Calm

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Last years looked really interesting. One day I might have to go!

Tell me if you ever do. That might even get me up to SL myself. 

25 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It seems to be a phenomenon across the land on various websites. I guess I'm just afraid the Ballon will go up when I'm 700 miles from Patti and Dad. Carry on. 

I can see why it would hit you hard.

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've been reading on the history of garments because I don't believe it's a commandment from God but a symbol in making covenants in the temple and it has been said that Joseph Smith used Freemasonry as a vehicle for members to covenant or promise things in order to get back to God and that would include wearing the garment with the markings like symbols used in Freemasonry. https://www.ldsliving.com/latter-day-saints-and-masons-5-fascinating-connections/s/80329 

And this about the markings Freemasons had on a garment but only worn during the ceremony I believe. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ask-the-apologist-similarities-between-masonic-and-mormon-temple-ritual#:~:text=Masons have special clothing%2C not,clothing worn outside the lodge.&text=Masonic ritualistic clothing have markings,means of conducting the ritual.

I did find this article in printed in 2022 that may be why some members took liberties to wear them as they chose. https://people.howstuffworks.com/mormon-underwear.htm

There is a good article in Mormonism In Transition by Thomas Alexander that goes over the development of them during the early and more modern church (up to the 70s iirc) if you are interested in a details treatment. Your local library might have the book, but probably not as a bit older (1986) and not something that was that popular iirc (I think I picked up my copy at a BYU bookstore sale as I got several to give away to my nerdy friends and family).  But check just in case. I have given away my copy, so I can’t send it to you unfortunately. I think that was the article that started me realizing how much of the teaching surrounding how to wear and care for them came from people’s personal experiences and not actual doctrine or policy.  Hearing the very wide range of experiences online after reading it made that quite clear. 

https://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Transition-History-Latter-day-1890-1930/dp/0252065786

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

It always amazes me how judgmental women are about how other women wear their garments.

I am sorry this is how it came across to you, I poorly expressed what I meant when I said “you must not have been instructed” as I meant “good for you! your instructor was careful to not do the unwritten rule approach” and definitely not “you were instructed the wrong way”.  Going back and rereading that part I can see how that came across the wrong way. 

I am actually envious that was your experience though I don’t know if I could make it work for me.  I was planning on trying it though now you have brought it up (just got to get the right one to try  ).  Honestly it just never occurred to me that would be acceptable (not saying I was judging others who were doing it, saying I never thought about it at all) except for hygiene reasons.

I really hope it occurred to more women or that they were taught it was okay, but I do know the women I have talked to about it have always seemed to be like me, told in the temple to wear it like underwear. Like wearing the bra over garments and a few other things, this appears to have become in the past an unfortunate unwritten rule here in the US instead of letting women know there were other options one could choose. 

I hope it has changed and now you have mentioned it here and it’s now part of my paradigm, I will be sharing the idea with other women when it comes up.

Quote

Nobody seems to bat an eye when a woman wants to skip her garments to wear short shorts or a strapless dress, but foregoing garments at night for health reasons, would probably induce a stroke in more than a few

I actually did practically have a stroke though I tried not to show it so she wouldn’t feel judged when a young relative told me she doesn’t wear them with leggings as she is quite conservative in other ways (nor did I tell her she was wrong but said if that was the way she was inspired to wear them as she saw leggings as athletic wear, great).  I would have sworn before than she was the type who would be wearing them even for sports if comfortable enough. Shows how out of touch I am with youth and young adults these days, lol. And why some leaders are concerned, I am thinking.  I am likely going to be asking her if she has been inspired to do anything differently and what her friends do next time she visits, if she knows what the attitudes are now after the changes to the recommend, etc. 

Quote

I can only imagine how many heads would explode if I talked about how women should actually go commando at night.

I was actually thinking of going there, but was uncertain if the men on the board could handle it, lol.

We should put up warnings…time to cover your eyes if you have delicate sensibilities, men.  😛 

59 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Garments do not have to be substituted for underwear. That is a choice made by some individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to wear your garments over your underwear, thus allowing underwear to serve as underwear, and garments to serve as garments.  I personally cannot imagine wearing my garments as underwear. Wearing my garment top over my bra is similar to wearing a chemise. A lot of women wear a thin pair of shorts overt their underwear, under a skirt, to prevent leg chafing. Different articles of clothing provide different functions. I have never understood using garments as underwear. Especially for women. Garments and underwear have completely different functions. 

