JohnsonJones

I believe the people creating the live action Beauty and the Beast confirmed that the character is Gay and there is a scene specifically celebrating that fact. This is why some are boycotting the movie. I see the movie as partly targeting children. Just like I would not allow them to see a movie that I thought was pushing people having premarital or extramarital relationships, I'm not going to allow them to see this movie when it is released based upon what I've heard of it. I MIGHT go preview it, and if the scene is not inappropriate, then I may allow them to see it, but until I know what is in the movie, they probably will not see it. This is not unusual as I do this for other movies (in fact, my older kids did not see Revenge of the Sith when if first came out for a similar reason...except it was due to graphic violence rather than anything related to the law of chastity difficulties, and though I've let them see it mostly, it is only when we are in the room and can edit certain portions of the movie). Does that make me hardline...maybe. I do not view being homosexual as a sin. I view homosexual ACTS as sins, just like any other sin against the law of chastity. I think there IS an agenda by some out there to try to have it normalized in society. There are very clear reasons for some to do this, and much of it is VERY VERY anti-Christ. There's a LOT I could say on the entire homosexual agenda as well as homosexuality itself. I'll try to be somewhat brief and abridge myself. I am uncertain whether homosexuality is genetic, one is born with it, or not. There is evidence in my family that there is homosexuality that is prominent in my father's side. It is a curse I hope never comes to any of my children. I was raised by some individuals, one that was a closet homosexual, and one that was openly about it. While I am not going to expose the one in the closet, I will speak about the one that was not. My cousin was quite a bit older than I, and was one of those who was in charge of me when I spent summers at my Grandmother's house. He was gay. He did not want to be gay. He went through a LOT of horrible things in his attempt to stop being gay. He did electro-shock treatment (this is pretty much a torture to an individual), rehab and treatment facilities (just like a drug addict or otherwise), therapy, and anything he could to try to change his SSA. It did not work. It never worked. He remained alone and died alone. Just because you are homosexual does NOT mean you cannot keep the law of chastity (He was not LDS, he did smoke and drink coffee). Just because you are heterosexual does NOT mean you cannot keep the law of chastity either (and if you view the world today, this is probably just as big a problem in movies and our culture). In some ways his story is extremely sad, but in others, you could see it as a triumph (afterall, he helped raise 10 kids at various points). I saw homosexual culture to a degree, but not as much from him, but other activities. The other one who was gay got married, and also partly raised me. One of the activities they felt was important was culture and art, and as part of that, I was one of the few that was in Ballet classes from very young until I was older and decided Ballet was NOT for me. With my training, and the rarity of it at the time, it is very possible if I had wanted to, I could have gone pro. In Ballet when you get older, at least when I was there, there is a LOT of homosexuals in the semi-pro and professional scene, at least for men. Back then it was more of a hidden culture, now I'd say it is more forward. That is NOT my lifestyle, and that is not one I would choose to expose my children to. Both of those men chose various ways to deal with their lives. One chose to get married, and also obeyed the law of Chastity. His love for children (not in a perverted sense, in the way any Mormon or other Christian would want children) was one driving motivation for him to participate in a heterosexual relationship. The story isn't a fairy tale though, and the end is not as happy as many might hope. He remained married, but life was spent more or less apart doing their own separate things when they were old. I feel they have a right to be who they want in the US, but I'd also say there IS an agenda some of them have. I'm not going to go into detail, but overall it's an effort to make what used to be seen as a sin as good, and what is good...evil. To me, those who push the normalization of homosexuality are probably those who are seeking to destroy Christianity and any who believe in the traditional aspects (the commandments in the Bible, etc) of Christianity. Even those who claim Christianity many times, if they are pushing the normalization of homosexuality, are pushing the love everyone idea while ignoring that there are things that we should do if we love the Lord. These people do NOT have our best interests in mind. Not every person with SSA is like this. In fact, a majority just want to live and let live with equal rights. The thing is, for a vast majority of them, if they do not make their lives centered around that idea, and point it out, no one would realize who was homosexual or who was heterosexual for the most part. In many ways it's the extremists who are pushing a lot of what I would see as an agenda, and including things like homosexual relationships in children's films is part of that agenda. IF it is rather blatant in the film, I would also say it is inappropriate, and for that reason, would not want my children to be influenced by it anymore than I would by any of the other ideas that permeate the world that say sinning or fighting against the Lord's commandments are commendable things or ideas. Ironically, there was always speculation by some in that community that a certain character in the original animated Beauty and the Beast was Gay. This was due to his fascination of Gaston. The people today say that including this character as Gay and the scene is a tribute to the composers (who I believe one was gay and died later on while working on other Disney movies) who made the original Beauty and the Beast animated movie. This may be so, but even if that character is or is not Gay in the original animated Beauty and the Beast, it is not something that is explicitly stated in the movie and not something that is clear, nor is it something people can definitively state one way or the other. AS I said, I may see the film to see if it has anything objectionable for children. It is not an outright boycott of mine, but due to the material mentioned, I am not going to simply let my children go and watch it like I might the animated movie.

