NeedleinA

In a few things I have read they seem to imply that men are more mono-taskers compared to women's multi-taskers. (There are advantages to both)
This means that women are more likely to be able to have a conversation while other things (distractions) are going on... this puts a man at a disadvantage, because he is "designed" to focus one one thing and block out the rest.  If the conversation is not what he is focused on then it will not be retained.
It would be a mistake to think that a communication style that works just fine between women will work the same between men and women.
If it is not that important then let it go...  But when it is important kill or eliminate the distractions first so that he is focused on the conversation.
 
 
 

Because... feelings of constant rejection suck... and it will wear a person down...  If you are seeing it a about the thirty year mark then that would mean that person has been feeling rejected or not good enough for probably a decade or more.  When you look at it that way... more extreme reactions become understandable
 
And because having faith can be very hard... When you see your family and friend all moving on with their lives and gaining blessing you desperately desire... well it can be hard to exercise faith in the Lord's timing, when you see no end in sight

Anyone remember how The Simpsons covered this issue?  (It was a killer comet, not a nuke, but same scenario.) Ned Flanders built his family a bomb shelter, the whole of Springfield showed up and crammed themselves into it, forcing him out to die alone.
 
 
 

Some counsel from The Church Handbook of Instruction, 2.21.3.8
 
This sounds like a good opportunity for a family council.

Three little thoughts EJ:
1. I personally never answer phone calls unless I know the exact person. A watered down version of this would be to never answer phone calls outside of your immediate area code.
2. Many of those calls are robocalls, automated calls. The idea is that once you pick up, it then lets a human know they should engage with you. If there is no human available at the time, it will hang up. Since it is a robocall, it will just keep trying again until it can connect two humans. If you wait it out, it might last about 1-2 weeks. 
3. Robocalls are also used to verify that a number is active. Once you answer it, they know it is active and then can turn around and sell your number on a "verified active" list to other real solicitors. 
Point being for me. If it is someone I care to talk to, they will already be programmed in my phone OR they will leave a message and I can call them back.
Good luck!
 

If I'm 50s/60s I'll burden my kid, hoping we are in a state with generous bankruptcy laws, so she can recover. If I'm 80s/90s I'll live out my days the best I can. No, it's not suicide. If I'm in my 70s I'll fast and pray, seeking God's wisdom. Come to think of it, I'd fast and pray in all those situations--though I'd still lean as stated above.

First and foremost, suicide is actively hastening your death.  Choosing to not treat something with medicine is different.  No, option #2 isn't suicide.  Having terminal cancer and running out into traffic in order to avoid medical bills - that's suicide.  
My dad picked option 2.  He argued down the doctor from pills and chemo, to just eating lots of tomatoes.  He was adamant that he be able to cover his own funeral expenses, plus leave some to his children and grandchildren.  Adamant that he deal with death on his terms, not on some doctor's.  Child of the depression - he understood debt in ways we don't any more - it was his major life's goal.  So he died.

Okay NT, there is a movie out right now just for you... 10 Cloverfield Lane. Sounds like it would be right up your alley. I just got suckered into seeing it this past weekend. It was, hum... di-ff-er-ent.

Well, I'll be in my 50s before my kids are grown.  Don't currently have a wife, and if it's my ex, I'd rather take my chances with the bomb.
Now if I'm being issued a good looking, sane wife for the experiment, I'm sure we can keep ourselves busy for a while in the shelter.

How many books are in the shelter?  Cuz if there are enough books, I'm goin' in! No books? I think I'll give up now.
PC is taking this waaaay too seriously.

Option 1. We're commanded to present our lives as a living sacrifice. If God provides a way to escape death, we generally have the duty to embrace that. To die may be gain, but the Apostle Paul reminds us that to live is Christ.

Hum...perhaps the real "happy heaven" others speak of involves the belief that all marriages and families are dissolved in heaven automatically.
Yah, that sounds happier to me.

"Did Joseph Smith reinvent the temple by putting all the fragments -- Jewish, Orthodox, Masonic, Gnostic, Hindu, Egyptian, and so forth -- together again? No, that is not how it is done. Very few of the fragments were available in his day, and the job of putting them together was begun, as we have seen, only in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Even when they are available, those poor fragments do not come together of themselves to make a whole; to this day the scholars who collect them do not know what to make of them. The temple is not to be derived from them, but the other way around. . . . That anything of such fulness, consistency, ingenuity, and perfection could have been brought forth at a single time and place -- overnight, as it were -- is quite adequate proof of a special dispensation." (Ensign, February 2007).

The term "alcohol" has at least two distinct, though related, meanings:
Alcohol refers to ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol, with the chemical structure CH3-CH2-OH. This is a substance present in small quantities in many foods, especially liquids with a high sugar content such as fruit juices. Such trace amounts are common in many foods, such as breads, and our liver metabolizes trace amounts of alcohol with no apparent ill effect. Larger but still modest amounts of alcohol result in a poisoned condition characterized by impairment of higher functions and rational abilities, ranging from almost unnoticeable effects to profound impairment, even unconsciousness. This condition is commonly known as drunkenness, and has been a scourge to humanity throughout history. Even larger amounts of alcohol (though still relatively small, on the order of half a liter for a large adult, much less for smaller people) are lethal. Alcohol refers to any beverage that contains more than trace amounts of ethanol. Thus, wines and beers, though typically with a fairly low alcohol content (on the order of a couple of percent), are classified as alcoholic drinks. The advent of distilled liquors has somewhat blurred this distinction. Is 190-proof whiskey or vodka really a beverage, or is it basically slightly adulterated ethanol?
In this and other threads, I have seen very sloppy usage of the term "alcohol" and the blurring of the above meanings. When Party A says, "Alcohol(1) is a poison," and Party B replies, "Oh, you would be surprised at the wonderful health benefits of moderate (meaning very small) consumption of alcohol(2)," that is a verbal sleight of hand, a Trojan horse designed to distract from the facts about ethanol and replace it with a discussion about historically consumed fermented beverages.
EDIT: To be fair, it works the other way, too, such as when Party A says, "Drinking small amounts of alcohol(2) is not necessarily deleterious," and Party B responds, "Don't you know that alcohol(1) is a deadly poison?"

