JohnsonJones

That is false.
Edit: Or at least incomplete. They may be able to "repent", but that is a different matter than qualification for whatever kingdom one qualifies for. For those who had opportunity, they qualified in mortality. It is true that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (repentence?). But it is not true that they will have opportunity that they declined in mortality to gain their exaltation.
 

I don't think there is any penalty for watching R-rated movies.  It is encouraged that you watch wholesome movies.  There is no requirement that we avoid Rated-R movies or other such things to be good Mormons, or hold a temple recommend.
There is encouragement to watch wholesome and uplifting movies, but it is not something that is specifically asked about in a Temple Recommend.
This encouragement to watch wholesome movies goes back decades.  Back in either the 70s or 80s, one of the things that was pushed was to avoid R-rated movies.  The reason is because it was deemed that these movies were rated R for content that was more violent, sexual, and profanity laced than other movies.  It was thought that this was not something that encouraged the spirit to be there or built one up spiritually.
This was later continued in an even stronger front when it was published in the Strength of the Youth pamphlets to avoid R-rated movies.
This was problematic in several arenas.  The biggest obstacle that I dealt with was that I was spending time (I'm a historian, and as such, when doing research I would be in various nations around the world) in nations that did NOT follow the US's rating guidelines, and sometimes had no rating guidelines at all.  This meant, that I had to make personal choices in what were appropriate or inappropriate movies in regards to what my standards were.  I am obviously not the only one in this situation, hence, despite the encouragement in that regard, there was no way for me to know (especially pre-internet days...yes...there are those of us who existed prior to the internet being a widespread phenomenon) what a movie was or was not rated in the US rating system.
Those nations which have rating systems, sometimes rate movies differently.  A prime example would be the recent Beauty and the Beast film that came out.  In the US it is rated PG, but in some other areas it's almost been banned!  In the US some movies are obviously rated R and rated for only Adult audiences in other nations, other movies may be rated R in the US, but a PG12 or other such rating in another nation.  At other times, a US movie rated PG (though normally more likely a PG-13 rating) will be rated for audiences 16 or older or worse!  It makes it hard to utilize a statement made for US audiences to a worldwide audience.
I don't think the LDS church is pushing the rated-R movie policy as strongly anymore, if at all, but there is still an encouragement for us to participate in wholesome and uplifting media.
I've been in war zones and I've been other places where I've seen some really terrible things, and personally do NOT consider Schindler's list or Saving Private Ryan a wholesome and uplifting movie, but personal values differ from person to person, just like they do from nation to nation.  My lesson that I think I've learned is that each one of us has to make that determination for ourselves.  We know, for each of us, what is really wholesome and uplifting.  Some of it probably would (or should) be obvious (for example, I'd have a very hard time if someone brought a straight up pornographic movie and tried to convince me that it was wholesome and uplifting), but overall, how a movie may affect us and our families may be different for each individual.
Their was a talk many years ago, even when the encouragement to not watch Rated-R movies was in effect.  As I was not in the US most of the time during that period, it is what I've utilized as my guiding light in what movies would be wholesome and uplifting.  That talk was by a Seventy I believe, so not even an apostle but I considered it good advice.
It basically stated, if we would not allow our little children to watch it, why are we watching it?  Even worse, if we would deem it inappropriate for our little children, would it not also apply to us.
In a nutshell, I try to have it so that the movies I think are appropriate for my life are those that I would also allow my little children to watch. 
 
 
 
We recently watched Aliens together for family home evening and followed it up with the Exorcist..
.(sorry, that last sentence is a joke...I've never seen those, only clips from ads and other things, though I did have the tune for the exorcist on a CD...I think it was Pure Moods.  Those are not movies I'd actually watch with my family, just so people realize this LAST sentence/paragraph about these two movies is actually a joke...).

I would refer you to Lectures on Faith 3:2-5 which states:
If you can say that you are temple worthy and are sincerely striving to live the commandments of God, striving and learning to live by the influence of the Holy Ghost, then there is no reason for you to doubt that you are following the course that God wills for you to follow.  Following that, then if you can say that the course in life you are pursuing is according to God's will, then there is no reason for you to doubt that your ordinances have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  You do not need a special witness or event to confirm that this has happened.  However, you may pray to the Lord and ask if it has; so long as you do not feel a withdrawal of the spirit when you ask, then you can take that as an additional confirmation.

As Person_0 already stated, his articles are excellent upon it.
If I perceive what you are asking though, is not what it is, but HOW YOU KNOW if your ordinance has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.
That can be far more difficult to answer.  There are multiple answers to that question that various people have given at various times.  I think if you have hope and charity and seek to endure to the end, you probably do not have to worry.
ON the otherhand, if you murdered Mr. John Doe in the back of the building and concealed that fact and then got baptized without ever repenting of it...you might want to worry somewhat.
Or, if you had been fornicating and then went to the temple and got sealed...you may want to be a little worried, though if you've repented you probably can be a lot less worried.  The ordinance in that case was performed, but it is awaiting your own personal worthiness to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

Indeed... Also please note that the Sealing also has to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise or it not binding in Heaven.  Going through the ordinance of Sealing multiple time to different women (or men) while alive or dead matters not in Heaven, if that ratification does not happen.  And I think that ratification happens much less often then we suppose.
While pondering the eternities can be good.  It matters not if we fail to make what we have right in front of us work.  Remember the parable of the talents 
 

Actually, Lucas didn't really refer to the EU all that much.
At the end of Episode 3 it was balanced to a degree, but only because each side had two champions for it.  They were Master and Apprentice (or Master and Lord).  That would be
Darth Sidious/Palpatine = Sith Master (Dark Side Master)
Darth Vader = Sith Lord or Dark Lord of the Sith
Yoda = Jedi Master
Obi Wan Kenobi = also a Jedi Master, but the Jedi equal to Darth
However, it wasn't completely balanced, though it remained somewhat balanced throughout the Original trilogy in a similar manner.  When Luke started to learn the force, he replaced Obi wan and became the Apprentice to the Master or it was then Yoda and Luke to counter Palpatine and Vader, at least to a degree.
It truly became balanced when Yoda died, and Palpatine died.  Vader balanced it out completely by himself by Killing Palpatine leaving only one on each side which would not kill the other, both which had never become a Master which was Anakin and Luke.
The rest of the EU stuff, well, that didn't really enter into Lucas's equations as far as I know.  They were their own thing with people creating ways and theories of their own.
Now that it is beyond Lucas's control, who knows what Disney feels about it or how they will interpret it.

