Calm

Why do they believe this? What do they point to as evidence in other words?

I approve of navel gazing as long as we also commit as much effort into looking around. Not the self indulgent kind navel gazing has come to mean, but the serious contemplative version seeking connection with God or something more than ______. I think LDS can be prone to both kinds. Some members see no value in learning of other faiths as if we have all truth and insight within our own community and they may even get caught up too deeply in gospel hobbies, so far in fact they lose faith in our actual doctrine.

I like the idea of migration. We talk of life being a journey, but so often that gets phrased as a direct transit from point a to point b with any digression being wasted time or worse. I see the purpose of mortality as more exploration. Migration fits that view pretty well.

Here are the guidelines on the funeral as well as assistance. Note the emphasis on even funerals being a spiritual meeting and not being fully focused on the departed. It is advised such a memorial can take place elsewhere. I don’t know if new or not, but it does indicate if someone is not a member, the chapel may still be used following their usual patterns and the service may be led by the clergy of the deceased’s faith, but rituals of that faith or other organizations are not allowed in our meetinghouse. This last surprises me a bit because bishops have invited nonmembers to hold their services in our chapels when their buildings have been destroyed and other crises. I supposed it is better to have a general guideline as there might be some practices that could be problematic.

I went looking for guidelines on funerals and stumbled on this instead. I love that the Chirch offers a pretty detailed guide on what is involved and needed after a death, not only providing how to advice on funerals and burials/cremations including getting help covering costs if qualified, but also on death certificates and what one will need them for. https://icp.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/funeral_srp Just have to post it, I was so pleased to see it.

They are the most visible ones, especially since the internet gave them a very accessible pulpit and it became easier to find each other, which meant they had someone willing to listen without negative judgment (I don’t believe this is inherently bad, sometimes that can help the processing of change quicker to move away from anger, but sometimes it will reinforce and prolong it). However, most who leave the Church just fade away quietly. Hard to know if there is anger there or not. I think a lot depends on how much one invested and why one stopped attending. If a loss of belief, was it because of new information about the Church (that may or may not be true) or was there a change in faith about God or something else. Funerals at the local chapel….I have mixed feelings about the requirements to use chapels for funerals. It is free and the ward generally provides a nice meal afterwards for family, so it can be a very great help for those who are grieving. However, it is also seen as a missionary opportunity. It is required—or at least was—to have a member of the bishopric speak and include details of the Plan of Salvation. Of course we typically see the gospel as a great comfort for those who are grieving as we believe our vision of the afterlife is a beautiful, loving one, but not all share that view and not all speakers focus on the hope it offers. Instead they might go the fear route and stress what will be lost if not faithful…and that might include judgment of others that is inappropriate, not only because they are grieving, but because no one knows their hearts save God. As far as rebaptism, in the past they were done for multiple reasons. Saints were often rebaptized when they reached Utah, during big periods of “retrenchment” or before attending the temple as a show of renewed commitment to the faith and God. These were stopped in the 1890s (according to article below). It was more consistently used for healing though, iirc. This practice faded once elders’ blessings were emphasized, eventually completely eliminated, keeping baptism for the sole purpose of remission of sins and taking on the name of Christ, becoming a member of the Restored Church. Checked the article and it says this one in the 1920s. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/rebaptism?lang=eng Added: I read a very good article on this a while back. I think this is the one, but don’t have time to read. Stapley is a good historian though, so I am going to risk it. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/rebaptism-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

I don’t know how accurate this is, but supposedly the current data centers use less than 1% of the water we use to water our lawns in the US. Seems like an easy solution would be to go to xeriscaping instead of lawns. I have been trying to get my husband to do that since we moved back to Utah, but he insists we need lawns to play on plus it keeps out weeds. Pretty much for twenty years the only play has been him mowing the lawn and cursing it.

Nice find….

I am surprised you scored 100% orthodoxy unless you did more understanding of LDS belief rather than to see what type were your own. that is a weird dichotomy. Why wouldn’t someone who was very orthodox also be very orthopraxy. The one question I remember was which was more important, but that doesn’t mean the other isn’t important as well.

I think you would like him. He is a good writer imo.

Have you heard of disfellowshipping or withdrawal of membership because that sounds like similar practices in the little research I did?

Would people discuss it that much I wonder.

I spent ah hour? on it, got to the last question and accidentally tapped outside the box and lost the page. Will do it later.

Lacking in empathy, yes. Wouldn’t say the same thing about virtue. I have known men that were lacking in empathy, saw the world in pretty much one way or at least talked that way, so impossible to know if they understood others’ experiences as others did, but they were also among the most generous, kind people I knew, devoting much of their lives and resources to helping others….sometimes very effectively, others not so much since they didn’t understand what the real need was. My guesses….One of these men would likely get huffy and offended by this discussion, the other would just blow it off as not relating to him unless he was in a mood to mindpick.

