kapikui

Outside of work (8-9 hours per day), school (2-3 hours per day completely online), working on our business (1-2 hours per day), I maybe get an hour or two that I just mess around, unless you count the messing around I do when I'm supposed to be doing something else. A 12 hour computing day is nothing unusual, and I've gone over 16 on some days. Strangely, about the only games I play are the occasional flash games, so I can't say I'm addicted. I just can't quit because so much of what I need to do requires the computer and internet.

We actually just discussed this type of problem in Cub Roundtable just this last week. The solution discussed was to reward the good behaving cubs in front of the bad behaving cubs. You will need to know just how to reward them. Full sized candy bars might do the trick. The girls are clearly going for attention and the thing to do is not give it to them and the behavior will alter. When you can get them in class, make a point of rewarding the "good" girls and the "bad" girls will see it. When the "bad" girls behave properly, they must be rewarded too. I have found that sometimes there will be a kid who doesn't care about receiving awards, or seems to not care. Those you need to find something to reward them for when they continually earn none. Reward them for breathing right if you must. Build a relationship of trust through this action and you could be surprised. People are motivated by food or similar, praise from superiors such as parents and teachers, and praise from peers like friends and coworkers. These girls are at the age when self image and peer pressure means a LOT. Cancelling an activity and not telling them the full reason why could be part of what is going on too. If all the girls know who's fault it is that the activity sucked or was cancelled, magic might start to happen. Let the punishment come from their peers rather than superiors since attention from leadership is not changing things. Something else to consider is that some parents have learned to use deprival of church activities as a punishment. My mother did so to me. I missed many weekly activities but I was there on Sundays in class. Food for thought there. It could explain some of what is happening. I seriously suggest a lot of prayer and contemplation over the situation. Perhaps some visits to each girl's home could enlighten the YW presidency and other leadership into what is going on with each girl and how to reach her. Good luck with that.

The district leader does the interview, unless it's his investigator in which case the zone leader does the interview. In general that is the deal about stewardship that you don't seem to be getting. There is really no one that is "higher" only given different responsibilities. In my ward, the deacon's often need help passing the sacrament because there are too few. In that case I've seen a 12 year old Deacon's quorum president PRESIDE over the elder's quorum president as it was the deacon's stewardship. It isn't about power, it's about responsibility. You might also want to think about the fact that "where much is given, much is required". The level of accountability for sin goes way up for priesthood holders as well.

Algebra is NOT math, algebra is the notation FOR math. Algebra is no more math than the alphabet is literature. Perhaps by saying "letters and numbers just don't go together" you are actually confusing math with arithmetic. Math is far more.

As near as I can tell, the whole Adam/God thing came about because of something that Brigham Young was talking about, and ONE of the people recording it (by writing it down since we were a few years from developing sound recording technology) wrote something to that effect. Others didn't, and there was only the one source. It is almost certainly some type of error or deliberate mis-characterization of what was said.

Well as soon as all of you on the wrong side realize it and admit it, everything will be a lot better. :-)

Something like this might help as far as evidence CheckMate Infidelity Test Kit for Semen-Sperm Stain Detection.

Haven't read that particular one, but MotherJones isn't known for truthfulness. They've been caught out in a lot of bald faced lies. One of their "studies" reported that people who went out and bought a gun were more likely to have a home invasion. Then someone else showed the same correlation with people who went out and bought an alarm system. In other words, both groups had reason to fear a home invasion, so they took precautions. In many the home invasion happened.

Why? It isn't that unusual. Most states will do this or something similar. In the vast majority of states, there is no particular permit for just owning a gun, only carrying concealed. Most states have no form of gun registration, many (Idaho for sure, but several others as well) have specific prohibitions about gun registration. Utah and Florida have the most desirable concealed weapons licenses, being recognized in more states than any other permits. They're both recognized by the same number of states, but each has a couple that the other doesn't. All told 40 states in the U.S. have "shall issue" concealed carry, meaning that if you meet certain objective criteria, the state has no choice but to issue you a permit. It is legal in 49 states for at least certain non-law enforcement people to carry a concealed weapon, and the ONLY state to have such a gun ban, Illinois, had its gun ban struck down recently.

