Leaderboard

I don't ever think there was a time I have ever been so grateful I am not a BISHOP other than right now. Boy, this is a tough case. The human man in me (I'm married) says oh no, nooooooooo, no way, nope, nope, nope. Uh-uh, not happening. The Holy Spirit says to me love the sinner, hate the sin. So, I took some time to read Hosea again, thought to myself, wow, just wow. I have to admit, if I were Bishop, I'd be calling the stake president begging for him to tell me what to do about you, I'd be praying HUGE. I'd be praying for your poor husband's broken heart, I'd be praying for you, for you to truly be repentant, to become a better wife, faithful and not so given to be selfish, that you would be a better mother (if you have kids) for when you cheat on your souse, you cheat on your children too. I would be praying for the spirit of your marriage of which is deeply wounded and in many ways destroyed. I know heavenly father is a GOD OF RESTORATION AND RECONCILIATION. I also know you've got to be accountable too. I read your post over and over, lets just make sure you're sad and repentant because you regret doing what you've done and not just because you got caught. Ask yourself, had you not been caught, would you still be cheating? Yes, this is a tough one, and totally NOT an isolated incident, sadly. God be with you.

Same way anyone would know about it. Studio C.

How about that? I might have to give Book of Mormon Central a listen.

You are good man Vort, I mean that in all sincerity. Agreed.

True enough, your example shows an unadmirable mindset and an almost religious devotion that are almost polar opposite to what science claims to be. But can you provide me with a list, even a short list, of the inconsistencies and problems that riddle evolutionary theory? On a side note, this sort of half-baked garbage is what I have come to expect of high school teachers. Since having children go through high school, I have lost a great deal of respect for the average HS teacher. I already regaled you with my story about my daughter's high school teacher last year warning us that we would not longer be able to help the students, because the topics were Just Too Advanced; for example, they were then involved in the horribly complex and mind-taxing study of -- steel yourselves -- CONTINENTAL DRIFT! Some are dedicated and wonderful, I know, but far too many are faking it. It's enough to drive someone far enough into cynicism to (gasp!) pull their kids out of public schools and teach them themselves.

You sinned... and you have to live with the consequences of that sin. Part of those consequences are the reaction of your husband, his family and your family. You are under command to repent. They are under command to forgive. And like you are finding, and like some posters here have stated, forgiveness of this kind of sin can be very hard. If they can't forgive then then greater sin lies on them, per the scriptures. No matter how abominable yours was theirs will be greater in the eyes of the Lord if they do not forgive. You will have no control over how long, if ever, forgiveness from them might come. All you can do is repent thoroughly, completely, withholding nothing and then hand everything else over to the Lord

yjacket, seriously, chill. This is wrong in so many ways. The woman has admitted (anonymously) to her actions and has come here seeking a path forward. Heaping coals on her head isn't helpful. When the woman taken in adultery was dragged before Christ, she appeared not to have been willingly confessing. She wasn't there because her guilt drove her there, but because she was apparently dragged from her bed of adultery into a public place. Jesus first ignored, then shamed, her accusers, finally leaving only himself and her (and the rest of the crowd watching the drama unfold). At that point, Jesus did not rub her actions in her face. Quite the opposite: He said that he did not condemn her. We are given a space for repentance, before the condemnation of God comes upon us. God does not immediately condemn us for our missteps, even something as serious as adultery. Instead, he allows us to figure things out and repent. I suspect I am as disgusted by this adulterous sin as you are, but coming out in accusing condemnation toward the woman who sinned is not the way to go. Remember who has the title of Accuser. That's not someone we want to emulate. By the way, the idea that sex sin is the worst possible thing that anyone could ever do except for murder appears to be scripturally based solely upon a specific interpretation of the teachings of Alma (junior) to his son Corianton, found in Alma 39:2-5: But what are the actual antecedents to "these things"? In context, they are: (1) boasting in his own strength and wisdom; and, (2) forsaking his ministry by going after a harlot. In other words, his abominable actions were self-glorification and breaking his divine covenants of ministry. Insofar as adultery (or fornication in general) is a breaking of covenant, then I certainly agree that it is most abominable. But the idea that non-marital sexual activity per se is the worst thing anyone can ever do besides murder another person is absurd on its face. I can think of any number of things more spiritually damaging and damning than an unmarried couple having sex with each other -- and so can you. Years-long neglect to the needs of a child, or ongoing nastiness and hatefulness toward him. Long-term physical abuse. Beating someone so badly that you cause permanent, severe disability. Actively working to undermine the legitimate government of a people. Openly rebelling against God and seeking to lead his children astray. Anyway, believe what you like about that. But I think that your condemnation of the OP is over the top. I think that encouraging her to come clean and turn from her path of sin is a better option than explaining to her in gory detail how awful she is.

