Faded

I've no doubt of that, but it's the high profile nature of the case that will keep him in prison. There are people who have done pretty much the same thing and gotten 2 years. It ain't right but there it is. Another depressing factoid I ran across: Average prison time actually served (so not on parole, etc) for murder in the state of Illinois = 4 years. I gotta find the source for that. I know it sounds to crazy to be believed.

I remember the incident particularly well because we were living in the same neighborhood when it happened. I remember seeing people handing out tons of flyers with her picture on it and I was absolutely amazed at how much effort and work went into finding her. I don't think I'd ever seen people throw themselves into finding an abducted child with so much passion and community support. The principal of what the Smart family was doing -- hiring the guy to do work for money -- is sound enough. The theory is that there is no way to distinguish between pan-handlers who don't need help and people who can't find work and really do need help. So you given them a chance to work for what they are given. A person who is just sitting outside temple square to make money will refuse. Somebody who really does need the monetary help will work for what they get. And ideally, all charity would be contingent upon the person receiving doing some sort of work -- unless they are completely incapable of it. The mistake was taking the guy to their house. But on the other hand, where else can you think of off the top of your head where the average person has any work available that needs doing? The saddest part of this case is that people like Mitchell typically serve only a few years in prison due to prison overcrowding. The high profile nature of this case may force the state to keep him in for his full sentence (barring him getting off by insanity plea), but in the majority of such cases the kidnapper/rapist will spend 1-2 years in jail and that's it.

It does sound like the biggest hurdles are A.) For her to stop making excuses infidelity. She's got to snap out of it and realize that no excuse is EVER a good excuse, and it is by making excuses that you talk yourself into doing things you ordinarily would never do in a million years. Excuses lead to relapse. B.) Coming up with a long-term plan that will keep her from straying. With alcoholics, they must stay away from bars and social gatherings where there is a lot of drinking. With internet pornography addicts, you take away all unsupervised computer usage. In all cases, you drastically alter your lifestyle in order to minimize the chance for familiar routines to let the sinner fall right back into bad habits. When my wife Tarnished confessed to me that she'd cheated on me I was devastated. I also was determined that if we were going to stay together then we needed to do everything possible to keep it from ever happening again -- and if she was unwilling then the marriage was doomed anyways, so why bother? My wife is absolutely wonderful and she agreed to do whatever it took. She had to sever all contact with the man. She had to go through a period where she wasn't allowed to go to social networking sites and her getting back to them was up to me -- when I felt I could trust her. She agreed to do a number of things to get her focus squarely back on her marriage. She agreed that without any conditions whatsoever, she would not ever be alone with ANY man that she is not related to by blood. She agreed that we would work on goals to improve our overall spiritual and physical health. When she was allowed back onto social networking pages, she agreed to make her pages accessible only to friends and to only add male friends that we both know and only if I agreed to it. She's willing to let me look over her recent computer usage, etc. She had to focus more on keeping the house clean. At the beginning of her repentance process, she seldom ever cleaned, rarely cooked, never did dishes and laundry, etc. I wasn't especially great, but whatever got done was largely done by me. She needed to snap out of that and commit to doing a better job of keeping a clean house -- because that's where our marriage lives. Now all of this may sound mean or like I was punishing her for what she did. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted to be lead by the Spirit to help her so that she could fully and completely recover from everything that led to the affair, and that is where the Spirit led me: More or less, she needed to be given lots of things to do to prove to herself and to me (and more importantly to herself) how much she valued her marriage. It's worked out well so far. I'm not going to say it's the best approach for all circumstances, but it's not a bad approach for pretty much anyone in this sort of situation -- but it's only useful if the adulterer is willing to do whatever it takes. If they're willing, then strange as it may sound, this method will lead them to an increased appreciation and value for their marriage and spouse. It only makes sense that when you spend a lot of effort on something, you tend to value it more. When you neglect something, you don't value it. If there is any way to prevent all contact between your brother and your wife, I'd highly recommend doing it. Difficult since it's your brother, but I think it's best that they never be at the same place at the same time unless there is no conceivable way to avoid it. Obviously, something about him is tending to pull her back into being an idiot -- lust does that of course -- and the less interaction she has with him the better for HER sake. If you can arrange things such that he cannot know any phone number but your personal cell and work numbers, that would also be wise. Even the slightest contact can become a trigger for your wife to fall back into the same mistakes. It's also in your brother's best interests.