Okay, insensitive and sort of humorous post coming up. (do not take anything before my PS seriously...if you do...well...you shouldn't have).
It is right, only 1 woman spoke for the Sunday sessions.  However, it gets FAR worse!!!!!
THERE WERE NO WOMEN who spoke during the PRIESTHOOD SESSION!!!  The HORROR!!!
AND THERE WAS ONLY 1 PRIESTHOOD HOLDER who spoke during the GENERAL WOMAN'S SESSION!!!! The HORROR!!!!
Where is the equality!  We should have at least 50% of the speakers be Priesthood General Authorities from the First Presidency for the General Woman's session!!!
And they didn't really include me!!!!  In the Woman's Session...how could they!!!
And then, in turn around, didn't include my wife or any other woman in the Priesthood Session!!!
The world is going to end, I tell you, the world!  Do you realize just how big that is!!!!!
 
(PS: As they include the General Woman's Session as a session of General conference (though a week early, so not exactly sure why that is, wouldn't it work better on Friday night or something before the rest of conference?) there were actually 4 woman who spoke in total at General Conference).
I suppose I'm snarky...the above post is wife approved...and she wanted me to clarify she had no desire to go to the Priesthood session even if she could have...and informs me that if I ever thought of dragging her to more conference then she normally goes to she might become violent...
She read through the post and approved it (so I could say it was wife approved), but wanted me to add those items.

As I stated before, I am not in favor of Polygamy myself.  That IS a PERSONAL opinion...not doctrine. 
In regards to romantic love, that explains a LOT, and if one is a historian, they probably can understand the context.  This will go off topic, even off the off topic topic of polygamy...eventually.
Romantic love is a rather new concept for a reason to get married.  Generally it was seen as a disastrous consequence if people who were "in love" got married.  Most today see Romeo and Juliet as a tragedy...but for different reasons than they may have when it was written.  When it was written, it could rather be seen similar to Madam Bovary (Which was written much later, but is still seen by some in western society as a morality tale whereas Romeo and Juliet is normally no longer seen as such) or other morality tales, a warning of what following the dictates of emotion rather than society could lead to.  It would lead to tragic consequences.
Traditionally, LOVE was not something that factored into who one would marry, at least generally.  It was something that depended on your culture, but almost always involved your parents rather than your own choices.  Reasons could vary from prestige and social standing, to what your parents felt would lead to a good stable home with a good foundation that would help the family thrive.  Marriages that came from this romantic love notion really didn't start making a majority in any society until around 300 - 350 years ago.  Before then, it didn't matter what you felt towards your wife before you were married, what mattered was that you were loyal to her or him afterwards (especially in Christian society, where divorce was basically illegal before the reformation) and strove to raise your children correctly.  Marriage was viewed as a very DIFFERENT idea back then.
These changes in how marriage was viewed from one of societal responsibility to one where marriage occurred because of your love for someone else is probably also most likely responsible for how we view marriage now days, and why things such as Gay marriage is even seen as a possibility.  The entire reason for the existence of marriage has changed.  Traditionally, it did NOT MATTER who you loved before your marriage day, you married for your social and family responsibilities.  LOYALTY was the big thing in marriage as well as fealty to spouse and obedience to parents.
This is one of MANY things that has changed over the years.
That said, I'm terribly romantic at heart, and love the ability to marry who I love.  I find it very inspiring and sweet to see an old couple who have been so devoted and cherished by each other that they have been married since they were young, never divorced, and remain married till they are both very old and have the hope to be with each other forever.  What more romantic a view can one have!  I am not ashamed to say this heavily influences my stance on polygamy despite understanding the history and background.
Back onto how the above attitudes relate to Polygamy and the Lord.  When polygamy existed in Christianity and Judaism previously, as I stated, marriage was not a union of romance, but one of obligation and loyalty. 
The Greeks, despite what one may consider somewhat hedonistic ideals in some ways, represent this almost perfectly.  A man may select another man for romance or pleasure in some of the Greek societies, but this was seen as a unique and very different than what one did with a wife or why one even had a wife.  Wives were family, lovers were not.  When times were hard, family was what one relied on and who absolute loyalty lay upon.  Lovers, or those under the purview of romantic love had no such bounds.  The entire aspects of lust, romance, love, and marriage were different than what we have today, so much that what we talk about today in regards to romance and marriage would be foreign to a Greek or other inhabitant of the that ancient world, and what they felt marriage was would probably be foreign to MANY Of us today.
Many of the Greek tragedies actually focus on what happens in these situations when one follows emotion rather than societies' expectations.  A tragedy occurs when one follows lust, love, or another aspect rather than loyalty to family, home, king, or religion.  Their ideals championed items that would be foreign to many of us today, and their reasons for why some items ended in tragedy are much different then how many see them in our western society.  Tragedies in Greek myth and legends ALWAYS had a cause far before the tragedy ever occurred, and it was predictable at the beginning of the story or play that it was indeed going to be a tragedy due to how the characters acted in the beginning.
This is NOT just an idea that was held by the Greeks. Many ancient society held these ideals, where purely following one's emotions over the good of society or family was ever the tragic situation, whereas obedience, loyalty, family ties, and strength in one's families were qualities to be upheld.  This extended to marriage.
In that light, polygamy was NEVER about romantic love.  Ever.  It was in regards to society, expectations, loyalty, and how the culture that it is cultivated proceeds.
I bring this up because this is an aspect I think many people have problems with today.  It is not just in marriage arenas, but in MANY areas where the Bible or scriptures may talk about things that we, in our western mode of thoughts, cannot seem to agree with.  What the Lord may think on something may not correlate with how we think he should think on something.  The society and culture the Lord has is NOT our modern Western society.  It is NOT our western way of thought.  His way of thinking has existed LONG before ours, and will exist LONG after ours.  Many times we want to place constrictions and boundaries on the Lord because of how WE, in our Western and Modern though believe it should be.  This extends to things from marriage, to slavery, to marriage within the church.  Because so many want to inscribe upon the Lord in OUR image rather than make ourselves in HIS image, many try to change things to fit their world view.
The thing is, that we want to imprint western society (which is extremely new in the history of things) on the things of the Lord which expands to encompass all societies and all things.  It's a case of frustration because the Lord is not someone to bend to our will, but to whom we should bend our will to.  When we decide what the Lord has to accept and want to force him to accept, rather than what we will be humble about in following his commandments, we tend to create a society like we see being formed in some parts of the world today which flaunts hatred of Christianity and all the things that are important to the Lord.
People cannot seem to understand that the way men think is not necessarily the same as the mind of the Lord.  That the mind of the Lord may be different, and that a willingness to obey his commandments instead of our own baseless desires and ideals are things that are important.  Many of the things people find hard to obey or follow in the Scriptures is because of this difference, and their unwillingness to obey the Lord in all things.
That said...I am STILL a huge romantic.  I believe in love.  I love the ideal of romantic love.  It helps when you marry a perfect spouse.  So, yes, I know the arguments in regards to Polygamy and all the rest...
But I am STILL heavily in favor of monogamy and that one can love their spouse with sole focus of their heart, just as one can love the Lord with all their heart minds and might, they can also love their spouse (single, not plural).
In addition, I would NEVER want to lose my spouse for any reason, and I would not want her to marry some other bloke.  I would never want her to by chance be sealed to someone other than I. 
In like manner, why would I ever wish to do something like that to her.  I would not, I love her to much to want to do something like that to her.
I don't even like the idea that they are sealing multiple husbands to woman for the dead (from what I understand, it came into debate when my great grandmother which had specific instructions NEVER to seal her to her first husband and ONLY seal her to her second husband under any circumstances...was sealed to her first husband anyways...church policy these days I guess), so yes, I understand the ideas of how polygamy should work and why...but I PERSONALLY do not wish to see it ever return, at least currently.

