Charlyc

This simply doesn't happen in other rich or reasonably wealthy nations: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343922/Medical-debts-harming-families.html; Its unbelievable at best and appalling at worst. You guys really need to wake up and change your system. You've also been paying for the most expensive overcharged care in the world according to the OECD. So wake up and go with some changes. The GOP's healthcare policies are simply archaic.

Well signing over your property, like a house, to the bishop after he asks is what generally could happen in consecration. We don't do it today so hence the need to change it. Today since we don't practice LoC we do tithing. ie tithing law 'replaces' consecration for now since LoC is what we will follow in celestial kingdom. Not sure about the other kingdoms.

Dude, you're in deep s... now!!

Just saw that ccn clip again. Notice how the blonde elbows Lambert and then looks straight towards the linesman, obviously checking to see if she was caught or not! nice! I'd say the ref was worse than Lambert! cause he didn't see much. He should have shown more yellows at least.

She's just a rough and tough defender, who would've seen a red card after that pony-tail incident or the retaliation after the blond elbowed her -and that blond should have seen a yellow card at least for that- or a yellow after some of those tackles. But what happens on the field should stay on there. Talk about chargesl is nonsense. That would only ruin sport in the long run. But yea, we usually don't see tough girl defenders being violent on TV. Heck they never show women sports unless something like this happens. On one channel here it was the play of the day!!

But I made Senior Member...yay...or does it mean I'm a 'Mister' now? ie senior is spanish right?

Goodness, there is only one vote for "Of course I wouldn't do it! Didn't you hear?..." Thats what I voted!@$..... Looks like I'm a fish out of water in this forum...... :)

By the way I love your profile photo -cute

Then that Bishop has gone wako. Changing the Law of Consecration and hence the Law of Tithing would require First Presidency instructions and a general sustaining vote in General Conference, as happened way back in 1911 (around there) with the introduction of the word of wisdom as a binding commandment.

I think its incorrect to say the LDS church says abortion is sometimes OK in some cases. Its more about the lesser of two evils. If the mother lives she could have more children but if she dies or in any way is in danger then both, the mother and that fetus, dies. You're saving one instead of none by allowing that very rare abortion. Rape cases I'm personally not entirely convinced about what my church says. I'd rather the option of adoption be considered too but I'm not a woman and don't know what it could be like to carry my rapists child so I can't argue against it. However that Jayce Dugard (?) woman in California seems to be OK with her kids so I don't know...maybe its for the children sake but there is a popular actor here who's mom was raped and she gave birth to him and he's OK so I just don't know what to decide on this rape part of abortion.

Yes. Doctors have ways of getting around these laws, as do mexicans getting around fences apparently , so those laws rarely work. But nothing wrong with adding it to this current bit of legislation -well 'bit' is probably the wrong word due to its size, but the doc will just write it up as something else, which is insurance fraud by the way so they do need to trust the women involved and know her well. (Oh just to clarify abortion is a big sin in my book and those cases of rape, life or health of the mother are extremely rare) Some Doctors also ignore euthanasia laws, eg they'll pump cancer patients up with morphine knowing that its killing them. Must be why they talk about a God complex amongst doctors ??

I really disagree with those mini missions. Probably serving formally as ward missionary part time is more useful, but that's jmho. If your bishop recommends it, well you should consider it. But the doubts on being on your own really don't help you. Plus I can definitely guarantee you that you are never alone or on your own on a mission. Not only your companion is always there but angels do help missionaries and the Lord (Jesus) is always close by. Plus the spirit, plus probably one's ancestors (guess) plus you have the other missionaries you see all the time in zone and district conferences, and the people you teach who you will love almost as much as God does. So yes, probably, I'd say you are misinterpreting that fear as some kind of message to wait. But jmho here

I'd agree with this. Generally speaking sisters need to decide if they want to go, men need to decide if they will heed the prophet's call. Then comes the praying to ask if that's the right choice, following that template Oliver Cowdery was given. But if you do decide to go I can almost guarantee you that you'll never regret it. Sisters do a very important job in missions, for example they will visit single women or single moms for hours and really connect in ways an Elder just can't. Elders have their place off course. And at 22 you are still young these days, the 21st century, so there should be plenty of time later for marriage, OH.. forgot...why stop dating now? no need to yet. Live your normal life today, whatever it is. Tell the guy your dating that you're considering this and keep going. When the call does come then its different off course.

