Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/28/17 in all areas

  1. Today was lawn-mowing day. Husband wound up having to stay very late with the client. I was playing with my girls in the yard, musing about a recent desire to learn how to use a lawn mower after watching some 9-year-old girl with the sturdiness of a stalk of celery mowing the lawn. So... I pulled up a PDF of our lawn mower's user manual... and I mowed the lawn. I feel so empowered.
    10 points
  2. I have nothing to add, only that I would love to have 200,000$ a year to blow.
    4 points
  3. This is a rare occasion where I disagree with DoctorLemon. Just because your wife is intent on flying your plane into the ground doesn't mean you should let her. I don't have a quick solution. I do know that if you're bringing in $200,000 a year, you should have complete financial independence for the rest of your life within a decade. Your wife is completely out of control. She must not be allowed to control the purse strings, not for any reason, not for mortgage or daily expenses or anything. I do have some other questions, though: You're paying $4000/month in mortgage. Why? Unless you're living in San Francisco or Manhattan, $4000/month is one huge house. And just for the two of you, given that all your children are grown. So sell the McMansion and MOVE. Get a small bungalow, or buy a condo, or maybe rent an apartment. Cut your mortgage/rent by 75%. $1000/month in debt repayment and...$11,667 in monthly expenses?! Those two numbers should be reversed. Live on $1000/month (other than mortgage), and pour huge amounts of money into getting your debt repaid. You are a rich man. But you and your wife are spending money like you're filthy rich -- and you are not. It would be criminal for someone with your income to get to retirement penniless, but it sounds like that is where you are headed. Get control of this train before it derails.
    3 points
  4. I dunno. I get how a lot of these can be conceptually harmful (c.f. Elizabeth Smart). But some acts do follow us throughout our mortal lives. A criminal record is, temporally speaking, permanent. Child support, parental responsibilities, and a crazy ex, are not expungeable. Physiological damage from substance abuse may prove irreversible. The psychological damage/trauma involved with--say--combat, or surviving child/sex abuse, can be lifelong. And increasingly, we are learning that engaging in premature sexual relationships (and the inevitable collapse of those relationships) tends to be a bellwether for emotional commitment issues later in life. I'm all for keeping our metaphors useful; but suggesting that innocence and chastity (among other virtues) are merely "paths" that can be abandoned with impunity and then rejoined again at one's leisure with no lasting fallout, seems itself unhelpful and deceptive if not outright destructive.
    3 points
  5. First let me say that you are in a very difficult situation, and it is understandable and reasonable to be upset that your wife is seriously mismanaging money. Also, in general I agree with much of the advice that has already been given. Now that I've got that out of the way, I'd like to address a different problem, and will openly admit that I am making a biased judgement here. I know other people live differently than I do, however, per the OP, here is the breakdown of the 200K spending allotment to your wife: 1) $48,000 Mortgage Payments 2) $12,000 Debt Payments 3) $140,000 Needed/Other Expenses So if this were me, I would reorganize as follows at the absolute minimum: 1) $48,000 Mortgage Payments 2) $12,000 Debt Payments 3) $90,000 Extra Mortgage/Debt Payments 4) $50,000 Needed/Other Expenses Now personally I would go even further than that and my wife would be all in with me. The real root problem in my mind is that you and your wife are not united in financial matters and you need to find a way to get there. I am assuming that the provided money is post-tax. That being said I find it extremely unlikely that your wife would have $140,000 of legitimate expenses while you have other debt at the same time. If you have that much expense for food, car insurance, utilities and cell phones, you should probably sell your cars and buy cheaper ones, shut off the electricity in some of the unused rooms in your very large home, cut out the number of phones you pay for, etc, etc, etc. If you have maids, and lawn service, and so on so forth, those should be reconsidered as well while still in debt. With the exception of medical needs, there are exactly zero other legitimate reasons, in my opinion, for an individual to have 200K in after tax expenses while also still having debts. If you see that as reasonable, I would suggest that while your wife may be terrible with money, you just might not be that good with it either. Once again I would suggest that the advice others have given has generally been good, and I sincerely wish you the best in working out your issues with your spouse.
