john doe

I would imagine they don't give two hoots about your language, they want to know if you were distracted by texting or talking on the phone at the time of the accident.

I'm not a lawyer but if I was I would advise you not to admit anything, even if you're unsure of it. Deny it, and if they want to make an issue of it, force them to get a subpoena for your phone records. Establishing that you were on the phone at the exact time of an accident is hard to prove unless there are multiple witnesses stating that they saw you on the phone at the time. Even timestamps on phone records can be found unreliable unless you implicated yourself through texts or calls at the time.

Contrary to popular belief, man can live on Ramen, Mac & Cheese, and PB&J sandwiches. Have fun.

He had 'tough' questions and you acted 'tough', so he got nervous about posting his questions.

So you're saying we should kill them first and THEN put their name on the building? Interesting idea.......

This is the introduction section of the site. Please post questions in the appropriate section of the site.

I think it varies from computer to computer, and even browser. It's not visible on my old computer at work, but at home I have a blue background in the post with a white line.

Article of Faith #8:

If you go to the full reply feature, you can add a note in the 'title' field. That feature has been there all along. It's like when you start a new thread, it puts the title on the top of the post.

MODERATOR WARNING!!! This makes two threads I'm very close to closing because someone can't seem to play well with others. The nit-picking and general rudeness will stop or there will be changes in site membership status. It is possible to disagree or help someone see that they are mistaken without being a jerk about it. If you can't play nice you will be asked to share your opinions somewhere else.

What, you don't think we can handle your questions here? If you are seriously having questions, and are an honest seeker of truth, then we invite you to ask away. Please, just ask one question at a time so we can answer them in manageable slices.

Welcome to the site.

Well, here's the rub: You can be a member of the church 'on the books', and even be sealed and have children Born in the Covenant, but when it comes down to judgment day, how well we kept the covenants we made with God will come into play. If we willingly enter into all those covenants with God and promptly (or even sometime later) go inactive or fail to do our part to live up to those covenants, then we have no promise. We don't make 'one-and-done' covenants with God, it's a daily process and decision that we will do the things He asks us to do. So yes, it is possible for a person to be sealed in the temple, and have children born in the covenant, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will automatically gain those rewards promised to us if we leave the temple, decide it's all a lie, and walk away never to believe again. God is under no obligation to hold up His end of the bargain if we don't hold up ours.

If they don't ask to have their names removed from the church and do not get excommunicated for sins they have committed, they are still considered members. That would make them inactive members.

Uh, this site is not nor does it pretend to be official LDS Church authority. We also have many people on this site who are not even LDS. All opinions given here are the opinions of the individuals who gave them. While many or even most of the answers given here may be accurate, they should not be taken or construed as official. If you want official answers, you should search lds.org or or one of the other official LDS Church websites, or ask your church leaders who have stewardship over you.

This would be wildly inaccurate. It may be your opinion, but still completely untrue.

I don't see what the problem would be. The markings and locations are the same, right? I guess the question is why you are wearing them. If the reason is comfort and better fit, I don't know why it would be an issue. If it gives you some sort of sexual excitement by wearing garments meant for the opposite sex(I'm not a shrink, I just play one on the internet), then it might be something to ask your church leaders about as far as its appropriateness.

You were lied to. Done properly, scouting is your new full-time job, and the job where you make money to support your family and scouting is now your second job. Anything less is unacceptable to true scouters.

The correct number is 12. Or 7, depending on the situation. But I'm going with 12.

To paraphrase Bill Cosby, 'She brought you into this world, she can take you out'.

Sorry, I had never heard of it before it was mentioned here. I googled it and came up with the same page that Pam got. And it has a page where you can request an invite, so I didn't know if he is offering or asking for an invite.

What is it?

Pam, it's encouraged to use the scriptures. I fail to see the problem with the post in question.

What, they don't get the internet in Wisconsin? Hmmm, news to me.

Let's stop getting all offended and get back to discussing the topic. Put me in the camp of those who believe that a young man is fine to babysit unless you have reason to not trust him. And I don't believe that not dating very much is a red flag in and of itself. As a teen I babysat my boss' children many times, including their young daughter. As far as I know they never contracted any long-term psychological ailments as a result. However, as a parent, I do not let my daughters have sleepovers at my house if my wife is not home. It's not that I don't trust myself, but the fact is, if an allegation is made, it is best to have another adult there to testify to what did or did not happen. It's a self-protection that I have chosen to give myself.