NeuroTypical

Meh. Global geopolitics is a game with real rules and players, and 99% of the earth's population isn't very aware of either. They're not secret combinations, we're just a bunch of clueless apathetic humans.

Sounds like her parents are against it. You go on your mission. Write her if you like.

They make good honey. And some LDS folks have some gregorian chant CD's gathering dust somewhere. We'd listen to them more, but we're usually too busy getting married and having kids.

Tell him you'd love to date him after he has overcome his addiction with pornography, and he's worthy to enter the temple.Then walk away. If he comes back in to your life at some future time and these problems are all resolved, then you can decide whether you want to date him or not. Or, you can overlook his problems, marry the person you want him to be instead of the person he is, and roll your dice. Pick.

True. Avoiding being a victim (whether of rape or robbery or identity theft or what have you) involves being aware of how to minimize your risk. Focusing solely on clothing would be a waste of time. But totally ignoring one risky behavior because placing appropriate blame is more important, is a mistake too. So let's see if we can agree on a set of things:* Dressing modestly is good. * Getting violated is bad. * Minimizing risk is good. * Blaming the victim is bad. * Innapropriate guilt is horrible and soul-crushing, and should be avoided. It seems to me like we agree on the main points, we're just chosing to emphasize different ones. Totally agree. Burlap sacks and burqas and other such extremes 1- are undue burdens of free people, and 2 - still is no guarantee of safety. You take reasonable precautions to minimize risk - and living in a all-female commune is not reasonable.We're raising my girls to be modest and streetsmart. We're teaching them when bad guys try bad things, it's not because my girls deserve it. We're also sending them to self-defense classes twice a day, so they'll be able to handle things. All good?

Disagree strongly. Predators look for targets. Dressing immodestly attracts attention. I wonder - who would argue with this: How to minimize your chances of being robbed in public: 1. Avoid dangerous places where people get robbed. 2. Be aware of your surroundings - spot and avoid risky situations and people. 3. Don't flash bling - keep your expensive stuff locked in your car, or hidden from view in a bag or wallet. Leave the expensive or flashy jewlery behind. Now, let's reword some of Jenmarie's post with this in mind: I suppose that I can agree with everything there - except that by following the line of reasoning ends up getting you robbed or beaten. And getting robbed or beaten isn't fun. I'd rather spend energy avoiding the bad thing in the first place than avoiding guilt. There's a problem walking down dark alleys with your head buried in your six hundred dollar iPad. After you get jacked, you ought to realize how your actions helped made you a target - it will help you not be a target in the future. Do you bear the sin of the robber? No - the robber bears the sin of the robber. The guy with his head in his iPad, only bears the sin of being dumb or clueless. No, that sin didn't justify the robber. It just enabled the robber.Really - the world is full of predators. Refusing to take steps to protect yourself from them, because if they attack you it's their sin not yours, seems to be not the brightest choice.