As my wife already pointed out, there is no sport called "UF" or "Ultimate Fighting" which is what I assume you're trying to abbreviate. Ultimate Fighting Championship is the best know of all Mixed Martial Arts organizations, but the sport is Mixed Martial Arts, not "Ultimate Fighting." The short list of MMA organizations: Adrenaline MMA, Affliction Entertainment, American Fight League, Art of War Fighting Championship, Art of War Undisputed Arena Fighting Championship, BAMMA, Bellator Fighting Championships, Bitetti Combat, BodogFight, Cage Combat Fighting Championships, Cage Fury Fighting Championships, Cage Rage Championships, Cage Warriors, Cage Wars, Combate Extremo, DEEP, DREAM, Elite Fighting Championship, Elite Xtreme Combat, Fight Pastor, Fighting Mixed Combative, Fighting Network Rings, Finnfight, HDNet Fights, K-1 Hero's, Impact Fighting Championships, International Fight League, Internation Fighting Championships, Ironheart Crown, It's Showtime, Jewels, Jungle Fighting Championship, King of the Cage, Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki, M-1 Global, Maximum Fighting Championship, Ohio Xtreme Fighting, Palace Fighting Championship, Palace Fighting Championship, Pancrase, Pride Fighting Championships, ProElite, Pancrase, Pride Fighting Championships, ProElite, Rage in the Cage, Respect Fighting Championships, Ring of Combat, Rumble on the Rock, SLAMM!! Events, San Francisco Cage Wars, Shark Fights, Shooto, Smackgirl, Spirit MC, Strikeforce, Supreme Warrior Championship, TKO Major League MMA, Team Takedown, The Fight Club, USA-MMA, Ultimate Challenge MMA, Ultimate Combat Experience, Ultimate Fighting Championship, Universal Combat Challenge, Universal Fighting Arts Organization, Universal Reality Combat Championship, Valkyrie (mixed martial arts), Valley Fight, Vyper Fight League, Warrior-1 MMA, World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts, World Championship Fighting, World Extreme Cagefighting, World Fighting Alliance, World Vale Tudo Championship, World Victory Road (Sengoku), XFC, YAMMA Pit Fighting, ZST. Off the top of my head I can see a half dozen organizations not on this list, so it's a very incomplete list. Many of these organizations are defunct -- sorta like leagues that went head to head trying to compete with the NFL back in the day. The UFC has come out on top thusfar, but nothing is certain for a sport that is this young. Shooto is the oldest of these leagues. Vale Tudo was even earlier, albeit not well organized. The UFC wasn't the originator of the sport by any stretch of the imagination, but popularized it in the USA. What her brother told us about was exactly that: Mixed Martial Arts. The whole point is to learn a multitude of martial arts and seamlessly blend them together to maximize your effectiveness in a fight. Her brother knows what MMA is and he knows that's what he was learning. I could tell she was frustrated that the MMA class didn't have a decent description as that would have pretty much proven the point. There is no such thing as a College MMA team. The sport is too young for that I expect, and it's never been very successful when run as a team competition sport. The IFL tried to run it that way, but that organization died out. Several others have tried and failed at doing the same thing. College Boxing Teams are kind of a murky thing. The NCAA discontinued boxing as a competitive sport in 1960 after Charlie Mohr, a boxer on the University of Wisconsin–Madison team, collapsed with a brain hemorrhage and died one week later. The sport was picked up by the National Collegiate Boxing Association (NCBA) in 1976. Most schools do not want the risk that goes along with having an official boxing team. There are only 35 schools that participate in the NCBA, and the organization is dominated by military schools and academies. BYU probably used to have a boxing team before 1960, but I can't find any information on it. Most searches pull up football, and that is probably due to the overwhelming popularity of football over any other college sport. I did find mention of one at Ricks College (now known as BYU Idaho): Public Relations Office*–*BYU–Idaho "Ricks began affiliation with the ICAC in the fall of 1948, although not enough conference games had been scheduled for full-fledged membership. That would come soon enough. The football and basketball teams, coached by Lowell Biddulph, and the boxing team, coached by Gordon Dixon, had winning records. They were enthusiastic about the next year when they would have returning players with three years of experience." Bear in mind, I'm already sold on the principal that boxing is a very dangerous sport -- more dangerous than any other sport I know of. But unlike boxing, MMA has a better injury/fatality track record than the majority of contact sports. Sure you might leave the sport of MMA or football with a nagging injury in your -- foot, knee, shoulder, wrist and even your head, but it is extremely uncommon for you to exit either sport a virtual human vegetable. (It's happened in football, but not as yet in MMA.) That cannot be said of boxing where years of accumulated brain damage is a major problem for retirees. One reason there has been no deaths in the UFC can partly be credited to the UFC's president Dana White. When a fighter clearly demonstrates that continuing to fight is a danger to their health, he's been know to pull the plug on them. UFC legend Chuck Liddell got knocked out three times in a row, and much too easily. One punch KO's, the most recent was not even with the opponent's power hand. In the post-fight press conference, Dana said he'd never let Chuck fight in the UFC again for the sake of Chuck's health. If Chuck Liddell were to insist upon continuing to fight, Dana can't stop him from fighting elsewhere, but it's likely that Chuck gets the message and retires. Chuck used to have an iron chin. Accumulated damage leads the aging fighter to developing a glass jaw and continuing to fight thereafter is where a lot of boxers ended up as walking vegetables. You saw this with Muhammed Ali, and Steve Young was at serious risk of permanent brain damage had he continued to play football.

It's something I've devoted a lot of thought and prayer to, and here's the conclusions I've come to thus far. 1.) There was a Great Apostasy. The most important thing that was lost in Christianity's falling away was the keys to continual revelation. 2.) This left the remaining body of Christians groping in the dark looking for answers to questions. So they put together answers as best they could, but not via divine revelation. Sorting out answers based upon committees of religious leaders essentially voting on it, obviously led to a number of wrong answers. 3.) The Great Apostasy did not thwart the works of God. Since the ancient Christians either could not or would not receive the fullness of truth, God gave them what they were able to accept. 4.) This created a circumstance extremely similar to the time Israel spent under the Law of Moses. In the case of Christianity, the foundation to build on was still intact, even if the Church and Kingdom was not on the Earth. 5.) This incomplete form of Christianity spread throughout the world. This accomplished the will of God in preparing the world for the Restoration. 6.) With the fundamentals and foundational messages of God and Christ spread to every corner of the world, God called his prophet Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth -- the most important part being continual revelation from God. So the shortened version is this: Traditional Christianity is the foundation upon which God always intended to re-build. That is why we say: Come and see what God has done. Bring your faith in God with you and let God's modern day message complete your faith and fulfill of what you already have received from Him. That view of things doesn't leave much room for name-calling and telling people that they aren't Christians just because what they have is incomplete. Just because the narrow view of Evangelicals would define Evangelicals as "semi-Christian" at best and "non-Christian" at worst (according to their own narrow definition) is not important. We don't have to take the same narrow-minded approach to things. Indeed, devout Traditional Christians will receive everything they think they will receive: To live with Christ forever and to serve and praise Him for eternity. They will receive at least that much if they are true to what portion of truth they were willing to receive. But they could have received much much greater blessings, and that makes their rejection of truth a great tragedy.

