JoCa

Bingo. There is something inside of you that still desires the sin of pornography . . .you have to figure out from whence, i.e. what source that desire is coming from and then through Christ's Atonement overcome that evil desire.
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/face-to-face/oaks-ballard?lang=eng
~-56.00
Elder Ballard:
Draw a line that tonight you won't go over that line that you will stay on the Lord's side and not go to the Devil-b/c he is the author of it.  Get over it.

For some reason in today's society, all it takes is 1 single female with an axe to grind and your reputation is lower than dirt . . .no matter what else you have done in life and no matter if the accusations are false b/c in the end it's he said, she said and in today's feminazi world she always wins.
----
Now, I say this knowing full well there are a lot of scumbags out there, in hollywood, politics, etc. If there is true remorse on the part of the elites then they will be opening up the whole ball of wax . . . including ditching the plethora of actual true pedophiles in hollywood and politics and that stuff goes way deeper than most people want to even think about. 

Welcome to the club. . . dude I am sorry.  Life ain't fair and sometimes it just sucks.
You have turned your life around, totally different person and you can't be in scouts; meanwhile homosexual perverts and trangender weirdos are welcomed with open arms.  Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah!  This world is jacked up . . . it sucks, but unfortunately there isn't much you can do about it . . .have you thought about Trail Life?

Couple of things with this one.  Okay pleeze, Leeann Tweeden . . .she made her career out of selling her body.  How many Playboy spreads, Maxim, FHM, etc. did she do? The military tour she was one she says specifically was made crude/lewd jokes.  The whole point of your career is to sell sex.  What the heck do you think is going to happen when your entire career is based on selling immorality?  So please spare me your fake hypocritical outrage.
Point two she claims he groped her . .. umm did you look at the picture?  The picture does not show him groping her.  The picture shows him acting like he is groping her.  So we don't know whether he actually did or didn't (my guess is he didn't and was simply being a very crude jerk-still totally inappropriate but worthy of jail time and/or expulsion no I don't think so).
It's everyone's 15 min. of fame right now in sexual harassment.  If you are a male-be very, very scared.  I would not work with or associate with any females unless I had to.  All it takes is one baseless accusation and you are toast and of course the female always tells the truth, b/c a woman would never lie about something like this to get back at a man.
Sick, sick world we live in.  He's a witch so burn him, burn him.
Guilty until proven innocent-it's a natural outcome of a godless society.
 

You are asking the law to do something it is not designed to do (even though it does it all the time currently and quite frankly it is morally abhorent and wrong what the law does). You are asking the law to determine innocence or guilt, whether someone spends time in jail or not based upon whether a jury believes a man over the woman or the woman over the men. And in today's society, the woman is always to be believed.
How is that any different than prosecuting a black man in the 1950s b/c a white man says he robbed my store?
There are some morally reprehensible things that the law cannot prosecute with any degree of protection of rights for the accused and the accuser.  That is why for quite a while rape has been a crime while grabbing a woman's rear (while morally reprehensible without consent) has not been.  In a rape case, there is generally physical evidence-this idea that rape victims just "freeze up" is bull; that is why up until 2nd-3rd wave feminism it was taught to fight back with everything!  The Church taught this; it was for two reason. One to protect the victim (the guy might give up) and two to provide physical evidence of an assault so that you can prosecute.
It is also why for generations there were strict broad rules governing male/female relationships.  Males and females didn't mix unless they were together in a group.  Double dating was very, very common; you didn't go on a single date (i.e. pair off) unless you felt really comfortable with each other.  Men didn't work in the same facilities as women . . . b/c it was understood that when you get a male and female together with no others there the likelihood that something bad could happen was high . . .it was to protect women (from these types of behaviors) as much as to protect men (from false accusations).
I have absolutely 0 sympathy for a woman who is alone with a man and then makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  You want all the "freedom" that comes with being like a man then this is the result.  A man and a woman are alone in an office and the woman makes an accusation that he tried to cop a feel . . .how are you ever going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?  He tried to rape me . . .okay yeah I see the ripped clothes, I see the rape kit that documents physical bruises. . . .got it no problem; send him to jail.  I don't like making things a crime that can't be proven except by a he said, she said.

