MarginOfError

There are some benefits to this kind of a system. For instance, we are able to invest a lot more money into research and development than socialized systems.

Actually, the taxation you claim to be forbidden in the Constitution is quite permissible in the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment granted the government the ability to tax wages and incomes. The Amendment was ratified by 42 of 48 states (87.5%).

I find it amusing how disagreement is equated to lack of understanding. Has anyone else noticed that?

I'm quite aware of this technicality, actually. That is precisely why I recommended she talk to the missionaries and the bishop. The missionaries will open a dialog with the mission president, and the bishop should be aware of such situations as they arise within the ward. The bishop is not only called as the spiritual and temporal steward of the members of his ward, but all of the people that fall within the boundaries of the ward. And as the person who would be responsible for her spiritual well being following the baptism, he should be involved in these discussions. However, I didn't really feel it was necessary to go into the technicalities of Church government with Aloren at this point.

I know. If you look up quarrel as a verb you get 1 : to find fault 2 : to contend or dispute actively But I found the humor of quarreling over quarrel to good to resist.

From Merriam-Webster: Perhaps you should do some studying before you make such foolish posts, Wingnut.

In the articles I've read, BPA is usually only released from the plastics when submitted to extreme temperatures. That happens to be why you aren't supposed to stick your water bottles in the dishwasher (or baby bottles for that matter). Using warm tap water will be sufficient to clean the bottles without releasing toxic levels of BPA.

Is it possible that the LDS subculture is also more likely to listen to authority. For example, doctor says, "take anti-depressants" and since the doctor said it, that's what we do? I don't know...just speculating some.

mightynancy said that one of you will be changing over the next two years. I want to correct that to say that both of you will be changing over the next two years. Two years of separate experiences is a very, very long time. You may both be radically different people upon your return. You've agreed that she is going to wait for you. That's fine. There are a couple of things that should be considered though. She needs to be free to date other guys in your absence. This may only be group dates, and it doesn't necessarily mean exclusive dating. But social interaction with the opposite gender is an essential part of her emotional and social development. To deny her that is both unfair to and unhealthy for her.You need to be prepared for her to not wait for you. It's a fact of life that more couples don't make it through the waiting period than do.If she does wait for you, this should not automatically mean that you get married. Take a few months afterward to acclimate to non-mission life and reacquaint with her. If after several months you still feel good about being with each other, then more power to you. You mention her communication style, and that when she gets angry she gives the silent treatment. This isn't necessarily bad. You said that relationship need "proper communication" but that "when she's upset she doesn't communicate...its always the silent treatment..." This is in fact a form of communication. She's telling you "I don't want to talk to you right now." You only think this is bad because in your communication style, you (apparently) think that disagreements should be discussed immediately.It is perfectly acceptable to not resolve disputes immediately. Some people (my spouse and I) actually prefer not to talk about disagreements when we are angry. We say too many stupid and hurtful things while we're still upset. We either talk about something else, or we don't talk, until the emotions have calmed down enough for us to discuss it rationally and fairly. Sometimes, it takes us several days to get to that point. Instead of saying her communication skills are poor, you should be saying that your communications styles are different. That means that you'll either have to work together to establish how you'll resolve disagreements and upsetting situations, or you'll have to recognize the differences in styles and adapt yourselves to them.

Generally speaking, the Church discourages cohabitation. However, the Church teaches principles to be followed in ideal situations and leaves it up to individuals to make good choices that fit their personal circumstances. The Bishop also has the authority to advise and counsel those in his ward, so you should talk with him as soon as possible, as well as with the missionaries about your situation. These are the people that can work with you to determine if you are worthy* for baptism--everyone here will only be able to share general counsel or anecdotal advice. * I'm not sure 'worthy' is the best term to use here. I considered 'prepared,' 'fit,' and 'qualified,' but none of them seemed quite right either. Please understand that I am not trying to pass any judgment on your worthiness.

Red Sox lost. I want to cry.