Why does Canada get so much say in a US election?

You can not bury this, it will get worse, not better as time goes on. You have to face it for your own good and it won't be easy but it will be worth it. Excommunication, if it happens, is a chance to start over from the beginning. You get to be baptized again and washed clean of all of it. Your Bishop will do what he can to help your marriage survive this, and it is possible to move from here to a place where your marriage is better than it ever was. There is no chance for any kind of good outcome by trying to hide it, you just move the pain down the road and make it bigger at the same time. Please set up a time to talk with your Bishop right now. The steps of repenting are the same steps you will need to follow to repair your relationship with your marriage: 1. Recognize you have sinned (I think we have that covered) 2. Sincere regret. Your regret needs to be the same magnitude as the sin. Regret is what makes the difference between a change of heart and a change of mind. Your husband will need to see your regret when you confess and know it is real. Freeing yourself of that pain of that regret should help motivate you to do all the rest. 3. Full confession. Your husband can't forgive you of something he doesn't know about, you need to make a full confession so he has what he needs to forgive all the things you did. 4. Ask for forgiveness, beg for it. Don't think it is something you deserve and don't give up seeking it. 5. You need to make restitution, make up for what you did as best you can. You've done things that can't be undone but make up for it as best you can, and help others not make the same mistake. 6. Don't ever do it again. Don't get anywhere close to feeling tempted to do it. Figure out what in you or in your marriage helped make this happen and change things so you are. With your Bishop's help you can find your way to having a change of heart so you become a person who would never do this again, then you can be cleansed of all this and it will feel wonderful.

While i want vidangel to win on one hand, on the other i'd rather not support the creators of content for which vidangel is necessary. ........ Bleeping entertainment addictions >.<

@emilydc You know what you need to do. You are simply too afraid/selfish to do so. You need to get over it. Here are some possibilities you might face. First Option... You do a complete and total confession and begin to repent. Downsides it might cost you your marriage, and it might cost you your membership for awhile. But you save your eternal soul and take advantage of the Atonement to be clean again. Second Option... You continue to lie and get outted (as you fear might happen) Instead of going before your husband and bishop with a broken heart you get dragged before them. The odds of it costing you your marriage and your membership climb greatly and it take longer to dig out from under it (assuming you ever do) Third Option... You don't confess and you don't get caught until facing Christ on judgement day. He judges you fairly and justly. Since you did not repent and take advantage of his atonement. The following happens: your sealing to your husband is broken because of your sins (your marriage ends permanently), you are cast into Hell where your membership in Christ kingdom ends... In time Christ empties out Hell where you gain the Telestial Kingdom. If you are going to be afraid/selfish... then at least do it with an eternal perspective rather then a very short-sighted mortal one.

Emily - this isn't a "make me" thing - you need to go to your bishop and tell him everything. I don't know if you'll be excommunicated or not. I don't know if you've destroyed your marriage or not. But I do know this: these things you've done have hurt your soul. The things you continue to do by lying, are poisoning your soul. There is only one way out of this, that's to acknowledge the truth, turn towards Christ, and avail yourself of his redeeming sacrifice. There is something driving you to this behavior and the lying. You need to figure out what that is so you can address whatever is motivating you here. The best way to do that, is start with complete and total honest transparency with the right people. That means, starting with your bishop. Give the executive secretary a call today. Tell him you need an hour or two with the bishop. Tell him to make it the last appointment of the day, so you can go over if you need to. Your Bishop will help you, even though you've lied to him already.

This drives me nuts. As if it's more important to focus on image over living right. I can see their logic but it's flawed -- a church which teaches that heavenly rewards are more valuable than earthly, with members who think the world will perceive the church as failing if they don't emphasize their earthly rewards? NightSG - our first place was 425 square feet, but of course had everything we needed. The worst part was that the combination kitchen/dining room/living room was too small to have a full-sized dishwasher. First-world problems...

