selek

The designers deliberately blurred the lines between "inside" and "outside". If memory serves, there are four open courtyards (exposed to the wind and sun), and several glassed-in concourses with extensive landscaping and pockets of plants and grass. Pets are welcome in all of these areas. Specific stores within the complex are more particular (especially those that serve food), but pets are welcome in all of the "common" areas of the mall.

Hi Scotsgirl- Yes, you're being a bit silly; but aren't we all from time to time? You've been offered some very sound advice. Go back to Church. We don't bite. Not only is it possible for you to come back, but you will be welcomed with open arms. If you explain to your Bishop what you have explained to us, you will almost certainly be welcomed back into full fellowship with a minimum of fuss and bother. You'll probably have to talk to the Stake President as well, but that's not a big deal. From what you have told us, you were a victim of fraud and deceipt and made a few bad choices. The entire point of the Gospel is the recovery of the prodigal child and the wayward lamb. The Church exists not to condemn nor to judge, but to redeem. Isn't that redemption- and the love, friendship, and support which attend it- worth stretching your comfort zone a bit? Not only

I have to agree- the water course and fountains are fabulous, as is the fact that the complex is pet-friendly. Of course, when I go, I go more to "people-watch" than to shop. The food court isn't bad, and some of the specialty food shops are excellent- but the greatest distinction is the atmosphere. I used to work security downtown, and crossed through Temple Square every night at the end of my shift. Before the CCM was built, Temple Square was an island of peace, beauty, and calm in a dark, seedy, and warren-like block of streets. The entire area had a tired, tattered feeling to it- and many people were less than comfortable walking the streets surrounding Temple Square. More than once, I quietly escorted women to their destinations to make sure they arrived safely (one of the joys of wearing a uniform is that perfect strangers turn to you for help and protection). By contrast, the area is now relatively bright (even after closing) and there's more of an air of community and vibrancy that has long been missing. It's a subtle difference- but it's one that many people have noticed. Walking the area in the evenings, you see families on the streets, couples out for a date, and citizens enjoying their city, instead of just dodging the usual crowd of pan-handlers, vagrants, and other ne'er-do-wells. Yes, there are a lot of political dissidents who deeply resent the mall and what it represents (most especially the Church's involvement). Yes, there are the usual crowd who got their britches chapped because they are expected to adhere to certain minimal standards of dress, comportment, and conduct. Too bad. If you wanna make a fool of yourself, do it down at the local S&M bar- City Creek (and downtown Salt Lake) belongs to folks who aren't afraid of daylight, running water, or bathing on a regular basis.

Yet you come here touting the notion that the Church is the problem- for failing to teach to these issues.You were asked what troubled you, and responded with the same cut-n-paste litany we've seen hundreds of times. When asked what troubled you- YOU named these issues. With due respect, your rationalizations are not consistent with your stated positions. As is your analysis of the situation with the Church.Other than the fact that they arer your caricatures, why are yours valid and mine not? I agree- but of course, that's not what I said or what I implied.You have fun beating up on that strawman. I'll wait patiently for a serious, thoughtful response to what I actually said. Ahhh yes, the tu quoque fallacy or "you Mormons are just as bad".In point of fact, we are not. You do not see faithful Mormons using misinformation and disinformation in coordinated campaigns to undermine or destroy other Churches or to attack and destroy the testimonies of their adherents. We do not have a pocket industry designed solely to publish materials for the express purposes of attacking and destroying other religions. You do not see faithful Mormons trolling the websites of other faiths seeking to stir up trouble, sow dissension, or plant seeds of doubt. In point of fact, there is an extensive (and growing) anti-Mormon industry: the Tanners and many others have spent most of the last five decades making their living leeching off of those who crave salacious details and high-minded demagoguery to satiate their prejudices. In nearly every Christian bookstore in the Mountain West, you will find an entire section dedicated to "literature" dedicated to tearing down and destroying the Mormon faith. The roster of counter-cult "ministries" dedicated to attacking and defaming the Mormon faith is legion, and growing. Eight out of ten hits for the phrase "Mormon" on YouTube returns a link to a dishonest, misinformed, or simply stupid attack on the Church. To pretend that this industry does not exist is to be either willfully blind or deliberately deceitful. Neither is the hallmark of someone interested in an honest conversation. And once again, we cycle back to the notion that the Church is the problem.You singularly fail to address- or even acknowledge- the inescapable fact that these people engage in such efforts out of self interest. They write these books, and post these videos because there is a demand for them. Whether out of ideology or simple greed, believe that they profit from efforts to undermine and attack the Church. That demand- and self-interest- will not be lessened by the Church scratching their itching ears. Needless to say, your arguments are not consistent with your claims.

Dagnabit! We really need to be able to both "laugh" and "thank" at the same time. It is often unreasonable to expect us to choose between the two.

As an aside, there is recording of Nibley actually delivering the "House That Jack Built" lecture- under the rubric of "How to Write An Anti-Mormon Book" http://speeches.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Nibley_Hugh_1962.mp3 The talk is a classic, greatly enhanced by hearing it in the author's own voice.

