MsQwerty

On his official website, Obama's address on health care clears up several misconceptions, one of them you might be interested in: "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions..." Organizing for America | OFA Blog: The President's Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress: "Stability and security for all Americans"

It's relatively 'free' in that we do contribute 1.5% of our taxes once a year to the Medicare system. How does Medicare invest its funds? No idea really, but you are welcome to read their budget info if you want to look it up: Medicare Australia. The only people in this country who feel 'bullied' into paying their 1.5% are the exceptionally wealthy who would never use a public hospital and feel they should be exempt from the tax. Everyone else is more than happy to pay the 1.5% tax, as most of the population will use public health care services, as well as access what are known as Medicare 'rebates' (where if you go to a private provider, Medicare will basically refund you much of what you paid). Bankruptcy is not so bad. Ok. Got it. Having not seen the program you are referring to, I can't comment too much. They could have walked in and gotten free treatment if they wanted it? Wow. Recovery from childbirth is not a "luxury", it is a RIGHT in a civilised society. If we don't take care of women and babies at their most vulnerable then what kind of people are we? Even 'standard' childbirth is not easy to recover from. From your comments I'm assuming you are a man - I just wish you could try giving birth one day and see how you feel about how 'standard' it is then . And what if it isn't 'standard'? What about her baby who might need care? What if she develops complications as a result of being moved too soon after giving birth? What if the hospital just took care of her instead? What if it were your wife, mother or sister who had no insurance and needed the care that was denied her? And most importantly, what would the Saviour have us do for a woman who is giving birth to a child? That sounds silly and paranoid. No-one in this country gets better care in the public system because their Uncle Bob works for a particular hospital. There are checks and balances in place to ensure such things don't happen. Of course you can afford 1.5% tax - imagine spending a few hundred dollars a year for your health care instead of a few hundred every month? How can that not seem like a good thing? I've lived in both the US and Australia and I can tell you now that US Medicaid/Medicare is not similar to Aus. Medicare in any way. With Aus. Medicare - EVERY Australian regardless of what they earn or what their age, has the right to free or heavily subsidised doctors visits, hospital care, emergency room treatment, surgery of most kinds, pharmaceutical benefits (although there is now a small charge for some tests), x-rays, diagnostic tests, childhood immunisation and organ transplants. In addition, Australians who want more choice of doctor or hospital or shorter waiting lists, can pay for private health insurance. Medicaid, in my understanding is only available to some people and difficult to access as well. The problem with the US system is, I suspect, far more to do with the differences in state-run health care than anything. What is available as Medicaid in one state may be different to that of another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to be the case for many church members I knew there who fell on hard times. Losing one's job and health insurance caused tremendous fear because people knew that it would be difficult to get adequate medical care. I haven't looked deeply into how Obama plans to implement universal health-care, but will take a look at your link when I have more time later on, thanks. I still remember the hysteria that resulted when Hillary Clinton dared to broach the subject although nowadays I think more Americans seem ready for a change. I have, however read the President's address on health care reform, and while the details seem foggy at this point, he seems to be on the right track and claims that it will actually help to decrease the deficit over time: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. (Applause.) Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term." Transcript: Obama's Health Care Speech - CBS News

Hypocrisy? For spending money that she has contributed to the Obama marriage? Michelle Obama is a highly educated woman who graduated from Princeton, then Harvard, with degrees in both Liberal Arts and Law. Among other things she has been a Lawyer specialising in intellectual property, an Associate Dean of Chicago University and Executive Director of a hospital. She has worked her entire adult life in high-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, her income, according to her 2006 tax return, shows that she made $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while her husband had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate. If Michelle Obama chooses to buy herself a pair of shoes or earrings that most of us couldn't afford, then I daresay she has earned the right to spend every penny. And by the way, like many others in the public spotlight, most of her expensive designer items will be given to her so the designer gets free advertising.

