That would so very not work in my ward either. Usually when we have VT interviews they ask us what times of day we're generally available and try to match up people with compatible work schedules. I try to treat homeschooling somewhat like any other "job" when it comes to scheduling outside appointments. I'm just not available during working hours. Sorry. Does that make it harder? Sure, but no harder than any of the other working women in the ward. Sometimes dh will get supper going for me while I go in the evening, or will help dd with her homework so I can go after supper. Sometimes my companion just goes without me if we can't find a mutually compatible time for everyone, or we'll just make do with a phone call, though we do try not to do that too often. But yeah...expecting all VT to be done during weekday mornings is just an unreasonable expectation. Have you talked to your RS pres about it?

And I used to argue your side, Laura, until I realized through greater thought and analysis how much is missed with such a narrow focus, and how important those subtleties really are. I am sorry if I underestimated your understanding of my point of view. I can only go by what you have said here on the forum, which has not seemed to me to demonstrate more than a superficial familiarity. I have certainly not attempted to silence you in any way, only to exercize my "equal" right to express my opposing opinion. And to suggest that name calling is not particularly helpful to the discussion. I am sorry that you're not happy. Some of the changes you champion would make me unhappy, and I think I have as much right as you to make my voice heard. Those of us who believe as I do should also not be silenced.

With respect, I agree that you are being very hyperbolic. I can understand that, because this is clearly something about which you feel very strongly. As easy and popular as it is to mock and pigeonhole someone with a label like "anti-suffragette", and as tempting as that becomes when we're frustrated with people who don't agree with us, I hope you will also be open-minded enough to broaden your view and consider the arguments of those with different viewpoints with the same courtesy you hope for from "the other side". For the sake of others who may be following the discussion, however, I would like to just mention that the church specifically teaches that the priesthood authority held by men is very NOT like that of a "king" or a "slave owner", and that in fact trying to use it in that way invalidates that man's authority in that matter and deeply offends God. The church specifically teaches that we do NOT have to submit to unrighteous dominion, and indeed SHOULD not do so. It is true that we are asked to support our church leaders; this includes both male and female leaders in the church, and it includes leaders in ALL positions in the church, not just those who are our supervisors in whatever work we are doing. This means that the Bishop is just as responsible to support the Primary President as the Primary President is to support the Bishop. When someone is called to a position in the ward, this is announced in front of the congregation, and the church members are given an opportunity to commit to supporting that person in that position by a show of hands; at the same time we have an opportunity to object to that person being in that calling. Women are absolutely allowed to object to a man receiving a leadership calling, and her reasons for such an objection would be checked into and taken into consideration. The LDS church also emphatically teaches that every individual has direct access to God, and that a woman does NOT have to follow a man to "know God". The church teaches that men are to serve women in certain ways through the priesthood (which is about service, not control), and that women have a RIGHT to request a priesthood holder's services (such as a blessing) at any time, but men do NOT have a right to refuse a woman's request that he exercise his priesthood on her behalf. The church also teaches that the highest blessings available to mankind are ONLY obtainable by a man and woman joined together in a fully functional, loving, EQUAL partnership, and that any man who oppresses a woman not only disqualifies himself, but seriously displeases God. As a historic note, female members of the LDS church have had the right to vote on church matters since the beginning of the church. Utah gave women the right to vote when it was a territory, but it was rescinded by the federal government as a condition to statehood. The LDS women's organization was actively involved in the national women's suffrage movement with the moral and financial support of the male leadership of the church.

