Vort

For my part, I appreciate the compliment, but I think it's a terrible thing to say about my innocent son. :)

I think it's sad that anyone believes this.

How do you figure? What do you suppose it means for two people to be "equal"?

The Declaration of Independence famously declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." This idea is a necessary fiction in a democracy. We must assume all men are created equal so that the law can be administered even-handedly; otherwise, we succumb to an oligarchy as the only reasonable form of law. But it is clear that all men are not "equal" in terms of ability. To claim otherwise would be to deny obvious truth. All men are "equal before God" in the sense that God is no respecter of persons. In this sense, Latter-day Saints absolutely believe that all men (people) are equal. But in the sense of actual accomplishment or status before God, this is not and cannot be the case. In fact, the Pearl of Great Price teaches otherwise: And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. (Abraham 3:19) This certainly seems to indicate a gradiation between intelligent beings, such that not all are equal. But of course, this is obvious, as we already discussed.

He's a funny kid. In his sense of humor and range of interests, he's almost a mirror image of his father. But he is more self-confident than I was at that age, and somewhat more social. He is also a much better and more disciplined student than I ever was, a trait he got from his mother. He also got her beautiful looks; actually, he looks almost eerily like a shorter version of my father-in-law.

So roughly 777,000 arrests for marijuana possession. How many of those were imprisoned? Perhaps 10%? And how many of the imprisoned were incarcerated for previous or multiple offenses, not merely possession? Well over 90%, perhaps? So where do you come up with the idea that "millions" of people are incarcerated for marijuana possession or usage?

My sixteen-year-old son is quite funny. It's finals at his high school, and yesterday he decided to spray-paint his blond hair to black and dress in a black shirt, pants, shoes, and tie and wear sunglasses. No one recognized him, and he had a good laugh. Today he decided to dress as Ron Weasley from Harry Potter. He wore a Hogwart's robe that was to small for him, from Halloween a few years ago. He sprayed his hair orange and painted on a bunch of freckles. He told his friends at school that he "could not afford" other robes. They, all being Potter Puppet Pals geeks, laughed obligingly. When he got to school, he walked into the office and said, in his best generic faux-British accent, "Pardon me, but can you direct me to the Quidditch pitch?" The poor secretary looked at him in confusion and said, "Excuse me? The what?" He responded, "The sports arena." She asked, "Are you from this school or are you visiting?" He replied, "I am from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry!" The secretary had no response to this, just looked at him uncomprehendingly. Meanwhile, the student helpers in the office were almost literally rolling on the ground in laughter. When the vice principal poked his head out to see what was going on, Sonny took off. Walking through campus, he had everyone staring at him. Many girls, apparently thinking their names were all Hermione, commented, "Look! There's my fiance!" At history class, his teacher burst out laughing, then took his test, crossed off "Final exam" and wrote "OWL". Sadly, Sonny had a very un-Ron-like 102% going into the final, and he believes he got full marks on the OWL. So there goes his Ron impersonation. Not sure what his plans are for tomorrow.

Do you really believe that in 11 years, the number of people imprisoned for marijuana use alone has gone from a few tens of thousands (max) to "millions"?

AGStacker, I have taken the wrong tack in conversing with you. I have taken a stance opposite yours and have pointed out logical flaws you have made. It is clear that you're not willing or able to engage on that level. So let me try this: I understand that you feel passionately about your beliefs. I understand that you are convinced you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I understand that you have all the conviction of young adulthood that you have discovered truth invisible to most others, who if they would only read what you have read and open their minds to possibilities, would surely see things the way you see them.So from the position of a middle-aged guy who has been around the block numerous times on these very issues, let me offer you my perspective. The Constitution means essentially what we say it means. In this case, "we" means the US Supreme Court, as established by Madison v. Marbury. It does not matter one whit whether you agree with this decision; it has been accepted as established law for over 200 years without a single significant challenge. In essence, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, the counter-arguments of a passionate 25-year-old notwithstanding. "Agency" cannot be taken away through legislation. This is an obvious falsehood; if it were true, the Church would oppose all legislation whatsoever, which it clearly does not. Establishing a society curtails certain individual liberties, but this is the price we pay for establishing such a society, believing as we do that the benefits outweigh the price. Our agency is divinely given and cannot be removed by any external force; I can quote numerous sources on this point, if you need. Prohibition was not the grand failure you seem to believe, though this belief is commonly held and propagated in society today, especially among those with a pro-drug agenda. This is a somewhat specialized area that requires some real digging and research. Finally, suggesting that those who disagree with you simply haven't read enough is silly hubris. You would do well to cultivate a bit of humility and realize that, just maybe, your reading and understanding may be deficient, not everyone else's.

