NeuroTypical

Awwww, shucks Funky. It hurts me right here [thumps chest], but I figger' yer rahght.I'll go tell the missus that Funky sez she caint tote Beulah ta the chapel no more.

I'd seriously consider burning those papers. It sounds like your grandmother is manipulative and a professional victim. Honestly grandma - poisoning a kid's perception of her mom? Making your own daughter look bad to her kids? Yeesh. I mean, if you were in danger, if your mother was evil, I could maybe see grandma doing something - but spreading bad stories really isn't it. If she ever tried something like that again, I'd let her know that "honor thy mother" means something to you, and you're not interested. It depends on your purpose for doing so. And it also depends on your relationship with your mother. Maybe you mention in passing that grandma has a rather dark side to her you picked up on with this last visit. Then mention that you've gained an appreciation for some of her troubles, then give her a big hug.

Hi lds2, Just so you know, you are plagarizing one of the posters on this board. He gave this post back as early as 2008. In the future, please put all the stuff you're copying in quotes, and cite your source. Anyway: The first time I heard that line of reasoning was shortly after the talk in 2005. Used to support the notion that 1998-2005 was the 7 years of plenty, and 2005-2012 would be the 7 years of famine.Of course, the various things that happened on earth for the "2nd 7 years" didn't ever really reach biblical prophecy levels, so that theory is pretty much discarded nowadays.

Well, you might wish to consider something else He said about it:"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed." Back in those times, The Nephites contended "with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion." These days in the US, various citizens carry, not to defend against another nation, but to defend against evildoers who are Americans. We have deadly gang violence, home invasions, armed assaults. There is an established and still-growing threat of home-grown terrorist acts involving small-scale one-man deadly operations. And on top of all that, my drive home involves winding remote foothills and less-traveled dirt roads. If we get stuck and try to walk home, it's good to be able to keep the coyotes off my daughters. Does any of this help you see?

Advice: Stop being your parent's kid/counselor/baggage carrier, and focus on being your wife's husband, and your child's father. Sitting back and watching melodrama is far superior to being involved in it. You want to be the good example? Be the island of calm in the sea of chaos. Have your marriage succeed. Reach your 5, 10, 15, 20 year anniversaries.

The purpose of communication, is to communicate something. The way you communicate, says something about you. That's really all there is to it.

It's just you. We've just got problems you don't have.However, it is almost a fundamental truth of the universe, that in any USA-specific gun thread, someone from the UK will eventually post something along the lines of what you just did. (Canadians used to be part of this truth, but Canada has been producing more and more people like FunkyTown in recent decades, so they were dropped from the list.)

I'm not a fan of naming buildings after people. Or idolizing people who tell me they're just doing what they're supposed to. I am sort of a fan of the notion of having heroes. Heroes help us raise kids, help us decide what to do. But it's easy to put too much faith in a hero. Then you get all let down and stuff when it turns out they are human. Except for Mr. Rogers - he's a good hero. I am a fan of "Praise to the man", but because I see it more as a cultural expression of mourning, and I don't begrudge cultures their expressions of mourning. Not sure where I stand on statues. I understand that's sort of where the phrase "put on a pedestal" comes from, but at the same time, they help us see our heroes.

Here in Colorado Springs, a few places have developed a firearm policy that seems to be a pretty good compromise. I've seen it a the local mega-church where they had a shooting a few years back, a downtown hospital, and a few other places. It sounds a little something like this: "It is absolutely forbidden to have anything even closely resembling a gun here! We don't allow knives either! We are a violence-free premises, and we don't tolerate that sort of stuff around here. Don't even think about bringing your gun or knife here. If we see you with a gun here, you'll be asked to leave, and we will call the cops and have you arrested if you make trouble. There will be absolutely no exceptions to this policy (other than law-enforcement personnel and other permitted situations). No, no, no guns allowed!" Another version of this policy, is the presence of big visible signs on all the doors stating something like "The open carry of firearms is forbidden. Violators subject to removal." It seems to keep everyone happy. People who don't think much about the issue, see the picture of the handgun with the red line through it, and are happy. Conceal carry permit holders like me, understand that we can carry legally, and we're happy. The property owners have a very strongly worded policy in place to keep all the emotionally-driven fearful complainers happy. Dumb criminals see the signs and figure they might get in more trouble than one building over, and go away happy. Smart criminals understand that permit holders are welcome in that building, and they move off to a real gun-free zone to prey on Hoosierguy. I'd like to see this policy take hold and spread all over the place.

I've been a fan of Grossman's analogy since I encountered it a decade ago. I can never figure out if I'm a sheep wearing cool shades and thinking he's Rambo, or a delicate-wristed sheepdog who prefers flower arranging.

I'm of the opinion that you should always give people another chance. However, putting up with his behavior and hoping he'll change is NOT 'giving another chance', it's turning a blind eye. If I were you, I'd talk to a lawyer. Like folks here are suggesting, gather evidence and protect yourself and children. I would also consider asking him to move out. "Giving him another chance" in this case, would mean joint counseling, full disclosure to bishop and church discipline, accepting the damage he's done to marital trust, and working to earn back his place as your spouse. Give him a chance to pick. Is it you and family, or is it "single dad with kids"? If the answer isn't firmly "marriage and family", to everybody - you, the bishop, that girl, and everyone else he encounters online or during his day - then he's not taking you up on the chance.