You must not have been instructed to keep your garments next to your skin as much as possible.  I wish this was made clear as an option rather than instructions teaching we wear them instead of our former underwear as I was taught (though luckily I was taught I could wear the bra underneath so for me too, the upper garment is more like a chemise than underwear).  But at least in the US and Canada it has been rare that I have heard of a woman having the same experience as me up till not that long ago.

I am also trying to remember how it worked for my mother and as far as I can figure out, I don’t see how you could wear panties under the garment when it was one piece as it was up until late 1970s.  (I got married in 1980, so I knew lots who were still wearing them, even young women who liked the absence of elastics, though mainly I heard one piece for maternity, but I never asked about the mechanics.)  Those of us brought up in the Church would typically wear them like we saw our parents wear them.

For those thinking or planning on attending this year, early bird pricing is good till May 1st (sorry for being a bit slow getting this up here, missed it completely last year iirc).

We have gone back to two days to make it easier to attend, but have multiple tracks (if I understand correctly) to cover the large number of topics.

I don’t have any other details yet…you may want to use social media as the more efficient way to track announcements.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference

https://www.facebook.com/fairlatterdaysaints/posts/pfbid02jbEZ5CfmoX56hZqSGaLVyxVQfq4FQEV4ZNhn25PyxXFrhTBsXPLNcHiRzKz5gjfGl

https://www.instagram.com/valiantconference/p/C5pIh17xYcB/?img_index=1

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Funny how it always ends up with men being in charge of judging women. 🤔

It is unfortunate that garments are by necessity due to their construction substituted for underwear.  This is where most of the issues arise imo, both in men not understanding women’s underwear requirements and women’s significant discomfort of a man who is no relation to her not only commenting on her underwear, but often telling her what she can and can’t wear and how to wear them.  In any almost any other context that man would be considered violating privacy and would be judged quite immoral (I say almost because I imagine fashion designers, male or female, need to dictate the undergarments in order for their clothes to display as they want as well as some doctors might be instructing patients post surgeries and coaches might make suggestions on what works best for uniforms as my gymnastics coach did for me and my class, though being female there wasn’t anything creepy about it).

However, other options I can think of end up reducing to the same issues as long as the garment is not an outer piece of clothing.

18 hours ago, let’s roll said:

No assumptions…if he had already used the tools in connection with his current circumstances and had received guidance, I trust he would share that experience with me in response to my first question.  
 

If by this you mean you would find out first if he had used them before telling him he should if directed by the Spirit, I am on board that. But you need to take care not to imply he hasn’t or that even you were wondering if he hadn’t.

I have found this out by personal experience when people are giving me health or other advice or what they see as encouragement and leave it open as if I haven’t tried everything I know that exists that is possible for me to do to make myself ‘normal’ (give me enough money to do the rest and I will be able to say I tried everything recommended by doctors and plenty that wasn’t).  The one way it works these days is if it’s something they think is obscure or new and it’s approached as ‘I don’t know if you have heard of this or had a chance to try _____, but I think it might be worth a try’ as that shows me they respect me and believe I am not some loser who just sits around waiting to be rescued by someone else or waiting for something easy to arrive on my doorstep.  It might be being over sensitive but after decades of being treated as a hypochondriac by loved ones and friends who should know better; being scolded for not going to events or doing things they are certain I could do if I wasn’t so overprotective or too concerned with my comfort; or them just not caring whether I showed up or didn’t, no attempt to see if adjustments could make something work better for me as if the only reason I wouldn’t come was because I didn’t want to…yep, I admit I get triggered by small things that remind me of the myriad of past insults (and such things are denigrating me and my efforts to be healthy).

I have felt much the same way when people stepped up to fix my shyness, my daughter’s diabetes, my involvement at church, and several other aspects of my life that sometimes I was even happy with, but they were disapproving of (I come from a family whose primary mode of interaction is helping others, which means sometimes we create problems to fix where there are none).

I imagine someone who is gay in the Church has often had a similar history since many look on homosexual feelings as emotionally unhealthy, etc and something to fix. And if they haven’t been open about their feelings, they will still have heard plenty of comments and advice directed at others, some quite insulting. 

