Mike

My very first home loan was negatively amortized. That's what made it attractive to get in to, but I could see that the longer I kept that loan the worse off I could potentially become. In Central California at the time my equity rose sufficiently that I made a good profit which enabled me to "buy up" in the Utah market when the nationwide economic crisis effects at the time began to arrive on the West Coast. I was fortunate to find a buyer within a week of putting my house on the market. A friend in the same Ward and just a couple blocks from me lost his job, found a higher paying one in Logan, UT but couldn't sell his house for another three years--so I got out just ahead of the wave.

The "heck" is that many of the decision makers in the financial industry believe its in their short term interests to make as many loans as possible with less regard for the long-term quality of those loans. They hold reserves to offset a certain percentage of anticipated charge-offs and the cost of collections. Moreover, many other loans won't remain on their books for long--there is income to be had by boarding the loans and re-selling them.

If memories of my experiences as a baby were sweet ones, then the prospect certainly sounds appealing--for example the memory of the first time I saw my parents faces. (I'm not sure I would enjoy the ability to remember experiences that made me cry, unless remembering such experiences were of themselves to have a constructive impact on my eternal progression. It seems to me that they are of no value to me in this mortal sphere since an experience unremembered strikes me as being the same as not having the experience in the first place). And if, as a baby, I possessed any memories of the pre-mortal existence I wonder how to describe them beyond dream-like images.

Curiosity is a good thing in my own opinion. I doubt that anyone has an answer for your dilemma---at least not the kind of answer that settles the matter for you. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. As long as any of us can hold your interest I think talking about it is a very good thing. Is there a flaw in your thinking, or something you're missing. The short answer is, yes of course there is. However, I suspect that you'll identify the flaws, etc. as you continue to discuss. Let me ask you this. Is there *anybody* that you feel you know (to the degree you appear to wish) doesn't or hasn't lied?

@2ndRateMind, I'm quite interested to learn more about your viewpoint. Given--unless you disagree that it is a given--that God is The Father of all of us would you object to Him making His will (as it pertains to all of us) known through a Prophet, i.e. one individual? And if He did so would you object against that individual's identity? I tend to suppose you'll perceive where my line of thought is headed.

I think (it) is unfair. Consider that rejecting a message because of the color of the messenger(s)' skin (or gender or age) is a mistake. Your OP doesn't sound like you would want do that out-of-hand even if the messenger is different from you in any of the ways you mentioned.

Or, maybe there are competing societies and they're trying to discredit one another.

Reading this I'm remembering when I was one of two "patrol leaders" in our Boy Scout troop. Our two patrols were told to compete at a banquet by decorating the tables where our respective parents would be sitting. We got pretty enthusiastic (and competitive) about the assignment, and looking back gives me a feeling of pride that we really got in to it and made it a success. It's a small thing--not unlike checking off boxes for various objectives achieved, etc. Just another brick in the structure of stature, I think. Nice memories.

My wife and I met when we were both missionaries. To me this was an example of how people often meet simply doing the things they want to devote a given amount of time and energy to doing. Moreover, it illustrates how meeting a person often happens unintentionally. The point is similar passions, interests, devotions, etc.

I lean away from supporting anti-divorce laws. I think they don't influence people to live morally in general nor chastely in the specific.

Sounds like a reasonable impression--at least insofar as I apply it to myself. It seems reasonable that our Heavenly Father doesn't expect the impossible, and I think Elder Holland addressed aspects of this concept in October 2017 Conference.

I confess that I have never considered that an official reason would cause more problems than not knowing. Can you cite a real historical situation where an official reason from the Lord caused more problems? Also, I am very curious to learn the name of the show.

I would like to understand the last part of your remarks above. Are you saying the absence of a feeling of a pressing need to do something was a primary factor for the origin of the Priesthood ban? Or that it was a primary factor for the perpetuation of the ban? Or something else?

"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." -- Race and the Priesthood, lds.org I don't post this in order to suppress discussion, but merely to express my skepticism about the likelihood of finding a suitable explanation without an official pronouncement. Still I suppose that disabusing ourselves of erroneous explanations is useful.

Elaborate for me, please. I don't totally understand, and I want to. (I do share the high estimation of General Lee, himself.)

With the Charlottesville statue of Robert E. Lee in my mind I was doing some reading regarding the moving, re-moving, and re-moving again of the Brigham Young statue in downtown Salt Lake City. I think the history of moving that statue is instructive in terms of what's important vs. not so much--something that people were unable to agree upon for over 100 years in Utah's case and so not unlike the controversy in Virginia's case. Personally, I think where Brigham Young's statue was last moved to is the second best place (the best being a garden on Capitol Hill) in the interests of the people who care about it; and I think likewise that there could be better places to remove the Charlottesville statue to rest (in the interests of the people who care about it).

The next guy doesn't. I'm at a loss to understand what the spray painter's point is.

Oh, I'm sorry for not recognizing it.

@Armin I don't recognize the statue in your photo. Would you tell me about it?

Perhaps my remark says more about the shallowness of my understanding of the Law of Consecration than I meant for it to say about my devotion to marriage. When you put it the way you did above I can relate. The notion of separation of most things has been unthinkable to my wife and to me. So maybe it does apply and I just didn't consider it until LP raised the issue and you elaborated.

I have never considered the Law of Consecration per se as an ingredient in the recipe, nor as an attribute of an eternal marriage (or even a life-long marriage). In the case of our marriage my wife and I have both thought of our success (apparently shorter than some but longer than most) in terms of commitment pure and simple. On the other hand, I suppose that some one else looking in could frame our mutual commitment to one another as being a facet of the Law of Consecration--I'm not really sure. No, I don't think so either. Nor do I think *every* marriage can withstand the damage from infidelity. But I do think *some* can. I do feel moved after watching the video above to hope specifically for the narrator and her husband.

Hahahaha, I'm not one to get bent out of shape if "my" OP doesn't lead where I planned. But from a Confederate statue of Robert E. Lee to same-sex marriage took me by surprise.

Imagine that South Korea were to conquer the communists to the North and reunite the two countries. Many years after the death of Kim Jung Un some small group of citizens in some relatively small city in the North erects of statue of one of Kim Jung Un's top generals on or near the site of displaced people who endured the prior regime. Approximately 90 years later some of the people in the city manage to obtain a legal decision to remove the statue. But as with any issue there are many who resent the statue's removal--some of them cling to what they see as ideals of the former regime, others hate the idea of sanitizing Korea's history. I suppose it could easily be called by some as a sign of cultural revolution, or destruction of history, etc. Opponents of the City Council's decision in Charlottesville likely disagree with my analogy, but even though it's contrived I think it's more apt than some of the arguments I've heard.

Appears that way.

In my mind that is light-years difference from the OP.