MarginOfError

Then he must be a icon in the state of Utah -- at least according to all my friends who have joked to me about the on-line subscription thing! not necessarily...notice the conjunction. Freud is only a resource for the sexually preoccupied who feel they need an excuse to think about sex more often. There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of being obsessed with sex without any excuse at all (much like myself)

Be careful with this. From your Saletan reference, The possibility exists to create a child from the eggs of two women, but this isn't parthenogenesis. This is essentially, fertilizing an ovum of one woman with the genetic material of an ovum from another woman. I suppose, theoretically, you could fertilize an ovum with another woman's ovum, but scientists are already stating that this wouldn't work to create a child, but only stem cells. There is no documented case of parthenogenesis in human history, and certainly not one that can be verified. Before you jump on me about Mary's Immaculate Conception, remember that she gave birth to a son, and parthenogenesis in humans could only possibly result in a daughter (X chromosome).

Do you have any idea how many condoms you can buy for the price of one abortion? Or how many months of birth control you can provide for the price of one abortion? Believe me, these organizations understand very well that preventing unwanted pregnancy is preferable to aborting them. You don't know squat about me. I recommend you refrain from making judgments about my character. Yup, let's just bring the health care system to a crashing halt, cause it doesn't have enough problems as it is. Show me a liberal extremist on this board and I'll be happy to argue with them. Are you really going to complain to me about selection bias? I don't care what your opinion is. I only care that the issues are fairly represented. Let people be opposed to whatever they want, but let them do so with an informed decision. I'm so sorry that you confuse 'liberal elitism' and 'moral relativism' with thoughtful consideration.

Given ACORN's recent record of employee management, I can't imagine this would be a particularly good idea. Recall that the crux of the ACORN 'election fraud' scandal was that ACORN employees were registering people who didn't exist--essentially, they were making up names and filling out cards themselves so they could claim they worked their 8 hours a day. ACORN's employee management would have to be significantly improved before I could buy into this one.

I would add one more contrast of the United Order and Communism...Communism is managed from the highest level of government, while the United Order was managed from the lowest level (for today's analogy, think Bishop's managing Fast Offering funds). Also, communism isn't necessarily built on atheism, it just so happens that those who have instituted it have themselves been atheists. Thus, it would appear to be a sufficient, but not a necessary condition.

Just to put my thoughts on record, I have no faith in the government to run a full health care system. For starters, they would never be able to afford it without a significant increase in taxes, which tax payers would never tolerate. Even if we could get past that issue, our government tends to work in fads--picking up a program while it is politically expedient, and then cutting costs from said program when the next fad comes along. The last thing I need is a group of politicians deciding what health care is available to me. What I would be a fan of is government-guaranteed preventative health care. More specifically, annual exams for adults, maternity care, and wellness visits for children until age 5. I think that would be a worthwhile program, so long as the government's only role was paying for it. Yes, I know...lots of details to be worked out even there. But I need to go wash the dishes.

Mock away. Every modern psychologist will be standing with you when you do it. Freud has become a joke except to those who have a preoccupation with sex and feel like they need an excuse to think about it more often.

I'm not in a position to speak for the Church, so don't take this too seriously... I would just add that one of the reasons the Church reserves for disciplinary action, including excommunication, is to "preserve the good name of the Church." If a member were convicted of murder, the Church may excommunicate him for the sake of preserving the good name of the Church, i.e., not keeping a convicted murderer on the records. If later evidence were to clear that member's name, I imagine priesthood leaders would be more than willing to have a discussion with the man about whether he wanted his membership reinstated. If such were the case, I wouldn't be surprised if the process of reinstating him were fairly quick. Again, this is all speculative on my part. What I do know is that the disciplinary councils held by the Church are taken very seriously and the results are usually determined on an individual basis. The Church doesn't enforce strict rules on local leaders on the outcomes of these councils. Also, if such a scenario were to arise, you would never hear about it from the Church. The Church maintains the proceedings of these conferences in the highest confidentiality, and only in very rare circumstances would they publicly release any action taken. Personally, I am unaware of any instance in recent history when any details have been released by the Church (although there probably are a couple of instances). Usually, if these proceedings are made public, it is done so by the individual and not by the Church.