And here I offer unsolicited advice contrary to my advice, lol…

So I think the default when talking to anyone about a long term attribute or condition that you are assuming they want to work on and you have ideas about should be to assume they have already heard it and to first if appropriate ask them to share their experiences before offering your view, especially advice.  Advice imo should never be offered in casual conversation unless it’s a casual thing, something short term, relatively minor, and easy to fix and definitely not something that one would see as life changing unless one has already established that type of relationship and know it is not seen as offensive for one to offer information or advice (and I need to listen to my own advice here as I definitely have the family habit as bad as it gets).

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Church set up over a dozen LLC’s with with fake addresses, fake phone numbers, and fake managers. They instructed these fake managers to lie to the SEC and say they managed the money in their LLC’s with independent discretion.

Technicality….it was not the Church (meaning pastoral and administrative leaders of the religious organization) that did either of those things, but those they put in stewardship over the funds.  We do not know what church leadership instructed the financial stewards to do, whether it was detailed or more general.

I say this for accuracy, not as an excuse…though I admit it would bother me more if church leaders came up with the idea to lie or approved it knowing it would involve lying than them not having bothered to track it because they either didn’t care or best case, were too trusting.  Ends do not justify the means, especially when there are other means to achieve it that are possible, if harder to use.

What we do know, imo, (if the SEC report was accurate in its claims of what was done with the properties and I am assuming it is though I am less sure about its claims of how it happened) is the ultimate responsibility rests with Church leadership as they appointed the individuals who made these decisions to act whether or not they were instructed to do so by church leaders. This behaviour was not apparently a one time thing, but a pattern over many years.  If church leaders were unaware, they should have been aware.  If they were aware, they should have stopped the dishonest aspects.  Therefore, imo, ultimately the church leaders should be held responsible/accountable for the dishonesty where it occurred.  

I don’t have an automatic issue with them trying to hide ownership of properties as I can think of two very good reasons they wouldn’t want it known and that is some members would foolishly try to invest based on what was happening with the investments of the Church and second, given the magnitude of their holdings, their buying or selling of properties could easily affect the market leading to unintended and unwanted consequences (same reason they don’t announce where they are looking for land for temples to avoid people buying properties around the possible future temple for speculation or driving up prices).

I do think using fake addresses, etc and having people sign forms that required them to know the contents without letting them actually know the contents are dishonest practices.  I would not have cared if they took more care finding actual representatives in the states they claimed the businesses were located in so as to hide the wealth for either reason I stated above.  It does bother me the financial stewards took shortcuts that required dishonesty.  Sure, it saved a lot of effort, maybe quite a bit of money.  It was still dishonest.  Hopefully those practices and any other dishonest ones (hopefully there weren’t any) have been stopped and the attitude going forward is to err towards being truthful where sharing info, even if limited sharing.  I do support not making it easy for people to find what properties the financial wing of the Church is handling because I believe there are many members who would foolishly follow it just as we have members who jump on bandwagons following doomsayers and end up giving up all their savings and selling their homes to buy survival gear at inflated prices even when counseled not to by the Church (in general terms, not specifically), but any practices that do hide such properties and transactions need to be legal (which I accept may not always be easy to figure out) and moral (which seems to me likely easier to figure out).

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad it was mentioned that there are exceptions for those that cannot wear them for health reasons. And do believe women should definitely consider that and not live with pain. 

I wish that was also made more explicit in the questions of the recommend and the blurb.  Previously it seemed covered by this part to me:

Quote

Endowedmembers should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.

Now there is no sense of exception given health is not an activity.

Time stamps please for where they teach what you @ZealouslyStriving claim as opposed to needing to be interpreted or read between the lines.

Did Nephi have moments of pride coming through his writings, in my opinion yes, but I have never met a person who hasn’t given into that temptation yet, including myself on numerous occasions in my life and yet no one has ever told me I am prideful (and I take great pride in that fact).

Was Nephi racist?  He showed a definite lack of understanding and some contempt at times for a group of people that he categorized as one tribe, community, society, whatever.  Does that qualify as racism?  It comes close but these are people he also describes as of his own blood, in essence his nephews and nieces since Lamanites are described as the children of two of his brothers and any sisters who married the sons of Ishmael, I don’t see how it can technically qualify as racism….tribalism is a better term imo.

