mrmarklin

My oldest daughter got her mission call.  It was a long time coming.  She always wanted to serve a mission, but she developed pretty bad depression her senior year in high school and ended up not graduating.  Basically a straight A student dropping out with one semester left to go. 
It all set in right after her Karate Sensei quit.  The new sensei didn't click with the students and my daughter quit Karate and within two months she spiraled out of control.  Meds didn't help, therapists didn't help.  She had constant suicidal thoughts, but thank goodness she never did anything to self harm.  This went on for several years and it was brutal.  I had no idea of what to do.  
She eventually found a job teaching Karate.  This was a true answer to prayers.  Slowly she got out of the funk she was in.  Over the next two and a half years she changed dramatically into a new person.  On her own started really studying to gospel.  She was instrumental in her best friend joining the church.  And she saved money the best she could because she wanted to pay for the mission herself.
So she finally got her call.  And yes, she would have been happy to serve wherever, but like her old man got called to one of the top three places she wanted to go.  I am so happy for her.  After the struggles she went through, it is hard to think of a better place to go.

This may be off, but the differences in the picture above is that in One of those places they live in a nation where free speech is a constitutional right under the government of the Nation that is over them.  They are allowed to voice what opinion they want, even if it is with a party that has traditionally been against the Constitution.
The other is in a place where they are trying to fight against a Bigger Mother nations that is greatly influencing their local government to extradite people out of their area for courts and other ideas, and are facing extreme police brutality.  Their Mother nation is known for censorship, gulags, and quashing rebellions and ideas of freedom.  30 years ago that nation rode over protestors in tanks.  They probably have not had a direct situation like that simply due to the Agreement made with Britain and the fact of the world having massive numbers of reporters there currently, or otherwise there'd probably have been a repeat of it today or recently if they could have.

Like @mirkwood, I had to list it on my background check/work history forms when I applied for the bar; and I’ve applied to a few government jobs where I had to account for my entire adult work history.  In those cases I’ve listed the mission to account for that period of my life.
Otherwise—I don’t think I had it on any resume I’ve done since graduating law school.  The closest I’ve come is something along the lines of “Portuguese proficient (resided in Northern Brazil, 1999-2001)”.  

Textbook manipulation... robbing you of agency through extreme guilt tripping.  There is literally a lot of options - if you're in the USA, the best one would be to take her to a hospital and tell the admitting nurse she's suicidal.

Fixing someone's suicidal thoughts with premarital sex?  Yeah, no, not the best idea.
"I tried everything else but nothing worked" - her problems are not yours to fix.  They are hers to fix.  
If I were you, I'd postpone the wedding, read a bunch of books on suicide, attend some premarital counseling sessions.  I would not marry someone with unresolved suicidal issues - it's not fair to either of you.

And here's the state of the news in 2019:
President Trump had a press conference to respond to Pelosi's allegation and MSNBC MUTED OUT HIS SPEECH and declared he was lying so they proceeded to give their narrative on the Biden-Ukraine issue while the President was speaking in the background.
You think this is just MSNBC?  Of course not.  So, if your impressions of Trump comes from the news... you are only getting what anti-Trumpers want you to get. 

Doesn't matter.  The Speaker of the House cannot launch an impeachment inquiry.  So nothing Pelosi said yesterday makes a difference in the status quo.

Okay, let me correct some Fake News... if you google "impeachment inquiry", all the Fake News bubbles to the first 3 pages of the results and it's laughable.
The House Majority Leader cannot unilaterally "Launch an Impeachment Inquiry".  She doesn't have the authority.  An impeachment inquiry can only be launched by the full House.  The House has tried several times for the past 2 1/2 years to launch one for the Russian Collusion/Obstruction/etc. and failed to get the majority of the House Democrats, let alone the full House.  Therefore, Pelosi's announcement yesterday is not a government action, it was simply a political action to appease the Dem base and donors who are trying to unseat her due to her "inaction".   
So, my opinion on the matter - Pelosi is not anymore looking at winning the Presidency in 2020.  She's shoring up her base and collecting as much money as she can for the party... I'm thinking her sights are now on positioning or 2024 when they wouldn't have to contend with "Orange Man Bad".
 

