Windseeker

My parents are coming home from a temple mission in San Paulo next month. My Dad had to find and submit his seminary records before they went. So it's sounds plausible.

How I view the terms Liberal and Conservative.
I believe, as Vort mentioned, they don't really fit. I think Left and Right are probably more accurate terms to describe someones political beliefs.
But since the OP asked about Liberal and Conservative, here are my thoughts.
Liberals value feelings over logic and reason. Liberals do not believe in personal accountability or responsibility. They do not believe in consequences. They believe the answer to most problems is government. They do not believe in freedom of speech (political correctness). They do not believe in choice or diversity of thought and mock and drown out those who think different them they do. They do not believe in concience. They believe charity means forcing (at the point of a gun, ie government) those that have to give to those that don't. They define people by their race. They believe religion is for the weak minded and unenlightened. They believe in freedom FROM religion. They believe in moral relevancy and do not value self restraint. They value nature over humanity.
Conservatives value logic and reason over feelings. They believe in personal accountabilty and responsibility. They believe in consequences and the right to fail. They believe in hard work. They do not believe the government is the answer to every problem. They believe in freedom of speech. They also value choice and diversity of thought. They believe in conscience. They believe charity means giving of oneself and it's an undisputed fact that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. They define people by their character. They believe in freedom OF religion. They believe in morality and character and self restraint. They value humanity over nature and believe in preserving nature for humanity.
Interesting thought, recent studies sugest that conservatives have sex more often and more fulfilling sex.

Not to be harsh, but I find  "flirt to convert" saying disrespectful. It's not a practice condoned or encouraged and doesn't really fit with LDS teachings regarding the Gospel, the plan of Salvation or true conversion.
Looking the term up on Google it's mostly used to denigrate or pervert our missionary efforts.
 
I'm sure it's meant to be cute, it might be said tongue in cheek but it plays into the hands of those who stand against our teachings and the trend of the worldly to paint everything good, evil, with the brush of cynicism.

It's a long story but my wife left me and our four children and I filed for divorce. I know firsthand what that review of our lives will be like when we pass on, I've unfortunately been blessed with the preview. During that period every time I saw the anguish in the faces of my children all the unkind words, selfish acts, and other mistakes I made with their mother tore thru my mind.
I'm remarried now and making mistakes so I'm still changing and growing. I like the person I am now and the person I'm becoming, though I'm far from perfect. I will forever be working on forgiving myself for the way I used to be and the resulting pain and suffering I brought into the lives of my children.

The Lord has a way of shaping us and often times it painful. If you allow it, you will change and come out a better man than you ever imagined. It's time you stop focusing on how hurt you are and start seeing the effect you have had on others.
If you truly love your wife then you will accept and support her choices and allow her the room to make her own mistakes. You seem to want to rush the healing and it does not work that way, this is probably how you did things in the past but rather than healing the hurt just piled up. For these wounds to heal it will take lots of time and patience and it's completely out of your hands. Your wife can't help you.
You can only change yourself. Look at this as an opportunity to shed who you once were and become new.
I wish you the best, I've been where you are.

He had influence in the Premortal Spirit World and in the Garden of Eden. I would assume that he has as much influence within the temple as those who are attending the temple allow.

Just wanted to make sure this particular bit of vindication didn't pass unnoticed.
Three CNN journalists resign after Trump aide article removed
Fake news indeed!