I'd like to get another home near to where we are now, have around 10 acres, and build my own house...OR, fix up a house I have in another location, add on another bathroom and room, a second house next to it, and settle down living there.

While interesting, I question the validity that someone is assigning to another as a cross dresser, especially in the context of the stage. Up until the 1950s, men dressing as woman on stage was actually far more the norm than the exception in many instances. To equate these as the same as many of those who crossdress in public today, is a rather large fallacy for someone to make. Centuries ago, in most stage productions, the actors were all men. Woman normally did not participate in acting. This meant that when there was a woman portrayed on stage, it was normally a man. So, in the context of William Shakespeare, Juliet most likely was played by a man dressed up as Juliet. This continued up until at least the 19th century, and even then was still very common for men to be acting as women on stage. In fact, many strictly went by which gender they acted as, so if they were good at playing a certain type of woman on stage, that would be what they would normally focus on. Woman started being more acceptable in theater, and it became more common for woman to be in theatrical productions, but it was still common for men to be acting as woman. This was considered a respectable profession, and there were respected actors in that field. In the 19th century, some woman who were in the field were considered to have low morals, as it was more acceptable in many 'romantic' dramas to have men kissing actors portraying woman, than actually kissing woman who they were not married to (weird morality...maybe), if there was any actual kissing even portrayed. There were notable woman actors in the 19th century, but they truly came to prominence at the beginning of the 20th century. Even then, men portraying woman in acting continued, though not as much as it had in the past. In some areas it was due to the availability of woman (as mocked in the film West Point Story with James Cagney), in others it was simply the tradition of that particular acting troupe or theater. Now days, it has pretty much died off, but this is a more recent phenomenon. It can not be denied there was a large amount of those that cross dressed in normal life who were in the theater, as well as homosexuality and other arenas of life, but typically these were not necessarily connected to what happened on stage. An individual who portrayed woman on stage was not necessarily normally a cross dresser, and vice versa, someone who played men on stage may have actually been a cross dresser off stage. One doing one thing, did not correlate to them doing something else. I would like to see the documentation that Morris Young was not simply what some in modern day language would call a Drag Queen Entertainer (Drag Queens dress in woman's clothes, but are not necessarily Gay or cross dressing other than being on stage. They come from all identities, genders, and other forms. Some are also cross dressers or other dynamics in their off stage lives, but many Drag Queens also do it primarily for entertainment of others). Every source I've seen regarding him thus far that try to paint him as something other than doing it simply for entertainment has come from questionable sources (which in typical fashion, are what many would call anti-Mormon resources). I'd be interested in the primary sources which show if he carried this persona beyond the stage into his everyday life, or if it was just a stage persona that he participated in.

Well, it can be expensive to take everyone to the cinema, however the dollar movies had Moana start yesterday. We all hustled down there to try to get to see the movie. It sold out half an hour before it started. I discussed it with my wife and she decided we'd let all the kids stay up really late last night (5 of the kids are still sleeping now after 7AM, only one of them woke up. I gave him the option of playing a game called Dragon Quest Heroes that he got for his birthday in a separate room to keep him quiet, or go off with me to get breakfast, he chose the video game). Of course the kids wanted popcorn and snacks as well. So, at $2 a ticket, we paid $16 total for entry (including the kids, me, and my wife), and then they have these things called kids packs where they have a popcorn, drink, and candy for $4. So, I got each kid one of those for $24. Then, my wife wanted to get a drink and a popcorn so that was another $7. And finally, I got a tub of popcorn to refill the kids popcorn when they ran out for another $5. Total cost for a family night out at the dollar cinema...$52. I can see why we don't go to the movie theater as a family that often. On Moana itself, 4 out of 6 kids give it a thumbs up. 1 out of 6 kids gives it a super thumbs up along with both big toes and their nose. 1 kid says she was neutral on it (but she was sitting right next to me and she was totally entranced the entire time...so I think she liked it more than she says she did). Wife says she liked the music, but doesn't say anything about the rest of the movie, which indicates she didn't like something about the story...but hasn't told me. I liked it. I wondered if they had any input from the Polynesian cultural center or any Mormons were involved with it. It was a pretty fun movie. No real romance in this one, just a fun movie overall. I wonder how much of it was based on real Polynesian or Hawaiian Myths or not.