Maybe I'm living in a dreamland - but I EXPECT my government to provide for the poor, and not just the 'deserving' poor either. You know that old saying "but for the grace of god, there go I"? Any one of us could be next in line. I also expect my church to care for the poor as well - we all know the scriptures that tell us to care for the poor and needy, but I don't think it's for any of us to judge who is 'deserving' of being cared for in their time of need. I also realise that we need to be careful not to promote too much of a welfare state either, what I'm talking about here are those who cannot, for a myriad of reasons, provide for themselves. And while I'm into quotes, I thought I'd share these ones on the idea of why government (which by extension means 'us' since we vote for the govt), should care for its poor. Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954]. A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. ~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877]. "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest." ~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying," ~Pope John Paul II

Short answer - yes. Long answer - (prepare for eye-glazing to occur): The government collects taxes to fund services, and it's the government's role to ensure that its citizens, regardless of their status in life have access to those rights. If everyone pays a small contribution to those services in the form of taxes, then everyone will have the right to access those services should the need arise. If it is true that most Americans are only two pay cheques (checks?) away from being destitute and/or homeless, then it makes sense to have a safety net that all contribute to. It may mean that the 'have-nots' in our society may rarely, if ever, contribute to taxes but that's life - regardless of whether we are draconian about it or not, there will always be those in society who never pay for one reason or another. There will always be the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled, the drug addicted and the plain lazy who may never cope in 'normal' society. That's the way it is. And it's not going to change with the world in so much turmoil. So what do we do about it? Leave them to live and die on the streets in cardboard boxes? Hope that charities and churches will pick them up? Ignore them and tell ourselves they are 'undeserving' because we are in our comfortable homes with full bellies and access to jobs and resources? Or do we expect our government to behave in a compassionate manner and provide at the very least the basics in healthcare for those who cannot for one reason or another, afford it?

As one who has lived in this country for most of my life, I can tell you that free medical care is available to anyone for any valid medical reason - not just for emergencies. Through the public health system I've had free oral surgery, had a baby, had friends who've been operated on by world renowned surgeons for brain and heart conditions, children who have received absolutlely top-notch care in a public children's hospital...and those are just a few examples. For some situations there can be waiting lists, depending on the seriousness of a person's illness. The system is not perfect, but it does run on the premise that we have all contributed to it and are therefore entitled to the medical services it offers. The reason some people choose to take out private health cover in addition to paying the Medicare levy is so they can have a choice of which doctor or hospital they want, and the waiting lists in some cases are not as long. You say that people in the US can access services for emergency treatment - then why are so many denied the medical care they need? Outside of the US we see them often in documentaries and news stories, (not just the sensationalist Michael Moore style either). When I lived in the US with my husband, I remember being appalled at a sign on the maternity ward where I delivered one of my babies that pretty much stated if a woman came there in labor without insurance, her baby would be delivered and she would immediately be 'transferred' to a different hospital and sent a bill for services. What kind of place does that to a woman in labor? To the rest of us who live outside the US it's a mystery as to why so many Americans are ok with a health system that discriminates so much against the poor. Every other western country except for the US has a public health care system that is available to ALL of its citizens regardless of socio-economic or insurance status. It's my understanding that private health insurance is also offered in each of these countries to give people more choice of doctor or hospital and relieve some of the pressure from the public health system. I don't understand why anyone in the US would not want universal health care available to all of its citizens, nor why they'd mind paying a very small amount in taxes to cover it.

