JohnsonJones

This is what I would tell my daughters in a similar situation. I am extremely proud of what you have accomplished and I think you have gotten to this point through study, hardwork and dedication. I would hope that any young man you wish to marry would also recognize these wonderful qualities about you, and choose to support you just as he would want you to support him. If he has a way to pay for a similar thing for you to do, and you wish to go where he is, you should. If he cannot pay for this on his own, or has no way to do so, then I would hope that he loves you enough that he would put your own desires before his own. When I and my wife were first married we had a difference of opinion. I wanted to go to work immediately in a field that would take us out of state, while she wanted to go to the university where she was already attending. This was not an easy choice. I loved my wife, and as a result, I chose to support her. I utilized the time to increase my own education while also working full time in a different field of work rather than pursuing the type of work I wished to at that time. This meant that I was able to help her through her college, and she attained her degree debt free. This choice to support my spouse has been beneficial throughout our married lives, even if I could not see how it would be a benefit then. It also meant that later, I was able to still get into the career I wanted, and with the increased education I attained, made it easier to go routes I didn't think of previously, and have led to what I am doing today and where I am today. Instead of being in the private sector, I am instead a historian, which probably would not have happened had I not made the choices I did early in my marriage. In this instance, it sounds as if your significant other still has many options open to where to attend a university. If he wishes to marry you, then let him use this as an opportunity to choose a university near you, and show his support of your choices as well. How he treasures your choices before marriage will indicate how he treasures your choices AFTER marriage. Because of your special qualities you have a unique possibility with your education, one that he should support and treasure if he supports and treasures you and what YOU want to do and be. Finally, I would hope that you choose a spouse wisely, because I do not want to go to jail (this is if I were talking to my daughter). If he decides to be pompous, disrespect you, or other such things, I would be forced to shoot him dead, and we know that would endanger both my eternal salvation, and send me to prison for however short the rest of my life would be. So, it should be obvious from what I stated above, what I think you should do. It is ultimately your choice (just like it was with my daughters) on who to marry.

I would partially disagree I would disagree partially. I think that evil is on both sides of the coin, both conservative/right and liberal/left. To blind oneself to the evils of one, while calling out the evils of the other is only going to lead one down the path of evil regardless. Unlike other nations where patriotism is enforced, the US DOES believe in free speech. Luckily for us, we have other freedoms as well, such as the ability to not watch those who say or do things we do not agree with (For example, if one does not like the players kneeling for the national anthem, they can, of their own volition, choose NOT to watch the NFL. If enough do so, not only will the teams not be able to afford the player's contracts...but it will most likely impact the players themselves to the point that they may think of something else). It is a free nation, which is what I think Pat Tillman's wife was also trying to point out. That said, personally, I think it is an affront that they do not respect the United States or it's flag, and think that if they don't like the US, they can go somewhere else and see how much the like that nation instead. Canada has an American Football League as does Europe (or at least it used to). It is their freedom to choose though, and one of the first amendment rights guaranteed (along with that of the freedom of religion...something individuals would be well to remember). I think I've admitted to being rather leftist here, and liberal, so the outrage at them kneeling during the anthem is NOT simply a right or left thing (in fact I think a majority of Americans do not like them doing so), though perhaps how we react is different. On the otherhand, I think many thoughts and ideas, both from the right and the left are being seen more and more destructive as the Nephites fell to destructive natures and pride. I agree that we are in this type of stage in our own nation, and that there are many kingsmen at work within our own society today, as well as most likely modern day gadiantons. I would say those secret societies exist on both the Republican and Democrat parties, and in all sides of the equation, both right and left political circles. I do NOT equate Trump with the Captain Moroni. For starters, Moroni was a devout follower of the true gospel of the Lord. Secondly, I highly doubt he was a serial divorcee. Thirdly, I highly doubt he made crude remarks about woman and grabbing them inappropriately. In fact, I'd say Trump is about as opposite of Captain Moroni as one can get. A more logical extension would be Elder Oaks and his talk today (or I suppose it was yesterday, now). The banner would be the Proclamation to the Family, and the ones who follow are the members who desire liberty and follow Elder Oaks comments and directions today.

A thought I had on the most recent General Conference (Oct 2017), at least from yesterday's Session. The most standout talk to me was Dallin H. Oaks Saturday Morning talk on the Proclamation of the Family. I think it was the most powerful and definitive talk of the conference yesterday. I think it states many valuable things. In that light, I think enemies of the church will hate it, try to tear it down, despise it, and do all they can to minimize it. I think it may be their number one target from this conference in things to tear down or hate because of how strongly it emphasizes the Lords work and purposes in our lives as a family unit. If you did not catch it, go to LDS.org and watch it. For me it was the best talk of the entire conference thus far (we haven't seen Sunday's Sessions yet). I also thought Elder Quentin L. Cook's talk was very good in the Saturday Afternoon session, and realize that I need to work on being more humble and having more humility.

