But how do they track me? How do they know where I moved? Especially when I went to a new country. I never told the.m.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts
- Thread starter ronito
- Start date
But how do they track me? How do they know where I moved? Especially when I went to a new country. I never told the.m.
No Mormon neighbors or friends in your old neighborhood knew where you were moving? None of your new neighbors are mormon? It only takes one mentioning it to a bishop who forwards or requests your membership records.
Lol. If I cared about such things I'd be rid of it tomorrow.
I guess it's possible. But considering the country change, not many people know my address.
ronitoswife
Neo Member
Do you still have family that are active members? I remember getting phone calls at my parents house looking for me or another family member. It could be a family member sending your new address to the bishop in that area.
Hey Gents,
The wife and I were talking about CES today and even when I was a teenager I stood all amazed at the Seminary system and just the amount of money it must take in Utah where they have to get a building close to a school plus full time teachers and all that. I personally think that if everyone else can do with early morning seminary why not just make it standard and save literally millions. How is the seminary system in Utah now? Is it as big as it ever was? Are more schools going the early morning route instead of doing the release time?
I get the investments the church makes in Institutes. Those are good to prime people for church leadership and membership. And the religion depts at all the BYUs is a "well duh" investment.
But how is the seminary system doing out there? Is it growing? Shrinking?
The wife and I were talking about CES today and even when I was a teenager I stood all amazed at the Seminary system and just the amount of money it must take in Utah where they have to get a building close to a school plus full time teachers and all that. I personally think that if everyone else can do with early morning seminary why not just make it standard and save literally millions. How is the seminary system in Utah now? Is it as big as it ever was? Are more schools going the early morning route instead of doing the release time?
I get the investments the church makes in Institutes. Those are good to prime people for church leadership and membership. And the religion depts at all the BYUs is a "well duh" investment.
But how is the seminary system doing out there? Is it growing? Shrinking?
Laurentius
Member
I graduated in '07, and it was still huge and pretty much all release time. As far as I know, it still is, as my sister is currently in seminary and it seems to be the same deal as when I was there.
Man just the cost must be staggering.
On another note. I have to say I really hate cafeteria mormons. I hope I was never like that. And if I ever was I apologize. Severely.
This strikes me as a weird attitude to have. By promoting a strict orthodoxy, you're also promoting an easier position for the church to be attacked. If, on the other hand, members do have more leeway in their religious interpretation, then the relationship between church organization and church membership is made weaker and indicates a healthier spiritual environment overall.
Of course, you're also out now, and I'd argue that people who demand more from the church are more likely to be motivated to formally break from it. Members of strong faith are those who leave. Members of weak faith have an easier time reconciling matters or, failing that, just stop caring.
Edit: By this I mean faith in the church, not faith in God.
As someone who suffered through early-morning Seminary in Michigan where the only thing that mattered was 80 percent attendance (yay for sitting in the back and sleeping), is it different for release time Seminary? Do you actually have quizzes and stuff?
Well it's an old hat for me to complain about this. But whenever I see stuff like Ask Mormon Girl spouting stuff like "The mormon church is very accepting of LGBT people and their lifestyle." I'm like "No it's not, it's never been and no amount of writing is going to change that." Or people that are like "The Book of Mormon is just inspired fiction." No. It's not. The church has never taught that. I don't know why it just pisses me off. If you're going to be mormon be Mormon damn it. Not your namby pamby interpretation of what makes you feel good.
At least for me yeah there were quizzes and tests and all that. They even sent grades home to parents. I don't get early morning seminary much either. After school seminary I totally get. Bi-weekly night seminary I get. But ain't no one spiritual at 6am. And if they are that's the sleep talking.
Speaking as an ex missionary AND an ex Mormon. I guarantee you that most missionaries stay out of "rich" neighborhoods. The people that live there tend to be content and happy with their lives. We would usually stick to the poor neighborhoods because we had better success in low income areas. It's not hard to understand why.