Well I see you did read my post here. All the best. :)

Hmmm. 1- Of course fornication is sinful and wrong. But his post seem to suggest it was a romance that went to far. The baby is now coming, and you will find that both the MoF and church policy is to encourage marriage in these cases whenever possible. 2- And offcourse divorce is bad and causes much heartache. I'm not suggesting it doesn't. But most couples in this situation will maybe avoid marriage because they believe that they don't love each other enough and will only divorce later. But its too late to think that way, again, because a child is on its way and that child's interest should be the first concern here and for that child the couple should marry and do all they can to make it work. 3- From 5 years as bishop and now in stake, my experience is that most young men do masturbate regularly. young women will sometimes admit to it or porn use but they aren't as open with male leaders as they would be , and are, with female leaders. They'll have times when they don't but its an ongoing problem. Although it does stop someone going on a mission for example, we can't and don't just condemn someone or put young people through disciplinary councils because of this. It is really a minor sin but sin nonetheless. I'm not saying at all that abusing procreative powers isn't sinful but you can't compare it or treat masturbation to adultery or child abuse case. Yesterday I answered a prospective missionary that breaking Lawof Chastity will most likely stop her serving unless there is proof of both real repentance and time without sin, and I told her that its better to probably think of marriage instead of a mission but you obviously haven't seen that post. 4- On those comments on adultery I'm sure I wrote that people will be excommunicated unless its a one off. Both handbook and D&C 42 state this. But usually, if people try and want to, they can be re-baptized after a year. We may do on average one case of adultery every 3 months or so, but only one about 1 in ten or so ever return. So everyone wants to see more returning after excommunication. Because there are so many we consider it a 'standard case' in the repentance process. Standard but a 'repentance process' nonetheless so I don't see how you could think that I belittle the seriousness of this sin. I did tell the lady concerned that if it involved children it will take much longer for the repentance process too, I believe. 5- The comment on US/Australia is tongue in cheek that's why the little smiley is there. People ought to lighten up a bit.

Mate, or dude, do the right thing here. Marry the girl you deflowered...ah.....knocked up as you'd say? If it doesn't work out, well sh.. happens. But you do your best to remember that (obviously) sweet romance and time together. If I was your bishop, and I did suggest this when I was, I'd strongly advice you to do you best and give it your all to make that marriage work...and Pray about this, as you should, but l'd bet you an arm&aleg that God agrees with this because a baby is coming. Don't even mention abortion ok!!!!!!! Good luck

For GOP voters, well... its probably true there

I'd say that you don't have a family until you marry her. Kaori sounds nice to me.

You ought to be careful here. The raising the bar (which happened during time I was Bishop) changed a lot of things relating to missions. If it hasn't been more than a full year since the last, ah, episode? especially with a boyfriend, then they should make you wait until you can show that you are completely over it. BP may not know well but the MP most likely will. And they need to go into the details as well to be sure you are completely repented and emotionally stable too. It's not easy if there was a repeated pattern of sins ie not just a one off. But some things haven't changed like having had a baby or ever submitted to an elective abortion disqualifies a person from ever serving. Today having tatoos makes it harder to get through although not impossible. The medical issues only influence where they send you as long as you are generally fit to do it. But the church policy is that sisters can serve as long as there isn't a serious marriage proposal in place. This is what the BP I guess is referring to. But it is a choice you need to make, but you do need to be worthy, and completely worthy not just promising to be soon or something. Remember that they will go by what the BP and MP write on the application so they need to be convinced first.

Legislation wont work always. Here when abortions where banned, gynecologist would put then through as 'cysts removal' or something similar, and no one could stop them.