Off topic, but relavant. On the broken leg thing, I have had health insurance that had policies of only covering you when you went to an assigned medical provider. AS these medical providers were not open on Sunday, it meant unless you wanted to pay for it yourself, risk bill collectors if you didn't (even if the hospital is required to help you, they can also collect the money, or try to), you HAD to go on another day to get medical care. They allowed you to go to certain clinics on Saturday, but nothing they covered was open on Sunday. The only exceptions were things that fell under what THEY considered emergencies. Broken bones did not count. Neither did severe allergic reactions unless you were hospitalized for them (which was frustrating, as we experienced these things personally under our insurance, such as when my wife had an allergic reaction to a medicine that was prescribed to her and started to swell up. We went to an emergency room, but afterwards, as she was not hospitalized and simply got medicine to combat the allergic reaction, were warned by the insurance that this was not something they covered...which kind of annoys me, even today). In the light that insurance companies can try to force such things, I'm not sure if a broken bone that was not taken to an emergency room is necessarily abuse, as waiting to see a medical provider outside the emergency room (which is also cheaper for the insurance companies I might add) seems to be encouraged by a few of the insurance companies out there. Is it annoying...absolutely. However, they do not view it as life threatening apparently.

I've heard varying statistics as well. I had heard that the BYU divorce rate was actually almost 50%, which is surprising. I've also heard that the LDS church nears the national divorce rate on average, but when you look at those who are active in the LDS church and were sealed in the temple it decreases dramatically. It also gives rise to the adage of young woman marrying an Eagle Scout and Returned Missionary, as I think that is tossed into the mix as well with the Temple Marriage and active in the church that has the result being a far lower divorce rate in the LDS church among those individuals than those that are not included in that statistic. Which doesn't mean you HAVE to have all of those items to have a successful marriage...at all. It's just a statistic. There are many in the church that have none of those that are not divorced, and those that have all of those that do get divorced. The best thing I think is to choose wisely...if you can. And if you can't, you can control your own stupidity and act wisely (which means be less selfish and more loving in general)...which I've been blessed with a wife who acts just like that...even when I'm an idiot.

The thing that confuses me at times is that my grandmother has had her ordinances done 4 times now. How many times are they going to keep doing her temple work? Someone entered her name again, I don't know if they'll use that one too. They all show up with her information though.

That wasn't exactly what I understood your links to say. I read it yesterday, but didn't comment on it, as overall I'm trying to remain out of this overall. I understood it that the main purpose was not to reverse global warming. The idea is that with the cold, you spray a coat of water on top of the ice in the cold months which then freezes. An example would be if you had a very cold day outside and then got some water in a spray bottle and started spraying it on top of the ice already there (or your car if you want to see more visible and faster results perhaps). Due to the cold, that spray will freeze forming a layer of ice. Do this enough and constantly enough, and you'll get a thick layer of ice. They want to do this to form a thicker layer of ice on the artic ice (or basically, another layer on top of the existing layer of ice to make more ice there). The goal is to slow down the melting of the ice, as a thicker layer of ice melts slower than a thinner layer of ice. That's the only effect, to slow down ice melt. I suppose the idea is that if they do this, that not as much water goes out into the oceans. Other than that, it doesn't cool down the earth or slow down AGW from their point of view as far as I could see in regards to what the articles were saying.

A little off the topic, but relavant to the post of SWK above...do you have the rest, or the scriptures he quoted. At times when prophets say something, if it is not as the official Prophet, it may be their opinion or thoughts. It does not make it bad guidance, and in fact may be very GOOD guidance, but on a few of those I had my eyebrows raised in questioning. I ask for the following reason... I was a little surprised to see incontinence listed. Utilized in the lesser known and not as often used lack of self restraint...it MAY be. However, in the common usage, there is no way I'd ever consider that a sin. I'd want to see the scripture reference to that to determine what it exactly is referring to, as condemning little old men and little old woman for the failure of their bodies to operate correctly seems a tad harsh when they have no control over what old age does to them. I'm almost positive as I know most of them would prefer NOT to suffer from incontinence if they had any control at all over it, so if it is listed as a sin on top of that...count me...puzzled? The next part is much harder to discuss due to forum rules. Due to this, I am not going to go into explicit detail in the WHY some of the verses in the Bible that are used to explain some things are actually misused, as I feel that is against the forum rules (and in some ways I think this could be right on the edge of that as well, though I am trying to stick to historical legacy and scriptural interpretations on this). I am purposefully trying to stay in the forum rules, though that makes explaining it a tad more difficult. In the bible, it doesn't utilize our modern language, adultery and fornication are blatantly listed. Homosexuality, despite many excuses that some try to make (stating it refers to male prostitution and other fallacies in their interpretation) is also pretty blatantly listed as a sin. In fact, some would ascribe some of those same verses which talk about Homosexuality also referring to Transgender, though in that instance it is normally directly discussing transgendered ideas in regards to prostitution rather than those simply choosing transgendered ideas due to life choices and choosing to live their lives in that fashion. However, masturbation and petting are not listed in the Bible, Book of Mormon or any other scripture either as these words or in other terms. Petting is questionable in some ways, even if it is not listed blatantly, it could be included as inferred in some scriptures that refer to impurity and fornication. Masturbation on the other hand has had two different areas of accusation, the first as it was lumped into sexual impurity or perversion as utilized as an explanation by the Catholic Church (which I believe Mormons are not part of) and though talked about in multiple texts in regards to celibacy among priests (again, which Mormons do not believe in) and that practice, is not something that is found in older documents or texts at all. The second reference in in the 1830s (or thereabouts) where a craze occurred where a story from the Bible took a story completely out of context and created something that many in the medical profession called Onanism based off the Old Testament story. However, by doing this, they misinterpreted what occurred (as in, the story where we get the term Onanism from includes FAR more than self gratification) and the story itself includes TWO individuals where the one is sinning when doing a specific act with another person involved (where as masturbation/Onanism as it became known is only ONE person involved which is actually a pretty key difference). With that misinterpretation, it misses the entire point of the story and the reason for the person's punishment from the Lord. Due to this, Bible scholars have pointed out the inaccuracy of this (even though the term stuck) idea since then and that this story has NO relevance to masturbation that many try to attribute it to. Bar this, there is NO reference that I know of that condemns masturbation in the scriptures. This does not preclude the Catholic Church's interpretation and how it applied it to it's Celibacy ideas with Priests (and as I stated, last I checked the LDS church does not ascribe to that ages old idea from the Catholics) as well as the ensuing diseases resulting from it (which I believe a slang term even called it Priest Disease due to how common it was among Priests due to the policy that resulted in it). We believe in all those as sins and transgressions BECAUSE of our modern prophets, not because they are listed in the scriptures. We treat it as suggested in the Handbook of instructions as per obedience to our leaders rather than anything I know of directly from the scriptures in some cases. This is inspired guidance. I believe SWK was inspired and was an apostle and prophet. These things in the quote ARE things you should not do as you should avoid sin, as we know by our leaders today, past and present. I am not questioning that. However, that does not mean he was always exactly accurate on all things, which is why I'd want to see exactly what his scriptural reference was in regards to his statement above. He is correct, obviously, and divinely guided in his instructions, but I don't see the scriptures he was referring to in the case of a few of the sins that were listed.

