Fiannan

Just a shirt with the KGB emblem on it and some comical stuff as well. You can also pick up McLenin shirts, and Che wearing all kinds of corporate labels. It's ironic humor. However, I would not wear a shirt with merely a picture of Stalin any more than I'd want to wear a shirt with Hitler on it -- they were both psychotic butchers.

This seems as good a place as any to ask this question since it is related but suppose a woman was really good friends with a couple for years and years and the woman in question never married. When the couple dies can the woman get a sealing to the man who is dead?

True! I like to bypass the big sweatshop corporations and get my stuff made in Russia. I bought several cool KGB shirts for my sons last year in St. Petersburg.

Orson Scott Card's article is pretty good. I am disappointed with Big Love doing this (I really enjoy the show) but it isn't unexpected. One does wonder what kinds of letters the producers have received from well-meaning LDS people jumping on them for making such a show. Also, just wait until others in Hollywood decide to write Mormons into scripts in a bad way due to the Prop.8 thing.

That's what I thought about too but I thought Green Day was more alternative than punk.

Gee, only 97?

The ring finger (left hand) length is a strong indicator of how much testosterone a person receives at a very young age. If then the ring finger is longer than the index finger of the left hand it indicates higher male hormones. In females it is generally associated with more athletic ability, deeper voices and a more competitive nature. In males a long ring finger is associated with greater math abilities, athletic abilities and a far higher sperm count than men with shorter ring fingers.

Maybe the evangelicals need to get back to basics like condemn divorce as strongly as Christ condemned it, unify their families as a safe haven, and get back to the idea that God did, after all, make it quite clear that the Godly are to multiply and replenish the earth (and that means reproduction, not some humanistically inspired mush about God actually meaning to do nice things).

Thank you, if you post material without a link you are violating the law. If you post a link then someone can sabatage just about anything -- videos on You Tbe ranging in contenct from innocent alphabet lessons to pro-LDS videos get responders who will post the most vile words and messages in the comments section. Also, I think it is safe to say that this site has its share of agent pravatours who pose as LDS but place topics intended to create controversy and contention. These folk could very easily see a link to a video and then go there and make a reply that is filled with obscenities and which could then cause someone to get an infraction.

Hard cases make for bad laws. I would hope that this extreme situation would not lead to dumb laws like England and Sweden have in regards to regulating fertility treatment and allowing the state to pry into the affiars of individuals desperately seeking to have children.

Jimmy Carter was a Baptist sunday school teacher and he admitted he read it and I think we know the answer if we ask about Bill Clinton. So what if he did?

Wonder if he reads Playboy and if he does if people defending him here would go balistic on him if he did.

No comment!:eek:

Actually, it's not bad at all.

To me it's an issue of choice and the school is denying you and your child the right to exercise your beliefs. And if it is compulsory to attend school then choice should not be taken away -- and with younger ages I think it's even more important -- besides, if some of the girls and boys are wearing provocative clothing then I might question the motivations of the faculty and administrators of your school for such an event. As for college then that's a different story. I know it's trendy in upper class colleges in England for there to be Saturday naked parties, and the British do have an interesting reputation for the ways they dress and behave at clubs. However, these are not manditory events and they involve adults.

Agreed, but at least when a woman goes out clubbing she is making a choice as to what to wear while the school is a mini feudal state and thus if it believes it can force young people to wear things that are against the values of the parents then one can see why your ancestors rebelled against the feudal system -- it's immoral to force someone to violate their morality.

That depends on how you define lust. If you define lust as attraction and desire then that means God made us to sin in the first place. It's not sin to want to get to know a member of the opposite sex -- it can go under coveting if you are a man and are already married (or she is married) but single women can desire another woman's husband (under the Hebrew interpretation of the 10 Commandments) since polygamy figures into the commandments of God (she can indeed become his wife too). It becomes lust I think when you fantasize about having relations with someone you aren't married to. Your heart rate going up in another person's presense, or any number of other physiological changes, does not mean you have sinned unless you want to take them and commit fornication or adultery in your conscious thought processes.