    3 points
  6. I'm wondering what benefit would come from answering this. From the adamant, "Yes", to the skeptical "Paradise means the spirit world, and could have simply meant the thief would have the opportunity to accept truth and repent there", what difference would it really make if we knew? What we DO know is that Jesus WILL forgive repentant sinners. What we DO know is that Jesus cannot save people IN their sins (but only FROM them). None of those things change depending on how one reads Jesus's statement to the thief.
    2 points
  7. eddified

    vidangel

    It seemed pretty legit. Not a data theft sting. Nothing to be worried about.
    2 points
  8. But we need to be careful with that teaching. Lots of people won't feel too indebted to the creator of mosquitoes.
    2 points
  9. This situation would be a nightmare for me. I can completely understand where the OP is coming from--he is concerned about the finances of his family (his wife and he at this point--and I'm guessing the retirement years) and yet his wife lies to him and spends behind his back (no matter what it's for). I get that he's upset his adult children are not supporting themselves, but I'm guessing if she spent $200K a year on hair ribbons (and using budgeted money and lying to him about it), he would still be upset. I think they need marriage counseling. At this point, they are both so furious with the other than a mediator is probably needed. From an outside perspective, I think a budget needs to be agreed upon. And, I agree that what money is given to the wife is hers to spend as she wants. But, same deal with the husband. Both need some money to be able to spend without having to account (within reason) for it.
    2 points
  10. While I don't believe finances is a reason for divorce; the fact of the matter is that financial decisions and arguments over finances is the #1 reason for divorce. Unfortunately, this is a problem that should have been solved long, long ago with your wife and because it wasn't solved many moons ago it has caused a much, much bigger problem. This is precisely why your children have problems-she has never let them be responsible for their own lives. This probably started when they were young and she wanted them to live a good life; not realizing that as a parent you can teach but you can't live their life for them-which is what she is trying to do. This is also why (as much as people complain about rich inheritances) wealth does not pass three generations. The 1st generation worked hard, by the sweat of their brow and built something, the second generation has it a little bit easier but saw the hardwork of the parents and tries to do the same, by the time the 3rd generation roles around the kids are spoiled brats who can't do jack for themselves. The very wealthy families (who's wealth has passed down through generations) teach their kids very, very differently; kids who are slackers are cut off-everyone is expected to work hard, etc. I completely agree you need to get control of the situation-without causing a divorce. The only way you are going to completely solve the problem is for you and her to get on the same page-for that, she needs to understand at a very deep emotional level the massive problems she is causing with your children's lives by providing them with financial funds (they will never be financially stable on their own, their own self-worth will be less, etc.). I don't know how that is going to happen at this stage . . . Baring a complete mindset change on her part, probably the best you can do is find some compromise you both can live with. Giving your wife 200k/year for the needs of the family is a lot of money; that isn't needs that is 200k/year for wants. If you are providing 200k/year to her but then complaining about the 100k/year she gives to the kids-you are doing it wrong man. Think of it this way . . . if as an employer you give your employees 50k/year and then they take 20k and blow it on shopping do you get upset at them? No, b/c it is their money to do with as they see fit. If you give her 200k/year then you can't complain with what she does with the money as long as the actual needs not wants of your family is paid for. A huge part of this life is learning how to give people responsibility over things and then letting them fail or do with it how they see fit. You have given your wife responsibility over 200k/year and obviously she is being irresponsible with that money (in your opinion and in mine-but not in her opinion). So what do you do? I don't know-this should have been solved a long time ago, if you don't nip things in the bud they can get real, real bad. I would start of with obviously she doesn't need 200k/year so dial that back-what is appropriate, I have no idea, but obviously 100k/year isn't since she blows that on the kids. No if you go from 200k to 100k/year that is probably going to cause some major problems. Do you scale it back gradually or rip the bandaid off (which might be a turniquet that is keeping blood from going everywhere). And finally, is a divorce really going to solve this problem? My guess is that a lot of things are tied together in your names and since you are fairly well off she will most likely get a significant portion of your income-which may amount to 200k/year??? In that case, she continues to do the same-except you've now lost your wife. My condolences and good luck!
