mrmarklin

Very typical European attitude.  We Americans should realize that someone who has not grown up with the 2d Amendment tradition would have a very difficult time understanding it.  Even here, as the US becomes increasingly urbanized, there are many who have never owned a firearm and don't understand those who do.
 
Nevertheless, gun ownership is a right here in the US, although I live in a State of the union where many would take it away, and in fact have done so for many types of firearms.

I think you're all missing the point of the second amendment. The principal reason it was placed in the constitution was to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
All else, such as hunting, self defense, etc. is a side benefit
Americans largely accept the trade off that freedom is worth the price of a relatively few nut jobs misusing firearms.

I think you're all missing the point of the second amendment. The principal reason it was placed in the constitution was to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
All else, such as hunting, self defense, etc. is a side benefit
Americans largely accept the trade off that freedom is worth the price of a relatively few nut jobs misusing firearms.

Having been to Europe many time as well as having a very good fried who is English living near Manchester I think it's fair to say that the average European has a completely different attitude regarding gun control than we have here in the US.
There is no such thing as a Second Amendment AFAIK in any part of Europe. People who live there historically grew up under monarchies, and a fair amount continue to do so, even if the constitutional variety. In the UK for example, there is no written constitution, even though it is regularly discussed.
Hunting is largely the preserve of the wealthy because all land is privately owned and a hunting lease must be purchased from the landowner. It's not cheap. Having big tracts of public land to hunt for free like we do here in the western US is simply not an option. In my discussions with people in Europe I sense a lot of reverse snobbery against hunting which is class driven IMHO. In the UK the Labor government banned fox hunting just because they could--sticking it to the Nobs so to speak.
So trying to convince someone in Europe how we feel about gun ownership is an act of cultural futility.

I guess that's another area that the UK and the US differs on, hunting.  Bloodsports (other than fishing) are seen as brutal and inhumane to animals in the UK.  Target shooting does happen but not with pistols as they are banned.  Archery is a minority sport and we have on occasion done it as part of the PE curriculum in the school I work at, but then I don't believe there is any regulations or checks put in place for bow ownership in then UK (afaik).

Regardless of how one may feel about the merits of the "big four", since 1930 it has been the policy of the Church that use of them is cause to deny one admittance to the temples.
Personally, I can live with this as being similar to the Jewish food rules. Those rules are obsolete in these modern times, but the Jews still observe these rules as commandments as well as part of "Jewishness".
Observing the prohibition of the big four is a part of Mormonness!

Regardless of how one may feel about the merits of the "big four", since 1930 it has been the policy of the Church that use of them is cause to deny one admittance to the temples.
Personally, I can live with this as being similar to the Jewish food rules. Those rules are obsolete in these modern times, but the Jews still observe these rules as commandments as well as part of "Jewishness".
Observing the prohibition of the big four is a part of Mormonness!

Sushi or wasabi?  No way!
 
Something sweet.  I'm thinking I'll have a Lindor milk chocolate truffle.

Well......this^^^^
 
But personally, as an above average Poker player, I would cut my losses on this short marriage and stop "throwing good money after bad".

Not seriously hurt, as far as the physical body. Pride is another story.
Have you ever skinny dipped?

I married a foreign woman and so did one of my sons.  So far................so good.  I've been married 43 years!

Really not enough information to render any serious advice from me.  I'd see an independent counselor if you really want things to work out.
 
But I'm curious:  How did the bishop make you let him move back in? 

You state that your wife had a witness of the spirit because she was raised Mormon and went on a mission.  That doesn't mean she ever had a real testimony. 
 
There are a lot of what I call "social Mormons" that go along to get along, so to speak.  Many here in California.  
 
Some want to return to Utah to feel comfortable in society and in their religion as well. 
 
I've known several Mormons that as soon as they left Utah and their families went immediately "inactive" and do nothing in the church.
 
So the idea that your wife is sinning against the spirit is likely very far fetched.

Really not enough information to render any serious advice from me.  I'd see an independent counselor if you really want things to work out.
 
But I'm curious:  How did the bishop make you let him move back in? 