If I were trying to do that, I'd probably pack camping supplies in the back of the car and go camping at one of the many campsites in the area. It is far cheaper than almost any hotel you will find. Some of them even have showers, and if they don't, you can always drop into one of the many flying J's in the area that have showers also.

90% of them don't even know what they are protesting. They heard something about Trump ranting, and then decided to kneel because of that. It started as basically a privileged kid that has some American African heritage, but was raised in what would be seen as a white home with white privilege and had made it big in pro football, was protesting something he really never experienced. His idea was that he could not ever stand in respect for a flag as long as any police officer ever arrested another Black individual (sarcasm-but anyone else, that's okay, forget that there are actually other minorities out there...because Blacks are better than any other race...obviously). It was saying as long as there was Police out there doing what he perceived was mistreatment of Blacks (specifically, as I said, forget that there are other minorities out there...it's a racist thing for him...not that many realize this) he said America (the United States) was not a nation he could respect, and hence could not respect it's flag. The very idea is that one cannot respect the United States of America and hence kneel instead of showing respect to it's symbol in the flag and national anthem. It's BS...but that's what he wanted to do. It's free speech. Others have jumped into the fray now. The NFL allows them to do it, so let them do it. Those opposed to it can stop watching the NFL. IF, enough stop watching...eventually the NFL won't be able to pay their salaries and a change will occur (and I'd laugh as the only ones to blame for sabotaging their golden lottery in the NFL would be themselves). If people keep watching, expect the protests of this to continue and the players to keep on kneeling. Either way, actions will have consequences. Actions for not supporting the NFL will eventually cause repercussions, and Actions to support it for this, also have the repercussions of players continuing to kneel during the anthem most likely. (Remind me again though, don't most NFL game happen on Sunday? Isn't that like...the Sabbath anyways...does this really affect most Mormons at this point? I think we had a thread on this recently, so I suppose it does affect some Mormons).

When was the picture drawn and by who...if the French, it is understandable why it is a leopard. See, instead of just answering straight, I even found a source (however dubious) on the INTERNET!!! In reality it probably depends on whether you are English and take the English side of history or French (well...some Europeans). Wikipedia has a different answer... Wikipedia regarding leopard heraldry

Oh yes, and the second way Woman can hold the priesthood... Give their significant other a hug. Yes...it is sort of a joke...sort of...but hugs are nice.

I don't think this will happen, as the LDS church main core is based on the scriptures of the LDS church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). In view of the proclamation to the family (which in essence, doubled down on the LDS idea regarding families), and it's adherence to that, I doubt this is going to occur. If it did occur, it could prove interesting. Many of the conservative Southern Baptists actually have stricter bylaws in their church regarding women in leadership. As they try to adhere as closely as they can to the Bible, they take what the New Testament states in regards to the different roles of men and women very seriously. The LDS church used to be more conservative/closer to the Bible in some ways than these churches, but in recent times it does appear that the LDS church is slowly growing more liberal in some areas than the Southern Baptists or the evangelical Christians along the lines of the conservative Pentecostals and others. I am not sure that this means the LDS church is going to get THAT much more liberal than it already is ahead of these churches. My thoughts are that women gaining the priesthood the same as men is not going to be something the LDS church has in it's future. It is probably more likely that Gay Marriage is recognized before that...and I give that as low a chance as pigs flying into an icy freezing lava flow which then has frozen over while paraded over by efreeti and fire imps...but I do not know the mind of the Lord exactly. If the Lord so deems in the future...well... Now, of interest, women can still hold the priesthood in two ways. The first is one that is not well known by many saints. A higher order of the priesthood that is still part of the Melchezidek priesthood, and is thus under it's domain of priesthood. This priesthood is held jointly by both a husband and a wife. It does not make the wife a usurper of her husbands priesthood, but it is one of the family unit where the father presides, but is also equal to the mother and should treat her as his equal and helpmate. There should be no abuse, nor other such things, but as this priesthood is one that a man cannot have without the woman, nor the woman without the man, they should be one with it. This priesthood order is the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood, which one can only obtain via an eternal marriage (aka...sealed in the temple for all eternity). Bruce R Mckonkie Talk on Priesthood Why is this order so much greater than other orders of the priesthood, as Ezra Taft Benson states That would probably ALSO include, it is greater to be a successful father or successful mother than a successful Stake President, or Seventy, or even apostle. Failure in the home is greater than any other failure. It is the family unit that is the focus in the LDS church, and therefore, the highest positions in the church are not necessarily the administrative positions some people yearn for (such as Bishop, or Sunday School President, or even Seventy) but that found in the home under that Patriarchal order in the callings of Father and Mother led by the Lord in righteousness. As far as the LDS church goes in regards to the Priesthood, this article still seems valid today in many ways. Marriage and the Patriarchal Order article in the Ensign The entire article is a good read, but there may be some things you might not agree with. I, however, have also put in some quotes above some things that may be of interest to you. The core unit of the LDS church, and the most important is not the ward, or the stake, but the family. It is the family that our doctrines are centered in in regards to exaltation, and the family unit which holds the greatest success or failures in regards to leadership, unity, and service as well as love to one another that we have in this earth (In my opinion). This is the importance of that priesthood and that of the Patriarchal order itself. As I said before, no other calling is greater than that of one called, and ordained under the Priesthood of the Lord into that Patriarchal order to be a Father or Mother in a family unto the Lord.