Laurentius
Member
On the one hand, I agree with the sentiment when it comes to someone explicitly saying something ABOUT the church that's just not true. (e.g., your LGBT example.) However, I'm all for member's of the church itself decided what they do and don't want to believe or agree with the church on. Not everyone is in a position where they can just up and leave the church (teenagers, people with spouses/kids in a situation that would make it difficult, etc), and decided what they want to take from the religion and what they want to leave could be good for them, in my opinion.
Saying "The mormon church is very accepting of LGBT people and their lifestyle" is wrong. However, I have nothing against this approach: "The Mormon church has often been discriminatory towards LGTB people. I'm a Mormon, but I disagree with what the church has done in those regards."
The church wants it to be all or nothing, but I don't think that's how it should be. At least if we ever expect things to improve from within the church.
Well, I can say that was false for a lot of people I know. That was your experience...
I didn't grab a copy, but the church just gave the youth a new pamphlet about accepting and helping people who have gender identity issues and for people who are homosexual. I think it's called "God Loves all His Children," or something very close to that. Our bishop was handing them out on Sunday to the young men, and he said that it was something that needed to be taken very seriously and that there would be a lot more discussion about being supportive towards all of God's children. It was pretty straightforward.
So, I honestly detest that in Utah and here in Idaho Seminary teacher is a job. I don't know why, but I do. Like, I had to make do with early morning seminary, and Seminary was like any other teaching position: you weren't paid for it and it made me respect my teachers because they, like me, got up at that ungodly hour and trucked through it anyway.
To be perfectly honest, I don't feel that I ever paid attention in Seminary. But I still had a functional understanding of the Standard Works by the time I hit the Mission field and I was able to build on that into a better understanding as I studied constantly. Really, on my mission I devoured the scriptures. I loved study time.
As to the other topic of discussion, I don't ever hear anyone calling the BoM a piece of inspired fiction, and a testimony of it is still listed as a basic tenet of the faith. However, we have had some CRAAAZY things said here at BYUI these past few days, and its made me think.
The way you deliver a message has a significant impact on the way the message is received. Obviously other elements factor in, but delivery is undeniably important. For instance, one of my roommates is a recent convert, and while he's managed to take plural marriage in stride, he was understandably upset when his Book of Mormon teacher rattled off about how any man who doesn't have more than one wife come Judgment Day is sinning. Likewise, a former mission companion of mine was rather confused when his teacher claimed that in the Millenium we will all be living under the US constitution (at which point we discussed in another classroom that the story about the constitution is apocrypha, etcetera).
Meanwhile, in my New Testament class, our teacher told us, point blank, that there were women who had themselves sealed to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young after both were dead. Now lemme tell you, I thought I'd been around the block once or twice with weird Church history stuff, but I still blinked at that. But ultimately, that was the whole of my reaction "Huh. Well, that's weird. Oh well." I mean, there isn't a huge amount I can do about that, and that is crazy as all heck, yeah, but my teacher's delivery was entirely nonchalant, honest, and his explanation seemed logical: that we did not and do not understand all aspects of the Gospel personally. He had some quote to go with it about "Exalting Doctrines without exalted understanding" but the gist is the same: that we don't always know everything and some things have to get sorted along the way.
But it was, again, his delivery that really had the deciding effect in my reaction. I suppose, had I been more disposed to question things already I would've reacted differently as well, but because he did nothing to sensationalize or cover up the fact, but told it to us straightforward and nonchalantly, my own reaction was likewise calm. Or rather, because he treated it as no great thing, I myself felt no reason to do so.
This is just an interesting observation I made during New Testament class. Which, by the way, is very interesting. I wish we could learn more about Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon, because the archaeological and historical aspects of learning about the New Testament make its study that much more fascinating. Putting the sometimes oddball sayings into the context of "You see the Pharisees had a reputation of ____" really makes the whole thing much better. And we have a delightful elderly South African man in the class, and it probably is just his accent, but he always seems to have some really good insights to passages we've read that I never do, and his accent demands attention, which really makes for a great atmosphere in the classroom.
