FunkyTown

Yes, Pam raises a good point. What do you believe it's saying there?

Well, it was before the world, so it would have to be.

Everyone who is here agreed to be here.

Meh. The dude dresses up in a skintight outfit that may as well have been designed for Gay Future Robin Hood. It doesn't surprise me. Other characters that wouldn't surprise me to find out they were gay: He-man, an unmarried Royal who prances around in pink when he isn't walking around in a fur thong, and Burt and Ernie - Who, if they're straight, are just two straight dudes who happen to enjoy taking bubble baths together.

There is no such thing as a foolish question if that question is sought honestly. Foolish questions are those ones where you ask knowing you will only accept a specific answer. When we question the nature of God, we have to accept that it might not be what we want to hear. Does Hell exist? Does God exist? Is God a He, She or Indeterminate? Is there one God, Many or None? What does God want? If we look at it honestly, there are only a few options available: 1 - There is either one God, many or none. 2 - God is either good, evil or indifferent. And he's either understandably good, understandably evil, understandably indifferent or ineffable, in which case he's one of those three, still, but in a way that prevents us understanding the totality. 3 - If God exists, then either something is wanted by our experience or we're simply a natural byproduct of God's existence. If something is wanted by our experience, then seeking out meaning is vital. There are a lot of permutations of those three statements, but that is the essence of what I would call the big three questions. Once you understand that, you have to go forward with open eyes.

Every ward has its crazies: Roommateimonies are classics in YSA wards. Then, there was the crazy guy who bore his testimony that if he "Didn't get what he needed this year, then there would be hell to pay." But crazies aside, the testimony that absolutely horrified me was when someone bore their testimony that they knew the Work and the Glory was true. I thought, "YAAAAH! Please let no investigators hear that. Please let no investigators hear that."

Don't be frightened. The whole 'Sacred, not secret' thing. Basically, the gist of consecrating everything you have - Talents and such - is that you are pushing forward with love for God in everything you do. You place God first. It doesn't mean you have to surrender your paycheck every week to the church. It means you will try to keep God in everything you do.

No doubt, no doubt. And that's a major problem in any real, meaningful discussion between the left and right. Actually, I'm not even sure on this and I'm totally serious about this next question: When the 'SOCIALIST!' cry goes out against something that clearly isn't evil, does it mean 'I disagree with this particular expenditure. I think the downsides of this particular expenditure outweigh the good it will do' or is it said with the same venom as, 'King Barak' or 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama!'?

James: Communism(That is, what happened in the Soviet Union) doesn't accord with the commonly understood definition of Communism. There are many different types of Communism. Stalinism is one and most certainly is every bit as wicked and evil as the prophets said. A bunch of hippies living in a commune? Not so much. I never saw thirty million people get starved by a monomaniacal dictator under the peace and love Hippie communes that exist.

D'you need a napkin, Carli? 'Cause you just got served.

OAJ - You have attributed quite a lot of positions to me that I haven't taken. Please show me where I said you specifically have to repent. I don't know you, OAJ. I have no clue about your life or who you are. You seem to think I have advocated people leaving the board, which I clearly did not. You seem to think I have called you to repentance - And while that's a good idea for everyone as everyone has something to repent about, I did not specifically demand that you repent for anything. I am willing to discuss this, but (And this is me addressing you very specifically), you need to stop acting like we/me/anyone else has it in for you specifically. Once we can do that, I think the dialogue would be much more fruitful.

When you felt guilt before, you didn't stop. There are two types of guilt: Godly guilt, which brings us to repentance, and what I term 'The sorrow of the Damned' - That is, the sorrow one gets when one realizes one is trapped in sin. The second doesn't call to repentance, but simply makes one feel inadequate and like a failure. It makes one think, "I'm just going to fail again." If you're not feeling guilty, then just stop whatever you think you should. If you fail, then just try again. If you fail again, then just try again. Repeat as often as you need to. As an aside: You might also try to find out what your trigger situations are and avoid those situations. All of this is easier said than done, however, because sometimes we frankly don't want to repent. We want to sin, because it's just so much fun/pleasure/whatever. In that case, it takes a strong man to simply walk away. Be that strong man.

