JohnsonJones

Different forms of Love would be something that could be added to the English language. You would have the Love you have for your parents. The Love you have for the rest of your family. The Love you have for your children. The love you have for close friends The Love you have for animals The Love you have for things or objects The Love you have for an organization (for example, the US, or the Army...etc). The Love you have for your brothers in arms Some Languages have different words for every form of love listed above. In addition, we could add new forms of Love that have been integrated into our religion or society such as... The Love of Christ Christlike Love (aka, charity...but moreso) which is the love for all men Romantic Love (not to be confused with the world's idea of it today which is more akin to Lust...which could yet be another deriviative of Love to show the difference).

I think that depends on what one considers as repentance and forgiveness. I think there is a great percentage of the US today that I don't think are even forgiving themselves at all. They don't even try to repent and don't see their sins as sinning or committing sin. That isn't exactly doing what the Lord tells them or even forgiving oneself as they don't even recognize the fact that they are sinning and need to repent in the first place. Some of them even go so far as to say that the Bible condones their actions instead of condemning it. We see this occasionally among certain groups as they try to convince others that the Bible says the exact opposite of what it does.

On when the Lord forgives us. I'm a big believer of Grace and hence, as long as we do as he's told us, I think he forgives us instantly, as soon as we ask him for that forgiveness. Unlike the pettiness of Men, I think the Lord is far more loving than most give him credit for. He want's us to attain forgiveness and willing to give it to us, all we need to do is ask. It is ourselves and others that are less likely to forgive ourselves, and what holds us back far more on the repentence and forgiveness scale than the Lord...In my opinion.

Well, there was this one lady that had her radio so loud that it went through the car between us and then the sound penetrated our vehicle too. I couldn't understand how she wasn't deaf. Then the bass hit, and it was like a minor earthquake hit our car doors. I think the people in the car next to us (between us and the ladies car) glared at her and may have made some bad gestures with their hands or something like that. Just joshing around with the idea presented in the original post.

You may not be an American, and hence you may not understand what an American Hero is, and that in many instances, especially in the cases of POW's, and those who are POWs in Vietnam stand together. To insult the sacrifices and struggles of one, is to insult all their struggles. McCain did NOT have to remain a POW as long as he did. From what I understand, due to who his father was, he was offered to be released as a special treatment. Instead of putting himself ahead of the other POWs in that instance, he chose to remain and help those there, as well as to stand for the others that were POWs with him. THAT's why he's considered a hero as a POW, not just because he was a POW, but because as a POW, he tried to keep faith with his fellow POWs and his fellow soldiers. AFTER he was released, he STILL went back and even cooperated with the other political spectrum in an effort to get ALL the POWs home. THATS why he's an American hero for Veterans and POWs. You insult him, you insult many (and some may say...ALL) veterans. There is no I in the US Army, no me in the US Air Force, and no self in US Navy, but if you look hard enough, there is an US.

I actually think they are right on the money that the US is now geared for a two income family. Let's look at housing. 1967 I buy a house for around 5,000 dollars around the San Francisco Bay area. I go back and look how much that same house is worth today. Now, according to normal inflation (x2 every 20 years), it should be around 25,000 to 30,000 dollars. Is it worth that. No, it's actually worth around 475,000 dollars. What has happened then to housing. Even in other places the prices have grown exponentially. Looking at Provo/Orem area...you may have been able to also buy a house at that time period for 3,000 to 8,000 Dollars. Now, instead of 15,000 to 40,000 dollars, you are looking at 120,000 to 400,000 dollars. That's almost 10x the growth in cost. People may say that this is due to growth in the US, but that's what normal inflation is for. One COULD argue it's just the evil of men and their selfishness and greed (I actually may buy that one and agree with it), but many could argue it's the changed economic landscape of which, the two income household is a major part of over the past 50 years. Point blank, this is simply about a NECESSITY...housing. This isn't about MODERN housing either these are HOUSES BUILT IN THE 60s. You could live a 60s lifestyle in these, but your cost of doing so is going to be almost 20x that in SF area than that in the 60s, or if we take a more normal area (provo/orem) it is going still be 10x that of what it would have been. That's not normal economics if everything stayed with a single income household.

Let's look at the current President of the United States. He has been married three times. The first divorce was caused by adultery with the woman who would become wife number 2. He has been known to be extremely disrespectful of women. He mocks the disabled. He disrespects American Veterans and Heroes (such as John McCain). This is who the people of America choose to be their president. However, this is only the latest of a downward spiral of the morality of Presidents the US has been choosing recently. They had two presidents prior that admitted to trying Marijuana. The one before that cheated of his wife WHILE IN THE OVAL OFFICE itself. This trend is representative of the overall trend of the US morality itself. As they People of the US move further and further from morality and the Law of the Lord, we will see more and more of them identify the Lord as their enemy. As enemies of the Lord, is it any surprise that they would also be enemies of those who follow the Lord (aka...Christians). In fact, if the Book of Revelations is any indicator, as well as other prophets that foretold of these times, we know that their numbers will get larger and more fierce. We can feel sadness at the way the world is going, but at the same time we can rejoice, because as the signs become more apparent and the world becomes more as predicted, it means that for us, the faithful, the time appointed for the Lord to return and rule is coming closer than ever before.

