mordorbund

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with an "incestuous" marriage, unless (IMO) it involves ancestors and descendants. Sibling marriages tend to be very risky and therefore not advisable, but other than the "ick!" factor, I don't see anything wrong with it in principle. Marriage of second and even first cousins as well as uncle/niece and aunt/nephew marriages were historically common. A common Muslim belief is that an ideal marriage is uncle/niece, specifically between a man and his brother's daughter. In general, the dangers of "incestuous" marriage have been greatly overstated. This is especially true in cases where there is no recent (past four or so generations) close marriages in one's ancestry. I can think of all sorts of good social reasons to have such a taboo in place, but for most modern Americans, it's not a genetic issue.

Nope. Darning is something else.

Bummer. I was hoping you were making cube pythons, icosahedron pythons, maybe even nonahedron pythons.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/
This address includes these insights by Elder McConkie:
We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.
[...]
There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.
I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature, is a gospel hobby which creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude. In other instances it leads to despondency because the seeker after perfection knows he is not living the way he supposes he should.
Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence:
"Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son."
This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).
And I rather suppose that he who sitteth upon the throne will choose his own ways to answer his children, and that they are numerous. Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; and it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost; and it is answered in whatever way seems proper by him whose ear is attuned to the needs of his children.

The Garden


 
While His friends slept on their watch

One lonely calm, eventful night

He knelt in prayer for none too few

To drink the bitter dregs come due

To save us from our dying plight.


 
To Father, pled this perfect Son,

For all our sakes above His own

In trembling awe He raised the flask

And willingly performed the task

A weight so great caused Him to groan.


 
From every pore He bled our pain

For us, His brothers, sisters love

That we, through Him, are then made free

From death and hell’s eternal fee

To Eden’s promised path above.


 
Remember noble Brother’s deed

Beyond all the mind conceives

If we but remember Him

Say a prayer or sing a hymn

And honor Him whom we believe.


 
Aeglyn Mar’2016

I generally only hear about the various problems, so its nice to see that good stuff is happening too lol

In point of fact, the premise was your statement (referring, in context, to Hezbollah) that "[ b]ut the friends who will take that cash... can be tracked."
Now, I think it's fair to say that the only reason you brought Hezbollah up, is because you meant to suggest that Obama would deal with them in a way that Hillary wouldn't.  Okay, then.  If that money can be tracked (and, by implication, intercepted), why is that not currently happening; and how is Trump going to change that?  Either Obama, and Dubya, and Clinton and Bush I and Reagan wanted Hezbollah to be getting that cash; or external factors beyond their control prevented them from stopping the flow.  So, how will Trump control what his predecessors found uncontrollable?
For this particular premise, Hillary doesn't have to be better than Trump; she just needs to not be worse than him.  I don't think she will be, where Hezbollah/terrorism generally are concerned; and as far as Israel goes both Trump and Hillary have pretty mixed records.
(BTW, I'm not thinking of voting for Hillary.  But she doesn't scare me enough to drive me into Trump's camp.  The one Hitler reference I will evoke where Trump is concerned, is that you never--NEVER--find an elderly German who will admit to having liked, and voted for, Hitler.  Yet, Hitler won elections; so lots of them clearly did support him and later lied about it.  I firmly believe that Trump will be a disaster as President; and that--like postwar Germans--Americans of the late twenty-first century will be scrambling over each other in their attempts to claim that never really liked the guy.  I, however, will be telling the truth when I make that claim.)

Well, of course I can't speak for the OP, but the answer I often hear is this: They're hoping the sinful ex will repent and change, avail themselves of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and live worthily to inherit the kingdom of God.
It's a legitimate hope, right?  I mean, it's not the level of hope that keeps someone single and longing for their ex, but it is the kind of hope born of love and forgiveness (at least it seems so to me).

The beauty of Trump is that he's so all-over-the-map on issues, that you can always find something he's said on a particular issue that you can agree with.  Trump was in favor of sending ground troops before he was against it.
This is the sort of cult-of-personality thing that concerns me a little bit with Trump supporters.  Not "he won't flail, because he has a plan which involves doing a, b, and c"; but "he won't flail, because that's not what he does, because he's so yuuuuuge".  Show me the plan, Anatess--preferably one that's been consistent for more than six months.
Cruz and Rubio's lack of progress in enacting legislation is, frankly, a result of the fact that the Senate is full of people who are either ideologically committed to other agendas or bought-and-paid-for by donors like Trump.  But they've been very able spokesmen for conservatism, who have built the movement.  Trump surfs waves of public opinion to great effect--but Cruz and Rubio have been out making the waves.
Depends on what we're failing (or succeeding) at.  If we're secure in our conservatism, we shouldn't have to "worry" that Hillary's domestic agenda might actually make for a more prosperous country--because it won't; all we need to do is to be ready to show a better way when (not if) her policies fail.  On the other hand, if the goal is to save American lives by avoiding a stupid war--if Hillary is better at that than Trump is, I am quite willing to let her claim success.
Anatess, that's just not correct.  Talk to a few progressives--see how they regard the guy.
Maybe you can, but the political will to do it isn't there.  The Senate Republicans wouldn't kill the deal before it went through--they sure as heck won't do it afterwards.  Meanwhile, Iran keeps building commercial ties with foreign nations who will spring to its defense if we seek action from the UN (much as France did during Operation Iraqi Freedom--didn't want to lose all those lucrative oil-for-food contracts).  And while you can unilaterally wage war, you can't unilaterally make someone a pariah state.
Re SCOTUS nominees - consulting is nice; but I don't think Trump really wants originalists or federalists on the court; whereas Cruz definitely does (and has the legal chops to discern the true believers from the imposters).
I don't know much about the foreign policy team he's announced.  National Review doesn't seem to think highly of them; but I haven't really heard of any of them except for Papadopoulos--I think maybe I read one of his columns over at Haaretz's website, once upon a time, but I don't remember much of it.