I don't really want to get into this conversation much, but I thought I'd interject something interesting regarding an opinion of mine with LDS teachings of the priesthood., that many people, including many members, and especially woman who claim woman should hold the priesthood, do not understand.
Woman already hold the priesthood in the LDS church, and in fact, those who do, hold the HIGHEST order of the priesthood in the LDS church.
The Melchizedek priesthood is the higher priesthood.  Under it, as a branch of it, is the holiest priesthood available, and the only one upon which a man may obtain exaltation.  This is the Patriarchal priesthood.  It is not a different or third order of priesthood, but an appendage of the Melchizedek priesthood.  It is ONLY granted to those couples who are sealed together for all eternity in the Temple.  It is seen as granted to the man, but it is actually granted to the COUPLE, aka, the man and the wife together, and as such, is only available to those who have been sealed together.
It is this priesthood that gives a father the actual authority to preside over the home.  So, one may ask, why is it that it is only the father that gives blessings and things of that order.
The answer, because the church is a church of order.  While it is a priesthood that is upon the couple, rather than just the father of the household, the father is the one who holds the keys, and in some of these, he cannot delegate them any more than a Bishop could delegate his keys of judgment in certain cases (though some Bishops may truly want to, and some may even act upon that, there are some keys which only the Bishop is authorized to use). 
As such, it is upon the Father, just like it is upon the Bishop, to preside and lead the home.  However, it is a responsibility in this particular priesthood that is also upon the Mother as well, and at times throughout LDS history, there have been multiple instances of mothers placing their hands on their children and either giving a mother's blessing, or calling upon their husbands priesthood to give a blessing IN HIS ABSENCE. (for clarification, before someone does something waaay out of the ordinary, these are normally blessings that are done simply with the mother laying her hands on the childs head and giving a blessing.  It is NOT a blessing of healing and comfort done with the anointment of oil upon the head...as that is a priesthood blessing done by the FATHER or those priesthood holders who have been given those rights under the commission of an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood).
In some ways, one would say the Father holds the priesthood and the mother ministers with it...if that can be organized in that way...
So, in essence, though one can see the woman would be one who holds or at the least, participates in this, it is the husband who has the rights of the priesthood (as he has the fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood as granted by right, and not just the appendage of the patriarchal priesthood for his family.  However, it is under the patriarchal priesthood where it is utilized with cooperation and understanding where the full rights of the father to preside and be the patriarch of the family reside.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Patriarchal_Order_of_the_Priesthood
Could my opinion be wrong...absolutely.  However, I think this is an opinion that is often missed or not taken into account by many when they consider the family and a woman's rights to the priesthood or her place in the family at home.

I'd like this a thousand times if I could.  I don't know what happened, or how the balance of accountabilities between you and your ex ought to shake out.  But if the circumstances *were* tantamount to rape, at some point you're going to want an inspired leader involved in your recovery efforts; and if they *weren't*--human beings have an uncanny way of building false and destructive paradigms around their sexual choices, which is why we are asked to chat with our bishops when we make a wrong turn.  It's not really about being punished; it's about getting back on track.
If it helps, think of it as "therapy" rather than "confession".

In your case, you have a made-to-order Princess Bride quote:
"Thank you very much for bringing up such a painful memory.  While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour some LEMON juice in it?  WE'RE CLOSED!!!"

There are consequences to every decision.  The commandment is to multiply and replenish the earth.  You decided on not having children.  People proselyting for you to multiply and replenish the earth is a consequence to that decision.  Just take it for what it is and move on.  You can CHOOSE NOT to be offended.
It's the same for people who choose to dye their hair with all 7 colors of the rainbow.  People will stare, people will think you're a rebel, people will think you're an attention-starved person, people will think it's cool, and people will get offended (there's always something to be offended about including somebody culturally appropriating clown hair).  You can choose to be offended by their reactions or you can choose to have patience with those who are just not that savvy about somebody going against the norm.
I for one will be one of those who would say - man!  You should have children!  And that's because I have 2 children and they make me so happy that I wish everybody could experience this kind of happiness.

Not being a female, it's hard for me to relate.  You're right that in Elders Quorum we seem to miss out on some of that drama (our first was born 3 years after marriage--not for lack of trying--and it was amazing how much judgment my wife faced in those first few years due to our purported "selfishness", whereas I heard nary a word).
I don't know how to make it hurt any less; but as for a snappy retort ripped from today's headlines, may I suggest you try the line--"Actually, I'm gay"?

Yay - they're back with a new business model!  Now you link VidAngel up to your Amazon or Hulu or Netflix account, and filter stuff that way.  They're billing themselves as just an automated way of viewers hitting the fast forward and mute buttons, something done by millions of families as they self-censor content.  
Good on them.

