NeuroTypical

I like avoiding spending money too.We have a subscription to Netflix, which can be accessed by the Wii, or our computers. Any of them can be hooked to the TV through either an HDMI cable, or an AV cable. A family in our ward gave us an outdated surround sound system several years ago, it will either plug into the TV (if we're using the Wii), or the computer. TV doesn't need wifi.

On Friday (close to the 1 year anniversary of the Sandy Hook school shooting), there was a shooting at a High School in Colorado (home of the big Aurora theater shooting). The shooting made international news: BBC: Gunman dead after Centennial, Colorado, school shooting CNN has a pretty decent article on it: Colorado's school shooting -- over in 80 seconds Key things from where I'm standing: * Bad guys with guns, are stopped by good guys with guns. * Having someone armed in this High School, probably prevented a bunch of deaths. * Colorado's recent stupid unenforceable bad-idea gun laws, which have resulted in 2 senator recalls and one senator resignation, which most of the state's elected sheriffs are refusing to enforce, of course did absolutely nothing to prevent the shooting. * Interesting tidbit you're not finding in most news outlets: Some of his peers are describing the shooter as "very outspoken on his political views", and "very proud of being a socialist".

TV's are supposed to have wifi now? Yeesh. Just last week, we threw away America's third-to-last non-digital TV. It was working because Obama gave me a free converter, but eventually the controls on it died.

Here's my opinion on the matter, written down many years ago: It's an understandable question. One thing that helped me was the intellectual understanding that the offender is loved by God, even though they did what they did. I worked at understanding how God could do that. I worked at understanding the lives of those who offended me, and how they might have come to such a state. I cultivated a feeling of tenderness towards their griefs and stresses. (In no way did that justify their offenses, it just helped me understand them better.) Another thing that helped me was the understanding that I don't know what is in someone's heart. I can't write their destinies and say I know they will offend again. I can only predict future behavior based on past behavior and current expressed attitudes. It can indeed be difficult to forgive - especially in situations where the offender wasn't caught, hasn't faced any negative consequences, seems to be enjoying the fruits of their offense, or continues to offend others. Learning to accept these people as your neighbors, and loving them with your best approximation of how God loves them can seem almost impossible. But forgiveness really has nothing to do with the other person at all. It's an internal process that cleanses you of feelings that take you further away from the pure love of Christ. If someone seems to like hitting me with bricks, and just yesterday he did it, of course I'm going to stay away from him. After all, he might hit me with a brick! Nothing good ever came from getting hit with a brick just because someone likes it. I'm not interested in standing around him so he can work on hitting a little less each day. It doesn't matter if he says he's sorry after he hits me with a brick. The fact that he got hit with bricks as a kid doesn't change my mind. It doesn't matter that apart from this brick hitting thing, he's a good buddy. I don't want to get hit with a brick, and there's no good reason why I should. So I avoid this person. Now, if I hear that the person has joined "brick hitters anonymous", and he's gone a year without hitting anyone with a brick, and he and I can have lunch at a crowded McDonalds without any bricks appearing - then I might re-evaluate my position. But not until then. I've found this line of reasoning applies to friends, boy/girlfriends, spouses, parents, in-laws, aquaintences, people at work, people at church, and just about any other human being for that matter. I tried to explain it a little before - Learning to accept these people as your neighbors, and loving them with your best approximation of how God loves them. I said my heart and soul feels clean - free of grudges, desires for vengence, misplaced guilt, etc. But the more I think about it, I know I have forgiven these people because I am truly able to love them like I know God loves me. Kind of the catharctic moment in my life was when I got on my knees and was finally able to pray for the person that raped someone I dearly loved. I tried, but couldn't do it for a number of months. I kept wanting to pray that the law would find him. That he would understand the pain he had caused. That the rest of us could be protected from him. Those were all fine things to pray for, but I hadn't forgiven him, and I wanted God to do something to him to give justice. I knew I had forgiven him when I was able to pray that he could find happiness and rest in God. When I examined my heart, and found tenderness for him there, and sorrow that he was taking himself away from God - that's when I knew I had forgiven. If I should ever see him again, I would protect my family from him. But I've forgiven him.

Please allow me to argue a little here - I'm not understanding. If you've forgiven your ex-SIL, and forgetting is part of forgiveness, then how come you keep away from her and keep kids away from her? It's almost like you remember something about her actions that give you reason to protect yourself and innocents within your stewardship...Shouldn't you just forget what she did, and send the kiddos her way?