This is an interesting thing to follow and one which I have looked at in the past to see what a solution would be.  Let's take a worse case scenario (not stating this is the case, this is a let's pretend instance).  Let's say it IS a scam and everyone is in it for the money in the leadership.  Afterall, almost no one get's an income of 120K or more a year when they are in their 80s doing what General Authorities do, at least typically.  No one has the benefits they get these days either for the most part.  At best, if they were wealthy, they are living off investments in old age rather than being paid by an organization.  What happens if it IS a scam?
Let's look at the New Testament.  The Church of Christ did not start until AFTER his death and was initially led by the apostles.  Prior to this, the Lord in his mortal life was subject to the laws of the religion as imposed by his church.  He may have noticed hypocrisy, taught where they could not, but he always recognized who the authority was (his Father, and those who were under him).  At that time, the Jews were THE CHOSEN PEOPLE.  It did not suddenly go away because there was corruption at the top.  It did not suddenly disappear because those in the high positions were basically abusing the system.  If Zachariah was still alive, the Lord would have gone to him to be Baptised as he had he authority, even in the middle of Jerusalem and the corruption that dwelt there.  As it was, the son and holder of that authority was not in Jerusalem at the time, but recognizing the authority, the Lord was baptized by John the Baptist.  The Lord cricized many practices that were not scriptural but still imposed upon the people by the religious leaders, but he also showed deference while in his mortal ministry to their authority.  At that time, even though he was the Lord, he still recognized the chosen people and their leaders and it's religion.
What does that mean to me.  EVEN if the leaders of the church are the most wicked, the church is STILL the chosen vessel of the Lord on this Earth.  This was true in the time of the Judges of Israel, this was true in the time of Samuel (and part of the reason Samuel became prophet was due to the corruption of the sons of the leader before Samuel, but even after them the true church remained), this was true during the House of David (even with all the wickedness that ensued, the Jews were still the Chosen people, and their religion and religious leaders still the church of the Lord, even if the kings were inspiring people to do therwise), this was true during the time of the Macabees.
Thus, it does not matter to me what is occurring, that does not change what the church is or it's purpose. 
Now, that said about the pretend situation, let's talk about the reality of today.  The history of the usage of tithing and the paying of General Authorities is not what I really want to go in depth here (probably because I'm supposed to be doing some research right now and instead am goofing off writing this which is probably not particularly good, means I may be working later tonight and won't get off till around 7 or later...so I need to make this shorter than a good examination of the topic would be).  It probably would surprise MANY people about who was paid during the early days of the church and how General Authorities got funds at times.  However, what many have problems with these days is that the church no longer discloses it's funds and how it spends them.  Part of this some attribute to financial problems that arose in the first half of the twentieth century and continued to the mid-twentieth century.  Some of these problems, when known by the General membership caused undue alarm and difficulties that should not have existed...hence the current situation.
For some, this means there is a lack of transparency in what the tithing funds are being spent on.  The problems arise because people feel that they should know what "their" money is spent on, rather than realize it is the Lord's money.  Tithing is NOT unique to the LDS church.  A good answer of why we pay tithing can be found from what I believe is a NON-LDS site here
Tithe: What the Bible Says
I'd like to go more in depth, but as I said, time is not my ally right now.  In a nutshell, tithing was originally given to support the priests.  It was still a way to support the ministry and those who worked for the Lord as per the New Testament.  It never says that those servants of the Lord would give us an accounting of everything that it was spent on.  In truth, the Bible itself doesn't really say they couldn't spend it on huge houses and Lamborghini's if they wanted to (but I think overall, it would be implied they'd do something better with the tithing). 
The LDS take is that the tithing is spent to build the Kingdom of the Lord on this Earth.  How that is done is really up to those who are the appointed servants of the Lord to administer over those funds in our church.  It is their best judgment.  Tithing is not ours to say what to do with, but the Lords, and his servants use their judgement on how to best utilize it.  If it is to build a large shopping mall because they feel that builds the kingdom up the best in showing the church to the outside world and building up the economic base of the Church, then so be it.  If they feel it is to build a firm economic foundation as well as a place for food and welfare in case of terrible things happening such as making a ranch...then that is their guidance.  If it is to build themselves homes that they can live comfortably in, well, then at least it is fulfilling the first commandment in regards to tithing found in the Old testament that tithing be used to support the priests (and in this case, the head high priests of our religion).  It isn't really our place to dictate to them what the Lord's money is to be spent on.
It is something that they themselves are accountable for before the Lord, and in that way, just like the tithes and how they were used were between the Levite Priests and the Lord in the Olden times, the way the tithes are spent today are between our High Priests that lead the church and the Lord today.