In other news, I suppose, FHE is . . . interesting this semester. We've only actually had it once so far, and it was a little awkward, either because we were at the Bishop's house or no one really knew anyone. Either way, it was just a little odd, haha. We'll see how things go from here. Got my home teaching route on Sunday but my companion wasn't at Church so no dice there, yet. And my roommates seem pretty chill. One of them, and judge me for this if you must, is African American and he is like, the coolest guy in the apartment. It helps he's the only other RM so he's more mature than these pre-mis I've got, but yeah, he's one cool guy. We have a lot of cool discussions about stuff.
Also, Campus is beautiful when covered in snow, even if it IS dangerous as all heck. It also makes up for the fact that the Temple Grounds are disappointingly empty.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Am I the only one who sees a huge fallacy in the logic behind the way LGBT members are treated? Sexual sin is considered second to murder, therefore homosexual behavior is considered to be an egregious sin. The interview questions for serving a mission (at least when I went) specifically asked about any homosexual behavior. As society has realized that this belief is bullshit, the church is now caught in a catch 22: keep up with the times and have to go back on old "doctrine," or cling to the old beliefs and risk looking like the antiquated entity that it is and continue to bleed members.
So the compromise: "same sex attraction" is now an accepted part of the human condition, however acting upon it is where the line is drawn.
I call bullshit. If we go back to the "levels of sin," the next level is murder. So let's take somebody who struggles with the desire to kill continuously. If they confess that they always want to kill people and struggle with it mightily, is the church going to say this person is normal and should be allowed into the congregation, so long as they don't kill anyone? Hell no. They'd (perhaps) want to help that person resolve that internal problem and eliminate the desire completely, for the safety of everyone around them. A continual desire to commit an egregious sin shouldn't be normal, otherwise the sin wouldn't be considered egregious, it would be common place.
This is why I find the church's current deceptive attitude toward homosexuality so outrageous. Telling someone they can be a part of the church as long as they aren't who they are is vile to me. It's so despicable to tell someone that it's OK, we understand it's not your fault for the way you feel as a human being, but we just need you to accept that you aren't normal. They basically tell you that yes, you can be a gay Mormon as long as you're not a gay Mormon.
They don't want gay members. They don't want people tempted to do things they find icky among their ranks. Just like they (rightfully) wouldn't want a person struggling with the desire to kill someone sitting in sacrament meeting. To try to sugar coat it with cute PR which is deceptive, and the extent at which it's been lapped up by the loyal members, is pretty low.
So the compromise: "same sex attraction" is now an accepted part of the human condition, however acting upon it is where the line is drawn.
I call bullshit. If we go back to the "levels of sin," the next level is murder. So let's take somebody who struggles with the desire to kill continuously. If they confess that they always want to kill people and struggle with it mightily, is the church going to say this person is normal and should be allowed into the congregation, so long as they don't kill anyone? Hell no. They'd (perhaps) want to help that person resolve that internal problem and eliminate the desire completely, for the safety of everyone around them. A continual desire to commit an egregious sin shouldn't be normal, otherwise the sin wouldn't be considered egregious, it would be common place.
This is why I find the church's current deceptive attitude toward homosexuality so outrageous. Telling someone they can be a part of the church as long as they aren't who they are is vile to me. It's so despicable to tell someone that it's OK, we understand it's not your fault for the way you feel as a human being, but we just need you to accept that you aren't normal. They basically tell you that yes, you can be a gay Mormon as long as you're not a gay Mormon.
They don't want gay members. They don't want people tempted to do things they find icky among their ranks. Just like they (rightfully) wouldn't want a person struggling with the desire to kill someone sitting in sacrament meeting. To try to sugar coat it with cute PR which is deceptive, and the extent at which it's been lapped up by the loyal members, is pretty low.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I don't see any issue with the church regarding the behavior that way, while still accepting non-practicing homosexuals. In fact, if they ever went to a belief structure that accepted and performed temple marriages for gays, I would tender my resignation, so to speak. It doesn't jive with the message of an eternal family with infinite progeny. It is the same with heterosexuals who never marry, but still follow the laws of chastity. It doesn't matter who you are attracted to, at the end of the day, if you don't break the laws of chastity, then you aren't sinning.