I read the WAVE article too. It's clear that the author is passionate about her point of view, and I can respect that. There are, of course, items on her list that I would take issue with (which is probably fairly clear at this point in the chat...lol). For example, one complaint was that although having a baby is an inherently female-dominated time period, it is celebrated at church with an all-male ritual. From my perspective, that first bit about it being inherently female-dominated is a key concept. It's ALREADY inherently female-dominated. The mom has been walking around church looking pregnant for ages. The mom's visiting teachers would be checking in on her for months to see how she's doing and whether she needs help. If there are any complications, the church will generally arrange for child care, transportation to doctor appointments if needed, extra meals, and housekeeping if needed, as well as supplement the family's income if it's needed because the mom is unable to work. There are usually baby showers for the moms too. And when the baby is born, half the women in the ward descend on her to coo over the baby and wish her well. The women of the church gather around the mother for MONTHS in support. It's already all about the mom in the church. The dad can't gestate the baby, he can't give birth--he can only stand there helpless while the love of his life pukes her guts out and screams in agony, and nobody is there to hold HIS hand. He can help with baby care, but dads often get somewhat shoved off to the side when a baby comes, while the spotlight is on mama and baby. But there's one thing--ONE thing--that can be a special moment for the dad and help him feel like he has a unique contribution to make, something he can do for his child that is just his. There's ONE event in which HIS friends can stand up and show support for him in front of his wife, in front of his community. His wife gets the community's attention and support for months. He gets the community's attention and support for two minutes. He gets to do ONE special, unique thing for his baby. Even if we "let" him keep the baby blessing, having a baby in the church is an event that is STILL skewed toward the women. If we really want things to be "equal" we should be looking for MORE ways to get the men involved, not taking away the one thing they've got. (And yes, I know that there are women who have babies without a husband, or whose husbands do not qualify to perform the baby blessing for one reason or another. I know some women argue that in those cases at the very least the mom ought to be able to do the job. I disagree there as well, but on different grounds. I think in those cases, it's important for the woman to know she has support from the men in the community as well, and that there's a brother, uncle, friend, home teacher, or bishop she can lean on for help, even if it's just help with church-related stuff when she's got a perfectly good non-LDS husband at home. I think it helps incorporate the baby into the community in ways that would not happen if the mom just did everything her own self, and I think that it's good for her to reach out and connect with her community in that way too.)

:iagree: You could express your concerns to the area authorities, the General Primary Presidency's office, or the office of the First Presidency. I had a friend who wrote the First Presidency's office about something his stake president was doing (adding a requirement to the temple recommend interview) and he said it didn't take very long before it was corrected. But a lot of educating can be done just by female leaders in the ward quietly insisting that things be done right, like speaking up confidently in ward council meetings, gently pointing out inequities, and such. Keep in mind that you have as much right to expect them to sustain you in your callings as they have to expect you to sustain them. If their behavior is interfering with your ability to do your calling, then you have a right to call them on it.

Yeah...except that the schools here are actually pretty good. My dd is back in public school now, and doing fine. I would happily put ds back in ps too, except that he just can't neurologically tolerate being in a classroom environment that long and stay sane. He's taking one classroom class each day this year, and that seems to be about his limit. But hey, it's something--I can actually sit in the school office and read a book without anyone "NEEEEEEEDing" me for a whole hour. I think as time goes on more outside classes might be an option, and there are more and more online options available through the public school system (which means they would fit our current mostly non-existent budget) here for various classes, and I'm kind of hoping to start him in some college classes through their concurrent enrollment program next year or the year after. So my role in his education should hopefully continue to diminish over the next few years. But with the schools we have here...yeah, I'd put him in full-time tomorrow if I thought it would not just make things worse. Dd is another issue. She enjoys school, and has a legitimate psychological need to be around lots of people. She also has a learning disability that makes some subjects hard for her to learn without very structured one-on-one instruction at her own pace. I think the school is doing about as well as can be expected with that, and honestly they do a LOT of things better for her than I would be able to do right now, and those are things she excels at so I want her to have the opportunity to do them. But we do kick around the idea of dual enrollment where she does some subjects at home and some at school. While she's in elementary the scheduling would be a bit tricky, but once she hits jr. high (the year after next) it wouldn't be hard at all to pick and choose. So I may be in it for several years longer than expected. But she, at least, gets a little enthusiastic about learning things, at least now and then, which is more than I can say for her brother. :glare:

Thanks all. Sometimes it's nice to know I'm not alone. Misery loves company and all that I guess. :) It would be even nicer to know that 'this too shall pass' and it won't feel like February every stinkin' day. I think probably part of my problem is that it has just been an exhausting year in general around here (in the past 12 months I've had two miscarriages, both of dh's parents have passed away, my parents have left for a 2-year mission in Germany, and dh has been in another state for 5 of those months--for starters) and I'm feeling like I haven't had a reasonable break in ages. Probably if we can hit a patch of smooth sailing for a little while I'll get my feet back under me and be okay again. I just feel like I've been run through the wringer and hung out to dry, but I still have to keep getting out of bed every morning when the clock strikes six and take my turn making my little patch of the world go 'round. And homeschool is the thing that feels like one thing too much right now.

