yjacket

Okay, the guy is an idiot and a special snowflake, but the charges, seriously. Aggravated assault, criminal mischief and loitering? The latter two I get, but aggravated assault with potatoes and eggs?? I'm sure the egg had an extreme indifference to human life!!

I believe it was President Monson who said a long time ago that the man was the head of the household and the woman the heart of the household. Losing your heart or about to lose your heart (whether through death or divorce) is one of the most gut-wrenching, horrible experiences one can ever possibly face in this lifetime. Sadness, depression, lack of will are all things that will follow and it is okay-it is part of the natural human grieving process. While you will lose your heart, never forget you are the head and must do all you can to protect your household (which includes you and your children).

I don't like to use derogatory terms, but everything points to a money-grubbing . . . person . . . . This behavior is typical of someone who has no desire to to the right thing all they see is getting as much as they can for as little as they can. Your house is paid for-that speaks to someone who either has lived very frugally, made lots of money, or done both. This is not advice, and I don't know what the law says, but if it were me. I'd take all my bank accounts, stocks etc. I'd cash them out and I'd buy gold in cash. The only thing that is traceable is the cash-out. You can sue me, garnish my wages, etc., but the gold is untraceable-ain't getting it. I can hold a lot of value in very little space with it. If they knew I'd bought metals-I'd level my backyard, I'd put the amount that I decide she should get in the backyard for her to find good and deep. I would hand her a shovel to my backyard and say "You want it, dig for it; it's a perfect metaphor for you". Yes, I am ruthless at protecting what's mine :-). And yes I really would do that.

The kids are the worst; they don't understand anything. All they know is that they came from both mom and dad. For mom and dad to split is like saying to them part of them isn't good.

Yeap. The time for reconciliation and self-sacrifice was in the 6-month period but not now. She has shown by her actions that your role in this "marriage" is simply a money tree. This is going to be hard to take but . . . You told us earlier how she expected as part of your marriage to get 50% of your income. She certainly wasn't the one earning the money-you were. She expected to be on some part of welfare system, where you provide all the money and she gets to do whatever she wants to without regard to any responsibilities. If she has the time to carry on an affair with 5 small children at home she certainly isn't caring about her responsibilities as a wife and mother. She has demonstrated by word and deed that all you are to her is a money tree-all she sees when she looks at you is dollar signs. And she will do whatever she can to get a free ride from you for the next 15+ years. Your goal now is to maximize to the extent possible keeping the amount of assets that you have worked so very hard for and to minimize what she gets. Hold your ground, go for blood. It is really sad this is what it has come to; but with the screwed up laws in this country if you do not it will affect you for the rest of your life. 60/40 with you being the 40? She hasn't worked a day in your marriage and she gets 60% . . . on what planet does she think this is? More like 75/25, with you being the 75%. And while it is hard to hear now, when the dust has settled, and your life is somewhat stable again and if you keep doing what is right you'll meet a wonderful woman. When that time comes, you'll want as much financial resources to support her rather than someone who has no regard for their marital vows or children.

Zero, My condolences on you having to go through something like this. She truly does not understand the problems she is causing or if she does, does not care in the least bit. 5 kids, the oldest is 11 and new boyfriend is going to support her . . . lol that is a good one. She has broken her vow with you and most importantly with God, one day she will stand accountable for her sins, the destruction of her family. When that day comes, it will be very painful for her. Only you can know in your heart and through God's peace whether you have done everything possible and can have a clean conscience. From what you have written, you are definitely on that path. God's grace is sufficient for us all, even her. Having said that, however at this point, protect yourself to the maximum extent possible. Protect your house, your children and your future livelihood. Don't do something stupid now that you will regret 5 years down the road when you want to get married again. ------ This country's laws are messed up with regards to divorce; and it is probably one of the reasons why marriage rates have fallen quite dramatically. Without being crude, men can have many partners without the very real affects of the laws destroying them. Why get married? Get married have 5 kids, wives goes off the deep end commits adultery. She can go have as many partners as possible yet will most likely get custody, raise her kids in a bad environment all the while getting 40% of the man's income. Yet if the courts were harsh on adultery and at-fault divorces, she would get nothing, husband would get all his money and he could afford a nanny. Stupid, stupid laws and judges. I love my wife and I can't ever imagine a split-up, but one of the wisest things I did at the beginning of our marriage was to keep finances separate. House, car, etc. my name. There is no good reason to keep it in both names. If I die, it gets inherited. If an asteroid hits the earth and things go wacky-while I'll still pay it's an extra measure and an extra hoop someone has to go through to extract my hard earned money from me.