This differs from my own secular beliefs, of course. I believe that all marriages should be recognized or none should be. Straights and gays should not receive different treatment under the law.
This differs from my own secular beliefs, of course. I believe that all marriages should be recognized or none should be. Straights and gays should not receive different treatment under the law.
Congratulations Fathead!!! Make sure and snap a shot of him. I'm the 4th child so mom and dad didn't do things like that for me so I had no cool baptismal photos to share around on my Mission. Just memories of things like my siblings giving talks, and that I got a picture of Jesus and a Book of Mormon. Which worked, since I've since come to really love the Book of Mormon, but I didn't read it much as a kid, haha.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
I understand the reasoning, I just don't think it makes sense. I feel bad for anyone who does think it makes sense and lives their whole life without ever having a sexual experience with someone they love because another person convinced them that it was wrong. Just like it was "wrong" for mixed race couples to exist not too long ago.
Eventually I'm sure the church will retcon away the anti-gay thing...I just feel bad for people still caught in the conflict of their religion vs. their innate desires.
EDIT
If you want more evidence of retconning: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/09/no-more-strangers?lang=eng
CTRL+F "priesthood"
0 results
CTRL+F "marriage"
0 results
CTRL + F "white and delightsome"
hahah just kidding.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I just don't know how they would do it without severely leveraging the doctrine of eternal families...My faith in the church would be zapped if it happened. Meanwhile, hopefully gays get marital rights throughout the country within the next decade or so... The south, I am sure, will be the most dug in against it, but even they will fall eventually.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
It won't come all at once, bit by bit the old ways will be chipped away, until sufficient time has passed and nobody thinks it's weird that a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman. The ground work for this is happening right now (mormonsandgays.org). Eventually old documents like "A Proclamation to the World" can be written off as "the opinion of imperfect men" and not of a prophet, like the Journal of Discourses is. Then a revelation will happen which will allow any consenting adult to marry whomever they please, and it will be heralded as evidence of the living gospel, of a living prophet and a living church.
Eventually they may even be allowed to have kids. Hell I can imagine Sunday school eventually teaching that orphans and kids born to teenagers given up for adoption are sent on special missions here to give gay members the opportunity to have children. Isn't that sweet?
Considering the 180s the church has pulled in the past in response to social change, I wouldn't doubt any of this occurring in the next 30 years.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The church could do a few things concerning gays, that I wouldn't see as a complete about face. Like, perhaps full fellowship (outside of the temple?) for gays who are married in states where gay marriage is legalized. I could see that in the next 30 years, but a temple sealing between gays is not something I could accept doctrinally, nor necessarily see happening any time soon.
Nice! We are blessing ours first week of March. congrats dude.
Congrats, congrats, congrats!
Thaed. I'll be back later.
So while I get that a lot of you aren't crazy on the Church's stance on homosexuality, I appreciate it because there are a lot of people in the Church who REALLY need to repent of their opinions regarding gays. Like, I know someone who was bragging about how if gays went into his town, they'd be dead, and I was like "Wow, that's awful, why would you be happy about people dying?" Granted he's 18 and has a LOT of growing up to do and I wasn't very mature about these things at his age either, but its stuff like that, or someone else I know who was saying he didn't want gays in Scouting because you couldn't trust them with boys (to which he was, I am glad to say, quickly instructed by a fair amount of the class that homosexuality does NOT equate to pedophilia).
But I mean, people in the Church have some archaic and downright wrong views of homosexuality, even when you define right and wrong views of things through the Church lens. It's distressing to see as someone who has a great deal of optimism for the Church's improvement in the future, and that's why I appreciate the Church being forward about its stance, however at odds that stance might seem with others. Because whatever the case externally, there are a lot of members in the Church who need to hear the Church say this, so they can get their brains about them.