My mother used to blow a loud police whistle out the back door to call us to come in--but I was raised by feral scientists in the wilds of Yellowstone Park, so I don't think you could generalize that as a regional thing. None of the neighbors' mothers did it that I recall (but it was a small govt. employee housing area in the park, and the neighbors were from all over the country and everyone kind of did their own thing in their own way). One thing I ran up against was that in the western U.S. it seems generally considered polite for a guest to offer assistance with meal preparation and set-up. ("Is there anything I can help with?" or "May I help set the table?" or whatever.) In the South, where I went to college, people looked at me oddly when I did that. After a while it dawned on me that none of the other guests ever made such an offer, and that I was expected to just sit and chat while the hostess finished her preparations, no matter how harried she looked. Offers of help made the hostesses feel like I thought they were incompetent or taking too long. :blush:

This is my seventh year homeschooling, and I am feeling very restless and unmotivated, and finding myself gazing at the green, green grass on various other sides of the fence rather more frequently and intently than usual. Does this happen to other people? Will it pass? I've got at least two more years left, and probably more like three or four, and I would hate to think I'm going to spend all of it grinning through gritted teeth and MAKING myself get the job done. It does help some that my son is becoming increasingly independent with his work at home, and is taking a couple of classes elsewhere this year, and although he is still resistant, the idea of learning no longer makes him actively violent, so that's good. And it helps even more that dh is awesomely supportive. But it still has to all be scheduled, and coordinated, and corrected, and followed up on, and updated to reflect the realities of scheduling, and blah blah blah, and high school takes more figuring out so I can explain when he gets stuck than it did when he was younger, and.... I'm tired, and there are lots and lots of days when I just don't wanna. I don't wanna do any of it. And it's not good, because there really are no other viable options with this child. There just aren't.

Such an interesting discussion...so little time...sigh. I like that story too. It also reminds me that the Word of Wisdom was given in response to Joseph inquiring of the Lord at Emma's prompting. I very much agree that it's important for the voices of the women of the church to be heard. On both (or rather all) sides of issues like this. I think they ARE heard. :lol: Ya think? :D And I'm sure you won't mind if I agitate in another direction. :) I think you are vastly oversimplifying and caricaturing the church's positions on both the ERA and *cough* polygamy. There's a great deal more to it than being anti-woman, some of it extremely pro-woman, especially for the times. I do not automatically assume that an all male leadership understands women's needs and issues either. Nor do I automatically assume that women understand men's needs and issues either. Which is why I think it's important for us to have both our own distinct support structures that meet our different needs, and an interface that connects each to the other and informs each about the other's needs and issues. Sometimes the men need to be educated about their proper role, and women can (and should) certainly help in that. (And sometimes people are given time and space to learn and grow into callings instead of just being removed at the first sign of trouble. Even bishops. Sometimes they wind up accepting the need to change, and sometimes after a time they are removed. I've had one bishop who was like that too. He was in for a couple of years while various people worked with him at different levels and in different roles to help him to better understand, but he ultimately was replaced earlier than originally intended. Dh was one of his counselors and often frustrated with the bishop because of his attitude and some of his actions (many of which he couldn't tell me much about due to confidentiality issues). Since I was his wife and well acquainted with the bishop's wife (who was part of the problem, to be honest) from a previous stint in an RS presidency together, (and because for some reason some of the women in the ward thought I was an appropriate person to whine at about it) I knew a lot more about the situation than the average ward member. I would be very much surprised if there wasn't more going on with getting that situation worked out than you may be aware of. And it may be that although the stake president "supports" him in his calling, he is also working with the bishop behind the scenes to correct matters.) If you're in a position to appropriately educate and influence such a bishop, my recommendation would be to sit down with him privately, or with him and the stake president (and the Stake RS, Primary, or YW president if you want some feminine support), and in a non-confrontational manner explain to him that his attitude toward women is interfering with your ability to fulfill your calling well. You could be specific about things he has done that were inappropriate. It might be helpful to point out to him some of the many statements published by the church regarding women in church councils, and the relationship of priesthood with women. For example, the June Ensign this year focused on the priesthood, and included quotes like these, which could be useful in such a discussion: These are from the article "Counseling Together in Marriage", which points out that the family council (husband and wife) is the basic council of the church, and that principles that apply to priesthood councils at church also apply in the home. I've bolded a few pertinent bits: "President Howard W. Hunter (1907–95) said: “A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. … The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership.”8 We are made to help each other. When we invite and accept our spouse’s participation, we can enjoy one of the great benefits of marriage. … Understanding the correct meaning of presiding is vital in conducting an effective priesthood council. Those who preside “watch over the church” (Alma 6:1) and are responsible for ensuring that unity, equal participation, and other principles of counseling are being practiced. Elder Ballard reminds us that “those who hold the priesthood must never forget that they have no right to wield priesthood authority like a club over the heads of others. … Priesthood is for service, not servitude; compassion, not compulsion; caring, not control. Those who think otherwise are operating outside the parameters of priesthood authority.”9 … The husband’s patriarchal duty as one who presides in the home is not to rule over others but to ensure that the marriage and the family prosper. President David O. McKay (1873–1970) explained that one day every man will have a personal priesthood interview with the Savior: “First, He will request an accountability report about your relationship with your wife. Have you been actively engaged in making her happy and ensuring that her needs have been met as an individual?”10 The husband is accountable for growth and happiness in his marriage, but this accountability does not give him authority over his wife. Both are in charge of the marriage. In righteous marriage councils both spouses share a set of virtues that when applied help them focus on each other. We can study some of these virtues in Doctrine and Covenants 121:41: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” We cannot use the priesthood to assert power and influence. Therefore, we can’t use unrighteous means to establish dominance in marriage. True power comes only when we work together in righteousness and so qualify for blessings from the Lord." Here's a snip from President Eyring (First Counselor in the First Presidency) from the First Presidency Message in that issue, pointing out that men should sustain female leaders in the church: "As we raise a hand to sustain a person, we commit to work for whatever purpose of the Lord that person is called to accomplish. When our children were small, my wife was called to teach the little children in our ward. I not only raised my hand to sustain her, but I also prayed for her and then asked permission to help her. The lessons I received of appreciation for what women do and of the Lord’s love for children still bless my family and my life. " There are some other good articles about the priesthood in that issue too. And I think I recall there was a good talk in a Worldwide Leadership Training meeting a couple of years ago in which the men of the church were (gently) reminded that women's contribution to ward councils is vital and it's the presiding authority's responsibility to make sure they get to have their say. 2011 maybe? I'm out of time to look it up though. Anyway, the fact that some men need to be educated about their priesthood, and about their proper relationship with women does not mean that the whole system is rotten or sexist. In my opinion.

