The handbook says they have to disavow the practice, but the requirement to not be living with them feels like disavowing the parents. I grew up a devout Mormon with a Never-Mo father who used tobacco and drank coffee and beer. During my baptism interview, I had to avow my belief in the Word of Wisdom and agree to abide by it, but at no time was it suggested I couldn't do that while living with my dad. Reducing family conflict for children is a great goal. And certainly they could have written a worse policy (one that would tie baptism to who has custody), but I think having children attend church and get all the teachings but not be able to be baptized if they want to be will increase conflict and alienation. Although, my ex-Mo sister-in-law seems to think the policy would have been nice because it would have prevented her kids from being baptized. It's my devout Mormon brother-in-law who seems troubled by it. And he's never troubled about anything from the LDS church. Still, given what I've seen, I think the new policy will do more harm than good.

I don't see anything in the articles or quotes from the handbook that indicate it wouldn't apply to children in that case. And my devout Mormon relatives are assuming it would apply to their children. I'd be happy to be wrong about this though.

There are a fair number of kids who have one devout Mormon parent and one parent who cohabitates with a same-sex partner. Mormon culture has a number of factors that increase the odds that someone won't come out as gay until after having had kids with a devout Mormon. I have kids in my extended family who would have been affected by this policy, had it been in place on their 8th birthdays.

Here is a link to an article about this change that appeared in the Deseret News, which is a newspaper owned by the LDS church.

There are several things about this that just don't make theological sense. One of them is that, if my sources are correct, living with a same-sex partner is only "possibly" apostasy, but marrying your same-sex partner is always apostasy. Even if we assume that homosexual sex is a sin, wouldn't homosexual sex + sex outside of marriage (definitely a sin in Mormonism) be worse than homosexual sex by itself? My heart breaks for my nieces and nephews who have one parent who is a devout Mormon and one who lives with her same-sex partner. The last thing these kids need is for their divorce and custody situation to get more contentious.

Yes, please.

So let's just stay on DST all the time. [emoji4] ETA: Sorry, Amira. I'll be good now.

The fact that the singular "they" for an undetermined person is in such wide-spread use in speech is a strong indicator that many English speakers don't find "he" to be gender neutral. In formal writing, I use plural nouns so I can use plural "they." One other idea I like is that each writer should use their [emoji6] own pronoun as the neutral pronoun. So I would say "the student should turn her paper in," and my husband would say "the student should turn his paper in." But honestly, singular "they" is used so much in speech that I will welcome its readmittance into formal writing. I've gained a lot of experience using "they" to refer to a single, known person (kid who doesn't fit into a binary gender), and that causes frequent confusion in a way that singular "they" for an indeterminate person does not. That's the use case for which I desperately want a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

If you haven't already, you might want to read about claims that light therapy increases the chance of age-related macular degeneration before you make a final decision.

That line is not a complete phrase. The phrase starts in the line above and reads "love's pure light radiant beams from thy holy face with the dawn of redeeming grace." So the subject of the phrase is "love's pure light" and the verb is "beams" and "radiant" is an adjective that was shoved out of place by the need to rhyme. (It should be "love's pure radiant light.")

Most people who recommend Rick Steves are talking about using his guidebooks to plan your own trip, at least in my experience. Almost 20 years ago, we used his guidebook to Britain and the three-week itinerary he lists in there to plan a 17-day trip to England, Scotland, and Wales. We have since used his guidebooks to plan trips to France, Amsterdam, Florence, Spain, Ireland, and (for 2016) Denmark. I also highly recommend his book Europe through the Back Door for general travel tips and philosophy. Even though we now follow the thumbprint method of travel, his guidebooks are a key part of our trip planning process.

If one of my kids didn't have executive function issues, this would be a more likely solution. We need to maximize the chance of success.

1. I see no reason to assume this is a once-in-lifetime opportunity to stay at a Mexican resort. 2. For these grandparents, true. 3. This doesn't matter to the kids. All their travel is paid for by someone else. For DH and me, the most significant financial issue is the potential of the kids losing scholarship money for college if they don't do well on their finals. 4. True. 5. We will have a nuclear family vacation next year regardless of what happens with this trip. These kids have tons of memories of trips, including trips with these grandparents and including a family reunion with this side of the family three years ago. 6. We consider getting into college to be a huge deal. We also think getting merit aid to pay for college can have a huge impact on future finances. 7. Ditto. They will remember their finals grades when they are applying for college. 8. I doubt they will regret it for a lifetime, regardless of which choice we make. 9. Half the cousins won't be going because of the international move, so they'll have company. We missed a family trip early in our marriage because the trip was booked within two weeks of my due date. You learn to enjoy the stories. I had questions about whether to encourage DH to go and take DS10. I don't have questions about whether to have the high schoolers go. If we have no more than one snow day by mid April, we can see if there is still room for them and me.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate those who understood my mixed feelings AND those who gave me a gentle or not-so-gentle reality adjustment. You all helped me filter out the little things so I could focus on the important. I am urging DH to go and to take youngest son.

