yjacket

I will point out that true full forgiveness doesn't quite work like that. https://www.lds.org/youth/video/forgive-and-forget?lang=eng The Lord "remembers no more" our own sins and we are required to do the same with our fellow brothers and sisters. In a marriage this can take time-but if a marriage is to survive this the offended party much eventually forget this grievous sin. The first step is to let the anger, hurt, pain go. But eventually one must forget this sin took place. A marriage cannot survive if in 5 years time every time the spouse goes on a business trip she is wondering if he is messing around. Or if when they get into an argument in the back of her head she is thinking-"you scumball, you cheated on me and I forgave you/stayed with you, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to xyz". I'm not saying that forgetting has to occur immediately as it will take time; but if it doesn't occur the marriage will continue to be broken. It is one of the reasons why divorce is justified in cases of adultery; marriage is built on the ability to forgive and forget your spouses trespasses. And for most people forgetting that your spouse committed adultery is a very large task. If in one's heart the only way to forget and forgive the adultery is to divorce-then as much as it pains me to say it divorce is probably the better option. Again IMO it is one of the reasons why Jesus said adultery is an acceptable reason for divorce. It's where I personally decided a long time ago that heaven-forbid my spouse ever does this to me, I will forgive and I will forget the 1st offense. The scriptures say that a man returning to sin is as a "dog returning to his vomit", the 2nd time I will forgive and forget without their presence in my life.

JJ, Big difference between religious requirement and covenant vs. governmental requirement. With religion, I make a choice, I can opt in (i.e. make a covenant) and then I need to fulfill my obligations. By your reasoning, tithing is theft b/c one is obligated to pay tithing in order to obtain a Temple Recommend. We are told that to obtain exaltation we need to be Temple worthy and part of being temple worthy is paying tithing. We do not absolutely in no way make a covenant with the government. Simply because I was born in this country does not a covenant make. There is no "social contract" that I signed, no oath of allegiance I made. You are really, really confusing the issues. More free by being under governments thumb??? Right, b/c you can back out of an agreement in being a citizen?? What are you smoking? It is very, very simple. I don't pay my taxes to Fed Gov. and I go to jail. Period. That is theft, i.e. someone sticks a metaphorical gun in your face and says do what I say or you lose you ability to do anything. When I take a job, I don't enter into a contract with the government, it's between me and the person who wants to hire me and nobody else. UO not voluntary? Read wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order Membership in the United Order was voluntary, . . .Also read up on what happened, it pretty much every instance it failed within a couple of years. Personally, for me the United Order is one of the very few things where I'm not sure exactly what God wanted JS to do. It doesn't give me heartburn, it's just that I've studied basics of economic action quite in depth (not economics per say but the underlying root driving of economics-i.e. the interactions between individuals) and the UO is something I can't make much sense of. Maybe it was revealed to demonstrate how things would be run in the Celestial Kingdom but not in this fallen state. I do know that in our current fallen state anything that tries to implement anything remotely like Socialism or the UO is doomed to fail. Pretty much every single instance of the UO failed within 2-3 years. The real story of Thanksgiving is the story of a failed Socialist experiment. The Pilgrims implemented a communal/socialists society and they ended up starving themselves to death b/c of it. This idea that the Indians saved the Pilgrims is utter rubbish. The had a communal food storage that everyone was to donate their food to and everyone could take from. It was a requirement as part of living in their society. And they starved b/c of it-it was only after they ripped up that covenant and allowed everyone to keep what they worked for and planted that the next harvest was bountiful . . . and thus Thanksgiving. Every single instance in human history where Socialism has been tried has failed and failed miserably. We have a much more complex society today-so the level of socialism it can handle is greater than just simply farming. This isn't hard, it's actually a very well known phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. It boils down the the simple fact that if you don't personally own something, you don't take care of it as well as if you personally owned it. It's why people throw trash on the side of the road and I guarantee those 500 dollar fines do jack-really when was the last time you heard of someone being fined for throwing trash on the road? So at a fundamental level, as a society we can handle more deadweight b/c we have more base productivity-if 1000 people are working and 10 are living off the 1000, well society can still handle it. If 500 people are working and 500 are slackers, society might be able to handle it. Eventually, if the level of socialism becomes great enough then you have 300 working and 700 slacking and society ends up in a death spiral. Now if those 300 are producing enough for 2000 people and the 300 can still get ahead enough things might be okay. But fundamentally at some point . . .and it always happens with socialism, the 300 hard workers say screw this, why work so hard and let everyone else have my labor? Socialism at a fundamental level is pure absolute evil-it robs people of their dignity, their self-worth, their integrity, and ultimately it robs them of one of the most important things-the human spirit. That's why I don't know why the UO, maybe it is a cautionary tale for us, maybe God is trying to warn us that even one of His Prophets who was called to set up a communal type society couldn't make it work given our fallen nature. Maybe it's a warning against all types of socialism, maybe it's a type of things that are to be in the Celestial Kingdom or in the Millennium. IMO the only way that the UO can ever work is for each individual to completely give up their ego, any type of coveting, to be unwilling to mooch off of others-except in times of emergency, to not think ill of one's neighbor because you see him working less. There are a lot of natural human emotions and reactions that each and ever individual must fully give up for any UO to have any hope of success. Truly, the UO can only work in a 100% God-like people.

