MarginOfError

If the Aaronic Priesthood has been conferred upon your son, then he may get a recommend to stand proxy for Baptisms and Confirmations in the temple. He will be able to participate in the other temple ordinances after he has had the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon him and received his own temple recommend.

Meh, don't worry about it. Live your religion, love your husband, and don't worry about his religion. Everything will work out in the end (although we don't know how). But I do guarantee that if you're happy in this life, you'll be happy in the next.

Which temple is my favorite? hmmmm........ Can I say my wife's?

If I were to speculate, I would guess that the first few times we meet Christ we would be in awe and reverence, and rightly so. But as with all things, the shock starts to wear off. After the initial awe, is it unreasonable to think that we would develop enough comfort in His presence to greet and treat him like we do our friends?

Warning: In the following I'm going to use broad generalizations and stereotypes that do not extend universally to women. Still, some elements may shed light on what's happening. Deborah Tannen writes in her book You Just Don't Understand a chapter about gossip. She states that women use gossip as a way to negotiate both intimacy and status. She says that many women will trade secrets as an indirect way of saying, "I like you and want to be your friend." At the same time, the more secrets a woman knows, the more friends she must have, therefore, the more popular she must be (higher status). For me, I'd say it's the idea of status that plays into whether or not it is gossip. If X is telling you about Z for no other reason than to show that she knows something about Z, then it is gossip. However, if X is talking about Z in an attempt to make sense of her relationship with Z, then it's probably not gossip. Remember, people often don't understand the situations they are in until they articulate them. Tangent: My wife and I almost never listen to each other. When I'm trying to figure something out, she'll pretend like she's listening, and by the time I've reached the end of what I'm saying I've figured it out. She does the same thing. She gets mad at me though, when she's talking for intimacy and I forget to tune in.

I thought about reporting this thread, just for giggles. But I do appreciate the message.

Uncorked is one of my favorites. (It is also known as At Satchem Farm)

The fear of moving up a tax brackets is because of the following hypothetical, yet plausible situation. Say you earn $49,000 and owe $4,000 in taxes. You net $45,000. The next year you get a raise to $51,000, putting you in a higher tax bracket, and you now owe $7,000 in taxes. You now only net $44,000. I actually experienced this when I served tables in college a few times. If I worked 36 hours, I would get a paycheck each week of about $210. If I worked 38 hours, I hit the next tax bracket, and my weekly paycheck totaled about $125. I always found that kind of annoying.

You're right, we never will agree on this topic, simply because we will never agree on how involved government should be. But hey, I do appreciate your viewpoints. You have said some things I'll consider and that may even refine my opinions some. I don't for a second think I have all the answers...how could anyone? the problems are too complex, and it's entirely impossible to do what will provide the absolute best results for everyone. What I mean by a graduated tax was something to the effect of (and i'm pulling these numbers out of my ear) If you make less than $10,000 you pay no tax If you make $10,000 to $20,000 you pay 5% If you make $20,000 to $30,000 you pay 7% If you make $30,000 to $40,000 you pay 9% If you make $40,000 to $50,000 you pay 11% If you make $50,000 to $75,000 you pay 13% ... If you make over $3 billion you pay 40% Of you could even get creative, and have a linear function that specifies an exact ratio between income earned and tax paid. This makes it less painful to move from, say, $49,000 to $51,000.

The doors on the temple have a lot of symbolism. I don't have all of hte references at hand, and am too lazy to look them up right now, so I'll try to work from memory and welcome any and all corrections. They open East to welcome the Savior, who will come 'as the rising of the Sun.' They open to the East as a throwback to the Tabernacle of the Congregation. This last one I have no way of confirming. I heard it second hand from someone who claimed they'd heard an expert on Jewish culture say that the doors on the East were part of the symbolism of returning to God. According to the alleged expert: 1) Eden was created 2) The Garden was placed Eastward in Eden 3) When Adam and Eve transgressed, they were sent further East When the tabernacle was built, the door was on the East, and the Holy of Holies was on the most western side of the tabernacle. So Adam and Eve went from West to East, and as we go through the tabernacle, we return to God, going East to West. If such is true, then we lose some of the symbolism of the doors in the East because we tend to view it from the Greek point of view (bottom to top) rather than the Hebrew point of view (East to West). But it's a nice throwback. The doors on the East may be used by anyone, so long as they're unlocked, but I have heard some say that the Eastern doors will be the ones Christ uses upon his return. But I don't know of any reference to support that. Okay peanut gallery, eat me up.

