selek

Apparently I'm suffering a fit of compassion: MINUTE CHOCOLATE MUG CAKE 1 Coffee Mug 4 tablespoons flour(that's plain flour, not self-rising) 4 tablespoons sugar 2 tablespoons baking cocoa 1 egg 3 tablespoons milk 3 tablespoons oil 3 tablespoons chocolate chips (optional) Small splash of vanilla Add dry ingredients to mug, and mix well . Add the egg and mix thoroughly. Pour in the milk and oil and mix well. Add the chocolate chips (if using) and vanilla, and mix again. Put your mug in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes at 1000 watts. The cake will rise over the top of the mug, but don't be alarmed! Allow to cool a little, and tip out onto a plate if desired. EAT! (this can serve 2 if you want to share!) (If you want the molten cake variety, you can swirl in a long drizzle of Hershey's chocolate syrup before baking).

Oooh.....just found a fudge brownie mix and chocolate chunks in the pantry. Decisions...decisions...

1) If that were true, there would be a lot more Catholics in the world. (Transubstantiation joke). 2) I'm going upstairs right now to make a French Silk pie just to spite you.

Immutable Truth of Life #293: Your girlfriend doesn't want a solution, she wants a shoulder to cry on. Immutable Truth of Life #294: You're not getting the whole picture. One of the problems of dragging family and friends into "marital" problems is that it creates a false impression of one's loved one. You (this is a rhetorical "you", not an accusation) vent about hubby to your parents or your friends because they are naturally going to take your side. You get validation, sympathy, and get to offload your frustrations onto others. It's an emotional release. Then you reconcile with hubby- but your friends and family still carry that layer of irritation and condemnation. Like plaque on an artery wall, the impresson has been formed. Repeat often enough, and they've formed a definite picture of hubby- and it's not a pretty one. I'm willing to bet a key-lime cheesecake that if you were to turn around and tell your girlfriend what you just told us and she'd deny every word. One other note: several posters have jumped to the conclusion that they are actually sleeping together. I must have missed where that was stated, because I just don't see it. Is it a logical assumption? In today's culture, yes. Was it stated plainly? No. It also contradicts the OP's characterization of this man as "an outstanding leader in the ward and the stake" and "the most spiritual guy in the ward and we all have a good opinion [of] him." Is it impossible that he's both? Of course not- but let's stick to the available facts rather than making assumptions. Yes- there are a lot of red flags. Otherwise, I'm in one-hundred percent agreement with Bini in Post #3.

Two things struck me right off the bat: The first thing the reviewer you linked does is accuse Christians who oppose the homosexual agenda of bigotry. Nothing constructive comes out of the default assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is automagically a bigot or ignorant. This isn't dialogue: it's condemnation of those who aren't as "enlightened" as the reviewer (and presumably, the author). Thank you, no. The second thing that struck me was the usual canard that "compassion" for the plight of homosexuals requires that eternal law yeilds to the temptations of the flesh. As portrayed by the author and reviewer, homosexuals are a special class- a breed of flower too delicate to be expected to live up to the same laws of chastity and enduring to the end as any other sinner. Christ's laws are too hard for these wilting violets to be expected to endure- and so eternal truths must yield to a lesser, more "tolerable" standard. Let's look at your own words for a moment: "Some might see this as homosexual propaganda, or a good man who just got seduced and mislead, but really he ends up for the most part still embracing Christianity" The key phrases in that sentence are "a good man who got seduced and misled" and embracing Christianity "for the most part". In other words, after immersing himself in this culture and lifetyle in the name of "compassion", the author's testimony and witness of the truth have become corroded and damaged- and he now espouses a "lesser" version of the law than the Church teaches. And you want us to follow him into that mire in the name of "understanding". Thank you, no. You are bang-on correct: this is propaganda, nothing more- and it's not worth my time, nor that of any Christian who is interested in clinging to eternal truths.

Did you know: The legal dangers of sexting | ksl.com

I think this sums up Vort's argument quite nicely, don't you?