So I sat with my kids this afternoon and we played Life.  For those who haven't heard of it (all 3 of you) it's the boardgame where you go through "life" with a job, income, kids, buying a house, etc.  The object of the game is to retire with the highest amount of money.
So my daughter ended he game with almost $2M and 1 kid.  She won.  I ended the game with... less money than that and also had 1 kid.  My son also had less money, and he had 6 (count 'em) 6 kids.  He had so many kids he needed a second car game piece to tote them all around.
So my daughter announced that she had won. (Which is true, by the game rules.)  But then a thought occurred to me, which I shared with them.  Her in-game persona will end the game of life with just one child to say farewell.  The same went for me.  But my son... his in-game self would pass on with an entire room full of people who love him.
I think the game rules have the wrong victory conditions.

I know no one who does all this, and never have.  It’s the sort of thinking that leads to self destructive guilt trips. Most of us need to work on one thing at a time. I’m an early riser, but I don’t think I’ll be out of the elect by sleeping in once in a while. And I seriously don’t aspire to any Church offices as well.  This among many other defects in my character  
I believe that being elect and going to the Celestial Kingdom is a process. One that we won’t necessarily fulfill in our mortal lifetimes. 

I know no one who does all this, and never have.  It’s the sort of thinking that leads to self destructive guilt trips. Most of us need to work on one thing at a time. I’m an early riser, but I don’t think I’ll be out of the elect by sleeping in once in a while. And I seriously don’t aspire to any Church offices as well.  This among many other defects in my character  
I believe that being elect and going to the Celestial Kingdom is a process. One that we won’t necessarily fulfill in our mortal lifetimes. 

Didn't Russell Nelson say,"men are that they might have joy, not guilt trips."

Unless the Book of Mormon is real, it doesn’t make sense to believe anything it says. 
Same with Adam and Eve. I could make up some sort of value system, and populate it with made up characters myself. It would mean nothing unless I could sell it and gather believers to my system. Some people have stated to me that the Bible is totally made up by people to obtain some sort of control over the gullible. So, in order to contradict this sort of thing, the people, places and events in the Bible must be largely true. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie, and you cannot believe in one either.  Not really  
For us believers, the Spirit has testified these things are true.  If it were otherwise, there would be no Spirit.  And there would be no believers. 

Unless the Book of Mormon is real, it doesn’t make sense to believe anything it says. 
Same with Adam and Eve. I could make up some sort of value system, and populate it with made up characters myself. It would mean nothing unless I could sell it and gather believers to my system. Some people have stated to me that the Bible is totally made up by people to obtain some sort of control over the gullible. So, in order to contradict this sort of thing, the people, places and events in the Bible must be largely true. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie, and you cannot believe in one either.  Not really  
For us believers, the Spirit has testified these things are true.  If it were otherwise, there would be no Spirit.  And there would be no believers. 

Unless the Book of Mormon is real, it doesn’t make sense to believe anything it says. 
Same with Adam and Eve. I could make up some sort of value system, and populate it with made up characters myself. It would mean nothing unless I could sell it and gather believers to my system. Some people have stated to me that the Bible is totally made up by people to obtain some sort of control over the gullible. So, in order to contradict this sort of thing, the people, places and events in the Bible must be largely true. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie, and you cannot believe in one either.  Not really  
For us believers, the Spirit has testified these things are true.  If it were otherwise, there would be no Spirit.  And there would be no believers. 

Rule of thumb in the financial planning business is that one needs about 75% of one’s normal earnings to be able to afford to retire decently. This assumes one has eliminated commuting expense and other work related costs such as eating away from home and special items like suits and ties or nicer clothing for women. 
I have a joint life table on my desk at work and for married couples contemplating retirement, I show them with the use of the chart that one of them is likely to live 30 years. And they need to prepare for the accompanying inflation etc.  They won’t be buying their “last” car, nor will the roof on their house likely last that long. 
Many of these decide to work and save a little longer. 

I would have to agree with that.

What is even more alarming is this:
As a Financial Advisor who regularly sees LDS clients (I don't market to them - high LDS population here) I often find they save significantly less than their non-member neighbors. This according to those I meet with is because of a lot less disposable income. 

A faithful member has many more expenses than most other people - Tithing, Fast Offerings, a mission or two or three etc. These expenses consume a huge amount of money which if invested instead of spending it on these categories can/would have compounded to very larger sums. I am not advocating people avoid these expenses, but rather we need to live significantly below our means and save even more money if we want to enjoy retirement (be able to afford it- you define enjoy) because our expenses are permanently higher than the non-members around us. The concept of living below our means has been taught for a long time, but from my perspective it is rarely followed. 

