yjacket

Anatess2, you are unfortunately wasting your breath. Some people just can't seem to get simple numbers. Of votes cast for the 4 candidates who have acquired more than say 10 delegates Trump wins 40% of the vote. Of the votes cast for the current candidates Trump wins 47% of the vote. Of the 4 candidates who have acquired more than 10 delegates Trump has 49%, of the 3 remaining candidates he has 54%. Cruz by contrast is in the 30-35% range for all of the above. With Kasich taking the rest. There is an assumption that should Kasich drop out that all of his support would go to Cruz, which simply isn't the case. We don't know how much support would go to Trump but it requires no great logical feat to assume that enough of Kasich's support would drift to Trump to push him over 50%. Currently, if the delegates nominated Cruz (who hasn't earned more than 32% of the current delegates) over Trump, then I do believe the party will fracture. Cruz has overwhelming grassroots support, but as far as actual voters he has a good chunk-but no where near close to Trump. The perception from the people will be that the system is rigged and in fact Cruz just might do more damage to the conservative cause. If Trump and Cruz were close together on support with Cruz behind <5% or so then a good case could be made, but they aren't. Unfortunately, NeverTrumpers seem to think that a vote for Kasich or Cruz is a vote against Trump, which is a pretty large logical leap to make and in fact doing so makes the case for their guy even worse.

The best political masterminds, plant the seed so that others will really think it was their idea all along. How many times did I hear in 2008 with McCain and 2012 with Romney . . .you've got to support them otherwise you are a "bad republican", etc. etc. etc. Yet now, because the establishment didn't get their candidate all that talk is gone and it is replaced by #NeverTrump. It is simply fascinating to watch the hypocrisy (not saying you individually are, pc-b/c that's not the case, just the hypocrisy in general). If Trump were the establishment pick, #NeverTrump would have died on the vine.

Point blankly, have you ever owned your own business? Been involved at any high level in the owning of a business? I have spoken no double-talk. I have never said that compromise is "give my give what he wants". I have said multiple times, Trump and Cruz will have to figure out how to come together and work with each other. What does that actually look like? I have no clue, maybe it involves cabinet positions, maybe it involves platform changes. That is not "give my guy what he wants". You have continually been obtuse during this conversation. Me: They both have sizable contingents and need to compromise together if they want the other's support (which they need) to win in Nov. You: Trump doesn't have any support (it is insignificant). You're version of compromise is "give me what I want" Me: No, compromise means finding common ground. I don't like either of them-I'm not a fan-boy of either of them. You: Trump is a bully, you are double-talking by not supporting one. Me: No, I like some positions of one and some positions of the other. I like Cruz's conservative and I like Trump's anti-globalization. You: Trump isn't anti-globalization look at xyz. etc., etc. etc. Look, I get it you hate Trump so much you can't even carry on a conversation about him. I dislike both of them, but I can carry on a logical conversation about both. You simply see blood. So what if Trump agrees with Sanders on outsourcing of American jobs? Just because 90% of the other sides ideas are wrong, doesn't mean you can't agree on the 10% that might you know actually be right. In business, there is something called economics (I know try and keep up with this here). Economic law dictates that if there is a cheap way to manufacture/produce/sell something and you as a business owner don't do it-and it is legal-your competition will. And when your competition does it, they will eat your lunch. I don't blame Trump for oursourcing jobs, anymore than I blame Romney for hiring illegals-it is simple economics. If you change the laws like get rid of things like NAFTA, reduce coporate taxes, etc, then much of the economic incentive to outsource jobs goes away and businesses will not outsource as much. In fact, I probably trust Trump on this issue more because he actually understands the why. Politicians will blather about outsourcing, but either don't want to or won't admit the reasons why businesses do it.

And it's not just one incident of cutting up. He wrote in his Senior yearbook his ultimate goal was to be President of the US. Take a look at what people who worked with him in George W. Bush's administration (that should give you pause right there -GWB was hardly a constitutional conservative) have said. Look at what people in his college have said about him. True it could all be a smear campaign, but my gut tells me the guy is a narcissistic snake in the grass. He wants power, and he wants it bad. His policies sound really good, but those who want power will compromise their principles (and there is a difference between compromise on principles and working together) in a heartbeat to stay in power.

