RipplecutBuddha

For me it's about having full control of the available content in the home. With that comes the knowledge that you're not paying for channels/content you'll never view, such as shopping channels, movie channels, etc.Sure with netflix you get access to lots of questionable/objectionable content, but it's geared to your specific tastes. Frankly I'd keep cable if they offered an a'la carte option of say, ten or fifteen channels of my choice for one low rate, but they'll never do that, so here I am.

I haven't had cable for nearly 14 years. I don't miss it at all. I will pick up a good show here and there, like NCIS or Dirty Jobs on Netflix, and I'm good to go. I didn't watch the game at all, and anymore I really don't mind not seeing it. Just one more thing to sacrifice that is a minor item anyway. Sure I love football, but to watch a game at the expense of my mental morality? I'll miss the game rather than spend the next two days trying to forget what I didn't want to see in the first place.

I could actually formulate an intelligent and honorable response for Mr. Stallone, using only his own films. However, such does not seem to be the sentiment of the hand-wringing press these days. Oh, well.

It's true for most any leadership position that 'the grapevine' can be a powerful tool. As with any other similar situation it's vital to determine what is truth and what is not prior to acting, but I like this head's up about being too myopic about Priesthood duties, info.

I had a similar experience. I had done something wrong, nevermind what it was. I wrote an apology and mailed it off. A year later, a dear friend connected with the events ran into me out of the blue. We started talking, and she mentioned the letter I had written. She said "You know, you didn't need to write that. They had already forgiven you." I said "I know, but I needed to say it, and I feel better having done it." I never once heard from the people I wrote to, however I don't doubt that what my friend said was true. Forgiveness needs to come from the one injured. Once Christ has given his to you, if anyone else withholds theirs, that is upon them, not you. I've never been good at holding grudges, and I hope I never learn to. I just can't care that long about offenses aimed at me.

While I know for a fact most non LDS Christians aren't afraid of accepting us as part of the Christian faith, Joel Osteen is one of the few prominent preachers that won't hesitate to say it. In my mind, this shows me that not only does he believe in Christ, he has accepted everything Christ stood for. Granted we and Joel have a different understanding of the bible, but he has at the very least taken up the charge of universal love and peace between all of God's children, unconditionally. That's a pretty big thing to me.

No matter what you do, you cannot push a rope...a thread, however, will wander for some time if you let it...

hehee...I don't need to interpret it. You already presented it in english.....sorry, it had to be said or my brain would never unlock...

If I'm carrying any kind of handgun for my own personal protection, you'll never know it's even there until it needs to be used. I guarantee you've been around a 'deadly glock' far more often than your'e likely to be comfortable knowing.

Let's look at this from a business point of view. If I'm a firearms manufacturer, I want to be the top dog in my class of weapons. To do that, my product has to be unique, safe, reliable, and durable. If I fail in any of those areas, I won't be where I want. For every firearms company out there, safety is a serious concern, if not the very first one. No gun manufacturer wants to put out an unsafe gun. To do so, and leave it on the market would be a death sentence for that company. Consider the ar-15 when it first came out in the Vietnam war. It had serious issues regarding safety. A thorough re-design solved the problems, and now it's one of the most popular semi-automatic rifle platforms ever made. Glock, like any other company, has had issues here and there with their designs, but they have always been quick to identify, repair, and eliminate the problems, especially when it comes to safety. I feel if Glock handguns were as bad as some have tried to indicate they are, the company would be the center of not only several national lawsuits, but criminal prosecution, and even potential collapse. They've been a major player in their industry from the beginning, in part because of their high attention to safety. They were the first to even design internal safetys in order to prevent unintentional firing of the weapon because, as has been stated earlier, thumb safetys only work if you use them. the internal safetys work all the time. Now, several gun makers use the same ideas. I just don't see how any of the arguments I've read should lead one to conclude that glock guns are dangerous to the shooter. They just aren't any more or less dangerous than any other firearm available for sale.

Sure you can. You can drink anything you choose, even poison. Whether it's in harmony with the word of wisdom is between you and Heavenly Father.