My condolences in going through this absolutely horrific experience. Whether you know it or not, in effect your husband and you are already divorced-yes you might still have a piece of paper and a sealing-but in his heart he divorced you. My guess is that prior to this acting out he had already divorced from you in his heart . . .and you might have also done the same and possibly unknowingly. I don't know this is the case, but it is something to think about. For some reason in today's society, once children come along women are expected to become mother's first and foremost and everything they do centers around and revolves around the children. If they don't do everything and anything they can for their children they are a "bad mom" and no woman wants to have the thought of being a "bad mom". So what inevitably happens in many families is that as soon as children come along the husband takes a backseat to the children. He is expected to play second fiddle with the woman he married to his children. This is so completely backwards it's utterly stunning that people buy into this myth. Children are and should be appendages to the marriage not the marriage focus itself. Since both men and women in today's society come into marriage without a dang clue as to what it actually means to be married (mainly b/c cultural messages of marriage are so completely messed up), it is no wonder why men seek the arms of another woman outside marriage, it's not wonder why women feel overwhelmed and completely stressed out at the thought of raising 1 or 2 children! Heaven's to Betsy our grandparents raised 6-7+ in a much less convenient society, yet we can't handle one or two. Married today simply means well you don't mess around with other people and that's really about it-when it goes so, so much more beyond that. The proper attitude for both parties is to work together, to strengthen each other, to work together as a team to build something bigger than each person individually. To know that the most important person on this earth is their spouse, whatever their strengths and weaknesses. To know that the marriage existed before children, to know that the most important thing you can teach your children is that mom&dad love each other and that 1st and foremost they are husband&wife, and to know that when the children are gone husband&wife will remain. Now your husband certainly did somethings that are worthy of excommunication and worthy of divorce. Does that mean he will be excommunicated or that you should get a divorce, maybe-maybe not. I would caution against doing anything rash, but certainly the answer to the question of a legal divorce can only come from God. A lot of that really depends on how penitent he truly is and how he approaches this. The Bishop needs to be made aware of this physical affair with this other church member and your husband and certainly go to your Bishop for counseling regarding this issue; but remember your husband's sins are not your sins. You cannot control your husband like a little child. Unfortunately in today's society we see too much of this controlling aspect out of spouses and it doesn't lead anywhere good. I would not deactivate his accounts for him nor delete them. If he isn't penitent-he'll just create additional ones later on and then you'll always be wondering well did he create another one or did he not. And in fact you controlling the situation will simply make him more resentful towards you. If you leave them up, then more likely than not if he returned to his activity he would do it on the same account and it will be easier for you to find this stuff out. If you leave them up and he out of his own volition decides to take them down, then he is recognizing his own problem, taking ownership of it and working to resolve it. It's like porn filters; they are good for ensuring that kids and innocents don't find their way into something bad; but for someone who is already on it they will find away around it b/c they aren't taking ownership of the problem, someone else is and until they take ownership of the problem and fix it themselves they will always find a way around. Take this as an opportunity for some real introspection on marriage, what you want it to look like and how it can look better; Have you set more of your energies towards work, career, children over you husband? Have you been too controlling? How have you tried to become one with your husband in the past? How can you do better in the future? I can't say this strongly enough-nothing you have done in the past regarding your marriage excuses his behavior nor gives him the right to do what he did. His sins are his own and he must fully repent of them. He will need the Atonement of Jesus Christ now more than ever before in his life. And by the same token you will need the power of the Atonement now more than ever. Not to repent of sins, but to forgive. Forgiveness does not mean consequences are not attached to the sin (i.e. you may end up divorced), but forgiveness does mean that the hurt, bitterness, and anger are taken away.