Yay families!  God's best way to challenge and refine His children.
So easy to give advice here.  It's always easier to give advice than take it myself, so be warned, I'll probably offer something that I'm not actually doing myself.  
- Separate the valid guilt from the inappropriate guilt.  The valid guilt means you did something wrong and you need to change something.  The other guilt is not to be allowed to have any power over you. 
- Dad gets away with expecting things, because of all the people who just give him what he wants.  That won't change until his age and condition catches up with him, or until you decide to stop being one of those people.  That probably means a huge massive family-splitting melodramatic painful bunch of drama, with everyone offering opinions and choosing sides and all, followed by you needing to actually stick with your guns and not cave.  After all that, you'll find people either accept the new reality and accept you, or they don't.  Your job would be to take a good hard look at kicking out a mentally ill sr. citizen, and then diving into my first advice.  If you are honoring your father, if he has a place to stay and is safe, if your precious wife is respected and agrees with your decision, then all the guilt should be the inappropriate kind only.  Then you go do it.  Livestream it to Facebook, and we'll log in and hit the like button.  
- Just doing what dad wants and letting him live the rest of his years with you, may be a perfectly valid decision.  But your wife's desires and opinions should take precedence here - she matters more than your father's desires and opinions.  When the two conflict, your wife needs to win. 

How many of you have done the DNA test?  What kind of results did you get?  Were you surprised?
I got my results today.  I actually was quite surprised.  I thought that Great Britain would be very high in the numbers.  This is what I got:
74% Europe West (Primarily located in: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein)
11% Ireland (Primarily located in: Ireland, Wales, Scotland)
5% Great Britain (Primarily located in: England, Scotland, Wales)
3% Scandinavia (Primarily located in: Sweden, Norway, Denmark)
3% Iberian Peninsula (Primarily located in: Spain, Portugal)
1% European Jewish (Primarily located in: Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Hungary, Israel)
<1% Finland/Northwest Russia (Primarily located in: Finland, Russia (northwest)
<1% Italy/Greece (Primarily located in: Italy, Greece)
1% Caucasus (Primarily located in: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey
 
 
 

Oooohhh...top ten albums...this is always hard except for 1-3
 
1. Moving Pictures, Rush
2. Number Of The Beast, Iron Maiden
3.  Fire Of Unknown Origin, Blue Oyster Cult
4.  War Pigs, Black Sabbath
5.  The Wall, Pink Floyd
6.  Screaming For Vengeance, Judas Priest
7.  Farewell To Kings, Rush
8.  Operation Mindcrime, Queensryche
9.  Master Of Puppets, Metallica
10..  II, Van Halen
 
 
 

Am I the only one who finds it mildly amusing self-contradictory to issue a proclamation against racism that specifically targets racism among members of a specific race?

Bringing this thread back to life.
Southern Baptist Convention Votes To Condemn White Supremacy
Sort of like the SBC's version of our Proclamation to the World on the Family.  
 

Sen. Bernie Sanders grilled Russell Vought, nominee for Deputy Director of the Office of Budget and Management, on his religious beliefs—specifically, that Jesus is the only way for salvation—and then declared he would vote against Vought, because of those beliefs. Law experts say the senator clearly violates the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for no religious testing of candidates for public office, but that senators may approve or reject whoever they want, for whatever reasons.

Given that Sanders publicly interrogated Vought on his beliefs, and then openly said that he would reject the candidate because of his religious convictions I wonder. I am no lawyer, but to my untrained eyes and ears, Vought was given a religious test, and the senator declared that he had failed it, and so would be rejected.

This is where Social Justice Warriors embrace the postmodernism milieu. If there is no ultimate truth, then all interactions are based on power. It matters not that Islam says God has no son, and whoever says he does is an infidel. Nor is it a concern that the Talmud declares Jesus a false prophet. To Sanders, Muslims and Jews are powerless, while Christians have power. So, it is not inconsistent to condemn and reject Christians, while given minority faith groups a pass on their claims to exclusive truth.

People of faith do well to obey the Apostle Paul’s admonition to pray for those in authority. Spiritual contention in the public square never ends well. God-seekers get divided, pitted against one another, and then ended doing ungodly actions in the name of defending the faith and the faithful. Fast, pray, meditate, and seek ever after God. Perhaps most pertinent during this season where there may be a few winners, but in which there will surely be many losers, remember that vengeance belongs to God.


