Leaderboard

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=32166585&nid=1284&title=lds-church-confirms-womens-meeting-now-part-of-general-conference SALT LAKE CITY — The LDS Church's semiannual General Women's Meeting is now an official session of the faith's semiannual general conferences. “The First Presidency has decided that the General Women’s Meeting will be designated as the General Women’s Session of general conference," said Jessica Moody, spokeswoman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think the implicit understanding of the economy on which this is founded--numberless concourses of people chasing a finite amount of dollars, with some inevitably losing and starving to death--is deeply flawed. Money is merely a medium of exchange--not wealth per se. Wealth consists of the goods and services created/obtained/accumulated in a given economic unit. As long as a population in general, and a workforce in particular, is growing, one person's gain need not be another person's loss. I'll give you an example: If you and I are on a deserted island, and I have a piece of gold, and you have a coconut, and we trade--neither of us is "wealthier". The island's "gross domestic product" hasn't changed--both before and after the transaction the island's GDP consisted of one piece of gold and one coconut. We have redistributed wealth (which, if voluntary, isn't a bad thing), but we have not created any. But let's say I suddenly realize you now have that shiny piece of gold, and I want it back. How can I (legally) get it? Well, maybe I figure out a way to make a decent spear, which I'm sure you'll want badly enough that I can trade it to you for that piece of gold you now have. I make the spear, and you buy it from me. Now, something interesting has happened. Notice that there's still only one gold piece on the island. But the island's GDP now consists of a coconut, a spear, and the piece of gold. By producing a good or a service, I have created wealth from almost nothing. Through our transactions, I now have the gold--and the island's total money supply remains unchanged--but are you less wealthy? No! You have the spear, whose value you yourself decided was equal to that of the gold you gave up (whose value, in turn, you yourself decided was equal to the coconut you started out with)! The takeaway from this should be that the amount of actual cash in a system doesn't necessarily reflect the true wealth in the system, and it certainly doesn't prevent more wealth from being created either collectively or individually. The fact that I have a dollar doesn't keep you from getting a dollar, any more than the fact that I had a hamburger at McDonald's for lunch today means that you can't get a hamburger from McDonald's for lunch tomorrow. And the principles are the same even on a macroeconomic scale. Mere redistribution does not create wealth, on either an individual or a nationwide basis. What we need--and what the free enterprise system (in conjunction with reasonable regulations to prevent fraud and a healthy safety net for the disabled) has provided for, better than any other system that has existed to date--is wealth creation. Yes, I'm aware that this golden-egg-laying goose we call a "free market" or "capitalism" tends to poop all over the barnyard--but until you can find me a goose that poops less or lays golden eggs more frequently, I think I'll stick with the one I have; and I'll thank you for putting down your axe and ceasing all this talk about foie gras recipes.

I already considered it a session of conference. I guess this just makes it official.

I'm getting into a foul mood here. Do these look like hard candies? They are gumdrops I tell ya.