rameumptom, I would love it if you could provide a citation for President Packer's comments. I've long held that women hold the priesthood and would like to add this to my arsenal of evidence. MoE's comment is a perfect example of someone who decides what he wants to believe, then goes searching for evidence of his pet doctrine. Rameumptom has misinterpreted both the sealing ordinance and President Packer's teachings. Women do not "hold the Priesthood". They are an indispensible part of the highest order of the Priesthood, but they do not hold the Priesthood. All of the MoEs in the world stamping their feet and insisting that women actually do hold the Priesthood won't change the fact. God is shamelessly politically incorrect. I recommend that you read my post here for further clarification (the entire thread is pretty good, actually). There is quite a body of evidence that women hold the priesthood, although I would add that holding the priesthood is very different from holding priesthood office. Admittedly, my research in this area is incomplete, but I am continually studying and seeking further understanding on this topic. I can assure you, however, that this was not a case of, "I want women to hold the priesthood so I'll find everything that will let me say it." This was more of a, "I was reading something one day and it made me think, 'did that just say that women hold the priesthood?' so I did more research and this was what I found."

You don't find it at all ironic that when given the liberty to discuss all of the options, including abortion, that these organizations actually perform fewer abortions? That seems to imply that these organizations do a good job talking people out of abortions. So yeah, let's not let them talk about it. The explanation is simple. There are many of us who do not feel a moral objection to embryonic stem-cell research. Without that moral objection, it is pretty simple to desire to discover what may be possible with this avenue of research. I have no problem with the fact that you do find it morally wrong, but you'll need to produce stronger arguments than, "I feel it is wrong" to persuade me. So far, I've seen no persuasive arguments from the evangelical camp. You're welcome to read the post to which I linked. But as a brief example, Bush's version of the conscience rule uses language vague enough that a scheduler could use the rule to refuse to schedule an IVF consultation because the institution destroys unused blastocysts, which the scheduler views as the immoral destruction of human life. Again, I'm not opposed to having a conscience rule--I am only opposed to having a poorly written conscience rule. I'm just as well studied on liberal hyperbole as I am on conservative hyperbole. Neither of which are grounded in reality. And that's the problem I have with both of them. Quite contrary to what you're accusing me of, I took the time to investigate the issues at hand from more than one angle before reaching my conclusions. We would all be better off if more people took the time to do the same.

rameumptom, I would love it if you could provide a citation for President Packer's comments. I've long held that women hold the priesthood and would like to add this to my arsenal of evidence.

Immunizations are not a hoax, and I offer that as a professional opinion from myself and a colleague (biostatisticians) and every MD with whom I've conversed on the topic. I used to be a huge skeptic, but after looking at the data, there's no question left in my mind that the immunization program is worthwhile. Now, whether it really needs to be done on the CDC's superpaced schedule is a question with a not-so-clear answer.

If only it were so simple. I'll refer you to this post that I wrote about the Mexico City Policy several months ago. Just two highlights...USAID cannot be used to pay for abortions, even with the Mexico City Policy rescinded. MCP forbade money to organizations who merely discussed abortion as an option. Again, the money could not be used to pay for the abortion anyway. Second, under the Mexico City Policy, more abortions were being performed than when the Policy was rescinded. So you can either talk about abortion and have fewer of them, or you can keep quiet and have more abortions. You're likely to meet mixed results in your appeal to an lds group about the supposed immorality of stem-cell research. The Church has no position on the issue, and does not currently take the position that stem-cells can be equated with human life. Embryonic Stem-cell Research - LDS Newsroom Yet another one-sided representation...Obama rescinded Bush's version of the rule, which was poorly written and exceptionally vague. I would agree that the consience rule should be rewritten, but Bush's version of the rule is probably worse than no rule at all. Check out what I had to say on this issue here. So thank you for demonstrating the problem with reactionary politics. It fails to comprehend the complexities of reality and usually makes matters worse than they were to begin.