You stated we? I assume you know how old you are at this point... ... or have you gotten to my point where sometimes I can't exactly recall how old I am and then I have to start doing math (I know what year I was born...I know what year it is...this year - birth year = age...oh, wait, I was born later in the year...so has that month passed yet). I don't know why such a simple thing gets hard to remember sometimes. That said, I'm pretty sure I'm older than twelve.

I really should have my hearing checked. I had noticed I seemed to be getting a harder and harder time hearing when people were talking, but in a quiet place my hearing was still excellent. I didn't know there was such a thing as losing hearing in situations where multiple people were talking, but if true, this makes complete sense with what has been going on with my hearing for a while now.

But he 'good' witch Glenda might have... She was a woman...wasn't Dorothy just a girl.

I would highly advise this as well. If you can (and you may need a Bishopric help to point this out to your husband) go jointly, both you and your spouse. I'd say this is the first thing to do before contemplating things that could have far reaching consequences.

In the video you posted...That fight didn't appear like a real fight, rather a fake fight. Why? They aren't throwing punches that are allowed to really connect from what I saw in the video that was posted. It probably is in a setting, and there is something against throwing a full on hit? It was a little odd. It may have been a fight from a competition viewpoint (aka, competition rules...etc.), but not a real fight as in...no rules, no holds barred. They definitely weren't doing a street fight (even UFC doesn't allow what would happen in a street fight these days). That's dirty fighting, hitting below the belt, throat and eye gouges, ear rips, biting, nose uppercuts (which can kill someone instantly if hit the wrong way...or right way...depending on who you are) and weapons. I'd say in a bare fisted fight, Judo, jiu-jitsu, or any other art that focuses more on grapples and wrestling probably will have the upper hand after the first two or three blows. When you get to dirty fighting and weapons though, normally Judo and other grappling arts start falling behind and other arts that incorporate weaponry more into their styles have an upper hand in comparison. The basic rule of fighting is (all things equal, or the fighters are of equal ability), the man with the sword is ten times better than the man without. The man with a gun is ten times better than the man with a sword (that is if they are both equally skilled. If one is ten times better than the other, for example a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu who is ten times better than the guy with the sword...well...then it's not going to happen like that, but if they are BOTH equally skilled...).

How cheap are you looking at? Are you flying in, driving? Most likely will not be able to let you crash at our place, but probably depends on the dates (wife would not want men she does nto really know too well in the house when I'm not around, and I'm unfortunately busy at times). Also, not right near the temple so transportation may be difficult as well if from our house. I have other relatives that may be nearer to the temple, but I can't speak for them. I prefer Marriots (and those chains, but I know most may not consider that cheap) normally. If you are a retired Veteran there is Hill Airforce Base with it's lodges and cheaper motel for retirees, but around 30 miles away. I believe the Shiloh Inn also offers discounts to Veterans in the area if they are in SLC (this one is basically downtown SLC). There are some Hostels in the area that could run you somewhere around $60 (or less) and is probably the cheapest you'll find but the closests are around 7 blocks from the Temple and get further from there. There's a Motel 6 around 6 blocks from the temple located around 200 W (not exact) 600 S that probably will run you around $60 to $70 as well. The Royal Garden Inn around the same area probably runs around the same. Those are probably the CHEAPEST you are going to find, though some have a 29.99 or other bargains at various times, it's hard to tell when. Also, wouldn't suggest walking that far at night in Downtown SLC. Personal opinion (some may do it all the time, I normally would not). If you have a car, I would suggest finding someplace a little further than downtown. It's a good place to get it broken into at night, even with security occasionally...plus...except for the hotel parking (if they have it), it's difficult to find parking sometimes. You CAN park in the Temple parking lot (you go down I thin it is West Temple, up past North Temple and then into the underground parking garage) if you go to the Temple. They will give you a token when you go in that you can use to validate your parking when you leave. You may also find cheaper hotels further from SLC center. If you do not have a car, any of the hotels probably will be fine in the area as long as you stay on your toes. You'll want to get a UTA pass from either the desk, or purchase on at a Kiosk at one of the stations/stops (they are pretty good in SLC for transportation, you have several options). If you stay right around SLC center, it is free for around two stops in any direction around the Temple itself (so around a five block radius).

