unixknight

I once had a long and very interesting conversation with a former nuclear plant engineer. He said that the total amount of radiation released during the entire crisis could be imagined this way: if you were sitting inside the fence line, for the whole time of the crisis, you'd have received a dose of radiation equivalent to a medical X-ray. Where does the REAL threat of radiation come from? Coal burning power plants. Consider naturally occurring radiation, like radon. There's a lot of it in the coal that gets mined to fuel the plants. Since that radiation is naturally occurring, the NRC does not regulate it. The coal is burned, and the radioactivity goes out the smokestack along with the soot and exhaust. Literally, coal power puts more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power does. The NRC is VERY strict in its regulation of nuclear plants.

Hear that, my friends? That's the sound of the nail being hit squarely on the head. Having been through Depression myself, I can tell you that's exactly what it sounds like. If that's indeed the case, then it has to be treated. No amount of doing warm fuzzy things for her will help, nor will being extra nice, buying her gifts. trying to re-ignite the "spark, " or anything else. Depression is the result of chemical imbalances in the brain, and an extra box of chocolates isn't going to fix it. (I know chocolate triggers an endorphine rush, but you know what I mean )

^This. Once Child Protective Services becomes involved a bloody nose will be the least of your problems. This is an entity with no oversight and can act with or without authorization from the courts. They will seek to regulate when and if the father gets to see the kids at all and will quickly put you right under a microscope. But yes, I agree with the others here that it seems the time for simply trying to talk about it with him hasn't helped. He's in a form of denial, and needs outside help. I've got a nasty temper too but I'd like to think if I'd ever done anything to my kids that caused them an injury like that I'd have taken that as a wake-up call.

This is why I remain unconvinced that somehow Socialized Healthcare is a moral obligation: This was a point I made in another forum, and I copied it here because I think this is very important and goes directly to why Conservatives generally stand against things like this. Have you ever heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, he will eat a single meal. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime?" That's what we Conservatives are about. We want to help people, but we want to do it in a way that encourages them to return to self-sufficiency if at all possible. In fact, I'd say we have a GREATER moral obligation to help people to become self reliant than to simply throw money at them. Want to know why? Imagine you have to rely on me for your food. Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, I am the source of your meals. You have to come to me 3 times a day or you go hungry. Am I really helping you? Sure, I'm giving you free food, but is this truly an act of charity? Think about your answer for a second. The answer is that it is NOT an act of charity. That's because as long as you rely on me for your food, I have POWER over you. I can CONTROL you. I can withhold food from you if you do not do what I want. I can dictate what you eat. I can dictate how often you eat. I can dictate how much you eat. I have power over you because I have made you dependent upon me. On the other hand, we Conservatives believe in empowering YOU to make those decisions. We would rather teach you to fish, to farm, to cook, to gather, to harvest. Sure, we'll give you food in the meantime so that you won't starve, but you will learn to feed YOURSELF so that NOBODY may have power over you, even us. You alone will decide what you eat, when you eat, how much you eat, and you needn't submit to ANYONE in order to feed yourself. Statists perfer the former. Conservatives prefer the latter.

I think misfortune in life has more to do with the lack of the blessings we receive as a result of our obedience to the Gospel than with an active effort on the part of the Lord to punish. I think when we're chastened for living sinfully it's more about pointing us back to the right path than a "spanking," as it were. Otherwise the Atonement would mean nothing, since that would imply that it's possible for us to be punished sufficiently for our sins as not to need the Sacrifice on the Cross.

"No, we can't!"

unix 'cause that was the Operating System I learned to become a programmer on, and knight because one of my ancestors was a Knight of the Order of St. James under King Alfonso of Spain.

I agree completely with the substance of what you said. 100%. The problem I've encountered when discussing this though, is that the devil is in the details. An abortion recommended by "competent medical care" could very easily become a backdoor. "I certify this abortion is medically necessary because this young woman would be so emotionally distraught over having to live with it that she may become a suicide risk." -some doctor. I *do* agree that there are times when it's medically necessary. The problem is that creating laws around this is a real minefield.