The original FBI virus exploited (as I recall) a Java loop-hole and was fairly easy to roll-back (which is what I did the first time I got hit). The second time, the code had "evolved" so that it overwrote and corrupted the directory and basic DOS files to the point that it COULD NOT be rolled back. Not in "safe mode", and not at the command level Even if the malicious bastards had been paid, they couldn't have fixed the damage they'd done. All of the major anti-virus/anti-malware suites were days/weeks/months behind a fix for the problem. McCaffee finally got a fix two weeks after I was hit the second time- and it involved (again, as I recall, an upgrade to Java rather than to the anti-virus suite). The only solution was to do a complete rebuild/re-install of the Operating System. When my roommate was hit a week later, he had to take the same steps. Fortunately, when you do a re-install/clean install onto a system that already has a Windows OS, it gives you the choice of saving an archive image of the old OS. I was able to crack into that to recover most of my data and files. Lessons learned? 1) Hackers are scum. 2) Even reputable websites can give you viruses. 3) Even up to date anti-virus files are one-step behind the leading edge. 4) Backup your files.

The FBI virus is a variation on the same theme- but is a cast iron monster to remove and clean-up. That one had a six-month or so learning curve before the anti-virus folks caught up with it.

Not a school shooting, no- but neither are your schools violence free. (We're not going to get into what your medical system regularly does to the elderly, the infirm, and the otherwise helpless).Contrary to the popular myth, Britain with its restrictive gun laws, is NOT appreciably or measurable safer than the United States. In point of fact, you have higher per capita rates of home invasion robberies and violent assaults than does the United States by a substantial margin. The only aspect of criminal behavior where you have the advantage is in actual gun violence. Yes, you have largely disarmed your subjects (note subjects, not citizens)- but you have singularly failed to rid your society of violence. In our country, breaking into an occupied home is an extraordinarily rare event. If memory serves (and I cheerfully admit that I may be misremembering), home invasion robberies are three times more common in Britain than in the United States. I believe you are misrepresenting the arguments put forth here. No one is saying more guns in school is "the" answer. But it is certainly one worth considering. If you wish to be well-informed on this issue, you need to watch both videos.

In my considered opinion, Obama's proposals are a lot of smoke and mirrors, and would not have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, or any of the other recent atrocities. This idea is flawed on three grounds: first, the "loophole" is largely a fiction engendered by gun-control advocates and a compliant media. The "40%" figure the President and others are touting is a lie. The actual number is closer to 11%.Moreover, fewer than 3% of the weapons used in violent assaults over the last fifty years were actually purchased at gun shows. The vast majority of such weapons were stolen. The second ground upon which this "proposal" is flawed is the lack of specifics. This administration and this president have been big of "doing something" about a lot of problems- but they never seem to get beyond vague generalizations until they are infringing upon people's rights. The final ground upon which this "proposal" is flawed is that very infringement. The Consitution guarantees us a number of inalienable rights. The right to bear arms. The right to be secure in our homes and our persons. The right to privacy and to be left alone (always a big one with the political Left) unless we are doing direct and immediate harm to others. These proposals violate all of these rights. It limits (infringes) our right to bear arms. It limits our ability to protect our homes, our families, and our selves, and represents a considerable and not inconsequential intrusion of the government into what are inescapably private transactions. Such infringement and intrusion are not without precedent: but in each case, it is incumbent upon the government to prove both that their actions serve a direct, overriding public interest and that the intrusion is the only way to serve that interest. Neither Obama nor his fellow travellers have demonstrated either to be the case. To the contrary, it is readily arguable that these "proposals" represent an unwarranted and indefesible intrusion for NO gain whatever. This is a foolish and puerile argument at best, arbitrarily classifying weapons based solely on their appearance, rather than upon their capacity or capability.A pistol grip does not make a weapon more deadly, nor does a smaller magazine. In point of fact, New York has limited gun owners to ten-round magazines for many years- without an appreciable decrease in gun violence. There is no rationale reason to believe that reducing them to a seven-round magazine will have any direct or measurable effect on crime. It will, however, place additional and unreasonable limits on law abiding citizens. By definition, laws do not deter criminals. It is only the law-abiding who will be affected by these proposals. Again, this is a nebulous term at best. And given that the money would serve only a tiny minority of schools across the country, there is little evidence that Obama's suggested fix is anything more than cosmetic. I believe this approach has the most merit and potential, but it also raises Constitutional concerns.The Sandy Hook and Aurora killers were clearly and deeply deranged, but litigation and advocacy placed direct limits on the ability of the State to insitutionalize those individuals against their will*. Where, then, is the dividing line to be drawn between a person's liberty, health, and the needs of the community at large? As I stated earlier, these are serious issues that must be addressed carefully, thoughtfully and prudently. And cosmetic fixes, knee-jerk resolutions passed in the dark of night, and equating gun rights advocates to mass-murderers are none of the above. Indeed- one is forced to ask, if their "science" is sound, why are they so desperate to silence and demonize those who disagree with them? * There is also a considerable amount of debate about how effective psychiatric treatment can be in cases such as these. It's NOT settled science. This, in turn, begs the question about under what conditions we incarcerate people in mental institutions against their will and under what conditions we release them.