Some may think the non-members just spend all their money at Vegas, drinking or on their boat. Truth is for the average person, Mormons spend more than the non-member does on tithing alone if one is actually paying 10%. I Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but from the people I am visiting with and judging by the numbers they are giving me I am confident I am not too far off the mark. Those who save for the future (Mormon or not) will not be out blowing their money. When you take two people who have different permanent built-in expenses then the result down the road will be significantly different. I witness this all the time.
I pay enough in tithing to max out a 401K, yet my savings rate is very low relative to my peers. I even live in a neighborhood where the median income is probably about 70K because after all my expenses, savings, church obligations, kids on missions, I frankly don't have much left. I know for a fact I will not have enough saved to go abroad on a senior mission with my wife and I am a very aggressive saver. 
When trying to determine what you will need to save for retirement here is a tip: Figure out approximately how much Social Security you will get, factor in any pensions if applicable and finally Subtract that from what you feel is a decent annual income. Whatever that figure is, multiply by 25 and you have your minimum savings goal.
Example: after expenses I need $25K in annual income. $25,000 x 25 = $625,000

$625K to produce about $25K per year in income. That is considering you only will need income for 25 years. If your death is not already planned one would be wise to be invested in the stock market so your nest egg can grow and keep your source of income producing a stream of money indefinitely which can be increased or indexed for inflation as well.

Save lots, live way below your means and stay in the market. Play the long game.

My wife and I were discussing this interview where Pres. Nelson said "'If you think the Church has been fully restored you're just seeing the beginning. There's much more to come. Wait till next year and then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills, take your rest. It's going to be exciting". We then got in a discussion about what constitutes something that is "restored"?

She was under the impression that any change made to the church in our day is another form of restoration. But I made the statement that nothing new had been restored for a while yet and that any further restoration since D&C 138 (or maybe even race and the priesthood) is yet to come.
I am under the impression that a restoration meant to bring back what was once lost or corrupted. So in my eyes, the things like changes in the church schedule, missionary age changing, combining of elders and high priests, and even the change in the temple presentation (note, there has been no change in the ordinance itself) were nothing more than just changes in policy or the church adjusting to the needs of our time. To me, something constituting a restoration would be bringing forth of lost doctrine, instituting lost ordinances, or expanding the current form of leadership to include other priesthood offices.


Thoughts? 

I have had cataract surgery in both eyes. There are lenses that allow both reading and long distance vision at the same time. Your brain quickly adjusts to this. I don’t wear any kind of glasses anymore.  And I previously had bifocals.  As I recall, my insurance didn’t pay for the lens upgrade  I don’t recall the cost, but it’s a small price compared to the benefit  
Modern medicine is wonderful. 

Most people wait until the boys are 16.

Excellent question. I actually read the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood in a different way. In the Oath, it states that "all those that receive my servants receiveth me". That includes all members of the Church.
To receive the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood means receiving the ordinances of the temple. A woman who is sealed in the temple shares the Patriarchal Priesthood with her husband. He cannot receive it alone, nor can he magnify it alone. So women can also magnify their responsibilities as mothers, wives, visiting teachers, RS presidents, etc., and receive the full blessings of the priesthood promises.

I would argue every time has been like Enoch’s time

Clearly the former. All of us are entitled to the same testimony as an Apostle. 
Being an Apostle is a calling.  But one must be willing to accept that calling. 

Clearly the former. All of us are entitled to the same testimony as an Apostle. 
Being an Apostle is a calling.  But one must be willing to accept that calling. 

I knew eventually this topic might come up when I saw the articles. I have worked with great people who are gay, but I have two concerns:
1. Why is this news? Is it going to be front page news every time somebody announces a sexually oriented change in their life? Some matters are left private.
2. It sorrows me that so many people associate being "true" to themselves with their physical nature and not their spiritual nature.  Being true to yourself is recognizing that your body is just a shell and that the "true" you is an eternal spirit son or daughter of God.
I am sympathetic to the difficult situation a person with same-sex attraction endures, but I see it as no different from the situations for many wonderful single members of the church who never marry in this life for various reasons. They have physical desires that they long to fulfill, but they can't without offending God.
The "acceptance" line of reasoning being used by so many people announcing they are coming out also troubles me.  If heterosexual men and women followed that same pattern of reasoning, most would have to say that they can no longer accept being in monogamous marriages because God made them with physical desires for more than one man or more than one woman, and they need to be true and accept their natures. To me this is a false doctrine that substitutes God-given physical desires for God-given commandments.  Carnal desires are not commandments, and following them outside the law of chastity can only lead to unhappiness in the eternities.