Quote 17 Nov 100 notes
Researchers at Brigham Young University are studying ways to prevent urine ‘splashback’ when men use the toilet. ‘Hurry up!’ said men in khakis.
— 

SETH MEYERS, Weekend Update (via inothernews)

awwww my alma mater doing good
?

Text 22 Jul

sihipop asked: Hi! Thanks for the reply. All of the very few Mormons I know are liberal and almost leftist, and they naturally knew about this stuff. However, since Mormons are the most conservative religious group in America (and even your average American is conservative from my POV), I'm willing to bet my sample is crooked. So I really have a strange view of LDS. Perhaps the Mormons outside of USA know less about this, as it's likely not something they advertise to converts?

I’m a liberal, as well. A lot of my friends are conservative and they know about the supposed “shocking info” from the NYT article.
I’ve been to a few countries outside of the US and have been amongst members in those areas. Politically church members are much more liberal in other countries. But, like you said, the US is a fairly conservative country. Since there are more members outside the US than in, the church members tend to be more liberal overall. (Talk about irony.)

Really what I think knowing/not knowing about the stuff from the NYT article depends on the curiosity of the person. I served a mission and would answer any question, I didn’t shy away from things. Our focus was generally on the basics of faith and the like. But I people in being open about all things, which has actually strengthened by faith in God.
I don’t know the man in the NYT article, but I don’t get how he couldn’thave known about all of these things. Seriously, some of them I knew about by the time I was 13 or 14. Blacks and the priesthood debacle pissed me off as a child.

I have no delusions about the whole story getting out in a relatively short online article, but my friends and I have had 15 minute conversations about these issues in our lives that have had more depth. It’s such a complex issue for us. We have a deep belief in God and his gospel, yet see the difficulties in our church’s history.
To be honest, any honest member of any religion, political party, etc., should have doubts and questions.

Link 22 Jul 962 notes Cool Shit Pau Finds Cool: maxistentialist: New York Times: In the small but cohesive Mormon...»

maxistentialist:

New York Times:

In the small but cohesive Mormon community where he grew up, Hans Mattsson was a solid believer and a pillar of the church. He followed his father and grandfather into church leadership and finally became an “area authority” overseeing the Church of…

I grew up in the Mormon bubble in Utah County, Utah. I’m now 34 and I knew about all of those things in the NYT article. None of the things listed were “taboo” subjects when I was growing up. Any belief system is going to have its problems. Any system is going to have its problems.
I have questions; I have doubts. Sometimes I struggle with aspects that I don’t understand or disagree with. At times it can be really hard for me.
But I’ve known about all of these things since my youth. My siblings know about them. My friends know about them. Members in various congregations I’ve been in know about them. In fact, in my circle of Mormons, the number of people that know about these things dwarfs the number of people that don’t know about one or all. All of us are trying to understand for ourselves how these aspects play a part of our religious history.
So, yeah, that NYT article didn’t really give a correct portrayal of Mormons with questions as a whole.

via Whoop!.
Video 17 Jun 233 notes

projectunbreakable:

Submissions from projectunbreakablesubmissions@gmail.com.

Perhaps the most important tumblr project of all time.

Video 19 Dec 269,491 notes

bloud:

ALL OF THE FEELS.

via B.Mac.Loud.
Video 6 Dec 149 notes

nprfreshair:

An awesome Tiny Desk concert with Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. The second song is my jam today. - Nell

 via @nprmusic

Video 5 Dec 12,988 notes

theladyeve:

Clue (1985)

(Source: barbarastanwyck)

