Sali

LOL JudoMinja. I deleted my post but unfortunately you were faster than me. I realised as I read back through it that it didn't read exactly how I meant it to. I agree with you totally. Her road without admitting any wrong will be far bumpier. But I was alluding to the fact that for someone who has abusive tendencies, (and I am not saying abuse is worse than adultery) that there is going to be a lot of hard work and pain in the effort to change this about oneself. Rimmer, is really going to have to do a lot of soul searching and possibly some of the things that he may find out about himself will be hard to swallow and very painful. I think it will be very enriching and very enlightening for him to go through this journey of self discovery.

Deleted.

One of my friends posted this on FB too and when I went to show my husband today, it had disappeared. Strange that.

I am just so grateful that we will be judged by Christ's standards of mercy rather than man's standards of justice. Even though sins of abuse and adultery are committed, Jesus Christ knows we are human and will not react perfectly and will judge us accordingly, according to our individual circumstances. So what 'we' may want to see punished with justice, will be dealt with by mercy. Thank goodness for that! Because only if I'm perfect do I want to be judged only with justice.

Not condoning. I never said it was right, but it does help to try to understand why a person in an abusive situation might make the wrong decisions.

My head's spinning. I'm off to bed! Night all! :)

I do see your point Dravin, but it's hardly going to bankrupt Walmart to provide a few extra cashiers. They would still make huge profits and provide more jobs.

Yes I do see that you as a customer have the right to go elsewhere if you do not like how Walmart treats you, and that is good that there is a choice. I have no argument there. I just hate the mindset that Walmart has in providing as little as possible because they know they can, and they do. It just stinks of we really don't care about our customers, we just want your money and we know we will get it. I don't like that attitude in people and I also don't like it in businesses. It just goes against my own personal value system. Maybe I need to work on my tolerance levels.

Of course you have that right not to go there. What bothers me is the mindset of Walmart that they can treat customers how they want, knowing that they will still go there. Yes it works for them, but they could show that little extra value to the customer by making the experience more pleasant. But because they know they can get away with doing the minimum, they will. It's almost like they take the customer for granted. It doesn't make me feel like they value me as a customer. I'll say it one more time, I don't think corporations are evil, I just wish they would rid themselves of the greed and corruption that can exist within those entities. *sigh* If only we lived in a perfect world.

Trust me Backroads, where we live, in the middle of nowhereness, yes, that is her only choice. And that job is 15 miles away. Well she could go to another restaurant, but this is the lesser of the evils. And those would be just as far! I can't answer that question about the protesters, I don't understand it all myself. I'm starting to wonder if anyone knows the answers to what they are protesting about.

Backroads I get what you are saying, but where I have the issue is that I feel that employers know they are darn well taking advantage of employees as in my daughter's case, in her situation, that is pretty much the only type of job available. She has no choice but to take that job and they pretty much know that. Some of the conditions that are offered by some employers are harsh, but they know people will do what they ask as especially in this day and age, they have no choice. It's the mindset that is behind it all that bothers me. A similar mindset. Walmart. I'm sure like me, most people on this board have experienced the lack of cashiers and the long lines that customers have to wait at the checkouts. Does Walmart have the money to employ more cashiers? Yes! Do they? No! Because they know customers will come anyway. Yes they have a choice to shop there, but does that make Walmart's motives correct? I don't think so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the movement about Corporations needing the 99% as much as the 99% need the Corporations, and for that to be recognised? And taking the corporations out of Washington by limiting the influence they have by lobbying? I'm probably wrong on this, but this is the understanding that I have gained from listening to conversations.

I see it as exploitation as I don't believe an employer that pays an employee an hourly wage should have ownership of that employee's life to be able to call them into work at any time night or day on the premise they will lose their job if they don't show up. Back in the UK, I worked in a grocery store. I was contracted to work so many hours a week on certain days. Those days and hours were set in stone with the contract. If I chose to work more hours I could. If I was asked to work on a Sunday or any other time outside of my contracted hours, I could refuse as it wasn't it my contract. I could not be fired for not working outside of my contracted hours. My daughter on the other hand works in a restaurant here. She is called in whenever they want her, she does not have a set schedule. Has to work here, there and everywhere. Can lose her job if she does not work those hours. Unfortunately as a student, those are the type of jobs that are available and the employers know that and use it to their advantage. I know which scenario I prefer.

Of course corporations provide many ways for people to earn their money, never disputed that point, but I don't agree that they should have the right to exploit workers in the meantime. Maybe it's not corporations that should be looked at, maybe it should be the labor laws that are out there. I am actually a shareholder too Vort. If you think I don't understand your point of view then you are mistaken. I have told you that I agree with what you are saying but I also see it from a different point of view where I feel that corporations (sorry people in corporations) are rife with greed and exploitation. I believe we live in a world where unfortunately people are too focused on money making at the expense of others. People have become selfish and greedy and it doesn't sit right with me. If that makes me dishonest or naive then so be it! I am neither dishonest, a thief or naive, and I really resent those personal attacks on me. I will respectively withdraw from this 'conversation' as I don't like being patronised or personally attacked. Beefche, in answer to your exploitation question, yes I do think it is exploitation when someone is not paid to be 'on call' but expected to go into work at a moment's notice on a day they do not regularly work, and drop everything else in their life at the risk of losing their job.