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sanders-vs-vought-postmodernism-religious-faith-truth-tommy-ellis

Divorced and remarried guy here. 
When I got divorced I got primary custody over our four children. I tried to do what I thought was the Christ-like thing and keep my ex updated and used to encourage the kids on holidays to reach out and acknowledge her. I've since remarried and it took 5-6 years to realize it's not my responsibility to maintain a relationship with my ex or to encourage my kids to keep in touch. I moved across the country and she could have easily followed and been a part of her kids lives. But she chose not to. I don't speak ill of my ex wife and listen with a sympathetic ear when the kids feel frustrated about their mom or step mom. It's not my responsibility to make sure anyone gets along. I don't correct anyone's feelings whether or not I think those feelings are are wrong or right. With my ex-wife I feel commanded to be kind but that does not mean an obligation to maintain some kind of relationship. My job is to simply love those who are placed in my path whether by my own choice or by the will of Heavenly Father. 
Regarding Children of divorce, I honestly think it really depends. They have an opportunity to see and experience, in a way, how a marriage can fail and take steps to ensure success in their own marriages. In my experience those who come from broken families are far from doomed. In my immediate family of 6 kids there are two divorces and in both divorces, myself and my brothers, the parties all came from intact homes. The four remaining marriages that are going strong all involve spouses that come from broken homes. This same trend extends to my cousins as well. The other two divorces were couples who came from intact homes. So I can't agree with yjacket. 
BTW, my Father was molested for years by his uncle. Nothing even close to that ever occurred in my family. Same with my ex wife, she was never inappropriate with our kids in anyway.  
Not so certain about the sins visiting on the heads of the children with that atonement thing getting in the way.

Divorced and remarried guy here. 
When I got divorced I got primary custody over our four children. I tried to do what I thought was the Christ-like thing and keep my ex updated and used to encourage the kids on holidays to reach out and acknowledge her. I've since remarried and it took 5-6 years to realize it's not my responsibility to maintain a relationship with my ex or to encourage my kids to keep in touch. I moved across the country and she could have easily followed and been a part of her kids lives. But she chose not to. I don't speak ill of my ex wife and listen with a sympathetic ear when the kids feel frustrated about their mom or step mom. It's not my responsibility to make sure anyone gets along. I don't correct anyone's feelings whether or not I think those feelings are are wrong or right. With my ex-wife I feel commanded to be kind but that does not mean an obligation to maintain some kind of relationship. My job is to simply love those who are placed in my path whether by my own choice or by the will of Heavenly Father. 
Regarding Children of divorce, I honestly think it really depends. They have an opportunity to see and experience, in a way, how a marriage can fail and take steps to ensure success in their own marriages. In my experience those who come from broken families are far from doomed. In my immediate family of 6 kids there are two divorces and in both divorces, myself and my brothers, the parties all came from intact homes. The four remaining marriages that are going strong all involve spouses that come from broken homes. This same trend extends to my cousins as well. The other two divorces were couples who came from intact homes. So I can't agree with yjacket. 
BTW, my Father was molested for years by his uncle. Nothing even close to that ever occurred in my family. Same with my ex wife, she was never inappropriate with our kids in anyway.  
Not so certain about the sins visiting on the heads of the children with that atonement thing getting in the way.

I'm not justifying or rationalizing the breaking of homes.
Just saying if you grew up with Jesus in your neighborhood you might not encourage your available daughters to seek him out looking at the surface. We as Latter Day Saints and Christians of course know the whole story.
If you look at those in the Bible there were few who were raised in what we would consider a nuclear family. I wouldn't be surprised if there are several leaders in our Church who were raised in broken homes.
My last two Stake Presidents in a row were raised by single mothers. Again not rationalizing just saying there seems to be lots of successful anecdotes.
 
 

Um..yeah. Jesus was raised in a broken home, he had step-dad and half-brothers and sisters, but I think he'd make a pretty good husband. I don't find anything wrong with expressing caution, but hopefully we also teach our kids to look deeper. 

If it’s true that we grow from our trials, and if its true that divorce constitutes some sort of trial for the children of a divorcing couple, then its reasonable to assume that the children of divorced parents have had opportunities for growth in ways that the children of undivorced parents have not. It’s not clear to me whether these opportunities for growth, when taken, will, or will not result in a net benefit after taking into account all of the negatives arising from the divorce, but I think its fair to assume that the greater the trial, the greater the opportunities for growth. (All dependent, of course, on what the people involved decide to do with those opportunities for growth)
I also think its inconsistent with the justice of God to allow harm to come to the innocent without there being some sort of compensatory blessings equal to or greater than the harm. I believe that if a child, through no fault of their own, has been harmed by the divorce of their parents, God will somehow make up for that harm. And its quite possible that those compensatory blessings might be of a sufficient quality or quantity for that child to then become a highly desired marriage partner.
It’s up to us to decide if we will place greater faith in statistics, or in our theology.