Turning our schools into prison camps with metal detectors , barbed wire, tall fences, and security checkpoints has not reduced crime and violence in inner city schools in place like Detroit and Chicago. They have, on the other hand, turned our children into prisoners in their own classrooms. The operative words there are "I think". Do we have any reason to believe that your opinion is anything other than ill-informed conjecture?Proper fire-arms safety training is a must. I'm not aware of any data to suggest that those paid to carry weapons are any safer per se than a properly trained "amateur". I agree whole-heartedly.But "more security" means different things to different people. This conversation needs to be ruled by facts and reason, not fear, emotion, ignorance, or a visceral reaction to inanimate objects.

I agree with Pam. The issue isn't the chair. The issue is who's in charge- the adult or the child.

Can you please cite a specific post (by number) where this view of forgiveness is expressed?To be honest, I took it as a rhetorical device attempting to present us with a false dichotomy (and to force us to pick from singularly bad choices). Nor do I- but more importantly, I missed where any LDS member has actually espoused such a view... This I can agree with. I understand the mental construct and worldview under which the OP and others are laboring- but that does not make it a valid or healthy worldview.And we do people no favors by allowing them to insist upon judging the world through carnival fun-house mirrors or lenses. I agree- which is why I am asking that you cite a specific source for this "third view of forgiveness". Fair enough. I will take your clarification at face value.But until you can show us where this idea originated, we will be unable to determine whether it is a chimera, a misunderstanding, or an actual point of view. I disagree- for the most part, posts in this thread have fallen into one of two camps: 1) those who believe that child sex offenders should be completely barred from any circumstance where they might have even the most remote possibility of offending again, and 2) those who believe that less extreme measures might strike a better balance between Christian charity and parental prudence. I cheerfully admit that there are a range of opinions within those two camps, but on the whole, there is a bright dividing line between the two. I am inclined to agree- but "not being allowed around children" is a nebulous term, at best- and subject to varying interpretations.Would I allow someone I even suspect of being a pedophile unfettered access to my child? Not in a million years. But allowing someone to worship God in the same building as my child is NOT the same thing as "unfettered access". Between my military service and civilian law-enforcement/public safety, I have spent my entire adult life standing between innocents and those who would do them harm. This situation is not a binary choice, an "either/or" dilemma in which we must choose either the penitent offender or the child. There is a middle ground here. The "no way/no where/no how" standard being espoused is not reasonable, and is predicated upon unreasoning fear. By that definition, it is not rationale, it is not justifiable, and in my opinion, is inconsistent with both Christian charity and the Atonement. Your mileage on the thoughts above may vary, of course, but the canard that "good and caring people must agree with me or should shut up" is both a logical and a moral failing. "Shut up" has never been an argument noted for its cogency, integrity, or suasive merit.

Amen and Amen!

No."This" is a strawman. No one here has advocated that a RSO or CSO not suffer the consequences of his (or her) actions. No one here has advocated that we as members of the Church do not behave prudently and wisely in protecting our children. The disagreements lie in the exact nature of the precautions to be taken and in precisely whose opinions are considered "valid" on the topic.

This is at least the third time this sentiment has been expressed.It boils down to once again trying to limit the discussion to those who agree with you. The rest of us should just sit down, shut up, and do as our betters tell us. To put it somewhat bluntly: Get over yourselves. I have nothing but sympathy for your pain and your fears. I have been there myself. But my sympathy ends when you redefine "compassion" to mean "shut and agree with me." That having been said, your position is not privileged. Your opinions are not sancrosanct. You are not above correction. I- and others- have suffered just as you have and still do not agree with you. This is at least the third time in which someone has tried to dismiss or delegitimize someone who disagrees with them in the name of "compassion". Having been there, I have plenty of compassion, empathy, and understanding of their fears. But "empathy" is not defined as "I can't say anything to challenge their prejudices and fears". And that's the bottom line: the OP and her various defenders are hung-up on what-if's and boogey men. And they are demanding that the rest of us placate them in their near-hysteria. I, too, am a survivor of abuse. Additionally, I married a victim of abuse and watched helplessly as her abuser did everything in his power to destroy my marriage and continue to dominate every aspect of his daughter's life. I watched like a hawk every time he was around my daughters, and I made it amply clear that if he so much as looked at my daughter's funny that prison would not be his worst fate. I, too, have spent long hours standing watch in the dark spaces of the night, worrying about how best to protect my children. I, too, have felt that worm of fear in my stomach whenever they have been out of my sight. And I still disagree with you. As a survivor of abuse myself, I'm gonna throw just a bit more gasoline on this grease fire. Before you make any more demands about what the Church MUST do "to protect the children", ask yourself the following question and consider: Just who are YOU to condemn this man? He has not harmed YOU. He has not harmed YOUR family. Atonement for his crimes is between himself and the Lord, between himself and his victims. He owes YOU nothing. And neither do the rest of us. By all means, exercise every bit of prudence and precaution available to you. Take every rationale step you feel is necessary to protect your children. But remember that it is not your place to bar the Chapel door, nor to gather the tar and feathers all in the name of "preventing" another crime.