I have much confusion as to this as well:
 
HX as to the topic: I have a daughter from a previous spouse (Not a member) who died when she was just a few months old. Her mother, a non-member, I had approached and asked if she would mind our daughter being sealed to my celestial wife and I. She voiced much objection, and I have refrained from sealing her to my wife and I. We also have two grown sons, that are LDS, who have voiced refusal to seal unless it was to their mother (again, she is not a member) and I. I have let the subject drop, with sadness, yet also out of a abundance of respect for them. I also have my mother, who is also LDS, yet has had no interest in going to the temple and is unendowed, and therefore, not sealed to me, yet have done the ordinances for my grandparents. Needless to say, I consider these things often with respect to the first resurrection. I just have to trust to heavenly father than it will all work out somehow. That's the best I've got concerning the subject, yet it weighs heavily on my mind. 

I agree. This is probably one of the biggest divides between us and other religions. While we share many wonderful bridges of commonality between us, there remains this Grand Canyon below us.

It also discourages the best in us: hard work, generosity, selflessness, honesty, etc.  And encourages the worst: laziness, greed, selfishness, lies, corruption, etc.
That is evil.

Even though I don't have a typical Mormon view of "Satan's plan", I can't let this go by unchallenged.
Giving a little extra help to those who are doing everything they can to get by on their own is common decency.
Giving a little extra help to those who are manifestly NOT doing everything they can to get by on their own is a Christlike thing to do.
But having the government forcibly seize your property at virtual gunpoint and under threat of incarceration or worse, and then redistribute those stolen goods to others (whether or not they are "deserving" is utterly beside the point, but fwiw many of them sit on their cans all day watching Tv or participate in antisocial and even violent activities) is deeply Satanic.
So, yes, socialism is indeed "Satan's plan", if you really want to go there.

The caller ID that you see can also be easily forged. Many telephony providers allow the customer to have control of the outgoing ANI/caller ID that will show up on the called persons phone, particularly if the customer making the call is a business.
I've been managing VoIP telephony systems for a few years now for various companies as part of my job and I can easily configure our systems to make a call to my cell phone or anyone else's phone and have the caller ID show up as any number I like, including numbers that don't comply with national standards here in the US, such as '012345'.
 
That's not to say that every telco the call passes through en route after the callers own telco will allow a blatantly forged caller ID, but in my experience, they do.

So the difference would be:
It's appropriate to ask God to confirm an old belief.
It's inappropriate to ask God to confirm an new belief?
(I'm sorry, I know this sounds like a bait, and I don't want it to-- cause I'm not baiting, but trying to understand.   But I can't figure out how to phrase it better.)
Also, I have actually honestly asked the Lord if Mohammad was a prophet and if he was indeed the last one (I trust the answer I receive is pretty obvious).  I ask the Lord everything.  
 

And therein is the crux of the problem: we are of His species. That's why we call Him "Father": He is our Father, He has always been our Father, and He always will be.
It's long been a puzzle to me that people who believe the Bible can ignore the doctrine that He is our Father, that they want to make Him something "other" and miss out on the centrality of our place in the Family of God.
Lehi

I doubt a de-emphasis, but if there is maybe it's good. Food storage is about 20% of the self reliance pamphlet but ended up as almost the only thing people perceived as valuable IMO. In addition, two years of food storage is totally impractical for the majority of the church members. Even for those that have space for this probably end up wasting most of it because food has a shelf life. People don't eat the type of food stored mostly, and it eventually rots. 
72 hours of supplies is a great idea.  But the reality is under a serious emergency, water is the most severe limitation to survival.

Donald Trump will win the presidency, despite the fact that almost every single American voter actively campaigns against him (on Facebook at least).
President Trump will do a bunch of stuff that you'll hate and I'll like. He'll do a bunch of stuff that you'll like and I'll hate. And then he'll do one or two things that the entire world hates. People will cross aisles and form new alliances in order to stop it, but some of it will happen anyway.
People will start drawing analogies with Nixon. Some folks will try to make the best of it, and you'll hear the old phrase resurrected "Yeah, he's a [beep], but he's our [beep]." In Washington, Pro Trump liberals will suddenly remember things like Nixon ending the war in VietNam. Anti Trump conservatives will openly rebel in every way feasible, from impeachment, to attempting a constitutional convention.
I predict the Trump presidency will end it's second term early, but whether by resignation, impeachment, or natural-death-conspiracy-fodder I can't tell. The event will mark a rare coming-together of Americans and the world in a unified shout of "Good riddance". Then our collective attnetion will swing to Lady Gaga's televised live birth - a genderfluid child born pregnant, having won it's first Oscar in-utero, and the world will not speak the name Trump for two decades. Our grandchildren will eventually figure out that he actually saved us all despite all our best efforts to stop him. If we hadn't banded together against him, we never would have been ready for the evil space emperor and his gelatinous armies.
In conclusion - my image file is funny.

SUPERMANISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Breed them and produce all the cows (ribeye, milk, cheese) you like. Sell off your excess. Pay a fair tax and get left alone to repeat the cycle again and again. Someone messes with your cows and Superman's eyes heat up nice and toasty like!