You are asking the law to do something it is not designed to do (even though it does it all the time currently and quite frankly it is morally abhorent and wrong what the law does). You are asking the law to determine innocence or guilt, whether someone spends time in jail or not based upon whether a jury believes a man over the woman or the woman over the men. And in today's society, the woman is always to be believed.
How is that any different than prosecuting a black man in the 1950s b/c a white man says he robbed my store?
There are some morally reprehensible things that the law cannot prosecute with any degree of protection of rights for the accused and the accuser.  That is why for quite a while rape has been a crime while grabbing a woman's rear (while morally reprehensible without consent) has not been.  In a rape case, there is generally physical evidence-this idea that rape victims just "freeze up" is bull; that is why up until 2nd-3rd wave feminism it was taught to fight back with everything!  The Church taught this; it was for two reason. One to protect the victim (the guy might give up) and two to provide physical evidence of an assault so that you can prosecute.
It is also why for generations there were strict broad rules governing male/female relationships.  Males and females didn't mix unless they were together in a group.  Double dating was very, very common; you didn't go on a single date (i.e. pair off) unless you felt really comfortable with each other.  Men didn't work in the same facilities as women . . . b/c it was understood that when you get a male and female together with no others there the likelihood that something bad could happen was high . . .it was to protect women (from these types of behaviors) as much as to protect men (from false accusations).
I have absolutely 0 sympathy for a woman who is alone with a man and then makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  You want all the "freedom" that comes with being like a man then this is the result.  A man and a woman are alone in an office and the woman makes an accusation that he tried to cop a feel . . .how are you ever going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?  He tried to rape me . . .okay yeah I see the ripped clothes, I see the rape kit that documents physical bruises. . . .got it no problem; send him to jail.  I don't like making things a crime that can't be proven except by a he said, she said.

Well defense attorneys tend to be guilty of a lot, so if you spend a lot of time with them...

You encapsulated right there why it stinks to high heaven of a political assassination.  It was perfectly timed for this, and leaves very little thought that there was any other motivations other than political assassination.  There is a time and a place for this type of stuff to be handled in a proper manner, and the timing of it was NOT IT. 
With 40 years to do this, the best time would have been when there was still time to make a difference on the ballot, OR right after to eviscerate him and then have him step down...thus the election is done and Moore can be killed off (politically) without any of the moral quandaries that are hitting people right now.  A replacement could be found at that point, and it would be far easier as a whole for everything (including prosecuting him...this reveal did NOTHING to help in that and if anything may hinder investigators a LOT more because you now may have a LOT more false flags than reliable evidence coming out, at least until the election is over.  Then the best bet is to somehow have the Moore stuff die down so you can weed out the noise and get to the important facts of the case).  Politically it's great timing, to build a case this is absolutely the worst timing for a reveal like this. 
It's like the entire Clinton email fiasco.  You're screwed if you charge, screwed if you don't, but probably far more screwed if you charge her.  If you charge her you are seen as purposefully interfering with the election, as that puts her in prison and a whole bunch of other things at a point where a candidate cannot really be feasibly replaced.  If you don't, it still may be seen as interference, but it is the lesser of the two evils.  The only real choice then is to not charge.
I think the only situation here is to try to make charges on Moore after the election if the accusations hold water and the victims are willing to work with the police.  Otherwise, they screwed themselves by the timing of this.  Another reason to ask...WHY NOW???

@JoCa If it's any consolation, feminist are just as disgusted by porn as we are--for different reasons (objectification of females). I would counsel my daughters in much the way you are talking. Sometimes the unbelieving even come around to our views on a few things. I just read an article by a liberal sociologist, and she admitted her grandfather was right about the saying that men won't buy the cow (marry) when the milk is so very free (thanks Tinder!). My deal is that we do well to teach our young women about chastity and modesty, but gain very little traction when we lecture older, secular woman. On the other hand, there is near universal agreement that men should not pressure women for sexual favors. That is our common ground with the culture--that is our arena where 'salt and light' can be effective.

