FunkyTown

You know who else had a missing link on his shirt cuff? The criminal in Testaments who killed Amaron. I can clearly see what you're really saying: You support killing the prophets!

I agree with LM! Let's do this. There are so many people feeling so passionately about this that it's clear we can resolve it in one fell swoop. Just go to Temple Square tonight and tell us what LM is wearing. What time will you be there, LM? It'd be a fun way to pass a few hours: Just relaxing by temple square. Then, when they come on here and tell us what you were wearing, all the naysayers will be taught a lesson. And there doesn't appear to be a live webcam streaming temple square, so this will probably be a very fair test. It's similar to the test the UK is doing right now about out of body experiences. In the cardiac ward in many hospitals, above the operating table, there is a light. Above the light, there is a sign. Those who say they floated above their body would be able to see the sign and describe what's on it. Simple and effective.

I was talking about a zombie show at church when the Bishop said, "John? There are no Zombies in the bible." I then responded with, "Zechariah 14:12-13" He looked it up and responded, "Touche." So Zombie Apocalypse DOES show up in the bible!

Well la-di-da, miss "I hate illiterate people so I'm going to use the written language to express my dissent." Why don't you just come right out and say what you're thinking: That anyone who suffers from dyslexia or other written word issues is inferior to yourself. People like you really cook my grits.

And of course: You, sir, are nature's greatest monster.

Definitely go to the Bishop. Guys in general have difficulty confessing, and I can admit that I definitely needed to go. When I first joined the church, I was 26. It was very different to my old life. I remember that three other people joined me at roughly the same time, in the same position(Within about 5 years, 3 other men after the age of serving a mission but prior to 30). Every single one left the church with the exception of me. Every. Single One. I wasn't the most learned, or the most spiritual. I wasn't the strongest, or the brightest, or the fastest or the most well-liked. I wasn't the any -est out of all of them. The only difference? I went to the Bishop to confess. These things can be spiritual poison for you if you don't get help. Definitely talk to the Bishop. Otherwise, it's a difficult road.

I don't think there's any hidden agenda here: Unions want more members for more power. People want more money. Companies want to pay less money. There is a conflict here and the three groups are trying to resolve this the way they know how - The workers are striking, the fast food restaurants are ignoring it and the unions are using their resources to try to tip this in favour of the workers. I'm unsure how this is even news. If enough people want to work at McDonald's for what they're paying, the workers can stand outside until the cows come home. Won't make a lick of difference. If there aren't enough people, the restaurants will have to pony up the dough. Simple. Effective.

Just so people are aware: I'm not posting this as a discussion on climate change, but rather to draw attention to a group of people that are claiming non-partisanship and actually embody one of the traits the Right claims that I have a tremendous amount of respect for: The power and rights of the individual. Campaign for Local Power | Indiegogo In Boulder, CO., a group of people have got together to push for renewable, local energy with less of a footprint. They dedicated personal time and personal money to a cause they believed in - Not because they pushed the government to tax everyone, but because they themselves believe in renewable energy. I'm quite proud of them for this. Obviously, people in power who have a lot to lose by smaller, more independent power companies are trying to throw roadblocks in to their way. It doesn't matter. This is the very essence of the democratic process - Individuals who care deciding to use their power as a group to do something great.

I'm unsure what the argument is here: A bunch of people who want to get paid more are pushing to get paid more. The company can either pay more, or not. If the company is paying enough, there will be plenty of people willing to do the job. If they aren't, then they'll have to increase pay to make sure they get enough people. This seems like economics 101 - Your value is dependent upon other people's need of your service.

In England, we have an easy way to tithe: If you tithe regularly, you can set up payments to come off. If you tithe 10%, 10% of your net goes out from the pay and the government tops off the remaining amount to make it 10% of your gross. Way easier than claiming it back at the end of the year.

Were the faces of those who were gassed the faces of those who were cheering? If not, or if you don't know, is it okay to condemn a group of people based upon what another group of people from that area did?