Current research with FMRI's shows that during the peak of marital relations (I am sidestepping around technical terms so as to not be banned or receive a warning!! :)) oxytocin is released. Oxytocin has been shown to be "associated with the ability to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships and healthy psychological boundaries with other people." When it is released during xxxxxx (the peek of marital relations), it begins creating an emotional bond. The more sex, the greater the bond. Vasopressin, an antidiuretic hormone, is another chemical that has been associated with the formation of long-term, monogamous relationships. Oxytocin and Vasopressin, (also considered the bonding hormone) are released at 4 times the amount in men during the peek of marital relations. The male brain is literally flooded with both hormones, creating a strong attachment, bond, and commitment between a man and his partner. At no other time is the male brain flooded with such large amounts of either hormone. Sex is literally one of the most powerful bonding agents for the male (Note: I did not say that sex was the only bonding agent, but it is the most powerful bonding agent in chemically technical terms). Interestingly enough, oxytocin and vasopressin are also released in women during sex, but at not nearly the same amount. Women release the same quantities during sex as holding a child, cuddling with their spouse, or socialization (talking with other women). Men also release small quantities of oxytocin and vasopressin when engaging in those same activities, but not nearly at the same levels as women, and not even close to the amounts released during the peek of marital relations. I think this brings up some interesting disconnects between the sexes. As women do not receive nearly the amount of 'feel good' hormones during sex as men do, its easy to classify sex with the same priority as spending time with the kids, or cuddling our spouses during a movie, or just hanging out with our friends. We literally do not understand why men cannot just easily substitute one for the other. On the flip side, it seems men have a hard time understanding how women can so easily live without sex and still feel as if all their emotional needs are being met!. I find this relevant as it helps to explain (but not excuse) why men tend to loose affection and commitment for their spouse when denied regular intimacy. It also helps explain why men feel particularly loved and bonded when regular sex is part of the equation. (Its also interesting to note that the same bonding hormones are released irregardless of the setting, thus pornography may have unintended ramifications when it comes to attachment. Pornography may cause strong attachments and commitments to inanimate objects). As discussed, there are many valid reasons why frequent intimacy may be difficult in marriage. If frequent intimacy is not an option it may be worth exploring other activities that facilitate the release oxotocin and vasopressin in men. However, sex is by far the fastest and most effective route. I think as women we forget, or perhaps do not understand the importance of sex for our husbands. Much of that may have to do with the physical, biological, and psychological make-up of men.

This is a super long (by internet standards) article, but I think it's awesome, and very though-provoking. Please read it, tell me what you think, discuss, argue, bicker, etc. Thanks! :) http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-alone/358631/

It is not a matter of "logic". Logic is the process of using truths we already know as building blocks to prove the existence of other truths, things that must necessarily arise from what we know now. For example, the First Presidency taught of the existence of a heavenly Mother by using a sort of logical argument stating that the existence of an exalted Man or "Father" necessarily implied the existence of an exalted Woman or "Mother". There are many different forms of logic, but I know of none that would allow us to take our current imprecise and partial understandings of this topic and use them to prove that "kingdom progression" must necessarily exist. You could argue (quite convincingly) that the scriptural and prophetic teachings seem to imply that "kingdom progression" does not happen -- and I would probably agree with you -- but that still does not constitute proof in any rigidly logical sense. We really can't use logic to establish the facts one way or the other. But that doesn't mean both are equally likely or equally reasonable. We do not have a public revelation of the truths of these matters; I rather suspect we don't know enough to understand those answers, even if they were given to us. We are thus left to grope in the dimness, offering opinions and telling stories as to why our suspicions ought to be valued over someone else's. Here's mine: In evolutionary biology -- a topic that interests me greatly, but that I have no real expertise in past the dedicated spectator level, so take the literality of my examples with a grain of salt -- living things are classified according to a taxonomy that starts (depending on which taxonomy you like best) with the organism's "kingdom". There are several kingdoms, varying depending again on which taxonomy you want to follow, and they typically have names like Animals, Plants, Amoebas, Slime molds, Fungi, and so forth. Within each kingdom you find an astonishing variety of living things. "Animals" include things ranging from an all-but-invisibly-tiny water bear to the 100+-foot-long, nearly half-million-pound blue whale, from a millipede to a moose, from a lobster on the bottom of the sea to a mountain goat at 15,000 feet, from a fish sailing through the water to a hawk sailing through the air. All of these are part of the Animal kingdom. If you look at, say, the Plant kingdom, you will see an equally astounding variety of living things, from duckweed that looks like cornmeal floating on the water to giant redwood trees nearly 400 feet tall (think of it!), from pansies to cacti, from Kentucky bluegrass to carnivorous (!!) Venus flytraps. Some very long time ago indeed, possibly billions of years ago, these separate kingdoms of organisms were thought to have had common ancestors. But at some point, some organism took the path of becoming Animals and some took the path of becoming Plants. Today, hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years later, both types of beings (or rather, their descendants) exist and flourish. But a Plant and its descendants will never become Animals. Never. They are of the Plant kingdom. That branch divided a very, very, very long time ago. That choice was made anciently. It can and will never be undone. Plants may, and surely will, continue evolving and developing in all sorts of astounding directions, but they will never become Animals. And Animals will never become Plants. It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that any living thing would "progress" from one kingdom to another. Such an idea doesn't even make sense. A Plant and an Animal are both "living things", but they are of completely different types. I believe the "kingdoms" spoken of in the Doctrine and Covenants are of a somewhat similar nature. All such kingdoms of glory are comprised of human souls, just as all taxonomic kingdoms are comprised of living things. All such kingdoms of glory will offer progression to their inhabitants, just as Plant and Animal species, and indeed all living things, progress through the generations with varying rates and types of change. But the divisions have taken place. Plants are not Animals, and never will be. In the same sense, we are choosing this day how we want to exist. We make our choices now, in this life, while we draw breath, and perhaps also in the next while we await the Resurrection. But the time will come when our choice will have been made. We will have set ourselves on our eternal course, and our loving and generous Father will do all that can be done to help us further ourselves along that path. But make no mistake, they are separate paths, and the further along them we go, the further they separate. And those paths never cross each other. An elm tree spends no time wishing it were a buffalo. For the most part, and with only a few bizarre exceptions, a person spends no time wishing he were a protozoan. In my opinion, it will be so in the next life; I don't see that those in a "lower" kingdom will spend any time thinking about how great it would be if they were in a "higher" kingdom. But our Lord has told us that we will gain a maximum of joy and eternal happiness, literally beyond our ability to understand, if we seek honestly and intently for exaltation. I believe him, and so I seek.