Photo 21 Nov 26 notes
Photo 25 Sep 15 notes
Link 9 Sep 139 notes How Mitt Dodged the Draft»
I’m a die-hard Obama supporter, money donated and everything. I’m also a Mormon that served a mission for my church about 12 years ago.
First, it’s not required AT ALL. It’s something that a young adult decides on their own to do. Only 25-30% of the youth in our church serve mission.
Second, I don’t think Mitt served a mission to get out of the draft. You can tell that he feels deeply about his faith. He volunteered for the mission that he served and was given a waiver, yes. People can complain all they want, and I think the Vietnam war was egregious, but give me a break. Quit attacking Mitt for his faith. Attack Mitt for supporting a nonsense war, like he did the Second Iraq War.
Attack Mitt on his policy, on how he has bent over backwards for idiots on the extreme right, about how his policies would rip up the middle class and the poor. But quit tearing into him for his faith, especially since you don’t even have your facts right and obviously don’t understand what serving a mission means to us in our youth. Serving people for 18 months or a couple of years, helping people out when they want our help, isn’t that better than war?
Think about something that you care deeply about and would devote yourself to for two years completely, getting up early, working 12 hours a day every day, including weekends. That’s how we feel about our missions. If you attack faith, no matter what the other person’s faith is, you’re attacking a foundational freedom. You can disagree with the faith, but you can’t determine how another exercises their faith.
———————
———————
———————

One of the many myths that have buried the true history of the Vietnam War is that the anti-war movement was motivated by selfish desire, especially among college students, to avoid the draft (a view that conveniently ignores the movement’s throngs of female participants, whose gender automatically exempted them from the draft). Quite to the contrary, students demonstrating against the draft deferment tests were specifically undermining and targeting their own privileges and exemptions, which, as they passionately argued, came at the expense of poor and working class people. At Stanford, a number of people actually disrupted the test. The young men involved thus proved that their goal was not to avoid the draft but to end it, since they had been explicitly warned that their actions would jeopardize their own deferments. When students filed in to take the Selective Service test, other demonstrators handed them the SDS “alternative test” on the history of U.S.-Vietnam relations. About ninety students organized a sit-in in the President’s office. In a manifesto issued from the sit-in they denounced their own privileged status: “We oppose the administration of the Selective Service Examination … because it discriminates against those who by virtue of economic deprivation are at a severe disadvantage in taking such a test… . [The] less privileged, Negroes, Spanish-Americans, and poor whites, must fight a war in the name of principles such as freedom and equality of opportunity which their own nation has denied them.” “Conscription,” they declared, has throughout American history “invariably been biased in favor of the wealthy and privileged.”

Enter young Mitt Romney, right on cue, waving a sign denouncing the anti-war students. He, like his fellow almost all-male participants in this pro-war demonstration, fervently argued in support of the war and the draft. But not, of course, for himself.

When Mitt enrolled at Stanford back in the spring of 1965, the official and overt U.S. war (as distinct from the previous forms of proxy, clandestine, and “adviser” warfare waged in Vietnam for more than a decade) had just begun. Operation Rolling Thunder, the sustained U.S. bombing of the north, had started on March 2. The first officially acknowledged U.S. combat units were the Marines who went ashore at Da Nang on March 8 (joining the 24,000 U.S. military personnel already fighting in Vietnam). Draftees were not yet being used in combat. So Mitt and his dad clearly intended the fall of 1965 to be the beginning of a fine four-year career at Stanford for the young man. But Mitt’s last month as a Stanford student was May 1966. Why?

Although the Selective Service Exam radically reduced the chances of college men, especially those with the test-taking skills of most Stanford students, to be conscripted into the Vietnam War, it was no guarantee of long-lasting deferment. There were other, surer, escapes from the Vietnam nightmare. One of the very best was the ministry. In 1966, young men flooded into divinity schools, embarking on careers to be ministers, priests, and rabbis. The Mormons had an even better deal than most religions, because The Church of Latter-Day Saints required each and every one of its young men to become, for at least two years, a “minister of religion.” Thus all Mormon young men could claim deferments as ministers. When the inequity of this arrangement became too blatant, the Selective Service entered into an agreement with the LDS that required the church to specify just one “minister” for each geographical district. Since there were relatively few Mormons in Michigan, and Governor George Romney had considerable influence in the church, Mitt quickly received an official appointment as a Mormon “minister of religion,” consecrated by a draft deferment from the Selective Service. So instead of returning to Stanford, Mitt went off to become a Mormon missionary in France, where he would spend the next two and a half years—while Vietnam became a slaughterhouse for the Vietnamese and many Americans drafted to slaughter them.

So who says that Mitt Romney is inconsistent? After all, what may have been his first recorded public political act was supporting the draft for ordinary Americans, forcing them to participate in a war waged in the interest of his own class.

(Source: azspot)


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.