FunkyTown

I've never felt like a second class citizen in the church and I'm a convert. With a past. Were there women who wouldn't consider dating me? Probably. But those same women were usually some of the sweetest, nicest, most Molly people in the world. I have nothing but love and respect for them. Plus, I think we wouldn't get along in a relationship, anyway, so I'm grateful that I ended up dating other types.

Getting back to the original point: I don't think LDS women are that hung up on marrying RMs outside of Utah. Here in England, I've had lots of opportunities to date and I'm not an RM. I just try to help people when I can, love God and other members in the church and am always up for a laugh. That seems enough for them. I've got a little chub, I'm not an RM or a supermodel and I'm not a Doctor. Seems like there are women out there for everyone. Don't worry too much about the girls who won't date you. They're few and far between. Most women who use the RM thing as an excuse actually have other reasons not to date you. Work on those things. As for LDS guys - I don't think anyone worries too much about a past. And if they do, they probably have problems of their own and you don't want to date them. Or there might be something else you need to work on in your life to become more 'Dateable'.

If he did it at a basketball game, Fianna? Yes. If he just whipped out pornography in the middle of a basketball game, I'd probably disagree. I would find it hilariously funny, but definitely inappropriate.

Welcome! I had the chance to read the Bhagavad Gita myself(Though, admittedly, more because of Oppenheimer than anything else). I look forward to hearing from you.

I was reading an interview by Fox News. Mitt Romney was asked to comment on the economy. Here's the transcript: FOXNews.com - Mitt Romney on Obama's Spending Frenzy - Hannity I think Mitt Romney is right. Economically, he's talking sense. He's not predicting doom, he's suggesting that we should be wary because what the US is doing now threatens middle class America. I'm disappointed, however, that it was Hannity and Fox News who decided to give this interview. So my questions are this: 1) How can Mitt Romney speak economics in a way that the average American will understand? He's clearly reaching the educated market, but missing out with a very large portion of the populace. How can he communicate effectively on very complex issues without being labeled 'Elitist' by the left-leaning media. 2) How is it that we can get more reasonable rhetoric out on the airwaves? The right-leaning media is every bit as bad as the left. Hannity sounded more like a rabid dog than someone trying to communicate with a reasonable populace.

Awesome, Jolee! I accept that he has done nothing but party since he's gotten in to office. Since this is the glaring truth, you no longer have to complain about him destroying America because he clearly isn't. He can't, because he's too busy partying. YAY! No more Obama bashing because he's NOT doing anything to destroy America. HURRAY!

I would suggest that you answer every charge instead of finding things to nitpick and ignoring those things you don't like.

Err... Wait... So they're comparing to 1929? Look - I understand the argument against the New Deal, but this is a terrible piece. It wasn't until the end of 1929 that the stock market crashed and it takes months for that to affect the most changes in jobs. 1929 was a boom year. This is just generally a badly researched piece of tripe. I don't disagree with their conclusions, but their methodology is terrible. Of course the years after the stock market crash were worse than one of the most prosperous times in American history. That isn't rocket science. It's logic.

Through the Holy Spirit, Nipper. Yes.

I know, Moe. I know. I expected President Obama to wear sackcloth and rend his clothing while he wept, crying up to the heavens 24 hours a day. Next, they'll be saying he sometimes likes to wear comfortable clothing or spend an afternoon throwing a football around with his son.

Highfive for Moksha!

So your friend asked this guy to leave, then when the guy left your friend went out to talk to him because some of the things he said hurt his feelings? That would indicate that the friend was in a fight. In fact, there are witnesses saying that he was involved in the fight, he had alcohol in his blood and the guy who supposedly started the fight left the restaurant and -was followed out-. I bet they're charging him with public mischief and, most likely, public intoxication. It also sounds like he's guilty. Not to worry - They won't deport him for public intoxication and public mischief. If countries did that, no foreign soldiers would ever get stationed in any city ever.

I joined the church at 26, so I never went on a mission. I never use that phrase.

No, he can only be fined for public intoxication, Maya. However, the fact that he was drunk will make people less likely to believe his story that he was only helping someone. After all, witnesses said they were fighting.

For everyone earning 250K/year and higher and are affected by this, please raise your hand.

I disagree, Maxel. It is a truism that agency can be acted upon: Ask any addict if they have entire free will in choosing. Ask anybody with a mental illness. Things can happen that are beyond your control, beyond your choosing. "Can Agency be overridden." is not the question. That has already been answered by history.

Yeah. .13 blood alcohol in Utah is not going to look good, but since he wasn't driving it probably won't be terrible. What's he being charged with? Probably a misdemeanor.

Someone banned the Phabulous one? o.O Why?

He wasn't an addict. He was having trouble sleeping and had been on those sleeping pills for only a few weeks. And it wasn't even those that killed him - It was a bad reaction of over-the-counter flu medication with -prescription drugs-. Since that's the story given by the police, his family and everyone who investigated it, it's probably best to just give him the benefit of the doubt. I know I'd want it if I were in his situation.

I would like to vocally support PC in this, because what he is teaching is biblical. To put forth a divorce and remarry for -any reason- other than abandonment or adultery is the equal of adultery. That having been said: PC, you can't be too surprised at the majority reaction here. When Jesus said that, everyone in that time said it would be better not to be married. The funny thing is: We excuse ourselves of sins we are guilty of, rationalizing that they aren't as bad as (Insert other sin here). The truth is that we've all sinned. Now, on to the original topic: Who asked for the divorce due to unfaithfulness? If the husband asked for the divorce and she pushed for reconciliation, a case could be made that she was repentant and this might be 'abandonment'. If she cheated on him and then wasn't truly repentant, this would be a sin. In her defence, however(Though I would never tell the person seeking council of this because the least degree of sin can not be counselled as being okay), if she didn't marry she would be tempted to many many other sins. If she recognized her weakness and went to God with it, with a contrite and broken spirit, I can't imagine Him not forgiving her and allowing her to remarry.

Hahah. I love nicknames for politicians! I called Bush "Captain Retardo" and Ron Paul got "Crazy Joe".

I'm somewhat worried by this remark, considering that prior to this you have been a remarkable biblical scholar. I can give several examples that suggest that Prophets were the leaders of the church(Specifically: Israel as the church). Samuel anointed Saul. If the people recognized that the crowning of a King took place at the behest of the Prophet, it's safe to say he had considerable sway. So much sway, in fact, that even David didn't dare harm Saul even with Saul's attempts on David's life. Moses led the people through the deserts. They actively followed him - They grumbled about it, as the people are wont to do, but nobody said "Why should a Prophet guide us?" All of Humanity were led by the Prophet Noah at one point(Admittedly, there were less than a dozen left, but he was the head). Abraham was the father of Nations, a patriarch who led all the people during his time there. Frankly, barring the minor prophets like Habakkuk, all the major prophets led God's church when they were around. All of them. The only logical argument would be that God no longer needs prophets. I disagree with it, but I can at least see the biblical argument. To state that the Prophets didn't lead the church is disingenuous, which seemed to be what you were saying when you mentioned the Temple with the prophets.

"Here comes trouble." The Watchmen movie "And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were married, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire... " Office Space

Have you considered just banning him from using your computer? You could password protect your computer.

The swedish have a fabulous culture, Wing! Fabulous, full-bodied culture. It is a culture of the zeitgeist! It is the modern psyco-political nation of liberalism in the agnostic European market. Does that make me seem deeper when I say the Swedish Bikini Team is the pinnacle of culture?