Having grown up in the stake that was the center of the Willie's and Martin's Second Rescue, I most fondly recall being present when President Hinckley visited our stake from time to time, meeting with our stake president. The reason this was special is that during stake conferences, he would relate some of the events and conversations he had with the prophet. Two that stand out the most; At one point in time, the stake was negotiating with the land owner for access to the sites. The discussions were civil, but the dollar amounts kept shifting here and there, preservation of the land was a major concern, and on it went. When the talks stalled, President Hinckley came to the stake to try and get them going again. By this point, every member of the presidency and the twelve had visited the historical sites, except President Monson, who always had more urgent business to see to. After the first meeting, President Hinckley and my stake president, President Lorimer, were in the prophet's car talking about how little progress had been made that day. President Hinckley paused in the conversation, then looked at President Lorimer and asked "Well, what do you think we ought to do?" The question so stunned him, that President Lorimer replied without really thinking, "I think we ought to buy the land outright." He immediately fell silent when he realized what he said. Noticing his discomfort, President Hinckley turned to his 'security man' who was also in the car, and said "Did you just hear what he said?" He then smiled and said "I think that's what we should do as well." Ultimately that was what happened, and the sites have been beautifully preserved since. The second one was a more private moment between the two men in President Lorimer's Stake office. He didn't offer much in detail that I could remember, except that he explained that, in a moment of candor, the prophet began expressing what he saw as shortcomings in himself. To explain what that moment was like President Lorimer said "When the Prophet of God is sitting in front of you, telling you where he needs to improve himself, let me just say it is a very humbling experience." My most solid take from President Hinckley was one of utter sincerity, complete openness and heartfelt communication, whether it was a stake president in the middle of Wyoming, a television journalist, or the church membership at large during general conference. I could feel his meekness, see it in his movements, and hear it in his words. There was never a doubt how much he loved the members of the church, and he never failed to express it. May God be praised for the wonderful men and women he calls to lead this church, and may we sustain them in their callings as much as we can. There could never be too many people on the earth if they were all like President Hinckley was.

Oh, it was horrible this morning!! I woke up, got out of bed, dressed, then I had to walk....twenty steps....to get to work...and it was 61!! This commute from my room to the elevator is killing me Oh, yeah....um...no precipitation at all for about a week and a half.....40's today.

My ex-wife had that reaction to her questions on a regular basis when she came to church with me. It was usually in Gospel Doctrine. At first she came away upset that she had 'caused such a scene' but the teacher told her "Are you kidding? I've never gotten this bunch to talk and discuss so readily! Your questions are getting people involved in the class, don't you dare stop asking your questions." She is Presbyterian.

at the risk of redundancy..... Now, I understand that this is your interpretation of the article in question and not necessarily what your personal view is of the issue. I just wanted to get my thoughts out on that very common misconception of our church, and of Christianity in general.

I can't manage to hold onto garments for more than three-four years at the most. After all, they aren't built for industrial activity, so they're gonna fade quickly. I tend to view even a little discoloration, or loss of the bright-new white as wear. Once the top isn't as white as my socks....time to go.

Your interpretation has a danger to it, because I've never heard the bretheren of the church echo any such sentiment. Presitent Benson's son certainly felt this way, and even said so during a 60 Minutes interview. When the bretheren give new directives, it has always been assumed that the members would individually, and as a family, take up the matter in personal prayer and seek to add it to their testimony, to confirm from God himself that what was said is actually true. Think about it; if your interpretation is how it is intended to be done, why bother giving everybody the gift of the holy ghost? If we're not supposed to do our own searching and due dilligence, why even preach the importance of personal prayer? Now, I understand that this is your interpretation of the article in question and not necessarily what your personal view is of the issue. I just wanted to get my thoughts out on that very common misconception of our church, and of Christianity in general. Off of my box, and done hijacking the thread

I really need to be more careful when I take a drink of soda. Off to get a new keboard...again.....