That wasn't my answer at all. I was disputing your underlying premise, "The UFC is evil because it injures people." And you're making a lot of assumptions about the intent of MMA fighters by saying that "the intent is to make the other person bleed." Clearly you know nothing about the sport. You presume much too far when you just throw out a blanket statement, "MMA fighters are trying to severely injure and cripple each other." In the end, my answer is that the Savior could care less what sports I support. I point out that BYU endorses the very violent sports of Rugby and Football by having a team competing in both. The board of trustees -- AKA the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles -- appears to be just fine with it. I find it very interesting that violence based sports have a place of honor at BYU. I also think that if the Lord actually condemned MMA and wanted us to never watch it -- or even actively oppose it -- we SURELY would have heard something by now. Instead, Salt Lake City is a major hub for MMA training and competition alike. Latter Day Saints are deeply involved in the sport as both spectators and fighters. One of the biggest reasons that you're going to struggle is that Joseph Smith himself was quite fond of what we refer today to as Catch Wrestling, one of the precursors to MMA. I think you're going to have the same luck with this as you did with your story about hunting. You were appalled at the horrors and cruelty of hunting at one point, but changed your mind. In this case, you're probably never going to change your mind on the matter, but you're not making a compelling argument because you've got a lousy understanding of the sports you're seeking to demonize. What's worse, you're trying to use guilt-trip tactics and actively seeking to manipulate people into seeing things your way. Not a very good way to approach the matter. You're contribution to the discussion seems to be, "I'm right, God knows that I'm right, and all of you are wrong." Makes for a lousy discussion like I've already said. It still comes down to being a grey area issue. In other words, neither good nor evil. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

I've heard of doing X number of "Hail Mary's" as perscribed by a priest that you confessed to. I've never heard of a "Hail Joseph" in the same context. It's likely that I simply don't understand how Catholics view Mary, but from the outside looking in, she is just one step short of deity in Catholic observance.There are hymns about Joseph Smith just as there are hymns about Moses, Elijah, Jacob, Abraham, Paul, Peter, etc. We go no further with our "veneration" of Joseph Smith (as you choose to call it) than that. We do not pray to him, nor do we look to him for salvation in any fashion. We are simply grateful to him for what the Lord wrought through him. Beyond that, he is a pivotal point. If he's a true prophet then our message is true. If not then it is not. The same has been true of many other prophets in history. At the end of the day, the bigger question is this: Did the Church and Kingdom of Christ survive from the time of Jesus and the apostles until today? Both Protestants and Catholics alike have a vested interest in defending the position that it did indeed survive. Latter Day Saints say that it didn't and needed to be restored to the earth. Christendom as we know it has a bloody history of massacring its own and waging one theocratic war after another -- against itself -- in the name of God. Christendom as we know it is constantly feuding and it's leaders are frequently pounding the pulpit telling members why "denomination X" is wrong and why they're "all going to hell." Recent improvement in these areas do not erase the long bloody centuries. And inter-denominational feuding hasn't ceased. (Curtis isn't pointing to history, but to recent personal experience.) Latter Day Saints would say that history makes the case for us and that our belief in The Great Apostasy is demonstrated by the fruits of the overall body of Christendom. Conceiving of the Church and Kingdom of God behaving in such barbaric fashion just doesn't make any kind of sense. Reading Ephesians 4:1-16 and then looking at Christendom today and then trying to equate "one faith, one Lord, one baptism ... unity in the faith ... the whole body fitly joined together ... maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." Anyone would come to the same conclusion that Curtis has: The scripture can't possibly be talking about the same entity. Christianity today is the very antithesis of all of those things. Maureen, you have a vested interest in seeing things differently. I understand that. But can you see where somebody might come to such conclusions?

Dash, the underlying thing is this: You seem to be trying to take a grey area issue and turn it into a black and white "good vs evil" issue. At the end of the day, it's still a grey area no matter how much you wish it wasn't. If you don't like MMA then don't watch it. Same goes for any sport out there. If MMA is something that we need to start actively opposing as Latter Day Saints, then I expect we'd have heard something from the General Authorities. If they do ever take a stand on the issue -- and believe me they won't -- then I promise I'll do my duty as a Latter Day Saint and support them in their opposition to MMA.

Yes I absolutely believe they are hypocrites. If you allow sports that are MORE dangerous than MMA to continue on, but then single out MMA as this terrible thing, you're being a hypocrite. Football and rugby are more dangerous than MMA across the board. Here's something else that I think is hypocritical: Governments make illicit drugs illegal because they're bad for people's health and can lead to extreme disability and premature death. Then they leave tobacco and alcohol completely legal when those two drugs are killing people by the millions. The thing is, either you ban all recreational drugs that are harmful or you do not. You either take a stand and stand by your position in all cases, or you sit down and shut up. The underlying point that I'm calling hypocritical: Take a stand and apply it across the board. Don't single out one sport and call it a devil while you leave alone all others that are proven to do even more harm. You have to choose: If you're going to go after MMA, then you need to actively pursue bans on Rugby, Boxing and Football at the same time. Anything less is hypocrisy. Aaron Rogers and Jay Cutler are just the most recent to confirm it: American Football must now be classified as a bloodsport. So is any sport out there where players frequently suffer concussions or internal injuries. If intent to do harm is the only qualifier, football, boxing and rugby are doomed. Based upon your criteria, what sports would the Savior endorse? Give me any popular professional sport you like and anyone with a brain in their head can make a compelling case for the Savior disapproving of it. It seems like a very silly question actually. You don't have any idea what he would or would not approve of. As such, you're not making a compelling argument at all. Based upon you're theory of what Christ wouldn't approve of, there are a LOT of sports we should all immediately cease all support for. And yet BYU still has a football and rugby team. Those sports involve people hitting each other has hard as they can from start to finish. A game rarely goes by without an injury! Surely God must be very offended! How could sacred funds go towards supporting such barbarism? I call upon football fans everywhere to repent and cease supporting such a barbaric sport! The thing MMA has going for it is that it's real-world applicable usefulness is far, far greater than soccer, volleyball, baseball, football, rugby, hockey, and every other sport I can think of off the top of my head.