Wait. I thought you said "millions" were in prison because they smoked pot. Now you're saying there are two million total. What's up with your numbers? Hmmm. Let's see: 22% of two million is...um...do I need a calculator for this?...nah, I can do it in my head...that would be 440,000. 440,000 << millions I think your claim of millions being imprisoned for smoking marijuana is bogus, AGStacker. Add in the fact (linked in my post above) that most of those imprisoned on drug charges are there for drug trafficking, not merely smoking pot, and that the vast majority of them have prior criminal records, and your specious claim goes up in smoke.

What makes you think I haven't? Just because I disagree with you? I notice you answered not a single one of my points. I wonder why. (But not really.)

You are promoting a myth. Prohibition worked very well, despite what pro-drug groups say. Then why have any laws at all, AGStacker? Ah, yes. The refrain of the silly, naive BYU student: "You can't tell us we have to cut our hair! That's taking away our free agency!" No, laws do not restrict agency. Claiming such simply demonstrates that you don't have any good idea what "agency" means. Yes, this is your opinion. We know. But repeating it doesn't magically make it true.

This is a lie, AGStacker. I assume you are an unwitting dupe to passing along this lie, so I am letting you know that your claim is false. A government study shows the numbers and includes this excerpt: "In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were first time offenders (0.3 percent). "The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars." "Imprisoning millions of people for marijuana use"? I don't think so. Yes, I understand quite well. Do you understand by what means constitutionality is established? (Hint: Madison v. Marbury, 1801) The government says it does. The court of final appeals agrees with them. The Constitution has been interpreted by those whose duty it is to interpret to allow such actions. So are we supposed to take the musings of a random 25-year-old as the final word? Your opinion and two bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. To destroy the agency of man? Certainly not by working to pass laws for an ordered society.

So that's your counter-argument? "It's different"? Okay, whatever.

I agree. I mentioned in another thread that I would not watch The Passion of the Christ if you paid me to do so. I consider the movie a pornography of violence, based on everything I have heard about it (mostly from those who loved it). I have absolutely no desire to watch such a grotesque, horrid film. But given the choice and the mandate to choose between them, I would watch The Passion of the Christ before I would subject myself to The Book of Mormon musical, and it would not be a hard decision.

Just as YOU choose whether to serve a mission. No difference.

I know of no missionaries who knock on doors just to annoy people. I think you are making that up. Missionaries are imperfect. But missionary work itself can be sanctifying. Many missionaries have discovered their own testimonies and their love for the Lord while engaging in missionary work, even if they didn't want to be there at first. I'm saying that it is not your place to say that "the Church is wrong" in some policy or procedure. You are not given the keys of leadership. Your duty is to sustain your leaders, and that means helping them be successful in their callings. Criticizing their actions and saying they're doing it wrong is not helping them to be successful.

Not so. Just last October, in General Conference, Elder Ballard said: "Some of the most addictive drugs that, if abused, can hijack the brain and take away one’s agency include nicotine; opiates—heroin, morphine, and other painkillers; tranquilizers; cocaine; alcohol; marijuana; and methamphetamines." Yes. Prohibition created an environment where non-gang-related violent crime and domestic violence rates both plummeted. If not for the proliferation of organized crime (a problem which began and gained strength before the 18th amendment was ever passed, and which continued long after Prohibition ended) and the extensive systemic corruption introduced by it, overall crime rates would have dropped significantly. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution. No. It is the government's responsibility to insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, all of which belie marijuana distribution and use. Please show me the Mormons who "think it is OK to be 500 pounds or pop prescription pills like it is candy". I do not believe such Mormons exist. If they do, they are a tiny, insignificant minority. Even (or especially) 500-pound Mormons don't think it's OK. How about intentionally breaking the law? Does that make you a bad person? The fact that you fail to recognize the very real health and social dangers of marijuana usage is hardly a convincing argument for legalization. Quite the bravado for a 25-year-old. You ought to consider the possibility that, just maybe, it's you whose values and perceptions are wrong, and not everyone else's. And the truth is that we should be 420 friendly?