My thoughts on Moore are thus:
In this day and age, I don’t think much of a grown man who dates women who are significantly his inferiors—whether in age, life experience, education, intellect, social status, profession, etc.  A real man isn’t threatened by a woman who can hold her own in his presence.  It’s not *illegal* or *sinful*, sure—but it’s awful weaselly; and I’m inclined to view such a male as an unmanly cad.
Without more, that distaste would naturally disincline me to support Moore—except that his opponent seems to be a typical Democrat spouting all the liberal shibboleths.  All other things being equal, if I were an Alabaman I’d probably hold my nose and vote for Moore—all the while noting publicly that Moore is a textbook example of a so-called “beta male” who can’t handle a woman within ten years of his old age.  Put Moore against a fundamentally decent, non-predatory candidate of generally reliable conservatism—Jeff Flake, say; or Romney or McMullin—and I’d turn on Moore in a heartbeat.  D&C 98:10, 1 Kings 19:18, and all that.
But the actually illegal stuff, if true, is a game-changer.  And the trouble is, anyone who says they know those allegations to be true (or false) is simply lying.  Only Moore and his accusers know for sure; the rest of us are spitting into the wind.  I don’t dismiss the possibility of dirty tricks here.  My current job title is “assistant attorney general”, but I have NEVER signed my name “Just_A_Guy, AAG” out of court; and I don’t know any of my co-workers or out-of-state counterparts who have done so—much less on a document they knew could link them back to illegal behavior at some undefined future date.  The first time I heard about that yearbook, my gut said it was probably a forgery.  But really, I’m not sure.
And it seems to me that the Republicans have an awfully deep bench of solid politicos who *haven’t* been accused of sex with underaged teens and who, unlike Moore, haven’t lived in such a way as to make such allegations seem credible.  I think it’s still politically expedient for us to decline to elevate those whose own conduct has placed them under a question mark.  I think the least-bad policy here (which Ben Shapiro recently pitched) would have been for Trump to lead a call to dump Moore and get behind a write-in—maybe bring Strange back, or invite Sessions or Shelby to resign their current posts and run for that seat.  

Now you folks are just arguing to argue.  Unless something new arises, I'm out.

Wow dude ..  .then only the wicked will be in politics. So so sad. Oh and least we forget, he didn't really go into politics.  He is a judge . . .I don't know where you come from but where I come from while judges are "elected" they are non-partisan races.

Al Franken was a dirtbag even without this incident coming to light.

Yeah, well some people (those who actually get ahead financially speaking) are very well attuned financially.  I save 50% of my income.  Some people get the financial system and the path to true financial prosperity in this life.  It requires a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifice over a long period of time. You don't have to make 150k/year to be well off . . . in fact there are plenty of people who make 150k/year who live paycheck to paycheck. And I guarantee there are people who make 60k/year who after 30 years have more wealth than those who make 150k/year.
It's an attitude of financial discipline and knowing what you are getting into.  It's called minimizing your expenses, little to no debt, saving a significant portion of your income and then using those savings wisely (not trying to chase financial bubbles).
But unfortunately, most people are stupid when it comes to money . . . I wish that weren't the case, we'd be a lot better off as a society.
 

I tend to agree, you should have the ideal of staying in a place for a long period of time.  But more than that you need to have the flexibility to go where the jobs are! 
And given a recession, the best thing one can do is pick up and move (even if it is from the north end of town to the south end of town) to where the jobs are.  The people who are smart figure out real quick, "if I lose my job, I'm going to find a job and I'm going to go where that job is located!"  That's the part people don't think about.
And you can't have that flexibility with a mortgage hanging around your neck.

Godless could have found a better phrase to get his point across, in my opinion, but you also responded in kind.   

Perhaps we all could stand to step back, take a deep breath, and look at how we are approaching this discussion.

Oh it's way worse than this.  What you are seeing is just the teeny, tiny, tip of the iceberg. 
There are real Gadianton Robbers within the U.S. Government.  What you are seeing is just a little bit of the deep, dark underbelly of those who pull the strings and control the U.S. government.  R, D it doesn't matter they are part of the uni-party.  
https://www.cfr.org/membership
 