Yes it's a good thing that Protestants and Catholics are no longer massacring each other over their minor differences. There is general agreement on the basics, this is mostly true. But is recognition of the divinity of Mary a basic belief? In Catholic practice, it certainly seems that way. Mary apparently plays a significant role in the repentance process for Catholics. Protestants do not consider her to be divine at all, but just a good woman who gave birth to Christ and nothing more. That would be a clear example where the two groups just don't see eye to eye.Religious wars fought between Protestant and Catholic absolutely devastated Europe in the 30 Years War. What later became Germany was centuries recovering. More Anabaptists were tortured and killed by both Protestant and Catholic alike than Christians killed in the persecutions of Rome. I'm grateful that Christianity as a whole has grown out of this violently intolerant phase of its existence. There is still a giant chasm separating Protestant and Catholic practices and beliefs. The two still snipe at one another quite a bit actually, but they keep the war to words only these days for the most part. Catholicism is relatively united, but there's a lot of liberties taken by some regional leaders in various parts of the world. It's not all "follow the Pope no matter what" there's a lot of other forces that move things within Catholicism -- sometimes in an opposite direction from where the Pope is trying to steer the ship. Protestantism is all over the map and without any kind of central leadership for Protestantism as a whole. One thing that pretty much all Christian denominations have in common is zealously pointing out why they're right and everyone else is wrong. This never seems to change. It's truly puzzling to look at the feuding mass of denominations and then call it "The Body of Christ" described in the New Testament. I fail to see how any of it is united and whole and complete and organized as Christ intended. It really is a big chaotic mess. Catholicism is less chaotic than Protestantism but still chaotic.

I think it's because the KJV directly states to not only stay away from evil, but to avoid the appearance. Knowingly doing something is benign but that offers people the opportunity to falsely accuse you -- that too is to be avoided. Seems that the other translations render it "form" instead of "appearance".

I'm not calling it equal, I'm saying that the reasoning for obedience is the same. Why do you not covet? Why do you not tell lies? Why do you keep the Sabbath day holy? Above all other reasons, you do it because you love God, you know he commanded it, so you obey it. The fact that society is healthier when people are not robbing and envying each other is just the nature of all of God's commandments in general. The fact that taking a day to rest between your days of labor is a nice bonus as well. But the reason you obey is because God commanded it. The principal of why you obey the mission rules is the same.

The missionary handbook is filled with rules. There's a ton of them. You can't go swimming, boating, ride a motorcycle, give a ride to members or non-members in your Church-owned vehicle, no horseback riding, no contact sports, just to mention a few. Many of the rules exist because there has been problems relating to it in the past and the Church has decided to forego having the same problem repeat itself by creating the rule. Many of the rules are there to keep the Missionaries safe. But at the end of the day, the rules are sometihng you obey because the Lord asked you to. I'd love to share some of the contents of the Missionary Handbook, but I don't have a copy onhand. The one from my mission is in storage somewhere.Being alone as a companionship with a member of the opposite sex is above all else simply a rule, like one of the ten commandments. Like I said, the reason you obey the rules because the Lord asks you to. All of the reasons for the rule and benefits therefrom are secondary in importance, and nice extras to go with it. The rule about having a minimum of one female present for sister missionaries is particularly important because if they obey that one rule without fail, it can potentially save them from dangerous or otherwise problematic circumstances that didn't actually seem dangerous or inappropriate at the time. In essence, you don't have the circumstance you never saw coming if you're never in a position for it to happen to begin with. But to your point of confusion, according to The Rules, it is considered more ideal to teach either with a couple from the ward (so bringing both a man and a woman) along or even better yet at a member family's home. This covers all the safety concerns, keeps the rules and offers a chance for an investigator to get to know people in the local congregation. You might surprise the sister missionaries by asking if you can have your lessons at a member family's home. It might be fun to see them scramble to arrange it. Might be entertaining to see how it plays out, if you're not uncomfortable asking of course. The biggest reason for not suggesting this outright is because they don't want to make you uncomfortable or leave you feeling intimidated. Sometimes you worry that by having two extras along for the lesson, that you're intimidating the person by overwhelming numerical superiority or some such. In many cases, people really are intimidated or overwhelmed by the idea. Just do whatever you're comfortable with. But if I were in your shoes, I'd really take advantage of the chance to stun the sister missionaries into silence. Way too fun!

If you ever want to see a truly mindless debate, just pop into the General Discussion board and ask, "Is it against the World of Wisdom to drink a Cocacola?" Oh how the feathers will fly! LOL. It's one of those "Mormon theological controversies" that people like to argue about. Many, many people look well past the mark when contemplating the Word of Wisdom and tend to read a lot more into it that is truly there. You'll have to forgive me/us for dragging some of that endless debate into this thread. You'll be just fine. No alcohol, no coffee, no tea, no illicit drugs:lol:. That's as far as you need to worry about it. Serving anything else should be just fine so please don't worry about it.

It's not just that it's "not kosher." Quite frankly, it's disgusting. Oddball thing I've noticed with a solid majority of people who grew up in the Church and never touched coffee in their lives. Most of them are a lot like me. They'd find a nice cup of coffee (be it decaf or not) about as tasty as a bowl of mud or fresh manure. To me, coffee smells TERRIBLE. I think that there must be some kind of change psychologically when you get addicted to it or live in a house full of people who are addicted to it. Perhaps just the smell goes from horrid stench to wonderfully inviting, I'm not sure. You know those jelly beans on Harry Potter movies that are so disgusting? Yeah that's been my entire life up to now every time I encounter a coffee flavored jelly bean. So gross! Point is, just because most people think coffee is great stuff, it doesn't hurt to realize that some people can't stand even the smell of the stuff. It's not just that they shouldn't have it. For many missionaries, even if it were fine and well to have decaf, they seriously wouldn't enjoy it one bit. It certainly is not true of everyone who grew up without coffee in their environment, but I found that a lot of life-long members feel just as much disgust for the taste of coffee as me. I'm blown away that people actual enjoy the stuff and I really hate coffee shops and doughnut shops who intentionally pipe the smell of the stuff in my direction figuring it'll boost their sales. Maybe it will, but it still stinks horribly! To be fair, my personal disdain for coffee and it's stench are not shared by all life-long members. Some find they like the smell of it just fine and don't find themselves in a gagging and spitting fit when encounter those vile coffee flavored jelly beans. Hot chocolate is fine in almost every case. You may run into somebody who honestly doesn't like it (I've never met that person, but who am I to say that nobody dislikes chocolate?), but it's a pretty safe bet that LDS missionaries are going to be fine with it. As you may note, there are three things that we practice religiously, that are not specified outright in the World of Wisdom. 1.) Abstaining from Alcohol. 2.) Abstaining from Coffee 3.) Abstaining from Tea. It was subsequently explained by the prophet that "strong drinks" meant alcohol specifically and that "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea specifically. " 7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies. 8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill. 9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly." Hot chocolate, non-caffeinated herbal teas, wassail, hot apple cider, hot fruit punch or any other heated drink is not against the letter of the law by any means. For that matter, colas and other caffeinated sodas are still something of a grey area. Probably best to avoid them but not explicitly prohibited, insofar as the person does not become dependent on them, and thereby addicted. So an infrequent cola is not technically breaking the rules. Having a Dr Pepper (to use their own advertising as an example) at 10AM, 2PM and 4PM every single day would be a violation of the Word of Wisdom as presently constituted because it becomes a daily addictive habit. I expect that the Church Leaders will eventually come down and make colas and caffeinated soda against the letter of the law as well, but it hasn't happened yet. People who thought it already was and found out differently are constantly firing letters to Church headquarters begging and pleading for it to be made "official" but to no avail. It certainly doesn't hurt to avoid caffeine entirely as I think that's in keeping with the spirit of the law generally -- but the letter of the law isn't there yet, like I said.