I've lived in Idaho my entire live. I drive in the winter all the time. I've never used 4wd, snow tires or snow chains, and never had a problem.

What will most likely happen if you go to your bishop will go about like this. You will tell him. He will decide if it merits a disciplinary council or something lesser. If it does not, (in your case, it most likely will due to the nature of the act), he will consider some other type of probation. Most likely this will take some time and consideration, during which time he will most likely council with the Stake Presidency. If he decides on a council, you will receive a formal letter from the bishop with the time, date and place of the council. You will generally find the Bishop, both his counselors and the ward clerk in attendance. The ward clerk is there only to keep a record that will go to the stake and church levels. As far as those who will find out, those in attendance, of course will know. The Stake presidency, and high council will also know the details as well. Some people in Salt Lake who handle such things administratively may also find out, but they most likely don't know you and handle enough of these that you're just another name to them. The elders quorum president may need to know about the verdict, certainly he needs to know for elders, but for women this is less likely. In your case the Relief Society president may need to know this information. Not the details, but just that you are not eligible for callings. If you are excommunicated, more will likely find out, as that's a somewhat bigger deal, but for disfellowshipment even the parents of adult children living in the ward won't be told. You will be asked for the name of the person with whom you had the inappropriate relationship. This is so she can also repent. I don't know how things will be for her if she is called in about it when you confess, or conversely if she confesses first. Much of what will happen in the bishop's court will depend upon how repentant you are, so speculation as to whether you will be disfellowshipped or excommunicated is fruitless. They will pray about it and let the Lord decide. If you are excommunicated or disfellowshipped you do retain the right to appeal to the High council, and eventually to the First Presidency. At each stage they can uphold it or overturn. Since you are not a Melchizedek priesthood holder the Bishop can excommunicate. If you were, he would council with the stake presidency. Since only the Stake President can excommunicate a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, they would then decide whether to hold the court at the Ward or Stake level. If they held it at the ward level, they could not excommunicate, but only disfellowship. Of course they could decide during the course of the council that it may warrant excommunication and kick it back to the Stake level. This of course doesn't apply to you, but I include it for completeness sake. I wish you the best and hope you get it worked out. Sexual sin is a rather difficult repentance process. It isn't fun, and can take a long time. In the end it is worth it. I do understand your concern about speaking to the bishop. I would second the recommendation to speaking with the stake president in general terms about your concerns with the bishop too.

Some of the smaller temples don't have rental. Just something to think about. Be sure to check whether whatever temple you'll be attending has it. Also, not every temple has a Beehive clothing next to it.

Gee, I listen to things every day that alter my mental state. Generally angry customers calling me on the phone to blame me for their television not working.

Part of the reason is likely reproductive. In the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:30 The Nephites were engaging in the practice of plural marriage, and were commanded not to do so. The reasoning was thus "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." Indeed if you look throughout history, any time a group needs a population boost it turns to one man having multiple wives. The reasons for this are obvious. Women can only produce about 1 child a year on average, and can only do so for a few years. More, childbearing isn't exactly the safest thing in the world, so it could only be done a limited number of times. A man can produce far more offspring, but he needs more than one woman to do it. A woman can only produce so many offspring no matter how many men she has. When I was on my mission, I ran into the descendants of a man who was said to have fathered over 100 children. He was still fathering children to willing women into his 90's. The practice of plural marriage isn't exactly a new LDS thing either. Read the old testament. Jacob(Israel) had four wives, Abraham had multiple wives, Moses had three, David had a bunch, Solomon had a bunch and Samuel was the son of a second wife. Although modern Christianity has monogamy as a tenet, the Judaic roots of Christianity clearly specify that a man can have more than one wife, and there are times that a man was required to take a second wife under Mosaic law. Now when it comes to an eternal perspective, I don't know if that's been revealed. There are things that we're supposed to accept as an act of faith.