I don't really have time to be here, I'm between digging up irises in the yard (anyone local want iris starts?) and running to the grocery store, so I'm just sneaking a peek and didn't intend to say anything, but I just had to tell you how hard that bolded bit made me laugh. I HAVE been to a high priests group meeting and you're not kidding. There's a reason people joke about the high priests falling asleep in church. I sometimes feel really bad for dh, who was not even in the church for two whole years before being made a high priest. :lol:

I would like to gently suggest that the fact that you can only think of three options does not mean that there are not other options you have not yet thought to consider. I am not convinced that Joseph Smith ordained any women to the priesthood in the sense that men are ordained to the priesthood. All references I've seen used to justify this assertion seem to me to be talking about other things, such as setting a woman apart for a calling, temple initiations and endowments, eternal marriage, and the joint exercise of priesthood by husband and wife. I do, however, believe that Joseph Smith acknowledged that women have an innate connection with the powers of heaven such as I have referred to. Women still "minister" to women regularly in many ways, and still call down the blessings of heaven for women and children (and men). That they do it differently from men, for whom there is a specific priesthood ritual to these things, does not in any way make a woman's prayers any less effective than a priesthood blessing. And I prefer the interdependence of women and men in the church over independent autonomy just as much as I prefer a healthy, respectful interdependence of myself and my husband in marriage over the independent autonomy I experienced before marriage. I think it enlivens and enriches both the men and the women and creates opportunities that otherwise would not exist. I think one aspect of this topic that has been neglected somewhat in this discussion is that priesthood is not considered, in the LDS church, to be power to dominate others, but is rather viewed as power to serve others. In fact, the scriptures specifically forbid men from exercising control, dominion, or compulsion upon ANY of the children of men, explaining that whenever a man does so he is separated from the powers of heaven and his priesthood becomes null. The only power it is appropriate for him to exert on others, should he wish to retain the power and authority of his priesthood, is that of gentle persuasion, kindness, meekness, and love. I've been in Relief Society presidencies several times at both the stake and the ward level and have never known the priesthood leaders to be anything but supportive, cooperative, and helpful with regards to anything the Relief Society wanted to do. Generally speaking (though I do understand that there are individual exceptions) the men seem to regard their role as being that of making sure as much as they are able that the Relief Society has all the resources it needs in order to achieve the women's goals. It seems that this is something that you and I view very differently, and I suspect that an internet discussion will not change either of our minds. :)