    2 points
  11. https://thesundaypews.com/2017/03/21/ldsleaks-reveals-first-presidencys-toothpaste-brand-of-choice-testimonies-crumbling-worldwide/ President Thomas S. Monson: “It’s true. Ever since I was a young boy my mother insisted that I use Pepsodent toothpaste. I can almost still hear her loving voice: ‘Oh Tommy, fetch the Pepsodent! Don’t forget to brush!’ It has been 76 years … but I still use it today. In fact, I used it just this morning. A new tube was opened. Fresh peppermint was savored. A smile was brightened.” President Henry B. Eyring: “I remember it like it was yesterday. As a young deacon, a righteous Priesthood leader placed his hand firmly on my shoulder and asked, ‘Henry, when was the last time you brushed your teeth?’ I dared not answer. He then slipped a small tube of Colgate into the pocket of my white shirt. This wise leader saw my teeth not as they were, but as they could become. From that day on I have always carried with me … *quiet sobs* … a small tube of Colgate MaxFresh.” President Dieter F. Uchtdorf: “Arm & Hammer is my brand of choice. Why? I will tell you. One evening while piloting a large aircraft from Berlin to Paris I suddenly realized I had forgotten to place my traditional toothpaste in my toiletry bag. My co-pilot soon came to my aid with a spare tube of Arm & Hammer toothpaste. The arm and hammer brought to my mind images of spiritual strength and fortitude. From that day forward I have never used another brand.”
    1 point
  12. The only problem I see with this is those using the semantics of it to justify sin. Otherwise it probably isn't that important. But as many seem to use semantics and the like to justify sin, pointing out the clear meaning can matter, methinks.
    1 point
  13. The useful difference is that Christ CANNOT save someone in their sins. The missing point is the humility/repentance of the woman. Forgiveness implies clean, and therefore saved. Which she cannot be made clean without repentance.
    1 point
  14. Can someone please explain why they interpret "remember me" to mean "forgive me"? For what it is worth, I understand the thief to essentially be asking of Jesus: "when you pass on to the other side, please don't leave me hanging tortuously here in mortality indefinitely." And, the Savior mercifully informed the thief that both their torture would soon end, and they would pass to the other side that day. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
    1 point
  15. Just wondering aloud if to the original writer (of the scripture) condemn and forgive were more or less synonymous? I suspect that the whole point of reporting the event was for you and me to read the verses and draw the conclusion (among others I suppose) that through Jesus Christ we have hope and that our determination to change by forsaking our sins is crucial.
    1 point
  16. Not sure. They seem functionally similar. But if Jesus doesn't condemn you (which he doesn't, you or me, until the judgment), that seems to me to be a sign that he is granting us a space for repentance -- which if we fail to do, we will stand condemned before him. If Jesus forgives us, then our repentance is complete, and we stand sinless before him.
    1 point
  17. Given that she's earned her Adulting badge. I think that's probably "No need to rest on your Relief Societies".
    1 point
  18. @Backroads Pressure cooker. 5 cut up precooked chicken breasts in frozen chunks. 6 cups frozen California mix. Put frozen chicken in bottom of pot with 2 tablespoons oil. Browned frozen chicken a bit. Defrosted frozen veg in microwave for about 10 minutes. Added to pot with 1 cop go water. Put on 'meat setting' for 20 minutes. 20 minutes later, turned button on lid to release vapor. No vapor. Concerned. unplugged unit. Left for a couple of minutes and unlocked. chicken burnt on bottom. But rest looked nice and mushy so...ate a serving. Even though chicken burnt still tasty. Hmmm. Will look for more recipes. Verdict: hopeful. Need more water? on line says not to put frozen food in pressure cooker but not doing so requires organization! Even with burnt chicken tasted a lot better than crockpot version. Crockpot version is really watery and bland
    1 point
  19. Evil doesnt always think, sometimes it just does. Satan dont care so much about numbers, he loves killing Gods children through murder.
    1 point
  20. Congratulations Backroads. No need to rest on your laurels though, its time to quickly move on to the next big thing like using the trimmer/edger/whipper snipper to trim the edges. Sadly, I have to report that the minimum requirement to claim an adulthood badge involves two lawn mows, to prove that the first wasn't an accident, raking up any loose grass, refilling the fuel, checking the oil, and cleaning the mower afterwards.
    1 point
  21. Proud of you! @Backroads! Today I try to use a pressure cooker!
    1 point
  22. eddified

    vidangel

    Phishers wouldn't ask you to sign an NDA.
