NeuroTypical

Shut it down? You mean, like forcing silence on someone? Infringing on their right to free speech? Taking away their right to say things because we don't like what they have to say?Whether "we" can or not, we shouldn't. Censorship in public areas is not good. Not sure which "we" you are talking about, but all the "we" groups that I'm a part of, like freedom of public speech more than we like silencing the opposition. Websites like you went to, get to be there, and post what they want, just like lds.net gets to be here and post what we want. People are free to look at every side of something, and make their choice. These folks' actions are between them, their priesthood leaders, and the Lord. The Church doesn't really go in much for public repudiation of it's members. Church discipline is carried out by the member's priesthood leader, not handed down from above. And don't be too quick on a rush to assume their leaders aren't aware of their online activities. Maybe they are, maybe they're not.

Do you have children?

Deseret Book is selling hard, soft, CD, and ebook editions here listed as printed March 2004. I don't know if that's the latest or not.

Is anyone else out there just not too impressed with the phrase "modest is hottest" in the first place? I mean as a slogan for our young women...

Howdy, Interesting link. It's not the book I was talking about, but it seems to be on the same subject.

Heh - I was in a very similar situation. Except it was her brother, brother's fiance, and fiance's kid from a prior marriage. They were fun people with some struggles too. Word to the wise - if you go through with the agreement, have VERY clear expectations about the move-out date. Make an actual date. Make VERY sure that your husband fully supports the date. Have the date be a frequent topic of conversation. ("So, it's two months 'til Nov 1 - since it looks like you won't be leaving on your mission until January, how goes the apartment search?") We all hope you won't have this problem. Surely, BiL just needs a month or two to get out the door on his mission, or out the door into his life. But you MUST consider the very real possibility that a month or two might become three or six. And to keep you from killing your husband, you and he need to be on the same page about what the two of you will do if the date starts slipping. If you end up budging on the date, even once, then it's no longer a short-term thing. It will quickly become a "we have a live-in babysitter" thing. If you and hubby are unwilling or unable to look up homeless shelters, then no, your "a) mission b) baby" thing is unrealistic wishful thinking. This may be a slight exaggeration, but if you let it, this date will move and slip until your unborn child gets married and moves out. This date will slip until your grandchildren sell the house after your funeral. This date will slip until a constable comes and physically removes BiL from the property so the new owners can take posession. Don't doubt me.

Momofmany100 did bring it to the Scoutmaster's attention... It doesn't seem to be about dropping the ball, it seems to be about innapropriate stuff happening on church sponsored scouting activities, and nobody wants to own up and do anything about it.

Here - print this out: Then take it to the bishop. "Excuse me, bishop? Do you see that label in the lower-left corner? The one that says M - Mature - for ages 17+? I already approached the scout master, and defended this game by saying "there are other games available to play". Can you tell me why my 13 yr old boy is being exposed to this game at a church-sponsored scouting function?" Then get a clear, appropriate answer out of him. If you don't get one, approach the Stake President, and add the Bishop's response to what you tell him.