Ah, yes- the usual litany. EightyEight, you need to understand that none of these "issues" are a problem because the Church does not teach them, but rather are a problem because there is an entire cottage industry intent on making them an issue. There is a small, but militant industry whose entire reason for being is to undermine and destroy the Church- and these are the main arrows in their quiver- the best that they can come up with in nearly 200 years of serial anti-Mormonism. Like any craftsman, they have carefully honed their arguments, shaped, and reshaped their reasoning to make these things as sinister, troubling, and damaging as possible. But each and every one of them is, in and of itself, a tempest in a teapot. I suggest you check out the following to gain some insight into the basic methodology: Of All Things! Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley - Of the Anti-Mormon Tradition Nibley's "The House That Jack Built" (the final entry- is, in my opinion, the penultimate expose on the technique). For specific answers to the issues that are troubling you, I refer you to FAIR and to FAIRwiki:Table of contents - FAIRMormon These articles, analyses, and responses are written by gifted scholars, learned laymen, and bright thinkers- rather than the usual rabble with an axe to grind. Their answers are predicated on an appeal to the evidence, rather than the incestuous repetition of the same questionable gossip from the same tired, trite rumormongers. They have been of use to me, and I believe they will be of use to you, as well.

Sure.But you haven't given up hope, now, have you? Not really. I'll be blunt: I've been there (in many ways I still am). I've been pursuing my ex-wife off-and-on for the last decade (we've been divorced longer than we were married). It's extraordinarily hard to actually give up hope. The difference in our two cases (from everything you've told us) is that my love interest reciprocates my feelings (at least until she begins to wonder again which one of us is crazy, that is). The bottom line is this: despite every common sense reason not to, you hung all your hopes on a girl who doesn't reciprocate your feelings. And now you're hurt, and you're angry- not because she misled you or led you on, but because she just won't reciprocate your feelings. There are only two reasons for you to send that letter: 1) to punish her for not loving you, or, 2) to "jolt" her into realizing she can't live without you. Both are a losing proposition. I wish you luck in the future, but sending the letter- and NOT moving on to others will only bring discredit upon you. It will NOT get you what you want.

So, that's a "yes"- you deliberately pursued her despite her stated lack of romantic interest in you.Instead of taking "no" for an answer, you hoped you'd wear down her resistance and win her over despite her stated desires. This is a legitimate gripe, except for the fact that 1) you don't know whether it was a "date" date or just a polite brush off or whether she was already involved with the other fellow when she said "yes".In either case, the fact that she didn't follow through was a less-than-subtle hint that you chose to ignore. As a father of four teenage daughters, I would guesstimate that it was probably because 1) she didn't want to hurt or upset you, 2) didn't want a confrontation a/o scene, and 3) probably hoped that you'd be mature enough to take a less-than-subtle hint.Would it have been better had she flatly reiterated at the outset that she still wasn't interested? Certainly. Would you have listened? Or would you have just brushed her desires and opinions aside again? Really? How? According to your narrative, the only thing this girl did that might have generated any degree of false hope was agree to go on a date with you.Did she tell you that she might reconsider her feelings for you? Did she tell you that she considered you anything other than a friend? Or were you so fixated that you seized on any straw, no matter how thin-and-tattered to keep your flailing dream alive? This is, in my opinion, the only legitimate gripe you've got against this girl.And if your characterization of your friendship is accurate, I can understand why she chose to try and spare your feelings with a polite brush off instead of the flat "no" you deserved. I want to ask you a question, and I want you to answer it honestly.What would that goodbye have looked like, in your mind? A simple parting between friends? Or a romantic, last-ditch protestation of your undying love in front of her friends and family? The girl was already avoiding you because you couldn't take a hint. Why then should she gamble the peace, joy, and bitter-sweet tears of her last moments with friends and family on the faint hope that you wouldn't make a scene? The girl told you before you left that she wasn't interested in you romantically. Unless she told you differently upon your return, the fault is yours for trying to plant corn in a marked field of landmines. Aside from any shred of chivalry, decency, or common courtesy left to you? Why, nothing at all.Let's put it another way: The only possible outcome of this letter is to hurt her, upset her, and distract her from her sacred mission. You claim to care about this girl. Can you still make that claim if you set out to deliberately wound her?

Ooooohhh, you have no idea! I was thinking of changing my name to Rei de Tutti (King of Everything), but you can call me "Ray". I live in Utah (snow country) and I trained in pattern recognition and failure analysis in the service. How many "few examples of overzealous snowflakes" does it take before it becomes an avalanche? Or as my youngest might put it, "How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Toostie-pop?" Fifteen points if you can name the movie from whence the "Ray" quote originates.

So....what you're saying is that you pinned all your romantic hopes on a girl who told you two years ago that she wasn't interested in you. You flatly brushed off what she told you then, pursued her despite a not-so-subtle brush-off (and the knowledge that she was romantically involved with another man). ...and it's all HER fault that you're angry, hurt, and upset? May I politely suggest that the fault lies in front of your bathroom mirror? Yes- sending the letter will probably make you feel better. It will also harm your friendship, distract from her mission, and make you look like a colossal jerk (and no, I don't need any competition in that category). I suggest you burn the letter, soak your head, and forget your romantic fantasies about winning this girl over. It ain't gonna happen. Better to move on before she decides she needs a restraining order...