    1 point
  23. I would contend that a better approach is to follow the Spirit and speak up when you are inspired to.
    1 point
  24. I know how you feel Backroads. I drove my teen daughter to school for the first time the entire school year today, and she managed to not die of embarrassment!
    1 point
  25. I take it it's a power mower then, not one you have to push. We had a push one when I was a kid - you had to give it a good hard shove and then keep the momentum going until you had come to the end of a strip. Then repeat. It took a long time. I remember when I was about 10 mowing the lawn on a Saturday and I was so pleased I went inside to tell my mother that the lawn was mowed. My mother was asleep, and I got the dickens from both parents about the wickedness of going inside talking about lawn mowing when parents might (possibly) be having a siesta. "Try to be a bit more thoughtful!" they told me. Well I had thought I had been thoughtful by mowing the lawn, but I guess that didn't count. Helpfulness isn't always appreciated. Just this afternoon I've been ejected from an exam hall by an irate chief invigilator who didn't appreciate my idea of "being helpful". I've a nasty feeling he's now going to make complaints about "academics" (by which of course he'll mean one particular academic - me) "interfering with and disrupting his work" - or at least write nasty things about me in his report and get me into deep, deep trouble. Which on top of all the other cock-ups I've made recently might be the straw that breaks camel's back. Anyone would think I didn't have enough to stress me out right now... Maybe if I worry about it enough it won't happen Still I mustn't complain: a colleague of mine has had a complaint made against him because he told a particularly obnoxious student who had his feet on the table: "We don't do that in this country!" Seems that you can't say that to a Muslim without it being considered racism.
    1 point
  26. I'm seeing an epitaph: Here lies Mirkwood. The greatest rock an roller of all time. Shot dead at age 100 by a jealous lover. It's a shame we never saw him in his prime.
    1 point
  27. If I were in the Op's situation, and the money coming into my household came from a pay cheque, I would have the salary diverted into another bank account. I would set up payments for the new bank account such that I control expenditures. I would ask the bishop for the name of a counsellor and take the name of the counsellor and the information about the new financial setup to my spouse. i acknowledge that this change is very risky. The spouse may leave. She may call the kids. The kids may side with Mom. Make that 'probably side with Mom'. I might go to the bishop first and tell him what I plan to do. But..I would make the changes no matter how angry the kids and my wife react. i would try to get my spouse to agree to counselling and if not, I would go myself. This tactic might well lead to civil war..but I would still do it. I went to many group counselling sessions in which this type of behaviour was labelled financial abuse. I personally would have put my foot down a long time ago. If the money is coming from investment accounts. I would go off to a lawyer and see what could be done. i have to admit that I have dated quite a few men who were very foolish with money. I have contemplated what steps I might have to take to control the finances and I have always broken off the realatiinship because I did not want to get into this situation. I do not envy the op. Someone has to take control of this situation. When I get to points like this in my life, I picture myself turning off my emotions and doing what needs to be done. This is a very unpleasant situation.
    1 point
  28. So apparently there isnt anything new under the sun...
    1 point
  29. In one sense we are commanded to build up Zion in our homes, communities, etc. In another sense we as a people, those called the pure in heart, are called Zion and are tied in to the places we dwell in or upon. So yeah, I think you are right.
    1 point
  30. I also wonder how it is that people who are taught these metaphors aren't able to separate the warning from the plain, repeated teaching of repentance and the miracle of the atonement. The miracle of repentance and the atonement is that chewed gum can become unchewed, the fence post with holes in it can be made whole (or hole-less), etc. I am slightly skeptical* that so many seem unable to make this association. Of course I agree...sometimes the completion of that hole-less-ness won't come about until the resurrection. And...more importantly, the holes made may well cause enough problems of one nature or another that the healing may never be fully realized. Note: I'm not arguing for teaching using these metaphors. I just find the railing against them a bit overwrought -- which pretty much sums up how everyone reacts to everything nowadays. I can't say there is anything wrong with the idea that these metaphors aren't the best way to teach the subject. But...meh. *By which I mean to say, in some ways this sort of thing just feels like another way to criticize the church.
    1 point
  31. That is an elegantly simple way of putting it--part of the unconditional promise in having one's calling and election made sure, is the promise of receiving a faithful and exalted spouse; whether or not one currently enjoys that blessing.