This is not a question that can easily be answered "yes" or "no". The truth is more subtle than this question allows. On the one hand, the Book of Mormon was produced specifically for us in our day. It is a volume of scripture targeted to our challenges. It was produced by the prophet of this dispensation. Anyone who wishes to join the kingdom of God on earth (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) needs to read, understand, and gain a divinely revealed testimony of this volume of scripture. In the words of Joseph Smith, it is "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." So yes, you could make a strong argument that the Book of Mormon is the most important book of scripture, even more important than the Bible. On the other hand, the very existence of the Book of Mormon is based on the Bible. The Book of Mormon itself claims that one of its purposes is to attest to the divine origins and truth of the Bible. Elder McConkie, an apostle in the 1970s and 1980s, taught that the Book of Mormon acts as a witness to the Bible which, in its perfected and full form, will reveal the mysteries of Godliness to mankind. He seemed to be of the opinion that, at its best and purest use, the Book of Mormon acts as a witness to the truths of the Bible. That the Bible itself is a priceless collection of revelations, collected Hebrew wisdom, and (in the New Testament) accounts of the mortal life of the Savior and important writings of the apostles of that time cannot possibly be disputed. All this suggests that the Bible, not the Book of Mormon, is central to the scriptural canon. In the end, I think the question itself is flawed, not unlike asking, "Which do we need more to live, our liver or our small intestine?" The answer is that we need both, that both function together to allow life, and that we should appreciate each rather than try to choose between them.

I don't see anyone dismissing it. I see people saying it's not a bad thing per se. Granted that anyone serving a mission in hopes of getting a full-ride Parental Scholarship is there for the wrong reason, I still say that any kind of obedience is better than disobedience. This is naive at best. It's tantamount to saying, "People should live virtuous lives because of their love for God and their fellow man, and for no other reason." Again, any kind of obedience is better than disobedience. The motivation is a secondary concern (unless it is itself corrupt). You overstep your bounds in making such a proclamation. You would do better to quit trying to steady the ark and instead sustain your Church leaders in their efforts.

Jennarator, 17 June 2011: I agree with Sali & Pam. You don't need a new paragraph here. People are upset when they post these things. SOmeitme litterly Watch out for spelling and typos! crying as they post. The last thing they are able to do is write their post like a school paper Note your plural subject/singular object construction. This is actually an old, attested usage in English, so it's not wrong per se, but you should be aware of how you use it and not just throw it out there unconsciously. ready to be graded. What do you mean here? I don't understand.

I am glad to welcome you back into the fold. I think you might want to revise how you look at this. Right now, you are coming across as the injured party, as if your leaders did you wrong. In fact, you were given exactly what you asked for. Too late, you realized it wasn't what you wanted, but that is not your leaders' fault. This is not a fatal or irreparable error, but it will take time. Be patient. If you have to wait a year, then wait a year. Do what you need to do to regain your membership in the kingdom of God, and then hold that membership sacred. Don't worry about how long it might take to get rebaptized. Live every day as if you're getting rebaptized that day, and before you know it, you will have been.

I'm a beginning adult violin student. Which are your favorite web sites on music theory? (Preferably something more than "these are scales, these are quarter notes, these are half-steps and whole steps", and other such things as you learn when you take piano lessons at age six.) Any general advice for an adult beginner?

Well, I went away more than eight months ago. How was I to know? Btw, what awful things happened to precipitate Chat being shut down? Or are these unspeakable things never mentioned in polite company on LDS.net?