MarginOfError

I'm not so sure about calling Utah a "healthy dose of distance"

Don't you mean "Go shopping, jogging and work in your neighborhood in the nude? Is she cute?"

I find them both to be a bit frightening, actually.

RAM!? You dare imply that prophets can speak their own opinion without speaking the express will and mind of the Lord? Do you wish to bring upon yourself the Spanish Inquisition?

I think the question is which biblical ideals. Remember, the Bible can be interpreted to both condone and condemn polygamy. The Book of Mormon explicitly condemned it. And then the Doctrine and Covenants made room for its acceptance. So under your application of 'forbidding to marry,' God has been just as guilty as government.

Cubs are done. No way they win three straight. Manny sure lit a fire under the Dodgers, huh!?

You picked a pretty extreme organization to represent your case. I will not deny that some of the things in that article occurred, and it's extremely unfortunate that some of them did. Some of them, however, were done rightly. However, the AFA is about as biased a source as you can get. Could you provide a link to the article? I would like to see how many references they provide to these incidents. In my experience the AFA has only given you the information they want you to have, but don't provide much because you might find out there's more to the story that doesn't support their goal. Furthermore, the AFA (American Family Association) only cares about families so much as they espouse Christian ideas of family and religion. They distributed an e-mail in the past couple of years protesting that the Senate was going to have a Muslim open the Senate session with prayer. You'd think these people would be happy to have a prayer at all. But they complained because clearly, no one but a Christian could possibly implore God to be with our nation's leaders. Please, please, don't complain about the ACLU if you're going to use the AFA to back you up. They're both just as extreme, just on opposite sides of the aisle.

Israel, when meant to denote the descendants of Jacob, son of Abraham, are the chosen people of God. Israel the nation is a strip of land on the East end of the Mediterranean Sea that was given to displaced Jews after WWII. How were we able to give them this land? Simple, displace the Arabs/Palestinians living there already and make room for the new tenants. The US is in bed with Israel, not because God's chosen people live there, but because we put a whole race of people in a vulnerable position and it would be too big a political embarrassment to allow it to fail.

It is true that the median age of marriage has been rising. It's harder to determine if this is a good or a bad thing. As it has become more and more necessary to have a college degree to have real earning power, we've seen a growing attitude of extending childhood and adolescence. Our society puts more value on personal exploration and experimentation than ever before. The result, as I've seen it, is that a lot of 18-20 year olds really aren't very mature. You should walk into some of the beginning math classes I've taught at the University level and see how many of the first and second year students complain about being expected to do 3 hours of homework a week (which, by the way, isn't nearly enough for a math course if you really want to succeed). I will agree, however, that putting off marriage in order to finish an education is not a particularly good policy. On the other hand, I strongly encourage individuals to put off getting married until they learn to be self confident, responsible, and happy as unmarried people. The reason for this: happy single people tend to turn into happy married people, and unhappy single people tend to turn into unhappy married people. People should take the time to mature, serve, and develop themselves, and to explore many potential mates (lots and lots of non-exclusive dating), and learn to develop lasting and meaningful relationships before getting married. If they can do that by 18, then great. If it takes them until they're 32, that's great too. The bottom line is, marriage, family, maturity, and education are all very very important. But those things can develop and come to realization in very different ways. Instead of talking about when these things happen for people, we should be talking about how they happen for people.

The fact that John was alive was exactly where the LDS claim to Apostasy originates. The bishops of Rome were claiming leadership over the Church before John had even written the Revelation or his Gospel. The churches grew up having usurped the proper authority of God.

Okay, you got me on a few things. Yes I would prefer it if they voted. Mostly because I know them well enough to know that they'd vote for all the things that I want. But while I would like them to vote, I would much prefer they cast an informed vote than an uninformed vote. But I do believe an uninformed vote is more dangerous than no vote at all. So, I'm not going to tell my friends to go vote until they take the time to look at what's on the table.

May I just offer the caveat that just because everyone has a right to vote doesn't mean they should go to the polls uninformed. I have several friends who don't vote, and I respect them for not voting. The reason they don't vote is that they don't follow any of what's happening and they do their best not to know anything about the candidates. They are genuinely uninformed of what is happening in the election and therefore feel that it would be wrong for them to exercise their right to vote. I happen to agree with them. If you're not going to be an informed voter, then don't vote. That being said, my friends also admit they have no right to complain about the results of elections because they aren't participating. I also respect them for that.