Oh people knew very, very well that gambling would spell disaster to society. That's why it was illegal in ever state for a long time, and only found separated niche havens in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. The state and local governments knew that gambling was a very bad thing, and purposely maintained it as illegal. So they avoided legalization for the longest time. Nowadays, the wonderful state and federal government that we have is more opportunistic than moral. Most states have a lottery and are opening up legalized gambling across the state. Why are they doing it? Because they know it will bring in a lot of money for the government. Many churches used the addictive quality of gambling to bring in revenue via Bingo nights and such. Once again, opportunism takes precedence over morality. Most casino ads I hear on the radio throw some gambling addiction resource in at the end of their advertisement. Maybe that's Illinois state law or something, I'm not sure. But ultimately gambling has been unleashes upon us by irresponsible government entities. Those foolish enough to become ensnared will simply destroy themselves, ruin their family's lives and may end up turning to crime in order to support their addiction. It would have been simpler if the government hadn't abandoned what is right for what is lucrative.

I've seen TV shows that highlighted just the sort of training you mention. The techniques are much the same as MMA, you just use them differently against a group of multiple attackers. Any submission-type hold that cannot be executed quickly to disable an opponent is not used, but anything that can score a quick finish is still used. MMA has long since evolved beyond Gracie jiu jitsu. You cannot hope to succeed in MMA without Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but it is not the only winning technique. A Muay Thai fighter who is well versed in takedown defense and submission defense can often beat the BJJ guy. Wrestlers tend to beat absolutely everyone due to their incredible core strength, use of leverage and smothering power. Currently, three of the five UFC champions built their fighting skills on dominant wrestling ability. Greco Roman wrestling has made a tremendous impact, though there are not many fighters with a background in it. Those Greco Roman wrestlers who do find success in MMA are serious trouble for absolutely anyone. Dan Henderson is a middleweight, but handed Heavyweight legend Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira his first loss ever. Randy Couture's frame is better suited for Light Heavyweight, but he's the most dominant Heavyweight champion in UFC history. Chael Sonnen absolutely manhandled Anderson Silva for most of 5 rounds only to lose to a last minute submission by the champion. Nobody had ever seen Anderson Silva manhandled quite like that. All three of these guys have Greco Roman Wrestling in common. It seems to be the best base to build a full compliment of MMA skills on.

Dash, You seem to be saying that "track records and history are irrelevant, all combat sports are evil and should be shunned because they are combat sports. They don't get to be categorized as contact sports because they are evil bloodsports." You essentially concede that, "Even if another sport has repeatedly proven to be more dangerous and a more serious threat to cause brain damage and debilitating injury, we will ignore that fact completely. The only relevant fact is that in the UFC, fighters are trying to hurt each other." Boxing, rugby and football all have MUCH higher rates of head injury. MMA's rate of head injury is lower because there are so many ways to win that have nothing to do with hitting your opponent in the head. The general dismissal of facts as irrelevant -- that's where I don't follow your line of reasoning. The UFC is vastly safer than most contact sports. All you're doing is joining in with the same witch-hunting groups out there who see what appears to be brutality, and jump to the immediate conclusion that people must be getting killed almost constantly or that there are hospital wings filled with human vegetables who used to fight in MMA. Therein lies the problem: None of these things are true. But you seem to be willing to call this fact irrelevant. If you are reasoning that any sport that has a high degree of injury should be banned, it would effectively eliminate: Football, soccer, baseball, basketball, rugby, hockey ... Wait a second. Come to think of it, there pretty much isn't any sport where injury isn't commonplace at the highest levels of competition ... except maybe curling:lol:. So since all sports are dangerous, we just need to ban all sports for the good of humankind. Only curling, horseshoes and a few other sports danger-free sports will be tolerated. You keep using that word "Bloodsport." Exactly what are you trying to say by it? It's a fine way to strike a chord with anyone who is ignorant. I can keep soccer from being introduced to a new nation that's never heard of it if I call it a bloodsport and do a lot of fear-mongering without qualification. I can work my way around to making the term stick to soccer easily enough if asked. Without qualification of exactly what "bloodsport" means, how honest is the appellation? The health organizations in question are hypocrites because they already allow sports that are significantly more dangerous into their countries. From what I've seen, no they are not doing their homework, and they're allowing themselves to be manipulated into believing that MMA is more dangerous than it actually is. MMA is a new phenomenon and a new sport, and there's a tendency to fear things you're not familiar with. I am not one voice but represent many others who actually do my homework before passing judgement on the sport. There are a number of reasons that people misjudge MMA at a glance. First of all, they tend to abhor seeing a fighter standing up who is trying to pummel a fighter who is flat on his back. This natural reaction is not reasonable though. What you're not seeing is John Fitch flat on his back kicking a standing Thiago Alves and knocking him out. Additionally, the vast majority of submission moves are best performed while lying flat on your back and rolling for leverage. The old notion that being flat on your back equates to helplessness just isn't true in MMA. Fighters are constantly winning from their back. And the rules severely limit what a standing fighter can do the a downed opponent. The most successful, dominant fighter in MMA history, Fedor Emelianenko just recently suffered his first true loss to Fabricio Werdum, after he had knocked Werdum down (though Werdum might have fallen on purpose.) Fedor's big mistake? Trying to jump on Werdum and beat up one of the worlds most elite submissions fighters rather than letting Werdum stand back up again. That broke a 10+ year 27 fight winning streak. (Fedor's only other loss was due to a technicality, and should have been a win by disqualification except for oddball circumstances.) This should make it very clear: Just because a fighter is on his back does not mean he isn't dangerous. He is often very, very dangerous from his back. Self defense teaching is better off for the existence of MMA because it provides an actual proving ground where fighters of all styles can try to find success with their particular style. One of my favorite fighters, Lyoto Machida, recently brought Karate back from being obsolete in MMA, and he did this by melding in Sumo, Freestyle Wrestling, Muay Thai, and Jiu Jitsu, adapting it into something entirely new -- Machida Karate he calls it. Machida is famous for being unbelievably hard to hit. Not a bad skill to learn. You might argue that this is a black and white issue. I see it as a grey area. I think it's much like being a vegetarian vs not being a vegetarian. A vegetarian can be very passionate about their position, but it does not make it morally reprehensible for me to have a hamburger or a steak every now and then. They can choose to refrain from eating meat, but they don't get to make that judgement call for me or anyone else. Dash, you clearly seem to have already made up your mind on the issue and you're just trying to convert everyone else to accept your opinion. Tends to make for a very poor discussion, wouldn't you say?