She stabbed him with a BREAD KNIFE. A BREAD KNIFE. Seriously...A BREAD KNIFE? The boyfriend was, well, things I shouldn't say anyways. If I were her Boyfriend, I'd have admitted to just about anything in regards to it, but saying that he was stabbed by his crazy drugged out girlfriend with a BREAD KNIFE. It was a stab wound too...not sawing it back and forth...back and forth...in order to cut anything...but a STABBING...with a BREAD KNIFE. I can't even cut the Italian bread all the way through easily with the bread knives supplied at Italian restuarants(though admittedly, the Italian bread seems to bend down right at the base of the crust so you have an excessively hard time cutting it at that point). He's never going to live that down. He should have just said he suffered an accident and had a piece of metal stab into his leg or something (so not the whole truth, but enough to get the doctors to help him). But, since she's now charged...I think the bigger question wasn't about medical school, but the accusations many are making that it is due to her class/wealth and privilege more than anything else. It may well be. It doesn't sound like she is in the specialty phase yet, still in medical school itself. I'd say if she completes it, the best she may have would be a general practitioner. Despite the skill she's shown with blunt toothed instruments...it sounds like the cut itself was rather sloppy and ragged, so not exactly what they would be looking for. Plus her choice of surgical tools for the unexpected operation was probably a poor choice on her part. It's questionable whether she is even going to be allowed to continue medical school at this point (they say it's under consideration but they have rules for occasions like this). I don't think she's going to be accepted into being a surgeon, or anything beyond general practitioner even if she DOES get to continue in medical schooling. That said, I probably wouldn't want her as a heart surgeon either. Off or on drugs, she doesn't seem to be the type to be able to keep a steady enough attitude to guarantee an ideal where she won't have a rise of emotion and do something stupid while I'm under the knife. I'd hate to be sitting there without a heart and all...(or worse, with a bread knife sticking out like a monument in the middle of it). PS: Sorry for the slight humor...it may be a tad off...but...a BREAD KNIFE...I mean, really...it was a BREAD KNIFE!

I just want to add, you shouldn't lump all liberals into the same category as the ultra leftist super dialogues that make the news. It's in the same way that you shouldn't lump all right wing individuals into the same category as extremist conservative racists that also make the news (as much as some of the more annoying elements in the media may want you too). In regards to the Professor...and this applies to conservatives as well.... I think what one states in their personal life should be their own, if it isn't on the job, and they aren't a huge public figure (and I do not view professors normally as huge public figures), they should not be fired for such things. I do not have problems with him spouting off his fingertips on his own twitter account in that type of conversation, as ludicrous as he may sound. What he does on his own personal account...let it be. He hasn't taken any actions in that regard, and free speech, whether you think others should have it or not, is protected in the US. I find it funny that people are latching onto that instead of what I consider his true problematic actions which are what he was doing in the school itself when he was "educating" students. That is actually something directly tied to the university. If he were to get fired, it would be directly related to THAT which I would target. Free speech is protected, and on his own time, it should be. On the university time when he is representing the University values...that is NOT free speech when you are talking on another's behalf (and when at the university and educating students, whether he likes it or not, he is an outreach of the university and hence representing it). They can fire you for that if they want, especially as it is a PUBLIC university. Speaking such in regards to public officials when employed by something connected to the State or Federal government...not such a good thing. AS per the article, he freely admitted to teaching the comparison of Trump to Facist leaders which is overdoing it. I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him and I find much of what he does as reprehensible...but that's a FAR cry of what this professor did. I would NEVER teach something like that to a bunch of students, nor even lecture on it. My stuff is on history, not my personal opinion of political events at this time in the most extremists slant that would bring an uproar in class and upset many of the students I was talking to. Now, universities DO have tenure (to protect such things) as well as other measures, but I think what he did in class crossed a line. History has opinion, and bias, but there comes a point where you are no longer touching upon history and instead digging more into political science (different major) than History. They can be connected, but there is a nice little difference. If his contract is not renewed, it should be over something on that matter, rather than something he does on his own personal time on his own personal account which had all of 28 followers (whoop de doo) until the Daily Caller drew attention to it (which is the fault more of the Daily Caller I'd say, rather than some professor's personal account which had no one watching it before that anyways). On the Baker's situation, it's far more tricky. My instinct is to say I HOPE the Baker wins. I hate having people coerced to do something that does not flow with their religion. In addition, I think many of these cases are done by individuals who do not necessarily NEED IT FROM THAT SHOP, but TARGET that shop specifically for cases like this. I don't agree with that type of action, nor that type of hostility. I'd want them to lose just on that BASIS. On the otherhand, I see discrimination in my area from "good" Mormons constantly. The soccer team is a good example. We have some kids that now play on college level and professional level soccer teams but COULD NOT GET ACCEPTED TO OUR SCHOOL TEAMS when they were younger. Many of those who did, don't play anymore as they were not good enough to make it in the pro or college. The only reason the good players didn't get in...their race was a major factor. We see that occasionally at different shops occasionally too...where they'll sell if they have to, but won't aid or promote or talk to those they think are lesser than them. This could give them VALID excuses (right now, if it can be proven against them, they have no recourse and would suffer the legal consequences). I fear, if we start saying religion can play a factor into WHO we can serve, it also plays into this factor of saying one's religion allows any and all sorts of discrimination. That includes Gay Marriage. If one has a public store or shop, that means they serve to anyone in the public. If it is for the public, why should they be allowed to discriminate against any of the public on that basis? Perhaps we should have a business type thing where one can specify they are ONLY A PRIVATE business instead, and not open to the public? Hence, no walk in's, only reservations and such. Probably not the best business move, but I think a separation like that I could see one using all the discrimination they wanted. However, in a public business...one could use religion for all sorts of excuses, even if the original excuse was against Gay Marriage. Who is to say it won't be utilized (as legal recourse seems to get wider as it goes) into other avenues later. A Public business should serve ANYONE in the public, regardless of race, gender, religion, or disability (or in this instance, orientation). So...yes, I suppose that makes me a flaming lefty Liberal here, but I think when one does a public business (as opposed to private, and by that I mean truly private, not just privately owned, but one that is PRIVATE in regards to customers and otherwise and NOT OPEN to public walk-ins and public browsing/shopping) it by necessity should be open to ALL the public...not just those who they agree with politically. Of course, as I said before...in that Baker's situation though, I am of two minds. I also don't like it that they were trying to force the Baker to do something that did act against his religion and other wise...so...more tricky in my mind than just a straight win or lose type thing. Despite not being allowed to discriminate, at the same time, I think we all should have and respect the freedom of religion.

