JohnsonJones

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 
Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump
 
 
I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 
Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump
 
 
I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 
Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump
 
 
I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 
Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump
 
 
I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 
Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump
 
 
I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

smh.
 
About that fidget spinner... the pen helicopter thingee and the coin rolling thingee were huge in the Philippines in the 80's.  I could do forward and reverse thumb spins on my very own modified papermate pen!  About it promoting attention - depends on the kid.  I'm a fidgeter - restless leg.  It didn't matter if I was spinning a pen, my leg would still unconsciously bass drum.  I don't see any relationship between my attention span and my pen spinning or restless leg.  Of course, my leg would just start going without me being conscious I'm doing it... so I guess if I have to stop my leg from shaking, I'll have to put conscious effort to keep my leg still which would probably affect my attention span.  I don't know. 
I do know a friend of mine who can't sit still - he has to walk around after a few minutes so he doesn't jump out of his skin.  He was the expert pen spinner in my class.  He doesn't walk out of class as much after he learned pen spinning.
 

I think there is wisdom this.  I think that crushes in some ways ARE voluntary, and you can choose to have a crush or not.  If not, you need to crush the idea in your mind.  Look at ways why your wife is far more beautiful than her sister to you, and why you married your wife in the first place.
Imagine how you would feel if your wife had a crush on someone else, constantly and fervently.  How would you want her to deal with it?
You should be bothered to some degree by that, and if so, ponder how you would want her to be more faithful to you in heart and mind.  Likewise, try to make it so that you are more faithful to her, not just physically and in physical action, but in heart and mind as well.

