Just_A_Guy

Snow, FWIW, I recall reading something similar--I think it was in Woodger's biography--about McKay's son or secretary (?) happening upon McKay and finding him in tears, having just been denied permission to rescind the ban.

Actually, no; one suffers in the name of liberalism that trains one to not bother with coming up with any solutions (or with acting on solutions proposed by others), play the martyr, and wait for a white knight with a bailout.

If you rate the President's success by the percentage of his stated objectives that he has attained, I think the answer would be "fair to good". The loaded question is if you rate his success by how well his actions are benefiting the country (as opposed to his party or his own political interests).

That was the columnist--Kirby--in the SL Tribune, and his whole column was rather tongue-in-cheek as I recall. :)

Awesome.

The next logical step is unbaptisms for the dead. But I wonder if mainstream atheists will dismiss those who indulge in this practice as "un-atheists"?

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!)