Thank you for posting your thoughts. I've been thinking about this discussion too, but have had my hands too full to participate (rainy day at the zoo yesterday--nice and cool and no crowds, just the way I like it). I agree with everything you have said in this post wholeheartedly. (I'd have quoted the whole thing, but am trying to save space. :) ) I think I'll try to add a few thoughts to the discussion myself, and hope that I won't be too clumsy in doing so today. And I think I should also include a disclaimer that this is how I, personally, view these things, it's not doctrine, and nobody has to agree with me. It rubs me a little wrong when I hear women say they want this or that to be for them exactly like it is for the men. For one thing, as has been pointed out by others, men and women are different from each other--physiologically, psychologically, and spiritually different. One is not superior to the other, they're just different. Woman is a wondrous, magnificent creation in her own right, as she is. I mean no disrespect to men, but I think it demeans a woman (and distorts manhood) to reduce herself to trailing along after men trying to pick up crumbs of what she thinks men are, or have, or do, so that she can imitate them and be more like the men are. A woman is not just some cheap copy of a man. A woman is a regal thing all her own. A man is a pretty darn cool thing too. They're just not the "same" awesome thing. Similar in many ways, yes. Imminently compatible, yes. But not "the same". Much of our society tries to convince women that in order to be equal in value to men, she must become more identical to men, and that the more like a man she is, the more value she has--as if men were the pinnacle of humankind and the yardstick by which lesser beings like women must measure themselves. I think that's hogwash. Other portions of our society want to convince us that it's the other way around--that men must be convinced, or conditioned, or coerced into becoming more like women, and that women are the ultimate ideal of humankind. I think that's equally hogwash. I love that the church recognizes the unique, intrinsic value of a woman AS a woman. I also love that the church values men as men. I love that in the church it's about cooperation, not competition between the two. (And I'm not talking about cheap 1950s stereotypes of "women's work" and "men's work either. Please nobody go there. The essence of femininity doesn't revolve around housework or handicrafts, and I think we're all grown-up enough not to pretend it does.) I'm not quite sure how to explain my views on this next bit; I'm going to try, but hope for a little patience from readers with my inadequacy at communicating my thoughts. To me, the fact that the power of women is not organized or regulated in the exact same way that the priesthood given to men is organized and regulated, does not in any way mitigate or eliminate the very real power exercised by women in the church. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The thing is, I don't see the women's organizational structures (such as the Relief Society presidencies at the various levels of the church) as being the sole expression of female power in the church. I also don't see their connection with the male priesthood as being the "source" of women's power in the church. Rather, I see the power wielded by women as a very free-form, organic thing that is theirs directly from God. It's not "the female equivalent of the priesthood", it is its own thing, in its own right, with its own qualities that are different in some ways from the power wielded by men through the priesthood, just like women are different in some ways from men. It doesn't derive its value from how nearly identical to priesthood it is any more than a woman derives her value from how nearly identical to a man she is. I view organizational structures like the Relief Society presidency as a pragmatic interface between womanhood and the priesthood. It's how efforts between the masculine power and the feminine power are coordinated. I think that some women in the church are very focused on comparing easily visible external features of feminine and masculine power in the church, such as titles and positions, and don't necessarily see, or exert, the deeper, more substantial aspects of feminine power which are more subtle, less clearly delineated, and harder to attach labels to, but which are nonetheless very, very real. In my opinion, imposing a "priesthood-like" regulatory structure on feminine power in the church would in many ways bind feminine power and make it less than it is. One of the "freedoms" I find as a woman in the church is that my ability to operate is not hampered by hierarchical structures and regulations in the same way a man's is. (Although I think the regulatory structure has a different effect on men's power, and in fact serves to empower and focus them. I just don't think it would work the same for women. Kind of like a string on a kite helps keep it aloft, but a string on a bird imprisons it. Although that analogy has flaws too, so don't look at it too closely. Analogies can be clumsy things.) I have some thoughts to share on motherhood as well, but will have to come back later for that, as I'm out of typing time at present. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. :)

Just to clarify the bolded, we believe everyone will have the OPPORTUNITY to be saved, which is one of the reasons we do temple work. Although our beliefs regarding hell do differ somewhat from the stereotypical "Christian" hell, we actually do believe in hell, in at least two senses, though we often use terms like "spirit prison" and "outer darkness" instead of just plain "hell" in order to differentiate. This quote is from an officially church-approved Bible Dictionary as part of the entry on "Hell": "In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide there until the last resurrection (D&C 76:84–85, 106), at which time they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9:10–12). Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6:28; Moro. 8:13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19:4–12, which defines eternal and endless punishment. On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain."