Constitution has been shredded for a long while. The form and structure is there but the insides is all hollow and rotted out; people are just now starting to realize how shredded it is. Presidents and Congress are only constrained by how much they think they can get away with, not whether something is Constitutional and it happens with both major parties. Interesting historical side-note, the anti-federalist prior to the ratification of the Constitution pretty much laid out how it could be turned into a very large Centralized government with very little practical oversight. They were right; thank heavens they fought the fight against the Constitution-without them we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights and then we would be in real big trouble. Imagine where we would be without a 2nd amendment; no anti-federalist, no 2nd amendment. The Constitution was pretty much a coup and an overthrow of a legitimate government. The representatives were only authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead they held secret closed-door meetings and wrote an entirely new governing document. Should be a cautionary tale for anyone who wants an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Gone; if you run afoul of an agency, EPA, OSHA, etc. good luck on getting jury trial. Even if one is innocent going the way of a jury trail may not be the best course of action. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/04/plea_bargains_should_prosecutors_be_forced_to_have_their_plea_bargains_approved.html http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ Thanks to minimal mandatory sentencing laws. If you become a target by a regulatory agency you are pretty much toast-expect to pay-a lot. It ends up being extortion. For xyz regulation violation (which may or may not have occurred), you can pay 10k now and make it go away, or if you don't pay and take it to a trial and you are guilty you're fine will be 200k plus add up all the legal expenses that your defense alone could equal several thousand dollars. Most people will just pay the fine even if innocent, because they know the hassle and the consequences should things not go in their favor. In theory yes, but most juries believe that if someone has broken the law they must convict (regardless of how screwed up the law is). Lawyers are prohibited from mentioning jury nullification, no Judge will address it and if as a juror you mention it prior to deliberation you will a) never be on the jury or b) removed from the jury.

Welcome to the forums, glad to have you. I do not agree with this statement. Bishops are required to be married, so unless there are homosexual bishops that are married this isn't happening. If they are "homosexual bishops" and married-I don't think I'd classify them as homosexual. Now there might be former bishops who have since "come out", but that is quite different than saying the Church has homosexual bishops.

There would be; just like there will still be murders no matter what you do. Terrorism is a tactic-you can't win a war against a tactic. The "War on Terror" is a meaningless phrase except that it means endless war. However, by eliminating many of the very rational reasons that others have against the US would dramatically reduce the likelihood of an attack. If I poke a stick at a hornets nest and rattle it a bit I shouldn't complain too loudly when a few hornets sting me. If the US stopped poking a stick at the Middle East, the hornets would be much less likely to sting the US. The challenge is that most people don't realize how much stick-poking the US has really done in that region and it is heresy to say so (why you anti-American ingrate!!!)

My bad, fixed!

I agree with most of what you have said, very good points. I do not think this is the case. We become non-interventionist-let them sort out their own mess. Bring all the troops home, close the bases, completely 100% pull out of the region. Tell the Middle East and Europe-take care of your own problem on your doorstep. We will no longer subsidize your defense, we aren't going to fight your wars, nor pay trillions of dollars for them. In fact, a candidate (while not my guy, still has good points) has made the case to let Russia solve it. Really, what is so bad about Russia worrying about what is happening in their backdoor-rather than us trying to solve it half a world away. The next thing is you don't let anyone into the country from those regions-No Syrians, Iraqis, etc. We won't bother you, but we aren't going to let you bother us. Finally, you still trade with people. The world economy wouldn't tank. The producers are countries like China, Singapore, Thialand, Europe, etc. In fact, most countries in the world are non-interventionist for example, Switzerland. Yet no one calls Switzerland isolationist. You still trade and do business with the world, you just restrict your military and influx of people. It's not isolationist-its common sense.

Lol . . .every now and then I have some good ideas! I too agree with most of what you have said.