They don't tell them. Valuable antique weapons are turned over for $50 or $100, usually by elderly women on fixed incomes. If that happened anywhere but by some "enlightened" program, it would be fraud. There should at least have to be an expert at every gun buyback to tell a person that it would be far better for them if they went to a gun shop and sold a gun rather than turning it over for a pittance and destruction. The worse problem however is that gun buybacks create an easy means to dispose of evidence in criminal activity. Kill someone, take the murder weapon to a gun buyback. It gets destroyed and you get off scott free.

Gun buybacks are usually not a good thing. First they're using my tax money to pay for it, and I have a problem with that, but they also offer a no questions asked way to dispose of a gun. While it can't be proven it is almost a forgone conclusion that a number of crime guns have been disposed of at such an event. There's also the problem of older people having no idea what they have turning in a $10,000 gun for $50.

There was a case I heard about when I was in seminary where they used potato skins and carrot peelings. It was in the seminary manual in the early 90's, but I don't know where to find the reference now.

I don't see how this is any type of fight between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. You have a right to freedom of speech, I don't have to listen, and I don't have to work to support something you're saying if I don't want to.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by the gun control advocates and media. It is technically meaningless.

And the vast majority of them in areas where it is illegal for the average citizen to own a gun.

Actually not. An assault rifle is a "select fire" rifle in an intermediate chambering. Meaning that it is a rifle that can be fired on either semiauto (or burst), or single shot. It is in an intermediate chambering, meaning it is somewhere in-between standard full power rifle cartridges and pistol calibers. If someone says "High-Powered Assault Rifle" it is meaningless, since an assault rifle is by definition not high powered. You are correct however that a civilian manufacture AR-15 is functionally no different than any other small caliber hunting rifle. It is not an "assault-rifle" as it does can not fire in burst or full auto mode.

So why do it? Yes you said "We have to try." Why should we try something that has been shown to not only not work but to actually cause damage?

Sorry, but that isn't good logic. When gun bans have been instituted they have the general effect of increasing total violent crimes. Yes it decreases "gun deaths" if you count suicide in with it, but total number of violent deaths increases, and usually increases vastly. A ban on guns will only take guns out of the hands of law abiding. Not long ago, a container full of fully automatic AK47's from China (flat out illegal for import) was found. It was apparently headed for Mexico. From what I heard it was one of several dozen that had been brought into or through the United States that didn't get found. Any attempt to ban guns won't affect anyone wanting to use them to commit crime. It will make it almost impossible for anyone to use a gun to defend themselves against a gun wielding thug. Worse, we have to take into account that nearly every instance of weapons confiscation in human history has been followed within a couple of generations by a genocide among those who were disarmed. Gun control has been tried and failed.

In the MythBusters episode where they studied the myth of whether or not a crossbow could be built out of things available in prison, they toured a supermax prison in the area. They were shown a number of confiscated weapons built in the prison, including a fully functional 9mm Machine gun built out of scavenged plumbing parts. Any attempt to ban guns is flat out doomed to failure. In fact it's worse, because if I need to defend myself from someone out of his mind on PCP, my best defense is often a gun, getting access to PCP myself isn't useful.

That gets to be the problem. How we know? For things with few negative consequences for being wrong, it's easy. "Look at the brazen serpent". My attitude would be "Why not?" (Actually I'd probably say "What brazen serpent" and look for it out of reflex, but I digress). On the other hand, short of a miraculous visitation, how do I know if something is a prompting, or something from myself, or even worse an evil source. My wife sitting beside me points out that you can tell by whether or not it prompts you to do good, but those cases are fairly obvious. What about something that is on its face morally neutral, such as my previous example of moving to Abu Dahbi? If it truly is a prompting, it's a good. If not, I've pretty much destroyed myself financially.