And I understand your position . . . . but this is a political take-down of the highest magnitude and order.
Here is what I believe the actual truth to be.  I do believe that Moore most likely dated younger women, juniors or seniors in high school above the age of consent, 17-18.  I do believe that he probably asked their parents to take them out.  I do not believe that he harassed or did anything untoward to any of this women.
The greatest lies are those lies which are mixed with truth.
This is a great hit, a classic to see evil people work.  Because if you separate out the two (the lies from the truth) a picture of two totally different people emerge . . .and it's very easy to see the progression of a lie. 
From the first reporting of the 3 women who claimed to date him when they were teenager and the unnamed 14 year-old.  All three named women who dated him said that he was a gentleman and asked permission of their mother.   So I believe that was true; I believe the unnamed 14 year old was a total complete utter fabrication.  We still don't know who that 14-year old was and it reads like somebody's made-up story of what they think would happen had he done this not what actually happened.
Alright, so now we've established a baseline for the lie mixed in with truth; i.e. take a true event (dating younger women . ..nothing wrong with that back in the late 70s in Alabama!) mix it in with some lies (sexual assault).  Now all the while you are doing this, you are looking for a "credible face" to make a personal accusation.  So you bring in Gloria Allred and find some woman who has this story.  She spins a tale of sexual assault. 
Now you can't claim rape, b/c rape is a different beast, too many people would say "you were raped and you never reported it!!! that's dumb".  So you spin a tale of assault, just serious enough that it pisses people off but not serious enough to raise the radar of this is a lie.  So now that you have a "credible" witness you'd now but a face to the lie you told in the newspaper article.  Now you can start bringing out every Jane and Jill out there . . .it doesn't have to be corroborated, it doesn't have to be credible it just continues to build upon the lie.
The mall . . .well funny enough everyone who would have actually had authority in "banning him" is dead, and those who claim he was banned rely on 3rd party .. .well the night guard J.D. Thomas told me he was banned . . .can't talk to J.D., can't talk to the actual manager.
And from now until election they will trot out more and more woman . . .we'll probably but up to 20+ by the time this is done and not one will actually be credible.
Now let's go back to the yearbook woman.
She just "conveniently forgot" to mention that Judge Roy Moore was the judge presiding over her own divorce proceeding in the mid 90s!!!  This "event" was so tramatic that when he was the presiding judge over a divorce she didn't speak up, didn't say a word, didn't file a motion all b/c she was "scared".
Lol, give me a break.  
Political takedown of the highest order.

40 years and not saying anything????
This is political assassination.  I don't like Moore, but I like how the media does political assassinations like this more.  I'd vote for Moore right now if I was in Alabama because I despise it when it is a political driven thing rather than moral or reality.
If it was REALLY a moral thing, they had 40 years prior...AND many times he's been in the public face of things that they could have said something before this.
The reason the Democrats (and despite what some of the media is saying, those who did research found out that these people actually are NOT Republican or Trump supporters, but actually some were pretty deep in the pockets of the Democrat party) are doing this is because if they can force Moore to step down or get out, they will probably gain the seat in the Senate and possibly end the Republican majority.
Now, in my opinion, getting that seat at this point may actually be a good thing (afterall, those Republicans who voted out the ACA over 100 times when they were the minority, can't even get it repealed now...they are basically useless political hacks who will do nothing anyways), HOWEVER...to me, this is straight up political assassination of Moore.
If he did that stuff, it's reprehensible, but exposing it at this specific time is literally the definition of a political assassination.  Any fool could see that, which is why, even as someone who is more inclined to vote against Moore, I'd refuse to give in to it and do the exact opposite (call it my anti-authority personality for media stunts at this pint).
40 years people...that's a dang long time to choose this exact moment to go live...and it's NOT due to his trying to get a position as he's had positions which have been far more significant in Alabama prior to this, it's all about the entire party thing and how many seats in the congress there are.
To me it's purely political rather than anyone actually concerned about their actual accusations in regards to the accusers side of things.

Yeah, well some people (those who actually get ahead financially speaking) are very well attuned financially.  I save 50% of my income.  Some people get the financial system and the path to true financial prosperity in this life.  It requires a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifice over a long period of time. You don't have to make 150k/year to be well off . . . in fact there are plenty of people who make 150k/year who live paycheck to paycheck. And I guarantee there are people who make 60k/year who after 30 years have more wealth than those who make 150k/year.
It's an attitude of financial discipline and knowing what you are getting into.  It's called minimizing your expenses, little to no debt, saving a significant portion of your income and then using those savings wisely (not trying to chase financial bubbles).
But unfortunately, most people are stupid when it comes to money . . . I wish that weren't the case, we'd be a lot better off as a society.
 

The Democrats have done this waaay too many times for it not to be suspect.
Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, etc. etc.
That's why it irks me that Republicans are so sensitive to this kind of character assassination.  You can't use the same thing against Democrats because, as you can see with the Menendez trial, they don't care!  So it's too easy to pluck Republicans off a ticket.  And that's one of the benefits of a Trump win.  The Republicans are not as easy to pluck off anymore because the people are just not having it anymore.  Thomas persevered with dignity - I like that, Cain withdrew and fought the legal battle after removing himself from the race - I don't like that.  Moore is swinging punches while mounting a legal challenge to his accusers... I like that.
In any case, this is a decision for people in Alabama.  If I was an Alabama voter, I'd still vote for Moore.  A 40-year-old maybe-scandal over 40 years of public service record... no brainer.
 

