Just_A_Guy

If this is your 4th time, you're twice as experienced as me. That said . . . I talked to my wife both times and asked if she had any blessings she'd like our children to receive; if the Spirit approved I worked them into the blessing. I personally look at the blessing as something that gets them through the early period of their life, until they can be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So I generally try to avoid making long-term promises about serving a mission, getting married, etc. Your mileage may vary; but my philosophy is that you will have many more opportunities to give such blessings at the appropriate time--gift of HG, priesthood ordinations (and I plan to give my daughters special father's blessings on their 12th, 14th, 16th, and 19th birthdays to parallel the blessings the boys would get at their priesthood ordinations), and so forth. (Of course, I'm a bit of an apostate in that we recorded our kids' blessings--which is technically a no-no if the blessing is done in church. So take this advice for what you paid for it. )

I'd just say "I consider myself Christian." That ought to silence everyone except the genuinely intrigued (missionary opportunity!) or the jerks (not worth your time).

Hint: Avoid "There is beauty all around . . ." Seriously: Bytor's advice is good, but beware that once you set up an association that association can work in reverse--making Sacrament meeting rather uncomfortable. If singing a hymn isn't helping you overcome temptation--quit doing it, and try something else.

Concur. We don't really have a free market in health care right now, and will not until I can call around to five different hospitals and get five different quotes on the cost for an MRI.

2 Corinthians 12: See also Hebrews 12:

I just have to chime in here: Is it "Rachel" or "Rachelle"?

Sometimes, yes; per Isaiah 5:5. Sometimes. But what if it was God who set up the laws of "natural cause and effect"? In my own experience: Yes.

If people don't have enough money to maintain their standard of living, what makes you think they will have enough money to pay into the state-run insurance program at the same levels they'd pay during more prosperous times? The only way government could "recession-proof" such a program would be to a) raise taxes (which would prolong the downturn), or b) raid other government programs.

Just don't confuse "stupor of thought" for "fear".

If I remember correctly the third President of the Church, John Taylor, was a British national (by way of Canada).

I'm no quantum theorist; I can't even define time on our level with any precision! But here's a quote from Elder Maxwell that ties in a couple of different sources:

You're forgetting the Interstate Commerce Clause. For better or for worse, the Bill of Rights protections are not absolute.

PC, does protestantism teach that God exists outside of time--that all things past, present, and future are continually before Him as "one eternal now"?

Per your own liberal theorists (Keynes), the Iraq War couldn't have harmed your economy (unless your workforce was decimated by a catastrophic loss of life, which has not been the case); because it caused an increase in government spending which should have helped your economy. What it did do was increase your government debt, and I'd be interested to see some solid statistics on that. However, it looks like (at least as a proportion of GDP) the UK's national debt was already trending upwards prior to 2003. Over the short term, yes. We'll see if it lasts (see also California). If it doesn't--that, too, will be a result of having Socialists in charge for 30 years. And I suspect that, like California, the socialized nations of western Europe will be seeking bailouts from other state actors who have managed their affairs more (dare I say it?) conservatively.

But apparently, the UK government has its own financial problems.

Over a few decades, maybe. But there's only so many accounting gimmicks you can use to make a country appear solvent, and we're already using many of those. Over the long term, either government will run out of money (and all those people on government health care will be left hanging), or government will be forced to raise tax rates to a point where the healthy revolt and overthrow the government (again, leaving the people on government health care hanging).

Come on, Moksha. He's sacrificing his own interests for the greater good. Where's that selfless, collectivist spirit liberals always claim to have?

Good to see you back, Rachelle. Has your husband confessed his role in the whole thing to proper priesthood authorities? If he has and is otherwise making a sincere attempt to live the Gospel and the BP decides "he's suffered enough", or whatever; than that's one thing. But you talk about your husband being "practically inactive at this point", in the present tense. I don't think it's unfair to require that your husband demonstrate his contrition towards the Lord as evidence of his contrition towards you. Well, there's a fine line between "earning trust" and "punishment". The former is OK; the latter is not. That said: He cheated on you. He cheated on you. He forfeited every type of claim he might have on you and on your children, and you owe him nothing--yet you've given him a second chance. He should accept whatever standards you impose on him with a smile on his face, and he should thank you for being so concerned about the health of your marriage and his own spiritual welfare.

Let's not take a commonsense approach or anything . . . (Be sure to read the comments to the above-linked post--at least the first ten of them, or so. Data are irrelevant!)

I've read very little Nibley, but from what I've read Jackson appears to be spot-on. I like the idea of the GAs hearing a variety of perspectives about a variety of topics; so I'm no more bothered by their listening to Nibley lecture than I am by their attending a private screening of Amazing Grace from Larry H. Miller. Oh, and by the way--a couple of years ago, for a Client Crisis Management course in law school, I did a research paper about the Church's public relations efforts during the Mark Hofmann affair. During the course of that research I went into LDS Archives and read every single news release, Ensign article, and Church News story from the period during which Hofmann's documents were coming out. The Church did buy (or broker the purchase of) a lot of his stuff; but its pronouncements on the validity of those documents were a lot more circumspect than some would have you believe. Turley's Victims is also a must-read for anyone who hopes to discourse intelligibly on Mark Hofmann.

What Ryanh said.

I'd just tell your bishop pretty much the same thing you wrote here.

I see your point. I'm not sure the analogy is perfect, though, since from your post it appears that Henry's relationship with Zina was effectually terminated. Still food for thought, though. Thanks.

Jim, the poll was not whether we "would" partake if "allowed", but if we "could" partake if "commanded". But then, I suspect you knew that. And I suppose that, if I believed I were saved regardless of my own personal conduct, I might also be willing to make such bald-faced misrepresentations.

'K, now I'm confused. Per this and the parallel Trib story, there was obvious and prolonged trespassing. Either the Church elected not to seek backup from the SLPD, or the SLPD chose to look the other way. Both scenarios leave me baffled. I'd like to think the SLPD isn't so corrupt. As for the Church--yeah, another politically-incorrect eviction may cause more adverse PR; but at this point methinks we may as well hang for a chicken as an egg . . .