I watched an interview the other day with an individual from Texas that was not going to cast his electrical vote for Trump. He said he had a moral obligation not to vote for Trump because Trump did not get a majority vote from the national voting public. I did not think the news guy asked the proper question. I would have asked this Texas guy if he felt morally obligated to trash (refuse to represent) those citizens he was elected to represent in Texas. As an electoral delegate for Texas – I thought his moral obligation was to represent those that elected him to represent them???? I realize that in Texas there is no legal binding requirement for the electoral representatives but where does someone get the idea that there is no moral obligation to represent the citizens of tje state that elected them? The Traveler

That's very true, and goes well with my earlier comments about Evolution Theory. The Scientific Method is a great system but it's not foolproof.

Because it's embarrassing. It purports to argue about science without using actual science or even logic. It gets by almost purely on assertion.

Or be one of it's contributors

In the scientific community, this is true, but only in the sense that appealing to God as an explanation for some phenomenon is not acceptable. Do you understand why this is the case?

The Watchful Driver (not to be confused with The Walking Dead)

Obviously. You say this like it's a bad thing. But particle physicists are most happy dealing with elementary particles that originally "poofed" into existence rather than deal with how that existence got started. A particle physicist does not have to understand or even believe the "Big Bang" theory in order to do science; he just needs to look at the particles. Same with evolutionary scientists. For most of them, the specifics of biogenesis are not relevant to what they're doing. All they care about is that DNA exists and that it acts in certain predictable, quantifiable ways.

Aka.....relaxing

If I am not mistaken but, im pretty sure scientists of the evolutionary brand arent extracting DNA from fossils millions of years old.

No, Rob. They were not. Abiogenesis is pure speculation, far less grounded than even the "Big Bang". Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily well-grounded. it has been observed in nature. It can be traced through fossil evidence, It can be shown through DNA analysis of modern beings and ancient preserved tissues. It is seen in animals, plants, and microbiota. To suggest that abiogenesis is inane, so therefore evolutionary theory is clearly false, is simply nonsense.

It just depends on what brands of science and religion one believes in. My brand of science doesnt include millions of years of evolution just as my brand of religion believes in the creation, fall, and redemption and immortality of all life.

That is simply incorrect.

Strictly speaking, the genesis of life is a separate issue from organic evolution. The two are obviously intimately related. I'm actually in sympathy with a lot of what Rob writes, or at least with (what I perceive to be) the mindset behind it. Evolutionary scientists tend to argue that life began in a soupy sea of chemicals, blah blah blah. This is the "Big Bang" of biology -- an inferred singular, inexplicable event that gives a starting point for the model to start working. And like astrophysics, evolutionary biology is much better understood in the present than in the distant past. Insofar as Rob dislikes the implicit and overbearing atheist pose often taken by evolutionary scientists, I agree with him. I think those are careless (or more likely not-very-honest) scientists who go out of their way to assert the atheistic nature of their model of evolution. In this, we are at least on similar ground. On the other hand, evolution looks like a long series of random events. The basis of the model assumes that processes are random. But -- and this is important -- in this case, "random" means "looks random to us". In other words, "We can't distinguish any patterns, so our assumption is that there are no patterns." If God's actions are not distinguishable by us from random events, then for all (scientific) intents and purposes, we can say they are random. I don't really want to get into a philosophical discussion of why God looks random. I think LDS theology offers an easy and (to me) compelling answer, regarding our need to live by faith, coupled with the fact that we can learn to see the hand of God in our lives and understand the not-so-random-after-all nature of his actions. But that is a different issue.

Evolution is a theory of the origin of different species, not the origin of life.

Once your repentance is complete and the Lord remembers your sins no longer, they should likewise remember it no longer. Repentance and forgiveness are tough things to do, but totally worth it.

The most poisonous thing you can do for your relationship with God and your husband is to continue on living the lie you're doing right now. Honesty is the first step of repentance and repairing relationships with God and your husband.

Also as aside, you and your husband should visit a clinic and get tested.