Suppose a loving father has a son who is experimenting with drugs. That father, before anything else happens, already knows the dark potentials that face his son if he continues on that path. Addiction, social decline, health issues, maybe even death. Does this father's knowledge mean that such a future must happen? Of course not. The same father can also see the bright potentials that lie in wait should his son begin the process of getting illegal drugs out of his system and life. The bright future is no more required than the dark future. However, the father can see both paths depending upon the choice his son makes. Heavenly Father knows what will happen regardless of the choice we ultimately make. However, he does not compel the choice itself. Our own actions bring about the changes to our future. He allows us the free will to make the choice ourselves and decide our own future. He already knows what all the consequences are of any choice anyone ever makes, but his foreknowledge does not mandate that any one specific future must happen. We know that if we put our hand in boiling water, we'll get scalded. We know it before we even try it. However we also know that our knowledge doesn't cause us to be hurt. The physics of this life cause the pain, not our knowledge. Being a homosexual is not, by itself, a sin any more than being a habitual thief. It's when we act on these sinful urges that brings the sin about. Regarding homosexuality, as long as your uncle obeys the law of chastity, he is not condemned at all. If he does engage in physical intimacy with another man, that is where the sin begins. The law of chastity states that only a married man and woman may act in such a way. No other exceptions. Each of us has a weak spot in our spiritual armor. Some are more visible than others, but we each have at least one. The atonement of Christ is available to all who will follow him. The only thing atheists have to argue with is the senses and intelligence of this life, which are both not only very limited (this is scientific fact), but they can also be easily fooled. Otherwise magicians couldn't do what they do and trick us visually. Ventreloquists couldn't fool us into thinking the dummy is really speaking.We also know, deep inside, that there is far more to our lives than just our senses and intelligence. Love is a very real thing. I don't know that there is any scientific way to quantify it, or 'prove' that someone really is or isn't feeling it at a specific moment. Spirituality is very real. It may not be scientifically explorable, but then much of life is exactly the same, music, art, dance....we all tend to agree on when it's wonderful, or when one is skilled in the arts versus when one is not. Yet again, it can't be explored scientifically. That doesn't mean it's fake, or meaningless. Polygamy began (very reluctantly) with Joseph Smith and ended with Lorenzo Snow. It is true we don't know specifically why it was restored. This is the final dispensation of the Gospel of Christ. It is also said in scripture that in this dispensation all things will be restored that were part of the Gospel in the past. Perhaps you weren't aware, but Abraham and Jacob (later called Israel) also had more than one wife, and they were two of God's most prominent prophets. It is true also that for some time blacks could not hold the priesthood. This principle is probably the least understood because there's no clear point in church history that this became an official position. Joseph himself ordained a black man to be an elder, if I'm correct. What is known is that Spencer W. Kimball was the prophet that was told to bring that limitation to an end. I understand exactly where you are at. I went through that process myself. What I realized in my questioning was this; after all this time, surely at least some of these matters have answers. What I found out was that most of them do have clear answers, and the rest have at least partial answers, which is to be expected in a religion that is based on continuing revelation. We just don't know it all because it hasn't all been given to us yet. First of all, don't ever feel bad about having questions. The first step to learning is recognizing that you're missing some information. Questions are the logical next step from there. Second, questioning has never been discouraged in the Gospel of Christ. The very verse in the bible that got Joseph to pray was a direct thought on how to handle questions of faith. Third, I don't think Christ would like you to be a blind follower. Sure we are expected to use our faith, but the last place Christ wants us to be is in the dark. The pure light of knowledge is what brings vibrance and life to faith. What I would suggest is looking for the answers in the scriptures, conference talks, books by general authorities, even Jesus the Christ by James Talmage will go a long way to helping you out. I would also suggest a specially focused fast next month with humble and sincere prayer. It's how I found my answers. It's how we all find our answers. Let me give you a bit of return missionary advice. 'Pray like it's all in God's hands, then stand up and act like it's all in yours.' When you show Heavenly Father, through your actions as well as your faith, how important getting an answer is, he'll begin to guide you right where you need to be. Finally, take heart in knowing that each of us reaches this moment at some point in our lives. Direct challenges to our faith will happen, and as we get older they may happen more and more often. The more we seek to find out the truth on our own, the stronger we'll be against the attacks and doubts hurled our way. May God be with you always, brother, and don't lose hope. The truth is out there; go find it

As has been seen in vision, the gospel will roll forth as a stone cut out of the mountain to fill the whole earth. What hasn't been seen is where each of us fit into that vision, are we pushing the stone forward where Christ wants it, or trying to push it where we want it?