Wow. No offense intended to Americans here, but the rest of the world is looking on and wondering why on earth so many of you have a problem with the idea that the necessities in life like food, shelter and medical care are basic human rights, not privileges in life. From the outside looking in, it appears that President Obama is working to ensure all Americans, regardless of their socio-economic status will get the health care they need. The rest of the western world have governments that provide health care for all citizens as equitable, charitable, compassionate and fair treatment for all - yet so many Americans have this deep-rooted, irrational response and cry "socialism" or "why should those poor people get MY money!" when any change is suggested. In my country, we pay a once yearly Medicare levy of 1.5% of our income at tax time and that provides us with access to free public health care whenever we need it. In addition, we can also pay for private health insurance if we want to, so we can choose our own doctor and hospital. The system, like any other, has it's problems, but generally speaking no-one here is going to die because they can't afford to go to hospital. Last weekend my husband thought he was having a heart attack and after seeing his GP (at no charge), we went directly to the emergency room. He was immediately taken to a cubicle and assessed, heart monitors, ECG, X-ray (in case it was something else going on) and blood tests were all done. Because we were there at lunchtime, a nurse came by with a tray of food - soup (minestrone), sandwiches (ham and cheese), an apple and a cup of tea. We waited for the test results to come back, so all lab work was done while we waited. The cost? Absolutely nothing - since all but the poorest of Australians pay a Medicare Levy at tax time. The majority of people don't mind that the levy also provides the exact same care to the 'have-nots' of society because the point is, we all benefit from the same system, and who knows when one of us will be down on our luck and in need of free health care some time? We are by no means the wealthiest country in the world, so if we can afford to have a free public health system, then why can't the US do the same with all it's billions of dollars in revenue each year? My husband, by the way is American. Since we moved here he has been astounded at the health care and other benefits people receive in Australia and believes the US would benefit greatly from a similar system. He was a dyed in the wool Republican when I first met him, but by the last election he was so sick of the Bush administration (and what he calls 'Republican paranoia') and moved to 'the dark side, Luke', and voted Democrat. I suppose many people in the US do want reforms and changes in healthcare otherwise Obama would not have won the election. Why is it then that so many LDS are resistant to changes that will only benefit the whole of your society in the end? I'm not wanting to attack anyone here, I really am curious.

Hi, as one who lives with a spouse who has been diagnosed with bipolar and a borderline personality disorder, I'd like to encourage you to continue with the medical management of your condition as well as counselling. In my husband's case it's been vital to his very survival for without the medication he is a different man, he indulges in self-destructive behaviour, leaves the family and then once he comes down from his manic state he is full of self-loathing and will attempt suicide. I've been through this too many times after he has decided to take himself off medication because he believes he is fine and doesn't need it any more. Another reason he dislikes the medication is because of the sexual side effects. Quite honestly, I've had to convince him none of that matters because what is more important is that he is here on earth, alive and well. After his last 'episode' (I won't go into the distressing details), he has realized that medication has to be a lifelong thing for him. It's vital to his survival as well as that of our family unit. You don't say if you are married or have children, but if you do, it becomes even more important for you to do what it takes to keep yourself mentally, physically and spiritually healthy. And if you don't have those things in your life, you need to do it for yourself and those who care about you. Faith without works won't work, is one way of thinking about it. You can have faith in Heavenly Father to help you survive your challenges with mental health, but you also have to do the 'work' of taking care of the medical side of things. If you had a different kind of disease you would seek treatment as well as a priesthood blessing, mental illness is no different. All the best...sorry I can't help you with any stories of healing from mental illness, all I know is that we have to do what we can and let god do the rest.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't mirror anyone. And those who participate in mob mentality are idiots, with less intelligence and morality than sheep. Interesting that people seem unable to see the irony in telling others to look out for motes while they themselves are guilty of the same behaviour. Also interesting the number of LDS who go online and allow the prophet and other leaders of the church to be slandered, misquoted and disrespected without ever coming to their defence - and who then condemn other LDS who believe such comments should be addressed. Que sera, sera.

The fuss at FMH over Julie B. Beck's 2007 conference talk "Mothers Who Know" was another case in point. See here for the comments: Feminist Mormon Housewives Pres. Julie Beck's Motherhood Talk

I just went to FMH out of curiousity, there are a few spats going on in different threads, it happens everywhere I think :) I'm a novice at posting on this forum but have read quite a lot here for about a year, there are both conservative, moderate and liberal leaning LDS here, and maybe I'm blind but I haven't read anyone getting too upset with each other apart from a few exceptions. In general I don't think people here are blind to the idea that there is an LDS culture that is often separate in meaning to LDS doctrine. If I thought it was like that, I wouldn't have dipped my toe in the forum at all...and no-one has nipped at me yet even though I've posted that I support women's right to wear pants Other posters who've pointed out that there are varying degrees of tolerance towards disparate views are spot on. For someone who is not used to the forum style of discussion, it might be very easy to take personal offence when someone posts a different view. For others, it's water off the proverbial duck's back. In general it's probably good to go gently on a new poster especially if the regulars know he/she is a new member to the church or the forum. Kinda reminds me of the interactions at my current ward ...