We are told that we enter this live with a veil of forgetfulness over our minds. Many religions do not believe we have any memories but for LDS, the concept is we came to this life having forgotten all. It is necessary that we forget for this experience to be complete. Why? – that is part of what is forgotten. However we are told we exercised agency to come to earth and we will exercise agency to determine our next life. One reason I have speculated that we have forgotten all is for the same reason for the child game of pin the tail on the donkey. So we have an excuse for pinning the tail where it does not belong. Likewise we have excuse for our sins to make repentance possible. We cannot repent of something we do deliberately with no regret. The assumption that we do not know things here in our mortal life because we never knew them; is an assumption based in the false teaching of the Great Apostasy that this life is the beginning of your choices. Thus it is we chose to make mistakes while blindfolded – however, it also appears to me that by our agency we chose previously the mistakes we would make – all is according to our own plan. If it is not according to our plan how can we claim agency? If we only act out G-d’s plan then the agency is his not ours. There is one final way to consider this – this is through the lens of covenant. We came to earth because me made a covenant with G-d. What is that covenant we made with G-d? Perhaps before we answer that question we should ask the question – What is a covenant? And how does agency apply to covenant?

Of course something's wrong. I've already conceded that--and even provided scriptural support, to boot! This goose poops. But note that even here--someone's feeding his family on the money he makes from producing luxury handbags. But here you are, saying we should kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs. Okay, then--but first, show me your goose and explain to me why you can be sure it is going to produce more gold and less poop. I don't think you can.