Perhaps, but I think that it would be best to help everyone be aware of anything that could get them in trouble. :)

Don't believe for a moment you were the only parent that objected. I took an education class in college that related to my major and the professor teaching the lesson suggested that one popular way to head off a parent who objected to sometng in your lessons was to lie and tell them that they are the only ones who seem to have found the thing in question objectionable. This makes the parent feel like they are odd in some way. I heard that journalists do the same thing so I put it to the test a few years back when an article with false information appeared about the LDS church in my local newspaper. I and several friends decided to call the writer of the article and object. I was there when one of my friends placed a call. The next day I called and at the end, after the journalist admitted her article was indeed full of incorrect information, I casually asked if anyone else had called to object and she said that absolutely nobody else had called her.

It would be an interesting topic for study, would it not? I was talking with a woman a while back who said that she and her friends often get together and watch porn movies. Then she said that one of her friends found porn in the history file of her boyfriend's computer and was mad at him. I asked how in the world she was angry at him when she viewed porn on DVD and she said her friend wasn't so mad that he watched porn as well but that he tried to say it wasn't him that did it. Now that brings me to what would be an interesting study -- that would be who watches porn the most...a spouse/partner who has a spouse/parner who is totally okay with it and might even view it themselves or a person who is in a relationship with someone who is hyper opposed to it? One would have to assume that the former couple would generally come from more liberal tradition or set of values and the latter would be from a more conservative one. Other variables might include: Educaton: People (male and female) with a great deal of education would probably be more inclined to experiment with all kinds of things including porn. Ethnic group: One would assume some groups are more liberal than others in regards to porn or how they view the issue in regards to it being appropriate behavior or not. Age: Very critical. Older women are probably quite a bit less likely to be tolerant of porn, mid-level ages mixed and younger women quite a bit more tolerant of it. Studies tend to show that women under 30 view porn much more themselves than women over 50. While women access porn almost as much as men in regards to times per year in the younger age women spend less time viewing it in general. Religion: The crucial factor that we are discussing that would be interesting to examine.

That is true...and the USA is the #1 producer of porn in the entire world. We can all be REALLY proud of the government of the USA.

It would be great to get an answer to the original post.:)

Technically that is a violation of copyright if you don't link it. I am just wondering if a song that plays over and over again on a Provo radio station without complaints can have the video link and then discussed.

This is really not a response to the threads dealing with rules and such but it does appear to look like it's related -- who knows, maybe some energy flux in the air. Oh well, here it goes: What are the rules in regards to posting links if there is something, anything, on the page that opens that is objectionable? You see the question deals with a page that has a song on it that I think is really cool and, upon reading the lyrics, it seems to even have a Christian overtone. I was going to ask people if they thought it was Christian or perhaps mocked Christian thought in a subtle way. Problem is, as with most internet message boards, there are profanities in a couple of the posts by people who don't like the artist. This is problematic since even posting links to You Tube videos that deal with our faith there is often someone posting a profamilty. My little girls like an alphabet video there but some of the posters make crude and vulgar comments in the comments sections. So could I get in trouble for posting a link to a song if the song contains no profamity yet there are nasty comments in the comment threads?

a-train states: Okay, let's put the question like this -- if a guy was trying to earn money for his mission, let's say he is 16, and goes down to the used bookstore and gets a bunch of cheap magazines (some travel, some news and some porn) and sets up a stand and starts selling them at a higher price should his bishop say something to him? I had a friend who might not have been the most orthodox member but he was hired when he was 17 or 18 to clean out a guy's storage units. He took several crates home in his truck and opened them and found all kinds of sellable stuff but one crate was filled with porn -- the kind that had price tags (even two decades ago) ranging from 10 to 50 dollars. He thought about selling them to a local used bookstore but then thought that would be contributing to someone's problems so he dumped them into a landfill. So was he doing the right thing or should he have made a few hundred -- or thousand -- (which he certainly could have used) and put them back into circulation?