Aesa

Interesting page: Black History Timeline | Blacklds.org It seems that Joseph was adamant upon a Priesthood for people of all race, yet perhaps Brigham was unaware of this?

I have noticed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is notoriously good at getting itself 'out there' online, as are it's members through wonderful websites such as this. In-fact before I get into what I want to ask, I'd like to thank all of you out there who have contributed to getting the Gospel message you believe in readily available online and thank-you for continuing to do so. What I'm wondering is ... is it okay in your mind to appreciate this Church from a distance, through the information available online (so much stuff on lds.org!)? I mean, it's not that I'm not interested in whether this Church could be true (and all that comes with it) it's just that I'm very slow to progress with such realisations/choices. It will probably take me until next year before I make the plunge to attending a Mormon service to see what it's all about... that'll be when I move to Canberra. There's this other thing though, that I keep wondering about. My struggle of recent to stay focused on my school-work (which is really quite a shock to me, because I love my studies!), I've been wondering if it's because I've reached a point where I have to admit there's something significant I'm lacking... or something along those lines. Thank-you for your time and guidance.

Politcians, they're just SO relevant to the maintenance of our society today. [/sarcasm]

I never said that the people who become soldiers are conservative nationalists. Most of them aren't anyway, I mean if you support the traditional republican party ideology of the present day then you're as much a conservative as the average liberal democrat because they're both exactly the same party - just that there's a different logo. A true conservative would only be willing to die for their country if it's on their own soil, and an invasive foreign policy would be frowned upon. So would the use of a fiat currency, monopolies, etc,. It's not about Conservative vs. Liberal. It's Tyranny vs. Freedom. And both of the major political parties (except for a few good congressman like Kucinich (spelling?) and Ron Paul) are as tyrannical as can be. All about big government, cradle to grave. I'm against people dying for their country because it's almost always a form of manipulation. If war were real, then all of the corporations that presently make huge profits off it would be conscripted AS A CORPORATION (symbolically one person under law) and only make the same money as a soldier. Or 100% of the profits would be donated to charity. If something like that happens, then the war is real otherwise it is just big business. And that is why you'll never see a corporation picketing governments and being anti-war. Not only that - people are raised to unquestioningly support their country, for the most part. This is where soldiers are easy to obtain because most people feel like they have a duty to unquestioningly support (which is what most 'patriots' do today) the system. And then again, if you don't support the system they've always got the good pay and other benefits that come with being a soldier (for most, anyway) to try and pull you or I in. Or they could use propaganda as was done in WWI in Australia, telling the soldiers they were going on "...the holiday and trip of a lifetime." Now that is despicable. Unfortunately today we take our kids and say "What's the greatest country in the world?" The kid has absolutely no idea, because they aren't aware of such notions. We step in and say "This country. This is the greatest country in the world! And God is on OUR side!" Now WHO ON EARTH has the right to say which side God is on? I mean, He is said to have created this universe right? Shouldn't he be on the side of humanity? And that's the patriotism I would support. People declaring allegiance to the Earth, and all the people on it. You wouldn't have war, if we had that. (And no, that doesn't mean there couldn't be any America or Australia, just that there'd be a higher respect for ALL the earth). I also have a "liberal" friend (I don't mean that in the traditional sense - I mean a person who pretty much thinks the same way as I have described above he and I both advocate this system) who is serving, and cannot wait to get out because he's been woken up to the whole illusion that we're 'fighting for our freedom' and all that sort of thing. Unfortunately military men and women are some of the most abused people by our establishment, and so many of them don't see it at all because of this sad 'patriotic duty' - an excellent example is testing of vaccines, and other things on them.

All? Are you kidding me? I am sure you can find plenty of gay people who do not have a lisp. As I said, it's their environment. They pick up a different tone of voice from hanging around with a lot of girls in their earlier years especially, because women tend to gravitated to gay men (or vice-versa) as friends. Just as you or I might speak a lot like our father, because we spent a lot of time in the same environment as him. Just as I will have a French 'lisp' if I go and live there for 10 years...

I find it interesting that people resort to this sort of behaviour. I mean, I know why, it's because they haven't been taught methods of evaluation that're within the spectrum of respect for one's fellow human beings and solving problems without violence. But, in the long run, this is probably going to make their daughter more adamant in her choice. It's the way most teenagers are, they are raised in this culture where they feel the whole world is against them and their choices. This will only give her more conviction, if anything, I feel.

So would I, it's always nice to see which lobby groups bought the political votes as it goes. It's something I personally am not entirely clear on.

Exactly. For Constitutional principles to be upheld people have to be well informed on them and willing to uphold them in the first place.

No it's not. Because then that implies if Australia doesn't like something in America that they have the right to invade your country. That is totally unsane - that's just an absolutely irrelevant means for solving any problem. Ofcourse, I'm speaking from the point-of-view of a sane society where we use methods of evaluation based on human and environmental concerns rather than "do what thou wilt." Funny that you should call the UN a joke, really, (I'd agree, but probably for differing reasons) since it is generally a US entity. Why do you call it a joke?

Skippy, most gay people do not 'put' those voices on like you seem to think.It's their environment that shapes their accent. My theory is this - gay people tend to get along with girls a lot more on a friendship level, therefore they hang out with women more and 'pick up' their accent.

There's a problem there. Congress is not 'world government' and a country does not, by UN standards (the US being a UN member), have the legal right to just enter a country in invasion or war because it unanimously decides to.

Good ol' brainwashed soldiers. They're unfortunately the most abused by the establishment.