Garryw, I once again disagree and would answer your question with "Yes, yes he would have". In early April 1842, a group of dissenters began meeting; and their ranks eventually swelled to about two hundred people. Two of these individuals were young men named Dennison Harris and Robert Scott. By the second meeting, discussions of murder were being floated openly. At the third meeting, all participants were required to swear an oath to kill Smith. Harris and Scott refused to take the oath and barely escaped with their lives. They reported the events back to Smith, and named names. When the Expositor was published in early June, virtually every one of its principals were people that Smith already knew were part of that conspiracy. Moreover, the Expositor's accusations went beyond polygamy. Going off memory, I think it repeated rumors that Smith had mismanaged Church funds generally, that the Church itself was involved in counterfeiting and was plotting against democracy (including dark hints, I think, about the Council of Fifty, the Nauvoo Legion, and the fact that the new temple rituals referred to those so anointed as "kings")--really, the same sort of stuff that had already led to the Saints' being run out of Kirtland and Missouri. It further called for the repeal of the Nauvoo city charter and called for making peace with the Missourians (who, as everyone in Nauvoo would have known, still had a price on Smith's head). The Nauvoo City Council didn't shut down the Expositor because it was publicizing embarrassing truths that Smith didn't want publicized. The council shut down the Expositor because it was generally "inciting riot". That was pre-Brandenberg v. Ohio, so the legal terminology has evolved. Today, as a matter of law, we'd call it "hate speech"--speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Ironically, Smith's subsequent murder at the hands of a mob is prima facie evidence that the Expositor's claims did indeed "incite a riot"--just as the Nauvoo City Council claimed. Under contemporary case law, the City Council was within its rights to shut the Expositor down and destroy the extant copies of it (the First Amendment didn't even apply to state or municipal governments until the early 20th century, and the notion of "prior restraint" as impermissible didn't get Supreme Court validation until about the 1930s); though even by 1840s standards they most likely exceeded their authority by actually destroying the press itself.

I'd agree with most of that, especially your last comments, Crypto. But the thing my purchase of a luxury handbag does, is express an economic demand for luxury handbags. The thing a malnourished individual's failure to buy food does, is express no economic demand for food. Thus, in the system, the effect will be to produce more luxury handbags, and less food. I am not sure, quite aside from the scandal of the inevitable starvation of the malnourished, that the signals we send to the market to produce this or that economic good or service, is necessarily the signal we want to send. In a lop-sided market, distorted by super-wealth for some and nothing for others, we do not get a market reaction that is either rational or moral. Best wishes, 2RM.

Why would anyone choose to go through deterministic life circumstances that would get them relegated to a lesser kingdom? That simply seem unjust to me. Unless the end result of any path of choices would be to the celestial glory. Which seems very un-doctrinal, and much more like Satans plan. While Determinism and Fatalism to me sound exactly like Satans plan. The only other possibility that I can think of would be that free agency and Gods ability to foresee all things are not mutually exclusive. (Basically what seminarysnoozer said) If things were thus I would directly ask God before being sent to earth, will I make it? Will my other brothers and sisters have the chance to make it? and if not it sounds like a terrible deal. It would mean that you have already been judged, the scales weighed in balance and sorry, you get to suffer. (or hopefully not) Sorry, I have strong emotions on this type of topic If I stick around I'll have to watch myself.

Yes! Absolutely! I have several sources. When I first heard about the role hormones play in attachment I found it fascinating and read several studies supporting the data. It was a "ahh...that now makes sense" kinda moment for me. However, Due to the adult nature of the studies I am only willing to provide the references through private message. If anyone else is interested in the references, please let me know and I will forward them to you. (Anatess, it may take me a few hours as I am about to run to a concert my boy is in, but I will get them to you today... :) )

RMGuy, if you make it your mission to tell your fellow ward members the "truth" about Mormon history, and you do it in such a ham-fisted manner that they panic and resign their membership--why in sam hill would you continue in that course of action without doing some serious soul searching? And what, exactly, is wrong with meeting a bishop or a stake president and accepting counsel of them if it turns out that you have inadvertently been causing harm with your activities? It's a bishop's office, not the star chamber. And, bizarre as it may seem, my experience is that bishops and stake presidents really do (ulp!) sincerely love their congregants. That was the justification given to every single wife, including the already-married ones and the teenagers? You sure about that? Only if you think Joseph Smith would have tolerated the presence of an adulterer in the First Presidency indefinitely. It was because of Law's immoral conduct that Joseph Smith refused to seal Law to his wife when the Laws requested it (Smith subsequently recounted this story to Alexander Neibaur, who recorded it in his journal in May of 1844). Hyrum Smith partially corroborated Joseph's story--he claimed it was he who had informed the Laws of the content of D&C 132; and further claimed that Law had at some point confessed to him that he had previously committed adultery.

