Vort

That's not the point. No one is asking to prove a negative. JAG's point is that, according to him (JAG), Trump was asked the question and refused to answer it. That's much different from being asked to prove a negative. For the record, it cannot reasonably be inferred that Trump DID pay for a lover's abortion. I have dirty laundry that I don't want to air, and as a result I might refuse to answer questions that might sound very bad indeed. it's too easy to follow a "Well, have you ever..." path. Consider the following possible Q&A: Have you ever committed adultery? No. Well, have you ever fornicated? No. Well, have you ever, you know, felt someone up who you weren't married to? No. Well, have you ever led someone on falsely and broken her heart? No. That is, I don't think so. That's none of your business anyway. Well, have you ever kissed someone that you had no intention of getting serious with? Look, I think these questions have gone on long enough. AHA! So you HAVE! You faithless lech! How can we vote for a scumbag like YOU, someone who has intentionally broken the hearts of trusting young women? Wait a minute. I didn't say that. And what's with the plural? Probably a lot easier to just decide from the start that you aren't going to answer any such prying questions.

With the number of children you have, you must be at least in your mid-30s. But unless you're particularly young-looking, you can't be 40 yet. So that would put you as a Reagan-first-term baby. Yes? So Carter it is.

A subject near and dear to my heart, though I'm afraid that I'm not (yet) Zion material. In real, down-to-earth terms, Zion is the kingdom of God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In more expansive terms, Zion is the pure in heart, which I assume would include people who are not yet Latter-day Saints. We build Zion by building the Church. The two are effectively identical. Our loyalty should be to the Church (aka Zion). Our efforts should be to build up the Church (aka Zion). I hope I am a catalyst for Zion. I have no illusions about being super-righteous or a pillar of strength or great example. I accept that, in many ways, I am among the least of the Saints. But the point is that I am one of the Saints, whatever my relative position. That's how I build up Zion: By being a Saint and trying to magnify that position. No one stake will take the lead for the rest of the Church. Every strong stake that seeks after God and strives to follow the lead of the First Presidency and of the Quorum of Twelve will lead the way for its own people. That's why we have stakes.

Please note that the son under discussion was born during the Clinton Administration's first term. His older brother managed to be born at the end of the Bush Sr. years. To them, Reagan is ancient history, like Eisenhower to me or Carter (or perhaps Ford) to you.

Your words are eloquent and true. But who's the "unbroken vessel"? Mitt Romney? I don't think so. Rand Paul? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it. Can you name a single prominent Democrat—one will suffice—who might reasonably fit that description? I do not believe we had the choice of an "unbroken vessel". Given the choice we had, Trump was clearly the least of the evils that had been placed before us (and this coming from a guy who voted for Pothead Johnson—not my finest moment). In retrospect, and despite some historically jaw-dropping behavior, Trump has proven to be a formidable president. My law-school son, who views Trump much like I do, considers him to be the best president of his (my son's) lifetime. I think he's right.

Nor did I. Rather, I found CNN eminently hateable, as illustrated by their unyielding condescension toward what they consider a superfluous population.

^^ uncomfortable with existential inquiry ^^

I don't see the standard of "no coffee" changing in my lifetime, or probably thereafter. But it's worth mentioning that even within my lifetime, coffee drinking has not always been a violation of temple recommend standards. My maternal grandparents drank coffee until their dying days, and they were temple workers. They claimed a "medicinal need" for coffee, probably developed when my grandfather worked as a Hanford reactor operator during WWII. I doubt that would fly today, but at the time their bishops and stake presidents approved it. I remember reading a letter from the First Presidency (under Joseph Fielding Smith) that explicitly said that drinking decaf coffee (specifically Sanka) was allowed for temple recommend purposes: In reference to the Church's attitude regarding Sanka coffee. The use of a beverage from which the deleterious ingredients have been removed would not be considered as breaking the Word of Wisdom. However, in all cases it is well to avoid the appearance of evil by refraining from the use of drinks which have the appearance, the smell, and the taste of that which we have been counseled not to use. However, temple recommends should not be denied to those drinking Sanka or the cola drinks. (First Presidency, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, Dec. 3, 1971)

JAG introduced me to this term in another thread. Here's a FAQ-style writeup about the so-called Benedictine option. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/ Granted that the author and his audience probably would not even recognize the Restored Church as Christian, I nevertheless think there's a lot of good thinking and, probably, truth in that article. It seems to apply quite well to us as Latter-day Saints, though we have the huge advantage of being led by a prophet. I'd like to hear what other Latter-day Saints think about this.

Not by me. I had to Google the term to find out what it meant. Interesting idea. The very concept of "health share" could be viewed as a "Benedict option". (Apropos of nothing, "Benedict" means "well-said". Which may or may not be relevant.)

That would explain why you hate the guy on a much deeper, more visceral level than I do, or probably ever did. President Oaks visited my son's law school about six months ago and had dinner with the LDS students (all twelve of them) and their families. Obviously, they talked a lot about legal stuff, including current events. My son's impression was that the First Presidency was not exactly crazy about Donald Trump. President Oaks never said anything like that, of course, but that was the vibe my son picked up on. So you are perhaps in some good company in your opinions of Trump. For myself, if there are no dramatic changes in the next seven months, I expect I'll be voting for him for the first time.

It's certainly a damning allegation. But it is exactly that—an allegation. I know from intimate, though third-hand, experience that women divorcing their husbands can and often will falsely accuse them of all sorts of unspeakable behavior. So Ivana's allegations alone don't settle the matter for me. I'm curious how you receive Ivana's updated statement, included in the very article you linked to. Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN. “I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

Seriously, JAG? You are my hero for logical, reasoned thought. Do you really believe that a statement that Ivana had "felt violated", which she made during a divorce proceeding, and which she later explicitly clarified was not "to be interpreted [as rape] in a literal or criminal sense" by explaining that, "As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent"—do you honestly believe this is "rape" in any criminal, or for that matter reasonable, sense of the word?

Which ex-wife accused Trump of rape? I am aware of only one, who clarified that she didn't mean "RAPE rape", but just that she didn't think he was very nice. Are there other claims I'm not aware of? In answer to your question, a man generally needs to be tried and found guilty in a court of law before being branded a rapist. Such stringent requirements may not apply to general conversation, but a "fair" accusation of rape should necessarily include strong evidence, certainly more than an ex-wife's casual and admitted misuse of the term.

That's an unfair nickname.