NeuroTypical

Do Youtube videos count?

These are two rookie mistakes lots of folks make. I forget the name of the logical fallacy, but the basic notions are:1. In an arena where so many experts predict so many things, your argument gains absolutely nothing by holding up two of them as persusasive evidence. In fact, if your argument hinges on two economists, it's an indication of the weakness of your case. And if one of those economists is Donald Trump, well... 2. The notion that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day' doesn't help your case either. We live in a world where two things are always true: First, the world's varying economies are always in flux. Second, doomsayers are predicting a near-term catastrophic event 100% of the time. There is never a point in time when you cannot find a doomsayer saying the end is near. 2009 was a good year on this board for inflation doomsayers. Anyway, all that said, I am in fact preparing for high inflation, and have been thinking our time is on the horizon. I'm not an expert, but I am availing myself of the copious amounts of counsel from our church leaders to be prepared for a variety of hard times. Stay out of debt, have the ability to cut expenses drastically if necessary, have alternate ways to earn money, pay tithing, and other soundbytes of provident living, are good ideas, whether you figure it's inflation, or zombies.

Hey Maygraceabound - are you interested in learning about us, or proving us wrong? If the latter, you're on the wrong board.

It got a heck of a lot harder for the activists to forward their various political agendas via climate issues, when NASA discovered climate change on Mars. And you haven't had any credible claim to scientific consensus on the issue, since 2009 with the leaking of all those climate scientist emails showing their bias, not to mention the data spinning or outright agenda-driven deception. However, in the last decade, the hand-wavers have done a pretty good job at abandoning the term "global warming" in favor of "global climate change", after trends started showing stuff cooling off instead of warming up. So at least that's something.

As soon as there is conclusive evidence that we're doing so. Everything you mentioned above, is evidence of normal climatic variations that have been occuring on planet earth for as long as it's been around. You don't have a sound basis for this conclusion. Meh. No we're not. We're turning into Greece through increasing government spending on entitlements to levels that an aging population will not be able to sustain, and we're losing economic ground to China (the real polluter here) - both things threatening our way of life. Don't worry HoosierGuy, the barbelutes will continue to dance with the swammie swans for a long time here in the U.S.

Absolutely it's possible. That is what repentence is for.

Maybe. Because again, even though the burden of the sin may have been lifted, the consequence of the sin may remain. Consequences of sins that remain include: lifetime struggles with addictions or alcoholism, felony records, mental imbalance, responsibilities to former spouses or other children, and a host of other things that could impact your life and the lives of any children you may someday make. So yeah, if you're a single mom of 5, and the guy who did 5 years in prison for pedophilia approaches you for a date, it doesn't matter if he's wearing a suit and holding a calling and a temple recommend. In fact, if he's truly repentant, he wouldn't be approaching someone with kids in the first place. Your job is to love thy neighbor, and your other job is to protect your children. You can do both and still judge a righteous judgement that dating a former pedophile isn't a good idea.

God puts us humans in an interesting situation. We can remove the burden of sin from ourselves here on this earth. But we can't always remove the consequence of sin. Sometimes, that sticks around for our lifetimes. Sometimes, it impacts just us, sometimes it impacts other people. In other words, if you have fathered a child, caught an STD, pay child support, or are on some state's sex offender registry because the girl was four days away from her 18th birthday, then yeah, it would be very wrong to get into a serious relationship with someone without mentioning any of that. It doesn't matter how completely you've repented - you would be perpetrating a fraud on someone if you married them without telling them these things. If you haven't done any of that, then the situation is much less dire, but you still may not get off scot free. For example, let's say she says things like "I'm so glad we found each other - my mamma always told me I should wait for the guy who would wait for me", and you just avert your eyes and hum a happy tune, thinking "Gee, glad I repented and ducked that one!". Well, you go take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you're being honest or lying to her.

Hi OnAJourney. Please visit the Site Rules (you can find the link on the top of this page). It's not the 8th deadly sin, but it is site rule #6.Welcome to the forums.

Sounds like you have three pretty clear choices. 1. Pick him, no church. 2. Pick church, no him. 3. Try to have it both ways, until someone loses, and hope the relationship survives the bitterness from the one who lost, which it usually doesn't. The weakest people will pick #3. Sometimes, they even bring a kid or twelve into that situation before the relationship is destroyed.

In some situations, mrmarklin is giving good advice. In other situations, it could be horrible advice, or harmful or destructive, or possibly even against the law (like in the case where you owe child support).

Thanks for starting the thread, PC, and thanks for explaining your church's position on it. It's so much better to go to a direct source, than to hear about it from someone critical.

Not really - at least, she doesn't have a degree or gets paid for it or anything. They've just always come out of the woodwork to find her. She busted up her first gang fight at 14.Yes, she is amazing.

My wife occasionally works with troubled kids and addicts. She's lost track of the number of times she's heard people talk about suicide. There are a few ways to reduce the melodrama and emotion of hearing about it. Social workers and such folk, have some guidelines in responding when a patient is discussing suicide. Just hearing "I'm gonna kill myself" usually isn't cause for alarm, or even an increased heart rate. There is a huge, massive difference between someone feeling like they want to kill themself, and someone actually planning on doing it. Someone who is just feeling like it, you offer a sympathetic ear, or a hug, or some shared tears, or whatever the relationship can provide. Someone who says "I have a bottle of pills and I'm going to take them tonight" - then you start calling 911 and whatnot. You hear a specific means and timetable, you take action. Otherwise, well, just a few weeks ago someone totally wasted called my wife up, yelling slurred words along the lines of "If you don't come over here right now, I gonna kill myself!" My wife said "yeah, I already told you I wasn't going to your stupid funeral" and hung up and went back to sleep. The person is still out there today, staying drunk and trying to get in touch with my wife. So, someone saying "was once suicidal but is not now, that Heavenly Father has changed my life"? That's reason for celebration. You jump for joy when you hear that. Someone once was lost, but now is found - was blind, but now they see. This person doesn't really have a reason to lie, right?