I haven't any good ideas on it that sounds better than your idea.  Sounds good to me.

In evaluations they can be words that bulk up a comment without actually adding anything.  For example...
John Doe expertly managed twenty-five 30 million dollar accounts insuring excellent percentage rate increases over the 10 percent range.
In the above sentence expertly and excellent are both aerosol words.  They add nothing to the meaning of the sentence in any real way.
In a meeting you could have someone say the following...
We need more synergy in our teamwork to collaborate more seamless interactions.
Which could be simply stated
We need better teamwork.
Thus synergy, collaborate, seamless and interactions are all aerosol words.
That's what I think it would refer to.  Unfortunately, I bulk up my writing all the time, so I probably use aerosol words constantly out of habit.

CRITIC
Only the grace of God can save us, your works won't save you!
RESPONSE
I agree!
CRITIC

The furthest east I've been has been Greece and Romania in Europe itself.  In those areas, you'll need to be in one of the LARGER cities typically to find a ward.  If you search on the LDS website it can show you where the wards are.  The number of wards in an area is a good indicator of how many active members are in that area.  In smaller cities there may be no ward close by.  The smaller the town or more rural the area you get, the harder it will be to find a ward.
Good Luck.

This is something I sort of dealt with tonight.  I visited a family where the father works at the local grocers.  He doesn't make a ton of money and so the family lives in his parent's basement.  They STRONGLY feel that the mother should stay at home and take care of the children.  They are very poor.  It is a hard situation, but the children also definitely gain something from having their mother around and taking care of them.  She is multi-talented and bakes, sews, and other household things that half our ward have forgotten how to do.
Then there was another family in a very similar situation.  Seven kids and an income around 31K a year.  Money is extremely tight in that household.  They also feel that the mother should stay at home and the father works his normal job (college two year degree even which is the minimum requirement for the position he holds) and then works other odd jobs also.  The children are awesome and she is an excellent mother.  She sews everything for them off material she can find, as well as bakes and is extremely conservative in money and saving.
In fact, I have many families that I visit that are like this.  The benefits of a stay at home mother seem very apparent to me when I visit, however, they are in a lot of need much of the time. 

1. Always do what's right. No matter what.
2. Be who you really are.
Granted, point 2 only really becomes cool from an LDS perspective.

I remember the Terri Schiavo situation, but not something from Hinckley specifically addressing it.  There is a quote from Hinckley that sounds like what you refer to, but from a funeral address in 1996.
Other than that, I have nothing, sorry.

