zil

What do you call someone who likes farm equipment?
.
.
.
Protractor.

What do you call someone who likes farm equipment?
.
.
.
Protractor.

I don’t know the Church’s practice; those sorts of decisions are above my ecclesiastical pay grade.  I had been under the impression that “confidential” means “confidential” and that Church leaders would only break confidentiality if they were legally required to do so.  Then again, not being a bishopric member and not having ever had occasion to confess illegal activity to my bishop; I can’t claim any firsthand experience.  
There is talk of a bill being floated at the next legislative session that would remove the ecclesiastical exception for the Utah abuse reporting statute, and folks are kind of waiting with bated breath to see if the Church weighs in on such a bill.  From a policy standpoint, I favor keeping the exception.  If it’s removed, then perps simply won’t confess this kind of activity and will keep struggling with it in secret.  If John Q. Ward-Member is struggling with pedophilia, and I had to choose between no one knowing versus my bishop knowing but not being able to explicitly pass that information on—I’d rather that at least my bishop knew, so that he could continue to counsel Brother John while taking discreet action to safeguard the ward’s children.

I read @Vort as saying that pedophiles are fellow children of God who happen to have been “born that way” and who therefore deserve our compassion and forgiveness, though not our trust; and that the latter-day libertines who have spent the last twenty years crowing about how “God created some people with unorthodox sexual desires, and He doesn’t make mistakes, and love is love, and He wouldn’t want someone to have to live a loveless, celibate life” had better do some soul-searching pronto.

I love everything you wrote, but I’m not sure anyone alive (other than the perp himself) (maybe) can really speak definitively on this part.
Isn’t it kind of a fundamental notion within the church, that repenting of gravely illegal activity entails making yourself right before the law, making restitution to the victim(s), and paying any debts to society that may be owing? 
Why hadn’t he confessed already?  Did he really think that he’d be able to jerry-rig the repentance process—which logically should have included apologizing to his victim and her family, getting her whatever mental health counseling she needed, coming clean to his own wife, etc—in such a way that this sordid affair would never the radar of law enforcement/child protection authorities?
The more I think about this, the more questions I have . . .

John Chapter 10
It is important to note the sequence.  #1 Jesus says that he and the Father are one (there is a lot that can be said of this but lets move one because the extra stuff was not your question)
#2.  The Jews intended to kill Jesus by stoning - again there is more here but note that they intended to kill Jesus already - the answer to your question is coming.
#3.  Jesus answers and asked if they intend to kill him because of the good things he is doing
#4  The Jews say it has nothing to do with his works but because he is teaching that a man (specifically him) can be made into a G-d.  Now the table is set.
#5 - this is very important --  The answer to your question is in verses 34 and 35 - Jesus answers them by saying that the scriptures clearly teach that men become g-ds - and Jesus adds that the scriptures cannot lie or teach something false.  Jesus says a few other things in following verses about himself being the Son of G-d (which also is not directly pointed to your question).
What I find so very interesting about the Gospel of John is that John covers the "arguments" between the Jews (Pharisees) in the same format that many of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are given as prophetic types and shadows with those that alter, change and do not believe as Jesus taught - as in this example; that men can becomes G-ds.  Of course there are other scriptures (teaching man is intended to be "one" with G-d) but for now it is important to note that at the time of Jesus - to say or present the idea of being "one" with G-d meant to become a g-d.  There is always an evolution in thinking or interpreting doctrine taught in scripture - but what do you think the scripture means to be "one" with G-d.  Do you use the meaning that was understood when Jesus taught or has your understanding evolved to something very different?
 
The Traveler

One of these days, I will find a way to travel from the Philippines and arrive in the USA yesterday.

I like to tell my children, "I have traveled through time to this moment from the year 1963 to bring you this message: Clean your room."
Usually I'm the only one laughing, but what can I say? It cracks me up.

Wow, apparently I've been in Utah too long, cuz I didn't even know there were chewable versions of coffee and tea.

Chocolate covered coffee beans are a real thing, and I imagine there are all kinds of matcha tea (green) flavored candies and pastries.

Wow, apparently I've been in Utah too long, cuz I didn't even know there were chewable versions of coffee and tea.

So you went from the temple to the nearby steak center?

Traveler gets a VW buss...

My wife has a PhT from my school: Putting hubby Through

Oops... Bridal.

When I think I'm clear in my communication about the chores my kids need to do, and 2 minutes later they are playing outside, or reading books.  They were underly compelled.  

Is there such a thing as underly compelled?

Not only do we all agree with @pam, the Church handbook agrees with Pam.  Your family comes first, no matter what your calling.  Do whatever you're guided to do by the Spirit and let the Lord worry about the rest.

Mrs Grunt is starting Temple Prep classes

I know you aren't optimistic.  That doesn't mean I can't be.

I was guided by the Spirit to take & post that picture. . . . . .  OK, probably not.  It's still funny, though.  (I have a bunch of Garfield post-it notes and can't seem to bring myself to use them as then they'll be gone.)
</threadjack>

Please check the headings for D&C 122 (Liberty jail, 1839) and 135 (Joseph was killed at Carthage, 1844).  Two different events, far apart.
1) I'm no history buff, not even Church history, but from what I know, it seems to me Joseph Smith, Jr. always believed in a person's right to defend themselves, so this doesn't seem out of character.  What influence his experience in Liberty jail had on his behavior in Carthage jail, I couldn't begin to guess.
2) D&C 122:9 - "their bounds are set, they cannot pass" to me means that there are limits to what evil people will be allowed to do (even though it may not seem that way sometimes), or at least the specific evil people in question.  "Thy days are known..." meant the Lord would preserve Joseph Smith, Jr.'s life1 until Joseph had finished the work the Lord had planned.
1From elsewhere (no, I don't have a specific reference - the entire D&C, maybe), it's quite clear that this promise was conditional on Joseph's obedience.

That's okay. People who participate in these fora know restored scriptures (and the various editions of Gospel Principles) inside and out. We all know what you're talking about.

Only way I have found to shut off most of the data mining is using third party software.  You shut it off but the Windows 10 operating system is still giving out a lot of data from my research and when Windows 10 forces software updates many times it will just change the settings in your operating system again to what Microsoft wants.  Use Spybot Anti-Beacon if you really want to shut off most of the data mining.  

Really?! You're counting n the same as ñ? That's seems a little loose.