This applies, because humans stink at perfectly recording important things, and it seems like you're having issues because you haven't internalized this knowledge. The short answer to your question is "we don't know which one Jesus said - and other than personal revelation, we'll never know."Maybe this will help. Think about how scripture is made, and how, by definition, scripture is flawed and imperfect. 1. Jesus said something to people. (We can assume it was the correct thing, put the correct way, communicated clearly.) 2. People heard and understood the words (very error prone processes involving running sounds sent by the ear, through our brains, which add and subtract things, assign meaning based on our cultural understanding, and even change things into other things based on our filters, beliefs, desires, agendas, and life's baggage. 3. Someone tried to remember the words and write them down accurately. (Always a problem. Did God make the hearers perfect? Did He make the writers perfect? Doubtful. 4. Those records go on to be copied, retranslated, and updated with language changes (i.e. different English versions. In all of these processes, changes and errors creep in. Did you believe that everything on a printed page, with chapter and verse assigned, came directly from the mouth of God to your eyes, unaltered and perfect? Too many fallible humans and the junk we carry around with us for that to happen. Scripture tells us about this notion. In those last two, Moroni and Jacob start and end their respective books by basically saying "I'm doing my best here guys, work with me!" Let's also look at the various English translations out there: Depending on which English translation, you've got the notion of carried packs, or burdens, or soldiers, or occupation forces, even a lack of the notion of "mile". Depending on the translation, someone is forcing you, compelling you, demanding of you, making you, impressing you, or constraining you. Those all mean different things, which one was right? We'll never know. We do not even have any original manuscripts for any of the books of the Bible. At best, we possibly have sixth or seventh generation copies, and most manuscripts are probably further away than that. The earliest NT manuscripts we have date between A.D. 150 and A.D. 300. That's 100-250 years after the originals. Yes, only the JST has the notion that you should only go one mile if they demand one mile, and two if they demand two. But it's also missing the notion of soldiers or packs or servants. Who is right? Who is wrong? It's a confusing mish-mash. antispatula, you are at the top of the roller coaster. Think about what you believe and why you believe it. As you move through these next few years of your life, prepare to learn about things that will challenge both.

It's important to understand what forgiveness means and what it doesn't mean. Forgiveness does not mean forgetting, or being a doormat, or ignoring known dangers, or exposing kids to sources of harm. In some situations, there can be a bit of "you're someone else's problem now" in forgiveness.

I don't agree - there are times when children are better off in a broken home!Well, Abuse, addiction, adultry - when one or more of these three get out of control, it's a fair dealbreaker in my opinion. But if you put 1000 random American families in a room, the majority don't suffer from one of those out of control "broken home" situations. Would you agree? Remember, I'm saying "pretty much always" - not "always". Did you read my post? Where I said: Your story is, to a certain extent, a result of the choices of your parents. Well scrappingmom is here still making choices. She has the ability to influence to a great extent, her kiddo's story.

Well, I can't speak to other posters, just me and my opinions. I don't think I have a double standard at work.I honestly don't care much about what grown adults do to each other. When dependent children are involved, I'm much more full of opinion. I don't care which is the unhappy spouse, it's pretty much always in the best interests of the children, that the marriage remain intact until they're up and out. My opinion, however, is not "kids are better off in an unhappy home than a broken home". My opinion is "the adults in the situation should get over themselves and act in the best interests of their children". Sometimes this is something you can't do alone. I'd recommend joint marriage counseling. Stuff like this: "Ok, so I'm an emotional codependent. I'll be working on that with a professional every Tuesday at 3. Please come with me. You need to come and work on your stuff too if you want the marriage to not fall apart. If not, well, I guess we'll both be writing letters to our kid."

antispatula, I'd suggest you learn a little about how records are preserved, how cultures and languages shift and change over time, and how the translation process works.If this item is truly the root of your being deeply bothered, learning about how mortals write stuff down over time should solve your problem. If your being bothered has some other source, you'll still be bothered. Are you sure this issue is the source of your being bothered?

Me too. Miley would make a lousy Pope.

There is a good place for antidiscrimination laws. Medical care, utilities, access to housing, government employment - nobody should be able to cut off someone's electricity because they're [black/gay/mormon/wife-beater/stupid/etc].However, freedom to conduct your affairs as you see fit, as long as it does not impinge on your neighbor, is a core issue. This cake maker (note - baker. Not road maintenance guy, not public park administrator, not banker) wants to worship his God through his artistic creations. There are no shortage of businesses willing to sell cakes to gay couples. By targeting this specific baker, the "love & tolerate" crowd is on the verge of becoming the "love & tolerate & use government force to put differently-minded people out of business" crowd. It's wrong. It's also something that is pretty much always done by whoever is in charge.

I don't see any melodramatic cumulation to anything, just more change and new chapters. Change is constant. For example - same sex marriage. "They" are winning, and "We" are losing. One thing we predicted years ago, was that "they" wanted more than just the right to get married. They also wanted to remake society and force people to change. We opined about a future situation where a wedding cake maker would be forced to make cakes for gay weddings, and they assured us such things would never happen. Well, the oppressed have become the oppressors: Judge orders Colorado cake-maker to serve gay couples It's not the end-times apocalypse. It's just the pendulum of history swinging like it always has.