This cements it for me. The next 2 years is going to be very very very interesting. My instincts with Trump is so far being validated over and over since he got elected. All the cabinet picks I'm looking out for are now filled and they're brilliant picks. People that would have been on my list too. Tillerson actually came as a major surprise for me. I had to go digging on him to see what he's made of. It didn't take me long to figure out where Trump was going with this. I am super excited that my Trump/Pence/Ryan expectation is starting to form. Ryan has been very very busy. Trump/Pence is a full-steam ahead workaholic pair. Ryan is just as much a workaholic and his speed is getting tested. McConnell is becoming a drag... he needs to either shape up or step down. Okay, this bit about Russia... I thought I posted it on the forums but I actually found my bit about this in a personal message to AskandAnswer (he is married to a Filipina and they are very politically active too). Let me just summarize it here - the Democrat's Russia gripe is what you would call Fake News. Guess what... China, Russia, Israel, etc. etc. are constantly waging cyber warfare on the US. They don't leave fingerprints behind and they don't go give their intelligence to wikileaks or the FBI. They sell/trade/leverage the info to other leaderships. The US is the one that meddles in international leadership out in blatant in-your-face fashion, deposing heads of states, buzzing their F16's over coup d'etats, interfering in Palestinian elections, trying to unseat Netanyahu, campaigning against Brexit, etc. etc. Par for the course of international affairs which is why the majority of the soccer-loving nations get frustrated with the Yanks. And now the Democrats are using Putin as their Monster Under The Bed to drive up American sentiment against the legitimacy of a Trump Presidency... hello... Putin IS a Monster Under Your Bed - you might want to stop provoking the dude! So yes, Tillerson is good for the US (and hence the world's) relationship with Russia. He is the master negotiator that can give The Art of the Deal Trump himself a run for his money. And yes, the real environmentalists (not the militant politicized one) will be happy with Tillerson. After all, Exxon became the world's leader in alternative energy under Tillerson's leadership. And trade is gonna be in good hands under Tillerson - he's been duking it out with nations all over the planet on diplomatic negotiations for a long time, heck, he just might be the one to bring China to clean up their trade practices using energy as leverage. Tillerson is highly experienced in immigration and emigration in and out of the US and what works and what doesn't and how to use labor force as leverage in trade negotations... and, a very important thing - he is a Private Sector guy that has never set foot in government even as he is highly experienced in dealing with government both foreign and domestic so he does not have the "can't do" preconceived notions of g-men. Okay, put on your seatbelts folks! Let's see what happens in the first 200 days... well, let's see first if the Democrats can succeed in upending the government on Dec 19... then let's fasten our seatbelts... And... as a Christmas gift for you. This is the perspective of the average Filipino. Jonathan Miller of Channel 4 to Duterte is the New York Times to Trump. It's going to be very interesting to see how a Trump Presidency can lead a world that has found a voice under leaders like Pres. Duterte. I'm really very anxious and hopeful to see what lies ahead.

IMO, if you get a dog, get a puppy (easier to train), and spend the money to go to the PetSmart classes or something similar to learn how to train him/her. Don't try doing it yourself from a book - having your dog learn to obey you while in with a group of other dogs and people is extremely useful. Also, the dog's name should be short (like 1 syllable, maybe 2) and include hard consonants, preferably at the start and end (dogs hear hard consonants better than soft, and it helps them to learn their names). And they should teach you hand signals to go with each verbal command - these are really useful - essential, in my opinion. My husband insisted on training our puppies, and man was it worth it. I could take big dog (Chomp) out without a leash and he would stay with and / or return when I called. He would sit and stay and speak and shut up and come and lie down on command. Of course, I think he was inherently obedient - that dog was Celestial from birth. Instead of instant messaging each other when in different rooms, or yelling, or (gasp) getting up and going in person, we would write a note, give it to big dog and say, "Take it to Mom" or "Take it to Dad" (teach your dog your names), and he would carry the note and give it to the specified person, then take the reply back. Little dog (Koshka, which is Russian for "cat") was harder, probably because she was smarter (border collie in there somewhere), but was more obedient than not and learned more quickly than big dog (she was just slower to obey sometimes), and would have been better, probably, if we'd worked harder. I recommend against getting any dog with border collie (or similar really smart breed) in it unless you actually have sheep1, or plan to spend tons of time challenging its intelligence (e.g. with dog agility courses), cuz a bored dog is a bad dog and smart breeds will get bored without you to challenge them. Neither dog would pass through a doorway without permission (HUGE benefit - train yours this way - to sit at a doorway (even if you go through it) and wait until you say "OK" - teach them "OK" - and they can abstract - eventually, they learn the concept of "doorway" and won't go through even new, never-before-seen doors without your OK). They also knew "out" meant to leave the room they were in, and, if there were multiple exits, to go in the direction you were indicating (monkeys cannot learn to follow your pointing finger, but dogs can). They also knew "off" (get off who or what they were on) and "hup" (jump up onto or into where you were indicating). Personally, I think lab-great dane mix is as perfect as you can get (that was big dog). 1 One time, we took the puppies (dogs) to watch herding competitions (sheep, cows, horses, etc.). Little dog was just dying to go chase the sheep around. I think big dog wanted to eat one.