That is not possible anymore unless the bishop twists the program slightly.
The Boy Scouts now require the Scout to get to first class at least 10 outings with their patrol and at least 6 campouts with their troop.
The LDS church ONLY allows boys 3 official campouts for 11 year old scouts.  Yes...that is a discrepancy between what the LDS church allows and what the BSA requires.
However, for a properly motivated boy (or in the LDS church for Mormon Eagles where the boys are NOT required to be motivated and instead it is the LEADERS teaching all the merit badges or getting the merit badge counselors instead of how the boys are supposed to go out and get them and utilize the counselors showing a degree of responsibility and determination on the boys part), I agree, getting an Eagle is doable by 14.  It should take 6 months for a Non-LDS boy to get to first class, and 1 year and 3-4 months for an LDS boy to get to first class (because of the 6 campout requirements).  You then add on another 4 months for star, 6 months for Life and another 6 months for Eagle, meaning for an LDS boy, They should get their Eagle 2 months before they turn 14.  Not a ton of leeway there.
HOWEVER, I think members in their joyous rejoicing at their hatred of the LDS church's young men's program (which was Varsity and Venture scouts), they are MISSING the point, and it's excessively tragic.  Yes, this may be a warning to the Boy Scouts, but it isn't like the LDS church is getting OUT of scouts currently.  There is overly too much rejoicing over this from membership, to the point that they are MISSING the OTHER side of the equation.  This is simply going back to what the LDS church was like several decades ago BEFORE there were any Venture or Varsity programs.  As per what I've gotten instructions on from SLC (Well, from area authorities and stake president rather than directly, but I think they got it more directly), this is NOT taking every 14-18 year old OUT of scouting, it's simply discontinuing the Varsity and Venture programs.
In prior decades, boys started Boy Scouts and could continue with Boy Scouts until they were 18 if they wished, especially if they wanted to continue working towards their Eagle Scout.  Not every boy did.  This is what we are going back to.  If the boys in the ward want to keep on working towards their Eagle Scout we keep them registered in the troop.  If they want to stop scouting at 14, or earned their Eagle and want to stop scouts, we can let them.  That's all.
However, this is FAR more serious in regards to the membership.  The REASON Varsity and Venture scouts being dropped (yes, as I said, it could be seen as a warning to the BSA, but there is a FAR MORE important reason towards the members on WHY this change is occurring, and members everywhere are missing it) is because the members flagrantly disobeyed the General Authorities on Varsity and Venture Scouts.  Instead of helping their young men participate in the program, the membership basically ignored anything and everything in regards to the Young men's program in EVERY way.  It was far more than just Varsity and Venture scouts, it was simply like dropping the Young Men off the planet and forgetting a real Young Men's program existed.  It wasn't just Varsity and Venture scout awards that were not being earned, no one was getting the Duty to God or working on any of the Church's other religious aspects of the Young men's program.
The members (there were specific ones that did work on this, but we are talking generally) ignored the Young Men's program as set out for any boy 14 and older.  Instead they focused solely on the program set out for the 12-14 year olds in getting boys their Eagle Scouts. The other awards, ideas (such as Duty to God and the religious focus for 14 to 18 year olds) was entirely ignored in favor of the 12-14  year old program in Young Mens in general.  Membership IGNORING what the General Authorities promoted and created for the Young men for many years now led to this.  If the membership will NOT use the tools provided, and seeing the excessive failure rate where Young Men becoming single adults are dropping away from the church, something had to be done.
So, they took away the tools and are trying to make it a FAR more direct point.  THIS IS THE YOUNG MEN'S PROGRAM, it is WRITTEN DOWN officially from the church.  NOW DO IT.
I've seen a LOT of people rejoicing, but almost NONE of them are getting the actual message to the saints in this instance.  Everyone is remarking about how terrible the scouts are (quick point, the LDS church is STILL in the scouts, whether we will be in 3-5 years, I do not know, but for now, we are still with them), but almost NONE are talking about how this program (and it's not a brand new one, it was originally made a few years ago with the Venture program being tailored more to fit into it a short while after that) is going to be utilized.
I think it's because the members are going to continue ignoring what Salt Lake is telling them, and instead of buckling down and focusing on what is important, teaching our young men responsibility, reverence, and faith, they are going to continue doing what they were before.  Doing basketball or a fun activity on Youth night without a refocus on how every activity should in some way be helping that young man establish a stronger faith and connection to our Lord.
This is a serious thing, but I think this thread is indicative of the general attitude in the LDS church right now.  Rejoice over what they think is happening to those they do not like, but iGNORE the brethren on what they are saying and it's ramifications on us, and HOW it actually applies to us and how we should be reflecting on how we should improve our lives, rather than how it may hurt another...because I can tell you, this is NOT done to hurt the scouts in any way (other than MAYBE being a warning)...but more to try to find ways so that the Saints will focus on the important facets for our young men.
If they cannot utilize a program with a small complexity that was designed by General Authorities in connection with the BSA to help our Teachers and Priests develop a faith strong in the church, perhaps a more basic and direct measure is needed.  This is it.  However, I'm starting to get the impression people are going to continue to ignore what the Brethren have given us (the young men's program from a few years back is STILL what we are suppose to use, as was directed in the original media release and further instruction I have heard) that is used by the rest of the world beyond the US...even if we are not using the other tools of Varsity and Venture scouts that we had previously.
 

I think there is wisdom this.  I think that crushes in some ways ARE voluntary, and you can choose to have a crush or not.  If not, you need to crush the idea in your mind.  Look at ways why your wife is far more beautiful than her sister to you, and why you married your wife in the first place.
Imagine how you would feel if your wife had a crush on someone else, constantly and fervently.  How would you want her to deal with it?
You should be bothered to some degree by that, and if so, ponder how you would want her to be more faithful to you in heart and mind.  Likewise, try to make it so that you are more faithful to her, not just physically and in physical action, but in heart and mind as well.

It's not smoking, it's inhaling vapors.  Ironically, originally, it was created to help people stop smoking.  It would give them the nicotine kick, but without the other chemicals in the cigarette (though ironically as well, some of the vapor inserts also had chemicals which had an unknown effect).
It's seen as cleaner and safer than smoking by the younger crowd.  It is NOT smoking anymore than inhaling steam from a boiling pot of water is smoking.  Just like that pot of smoking water, you can add flavors, scents, etc that combine with the steam to give them interesting scents/tastes.
You have some that have tobacco extracts these days, but as I said, the original idea, ironically, was to help people utilize it as a way to stop smoking.
It works, I think, by having a small heating element inside it.  This element in turn heats up the liquid into a steam (or vapor form, if you want) which the user can then inhale.
It's at an odd crossroads in regards to the Word of Wisdom.  One could say one should not present the appearance of evil, but more likely, people utilize the idea that is also used in regards to drug use in regards to vaping.
Personally, something does feel off, as it seems to use the same culture that cigarettes used to have, but at the same time, it also can feel like a way that people are using to try to skirt around the boundaries of the Word of Wisdom.  So far, without any official words from Salt Lake, I think the opinions on it may vary from church leader to church leader.
Once again, it was originally a way for people to stop smoking and thus was seen as sort of a medicine or balm to help them.  That makes this a very tricky thing to really decide on how it fits in.

