hordak

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=241517527665&id=0e90cc87c64aeac2af7fdf8a43927caf&index=ch1 All that matters. TB is my other team.

Interesting thing about the question is many answer it based on the issue itself rather than principle. Commie Russia outlaws religious worship, many will say it violates agency. State bans SSM or gambling, and they say people still have the agency to do that they just have to break the law, and they still have the choice to break the law. (Which would also be true of Christians in the USSR. I would say no. Laws can restrict it, make it harder to act on agency, but it can't fully take it away.

If politicians placating to the poor with promises of government handouts is an opportunity for corruption wouldn't politicians placating to the rich with promises of government tax breaks be the same?

Bingo. If God knows our hearts and thoughts, as the scriptures say, people like Elphaba, who do things out of love, without belief will be far better off then ones who did it because they were scared. IMHO Who's the "better kid" ? The one who helped the old lady across the street carry in her groceries because it was a nice thing to do, or the one who did it because they figured mom would give them candy for doing it?

Why change for him?, perhaps he needs to learn to heed the call of the night. Fellow night owl here. Night time is the right time "Listen to them - children of the night. What music they make." Dracula

If God can't give conflicting commandments (and this one does take the cake) then that would negate a lot of personal revelation. God told you to stop at 1 child,? blasphemy, he commanded we multiply and that is not multiplying. God confermd you should be a cop, emt, Dr,etc. ? Blasphemy those people work on Sabbath. I would say he gives conflicting advice to individuals more often then we think. This is just more noticeable because of it's intensity.

I wouldn't say it's the teachings of men, but i would point out that Herber J Grant was a staunch prohibitionist, before becoming the Prophet and history has shown that a prophets personal views can lead to policy/ doctrine being emphasized, even long after their time until being reversed by revelation. The current emphasis on the WoW could change just as the priesthood ban. One thing i have never understood was the whole "saints were not ready for the change" idea when one considers that fact many of our members are converts. I mean Joseph was visited by Jesus and God in person, angels, old apostles, receives revelation, translates the plates, and the papyrus. But the WoW would be "too much". Meanwhile Mr Smith is visited by 2 19 year old missionaries and has a few discussions and is expected to live the WoW? I would think, , it would be much easier for the early saints who lived through "more" miraculous times to accept it then the average convert or member today. (It would depend on which part of the WoW. Science today tells us tobacco is bad so it's easier to accept but science tells us tea is good, so that is harder to accept today) I'm not saying the current application isn't divinely inspired, just pointing out one (and not you in particular) needs to "hang their hat" on the God head, Prophets and doctrine in general and not the current application of said doctrine. Some day the application of the WoW, or current parts of it, might be changed and people putting more faith in the application of doctrine, then in revelation has been known to cause problems. Ala Fundamentalist Mormons. So is the WoW doctrine members should follow? At this time yes. Is it an eternal law that will last forever and all will be judged on? I wouldn't count on it.

I'm going to half agree with desertgov on this. Nothing entering the body can defile it, and the WoW is for temporal salvation. He is absolutely correct. However as others have mentioned it is now a commandment and defiance, particularly for the sake of defiance could chase away the spirit, but it's not the substance itself, (like a how oil and water don't mix) but the reason for it. This is why brother Jones who took Nyquil Saturday night can bless sacrament Sunday morning while brother Smith who had a beer cannot. This is why sister Jones can take Oxicotin for her bad back every day but if sister Smith told the bishop she took it once in a while for the high she would loose her TR. If the spirit was non compatible with the substance themselves then much of our early revelation would be suspect and anyone who got an answer to Moronis promise while not following the WoW would have to be looked at with sceptically. Nothing entering the body can defile it spiritually. It is the purpose, that has the consequences.

How do you know your getting old? You're getting passed by pickups on the highway;) http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=216567327090&id=c220b90286509e607387337203ea40be&index=ch1

best show ever Monsters Inside Me : Animal Planet

Haven't you heard, A pictures worth a thousand words.

I found it to be a blatant rip off of Doc Hollywood. Same film.

I look at it like government, because God is not a name, it's more of a position IMO. The President is government The Congress is government The Supreme Court is government. And together they are government Similarly (and these are the over simplified views of hordak and may not represent the views of the lds church) President/ God the father: over see the plan Congress/Jesus: do the work implementing the plan Supreme Court/ Holy Ghost: tell the people how the rule apply to them.

I have no idea, but i have a question for you? Do you speak/write in English? or are you typing in and reading in Finish but it gets translated over here?

