Vort

What was courageous about it? It was designed to pander to his base while mollifying his opposition. Can you point out the brave parts of what he said?

Then if I think your statement here is "disrespectful", does that mean you should not make it? This is not the "General Discussion" forum. This is the "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum. For someone to come into the specifically named "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum and openly proclaim, "I don't believe all that LDS doctrinal hooey!" seems absurd, on at least two counts: Obviously, you don't believe it. If you did, you would be LDS. So what does your proclamation of disbelief add to the discussion?What sense does it make to come to an "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum and announce that you will summarily ignore LDS doctrine? It would be like going onto a discussion forum named "Pro-Life Values Discussions" and announce, "I'm a practicing abortionist." What's the point?Finally, if you think sola's coming onto this particular forum and announcing his disbelief of LDS doctrine is perfectly acceptable, why would you take issue with me for simply stating my own opinion? Since you seem concerned with "fairness", please explain how that is "fair".

I bet if PC told you that President Monson's words were of no worth, that his opinion in that would hold no weight with you at all.

I think here we must distinguish between a relatively discreet, gentle blow into a handkerchief and a rafter-rattling war whoop designed to dislodge all mucous within a radius of ten feet of the nose being blown.

I didn't say it was worthless. I said it held no weight. And it doesn't. This is an LDS site, so obviously LDS beliefs predominate. Saying "I don't believe in the gift of prophecy" (despite clear teachings of that gift in the Bible) makes your opinion of no consequence.

A Wrinkle in Time, chapter 6.

Then your opinion holds no weight here.

So the first cousins are genetically more like half-siblings. Better to avoid any cousin marriages there...

I could agree with that. Tell the gun lobby, "No weapons restrictions will be enacted. It's a free-for-all! But remember, ANY felony done with a firearm means MANDATORY execution." But then, I have long thought that a solution to the drug problem would be to tell people, "Drink, smoke, or shoot up with whatever you care to. No laws will be made to illegalize anything. But remember, anyone who supplies such drugs to minors, IN EVERY INSTANCE, will be subject to mandatory execution. In other words: Any time someone under the age of 21 uses drugs, someone will die for it. Have fun!" Of course, that would not work, and neither would the firearm idea. But it's fun to think about.

I will say that I thought his stated strategy of withdrawal was a foolish thing to say. Better to make the withdrawal plan secret and tell only our allies rather than publicly announce it. I think Maxel has hit the nail on the head.

Last October's General ConferenceA Robert Greenberg lecture series on the operas of MozartNibley's "Time Vindicates the Prophets" radio addresses from 1954Oh, wait, did you mean Christmas music? In that case, O Holy Night.

I have a real aluminum pole for Festivus.

I thought it was a very good speech. I can see why this man won the confidence of most of the US (and the rest of the world), despite being a Chicago politician who seemingly stands on the wrong side of almost every issue. I'm not qualified to talk about the veracity of his statements.

"Murder" is not well-defined in scripture. I am coming to believe that it is largely culturally defined. The standard and obvious definition of murder is the intentional and wrongful taking of a human life. All three elements must be present for the killing to be murder: The killing must be intentional, not accidental, even if your intent was to cause bodily harm. (In most western countries, killing someone while you are beating him up is considered murder, but historically this is not necessarily so; cf Numbers 35 for a Biblical definition of manslaughter. It's actually more complicated than this, since you have to decide whether the beating was legal or not before you can judge the severity of the killing, but the bottom line is it wasn't capital murder unless the killer intended to cause death.) The killing must be wrongful. Killing in self-defense or in the performance of your legitimate duties (including soldiering) has almost never been considered murder. Obviously, the killing must be of a human. Killing a dog, a horse, or a baboon is not murder, regardless of what PETA might say.So if you kill your sister's or daughter's rapist, is it murder? In our western culture, it certainly is, unless you kill him during the actual act and in an effort to protect your sister. In other cultures, this may not have been the case. I suspect that God judges murder based on the condition of the heart. Nephi killed Laban seemingly in cold blood while he lay in a drunken stupor, but it was at the direct command of God. Was it murder? By the above definition, it obviously was not, since nothing can be "wrongful" that God commands. But from a divine viewpoint, I suspect the key is: Was Nephi's heart right before God? If you intentionally take an otherwise innocent human life and can maintain purity of heart, you are not guilty of murder. Otherwise, you are. (Incidentally, this is precisely why I consider most elective abortions of a healthy fetus to be murder, even though I realize the Church does not currently classify it as such. I cannot believe that someone can kill her unborn child purely to avoid the consequences of her voluntary sexual activity and yet maintain purity of heart before God.)

Good point. I agree.

Of course I did. You claimed the US Constitution was "scripture". I addressed that false claim. You also seem to have forgotten the following: Yes, I think it's important. It is not tops on my list of priorities, but I do think it should be defended.I believe that answering something that you asked counts as addressing something you "proclaimed".

Your support is specious. Affirming that God established the US Constitution is different from proclaiming the Constitution as scripture. The latter is a false affirmation. You are welcome to come to terms with this truth in any way you like.

This is simply not true. The fact that the US Constitution is divinely inspired does not mean that it is scripture. It is not, or else you would have to concede that human slavery is a divine institution (as disproven in v. 79 of the scripture you quoted). Yes, I think it's important. It is not tops on my list of priorities, but I do think it should be defended.

For the same reason some people are hypersensitive about folks chewing with their mouth open or blowing their nose in public. To some people, bad spelling and grammar just seem like bad manners. I only correct people on three occasions: I'm teasing them, in which case I will often "correct" things that aren't actually wrong.I can't understand what they mean, so I tell them my best interpretation.I think they're being a jerk somehow, maybe a bully or something like that, so I decide to be a jerk back at them.Not that I ever do #3, of course.

Unfortunately, those who agree with you will find your interpretation trivial, while those who disagree will find your explanation specious, using their own eisegesis to confirm their predetermined beliefs.

(Or, "Beefche Hates My Avatar!") Which of these represents the real, true, authentic Vort that you have all come to know and love so dearly this past eighteen months or so? 1. Gangster 2. Puppy dog eyes 3. Curmudgeon 4. Locomotive breath 5. Something else entirely (preferably with an example). Lambaste me at your leisure.

I'm pretty sure dating yourself is frowned on, Dravin. You should talk with your bishop about that.

Vort is my name, though you can call me Brother Exman if you prefer. My avatar pic represents The Real Vort®. Also, my previous avatar pic was just too intimidating to people.

How come no one has ever called me a wizened muse? (And don't say it's the avatar, Beefche.)

Don't worry about it. You asked for advice and you got both barrels full. Aren't we helpful? But seriously, you are no worse a person just because someone on an internet discussion list said something about you. If she was right, take her words to heart and improve yourself. If she was wrong, ignore her. Easy as that.