notquiteperfect

When a quite smart, highly intellectual person resorts to foul language to convey emotion or weight, s/he has lost my respect and attention pretty much forever. Both of my Mom's brothers were Marines. In their own homes they had incredibly foul mouths. One was a cop, the other a long haul truck driver. In our non-LDS home foul language was NOT allowed. Nor was it allowed around myself and my siblings. Disrespectful talk/comments were not allowed either. example: Uncle Younger commenting about his very pregnant, very miserably uncomfortable wife: "If she doesn't drop that kid soon - I am moving out, can't take any more of her tossing, turning, and pacing through out the house." Dad corrected him. Cows drop calves. Women give birth. Uncle was removed from our house and not allowed back until he apologized to all of us. Mom, us kids, his own mother (who lived with us) AND his wife. 
 
I owned a tavern - my customers were loggers, truck drivers, fishermen, motorcycle riders ( Gypsy Jokers, etc.) Foul language was not tolerated in the tavern either. I didn't like it and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission Rules and Regulations stated that the bartender/ bar owner must maintain control - No foul language. No lewd behavior. Etc. The manual was nearly 2 inches thick. Cutting the offender(s) off and turning them out of the bar for the night, worked. After just once, they kept a clean mouth.
 
Foul language just is not acceptable or appropriate at any time. It chases the Holy Spirit away. 
https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/language?lang=eng Ephesians 4:  29 Let no corrupt acommunication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.    Do not use profane, vulgar, or crude language or gestures, and do not tell jokes or stories about immoral actions. These are offensive to God and to others.
 
A highly intellectual person will use words that convey emotion without lowering her/him self to base language. As will a moderately intellectual person. 
 
The loggers, truck drivers and fishermen were mostly high school drop outs - but in my bar they refrained from cursing, cussing, & foul language. 

Tithing is about doing it.  It's not about doing it on a schedule or a routine.  If it was, then it would be more regulated.  But we are given the freedom to pay when and how we want.  Paying via automatic withdrawal is still paying, regardless of whether one is in the habit of handing the bishop an envelope or not.  Paying four months at once is still paying four months' worth.  Paying six month's worth over several weeks or months is the same as paying six months' worth in one lump sum.  The intricacies of paying are not so important as the act of actually doing it, whenever and however that gets done.

My mom had engagement parties for us kids (maybe just the daughters - ettiquette?) and it wasn't at all about getting gifts.  It's a chance for the families to meet.  My mom kept it small and simple but meaningful.
 
As far as giving a reason for the decline - it depends on the situation/person for me.

May I also add, that your comments fail to consider a large portion of people who have experienced abuse, especially sexual abuse as children. Abuse changes the sexual experience in ways, unless you have worked with abuse victims, in ways you could begin to understand. I have never heard of, studied or worked with clients who in these cases just "figured it out". In fact, in these situations, its often the husband I end up having to work with in depth because he has this idea that if he just tries hard enough, has enough faith they will just figure it out. That then create a lot of other problems. Additionally, Women who biologically have issues with orgasms or generally feeling little or no pleasure during intimacy which is very common. Over 40% of women have NEVER orgasm! Also men although less frequently, who have issues biologically too.
 
Its comments like yours that over simplify the issue and unintentionally communicate the wrong messaged.

Absolutely true, but only a part of the problem.
 
 
Sure, people lived without Dr. for many years, their life expectancy was also much lower. Sure people lived without sexual education for many years, but there was also a sexual repression, shaming and a plethora of misconceptions. Beliefs that some sexual activity resulted in insanity, and so forth.
 
 
Not sure what that means? So education isn't needed?
 
 
"...in principle." Well, that can very well be said with anything, when you qualify it with "in principle."
 
 
Oh, the problems were around long before movies and television, this is a gross over simplification. But I agree, its not helped. However, I will tell you I have seen repeatedly in my practice and association families/couples, good, faithful members who do not indulged in the media and would for all intense and purposes have a very healthy relationship. Have very unhealthy and poor sexually lives. This is very common.
 
 
Perception IS reality. Period.
 
 
I don't know what this means....
 
 
Telling someone or a group of people, generally is not the "healthy" approach. Its what most members and to a degree the "church" did between 1963- about 1990 or so. You can go back to many of the leaderships writings in the late 60's and 70's dealing with the sexual revolution and all topics related to it. I by no means criticize the leaderships attempt to educate and compare the upsurge of promiscuity. However, it was a very less effective approach. As a result, when we focus on how others are doing it wrong we inadvertently dilute and confuse the message that its bad.
 
As was pointed out in another related post. Although, the "church" never taught sex is bad its members by focusing on preventing the promiscuity inadvertently communicated a message that sex is bad, should only be done for procreation and most importantly ignored the idea that intimacy is a beautiful and wonderful experience. Focusing on the bad does not teach the good. It only gives more attention to the bad. I assure you, I think it would surprise you. The majority of unhealthy ideas about sex come from messages communicated in the family and at church. NOT Hollywood.

In many ways I think you are right -- in the same sense that we might say that \"most\" people don\'t need to use insulin to manage blood sugar or \"most\" people don\'t need anti-depressants/therapy to be reasonably happy. I saw a statement by Michelle Weiner-Davis suggesting that only about 1/3 of couple really struggle with \"desire discrepancy\". Other studies suggest only 15-20% of marriages are clinically sexless (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year). It seems to me that you are correct in that a majority of couples probably don\'t need a lot of \"educational material\" to come together and figure out what a healthy and satisfying sexual relationship looks like. I also agree that Hollywood (and other media: porn/romance novels/etc.) has contributed a lot of incorrect teachings around sex and relationships. On the flip side of that, though, is how the way we tend to teach about sex and relationships in the Church/religious people in general also contribute to sexual dysfunctions (what Laura Brotherson has called \"good girl syndrome\"). Ideas like \"sex is a necessary evil to be minimized\" or \"true love does not have a sexual component to it\" or \"sex is only for procreation\" show up in many different within our Church/religious culture. Some of us need real help to understand the \"truth\" that seems to be somewhere between what Hollywood seems to teach and what the Church often seems to teach.