Vort, please don't label me as naive, I just see things differently than yourself.:) I'm not going to quote from quote as I'm not sure how to do that. But do I think that Corporate Executives will decrease corporate profit? Heck no, of course they won't. Do I think they could cut down profits somewhat if they wanted to? Yes I do believe they could and still make a decent profit. (I'm not so naive to think they would though). I'm not saying they make too much money at all. They are entitled to make what they want. What I am saying that if they were asked to pay taxes, instead of passing it down to the consumer or cut jobs that there is plenty of funds to pay taxes out of profits if they so choose. (Sorry if some CEO might have to only buy one extra house that year ) I totally understand that to get investment in a company the profits have to be appealing to shareholders, I'm just more concerned that the underlying PRINCIPLE here is greed. 'Corporations' are not greedy, I agree with you. But the people who make the corporations up can be.

Yes I agree, corporations are beneficial to us. Yes they provide jobs, but at the same time can be guilty of exploiting those employees with the 'if you don't work 60/70 hours a week, we'll just find someone else' mentality. I don't by any means demonize corporations, but I don't close my eyes to the greed and exploitation that they are guilty of either. If corporation's taxes are raised then I'm sure, if they really wanted to, that they could find the extra taxes from within their huge profit margins. But they don't want to and they won't. So who are the corporations really looking out for? It's not you or I. I'm sorry, but I believe corporations are hugely guilty of greed and they get away with it.

This is just an example of the greed that big corporations run on. Yes of course corporations are needed but I have to defer back to what mormonmusic posted. The quote from Thomas F. Jefferson. Unfortunately, I believe that the majority of large corporations have lost their sense of Ethical Morality.

Juan, what you have to understand is that when someone is in an abusive relationship, they have been beat down so much. They become emotionally very vulnerable. So when someone reaches out with some kindness, it is like being giving food when you have been starved for so long. Don't think I'm condoning, because I'm not. But try not to think that it's being used as an excuse. It's a slippery slope of an emotionally vulnerable person who because of this, may not be thinking rationally, just grabbing for any kind of love and kindness that has not been a part of their lives for so long. It's really not as simple as saying that they should leave before they commit adultery. They often love the abuser and want things to work out. They get caught in the cycle of abuse. Promises are made and broken, but they stay in hope. An abused person will generally not leave that relationship until they are strong enough too and that can take a while, if ever. If someone offers them a ray of hope to get out without having to be strong enough to stand on their own, it can be just too appealing to reject in their vulnerable state of mind.

This was one of my favourite talks.:)

Why would your wife eventually not qualify? In England, medical care is not dished out on how healthy, unhealthy or how old you are. It is there for everyone. It's not a case of you can have this medicine for so long and then we will take it away. I personally cannot speak for Canada, I have not lived there. All I know is in England, if you want the treatment 'now' you have the option to purchase it or opt for private medical insurance. So you can have all the treatment you want immediately. As in the US, If you can afford it, it's there. Unfortunately there are those that cannot afford it due to circumstances beyond their control, they will be looked after. Of course you will always have slackers in any society. But there are always those that are innocent due to circumstances not of their own making that do need the help. I personally would rather pay a little extra on taxes, have a peace of mind that my medical needs and those of whom I love will be taken care of. It's not an argument of Government for me. Let's take the Government out of education, police force etc etc. It's all one and the same IMO. I probably hold this opinion as I have lived and experienced life in a different country and find it hard to understand the American viewpoint sometimes. Contrary to some opinions over here, (and I'm not talking every American or even the majority), the world is not falling apart outside of America. I'm really not attacking America here, I really do struggle with understanding the viewpoint and I really do try. When I lived in England I felt every bit as free as I do here, even with Government run programmes such as healthcare.

But you wouldn't be in that financial situation with just a little raised taxes to form a universal healthcare. You wife would receive her healthcare and could afford to go to college. The taxes that are gathered to run a universal healthcare system are not crippling. They are a lot more affordable than the few hundred dollars each month we shell out on health insurance, which doesn't even cover 100%, never mind the deductible. Oh and someone mentioned that in Canada and the UK you have to wait a year for MRI and CT scan. I don't know where that information came from but it is simply not true. I know because I have lived in the system and have had CT scans and MRIs. In fact, it seems to be a similar wait to see a specialist here in the US as it is in England. My son has been waiting for a few months to see an Endocrinologist. Please try not to buy into all of the horror stories, as they are really not reality. There are deficiencies in both systems.

The Atonement takes care of the bits we can't do for ourselves. I don't think the fact that Christ died gives us free reign just to believe in him and then sit back and do nothing. It's impossible for us to be perfect, but we try our hardest and what we fall short on will be taken care of by the Atonement.

I think the reason for withholding Temple blessings, priesthood etc, could be due to the confusion as even though on earth a female may change to a male, eternally they could still be female. The body may be changed, but the Spirit will still hold the original gender.

Thank you for your post bytor, I really needed that today. :) As far as Spirit/emotion/feeling are concerned. I have had two separate friends on two separate occasions attend Church with me. One was during Sacrament and one was a friend of my daughter, around the 16 year old age group at the time, who was attending Youth and I showed her around the building. She said this after she had entered the Chapel. Both of these friends had not been 'primed' if you want to call it that. They had not really been told anything about the Church, but both of them, within minutes of walking in the Chapel asked why they felt so good in there. That their hearts were light and full was how they both described it. I always go back to this if I start to become troubled about this subject. I think that we use the word 'feel' when we describe how we experience the Spirit, as for lack of a better term. But maybe at times the more correct description would be that the Spirit leaves an impression.

This got to me too. Makes no sense whatsoever, keeping a check on you is fine, but to name it parole/probation doesn't sit right with me.