Agreed- contraception is a public health concern. What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not infringing upon the Constitutional rights of employers and private citizens is the most effective and least intrusive means of remedying that ill. In point of fact, contraception is already easily available. If your income is low enough, they'll even give it to you for free. That being the case, it is far from proven that the good of providing "free" (a dogmatic lie if ever there was one) contraceptives is best served by violating the rights of private citizens. In fact, at least one Senator has stated publically and directly, that the legislation was never intended to enforce a mandate on all employers, and that the legislation would never have been passed if it were known that the Department of Health and Human Services were going to arbitrarily and capriciously obviate religious exemptions. And at least one court has agreed that it DOES represent an unreasonable infringing upon their rights.Contrary to the shrill screaming from leftist and statists, the matter is NOT settled, no matter how fevered your foot-stomping and gnashing of teeth become. Judge Jackson is NOT the Supreme Court. She is NOT the Congress. She is NOT the final word on the matter, no matter how emphatically you wish her to be. I understand that certain brands of fevered dogmatism (particularly of the Leftist/progressive/socialist kind) require you to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either evil, stupid, or ignorant.I am none of those three. I am well informed on the matter- I simply happen to disagree with your fervently held wish for a one-size-fits-all, ****-the-Constitution, full-speed-ahead solution. And I am not alone in that regard. On the contrary, MoE- I am not the one arguing that people are selfish, morally reprehensible, or unpatriotic because they insist on "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion".You are the first person in this thread to even attempt to rationalize why this violation of the First and Fourth Amendments may be necessary. Every other critic has instead concentrated on painting Hobby Lobby as evil, misguided, or simply stupid. Yes- the facts are in- and you've got a loooong way to go to make your case.

I believe the statement is reasonably self-apparent and obvious. Your quibbling over whether Hobby Lobby supports the blue pill or the red one is irrelevant. Whether you agree with their rationale or not is wholly beside the point. The burden of proof is NOT on Hobby Lobby, nor upon the hundreds (thousands?) of plaintiffs who are fighting this mandate. The proof is upon the State to show that its intrusion into the private lives, private beliefs, and private dealings of its citizens are justified, unavoidable, and the least intrusive means possible of achieving critical national interests.

Translation: "Since I have neither facts nor reason with which refute anything you are saying, I will instead call 'an extremist' and dismiss your arguments out of hand."Given that your prefer beating your own dead horse instead of actually focusing on what I and other posters are saying, I can't really say I'm surprised at this tactic. I will agree that you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts, nor are you- by virtue of your gender, political affiliation, or the divine right of sovereigns- immune from having your dogma challenged. Before this mandate can be declared Constitutional, the State must show either a compelling, overwhelming interest which justifies violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens OR it must show that the plaintiff's failure to comply creates and immediate, irremediable threat to the rights of others. Neither you nor the propaganda piece you cited have done anything to meet that burden of proof, but have focused instead on demonizing and disenfranchising those whose religious values prevent them from submitting meekly to your demands.