Jacob have I loved
Slightly different tone than the last one I wrote.  So, tonight my wife flipped on the light switch so she could read.  She couldn't get to sleep, and unfortunately I can't sleep with the light on.  So, since she was awake, I was awake.
She's reading Jacob have I loved, which is one of her favorite books.  My wife always said she related to Louise growing up.  Her sister was talented and played the violin, drew artwork that everyone seemed to love, and made straight A's in school.  My wife didn't do so well in art, couldn't play the violin, and was an A and B student.  My wife always felt like her sister was the favored one growing up and thus felt like she related to the Character of Louise in the book.
In the book you have two sisters, Louise and Caroline.  Caroline is beautiful and talented and everyone seems to love her while Louise is left in the shadows of her sister, or so she feels.  It isn't till near the end where she is told she (Louise) who is the one to decide what to be that she changes, goes to school and then medical school, becomes a doctor, and eventually married.
However, I noticed something when we were first married, and I told my wife, I think she was mistaken about which sister she was.  My wife was absolutely gorgeous.  She was modeling type gorgeous, with the classic blonde hair and blue eyes.  She had a ton of friends and was popular, while her sister was not and tagged along with my wife's crowd of friends.  My wife sang beautifully and did choir growing up.  I noted that while my wife was getting married at a young age, her sister still was not married nor dating someone seriously.  I realized at that point, though I do not know how much, that even though my wife was jealous of her sister, the opposite was true as well.  Her sister was also jealous of my wife.  In looking at it, it seemed more that her sister would fit Louise and my wife would fit the role of Caroline.  Her sister has done wonderfully in life, deciding to go to graduate school and while there finding the love of her life and finally getting married.  However, when I look at the roles of the book, and the roles of these two sisters, I think my wife, though wanting to see herself through Louise's eyes, truly fit the role of Caroline far more aptly.
I wonder how much others feel that way in our families at times.  How often do we feel our brothers or sisters are favored over us, or are looked upon more favorably and we are the outcast.  I wonder if at times, we feel that way because that's who we want to relate to, even if we are the ones who are not.
I noted to my wife about the scripture reference.  Supposedly the scripture is in reference to Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:13
Which is interesting when one knows the story of Jacob and Esau.  Though the Lord favored Jacob, if I remember the story right, Issac actually favored Esau as the firstborn.  Jacob eventually leaves and has the conflict of his own story with two sisters (which in some ways also reflects the story in Jacob I have loved).  It's an interesting dynamic.
Now, I was told that I was incredibly popular when I was younger.  I know my wife seemed pretty popular.  What I find interesting is if you asked us each about what we thought we were, we probably would have said we were not the popular people, but just normal, everyday individuals.  That there were points that we wondered if people actually liked us or cared for us.  In my wife's case, I know she always had friends there that are friends with her to this day.  In that instance, I wonder if it doesn't matter how popular you may seem, or how well you are liked, that everyone at some point in life may feel like they are alone, or no one is there for them.  That everyone at some point may feel like a Louise, (or Jacob as Esau threatens him, or Esau as he feels Jacob is favored over him, or Rachel as Leah has all the sons, or Leah as it seems Jacob always favors Rachel over her no matter what) in their lives.
I think one of the great comforts we can have as Mormons, though not all of us realize it is that we can all have at least one constant companion.  We, when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as long as we remain worthy can always have the comfort of the Holy Ghost with us, and know that our Lord is with us as well and cares for each and everyone of us.
Louise may have been Methodist in the book (I believe that was her religion) and married a Catholic, but I think her story also can pertain to us Mormons as well.  Maybe that is why the book "Jacob have I Loved" appeals to so many through the years, because many of us, no matter who we are, sometimes feel that way.  However, the great thing is that we can all hopefully know that we are all loved by our Father, and also by the Lord, and that we can have constant companionship.
I have several children and some of them do not seem as talented as others on the surface.  There are little girls, but the one I want to talk about briefly is my second oldest son.  His older brother is very coordinated in hand and eye, athletic, and very outgoing.  He, in contrast, is extremely shy, and not very coordinated.  While his brother was winning trophys and events, which made me very proud, I was equally proud of this little boy for something entirely different.  He got up and gave a talk on his own in primary.  To put this into perspective, he wouldn't even talk to other kids he was so shy, and though could say prayers at home, up until this point always had to be helped to say them in primary due to his shyness.  That Sunday we had practiced his talk over and over and over again.  He knew it from memory, and when he got up and after a pause, gave the talk, I was just as proud as I was of his brother at any event that his brother had won.  This was a major victory for this little boy. 
When this little boy went to second grade I challenged him to make 30 friends, with the hope that he at least would make at least one.  It wasn't until the third quarter when he finally came home to say he finally made his first friend ever.  I was so proud of him.
In regards to the book, I would have always felt my second son would be the one that would be most like Louise, especially considering how much and how talented his brother was.  However, imagine my surprise when one day, my kids all voted to show who they thought I loved the most (hint, I love them all, they are all my favorites), and they listed my second son as my favorite.  In some way, the others, though very talented in their own ways, felt that my attention to the second son made them all feel a little like Louise.  I've tried since then to take time for each of them and tell them each how important and special they are to me.
I don't know where exactly I was going to conclude on this, just that the different perspectives I've thought of as I watched my wife read the book again for the umpteenth time.  However, she's finally clicking off the light, but as I've thought about my family, I know that I want them all to know how much I love each of them and how special I think every single one of them are.
I think in relation to the book we are all Louise's sometimes, and all Caroline's sometimes, but no matter how alone we may feel, I think our Father also feels in some ways how I feel towards my children, but far more.  That he loves each and every one of us far more than we can realize, that we are all extremely special to him and that if he could, he would want us all to know just how special and loved we are.

