MarginOfError

I think JAG was the one who proposed the compromise that I think I found most comfortable:  If you keep it in stock, you can't discriminate on who you sell it to.  But baking (and especially decorating) a cake is not something 'in stock.'  The photography isn't 'in stock' and so I think it's fair to allow the one producing those expressive goods to discriminate on their religious beliefs.
 
I worry that some of the RFRA bills being floated around are attempting to make it possible for a cashier at the grocery store to refuse service to a same sex couple on religious freedom grounds.  And that's a contingency I find unacceptable.

I think JAG was the one who proposed the compromise that I think I found most comfortable:  If you keep it in stock, you can't discriminate on who you sell it to.  But baking (and especially decorating) a cake is not something 'in stock.'  The photography isn't 'in stock' and so I think it's fair to allow the one producing those expressive goods to discriminate on their religious beliefs.
 
I worry that some of the RFRA bills being floated around are attempting to make it possible for a cashier at the grocery store to refuse service to a same sex couple on religious freedom grounds.  And that's a contingency I find unacceptable.

I think JAG was the one who proposed the compromise that I think I found most comfortable:  If you keep it in stock, you can't discriminate on who you sell it to.  But baking (and especially decorating) a cake is not something 'in stock.'  The photography isn't 'in stock' and so I think it's fair to allow the one producing those expressive goods to discriminate on their religious beliefs.
 
I worry that some of the RFRA bills being floated around are attempting to make it possible for a cashier at the grocery store to refuse service to a same sex couple on religious freedom grounds.  And that's a contingency I find unacceptable.

But more seriously, the guy behind this is clearly upset that the essays on race and polygamy don't represent history in the way he thinks it should be represented.  There is some merit to that stance.  I don't agree with the way he is trying to express his concerns, but I get where he's coming from.  If this helps him sleep at night, so be it.
 
For what it's worth, as of 8:30 AM EST today, there have been 27 tickets requested, 11 tickets promised, and 0 tickets received.  This probably hasn't picked up much traction yet, but I don't think it will pick up a whole lot.  

I actually don't mind paying taxes (with the exception of my local municipality tax, which keeps going up while the city cuts services.  That irritates me).  But in general, I'm happy to pay taxes so long as I feel like the public goods being provided are of sufficient quantity and quality.  
 
As much as we complain about how tax money gets spent, the US taxes really aren't that burdensome compared to most places in the world. (I know, a lot of you will disagree with that).  
 
Truth be told, for the right services and with a more transparent tax system, I'd be perfectly willing to pay higher taxes.  Under the current tax code, however, I'm resistant to more taxes because it's too freaking difficult to make sense of who is paying what and how and for what reason.

I actually don't mind paying taxes (with the exception of my local municipality tax, which keeps going up while the city cuts services.  That irritates me).  But in general, I'm happy to pay taxes so long as I feel like the public goods being provided are of sufficient quantity and quality.  
 
As much as we complain about how tax money gets spent, the US taxes really aren't that burdensome compared to most places in the world. (I know, a lot of you will disagree with that).  
 
Truth be told, for the right services and with a more transparent tax system, I'd be perfectly willing to pay higher taxes.  Under the current tax code, however, I'm resistant to more taxes because it's too freaking difficult to make sense of who is paying what and how and for what reason.

Smith declared that there were two orders of the priesthood in 1835, one being Aaronic, and one being Melchizedek (D&C 107).
 
in May of 1843, he then declared that that to enter the highest order of the celestial kingdom, one must enter into into the order of priesthood associated with the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. (D&C 131).
 
Then, in August of 1843, he made the statement about the Patriarchal order.  He was dead ten months later and never really wrote down anything more about it.  To my knowledge, it was never really discussed afterward.  In all of the turmoil of getting to Utah and establishing society, it turned into an interesting bit of trivia, but no real (public) attempt has ever been made clarify what this order entails.  
 
The interpretations have been varied over the years, and even the current Apostles aren't really agreed on what it is.  President Packer has made statements that are quite clear that it is held by men, but not by women.  But in one of last year's General Conferences, one of the Twelve (I was thinking it was Elder Andersen, but I'm having trouble finding it--time to finish up my package for text searching General Conference Talks) indicated that husbands and wives hold it jointly.  
 
I think it's fair to say "we don't know what this is."  

People have said much more objectionable things than that, even among the higher echelons of church leadership.
 
Putting aside my personal feelings on the matter, the objective statistical evidence is clear that relationships that cross cultural boundaries are more prone to failure.  This is largely due to differing expectations about communication.  And it is true when those cultural boundaries are racial, geographic, religious, political.....the list could go on forever.
 
People who have similar backgrounds have a more natural understanding of each other and their communicative patterns.  That make it much easier to resolve conflicts.
 
The other source of conflict in cross-cultural relationships tends to deal with values.  This is usually more starkly seen in the religious context, but can be true in racial contexts.
 