Good grief! Just enough truth to make the nonsense sound plausible. Yuck!

I got knocked down by a bad migraine and the after-effects of the meds (mostly just grogginess that leaves me slogging through fog for a day or so; much better than the pain, but not very conducive to clear thinking). So now I'm trying to catch up. You guys have been busy! Interesting. I tend to think it has more to do with keeping women from feeling railroaded into an "equal" obligation with the men. If it's true that reducing the age for men to 18 is intended to reduce their chances of wandering off in other directions and thereby becoming distracted from that which is their sacred duty, then it is probably also true that keeping the age for women at 19 is intended to maintain for the women the freedom that is their right as God's daughters. It is the duty of men to serve as missionaries. It is the right of women to prayerfully choose how best to use their time at that stage of their lives, preparing for a career, preparing for motherhood, working to save money for future need, whatever she and the Lord decide between them. And should she choose to assist the men in fulfilling their duty by serving a mission, that is a gift, not an obligation. It's something the woman maintains the power to grant, not something that men have the power to demand of her. As a woman in the church, and a feminist, I very much appreciate the respect and freedom extended to women in the church, and the power we have over our own lives--even beyond that given to the men. It would make me sad to see that freedom and power diminished in order to make them more identical to men. There's definitely a legitimate place for warnings about false prophets. One thing to consider, in addition to what the others have already said is this. If there were to never be any legitimate prophets again, ever, then why would Jesus not have told us this? Instead of saying, "Anyone professing to be a prophet is a liar because the days of prophets are over and there will never be another," he said, in essence, "Here's how to tell the true prophets from the false ones..." and talked about their "fruits" and so forth. Why would we need to know how to distinguish true prophets from false prophets unless there were going to be some true prophets we would need to be able to recognize? I use secular materials for the same reasons others here have said. I have not found LDS-specific materials I thought were both accurate and usable. You're kidding me! Interesting timing. :lol:

I got 32/32, although I have to confess that I waffled between Edwards and Finney.

That is a much better way of explaining what I was trying to say. Thank you. I have a headache today and I think I'm getting myself in trouble trying to explain things when my brain is not working properly. I think I'll bow out until tomorrow (or another day) when both of my brain cells are firing.

Other way 'round. It's the contents that are forbidden, not the temperature. But the forbidden contents are coffee and tea, not caffeine as such.

Yes, every analogy has its faults, and that is one of the faults of this analogy. Maybe an ambulance driver would have been a better choice as another type of vehicle with flashing lights and loud noises. But thegardener's analogy of a power of attorney is probably an even better one. I have great respect for anyone who chooses to devote his or her life to serving God according to his or her best understanding of what that means, whether in the clergy or in the laity (although I will admit to a lack of patience with TV evangelists and a certain brand of street preachers, if I am completely honest). I agree that clergy of other faiths, both Christian and non-Christian, definitely provide valuable services and do a great deal of good in the world. But I do think that their authority originates with man, and not with God, much like that of psychologists and social workers. I have no desire to disparage anybody at all, and I have great appreciation for the work they do; they help a lot of people who would otherwise go without help. And I think that God does indeed use them as instruments in His hands. (I think the same is true of psychologists, social workers, paramedics, police officers, and all others who work for the cause of goodness in the world.) But I have seen and experienced a difference, and I cannot view the clergy of other faiths as equivalent in every way to the priesthood of God as found in the LDS church. I think there is a difference between honest, good-hearted men with pure intentions who do good work motivated by their love of God (as awesome as they are, and as much as I admire them), and honest, good-hearted men who have received a true commission from God to do His work in His name, in His way, at His direction, and under His authority. Or at least...maybe not so much of a difference in the MEN, as such, but a difference in what they carry with them.