The effects of the Iran and Cuba deals will be irreversible by Inauguration Day, if they aren't already--Iran will have their money and their spinning centrifuges; and Cuba will have their money and their tourists.  So let's not pretend Trump (or any other Republican) will be able to cram those particular genies back into their bottles--it isn't happening.  I see no evidence that Trump is really devoted to federalism, or even cognizant of originalist constitutional interpretive theory; so I don't harbor much hope for his SCOTUS nominees.  And as far as ISIS is concerned--I don't particularly want to spend American blood and treasure in an all-out attempt to annihilate them while Europe and the Arab world sit back and berate us for our "inhumane" methods of waging war.  Let 'em keep order in their own backyards, for a change.
I don't think Trump is Hitler.  I do think he is very like Kaiser Wilhelm II, whose ego and bombast created or exacerbated international crises that ultimately got people killed--Trump's tangles will be smaller in scale, but they will still cost American lives.  I also think once Trump finds that other countries don't cower before him like his boards of directors do, he will flail ineffectually for the next three years of his term and be regarded as a singular failure. 
Which, in and of itself, wouldn't be so bad--except that he'll be regarded as a failure with an "R" after his name and the poster boy for American conservatism.  We may be driven into the political wilderness for decades to come.  Like Dubya, but without the quiet dignity or the folksy charm.

I believe I said that holding my nose would not be enough...I'd have to cut it off. HOWEVER, that was if I ended up having to vote for the other candidate--because I could not vote for Trump.  I probably agree with Trump on about 60% of the issues--HRC about 20%. However, Trump strikes me as disingenuous, condescending, vulgar, and given to vindictiveness. One incident that struck was when he was asked about religious liberty issues, and his response was not a defense of the Constitution, or a recognition of pending issues like whether schools such as BYU will be required to provide housing for married gay students, but rather, "Don't worry, Christians.  I'll protect you."
The bottom line is that I do not trust him to be President.  Sometimes character and demeanor do matter more than policy.

I have participated in many sealings, and I don't recall anything about "lawfully married". But if you get sealed in the temple, then it is a true statement that "you are now lawfully married for time and all eternity." Having been married previous to that doesn't change that it's still true. It's like if someone said, "You are now a woman sealed to her husband." You were a woman before, but it's still a true statement.
As for the "be fruitful and multiply" part -- yes, of course that will be said to you. It is a blessing upon you. Remember, this is an ordinance that will last throughout the eternities. We believe in eternal increase. Being fruitful and multiplying is one of the priceless, inestimable blessings of the Father to you. Whether you can (or should) have children at this point in your life is pretty much beside the point. If you were 86 years old, the wording would be identical.

Corianton did repent, and his repentance is duly noted in scripture:
 

Corianton did repent, and his repentance is duly noted in scripture:
 

Eowyn and Mormongator have good Nerd-fu.  But I am the master.  I challenge y'all to top these:
* I've got so good at my tinfoil-hat prepping 2nd amendment nuttiness, I've delivered two talks on such things in church.  One from the pulpit in the chapel.  I've also had a hand in more than one ward member getting their conceal carry permit.  
* I've given two talks in church as ward social media specialist, on how to be cool online.  (I guess I called it "how to do missionary work online).  My power point slides, (one given in elder's quorum, one displayed up on the wall of the chapel) contained this picture. 
 