Really not enough information to render any serious advice from me.  I'd see an independent counselor if you really want things to work out.
 
But I'm curious:  How did the bishop make you let him move back in? 

SLC is a typical big city in many ways, but there is a lot to do there.  Certainly worth a couple of days.
 
Eat at the Red Iguana.
 
Terrific Mexican.

I've seen that picture, and all of you that have viewed it should immediately go to the Bishop and confess your total lack of any semblance of good taste and judgement.
 
Frankly it's about as prurient as the chairs in my office.

SLC is a typical big city in many ways, but there is a lot to do there.  Certainly worth a couple of days.
 
Eat at the Red Iguana.
 
Terrific Mexican.

It was the best of times, it was he worst of tmes....to paraphrase Dickens.  This on the eve of the French revolution.
 
Anyone who thinks we live in the worst of times has no sense of modern history.  Think about 200 years ago.  Euorpe was in the midst of the Napoleonic wars, most of the people in the world were totally illiterate and even the Europeans and people in the US had the standard of living now extant in the Cameroons.  You couldn't even light a match-there were none- your toilet was an outhouse or if you were well off, a chamber pot.
 
Even more important, the political systems were more about monarchies. Democracy?  Forgedaboutit.  Only English speaking countries had any semblance off this.
 
Wickedness?  There was plenty....read about the Marquise de Sade.  Sadly, he was not particularly unique.
 
Remember this:  For the prophecy in Daniel to be fulfilled, the world must be a better place or the work of  the Lord cannot go on.  It took a revolution for Joseph Smith to be able to present his ideas, and survive long enough to be heard. 
 
We live in the best of times, and they are only getting better.  Even in my lifetime the Lord has presented new and better ways for the gospel to be heard around the world, getting ever closer to fulfilling the prophecies.
 
Of course as nephi said there must needs be opposite in all things, and some of the tools te ord has given us can be and are being abused
 
But overall, I'm very optimistic. :) 

There is a very good book on the subject: 1493.

As I write this I'm on a hunting trip in Wyoming.
I own many guns, too many to list.
Here in the US, the primary reason the framers of the constitution provided this right was for the ultimate defense, and potential insurrection of the citizenry against a corrupt and abusive national government.
All other reasons are secondary.
Guns are great sporting tools that can be used for hunting,
Shooting sports, (lots of great fun competitions for those so inclined)
Self defense
And general "plinking"
Many of these uses require specialty guns, there is a large variety of handguns and rifles as well as shotguns to serve these various markets..

The simple question is if I do not have my sexual needs fulfilled after a sustained period in my marriage then am I justified to leave my wife? This is of course after trying theraphy, "doing more around the house" and such.
 
Esspecially since after a while of no romantic contact you start having bad thoughts to divert attention to someone outside your spouse.

As I write this I'm on a hunting trip in Wyoming.
I own many guns, too many to list.
Here in the US, the primary reason the framers of the constitution provided this right was for the ultimate defense, and potential insurrection of the citizenry against a corrupt and abusive national government.
All other reasons are secondary.
Guns are great sporting tools that can be used for hunting,
Shooting sports, (lots of great fun competitions for those so inclined)
Self defense
And general "plinking"
Many of these uses require specialty guns, there is a large variety of handguns and rifles as well as shotguns to serve these various markets..

As LDS myself I can certainly see the problem any Catholic would have accepting Joseph Smith's claims of a restoration. We must remember that even from LDS point of view, the Catholic church used to be the true church!
While the "gates of hell" scripture is clear to me, I freely admit that it's ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation. And both religions acknowledge that Peter was the head of the ancient church.
I personally believe that there have been enough doctrinal deviations from the bible in other so called Christian churches to constitute apostasy. Therefore making a restoration necessary, but of course other religions claim that their bible interpretations are correct.
In the end it boils down to faith, backed by study, and prayer.

You're fine with public transportation.  Buy ahead on beverages.
 
But even so, I don't consider you're breaking the Sabbath.
 
I'm a reprobate.  Don't follow my example.