I just remembered "It Is Well With My Soul." This hymn has a more powerful story behind it than any other. Horatio Spafford was such an amazing man and more like Job than anyone I know of in modern times.

Another one we sang this Sunday that I completely forgot about! "Did You Think to Pray?" Very lovely and a great message!

I accept neither idea. Even if you want to interpret Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the endowment presentation as a literal mechanical account of the order of creation, it's clear that man came last, not first. As for Noah's flood, the ancients who wrote that account (probably handed down from what I assume was Moses' original) did not understand the spherical nature of the earth. There are many instances in scripture of the narrator saying that thus-and-such occurrence covered 'the whole earth", when what is clearly meant is that it covered the entire area under discussion, not the whole globe -- a concept with which the ancients would most likely not have understood. In short, I see no reason to believe that Genesis' particular usage of "the whole earth" regarding Noah's flood should be interpreted to mean the entire planet. That is a markedly anachronistic interpretation. like saying that the division of the earth in Peleg's time refers to continental drift. Just does not make sense in context.

Like this one, that looks shockingly like @MormonGator wandering the compound...

I think this is the point of "intelligent design" proponents who are searching for an "intelligent designer" scientifically, thus stating it is still scientific, and that it should be viable option for students to learn and hear a different thought approach in schools. Evolutionists will claim, no creator, but are still unable to provide any significant impact regarding abiogenesis and yet we still call it "science" or "scientific." Allow students to choose for themselves which theory they want to pursue, rather than only teaching one method -- theory. I personally don't see anything wrong with it, and I don't see why anyone who professes a belief in "deity" would have any issues with it either. We live in a world that continually tries to separate science from "intelligent designer" as if they are mutually exclusively -- when they are not.

I will agree with what I think is the basic idea of PC's OP -- there is significant value in recognizing and acknowledging that God is our creator. And not just our creator in the sense that He created everything, but that He created us in His image and likeness, which makes us unique among His creations ("I know I am somebody, 'cuz God don't make no junk."). Hopefully, this kind of belief allows us to see God as approachable and to get a glimpse into "the worth of our souls". The challenges that I see are trying to understand mechanics and truths around what it means to me to see God as creator. Sometimes, I see "God is my creator" meaning that God very specifically created me. This invokes in my mind a picture of God deeply and intimately involved in every detail of my creation, including His influence on which specific gametes joined together at my conception, His control and manipulation of the meiotic processes that generated those two specific gametes, long history of genetic manipulation throughout my ancestry that deterministically made sure that the specific genetic material needed to create "me" would be exactly in place at the right time, and that the other influences (embryonic and developmental and environmental) would all be perfectly in place to create "me". All of that without needing to exactly control my parentage (if this is what we mean when we say that we don't believe in soulmates or other forms of pre-destined marriages), and while making this perfectly deterministic process be mathematically indistinguishable from a random process. Certainly an omnipotent and omniscient God can do this, but does He do this? Some variations of this suggest that, while God is not deeply involved in every detail, He initiated a chain of events that, would deterministically culminate in "me", again while appearing indistinguishable from random processes. How far back do I need to go to find the most recent tweaks God made in my creation? Does it go back several generations? Perhaps to Adam and Eve? Perhaps to the origin of life on Earth? The creation of the solar system? The formation of the galaxy? The Big Bang? I have frequently found some commentors claims that "God created men/women to be (fill in stereotype here)" interesting. As I see some of these stereotypes "debunked", I have often thought that, if God were truly manufacturing men/women to fit certain stereotypes, His manufacturing tolerances could stand some improvement. Just another thought train that gets me wondering exactly what the process of creation really looks like. I don't claim to know anything about these answers, nor do I feel that they are ultimately important to the OP's starting point. I believe that I am one of God's creations, and one of His "children." I believe that God is approachable and that I have worth.