Where did I say that you personally have to vote for Trump, boy you sure are typing a lot of vitriol into the screen. Either I'm not explaining it properly or you are simply being obtuse in your hatred for Trump. I think everyone should vote their conscience, I've never said not too. What I have said is that if either Trump or Cruz want to win in November and get the most people to vote for them in the Fall they will need each other. In my primary I voted for Rand (even after he dropped out-he was on the ballot). In 2012, I could have voted for Romney-had Romney been willing to work with the significant Liberty wing, sure. A small victory is better than no victory. I simply did not see his policies as much different than Obama, and I'm not voting for the lesser of 2 evils for President. But, how many times did I get lamblasted for not voting for Romney . . . hmm-what is good for the goose is good for the gander :-). The delegates at the convention have significant power to bend the candidates to come together on a compromise. You are the one who is being obstinate in not recognizing this fact. Yes I do want the power structure dismantled, but having been apart of a few bloodless power take-overs; without the ability to actually try to work with the other side and come together on common ground it is pointless. Unwillingness to work together, despite ideological differences is what causes wars. It is what caused the Civil War, it is what causes divorces. The problem with bad-blood feuds, is that it takes a long time to heal from it. Trump has some very good points, he isn't socialist, he is a Nationalist and if you don't think the US of A hasn't trended towards massive globalism and a dependence on World Organizations over the last 30 years then I don't know what to tell you.

No, I didn't and I don't care what anyone else thinks; I vote my conscience. You see, I will most likely vote Libertarian in the fall. Because regardless about what people say "this is the most important election . . . blah,blah, blah" it isn't and things will keep going the same way. The only way for things to change is to dismantle the power structure and that ain't happening anytime soon. My desire to rip on Romney??? I tell you some people see blood when it comes to politics and they just quite simply can't seem to have a rational logical discussion. I have no desire to rip on Romney-I simply explained the way things were and tried to use it as an illustrative example of why when one side is out for blood and is unwilling to compromise with the other side that bad things happen. I've seen it at the local level, the State level and now at the National level. That is what will happen this political cycle if Trump is shut out at the RNC. You simply want to deny that Trump has significant support. If your goal is to win the White House with Cruz in the fall, you are quite simply cutting off your nose to spite your face in denying it. I'm not a shill for either of them a pox on both their houses. I think Cruz is a sleazy, lying, narcissist individual who has had thoughts on world domination and being President since he was 18 (go look up his video-he says it). I think Trump is a egotistical jerk. No I do not believe that Cruz is actually principled; I think he is a politician who's main aspiration is power and being President (he's had that as his life goal since he was a Senior in High School). The best men in the race have already dropped out. I think Romney was a moral guy, I just didn't care for his policies (and to a very large degree, Obama has been neutered by a R congress).