    1 point
  32. I make it a specific point to only ever refer to Him as Ahman. Especially when talking to muggles, I mean. . . non-members.
    1 point
  33. Chastity metaphors that need to go? ALL of them. Let's just talk plainly to our kids.
    1 point
  34. Ooops. Sorry, I completely forgot. He stopped by while you were out...
    1 point
  35. @Traveler Even within the Young Earth Creationist movement, and certainly with the broader Intelligent Design one, micro-evolution is not even a controversy. It's undeniable. The questions surround the idea of whether or not one species can evolve into an entirely different species. I believe this is called macro-evolution--and this is where all the differing perspectives seem to start.
    1 point
  36. If temple marriage isn't required prior to having one's calling and election made sure, it is guaranteed to happen by having the calling and election made sure. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
    1 point
  37. Yes. It wasn't the sole treatise. But, it also was the declaration that helped usher in the last dispensation. I find that significant and meaningful. Others are free to see it otherwise. My intent wasn't to become dogmatic about creedal or doctrinal dogmatism, but to humbly offer thoughts for helpful consideration.l If people are getting worked up over the proposed date of Christ's birth and resurrection, I wish to offer them a way to gain peace and "chill out" as the kids say these days. Thanks, -Wade Engund-
    1 point
  38. Once, as a kid, I pulled my jacket down from the outdoor clothes line and put it on. There were 3 bees that I didn't see that were slightly up one of the sleeves. I was stung. I prefer my clothes dryer.
    1 point
  39. I'm not sure if such things qualify as "false doctrine" as they re not leading anyone astray from the covenants. Such ideas have many means of coming about and taking root in a mind, a family, a community/culture/etc. I think we are supposed to say something about it when prompted, or at least accompanied, by the Spirit. Charity and preserving the covenant should be our aim. In this instance, I would tend to mention something to the Sunday School President and go from there (teachers should stick to the manual and the objectives of the lesson, and not share this kind of information). I would not judge my involvement on how bad something has to be, but on how necessary and edifying my correction would be for all involved at the moment. How (and when, and why) we correct is often more crucial than what we correct.
    1 point
  40. At the risk of taking a light-hearted riff too seriously, let me observe that the fundamental problem isn't that the jeans dry stiff. The problem is that the jeans don't get "softened". In a dryer, the clothes are continuously tumbled, so the fibers are constantly flexed. This results in the now-dried cloth being soft and pliable. Line-drying doesn't get this same result, but it can be gotten just by working the dried (or probably drying) cloth by hand. I bet if you put several pairs of line-dried jeans in a box and shook them around for a couple of minutes, most of the stiff-jeans problem would disappear.
    1 point
  41. And here I thought @NightSG was just hoping to reconnect with some of his oldest friends....
    1 point
  42. Vort

    D&C 77:6

    Let me be more precise. I think the wording might indeed be literal, but I don't think it means what many people, then or now, take it to mean. "The seven thousand years of the earth's temporal existence" does not mean, or even imply, that the earth was created out of dust (or out of nothing, or out of whatever) seven -- or six -- thousand years ago. "Temporal existence" might well refer to time since Adam's Fall, for example. Those who use this verse as some sort of hard evidence against ancient fossils, dinosaurs, or "pre-Adamites" are misusing -- one might even say wresting -- the scriptures.
    1 point
  43. Hi @Orator61... I think your wife has an addiction. She's addicted to motherhood. She can't let go of it. She feels useless, purposeless, etc., when she's not fussing over the kids. Unfortunately, her addiction is costing you a lot of money and is in danger of putting you in the poor house for retirement. If you were Filipino, it would be different because Filipino kids are their parents' retirement plans... So, you've got lots of good advice above. I'm going to add to this by giving you a perspective adjustment. The way you've been handling this has been a My Wife Versus Me problem. This is not a healthy way to look at this. This is why you're contemplating divorce which is an unhealthy escapism solution to your problem which doesn't really solve the problem at all, it just makes it worse. I suggest you look at this as a My Marriage versus Addiction problem. What you want to accomplish is for both you and your wife to be on the same side of the fence fighting the "motherhood addiction". So, your first step is to stop thinking of your wife as the enemy. Rather, start thinking of your wife as a prisoner of war that has been captured by the enemy. You get to save her from the enemy. You should not get mad at your wife - you can't bring a POW back to your side if you're mad at the POW for getting herself captured, you see? Rather, you should LOVE YOUR WIFE EVEN MORE - because this love will give you strength to free her from the bonds of the enemy. So, how to free your wife from bondage... go get help from the Marines - the marriage counselors, financial counselors, etc who know their stuff and can help your wife overcome her weakness. You might also try to get your adult children to help you. Tell them to stop asking Mom for stuff! For shame! And, of course, get down on your knees and ask God to help you. That's really all I can say about that. Hope you get through this.