I can't say I really have an opinion about this proposal as I've not heard any of the details. I've only heard what the American Legion has to say about it. And I hardly consider the American Legion to be an objective source on the matter. If the Legion's characterization is correct, then yes, I would probably be opposed. If there's more to the story than we know, then I might change my mind. It's really hard to make a decision without all of the information.

Try reading The Audacity of Hope; he gives great examples there, including one on anti-crime legislation. My point being that the complete and utter lack of details coming out about this plan indicates that it is in the initial stages where they’re just tossing out ideas to get feedback on them. That is a practice long known to provide better results. It’s also an element of good leadership. Great leaders don’t have all the answers, they just know how to get to them with the help of other people.

Please be careful in your interpretation of this verse. It appears in the midst of prophecies of war and destruction, and presumably, the men would be sent off to war. Some have speculated from the closing verses of the previous chapter that the change from “well set hair” to “baldness” could indicate a nuclear fall out (I personally don’t hold to this interpretation). Recall also that in the culture of Isaiah’s time, a woman could be humiliated by not having children; consider the embarrassment of some biblical women (or even today’s women) when they were barren. Now look at Isaiah 3:25, “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.” This carries into chapter 4, where you have those same worldly women, having lost their jewels, and their fancy clothing and their well set hair saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” It almost appears as if, having lost all of the things that gave them worldly status, they are taking ahold of whatever man is left to obtain the last remaining thing that will give them status: children. Notice also that the manner in which these seven women approach the one man is in no way what the Lord has in mind for when people marry. According to The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Husbands are to provide for their families. Taking a wife and impregnating her while she provides for herself and children is not how the Lord would want marriage to work, which is an indication that the polygamy being discussed in this passage is not condoned by the Lord. Instead, it’s an act of desperation by women who have not given themselves to the Lord. I don’t think that this verse can really be understood as a justification of polygamy, nor is it prophetic of a restoration of polygamous marriage in the Church. The verse is intended to illustrate how desperate the world will become as it sees the things it values slowly disappear. It certainly doesn’t fit as a justification for polyandry. You can read a little about this in the Institute Study Manual: Old Testament Student Manual 1 Kings-Malachi

Again, let's see what the actual proposal is. This article is so one-sided and narrowly focused that you can't tell what is happening on the other side of the table. Obama has been known to bring sides together to hash out solutions to problems. Can we at least wait to see the entire proposal before we demonize its weaknesses and ignore is strengths? I also think the complaint in this article is somewhat suspect given that the AL Commander said, "The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans." So veterans who buy government insurance can have their insurance company reimburse the VA but not veterans who buy private insurance? I'm failing to see the logic here.

I think you fail to recognize that Elphaba’s comment and supporting documentation have little to do with the ‘what if Smith hadn’t died,’ and more to do with ‘what Emma felt while he was alive.’ The evidence cited provides ample evidence to reasonably conclude what her feelings about polygamy were. To say, “we can’t possibly know how she felt because Joseph Smith died before she had an opportunity to divorce him” is something you can only say if you put on some pretty heavy blinders (and from your post, it feels like this is what you are trying to say). We can know how she felt about it because she was making the threats, and playing the highest value card she had left to play.

I'm pretty sure that the LDS religion is the next, as Catholicism and Judaism were being ridiculed long before LDS-ism was ever conceived. Mockery of religion isn't a new thing. I'm not sure why we're all so shocked by this.

Charles A Callis is the Apostle you’re thinking of. And he was Irish, not Scottish. The story you refer to is recounted by President Faust in this talk. LDS.org - Ensign Article - Them That Honour Me I Will Honour Bonus tidbit, Elder Callis married a daughter of one of my ancestors. Just one of my many claims to fame! I’m not so sure about the Japanese American story. I’ve heard this many times before, but never with the missionary being called to the same mission. I’ve heard it assigned to Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and now Germany. Oddly enough, Brazil is the most likely place for this story to take place. For some reason there’s a bizarre relationship between Brazil and Japan that I don’t understand the roots of. But there are Portuguese speaking branches in Japan.

I think evangelicals tend to be pretty direct about those things you mention. Perhaps it's just that your interpretations are extreme enough that no one manages to meet standards of your interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand evangelicals...but let's at least treat them fairly.