JAG, I don't have time to respond to all, but quite frankly if this is your attitude of Trump-you quite frankly do not understand business. My dad recently bought out a small business owner. The previous owner was a massive strong-arm jerk-egotistical, etc. In doing business, I can't tell you how many times my dad's phone calls to customers have gone like this "does xyz still work there? B/c if he does, I'll never do business with you again?" After some serious talk about new ownership, etc. the guy then says, well I might give it a shot. To be a successful businessman you can not be a jerk to customers-if you are you will quickly find yourself out of business. You can't be a jerk to employees b/c if you are you will quickly find yourself without employees. I used to think Trump would be that "strong-arm" guy, I'm not quite so sure anymore. Look all your strong-arm types, were not successful businessmen-they were successful politicians. What Trump is, is a master at selling himself. He found a very good attack line that rocketed him to 30%, it enabled him to knock out most of the competition. http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/15856-megyn-kelly-reveals-what-happened-when-she-went-to-trump-tower-to-clear-the-air You cannot in business create a multi-billion dollar company by being a strong-arm guy-you can use leverage, but even if you use leverage you have to know that at some point if you go to far you burn a bridge and that is a bridge you might need in the future. And this is what I'm saying, if the Cruz people don't recognize that they need Trump and Trump doesn't recognize he needs the rest, they will both go down in flames come November. And as of right now, if Cruz wins over Trump there will be a lot of ticked off people who won't vote in November. It is pretty simply, people don't like to lose, but if they lose and feel they are treated fairly they can become your friend, but if they lose and feel like they got screwed over, well now they are your enemy. The Romney people screwed over the Ron Paul people in 2012 and Romney instead of using the opportunity to build a bridge, burned one. Kudos to Cruz for people organized, but I'm telling you if Trump comes out and has a plurality of votes and a plurality of delegates (according to rules) by say at least 10% above everyone else and he is shut out, the Republican Party will screw themselves over I didn't vote for Romney in 2012, I felt the same that Romney vs. Obama wasn't much of a choice as Romney was/is pretty liberal (RomneyCare??), but had Romney thrown a bone to Paul, Sec. Treasurer, speech, etc. I could say sure, I'd vote for him b/c he is at least willing to try and bring me in. And as far as reading the rules. . . this hasn't happened in 40 years and possible more like 100 years. None of the other campaigns recognized it either. Cruz is very well organized, but to win the delegate came that takes planning months ahead of any particular vote, people have to go to local precinct meetings, county meetings, district/state meetings, etc. What Cruz did is he learned from the Ron Paul crowd. Take Romney for example, I went to the local conventions, etc and there were no Romney people. Romney didn't have a clue about the delegate process, b/c if he did we would have seen Ron Paul and Romney people fight it out; which didn't happen it was Ron Paul people vs. establishment people. The fact is that for the last 40+ years, the establishment party bosses have picked the nominee. I can't tell you the number of times I heard, we have to unify behind the Romney (even when he was only getting 30-40% of the vote) . . why b/c he was the establishment pick. Neither Cruz nor Trump is the establishment pick, so they are perfectly content to let them burn each other down and lose to Hillary/Sanders in Nov.

How very, very sad. I don't know your circumstances, but I do feel that in general as a society we have seriously messed up our family priorities. Society teaches that the fathers and mothers must be constantly involved in their children's lives. That if parents aren't taking kids to soccer practice, club meetings, etc. they are being a bad parent. I have learned that it is really the opposite. The absolute best thing a father and mother can do for their children is to make their relationship; the husband/wife relationship the #1 relationship. Nothing in the family is more important then that relationship. Children should not be allowed to interrupt or come between the husband/wife relationship. The marriage existed prior to children and should exist after children and as such it should always be the #1 focus. Too many husbands and too many wives put their role as husband/wife aside when children come and become father/mother 1st rather than husband/wife 1st. If a wife always puts on her role as wife 1st, i.e. her husbands needs are met prior to anyone else's needs and if a husband always puts his role as husband 1st (her needs are met before anyone else's) then there would be no need for divorce. The challenge in the modern age is that many years ago, husbands implicitly understood what their role was (provider/leader/head) and wives implicitly understood their role (nurturer/supporter/heart) and today husbands and wives can't seem to figure out what their role is except that "love" will conquer all. When people don't know what their role is or when they compete on roles then everything just falls down. I wish you the best of luck and use this as a learning experience.