Balkanization of people is just the history of the world. Countries became countries b/c the people inside the borders of that country have extremely similar ethnicity, background, culture, etc. In general bad things happen when you try and shove different cultures together over mass groups of people . . .it just doesn't work well. The Civil War, essentially you had two completely different countries trying to live under one banner. They shared a common background of being colonies of GB, speaking english and fighting off GB but that was about it. The religion of the South was different than the North (baptists vs. Catholics and protestants), the underlying culture was drastically different (slavery vs. non-slavery . .. agricultural vs. industrial) and a war was fought over it. Look at Iraq-it really should be three countries with the Kurds in the north, and Sunnies and Shias splitting the rest but after WW2, the European powers thought it would be a great idea to literally draw lines in the sand and call this box Iraq-big problems. It's one of the reasons WW2 started with Hitler. After WW1 lines were drawn and ethnic Germans were put into countries like Poland. Part of the reason Hitler invaded those countries was to reclaim the parts that were ethnically Germans. The history of the world is full of examples were the combination of different cultures ends up leading to really bad things-generally war or civil war. And the history of the world has examples of what happens when countries do not maintain cohesion in their underlying culture . . .they disintegrate. And the same thing will happen to the US, this idea of a huge melting pot is a myth. Up until 1964 the immigration policy in the US was very strictly limited to European countries and cultures. The individuals that came assimilated pretty quickly and within a generation there was almost no way to tell that they were immigrants. That is quite different than it is today. Immigrants today aren't giving up their culture and assimilating, they are bringing their culture here and saying "you must accept my culture or you are racist". That will lead to very bad things in the future. All you need to do to see the future is to look at the Manchester bomber. He was born in England to Libyan immigrants. His name is Salman Abedi.40 years ago, with assimilation his parents would have named him Sal or Saloman or something British, but no, they immigrated to England and wanted to make England like were they came from so he has a name Salman . . .even though he was born in England he isn't English-it's a cultural takeover. And unless people wake up to what is occurring right under their noses, more of this crap happens until you are the minority in a country you grew up in and your ancestors grew up in. And I guarantee you other cultures aren't so understanding of minorities as modern Western cultures are.