Is this where your comment to me on facebook regarding time worth it comes into play?

Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country from you. I'd be fighting you off. When I used to perform and someone would say break a leg...I took it very personal. :)

I like to think the post edit went something like this: "What excellent news! 5 out of 5 smilies!" "You know what, this deserves an extra smiley. 6 out of 5!" [reposts the edit]

Wait a gosh darn minute. What does it say over my avatar?

No, I'm not saying there's a simple answer, but wives should at least care about their husbands' feelings if they don't care for it. So they need to learn to communicate what they want or seek counseling if it's an issue of abuse rather than have an attitude of, "Sorry. I just don't like it."

It is possible to know what will happen even if it is by chance, those things are not mutually exclusive. If I roll the dice and I know I am going to roll snake eyes on the fifth roll, it could still be "chance" and yet it was forseen that the fifth roll was snake eyes. We can know what is going to happen to us is a set of random occurances and accept it. Can that not be true?

Over simplification, he was martyred because he was the leader of the mormon church by people who hated him and his religion. JS destruction of the printing press gave them the pretext to kill him. The "mob" had plenty of other opportunities to kill him prior to this but his life had been spared up to that point.

O....kay.....

Fascinating claim... Can you cite your source for the biological differences?

The church presumes repentance.

In a perfect society, we'd all live this higher law, as Talmage points out in "Jesus the Christ." Unfortunately, like the ancient Israelites, who could put aside their wives simply by giving them a writ of divorcement, we seem to be living the lower law. Otherwise second marriages couldn't be performed in temples. I highly doubt the church would condone a relationship that resulted in the couple committing adultery. Everyone feel free to jump in and clarify the issue if you think I've misinterpreted it. I find it rather confusing myself, despite Talmage's explanation.

I hope the survey omegaseamaster75 is going to do works out well but don't be surprised if it doesn't. In my personal experience, members react in very interesting ways when you mention parts of Church history that a lot of people think we should be either whispering about or not talking about it at all. My former Bishop called me once asking me if I could help answering some questions regarding Church history to a member who was struggling. I sat down with both of them and we started going through the list of questions. When the issue of Polygamy was mentioned, particularly related to Joseph Smith and I was about to explain, the person interrupted me and kindly asked me to stop. I looked at the Bishop and he looked at me and then this member said "I do not want to know anything about it.". I said okay. When they left, this member apologized and said "I know I am wrong, but I don't want to know".

Good point. omegaseamaster75, I propose we change question 1 to: 1. Did you know that JS was sealed women who were already married?

This is quite the oversimplification of something much, much more complex.

That isn't the premise. The premise is that they adamantly refuse to accept that the afterlife or a higher power is a possibility. It's not about expecting someone to have faith in an afterlife. It's about wondering how they can have such strong faith that there isn't one.

Like TFP says, I think it is real hard to rank some of these priorities -- especially in any kind of "applies to all couples" kind of way. If you really want to rank priorities, I would probably look at a philosophy like Dr. Harley's (marriagebuilders.com ). The idea is to figure out what things are most effective at making deposits to your and your spouse's love banks and what things are most effective at making withdrawals. When you understand what your spouse's most important emotional needs are, then those things need to become your priorities. If a husband falls in line with Dr. Harley's "averages" and lists sexual fulfillment as his most important need, then a wife should probably put that somewhere near the top of the priority list. If a wife lists affection at the top of her list, then a husband needs to put those things near the top of his priority list.

Perhaps wasting their time playing video games......I am joking of course.