Rob, I suspect you don't understand what "scientific" means. I agree with what seems to be your underlying point that we often proceed from false premises. This is the fundamental flaw of logic; even perfectly valid logic yields false conclusions when your premises are wrong. And our premises are almost always wrong in some respect. Because of this, the scientific method can yield absolutely outlandish conclusions. The other side to that coin is that science tends to be self-correcting. Here is an example: It was determined many hundreds of years ago that light was a wave of some sort. It spreads out past a barrier just like ocean waves do. It shows interference and other properties that water waves show. So light is definitely a wave of some sort. The assumption was that there was some sort of "water" that light traveled through. After all, if you remove the water from the oceans, you remove the waves. The waves don't exist without water. The water defines the waves. So the "water" or medium through which the waves of light traveled -- the medium that actually defined light -- was named "the luminiferous ether". Great efforts were made toward isolating and studying this "ether" -- how fast it transmitted waves, whether it had mass, how it interacted with objects, etc. Eventually a rather bizarre model of the luminiferous ether came about. The ether apparently had zero mass. It did not interact in any observable way with any material objects. It transmitted light at one speed in air but at other speeds in other materials. Most peculiarly, the motion of the earth seemingly didn't count -- light traveled just as fast in the direction of earth's motion as it did the other direction. This was truly strange, because other waves do not work like this. If water waves travel at 20 MPH and you're in a boat traveling across a lake at 10 MPH, you would find that, relative to you, waves move in the direction you're traveling at only 10 MPH (20 - 10), but at 30 MPH (20 + 10) in the opposite direction. Similarly, if light travels at 300,000 km/s through the ether and the earth travels at 30 km/s around the sun, you would expect light to travel, relative to us on the earth, at only 300,000 - 30 = 299,970 km/s in the direction of earth's motion around the sun, but at 300,000 + 30 = 300,030 km/s in the other direction. Careful experimental measurement confirmed that the speed of light was exactly the same in both directions. So it was assumed that the luminiferous ether must somehow be pulled around with the earth -- that the earth's "ether" traveled with it, through the rest of the "ether". But this model was untenable, and arguably unscientific. Finally, scientists simply dropped the idea of the "ether" altogether, and began to say that light was somehow a "self-existent" wave, one that didn't require a medium to travel through. Which is pretty much where we are today. The moral of this story is that science and scientific thinking can indeed lead us down rabbit holes, but the nature of science is self-correcting. As far as I can tell, this is not at all true with so-called "Intelligent Design".

They do not reject intelligent design; they reject Intelligent Design. intelligent design: "God is the Creator and stands behind all that happens." (Note that this is not at all incompatible with organic evolution.) Intelligent Design: "There is no possible way the eye could have evolved incrementally. Ergo, organic evolution is a false idea." Intelligent Design has nothing directly to do with religion; it is a pseudoscientific effort to discount evolutionary theory, mostly by handwaving arguments.

And you don't even have to order from the value menu!

I agree that this is a truth: Throughout the United States conflicts are are happening between Christian businesses, organizations and individuals through legal action, free speech infringement, public expressions of faith and employment. One can hope Christian First Amendment rights will start being restored in the coming years. This certainly would not have been the case under Hillary Clinton.

Zarahemla, I think if you weren't stressing about being a "good Mormon" you would find something else to stress out about. My son-in-law was a former Buddhist (he's Korean). He joined the church over 5 years ago. He is much happier as a "Mormon". Why? Because he knows the answers to "Why am I here?, Where do I come from? and Where will I go after death?" Knowing the Plan of Happiness brings us so much joy. For instance, we know if an infant, that has not been baptized before they die, will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. Do you know how many people in the world sorrow because a child died before being baptized and believe that child is going to hell? I don't know the number, but I know it's significant. I taught some of them during my mission. Learning that their beloved child is not going to end up in hell, but is saved, is a wonderful blessing. And brings so much relief to people. Obeying the commandments brings peace. Disobeying brings sorrow. We are given the commandments to help us find joy in life, not to repress us. We just had a family incident occur over Christmas because of the consequences of a former sin. My grandson's father has another child from a past girlfriend, and he has been trying to establish visitation rights with his daughter. It has been a mess with accusations being hurled between him and his past girlfriend. His little girl and my grandson are in the middle of it, and there were a lot of tears spilled. There is so much pain and sorrow over the consequences of not following the law of chastity. My heart breaks for both my grandson and his half-sister. They have only met several times. My life is happier when I know I'm following the Lord's will. It's not more stressed. We all fall short. We always will. But, we don't need to stress about it. We repent, and then we try to do better. Should we just give up? There will always be guilt and stress when we know we are not following the commandments. We can't get away from that. Even if we don't have the gospel in our lives, people still have the Light of Christ, and their conscience will prick at them when they make a wrong choice. The 10 Commandments are basic laws to follow. When we follow them we are happier. And, what exactly more do Mormons have to follow? IMO, we only have the Word of Wisdom extra. No coffee, tea, alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs. That isn't that hard unless you're already addicted. Other Christian religions have the Law of Chastity too. Mormons aren't the only religion that teaches no sex before marriage. Other religions teach people to be a good person too. So, please stop stressing and stop blaming the church for the stress.