If I took 10 random people... I'd probably be arrested for kidnapping.

Heck! I still do open the door naked. Prolly not for the same reasons. Sometimes, the stallion has to run. And run free.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind with a particular part of mosaic law. We don't sacrifice bulls any more. We're allowed to eat bacon. We don't have a jubilee every 49 years and we don't celebrate the Passover. Maybe we can be more helpful for you if you just come right out and say what aspect of Mosaic law you, -in particular- worry that we are keeping that we don't have to. Rather than asking a question that you're clearly hoping to throw a 'Gotcha!' out at, then arguing whatever anyone says, why don't you state the position you disagree with, why you disagree with it on a gospel level and then you can have the discussion you want. If, on the other hand, you have a genuine question about an aspect of the gospel and you want to learn more, then ask that question. You'll get better responses.

"Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy might." and: "Love thy neighbour as thyself."

But for those who don't, should we force it upon them? God let Israel have a King when they decided they'd rather have that then Judges.

Should it? If so, why?

I've heard this before and have to admit I don't know what it means. What was the second part of his children? o.O

Well, actually, it was just to see if you would agree that harbouring a terrorist is worthy of being invaded. Are you suggesting that you would think the US should be invaded if they, for instance, armed and trained fighters that would be used against foreign countries? I could rather easily point out the Iran-Contra affair, for instance. Unless you're claiming that this was arming 'insurgents' rather than Terrorists, in which case I will ask for your definition of what a terrorist is - That definition, by the way, the rest of the world asked for and the US refused to give for just that reason. Hitting civilian targets? Currently, Syria is being armed and some civilian targets are being hit. That's occurring right now. False comparisons. Let me be perfectly clear here: The 'arguments that failed miserably' were, "The UN and most of the world thinks you shouldn't go in there." and the US's counterargument was, "You can't stop us!" No WMDs were found. The country is in tatters with no stability whatsoever(Another argument to go in - To establish a stable democracy). More people have died than during the entire Hussein regime in Iraq(And that milestone was passed in 2006, three years in to the war. Another purpose was to free the people from a Tyrant that endangered their whole people. Doing so killed far more people than the Tyrant himself.) There is no Democracy. There is no safety. There were no WMDs. The literally ONLY argument left is that the government may have harboured a group that even the US government refuses to define to prevent that definition being used against them. Now, I recognize that hindsight is 20/20. But the US has to first admit that it made a terrible mistake in invading Iraq. It has to admit that and then talk about what options they have. You can claim that these same old tired arguments didn't stop you in the first place. But do not think for a moment that just because the world couldn't stop you doesn't mean they were wrong.

It sounds to me like the professor is hoping to spark a conversation. He's taking a contrary stance to, perhaps, see how much thinking has been done on a subject. He's hoping someone will take his bait and be able to point-by-point disassemble his argument. He will have several counter-arguments lined up, however, and will have considered carefully the reasons why someone might choose to do something or believe something. This sounds like a great professor, actually.