I dunno if this makes sense to anybody else or not, and it likely is so full of logical holes it's a joke to read, but to me, this is why I appreciate the Church telling people this.
But I mean, people in the Church have some archaic and downright wrong views of homosexuality, even when you define right and wrong views of things through the Church lens. It's distressing to see as someone who has a great deal of optimism for the Church's improvement in the future, and that's why I appreciate the Church being forward about its stance, however at odds that stance might seem with others. Because whatever the case externally, there are a lot of members in the Church who need to hear the Church say this, so they can get their brains about them.
I dunno if this makes sense to anybody else or not, and it likely is so full of logical holes it's a joke to read, but to me, this is why I appreciate the Church telling people this.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
I know what you mean. Even when I was a TBM and believed that homosexuality was "wrong," I still felt it was terrible of people to start calling them names or talk about beating them up, etc. I believe the actual membership is moving much faster toward acceptance than the leadership.
Sometimes I come across as somewhat hostile or harsh because I try to cut out the BS and get to the point of things, but I do have a lot of respect for the LDS members that are actively working to change things from the inside. It takes a lot of courage to do someting like that when there's so much pressure to bend to the "norm."
Oh, well, no hard feelings here. I fully appreciate the frustration of seeing an organization move at glacial pace. For the record though, I fall on Altered Beast's side of this. I don't expect, at least in my life-time, to see the Church rescind fully its stance on homosexuality. And I don't expect it because 1)It conflicts too much with the central marriage doctrine of the Church and 2)there are too many scriptures standing in its way. A problem I do not consider as easily, shall we for the sake of offending neither party, "worked around" as other issues in Church history, principally the ban on blacks holding the Priesthood.
Also, I really need to consider starting a swear jar. This thread has so many people in it who don't swear and it's made me desperately want to cut that out of my life, but MAN, sometimes I just RRRRRGH, y'know? Like just a minute ago when my very beloved totally not annoying and completely doesn't remind me of myself at his age roommate cut the power to my room.
Sometimes it's just hard not to let one out, and I need to drop that. No need for a man of my age to behave with such childish comportment.
Oh and I learned this semester what NCMO means! Possibly the most high school thing I've ever heard.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Yeah, I never heard of it until I went to school in Utah. WTF those people are strange...
I should note that my uncle is an Apostle... I am getting ready to send him an email about questions I have about the WoW. If there is anything you guys truly want to know, I could put it in there.
Words aren't magic. Saying "hell" or "damn" aren't any different from saying "heck" or "darn", and it serves a function that other words do not.
Of course, one should be polite, but there isn't much to consider beyond that.
Laurentius
Member
That's cool, I have a few questions about the WoW.
Verse 2:
When and why was the WoW of wisdom changed specifically to be a commandment? Because the scripture says that it was given not by commandment. Because the church very clearly treats it as a commandment these days. Whereas in the early days of the church it wasn't considered a factor in "worthiness".
Verse 9:
I've always been confused by this. If it was specifically talking about only coffee and green and black tea, why did it not say that? And for the record, are herbal teas against the Word of Wisdom? Most Mormon's seem to think they are fine, but I've never seen any church position indicating either way. "Hot drinks" seems to be a purposefully broad term, and doesn't seem to jive with what members of the church believe today.
Mild barley drinks during Joseph Smith's time were beer...does this mean that barley based, mild beer during that time was okay, but that has since changed? If so, why has there not been a revelation changing those scriptures? Because as far as I can tell, this is a endorsement of drinking mild beer, as long as its barley based.
Anyway, those are just a few of the things that confuse me, if you're comfortable asking any of them.
Interpretations change.
http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=12&disc=47
On one hand, barley water exists, but on the other, Joseph Smith drank wine until the day he died.