The above is definitely not the case. By the above definition one could say 3/4ths of the Republican electorate has rejected Cruz (he has gotten only 30% of the vote), 80% have rejected Kasich, etc. etc. etc. Trump has gathered 40% of the popular vote. 40% of the vote is not unpopular. If Trump was the establishment candidate, we wouldn't even be talking about this-the news media, pundits, etc. were be whipping the people into getting behind him. I get it, Christians and LDS hate Trump b/c they think he is an immoral jerk. I got news for you . . .so is Cruz! Cruz plays the guy who takes the moral high ground but in his soul he is just as Machiavellian and immoral as the rest. I've evaluated the links between Amanda Carpenter and Cruz and while I can't say for sure; there is smoke, whether it was simply an unprofessional relationship or more I don't know-all I do know is that there is something there. It is really quite sad, because I agree with 95% of what Cruz says and I agree with about 65% of what Trump says, yet I'd rather have Trump over Cruz. There is just something very creepy and off about Cruz. Whether it is the way he cracks a sly smile after almost every applause line, whether it is the way he delivers every sentence like he is giving a speech, whether it's the video of him @ 18 saying his goal in life was world domination. I just don't know. I'm extremely leery of having a freshman senator (who claims he is a hard-core tea party/liberty conservative) elected. Yes his 4-year voting record is really good . . .but man there is just something about the guy that really concerns me. Cruz has a really good ground game; he will take a lot of the delegates the 2nd round (if there is one). The problem that Cruz people have that they don't seem to realize is that if Trump gets over 1000 delegates, wins NY & Cali and if the National polls continue like this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html and Cruz gets the nomination over Trump there are going to be a lot of really ticked off people. The national polls have Trump @ 40, Cruz @30, and Kasich @ 20. Kasich isn't dropping out because he is playing the spoiling. All of Kasichs support wouldn't go to Cruz. A good portion of it could go to Trump and put him over 50%. Trump is a force to be reckoned with-40% is a lot of support (the last poll had him @ 45%). If Cruz (given the current state) wins today over Trump it will simply prove what Trump is saying, the system is rigged it's rigged for the establishment benefit. If that happens and the Cruz and Trump people can't come together, goodbye Nov. election, hello Bernie Sanders.

It's not about "snapping" out of it, it is about learning how to retrain thought patterns, actions, etc. There is some very helpful stuff in CBT, there are very helpful books, there are very good counselors. Yes, some people do get benefits from drugs (however, the placebo effect is very real). It is more witch doctoring than it is science. There are some individuals who clearly have something wrong biologically; there are others where it more likely they just simply haven't trained themselves properly. My big issue is that we as a culture treat psychologists as gods. Person xyz has a problem, go see a shrink-they will fix you; when it doesn't work like that. They may help you, they may not and if you go to a shrink that doesn't have a God-fearing background and upbringing so much the worse. My advice has always been, find someone you trust who is wiling to give you advice, that person may be a shrink, but it may not be. One doesn't need the false god of psychology to solve ones own demons. Because unless you want to pop a pill, the only way to solve "mental illness" problems is for the person to fix themselves (and no that is not snapping out of it-b/c again it doesn't work like that). In the vast majority of cases, popping the pill simply covers up the underlying problems-like taking an aspirin (it doesn't fix the problem it just makes it feel better). The DSM says as much. However, incidents like this: are not mental illness; one might classify it as "mental illness" but it isn't. That is quite simply an adult tantrum. Clearly, she can drive so she can biologically function properly. My 3 year-old will throw a version of this (without the profantiy), roll on the floor throw a fit, say no, act out, etc. This person is in a bad mood and doesn't like to be told no and promptly throws a tantrum when she doesn't get her way. That is not a mental illness, that is called acting like a child. Quite simply we will see more and more "mental illness" problems in modern society, not because more people have actual problems, but because as a culture we have lost the will to properly raise our children and that will to raise children has been infected by psychologists. For example, some parenting professionals will advise that a parent must give a child a logical reason to do something and that children should question the authority of the parent. Heck no, a child must be taught obedience, before they can learn to distinguish between when it is appropriate to question authority or not they must learn strict obedience.