Source please. Got link to lds.org that talks about it?Can you tell us which publications (and which parts of the internet) this committee monitors? How exactly does one go about "monitoring the internet" for such speech? Must be pretty long hours. Do they get paid? Do you have something recent, or is all your info from the articles and kerfuffle from the mid '90's? TIME did an article back in 1994. Daniel C. Peterson, BYU professor and FARMS guy, shared his experience with the STMC a few years back. It didn't look even the slightest bit like what you describe. This was, dang - like in the mid '90's or something. Got something else?

Fair enough. Just keep in mind site rule #3, and you should be fine here. Although you probably will experience varying levels of disagreement. Got it. From my experience, most of the 'public knowledge' out there about the 'september six' and the STMC, was produced by church critics. Most of it is slanted and uncharitable, and a bunch of it is unrighteously judgemental if not flat out untrue. It's been years since I interacted with the issue, but I'm thinking those six members weren't doing what you think they were, and the STMC is not what you think it is, and it does not do what you think it does. But yeah, moral agency and all that - you're free to your opinion. Noted.

Could you point us to your sources? I'd like to know how you became aware of the "Strengthening the Members committee", and why you think they do what you think they do.Also, aren't you in President Patternoster's stake? I think I may have seen you there a time or two...

I think you missed the part where President George Albert Smith denounced the stuff you're holding on to, saying the "General Authorities have been embarrassed" by them.I urge you to read President Smith's letter again.

Right - that saying does not represent the church's take on things. Have you ever seen the original context of that phrase? Here you go: The appearance of this message caused much concern among many inside and outside of the Church. Dr. J. Raymond Cope, the leader of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City, was one of those concerned. He decided to express his concerns about the impact of this message in a letter to President George Albert Smith in November of the same year. The letter was cordial, and expressed the feeling that such a message was "doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders... this cannot be the position of the true leaders."President Smith responded to Dr. Cope with a letter of his own, designed to clarify the point, at the first of December. The letter, reproduced in full below, should lay to rest any misconception about whether the Church or its leaders expect blind obedience in any degree.

Nice unrighteous judgement there, east. I have no hatred in my heart. And earnestly condending with your horrible false notion is just following Jude's exhortation in 1:3.. It isn't. Your statement that we should "learn, without question, comment or argument" - that's the false doctrine.. If you are truely not a troll, then read some of the words of our church leaders and get some of that edimifucation pointed back in your direction: -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150. -Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66. - Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992). - George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1907, Afternoon Session, 15-17

That's a rather blatant bit of crappy false doctrine there, east. Are you being sarcastic, or do you honestly believe that trash?

I'm not sure I'm the best place to go for advice. When I was faced with the problem you are, I grew a goatee, went to the U, and got married at 26. It was probably overkill, but it sure kept all those "RM Only" meat-market people far away from me - and whenever I read a story like yours, it makes me happy.

From where I'm standing, "beware of what you read on the internet" isn't really an LDS-only bit of good advice. There is no such thing as unbiased. Everyone has an agenda - even the people who don't think they have one. You simply cannot take what you read at face value, ever, anywhere - without gaining a lot of knowledge and experience with a particular source.

The church is interested in proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, and helping the needy. It's individual members are free to believe whatever they like about body energy and magnetic fields - as long as they don't try to pass it off as some sort of doctrinal truth. You can certainly find LDS folks who are big on Tai Chi or Qigong or magnets. I run into them occasionally.

Sounds like you need to know if they'd be receptive to hearing the other side of the issue. Most bookclubs don't pick two antimormon books in three months - I'd discover why that is before deciding to join. If you decide to interact with these folks, prepare a bunch of lighthearted and nonoffensive things to say during all the awkward silences. Consider a bunch of conservatives getting together and reading a book about why liberals are all stupid. One liberal is looking at joining the group. It's hard to denegrate people and engage in groupthink bigotry if a representative of the target group is standing there with a polite smile on her face. Good luck! For what it's worth - I pulled it off once. I went to the "Are Mormons Christan" class at our local Mega-church. They were nice people, and we got along fine until I opened my mouth. Then I was politely dis-invited.

I'm more or less in agreement, except for the storms and disasters part. Other years have given disasters far worse than anything that has come in the last little while - by orders of magnitude. Even Japan's 9.0 earthquake pales in comparison to some of the China Yellow river floods that killed millions from decades ago. Something I learned a while ago - just because it's on every dang news channel for a full week, doesn't mean much.

Here's a fun little article written by LDS author Orson Scott Card: Deseret News: Books are good or bad depending on how you read them

I've never heard the term, so I don't really have any view on it, so I wiki'd it. Now I have some random thoughts:* I don't believe in flying saucers. * I appreciate the Talmudic interdictions concerning "the dangers of overzealous speculation". * Every now and then I run into someone who appears smart and genuine, who is incredibly fascinated by the breadth and depth of links between LDS belief and Kabbalah. But I've never delved too deeply into it. * I think it's cool that Israel has a line of proven battle tanks called "Merkava" That's about it. Sorry.