Our modern ability to keep drinks refrigerated doesn't mesh with older realities of alcoholic beverages being a reliable source of something safe to drink and something that could be stored. The ancient Greeks even used to dilute theirs when consuming it.
Hrmmm....questions about the WoW I guess it comes down to interpretation:
- Why is the "moderation" bit of meat largely ignored now? Spencer w. Kimball had no problem castigating the membership for eating too much meat. This has stopped while attitudes about alcohol and tobacco have grown stricter. why?
- What's the view on medical marijuana. My ex's mom had breast cancer and the doctor told her that marijuana would not only dull the pain it would also help generate hunger which she needed. He husband refused to let her get any because it was against the WoW. What is the church's stance on this?
- Why is wine excluded under the WoW? Both Jesus and Joseph Smith drank wine. And it also has proven health benefits. Is it a baby and bathwater thing? I knew a bishop that had a heart attack and his doctor told him to drink a glass of wine with dinner to help his heart. So he did. He kept it secret from the membership. But shouldn't this be allowed?
- It has been said that mormons focus so much on the WoW and keeping it that they're viewed akin to "rabbinic jews" that make their religion their rules instead of the reasons are secondary. Does the church buy into this criticism? What, if anything, is the church doing to combat this?
- Why is the "moderation" bit of meat largely ignored now? Spencer w. Kimball had no problem castigating the membership for eating too much meat. This has stopped while attitudes about alcohol and tobacco have grown stricter. why?
- What's the view on medical marijuana. My ex's mom had breast cancer and the doctor told her that marijuana would not only dull the pain it would also help generate hunger which she needed. He husband refused to let her get any because it was against the WoW. What is the church's stance on this?
- Why is wine excluded under the WoW? Both Jesus and Joseph Smith drank wine. And it also has proven health benefits. Is it a baby and bathwater thing? I knew a bishop that had a heart attack and his doctor told him to drink a glass of wine with dinner to help his heart. So he did. He kept it secret from the membership. But shouldn't this be allowed?
- It has been said that mormons focus so much on the WoW and keeping it that they're viewed akin to "rabbinic jews" that make their religion their rules instead of the reasons are secondary. Does the church buy into this criticism? What, if anything, is the church doing to combat this?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I will pass some of these questions on. Some of my own questions are similar to these. I have a problem with the lack of specificity within the church. Kids these days think things like green tea, white tea, and red tea are all fine when in reality they are all derived from the same plant. Are these things ok and just black tea is precluded?
Then about coffee-flavoring. Are things like coffee-flavored ice cream ok? I have seen bishops eat the stuff and scratch my head, since I avoid any and all coffee related items. Dishes made with wine or sherry? What is the deal with the church not putting more emphasis on cutting meat from our diets? Etc.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I have seen a lot of mormons eating derivative stuff. The one time I accidentally drank coffee, it was vile as all hell. Don't know why anybody would like it, outside of some innate desire to rebel against nothing.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Acquired taste. The first time I tried drip coffee I almost spit it back out, even full of cream and sugar. But then I started drinking iced mochas in lieu of energy drinks, then worked toward black coffee, darker roasts, etc. Same thing with starting with light beers, then working my way toward darker and more bitter beer. Even light beer tasted horrible at first. But once a taste is acquired, a whole new world is opened to you. I love trying different adult beverages now. A nice bottle of scotch = heaven.
I would also attribute my new found love of stuff like broccoli and other veggies to acquiring the taste for dark coffee and beer. I don't drink soda or eat sweets nearly as often as I used to. Overall I'd say I'm a much healthier person (dropped like 80 pounds after going exmo)
I would also attribute my new found love of stuff like broccoli and other veggies to acquiring the taste for dark coffee and beer. I don't drink soda or eat sweets nearly as often as I used to. Overall I'd say I'm a much healthier person (dropped like 80 pounds after going exmo)
I dunno. I don't mean to disagree and say "I think words are magic" but I DO think that words are a very powerful tool to be used with good sense. A well placed expletive can be intelligently timed for great effect, but I think that expletives, like phrases, lose their worth in conversation when overemployed, and I could stand to underemploy cussing in my life.