The marital relations of a husband and wife will NOT be in effect in the other kingdoms outside the highest of the Celestial. Now, they can still hang out together, be together, etc...but they CANNOT have those marital relations and have offspring. Even if their bodies might be able to do something that copycats that process, they will not, as they will not be sinning in the other Kingdoms either. They will not go counter to the laws of heaven, hence even if they recognize they were family members on Earth, if they are not sealed, there is no power or force of it in heaven. They can still recognize they were families on earth, but as they are not under a force of the laws of heaven, it will not be so there, as they recognize the laws of heaven and abide by those rules. On the otherhand, I subscribe to the ideas of the Smiths (Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith..etc) who stated that those children that are under the bonds of sealing, but do not make the Celestial Kingdom can still go there, but would still have a body from a lower kingdom. They would be able to be in the Celestial Kingdom through the sealing bonds, but not be participants of all the powers thereof, either of the servants or of the Kings and Queens of that degree of glory. They would be relegated to the lowest degree of it, below that of the second degree of those that attained the glory but were not sealed, and obviously below that of those that attain the highest degree of glory in that Kingdom. Contray to this though, I have sometimes wondered in that light, if sealing bonds actually pertain to those in lower kingdoms as well. Even if one cannot act upon it, if they and their spouse end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom if the sealing bonds may still enact upon them (and hence upon families, for if we do all the temple work in theory, everyone on earth will be sealed into a family) even if they cannot act in accordance with certain marital acts that they would on this earth or in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

On the topic of pens, I'm not to great with Fountain pens. I did find, quite by accident, one that I love that is sort of a combo/midstep between your normal pen and the fountains called a Pentel Stylo. I actually really enjoy writing with it.

That was what I was about to list until I read the rest of the thread. If one has an ebook reader they can convert some of those over, or just read it on their tablet if they so desire.