The kids in the school I went to started pairing off in 5th and 6th grade, and that was [mumble] years ago. I'm not at all surprised they're pairing off at 12 in 7th grade. But that doesn't mean I think it's healthy. I was really glad (for the most part, though occasionally I wanted a "boyfriend" just because my friends all had them and I felt left out--which is NOT a good reason to get into a relationship) in junior high that my parents had a "no dating until you're 16" rule so I could blame them for my inability to say "yes" to a boy on any level before I was ready. And I'm even more glad in retrospect because I can see that I made much better decisions about dating when I was 16, and 18, and 20 than I would have at 12, and 14, and 16. And it seemed like my friends who started "dating" at 10 or 12 were very much finished with "just" holding hands by the time they were 12 or 14, done with "just" smooching by the time they were 14 or 16, and moving on to bigger things before they graduated from high school. Some of them had to make decisions about pregnancies and marriages at very young ages, or when their "partners" were still very young. I think 16 is plenty old to get started with adult behaviors like pairing off with a member of the opposite sex. I think I would be tempted to tell your mother and sister that you are proud of how much more sensible C is than his cousin when it comes to girls, how much more self-control he exhibits, and how much more respectful he is of women and girls since he doesn't reduce them to objects to be acquired or possessed. But that's just me. The previous poster's suggestion of a calm, heart-felt conversation about the damage that's being done to the cousins' relationship by the constant comparisons would probably be a much more sensible approach.

:iagree: Right. This. I don't know the reasons either. I don't drink caffeine, partly because I think it's a reasonable extrapolation from the spirit of the Word of Wisdom (for ME), partly because I think it's good advice given by people I respect who've been around longer than I have and seen a lot more, partly because I don't want to be dependent on any substance for my mood or energy level (and honestly, if I'm that tired maybe I need to rethink my sleep habits, not push past my body's endurance artificially), and partly because it gives me a headache. Dh does the same for his own reasons. We tell our kids our reasons, and so far they've chosen to go the same route. And if someday their "rebellious" teen angst moments involve swigging gallons of Mountain Dew instead of going on drinking binges, or doing lines, or shooting up, I'm okay with that. Especially since there are alcoholics in their genes. I don't mind there being an extra boundary or two for them to cross before they get into truly dangerous territory. And I also like that even small gestures, such as choosing lemonade instead of iced tea, can become small, quiet salutes of allegiance to God, of a sort, just between Him and me (usually--sometimes an observer asks and I'm happy to explain). I like that I have regular opportunities to demonstrate to Him, and to myself, that my relationship with Him is still more important to me than a cup of coffee, or than fitting in at the office, or being one of the 'cool kids'.

Yeah...um....ds is an Aspie and this has been a quest of mine for the past 15 years. Great progress has been made (he discovered that the kid on the other side of the kid next to him in seminary this semester is the same kid he threw a chair at in kindergarten, and was glad to have the chance to apologize). But although we're mostly non-violent these days, I don't think we're yet to the point where most "normal" kids are with regards to space sharing. We have to do our social things in small doses with him. Dd, on the other hand, is an attention HOUND and needs to learn to sometimes give people a little space. It makes for interesting sibling dynamics.