 It is also understandable and is probably necessary to some extent for him to be able to deal with the tragedy of his brethren trying to kill him and those who follow him and he and his people needing to defend themselves against their attacks.  He probably needed to put mental and emotional distance in order not to breakdown from having to kill what he would usually think of as his people or having to tell others to kill if necessary to defend themselves, to kill those he normally would be doing his best to protect.  And there would be a lot of anger most likely that his followers who he spent his entire existence trying to protect from all dangers had to give up on the comforts and safety they had created for themselves in the new land and start over again, likely suffering great deprivations and even death during the resettlement…even if Nephi glosses over those and focuses on their overall success because of the Lord’s protection.

13 hours ago, manol said:

In my opinion:

Something that gets overlooked when the parable of the wheat and the tares comes up in the Sunday School lesson:

It is not the job of the wheat to decide who are the "tares"!   In the parable, that is the job of the ANGELS.  So unless any of us are able to see from the same perspective as the angels, and with the same wisdom as the angels, we would be out of place to presume we can judge who is wheat and who is tare.  That is simply not our job.  We do have jobs, but that is not one of them.  

To put it another way, if "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last", then obviously none of us are in a position to judge those we disagree with (or anyone else) to be among the "last".  That is simply not our job.  We do have jobs, but that is not one of them. 

Or as Brigham said (thanks for the quote @Doctor Steuss!): 

Let us observe the "Mormon Creed" - let everyone mind their own business. Everyone has weeds enough in his own garden to attend to without attending to the weeds in his neighbor's garden, for while you are attending to the weeds of your neighbor, those in your own will grow very thick and tall and will finally spoil the good seed.

 

No way do I belong on the same list.  I'll trot out my apostate credentials if I have to.  But, thank you anyway! 

You are protective of all and a good defender of the faith/apologist for your own beliefs.  

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I just noticed that my book is a revised edition published on November 22, 2022.  The first edition was published on July 30, 2022.  So it is possible that quote is in the first edition.  On page 373 of my edition, in footnote 1508, it has this cryptic message "Mercy's brother, Joseph Fielding recorded facts in his journals that reveal Mercy was not honest in her statements regarding Hyrum."  Maybe the first edition had listed the "went to visit Mercy at her little log cabin" quote as one of those facts and then was removed in the later revision.  I find it odd that the author says Joseph Fielding disproved Mercy's statements in a footnote and doesn't explain what those things are.

I bet you are right. And I bet it was removed because she messed up. 

Interesting it was revised so quickly. 

Whether that is why I am not getting a response, who knows. 

13 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Honestly - more posterity, and more time with my spouse as kids and callings, taxes and tithing sometimes leaves little time left in the day. I'm sure she'd like having help being a homemaker, teacher, mother, wife, sister, etc. 

Surrogacy is a path to the same end - just not in the US where it's prohibitively expensive but not yet illegal.

You are assuming both women would be happy living together?

More kids does not equal more time together as there are more kids to care for and to give one on one ton(unless you plan on being a mostly absentee father) and would also extend the time kids are in diapers over the years. 

If you ate the same meals together, that might save time, but if laundry already gives you full loads you are likely to be just doubling your work there, doubling bedrooms and bathrooms to be cleaned if your kids have as much room as they do now.  You are also doubling the time you need to spend at parent meetings and with the kids and doubling date nights, etc.

Besides sharing preparation of food, I don’t see much time saving in adding another family with a mother who would also have kids.   If anything you would have less time with your spouse since you would have to split what time is left after kids, job, church callings and household needs between the two women. 
 

And if wives have their own households, that’s two homes you have to split your time between and your wives don’t have your help for much of the time when you are with the other family. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, I guess it helps to not believe in that situation actually holding true, such as her being with that awful man eternally and the thought that he tried to get her to sign away child support is sickening.  

He would have to change dramatically in order for him to qualify even for the Terrestrial Kingdom, so at that point he was just fooling himself.  It wasn’t that he had changed since his temple marriage, it was that he was lying to himself and others from the beginning about who he was (a selfish, spoiled, undisciplined, angry, prideful little boy) No one who knew of the situation assumed his covenants were somehow still valid, but that doesn’t mean it still didn’t hurt.  I wish my dad had been there as I think he might have come back with “ as if you are really getting into the Celestial Kingdom”.