That sounds fascinating to be honest. From the sounds of it, your kid has far better sources than anything I would have. Thanks. I might utilize that forum in the future as family history is something I really need to tackle.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/15/97-an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-oft-cited-polling-of-climate-scientists/#5eebbd346001 and then a different view. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm And of course the famous opinion article that notates the original question and which threw a lot of others into a frenzy in trying to refute the article or discredit the author. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1debc9617187 There are various different views on the idea it seems.

I use the old notepad and paper, in triplicate in three different areas. As long as someone doesn't break into my home so they can explicitly steal my passwords... Has to be several different areas because I tend to misplace them. Used to be sticky notes on the side of the screen and saved in the cache. Then one day someone deleted the cache and threw away what they felt was trash littering up the screen. That kind of made it difficult to access some things. So, changed it up a little. I'm old fashioned though, don't trust the password managers. Probably to my detriment.

Why couldn't you repeat the Physics and Calculus in College? When I went to college, I then went on a mission. Even though I had already had Calculus, I took College Algebra when I got back to shake up my memory so I could recall just what the heck I was doing in regards to math (not that it mattered, I ended up majoring in History). I didn't have anyone saying I could not take it or redo any of the courses. I think what I should have done for some of the courses is to take the test out option. At BYU when I went, they had the option that you could take tests for many of the classes and basically test through them if you passed.

Duterte to Trump, that's probably a very interesting report. Duterte could be difficult to get both sides of the story, as the US media is pretty slanted on it's reports regarding Duterte. The Phillipines have other perspectives, but most of them aren't heard in the US. If you kid finishes it, a summary of it could be interesting to read.

Much of what we know of the actual BOM history is a military type history. Alma the Younger and Ammon were both involved in combat. I imagine having a good knowledge of how to fight went hand in hand with the Lord's preservation of them. Helaman was a military commander, and as such, we hear a LOT about his military experiences. The same could be stated of Mormon in his military career.

I've already posted somewhat on the forums, but I guess I haven't officially introduced myself. I was looking for a place where Mormons could talk together on the internet (and still looking for other forums if anyone knows any others) that did not have a ton of people that hate Mormons to tell me what a bad person I was for being LDS. I wanted someplace that I could discuss the gospel with and see their ideas and opinions. I am a historian by background, though recently had an accident and thus am currently not working (don't know if this is a good thing or bad thing) full time. Who knows if I'll ever recover or not, doctors are not hopeful from what I can tell. On the bright side, it suddenly means I have a ton of free time to read all those LDS books (and others) that I never had time before. I've done most of the stereo typical LDS things (Eagle Scout, Missionary, BYU, married in the Temple, etc) and in that light, I am extremely boring I suppose. I'm hoping to also use this unexpected free time to go to the temple more often and if able, volunteer. Maybe I'll write a history book or two for fun...not sure on that one yet. My specialization was NOT in church history, but I have done it as a personal hobby. I am more than happy to express opinions in regards to church history (though I would not want anyone mistaking my opinion for fact or doctrine or anything close to it) and love to discuss things about church history and opinions on doctrine relating to church history. I personally love the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie as well Joseph McConkie (who I had the pleasure of taking a class from at BYU, though at the time we clashed over a several various ideas which I can LOL about now and hope that he would be able to as well). Another thing I'm looking at trying to get into eventually is family history. My wife has a background in the church going back to Joseph Smith's time, but I do not. As such, I have a ton of family history to do, but no idea how to do it. I've gone to the family history center several times, but I tend to get more confused there than helped. It's probably that I'm just not comprehending what they are teaching me all that well and perhaps some of that is due to the results of the accident I had. Perhaps, eventually I'll ask for help on how to go about this on these boards, but probably not just yet. Family History and genealogy are one of my weaknesses in being a good church member...as in, I'm weak in that area of my life as I don't do it all that much. I have relatives from all over the world, from Japan to Germany. I have also travelled extensively in the US and Europe (but not as much in Africa or Eastern Asia). What I've seen thus far on these boards makes me glad to be here, and hopeful that I can meaningfully contribute.

