body language in face to face conversations fosters communication but the intent can be a bit clearer. 
 
When you have long time posters this can be counteracted by their posting history. For instance, I know that Vort is usually trying to matter-of-factly present information and ideas (or examine the same) not rail at people with spittle specked lips. If you don't have a posting history with someone though it can often be left up to the reader's imagination how something is perceived. You touch on this with your edit.
 
*Sufficient effort and clarification can help impart a tone to the written word (it doesn't necessarily require wordiness) but generally people don't spend that much time on internet forum posts. They tend to write to get their point across to the degree they're satisfied with rather then trying to create a masterpiece of the written word.

If it isn't water, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and arguably transportation, it's a luxury.