applepansy

Here is a link to an article that describes how to log into a site to find who you are related to.
 
Article titled:  Those clever Mormons http://www.nauvootimes.com/cgi-bin/nauvoo_column.pl?number=102356&author=kathryn-h-kidd#.VBd9c_ldVqh
 
 
I'm the 14th cousin to President Hinckley--that really surprised me.  Dravin is the one that comes from pioneer stock, not me.  I was hoping to be related to Elder Holland, so I could call him up..."Hey, cuz!  Can I get some great tix to General Conference??"  
 
I also have many great grandfathers that were kings of various countries--England, Scotland, Hungary, etc.
 
It's fun to dink around on this site.  Who are you related to that delights, scares, or surprises you?

Once the two prophets start preaching at the wall, I will know we are almost there.
 
But now is the time to prepare.

The beginning of the end happened with Joseph Smith and the translation of the  Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel.

Mahone, would Scotland join the British Commonwealth, then; or would they just cut ties with the Crown completely?
 
And, aren't the English royal family also lawful heirs to the Scottish throne as well (via James I)?  How would that work out?
 
The Scots have to do what they feel is best, I suppose; but I don't see the UK holding on to Northern Ireland for long if Scotland leaves.   And if the British can't stay together after having had four hundred years to work things out, it seems a troubling harbinger of increasing balkanization worldwide.

I don't find it hard. To me, following the WofW and paying tithing offers me blessings.

I'm the most libertarian person on here (or at least I think I am). I don't believe in government sanctioned marriage (I know I'm in the minority on here), though if I found the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will make sure everything is taken care of for the eternities and if that means obtaining legal recognition on earth in order to be sealed, so be it. That is more important than my not recognizing the government's authority on declaring marriage.

Just get married.....

Everyone has the right to live life like they would like.  That right exist until it infringes on the Rights of another.
 
You have the right to join the church (or other organization) of your choosing.  The church (or other organization) has the right to set the standards for the benefits they give out and the standard for being a member up to and including allowing/ending ones membership
 
In the church the Bishops are the gatekeepers of the benefits and membership(more or less)
 
Your prior Bishops chose to extend you some benefits even though you were not living the standard.  That is their Right and accountability.
 
Sounds like your current Bishop is going to require you to meet the standard before extending you some benefits.  This is his Right and accountability.
 
This does not infringe on your rights in any way, the Bishop is simply exercising the Church's rights as he is authorized to do.
 
You have no right to the Church's help, such help is a privilege.
 
So now you have a choice. Either meet the requirement or don't.  Either way you get to live with the consequence of the choices you make.  Just like your current Bishop gets to live the the consequences of the choices he makes. 

The only way I can see D&C 98 as coming into play, is if you argue (based on verses 6-7) that you don't have to obey any law you deem to be unconstitutional; and further argue that state marriage laws are unconstitutional. 
 
Your first assertion is perhaps defensible, but also more than a little dodgy in light of the Twelfth Article of Faith.  Your second assertion is--well, I'll put it gently--not one that the Church would back you up on.  The current instruction from those who are authorized to issue such instructions, is that if there isn't a legally recognized marriage--it's fornication.  That is not up for debate.  There have been apostles who went and sought out women and said "let's just say our own vows, call ourselves married and forego the legal mumbo-jumbo" and proceeded to have a sexual relationship, and they were excommunicated for--you guessed it--violating the Law of Chastity (Exhibit A).
 
I'm sorry you didn't find my previous input useful.  My only other input is that perhaps, in addition to Section 98, you should review Sections 131 and 132 and then ask yourself a) how you attain exaltation without entering into the celestial order of marriage; b ) how you will enter into that order of marriage without attaining an authorized temple sealing, and c) how, at this point in time, you plan to attain an authorized temple sealing without first having obtained a legally binding marriage.

Daniell -
 
I am bewildered as to why you think there is a difference between "the Law of the Land" and "Man's law" where marriage is concerned.  The law recognizes "marriage".  "Common law marriage" is just a means of obtaining a legally recognized marriage and, in this day and age, exists only in states where it has been provided for in statute.  For example, Utah allows "common law of marriage" as a "marriage not solemnized" and, once recognized by a judicial authority (but only once that happens), just as legally binding as a typical civil marriage.  (Utah Code Annotated 30-1-4.5)  As far as the law is concerned a common law marriage, once recognized, is exactly like a solemnized marriage.  The parties thereafter have access to tax breaks, government spousal benefits, visitation rights, inheritance rights, and--yes--divorce courts, should either partner want them.
 
Have you had your common-law marriage legally recognized by a civil officer?  If not, why not?  The way I see it, either you've legally committed to the woman you call your wife, or you haven't.  If you haven't, you're breaking the law of chastity; and the bishop is well within his rights to restrict your membership (and choose to allocate the ward's limited fast offering funds to families who are more committed to keeping that commandment) as he deems appropriate.  If you have made that commitment, then maybe you should show documentation of that commitment (court decree, or whatever) to your bishop and respectfully ask him to reconsider.
 
Now, as to your current bishop's business practices--he has an obligation to obey the law (just as you do), and if he's violating that law and you feel a civic duty to report that violation to the authorities--OK, then.  But I'd suggest you make very sure that you're acting out of a genuine concern for social order in general, and your chosen industry/profession in particular.  Because if you're acting out of vindictiveness, I don't think you'll find the consequences very fulfilling. 
 
True healing comes through repentance, not through lashing out at our accusers.

I think feminism once stood for equal rights. Now, in my experience, it stands for rights for women superseding the rights of men. It's that progressive thing, the bar always gets moved.
You may think my perception is wrong and that's fine, we can just agree that the other is wrong
 

Going back to OT. There where some interesting points made.
What do feminists hope to achieve in their movements? What can be defined as offensive? Are those who are offended in the minority or majority of their demographics (ex. are the majority of females offended by whistling?)