I'm unsure I'm left of center - I'm certainly left of you. But when I'm on other non-LDS websites, I'm often decried as being right-wing. Very true - Bush did(Not before he invaded, but did end up saying several different things. You'll note that he didn't backtrack until some time later. Remember that the Dixie Chicks made their career damning comment in 2003) end up making a few arguments: 1) That Iraq hadn't complied with UN Resolution 1441, which brought the International Atomic Energy Agency in. No evidence was found for weapons of mass destruction, though 18 122mm chemical rockets were found and disposed of. Hardly weapons of mass destruction without nerve agent stockpiles. 2) That they wanted to bring stability and safety from Saddam Hussein's regime to Iraq - As of 2006, more people died in Iraq than in the previous 20 years combined of Saddam Hussein's reign. 3) That the Iraq government had ties to terrorism - They specifically mentioned Al Qaeda, but I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Can you cite any proven Iraq-government sponsored terrorism versus the US? If not, do you feel that the US should be invaded for its harbouring of Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Kaczynski? I will be very careful with that.The stated invasion purpose was, according to General Tommy Franks: There needs to be some accountability. There is literally no good option for the US. If you go in to Iraq, Americans and Iraqis will die. You will not be thanked for it. You will be resented. It will be a quagmire. People just trying to help will be attacked. Bad things will happen. Under the extreme pressure, more soldiers will commit atrocities, which will unite the world against the US - This will happen simply because nobody can be stuck in a place where hidden killers are seeking the lives of you and your friends every day without something snapping in at least a few people. It will cost a fortune to a country already stretched by costs. If the US does not go in, then Iraqi tribalism - Which was held in check by brutality under the previous regime and resulted in serious hatred between the various tribes - Will result in genocide against one group or another. Innocent men, women and children will suffer horribly. The US will be blamed again, both by the rest of the world and by many of the Iraqis themselves. There will be anarchy, and pain and blood and innocents who wouldn't have suffered will now suffer. You ask if I have ideas? No. Not without hopping in to a way-way back machine and stopping the invasion before it started. Now that it has, those are the choices. They are both unpalatable.

Tricky question: The justification given to the rest of the world was that Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorists. There was an anthrax threat at some point, but Al Qaeda is a religious-based organization while Hussein ran a familial military junta. He was no more associated with Al Qaeda than most people here. He was evil, certainly, but he wasn't what the rest of the world was told was a reason the US went to war. Specifically: The US' first argument to go to war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, up to and(Potentially including) nuclear weapons. There were no giant cannisters of sarin gas found. There were no true WMDs as we consider it now, and certainly no stockpile. This is where the classic line came: That, while true, didn't engender any type of trust in the initial arguments to invade. You'll note that relations cooled during the Iraq episode between Canada and the US as Canada didn't agree to invade, citing almost exactly the same arguments here: "There's no evidence of WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the ruling class. We can't invade a sovereign nation because of the potential for threat or any war at any time can be justified." I stand by that. Now that it's happened, however, the justification is near irrelevant. Now the question is: How do we clean up this mess? There are a lot of people dying - Iraqis, Americans, innocents and not-so-innocents. The whys aren't as important now. Iraq is a highly balkanizes place. There aren't very many good ways out. I don't know what the right thing to do is.

I am uneasy with this mode of thinking. Islam has been around for about 1400 years. Prior to September 11th, would you say that most terrorist attacks were done by Islamists? And if not, do you think there might be more political than religious motivation for these attacks? On the topic at hand: The US destabilized a region. More people have died since the Iraq war started than died under the previous 20 year regime. It was done because, according to the government at the time: Was Saddam Hussein evil? Undoubtedly. But the justification for the war never came to fruition. Worse, this is a highly balkanized area. There will be genocide unless someone is there for the next 50 years. Or more. The US has a choice: They can simply keep hands off, in which case the genocide will occur and the survivors will hate the US - Either because the US abandoned them in their time of need(Like they did with Osama Bin Ladin and his war with the Soviet Union) or because they disliked the US prior to taking over. Or they can send in their boys, who will be killed in roadside bombs and assassinations, and this will occur for the next 50 years(Similar to the UK and Ireland). Going in to Iraq was a mistake. But the only choice now is to either accept that your people will be killed for the mistake made and that the costs will be astronomical, or you can pull out in which case genocide is the only possible response. A genocide created by the US's mistake. I respect and love the US, and I hate this particular choice - There isn't any really good choice. But innocent lives will be taken now that there is a power vacuum. The US can only decide if it will be over a long time or a short time and who will pay that price.

Has anyone tried fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches? Glaaaaaaaaaaaah. Sooooooo gooooooooooood. Elvis was on to something. He also gained like six hundred pounds, but there you have it.

It's obviously bread, peanut butter(Harder to spread) then jelly, then put a piece of bread on top. Doubling up on toppings means your man-boobs will point to the floor.