It used to (and for a significant portion it still does), but the true South is dying real fast-with those "da#n Yankees" telling us how to run our business. Apologies to the cuss-filter, but dang Yankees, just doesn't have the same ring to it :-). Shoot I remember growing up a local city had the KKK march through town (only 25 years ago . . .not a fan of the KKK obviously), well that town today is now significantly Muslim. Confederate monuments all over the South are being packed up and shipped off to museums. It is a literal white-washing of history. History is written by the victors and the South was able to maintain a good bit of it's history, but over the last 25 years it has been destroyed. Up until probably the mid-80s-90s, the majority of the South was Democrat, or Dixicrats but as the Dems became more and more liberal, eventually the entirety of the South switched from Ds to Rs. The south's ideology didn't change, but the party that represented that ideology did change. For the most part in the South, Ds and Rs are split heavily on race. Most whites are R and most blacks are D. What is happening in the South is that it is a magnet for jobs and migration. A significant portion of the country from California to New England and the Northeast are coming South to get away from their stupid state governments and economies. Unfortunately a lot of these transplants bring their northern/western ideology with them . . .the very same ideology that made their own state crap to live in. These cities that had Confederate monuments are now majority black and as have black mayors, etc. and they are the ones taking down the monuments. Slavery was absolutely the worst decision this country ever made-if it weren't for slavery a lot of things would be very, very different. The interesting thing about the Civil War and that time period was that the North was just as racist as the South-Black Codes for example. Ultimately, the Civil War boiled down to political power rather than slavery. Slavery was just a convenient excuse. The North hated blacks, and didn't want them to be apart of their society-but they hated the South even more for things like the 3/5ths compromise that gave the South additional representation in Congress for slaves. It wasn't so much slavery, but the political power that the Southern states were able to hold b/c of slavery and the vast differences in opinion about the proper roles of government (the vast majority of small government founders came from the South). So if you take down a statue of Robert E. Lee, why not take down a statue of Jefferson or Washington? I imagine in my lifetime I will see the sandblasting of Stone Mountain in GA with the Southern heroes of the Civil War, Lee, Davis, Jackson. It's very similar to what the Taliban and ISIS does in the middle east, but in the name of SJW we've got to take down those monuments! Unfortunately most people just do not understand the absolute utter hell the South paid for losing the war (and they came close a couple of times to winning amazingly enough) and Fort Sumner was a much more complex issue were the South was politically outmaneuvered and ended up firing the first shot (even though prior to that they sent ambassadors to Lincoln to work out a peaceful resolution and he refused to see them). They lost everything and while it was nice that the North didn't execute any of the generals, Reconstruction was just horrible.

I think it speaks more to a properly run program. Done right, every boy coming out of the 11-year-old program should be 1st class rank. Once you get to that point, except for the Eagle Scout project to advance in rank you really only need to earn merit badges (a total of 21). Generally speaking if you attend a BSA scout summer camp you can earn 5 merit badges in a week there. In 4 years that's 20, once you hit Life you can start working on your Eagle project and that's doing nothing else. For a moderately motivated young man and an okay troop they should easily get Eagle by age 15. For a very well run troop getting Eagle by 13-14 should not be uncommon. Once you pass a requirement you don't get "tested" on it again until you Boards of Review and up until your Eagle BoR they are pretty basic and you are specifically told by BSA that it is not a test. If you talk about gundecking requirements, complain about today's modern "everyone gets a trophy" culture b/c that is the exact same culture that leads to "gundecking". But again in a very well run troop, getting Eagle by 14 should be pretty common.

Well, I thank my stars I live in the USA with the good 'ol 2nd Amendment and not in Venezuala trying to overthrow a dictator. Yeah guys that's great, they have troops with guns, APVs, water guns, tear gas and you have banderas soaked in vinegar, tin "shields" and molotov cocktails. Yeah, like that's gonna really get you somewhere!! The ugly truth is that Free Speech and rights is backed up by one thing and one thing only---violent force. If you've got it (the ability to execute violent force), it's hard to take away other rights and if you don't have it . . . good luck!! If anything like a Maduro or a very, very serious threat to freedom came to town, I don't think we'd pussyfoot around like the Venezuela's . . .it'd be on like Donkey Kong-American Style. And it wouldn't look like this-give those people some weapons man . . . . Thankfully, I still think that is a remote possibility but it is always there and and some points worse than other times.