Several items or thoughts today. 
First was in regards to the differences between wards and church buildings in the Idaho/Utah/Arizona areas and those in other parts of the world (for example, some rural areas of the UK and Ireland).  Whenever I go to an LDS service, whether in an area where there are multiple wards and a heavy concentration of Mormons, or one that is a small branch in a nation that has a very small number of Mormons, I find the actual services to basically run the same.  They have different speakers, and different individuals, but the feel and flow of the meetings are the same.  In essence, it really is the same church.
The difference comes into play when you have multiple wards in the same building.  Out in the hinterparts of the UK, you many times have one ward (or branch) in a building.  in that instance, you can use the building for whatever the ward needs.  You only need to plan within your own ward, and normally that is easily done during ward council.  It is pretty easy simply to use the building when you need it.
I've found that in areas where you may have three wards in one building it becomes a lot more complex.  The other wards normally are not in your ward council, so having a common point of contact (normally a building coordinator) becomes essential, as well as flexibility and other areas.  I bring this up since we have a ward activity this Friday.  It only occurred to me today to wonder if we had actually deconflicted with the other wards to be able to use the building this Friday evening.  This is something I never had to worry about in other areas, so this is a new thing.
It reminds me that no matter how long we've been in the church, no matter how much we or others may think we know, we are always learning something new.  For me, it's now a little stressful in wondering if we actually have the chapel tomorrow evening, or whether the 1st or 7th wards or whoever else may also plan on using the building, or have another loud activity that could interfere with ours.  I'm feeling a little stress over this, but if I have a little stress, the ones who are in charge of it may have a ton of stress.  I am still learning more about the church and the gospel, and probably will continue to learn more until the day I die (and then probably will still learn more even after that).
The second item I wanted to think about today is General Conference.
There's not as many threads discussing this right now as I would think with it just around the corner, but that may be because it's still not here yet and discussions will abound when it's being broadcast this weekend.
When I was young we'd all get dressed in our Sunday best to go to watch or listen (there was one location at least where we didn't actually get to watch it, but we could listen to it.  I'm unsure if it was due to tapes being sent and we listened to it a week later or if we listened to it live via some other connection) to General conference.  We would be dressed in our best for all of the sessions, and other people would join us.  On Saturday it was a little sparse, but it was normally packed on the Sunday Morning Session.
Now days it seems far different than that.  Even if I go to the Stake Center it is locked up and no one is there.  There is no need to run the recorders or hook anything up at the ward building.  It seems in the areas of major LDS influence and population that it is expected that everyone either has an internet connection they can devote to this for a few hours, or a cable or satellite hookup that they can use.  Unfortunately, there are a few members in our ward that do not have this luxury, so pondering what could be the right course of action.  It appears the stake presidency itself is more encouraging people to watch it, but not to necessarily have us prepare the ward buildings except for the Priesthood session which will have the Stake Center open.  If I open up the ward building, am I still supporting the Stake leadership or not?  I'm not certain what we are supposed to do with those without access to watch it unless we invite people over to our home.  It appears that I will have at least one set of missionaries with us this weekend.  Maybe I should invite the others out there that do not have a way to watch General Conference on their own.  I'm not sure I feel comfortable having a ton of people in my home for General Conference though. Maybe I'm just too prideful in that and shouldn't be so selfish?
In conjunction with that, though I'll be dressed better this weekend most likely, also due to my pride of not wanting to be in PJs with others around, it seems when we watch it in our homes (at least that's the feeling I have with my extended family as well as mine) is that we don't get dressed up anymore to watch conference.  It doesn't seem as special as it used to be with us being able to just flip on the TV and watch it in the comfort of our house (or, as we have a TV in the room, the comfort of PJ's under the blanket from our bed in the bedroom).  I wonder how many others never get dressed to watch sessions of conference.
Even crazier is when people don't even watch conference and consider this weekend as a time to vacation from church.  That some consider it a time to not watch any conference and simply enjoy time off.  We try to watch all of conference, but it gets hectic with all the sessions.  I've encouraged people in my ward that we should try to watch at least one session this weekend if not more. 
For me, it should be an exciting time to hear from our Church leaders, and I am excited.  I think perhaps to try to restore and make it more important would be to make a point of dressing up in Sunday Clothes when listening this year.  This can be some of the most important instruction we receive, and I should treat it far more importantly than I have over the past few years.  I'm excited about this weekend, and wonder who we will hear talk to us at Conference this year.  Normally the Apostles get at least one talk, and the Counselors get two or three talks.  I wonder if President Monson will be well enough to talk to us this year.  If so it might only be one short talk, or it may be more.  It could be interesting to see how it pans out.  I wish I could actually go to see it at the conference hall in Salt Lake, but I didn't specifically ask for tickets to go this year, and have others who will be here this weekend. 
I hope anyone who reads this enjoys watching General Conference this weekend and is looking forward to it like I am.
 
 

No.
Note the exact opposite response above me.
We can be of opposite opinions and still be good people I think.
The church teaches us to try to be self sufficient, but there are times when people are not or cannot be.  I think the commands of the Lord are to Love him with all our heart, might, mind and strength and the second is like to it, to love our neighbor like our selves.
If we were living the true higher law, there would be NO poor (and NO RICH) among us.  Obviously we are not charitable enough to do this.  Instead of being charitable enough (and this includes me) we blame the poor for the problems instead of seeing that it may be something that is there to test us, to see if WE will be valiant and many of them perhaps already were...it is not their test...but ours.  Others (and this really applies to me) are too selfish and are afraid of the future.  WE want to make sure we have enough stored up or ready for retirement, future payments, safety net...etc. to give as much as we probably could to the poor.  This means that we do not live in a Terrestrial society where all have enough for their needs.
However, as we do have rich and poor among us, we are fortunate in many nations which have a system to help those in need in various ways.  Why anyone would want the poor to suffer or starve, or die in our streets, or say every man for themselves is sort of puzzling to me.  I've been to nations that are that way, and it really is NOT PRETTY.  It makes one appreciate modern western society far more in many ways, especially that we don't have the poor sitting themselves to die because there is no food, or others are dying in their 50s and sometimes 40s (or earlier) in larger numbers because the medical treatments are not for everyone are where they live.
I do not see how it is Christlike to try to ignore the poor or to blame them and say we are more deserving children simply because...rather than do what is more Christian.  The Lord stated that if we do it to the least of these, we do it unto him.  We should remember that during his ministry, he himself in some ways might be technically considered homeless and wandering.  How would we have treated him?
Anyways, that's personal opinion.  Luckily, the church does not force one way of thought or another.  It does not condemn someone for being poor, or receiving government aid (and, at times, leaders are told to try to help members in need any way they can with the resources available.  Despite what some may think, NOT a ton of Fast Offerings are there to help every ward, and some wards do NOT have the resources to pay everything for everyone in need...at times government resources ARE the route that is the best suggestion) nor does it condemn someone who is against government aid.
It is largely up to the opinion and desires of each member in that regard, and thus you can have those who have entirely different opinions from each other who are both members in good standing with temple recommends. 

