FunkyTown

I read that and was interested. Perhaps you can clarify, Maureen? There were two main arguments: 1) What he did isn't going to do anything because they're still liberals. 2) What he did reduces the democratic process because he doesn't get to listen to the caucus arguments. So, err... Maybe I'm being dense, but how could: be true, limiting their contact with information. And: - It either has no impact, or it's an evil reduction in democratic process. It can't be both. When someone suggests it is both, that's just partisan hackery at its finest. Unless the author was thinking that an evil reduction in democratic has no impact? I guess? That could theoretically allow both statements to be true. But in that case, he's just engaging in silly goosery. If my choices are that the author is either indifferent of the democratic process or a partisan hack, it's not that hard to dismiss the claims.

Justin Trudeau took a labour dispute my mother had pro-bono. I might be a tad pre-disposed to him. Also, he would straight up dragon punch Jack Layton in to the sun.

And he is going to straight up BEAT THE TAR out of Harper. Physically: Putin, too. He's a frickin' SUPERHERO.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son, Justin Trudeau, recently sacked -every single Liberal senator in the Canadian Senate-. Why? Because he believes that voting along party lines turns the senate in to a rubber stamp and robs the Canadian people of choice and self-determination. Trudeau to his senators: You're fired! | Pembroke Daily Observer Here is Justin Trudeau: I know, I know. he's a member of the Liberal party. What you need to understand is Canadian politics is crazy. Liberals are the Conservatives, New Democrats are the Liberals, the Conservatives are the... Uh... Hrm. They aren't really the party of anything, even though they have the current Prime Minister. Sometimes, they're Conservative. sometimes they're not. Anyway, take a look at his platform: Justin Trudeau: Platform offers look at future of Liberal party | National Post He's pro-gun, pro-lowered taxes, believes that green policies should be grassroots(He's set up a tax incentive - You can claim up to $13, 500 in home improvements for things like heating insulation, solar panels and other items that reduce strain on the national power infrastructure) and is pushing for democratic reform to decentralize power. So what do you think? Could you vote for a liberal?

Hey Tom - There's nothing taught in church one way or the other about evolution. I don't have a dog in that fight, but... I think the problem with the debate is that people are conflating this as Science vs Religion. The Scientific Method is just a set of rules of observation that lead to understanding natural rules. Evolution is interesting because it was a genius theory came to by a very intelligent man. There are a few very important questions that have to be answered about it. The Scientific Method, in order to prove Evolution, has to be able to experimentally prove it in a controlled and repeatable setting. In such a setting, they need to show: 1) Have they ever seen an organic molecule spontaneously develop life? They have not.(I know, I know. 'Abiogenesis is not evolution.' It's an important first step to allow evolution, though) 2) Have they ever seen a cell that was not predisposed to working together to suddenly start working together? They have not. 3) Have they ever seen a cell that was not predisposed to doing so suddenly specialize in to an organ or pseudo-organ? They have not. D) Have they ever seen evolution on a macro-level? They have not. The answer to these questions is, 'Of course not, FunkyTown. Don't be absurd. Evolution takes millions(And sometimes billions) of years. To recreate what may have taken the entire universe billions of years of random events to create within the confines of our current limitations is not currently possible.' And that's a fair point. The problem with that is that you have a theory that is not only untested, but untestable. It's the exact sort of theory that atheists decry religion for having -because- it's untested and untestable. Having that be a cornerstone of modern scientific thought is, it seems to me, something that lessens scientific inquiry. Evolution has become such a sacred cow among the anti-religion crowd because it doesn't require God to exist that it isn't being questioned on any real level. And can't be because it's become dogmatic truth. Dogma is the enemy of the inquiring mind, and science requires an inquiring mind to be anything of use. You seem like someone who does question things. Let that happen. It's a good thing. :)

I'm not rusting! It's called 'Dancing'! Rusting hulk indeed.

Yep. Yep. Yep. I agree with all those things.

Wherever I'd live, I'd just be on the front lawn dancing all:

Does anyone actually believe that? 'Cause that's toxic on many levels: To the Priesthood holder, to the young woman and to investigators.

What does my avatar say about me? Mine is a picture of me. It says, "Hey! Check out that virile and powerful dude in the hot shirt. ROWR!"

Weren't you supposed to put up a picture of yourself in a pink tutu, LDS?

Welcome!

Yeah. Confess - It'll be better. Maybe you get delayed on your mission, maybe you can't go. But going without being worthy to go? That'll be far worse for you in the long run.

Thanks Ana. You're the best. These sorts of discussions almost inevitably rely upon the book Mormon Doctrine which is, ironically, not Mormon Doctrine.