Come clean, Maureen- other than the anti-agency and un-Christian impulse to control everyone and everything around you- what is your interest in Hpbby Lobby?Are you a stockholder? An employee? If neither is the case, then you are simply a prurient bystander meddling in other people's private affairs. Just because you are "interested" in what goes on doesn't mean you have a right to know- let alone to dictate to others how to run their affairs. Just because you like to snoop around bedroom windows late at night doesn't give you the right to lecture a couple about the conduct of their marital bed. Huh. Guess you don't like meddling when the shoe's on the other foot, huh?More to the point, we have a Constitutional right to privacy, to be secure in our homes and our persons, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures. You are still (deliberately?) missing the point: the burden of proof is NOT on Hobby Lobby, but on the State.It is the State which must prove that they have a valid reason to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Hobby Lobby owners and employees. The question is NOT why Hobby Lobby must comply, but is rather "How is the State justified in infringing upon their rights?" But to answer your question, the answer is "Not a thing- which is why this intrusion is so egregious." Hobby Lobby isn't special in that it should be exempted from this illegal act of bureaucratese. The question is how and why the State justifies violating conscience and religious liberty of private citizens. Hobby Lobby is not on trial here (though many anti-religionists wish they were). The "mandate"- issued by executive fiat and bureaucratic whim- is. This mandate is an extralegal and unprecedented overreach by the State into the private lives of business owners and employers. The legislation which was passed in no way envisioned the extremes to which the administration's bureacrats carried the regulations. The State has no business mandating that private citizens provide health coverage to their neighbors. That is, quite arguably, an unreasonable seizure and a violation of their freedoms of speech and association. It doesn't matter if they are a Church or a brothel- they are being forced at gunpoint to subsidize and provide goods and services which violate their conscience and religious beliefs.That is quite enough to invalidate this particular exercise in Nanny-state socialism.

Maureen, you consistently refuse to see the forest in preference to your deep fixation on a single acorn.The First Amendment freedoms of religion and association guarantee us the right to worship who, what, and how we will. Those rights are inalienable. They are not derived from the State and cannot be revoked by the State. They are god-given and inalienable. Unlike other laws which must only serve a putative public good or interest, laws seeking to constrain these rights are held to a much higher standard. Government interference in these rights is permissable ONLY in cases where such worship demonstrates an immediate, tangible danger or infringes upon the rights of others. THAT is sufficient grounds to reject this mandate. If the tenets of my faith dictate that I do all my banking on Thursday, the state cannot compel me to deposit my check any other day of the week without first demonstrating that my failure to do so is directly impinging upon the rights of others. It doesn't matter if YOU think the rule is stupid or not. The Hobby Lobby plaintiffs believe that the goods and services in question are morally questionable (even indefensible)- and that being forced to purchase and/or subsidize these goods and services is inconsistent with their religious practice. Unless you (or the State) can show immediate, demonstrable harm, then they must and should be allowed to worship as they will. In this instance, they must be treated as any other conscientious objector. What YOU think of their reasoning matters less than a gnat's spit in a nuclear blast. Unless you (or the State) can demonstrate that their belief and practice are causing direct, irremediable harm to others, then IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Contrary to your laser-like focus on the minutia, the burden of proof in this case is on the State, not the plaintiffs.

Good Morning, and Happy New Year- I doubt if your view will receive much sympathy here- until I moved to Utah, I had never before encountered such a people so enamored of fireworks and things that go "bang". We have fireworks and firecrackers (first time I've actually seen the distinction used- in common usage, there are one and the same) on July 4th (national Independence Day) and July 24th (Pioneer Day, in celebration of the first settlement of Utah), and again on New Years. We also have both fairly restrictive laws on the type and power of fireworks, as well as easy access to "illegal" fireworks imported from neighboring states. Finally, because Utah is a desert climate, we have varying degrees of fire danger year-to-year. Despite all that, and based on observation, the general consensus is startlingly libertarian in nature: so long as you're not hurting anyone else, we'll leave you well enough alone. This is the eternal principle of agency at its finest, and we find those who would restrict us- especially "for our own good" (as they see it)- to be especially nettlesome. The German saying you quoted "Man soll kein Wasser predigen, wenn man selbst Wein trinkt." (don't preach about water if you drink wine yourself)- would be accepted almost without question here.

Call For References, please. The earliest "complete" copies of the 73 book bible date to the fourth century A.D. The Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of the Septaguint, not "the Bible" in it's entirety and contain books not currently contained in the "Catholic" canon. Moreover, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic texts (the Hebrew bible) date to the ninth or tenth centuries A.D. Considering that the earliest extant manuscripts (either in whole or in part) of the "Chrisitian" portion of the canon date to about four centuries after the fact, your ontifications about "the Bible" as understood by first century Christians is so much hogwash, question begging, a priori reasoning and "gotcha" arguments made in bad faith.

It should also be stated plainly that I am condemning the double standard in society at large. I cheerfully acknowledge that most of the posters here have echoed my disdain for the lamentable conduct- by either sex.