So here's a crazy thought!
What if God is not actually omniscient at all, but instead he uses a massive self building supercomputer with an ever growing number of processing cores and celestial surveillance equipment that monitors everything at all times and does all the calculations for him, and that any time he acts or teaches based on foreknowledge he is actually just using a GUI to get the knowledge he needs.  Then when he needs to show someone a vision he just gives them access to the the display screen on his supercomputer for a brief moment.  He can be god and let his PC do all the work for him!  Or is it a Mac? 
#DontDrinkCoffee

Jacob have I loved
Slightly different tone than the last one I wrote.  So, tonight my wife flipped on the light switch so she could read.  She couldn't get to sleep, and unfortunately I can't sleep with the light on.  So, since she was awake, I was awake.
She's reading Jacob have I loved, which is one of her favorite books.  My wife always said she related to Louise growing up.  Her sister was talented and played the violin, drew artwork that everyone seemed to love, and made straight A's in school.  My wife didn't do so well in art, couldn't play the violin, and was an A and B student.  My wife always felt like her sister was the favored one growing up and thus felt like she related to the Character of Louise in the book.
In the book you have two sisters, Louise and Caroline.  Caroline is beautiful and talented and everyone seems to love her while Louise is left in the shadows of her sister, or so she feels.  It isn't till near the end where she is told she (Louise) who is the one to decide what to be that she changes, goes to school and then medical school, becomes a doctor, and eventually married.
However, I noticed something when we were first married, and I told my wife, I think she was mistaken about which sister she was.  My wife was absolutely gorgeous.  She was modeling type gorgeous, with the classic blonde hair and blue eyes.  She had a ton of friends and was popular, while her sister was not and tagged along with my wife's crowd of friends.  My wife sang beautifully and did choir growing up.  I noted that while my wife was getting married at a young age, her sister still was not married nor dating someone seriously.  I realized at that point, though I do not know how much, that even though my wife was jealous of her sister, the opposite was true as well.  Her sister was also jealous of my wife.  In looking at it, it seemed more that her sister would fit Louise and my wife would fit the role of Caroline.  Her sister has done wonderfully in life, deciding to go to graduate school and while there finding the love of her life and finally getting married.  However, when I look at the roles of the book, and the roles of these two sisters, I think my wife, though wanting to see herself through Louise's eyes, truly fit the role of Caroline far more aptly.
I wonder how much others feel that way in our families at times.  How often do we feel our brothers or sisters are favored over us, or are looked upon more favorably and we are the outcast.  I wonder if at times, we feel that way because that's who we want to relate to, even if we are the ones who are not.
I noted to my wife about the scripture reference.  Supposedly the scripture is in reference to Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:13
Which is interesting when one knows the story of Jacob and Esau.  Though the Lord favored Jacob, if I remember the story right, Issac actually favored Esau as the firstborn.  Jacob eventually leaves and has the conflict of his own story with two sisters (which in some ways also reflects the story in Jacob I have loved).  It's an interesting dynamic.
Now, I was told that I was incredibly popular when I was younger.  I know my wife seemed pretty popular.  What I find interesting is if you asked us each about what we thought we were, we probably would have said we were not the popular people, but just normal, everyday individuals.  That there were points that we wondered if people actually liked us or cared for us.  In my wife's case, I know she always had friends there that are friends with her to this day.  In that instance, I wonder if it doesn't matter how popular you may seem, or how well you are liked, that everyone at some point in life may feel like they are alone, or no one is there for them.  That everyone at some point may feel like a Louise, (or Jacob as Esau threatens him, or Esau as he feels Jacob is favored over him, or Rachel as Leah has all the sons, or Leah as it seems Jacob always favors Rachel over her no matter what) in their lives.
I think one of the great comforts we can have as Mormons, though not all of us realize it is that we can all have at least one constant companion.  We, when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as long as we remain worthy can always have the comfort of the Holy Ghost with us, and know that our Lord is with us as well and cares for each and everyone of us.
Louise may have been Methodist in the book (I believe that was her religion) and married a Catholic, but I think her story also can pertain to us Mormons as well.  Maybe that is why the book "Jacob have I Loved" appeals to so many through the years, because many of us, no matter who we are, sometimes feel that way.  However, the great thing is that we can all hopefully know that we are all loved by our Father, and also by the Lord, and that we can have constant companionship.
I have several children and some of them do not seem as talented as others on the surface.  There are little girls, but the one I want to talk about briefly is my second oldest son.  His older brother is very coordinated in hand and eye, athletic, and very outgoing.  He, in contrast, is extremely shy, and not very coordinated.  While his brother was winning trophys and events, which made me very proud, I was equally proud of this little boy for something entirely different.  He got up and gave a talk on his own in primary.  To put this into perspective, he wouldn't even talk to other kids he was so shy, and though could say prayers at home, up until this point always had to be helped to say them in primary due to his shyness.  That Sunday we had practiced his talk over and over and over again.  He knew it from memory, and when he got up and after a pause, gave the talk, I was just as proud as I was of his brother at any event that his brother had won.  This was a major victory for this little boy. 
When this little boy went to second grade I challenged him to make 30 friends, with the hope that he at least would make at least one.  It wasn't until the third quarter when he finally came home to say he finally made his first friend ever.  I was so proud of him.
In regards to the book, I would have always felt my second son would be the one that would be most like Louise, especially considering how much and how talented his brother was.  However, imagine my surprise when one day, my kids all voted to show who they thought I loved the most (hint, I love them all, they are all my favorites), and they listed my second son as my favorite.  In some way, the others, though very talented in their own ways, felt that my attention to the second son made them all feel a little like Louise.  I've tried since then to take time for each of them and tell them each how important and special they are to me.
I don't know where exactly I was going to conclude on this, just that the different perspectives I've thought of as I watched my wife read the book again for the umpteenth time.  However, she's finally clicking off the light, but as I've thought about my family, I know that I want them all to know how much I love each of them and how special I think every single one of them are.
I think in relation to the book we are all Louise's sometimes, and all Caroline's sometimes, but no matter how alone we may feel, I think our Father also feels in some ways how I feel towards my children, but far more.  That he loves each and every one of us far more than we can realize, that we are all extremely special to him and that if he could, he would want us all to know just how special and loved we are.