One of the things I find really disingenuous is the 97% thing. What they are really saying is that 97% of the scientific articles published in major "accepted" journals, say climate change is a thing. Well that's really disingenuous for a couple of reasons. #1) How many scientist publish more than one article? Lots, so to really find 97% you have to take all the scientist, not just those that publish or those that publish the most. #2) What is the process for publishing articles? Well it takes time and money to publish an article-you have to first a topic to publish on, then do the research and then write it, then send it in, then it has to get accepted. So who pays for the scientist time and effort doing the research? Somebody does . . . it comes from grants from the government or from some entity. Those grants have a topic area and in order to get funding you have to find out what appeals to the entity giving money and write a proposal like "We propose to study the affects of climate change on the African swallow". EPA gives money to Dr. Joe. Dr. Joe then conducts research on that topic area and then as part of the grant writes an article to be published like "Climate Change affect on the African Swallow" in the ABC Scientific Journal. Once the article is written and submitted then a panel of other scientist determine whether the article is approved or not. That panel is generally really informal of only 3-4 other scientist, who read the article and say approve, approved with changes or reject. Now if the majority of the panel is climate change believers it is highly unlikely that an article against climate change will pass through. So you see, it is really one big self-licking ice cream cone in an echo chamber full of group think. All designed by the government to promote one world-view. You see when you have the EPA believe one thing "climate change is a fact" then every piece of funding they have will be geared towards a confirmation of that ideology. And if you are a scientist, you don't dare buck the trend so you can actually get promoted and have a career. Let's you think I jest, read and weep: https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/ "A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc. How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."

I also get what you are saying and to a very large extent I agree. I don't think we should be overly critical; the only articles that every really raise my hackles are articles who's headline or text would appear to go against the Church. I understand that these folks aren't writing for the Ensign, and that's why while IMO annoying I haven't commented on the most recent one. I will comment on articles like "I Hate my Patriarchal Blessing" (that is easily a title one would see on a anti-Mormon website), etc. Those types of articles IMO go beyond inanity, etc. IMO the MGF really needs to rethink their strategy and the types of articles they are asking for. Either MGF promotes the LDS church and gospel principles or it doesn't. Rather than shooting the messenger (i.e. forum posters), maybe an organization that posits itself to promote the Church, should take the criticism and evaluate itself rather than say STTO shut-up, sit down and enjoy what we put up as articles.

I applaud it and cheer the decision but am saddened that it has come to this. Gladiator: Maximus Pres. Monson: Baden Powell Marcus Aurelius had a dream that was Rome Boy Scouts, Proximo BSA CEO. That is not it. That is not it! Proximo BSA CEO: Marcus Aurelius Baden Powell is dead, Pres. MonsonMaximus. We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Pres. MonsonMaximus!

I don't necessarily fault the writer; I can tell that most of the articles are written by kids either fresh out of high school or in college. Which, by the way, says a lot more about our education system rather than the writer. I've found that many of the articles are pretty immature in writing style and language, they have the caliber of what one would find in tabloid papers back when I was growing up-a 9th grader could write the same type of articles that's how bad some of them are. Some of them however are very good. What I do fault is The More Good Foundation and it's editors. That is why you have an editor, to tell the writer-this is crap-re-do it. When you see comments like "Another stupid article", what your readership is telling you is that the editors are doing a really poor job of a) assigning articles to the writers, b) reviewing articles for content, c) enforcing strict standards on what should or shouldn't be published d) understanding their readership. If The More Good Foundation would like to be taken seriously, then it should seriously look at what is being written and have better editors who do a better job. If The More Good Foundation wants to be the modern day equivalent of a "Mormon tabloid" keep doing what you are doing . . . . their choice.

Only the beginning. My prediction, in 5 years the Church will be completely out of Cub Scouts and BSA. I'll be glad when we leave that putrid, stinking rotting corpse that used to actually stand for traditional American Christian Values. PC and SJWs (and especially Bob Gates) have destroyed that once fine, upstanding moral organization. The most critical first step in this process of extraction from this corrupt organization is to shore up the most critical part, i.e. the top-end where a conflict between gospel values and worldly values will become more and more pronounced and more likely to afflict the minds of the youth. This is what is occurring now. It will work its way down to younger ages next and then Cub Scouts. Bravo to the Church!

Don't tell your 5 year old unless you want the ward, the school and the world knowing what is going on. Young children have no real concept of private conversation vs. public conversation; i.e. they don't have the capability to recognize what they should say to others and what they shouldn't say to others-that requires many years of training. So if you tell the 5 year old-the information will be guaranteed to get out. I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal of it with the kid. You are still planning on going to church? And doing most of the normal church things-except things you can't do. So don't bring it up . . .if on the off chance the kid gets wise and says something like "Why doesn't daddy take the sacrament?" It's a great teaching moment, you can just say "when we take the sacrament we covenant with God to always remember him and to keep His commandments, daddy did somethings that broke God's commandments and can't take the sacrament for a while until he has fully repented". Or something to that effect-if the kid wants more detail give 'em the old "I'll tell you when you are older".