The regional impact of human activity occurs more often than you would think. A couple of examples: For years Maine has struggled to keep emissions from it's paper mills and factories low so that the air quality would meet EPA standards. Yet, miraculously, the emission levels in Maine are so low that they could not possibly be the cause of poor air quality in Maine. A little more study found that the air pollution in Maine was drifting over from steel and auto factories on the Great Lakes. The world didn't know about the Chornobyl disaster until Swedish (I think) scientists noticed absurdly high radiation levels. Thanks for clarifying. I now understand that government created the Anti-Trust act to break up monopolies created by government. Those sneaky little devils.

I'm not a big proponent of man-made global climate change, but I do accept that we could be contributing to the cause. Whether that is bad or good, who knows. The earth does its thing and we have to figure out how to survive. What is clear, however, is that we do have an impact on the environment and, therefore, on our health. Just because you don't believe in Global Warming doesn't mean you shouldn't be recklessly consuming plastics, gasoline, CFC's, paper, etc. At the same time, nuclear power is by far the cleanest of energy solutions. With proper containment, the waste will contaminate a space only as large as the concrete box it is stored in (yes, concrete can block radiation). The only major hindrance to nuclear power is cost and safety, which can also be managed successfully. Europe and Canada have developed systems that manage this quite well. The key to a successful nuclear program, unfortunately for JBS, is standardization. The problem the US had with nuclear power before was every plant was built in a unique fashion. If a part in the reactor needed replacing, it had to be custom fit. That gets really really expensive. In Europe and Canada, all of the reactors are built to the same specifications. Replacement parts are cheap. If one isn't readily available from a manufacturer, and another plant has one, they can trade. All the parts are interchangeable between plants. Unfortunately, to maintain that level of standardization across the number of plants we would need in the States would require either a) a Monopoly running the industry, or b) government regulation. Take your pick, but I'm not sure I like the idea of a national monopoly on electricity.

Okay, just checking. Thanks again!

I agree with a large portion of that, ram. However, I can only think that if that's going to be the argument, then we should strip tax benefits away from married couples with no children.

We've already seen the flaw in absolutist statements about government such as what JBS has proposed: exceptions creep in. In fact, JBS has already admitted certain exceptions to some of his statements (government assistance for veterans, for example). There are reasonable exceptions to everyone's proposed ideal form of government. Following JBS's 10 step plan would ultimately be as catastrophic as letting government have ultimate control. The trick in governing is finding the right balance. We might need a little socialism from time to time, and we might need a little more republican government here or there, and there may even come a period of time when we need a little more despotism. The beauty of the Constitution was that it can change and adapt to suit the needs of the time. Let's just try to make the best government we can and deal with the issues we face. JBS, I disagree with about 90% of what you say, but there are some principles in there that I would like to adopt. Keep trying to persuade. We need a lot of persuasions to keep us afloat.

Thanks for pulling out the reference. I was trying to post and still catch my bus. I'm not sure why you felt the need to post the rest for me. Were you trying to address something else I had said or was it purely informative?

Wow, so many things just got thrown out to discuss there. I'm getting a little dizzy. Accountability: The accepted age of accountability in the Church is 8. Actually, it was revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants (don't have time to get the exact location), but I hesitate to say "revealed age of accountability" because that makes it sound like a discrete moment. I get the feeling, however, that it's more fluid a transition than, 'you're 8, now you're accountable.' The statistician in me prefers to view it as 8 is the average and there's a margin of error around the average. Tom has it right here, God understands these things and will account for them, so we really don't need to worry about it much. So, can a 7 year old sin? Only Christ can decide that, and it's likely tailored to the individual 7 year old. As for possession, I don't believe that any person whose body is possessed will be accountable for the actions of that body during the time of possession. If the individual does things that invite the possession, he or she will be accountable for those actions, but not for the actions during the possession. To be clear, this is my opinion, I have nothing from the Church to back it up, and if someone can show me I'm wrong, I'll happily accept that.

I don't know that any of us currently involved are going to question the doctrine that children cannot sin before reaching accountability. But the quoted scripture does not answer the question regarding whether or not children may be possessed by an evil spirit. By the way, I don't claim to know the answer, and just hope that I'll be in touch enough to recognize an evil spirit should I encounter one, whether it possess a child or an adult. Let's just hope it never happens though.

