bluebell

My dad grew up in Byron and we have family in Lovell (and I currently live about 40 miles from Lovell). It's a great part of the state!

Enjoy your time with them! Where in Wyoming, if I can ask? I am Wyoming-bred and Wyoming grown so your statement made me curious.

I am a potential puppy torturer. I would never ever torture a puppy, but you don’t know that. I would sincerely hope that you would vet me and take every percussion before you gave me full access to your puppy.

Thanks for trying manol. It's so appreciated. (You too @The Nehor) To answer Smac's question, I think that the word 'potential' in the statement is what keeps it from being inherently premature, especially since potential in this statement is meant to mean possible (as has been repeatedly explained in other posts).

They didn't have anyone sit in the chairs? That is odd. When my son was married in 2025 the chairs were used. One witness sat in one and then his dad sat in the other. I was the other witness but I sat next to my son. Doing proxy sealings though I sat in one of those chairs when I was serving as the witness.

Can I ask what they complained about?

These kinds of quotes do make the church's (maybe old?) policy about women not being allowed to hold their babies during the blessing seem odd.

That could be now. A few years ago it seemed like the church was fairly adamant that a mother could not hold her baby during a baby blessing in a sacrament meeting though, even if she really wanted to.

Thank you! No judgement on my bishop at all for allowing the nonmember father to be a part of his baby's blessing. Mostly I was wondering if a mother would have been allowed the same ability, in a similar situation, due to a change in church policy. Or, if this was not policy but my Bishop's decision. (If this was not policy but on my bishop, I would like to think that he would treat a mother the same way the he treated the father but without asking him personally there is no way to know that. Some men are weird about women being in traditional men's spaces and some aren't.)

Some of our disconnect maybe be coming from your use of the phrase 'potential sexual predator' and the way that women use the term (or idea, because most women don't use the term, but rather exist within the idea that it conveys). Like Nehor said, you seem to be using it to mean 'probable' but when women use it we generally mean 'possible', and those two words are very different and require very different actions. If I thought a man was probably a sexual predator I would stay completely away from him and warn other women about him. It I thought a man was a possible sexual predator I would interact with him and be friends with him, but never be alone with him, for example. If I thought a man was probably going to grope me I would get back in my car when I saw him at the store. If I thought that a man was possibly going to grope me, I would make sure I was always more than arms length away from him if we were in closer proximity to each other, for another example. Believing that all men are possible sexual predators doesn't hurt them in any way. But it does protect women from the ones with bad intentions, when there is no way to tell the difference until after a woman has been harmed. I really don't see the down side and am confused by men who do.

He’s not a member as far as I can tell. He has no record.

Can you clarify what wording and what situation?

I’m confused. The reason that so many women consider all men potential sexual predators is to keep ourselves safe from the ones that actually are. Are you admitting it’s not possible for women to tell sexual predators from non-sexual predators but it doesn’t matter. We should move through life in a way that is fair to men rather than in a way that is protective of ourselves?

I agree it doesn't make sense. And I'm sure no one cared yesterday (I thought it was a cool way to include the dad). But I remember it was a big deal topic in the past and that the church didn't want the women holding the babies during blessings in sacrament meeting so yesterday stood out.

We blessed a baby in our ward yesterday from a part member family that doesn't have any male active members. The men in the ward made up the circle with the bishop acting as voice. Baby's dad was there and bishop had him stand in the circle, holding the baby, while the blessing was given. My question is about whether or not that is allowed? I know that when some women started agitating for the priesthood that one of the sub-topics of that push was why mothers couldn't hold the baby during baby blessings. It seemed like the church shut down that pretty quickly as not allowed, even though that didn't really make sense since mothers have been hold older kids for blessings for decades (I was blessed when I was a toddler for example, and sat on my mom's lap during it). Anyway, bishops are non-priesthood holders allowed in the circle during baby blessings in sacrament meeting or did my bishop (who is an amazing man and who I wouldn't think had a rogue bone in his body) go rogue here?

Interesting! You should ask around and then report back what you find.

I am in awe of your self control.

A woman in a discussion shared how she had been friends with a man, that he had always been extremely polite and gentlemanly around her. And then one day he murdered a woman he met online and took out on a date.

How so? For example, the women who are raped by men that they had known for years, what behavior by the men should have been a tip to the women? The man who gropes a woman who's standing in front of him in the grocery store, what behavior should have tipped her off that he was a potential sexual predator but the other guy standing behind her next week won't be?

Can I ask, how do they tell the difference?

He referred to him as an 'employee' which he's not. I'm guessing he won't accept any response that isn't from the quorum of the 12 or the prophet.

It’s a very visually beautiful movie. If you like animals, then it’s incredibly stressful. And it’s the kind of movie where you can’t stop thinking about it because you’re trying to figure out how it all makes sense.

My kids and I watch the weirdest animated movie I’ve ever seen. It’s called Flow. It came out in the last few months and has won a few awards. We streamed it for free so it must’ve been either on Netflix or Amazon prime. There are no people in the movie and there is no talking. It’s only animals and the animals make regular animal sounds to each other. The main character is a black cat who is caught in a catastrophic flood and has to survive in a sailboat with a capybara, lemur, secretary bird and Labrador retriever. They also get an assist sometimes from a whale/dinosaur thing. About 3/4 of the way through the movie, the secretary bird gets sucked up into some weird ball of light situation, goes into the sky, we never see him again. The final scene is the group of animals all stand next to the dying whale after the water all receded and it’s laying in a heap in the middle of the forest. There are no explanations for ANYTHING.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/06/15/fairview-texas-temple-campaign-reduce-steeple-height-hubbard/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=dn-social&utm_campaign=facebookpage&utm_content=deseretnews&fbclid=IwY2xjawSfBdpleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFuMmFtNmFvWUZtaklvVjZ2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgKaPZPqky7kPmBcFadbg3RREFXbgY43ZSRLCcR4vS6x0OMg5M4G2q-y6WNI_aem_2g-tnOIAIC_7Rgy1gdT_Yw That kind of seems like a threat.

That's how I read his comments as well. That he was attempting to make fun of white people but really messed it all up.