I experienced a similar scenario with my cousin's husband.
After my mission I was searching for a job in the Salt Lake City area.  My cousin's husband helped me find a job in the same building that he worked in.  I also needed a place to live and my cousin invited me to live with them until I could find a place.  Being a poor working girl and also going to school, money was tight so I was grateful to them for allowing me to stay with them until I could find roommates and get my own place. We carpooled to work and everything was fine until one day my cousin's husband told me he was attracted to me.  Wow!  That was a shock!  I had no idea he felt this way.  Needless to say, I moved out within a week.
My feelings were one of "ick".  This was not cool!!  My regard for him took a nosedive.  Where I once thought he was an upright guy, I now thought of him as a perv.  I felt terrible.  I wondered if I had ever done anything to let him think I was interested in him.  I was not.  I had never been.  I felt bad for my cousin.  How could he be so disrespectful to her?
Have you ever thought about what would happen if you actually told your SIL your feelings?   She may have the same reaction that I had.  One of revulsion.  That's what she should feel.  But, what if it isn't revulsion on her part, and she tells you she is interested in you as well.  Then what?  Let's say you keep it on the up and up, and no hanky panky occurs, but you divorce your wife.  Can you imagine the family dynamics if you should marry your SIL?  There would never be a comfortable time with the in-laws.  How could there be?  How could your children ever be comfortable with such a situation.  This is a losing scenario.,  No matter how you look at it.  It would not be good!!!  Never tell your SIL your feelings about her if you want her respect.
 

Personally, I've found this forum to be very welcoming and helpful with sinful behavior.  However, you must first recognize the behavior and desire help in overcoming it.  

If you come here talking about how your wife might not be the one and putting up a poll asking if you should get with her sister, I don't understand how you can be surprised when a group of faithful LDS asks you if you've lost your ever-loving mind.   This isn't the Hedonism chat room.

There is a very, very dark underbelly to the modern cultural view of women and this is it.  It's a very weird view also, it seeks to elevate women above all else and in the process of elevating women above all else destroys men. I think at a period of time (and in certain cultures today) the reverse is true, i.e. a world view that elevates men above all else and destroys women (strict Muslim, I'm looking at you!). 
Unfortunately, I believe our current culture has completely emasculated men and therefor many men are a shell of what they can and should be. This happens in the Church too.  I can't tell you how much I hate terms like SWMBO or when men in Church make self-deprecating comments about themselves when compared to their wives. Or "happy wife, happy life", how about "happy husband, happy life"??? Personally I really dislike these cultural aspects in our Church.
I wish we would just get back to more true teachings on this, i.e. men and women have separate distinct roles and the more each of them do their role properly the better marriage will work.  That means that men are to lead, guide, direct (and leading doesn't mean, honey whatever you want). 
Because I think a major failing in today's society is that women today don't know how to be wives or mothers.

?? I never said the bolded; I'm not sure what you are referring to.  
No recessions do not happen b/c of Capitalism, they happen b/c of the Fed and fractional reserve banking; that's it, no more no less.  It used to be that recessions happened due to unforeseen circumstances like a hurricane, drought, etc.  But that is not the case today.  No a recession is a correction due to an unnatural process of excess credit that is unleashed, i.e. we have an entirely fictional monetary system that is backed up by nothing. Just b/c it is fictional doesn't mean you don't need it or can't get real stuff with it.
All you need to know is how money is created, how it is destroyed.  Currently all money is created by debt, full stop.  Everything runs on credit and consequently when the credit well slows down or stops, recessions happen.  If the Fed allows the creation of credit to go on too long without stopping it you end up with bubbles or massive inflation.  While banks and the fed can control to a large extent the flow of credit, they can't control where it goes. 
And if you want to get wealthy in this life, the best thing you can figure out is where the money will go before it gets there and to get out before the tide goes out.  All I'm saying is that now is not the time to be jumping into massive debt; now is the time to be paying it off.  When the recession hits, that is the time (if you have a job), to go on a spending spree.
To the 2nd bold, no you don't need those things, but if you aren't aware of how the monetary system works nor what is going on right now and what will come in the future shortly it's going to be real hard to ever become financially independent . . .which is exactly what the whole system is set up to do-extract wealth from the little peons all the while the fat cats get more and more.  It is no coincidence that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (baring technological increases); the system is set-up to do that.
I have sympathy for Occupy WallStreet, wrong tactics and wrong people to blame-but they were on the right track as far as the symptoms go.  There is a reason why the 1% are the 1% and outside of a few outliers it has very little to do with how hard they worked.