I'll be sure to tell the people who lived in Chernobyl and in Fukushima that. I'm sure they'll be delighted. If we're talking renewables, I think Solar, Wind, and Hydro Power are the way to go. I am surrounded by Wind Farms where I live now. Here is a small list of things I might say are true... 1) The North American Continent is North of South America 2) It can get below zero degrees in Antarctica 3) Liquid water is wet 4) I know that Joseph Smith jr. was a prophet 5) I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God Debatably true? (things that make you go...whaaa...is that true or not) 1) Joseph Smith was born in 1771 2) The Earth does not orbit around the Sun, it orbits around the Barycenter 3) John Adams was the first acting president of the United States under the Constitution(not sworn in as president nor to perform the duties thereof, but sworn in 9 days before Washington...and in the absence of the president the vice president acts as...you got it....). 4) John Hanson is considered the first president of the US (though some would say it was Samuel Huntington and then Thomas McKean) as it was organized as a NATION (but not under the Constitution). 5) Joseph Smith was born in 1832

This is my opinion... That is a good question. I think the adversary gives out counterfeit feelings (and counterfeits many other things of the Lord as well), and for some it can be VERY difficult to tell the difference between counterfeit feelings and the ones the Holy Ghost gives...just like counterfeit money at times, or counterfeit items. I think we see that a lot in the world today. Many people deep in sin will say they have a LOT of joy in what they do. They are being honest and truly feel that way. It's like that nostalgic feeling a Star Wars fan may feel when watching the Star Wars trilogy for the thousandth time. (just to clarify, Star Wars is NOT a sin in my opinion, I am just using this as an example many may be able to have experienced in the past). Is that really unadulterated joy as given by the spirit, or is it something else? My thought is that the best way to differentiate between the spirit and a counterfeit is to feel the spirit and identify it more often. When you read the Book of Mormon, after a few pages, sit up and analyze what you are feeling and how you feel. Pray about it, and look for the peaceful feeling that you are experiencing at that time. When you go to the temple, be aware of the peaceful feeling inside your soul. The more you learn to recognize the spirit, the less you can be deceived by counterfeit feelings. It's like those in the FBI who are experienced in countering counterfeit money. While others may be fooled, due to their experience they know what to look for and how to identify counterfeits far easier than those who are not experienced with it. If you know the feeling of the Holy Ghost well enough, you cannot be fooled by counterfeit feelings or counterfeits. You will recognize the peace that can only be brought by the Holy Ghost. Hopefully that helps.