From one spouse who married into a family with this problem to another - hi there sunflower! The details are always different, but there are also often similarities. If I may, here are a few principles that I've adopted to help me stay sane through all my in-law insanity. 1. When thinking of your husband and his screwed up family, become familiar with the term "Homeostasis". Figure out how it applies in your inlaw dynamics. It basically means that blood is thicker than water - but in your situation, it might mean "it doesn't matter how many children are sacrificed at the altar of the male hormones, blood is thicker than water". If you make yourself a threat to your in-law's family, you might find yourself attacked and removed by all of them. It's an open question about whether your husband will remove himself from his family and go with you, or if he will kick you out to remain with his family - but yeah, it's quite common for such families to move mountains to remain together and act as a unit to protect the status quo from outside threats. Which is you. 2. Imagine a nightmare scenario for a moment. Imagine one of your husband's relatives tried to do something to one of your kids. Imagine the trial. There are two sets of chairs in the courtroom - those behind the defendant (perpetrator - hubby's brother or father), and those behind the plaintiff (victim - your kid). Imangine your husband's family filing into the courtroom and picking a seat. Where are they sitting? Are they sitting behind your kid, or behind the family member who tried to offend your child? I am not saying this has happened, or that it will ever happen. I am not making a prediction. But I am saying that when such nightmare scenarios do happen, there tend to be a lot of empty chairs behind the kid. I can tell, based on your posts, that you will be right there with your kid. If your husband sits with you and your kid, then hooray. If he will not, well, you have some questions about your marriage - there's an answer. 3. Regardless of what side your husband picks - you - YOU - are your children's defender and protector. You are the mamma bear. You will be the person that stands between your innocent children and the cancer present in your inlaw's family. It's one of satan's best tools - crap like this moves from generation to generation. The father says it's not that bad. Hubby and brothers agree. What will your children be taught? If it's not clear in your head now - then take a minute and make it clear. Pick your lines in the sand, make them clear, and follow through whenever necessary, however it's necessary. If the cost of staying married to your husband, is that your kids learn "it's not that bad", then you decide what side of the line that falls on. 4. I will say the impossible: It is possible to love everyone in your husband's family. I will say another impossible thing: God has commanded you to do exactly that. It took me a few years to figure out how to do it - but I testify that it is possible. I sincerely urge you, no matter what happens, to find a way to love those people. If you can do it, your children's lives will be blessed. It will be easier to figure out what you should do, and easier to do it. Here's a hint - it is possible to love someone and testify against them. It is possible to love someone that you must take violent action against in order to protect you or your children. Good luck.

My friend, I sit at a desk and click links all day for work. They say something and do something else, at least 15% of the time. Nobody there is dishonest. Nobody even is doing it on purpose. Well then, since the general public is perfectly capable of clicking the link and seeing it is not available, then this guess doesn't hold water. I don't exactly keep church employees in outstandingly high regard, but I figure even they're bright enough to understand that. Finding something odd is fine. It's the immediate jump from finding something odd, to suspecting dishonesty, that I don't get. I don't think such a jump is warranted - do you?

This is a joke, right? Usually, lies and deceit are made for a reason. What possible reason would there be for intentional deceit here? This is all I can come up with: Yes - the church is intentionally lying and trying to deceive people into believing handbook 1 is available to the public. Whenever a sucker clicks the link and learns of the deceipt, their karma takes a temporary hit, which allows (if the sucker is non-LDS) the missionaries to swoop in and baptize them, or (if the sucker is LDS) the Strengthening the Members Committee to swoop in and reinforce the brainwashing. Any other guesses why we'd lie on purpose in this way?

I have no comment on the honesty issue, but I would caution you strongly. You intentionally tick off professional lawbreakers, you are at a much higher risk of some horrible thing happening to you than ticking off honest people.Try not to get vandalized or shot.

Two sources. First, from the Gospel Principles manual: From the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

Yeah, I'm afraid dropping that particular name won't score you many points here. In fact, I expect my standing in folks eyes will go up substantially after folks get to know you. Welcome!

I don't think you would get "in trouble" with the church for sins committed by your "adult" son. If it's your house, it's your rules. Not much more complicated than that. "Sorry son, you know I'm LDS, and I will not allow an unmarried couple to stay in my house. You're welcome to stay here if you like. If you both come, I'm happy to have everyone over for dinner and whatnot. But no, the two of you will not be sharing a room in my house." And that's the end of it. You don't need to explain yourself. Dependent children sure have a lot of ways of creating the image that they have more power than they actually have, don't they!

I pretty much resemble that remark. I'm watching the news continue to unfold week after week, and I'm still trying to figure out a reason why I should pay attention or care.1. People who break laws should be held to account by a just legal system. I don't care if they're liberal or conservative. 2. If an organization has systemic corruption or a bunch of lawbreaking going on, it should roll uphill and heads should roll. I don't care if they're liberal or conservative. 3. It's ok with me if powerful billionaires get hit in the face with cream pies. I don't care if they're liberal or conservative. And the person hitting them in the face should face justice too. I don't care if they're liberal or conservative either. 4. I honestly couldn't care less about vast media empires. Shake 'em all up and let 'em all quake in their boots. It's not that I'm apathetic, I just don't feel the need to line up idealogically and either attack or defend based on my personal politics.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, Fritz...

