LeSellers

I;m not so sure we know as much as we think we do.
Yes, it is the quintessential scripture for showing the necessity of Temple work (but see also Matt 16:13~19). But we might also wonder who "the fathers" are. Or, perhaps better,  which fathers Malachi was speaking of. The context shows that it is not solely our progenitors, but, specific ancestors: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Interestingly, Nephi spends a lot of time talking about these men, or, more accurately, about their being the ones with whom God established His covenant. It is, as best I can tell, the covenant that makes Temple work so profound and foundational.
Lehi

And even more specifically, the question is which of these 2 sins they committed prior to repentance would provide more risk to the success of one's marriage.

As is your speculation that the first quote was not accurate.

Firearms are not "designed to kill people". They are designed to launch projectiles at whatever the users points them at. If the user points one at a person, it is the person who chooses to kill, not the firearm.
Further, while owning a firearm does not require taking classes and a test, having insurance, etc., neither does owning a car or truck. Even using a firearm or a truck does not require any of these, either, as witnessed by the inordinate number of people arrested for driving without a license or a revoked license (which, itself, indicates the criminal has demonstrated irresponsibility as a driver). So, we see that laws limiting the use of cars by the unlicensed do not stop unlicensed driving. Other laws do not stop speeding, failing to stop at stop signs/lights, or reckless driving of any sort.
How, then, would gun regulations stop evil people from misusing firearms?
The problem with this point of view is that any proposed gun regulation would do nothing to stop the very thing you and I and anyone else here hate. Your sister would be at the same risk with or without the gun control you desire. The issue is evil, not firearms. Evil, like truth, will out.
How about this: instead of banning guns so that good people cannot access them for legitimate purposes, we require that a high school diploma require 90% pass on still targets, 100% pass on a written test on proper firearm usage, and 90% on a fire-no fire range? You seem to think that classes make us safer behind the wheel; why not with firearms?
Lehi

I think news about pregnant pubescents does, generally speaking, tend to take on a freak-show tenor, rather than a genuine sorrowing for lost innocence.

A little follow up from my initial post.  Generally I found that in many countries in Europe (including Turkey) most of the citizens trust the military more than the police.  I was told directly that this is because the police tend to be more corrupt and influenced by  local powers and bribes.  Since the military is often transferred it is more difficult to corrupt them.  Another note of difference from the USA, is that the European military are used for much more for civilian protection roles than here in the USA.  It almost appeared to me that the local police were something on the level of a mall security cop.  Often the police do not carry guns.  But the military are well armed and prepared for combat or swat duty.
Though Turkey is a Moslem state they are very sectarian and believe in separation between church and state but not to the extent as here in the USA.  There are many populated areas in Turkey where the calls to prayer are not heard.  Lately there has been moves by the president to be more supportive of Islam and to move away from the West and NATO.  Now that the coup has failed all the opposing factions critical of the president are being blamed and punished.   It is likely that the US will no longer be able to use bases in Turkey to fight against Islamic terrorists.  The only way that these events are not a failure of our administration is if our administration intended that Turkey become more Islamic.  I have discussed this with my very Democrat friends - they are alarmed and even offended that I would imply that our administration would deliberately be involved in Turkey becoming Islamic - Then I contend - the foreign policy has failed once again. 
When it comes to politics and religion supporters of a particular faction will stand in the light of noon day and declare it night rather than admit obvious truth they do not like at the moment.  I caught part of a conservative radio host broadcast today that suggested it is impossible to find common ground with "Liberals".  Many forget that prior to WWII, few were interested in the US involvement in another war - right up the the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  It took that for a generation to stand up and fight and become known as the greatest generation.  What will it take again to unite this country and bring all to the table of compromise???  How about the detonation of a nuclear device or several in a major population center or centers?  Could we be headed there - how soon we forget - following the fall of communism in Russia enough nuclear material became "lost" to create at least 100 nuclear devices - and is still missing.  Is the current election a difference maker?
 
The Traveler

Closed due to people being unable to play nice...
 
 

I don't proclaim myself to be the arbiter of what is and isn't "acceptable", and I'd note that I'm not the one who started throwing around terms like "offensive".  Certainly the term might be helpful in explaining to a newbie what physical act the ritual entails.  But after that--speaking for myself, I would never use the term "dunk" or "dunking" when referring to a baptism, either live or proxy; just like I wouldn't call the communion line in a Catholic church a "buffet" or refer to another forum member's father as his "old man".  I've never heard the term used in real life, except for when I was a missionary--and then, frankly, only by a certain class of missionaries.
Given that you have previously compared earlier Church prophets to "creeps" on this forum, I am going to simply express satisfaction in your finally showing some reservations about talking bad about great men of God.  We must be rubbing off on you. 

Not acceptable at all for any context in relation to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Dunking is what one does with a doughnut, not sons and daughters of God. Dunking is what happens when you throw a baseball at a target on a midway, not how men and women are saved into the kingdom of God.
Lehi

This is the thing, right?  There comes a point (for some) when the sacredness of a thing overwhelms any "natural man" instinct to be amusing, cute, or casual in discussing it.  At that point, it's not a question of whether you're thin-skinned, it's that the lack of reverence is striking (it stands out, like highlighted text on the page), and it pains you to see or hear something you know is sacred referred to with less reverence than it deserves.  Someone who's still in amusing, cute, or casual mode, probably won't even understand what they're doing or above reaction.
If nothing else, this discussion has made me ponder whether I'm too casual in how I refer to ordinances.  I don't use nicknames for them (though I imagine the teenage me did), but I wonder if I couldn't speak / write in more reverential tones or terms.  And for that, this discussion has done good in at least one life.

