Connie

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too.  It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds.
 
I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby.  We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness.  It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book.  I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby.  He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held.  We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example.  It was fascinating.  It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

Just finished the Hobbit. Childhood classic. I would not mind using my hard bound copy to smack Peter Jackson in the head, might do him some good.

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too.  It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds.
 
I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby.  We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness.  It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book.  I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby.  He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held.  We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example.  It was fascinating.  It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

Wait.  I didn't know Catholics believed that Mary was born without original sin.  Is there an explanation for how that bypassed her?

I agree with JaG on the matter. I think the church is supporting non-discrimination as a bandaid (based on understanding as given by revelation from the Lord), rather than as a catch-all virtue that non-discrimination is the righteous path in every instance. I think viewing non-discrimination as right in every case is silly and destructive. I also believe that laws are meant to reflect morality, and the fact that society has morally accepted homosex as moral is sad. But the fact is, simply, that society HAS accepted it as moral. Therefore, to get along with society, we must accommodate their right to view morality different than us. In this case, that principle means advocating for non-discrimination. The church's stance, in my mind, is clearly an indication that being civil and allowing society to decay if they choose to do so is the overriding principle, and does not speak to the idea of non-discrimination as a principle of right/wrong at all.
 
In my thinking, discrimination is neither good nor bad in and of itself. Good discrimination exists. So does bad discrimination. The mere discriminatory act or thought does not self-define itself as inherently wrong. It is more complicated than that. To simply claim that we should not discriminate strikes me as a view that has not been fully considered. I believe that is the point Vort is trying to express with his questions.

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too.  It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds.
 
I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby.  We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness.  It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book.  I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby.  He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held.  We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example.  It was fascinating.  It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too.  It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds.
 
I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby.  We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness.  It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book.  I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby.  He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held.  We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example.  It was fascinating.  It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

It can be reconciled by realizing that these are separate and distinct parables that are both highly symbolic for different reasons.  In neither case is the tree referring to an actual tree. In Jacob 5 the tree represents an entire nation or group of people.  In the other, the tree represents an individual person.

This brings us to concepts of spiritual discernment and judgment.  To continue the analogy, we need to be able to discern what source the person (tree) is drawing on.  Is the source a good fountain of water or a bitter?  Is the source Christ or the devil?  It is not always easy to tell.  For example, when Nephi slays Laban.  Was the source of that action from God or Satan?  Did the “good tree” named Nephi just produce some very bad fruit? or is our own discernment off?  As an opposite example, consider Moroni 7:8, “…if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.”  One would think that giving someone a gift would always be a good thing, but in this instance it is not.  Why?  Because of the intent of the giver.  It is not always easy to discern a person’s intent or motive behind whatever action we are attempting to judge, but it is possible through the spirit of Christ and the concept of “laying hold of every good thing.”  A good chapter to study on these concepts is Moroni 7.  I would highly recommend you peruse that chapter thoroughly.
 
All that has to do with our dealings and relationships with others.  For ourselves, we need to be aware of our thoughts, intents, motivations and desires.  What source are we drawing on?  Which “tree” are we striving to become?  Perhaps we never really know which we or others are until the final judgment.  But I think we can know at least where we are at through communion with Heavenly Father, and it is even possible to know where others are at as evidenced by the above scriptural references. 
 
Perhaps it’s not so much that the “good tree” has brought forth bad fruit as that the “good tree” suddenly chooses to become a “bad tree” by drawing on a bitter source of water (which spirit they are choosing to heed, see Mosiah 2:36-37) and thereby producing bad fruit.  And, of course, there is always repentance—a choice to change which spirit you will heed—thus changing a “bad tree” to a good one.  “Virtue—even attempted virtue—brings light; indulgence brings fog” (C.S. Lewis).
 
This has all reminded me of a great talk by Dallin H. Oaks.  See link:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-challenge-to-become?lang=eng

Muloki and Ammah (see Alma 20:2, also Alma 21:13)
 
In the early days of the restoration (October 1830, to be specific) four men were called on a mission to the "Lamanities" (Native Americans).  Name these four men.

1.  My youngest son gets baptized this year.
2.  My youngest of all is now in Sunbeams.
3.  My hubby is determined to get me a newish vehicle this year.

Eli, you are in an abusive relationship.  You need to leave and *never* go back.
 
That is the end of my opinion.  The remainder of this post are statistical and legal facts.
 
Here is the police and legal protocol for the minute a spouse throws *any* object at another.  The incident is now categorized as domestic violence and/or abuse and the offending spouse is arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police car to spend a mandated night in jail.  Persecution charges are automatically levied because it is a crime against society, not just you.   The battered spouse is called by the legal team for this (I don’t remember the name now).  The team offers the spouse legal advice, protective custody, medical assistance, counseling, shelter, a restraining order, and access to anything that person might need, including divorce lawyers.  After the night in jail, the offending spouse can post bail (several thousand dollars), and go home, to appear in court a week later.  The lightest plea bargain is repeated court-mandated counseling.  All of this goes on both spouse’s records and secondary offenses by the perpetrator are treated much less lightly.
 