Again, I disagree and there's more than just 'Hollywood' that is a problem but I don't want to risk breaking the rules of the forum so will just hope that you can see that others' experience is not easy or "happy and healthy" (for various reasons).

Though you have some valid points, I don't totally agree with "for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went".  That's quite an assumption.  Unless you've been around that long and in everyone's bedroom, you have no way of knowing that.  For all you know, they would have appreciated a decent book to refer to for a bit of info.

EarlJibbs - I disagree that you just need to "get used to it again".  Why not be the change for good?  Also, I remember hearing Maya Angelou say that she doesn't allow certain language in her home because it affects the atmosphere, leaves a nasty residue so to speak (something to that affect) so why not at least attempt what Anatess mentioned?  It never hurts to try and for all you know others may feel the same but just aren't speaking up.

Boycott is different from taking someone to court.
 
Our country was founded on the principle of freedom OF religion.  Setting out to destroy businesses because their owners don't agree with your lifestyle is just as wrong as real discrimination based on rase.

Well sure, not everyone is an extremist.  However, this view--that tradtional marriage activists are haters and bigots who should be astrocized--is gaining traction.  It's becoming less extreme. 
 
Nobody has said that most LBGT folk want to bankrupt us.  Yet, this statement puts us on the defense--as if we had made that accusation.  Even Bill Maher, who is much more sympathetic to the LBGT cause than to that of religious folk, states that there is a 'gay mafia.' 

Yes, boycotts/patronizing businesses is a form of speech.  I just see their tactics (boycott all the suppliers, too and keep a running list, etc) as bullying which I have a problem with.  They expect tolerance but don't show it in return which is quite hypocritical in my book!  So ya, I find it 'unbelievable' that anyone would find this level of behavior acceptable.

Just came across this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-aim-to-shut-down-oregon-health-food-store-over-owners-support/

Unbelievable!

The issue at hand is that, although they have paid four months of tithing, they did it all on one day, and so their bishop is claiming that the clock is reset.  They now need to make monthly payments for the next 5 months before he will qualify them for a temple recommend.
 
amandaandchris aren't disputing that they need to pay six months of tithing.  The disagreement is occurring because, by their reckoning, having paid four months of tithing already means they should only need to pay two more months of tithing as per their original understanding of the instruction given by the bishop.  The bishop, on the other hand, is claiming that because they have only paid tithing on one day for a four month period, that they have only just begun their commitment to paying tithing.
 
While I agree that the bishop has the privilege of asking for a commitment of six months of tithing to demonstrate a commitment to paying tithing, I adamantly disagree that it is within his stewardship to dictate the schedule on which those payments must be made.  
 
(I have known multiple people who write a single tithing check per year.  When they file their taxes they write the appropriate check, submit it to the ward, and don't worry about it again until the next year.  Among these people have been bishops and stake presidents)

Happiness = Reality - Expectations. I try to keep my expectations low. For example, I'm pleased I don't have the Ebola virus right now.

A couple things - usually when people become pregnant unintentionally, they still keep the baby even if they can't afford to or will be abusive, etc.  So I don't see more 'unwanted pregnancies' as a solution to rising levels of infertility unless people are taught that adoption in these cases is better for everyone all around.  Also, I believe children have the right to be wanted so I don't see 'unwanted pregnancies' as necessarily a good thing for that reason as well.

Second what Iggy said.  I also think resorting to that level of 'communication' reveals their maturity level.

In my humble opinion:
 
Cursing, Cussing, Swearing is never appropriate at any place of employment. 
 
Using curse words just shows that you have a very limited vocabulary. 
 
Please don't curse, swear around me. or Swearing and cursing is offensive and I know that you don't wish to be offensive. Is what I used when I was a bartender/cocktail waitress (did that work for 12 years) and when I worked in an office with all women!! Within a week pretty much all of the foul language was gone. 
 
As for that language at lunch/meals. Get up and sit elsewhere. When asked, be honest and say that the foul language is inappropriate and unwanted. 

Just came across this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-aim-to-shut-down-oregon-health-food-store-over-owners-support/

Unbelievable!

Agree with Wing.  There's a big difference if a person is talking to a group of 500 or 5,000 versus 5,000,000.  Different (varied) audience, different (varied) needs.

I happen to share a lot of LDS gospel related things and I'm so glad I do.  It initiated a conversation with someone who now is interested in the church.
 
Not to the missionary visit stage yet but we're getting there.  I feel like you just never know how what you might share might actually influence someone's life for the good.
 
Plus something I posted once actually inspired a former co-worker of mine to go back to church.  Now he and his 4 kids are active in church again.

Service.  There are always people who have it worse than you do.

Agree with Wing.  There's a big difference if a person is talking to a group of 500 or 5,000 versus 5,000,000.  Different (varied) audience, different (varied) needs.

Agree with the others about \'new posts\' being easier to see/get to. Also, I liked the personal info with the old format that showed religion, etc. Sometimes it makes a difference in understanding where someone is coming from.

And do you think that women within the church don't already help to make policy and organizational decisions? I think the leadership of the church confer quite often with the auxiliary leaders in making decisions.