Bingo, it robs us of the opportunities to be more charitable and Christlike.

??? Yes, I agree I have stated so. You obviously have not read the topic-I expressed many times that I understood that according to the girl xyz happened, however that was her perception and that her perception was most likely wrong-specifically because of this. Again, the point being that I highly doubted that the story was correct and in fact we know that the story was incorrect as the actual person posting the story was the daughter who lied and presented herself as her mother. I had a high suspicion that something was off in the story and I was correct. ?? Completely illogical. Are you arguing that I have to be her parent to tell her that drug use is bad? That I have to be her parent to say that nothing good happens after midnight? Do I have to be her parent to say you should stay in school, get your homework done or any other host of things? Quite frankly, you know nothing and to lecture me about what is or isn't between parents/child/lord is a whole lot of hubris on your part. Just because it is a parents decision to let their kid smoke weed, doesn't make it a good decision. There is this really insane dumb philosophy that has taken root in modern America where no one can speak out against xyz thing b/c well that decision is "between the person and their spouse or the person and the Lord". I don't need a PhD in sociology nor physiology or be a spiritual leader to recognize and give warning against the use of things that have the potential to be really bad. There is not one good reason for a child to be on Facebook-not one! Oh, that's how my friends communicate . . .so what, if your friends all did drugs would you? Considering children are highly impressionable and can very easily bend to social pressure. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/03/13/dcf-mom-of-teen-who-committed-suicide-in-facebook-live-watched-episode-unfold/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier https://globalgrind.cassiuslife.com/4224039/teenage-couple-commits-suicide-days-apart-and-leaves-facebook-video/ And there was another one where some kid killed herself with a shotgun in front of her dad b/c of facebook bullying. Facebook is in general a place that feeds people's narcissistic tendings and encourages people to be self-styled drama queens/kings. I was bullied enough in school myself so why on God's green Earth would a parent give a child access to Facebook where they can be bullied after school at any point in time. Facebook and internet access for a child is not a need, it's a want and giving a child Facebook access is giving them a loaded gun and saying have fun!!! And yes, I know you don't understand b/c as you said teenagers think differently than adults-that is fine. I don't expect you to understand what I wrote And I'll give you some advice Ffenix . . .go back to school and learn to respect your elders-you might just learn something from them. You have no clue what you are talking about, I've been through more hell in my life than you can possibly imagine, I've had a stronger closer connection to God than you can possibly imagine. I've been on this rock a lot longer than you have and with that I've learned quite a bit so when you are a parent and/or have grown up a little and become an adult in the world then you can join the adult conversation. The OP lied, period end of story.

Well the ultimate goal of a parent is to emancipate their children from them; i.e. train and teach them how to be self-sufficient, reliable, hard-working, civics minded individuals that can work independently and think on their own two feet. Until a child emancipates themselves (or you do it for them at age 18), the parent has much more stewardship. But the stewardship at 18 is much less than at age 3. As a child grows, the amount of direction and control that a parent has over a child's life should gradually lessen and more and more responsibility for individual actions and decisions given to the child. The goal being to teach the child to be responsible for their own actions. Once an adult the stewardship really takes a backseat, to more counsel and advice. I love getting counsel and advice from my parents, b/c I have learned to rely upon their wisdom as they have experienced more of life than me-but that is all it really is-counsel and advice. They do not have stewardship over my life, they do not control it, I make my own decisions of what is best for me and my family. They have taught me that the One who does have authority over my life is God and that is where I should get the majority of my decision making from. Now, I personally severely dislike the modern day mantra that is spouted by parents "I want my child to think for themselves"-when it comes to politics, religion, etc. No, it is completely backwards thinking. I carry out a very specific plan of indoctrination, yes I indoctrinate my children in how they should behave, in how they should act, in what religion they should be and how they should think politically. I live my life the way I do, b/c I believe it is the best way to live a life and as such I want my children to live a happy life, which comes from the concepts, principles and precepts that I have learned in my life. I want to pass that knowledge and actions down to the next generation. I will know whether or not I have failed in my job as a parent when my children have children and they begin to raise them. If they continue to pass down the same principles, I have succeeded, if not I have failed. Indoctrination does not make children robots-they have the God-given gift of free agency so they will not, can not be robots. But this much I can promise you, if I don't indoctrinate my children, someone will-and since God gave me charge over them-I'd rather do it than let the world do it.