Not true; yeah I had suicidal thoughts growing up; I would sit in my room and thing about jumping out a window and how high I would have to get before killing myself. Look, you can laugh at me; but I have studied the issue. Most people who have suicidal thoughts don't want to kill themselves, b/c the ones who do are successful. At some point in time, I can almost guarantee you every single person that has lived has at one point in time or another had suicidal thoughts. From time to time I still have crazy thoughts, "I should just smash this car into the median" I've got history and facts on my side. Yes, children today have more "mental health" issues than children 50 years ago, just like they have more behavioral issues, more issues with obedience, more issues of well just about all types of "mental illness behavior". Instead of treating children as you know like children, we treat them as these huge massive problems. Kids in general were more responsible, more mentally stable 50 years ago. Human biology hasn't changed that fast. What has changed . . .parenting and culture. Neuro, you were 10 years old for pete's sake. Who knows why you had those thoughts-you have allowed those thoughts to take a very huge importance in your life. You yourself admit you grew up/changed/etc. That is part of growing up is realizing " When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. " It really is quite simple; I'm a father this happens with my children; I've done it both ways example. Child A comes to me with huge load of drama, I sit there and get sucked into the drama, become part of the story, blah, blah, blah. Child A then later comes with more drama. and more drama and more drama. Or I've done it this way, Child A comes with drama,"well child I can certainly understand, if I was your age I would feel the same, however you need to fix your problem". In the first scenario, I become part of solving the child's problem and not only that but I attach way more attention to the problem then it really needs to be. Children take cues from adults, if an adult makes a big fuss over something, they will take the cue that a big fuss should be made over it and consequently they will subsequently make a big fuss over xyz. If an adult does not make a big deal of it-empathizes and then throws the problem back on the child, the child develops self-reliance and hardiness. What our forefathers knew, we have forgotten. Thoughts and feelings don't matter nearly as much as actions. We are a drama centered cultured, everyone has become a little look-at-me drama soap story, you see it on facebook, on tv, everywhere. Here is a dirty secret, everyone has problems, that is what the Atonement and God is for. We have replaced God with psychologists and men in white jackets. There is a role for counseling, counseling has been done for 1000s of years, one doesn't need a fancy title or a 4 year degree to give good guidance and counsel. In fact, I'd rather receive counsel from my father vs. a PhD. I'd rather receive good counsel on how to be a father from someone who has successful raised children, I'd rather receive counsel from someone who has been married for 40 years to the same person than see a marriage counselor. There are cases that do require some sort of medication; however the vast majority of cases simply end up being the individual has to figure out how to fix themselves. Once the individual learns how to take responsibility for their own life and fixes themselves then the "mental illness" goes away. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about, having been married to someone who qualify for a Bipolar Type II; I've seen what works and what doesn't work. No drugs and pretty healthy today. I've known someone else who was certified crazy-spent time in a actual institution. She simply says, "I decided not to be crazy". The power of the human mind to make the choice of how we act pales in comparison to what we actually think we know about it.

I do have experience with it. What you say in the added portion is very true, yet how many people are willing to turn their lives over to the mostly godless ideas of psychologist. It boggles my mind how people can on one hand admit that the human psyche is an incredibly complex thing yet at the same time claim that one must bow down and give reverence to modern psychology. We have way more modern gods than people want to admit, and one of those is the modern god of hubris in the form of psychology. The modern field of psychology is rife with atheists, moral relativism, etc. Yet rather than going to the source of truth (i.e. the scriptures) we seek advice from false gods. It is a very sick society. There are cases where it is very obvious something is wrong in the mind. There are cases where it is not obvious. I think of the example of the football players and the movie Concussion. Men that were going crazy, they had a mental illness and medical science could prove that something was wrong in their brain. No amount of psycobabble bull was going to help these men, they needed something to actually fix the damage to the brain. So yes there are cases where something has gone wrong in the brain (it is damaged), but until one can come up with an actual scientific method to measure exactly what is wrong it psychology is simply the philosophies of men not of God. Psychology is the new modern day religion.

And so the 2016 world view is wrong. Hey don't you know it's 2016 being against homosexual marriage is a 1970s worldview and you're tenaciously clinging to your 1970's worldview on homosexuality. Your current worldview excludes you from meaningful dialogue. I can play that game too. You are the one who is shutting down dialog not me. You are in effect saying, it's okay if you want to discuss this as long as you think like I do. In what world is that dialog?? That ain't dialog-you are shutting down the dialog not me. Right, I'm the problem here. I have done nothing to you except say that the current mental health view is wrong. I know it is wrong because I have raised my kids two ways, one according to the so-called psychology experts and one according to this worldview (take a wild guess which one works better). I've never said some people don't have serious issues (indeed I think some people do), but the vast majority of mental health issues isn't because it's an actual diagnosable disease. You come back to me when there is an actual physical test that measures "chemical imbalances" and can scientifically tell me that xyz chemical is out of whack compared to the normal range of individuals. Then I will say, yes in that case someone has something identifiable wrong. This isn't hard, take any other medical illness, cancer, blood pressure, etc. and you can see plain as day on a chart your levels of XYZ (cholesterol, pressure, ABP, etc.) are at this level and it should be at that level. To regulate your body we are giving you this medicine. Even ADHD is messed up; they diagnose it based on behaviors! And if you look at the list of behaviors, they are typical behaviors for a 3-4 year-old. So simply based on behaviors they diagnose it based on what is appropriate and expected at one age and not appropriate at another age. So they give kids major jacked up chemicals simply based on behaviors (not scientific tests). Let me think, not having age appropriate behaviors . . . that in my book is called parenting. When science has advanced to that point, then we can talk about an actual mental illness, until then it's all just a bunch of gobbly-goop to rationalize and explain why people feel and do certain things. Some of it very good, most of it very bad.