No. IMO If he knows what we will do in a (at 1-23-2011 joe will run over a kid in the street) then Joe has to do so. I think he knows in a knows in a (Joe had a lot to drink tonight and is going for a drive, he is going to kill someone) I understand the, just because he knows doesn't mean he made the choice but the idea he knows it all would contradict the idea of an all loving God because of the horrible things we can go through. I also understand trials and that this life is short but there are some things that are just plain cruel IMO if he knows all. I don't buy toys for my kids at the store (horrible event in their life) , to them this is the cruelest thing in the world, but i see the big picture know that if they are good we are going to Disney world. (Celestial Kingdom) Horrible things can happen and i'm still a loving father. However if i know the future... My kids want a puppy (family).They beg for it(pray). I know for a fact that they are allergic (sin separating family) but i buy it for them for the week (this life) knowing FOR A FACT they will have to return it (inherit lower kingdom). A loving father wouldn't do this IMHO. A loving father wouldn't give them the puppy, knowing they can't keep it will be heart broken. He would tell them no (which might be horrible for that week) but will not matter in the long run.

Why would a college have an EDUCATION week? What are they doing the the other 51 weeks of the year?

In the service we had a saying... Praise in public, punish in private. I think the idea has application to gossip as well. If your going to talk about someone else without them being there (public) it should be "praise", positive things. If they have a problem that needs to be addressed you should "punish" in private and only talk to them.

I don't think homosexuals automatically engage in more risky behavior then their heterosexual counterparts because they are homosexual. However that being said IF stats show they are higher risk then naturally the insurance companies should charge more. It's like car analogy, not all young males race around in their cars trying to show off, but enough of them do that it has been determined they are a risk and as such pay more. As far as adoption goes i think the hetero couple as the child would get the best of both. I believe the the idea in the family proc that men and women are born with different natures to be true. Not just because the Prophet said it, but because i have seen it. Boys tend to be a "handful" because of their competitive, get it done nature, while girls tend to be more caring, empathetic and compassionate. I have seen this in 2 parent homes, single father, and single mother homes.(By single i mean no other parent in the equation). It could be said this is based on society norms but i have raised my children in the same way ( actually trying to "toughen up" my daughters and tone down my sons' wildness) and they still fit this mold. I think it is biological and based on hormones and chromosomes. I'm not saying men can't be caring or women can't have that drive but have found that gender/ nature is in born and as such if all things are equal the child would be best having both.

I'm sure it depends on the brand of knockoff too. Pampers> huggies > meijers, but target might > then huggies. Plus you got the different cuts within brands. E.G. Baby dry trumps cruisers.even for cruisers (based on my babies build) I guess the best advice would be to try everything and see what works for you. And if it's cheap but works, go with it.

WIC. (If she really needs it). We only used it for the first year for our children (even though they qualify until 5) because soy formula was like $15 a can. But was always disappointed picking up the checks waiting in line behind the guy with new air force ones and 10 lbs of "bling" around his neck:mad: They cover formula for the first year, and i think it varies by state, but generally cover jar food by the time they are ready now. We never had to pay for food the first year. After that they cover stuff like bread milk, peanut butter, beans etc. until the child is 5, if she qualifies. Going to have to disagree with wingnut on the diaper thing. I found you get what you pay for when it comes to diapers and the saving aren't really there when when you take into account the extra amount of changes and washes from generic diapers. Pampers FTW. Plus there is a lot of baby stuff you don't need they we grew up without, like car seats but seriously i have so much extra junk my kids never used, my daughter bouncy seat and swing got used probably 2 -3 times max before we donated them to good will and a lot of stuff she will not need for a while, cups,spoons, dishes etc. and can buy slowly

technology Electronic cigarettes. You can step down in the same way you would with the patch or gum but get the feeling of smoking, don't taste the same though. Electronic smoke box (don't know proper name). Put a pack in and it records every time you open it to smoke. After a week of using it you plug it into a computer and it makes a program that corresponds to your habit, and tells you when to smoke. You follows it's instructions, smoking each time it beeps, and it cuts down until zero over the course a a few weeks. So much of the habit is based on conditioning and not the chemical "need" this helps that. It's like Pavlov's dog, in reverse.

Sounds like there was a little devil there.:D

Haven't seen the new ads but i liked the old ones. I catch an ad ever now and again with some short message followed by something like "Fairness, pass it on" and keep waiting for the "Brought to you buy the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints." but it doesn't come.

It is. However Nasty loophole that needs to be closed IMO. Frankly i'm surprised the a ruling would allow a State law to be trumped by a civil government practice. Does it happen often? I would like to read the ruling to see what reason the court gave for exempting police from the law.

Do you have another source for that because the JoD in which it is found in not Doctrinal. Brigham Young was know for having some strong opinions (which can be found in the JoD) I'm not saying that it isn't good advice. I think it's great to remind people that things stay on the internet forever. I also think you make some good points about how we are more likely to reveal too much in this anonymous format. However it can be helpful to reach out to other who might be in similar situations Here is Jessica Lynn, who grew up with drug addicted, dealing parents and is sharing it with the world on mormon.org Hi, I'm Jessica Lynn | Mormon.org If it's wrong to share our own sins, why would sharing the sins of our closest family members get the ok? I do agree there is a time and place (You wouldn't teach primary kids about the danger of fornication by showing off your child support order) But think your line in the sand is to ridged