That is not possible anymore unless the bishop twists the program slightly.
The Boy Scouts now require the Scout to get to first class at least 10 outings with their patrol and at least 6 campouts with their troop.
The LDS church ONLY allows boys 3 official campouts for 11 year old scouts.  Yes...that is a discrepancy between what the LDS church allows and what the BSA requires.
However, for a properly motivated boy (or in the LDS church for Mormon Eagles where the boys are NOT required to be motivated and instead it is the LEADERS teaching all the merit badges or getting the merit badge counselors instead of how the boys are supposed to go out and get them and utilize the counselors showing a degree of responsibility and determination on the boys part), I agree, getting an Eagle is doable by 14.  It should take 6 months for a Non-LDS boy to get to first class, and 1 year and 3-4 months for an LDS boy to get to first class (because of the 6 campout requirements).  You then add on another 4 months for star, 6 months for Life and another 6 months for Eagle, meaning for an LDS boy, They should get their Eagle 2 months before they turn 14.  Not a ton of leeway there.
HOWEVER, I think members in their joyous rejoicing at their hatred of the LDS church's young men's program (which was Varsity and Venture scouts), they are MISSING the point, and it's excessively tragic.  Yes, this may be a warning to the Boy Scouts, but it isn't like the LDS church is getting OUT of scouts currently.  There is overly too much rejoicing over this from membership, to the point that they are MISSING the OTHER side of the equation.  This is simply going back to what the LDS church was like several decades ago BEFORE there were any Venture or Varsity programs.  As per what I've gotten instructions on from SLC (Well, from area authorities and stake president rather than directly, but I think they got it more directly), this is NOT taking every 14-18 year old OUT of scouting, it's simply discontinuing the Varsity and Venture programs.
In prior decades, boys started Boy Scouts and could continue with Boy Scouts until they were 18 if they wished, especially if they wanted to continue working towards their Eagle Scout.  Not every boy did.  This is what we are going back to.  If the boys in the ward want to keep on working towards their Eagle Scout we keep them registered in the troop.  If they want to stop scouting at 14, or earned their Eagle and want to stop scouts, we can let them.  That's all.
However, this is FAR more serious in regards to the membership.  The REASON Varsity and Venture scouts being dropped (yes, as I said, it could be seen as a warning to the BSA, but there is a FAR MORE important reason towards the members on WHY this change is occurring, and members everywhere are missing it) is because the members flagrantly disobeyed the General Authorities on Varsity and Venture Scouts.  Instead of helping their young men participate in the program, the membership basically ignored anything and everything in regards to the Young men's program in EVERY way.  It was far more than just Varsity and Venture scouts, it was simply like dropping the Young Men off the planet and forgetting a real Young Men's program existed.  It wasn't just Varsity and Venture scout awards that were not being earned, no one was getting the Duty to God or working on any of the Church's other religious aspects of the Young men's program.
The members (there were specific ones that did work on this, but we are talking generally) ignored the Young Men's program as set out for any boy 14 and older.  Instead they focused solely on the program set out for the 12-14 year olds in getting boys their Eagle Scouts. The other awards, ideas (such as Duty to God and the religious focus for 14 to 18 year olds) was entirely ignored in favor of the 12-14  year old program in Young Mens in general.  Membership IGNORING what the General Authorities promoted and created for the Young men for many years now led to this.  If the membership will NOT use the tools provided, and seeing the excessive failure rate where Young Men becoming single adults are dropping away from the church, something had to be done.
So, they took away the tools and are trying to make it a FAR more direct point.  THIS IS THE YOUNG MEN'S PROGRAM, it is WRITTEN DOWN officially from the church.  NOW DO IT.
I've seen a LOT of people rejoicing, but almost NONE of them are getting the actual message to the saints in this instance.  Everyone is remarking about how terrible the scouts are (quick point, the LDS church is STILL in the scouts, whether we will be in 3-5 years, I do not know, but for now, we are still with them), but almost NONE are talking about how this program (and it's not a brand new one, it was originally made a few years ago with the Venture program being tailored more to fit into it a short while after that) is going to be utilized.
I think it's because the members are going to continue ignoring what Salt Lake is telling them, and instead of buckling down and focusing on what is important, teaching our young men responsibility, reverence, and faith, they are going to continue doing what they were before.  Doing basketball or a fun activity on Youth night without a refocus on how every activity should in some way be helping that young man establish a stronger faith and connection to our Lord.
This is a serious thing, but I think this thread is indicative of the general attitude in the LDS church right now.  Rejoice over what they think is happening to those they do not like, but iGNORE the brethren on what they are saying and it's ramifications on us, and HOW it actually applies to us and how we should be reflecting on how we should improve our lives, rather than how it may hurt another...because I can tell you, this is NOT done to hurt the scouts in any way (other than MAYBE being a warning)...but more to try to find ways so that the Saints will focus on the important facets for our young men.
If they cannot utilize a program with a small complexity that was designed by General Authorities in connection with the BSA to help our Teachers and Priests develop a faith strong in the church, perhaps a more basic and direct measure is needed.  This is it.  However, I'm starting to get the impression people are going to continue to ignore what the Brethren have given us (the young men's program from a few years back is STILL what we are suppose to use, as was directed in the original media release and further instruction I have heard) that is used by the rest of the world beyond the US...even if we are not using the other tools of Varsity and Venture scouts that we had previously.
 