lol . . . pot meet kettle; I love the hypocrisy. You can call me " extremely naive, narrow, uncharitable view of mental health issue " yet when I type lol, I'm the one who is laughing at and mocking others? I'm told " ignorance on the presence and reality of mental illness in children is not acceptable " and I'm the one that doesn't invite dialoge. Pot meet kettle. No, I actually have studied this quite a bit and psychology in general is a bunch of junk. it's not science, it's made up crap. Freud was on drugs when he wrote his stuff. All pyschology is is a bunch of individuals who have gone to college and sit and think then they write books on what they think. Some of it might be true, most of it probably wrong. People will say, they have a "chemical imbalance", okay can you measure it? Nope. Those drugs that "cure it", not even proven. To get approval they only need 3 tests saying it worked, yet how many unsuccessful test did it require to get that 3? 100, 1000? This is quite simple, look at behaviors. A 3 year-old throws a fit, has a tantrum and acts like a bully, we don't call them mentally ill-we say they are being a toddler. You look at behaviors because unless Neuro (addressing now) had someone hook 'em up to a machine and actually measured chemicals in the brain no one knows why he had suicidal thoughts. Most times in life, I have found what we dwell on becomes reality, if a child has drama in their life-giving said drama more stage ("what's wrong, what's wrong, etc") encourages the behavior. In fact the child understand that the adult is worried about them and starts thinking, well maybe there is something wrong with me, then they get themselves all in a twist. Yes, I'm very well educated, but psychology while very interesting is in general a load crap (and yes I have read a good bit on it, I've studied Freud, Skinner, Erickson).

Very true on the 1st statement. On the 2nd. lol, compare a study of mental health issues of children today vs. 50 years ago. No where even close. Kids 50 years ago were more mentally stable than today; what happened? Lack of parenting and psycobabble.

True, but the principles of being a good parent are the same in being a good leader. It requires authority, respect, love, discipline, etc. A good leader is not a "friend", they are a leader. One cannot be both a friend and a leader because the moment the leadership responsibility requires enacting some measure of authority over the other person the "friendship" cannot last. Friendship is built on an equal relationship, being a leader is built on an un-equal relationship-to confuse the two is a recipe for disaster. For example, Susan is a bully and brings drama to the class; as much as we as leaders want Susan to attend and participate allowing her to be a bully and to bring drama into the class is irresponsible. A leader is shirking their responsibility by not enacting some measure to stop the bullying and the drama. If a leader does not do so, they risk losing the respect of the other girls who see the drama and bullying. The entire class can be brought down. amwill, don't know if you have kids or not-but I would employ some parental tactics to Susan the next time she bullies or brings drama-either send her outside (or if two are involved send both of them out), give 'em the look (if you are a parent you better have a look that could cause boiling water to instantly freeze), something. As a leader trying to be their "friend" is the absolute last thing you want-that is what kids their age are for. For Sally, not a whole lot you can do about it-you should not be driving over to get her involved-her church friends should be. I highly doubt they have mental health issues-they more likely than not have child-hood issues-quite frankly they probably haven't learned how to grown up and are simply still a regressed child. Being surly-not being obedient, bullying,etc. those aren't mental health issues those are "'ain't got no proper fetching up" issues. Honestly, mental health @ 16? Unless the individual has been abused, what major problems does a 16 year old have? No boyfriend?? not liked?? That's called growing up, life ain't all full of sunshine and roses, but it doesn't mean we can't be happy regardless.