I am a woman, and I personally find whistles less offensive than cat-calls. I think of whistles of the guy equivalent of "Wow, he's a hunk."

No both a racist and a feminist focus on their own self-interests at the expense of what is good for all.
 
Feminists do not stand for equality for all, they don't even stand for ALL women. When women are brutalized by a person, culture, religion they deem useful to their ideology of divide and subjugate the silence is deafening.
 
as for equality ... Feminist are silent on the plight of men/boys and their abysmal graduation rates, prison percentage etc...
 
So I don't advocate for either?? I'm neutral? How did you arrive at that?
I have to label myself a Feminist to care about women?
 
What does liberty and justice for all mean to you? Does that ring neutral to your ears? If it does then perhaps you ought to re-consider your perspective. How does claiming you're pro-women (Feminist) mean you care for everyone yet being pro-male, or pro-<insert race> means you advocate for inequality?

I believe all humans have value and should have liberty and justice no matter who they are.
 
I don't consider myself a feminist in the same way I don't consider myself a racist.

There are some strains of feminism (not all of it) that, I think, are descending into self-parody (I'm thinking of that Jack Nicholson line from As Good As It Gets--on how his character, an author, can write women so convincingly, he dryly replies "I think of a man.  Then I take away reason and accountability.")
 
That said--while this idea of cat-calling as a "gateway drug", the overbroad defiition of "sexual assault", and the funny numbers about the frequency of sexual assault (however defined) strikes me as a modern-day Salem witch hunt:  the bottom line to me is that cat-calling is boorish, and I'm not inclined to stick up for the "rights" of moronic churls who can't keep their mouths shut and who frankly do seem to think they have some sort of ownership interest over women generally.

Start  here  and we can expand from there.

Not common at all I would say that being LDS has nothing to do with it. 
 
There are other issues in play 

Part of his orneriness is that all the fences, including the one he put up were several inches on our side, although he still claimed ownership of them. So glad to not live near him anymore.

Two observations (and they're going to seem horrendously judgmental, for which I apologize, but . . . dem's the breaks; the situation is what it is):
 
1)  If I am reading you correctly, it took a monumental effort for you and your boyfriend to make it a week and a half without having sex--and ultimately, your desire for sex won out over your mutual respect for each others' spiritual goals.  Temple marriage?  IMHO, it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider whether your relationship is such that you two should be getting married at all.  Your boyfriend might say lots of heartfelt, beautiful things at all the right times; but when the rubber hits the road--he doesn't respect you, and he's all about instant gratification.  That's a lousy basis for a marriage.
 
2)  Marriage is a huge decision.  Botch it, and you will--I am not exaggerating here--spend your entire life regretting it.  (No exaggeration.  I'm a divorce lawyer.)  You're entitled to have the gift of the Holy Ghost with you to help you make that decision--or you were entitled, until you began fornicating.  You can get it again, but for now (spiritually speaking) you're kind of on your own.  Is this really the ideal time to be making what will be, bar none, the biggest decision of your life?
 
My advice:  End the relationship, now.  Turn your life over to the Lord and engage the repentance process.  When you're spiritually whole again, prayerfully consider whether to re-initiate the relationship. 
 
Your boyfriend might not wait for you to complete that process, but your husband will. 

I have 2 daughters and after watching it it hit me hard wanted to share it I think it has a great message for all girls.

Lots of axes to grind on this.  I think we need to wait and see--there's just a lot of conflicting testimony and it will take time to sort through it all.  Some say the officer was aware of the report of the robbery and was actively watching for potential suspects--others say he wasn't, and just got his kicks out of harassing a couple of kids for jaywalking while black.  Some say Michael Brown was shot in the front; others say he was shot in from behind.  Some say Brown's hands were up; others say he was simultaneously taunting and perhaps even charging the police officer.  Some say the officer acted professionally; others say that local officers tended to make something of a sport out of trying to provoke their quarries by deliberately taunting or mocking them.
 
If the officer was indeed improperly goading Brown, I think that--regardless of how things played out afterwards--he should be fired and convicted of manslaughter.  But between the little stunt at the convenience store and the reports that Brown had previously "bum-rushed" the cop, it's hard not to conclude that this was a case of a junior-mint thug who was gunning for a Darwin award.

It's the way I was taught back in the 70's and 80's and I'm not about to change now.  :)

When I was taught touch typing in 2003 it was 2 spaces and I have always stuck with that.  I haven't heard anything about it and have since done a Masters degree.  
 
So, I'm sticking with the 2 spaces!

I've always put the period inside the quote marks.

I believe that wealth will come to those who use it wisely in the pursuit of following Christ.
 
Example:  My husband's neighbors growing up were amazing people.  They didn't have money yet they found ways to help others financially and in all other ways.  When I started dating my husband I heard the story more than once of the wife going visiting teaching, finding a household with a broken toaster, going home to get her toaster to give to the family who needed one.  How I learned this was one day I heard "June gave the toaster away again".  The husband was the same.  They quietly and without fanfare served.  They both served at the Ward and Stake level and later in life he served as a temple sealer.
 
Several years ago they became wealthy.... millions and millions wealthy.  And it grew.  Their lifestyle didn't change other than he splurged on a new truck for ranching.  He still wore overalls for work and suits for church work.  When the wife died of cancer he didn't hire nurses, he took care of her himself at home with the help of their daughters.  If you met them on the street you would have no idea they were wealthy.  Their attitudes didn't change and they continued to help those around them, just in bigger yet meaningful ways.
 
There is a scripture about seeking wealth somewhere but I can't think well enough to remember where it is.  The jist is if we seek riches to to the Lord's work we will receive them.  I think this applies to the GAs.