It doesn't?Consider the case of a repentant child molester. He's paid his price to society through jail time and parole and the felony conviction which will follow him for the rest of his life. He's released himself from the burden of his sins through the atonement. But even though he's clean, he has destroyed a family or two, and a handful of people out there must live their lives burdened by the permanent scars he caused. If he were to be given a calling with the youth, this handful of people would be further hurt. And imagine what the church's enemies would do with the information that the church stuck a convicted child molesting felon in primary with the kiddos. And further imagine what would happen if this man, who despite being washed clean through the blood of the Lamb, still retains his awful leanings/tendencies/urges that caused him to molest in the first place, and he molests one of the primary kids in his stewardship. It's not about forgiveness, it's about protecting innocents from known sources of harm. You can forgive someone and still keep an eye on them. Forgiveness does not always equal forgetting. It does not mean turning a blind eye to a known danger. Yes, repentance changes people. But it does not remove their agency, nor does make them perfect. Perhaps you should reflect a bit more on what forgiveness means, and what it does not.

I don't know much about gun safes. I bought the cheapest one from WalMart that would hold a bunch of rifles and stuff, and bolted it to our bathroom closet floor. It's done it's job. Kids will know the combination once they're living on their own and mature enough to own their own gun safe.

One thing to keep in mind, is Brigham (and others) made various speculative statements outside of their offices. Brigham said a lot of things as Governor, addressing secular audiences, not as prophet. ElectOfGod, do you know the source of your quote?

Do you believe in God, Tegan?

I actually understood every single word in anatess' last post. I think that indicates I am able to stay relevant in my kids' eyes.

Hm - writing on a specific topic? I'm tempted to write on preparadness.

After over four decades of honestly not really caring one way or the other, I've finally decided that I like Diet Pepsi more than Diet Coke. As someone who went through his formative years during the cola wars, this actually gives me a slight twinge of guilt, coupled with worry that my peers will think I'm not cool.

Hugs Melissa. I lost my dad when I was in my 30's. I needed to find homes for his two golden retrievers too, as well as clean out and sell his house and handle all his affairs. But he had spent a few years putting things in order, and it wasn't exactly a huge surprise to anyone, so it sounds like you have it harder than I did. Head down, one day at a time. You don't need to climb the rope, just don't fall off. Do you have siblings? Who is handling his estate?

As I've tried to wade through the confusing, seemingly contradictory scriptures and church counsel on how we're supposed to judge and not judge, the best map I've found was Elder Holland's talk back in 1998-99, which lays out seven gates which ought be passed before someone passes righteous judgement. Miss some of the gates, and by definition, we're missing some or all of the righteousness in our judgement. Pass all the gates and refuse to judge, and we're failing in our duty. From Elder Oaks' perspective, righteous judgement is rare, peaceful, rarely condemning, and pretty much never about individuals, but instead situations. I don't think along the lines of "I'm not letting that idiot babysit my kids", I think along the lines of "I'm thinking it's wise to avoid a situation where my kids would be under the stewardship of someone who is currently known for making this and that bad choice, on this and that occasion."

Bishop's duties are more or less clearly spelled out in his handbook. I was exec sec to a bishop of a young family with a wife with some health issues - his time was valuable. He put an end to several things previous bishops in the ward had done - like visiting the sick and dying - and made it known that was the function of home teachers and auxiliary leaders. One old guy thought he was dying, and was a little put off when the bishop never visited. That was around 5-6 years ago, and the old guy is still a little miffed, even though he's still very much alive.

Federal law states that social workers must inform people of the accusations or charges they are investigating. They don't always do that. Well, there is obviously more to the conviction than this brief account. People are not convicted and given 5 years based solely on the word of a 13 yr old girl. What else did they have on you, jrtrucker? Also, in what state did this happen? What was the charge? Were you found guilty, or did you cut a deal?That information will help me give you appropriate advice.

I knew a psychiatrist who once opined about his patients. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of "I sit here and listen to the dumb things some of my clients do to themselves as they're explaining why they're depressed, and I think to myself 'well of course you're depressed - what did you expect?'"I think your observation is good, but we must take care to not exercise unrighteous judgement. Causal links, while sometimes seeming obvious, may be beyond our actual grasp. Some smokers get lung cancer as a result of smoking, some do not. Some folks experience mental issues as a result of their choices, some do not. Some nonsmokers get lung cancer as a result of being exposed to 2ndhand smoke, some do not. Some folks experience mental issues as a result of others' choices, some do not. Some nonsmokers get lung cancer, and nobody can point to any reason why. Some folks experience mental issues, and nobody can point to any reason why. Don't judge, unless you have all the facts and there's a situation within your stewardship. And don't judge people, judge situations. I don't know how organ recipient lists work either, but from my layman's perspective, if there needs to be a ranking, I'd prefer it was based on probable futures, not pasts. For example, I would rank a smoker with a 20 year history of smoking differently, than a nonsmoker with a 20 year history of smoking.