Not really looking it up in detail right now, but here are some links on it. Gospel Principles Repentence LDS.org Repentence

I think it will be April Conference. Not guessing who it will be yet. I suppose part of it may be that at this point, I don't really care who is selected yet. Elder Hales death is still pretty recent. He isn't even buried yet, so my interest is probably not in the realm of thinking about the next apostle specifically yet.

Whoever the Lord chooses. We know not the mind of the Lord. However, if we are guessing by human fallibilities of which I have many... Well, Nelson is next in line, so most likely. Oaks stands a good chance of being the next, but it is still iffy as Nelson seems to be going strong. Uchtdorf seems to be particularly going well also...no telling how long he may or may not live. Bednar himself I think has assumed he has a good chance of making it to the presidency...but that could be a while, or may not be a while...the Lord will decide. As for the next apostle...I think I'll wait to have the background checks go through after the selections and see what turns up after that before coming up with any thoughts at all in that regard. I think some may wonder if we'll have two new apostles soon, as these things sometimes seem to go in groups (hope not, afterall, we want Monson to live a nice long time still, but it will be as the Lord wills it).

I think you are worried about the cart before the horse. In otherwords, if you are thinking on this a lot, you may be worrying overly too much about it. First, think about marriage. Be open about your thoughts on kids with anyone that you think about seriously getting engaged and married to. It may be, at your age, unless you are extremely picky, that there may be those out there that already have kids. In this instance, if you were to get married to someone who already has children...even if you do not have children of your own, it would be self explanatory that you would have kids in that marriage, even if they are not biologically yours. If you choose to not have children of your own after you get married...that's a sacred choice that should be between you and your spouse. Be aware, that even if you do NOT WANT children, accidents happen (birth control methods I think, even if multiple forms are used, are only 99% effective...there is always that 1% or that .1%). If children happen by accident, you should also mentally prepare yourself when you are married...just in case. However, if you choose to not have children there is nothing that condemns you or says you are less worthy. It is a choice that each couple needs to make, and when the time comes to discuss it with your future spouse, it is a choice that you will probably make together. If you do not want children, and it would deleteriously affect your health or your children's health, that probably is something you should factor in regards to choices of whether to have children or not. You may meet a fellow Mormon that feels exactly like you do. Until you find "the one" it is impossible to know what the future holds. I'd say, just be honest with those that you date who start to get serious, and find a good relationship with someone first, before overly worrying about children. Make your concerns known, and ensure that they UNDERSTAND those concerns (as some individuals may say they are fine with no kids, but then once married, you find they didn't mean it...you'll want to ensure their concerns match your concerns and you agree with each other BEFORE you tie the knot), as well as all other things...but don't sweat it too heavily. Don't be THAT concerned about this issue until it actually becomes an issue (as in, it probably is not an issue until you are married). Don't put the cart in front of the horse... For all you know, you may be married in a few weeks, or it could be decades. In the latter case...the entire situation may be taken care of on it's own as by that point it would be impossible to have children of your own anyways. Until that point though, why worry yourself overly about it?

The thing is with the prodigal son, and one that is missed occasionally, is, as per the customs of the time, the prodigal son had already taken his half of the inheritance. He had wasted it and it would not grow from there. He had no inheritance left. So why is the faithful son unhappy. Realize, everything left is now his when his father passes away. IT will be ALL HIS (the faithful sons). Thus, any expenditures are coming from his end of the inheritance. As the one who inherits what his father has, it will be on him to support those that serve his father and to keep his father's estate in good order so he can improve his own inheritance. Hence, his discomfiture is probably twofold. AS per the customs of the time... 1) Any expenses spent may reduce his own inheritance, as all that his father has and loses is what is his and is lost at this point. 2) As the Father has accepted the prodigal brother back with full arms, and in rejoicing has taken responsibility for that brother's welfare, the prodigal brother is now, once again, part of the household. Though the faithful brother will inherit all his father has, he will now also be responsible for his brother's welfare. The Father on the otherhand is trying to impart some ideas back... 1) First, this is FAMILY (and in Roman custom and the Jewish Custom of the time is family is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT). They should rejoice at the return of his brother. In this, in some ways, in direct answer to a question asked in Genesis...yes...he IS his brother's keeper. He should want the best for his brother and rejoice that his brother is safe and returned...the same as the Father. The older son still has his inheritance, but now can rejoice that he has his brother now returned. This parable can probably be seen in many different angles, depending on who we ascribe as the Father, the faithful son and the prodigal son.