Absolutely; some people say that socialism/communism works on paper-but that is totally wrong-it doesn't work on paper and it can't work on paper. Besides the moral arguments against socialism there is a bigger practical problem of socialism. The calculation problem. The absolute basics of an economy is the ability of people to specialize and produce goods and services that other people need and want. I live in a house and would like to put up a fence. I can either ask friends to help me put up a fence or I can pay someone to do it. The amount that I'm willing to pay someone else to put up my fence indicates how important it is to me that I have a fence put up. Now we could all live like the amish and do barn-raising, but even the amish recognize that this only works in a limited fashion (they have businesses they run). What if everyone now wants a fence . . .how do you prioritize who gets one first and who needs it the most? The best solution is to allow prices to dictate that information to the market. Without a price structure, people have no idea how important different things are and what businesses to start to solve the wants and needs of everyone else. If the price of shoes is $.05 a pair, who is going to go into the shoe business, everyone would buy as many shoes as possible-but who is actually going to produce shoes and sell them for $.05 a pair? That is why supply and demand are so important-it helps people understand where to focus their energies and where not to in order to earn a living and in the same process help out their neighbors. It is why socialized medicine and the involvement in government into medicine will lead to disaster. People might say well everyone has health care. But the unseen costs of socialized medicine are absolutely horrible. Where have all the modern advancements in medicine come from? The US health care system. Compared to 100 years ago, health care is cheap. We couldn't cure cancer, now we can to a large extent. Why? b/c of the profit motive. Without a high enough incentive for companies and businesses to take lots of risk in developing solutions, cancer cures wouldn't exist.

This is my point. . . you have to sign a document to leave, i.e. you can't just get up and leave. You have to have permission to sign a document and then you can leave. If I brought myself into the hospital, why should I have to sign a document just to leave? And there are a whole host of reasons why (according to the hospital) they wouldn't allow you to sign the document. What if the hospital now deems you medically incompetent?

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Once you are admitted to the hospital, you are basically in jail-you can't leave until they say you can leave. Trying to leave on your own without their permission can cause big, big problems.

Not so. It was answered a long time ago, people just refuse to see it. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng Personally, I do not believe in evolution. . .it is a construct it hasn't been proven and it can't be proven-it relies upon faith . . .faith in the philosophy and theories of men. I put my faith in God not in the words or theories of men. God has revealed as much that needs to be known about the Creation; if more needs to be known he will reveal it-to prophets not to men. As for the other stuff . . .I'm not sure it is really that big of a deal at all. It's a nice thing to say, but we don't know for certain . .. but then again if Sunday School was just about saying what was 100% known then all we would do is read exactly from the scriptures, exactly from the manuals and no one would ever comment. If you feel the need to say something-the proper thing to do is to approach the teacher after class and discuss it with them in private rather than publicly doing it. Only in rare instances, where something is obviously incorrect and could lead someone to have a doctrinal idea contrary to the Gospel should one correct.

Well you gonna pull those pistols or whistle dixie!

Well, the answer to that question depends on your worldview. If you believe that God can talk to men and can talk to each of us individually and guide us in the direction we should go and that that guidance is found by first living life in accordance with His revealed word and then by asking him, how else would you know except through prayer and asking Him to tell you? If you don't believe that God can talk to men and that we can only know truth through empirical evidence-then the way to know if the Church is true is by testing it's fruits and by abiding by the precepts it teaches and see if that guides us to the truth.