Don't know if they did or didn't to be honest. It's been decades since then, and though I remember the offers and ideas, it wasn't one I really took them up on. I remember getting the stuff in the mail, and considering some of it, but overall, decided to go elsewhere. I could say it was completely based on music, but I have no idea. It's been a long time and I don't know what all went into it. To be honest, when I say, I don't know, it really is an I don't know. I do feel acceptance into colleges in the upper range were more because of extracurriculars than just academics. There were a few that I think I may have only needed academics, but many I think really looked at the whole person and my involvement in sports and music (along with other things) played a heavy role into me even getting accepted into the college, much less anything else. My academics were not something that stood out (I did not have something like a 4.4 GPA or anything over a 4.0 like others who's academics were probably far stronger in that regard) and my SAT test scores were only around 1200 (which are incredibly low compared to even the average at the time for the higher tier schools). I think it was the extracurriculars that balanced things out for me, or at least helped propel me to a better standing and opportunities. The ironic thing, is the top school of my choice I probably did NOT NEED any extracurriculars to get into. That was UGA. At the time, compared to other places, their acceptance scores were far lower on average than what I had. I don't know exactly what it was that got me accepted to UGA either, but I suspect that was a school that I didn't need any extracurriculars to get into. Their acceptance letter came earlier than BYU's acceptance letter, and before BYU's came in, UGA was actually the school I was planning to attend. As a side note, I am still a UGA fan to this day. Even with BYU I don't know why or how I got accepted, to be honest. If it weren't for my mother, I wouldn't have even considered it. My Test scores were definitely one of the ones that brought down the average for my entering class (who knows, maybe without me that could have been an average SAT of 1251!? for my entering class). With the schooling I got paid for, the only one I know definitively how it was based was the one I got for speech. It was a small scholarship however. That one was purely based off a speech contest which is an interesting story in and of itself. Other ones which I applied for or received, I don't recall all the details about them these days (though some I think may have had to do more with family connections rather than any self accomplishments of mine on their own). Something that may also cheer up the OP out of all this is that you don't necessarily have to have the highest test scores or GPA to get into BYU. I stated the average SAT and GPA for my entering class, but my spouse had far lower than average scores getting into BYU. I don't think she'd be pleased if I shared them here, but I will say that she got in with scores that I have no idea how she got in. I am VERY glad she did (for obvious reasons, as I met her and got married to her) but I can say that even if you have average grades and test scores in comparison to the national scores and grades, there are those that get in. Granted, she had many other extracurricular activities as well that were going for her (and yes, she was also a seminary graduate) and that also probably played into it. I don't know if BYU is legacy (I think that's the proper term, it also plays into the field with other colleges, which I think is another consideration in regards to some Ivy Leagues and other universities, or at least suspect) in that if your parents go there, you have an easier time getting in. I didn't have that with BYU, but both my wife's parents went to BYU. However, she got into BYU with what I would call very average test scores and GPA. Her brother which had better scores did not...so it's not all rosy. If one REALLY wants to go to BYU, I think there is an alternate way in if one is looking for it. At the time I went, many of the professors who taught at BYU ALSO either taught at UVSC (as it was known at the time, now known as UVU) or had counterparts who taught at UVSC. Many of the classes transferred directly over. If you want the Happy Valley experience, but can't get into BYU, go to UVU. It used to be that there was a good transfer percentage from UVU to BYU as well. If you had good grades at UVU/UVSC (it would need to be at least a 3.5 or greater I think) it was far easier to transfer to BYU in a Spring or Summer Semester. I utilized the transferability of classes at BYU when I was there. I couldn't get into History 201 or 202 for anything. BYU was always packed. However, I found that UVSC (as it was known at the time) also offered the same class, if I was willing to go there. So, for a semester I went to BYU on M,W,F and went to UVSC on T,TH for 201/202. Then I transferred the credits. At the time I think it was one of the best kept secrets for certain classes which were a pain to try to get into at BYU, but very easy to get into at UVSC. I don't know if this still exists today, but I don't know why it would not. So, the other side of the spectrum, even if you don't get into BYU, there are other options which can give you a similar experience and eventually also could lead to getting into BYU itself...if that's what you really and strongly desire.

I sometimes use grey because my mother watched British TV constantly and bought me books all the way from the UK. Many of my childhood books utilized the British Spelling instead of the American. Another word I remember is centre instead of center. That was how it was spelled in many of those books. She also allowed me to read mysteries and series books, so many Hardy Boys, Tom Swift, and Oz books. I think those mostly used American English, so I'm not totally messed up in that regard.

They were pretty good at the time. Some would have called them stellar and remarkable, maybe even one of the top in the nation, definitely one of the top of the state. I had a choice though. Did I really want to do this for the rest of my life. Something (maybe that was the spirit, sometimes it's not as definitive as we think) seemed to tell me that if I did this with the violin, that is what I'd be doing for the rest of my life. In some ways, it was a definitive choice of mine. It was perhaps that express reason why I ruled it out. I choose not to be so focused on the violin. I brag to my kids at times that when I was young, I was a solo violinist at times for various youth orchestras. However, that is in the past, and something I made a very deliberate choice about. I had another university also offer me a scholarship in the violin, and I chose not to utilize that opportunity either. Because of that choice, violin is more of a background hobby of mine these days, something that I pull out occasionally, but overall a forgotten emblem of my youth. It's years of private lessons tossed way. On the otherhand, my sister, who never got as high or noted as I did while in our younger years, continued to pursue the violin to a degree through her college years. She never went professional, but did decently. I was competitive with her in High School, and I'd say that would be a regret I have now. Being good at something was actually what I see as a test, and one I failed at miserably in High School. I was extremely arrogant, and had a terrible attitude. It is something I have had a terrible time overcoming through the years. I am now more humble, and hope that I am a far better person than I used to be, but it is one of the many trials I have in life. Now days, I am very proud of her accomplishments, and as she continued to pursue strings in College, while I did not, I feel in many ways, she eventually exceeded what I did in my younger years. As I said, I don't know if that was the reason Dartmouth offered it or not, but the violin was a condition of acceptance. It could have been for multiple other reasons (I did sports, but also was a regional silver medallist in the Academic Decathlon in around 4 events and a bronze in one) that I did in extracurricular activities. I was pretty active in high school. I heard that you only live through High School once so make the most of it. I took that to heart and did everything I could so as to try to have no regrets about missing out on opportunities offered in High School.