I'd say it's different. I think he set a definitive standard of what is keeping it holy, and what is NOT keeping it holy when talking about it in the Old Testament. I think we start from the basic and work back from there. With the enlightenment of that, we then work to realize that when your ox is in the mire, you get the ox out...etc...etc...etc. If you need to supply the basics (food...such as picking food from the field and eating) you can do that. However, it is not a blanket excuse to allow us to blatantly ignore the structures of the Old Testament basics. We are also to keep the spirit of the Sabbath, which is to realize that, as it says in the Old Testament, it is the LORD's Day of rest. It's like other Old Testament (the lower law) compared to the Higher Law. The Lord did not negate the Lower Law, he fulfilled it. Hence, when he says we are not to call our brother Raca, or be angry...that does NOT over ride the commandment that thou should not murder. In fact, the commandment to NOT Kill is the BARE MINIMUM that we should adhere to in that light. From that we work up in that we should not get angry nor call our brother Raca or fool (aka...names etc...). Some think that the spirit of the law is the lower end and it excuses them from the letter of the law, when in truth, it is the exact opposite. The Letter of the law is the beginning, to help those who do not understand the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is the higher form of it, which means one who is keeping the spirit of the law is STILL under the constrictions of the Letter of the Law, but understand it in such a way that they actually extend it further and understand it in such a way that they understand the purpose behind it and in that way know when it may be broken (for example, when Nephi was instructed of the Lord to slay Laban)...aka...the exceptions...rather than those that are not. Personally, and so this is not to necessarily apply to others...those who use the idea that they are keeping the "spirit" of the Law and hence can watch all the sports on Sunday they want, or other such things do not really understand the Spirit of the Law...and in fact are using it more like the Pharisees where they are utilizing excuses of what they DO, rather than understanding the real spirit of the Law (which would be them focusing on the Lord and his things rather than that of the world) and how the Letter of the Law helps us understand better the spirit of the Law. The problem the Pharisees did is that they ADDED to the Law with strictures that were actually legal laws within their church. Hence, where the Old Testament talks about certain things, they went to an extreme by saying you could only take so many steps, or things beyond that. The Old testament makes it rather obvious what is or isn't allowed on the Sabbath already (and some of the things people try to excuse...are actually covered in the Old Testament already without any Pharisees needed). They then used those strictures they created as a prosecution on others, rather then understanding the spirit of the Law because of them and how they should focus on the Lord, rather than on the actions of an individual. In the same light, we cannot excommunicate or disfellowship someone because of our own interpretation of the Sabbath, but that does not give us carte blanche individually to abuse the idea of Keeping the Sabbath day holy either.

I found out about this about an hour ago as I had someone tell me that they were currently locked down in Las Vegas and may not be able to leave today. I guess they are being kept in their hotel right now. I turned on the TV and it's terrible news. Thus far they are reporting 50 dead and 400 wounded. It was by a man named James Paddock, a white male retiree and no more information. It was done at a James Aldean concert (who many say is a Republican slanted singer) and it was a country music venue I think. I don't know if that had anything to do with the concert or just somebody looking for a big crowd to do evil things, the videos on it seemed to indicate that it was automatic weapons fire raining down on the audience. I hope all our friends in Las Vegas are okay. Edit: It appears that some report an Asian lady was telling people they were going to die and disrupting the crowd around 45 minutes prior to the shooting, but instead of listening the had security drag the lady (and possibly a companion?) off. Could be interesting if this individual knew something or not on this.

You can only choose one answer per question, so...on #2 a little difficult. Since #3 was based on my answer in #2, it was never, but if I had to include other such things such as working, it may be sometimes (though, unless absolutely necessary, I try not to do any work, or things in that manner)

Not Mirkwood, but this can be an interesting conundrum when I am some other nations working (normally doing research). In the Middle East they have a day of prayer on Friday. It is an interesting thing (as some still believe the seventh day is Saturday, but the prayers are on Friday, and it is Friday that is like our Saturday or Sunday here). In many places, churches therefore meet on Friday. Sunday is seen as a normal workday most of the time in many areas. I tended to try to do two Sabbaths each week at times, one on Friday and one on Sunday. The first to recognize the government and main religions own religious observances (their day of prayer), and the latter to try to keep my own observance of what I felt is the Sabbath.

I'm not certain on the president, but I believe government workers and the military actually have restrictions on what they can say and where in regards to politics. I think the rule is if they are in uniform, or at work or on the job, or seen as representatives of the US government they cannot say certain political items. It can be seen as uncouth for the President to do certain things or act in certain ways, but that has in no way stopped or hindered Trump in many of his statements, especially on his tweets.

Exactly what Elder Oaks stated, which, it seems in many ways deal directly with the Law of Chastity and the disintegration of the family unit. As he said, at the time (and maybe to many today, especially the faithful saints) it seemed obvious in regards to the family, so why should they make a statement in that regard. However, they felt that they needed to and hence the prayed and got inspiration in regards to the Proclamation of the Family. Today, the hazards that desire the destruction of the family have increased and grown to where, outside of strong Christian homes (which in my category also includes strong LDS homes)m there is a great confusion regarding the morality of the Lord vs. that of the world. The world says that co-habitation before marriage is not only okay, but the standard thing for young people to do these days. We know it is wrong, and the proclamation of the family reinforces this in case we ever get to be confused. I believe it is things like that.

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.