I have been a scout leader directly in the past, and now though not really directly involved unless I wish to be as I am more in an administrative position in regards to scouting, all total I suppose I have over 20 years with scouting.  I think Scouting is a great program, but one that is often NOT used the best by the church.  My rundown to someone new to scouting would be as follows...
1. Youth Protection.  Do this, ESPECIALLY two deep leadership.  This is NOT just for the boys protection, but ALSO for YOUR protection.  The more adults you have around you, the less any false accusations against you will hold water.  At the same time, the more adults you have around the boys in a GROUP (so, as youth protection points out, no letting adults wander off alone with boys), the more protected the boys will be if there ARE any predators...which leads to the second item...
2.  The LDS church is very ODD at how it does scouting in some areas.  This is completely tradition.  For some reason, parents, and many scout leaders think this is supposed to be a baby sitting service.  IT IS NOT.  PARENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED with their boys.  Parents are actually supposed to be at Den meetings AND Pack meetings (I know, so many parents do not show and treat it like a baby sitting service instead).  Parents can EVEN SIGN off their boys on requirements in Cub Scouts.  It is supposed to be FAMILY oriented, and parents are supposed to be HEAVILY involved with their boys. 
Leadership and Parental involvement follow a pattern in scouts, with cubscouts being 20% done and lead by boys and 80% by leaders.  Parents should be involved around 80% of the time.  Boy Scouts should be 40% boy led and done with 60% led and done by leaders.  There should also be around a 50-60% involvement with parents.  The ones we will not participate in after 2018 is Varsity where it's supposed to be 60% boy led and 40% leaders and parents, and Venture where it is supposed to be 80% boy led and done and 20% leader and parents (Basically the boys do everything and the leaders are there to make sure no one gets killed).
3.  There is training, specifically leader specific training.  DO IT.  This training also has advanced stages, and similarly to scouting, adults can also have their own program which can teach you more about how scouting is supposed to work (and many times it doesn't because leaders do NOT get trained appropriately).  Leader specific training is the base level that everyone should have.  Imagine flying on an airplane and your pilot has their private pilot's license (not instrument, so they really can't fly by instruments, nor even their commercial pilots license...how would you feel.  With Leader Specific training you have your private pilot's license...not even your commercial license yet...just enough knowledge to fly and hopefully not kill yourself).  You can also take Baloo to teach you out door skills with scouts (and you are supposed to have this if you do any outdoor activities, which you should), and then you have Wood Badge, which I feel every scout leader SHOULD take as it truly helps comport what scouting is really about and what it should be like.
4.  If you are bothered by scouting in general, you can also focus somewhat on the religious requirements and the church's program in that regard.  Too many scout leaders forget that the LDS church has a religious element for their primary age children and youth.  Next, the VERY basic item of scouts is the Oath and Law.  This should be the base that you form everything else you train them in about.  If you are not instilling in them to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent...the rest of the program really isn't worth squat.  You need these core values in the scouts.  This is what the program is REALLY about, to teach the boys these values while trying to do fun activities which help them grow in responsibility and leadership.  They also need to know that they have a duty to God and their country, That they need to help others and need to keep themselves in the best physical shape they can, follow the church in their morals, and try to also learn and remain mentally sharp in school and activities.  This leads to the last and final item.
5.  Don't be your typical LDS Scout leader.  Park Rangers groan when an LDS troop or pack comes by as these seem to be the most prone to violate rules and break items and get in serious trouble.  This is because Scout leaders are NOT the example of scout values that I mentioned in 4. above.  The scouts do not value the itmes in 4 above.  They forget the very foundation upon which scouting is supposed to be built on.  Too many scout leaders do not realize that the scouting program is to be built on the values and morals of the Oath and law.  Instead they do things like you mentioned in your original post where they just do things to do them.  Scouting is FUN with a purpose.  That purpose is to use the Oath and Law to instill moral values in boys and help them develop responsibility and leadership.
If you have questions you can PM me.  I tend to be gone for long stretches at a time to various things, but it also appears anatess2 also has experience in this regard and probably would be more than willing to answer questions as well.