It happened to Joseph Smith, didn't it?

I don't know what to think of this, but a lot of the protests I've heard on TV over the potential extradition seem to revolve around the idea that he makes good movies, ergo he shouldn't be punished... "We the Jury find the defendant, John Doe, guilty of First Degree Murder." "Ah, but wait, your honor... I'm an artist and my paintings are AWESOME." "Hmm... Good point. You're free to go." "Score!"

Seems to me this man has some emotional issues to deal with. Rather than just be judgmental and say "Well he's obviously sick/evil/a bad man" I find myself wondering what motivates a guy to have 4 affairs in 6 months. This doesn't strike me as a case of a guy getting bored and going out looking for a thrill, nor does it seem to be a case of simple inability to keep his hands to himself. I'd consider the possibility that what we're talking about here is a guy with some serious self-esteem issues that he copes with by allowing himself to fall into temptation again and again. Almost as if there's some sort of validation he gets by successfully convincing other women to round home base with him-or allowing himself to be seduced, whichever the case may be. If he's cheating with someone from work then it's possible that he's not out there looking for trouble per se, but rather can't keep from succumbing to temptation, in which case I'd almost wonder if maybe these 4 occasions in the 6 months can be taken as one single huge incident. What happened to him 6 months ago? What changed? Something triggered this. If that can be identified and dealt with constructively then it may be possible to selvage the man, even if not the marriage. Something is broken inside him, and frankly I'm a bit dismayed at how readily people simply dismiss him as a bad person. It may well be that this marriage is over. Not for me to say, but I can tell you that this isn't normal human behavior on either side and it sounds like a good, honest, close look needs to be taken at why this keeps happening, and why it's allowed to keep happening.

I once heard a very good, reasonably neutral way to describe each that I'll share now with you: Liberals generally believe that people, when left to their own devices, will act selfishly and in their own self-interest, and must therefore be governed more closely to ensure equality and fairness. Conservatives generally believe that people, when left to their own devices, will act generously and in the interest of their community, and therefore do not need to be governed closely, as government stifles creativity and liberty. As a Libertarian I tend to agree more with the Conservatives, although I do acknowledge that some government is necessary precisely because while I do believe people generally do the right thing when given the chance, there are enough exceptions that we need to have a structured way to cope with them.

Probably so, but one never knows who else might stumble upon it with similar issues.

I think that should be taken on a sort of case by case basis. In the case here, I don't see how she can NOT tell her husband. She's going to lose that Temple Recommend for a while, and if the husband notices, he'll ask about it, and at that point she either comes clean or lies, and lying is, IMHO, never a good option. On the other hand (and I was discussing this with my wife) I don't know that in his place I'd want to know... provided it was truly over with and wasn't happening any more. Someone said in this thread earlier hat he deserves to know. I'd refine that by saying that what he deserves is not to get cheated on in the first place, but that's not what happened. He deserves to know he can trust his wife. He deserves happiness with her. He doesn't deserve to have his heart broken just to salve a guilty conscience. If he doesn't need to know then honestly, maybe he doesn't need to know. Like I said I don't think I would want to if it were truly a one time thing. He hasn't been hurt yet. But that's just my opinion. The only person truly qualified to make that decision is his wife.

All good advice thus far. My 2 cents' worth: Don't rush to the Temple Sealing. I'm not saying wait and see if you stay married, I'm saying that the looming "deadline" of a year is pressuring you into feeling like somehow you're not measuring up. You ant things to be great before you go get sealed and time's running out and it's stressful. So just hit the snooze bar. Ain't like you couldn't just schedule your sealing at some later point when you feel ready. The temple ain't goin' anywhere

We have shared custody with her having physical custody. I'm very reluctant to go to the courts because that would escalate things beyond any possibility of an amicable solution. It may well be past that point already, but I'm not ready to admit that.

