Backroads

Completely cultural.  Children did not necessarily move out of their fathers homes, It was a very patriarchal society.  You did what dad said until you were married, even then you did what dad said.

TFP, if that were completely true, advice to the church members would remain constant throughout the decades.  Twenty years ago we were advised to pay our way through college and not take out student loans.  Decades ago we were advised to let no mother work outside the home. 
 
I suppose one could argue the advice is given as it is needed, but does that mean we suffer in silence until need causes GAs to give a different bunch of advice?

I like this. And I'm one who most if not always takes into consideration what GAs say.
 
But, I believe, technically, it's pretty much advice.  Good advice, perhaps even inspired advice.  But still just advice.  We ought to consider it, but not at the level of gospel doctrine.

I think Pam should get a cut of this since she advertized to us.

I think Pam should get a cut of this since she advertized to us.

OK James, you want someone to say something besides "you're whining"?  Here you go:
 
 
Clinical depression is a horrible burden to bear.  It makes things so very much harder for you than other people.  Other people have friends and get invited places - you're cynical and alone.  I get it.  I mean, I can't really empathize because I've never battled clinical depression, but I am married to one of you.  
 
The best way I can put it: The rules are different for you.  You probably know about level playing fields, and how you're often not playing on one?  You've got to play anyway.  When people at church speak from the podium about how "we" should be, and what "we" should do - they're usually talking about folks like me, but sometimes they're not always talking about folks like you and my wife.  
 
This isn't a mormon issue.  You'll have this exact same issue crop up no matter where you go, or who you choose to stand amongst.  I'm guessing your experience with clubbing was unfulfilling in similar ways, am I right?  Well, convert to whatever faith you like, hang out with people from whatever hobby or demographic or age group, and this issue will follow you there.  This is what my wife sees.  
 
This is an issue of you figuring out how to live on planet earth with all the humans.  Most of them don't have the faintest clue what it's like to be you.  Most of them, in fact, have a totally backwards understanding, and when pressed to give advice, give the wrong advice.
 
Do you know about the hyperboleandahalf lady? She tried to talk about her depression with people and noticed this.  She describes it in terms of her fish dying, and she's asking people for help:

 
There's a way for you, you just need to find it.  In the church or out of it, you need to find it.  The church is true so you should stay in it, but you still need to find your path.

This is an assumption that many like to make...  But they can't an anyway prove from the Text that he was not a priesthood holding faithful leader of the Church.  Not any more then we can prove that he was...  But let give some context...  By the time of Samuel the Lamanite there had been a conversion among the Lamanites and churches (with the relevant authority given)  established among them... therefore its quite possible he was indeed authoritative.
 
Samuel was right and prophetic, clearly called of God.  So the question becomes how does a person become called of God to do so.  The LDS believe that God is a God of order, and if God has a Church and that church has a mortal leader then God will work through that mortal leader to give is word to the entire church.  Anything else would be chaos.  Since we believe we are God's church and that God has given us a mortal leader then the God's direction for the church as a whole will come top down through the leaders, and not bottom up through the members agitating change.

I also fear the result, but I would like a solid decision on what the states can and can't decide.

Backroads:  Eliminating state-sanctioned marriage appeals to my libertarian instincts, but there are a lot of potential implications to this--not all of them necessarily foreseeable--and I don't like the idea of doing it rashly.  Moreover, the Church has encouraged us to protect the legal institution of the family--the Proclamation of the Family still applies--and I'm not sure our hopping on board with an "abolish legal marriage" agenda would really fit the counsel we've been given at this point.  I'm "asking questions"--uncomfortable ones, at that--but (unlike a certain ex-LDS feminist who shall remain nameless) I'm trying not to advocate any particular course of action at this point.
 
Slamjet, I have to reiterate that I haven't read the 10th Circuit opinion.  My observations were based on the idea of a liberty interest in conjunction with existing case law (I'm thinking Loving v. Virginia) which defines marriage generally as a fundamental right; and I'm not sure how traditional equal protection analysis factored into that.  I doubt it would limit a state's power to regulate anything except marriage. 
 
Equal protection jurisprudence basically asks two questions.  First, it asks whether a state law is discriminating against a "protected class".  If not, the state merely asks if the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government reason"--and if so, the law is permitted to stand.  But if the state is discriminating against a protected class, then depending on the nature of the class the Court will apply "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny".  "Intermediate scrutiny" (applied to discrimination based on sex or content-neutral speech) asks whether the law substantially furthers an important government interest.  "Strict scrutiny" (discrimination based on content-based speech or race/national origin) asks whether the law is necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
 
To apply that to your example of state bar applicants:  convicts aren't a protected class, so all you have to do is ask whether a state's requirement that a lawyer not being a convict is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government interest".  In this case, the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that lawyers are trustworthy (HA!), and it's rational to assume that barring convicts from law practice could further that goal.  So, the law passes equal protection scrutiny and is allowed to stand.  On the other hand, a state regulation that women or hispanics can't practice law would invoke a higher level of scrutiny, and would almost certainly fail traditional equal protection analysis.

I had a shirt that I had a stain on it.  Tried Zout and Spray and Wash and washed it a few times. Would not come out.  I hated getting rid of the shirt because I really liked it. It sat in my closet for a couple of years.
 
Started working at Hobby Lobby and quite a few customers raved about this Grandma's Secret Spot Remover so I bought some. Decided to try it on this shirt and it came right out.

The issue to me is not so much the definition of marriage. True it is that ss marriage is not recognized in the Courts of Glory and regardless of what judicial fiat decides this issue and overrides states rights and the will of the people .....the issue to me is that the discussion has been framed to insure that two men or two women in love and married is viewed as normal, wholesome and just as valid as Mr and Mrs Bytor and how dare anyone think differently.