Yes, you still see vestiges of the democratic republic today. For example, the presidential primary and the National Conventions. The party's nominee is chosen by representative democracy. People show up to local conventions and elect delegates to county conventions, county delegates elect District/State delegates, District/State delegates elect National delegates, National Delegates choose the nominee. At each stage the delegates are elected by a simple 50% +1 majority and at the National Convention the nominee is selected by 50% +1. That is a democratic republic in action.

Some things I don't get. You are disillusioned with the Church's stance on homosexuality? You do realize that the current popular opinion on homosexuality has only been around for about 10 years. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. It wasn't until 2011 that a majority of people in this country believed homosexual "marriage" should be legal http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ That was only 4 years ago. God's word through the scriptures condemn homosexuality and it's practices (Leviticus 18:22). I don't know how old you are, but I'm not that old and I remember when homosexual "marriage" was scoffed at and laughed at. madasahatter, sorry to be the one to break it to you-but the Church hasn't really changed-you've simply adopted the morals of the world and have in effect left the Church.

I mean no offense to Guest, but there is a serious lack of education. I get really frustrated when people say things like america's healthcare is getting worse, etc. Have you ever lived in another country and needed serious medical attention? My goodness, look at the massive amount of research and development going on to solve medical problems (with the lion's share of the cost being private investment) People complain and complain about medical care but the fact remains most people are fairly healthy and don't require going to the doctor every month. But when the chips are down and you need someone to save your life or someone in your family's life, there is absolutely no where else in the world that I'd rather be than right here in the USA. From, the medicines, to the doctor's, to the facilities, no place can beat the entire package. Having been in the situation where someone's life was on the line-the medical care in the US is phenomenal. The vast majority of social democrats issues come down to simple economics; economics rule the world and in general social democrats are economic illiterates. For a primer start here. https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

Relationshipwise, that is between you, God and him. Don't know about that but I do know the following: While it takes 2 to tango in almost all LoC issues, each person's path to at-one-ment through repentance with God is individual. You are not to blame for him coming home early-you must banish that thought from your mind. He and he alone is responsible. He had the full opportunity prior to leaving to set things right, he had multiple interviews with proper priesthood authorities prior to being set apart. Rather than fully confess and repent prior to being set apart, he choose to hide his sins. You have no part in that -you cannot confess his sins for him, only he can do that. Missionaries are taught that when they are set apart to "lock away their heart" and throw away the key for two years. A missionary's purpose for 2 years is one of complete self-sacrifice, one should for 2 years put aside all the things of the world and simply focus on bringing souls to Christ. What is done is done; no amount of worry, stress or anxiety can change the past. Many times after such a traumatic flow of events, the best thing for all parties involved is separation. The saying "time heals all wounds" is very appropriate. Maybe if after a period of time wounds are healed then a renewed relationship can grow. If not, then simply have faith in God, use this as a learning experience so that the next relationship (whether it is renewed or not) is built on a sure foundation of true love rather than lust. God bless.