I think there is a custom in the LDS church (meaning it isn't doctrine) of placing too much emphasis on Pornography as a sin. As a sin, I don't think it is as great of a sin as many think it is. Divorce, Adultery and other sins of that nature, Grand Theft, Apostasy, Felonies, abuse of spouse or children, and other sins are FAR greater than that of pornography. That doesn't mean you should toss it aside, but it means that sometimes we get so preoccupied with a sin, that we lose focus on how big or little it really is in the whole perspective of life. In the New Testament the Lord mentions what we equate with Pornography as a problem with the Higher law, however, he equates Divorce as a problem with the basic ten commandments (unless you divorce for the cause of fornication/adultery you may be causing your spouse to cause adultery, which is FAR greater of a problem than simply gazing upon a woman and having adultery in your heart). I think not worrying as much about it is perhaps a good thing, as you have been doing over the years, but as you seem to indicate, it hasn't solved the problem. In that light, I would equate pornography very similarly to other addictions such as smoking, or in some cases, crack or heroin. Some of these can be VERY hard to break out of the addiction from. In some ways they are far easier to get away from than pornography. For starters, these other addictions cost money, where as pornography can be found nearly everywhere and for free. However, it should be noted, addictions do not necessarily deprive you of your salvation. We are not to judge others in this degree, but we are too try to help them. In that light, why do you think you have this problem? The Bishop is not to condemn you for a pornography habit, and any Bishop who does, is probably not doing such a hot job of helping others. They are to try to help you overcome your addictions and problems. In the same way that someone who was a smoker, or alcoholic, or otherwise having a problem, he should also probably try to help you overcome your difficulties. The first thing they probably will suggest is for you to attend a class that most stakes have ongoing these days, which is there to help people with addiction (and not necessarily just pornography addiction, but addictions of all kinds). Is it due to your proximity with the internet? If it is not needed, you could always simply cut the cord. I think someone suggested that above. However, life hates a void...so you might also want to replace it with something else. Take up a hobby such as gardening, or building things. The more you think of it as a problem, the more of a problem it actually is. The more you focus on it, the more temptation will strive to hit you on it. The biggest thing for you to remember, is that you are a Child of God. You are special to him. Furthermore, as it sounds as you have been to the temple, you are one of the people of the Lord's church. You are one of his most loyal servants in these days. The adversary desires to make you forget these things and focus on your failings and weaknesses. He wants to take you out of the equation by making you feel worthless because of such a sin. You are not. You are a powerful son of God and it sound as if you are one of the very few Priesthood holders in this world. Think about that, of all the world, you are one of the few that have the power and authority from the Lord. You need to be worthy of it, but I know that this is something that you can do. There are many that face this problem these days. I heard a statement from somewhere (though I forget who, if I could remember, I would give the source). In regards to this situation, many times when you fail, you think of that one time and that's it...you failed. Instead of thinking of it that way, think of how many times you succeeded. Every time you are tempted, and you fight off that temptation, you have succeeded. In that month that you spoke about, and you said you failed...that was one time, but how many times did you succeed as well. If you just say one day was a success (which is unlikely, it was probably several successes as you probably had at least several temptations a day), than that is a 29 to 1 odds of success. That means, even if you failed that one time, you succeeded 29 others. In football we call that a winning team! Instead of looking at how you failed, look at how successful you have been, because I guarantee if you can have a 30 to 1 ratio or better, you are doing better than 90% of the people I've talked to about this. Take it one day and one win at a time. If you can have a 30 to 1 ratio one month, do your best to have a 31 to 1 ratio the next. You seem to already have a winning percentage in your favor, I know you can always improve the odds. Look at it as your success rate, instead of how you have viewed it as a failure rate, and know that many who talk to those who have dealt with this, or know those who have, are all rooting for you and are on YOUR team!

To be honest, I suspect it had to do with my violin and sports involvement (as I said, went to state). I believe one condition was I'd have to be part of their music and play the violin if I remember, but other than that, I don't really know, except that they really wanted me to go there? My top choice at the time was actually probably one of the banes of your of existence...UGA (university of Georgia). Though it may be that UGA has a bigger idea of itself towards FL than FL has towards GA. Still a UGA fan to this day. I also considered Georgia Tech, Oglethorpe, and several other universities. Dartmouth was just one of many that I applied for. At the time, I actually didn't even realize what or who Dartmouth was, or I may have put them higher on my list of consideration. I'd have still probably gone to BYU, as I said, my mother REALLY wanted me to go there. She actually was the one that sent for the application, got me to fill it out, and it was SHE who sent it in. The most ironic thing, is that she prays for Utah (UofU) basketball and thinks that's the Lord's team.