Why bother raising our own when we can get them surplus in the MSNBC parking lot for pennies on the dollar?

I believe daffodils are nice and non-confrontational... ...shall we start a thread to discuss the topic?... ...or are you one of those carnationand-sunflower-loving heretics who insist on turning everything into a fight?

It's already begun: Obama Admin Wants to Deport Christian Homeschoolers - Todd Starnes - The Administration is explicitly affirming the notion that the German State can override the will of the parents and inculcate its own values over theirs. How long until American parents are given the same treatment? Not long: Look Out for Eroding of Parental Authority - Marybeth Hicks - Page 1 New Hampshire Learns Lesson in Parental Rights - Marybeth Hicks - Page 1 Judge Green Lights Exploitation of Girls With Over-the-Counter Morning After Pill Ruling - Katie Pavlich According to the State, you are already unfit to determine what you children eat, have no right to help decide what they are taught in school (and no right to opt out), and, oh yes, no right to keep them from abusing a dangerous cocktail of medications designed to abort pregnancies. So...how long until we are deemed totally unfit to raise our children without the permission and approval of the benevolent and all-caring State? Not long.

Nonsense. This is simply one more incremental step in that direction. This is an established medical fact- but it's not the government's place to tell me what I eat or feed my children.Soda pop is a legal product. The government has no legitimate right or authority to tell me how much to drink. That whole, incovenient Fourth Amendment thing- "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"- says so. Your ignorance is staggering.U.S. schoolchildren now subjected to sack lunch searches by government agents who enforce nutritional insanity Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets” Exclusive: 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough | TheBlaze.com Food Police Update: Nanny State School Outlaws Students’ Homemade Sack Lunches Because Parents Not Capable of Making Wise Food Choices… FLOTUS Would Be SO Proud « Frugal Café Blog Zone Criminalizing Brown-Bag Lunches | The Barr Code School Bake Sales Become Target Of Childhood Obesity Fight, Face District Bans Her premise is that that we need to get past the "antiquated" notion that children belong to their parents and are "our" responsibility.That is a direct assault on both parental rights and on the order outlined in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. So- because some children need extra help, ALL children become wards of the State?According to that reasoning, some people need to be confined to mental institutions, therefore EVERYONE should be so confined. Yes- the example is absurd: but so is the rationale you and the twit from MSNBC are employing. Yes- you can chalk it up to paranoia, but the diagnosis is "less than convincing" given your demonstrable lack of information.

Ten points to the first person to correctly identify "Grandpa"'s service branch.

Judge for yourself. Lean Forward... Collectively: Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC Ad Says All Of Your Children Belong To Us - YouTube On the contrary, that's precisely what she was arguing. It is only when children become the property of the collective- and subject to the wisdom and judgement of the collective- that we can truly begin making "wise investments". In this case, "wise investments" is not limited merely to money- it also means protecting children from backward and antiquated notions such as "parental rights" and "radical" religious beliefs- such as thoughs espoused by evangelicals and Catholics. The entire premise for banning cigarettes, high-calorie drinks, salt, and a myriad of other personal liberties is the notion that the public will wind up paying for them through their taxes. The nanny-staters are already trying to control what you eat, drink, and think. How much worse will it be when your children suddenly become their stewardship? Then you're not paying attention.Her entire premise is that children are the property of the State (rather than the responsibility of their parents) and that the STATE needs to be looking out for them.

Hey- if I'm gonna sit here and blubber, so are you.

That was what I took away from it. I also happen to think the comparison is quite apt.

That's a very ferocious strawman you've decided to beat the stuffing out of... You go, girl!

There is none so blind as (s)he who will not see. There are some ideologies that are even more restricting than a burqa- and the modern mantra of perpetual victimhood is one of them.

So, in other words, he's already promised his first wife the very blessing your sister is seeking- and is stepping out with your sister on the side.What makes her think he'll be any more virtuous or faithful with her than with his first wife? This schmuck has already proven that those commitments and covenants mean nothing to him. She's putting all her money on a broken down horse with a proven record of throwing races. Does that sound sane or reasonable to you?

Now, now, now, Anddenex-Why would Maureen trouble to respond to what estradling actually said when it's soooo much easier to just demagogue it? She has consistently and deliberately misrepresented the arguments made by those who disagree with the agitators and painted us all as sexists and misogynists. Why should she stray from that tactic during her "victory lap"? In point of fact, estradlings comments were right on the money: in declaring a victory for the agitators, Babylon is stealing what should have been a moment of spiritual edification and enlightenment. Like every other affirmative action victim, those struggling within the Church will now wonder whether they received this blessing because they deserved it, or because of tokenism. Contrary to the myth Maureen is touting, this isn't about faith in the Brethren- this is about agitators polluting a sacred experience with their politics.

Indeed.As stated earlier, it is our "friends" the agitators who are trading in sexist stereotypes, not the faithful.