1.) Justin Eilers dies of a gunshot would courtesy of his step-father. Relevance to "the UFC is a dangerous deadly bloodsport ..." = ZERO. 2.) Evan Tanner takes a tremendous risk by heading out on a camping venture in the California desert alone and with inadequate emergency backup. Runs out of water and dies of heat exhaustion. Relevance to "the UFC is a dangerous deadly bloodsport ..." = ZERO. 3.) Justin Levens shoots his wife and then shoots himself. Relevance to "the UFC is a dangerous deadly bloodsport ..." = ZERO. To say that these deaths are even remotely blameable on each fighter's UFC fighting career is stretching things way beyond what is reasonable. The UFC, for better or for worse, is under the gun. Anything that can be remotely be blamed on them tends to get blamed on them. But the article you posted is entirely speculative. Of course people are going to want to blame these deaths on the UFC! They'll stretch the truth as far as it will go to get them there! But what is cited in the article are vices and personal problems of the individuals. Here's a few other bits of speculative but entirely unprovable history for you: Elvis is alive, the CIA orchestrated the assassination of Kennedy and a secret organization of super-elite individuals secretly rules the world today. All of these are possible, but none have a shred of proof substantiating them. What you're failing to realize is how far the UFC in particular goes to keep the sport safe for it's fighters. There have been two drastically irresponsible endings to fights. -- First case: Renato "Babalu" Sobral held onto a choke hold when the referee after the referee repeatedly told him to let go. Result? Renato Sobral, one of the most exciting and successful fighters in the sport's history, was IMMEDIATELY cut from the UFC, and will never fight there again. -- Second case: Paul "Semtex" Daley suffers a humiliating loss to Josh Koscheck. After the fight, Daley walks over to Koscheck. It is not uncommon for fighters to shake hands, embrace, and/or congratulate the victor at the end of a fight, so that's what everyone figured Daley was doing. Instead, he sucker punches Koscheck. Result? Daley is IMMEDIATELY cut from the UFC and Dana White announces that under no circumstances will he ever be back in the octagon. The UFC cuts Paul Daley, one of the most exciting prospect fighters in the world, without a second thought. Both guys stood to make the UFC a lot of money -- and the controversy would have brought in even more. But the UFC made it very clear that they would not tollerate such behavior. The other things you're not seeing is one of the most rigorous medical pre-screening processes in sports. I can remember several occasions where they turned up a potentially fatal health hazard. In one case a fighter's brain was pre-wired for an anurizm. The medical pre-screening caught it and the fighter was released from The Ultimate Fighter reality show without fighting once. There are countless other cases of the same sort of thing. The UFC knows that there is a lot of eyes on them, just waiting for a death or severly debilitating injury to happen inside the octagon. The piece that you're not bothering to see is that they're doing everything in their power to make sure it never happens. The same cannot be said of other contact sports, nor can it be said of other MMA organizations. For example, Renato Sobral will fight for the 3rd time for the Strikeforce MMA promotion this coming December. The reason that my comparison between the other contact sports and the UFC is fair is as simple as this: Every other contact sport has either had somebody die or come very, very close to it since 1993. The UFC started in 1993. So we're dealing with exactly the same span of time. I do write semi-professionally about MMA, so I know the ins and outs of the sport very, very well. It gives me a significant advantage in this sort of debate. Probably because soccer is not a contact sport. You might as well drag women's croquet into it while you're at it, but exactly what are you proving? My point remains: Contact sports are dangerous, but the UFC is one of the safest contact sports around. The rest of MMA tend to copy the UFC's safety practices but many don't have as clean of a track record -- often via cutting corners.Eleven medical organizations are playing it safe. There will be more debilitating injuries and deaths from rugby in the next quarter century, yet rugby is actively played in all of the nations you cited, and only the incredibly impovrished Bangladesh does not have a national team. In the 110 years that rugby has been played, there has been 71 recorded deaths in the sport of rugby, and yes indeed some of those are since 1993. Yet most consider this to be a relatively safe track record for such a rough contact sport. In a violent world, I think following the Boy Scout Motto, "Be prepared" is the best policy. Let's consider a few cases in point. David killed Goliath, yet it was accounted as a good thing, not a bad thing. He killed Goliath because he knew how to use the sling very well, and that is where the Lord helped him win. We may not have the full reasoning behind it, but we do know that the Israelites were specifically commanded to erradicate the older inhabitants of the promised land completely. Their failure to do so -- call it mercy, or call it passivism, or call it whatever you like -- was not accounted unto them as righteousness. It was condemned by the Lord and the survival of those peoples was a leading cause of Israel falling into wickedness and ultimately being driven out of the promised land and scattered. In a lost and fallen world, the Lord's position is not always one of limitless passivism. Sometimes, in this violent world, the Lord commands his people to do violent things. An even better example is found in the person of Ammon in the Book of Mormon. Ammon defends the kings flocks. He obviously wasn't truly trying to kill the thieving Lamanites, as evidenced by Ammon only cutting their arms off -- but there was an exception. He did kill the ringleader with the sword. Now what on earth was Ammon doing with a sword to begin with? Do you suppose that he just barely learned how to use it right there an then, or do you think he had spent a lot of time practicing with it? I would venture to say that he had put in a lot of practice with it. He was prepared to use his sling and sword if he needed to, and because these were skills he already had sharpened, these were the means that the Lord used to get the attention of the Lamanite king. So I ask you, how could God forgive Ammon who outright killed several men, just because they were trying to steal somebody else's sheep? At the end of the day, Mixed Martial Arts provides a laboratory to find out what really and truly works in one-on-one unarmed combat. Militaries and police forces around the world adopt the practices that come from it. So if I want the best chance of success at defending myself, then MMA provides the best possible tools to do the job. It is nonsensical to expect any martial arts system not to have it's students practice their skills against each other. There is no other way to truly be ready for a real-world situation. The fact that martial arts has produced tournaments and competitions to find out who is the best of the best -- this too should come as no surprise. The most elite students want a place to showcase their skills and prove that they're better than everyone else. MMA is just a logical progression from a kung fu or karate tournament -- taking the best overall fighters in the world and pitting them against each other. All of them make the conscious choice to participate. All of them know the risks going into it. All of the choose to compete anyways. Most are not in it for the money -- as the pay is generally lousy. Most of them are in it to test themselves and prove that they are the best fighter in the world. Just like any other contact sport, you stand a good chance of being injured in some manner. But because so many haters are waiting in the wings for the sport to prove to be "a dangerous deadly bloodsport ..." the people running MMA events have to be much more consious of the safety of their athletes than any other contact sport.