As lamentable as the decline of classical liberalism is, the true corruption of our society is that we no longer believe in the power of godly people to make a difference. A long succession of fundamentally decent (sometimes even reasonably godly) people were absolutely savaged by folks who were bound and determined to see the fulfillment of their slavish fetish for seeing Donald Trump put all his enemies under his feet. We have treated D&C 98:10 like so much toilet paper; choosing instead to go a-whoring after known liars (or master persuaders, as it has become fashionable to call them) who distress our enemies and make us feel good. Trump may be a politically convenient destructor; but Zion will not be built through the antics of liars and false accusers and thieves and whoremongers--let alone by folks who pal around with dictators and make excuses for mass murderers.

Fine. Better? I can't understand what possible gripe Gator would have with this picture. I'm in the cultural hall standing next to a white board that says "daughters" - obviously I'm the epitome of righteousness and cleanliness.

I know all that, but the point is that the way the Elector explained his side implied that the people who elected him were absolutely no factor at all in his decision. If an Elector isn't even going to take that into consideration, that's a problem. It would be one thing if he had said "I know that's what the voters want and I really hate to go against them, but I think in this blah blah blah." Instead, it was more like "The will of the people, shoooot who cares about them?"

Actually, the guy who did the interview is correct. The founders set up a process where the people were never to directly vote for President or Vice-president, but they were to vote for electors who expressed a preference for one person over another. So the real process is that we vote for electors who then vote for President rather than directly voting for President. The Founders original view was that no president would ever be directly elected in a general election. At the time of the founding of the USA, the colonies were more like actual individual countries in a confederation rather than one united country (in many ways very similar to the EU today). The founders originally thought that what would happen is that each state would run their own "favored son" for president and the electors would pair down the list to a few candidates who Congress would then select from. Another factor is originally everything was done by local committees and conventions. It was a bubble-up representative democracy. The actual individual votes were democratic, but each layer was built on representation. Thus, the revolution started with local Committees of Correspondence who elected people from their ranks to attend the Continental Congress. We still have vestiges of this system in the Republican/Democrat Primary process where you have local Mass Precinct Meetings that elect representatives to go to County Conventions that vote on County issues and elect representatives to the State Convention (and conduct state business) and then elect people to represent them at the National Committee level. Originally set-up the only portion of the federal government that was directly accountable to the people was to be the House of Representatives (and at 30,000 people per Rep-it was truly accountable to the people). Now at at least 500-1million people per Representative claiming that a House of Rep. member is accountable to his local people is laughable. So actually, yes the guy is technically correct-we are founded and set-up the way he claims, the electors are accountable to the people who elected him. In some states (IIRC) the electors are actually on the ballot and in most states the electors are chosen by the Republican/Democrat party either at their State Conventions or chosen by the State Committee. So yes the electors are elected . . . but to become an elected elector you have to be heavily involved in the R/D party. But yes, once elected they have the autonomy to vote as they see fit-it is their right as an elector.

According to Nibley, assuming I understood him correctly, the pre-Dome of the Rock temple perched atop a steep path. (This was supposed to have been flattened out to accomodate the present massive Islamic structure.) Climbing this path was no mean feat, especially for the aged. To assist them, a handrail of sorts was installed, by which they could hold on and pull themselves up to the temple. This handrail was a rod -- specifically, an iron rod. Interesting if true, and very meaningful to Lehi's vision.