Speaking as one who has read an awful lot of LDS forums and blogs over the years, I have to say that Feminist Mormon Housewives is not immune from 'contention' at all. The main reason I stopped reading there after the post Prop 8 furore died down, was because of the disrespectful references permitted about President Monson. He was referred to as the "gay prophet" by a number of pro-gay voices, meaning they believe he will be THE prophet to recognize same-sex unions in the church. The contention came from those voices who criticized the church on various issues, and there were quite a few of them. I'm pretty open-minded, but even I was shocked and quite annoyed, to be honest, that our prophet was spoken about in such a "nudge-wink" manner in those discussions, and no-one came to his defense! I wrote to Lisa about it, and got no reply, the posts remained, so clearly the owner of that blog isn't too bothered by comments of that nature either. I dunno...something felt very wrong about participating in a discussion where the Lord's prophet was referred to in such a casual and in some cases derogatory manner...I don't go there anymore.

Simply being a jerk on the internet does not make anyone a "useless human being"...lest we forget we've all probably been in that category at some point. Anyway, moving right along...

Definitely too much spare time from mostly mischief makers I suspect. Insanity for the odd one might be true, but that's true for society in general I think.

Is there any such thing as a "useless human being"? ...About the only people I might be tempted to put in that category are child molesters, rapists, sadists and those who exploit the vulnerable and powerless. I've read these "troll" websites before and quite honestly find them as repugnant as those they are attempting to castigate. Obviously those who spend their time trawling the internet with the intent of upsetting people are annoying, but calling them "useless human beings" and coming up with labels like "divorced", "lonely", and so on, (as if being any of those things should be considered an insult anyway), makes us no better than they are. Or maybe I just don't have enough of a sense of humour in the early hours of the morning...

Hi MusicMe, I think you'll find that there are more 'like' you and your wife in the church than you may at first realize. What is probably happening is that those with political views that dissent from the conservative position of the church are keeping quiet in meetings so as not to cause contention or detract from the spirit. Until you've been in a ward for some time, it may be difficult to recognize those who have alternative views. Once I was in a ward that I thought was extremely conservative (if gospel doctrine and other class discussions were anything to go by), but after six months or so I stumbled upon a group who held meetings every month outside of church just for the fun of discussing articles in BYU Studies and Sunstone. Was I ever surprised! Turned out that was their outlet for talking about issues that might otherwise stir people up during church meetings..and all of them were what I would have called strong, temple going members who held various callings in the church. Because they were 'intellectuals' (for want of a better word) they were very careful about who they let attend those groups as they didn't want to affect anyone's testimony...and I was not invited to attend for some time since I was very new to the church. I took no offense because I knew deep down I wasn't ready for those kinds of discussions either. Once you get to know the people behind the Sunday meetings, you will probably find you aren't as alone as you think. And really, how many of us feel like we are out of place at church? If you took a poll I daresay anyone who doesn't fit the traditional LDS mold or who hasn't lived a relatively charmed and sheltered life, would all say they feel 'out of place' in one way or another. Single people, divorced, sole parents, gay but trying to live a chaste life, part-member familes, converts, disabled, those who are dealing with addiction, adultery and just plain old cognitive dissonance are the people who make up our ward families. We all want to feel like we belong, and we shouldn't feel 'different' just because a few dominant personalities (I was going to say 'loudmouths' but thought better of it) like to make their views known in gospel discussions. Those who like to hear the sound of their own self-righteous voices do not represent the majority of church members, it just seems that way. Having said that, it's natural to want to have friends in the gospel who just happen to have similar views to us. And you will find them, you just have to give it time and keep your ears and eyes and heart open. Quite honestly, people should keep their political views to themselves in church meetings, whether they are of a conservative or liberal bent. And as for those who have condemned you for having gay friends, I find that bizarre, since where I come from we are taught to show love and friendship to ALL humankind, not just those who are ever so 'righteous'. That is how we demonstrate the love of Christ in our lives, and it's also the example the Saviour set for us when he mixed with people from all walks of life. Keep being who you are - and remember that other people in the church are probably looking for friends just like you... but they don't know you are there yet. The church is made up of human beings with all our strengths and imperfections, god wants us all there - not just those who fit a certain mold.