Yeah, people need to do some reading up on what a martyr is and isn't. Some critics of Joseph Smith say he couldn't be a martyr because he defended himself, or wasn't killed standing peacefully in prayer, or that he was killed for reasons other than claiming to be Christ's disciple. Fox's book of martyrs has interesting entries: Hermenigildus defended himself, and fled: "Hermenigildus, a Gothic prince, was the eldest son of Leovigildus, a king of the Goths, in Spain. This prince, who was originally an Arian, became a convert to the orthodox faith, by means of his wife Ingonda. When the king heard that his son had changed his religious sentiments, he stripped him of the command at Seville, where he was governor, and threatened to put him to death unless he renounced the faith he had newly embraced. The prince, in order to prevent the execution of his father's menaces, began to put himself into a posture of defence; and many of the orthodox persuasion in Spain declared for him. The king, exasperated at this act of rebellion, began to punish all the orthodox Christians who could be seized by his troops, and thus a very severe persecution commenced: he likewise marched against his son at the head of a very powerful army. The prince took refuge in Seville, from which he fled, and was at length besieged and taken at Asieta. Loaded with chains, he was sent to Seville, and at the feast of Easter refusing to receive the Eucharist from an Arian bishop, the enraged king ordered his guards to cut the prince to pieces, which they punctually performed, April 13, A.D. 586." An unnamed Christian was martyred because he destroyed a published edict: "Diocletian and Galerius, who, not contented with burning the books, had the church levelled with the ground. This was followed by a severe edict, commanding the destruction of all other Christian churches and books; and an order soon succeeded, to render Christians of all denomination outlaws. The publication of this edict occasioned an immediate martyrdom, for a bold Christian not only tore it down from the place to which it was affixed, but execrated the name of the emperor for his injustice. A provocation like this was sufficient to call down pagan vengeance upon his head; he was accordingly seized, severely tortured, and then burned alive." The Earl of Toulouse is considered a martyr, even though he fought back militarily, and even recanted: "The brave earl defended Toulouse and other places with the most heroic bravery and various success against the pope's legates and Simon, earl of Montfort, a bigoted Catholic nobleman. Unable to subdue the earl of Toulouse openly, the king of France, and the queen mother, and three archbishops raised another formidable army, and had the art to persuade the earl of Toulouse to come to a conference, when he was treacherously seized upon, made a prisoner, forced to appear barefooted and bareheaded before his enemies, and compelled to subscribe an abject recantation. This was followed by a severe persecution against the Albigenses; and express orders that the laity should not be permitted to read the sacred Scriptures."

Oh don't get me wrong, I love dehydrated eggs. They're part of our food storage. Refried beans, dehydrated eggs and cheese, and some few remaining jars of cannery salsa, and tortillas made from stored flour, and you got yourself a good food storage meal.

Yeah, what MOE said is your answer. To survive in the dangerous and deadly post apocalyptic wasteland you want to prepare for, you don't need a kit or a bag of dehyrated eggs or a first aid kit . You need a radical lifestyle change and a new skillset.Have you considered starting smaller? Like, preparing for likely disasters? Where do you live? Tornado country? Earthquakes? Hurricanes? Blizzards? Volcanoes? Civil unrest? NBC Terrorism? One good path would be to start with prepping for short-term stuff, and then building from there. You'll learn a lot just by getting ready for getting snowed in your house for 3 days, or figuring out which friend will take you in for a month if something horrible happens to your city. Any good plan starts with a good idea of what you're actually planning for.

I think you answered your own question later: I know you're aware of this already. But as you go through this period of new discovery, you're well-advised to keep it front of your mind. Your real parents are the ones who have raised you. Sperm and egg donors are shrouded in melodramatic mystery, but at the end of the day, who they were or what they did, are just stories, similar to any other story you hear about strangers uninvolved with your life. Your parents might have spent decades worried sick about what you'll do, the more you find out about your biological parents. They might be carrying worry that you'll stop loving them, or will leave them to go be with your 'real' parents. If you're going to press for more details, maybe you start by giving them a big hug, and thanking them for everything they've done, and letting them know how you feel (and will always feel) about them.

Welcome to the forums. Please familiarize yourself with the site rules, especially rule 13.

Silly, silly misshalfway.

That's a fair point, and kind of at the center of the issue. And to be sure, we have all sorts of scriptural on the matter like commandments to turn the other cheek, and miraculous stories like the people of Ammon who were content to be slaughtered and fulfill their oath of peace, which resulted in a bunch of the bad guys getting baptized.But we also have plenty of scriptures commanding us to defend your families even unto bloodshed. It is righteous to defend ourselves, and our families, lands, country, rights, and perhaps most applicably here, our religion. And we have a history including numerous accounts of physical self defense. I mean, hey, if I'm the only one giving serious consideration to getting physical and doing citizens' arrests and whatnot, then that is a pretty clear message to me about stuff. Am I?

1. Remind the offenders that this is a place of worship and private property, and ask them to keep quiet. If they continue being disruptive, call the sheriff.I'm trying to visualize what this scenario looks like. Could you walk me through it? Does the bishop just make a sort of general announcement over the pulpit, and hope the sound carries over the crashing and screams? Or does he leave his seat and chase them from room to room, saying "please keep quiet"?