A little softer now on my part, though I doubt you will read through this entire post. I was only harsh above to get the point across as quickly and shortly as possible. There was a post above that you made which indicates, if a post gets too long, you cease to read it. You have a complex situation, and I can understand how there can be years of pain. It can be a very tough and very hard thing to deal with. I have a parallel story that sort of relates to this. Several years ago, I was working at a location near a military base. In our ward were many military families. A majority of those in the military were husbands. They would be called off and away for home for months at a time. This was not just hard on their wives emotionally, but mentally and physically as well. I was not in a Bishopric at the time, but I heard much of their struggles from the wives in these families. These were good LDS woman, but many had very hard feelings. They got married to be with their husbands, not apart. However, with how much their husbands were gone, many felt that it was almost akin to abandonment. These husbands provided a paycheck which the wives would use to support their households, however, without their husbands there they were the ones who had to take over the role of father and mother. Some said it felt as if they were single mothers, even though they were married. For them, this was an extremely hard and challenging experience. Different woman handled it differently. Unfortunately, it was so hard on some, that they chose divorce. Divorce is not something I normally condone, and I don't in these instances...HOWEVER...I can understand WHY some of them chose this path. IT was HARD, and I mean REALLY hard for them. Harder then I can probably imagine. Many of these woman truly suffered as well. Some of the husbands were not high ranking, and instead were younger enlisted individuals. Their families experienced poverty and monetary hardship in their absence that many of the wives did not know how to deal with. The church would help when it knew, but there were instances where for some reason, they never told anyone about it. An E2 or E3s salary for a wife and three children (or more) can be a very difficult thing to live off of, and when your husband isn't there to support you, and you are all that is there to try to keep the household together and running, it can be VERY HARD. Even more unfortunate in these circumstances, were those wives that would commit adultery or have affairs while their husbands were gone. They WERE LONELY. The spouse that they thought they would have around was not there. They lost focus on the Lord, on the church, and eventually other priorities in life took precedence over the vows they made at marriage and at baptism, where the things of the world seemed more important then their promises to the Lord. I have never been in their shoes, but I can imagine loneliness can be a terribly hard thing to deal with. Unfortunately, they used it as a driver to force them more away from the Lord then closer. The most unfortunate are those woman that were lonely and the church members could have helped by doing more to fellowship these woman in the ward. Sometimes, sadly enough, these woman were isolated, even from members in the ward, which made their loneliness even worse. Other woman flourished. They recognized the hardship, but utilized it to draw closer to the Lord. They kept more solidly to their temple covenants, reading scriptures, adhering and choosing to utilize the time they had even more on the Lord than they did before. Even those that were isolated, but kept firm in their testimonies, remained strong in their marriages. What this seems to tell me is that even if there are problems in a marriage, those that put the LORD first, and focus on him most in their marriage, will be happier and have stronger marriages overall. It is when we start thinking about ourselves, getting selfish, or putting our own desires above that of the Lord that we start running into problems. This does NOT mean it will be EASY, and in fact it could be excessively hard. I can't imagine the hardship some of these military spouses went through (and there were two or three husbands in that lot, but most of them were wives). However, it wasn't so much that their difficulties were all different, in fact they had many similarities...it was HOW they dealt with those difficulties and involved the Lord that made all the difference. Another thing is that they could not rely on their husbands to overcome a problem they had at home. Their husbands were gone (Which some may say was part of the problem...HOWEVER...I do not see it as such. These men [and the few women] were fighting for our nation and our freedoms, it was a trial for the marriage, but these individuals were under orders from their superiors, instead of doing things of their own volition. They volunteered for it, but it was others who choose where they went and what they did) and so it was upon them to resolve their own issues. Whatever solution came, THEY were the ones that had to come up with it. If there were changes at home, those changes had to come from them. The spouses that came out the best, and I think even stronger in their marriages were those that, as I said above, put the LORD first. In many ways, I think if we put the Lord first, and then put our spouses needs above our own, we will be happier in our marriages then when we think only of ourselves. You have expressed problems in your marriage, and it sounds like it has been a HARD time for you. I see a parallel here with the military wives. They also had a hard time. The first choice I think they had was who they were going to blame. Where they going to blame it all on their husbands, or were they going to take responsibility on what went on in their household. In this light, I'd say, I can see how your husbands actions have made you have a very hard time in your marriage. I can see how it has been extremely tough. I can sympathize. It sounds however, that he is trying as hard as he can, and in this instance, it may just not be enough to resolve that hardship in your marriage. This means you have a VERY HARD situation on your hand. I can't imagine how hard it is for you. Perhaps there