You're responding like I was arguing with you. I am not. You said "Exactly" and I was further supporting that with scripture. If you had said "Boloney" instead, I can see it coming across like a debate. Not sure why you took it that way. 

Haven't read the opinion, but NPR said the 10th Circuit based it on the individual's liberty interest in conjunction with the previously-court-determined fundamental right to marry.  If that's true, then it'll be hard to counter the argument that anyone has a constitutional right to marry anyone regardless, not only of gender, but of consanguinity, mental capacity, or age.  That sets up a real question as to why states should bother issuing "marriage licenses" at all. 
 
Think of it this way:  If SCOTUS says that everyone has a constitutional right to be permitted to hunt without restriction, why should the State continue to bother with the time and expense of issuing hunting licenses?  Hunting . . . driving . . . marriage . . . they are all activities that, at common law, the state said you couldn't do unless you had express authorization from the state.  Now, the 10th Circuit seems to be saying that the state has no right to prohibit the activity of marriage.  Fine--then licensing the activity is pointless, right?
 
Is an unlicensed marriage still a marriage?  If a state stops issuing marriage licenses, is it thereafter impossible to get--or be--married in that state?

Heavenly voice: "Brother Such and Such, please report to the Saviors office so that you may give an accounting for your mortal probation."
"So, I see you supported same sex marriage....tell me your thoughts on why you made those choices and how the Holy Spirit guided you to that decision.
" Um, well you see.....it just wasn't fair and they deserved equality and it was more loving to help them by supporting it"
"More loving than.... My love for them?"
"Well...no ..but..."
"And how did this assist them in coming unto me......by supporting that which can never lead to true happiness and peace? Did u perhaps consider the generations that would struggle to understand truth because of this grand deception? Or those that would stray because of the confusion you helped support? "
I cannot fathom the degree of shame I would have if when I give an accounting for my life I had supported something that can only deny our Brothers and sisters a safe journey home to the Father. We no doubt live in the last days and the bridegroom is at the door......as Elder McConkie wrote of future tests and trials in 1982 :
" But the vision of the future is not all sweetness and light and peace. All that is yet to be shall go forward in the midst of greater evils and perils and desolations than have been known on earth at any time.
As the Saints prepare to meet their God, so those who are carnal and sensual and devilish prepare to face their doom.
As the meek among men make their calling and election sure, so those who worship the God of this world sink ever lower and lower into the depths of depravity and despair.
Amid tears of sorrow-our hearts heavy with forebodings-we see evil and crime and carnality covering the earth. Liars and thieves and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers scarcely seek to hide their abominations from our view. Iniquity abounds. There is no peace on earth.
We see evil forces everywhere uniting to destroy the family, to ridicule morality and decency, to glorify all that is lewd and base. We see wars and plagues and pestilence. Nations rise and fall. Blood and carnage and death are everywhere. Gadianton robbers fill the judgment seats in many nations. An evil power seeks to overthrow the freedom of all nations and countries. Satan reigns in the hearts of men; it is the great day of his power."

She does not have insight that the church leaders do not. That is specifically prescripted as against the order of God.

Granted, but we aren't always the most objective determinants of whether we are, in fact, "in harmony with God".  For the purposes of this particular discussion it should be pointed out that as far as believing Mormons are concerned, a person's excommunication is prima facie (though not irrefutable) evidence that that person is not truly in harmony with God.

A person can fight against the "holier then thou" attitude that some members have without rhetorically throwing the General Authorities and their councils under the bus in the attempt to do so.  One can also engage in such an effort without engaging in the same rhetorical overblownness that they find offensive when done by the "holier then thou" group.
 
Basically you are coming across as someone that that is "Holier then thou" toward those people they judge to be acting "Holier then thou" and that is not a strong position to be in

I use Zout - it is almost impossible to get Aerosol hairspray in my neck of the woods. Zout doesn't get all of the ink from a Sharpie,or the gel pens, but it does with ball point pens.  I also use White Brite on the non-bleach-able whites. You cannot use Oxi type detergents with White Brite. So, I pre-wash first. White Brite, and 1/4 normal amount of detergent. Let go through a full cycle (15-20 min. in the hottest water for the fabric). When it is done, set for another full cycle with 1/2 normal amount of detergent, full amount of powdered all color bleach. When it is done, reset for one more COLD rinse.
 
This gets the dress shirts, and white cotton blend garments WHITE. I wish I had a private yard big enough for a significant sized clothes line. Then I would put ALL the clothes out. Nothing like the sunshine to whiten up white clothes. 
 
As for when to replace your garments - when the elastic is shot, when there are un-repairable runs/holes. When the elastic band separates from the fabric and you have no means to repair it. In the 13 years that I have been endowed, I have not had to toss any of my garments. Replace them because I gained weight. The too small ones I gave to my Sis-In-Law as she had gained weight and could now wear them. 
 
I have lost weight and my tops won't stay up on the shoulders, plus there is too much bunch under my bra - so those will get set aside in another drawer and I will bring out the smaller ones that I didn't send on to Sis. 
 
My husbands garments are another matter. When we first married (2004) the ones he had were in very sad shape. Yellowed, dingy, and thread bare. The first thing I did was to order new ones. AND more than just 6 pair. He told me that he always used chlorine bleach on them. Well, they are the cotton blend and it states very clearly NOT to use chlorine bleach. 
 
He has gained a lot of weight and blew out the elastic and a few seams - plus he really didn't know his size. Once we got him the correct size, and quit using chlorine bleach - they look good, fit good and are WHITE.