It actually not a very hard thing to figure out; people just don't like the answer. Why France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Support_for_the_Syrian_opposition France was involved in the Syrian conflict for the past two years. If, just if Mexico was one of the world military powers and they were supplying rebels inside the US to overthrow the US government-what do you think some people would do? Then you really don't understand how humans act. Most of the evils committed in this world are based on those emotions. It doesn't make those actions right or justified. But hate, pride, etc. are not irrational feelings and acts committed based on those feelings are not irrational-they are wrong and must be punished but they aren't irrational. The people over in the Middle East have been bombed for at least the last 15 years. People aren't stupid, they saw what happened in Iraq, they saw what happened in Afghanistan and they see the same thing happening in Syria. They don't have all the facts about why, all they know is they have been stomped on for decades. The US coalition has committed numerous atrocities, it has bombed many, many actual weddings and funerals, it has bombed hospitals, it has rained death from above using drones. Whether these actions were justified or not-the point is that from the Middle Eastern perspective it is not. When the chips are really down, what do people fall back on? In the really hard times in life-most people fall back on God (there are no atheists in foxholes). Their God might not be the same God as mine-but they fall back on religion. Religion mixed with base emotions such as pride, hate, etc. is not a good combination. The acts they commit are evil, but they are not irrational. I knew someone who was over in Damascus when 9/11 happened and was riding in a Taxi. The driver said something to the effect of "I feel sorry for your people-but you deserved it." If you want to know why people say we deserved it, you've got to look at actions and think about why would they say something like that. I do not believe the common taxi driver in Damascus to be irrational.

In fighting a war, it is very useful to dehumanize the opponent it allows one to fight and kill without as much of a conscience. But the dehumanizing of the opponent does very little helping understand the why or in the end goal of what they want to achieve. There are very, very rational reasons why they do the things they do. Unfortunately, most people don't want to hear the actual reasons so it is much easier to dehumanize rather than understand. And it happens on both sides.

Yes, I just realized that. There is absolutely no problem giving a blessing of comfort. However, if one used a blessing of comfort to then give a naming and a "life" blessing then that would not be acceptable. The deference being that a blessing of comfort is more for specific circumstances, whereas a naming and blessing is more of a "life" blessing. Even a Father's blessing is used for more specific circumstances relative to what is occurring in the person's life rather than a life-long blessing.

No he may not-as stipulated in the Priesthood handbook, blessings follow a set format and the naming and blessing is a different format than a blessing of comfort. It would be denied because the Church said so, that's why. If people don't want it to be denied, then tell the parents not to be in a homosexual relationship-it is really that simple. It is skirting the rules. The new policy stipulates that as a cause of homosexual relationships babies are not to be giving the naming and a blessing. Having a priesthood holder do it outside the church at home without Bishop authorization then claiming it is done just as a blessing is skirting the rules-no ifs ands or buts.

Good catch; I hadn't noticed that in this context until you mentioned it.

And sometimes the opposite happens, people make nasty comments and then claim, "I was only joking".

carlimac, If I may. I completely understand how a naming and blessing done at your home was extremely beneficial. And I agree, a naming and blessing can be done at home. A fun fact, a worthy priesthood father has the authority to give a child their patriarchal blessing-but it is not recorded in the church. I think the point Vort is trying to make is the following from the Handbook: "Performance of a saving ordinance requires authorization from a priesthood leader who holds the appropriate keys or who functions under the direction of a person who holds those keys. Such authorization is also required for naming and blessing a child" This is incorrect. Without the proper authorization from a Bishop, it is not a naming and blessing of a child. What you are suggesting is a way to skirt around the rules. One could give the child a blessing-but it cannot be considered a naming and a blessing. In other words if a priesthood holder did this: "The person who gives the blessing: 1. Addresses Heavenly Father. 2. States that the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. 3. Gives the child a name. 4. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs. 5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ." without the authorization of the Bishop, it would be incorrect to do this.

Nope, I'm explaining.

Hey, you know just keeping you honest. Listening to bloviating politicians, provides a little extra time to be on my toes.

Nice word; I'm going to have to remember that one.

Says the one who complains about bullying . . . Hmm, sometimes the largest complainers are the worst offenders.

It's embraced because we have a society that have forgotten what it means to be an adult. We have the break-down of the family with such atrocities such as 2 daddies being trotted out as "healthy" for children (what bunk-as a side-note all those people who are saying oh the horror for the child that they can't be baptized b/c they had dad and dad. I sure don't hear them complaining about all the massive damage that being raised in that lifestyle is really doing to the child.). Parents don't know how to actually parent and never teach their children what the difference is between a child and an adult. So society has children who get older but who have never matured even though they are in an adult body. Therefore, because they weren't trained right but are now an adult they make an excuse for why their behavior is acceptable. As a sidenote, man I love John Rosemond-a parenting guru. The guy hits most things spot on. http://www.rosemond.com/October-2015.html