Those are the facts.  And what would be initiated before you left the bedroom that morning.  It also does not include the isolation, destruction of priority (some it non-replaceable), slander (the pedophile comments), and general emotional abuse.  All of it is general neutral terms because spousal abuse happens both ways.
 
More facts: on average an abused spouse goes back to the abuser 6 times before permanently leaving.  The probability of an abusive spouse keeping to their promise of “it’ll never happen again” is <5%.  
 
Children: children in a home with domestic violence/abuse are referred to Children Protective Custody.  CPS’s actions are not more nuanced so I can’t tell you what they would automatically do, but the possibilities include placing the children in foster care.   A child raised in an abusive home has a 1 in 3 chance of becoming an abuser themselves.
 
Back to opinions –
 
Eli, if one of your sisters or female cousins was in this situation, what would you tell them?

1.  My youngest son gets baptized this year.
2.  My youngest of all is now in Sunbeams.
3.  My hubby is determined to get me a newish vehicle this year.

Doesn't matter. I go to bed the same time on either one.
Ice cream or sherbet?

Snoopy

I don't remember ever counseling anyone on this list to divorce. I think it's generally irresponsible if not downright evil to give such counsel in most situations.
 
But if she is accusing you of pedophilia and child molestation, you could find yourself rotting in prison for decades. It's like a woman who falsely accuses men of rape (of which women there are plenty). The very best thing you can do is to get far away from such a woman and warn everyone you know and love to avoid her.
 
I am not saying that you should divorce her. I have no insight into that issue. But I think you should very, very seriously consider it. If you were my brother, or my son, I would probably be encouraging you to divorce her as soon as legally possible (and perhaps that means shame on me -- if so, so be it). Assuming, of course, that all that you have said is accurate.

I am not a mental health expert; nor do I play one on TV.  But this obsession with you being a cheater/pedophile sounds deeper than merely your wife's having been damaged by trauma.  This sounds like some sort of psychosis--clinical paranoia or Munchausen's or something like that.  (Again--I'm not qualified to make these kinds of diagnoses; but professionally I've seen them come up in divorce cases and child welfare court cases.)  I'm not sure mere marriage counseling is going to cut it.
 
My cynical prediction is this--if she's already talking about divorce, and already accusing you of being a pedophile--at some point, be it six months, six years, or twenty-six years, the divorce will happen.  And if you have kids at that time, she will accuse you of molesting them during the course of the legal wranglings.  She may not be malicious or evil; but it's just how her brain works.  Unless whatever illness is in play doesn't get fully resolved, this kind of behavior is simply who she is, and it's what she does.
 
By all means, do some counseling and try to figure out what you're dealing with from a mental health point of view.  If it looks manageable, stick it out.  But do NOT make babies with her (at least, not now), and do NOT trust her assurances that she's still using contraception.  And while I know some here will strongly disagree with me--don't be afraid to pull the plug on your marriage.  This woman, if she doesn't fully and permanently recover from whatever's going on in her brain, can make your life hell on earth.  She can get you jailed.  She's not worth it.

Catholics?  I like 'em.  I like the tradition, the solemnity of the liturgies, and the architecture.  I like that they, or their antecedents, were the ones who preserved the Bible and handed it down to us today.  I like their institutional backbone on moral issues, which is becoming all too rare in modern Christianity.  I like that--in my experience--their chapels are always open to anyone who wants to come in and just sit and contemplate. 
 
I disagree on a lot of the theology, I suppose; but that's to be expected.  :-)

Don't do it, Palerider!  Knitting is.... SO EVIL!  

Uncle Fester

Katniss Everdeen

It can be reconciled by realizing that these are separate and distinct parables that are both highly symbolic for different reasons.  In neither case is the tree referring to an actual tree. In Jacob 5 the tree represents an entire nation or group of people.  In the other, the tree represents an individual person.

It can be reconciled by realizing that these are separate and distinct parables that are both highly symbolic for different reasons.  In neither case is the tree referring to an actual tree. In Jacob 5 the tree represents an entire nation or group of people.  In the other, the tree represents an individual person.

It can be reconciled by realizing that these are separate and distinct parables that are both highly symbolic for different reasons.  In neither case is the tree referring to an actual tree. In Jacob 5 the tree represents an entire nation or group of people.  In the other, the tree represents an individual person.

And if you do that then neither this Mormon boy nor that Catholic girl learn how to talk to each other... We instead are force to rely on a third party with out learning why.