I don't find it all that respectful either...
However I find his response to offense much more telling on his mindset, and his ability to get along with others.  And not in a favorable way.

Very much this...
But it also works both ways...  While women need to understand that their loved one needs their best effort to act with in the limits of D&C 121 (If there is something God will not do then neither should we [priesthood holder or not])
Whereas guys need to understand that Women seem to place a higher value on emotional faithfulness then physical faithfulness (not to say they don't value physical they do but that they seem to be flipped on the two from the way most men see it[just look at the two poll results]) and porn is being emotionally unfaithful so it is going to hurt them... probably more then we would really expect it to.

Yes.  In cases like this the attitude is that it was good enough to send to the courts, but not good enough that I didn't get the result I wanted. 

I worry he's still not getting that it should have been it's rather than its...
(Don't mind me, just making sure my membership in the Pedants' Club doesn't expire.)

The part in bold is what I totally agree with.
A man died in police custody, that is worth an investigation from an impartial and competent source.
That investigation lead to a court case and the court found them Not Guilty.  We should accept that unless we have proof that the investigation/court case was not impartial or competent.  If we have such proof then we should turn it over to an impartial and competent investigative agency so such error/wrong doing can be investigated and properly dealt with.
Not liking the finding happens...  But calling wrong without proof of misconduct is an act of pride and emotion, that overpowers logic and reason.   It puts pride over facts, and what we want over justice  

Firearms are not "designed to kill people". They are designed to launch projectiles at whatever the users points them at. If the user points one at a person, it is the person who chooses to kill, not the firearm.
Further, while owning a firearm does not require taking classes and a test, having insurance, etc., neither does owning a car or truck. Even using a firearm or a truck does not require any of these, either, as witnessed by the inordinate number of people arrested for driving without a license or a revoked license (which, itself, indicates the criminal has demonstrated irresponsibility as a driver). So, we see that laws limiting the use of cars by the unlicensed do not stop unlicensed driving. Other laws do not stop speeding, failing to stop at stop signs/lights, or reckless driving of any sort.
How, then, would gun regulations stop evil people from misusing firearms?
The problem with this point of view is that any proposed gun regulation would do nothing to stop the very thing you and I and anyone else here hate. Your sister would be at the same risk with or without the gun control you desire. The issue is evil, not firearms. Evil, like truth, will out.
How about this: instead of banning guns so that good people cannot access them for legitimate purposes, we require that a high school diploma require 90% pass on still targets, 100% pass on a written test on proper firearm usage, and 90% on a fire-no fire range? You seem to think that classes make us safer behind the wheel; why not with firearms?
Lehi

That's not the way it works here. If people are offended, you have to give in.
Lehi

No. You do not bring children into an abusive situation. If you willingly bring them into your current home life, know they WILL be messed up psychologically by your wife for the rest of their lives. I have an emotionally abusive parent and I eventually had to cut them out of my life and am still dealing with the real emotional and physical consequences of that relationship. DON'T. DO. IT. If you do so while allowing the status quo, you are enabling child abuse.
From your list, it doesn't sound like you like this woman at all. Actually, it sounds like you hold a lot of resentment toward her. I would feel the same if I was in your shoes. You both should be seeking therapy separately on a regular basis. She needs to see a psychiatrist, doctor and therapist. Counseling  alone is not going to cut it. On a spiritual level, working with both God and your Bishop about this would be great. It at least sounds like she is emotionally abusive and should be working through her sin and seeking healing from Christ and medical professionals. If she will not agree to seek help...I don't think anyone should be in a relationship with an abuser, but that is up to you. 
Sorry if I'm a bit passionate. Coming from a broken home, it gets me riled up when adults bring children into that sort of situation.

He was "Brother Joseph" in his day. Brother Brigham was also called "Brother Brigham" (sometimes "Brother Young" or "President Young"). But, as the Church grew, and people were less likely to have actually met, and spoken to, the prophet in the street, the terms of familiarity gradually fell into disuse and more formal titles used in their stead.
Ezra Taft Benson had the same name as his grandfather, Ezra T. Benson. Joseph Fielding Smith shared his name with his father, Joseph F. Smith. The use of middle initials (or first initials) started as a way to distinguish between (or among) authorities with the same (or very nearly the same) name.  It's grown, I suspect, to make all of them more-or-less  equal.
Lehi

I wasn't aware that "trifle not with sacred things" had an expiration date.

Righteousness is not gauged by decades. Changing according to the world is, quite the contrary, the definition of unrighteousness.
Lehi

Zarahemla, are you a non-native English speaker?  "Dunking" is a pretty irreverent term, and I can't think of a single practicing English-speaking Mormon who would use it in connection with LDS temple rituals.

One in three Americans (not American adults--Americans) has, or has had, an STD.  I haven't seen a detailed statistical analysis; but I imagine that once you factor out for non-sexually active children and healthy, monogamous adults--I'll bet any member of the remaining pool of potential sexual partners, probably has better-than-even odds of being infected.

He was "Brother Joseph" in his day. Brother Brigham was also called "Brother Brigham" (sometimes "Brother Young" or "President Young"). But, as the Church grew, and people were less likely to have actually met, and spoken to, the prophet in the street, the terms of familiarity gradually fell into disuse and more formal titles used in their stead.
Ezra Taft Benson had the same name as his grandfather, Ezra T. Benson. Joseph Fielding Smith shared his name with his father, Joseph F. Smith. The use of middle initials (or first initials) started as a way to distinguish between (or among) authorities with the same (or very nearly the same) name.  It's grown, I suspect, to make all of them more-or-less  equal.
Lehi

There's a difference between not "forgiving" her/him and using logic and common sense in choosing an eternal partner. It is, as I said earlier, literally for the children.
Lhei