One thing that might be helpful to understand is that in the LDS church there are different level of...I dunno..."expectation", or "obligation", maybe, for lack of a better word. (And this is a bit of a simplification.) There are things that are doctrine, that are considered to be revealed from God, an are hard and fast rules with divine authority. They don't change. There are no exceptions. This is just how it is. Period. Going against God's rules is a sin. There are things that are church policy. These are rules too, mostly administrative and procedural--the way the church as a whole applies doctrine and puts it into action. So church "doctrine" tells us to care for the poor, whereas the way the church welfare system functions is a matter of church "policy". There are generally administrative procedures for handling breaches of policy. Then there are "recommendations". These are things that relate to doctrine sort of tangentially; they're extrapolated from doctrine, and are generally wise advice, but they're not really "binding", as such. Just because advice is GOOD advice doesn't mean you're going to be penalized in any way for not taking the advice. Then there's cultural expectation. This is stuff that sort of grows organically amongst the members of the church and doesn't necessarily have much of anything to do with church doctrine or policy. This includes "but that's how it's always been done" kinds of things. And these things can vary quite a lot from one area to another. For example, in Hawaii it's customary for a speaker in church to greet the congregation with "Aloha" before speaking, and for the congregation to respond with, "Aloha". In other parts of the church you don't see this much, and it can be a little startling to some people when someone does it. And then there's individual interpretation and application, which is one person's opinion as to how a specific doctrine in their own, specific, individual circumstances. So here's the deal with caffeine. There's this document we call "The Word of Wisdom" that we believe to be revelation from God. (It's included in our book of scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants, as section 89.) Technically, what's written there is what is actual LDS doctrine about things to eat or not, and it's a good idea, as a member of the church, to go to the source and read it for yourself instead of just listening to other people's opinions about what it says. There's a phrase in there that refers to "hot drinks", and shortly after the revelation was received, there was clarification from authoritative sources that "hot drinks" in this context refers specifically to coffee and tea (that is, the tea plant, from which the various different kinds of actual tea are made; not the process of steeping any random herb in hot water). The revelation itself says it is given as a statement of the will of God for his people specifically at this time in history, and was not given as a "commandment", as such. However, it also says that it is adapted to the capacity of the weakest, and although there was no enforcement, for a while, of the counsel given in this revelation, it was later decided that if we, as a church, want to live in harmony with God's expressed will, and this wise advice from God was adapted to the "weakest" among us, then maybe we ought to get more serious about it. A proposal was made in a general conference that the members of the church should commit to abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, and the church membership voted to make that commitment. So now it is a matter of church policy that compliance with those minimum requirements is expected of church members in order to be considered in good standing with the church. Church policy has also come to include abstinence from illegal narcotics and prescription drug abuse. The general "spirit" of the Word of Wisdom is the idea that we should not ingest things that interfere with our mental function with their addictive qualities, or that harm our bodies, or otherwise negatively affect our physical and spiritual well-being, and that we should eat foods that help us maintain good health and mental and spiritual clarity. A number of our leaders have suggested that instead of just nit-picking the letter of the law, we should also take into consideration the spirit of the law, and they therefore RECOMMEND that we abstain from caffeine (which is one of the major active chemicals in both coffee and tea) in other forms as well. This is not a doctrine, or a policy, and as far as I've ever heard it never has been. It has been a "recommendation" for a long time, though. But it has never been a policy of the church that you have to abstain from all caffeine consumption in order to be considered in good standing with the church. Cultural expectations shift from one group to another. In some areas or wards people who drink caffeinated beverages are looked down upon somewhat as violating the spirit of the Word of Wisdom against the recommendations of church leaders. In other areas, people who DON'T drink caffeinated beverages are looked down upon as overly persnickety fanatics. As far as the church is concerned, though, it's something you have to pray about and make up your own mind, and do what you think is right, because it's not specifically mentioned one way or another in the actual revelation. And we really shouldn't be judging each other over it, so people on both sides of the caffeine snobbery who look down on others for the choices they make in that regard are in error. That same "make up your own mind" thing also applies to things like herbal tea. They're not "tea", and aren't considered to fall under the "hot drinks" prohibition; in fact, the Word of Wisdom specifies that many herbs are good for the use of man, and it doesn't specify methods of preparation. It's not the temperature of the coffee and tea that's the "problem", it's the substances themselves, just like with tobacco and alcohol. But for some people an herbal tea might also be a problem. My dh avoids them because before he was LDS he enjoyed tea, and he feels like herbal teas are too much of a slippery slope for him. I mostly avoid them too, just because I don't want to cause him problems, but I do sometimes have a nice cup of steeped peppermint when I have a cold. And the Word of Wisdom says nothing one way or another about chocolate, hot or otherwise. The church has no policy or recommendation against the ingestion of chocolate. But there are individuals who feel that for them chocolate is a violation of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom, and they choose to abstain. At least I've heard of them. I'm not sure I've actually met any. ETA: And then there are those who go REALLY overboard (in my opinion) and start trying to tell people that your soup has to be below a certain temperature, or that you must never eat refined sugar, or white flour, or yada yada yada...which is fine as long as they understand that that is THEIR personal interpretation and doesn't apply to everyone else. They can get in a little trouble if they try to insist on teaching it as church doctrine, but you might run into individual people who are pretty convinced their way is the only "right" way. HTH :)

Proper authority is important in the LDS church. As an analogy, an ice cream truck and a police car both have flashing lights and make loud noises--they have some similar external characteristics. However, a traffic ticket issued by a police officer is legally binding because the police officer has been given authority to act on behalf of the state, whereas a traffic ticket issued by an ice cream vendor has no value and is not binding on the person it's issued to because the ice cream vendor is not a duly authorized officer of the state. He may even have a state-issued business license or vendor's permit, and he may even have received an award for being the top ice cream salesperson in his company, but that still doesn't make his traffic tickets binding. Similarly, only baptisms performed by people with genuine authority from God are valid baptisms. Having a degree from a university, or a license from the state is not sufficient. And being given authority by a group of men who have good intentions, but who do not themselves have legitimate authority from God to act on His behalf is also not the same thing, even if there's a solemn ordination ceremony. That would be like a group of ice cream vendors getting together and discussing the speeding problem in their neighborhood and selecting one of their number to go give out speeding tickets. The authority comes from the wrong source, and is not legally binding. Does that help at all, or just muddy the waters more?