Raingirl

We all love you, Papa. 💕

He edited his original post. It did not originally contain the word “some”.

Thank you, Tacenda. Had I not had a job at the time, I would have had an even harder time getting out.

I had a child and was working outside the home when I divorced. I divorced because my husband was beating the living daylights out of me every chance he got. But it was my having a job that destroyed my marriage. 🤦‍♀️

I work in construction contracting. Obviously, I am not involved in performing the actual construction work, but I could tell you a few stories.

According to men in this thread: 1. Women have destroyed the family by working outside the home. 2. Women have no worth if they don’t work outside the home because they aren’t doing the really important stuff that men do. 🙄

I participated on another forum where a woman claimed that she had prayed about whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend. Her story was that they were living together platonically because he wasn’t interested in marriage. But he didn’t want it to be platonic. She said that she prayed about it and God had told her it was okay to go ahead and have sex, since he was never going to marry her, and this would be her “only chance” to ever have sex. Color me skeptical.

The pushback I got from some people when I shared that the “rules” they were given were not actually a requirement of the church was disturbing. They wouldn’t accept the possibility that something they were told was actually someone’s personal interpretation. No doubt a few think I’m going straight to hell.

I don’t like the attitude that if a member isn’t over-the-top engaged, that they should then be ignored. There’s a multitude of reasons that a member might be less engaged or not engaged. One of the first people that reached out to me when I was an investigator was a woman who had been inactive for thirty years. She returned to the church when a new bishop reached out to her. He was the very first person who had ever done so in those thirty years. When she had stopped attending, not a single person had even bothered to ask if she was okay.

I’m a convert. Prior to receiving my endowment, I heard all sorts of “rules” about how women were to wear their garments. So I asked specific questions while in the temple on the day of my endowment, just prior to putting on the garments for the first time. I am very grateful to the sister who answered my questions, and didn’t embellish with personal preferences or antiquated “rules”. I think that contributed to my never having an issue with wearing garments.

I am struck by the phrase that they all traveled together to the other side of the veil. That got me seriously choked up.

You have clearly not understood what the missionaries said about temple recommends, as you have also clearly misunderstood other things about the church. As previously stated, ordinances in the church are the same the world over. A full temple recommend cannot be obtained until you have been a member for at least a year. Even then, it is not guaranteed. There are things you must learn, requirements you must meet, and interviews you must go through. Youth and new members may receive a limited recommend to do baptisms only. That is at the discretion of the bishop. You can find this and much other information on the church website. Or will you refuse to believe what’s written there as well? What I “understand” is that I will not further engage with you, as I find your condescension off-putting.

And what “story” would that be? Ordinances are the same the world over.

It’s not a “stupid” temple recommend. And you need to be a member for at least a year before you can be considered for a temple recommend. Prior to that, you may be allowed a limited temporary recommend for the purpose of participating in baptisms only.

This isn’t the first time Stanford has done something like this. In 2004, the halftime show during a game against BYU was a skit about polygamy. Makes me wonder if they mock other religions, or just us.