Most amazing thing I've seen this whole month. If that isn't range, I don't know what is!

Again, and I'm glad you're not offended here, but I notice you didn't answer my question. I'm looking for some indication that you know the difference between terms like evidence and proof. "everything matches up", especially in an archaeological setting, is hardly what I would call proof. I had an archaeologist professor teach us the difference. At one point in his career, he was absolutely, 100% confident that he had discovered proof of mummification being practiced in the Americas. There were ritual markings on the eyes and eye sockets - precision cut holes in the eye sockets that he had seen in other areas of the world as a part of mummy preparation. And in the same cave with a few sabertooth tiger skeletons too! He was very excited. Then someone held up a sabertooth skull, and inserted the fangs into the eye sockets of the human skull. They fit perfectly, and he immediately saw that he hadn't stumbled on evidence of humans mummifying, he had stumbled on the place where the sabertooths dragged their meals. Anyway, he wanted to make sure his students never repeated his mistake and confused wishful thinking for proof, or evidence for conclusive evidence. So, here you are, with a very remarkable claim that would excite a lot of people if it's really as proven as you think it is. The world is full of skeptics, the archaeological world even moreso. Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

Welcome. Can you explain the difference, as you see it, between evidence, conclusive evidence, disputable proof, and indisputable proof? I hope you don't take this the wrong way, it's just that 99 times out of 100, when someone uses the phrase "indisputable proof", they misuse it.

Welcome to the board. I'm on friendly terms with a godless anarchist for the same reason! :)

You did great, Judo! Yes - after a decade or more of doing this, I almost never come away from an interchange thinking anything else. Here's the deal - you're not arguing to convince him - you're arguing to help out the dozens of people who are witnessing the exchange, and who honestly don't know what to think. The interaction never was about him, or winning. Just like Peter said: "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" You will never, ever make a dent in someone who's mind is made up. But the people who watch the tennis match between you will go away with both sides of the story, and the ability to choose. Good job.

Compulsive behavior is not healthy. How's that? Of course that's why coupons came into existence. Companies target several different demographics. And price-sensitive shoppers, and shoppers who wish to believe they're getting bargains, are two demographics. Coupons target those two demographics. And again, if other demographics chose to use them too, there's nothing wrong with that. Ok. But, as a counter to your earlier statements about temple recommend questions and being honest in dealings, there's no ethical or moral burden on the buyer to seek to aid the seller in seller's efforts to realize their intent.

*shrug* As this thread crosses into it's 4th page, it's increasingly obvious that nobody's really convincing each other to budge an inch from existing opinions.At the end of the day, a "fair price" is what a buyer is willing to pay, and a seller is willing to recieve. There's nothing wrong with a buyer wanting to pay zero. If a seller is willing to accept zero, but really isn't willing to accept zero, then the seller has the problem, not the buyer. There is no ethical or moral duty for a buyer to spend a single second thinking about if the seller is "getting enough". Getting superior legal deals on stuff by following policies and rules, does not violate honesty. It's called Adam Smith's invisible hand - I don't care, and I don't have to care about the cost structure of the entity I'm doing business with. It's the foundation of capitalism. Disagree with it all you you like - we're not budging an inch.

My wife's grandfather was sitting in a bar with a drink in his hand when he received a personal revealation. It said "Wayne, why hast thou forsaken me?", and hit him with such force that he almost fell off his barstool.

Well, I'd guess it's partly because if you have a fulfilling relationship with your Lord and Savior, why change it? But if you've always been hungering for - something - and you find it when the missionaries come knocking, then what's to keep you from obtaining it?

Whenever I see something like that, I make the kids watch it, and claim "that's how I met your mother".