Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I also served in Malaysia. The unit smaller than a branch was a "group," and yayfulness has it exactly right: it was technically an extension of a branch but functioned completely autonomously. It was almost always a lack-of-priesthood issue, and we only had maybe two functioning at any given time. At least one grew up and became a branch while I was there.

Katya wrote: I know you can get special permission to bless and serve the sacrament in someone's home or in other locations. (Our extended family did that once at a camp for a family reunion.) Maybe they just had ongoing permission to do something along those lines for this particular member.

As I was the "Handbook Guru" who commented on the question, I feel the need to use my prodigious but ultimately useless command of the General Handbook of Instructions (both books!) to contribute my two cents:

Every member needs the spiritual blessings that come from partaking of the sacrament. If members are unable to attend sacrament meeting because they are confined to a home, nursing home, or hospital, the bishop may assign priesthood holders to prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament to these members.

Occasionally members may be unable to attend sacrament meeting because of distance to the meetinghouse. Under unusual circumstances, the bishop may occasionally give authorization for a sacrament service to be held away from the meetinghouse. He may authorize such a service only within his ward boundaries. The person whom the bishop authorizes to conduct the service must hold the Melchizedek Priesthood or be a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. He also must be worthy to bless and pass the sacrament. The priesthood holder who directs the service reports to the bishop when the service has been held.

When members are traveling or temporarily residing away from their home wards, they should make an earnest effort to attend sacrament meeting and other Sunday meetings in a ward or branch of the Church.

Sacrament services should not be held in conjunction with family reunions or other outings.

citation (emphasis is my own, of course, as the Church does nothing in bold)

This one made my day. Best build-up and ending for a question like this that I've ever seen on the Board, I think.

Awkward, mostly because Smurf is actually the friend who first introduced me to the Board. I'll have to ask her which one(s) [questions] aren't actually hers. Has anything like this ever happened before?

yayfulness wrote:Awkward, mostly because Smurf is actually the friend who first introduced me to the Board. I'll have to ask her which one(s) aren't actually hers. Has anything like this ever happened before?

It used to be easier to catch because the usernames of the question asker used to be visible to the editors by default, so it was easy to see if someone else was using that name. Now that the system hides that information from the editors (which I don't think is a bad thing, overall), it may be happening more often without being caught.

yayfulness wrote:Awkward, mostly because Smurf is actually the friend who first introduced me to the Board. I'll have to ask her which one(s) aren't actually hers. Has anything like this ever happened before?

It happened to me once. I believe I even asked a question similar to those posted today about it.

Unit of Energy wrote:It happened to me once. I believe I even asked a question similar to those posted today about it.

I just want to double check - you did submit a question to the Board two hours ago, right? Because I'd hate to think that question was also asked by an impostor.

Genuine Article wrote:

Unit of Energy wrote:It happened to me once. I believe I even asked a question similar to those posted today about it.

I just want to double check - you did submit a question to the Board two hours ago, right? Because I'd hate to think that question was also asked by an impostor.

Yes, I did.

Someone stole my nym once and asked some really ditzy question.

Someone stole my nym once and asked a question about alcoholic drinks, although that was back when I was just establishing my nym - I had only asked a few questions with it, so I'm guessing it was just coincidence.

I don't think anyone has ever stolen my 'nym. And no, that doesn't mean that you should. *warning glare*

Well, and in addition to what Katya said, in the former version of the Board you would create a 'nym when you made a Board account. You didn't have to necessarily use said 'nym when you asked a question, but regardless of whether you were a reader or a writer you still technically had a 'nym attached to your account.

Now, when you become a writer you create a 'nym. There are no 'nyms attached to only reader accounts. So, there's really not a set way for a reader to "claim" a 'nym anymore. And where is the line drawn? Does a 'nym belong to someone if their Board account is at least 3 months old and they've used the same 'nym to ask at least 5 questions and they've created a Board Board account? On top of all of that, someone who is brand-spanking new to the Board, has never been to the Board Board, and is still trying to figure out the Board "culture" may not even realize they're stealing the 'nym of a long-time reader.

Clearly I've thought about this way too much.

I technically stole my 'nym from someone else. Hence the "of Belmont" that I had to add. I forget if it was a writer. Wasn't intentional.

Well, I'm glad I'm a Geographic Information Systems minor. And this would actually tempt me to double major, but I think five years is long enough...

Lots of good stuff recently:

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68220/

Good answers from everyone here.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68216/

I love this kind of question, because it's the sort of thing that only a Board writer could answer so thoroughly. (I think Yog in Neverland is one of my favorites of the most recent crop of writers.)

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67946/

RP is always one of my favorites, but I really appreciate that he went out of his way to admit that he made a mistake on a previous answer. That's a really hard thing to do.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68212/

This is just cool and random, and that's the best part of the Board, right?

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68206/

"Just like there are no soul-mates, I think there are no soul-careers or soul-hobbies."

I particularly liked this quote, although I hope that Kirke isn't one of those annoying STEM majors who thinks that he's automatically superior to anyone whose major has less earning potential.

hmmm I don't think Kirke would consciously feel that way, but unconscious smugness is really hard to get rid of. I mean, it's really hard not to look arrogant when you're amazing; it's a problem I suffer from all the time

Joking aside, I have a hard time figuring out what I really like. As a teenager I consistently picked hobbies that I associated with "smart" people because I desperately wanted to identify with them (classical music, Russian literature, etc.). I think I do enjoy these things but nowadays I'm far more likely to skim a book if I find it boring, even if it's a classic. SORRY PERSONAL TANGENT

Whistler wrote:hmmm I don't think Kirke would consciously feel that way, but unconscious smugness is really hard to get rid of. I mean, it's really hard not to look arrogant when you're amazing; it's a problem I suffer from all the time

Ha! There's a guy on my campus who is unbearably smug about his major. Apparently all of the problems anyone has ever had are their own fault because they picked a major that was inferior to engineering. I'm probably reading too much into Kirke's responses because I'm so annoyed by the other guy.

Whistler wrote:Joking aside, I have a hard time figuring out what I really like. As a teenager I consistently picked hobbies that I associated with "smart" people because I desperately wanted to identify with them (classical music, Russian literature, etc.). I think I do enjoy these things but nowadays I'm far more likely to skim a book if I find it boring, even if it's a classic. SORRY PERSONAL TANGENT

This is one of the things that drives me nuts about snobbery: you're never allowed to like something just because you like it, you always have to like it because the Right people like it (and the Wrong people don't). So, good on you for at least trying to figure out what you really like.

Excellent. My immediate and rather flippant response to the question "why does life have to change?": Because otherwise, my life would suck eternally. (Not that my life is terrible or anything, but this summer hasn't exactly been a high point for me.) Now that I'm really thinking about it, though, I think there's a fundamental truth there--in order for life to be able to change for the better, it also has to be able to change for the worse. It's a lot easier to accept for me than for the asker, since all but one or two of the changes I can anticipate in my life in the next couple months can only make it better than it is now.

In any case, TBC, thanks.

Thanks I love it when I see comments on my answers on this forum that question really struck a chord for me, it's something I thought about a lot last semester.