Why do we call it non-denominational when we have a common denominator? Okay, I'm done being a nerd for the next, oh, 30 seconds.

The Cubs look like they could be in trouble already. The Phillies are looking pretty good right now. I'm shocked that the Sox were able to pull down the Angels (I'm a Sox fan.) If the Dodgers win again tonight it'll be over for the Cubs. Likewise, if the Angels don't win on Friday, it may as well be over. Predictions for tonight's White Sox vs. Rays game? My money is on the Rays.

When the Moon is High

Maybe I'm a little conservative, but I figure that if I'm ever torn over the question, "should I go see the bishop about this?" perhaps I should just go see the bishop about it. The worst thing he can do is tell me I didn't really need to go see him about it. The best thing he can do is help me. What is there to lose?

This is the best example of Satan's view of the final judgment I have encountered - thank you The Traveler I do my best to educate the world.

I believe in slackerism. Which means I've sinned by having put forth the effort to proclaim my religion. Actually, when I was in high school, a group of friends and I were considering formally creating a religion called Slackerism in which we would claim that doing homework was against our religion. We began formalizing the doctrine when we realized that it was against our religion to both formalize our doctrine and to organize a religion. So, in order to keep consistent with our religious beliefs we had to give up on our religion. And then we were too lazy to be sad about it.

Okay, again reminding you that I'm an economic idiot, what would happen if the bailout were to go something like this: Identify homeowners who still owe more than half their mortgage and for whom their mortgage payment is more than 35% of their monthly income (I just made those numbers up) Divide the bailout total evenly to those mortgages (pay them down) Require the lenders to refinance those loans to be paid off over the next 25 years on a fixed interest rateTheoretically, this would put the money in the hands of the lenders, but would also reduce the burden on the individuals owning the homes. It might also create more disposable income. And the people it doesn't hurt are the ones who aren't necessarily struggling to pay their mortgages (at least they shouldn't be), and possibly people who recently bought a home. Okay, blow my theory apart guys! :-)

That's right! You should all save yourselves and serve me!

While I understand that none of us has been perfect throughout our lives, I don't like the suggestion that we can't become perfect. In fact, I think we can become perfect if we work hard enough and bend ourselves enough to the Gospel. Is that not the purpose of the Gospel? So I agree with Justice--we must strive for perfection and understand that it is a goal we can obtain. I also agree with tubaloth (and in phrasing it like this, I don't mean to imply that anyone has disagreed with him)--obtaining perfection is not required for salvation. It's just that the closer we get to perfection here, the easier it will be to receive our salvation later. I guess I'm really only saying this because I don't like hearing the attitude of, "well we can never be perfect anyway so I'm only going for good enough." I'll stop my preaching now.

January 7th is Christmas on the Orthodox calendar, with the Orthodox New Year celebrated on January 14th. I forget when, but there was a big deal made about the calendar a long time ago and different branches of Christianity chose to accept different calendars. In parts of the former Soviet Union it gets really fun because they'll celebrate the Catholic Christmas on December 25th, the Catholic New Year on December 31st - January 1st, then Orthodox Christmas on January 7th, and Orthodox New Year on January 13th-14th. It's like a straight month of alcoholic binging. Talk about a party.

If you want to do a more thorough study, check out Doctrine and Covenants 13, 20, 84, 107, 110, 121, and 131. If that really excites you, try What Every Elder Should Know—and Every Sister as Well: A Primer on Principles of Priesthood Government

Calm down a bit there John. I'm pretty sure that the Church's view on how to change society follows something like what Boyd K. Packer said in 1997: "I have long believed that the study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than talking about behavior will improve behavior." Washed Clean [Note: taken a little out of context, but the principle still applies] Essentially, the Church is not a political entity and does not interfere with the governments set up by man. It changes the world by changing individuals. That attitude is even reflected in the very government of the Church, where families are the fundamental unit, with the second most important unit being the wards and branches. It would not matter in the least bit if the Church stood against a government, because change does not work from the top down, it works from the bottom up.

Nonsense! We are nothing of the sort. So I stopped to get ice cream with my wife last night and there were several kids dressed up for homecoming or something, and you would not believe the dresses.......