And thus you run into the fundamental challenge of government: as a people, we know what has to be done, but as individuals, we rarely want to do it. This is what government exists to do, by the way; balance the communal interest against the individual interest. In a somewhat ludicrous argument, we can say that if government has no right to infringe on personal freedom, then it has no right to punish a man who kills another. Under that argument, the government should back of of NAMBLA too. But we as a society would never allow such things to happen because we inherently understand that such behaviors, in the long run, prove detrimental to society. We impose restrictions on personal liberties in order to ensure a better future for our society. Now, the big question is, will proper redistribution of wealth provide a better future for our society? I believe it will. I believe it would be worth while to tax more from the rich to fund better schools in low income areas, or something of that nature. Also, saying compromise is founded upon the ideas of the Adversary is just ridiculous. The point of compromise is to come to a common concensus, upon which people choose to give up certain liberties because they see the eventual benefit. Compromise is in no way coercion. Just for the record, more taxes on the rich under current tax codes seems absurd to me, and I don't think it would do much. I do think a kind of flat tax would be much better, where the more money you make, the higher the percentage gets, but you don't get to take nearly as many credits and exemptions. The best idea I've heard yet, though, is a national salary cap. Cap the salaries somewhere, and then let the businesses figure out how to spend the money saved. You'd likely see a lot of creative ways to pay CEO's more, but you'd also see a lot of additional investment into the company.

A receipt just appeared linking him to purchases of Human Growth Horomone. Which wouldn't be a problem but he said he had nothing to do with it while under oath the Congress. Essentially, it's strong evidence that he lied to Congress.

I wish it were that simple. I do agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure it applies. A 10% tithe makes sense for a religion that exists to improve a person's soul. But the improvement of one's soul can be accomplished regardless of economic circumstances, upbringing, demographics, etc. Prosperity in a temporal sense is much more difficult, and is heavily influenced by demographics, economies, and other things that an individual has no control over. The idea of taxing the rich is fueled by the vision of 'Social Responsibility,' meaning when one person has the resources to make him and his family capable of reaching their full potential, then he can give a little more to help those who don't have the resources. For instance, if someone earns $20 million in a year, is he really going to be that much happier with $14 million after taxes than he would be with $10 million? Conservatives would argue that ownership is more important, and Social Responsibility should be a choice, not a legislated cause. They're right. But the choice that is made is to keep the money, eventually causing greater separation between the rich and the poor. This process gave us things like the French Revolution. So why not strike a compromise somewhere. Oh, and by the way, the Church does ask more of the wealthy than 10%. But they do it quietly, as when a poor family can't afford to send their son or daughter on a mission, the Bishop will ask a wealthy member to contribute. Or sometimes, when a family can't pay a dentist bill, the Bishop may ask a wealthy member to cover the costs (either directly or through Fast Offering).

The next time I have to give a lesson about honesty, and want to show how one lie usually leads to another, I'm using Clemens as an example. What kind of his jerk throws his wife under the bus to take the fall for him.

Okay, I'm finished...and I'm a little confused. Hurry up and let's get this discussion going! :-)

I bought the whole thing from Deseret Book for $50. A pretty good deal considering the number of tomes. It's also nice to be able to carry it around for lessons.

Infidel!

My mistake. Conjecture away, Lehi!

With all due respect Lehi, the guy is meeting with missionaries, let's keep the conjecture off his thread for now. Just don't want to get conjecture and doctrine confused. Nice cat by the way. You must feed it well.

Do you ride your bike while riding the horse?

I really want to disagree with you, Palerider, but I'm intimidated by your suit of armor. Perhaps if all the General Authorities wore those we'd never hear of people not sustaining them.

Interesting thought. If it were true, would this mean we were all on a big picnic and our parents just sent the kids off to play so they could have a moment of peace and quiet?

That reminds me of a certain Area President I had to report to. In some ways he was a truly inspired and wise man. In others things, however, I was convinced that there was not an ounce of inspiration in his decisions. However, I imagine that's true of all of us. There are some things in which we will rely on the Lord, and others that we already think we can handle, so we rely on ourselves (for better or worse). If you haven't already considered this, perhaps you can investigate if you're getting bad vibes just in certain areas, but not being exposed to the good vibes? (Just a thought, I don't know enough of your situation to say anything definitive). As for 'blind faith,' it has its limits. Kira said: and I do agree with this so far as the prophet is speaking in a doctrinally appropriate setting, such as a General, Stake, or Area conference. However, there are venues in which I hesitate to accept the words of the Presidents of the Church as the express and literal word of God. Examples of such venues include things President Young may have said to the Territory's legislative body; what President Hinckley may have said on 60 Minutes; what President Kimball writes in The Miracle of Forgiveness. In certain venues and media, even prophets get to express their opinions, and these should be weighed carefully by the Spirit. But when they speak in Conferences, it's best just to accept and adopt it.

Maintain your furnace, air conditioner, and cars once a year, and change the oil regularly. Between the three you can expect to spend about $500 a year, but the things will last several years longer. In the long run, it's a pretty big gain. Also, if you have a lawn mower, have it serviced at least every two years. If you want to save money on gas, check out some hypermiling sites. They give good tips, but be careful at stop signs and please do NOT draft big trucks. Safety is more precious than money.

Every team I scan the thread titles I keep reading this as 'getting rid of landmine?' Now that would be a good idea. Mowing the lawn is just too hard with those in place.