And while were making links, let's not forget Holland's talk that appeared in the Ensign a year ago. Helping Those Who Struggle With Same-Gender Attraction Some highlights: As for why you feel [same-Gender Attraction], I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement. _________________________________________________________________________________ When an angel asked Nephi a question about God, Nephi answered, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17). I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. _________________________________________________________________________________ For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender. Whatever the reason, God’s richest blessings will eventually be available to all of His children if they are clean and faithful. (Emphasis mine in all locations)

Fortunately, we are not in a situation where we will end up in need. Working in health care (research) has given me good job security. My current wage manages to pay the mortgage, utilities, and just enough to that we can save a little money. Unfortunately, I have a hard time seeing how the check book could stretch enough to accommodate 3 kids. But, since we only have one at the moment, I don't have to figure that out just yet. I'm keeping my eye out for others less fortunate though. Question of the day to anyone buying up gold because they think money isn't going to be worth anything: how much of your gold are you willing to give up for some of my wheat? Regarding the home ownership question, I have to agree that it's better to be paying a moderate amount of interest on your mortgage than primarily principle. The only reason I say this, however, is because of the tax code. You can deduct the interest paid from your taxes. One of the men I work with in my scout troop is very close to paying off his mortgage entirely. He did the math and found that he had more disposable income when he was paying more interest than he does now that he's paying almost entirely principle. In fact, he's considering paying off his mortgage and buying another house just to get the tax benefits. There's some warning to be taken with this though. In the early stages of the mortgage, you're probably paying so much in interest that you can't regain it all through tax deductions. Being at about the 50/50 split is probably optimal. It's a big balancing act. However, if you aren't confident that you'll have long term job stability, it's better to own your house. If your paycheck is secure for the long term, it may work to your benefit to do the balancing act.

I prefer the aged stuff myself...it has a little more kick. It is a comfort thing. Certainly, praying before meals is not required for salvation. It is encouraged, but, as I understand it, it is encouraged because meal times are a convenient time to bring the family together to pray. I'm not very consistent about praying in public (or at all for that matter). If I'm in a loud and busy restaurant, I usually don't pray. I'm much more comfortable if the restaurant is quiet and with little activity. I can't tell you why I feel more comfortable that way, but I do.

Congrats. Work hard and enjoy the two years before the best two years of your life. Don't worry too much about language prep before you go. You'll get plenty of that. Focus on the scriptures and read the other recommended reading. You won't have much time to do that once you go.

Way to bring the discussion around to something entirely irrelevant. I know, let's tie all the issues we find unpleasant together. So now, because a person believes that same sex attraction could have an in-born cause, that person must also support the abortion of potentially homosexual fetuses. And you're calling the possibility of a gene (or sequence) that predisposes a person to same sex attraction a 'far reach.' Let's clarify something here. The research into genetics is so far in its infancy that you might better say that genetics research's ancestors haven't yet been conceived. Genetics is trying to piece together what sequences have correlations to attributes, while adjusting these correlations for any interactions between these sequences. Trying to model these things requires an incredible amount of computing power. With the amount of computing power we now possess, we are only able to scratch the surface of genetics. We need so much more to do it. Furthermore, the current statistical methods can theoretically handle this complexity, but it's never really been put to the test, and we aren't entirely sure how well the results can be interpreted. To give you an idea of the complexity of the models that would be involved, to consider four genes and their interactions, a model would require 16 factors. Now try to build a model for 1,000 genes and their interactions. (There are millions of factors this way). To say it isn't possible is a pretty audacious assumption. Finally, the comments about only a sadistic God allowing the birth of an individual with same sex attraction are worthless. We have plenty of evidence that God doesn't interfere with natural developments of the human body that cause depression, various psychoses, hormonal imbalances, hermaphrodites, autisms, and predispositions to addictions, etc. The Church is clear that there may be natural predispositions to same sex attraction, but such predispositions do not excuse immoral behavior. I second OtterPop's request that you not cast your opinions as the view of the Church, but make it clear that they are your opinions and conclusions, however misinformed they may be.

I wouldn't react. I would accept and love and work for their happiness in anyway we mutually found appropriate. And then I'd make cookies and Jello salads to give them to slowly convert them back to the Gospel.