The thing about those on the left is that they have a number of beliefs that aren't crazy: 1) They believe that it is the duty of society to care for those who are unable to care for themselves. Not crazy. 2) They believe that the excesses caused by the pure pursuit of profit must be pulled in. Not crazy. 3) They strongly support education and the arts. Not crazy. 4) They strongly support environmental initiatives, pointing to the devastation wrought by things like bottom trawling fishing that prevent sustainable use of resources. Not crazy. Those who are on the far right have a number of beliefs that aren't crazy: 1) They believe that placing the wealth distribution model in the hands of a few will result in corruption. Not crazy. 2) They believe in personal responsibility, pointing to the rampant abuse of the welfare state as evidence that people need a hand up and not a hand out. Not crazy. 3) They strongly support the military, pointing out that a weak nation often loses its sovereignty and is dictated to rather than the other way around. Not crazy. 4) They believe that over-taxation results in economic stagnation and, while it doesn't hurt those at the top of the economic ladder, crushes those in the middle class. Not crazy. There is a serious false dichotomy being played right now in the US: This left versus right thing has got to stop. The word 'Socialist' has become a club that is essentially meaningless, so broad are the strokes it's used. EVERYone can be termed a socialist. Nobody truly wants a completely free market and everyone wants some term of government interventionism. Don't believe me? Here's a test: The year is 1946. The US has the atomic bomb and is the only nation in the world to have it. An enterprising scientist realizes that, now that he's free, he could go work for the Soviet Union and provide them knowledge. In a completely unregulated market, where the free market was to be completely unregulated and pursuit of profit sacrosanct, there is literally no reason for him not to. He's not dropping bombs. He's just providing a service with the skills he's been furnished. If you disagree with this and think it's wrong, then you agree that there must be some excesses reigned in by the government. Next question: Do you believe that your country should maintain a standing army? If you do, then the government must necessarily pay its soldiers, provide them with equipment and feed them. That can only be done through recourse to public funds. That indicates taxation - Which has been termed 'Theft' more than once on here - in some way. Once you agree that there must be some taxation and some government interventionism, the question ceases to be 'Socialist vs Capitalist'. Once that's understood, bridges can be built. ****** One last point to make: The presidents who had the biggest impact on history were those who were most passionately centrist. JFK believed in small government and lower taxes. He was a Democrat that presided over the greatest boom for America the world has ever known - He brought us to the Moon. He sought to pull out of a war he knew couldn't be won. President Eisenhower. He was a Republican. He ended the Korean War in his term and created the Interstate Highway system. You can thank him for the ease with which American goods get to places, and is a major reason of American prosperity. Did you recently go to the Mall or do you work in a city that isn't by a major port of call? Thank Eisenhower. He also vigorously defended having a social safety net. Unfortunately, there is a major lie going that the only real options are to take the extreme and ridiculously stupid left or the extreme and ridiculously stupid right. It's clearly not true, but that's what's being fed to both sides.

So I never got the opportunity to really finish out school and I'm thinking of going back more than a decade out of leaving. I'm taking some A levels right now to ease me back in(University prep courses in England), and I took my ACT test and got a 29 combined(I think. My head hurts right now as I just took the test and there were a lot of numbers thrown at me. The last column said 29.) I'm particularly excited about the two 33s I got. Math was my lowest as I hadn't taken it in quite some time. Just for curiosity sake: I can't find anything on BYU. What would my odds look like as a mature student and how would I go about applying? Also, is there anything a mature student should be aware of?

That's why I think it'll be evolution and not revolution: Swords in to plowshares and all that. Until a lot of the wolves start thinking, "Y'know? Maybe there really is something to this whole sheep thing.", I suspect there won't be a solution that will last for any length of time.

Thank you, Thestig, for writing this. I'm glad you did. Especially the bit about how it's 'More capitalistic ... than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained.' We all appreciate this. As the more Socialist states all allow private ownership and stewardship, clearly he's talking about something different than what most modern people do when they use 'Socialist' as a club. There's an evolution of words and these mean something different now than they did, then. We all appreciate you showing us how language has changed.

Could be more to it than that too, Sir Beefaronius. You aren't the type to disrupt class, are you? With jokes and such? 'Cause if you are, then you aren't really yielding the time to your teacher. Could be he's trying to get you to recognize that if you're yielding the time and trying to steal the attention of the class, you're not really yielding the time. Am I close ?

I have a confession to make about LM, actually. Deep breaths. It's a tough one. LM not only walked out on all his maternal obligations, but I have never seen him fulfill his motherly roles ever. Phew. I feel better now that I've confessed that.

Did I say you didn't? I'm not saying he has to leave. He can also agree or disagree - I specifically mentioned those options, I believe. I suppose he could also ignore them. Did I say you said it? And yep. It's between them and the Lord. However, some people might find difficulty finding answers in that way, so they come and ask other people's opinions on it. They then come to a website, presumably this one since we're talking about it now, and then others give their opinions. That's kind of how social networking sites like Forums operate. One person states something and another person makes another statement relating to the first persons statement. X is a generic term utilized to suggest a generic and/or random statement. Y is the same, but expressed as a different letter to indicate they're different. That's pretty standard for their meaning. And yep. It's between them and the Lord. However, some people might find difficulty finding answers in that way, so they come and ask other people's opinions on it. They then come to a website, presumably this one since we're talking about it now, and then others give their opinions. That's kind of how social networking sites like Forums operate. One person states something and another person makes another statement relating to the first persons statement. Did I say you said it? And for the third time, yep. It's between them and the Lord. However, some people might find difficulty finding answers in that way, so they come and ask other people's opinions on it. They then come to a website, presumably this one since we're talking about it now, and then others give their opinions. That's kind of how social networking sites like Forums operate. One person states something and another person makes another statement relating to the first persons statement. I want you to stop for a moment - From your comments, I'm getting the sense that you have kind of a thin skin about this sort of thing and a bit of a persecution complex. You seem to think I have made specific attacks on you. I want you to step back from that and contemplate just the words that I'm saying: Gender Reassignment surgery is radical. It involves the mutilation of your genitalia. For the briefest moment, I want you to consider: What if it isn't the answer? What if it won't make you happy? What would be the compassionate thing to do in that situation: 1) Warn people not to do it. 2) Tell people, 'It's okay. Don't worry about it. Whatever you think is right, you should do.' Your posts suggest that others are narrow minded. But never once have you considered the idea that you might be wrong and that the surgery doesn't resolve anything.