I will consider it a happy day when the evangelical collapse is complete. What a dream come true!

You've advertised this episode so well now that I think I'm going to subscribe to HBO just to watch this episode. I'm exceptionally curious about what it is that has your panties in such a twist. Thanks for bringing this fascinating episode to my attention. And since I need to renew my temple recommend anyway, I'm going to invite my bishop to come watch it with me, and we can do my recommend interview after the credits start.

I’m really disappointed in the amount of discussion that is taking place around this subject. And there are a number of reasons for it Our country believes in freedom of speech, and protects freedom of speech. Our Constitution protects good, wholesome, uplifting speech, and it protects foul, offensive, and hateful speech. The fact that this is happening is a signal that our Constitution is working! So the writers of this show have bad taste. Big deal. I’ve seen more offensive things than this on Friends. In fact, in general I find Friends more offensive than Big Love anyway. If you have ever made a joke about transubstantiation, a yammukah, burqas, reincarnation, Darwinism, or the scientific method, then to complain about this makes you a hypocrite. Discussion and outrage about this is exactly what the writers want. Creating controversy keeps them relevant. They want you to be angry and protesting, because that makes a ruckus and drives more people to watch the show. Anyone who is complaining about this is getting played. This is an opportunity. People who watch this will ask questions. And they’re going to take your word over televisions. You’d be better served to stop whining and start thinking about how to explain the Temple ordinances in a way that conveys the beauty, simplicity, and blessing that the Temple ordinances are.Remember what Joseph Smith wrote in 1842. “…The Standard of Truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage; mobs may combine; armies may assemble; calumny may defame. But the purposes of God will go forth nobly, boldly, and independent until it has penetrated ever continent; visited every clime; swept every country; and sounded in every ear. Until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah shall say, ‘the work is done.’” (emphasis added) At this time it is absolutely essential to remember what was written immediately after these words: “We believe in God the eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost…..” (and the rest of the Articles of Faith). In telling us that calumny would defame—that there would be those who would mock the Church—Smith gave us the tools to negate that very calumny. Get ready to use them and let the world speak.

The situation you pose is one of splitting hairs and parsing words that we’ve been dealing with in my unit. We recently made the switch to exclusively using the Local Unit Web Site (LUWS) for ward communication in place of a Google Group that we had been in use for years. There have been several discussions in the ward trying to parse out what is and isn’t appropriate use of e-mail addresses, establishing mailing lists, etc. What it really boils down to is where are you getting the e-mail addresses? in what capacity did you collect them? and for what purpose are you using them? If you log into your LUWS and extract people’s email addresses from there, you have taken them from a Church directory and are obligated to use them in accordance with the Church’s policies. This is essentially the same thing as using the ward directory of phone numbers. If you were to pick up the ward directory and start calling members for this political purpose, you could easily get tagged for inappropriate use. But what’s to stop you from writing the phone numbers (or e-mail addresses) onto another sheet of paper? Simply put, if anyone on that lists complains that you were not authorized to use their contact info for the political purpose, you could cause problems for the Church. If you have collected all of the members’ addresses socially, and they have voluntarily given beefche their e-mail addresses, you are free to do with them whatever you please. However, if you have collected them as Relief Society president, the expectation is that you are collecting the information for use related to your calling. To then use those lists for political purposes could open you up to the criticism that you collected those addresses under false pretenses. The Relief Society in my ward has been pretty adamant about wanting to maintain its own blog that will allow some of the same communications that happened in the old Google Group that we felt were inappropriate uses. The instruction we gave them was that they could not advertise the blog in Church, nor could they use Church time to encourage signing up, etc, and that all official activities and correspondence had to be posted on the LUWS. The “Girls’ Blog” (or whatever they called it) could not be affiliated or linked to the Church in any way. I’m sure there are many ways you could parse words and split hairs to get around the policy, but that isn’t what we’re supposed to be doing. We know what the intent and purpose of these directories are, and we should adhere to their proper use, if for no other reason than to prevent PR nightmares like what this ward in Illinois is experiencing.