It's a situation that has changed in recent years from what I understand.
Originally, a woman was sealed to the man that she married.  If she married more than once, it was the first husband.  In this situation, the children would go with the father and whoever he was sealed to.
Now, they do it differently.
If I understand it correctly.
Woman can be sealed to multiple men.  In this instance, in order for the children to be sealed to their mother, their mother would be sealed to the father (even if they were never married, or divorced).  The idea now days is to seal everyone together and let the Lord sort it out later.  A LOT more work for those in the millennium.
This has created a rift in our family to a small degree.  An ancestor of mine (close actually) stated that they were NEVER to be sealed to her first husband.  He was abusive (in multiple ways) and she divorced him.  She married again to the individual she wished to be sealed to.  She stated that under no condition whatsoever was she to EVER be sealed to her first husband.
Guess what...
The church sealed her to the first husband (actually, to both husbands).  I suppose part of that is on my family's side of blame.  We put her and that husband together on ancestory/family tree so that the children could also be shown.  The course the church took from there (and it may be another family member did more than I did in that regard and took an active role, not sure on that part) was to seal her to the husband.  Not such good feelings at that course of action in some of the family.
So, even if a couple are not married, these days, they will seal them together (this is only done after death).  The idea is that this will all be sorted out later.

The problem is on both sides.  There is some evidence, but the problem is that there is also IGNORED evidence.
Many point to sea levels rising as evidence...Miami has installed pumps to supposedly deal with this.  An island chain that is an inch above sea level 30 years ago...well, that Island chain still exist and is STILL an inch above sea water.  It is an uncomfortable fact that is pushed aside and ignored.  A rising ocean should have that island or at least those portions, under water at this point.
Manhattan harbor has less then 10 years to be under water (according to Al Gore, though the original timeline said it could happen as soon as 2014 I believe...and...what do you know...it's not underwater presently).
The Artic Circle has had it's ice melt EVERY YEAR for the past...well...since we started recording...so people using that as evidence is actually relying on people's ignorance of history.
There are data points that show Global warming, but unfortunately, many ignore the OTHER data points which show something else may be happening.
A Majority of Scientist feel that human activity has some influence on what is occurring with Climate Change (and the change of the term itself was due to some being uncomfortable with people constantly claiming Global Warming when that may not even be accurate, hence ONE reason for the name change).  I think that percentage is 97%.
HOWEVER, that percentage does NOT equate how many feel it is DUE to human activity, or is being CAUSED mostly by human activity...merely that humans have some sort of influence on what is happening to the climate and environment around us.
The reality is we do not really know what is going on, or even if it's a causation effect or merely a coincidence (something that has been brought up in the past) in regards to certain things happening when other things happen. 
Like many things in politics (and Climate Change is more a political tool these days than a scientific one...unfortunately), rarely is it one side or the other.  Normally more truth is found somewhere in between the two extremes, rather than at one pole or the other.