have been nights that you have spent weeping about it, and depressed about how grim it is. In this, it is not easy to deal with. However, barring what your husband has done, I'd say that if there is going to be a change, it is going to need to be from you. From what you have expressed, it sounds like you've struggled for some time, and are worn out. You may even feel like giving up (and in fact, sounds like you may have done just that for a while). Just for a little while, instead of putting the Lord first, and then your husband and family, you wanted to have something for yourself, and acted upon it. In this, the actions of your husband became irrelevant, and it directly became your problem. One military wife I knew had her husband leave for a long deployment. They had not been married for long, and had just had an infant. Here she was, with a baby less than a month old and her husband was gone. There was not much that he could do about it. Eventually, she felt bad enough about it, that she wanted solace for herself. She couldn't take the hardship on her own. Instead of seeking solace from the Lord and the church, she sought it at other locations by going off "partying" on her own. Heavens knows what happened with the baby in that time when she was partying. She put her own needs ahead of not just her husband and the Lord, but her own child. That was her choice. This marriage had some hefty problems. In contrast, another military wife also had a similar situation. She had her husband just get home from a deployment. She got pregnant and he was gone on a deployment again for a few months time. He then came back for around three months, and the baby was born and he left around two weeks later. She got more involved with Relief Society. She established a reading group, she went to some sort of sewing (or quilting) group the older ladies of the ward had. She focused more on the church and the gospel. This marriage seemed to grow stronger while I saw that couple. It matters who we put first in our marriage. IT is not called enduring to the end for no reason. Sometimes enduring to the end really is...more enduring than anything else. Me and my wife have this thing where I am hers and she is mine. In essence, we do not own ourselves. Hence, our bodies are not our own, but our spouses. It thus means we must put our spouses desires for us, before our own desires. You have indicated that you have committed a pretty bad sin, or made a dire mistake. I imagine this is not something that suddenly came up by complete surprise. As a Young woman, I'm certain you had situations where you knew when you should say no. It is still a choice we have as adults. Sometimes, when one is under a great deal of stress, we make mistakes though. Once again, from that military ward. This is about a young service man this time. They were a member. They had a great deal of stress and had been deployed to a combat zone. I have no idea what went on there, but supposedly there were some pretty deep mental and emotional scars that caused a great deal of Post traumatic stress. This individual then fell among some bad peers in the military. They were having a very hard time readapting back after their deployment. They had a LOT of stress, and under this peer pressure and the stresses of the results of the combat as well as trying to readapt, committed some crimes as per the military courts. I had the sad issue of being one of the members that visited this young man. He wasn't a wicked young man per se, but had made some pretty serious mistakes. He still had a desire to be good, and he had that good core from his youth still within his heart. He had to pay the cost for what he did, but he also could repent. In this, I see your situation. I think you probably still have that good heart and a good foundation there. You have made a mistake. You should talk to your Bishop, which it sounds like you are willing to do. I doubt it is going to be as bad as you have made it out to be in your mind. I do not know though. I think a LOT of what you will have to deal with in repenting will depend GREATLY on your own attitude. If you are humble, and willing to accept responsibility for your actions, do away with your own things and rededicate yourself to the Lord, I think it will probably be an easier process than if you try to blame others, or look to others for responsibility rather than yourself. Repentance is a deeply personal thing, and though sometimes it can be easy, sometimes it is just as hard, if not harder to do than the thing that caused us to need to repent in the first place. If nothing else, I hope it can be a learning experience for you, as sin is NOT the end for us as Latterday-Saints, but in many instances, is an opportunity to learn and improve ourselves so that we do not fall into that trap again that caused us to sin in the first place. From what you described, it sounds as if you may need help beyond what you already have. A final example from the days I spent near that military base in that military ward. I had a combat unit in our ward. Many of these young men would come home and have had terrible experiences. These were challenges beyond what I've described above for their families. This was an even greater challenge and one that they could not deal with on their own. The military base had medical providers and other things to help families and military members cope and try to learn how to deal with these challenges. In that same light, it sounds like there may be challenges in your marriage that are simply too hard for you to handle on your own. It sounds as if you already have counseling, but if you do not, I strongly urge you to seek it out. You may also seek counseling for couples, that include you and your husband. I hope you can overcome the problems in your marriage. It does not sound like it has been easy for you, but I hope that you can recognize that two wrongs do not make a right, and correct your course of action and strengthen your marriage once again. You said you knew of his problem before you got married. You must have seen something in him back then, perhaps it is just a matter of remembering what it was you saw in him and rekindling that excitement and love you felt back then. I hope you the best.