So are swords and knives, and all the other types of military-oriented weapons. When they are used, do we blame them, or the nations that use them? *sigh* Okay, I'll repeat myself one last time, then I'm done here. None of those items can, on their own, harm anyone if untouched. This is the point I have repeatedly made; It takes a concious willful decision to make any weapon actively lethal. It requires a person who decides to use the item as a weapon. Accountability cannot be laid at the feet of a tool that is incapable of independant action of any kind. Every gun 'made to kill' that has ever existed can, and has been, used in a peaceful and harmless manner. Whether or not the weapon is actually used to kill is based entirely upon the intent of the individual weilding said weapon. I never said guns were harmless, nor would I. Guns are weapons. They obviously require respect and care when handled, no matter the skill set or training. At the same time, Christ will never judge a weapon. He will always judge the one who used it. However, would you be fascinated to know that cars kill more people than guns? How would that fact change your opinion of cars?

The virus being discussed has been found on Mac systems as well. Just thought it oughta be pointed out.....

Let's hear it for state's rights. After all, if Colorado, California and Oregon can legalize Marijuana and the Feds say they won't challenge it, what can't the states write into law anymore?

the thing is, even if you do pay the fine (which you should never do with these), who says they'll ever unlock your computer again? Just clean up your drive, and move on. I've been hit twice with this one over 'illegally downloaded music' even though I've never downloaded any music onto my computer. I usually buy the cd then rip it to my hard drive. That way the CD is my backup. Just pick a good restore point, set it with windows, then use it when you need to lock out the virus. OH, and put your router settings to public system. It makes it tougher for the viruses to get in.

I can't see how I can be more clear on my points. The people actually committing the act of violence are the cause of the shootings. Not the guns. It's not the fault of the four handguns used at Sandy Hook that so many deaths occured. It is the shooter that will have to stand before Christ and account for that day, not the weapons. How many times are mass killings done with knives, bows and arrows? Just a few months ago here in Casper Wyoming a man stabbed his mother to death, went to the college where his father taught, shot him with a crossbow, then used his knife to kill himself. China has had a rash of adults attacking schoolchildren with knives. Why knives? Because personal gun ownership is banned in China. Cities and counties are increasingly posting signs at their borders that their citizens are armed. Why would they do that if it weren't an effective deterrent? Imagine you're a burgler rolling into a new town and the sign at the city limits says "Welcome to Hometown USA, Our citizens carry concealed weapons, and use of firearms for home defense is encouraged.". Now, as a burgler, will you risk trying some of those homes, or would you peacefully roll on to the next town? quote: so are bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, going with the logic thats being used here all these things should be legalized and be allowed to be owned by the civillian population as well. You didn't read the second sentence of my reply. None of those items can, on their own, harm anyone if untouched. This is the point I have repeatedly made that you keep skirting around; It takes a concious willful decision to make any weapon actively lethal. It requires a person who decides to use the item as a weapon. Accountability cannot be laid at the feet of a tool that is incapable of independant action of any kind. You keep blaming guns as the problem rather than the concious, willfully acting individual holding the gun. I said it before, but the person who acted will stand to account for what they did, not their sword, gun,bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, or ICBMs. Because of this, banning guns will not reduce crime. It will change the statistics here and there, but the willful acts will continue, with different weapons. If you can accept that, that's fine. Me? I'm going to meet any threat with whatever force is necessary. If that means a gun in their face, so be it. I didn't tell them to come try to break into my home, or assault my family, or whatever the case may be. However I will not stand by and helplessly let them act out their evil choice. They have agency to choose evil. I have agency to act to stop it.