To extrapolate more, it is CLEAR in Genesis 4 that Seth was the REPLACEMENT for Abel.  It is through that lineage or line that the Savior of the world would come, as was noted by Eve in her statement of getting that replacement.  Also, Cain knew FAR more than most of us about the Plan of Salvation and who and what.  In LDS doctrine he even walked and talked with the Lord PRIOR to his choice to murder Abel and was given a clear choice (PoGP 5).
I found one LDS reference to Seth being Abel's replacement and why it is mentioned in Priesthood lineage here... this idea here
I have a question
Though What and how you interpret it is up to you.

I believe that NDE's occur and happen. 
I think it is something that the deceiver is strongly attacking and putting up false ones to also deceive us.
The problem with NDE's these days are there are those who are part of a New Age religion that teaches that people can leave their body at will and go galavanting around the heavens.  MANY OF THESE claim to have had an NDE.  I DO NOT BELIEVE most of these people are being honest in regards to a true Near Death Experience.
However, I think there are those who truly have had an NDE, and if you can find those who are reliable and truthful, it may be enlightening if you also have the spirit to help you discern truth and knowledge.

Not a very long thought this time.  It is more of a short thought.
We had a lesson on Elder Anderson's General Conference talk and something struck me.  At the beginning of his talk he relates the following...
Some question whether Prophets see the Lord in our modern days.  I think the answer is yes, but they do not share it as much with many because they do not throw their pearls before swine.
I also recall recently that Elder Haight (who has passed away) also saw a vision of the Lord.  I believe our prophets and apostles today still are special witnesses of Christ and that many receive these visions and visitations in our modern day.
 
PS:  And yes, this means my mind wandered a little during the lesson. I'm not perfect yet.

I guess Star Wars.
I enjoyed the Original Trilogy, and the Prequels are okay, but I don't really enjoy these new movies like I enjoyed the original three movies that came out.
I enjoy some of the new Star Trek movies, but they seem to be more flash than substance, so I'm not sure I would say that I'm really a big fan of them either.
A few years ago we watched Star Gate SG-1 on Sci-Fi...that was a pretty fun show.
Can I vote for another old show instead?  I really enjoyed the OLD Battlestar Galactica (the new one is a little too risqué for me to be honest).
How about...Duck Dynasty?  That's a recent show I really enjoyed.  Could I go with 2001 instead as my choice to be a current fan of?  That's an older movie, but I still enjoy it and they haven't ruined it with tons and tons of sequels (they did attempt to make one several decades ago based on 2010, but that's the entirety of the sequel attempts they've done with it).

@Zarahemla, let's look at what we know from scripture:
1) There are both glories and kingdoms described.
2) Those of a higher order can descend to visit those of a lower order, but those of the lower order cannot ascend to visit those of a higher order (this suggests to me that terrestrial and telestial are not permanently cohabitating, so to speak).
3) The Earth lives a celestial law and will receive a celestial glory.
4) The Earth is a place.
Thus, it is my opinion, that "celestial" is a state of existence which can be shared by both people and "places".  Personally, I think anywhere a celestial being chooses to go, they take a little bubble of celestial location (kingdom) with them.  But that's me.  If nothing else, any place which lives the celestial law could be described as a celestial kingdom...
(Your idea of terrestrial and telestial occupying the same space but living a different level of existence is intriguing (and I think is what happens in mortality, in a sense), but #2 above tells me this is probably not the case, unless there's a way to pull it off while maintaining what's taught in scripture, and I don't see such a way.  And I do see problems with it - how terrestrial will it be if you're surrounded by people being exceedingly telestial?)

Both! Physical places, the Celestial Kigdom will be this earth. And states of being in that our bodies will be glorified to different extents. 
The spiritworld is a different story. There is only one spirit world. The idea of paradise and prison refers not to places, but states of being.