Recent NFL deaths: San Francisco 49er backup offensive lineman Thomas Herrion died after a preseason game in 2005. Minnesota Viking offensive lineman Corey Stringer died of heatstroke after a training camp practice in 2001. Prior to that St. Louis Cardinal tight end J.V. Cain died of a heart attack in traning camp in 1979 and Chuck Hughes, receiver for the Detroit Lions, died on the field of a heart attack during a game in 1971. NHL deaths and a few near-misses: In 1967 Bill Masterton was coaxed out of retirement to play with the Minnesota North Stars during their inaugural season. On January 13, 1968, early in a game against the Oakland Seals, Masterton was hit almost simultaneously by two of the Seal players and fell backwards hitting his head on the ice. Two days later he passed away from a massive hemorage. In 2008, Richard Zednick was accidently slashed by a skate across his throat while playing for the Florida Panthers against the Buffalo Sabres in Buffalo. Although the injury was definitely life-threatening, quick action by Zednick to get off the ice and the trainers of both teams and local doctors prevented a tragic ending. In 1989, ironically also in Buffalo, Clint Malarchuk also had his throat slashed by a skate while playing goal for the Sabres. Again, due to quick actions by those at the rink, Malarchuk's life was also saved after the accident. Both Malarchuk and Zednick returned to their teams and played again after recovering from their respective accidents. In 2006, Rene Bourque was playing for the Chicago Blackhawks against the Columbus Blue Jackets and suffered an accident similar to Zednick's. However, luckily for Bourque, the injury was not as severe and apparently he was not in nearly as much danger as either Malarchuk or Zednick. There are some who would credit Howie Morentz's death to an on-ice broken leg and the complications that resulted. However, the cause of death listed for Morentz was "pulmonary embolism". This may or may not have been indirectly caused by the broken leg and could also have been a result of the alchohol that was sneaked to Morentz by his friends while he was in the hospital. Extremely Incomplete list of Boxing Deaths: Daniel Aguillón, Pedro Alcázar, Bae Ki-Suk, Sonny Banks, Carlos Barreto, Andy Bowen, Felix Bwalya, Simon Byrne, Frankie Campbell, Randie Carver, Yo-Sam Choi, Cleveland Denny, Jimmy Doyle, Benjamín Flores, Leavander Johnson, Duk Koo Kim, Alexander McKay, Charlie Mohr, Johnny Montantes, Davey Moore, James Murray, Marco Antonio Nazareth, Johnny Owen, Greg Page, Benny Paret, Kevin Payne, Henri Piet, Lavern Roach, Francisco Rodriguez, Brad Rone, Martín Sánchez, Ed Sanders, Ernie Schaaf, Lito Sisnorio, Luis Villalta, Robert Wangila, Sonny Boy West, Becky Zerlentes. NOTE: Since the UFC came into existence in 1993, at least 75 professional boxers have died due to injuries they received in the boxing ring. Last I checked, professional boxing has not managed to go a full year in that same span of time without at least one fighter dying due to fight related injuries. One very interesting point worth mentioning: John McCain, the primary leader of the crusade to shut down the UFC back in the 1990's is a HUGE boxing fan. It was his negative publicity campaign against the UFC that led most states to ban MMA and the UFC. He very nearly succeeded in destroying the sport -- at least in the USA. Dana White and the Fetita brothers purchased the UFC and worked out a system of rules and limitations to allow the sport to continue on. I like John McCain in general, but in this case, he was the lead torch bearer of a giant hypocritical witch hunt. Actions by medical organizations and state governments were HEAVILY affected by McCain's anti-MMA witch hunt. Anybody can make a convincing argument via research for just about any point they care to make. But the following numbers speak for themselves: Deaths in the UFC: None. Near Deaths in the UFC: None. All other professional sports listed above have had at least one death or a very near death in the span of time that the UFC has been in existence. You can do your best to make the sport sound scandalous. You can say that it's "EVIL!!" or "Psychotic Bloodsport!!" or paint it in the worst light possible however you like. I fail to comprehend how it is any worst than any other contact sport. The numbers tell a completely opposite tale. The underlying fact is that it's MUCH safer than virtually any other contact sport.