Hi Kelli,
For many members the thought of confessing their sins can be overwhelming. The thought of having their sins some how attached to their permanent record can be even more overwhelming. Let me share a couple of thoughts with you to hopefully put your mind at ease and help you realize the true blessings that come from a Disciplinary Council. 
The quick version:
The Council: for the moment, we are going to alter the name "Disciplinary Council" and change it's name to "Council of Love". The Brethren that are on the Council, along with the Stake Presidency, are there for several purposes, but the main overriding purpose is to help "you". They are there to help set you on a course of correction to lead you back to full fellowship and ultimately become the best person you can be. They are there to see you as our Savior sees you, with eyes of love and compassion, not harsh judgement. Going to this council is a blessing and should be welcomed, because you are one step closer to becoming healed from whatever it is that brought you there in the first place.
Your Record: "If" you are disfellowshipped, it will be put on your permanent record, however, there is more to the story than that. Disfellowshipping is noted on your record, but only until you have been reinstated to full-fellowship again. Once you are reinstated, the notation is then removed from your record. So, why put it on your record then? This helps church leaders communicate about you incase you move elsewhere prior to coming back into full fellowship. 

Yes. I believe that all competition is pride-based and thus evil. No exceptions.
I fully realize that this will put me at odds with the large majority of my religous, conservative, work-ethic-equipped compatriots. So be it. Competition is always based on being better than someone else, and never on actually being good. As long as you're the best (so the thinking goes), you define good.
I have tried to teach my children how to be successful in competing for resources such as attention and educational opportunity. I have encouraged my sons to wrestle, which is as competitive a sport as exists on the planet. But I have done so with decidedly mixed feelings.
Competition is evil. Perhaps it would be better to say that competition is telestial. I can live with that. But it is not what I want, and it is most certainly not what God proposes. I do not believe that God is in any sense competitive. He does not strive for the mastery over others. That is utterly foreign to his makeup, as I understand it.
Sure, in the sense that green is different for every person. Each brain is unique, so each perception is unique. But even though our arms, legs, and eyes are all different from and distinguishable from those of others, we all still have arms, legs, and eyes. So pride is identifiable among various people, even if it is not manifest in exactly the same way in every case.
In almost every case, pride has come about because of my own insecurities. It is a rare thing when something I am actually strong in leads to debilitating pride. It usually arises when I cling stubbornly to some idea or opinion or belief or attitude because I'm feeling under seige. Thus, the perfect man never exhibits pride in getting his feelings hurt, not because he lacks feelings, but because his feelings are not amenable to you hurting them, any more than you would get offended by a.one-year-old pointing at you and saying "Funny!"

Is that because everything was true so they didn't have to lie?

Some counsel from The Church Handbook of Instruction, 2.21.3.8
 
This sounds like a good opportunity for a family council.

We have something like an advent calendar for Easter (advent is obviously the wrong word, but you get the meaning). We have an egg carton filled with 12 plastic Easter eggs. Each evening we open an egg (the first contains a sacrament cup, there's also a nail, soap, linen and other Atonement-related objects) and read the scripture related to it. We open the last (empty) egg the night before Easter.
On Easter proper we read the entire Easter story (it's lengthy). A few years back I attempted to harmonize the 4 gospels for that weekend and pasted the scriptures into the doc we read. I found the exercise intellectually and spiritually fulfilling.
When our oldest was too little to sit still for the full story, we watched resurrection videos on lds.org.
Last Easter we were on an extended-family vacation and my sister-in-law introduced the kids to resurrection rolls. Apparently that's a family tradition now (according to the kids). My preschooler memorized the ingredients and instructions (but not the ingredient portions) from that one experience.

We have something like an advent calendar for Easter (advent is obviously the wrong word, but you get the meaning). We have an egg carton filled with 12 plastic Easter eggs. Each evening we open an egg (the first contains a sacrament cup, there's also a nail, soap, linen and other Atonement-related objects) and read the scripture related to it. We open the last (empty) egg the night before Easter.
On Easter proper we read the entire Easter story (it's lengthy). A few years back I attempted to harmonize the 4 gospels for that weekend and pasted the scriptures into the doc we read. I found the exercise intellectually and spiritually fulfilling.
When our oldest was too little to sit still for the full story, we watched resurrection videos on lds.org.
Last Easter we were on an extended-family vacation and my sister-in-law introduced the kids to resurrection rolls. Apparently that's a family tradition now (according to the kids). My preschooler memorized the ingredients and instructions (but not the ingredient portions) from that one experience.

Some counsel from The Church Handbook of Instruction, 2.21.3.8
 
This sounds like a good opportunity for a family council.

We have something like an advent calendar for Easter (advent is obviously the wrong word, but you get the meaning). We have an egg carton filled with 12 plastic Easter eggs. Each evening we open an egg (the first contains a sacrament cup, there's also a nail, soap, linen and other Atonement-related objects) and read the scripture related to it. We open the last (empty) egg the night before Easter.
On Easter proper we read the entire Easter story (it's lengthy). A few years back I attempted to harmonize the 4 gospels for that weekend and pasted the scriptures into the doc we read. I found the exercise intellectually and spiritually fulfilling.
When our oldest was too little to sit still for the full story, we watched resurrection videos on lds.org.
Last Easter we were on an extended-family vacation and my sister-in-law introduced the kids to resurrection rolls. Apparently that's a family tradition now (according to the kids). My preschooler memorized the ingredients and instructions (but not the ingredient portions) from that one experience.