After reading through the threads on polygamy, I noticed a few comments wondering about the practice of polyandry in the early church. This article gives an explanation of how it all worked at the time: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf And this one focuses on the experiences of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, who was married to Joseph Smith while married to her 'legal' husband Henry Jacobs. After Joseph was killed, she was then re-sealed to Joseph (with Brigham acting as proxy) and sealed next to Brigham Young as himself - while still married to Henry (all a bit convoluted). Brigham then sent Henry on a mission and Zina moved into Brigham's Winter Quarters. Zina and Her Men Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" also discusses Zina's marriages, noting that she felt it was a sacrifice greater than giving up her life when she finally relented and said yes to Joseph. He had proposed to her three times while she was courting her husband Henry, and after she was married she finally said yes to Joseph when he said that if she didn't marry him, an angel would slay him and the church would pretty much end. (p.80,81). When she married Brigham later on (while still married to Henry), she said she felt a "weakness of heart" over it (p.85,86). The practice in those days though, was that if a prophet or apostle died, his wives would be married to another apostle so their status and protection would remain the same in the church. Brigham had around seven of Joseph's wives sealed to him after the martyrdom, if I recall correctly. Meanwhile, Henry said "I feel alone & no one to speak to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother.” (Compton, p.91). Henry continued to write many heartfelt and loving letters to Zina while he was away on his mission, but by then the official line was that they were separated and he never got to live with his wife again. Henry's experience highlights the issue of why so many men in the church say they don't understand why women are so worried about polygamy, if it is a commandment from god. They, as men, don't have to contemplate, as Henry Jacobs did, the thought of their wife being taken care of and pleased by another man in a physical and emotional sense. Out of curiousity, how many men here would be ok with the idea of their wife being intimate with another man? If a man has little or no problem with the idea of having more than one wife if god commands it, then it should follow that he should be just as open to a command from god that his wife be joined to another man in every sense of the marital relationship. On a purely cerebral level I couldn't care less about the practice of polyandry or polygamy (or any other form of marriage, quite honestly), but on a reality level, I am convinced the practice would bring much in the way of difficulty and heartache. There are numerous instances of polyandry being practiced in the early church, but Zina and her first husband Henry have really had me thinking about the implications of plural marriage from a polyandrous perspective.

I voted NO. Having read and studied various accounts of Mormon polygamy over the years, there is no way I could ever feel right about this principle. And it has nothing to do with feeling jealous or insecure about sharing my husband with another woman, or three or more. My views are based on the reality of polygamy for women in the early church. The women who practiced it were generally miserable, if not, then most certainly resigned to their lot in life as they believed this was what god wanted from them even if it wasn't what they wanted for themselves. Reading about 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball and Joseph Smith did my head in to the point where I almost left the church. That her parents (Heber and Vilate) actually encouraged this to happen in the hopes of a dynastic sealing with the propphet also curdles my blood. The issue of whether sex took place in this marriage is up for debate but Helen's diary leads me to believe that it was a strong possibility. I had to put that particular incident into the 'in the next life I'll understand the truth of what happened' basket. Knowing how much Emma hated the idea of polygamy and how Joseph practiced it without her knowledge with teenage girls who lived in their household was also a gut churner for me. Those girls were then cast aside from him with no more than a handshake when Emma discovered what was going on and kicked them both out of the house. There's more, but those were the two biggest polygamy bug-bears I had to deal with, both of which convinced me that polygamy simply cannot work in this life at least. Sorry, but that's my honest thoughts about the practice of polygamy in the church. I don't think it would be any better nowadays if the principle were re-introduced because men and women are fallible and subject to lustful desires no matter how 'holy' they might think their intentions are. The only thing that kept me going in the church during the times when this became a huge issue for me, was my testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of god. However, just because I believe he was a prophet, does not mean that I believe he didn't make mistakes or was not subject to human desires. My feeling is that Joseph reconciled and validated his desires for other women (which would have been disturbing in nineteenth century Victorian morality) by turning to ancient scriptural examples of plural marriage. And yes, for anyone who thinks I might be be misinformed, I have read Compton, Van-Wagoner, the very scary Krakauer, and many primary sources and journals of women in the early church along with plenty of FAIR articles. So, back to the question...ummm, NO, I wouldn't practice polygamy. And any old fart (or young one for that matter) who came asking for my teenage daughter's hand in marriage because 'god revealed it' would be sent packing with the pointy end of my boot firmly planted in his rear-end.