#7 can be interpreted so broadly. For example, what if you are a teacher in a school system that teaches students something the church opposes? What if you support a candidate who happens to support an issue that the church opposes? What if your non-LDS wife drinks coffee?Yeah, it can be interpreted broadly, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, if you ask whoever is asking you the questions about it, they'll clarify that this question is referring to apostate groups. There's always vigorous discussion around prop 8 and whatnot, but I haven't heard of anyone losing a temple recommend over being against prop 8.Our bishop knows that my wife occasionally buys cigarettes for people trying to wean themselves off of meth. Her Temple Recommend card is active.

There are probably jobs out there appropriate for immature kids who need parental involvement. Those jobs haven't been anywhere around any workplace I've been in since graduating college. I got my first 'real' job at 14. Typing union cards once a month for my dad, who was union seceretary. My first job not involving parents at 17. Yeah, my brain continued to mature into my mid 20's, but the "gotta do this or I'll get fired" center was pretty much in place by then. If a kid has some sort of disability or mental/emotional impairment, that's a great place for parents to be involved. My wife will occasionally set a recoving addict kid up with work, often for bosses who take the notion that "I'll trust anyone once", and have massively high turn over. The notion that a kid is just normal, but somehow 'needs parents to help' him at the workplace in some fashion, well, I'm thinking that notion is mostly false. Instead, it's covering up a deeper problem that the parents never taught the kid how to work or take responsibility. I stand by my earlier statement - show up with a resume and a list of references, I'll interview you. If your mommy shows up with you and shows you to me, well, I won't be wasting my time, or the time of the serious applicants.

Heh - are you sure you're not me? I had a similar upbringing, even though I only had one half-active parent.As someone who grew up in the church, left when it became apparent that I didn't believe, and then found reason to come back, welcome to the forum.

It was the mid to late 1990's. I was standing less than a foot away from her. I remember actually shaking my head to see if the words I had just heard would fall out, or maybe reorder themselves into something that meant differently than what I just heard. But no, I had just really heard it, because she had just really said it. She actually had just voiced her opinion that abortion should be legal within the first year after birth. I took a good long look at her - yeah, no sarcasm, she wasn't joking, she wasn't saying one thing and meaning another. She actually said what she meant, and meant what she said. That was my time to be shocked and disturbed and horrified and all that. I've had years to grow accustomed to the notion that intelligent folks can hold such notions. Now that this journal article makes the news, I'm not shocked or horrified. I'm just sad that we've moved from the "random self-absorbed twit college chick outlier" phase of our moral decay, into the "degreed ethicists suggest it, but it's ok, because that's what journals are for" phase. For those rare few of you who can move issues like this into your long-term memory, stay tuned for the next few phases. Up next are the growing acceptance of the justifications, demonization of the backwards-thinking puritanical right wing, the legislation, the lawsuits, and the supreme court decision. If it's coming, it should be here in the next 30-50 years.

As I'm sitting here, thinking about how I discipline my two very different children, it occurs to me that an outsider would think the same thing. For a similar level offence, one kid might get a stern look, and the other one will need a heftier punishment that lasts all day. The reason for the difference, is one kid only needs a stern look, and anything more would do more harm than good. She's so good at punishing herself, we have to take a light touch to keep it good. And the other needs something beefier, anything less and it doesn't stick.God didn't make us cookie-cutter images of each other. I'm very glad church discipline recognizes this.

Are you looking for something like a book on how to recognize and find wild herbs?I've seen them around, but I've never read any.

From your garden.

No really folks - this video really is hillarious, worth your time, has something good to say about both sides, and is a great way of telling the difference.

The terms mean different things in different countries. If you're talking US politics, here is the quickest, funniest way to understand the difference. This guy bills himself as "the world's only Stand Up Economist". Left and right seem to appreciate this clip equally.

It sounds to me like the Muslim ceremonial clothing, although not something that you are required to wear any more, is still special to you, and an important part of your upbringing. It's part of your past. It's ok for these things to hold a special place in your heart forever. In our house, we have my grandma's Masonic plate hanging on the wall, and antique cigar tins and German beer steins are also not hidden away. I admit that part of the reason I display them in my home, is to see how LDS visitors will react, and maybe we'll gain a quick giggle. It is the difference between lightmindedness and lightheartedness. Lightmindedness is mocking the sacred things of God, and should be avoided. Lightheartedness is the humor coming from our own mortal foibles that can shorten the distance between two people. You're ok in my book, Hala.

The Lorax (as properly written) Onceler: How you doing my old friend? Lorax: Well, at first, I didn't think that "Director of Sustainable Resources" would be a title I would like. But since you gave me a free hand to do whatever I like with the forest as long as I met your quotas, things are ok. Onceler: Great! And how is the replanting program going? Lorax: Excellent! Who would have thought that SwammySwan droppings would make such a great growth accelerator. Are you coming to the Barbelute Luau tonight? Onceler: Wouldn't miss it for the world! After all, I can't spend all day rolling around in my piles of money. Lorax: Whatever. The End.