So, while I'm not a big fan of this quote, I'm not particularly bothered by it.  There is some objective value to it when discussed properly.  But every time I've been in a position where it's come up, I've either ignored it or pivoted to talking about communication issues.  

Contention is when you disagree with me and decide to kick against the pricks instead of accepting my grand and irrefutable wisdom.
 
*glares at TFP*

I say go and be in his wedding.  It doesn't mean you are condoning his lifestyle but being a friend.
 
I have a son who is gay and in a relationship.  I've had a really hard time coming to terms with this in how I can still show my son I love him and still support him but also stand by my beliefs.
 
I have discovered I can still do both.

Contention is when you disagree with me and decide to kick against the pricks instead of accepting my grand and irrefutable wisdom.
 
*glares at TFP*

People have said much more objectionable things than that, even among the higher echelons of church leadership.
 
Putting aside my personal feelings on the matter, the objective statistical evidence is clear that relationships that cross cultural boundaries are more prone to failure.  This is largely due to differing expectations about communication.  And it is true when those cultural boundaries are racial, geographic, religious, political.....the list could go on forever.
 
People who have similar backgrounds have a more natural understanding of each other and their communicative patterns.  That make it much easier to resolve conflicts.
 
The other source of conflict in cross-cultural relationships tends to deal with values.  This is usually more starkly seen in the religious context, but can be true in racial contexts.
 
So, while I'm not a big fan of this quote, I'm not particularly bothered by it.  There is some objective value to it when discussed properly.  But every time I've been in a position where it's come up, I've either ignored it or pivoted to talking about communication issues.  

People have said much more objectionable things than that, even among the higher echelons of church leadership.
 
Putting aside my personal feelings on the matter, the objective statistical evidence is clear that relationships that cross cultural boundaries are more prone to failure.  This is largely due to differing expectations about communication.  And it is true when those cultural boundaries are racial, geographic, religious, political.....the list could go on forever.
 
People who have similar backgrounds have a more natural understanding of each other and their communicative patterns.  That make it much easier to resolve conflicts.
 
The other source of conflict in cross-cultural relationships tends to deal with values.  This is usually more starkly seen in the religious context, but can be true in racial contexts.
 
So, while I'm not a big fan of this quote, I'm not particularly bothered by it.  There is some objective value to it when discussed properly.  But every time I've been in a position where it's come up, I've either ignored it or pivoted to talking about communication issues.  

That's a loophole big enough for a Star Destroyer.

There really is no better time to pray than while you are sinning.  The world would be a far better place if more people would take time to pray while they sin.

There really is no better time to pray than while you are sinning.  The world would be a far better place if more people would take time to pray while they sin.

There really is no better time to pray than while you are sinning.  The world would be a far better place if more people would take time to pray while they sin.

You two need therapy.  You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other.  What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.

It really isn't a democratic system.  But it isn't an all-must-consent system either.  Those with they keys to set apart a person to the calling in question have the ultimate say in the matter.
 
On a local level, if a person were to oppose the sustaining of a bishop, the stake president would meet with the dissenter to determine the reason behind the opposition.  The stake president then has to decide if the reasoning is strong enough to prevent the sustaining ("that man had an affair with my wife last week") or not ("he wouldn't help me install my surround sound system, so he must not understand the meaning of service.")  If the stake president sees no reason to put a halt on the sustaining, the bishop may be sustained over the objections of the few.
 
In the case of the president of the church, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve would hear out the opposition.  If he felt there were a valid cause not to sustain the prophet, and he could gain the support of the entirety of his Quorum, then the Quorum of the Twelve could move not to sustain the prophet.  Such an action would likely precipitate excommunication of the prophet, however, and would probably require a very grievous and substantiated case for opposing the sustaining.

My formal response to this is "Meh."  
 
But I do object to this guy's template letter of opposition (for those who wish to oppose without attending Conference); he only provides a template for males!

You two need therapy.  You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other.  What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.

It really isn't a democratic system.  But it isn't an all-must-consent system either.  Those with they keys to set apart a person to the calling in question have the ultimate say in the matter.
 
On a local level, if a person were to oppose the sustaining of a bishop, the stake president would meet with the dissenter to determine the reason behind the opposition.  The stake president then has to decide if the reasoning is strong enough to prevent the sustaining ("that man had an affair with my wife last week") or not ("he wouldn't help me install my surround sound system, so he must not understand the meaning of service.")  If the stake president sees no reason to put a halt on the sustaining, the bishop may be sustained over the objections of the few.
 
In the case of the president of the church, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve would hear out the opposition.  If he felt there were a valid cause not to sustain the prophet, and he could gain the support of the entirety of his Quorum, then the Quorum of the Twelve could move not to sustain the prophet.  Such an action would likely precipitate excommunication of the prophet, however, and would probably require a very grievous and substantiated case for opposing the sustaining.

You two need therapy.  You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other.  What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.

You two need therapy.  You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other.  What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.

You two need therapy.  You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other.  What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.