I think people love to single out Mixed Martial Arts and the UFC specifically as some sort of evil "bloodsport" thing. The underlying thing is that fatality rates are higher for sports like football and boxing. The function of the sport is simple. As Jim Brown put it at UFC 1, "I think what we learned tonight is that fighting is very different from what we thought it was." If you have a dedicated sport to Muay Thai, you live within Muay Thai's limitations. If you're a boxer, you specialize in an extremely limited piece of what an actual fight could be like. Karate tournaments, wrestling tournaments, kickboxing tournaments -- they all operate with the same basic problem: They're limited to just their general category with a lot of rules, and nobody knew how well they'd fair against other styles. The Gracie's showed the world how effective their Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was by sending their skinniest, least physically imposing brother into a tournament where every martial arts style was equally welcome and then beating everybody with relative ease, irrespective of size. Only Judo and other Jui Jitsu guys gave Royce Gracie any difficulty. What did we really learn from that? That fighting isn't what we thought it was. What works in a real fight isn't what Hollywood portrayed it as, nor what any individual martial art thought worked. What worked wasn't flashy kicks and punches and knees. Kung Fu theater was likewise wrong. What worked was grappling and submissions. A trained grappler could beat a fighter over a hundred pounds bigger than them, irrespective of strength. Only if that bigger stronger person has grappling training will they even stand a chance. I think this proved that it can be a very good system for anyone who is significantly weaker than their attacker. Best case in point: Women who are attacked by a potential rapist. What if the woman can subdue her attacker? Rape is FAR too common these days, and I would rather have any daughter of mine break a prospective rapist's arm or put him to sleep than have him be able to easily overpower her, rape her and possibly kill her afterwards. Looking back at my childhood, I know I was the victim of almost constant bullying. While I'm not a violent person by nature, there were a few occasions where it wouldn't have been a good thing for me to know how to defend myself well. MMA provides a laboratory for proving how effective each martial arts technique can be. So what works best in MMA is what works best in the real world. It also answers the question: "What happens when a world-class kung fu fighter goes up against a world class wrestler?" Answer: Wrestler wins in almost all cases. Hollywood wouldn't have guessed that one in a million years! What is the best, most effective martial art in the world? All of them mixed together, with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Kickboxing and Judo being most important in the mix. How did we find that out? Because MMA proved it to be true in actual fights, that's how. So I want to get myself and my kids into the best martial arts training possible so that we can defend ourselves should the worst happen and we are attacked by somebody, heaven forbid. How do I that we're trained in the best martial arts? Simple, we go to a reputable MMA academy and learn the latest and greatest techniques that work in the octagon right now. That equips us to be as well prepared as possible for worst-case scenarios, should they arise.

You are correct. Either Paul's father or somebody further back had become a Roman Citizen. (I think it was his father.) The whole point of becoming a citizen was to gain greater rights and privileged within the Roman Empire. So Paul was born as both a Jew and a Roman Citizen. It doesn't say he was a child per se. Acts 7:58 And cast [stephen] out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. Acts 22: 20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. "Young man" would more likely mean somebody who was of adult age. It would be a fair guess to say he was about 20 years old, but we can't know for certain. So not a little child by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not an innocent bystander. He was part of the angry crowd of people that killed Stephen. He was the guy that held everyone's coat while they did the deed -- so while Saul did not personally participate in stoning Stephen to death, he fully consented to the murder and would have helped, but somebody had to hold everyone's coat. This paints a dire picture of Saul prior to his conversion, and demonstrates how big of a 180 he pulled when he became the apostle Paul.

PC, I'm not entirely sure that those "good old days" ever existed. There was a lot more religious dialog in the 1800's but you still had a fair bit of people killing each other in the name of religion. The 1800's for our religion was one of extreme persecution and blatant intolerance. In a land guaranteeing religious freedom, we were driven from one state after another, but there was no crime committed deserving of such a hostile reaction. The general approach was to arrest or murder or commit to the sanitarium anybody who preached something you didn't agree with and found offensive. Those sorts of acts that were commonly inflicted upon Latter Day Saints in those days would get a person doing the persecuting arrested these days. Agreed though that it would be nice if there was more of an open flow of religious dialog. We seem to have gone from a more openly religious public conversation to it becoming increasingly taboo to speak badly of any belief system no matter how strange it might seem.

The trouble you'll have here is what you consider to be a Jew. The word Jew is derived from Judah, so in one sense only the tribe of Judah counts as Jews in the modern sense. On the other hand, all tribes are to some degree represented among the current ethnic Jewish people (though the overwhelming majority are of the tribes of Judah and Levi), so you might use the word "Jew" to refer to any person of Israelitish descent. Not all of the books of the Bible were written by members of the tribe of Judah. Many writings are associated with prophets to the Northern Tribes, and some of those prophets may have been carried away with the Ten Lost Tribes. So the answer to the question depends entirely upon whether you consider the Ten Lost Tribes "Jews." I can say this much. Every book of the Bible is written by Israelites with the exception of Job who was not Jewish, and in Jewish tradition is the son of Utz, who was the son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham. So at the traditional accepted date of the events of the Book of Job, there were no Israelites because Jacob likely hadn't even been born yet. In any case, Job would have been Jacob (who became Israel)'s second cousin. All authors of the New Testament were Israelites, and in the modern context, Jews. It is quite interesting that none of the New Testament was written by Gentiles but it's 100% true.

Thanks for posting the original address by President Benson. My wife and I had made a daily goal to take a Conference address, listen to it and make commentary about it on our private blog page. The whole point is to be actively following and listening to living prophets. The original inspiration for this: Somebody speaking in Church shared an experience they had in a discussion with a non-member. I don't remember the specifics of course, but the thing that I will always remember is this: The member told the non-member that we have a living prophet today. The non-member was skeptical, but thought this would be a wonderful thing if it were true. They asked the member, "What has he said recently." She was forced to admit at that critical moment, "I don't know." The non-member was shocked by this. "You mean you have a living prophet and you don't even know what he's saying??" This made me reflect on my own negligence. I asked myself the same question, "What has our living prophet had to say most recently?" I was disappointed to realize that I too did not know. Rather than beating myself up over it, I asked myself, "How can I fix it? What can I do to ensure that I never find myself in that same circumstance saying, 'I don't know what the prophet has said recently.' " As with any good idea, the blog started out with both me and my wife being consistent, but gradually falling off and getting less consistent. The address by Elder Costa was a good one for remotivating myself, but the original by President Benson was even better -- and taking both was the perfect way to get myself back on track.