    1 point
  44. Great ideas. My notebook has mostly names and descriptions of who the people are and how they are related to one another.
    1 point
  45. That's actually a very good idea. Maybe draw yourself out a chart, like zil suggested. Or just make a list of names. You could even attach a little note to each name, e.g.: Lehi - father, prophet Sariah - mother Nephi - son, prophet, wrote the books of Nephi Laman and Lemuel - Nephi's older brothers; wicked Laban (with a 'b') - some military guy in Jerusalem who stole Nephi's stuff and tried to kill him; Nephi killed Laban and got some plates (scriptures) from him Sam - Nephi's good older brother Jacob - Nephi's younger brother; great prophet, wrote the book of Jacob Joseph - Nephi's other younger brother Nephites - people who followed Nephi; righteous Lamanites - people who followed Laman and Lemuel and tried to kill Nephites etc. You get the idea. One thing that most of us do when reading is that we sort of glide over names without paying much attention to them. It's a lazy reading habit that most people have. Just forcing yourself to read the names when you come to them and pay attention mostly solves the problem of not remembering who's who.
    1 point
  46. Fine >:( thansk everyone for humoring my question
    1 point
  47. I don't think he knew. 1 Nephi 4:6 "And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do." I think he would have written that differently had he known he would have to kill Laban. He probably took Laban's sword as a safety measure - in case Laban came to his senses, so Laban couldn't use it and Nephi could, to compel Laban to cooperate with him. That or he just thought it was cool (which, from the description, it was). (Probably the former. )
    1 point
  48. That crossed my mind too, but then I thought about hard times in my life that I knew were coming (mission, getting in a roller coaster, etc.). I knew it was coming, but when it happened I panicked. Not suggesting you are wrong, just another potential view. I like to think he did know, that he went in there planning on killing him because he knew there was no other way to get the plates, but didn't know exactly where to go or how it would happen. We are always told as missionaries to have a plan, then follow the spirit as we go... Also... he did draw the blade before the spirit "constrained him". Why else would he draw the blade?
    1 point
  49. I dont think so because he was fairly resistant to the idea when it came up. It could have been, while trying to pump his brothers up for another try within the city, the spirit came to help influence them through nephi's words. In that way nephi's words could be inspired by the spirit but without him realizing what he'd eventually be expected to do. Thats my take on it, anyway.
    1 point
  50. The way I read it is that it would *not* terminate your parental rights, legally speaking. But theologically, the clear meaning is that "in the eternal scheme of things stepparent, not natural parent, is the child's true parent". And there may be psychological repercussions for the way the child views the natural parent thereafter; which repercussions/attachment issues might be considered probative if a court thereafter is considering a parent's petition to involuntarily terminate the other parents' rights. I know it's poor form to rip on a poster who is no longer participating; but I don't understand why the OP is so outraged about the concept of the church asking her to terminate her ex's parental rights legally when that's exactly what she's trying to do spiritually. Perhaps I'm jaded for professional reasons, but it strikes me that the OP may be trying to get what she wants without interrupting the golden flow of child support dollars (stipulated stepparent adoptions aren't THAT expensive, and speaking as a lawyer, they are pretty easy). To that, I would reply that part of what creates the qualitative aspect of the parent-child relationship is the material sacrifice that the parent has made in actually supporting the child rather than shunting that burden off onto a third party. IMHO her new hubby needs to either man up and provide for the kid he claims to want, or else raise his own eternal offspring and quit trying to poach someone else's. Sealing, in my understanding, is a lot more nuanced and involves a whole lot more than who will "be with" whom in the eternities; but even so, if someone came asking my permission to seal my kids to someone else my immediate answer would be "aw, HECK no!!!!!"
    1 point