Well, it's foggy for me, primarily, because one or three fit priesthood holders could probably put a stop to the destruction and vandalism via completely lawful means, saving the church's insurance company a lot of money, the ward members a lot of hassle, and the innocent and defenseless a lot of fear.I'm thinking I would look to the bishop for guidance. I'm also thinking the various bishops I've known would suggest different courses of action. I'm further thinking that a lot of overzealous young men, and old former military guys, wouldn't be waiting for the bishop's go-ahead. I think if you read up on the history of civil unrest, in this country and others, across all of recorded history, you wouldn't be troubled with use of the term occupy. Invading a place and occupying it is one of the tactics of lots of action-oriented civil disobedience or revolutionary groups, from the occupy movement, to the anarchist movement, to various grups in France's political history, etc, etc. I'm thinking the average occupy movement protester might not be aware of this history any more than you are, but the history remains.

On another 'preparadness enthusaist' forum I frequent, someone asked a very interesting question: Two things dawn on me:1- This scenario isn't all that improbable. 2- I don't have the foggiest guess about what the answers are. What do y'all think?

I've never seen Saturday's Warrior, but I imagine the folks who got ticked off at it, would be similarly ticked off at these books.

Indeed. This is why I limit criticizing about people in church to anonymous message boards. Otherwise it's my turn at the mike in 2 weeks.

No I dont, no I don't, and yes I do. If I could go back in time, I'd advise the younger me from a position of hindsight to go on a mission. As it happened, I took a convenient excuse which every decent person would be forced to accept (just like you all have), and used it to cover up the real reason behind my choice - I had no testimony and was scared. (Sorry - I should have made this clear earlier. I honestly wasn't trying to entrap anyone or pull a dirty trick here.) That said, without perfect hindsight, I can't really judge a kid in a similar situation. I can just tell them how experiences and choices played out, especially the regret at not going on a mission, so they can make the best decision. I guess it has to do with the SP clearly identifying who he was talking to and who he wasn't. I wholeheartedly agree. Yeah, that's what it comes down to me also. We have no disagreement about obvious truths. I'm just nitpicking how some random SP communicated those truths. What is obvious to the 99 may not be obvious to the 1. As a default spokesperson for all the 1's I've encountered in my life, I need to advocate for them. Speaking to the 99 is ok, I guess, as long as the outliers somehow manage to pick up or get told what people really meant, even though they said something different. Speaking to everyone is better. I seem to run into more than my share of people who don't find that obvious at all. They can live tortured and horrible lives because they believe stuff like this. Also likely, is they occasionally reject people and the belief systems they represent, over such miscommunications. Yeah. Well, setting aside the fact that we're all possibly arguing about nothing, I think it's still a good topic! :)

Setting aside the issue of offense, the statement "every young man should serve a mission" is false. Some young men can't, through no fault of their own. The church knows this I think, and all the searching on lds.org I've done has taken me to statements like "Every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission." (Liahona - Jan 11)Ya shouldn't say false things over the pulpit. It causes problems, offense being one of them. Of course that is most absolutely NOT the gospel truth. For example, converts who showed up to the party older than missionary age are not obligated. Agreed. I guess here in my 40's, I fall into the category of a person who did not fulfill his obligation to go on a mission when it was time. Would you care to tell me exactly what you think this means for me, my family, or those I associate with?

I thought about this all night, trying to figure out where my disagreement lies. I figured it out - the word need is vague and needs clarification. Why is it a need? What is it a need for? Exhaltation? Nope. Need a mission to be prophet someday? Nope. Need a mission to find a worthy spouse and be sealed in the temple some day? It might increase your odds, but Nuh-uh. All worthy and able young men need to go on a mission, if they wish to be full and true disciples of Christ at that stage in their lives, and follow and keep all Gods commandments? That sounds a lot better - I'll go with that one, no problem. I can think of a half-dozen other similar ways to clarify what "need" means that I can stand behind. I can think of a dozen more reasons why a mission is a good and wonderful thing, that can be expressed adequately without using the word "need". I bet if someone asked the guy to clarify that word, he'd respond and clarify and few of us would have a problem with the clarification.

My advice would be the same if she was actually your blood relation.

We're partial to Phineas & Ferb, nature shows, and those newfangled reality shows like Pawn Stars.