I know blessings can get restored when repentance is true and deep, but if any mortal actions have eternal consequences, imo breaking the marriage covenant does and both partners have to be wholeheartedly wanting to restore it and I don’t believe every spouse who has been betrayed by a partner will want to restore the relationship as they will often have moved on and found someone different who then grows with them.  Others who have worked with the spouse or who still love at least the version of that person who they married may want that marriage back even if they have rejected the version the original marriage twisted into.

I had a Evangelical friend tell me he would not pray with me when I asked him (he did not shove it at me out of the blue) but he did so in such a way I felt more love and acceptance from him than exclusion or judgment.  He did not want to impede my journey to God by giving any misunderstanding of what he believed that needed to be and it was clear he believed I was on the path towards God rather than heading to hell because of my false (in his view) beliefs.  I wasn’t far enough down that path though to be accepted by God as a disciple of Christ yet.

You can call someone to repentance in a way that makes them feel loved.  Anything that appears to be rejoicing or gloating over the fallen, those that don’t make it automatically doesn’t work in my experience.  Instant dislike in fact.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Calm.

 

These three participants are protectors and defenders of the faith and do so with social skills and intelligence that I think is unmatched.  They are loving, kind, hold others accountable, assert their opinions without belittling others points of view.  I’ve learned a lot from them and would not hesitate to ask them to join me for a meal or ask their advice.   I would trust them to help me want to change.  And I trust they are very faithful folks. 

 

I also think Misererenobis is very inspiring and not at all arrogant in his firm beliefs.  

There are many other here who fit the bill IMO

I think you meant bluebell for one of the Calms.   

My sister could not get her sealing cancelled even when her exhusband refused to let her get the kids baptized unless she would sign away their child support.

He had also told her as he was leaving the finalization of the divorce that she was his eternally.

He was abusive in the marriage to her and afterwards abusive to her and the kids (one was born after the divorce and the other was an infant before).

There are men who use their sealing with their ex as a weapon of abuse.

And yet no cancellation.

My sister is no longer a member.  I don’t know if the cancellation made the difference, her temple sealing did not help as fsr as I can tell to keep her in and I know definitely hurt.

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

The book arrived.  It doesn't have that quote.  It has an index at the back and I looked at every page that was listed under Mercy.

Interesting.

No word from her either in response to my email (I even checked my spam folder…yech!)

Maybe if @Portal has communicated with her before, he could reach out?

19 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Called it...

https://www.wardradio.com/post/delete-elder-carpenter-s-talk-web-editor-for-dialogue-journal-critiques-general-conference-on-mor

 

Ward Radio comes across to me the few times I have watched it as shock jocks and therefore, I have a hard time taking their descriptions of others seriously.  Perhaps just link to what you see as push back instead of letting others define what is push back for you?

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Oh, I don't have anything really of substance to add that smac97 hasn't already added several times over. You keep treating it as if it's about the money. "While tithing is paid with money, more importantly it is paid with faith."  --Gordon B. Hinckley

 

 

I hate that video.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And how often was Jesus mentioned besides the prayer, I'll bet it's not nearly as much especially as Him being the Savior, without covenants or works being mentioned. Elder Uchtdorf and Patrick Kearon's conference talks were wonderful I hear, still need to listen to all of conference. My son got married, had family in town, and then my mother-in-law's funeral. 

Since the purpose of the temple is to make covenants with God, which includes with Christ, why the distinction?

Trying to become people who can be one with Christ eternally is not focusing on Christ in your view?

If you spent a lot of time planning a birthday party for your child as close to the way you understood your child had asked you to do it and someone criticized you for not talking about your child enough during the planning, would that make sense to you?

Teddy hasn’t posted since, I tend to wait to report not following up on a CFR after they have posted at least once and gotten a reminder and still no reference given…makes it pretty obvious they aren’t intending to do it.

More text, less video

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/04/08/chad-daybell-jury-selected/

https://www.deseret.com/the-west/2024/04/10/chad-daybell-trial-opening-statements/

Summary of Prior’s opening statement….

Chad goodish, Lori and Alex bad.  Good religious boy seduced and fooled by the dark side, no evidence he touched the bodies, no evidence Tammy was murdered.  Their children will be testifying about her health and medical practices….