Church - Extrapolation is fine. Consideration and contemplation should be done by individual members within the church. It should be done prayerfully and it should be done with thought. I, for instance, accept every quote you've given but disagree on your interpretation of it. We are God's children. We are His inheritors. He is offering us everything he has. This does not imply that God was not the first. Joseph Smith says that God knows and understands everything that we have and that we've gone through. You claim this is because He has experienced having a brother and sister. If this is so, then I invite you to consider: There is such a thing as gay relationships. Would you suggest that God's understanding of them comes from personal experience in such a thing? If not, then can you not simply port whatever explanation you have of His understanding of such a thing over to the Brother/Son situation? I am being very careful in this: I don't want to step in to the territory of treating Holy things lightly. I understand asking a question is, at the very least, confrontational. That isn't my intention - This simple question uses the extreme to show the logical extension of your argument that the only way He could understand our own dynamics is by experiencing them Himself. What you're suggesting could be the answer. They are not necessarily. What you are doing is jumping in to pseudo-doctrine. You can state that President Hinckley's remark is a 'Milk Before Meat' response, and it might be. But it also might not. Dwelling on pseudo-doctrine is welcome in some circles, unwelcome in others. It can be uplifting or destructive. I am very conservative where it comes to the doctrines of the gospel. I am firmly on Gordon B. Hinckley's side when I say, 'We don't know.'

You mean like when Gordon B. Hinckley said: Church. I respect your opinion. And your learning, but I am going to back President Hinckley over your word. We can argue and philosophize on what the words mean, and those who think it means one particular thing are more than welcome to their opinion, but we have a prophet who has spoken on that. Perhaps President Monson will gain more understanding of this, but he hasn't spoken of it. Is your vision keener than President Hinckley's? Spoken on national television?

Bonjour Amy! Je suis une canadienne qui vit en Angleterre. Je parle la langue du Québec, mais pas la langue du Paris. Zut alors!

Hi Jinc, The King Follett discourses are an interesting read, but 'God being once a man' isn't unique to the LDS faith: Baptists, Catholics and the rest all believe it. The difference is really in timing. We believe Jesus and God are two separate individuals. Jesus was perfect from birth. Note that, according to the bible, being perfect does not imply he was all-knowing: Luke 2:52 says: An increase in Wisdom shows that there were changes that took place in his earthly ministry, and increasing in favour with not just Man but God also suggests changes. As for whether God had done the same thing as His son at some point, it's possible: John 5:19: What does all this mean? 1) Jesus was perfect from birth. We - You, me and everyone on this board, were not perfect from birth. 2) Jesus did only what his Father in Heaven did. 3) Jesus came to Earth to fulfil all righteousness - Being baptized, etc. If Jesus and God are separate beings, then it certainly implies he did so elsewhere, but the truth is we don't know what happened before this world or what God has planned for after this world. We have hints, suggestions and the like, but we have no absolute knowledge. I'm always uneasy with these types of topics - Inevitably there is a ton of guesswork sprinkled with scripture. It seems too close to Priestcraft, with each person sure their interpretation is right. I believe in God. I believe in His son. I am grateful for their role in my life and their love for me. Beyond that, I trust that God will reveal more when He's ready.

I tend to side with President Hinckley on this particular issue. When asked about it in Time Magazine in 1997, his response was: I'm going to trust the prophet on this particular statement, and I'm going to trust God at the end of time when he explains it.

It depends on a particular scriptural understanding of Jesus saying, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." That single statement has had a lot read in to it. There are a lot of places online where you can read more about it. I invite you to take a look and you'll find the answers of why they believe it. I don't find the evidence compelling, however, so I would be a bad person to make that argument.

Do you know why they call PMS PMS? Because Mad Cow Disease was already taken. PS: This is MOE speaking. I have hijacked FunkyTown's account and any rage should be directed squarely at me, MOE, and not at FunkyTown as he is just an innocent pawn in this.

VERY subtle, but I understand what you're saying: Off Limits was a 1988 film starring Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe played a gay man in Boondock Saints. According to dictionary.com, the word punk means 'Worthless person'. The definition of music is 'The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified and evocative composition'. You're suggesting that all of Willem Dafoe's life is worthless because of one role! Homophobe.

Yes. Loudmouth is the one who's crazy. Not the astral projection people who can travel the whole world but just won't do one simple, easily testable and verifiable thing. Loudmouth. Loudmouth? You crazy, crazy man.

Are you saying you don't like Greek women? RACIST!

Beauty is in the eyes of this thing? I don't know what kinda people you date, but I can promise you my wife doesn't look like that and she's HECKUH beautiful.