This is HARD advice, because what you did is a HARD thing to overcome. An addiction to pornography and emotional adultery with physical intimacy (though luckily without the full on act) It is NOT the same. Cheating is far worse than what your husband has done. Point...blank. You are making excuses to try to justify what you did in your mind. This is NOT a repentant attitude. Secondly, these are TWO separate things. YOU did something excessively bad. Terrible in fact. Luckily, from what you described, it was not full on adultery, but it is STILL a terrible thing you have done. This is not a judgment though, but my advice is to HUMBLE YOURSELF and REPENT. In sackcloth and ashes in attitude. You are NOT going to really get to where you want to be by blaming your husband for your own sins. It does NOT work that way. If you want to repent, start with yourself. Finally, my other piece of advice, is in regards to the rest of your post, is if you are having problems in your marriage, you may want to see a marriage counselor. PS: Your husband isn't here, so there's no advice to really give for him. Is he committing sin? From your description, it sounds as if he is. However, it also sounds as if you are trying to use it to justify your own sins, my advice is to stop doing that, as it's not really going to be useful in repenting either way. Hopefully this is short enough so that you read it. I normally would give a much more sympathetic post, but you seem to ignore longer posts from what I read above, so I simply just got to the point.

Opinions seem to vary wildly on these things. This is also why College Football tends to be more popular in my household (though they now have NFL games on weekdays as well). In regards to the Sabbath, I think one reason it was so harsh may not merely have been for the typical lay member, but for those that employed others. It takes a harsh penalty to force an employer to stop forcing their employees (or in the ancient times, slaves) from working on the Sabbath. A death sentence most likely put a stop to what we see as a flagrant disregard for the Sabbath today in favor of profit and gain. Of course, if no one would go out on the Sabbath to those companies, they probably would soon close down and would not have the disregard to keeping the Sabbath day holy. On the otherhand, we have the example of the Savior and the idea that when the ox is in the mire... I tend to look at it on the basis of first...are we supporting anyone else working. We don't take it to an extreme (we still use electricity and such necessities), but things that we do not necessarily need, such as TV channels and shows. I think watching any network TV (with the exception of Conference...which I think could be labeled as a necessity for LDS saints...maybe) is something that is not necessarily keeping the Sabbath day holy. I don't go shopping or out to places which require people to work on Sunday unless it is a necessity (so utilities like water and electricity are necessities, medical personel to staff hospitals are a necessity, an amusement park is NOT a necessity). So, listening to the radio or watching TV normally requires someone to be there, it is not something that is a necessity in life and in watching or listening to those, we are causing someone else to need to work on the Sabbath. Watching movies which require no one at a channel or otherwise...that's a little more tricky. The second focus of the Sabbath is that it is a Holy day and the Lord's day. I had a son visiting recently, and he asked if he could play his video game thing on sunday. I told him he old enough to make his own decisions, so he could choose what he wanted to do. Then, he wanted to get some of the younger nephews and such playing as well, which I then told him they could not as long as I was watching them. I said, he could choose for himself, but for us, we wouldn't play those video games on Sunday. That does not mean we don't do ANY video or video games, but it is within the confines of the following which I think should at least attempted to be kept. As I said above, first is the consideration of whether we are causing others to unnecessarily work. Secondly, is within ourselves. The Sabbath is the Lord's day, and our thoughts and efforts and relaxing probably should have some relevance in focusing on him. Will such a video game have any relevance to the lord or keeping the Sabbath day Holy. In this, it is a HOLY day, nor just necessarily a day to relax (though there is that as well...so I love to take naps on Sunday). I obviously visit this place occasionally on Sunday (I don't think it requires anyone to work...if I am wrong please tell me) and feel discussion such as I find here normally a worthwhile thing on Sunday (if I have time...ironically, Sunday for me can sometimes be excessively busy...but not with normal work but in regards to the Church and things I do in it). So, I think it is two fold. First - Are we allowing others to keep the Sabbath day holy in our activities on the Sabbath. Secondly - do we remember that it is the Lords day and we should approach it with the proper attitude in respect for him.

It has been said we should read out of the best books. In that light, here's a thread we can suggest books to each other I suppose. I would have put it in the General forum, but this forum seems specially made for threads like this. I was recently lent a preview copy of Ted Stewart's Supreme Power : 7 Pivotal Supreme Court Decisions that had a Major Impact on America. I was to read through it and give my opinion on whether those that lent it to me should get more copies in and invest in it a little in the program I work with occasionally. I did not pay for the copy I read. I want to give my HIGHEST recommendation on this book. It is an excellent book. It has it's flaws, but those are intentional flaws rather than unintentional. My opinion is that the book is written as a political science/legal type book rather than a history book. My opinion is also that it has a conservative bias through out it, and lending to it's conclusions. I think there are some ultra liberals that may have conniption fits when reading through the pages of it. Some liberals may feel that way when reading this book, however, I think a majority of individuals on this site are conservative. I think they would really enjoy this book (hear this @Folk Prophet...this is with YOU in mind!). Furthermore, even for those who are liberal but intelligent and can separate their own feelings and bias from that which they read (which I think includes everyone who isn't conservative on this site) I think can gain from this book. I stated that this book is not a history book, but it has a lot of history contained between it's covers. I think almost everyone can learn something from this book about the Supreme Court and the seven cases it covers in relation to what the Supreme Court was originally and what it is today. It also tells a lot about the history surrounding the cases and the history of the United States in the process. These cases are well known as they are considered pivotal cases that almost any law student should know intimately after their first or second year. However, the surrounding history and the expansion on the environment socially and historically is refreshing. I think anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, would benefit from the reading of the book. I have stated several times that I am a liberal and leftist (at least compared to many on this site). I still felt this book was a good read, and valuable in it's essence. It is well written and builds it's case well when reaching towards it's conclusion (even if I personally may not completely agree with the conclusion, or at least some specifics of it). If you are a conservative, and read any non-fiction at all...I'd would say this should be on your MUST READ list. If you are a Liberal and looking for something that can enlighten one's own knowledge and at least make you think, this is also a good book to peruse. When I get in on Monday, I know my suggestion is that it's a great book, and it has my recommendation to that program.

Well, we watched Smurfs tonight. We seem to have 4 Smurf movies (3d animated mixed with live action), so we watched the first one, probably will watch the others throughout the week if we have time.

Now something to add...in regards to MY PERSONAL belief. I am a literalist. That means I take the Book of Mormon to have literally happened as it is written. I believe the Book of Mormon to truly be a historical record and accurately accounts what happened with peoples on the American Continent. No, this is not integrated into my professional ideas, one has to know where to separate how the art of history works vs. the things of the Lord. However, personally, I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible...as literal and accurate. It's funny that as a Historian, with a perspective of what history says, I believe this...and yet there are many who have no study of history at all and have no idea what they are talking about that think it is figurative or otherwise (and admittedly, there are historians out there that have a great amount of faith and feel that way as well in regards to these things being figuratively). However, I, feel the Book of Mormon and the Bible are both literal and accurate in what they say about the creation, the history of the peoples, and the things they tell. Just one of those interesting observations.