^This. Been there. The thing is, people who are in wonderful marriages are, in a way, even MORE vulnerable. The reason: They let their guard down. We're talking about unusual and difficult circumstances here. Long separations HURT. Short ones hurt too. When we're married we get used to a certain amount of intimate, physical contact (not necessarily sexual, but yes that too) and going away on a trip is being cut off from that cold turkey. It's traumatic, in a way. It can result in this kind of thing without necessarily reflecting on the strength of the marriage itself. I say this because it isn't necessarily a good thing to go on a hunt for problems that may not exist. If there are problems, then by all means let this help find them and get them solved, but keep things in perspective. This mistake happened. Can't take it back now, but it doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't make your marriage a bad one. It doesn't mean you're broken or that somehow your universe is on the brink of collapse. It means you had a moment of weakness. It means you didn't know how to cope with it, and you fell on your face. Yeah, I've been there too. It's easy to talk about keeping to a high standard and holding ourselves away from sin but Satan is a clever one, and he knows where your armor is weak and how to penetrate it. Most people haven't been educated in avoiding temptation and this is the result. When I fell, I learned a LOT that I really think people in general would be well served to learn it. My Bishop recommended me a book called "Willpower is Not Enough." if any of you reading this message don't have that book on your bookshelf then you really should go out and get a copy. The local LDS bookstore should have it. The most important things I learned from that book, and my meditations afterward are: -Willpower is a guardrail. Sure, it's mean to keep you from going off a cliff but when you drive a car, do you rub the guardrail as you cruise down the street, or do you keep well away from it? So it should be with temptation. Try to stay out of situations that will tempt you in the first place. Nobody walks into a strip club just to pat themselves on the back for not looking at the dancers. -NEVER let your guard down. Being in a happy marriage does it NO guarantee against temptation. People are imperfect, and we're living in bodies that have biological urges that we have to control. Those urges don't care whether you're married or not. Fasting is how we practice controlling our bodies, but it's something you have to constantly be aware of. -ANYBODY anywhere, anytime, has a breaking point. NOBODY is immune to sin. Even big sins. When someone says "Oh, I'd NEVER cheat on my spouse" Satan takes that as a challenge. He likes a challenge, and he's been at this longer than you have. He's better at it than you are. Don't be complacent. Rather than brag about how in control you are, get on your knees and ask God to keep you out of tempting situations. "... and lead us not into temptation..." More than pretty words. The most important thing is: Forgive yourself. It's part of the repentance process, however you decide to approach it. If you don't, your own self-loathing will be the opening through which Satan will come at you again. You'll feel like you don't deserve to be forgiven, or that you aren't good enough for the Lord's Church. It'll make you lose your zeal, your enthusiasm for Church. It'll make you start finding excuses to miss Church. Ask me how I know. "For God so loved <insert your name here> that He sent His only begotten Son..." Make that your personal motto as you recover from this. This is the reason we're supposed to go to the Bishop. To learn these things that, like I said, EVERYBODY really ought to be taught at some point whether they've faltered or not. The Bishop has resources and information to assist you in learning what needs to be learned to avoid future stumbles, at least in this area.

Right. I used to be a Scout leader too and that was one of the first things I learned. The thing is, it's not that people really think one of the brethren represents a threat to the kids, it's just that sometimes you have to be careful of appearances. Sure, there will occasionally be a genuine need for there to be both, but it's always more comfortable that way. We live in a society that's trained us to be paranoid with the kids, and as much as it can be a problem, it can't be ignored either.

