RMGuy

This last election I almost did not vote for either of the two main candidates because I felt there was a better choice. In 2008 I did not for for either the R or D candidate. This year I went Romney because I thought it might be close and I felt he was the better of the two candidates that might have a chance of being electable. I wasn't necessarily happy about it, but it was what I felt was best in that particular circumstance. -rm

I am 100% with Backroads on this. I'm all about individuals having choices. If the owners of target want to be open on Thanksgiving...bully for them. If no one shops there, then they probably won't do it again next year. If they make a profit, it will be open again next year. I simply won't be contributing to their profits on that day. -RM

Would you fee the same way if the book behind the counter was a Book of Mormon Stories (The illustrated Children's reader) in a public elementary school? I wasn't being snarky in my original post it is one that I am struggling with a bit since I can see both sides. -RM

Leftist? Moi? You REALLY don't know me...lol. Doubt I would go with playboy, but Mein Kampf should be on the selves of a library if we really believe it is a place of education...and the Communist Manifesto, and The Prince, and lots of other books as well. -RM

Utah school district sued over restricted access to lesbian family book - Yahoo! News This one is kind of interesting, in that I am a little torn on which side of this I find myself. On one hand, I understand parents not wishing their elementary school children having access to the material, on the other hand, I'm a little concerned when any group attempts to restrict availability to information that others can read. Hmmm -RM

Thanks skippy this was my point earlier. We are quick to condemn pornography, but many times in our condemnation of the material, we do not react well to the individual. We have a few artistic nude paintings and sculptures in our home....some might view it as porn. We view it as art. If it bothered my spouse or vice-versa they would be removed. But we both enjoy them from an artistic merit standpoint. Same thing with the alcohol analogy you mention. Does one drink an alcoholic make? Maybe. Does cooking with alcohol violate the wow? Maybe. The church takes a black and white view of the world because they have too. It is why they are GENERAL Authorities. It is up to each of us to make a digital guide work in an analog world. My concern earlier is that it is possible that because of our focus on pornography, that what might be a rare occurrence, or even innocent gets interpreted as porn and perhaps even <gasp> cause for divorce. Think about these things? Is a Victoria secret catalog porn? Sports illustrated? Swimsuit issue? Jcpenny catalog? Encyclopedia brittanica? National geograpic? All of those could be viewed as porn...or not, depending on how they were being used. Just my .02 -RM

Boy....those Romney voters sure are irrational......<runs for cover>. -rm

It is stories like this that sometimes make me wonder if we haven't become a bit obsessed with pornography in the church, and that that focus is causing some harm that a otherwise might not exist. Please recognize that I am NOT a supporter of this behavior. However, I know of many individuals couples even in some cases that use pornography. It has not become an obsession or an addiction for them and they are productive and happy people in life. I know of a few couples where if this scenario played out the wife would have shrugged it off as a normal part of life. Again, I M not seeking to excuse this behavior, but when we focus on this to such large measure I wonder if sometimes it doesn't lead to a spouse thinking things are worse than they are and actually leading to splitting up families. I know there area cases of real porn addiction , but I think they're much rarer than we in the church Amake them out to be. This sounds like a good husband and father by the OPs own statement. I recognize theaimportance of virtue and chastity....just not sure that the way we are going about this as a church is the best approach. -rm

I seem to recall something similar...I'll see what I can find

Maybe he needs a choose the left one?

Lds.net.....

I think both are responsible. A few years ago my wife and I were out for a drive when she noticed that the local ice cream parlor had opened for the summer and she said "look _____is open". I responded with "yes, it is,". And kept driving. She was a little upset. I responded very clearly to what she said....but not to what she thought she said. If our goal is to be right then I could argue that I had responded correctly. If she is saying that it was her intent that mattered then she could also claim to be right. If we want to actually communicate then we need to try to seek understanding. In your original example I feel like both participants are more concerned with "being right" than with reaching a shared understanding. You asked what we thought. My take is I can see what both are saying, and I think both are to blame for the miscommunication. -RM

Just for point of clarity: The language "In God we Trust" wasn't added to coins until 1864. It did not appear on paper money until 1957. Also, when the Pledge was originally written (by a socialist in 1892) it also did not include the language "under God". I wasn't until 1954 that the words 'under God" were added to amend the pledge. I am NOT advocating for removing either, but I do believe it is important to be honest in our communication. These are not original to US currency or the pledge. With the exception of coinage, they are products of the 1950's. -RM

One of Reddings ten postulates of communication is that "the message received is the only one that matters" I see both interpretations as equally valid. The question is whether or not Bob is more concerned with being right than with communicating and connecting with Cathy. Cathy has stated what she heard Bob to say, and in her mind that is a valid interpretation. Bob disagrees. -RM

And They Were not Ashamed might be a good book for you to pick up and read together. -RM

In all fairness, she would just have to SAY that she was giving them up. I mean if you are in for the deceit anyway, you don't actually have to mean it... -RM

We had an English Lab. Still miss boy -RM

I think Skippy is spot on. I would add that really caring about the person matters. With no offense intended to anyone, I have observed that for some (not all) HT/VT'ers are not helpful because they see it as assign a friend. Similarly when something happens in our lives and all of a sudden the ward rally's around. Some see that as supportive, caring, and compassionate. Others see it as love-bombing, and you didn't care about me before, so please leave me alone now. That is whay it needs to be genuine, and not by way of assignment or contrived. If you really love me, you love me in spite of my flaws. -RM

I guess I see this as two sides to the same coin, so lets flip it. Would anyone on the board expect, or counsel that if their spouse DOESN'T remain faithful to the church that this is grounds for separation? I think it is possible for two individuals that love and respect each other to have different believe systems, and for the other individual to respect and support their spouse in those different beliefs. I think that a spouse that forces the other to choose to leave the church or face divorce is just as selfish and evil as an individual that forces a spouse to remain in the church or face divorce. -RM

Lies ........Fear Lies -RM

Stefrankin -RM

Winner! -RM

I would guess that legally it may depend upon the country or state. Morally, it is a good question. It the ethical responsibility to the confessor or the parents of the minor. Perhaps the best indicator is past practice. I am sure that there are a number of bishops, probably the vast majority, that hold and keep confidences. There are also a number of examples in which that is not the case. There is no way to "KNOW" that the parents will not be told. -RM

Vlad the Impaler -RM

I response to ought it be done, I think that there are individuals that benefit greatly from being part of an all boys or all girls group. I can remember as a kid when Rotary International went co-ed there was a lot of upheaval in my dad's club. Many members left, some that were truly misogynistic. Some left though, not because of the women being allowed in per se so much as because they were there for the male bonding experience and that was now lost to them. This really is a great philosophical question. On one hand I am all for equality of opportunity and in also believe that separate but equal is NOT inherently equal, but at the same time I also believe in freedom of association. This is one I need to spend some real time thinking about further. Thanks! -RM