My thread, please delete the content of your post, leave empty or replace with something on topic. this was meant to be simple helpful info, so stay focused on what the Church is doing with Storehouses and Food Storage. I am okay with branching into humanitarian efforts of the Church because I am always okay with that. Everyone else, please ignore him or create your own thread for you two to play on.

With my brain these days, the ending often doesn’t sink in until the second time I read the post because I am already too focused on something said earlier. And I missed this and shouldn’t have. Vanguard, this is not me wanting to attack you and I hope it doesn’t come across that way. Bluebell is right in this phrase is shorthand covering the spectrum of sexual and other forms of physical violence too many (but thankfully not a majority) men perpetuate on others (rape and certainly other forms of violence are not limited to women). If you didn’t realize this—and from your argument for why it made less sense to use “potential rapists” you are not that informed about how many women think and view the world. I highly suggest familiarizing yourself with more women’s POV, especially those who don’t know you and who are writing or speaking generally if you want to make public judgments about how women think and should think like you just did. Being blunt here because this saddens me, but I also feel kind of insulted that you feel comfortable enough to tell us how we should speak about our feelings when you don’t know them very well even after reading what we have discussed on this thread about our experiences in a variety of situations as well as referred to others’ experiences in even more. We weren’t just talking about the experience of rape. It seems odd to me you assumed that was how the statement was being used when you had explanations that it was meant to alert women to be cautious in any situation until she knew she didn’t need to be. You expressing it wasn’t appropriate and we should alter how we warn and support each other would be like a friend telling you to go work for some guy who cheated and lied about you with your friend saying he is not a bad guy and it would be good for you right after you had told him the guy stole your life savings and told the police you tried to steal from him causing them to arrest you. This analogy is meant to be narrowly applied and is not intended in the least to suggest that any woman feels like every man is a liar and a cheat just in case someone is tempted to take it that way. It’s about being given advice by someone who didn’t listen very well or hasn’t yet processed what they read yet and you are not the only one on the thread doing this…and all of you are well meaning and interested in helping, I have no doubt. Have you been in a room with women, especially young women, when the speaker says this in order to get the listeners to pay attention and start recognizing they need to be careful around every man until they actually know better and not trust first until proven wrong? It certainly penetrated my brain deeper when I heard it and helped me recognize I was still being dismissive about my own concerns and experiences, treating them as if they were just humorous pranks played on me with me feeling guilty I didn’t allow myself to be around these guys after it occurred. I was even ashamed I resorted to telling one of them my dad wouldn’t let me date him because I didn’t want to be pressured by him any more (we were in high school). I realized once I started participating in discussions that included the warning “potential rapist” that it was actually quite smart that I distanced myself from them and in the one case (the one who disable the car) brought up my dad being involved and how mad he would be if I told my dad this guy had fooled around with the car. And I had already heard for decades and practiced to some extent eventually basic situational awareness and preparation…with strangers in empty or isolated spaces. I see it as very useful in the right context. Not saying it was all I needed to hear or that it was the best help I ever got, but it did jar loose some stuck attitudes and ideas in my head that I hadn’t really challenged even though given what happened to me, I can’t imagine why I didn’t…the only thing I can think of was it was leftover ideas from the arrogance of my youth when I thought I was knowledgable enough my self analyzing was spot on. I hadn’t learned yet everyone has trouble seeing their own issues even with training.

Google identified 3 Storehouses in the Northeast US, so 4 states sounds right since it also says there are around 100 stakes in the same area. 11 states and 3 Storehouses, about 4 states each.

Which do you think young women are more likely to pay attention enough to change their own behaviour to safer practices? Serious question as very curious about others’ experiences.

So the person I was talking to called his Center and was told by them (St George) that some Bishop Storehouses would be closing as well. My husband said in some places stuff gets shipped from a regional storehouse to a stake center, so maybe that will be more common (he visited Palmyra with our grandson and somewhere heard this happened there, they shipped to four states (may have been stakes, lol, as I had my noise canceling headphones on as we were in the car; he’s out on his bike or I would clarify that…probably do it later). The St George contact confirmed the 50% off inventory closeout sale, but also said they won’t offer foods online either in the future. I really, really hope that info is wrong.

You did not answer my question. When my daughter and granddaughters ask me how they should tell who is a rapist, what identifier can I give them that is a guarantee that guy is the one they have to look out for and the others are therefore safe…or give me a set of red flags that will be sure to include every possible rapist. So most indecent men don’t have those track records? Having a track record is a guarantee of safety?