No, I worded that poorly. We always have more than one snow day. Last year we had five. Predictions for this winter are super cold and snowy.

This is how I've been handling it. But they were just here for a week, and they talked to DH and to me (separately and together) about having DH and youngest son go. And also (jokingly) said that we were making life difficult because the trip was supposed to be Christmas and now they have to shop for gifts because we aren't going. So, I'm leaning toward changing my stance from "it's your call; I'll be fine either way" (and I would be; this would not cause an issue between me and DH) to actively encouraging DH and DS10 to go. I can't guarantee DH would change his stance, but I think it's likely he would go if I pushed it. And although the high schoolers are a little hurt, I don't think having their younger brother go would cause any permanent rifts in relationships.

Finals are the last four days of school. Always. (This is our sixth year of having a student at this high school.)

I really appreciate you (and others) who are pointing this out. Although I don't think I am looking to be offended, this is a sensitive area, and I needed to be called on that. And I'm realizing that our school calendar is perhaps legitimately confusing to people who don't live here. We never know the last day of school until mid-April. It is common knowledge that we get out after 180 days, but that the exact date could shift by up to a week. Hence the district marking the first possible last day of school, each possible overflow day, and the last possible last day of school. *We* all know what that the first last day is never the actual last day, but you have helped me accept that what is obvious to us is possibly not obvious to those who only hear about our school schedules.

The school calendar marks the first possible last day of school and the last possible last day of school. They saw both days marked. They said they thought since the kids were "so little" (they are sophomores), they could miss.

DH and I are reluctant to do that. On his part, it's because his parents *never* would have let him miss finals week for a trip, so it feels hypocritical. On my part, it's because I don't think it's fair to make the teachers accommodate this and because one of our kids tends to struggle at the end of the year (still working on executive functioning and those skills tend to wear out in advance of the school year ending) and often needs that extra time. And, if I'm honest, because I'm irritated and hurt that they didn't try to work out a better week with us. Hence my turning to the Hive for a perspective check. Any other week, and I'd go.

Not so much, no. They did look at the school schedule posted by the district, but they did not ask us about the dates until they had the big announcement to everyone. I believe they had consulted with at least one of their kids. The week they picked works well for her.

Not likely, although the fact that they got a deal for this particular week is a good part of the reason they booked this week even knowing it would likely conflict with the last week of school. (If we have no more than one snow day this year--never happened in the 14 years we've lived here--then my kids would be out of school. However, we won't know the last day of school until mid-April, and ILs need to pay for the tour before then.)

For polygamy fiction, you might want to try The Righteous.

Here's the situation. We live across the country from family. We see my husband's parents at least once a year (often 2 or 3 times), but our kids don't see cousins very often. My MIL and FIL are treating everyone to a trip to Mexico to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary in June of 2016. However, they scheduled the trip for the week of my kids' public high school finals. DH told them we couldn't go, but they have been strongly encouraging DH to go with our youngest, who is in elementary school and could miss the last week of school with no long-term consequences. The high schoolers and I would stay behind. DH is self-employed and can work from anywhere, so vacation time is not an issue. It turns out that one family of cousins might also have to miss (they are moving oversees and will still be in school then as well). None of our kids are deprived of travel. They will all spend 3 weeks in Denmark next summer. However, the kids have never been to Mexico, and they have never been to an all-expenses-paid resort, so this trip will be unique in those respects. I'm having a hard time seeing this objectively, so I'm hoping you can help me gain perspective. What would you do?

I think if you automatically assume that a man who doesn't want a vasectomy is being selfish and that it "is all about not wanting a knife near their special man place," then yes, that is sexist. DH had a vasectomy in part because I was adamant that it was his turn. Then we found out some studies link vasectomies to early onset dementia. I hope I don't have cause to regret my insistence on a vasectomy. There are pros and cons of every birth control choice, including the choice not to use any. Each couple needs to weigh the choices in their particular circumstance. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk