Vort

For Vort and speakers of what President Uchtdorf mistakenly believes is the "celestial language"
No matter how kind you think you are, German kids are kinder

Back in the day, the joke was that Cougar football players were those who could spell "BYU". Those who couldn't went to play for the Utes.

The best match-up to go on the Democrat ticket in 2020 to oppose Trump/Pence:
1.)  Al Franken and Jill Stein = FrankenStein
2.)  Anthony Weiner and Eric Holder = Weiner Holder
 

Well, 'sin' is stuff that takes you further from God, or places obstacles between you and Him.  I did not go on a mission.  Instead, I went inactive for 6 years.  Those 6 years were hardly full of closeness to God - we didn't have much of a relationship at all for those 6 years.  
'Condemnation'?  From who?  People?  I have a really hard time finding anyone interested in condemning me for my choice - most of 'em seem happy I made it back.  I know I am.  Condemnation from God?  I have it on good revealed authority He was concerned when I was away, and happy to see me come back.  Of course, I had to come back.  Plenty of people who were in my situation don't.  I had two buddies, we all sort of decided to not go on missions and we went inactive together.  I'm the only one who came back. The other two have nothing to do with the church - one had his name removed - both are pretty critical of the church and it's adherents.  
I wish I had gone on a mission.  My life has hard parts that wouldn't be there if I had gone.  Anyone sitting there trying to tally up sin and blessings and predict the future or see how undesirable something is, I tell them: Go on your mission.  Dedicate your life to something besides yourself for two years, and don't look back.  You'll avoid the pitfalls of not going, and you'll come back refined, matured, better.  

I don't know that I agree with this. Clearly the literal meaning of it is accurate. No one can literally force another to serve. But the implication that no one else has any business in the matter whatsoever? I don't believe that at all.

Best wishes, Traveler.
Get an accommodating IOL. You'll have 20-year-old eyes again -- not merely 20/20 eyesight, but the ability to focus. Or at least that's the promise.

Disturbing fact for the day: If The Terminator were released today, it would garner no worse than a PG-13 rating.
Remember back 30 or so years ago, when President Benson counseled us to avoid R-rated movies? He's sounding more like a prophet all the time. I'm starting to think we should just avoid Hollywood cinema altogether.

Greeting fellow forum members.  I have been absent for a few days.  A couple of weeks ago I noticed a distortion in my vision (left eye).  The result was surgery to save my left eye (macula and retina damage).  As I recover I can only see with my right eye but things should improve over the next few weeks as a gas bubble dissipates.  The worst part is no skiing – this is the best snow of the year.  Also no traveling – the wife will have to make a couple of trips on her own.  The eye drops are also difficult for me.  Up until this – I had near perfect eyesight - requiring reading glasses as I got older.  I had 20 25 vision (which is excellent for someone my age).  We will see how things go from here.   (Pun intended)
The interesting thing about the recovery is that I must keep my head down and avoid looking up.  Gives a whole new perspective on life – those with head that hang down.  I even have to drink from a straw.  The good part is that the wife has to put all the dishes away.  Thanks
 
The Traveler

In case you were wondering why it died out.

Alternative response: I knew our ancestors were full of crap.

Alternative response: I knew our ancestors were full of crap.

While I am by no means a fan of overmedication that we see so often today, in the vast majority of cases I think the word "essential" can be replaced by "snake".

Excellent, wise choice. I can tell you that the feeling you had doing baptisms is the feeling you can have doing washings and anointings, endowments, and sealings. Were you to read about or watch these things in unauthorized ways, such as online, you would experience none of that. Outside the temple context, a simple recitation of what goes on in the temple would leave you completely nonplussed. There would be no Spirit there to guide and teach you what these symbols mean.

Here is my take on the matter, for whatever it's worth to you:
A baby blessing is a privilege for LDS parents and their children. It functions as a way to introduce a new child to the ward family. It also allows an easy system to generate a Church record for the baby. In my opinion, it has another function of allowing the father the opportunity to begin getting involved in the child's spiritual life from the earliest days and weeks of life. In the case where the father is not a Priesthood holder, the blessing is done by someone designated by the parents, usually a home teacher or family friend, or perhaps the bishop.
A baby blessing is not a "saving" ordinance, like baptism or temple ordinances. You don't have to do it; it's essentially a wonderful bonus given us. It is a type of a father's blessing, and is more similar to a blessing of comfort or of healing.

This is the bottom line. My son at BYU is Army ROTC, and his take (and that of other ROTC personnel) is that it is manifestly not a big deal. Exactly the kind of thing the Trib likes to pick up on and blow up into some huge scandal. Where the ROTC administration is based, whether at BYU or at UVU, is pretty much a non-issue. If the AF lieutenant (or whatever his rank is) assigned to that duty doesn't like having to live by the BYU Honor Code in his own home -- and I can't say I really blame him -- then move the offices to UVU. Everyone's happy.

As a non-Trumpster but one who has been, on the balanced, positively impressed by him since his election, I can answer this one easily: Conservatives want government to act in the way government is supposed to act. Securing our borders is the primary function of our federal government, arguably more important than any other single duty. Currently, our southern border is absurdly porous. With people like blueskye wanting the franchise for non-citizens, it behooves those of us who actually love our country to see to border enforcement. Of course conservatives approve of expenses necessary to secure our border! Even liberals approve of it, if they love the USA.
Perhaps some believe there are more effective and less costly border enforcement alternatives than building a wall. That's a perfectly reasonable discussion. But no one who actually understands conservative thought will be baffled at conservative support for border security, even if it involves a large capital outlay.

This is the bottom line. My son at BYU is Army ROTC, and his take (and that of other ROTC personnel) is that it is manifestly not a big deal. Exactly the kind of thing the Trib likes to pick up on and blow up into some huge scandal. Where the ROTC administration is based, whether at BYU or at UVU, is pretty much a non-issue. If the AF lieutenant (or whatever his rank is) assigned to that duty doesn't like having to live by the BYU Honor Code in his own home -- and I can't say I really blame him -- then move the offices to UVU. Everyone's happy.

Please note: Blueskye has freely confirmed that she believes non-citizens should be enfranchised.

You're joking, right?
You don't think it's a crime for non-US citizens to vote in a presidential election, just because they have found a way to get away with it? You don't think it's a crime for people to intentionally abuse lax California laws to knowingly sign up non-citizens to vote? Surely you aren't saying this.
If you are saying this, do you feel the same way about people who find a way to rape their neighbor or steal her TV set? If the system is too broken to prevent them from perpetrating such acts, therefore the acts are not criminal?
I must be misunderstanding your point. Please clarify it for me.

I think what we really need to do is to start a petition to update the Word of Wisdom. We all know how effective it is to instruct God on making his commandments more palatable to our enlightened minds.

This is what I am stating, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Gender is identified by our spirit and mortal body. My father is my father because of his spirit and anatomy. My mother is my mother because of her spirit and her body. Our Heavenly Father is male. Our Heavenly Mother is female. There gender is essential and we are able to identify easily "male" and "female" by their anatomy, which reverts back to my original statement, "If the body is easily identified as "male" then they have a "male" spirit. I haven't heard any convincing argument otherwise to lead me to believe/accept any other way." (we have already discussed individuals where the body is not easily identifiable).
Spirit gender was already determined as intelligences before we received a mortal body. My body is male. I have a male spirit. I have male gonads, so yes, I am male. We already discussed hermaphrodites and what you consider ambiguous bodies, which I leave up to God and have more compassion for and leave again them to 2 Nephi 2:24.
I would disagree that psychology points to spirit gender challenged by physical state. I don't see "psychology" pointing to any spirit (as psychology would be in the realm of "emotion"). The argument of "psychology pointing to spirit identity" is, for me, a slippery slope, where do you stop it?

My response might have been: "Why, no. I insist that my wife get down on her hands and knees with a pair of chopsticks and pick up carpet debris the old-fashioned way." Then, turning to my wife, I would say, "Isn't that right, honey?"
I probably wouldn't have the chutzpah to go through with it, but I can at least pretend I would.

Trump won because the Democrats fielded a historically awful candidate. Hillary Clinton will forever be remembered (among other things, for as long as she is remembered at all) as the person who could not beat the worst Republican candidate in, well, maybe ever.

Trump won because the Democrats fielded a historically awful candidate. Hillary Clinton will forever be remembered (among other things, for as long as she is remembered at all) as the person who could not beat the worst Republican candidate in, well, maybe ever.

My response might have been: "Why, no. I insist that my wife get down on her hands and knees with a pair of chopsticks and pick up carpet debris the old-fashioned way." Then, turning to my wife, I would say, "Isn't that right, honey?"
I probably wouldn't have the chutzpah to go through with it, but I can at least pretend I would.