Hehe! No...I'm just lazy with a keyboard Thanks for the welcome everyone, I'll go for a look around and see what threads I can sneak into.

Hi Marc, I'm from Brisbane. What would you like to know? :)

Hi All, Confession time - I've been lurking here for some time, reading posts and wanting to join in, but unsure about where to jump in. I've been a member of the church for many years but activity has been sporadic for various reasons. Have three beautiful daughters and a non-member husband who stays home to watch the baby. I am a midlife mother (had my last two babies in my 40's), and I am a professional who works fulltime as the primary breadwinner for the family. I like to think of myself as being a compassionate and loving individual, but I'm not terribly good at social graces either at church or work or most other places...I think I mustn't project 'warmth' (probably because I am stressed out most of the time with everything I have to do and from never having enough sleep) when in fact I feel very warm towards others. I often find myself on the opposite polar end of discussions and so wonder if I really am completely barmy in my interpretation of the world sometimes. My opinions are driven by a strong belief in social justice. My experience thus far with online communication hasn't been too successful (I'm trying to be better at it!), so if I come across as weird or strange or whatever, please let me know, it's not deliberate. Now that I've given a weird and strange introduction...look forward to getting to know you all a little better, if you'll have me Q

Hi Toot. This is my first post here...just wanted to let you know that you are not alone in how you feel. Many of us have experienced what seems to be one trial after another to the point of despair. I really don't want know what to say to help you feel better, but I wish I did. If it helps, I think I've walked a little in your shoes and know that sometimes it's hard to stay optimistic when life keeps sending curveballs your way. You say that people (like psychiatrists and bishops) are amazed and don't know what to say to give you 'answers' for how to cope with your life's challenges...maybe that's the problem...maybe this is something only the Saviour can help you with. There was a very good article in this month's Ensign magazine on the healing power of the atonement. In it a woman discusses how she struggled for decades with the effects of childhood abuse and the inability to forgive others. Her answer finally came from laying her pain at the feet of the Saviour and allowing his healing power to soothe her spirit. If you haven't read it, maybe the article might help you...I know it certainly gave me food for thought with some of the issues I struggle with. The following quote was helpful for me, maybe it will be for you too: "Until then, my understanding of the Atonement was limited to repentance and forgiveness. I had been an active member of the Church all of my life—graduating from seminary, participating in institute, serving in a variety of callings, and raising my family to live by gospel standards—but I had never really understood the healing power of the Atonement. I had no idea how personal and penetrating it could be, no idea that it could heal my broken heart and take away the pain and hurt and anger and bitterness that I had been feeling for so many years. Oh, how I wish I had understood that principle sooner! It wasn’t until I could give my pain and anguish to the Lord and let go of the wounds that had been festering within me that I could also begin to forgive...Then the real healing could start to take place. It took some time to work through the issues that I was dealing with, but I began to feel peace in my life. Through my understanding of the Atonement, I was able to move past the crippling image I had created of myself..." See: http://www.lds.org/churchmagazines/EN_2009_07_00___04207_000_000.pdf “The wicked choice of others cannot completely destroy your agency unless you permit it. Their acts may cause pain, anguish, even physical harm, but they cannot destroy your eternal possibilities in this brief but crucial life on earth. You must understand that you are free to determine to overcome the harmful results of abuse. Your attitude can control the change for good in your life. It allows you to have the help the Lord intends you to receive. No one can take away your ultimate opportunities when you understand and live eternal law. The laws of your Heavenly Father and the Atonement of the Lord have made it possible that you will not be robbed of the opportunities which come to the children of God.” Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” Ensign, May 1992, 31–32.