I am reminded of a few things: 1) I am reminded of an interview with Christopher Reeve and his after his accident that left him paralyzed. Somehow, the topic of sex came up and, while not revealing any details, the couple indicated that sex had not left their relationship in spite of his injuries. Clearly, one anecdote cannot be the gold standard for everyone. Each couple will need to decide for themselves exactly how they will deal with injury, illness, age, and such. What I see from sex therapists and the like is that most couple can figure out a workable sexual relationship in spite of illness or injury or age if they will make it a priority. 2) I thought Dr. Harley had an interesting discussion on it here: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/mb2.cfm?recno=4&sublink=36&subsublink=207 Like jerome1232, he explains that it is often more about effort and willingness than ability. It is a lot easier to deal with illness, injury, and age when you can think back and recall how you husband/wife made the sexual relationship a priority when they were able. What is difficult is remembering that he/she would not even when they could have, but now they can't. In putting this down, I think I hit on one of the things I find most frustrating about these kinds of conversations. The overall message I take away from these discussions (at least when they occur on this forum), is a sense (never said explicitly) that sex is not and should not be a priority in any marriage. Part of that is simply a hold over from the days when I really believed that was what the Church wanted me to believe. It often feels like our attitude does not leave room to make the sexual relationship a (not the only) priority in marriage. I don't know how close the OP really is to divorce, but, as I look at my own struggles and desires, sometimes what I really want is someone to acknowledge that it is ok to make the sexual side of marriage a priority -- that it is ok to actively pursue a sexual relationship with one's wife.

It is decidedly more complicated than that. This question simply cannot be narrowed down to yes/no. Let's take the sex side of things off the discussion table for a minute for clarity's sake and use a different marital duty as an example -- the duty of a husband to provide for his wife and family. Does that help in understanding how complex it is? Where is the line that classifies failure to provide? What if the husband did his best but failed? Does that mean he didn't do his duty? What if the failure is simply not his fault? If he loses his job through no fault of his own? Is the wife then justified in leaving? He's not providing any more, right? What if there are disasters or health issues that take up all the money. What if the economy crumbles? On the other hand, if the husband is sitting around playing video games all day, spending money on things he shouldn't, and letting his children starve...well...now that's a different story. But wait! What if he has diagnosable emotional or mental issues? What about A.D.D.? Bipolar? Etc? Does that alter the equation as to when and if it's justifiable to walk out on him? It's complicated! So I'm not going to reply with a yes/no answer to your question. I don't know the answer. What I do know is that I believe that favor (strong favor) should always go towards the covenants we have made, and the keeping of families together. Some would argue that a spouse failing to take the garbage out is just as bad as getting slapped around too. Like I've said, and will repeat again...each person must determine on their own what does or does not justify divorce. It is not my place to say. But as for me -- I would consider my wife daily literally punching me in the face more abusive than her refusing me sex.

No. Satan is on an all out war against the traditional family. I'd say most of the world are nothing but blind supporters of what's trendy, comfortable, and emotionally moving. In other words -- stooges of Satan without it being intentional.

If *he* doesn't stop beating me, doesn't stop hurting me, doesn't stop making me feel bad, then I'm outta here! I don't think that taking care of your own well being is always a selfish thing. No matter how many times you invoke the word me.

Obviously the items you have outlined do not create a valid reason for divorce. Physical/mental impairments aside what viable excuse could there be? If we go back to the OP, and I give everything we are told a 50% discount because we are only hearing one side of the story. IF and that's a big IF we assume that the OP is innocent and the spouse does not want to and has no desire to fulfill marital obligations (assuming no medical or psychological reasons) then I say the OP has a case.

Perhaps it helps to explain it's not the lack of sex that is the heart of the issue in my mind. It's the lack of effort to fulfill your partner, to enrich your marriage. Lack of libido doesn't mean she can't make reasonable compromise, and there are ways without intercourse to make a compromise. I assume there are reasonable attempts and figuring things out, counseling and etc... I assume there are reasonable attempts at compromise from both parties.