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"
Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it.  On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it.
There is an inherent flaw in this logic.  The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination.  But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent?
The short answer is: NO.
In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful".  The key word here being all.  The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing".  If something is not real it is not included with all.  If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence.
To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as:  The divine trait of having all power .  Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean.
I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible.  If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way.
I could go on and on but in conclusion:
1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power).
2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

Is it wrong to receive government assistance? Of course not. First of all, when I first became a single mother after I had exhausted my savings I received assistance from the church for about a month, while my applications for government assistance were being processed...assistance that MY BISHOP told me to file for. He would not have advised me to do so if it were sinful. Since becoming an adult I have worked at least one job, sometimes as many as three. I believe that whatever assistance I received for that short time (the medical coverage was for about 3 years) was more than returned in the 18 or so years since then. I am very glad that I had that medical coverage since that was when I started having some very significant heart problems and had 2 toddlers at home.
Secondly, we are all using government assistance as we read and type. Even this website is funded by a third party. The roads we drive on are provided by government funding, as is our police force, fire services, and as we know here in Oklahoma, the National Weather Service is watching over us to take care of our storm safety. Is it evil to receive these things? Of course not. Should we all go build our own temple because the one we attend was built with dollars that were given by others? No. Let's not be ridiculous.
The very concept of money should be and will be eradicated at some point. I am more than happy to give part of the money I make at my job (and it isn't much at all) to help families welcome a little baby. The money doesn't really belong to me anyway. The Lord is merciful and only asks 10% of it back at this time, but someday it will be 100%. I look forward to the day when I no longer have to worry about money, I am so much closer to being a temple worker now.
This being said, we need to remember moderation in all things. Independence is a very important principle, as are all of our gospel principles. However, it is not meant to be taken to the extreme of not helping one another without judgement or malice.
The entirety of the gospel is the news that we are all washed clean of our sins and can receive eternal life through the sacrifice of one man. We are every one of us unprofitable servants. No, not one of us has earned atonement, it was freely given. Somehow, he has agreed to make us joint heirs, and he didn't have to. When we judge someone else because of 'welfare' may we always remember that the only reason there's a heaven possible for us is because we accepted charity from the Lord. Charity never faileth.

Truth of the matter is that it should be families, neighbors, and communities that help each other out. But who here is willi g to give up their precious ski boat payment to help pay for the poor neighbors to have a child? I find it interesting that in Amish communities they are most like Zion where all work hard and share alike and are truly equal in temporal things. I drive through the neighborhood in my town and one sees the great disparity of wealth and it neessarily isnt distributed according to ones work ethic or ability. We live in a very selfish and prideful society that doesnt really want Zion, especially if it comes at the expense of giving up the fancy motorhome or ski boat.

Another thought I had on the subject.  My thoughts in relation to myself and my own fallen tendencies, not as a reflection of those in this thread necessarily.  I think many object to government aid for two reasons, we are selfish, and we are prideful.  Once again, this is more SELF Reflection than any commentary on what others have stated in this thread.  The church does not lean one way or another in regards to temple worthiness or otherwise.
We think that WE deserve what we get.  That because we are lucky enough to have good paying jobs, that we earned what we have.  Instead of saying the Lord has given us everything we have gotten in this life, we see it as something WE worked for and WE earned.  When we see others without, we say WE got what WE worked for and may blame them for various reasons, instead of being thankful that the Lord has seen to bless us with what we receive.
I know of a married couple (not I) who differed on their opinion on what they should or should not do with their children as they grew up. The Father felt they should simply kick the children out at the age of 18 and force the children to "grow up" and work for a living.  The Mother felt they should pay for college and help the children as they grew older.  They had four children, so they divided them up with the Mother helping two, and two basically being kicked out.  Both of those who went to college have better paying jobs, and are doing better, despite being dependent as adults for 4-6 years as they went to college.  Of the other two, one has had a hard time finding employment, though is lucky enough to finally have gotten a job that I tried to promote them for, and the other, though working, doesn't have as high an income as their other two college educated siblings.
This isn't true for EVERY child (there are those who earn more who never even graduated from high school, and of course you have Bill Gates stories and such of those who never graduate college), but I find that when we decide that people must learn the law of the world and kick them out to fend for themselves or other such thoughts, it isn't necessarily beneficial for them or society.
As I said, people tend to look at themselves in a prideful way, and say what they have is because THEY deserve it.  If they have more than another, it is because THEY earned it.  They do not feel the Lord is actually the one responsible in any way, and thus, in their own selfish way, feel that THEY are the ones that own it.  In this way, in my opinion, we sometimes place ourselves over others for no good reason.
I think it is much like salvation in some ways. NO MAN (or woman) can earn their way to heaven (besides the Lord, of course, who was perfect and without sin).  No one is counted as better than the other simply due to our "works" in this life.  All works can do is show that we have faith, but are nothing in regards to actually getting us to heaven.  It is completely on the mercy and judgement of the LORD that we either get salvation or not.
It is ironic that many can remember that in spiritual needs, we are all reliant completely upon the Lord, but forget it in regards to our physical needs as well, and instead feel that we are better than another simply because we have been blessed with more.  The Lord stated that it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to get through an eye of a needle.  There have been SOME rich men that have tried to explain it away with a rather absurd explanation of the gates of Jerusalem (which ignores a lot of the context and historical setting that the parable was actually told in), but in truth, I think it is more literal in some ways than many would like. 
As I said, this is in regards to me, and not specifically those in the thread, I have been very blessed in this life.  Sometimes I wonder (and no, I do NOT want the challenges of being poor.  In fact, I would say I am afraid of that challenge and probably why I am so deficient in the charge of charity at times, or because I am selfish and would rather have that new laptop or other such ridiculous wants in this life.  I pray that I do not have to suffer from the challenges of me and my family being in need, it really does scare me in that thought) how much my chances of obtaining salvation are in regards to that parable.  In relation to the world, we, in the US are very rich.  I don't know what my chances are and I have no idea if I am humble enough, or if in regards to the truly poor in this life, if I am righteous enough to get to heaven.  (The Lord in the New Testament speaks FAR more highly of the poor more often than of the rich or of the powerful).