1. When I attended BYU, my class actually was a pretty big deal. Getting into Harvard that year had an average SAT of 1250 and an average GPA of 3.5. My entering BYU class had an average SAT of 1250 as well, but also an average GPA of 3.72 in comparison. That was years ago, before the SAT score changes. I hear it is not as hard to get in as that today. 2. It depends on why you go. For me, yes it was worth it. I did it because my mother REALLY wanted me to go, and doing what she wanted me to do is important to me. For some, they go because they want to be around Mormons (and for those in the area I grew up in, that is a REALLY good idea, as even at the institute there were probably a maximum of around 20-30 active Mormon students). It may be their first and only chance to be around a lot of other LDS members who share the common aspect of their religion. For others, the reasons are similar to why a school may be the right fit for them at other locations. For some, they are hardcore BYU fans (which describes my wife) who's entire family are massive BYU fans. For some, they like the academics of the school, and want to go there (at the time I was there, the accounting school was second in the nation, I think BYU was silver tiered, meaning it was not in the top 50 schools in the US, but the top 100 schools for undergraduate, and I think it was in the top 30 for Law Schools at the time). As with many things in life, the answer is, it depends on the reasons you are going there in first place. I don't know how heavy seminary is weighted into that, but I don't think it's that heavy. If you are really good in sports, I feel that plays a FAR heavier role than seminary (at least from those I knew in sports at BYU, several who were NOT seminary graduates, some who didn't even attend seminary, but they DID have sports scholarships). At the time I went, I think location (as in, where you were in the world) also played a role, with those being further from Utah have a better chance then those from Utah (I do not know about now). The further away from Utah you were, I think grades and extracurricular also played a heavier role in getting in. Everyone from Utah that I knew had 4.0 GPAs or higher (with APs) or close to that. All in all, once again, it really is dependent on the person on whether it is worth it or not.

I GRADUATED from early morning seminary, and the results are why I think early morning seminary is NOT for everyone. My mother DID have me go to early morning seminary, and the results of it are why I would offer an alternate to anyone in a similar situation. I was the ONLY one that got into BYU in my area that were in my situation, primarily because early morning effected the grades and abilities of others so drastically. BYU was actually, and ironically, one of my last choices of schools. I had the opportunity for a full ride to Dartmouth, but my mother wanted me to go to BYU (yes, I guess I was pretty obedient to my parents). I may be an anomaly, but I tried to do what my parents would want me to do. The opportunities I got out of High School were despite going to seminary, not because of it. I would say, going on a mission does FAR more for someone's testimony and building them up than being an early morning seminary graduate, especially if you are involved as much in school and other activities. There should be balance in ALL things. You should not have to sacrifice your physical health, nor your academics simply because you have to go to an early morning class which could easily be done on a Saturday or at another time where it won't be as detrimental. Due to the hours, my growth was literally stunted. I grew 4-6 inches LESS than the estimated height I should have grown to. I can literally say, going to early morning seminary did me physical harm. That's not balanced, that's extreme. When one proposes that one do something and it causes harm to that person...something is wrong. We complain about other ideas and things that cause harm (mental and physical) to individuals in other arenas, it does not suddenly become the right thing to do when it is something we do to our own children. Early morning seminary is a fine program, but for those who have academics and lives that already take a LOT of time on the week days, there should be an alternative. Utah and some parts of Idaho have released time Seminary, and there is also home seminary programs. We are not talking kids that are apostate or are not going to try to do their best for seminary (and I wasn't one of those, as I said, I DID graduate from Seminary, but I can see the very bad effects early morning seminary did, NOT seminary, it is specifically the early morning hours that early morning seminary demanded vs. the rigorous schedule I already had), we are talking kids that NEED their sleep and Seminary is not allowing that. In the example above, if school starts at 9 AM, why is seminary at 5:30 (I had a similar situation). There is NO reason for it to be that early. 7:30 to 8:30 is more than enough time, with 30 minutes to get to school. For those who don't get to bed until after midnight, you are talking 4 to 5.5 hours of sleep a night when it is so early. That's not normal, that's extreme and unhealthy. I would NEVER suggest to any child to have that little sleep, nor suggest that they consider that a good schedule. It is harmful and detrimental. In that situation, there NEEDS to be an alternative situation, and the solution isn't always to drop sports or extracurricular activities. IF they could do home seminary, why NOT have that as an option? Why does it have to be early morning seminary rather than a church approved program that others utilize for seminary all over the world? My wife on the otherhand, went to early morning seminary and it was stellar for her. It was a very good influence on her life. Early morning seminary is a good program, however, in some situations, an alternate SHOULD be considered from my viewpoint. PS: I should add, that in my area, we lived far enough away from where Seminary was that there was an option for home seminary, and students DID take that. Of those that went through the home study seminary program, there were two others that went to BYU. My parents felt that early morning was a necessity, and that's why I went. From my experiences of that, my thoughts are to first consider your health and academics, and then how best the church programs fit into your schedule. Home study Seminary is actually ALSO a very good program, and as I said, as Early Morning does NOT exclude people from going, you can still attend early morning seminary as your schedule allows, it merely means that you aren't sabotaging your health or school because of it.