Some quotes from Dallin H Oaks: There are many good Church members who have been divorced. I speak first to them. We know that many of you are innocent victims—members whose former spouses persistently betrayed sacred covenants or abandoned or refused to perform marriage responsibilities for an extended period. Members who have experienced such abuse have firsthand knowledge of circumstances worse than divorce. When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it. Latter-day Saint spouses should do all within their power to preserve their marriages. The meat and potatoes of the talk is that we should not get divorced. I have never contemplated divorce, however it is not off the plate. If my wife were to commit one of the three A's I would be gone.

I forget whether I mentioned this earlier, but several decades ago I went to a cousin's bar mitzvah and was astonished by the rabbi's remarks. He basically ordered everyone in the congregation to get on the phone later that day, call all their relatives in New York, and urge them to vote against Jesse Jackson. (This was after Rev. Jackson's notorious "Hymietown" comment.) I do not know whether this rabbi was the exception or the rule, but I was startled by the degree of political engagement in other religious groups. Interesting that the LDS letter only claims institutional neutrality on political parties and candidates, not on general social issues. But on second thought I would expect any church to have strong opinions about some social issues. However, I am against voting just because voting is good. I only vote for issues and candidates that I know about, and I generally leave about half the ballot blank at each election. Maybe I'm compensating for my dear grandmother, who in her declining years punched every single candidate and choice on the ballot. I've always wondered how her ballot was tallied by the tabulators.

You certainly have the right to consider this a black and white issue in your own life, but you're most likely not in a marriage with very little physical affection. If you are, and you're sticking by your covenants anyway, more power to you. If you aren't however, saying that everyone else should do what you'd hypothetically do isn't reasonable. After all, the decision of one spouse to withhold affection from the other is also a selfish choice, even with extenuating circumstances. (Please note that I highly encourage counseling and therapy when those are needed.) Although you can continue to cleave to your covenants as a personal choice, and I know good people in bad marriages who have, God doesn't demand that you do. Life is messy, and is mostly shades of grey. There aren't as many absolutes as some of us might prefer, and the challenge and purpose of mortal life is learning to properly excercise our free agency. In regards to marriage, there's rarely a completely right and a completely wrong side in human relationships. Yet those covenants we made when we were married in the temple are a two-way street. If one spouse isn't living up to them, in some circumstances dissolving the relationship and ending the covenants made with that person is the proper thing to do. No one would argue that a spouse is bound by covenant to stay in a physically abusive marriage, for example. That may be the most extreme example I could give, but there are other types of abusive behavior that would also warrant ending a temple marriage. Withholding physical affection from your spouse batters their sense of self worth, their identity as a desirable, lovable person, and their view of how well they're fulfilling their expected role in society. Being rejected by the person you thought you would spend eternity with is heart-breaking, but if that rejection can't be fixed, no loving God would ever force anyone to remain married to someone who doesn't love them or treats them badly for eternity. That's a good definition of HELL. It's extremely difficult to determine when you've put in enough effort to save a troubled marriage. It's a messy, shades of grey decision that requires prayer, consultation with your bishop, and acceptance of the consequences if you do choose to end it. If your spouse makes that decision for you and files for divorce, it's often more devastating, since divorce is the ultimate declaration of rejection. There are times when it's the proper thing to do, or the church wouldn't allow it, and certainly wouldn't annul sealings and permit second marriages in the temple.

So you read the marriage covenant as -- if my spouse doesn't live up to their end of the bargain, the covenants I made are no longer valid? Hmm...I'm beginning to understand why divorce has become such a problem. Like I said, it's not my place to say who and who is not justified in leaving their spouse. But as for me, I take my marriage covenants very, very seriously. Divorce is simply not an option. And, yes, I see the idea of leaving because of something I'M not getting as a selfish choice.