Well tell me how I can tell my daughters and others how to know you are safe when they see you on the street or at church or at court when they have never heard of you before.

Thankfully it is going down. Including sexual violence…at least in the US. Iirc, the drop started in the 90s and while sexual violence hasn’t dropped as much as other violence, it’s still significant. Theories behind the drop include better education of young men and women in consent, the inappropriateness of violence, etc. However, another theory is the drop is caused by fewer young men around because fewer are being born since violence occurs at a higher rate with young men. I really hope it’s the former because that means it’s been real change and not superficial. However, the most effective form of education is Bystander Involvement and I wonder how well known that is. We need to add it to the discussion along with the topic of Consent. Since the drop mostly happened in the 90s, I wonder how much provocative language added strength to the drop. The Me Too movement increased reporting and disclosure of sexual violence, which should help with enforcement in the long run, but likely temporarily inflate stats as more come forward. The 1970s was probably when provocative language was added to the discussion, but it may have stayed pretty in-house until the later 80s or 90s. Of course the internet and social media has made these discussions much, much more common since 2000, so that likely has had an impact as well. I haven’t studied it in depth enough though to get the timeline that detailed…if that is even possible. I don’t see the stats as demonstrating it’s safe enough to stop working hard in drawing people’s attention, especially young women, to the dangers of sexual violence or violence of any kind…especially given the massive increase in cyber bullying. It makes me hopeful there are people listening, but I would like to see work on what is helping most and much, much greater focus on bystander involvement, which means we need more discussion, not less with everyone, not just women. I assume you aren’t reading the stats’ drop as a signal this is no longer needing to be a major concern for women. Let me know if I am wrong.

I don’t know the incident rate of gay men groping, but if it is as high as men (whether straight or gay or other) groping women, I don’t think it’s an issue if correct context is also given and someone is going to a gay bar or other event with a lot of gay men likely to be present. If it’s out of the blue in general conversation and they just focus on gay men and not other high risk situations, then that is problematic.

By every woman who uses it even when they say they don’t mean it that way? I was responding to your accusation that LDS women posters had compared you to a “dog” and a “nasty parasite”….meaning bluebell since she was the one who used these analogies and probably me since I supported her doing so by clarifying that she was comparing treatments, not man with animal. I don’t believe that. Provocative, yes. Inflammatory and intending to be offensive, depends on the context. If one doesn’t provide context, best not to use it. If one can and does, what is the problem if one clarifies it’s about pushing for awareness? If ever I use it, it is only intended to be attention getting, not to signal to men or women for that matter that I think given the right circumstances every man would rape a woman, only that one can’t tell the difference between men who would and do rape and men who are disgusted by the thought and would beat another guy to a pulp if they saw an attempt and all over variations between. That a portion of men take it as offensive when it’s not intended that way is understandable if context is not provided, but if they do even when context is provided, that’s on them for not listening or mindreading by insisting they know better than the women what they mean or that women are lying about what they really mean. I have seen discussing it often as only using it for teaching caution or sharing their feelings of never feeling quite safe in almost all situations with other women, are they trying to offend the women by saying this about men who may never know it’s been said? An analogy since those have worked so well in this thread…. I see two cars driving down a street, one car swerves and sideswipes the other. Both cars stop and the drivers get out. The driver who was hit says “there were no other cars around to avoid, you intentionally hit me, how could you!” I speak up and say “I don’t think she was trying to hit you, a ball was lying in the street and there was a little kid stepping off the sidewalk running towards it, I think she was moving over to avoid her.” The other driver says “yes, she’s right, I didn’t realize I was moving so far over I would hit you when I was avoiding the kid.” The other driver continues to go on “how could you hit me. That is so wrong.” I say “but the kid…”. “She hit me, there was no reason for it, she didn’t have to hit me!” Swerving to not hit the kid can look exactly like swerving to hit a car…until you learn the kid was there. Then it should look very different.

My first thought to “no, my kids can’t sleep at your house because we don’t do sleepovers because I have heard too many abuse stories that happened at sleepovers” was not “how can you think I would abuse your kids, you have known me for years and your brother since you were born!”, but “wow, those stories must be awful!” And then, “yeah, I can see why it’s a blanket refusal because if you limit it to only those you feel absolutely safe with, then there will be those who will push and push with ‘but you let them sleep at their aunt’s, so you must think I am an abuser’. Little did I know that there will be people who believe you are accusing them no matter what you say. I also remembered a significant portion of people one think are safe are not, there is no way to guarantee no abuse except to remove the opportunity for it. One has to make choices about what risk level is acceptable.