While I don't believe finances is a reason for divorce; the fact of the matter is that financial decisions and arguments over finances is the #1 reason for divorce. Unfortunately, this is a problem that should have been solved long, long ago with your wife and because it wasn't solved many moons ago it has caused a much, much bigger problem. This is precisely why your children have problems-she has never let them be responsible for their own lives. This probably started when they were young and she wanted them to live a good life; not realizing that as a parent you can teach but you can't live their life for them-which is what she is trying to do. This is also why (as much as people complain about rich inheritances) wealth does not pass three generations. The 1st generation worked hard, by the sweat of their brow and built something, the second generation has it a little bit easier but saw the hardwork of the parents and tries to do the same, by the time the 3rd generation roles around the kids are spoiled brats who can't do jack for themselves. The very wealthy families (who's wealth has passed down through generations) teach their kids very, very differently; kids who are slackers are cut off-everyone is expected to work hard, etc. I completely agree you need to get control of the situation-without causing a divorce. The only way you are going to completely solve the problem is for you and her to get on the same page-for that, she needs to understand at a very deep emotional level the massive problems she is causing with your children's lives by providing them with financial funds (they will never be financially stable on their own, their own self-worth will be less, etc.). I don't know how that is going to happen at this stage . . . Baring a complete mindset change on her part, probably the best you can do is find some compromise you both can live with. Giving your wife 200k/year for the needs of the family is a lot of money; that isn't needs that is 200k/year for wants. If you are providing 200k/year to her but then complaining about the 100k/year she gives to the kids-you are doing it wrong man. Think of it this way . . . if as an employer you give your employees 50k/year and then they take 20k and blow it on shopping do you get upset at them? No, b/c it is their money to do with as they see fit. If you give her 200k/year then you can't complain with what she does with the money as long as the actual needs not wants of your family is paid for. A huge part of this life is learning how to give people responsibility over things and then letting them fail or do with it how they see fit. You have given your wife responsibility over 200k/year and obviously she is being irresponsible with that money (in your opinion and in mine-but not in her opinion). So what do you do? I don't know-this should have been solved a long time ago, if you don't nip things in the bud they can get real, real bad. I would start of with obviously she doesn't need 200k/year so dial that back-what is appropriate, I have no idea, but obviously 100k/year isn't since she blows that on the kids. No if you go from 200k to 100k/year that is probably going to cause some major problems. Do you scale it back gradually or rip the bandaid off (which might be a turniquet that is keeping blood from going everywhere). And finally, is a divorce really going to solve this problem? My guess is that a lot of things are tied together in your names and since you are fairly well off she will most likely get a significant portion of your income-which may amount to 200k/year??? In that case, she continues to do the same-except you've now lost your wife. My condolences and good luck!

I understand. I agree with zil, there is a better way to approach it. There have been some very good articles on mormonhub, like: https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/learning-surrender-gods-will/ but contrast the above to this article. The approach, the overall messaging, completely different articles, but in many ways related. Ultimately, a PB is about learning to surrender to what God would have us do in this life-even if it is just to live a plain ol' boring life, go on a mission, raise a family, or even if he doesn't give us a whole lot of instructions. Some PBs might contain a whole slew of things, some might not, but ultimately it is about learning to surrender ourselves to what God wants us to do in our lives. And my guess is that if one does have an awe-inspiring PB, when you are young it might seem cool and awesome but the older you get the more weight and responsibility you might feel. If it said, "you will one be called as a prophet" a young kid will say oh that's awesome!! and then as he matures it might be, "wow, that is heavy-how can I possibly live up to that" and then it might even crush him. I trust in what the Lord tells each one of use through the PB-if it is "plain" for some reason it is that way; but I don't think being "plain" is bad. We learn (if we stay worthy in this life) that we are all if we live worthily Kings, Priests, Queens, Priestesses, etc. What could be more awesome than that!! And when we boil it all down, what could be better in life than living a simple Christ centered life, focused on raising a righteous family? Everything and anything else we do in life should always be appendages to raising a righteous family.

whoa . . . I speak turkish now!!! Awesome I hope it compliments my Spanish! Oh wait . . .that is just google translate-darn. It's still cool to see what I wrote translated into turkish.