Answer:

Is this the one with John Ritter?  I SUPER DUPER LOVE LOVE LOVE THAT MOVIE!  Science denying magic and ended up saving the Magic world.... it's awesome.
Flight of Dragons and Tron basically defined my world in 1982...

When we analyze the Lord and who he taught in the New Testament, he normally did not find much success among the rich and the powerful.  It was normally among those that were already humbled by the problems of life, and thus were willing to accept his teachings and humble themselves by choice to be servants of the Lord.
In that way, perhaps those in Prison are more receptive, because of all of us, many of them have been delivered into the ultimate humbling experience.  In that light, many of them are thus prepared to receive the Lord's gospel and truly humble themselves by choice by following him and accepting his gospel.
Of course, it may be for naught if one puffs themselves up with pride after receiving it and rebels against the Lord (or perhaps, that is one reason he feels to keep humbling some of them, to keep them returning back to him?).  I think it has to do with how humble one may be that leads to how receptive one is of the Lord.  I think many have been greatly humbled when in prison.

This is a personal thing, and goes AGAINST the current scientific evidence.  It is not something that is known in general, and as far as I know, the family has gone by other titles and names in public generally.
I would qualify as native American I suppose, though just barely (there are certain requirements of how much blood, or how far down the line you are that qualifies you for Native American).  Now, here's the kicker.  In the individual families and such, mine would have the name of Manasseh.  Yes...Manasseh.  As far as I know, I do not have a lick of Judaic blood in me.  I am NOT Semitic. 
More interesting, my mother was connected through the Patriarchal blessing to the tribe of Manasseh.  I, on the otherhand, was told I was of a different tribe.
So, the thought of mine that comes to my mind is, how is this?  Is it possible that we are literally the descendants (however times removed)?  If this is true, than it is highly possible that the actual DNA that the Hebrews had as a family is NOT the same DNA as is found among most of those in the Middle East.
The tribe of Judah has been there long enough that maybe they have intermingled enough with others in the Middle East (something that the Israelites were told NOT to do, but probably happened, especially among those who returned after the Babylonian captivity) and that is what is linking them to the peoples of the Middle East in general.  Or it could be that the people's of the Middle East have a lot of the blood of Judah in them (which would also be a connection).  However, neither of those state that the Hebrews necessarily had that type of blood line.
This is just a personal thing and has NO scientific backing to it.  It's my pondering about my family background and that related to those found in the Book of Mormon.  I know what the background of my family in that direction is, and with it having Manasseh in the background (It is spelled differently though), I think there is a strong possibility of a connection.  As I said though, I don't think I have any tiny bit of Semitic blood in me.  There are other connectors to European Jews that I have in common with them in my DNA (as in, common nations of origin where I have geneology and so did many European Jews, though as far as I know, theirs and my line did not connect) and many would say that the linkage of the European nationality comes from my European geneology (but does it in truth? I wonder).  Maybe the tribe of Ephraim's blood line was what the Vikings had and those who share that lineage are related to Vikings, I think there are other possibilities.
In other words, in looking to connect the Native Americans to the Jews (of which they are NOT part of that tribe) via the DNA common to those found in the Middle East may actually be a flawed logic, or flawed reasoning if looking for the traits of those who were Hebrews generally, and not specifically from the tribe of Judah.
As I said, NO scientific backing.  I think, in relation to my own background, there is a LOT we do not know.

I am pretty strong against divorce, but the Lord made it clear that adultery WAS good grounds for divorce.
However, here's a clever contraption.
He said this, put it to the test.  If he said he'll do anything, say if he MEANS it and REALLY goes through with it, you'll accept him back.  The condition, he HAS TO BECOME A GOOD MEMBER OF THE CHURCH.  That means going through repentance, the whole nine yards.  The added condition is he has to be sincere about it and cannot hold a grudge against you for asking that of him.
I'm betting he's not being sincere when he says he'll do anything.  However, if he is, it means, hopefully he'll come back as a stronger member then ever.
On the otherhand, the bible is pretty clear about Adultery.  You are a very good woman to even consider working it out with her husband (if he had only one or the other issue and even considering working it out, that makes you an exceptional person).  I try to be good, but at times I can be pretty vengeful.  I'd probably be filing for divorce already.  You seem far more forgiving than I, and that's a good thing.