Smart money probably will. Dear brother (honestly and lovingly) you are blinded here by partisan theology, honestly, in thinking the current US system is better or superior or ....well in any way better. It simply isn't and its a shame people don't see it and now this first reform is currently stuck in the mud. all the best,

Goodness bytor, ya still dont get it!! Monstrous increase?? really. Bush cut top rates, plus he spent more money on one industry ie the military-industrial complex which one could argue was a stimulus plan for them(but understandable while given 9/11) , and then end result?? two years only of increase in tax revenue of 4%!!!! That's two years out of his 8, oh and he also threw cash out to lower income earners which he managed to cunningly avoided calling welfare. Your economy would have to grow about 10% per year to provide that 'monstrous increase in revenue'. Never happened under either party. By the way, another thing is today, if they did cut taxes -to stimulate growth- and then cut spending to end the deficit, they are currently looking at cutting about 25% of current expenditure to make the sums add up. Do you seriously think that there will be any growth if the biggest enterprise in the country cuts costs by 25%??? No tax cut could equal that. Bottom line is that the arithmetic doesn't work now for the US economy today (you also have to service the debt that is already there because of the Bushes and now Obama by the way) so really the only way out is a good ol decent war with China so you wont need to repay them!!

Hmmmm....I'd say that's another myth the GOP thrives on. And Pt McKay and Benson would agree. Benson actually quoted McKay in general conference prophesying that THE PEOPLE of Russia would bring down communism, and so it happened. Had both Gorbachev and the russian people not changed you'd still be shadowing soviet subs in the Atlantic. (you'd probably have to go to Crowther's 'Prophecy, Key to the Future' because lds.org doesn't seem to go back that far; if you don't have it then I can wright it out here). Now this is part of what I can't understand about US saints. They seem to be so involved with the right and so pro-GOP that they will completely forget or ignore a McKay prophesy concerning Communism and credit its downfall to Reagan. Sure when you grant tax cuts, add debt to replace those cuts, and then add more debt to grow government, off course the economy will grow, but who pays that debt? And Obama? well, he's in lala land with his deficit projections. About that simple explanation, it was as simple as it could possibly be. But you see the expansion that results from tax cuts, but not the debt nor the flaw in its fundamental premise. So we need to agree to disagree cause we aren't getting anywhere with this debate and I don't want to irritate you anymore than was necessary

"close the deficit" makes the distinction. Means to bring it to an end during 2010, and not have to take out more debt, from the Chinese today, to cover a deficit. The rest of the debt I believe will never be paid because it would require big changes in taxation, like introducing a national VAT/GST or something. My guess, just my personal opinion, is that they'll default on the Chinese debt on some lame excuse eg Chinese government supports terrorism, or go to war with China and thus avoid payment. They can also start paying part of SS payment with new Bonds and thus kick the social security problem forward. But then again patriots pay ALL their taxes, so maybe you should start there?

He converted you into the worlds largest debtor -that's largest ever in history. You can't see that? What you are missing here is the basic arithmetic that makes supply-side voodoo. It goes something like this: a person gets a $100 tax cut, they spend it all (hence economic expansion) and the government gets about $30 back in new taxes from that $100 spent. The tax shortfall was made up of debt ie the $70. So for it too work Reagan would've needed to cut spending for that missing $70. Simple enough this explanation??? Problem though was that Reagan took out debt to cover that (theoretical here) $70 plus added more debt to actually expand the government, ie a 80's stimulus plan! So then he sold you economic expansion based on both tax cuts AND stimulus money. The man did have the gift of the gab AND he sold you a lemon since you still have to pay back his debt one day (plus both Bush I & II and now Obama's debt!). Really the only GOP man you ought to be remembering today is Gingrich who actually lead a deficit reduction. Just in case: No I didn't live in US during Reagan years plus I'm too young anyway. Also there's a ton of textbooks and articles to explain why supply side is discredited -supply side as Reagan practiced- so you are free to go and study this anywhere. My comment to you is that A) GOP has never done much good and B) Reagan sold you a lemon.