Hey all, I've been away for a little while, being busy with a new job and a somewhat faster pace. I posted on here in the past about the difficulties I was having with my ex-wife, who has left the Church and stopped raising the kids along the lines of Church standards. The changes she's made in her life have cost her the respect a lot of people, both members and non-members, had for her. Last night I sent her an E-mail, as non-confrontational as I could, to let her know how people feel. There was a time when I was straying far from the path of righteousness and nobody in my life had the moral courage to come out and talk to me, and it seems the same thing has been happening to her so I spoke my peace, and pledged in the E-mail not to bring it up again. I even tried to be funny where I could to reinforce that the point of the message was not to lecture, but to inform. Well early this morning I got a very confrontational phonecall from her new husband, who felt that the E-mail WAS meant solely to hurt her (He admitted to me that he'd only read parts of it.) He threatened to call my job and tell them things to get me fired, he threatened to tell my kids things to make me look bad, and called me a hypocrite because of my shady past. I don't respond well to threats, but I kept my cool and told him I felt the threats were juvenile, and that if he wanted to discuss this rationally I'd be happy to, but that I wasn't going to waste time on a fight. Long story short: The only part of the conversation that's really bothering me is that he accused me, by virtue of my teaching the kids to follow Church standards, of warping their minds. That I, for teaching them what the Lord expects of them, am the one being immoral. This has renewed my worries about what those kids are being taught, and what's being said about the Church. I really don't care what he tells them about me. My kids know me, good and bad, so that doesn't scare me. It's just that I now fear that this may have motivated him to a fresh round of anti-Church nonsense. And I admit that maybe it's just that my faith in the kids is weak. It's one thing to disparage me. My kids know me, and they'd gain nothing by buying into his rhetoric. But if he beats up on the Church, thy gain things like not having to get up on Sunday, not having to guard their behavior around girlfriends/boyfriends, not worrying about the modesty of their clothing, etc. I can do my best to set a good example but I only see them every other weekend. It isn't enough but I don't know what else to do. In the E-mail I sent my ex, I invited her to go back to church, to mend her relationship with the kids and to regain what she had given up. I fear I have done more harm than good.

I've heard such groups exist but I suppose if I wanted to find one I'd start by googling it. Maybe a set of search words like "gaming addiction" "support group" and then the name my local area like the city or county. (Using the quotes makes Google search for the whole word set instead of words like gaming and addiction separately.) I have struggled with this issue in the past, and I know how consuming it can be. I used to be hooked on Internet chats. Bad mojo.

But if I do that, how can I have any fun improving my skills? But seriously, thanks.

So far it hasn't become much of a problem. My younger son has seen it but as far as I know it hasn't happened again. I'm looking at this from a prevention angle. On the other hand, if there IS a problem, then this would be a pretty good way to find out. The thing is, at this age, privacy is a privilege, not a right. I am personally responsible for the well being of those kids whether they live with me or not.

Simple. First, the Ex will be aware. Since we're the parents, and they're the kids, they only have rights through us, the parents. We can monitor their computers any way we see fit.

Yeah I've already looked into that. It can be done without breaking laws.

The thing is, anti-Mormon sites are really good at taking facts and reworking them in such a way as to seem a lot worse or a lot different than the reality. I once read a really interesting blog about some of the things about the early days of the Restoration where the brethren were still trying to figure things out and made mistakes form time to time, doing things that by today's standards are pretty silly or even shocking. The thing to remember is that the prophets had to learn just like we do, and they put their pants on one leg at a time just as we do. Anti-Mormon websites are the masters of the Strawman. They present the Prophets as people who are absolutely infallible then present evidence to prove they aren't. Well, nobody ever claimed the prophets to be infallible. The prophets can mess up, and when they do they're rebuked for it. Joseph Smith even wrote in the D&C about how he was rebuked by the Lord more than once, and that's perfectly fine. Kinda reminds me of a quote... I don't remember where I heard it but it applies here: "Catholics insist the Pope is infallible and nobody believes them. Mormons insist the Prophet isn't and nobody believes them." Remember, the anti-LDS sites aren't there to benefit YOU. They're there to self-validate by tearing down t he faith of others. Some have become quite good at it.