BC: I'd say that she's doing just that: She's looking forward to how to progress and find what she wants. She's looking at getting the certification she needs, which takes place in September. In the mean time, she's willing to do other work - So long as she's concentrating on progressing towards a goal.

There's nothing that can be done on a legal level to prevent despotism of some type from advancing. That's just human nature. When full deregulation happens in an economy, those who get wealthy do whatever they can to hold on to their wealth and power. This creates a secondary tyranny. When the tyranny of the majority occurs, those of wealth and privilege find that those without strip it out of jealousy. Railroad barons, modern Diamond conglomerations and the Democracy of ancient Athens all spring to mind of various different examples where tyranny came in its various forms. The next step in human gubernatorial agency cannot be one of revolution, but of evolution. Simply put: We need to be better people to embrace a more utopian ideal. Until we remove the beam in our own eyes - All of our eyes - We will not see clearly enough to fix the laws around us. So what's the answer? God. I think that's the only answer.

It really doesn't. I invite you to read 'Commentary on the Torah' by Richard Elliot Friedman for the specifics of why this description is used, and then changed in the very next chapter.

Hoosier: What you're saying is incorrect. I'm not a die-hard capitalist and have argued against that stance time and again, as many on here will tell you. The problem with your argument, along with those who yell "Socialist!" as the answer to everyone who disagrees with them, is that there's an inherent falseness to it. The problem isn't capitalism, or socialism; The problem is people. "The natural man is an enemy to God." Whenever there is a power imbalance, whether that is due to wealth and privilege, elected position or democratic "Tyranny of the majority", some people will take advantage of that and use it to control the lives of those around them. Capitalism is neither good nor bad, but the people make it so. That is its greatest strength and weakness: It has no morality. Government interventionism is neither good nor bad, but the people make it so. The strength of pure capitalism over government interventionism is that a whole lot more people need to be corrupt to break it. Unfortunately, that number has been reached and then some. You, me... Everyone has desired what is bad or wicked at one point or many in our lives. That isn't the fault of a system of wealth distribution. That's squarely on us. Blaming pure Capitalism, which doesn't exist on this world, or socialism, or anything is just plain putting the cart before the horse. It isn't the system that's corrupt. It's the people running it.

You realize, of course, that this is not a transgendered website? This is a website dedicated to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This means that all discussions - Even transgendered ones - Will be done through that lens. I never once suggested in silencing him. The only thing remotely close to suggesting he be quiet was when I said that it was absurd for him to expect others to think of him for one of his many accomplishments instead of his transgenderism when every post he's made thus far has been about his transgenderism. If someone came on here and talked about baseball in every single post, I would start to think of him in terms of his baseball fanaticism. Because it's clear that bleeds in to every aspect of him. I was simply pointing out the inherent absurdity in discussing only a very narrow focus and then hoping others don't define you by that narrow focus. You assume that because somebody is transgender, they're necessarily going to be correct in whatever they say about being transgender. That's not the way it works. If a person came on and said they had a pornography addiction and that the only answers were either suicide or indulging their base desire, I would call them out on that false dichotomy as well. You will note that almost every discussion on here about transgenderism boils down to, "Transgenderism is good because x." "You can't give in to it because Y." "You just don't understand because you aren't transgendered." That is an absurd argument. The simple fact is that if an act is wrong, it's wrong. Attempting to talk it right, or arguing that it's okay, and then claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you can't possibly be correct as they don't suffer from transgenderism is absurd. It's a specific logical fallacy: Specifically, it is a 'Guilt by association' version of the Ad Hominem argument. That's just a fancy-schmancy way of saying, 'You can't dismiss the opinions of someone simply because they don't belong to your specific subgroup.'. If gender reassignment surgery is wrong, it's wrong. That should be addressed rather than claiming that the beliefs of those who claim it's wrong are incorrect. Simply prove to the people who disagree with you that their claims are incorrect. Me, I'm going to stick with the churches view on the subject.

Cuba. This ain't 1959 anymore, Changed. Things are different. China - While the Communist Party is ostensibly required to be atheist, China itself has a tremendous number of religions. They may be restricted, but the times, they are a-changing. Thinking of the world in 1950s terms isn't helpful any more.