The point is not that there are not horrible things in the foster care system. The point is whether it's better or worse than putting them in a homosexual home. I'm not saying I would support the "wins every time" idea. But I would say that "wins almost every time" is potentially valid. Of course, that's a hard thing to say because each situation is different. But as a general rule, the real damage to how children are raised is the potential damage to their souls. With foster kids that is an unknown. Sure. There's the likelihood that they will be raised in ways that will be damaging to their souls therein. But with homosexual homes, the potential that there will be damage to their souls is significantly higher, to my thinking. So, yes, perhaps said too strongly, but overall, I tend to agree. As a related thought: Is it better for a child to be raised in a third world, but Christian and moral society, or a first world, but corrupt and immoral society?

If we struggle to be righteous, I feel confident that the Lord will put us down the paths He would have us down, regardless of our stupidity in prayer. Stay righteous. Stay faithful. And trust the Lord.

The only way to bring fairness and equality in this life is to preach the gospel of Christ. If everyone accepted it and truly lived according to it's principles, then all would be equitable. That's it. That's the only way. And so, we go and we preach the gospel. It is through this means that we strive to solve the world's problems. I'm not saying there aren't political ideas that might help here and there. But I agree that forcing everybody to be equal is a horrible idea. Add to that, it would never work. Not without people actually being Christlike. It would force poverty upon us all, and certainly lead to an uprising ultimately to throw off government oppression. If everyone on the earth accepted Christ's teachings and actively went about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, etc., then the problems would be solved.

The commandment came from the Lord. I disagree with it coming from a government without the other teachings of Christ involved.

I view this kind of inequality thusly: "ye have the poor with you always" (found in Mark, Matthew, and John) Matthew 6: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly." Basically, we're commanded to help the poor. But we're also pretty clearly commanded not to do it openly. Forcing the rich to be less rich, so the poor can be less poor, isn't a notion found in scripture. Matthew 26: A woman anointed Jesus' head with an expensive ointment. His disciples freaked out, calling it a wasteful act, noting she could have sold the ointment and given the money to the poor. Jesus gave them a verbal smackdown for that way of thinking. It's good reading, 2ndrate. Interesting to note how clearly and directly Jesus opposed his follower's misguided and wrong notions about wealth and fairness and whatnot. Finally, The Gospel Principles manual, chapter 27, Work and Personal Responsibility. From where I'm standing, the Lord condemns idleness, and pretty clearly refutes the modern notions of people having a right to stuff. I always wonder at Christians, who purport to believe a book telling them that man is to work to eat, having opinions about how food/healthcare/jobs/paid time off/etc is a basic human right.

May I suggest you focus your attention on those that are doing something. Warren Buffett as well as Bill and Melinda Gates have given millions of their wealth to good causes. You can also look into "The Robin Hood Foundation". Aside from that I believe in hand ups, not hand outs. There is a big difference between the poor that don't have adequate food and water because of circumstance versus those that are poor by choice (i.e. they 'need' their fancy gadgets and cable tv but then expect others to put food on their table).

The only argument you have made so far is inequality of wealth is bad... and I have not even touched that argument (because I mostly agree with it). I have asked you to clarify what you meant by "Make it better" Which you have not... While you have clearly stated a problem you have not proposed any ideas for solving it. (I am for volunteers) Even when I clearly and specifically asked you what you wanted used against you. Because lets face it fair can only really be fair if we are willing to have it done unto us as well as have it done to others. Now you said you would if you could make a 'difference' That is a hedge. Mother Teresa give up all her worldly wealth, did she make a difference? Now lets run some numbers about making a difference... I grab the total world population from here for 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population its 6,916,000,000 I grab the total world wealth (aka Gross_world_product) for 2010 (although the sight has number for 2012 I am trying to keep it the same year) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product its 62,220,000,000,000 US dollars assuming wikipedia's numbers are good it is simple math at his point to figure out what strict numeric equality is. In the year 2010 if we made everyone equal. Everyone (man, woman, child) would have had 8,996.53 US dollars of total wealth. That is your difference.

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said. "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.” Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading. I believe the proper question would be just. If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice. Prejudice is not justice. We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are. In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great. I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor. But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong. If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have. Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish. What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give. I believe this is a sad fact of life. Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more. We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.