But in particular, I think I've blurred my boundaries of when it is the right time and place for a swear, and that is what I need to work on. I'm a big fan of self-control, and I'm sorely lacking in a few areas these days.
BUT IT SMELLS DELICIOUS. This is the curse of growing up in the PNW and then serving in SA. COFFEE ERRYWURR. Seriously, there was this coffee substitute and I mainlined it on my mission. Could not get enough of it with milk. It was, incidentally, the only way milk tasted any good there.
BAGGED AND BOXED MILK IS NOT RIGHT.
Today we had a very good discussion in one of my classes about gays in the BSA. I consider it to be a good chance for the Church to pick up some positive PR in light of Prop 8, but beyond that, I really am just in favor of letting gays into the BSA. Like, I dunno. I see theologically why the Church takes its stance, but the BSA is not the Church, nor is the US Government, and it's been my experience that gay people, like other people can be awesome or awful. On my mission some of the most meaningful acts of kindness or charity were rendered by people who were gay. I knew kids in High School who were gay and I wish I had been more mature in my understanding them, but the fact is they were just people like me. It's high time the BSA extended its benefits to gays. I like the BSA and I want it to do well, but man, there just are some things it does that I don't abide, and this is one of 'em.
The BSA debate has also allowed in some of my classes for a more open discussion of the overall issue of gays and the Church, and I, at least, am quite happy to see that many within the Church are of a sound mind when it comes to discussing this issue.
2nd Edit: I'm torn on whether or not I'm happy Ronito is back to his catvatar. It's more recognizable, but has the unfortunate side-effect of making me think every poster with an orange cat is Ronito.
The whole "grains are good, meat is bad" model is proving to be less than it's cracked up to be these days.
Also, coffee grounds are a powerful air freshener. It's a piercing smell that overpowers everything else, but manages to be pleasant while doing so. This can be extremely useful in certain situations.
What kind did you get? Coffee can vary wildly in quality both in materials and preparation. Some kinds may also just agree with you more than others. It's not like cola where the differences are more subtle.
Also, coffee grounds are a powerful air freshener. It's a piercing smell that overpowers everything else, but manages to be pleasant while doing so. This can be extremely useful in certain situations.
Gimme a break.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
No sir, I don't like it. Coffee isn't for me. I'll admit I like a good mocha but I always have to have double the chocolate to mask the taste. But by then I might as well have a hot chocolate. But I'm there with you guys on the smell. It really is wonderful.
As for beer. I'm more of a wine guy. I have some beers that I like (Blitzen, Shocktops, Shinerbock) but it's only something I do when socially.
I will say though Rum has found a special place in my heart. Last year I tried to find drinks I tried a new drink every business dinner. But in the end it's just coke and rum. Nothing special or fancy.
As for beer. I'm more of a wine guy. I have some beers that I like (Blitzen, Shocktops, Shinerbock) but it's only something I do when socially.
I will say though Rum has found a special place in my heart. Last year I tried to find drinks I tried a new drink every business dinner. But in the end it's just coke and rum. Nothing special or fancy.
Have you seen the kinds of ties guys wear to Church? Baptism kills your ability to lay claim to taste indefinitely.
ALSO: UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHH WHY ARE FHE SISTERS ALWAYS SO LAME?
"Let's do Capture the Flag!"
"Nooooo"
"Let's go to the trampoline park!"
"Nooooooo"
"Let's do physical activity of any variety!"
"Nooooooo"
"What do you want to do?"
"Let's do art night and make valentines for the missionaries!"
"WE LIVE IN REXBURG. WHAT MISSIONARIES?"
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH
These are the days we'll look back on fondly or something. Also our not-to-their-faces response was "Ok you go and make valentines, we're gonna go play some daggum capture the flag."
Similar threads
- Poll