Yes, it is a long slow slide to Babylon and all the sudden people wake up and say, "wait a second". It starts with something so simple as the word gay. I refuse to use that word in reference to homosexuals. Gay means happy, joyful. Pick up any book from prior to ~1960s and gay is used many times but in reference to happiness. So take a perfectly good word and associate it with homosexuals. Now subconsciously and culture slowly starts to change, homosexuality is associate not with deviant behavior but with happiness. Then slowly incorporate it into books, tv, music, it becomes acceptable. Once it becomes acceptable turn it into a discrimination issue b/c this country (unlike 99% of the countries on this planet) is so deathly afraid of discrimination b/c people don't want to seem bigoted, racist or pick any other label thrown out there. No, the homosexual agenda doesn't want to destroy religion, they want to co-opt religion. Look what happened when God's restored church on Earth came down on the line; the weeping, wailing, resignations, etc. Even the very Elect have been deceived. Shoot, I've been lamblasted here on this forum for typing an abbreviation of homosexual (homo.) the same as I have done in typing an abbreviation for heterosexual (hetero.). For simply typing that (and I in no way was calling names), I was told I was being offensive by LDS members! People have bought into this modern pyschobabble that homosexuals are "born that way", when there is absolutely no scientific evidence of it. Individuals have brothers or husbands who turn homosexual and out of what they think is genuine love for the individual they "accept" that lifestyle. As a culture we have really messed up what love is and what it really means. True love, true Christlike love is the absolute desire for the individuals well-being. I love my children more than they will ever know; there is absolutely no one else on this planet that has their best interest more at heart than me. Because I love them, sometimes I have to teach them harsh lessons. Those lessons will serve them well in life, those lessons include disciplining them or "disciple"-ing them. It's painful, it requires being strict, it requires fortitude, sometimes it would be easier just to let them do whatever-but it wouldn't be in their best interest. That won't change when they become adults, they have more liberty and freedom, but I will always be their father and as such I could never "accept" a child's deviant behavior. I simply would not allow them to bring their deviance into my house. I wouldn't allow someone to smoke in my house and I don't like going into homes of smokers, the same here. I would never cut my child off, however a child can do things that would in effect cut themselves off. The fact is that I am unashamed of my position. I am a staunch libertarian and as such if billy wants to "marry" john, be my guest-but I'll stand up all day long and say it is morally wrong. Until individuals build a back-bone and stop being bullied and cowered into being labeled "bigot", etc. for their beliefs the slide will continue.

Exactly. One side wants more wars, defense spending and involvement overseas, one side was more social spending and government involvement at home. Two sides of the same coin. In fact, by generally any standard measure of votes that are in accordance with the Constitution, Ds are generally less bad than Rs but Rs aren't exactly the pillars of strength in defending the constitution. I can name off the top of my head the Rs that actually stand on principle and defend the Constitution. Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and a few others. The JBS publishes a "Freedom Index" and while by no means perfect can give a pretty accurate reflection of whether your Congresscritter actually votes in line with the Constitution. In that index only ~40 individuals have above a 75% rating and only maybe a half-dozen have above 90%. So the Rs control the entire house and senate yet less 10% of them actually vote for the Constitution 75% of the time. That is pretty pitiful and shows you how little difference there is between R and D.

I honestly don't know where this idea came from that the only people who can give us help are "professional counselors". It has got to be one of the stupidest ideas in modern society. A professional counselor may help, but they may not. One doesn't need a PhD and to be trained in pyschology to give very wise advice or to be someone who's advice should be listened to. A Bishop is a watchman on the tower or should be a wise man; part of his job and his calling is to give advice and counsel. We give way, way to much credence and authority to "experts" especially "mental health experts". If I want to get marriage counseling, the person I want to talk to isn't a marriage counselor, I want to talk to someone who has been married to the same person for 20+ years has had the ups and downs of life and I want to get advice from them. They have lived it. We should be very, very selective on just what kind of "expert" advice we are getting.

I honestly don't know where this idea came from that the only people who can give us help are "professional counselors". It has got to be one of the stupidest ideas in modern society. A professional counselor may help, but they may not. One doesn't need a PhD and to be trained in pyschology to give very wise advice or to be someone who's advice should be listened to. A Bishop is a watchman on the tower or should be a wise man; part of his job and his calling is to give advice and counsel. We give way, way to much credence and authority to "experts" especially "mental health experts". If I want to get marriage counseling, the person I want to talk to isn't a marriage counselor, I want to talk to someone who has been married to the same person for 20+ years has had the ups and downs of life and I want to get advice from them. They have lived it. We should be very, very selective on just what kind of "expert" advice we are getting.

Well I think of it a little bit differently. There is ample discussion and thought to suggest that the Jews and many of his followers at the time saw him as a political Savior to save them from oppressive Roman law and that he was seen as a threat not just religiously but also politically. So I think of it not whether I should obey the law, but is this particular law just or in harmony with gospel teachings and principles. So in my mind going 10 over, is it a sin, no; what would Jesus do? well that is were the Spirit would lead. But then again Christ would go above and beyond the law, it wouldn't be just "I'm going over the speed limit so I should slow down", but it would be "am I traveling the right speed to ensure the safety of myself and of others", but that's my 2 cents.