+1

It's rather unfortunate that people want Socialism, when the realisation is that our economic system has a lot of economic aspects to it right now. Marx's 10 Conditions For Transition To Communism - Let it be noted that Socialism is transitional Communism, in-case you weren't aware. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Council/City rates) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (U.S. Controller of Currency has stated that the income tax will in the near future have to be about 65% of income to keep serving the debt) Abolition of all right of inheritance. (We still have wills, so I guess we're kind of safe there?) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (In other words, a situation where you can be imprisoned without much good reason - Patriot Act is a soft example) Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Central Bank, Monopolies, etc,) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (I don't regard this as a negative) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Green corps? "Obama's" Green army?) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Since I used Marx's examples I want to state some things. Communism, has never been truly applied ever, ever. There are many reasons, such as the fact that the technology never existed to eliminate scarcity and provide an equal-everything culture. But the reason why it ultimately failed as our system has is because it's based on an ideology rather than a tangible train of thought that is near-empirical and therefore hard to logically disagree with. One prominent Marxian ideology that comes to mind is that Marx believed in racial trash - meaning, cultures that are too far behind in their evolution (i.e., not even Capitalist yet) and wont be able to be brought up to revolutionary standard. He makes this even worse by stating that these groups must "perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Marx was pretty much the father of modern genocide. But anyway, I majorly digressed. I don't think the notion of sticking to constitutional principles can work, I mean we've seen it fail through being hijacked by financial interests and all sorts of things. What gives us the idea that it'll work this time? Sure, it might for a while - but ultimately it'll go down the same path over time. Is that really fair? I'm sure you can tell I don't defend either side of this false political paradigm. But let me ask, what do you think of war?War kills unborn children, grown men and women. War destroys everything? And by my watch, the Republican party (I don't blame them specifically, but by your logic...) has been the cause of many illegal wars in recent times that have killed millions. It's funny how so many anti-abortionists will fight against abortion, but in the same sentence (all too often) be perfectly fine with the destruction of war which is so much more worse. For the most part, it doesn't matter which party is in - they'll behave the same because they're serving the same vested interests (not you).

Oh. So if the Salt Lake Temple (I'm addressing it specifically because it just love the architecture of it specifically) was in need of renovation or something - it'd have an open house? IMAGINE the people that would flock to it.

The Democrats are in power? My goodness are you kidding me? The financial powers are in power. The democrats are in power because they were the most funded in this election. Why? Because the financial institutions that fund political campaigns had run the "Republican train" for too long and people were sick of it. There is not real change. Just change of image. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Sure, the politicians mean well - but they're put there by corrupt powers who support politicians so that they have to maintain their (the corporations) vested interests. Don't get me started on the falseness of this left-right paradigm. Democracy? What an illusion. No, honey. It'll be tyrrany [the establishment] vs. liberty. The same as it was the first time.

Ah, that's an interesting one. Our free-will is limited by what we're exposed to. What I mean by that is a person will not know a truth unless they are able to realise it (i.e., be told by someone, see it in a film/book, etc). The salvation of others then, by this notion, is as much on your head as it is on theirs.

What do you mean?

Let's say that a re-dedication was scheduled for the Salt Lake Temple, or any other temple that is now dedicated. Would this mean there would be an open house, or is a temple permanently sealed as only a place for the obedient members of God's Church after it's first dedication?

I think, a-train, when you take into account things such as China becoming a world 'super power' and the fact that the world's population is being projected as possibly being over 10 billion by 2050 that you can bet it wont run out -- but it wont be anywhere near abundant enough to serve the Earth's needs.

"alternative renewable energies have not yet reached the point where they are economically viable on a large scale" The thing is, they never will be. Obama talks about making "renewable energy profitable" well based on supply and demand there is no such thing because it provides more than enough for everyone. "But we didn't one day just outlaw horses" Ofcourse not, and that's why this is progressively coming to be. But the biggest things holding it back are the need to compete for market share with the existing energy companies. It doesn't matter how slowly and neatly we transition to renewable energy, the reality is that it will never be profitable in the long term - perhaps from the outset (i.e., cyclical consumption from the production and installation of these technologies) but not once they're active and in use on an official scale. These things (along with nano-technology and continuing automation) will ultimately destroy a scarcity-driven economy. No matter how slow we do it.

Just to see what will happen? Countless studies have concluded that we by far have enough renewable energy sources to power the whole world. Just to name a few: Wind, Tidal, Wave, Solar, Geothermal... and we will find more, they are way more abundant than fossil fuel energy creation ever will be. We can have total energy abundance with these means. Fighting against destroying our economy, but that would lead to the conclusion that you'll want to hold back technology in favor of preserving such a structure?

Actually, the US Department of energy has admitted that wind power utilised properly in just 3 states of the US would power the entire nation. The cost was, and is not, a concern to me or most other people who advocate a move to these energies. Yes implementing them will destroy whole sectors of employment, yes they will implode the economy if officially harnessed. But, that's an absolutely good thing on so many levels. No, that's not what I'm saying. But they're largely unprofitable after installation. The only reason they make money today is because they're feeding energy into a system which is always in need of "top ups" - but if renewable energy is to become the only form of energy harnessing, no one will be able to make money off it once it's all working (it will be a contraction by comparison with present energy harnessing methods)."People have harnessed the wind to deliver energy for centuries. Today, wind generates electricity that powers millions of American homes and businesses and is one our nation’s fastest-growing sources of energy. Taking advantage of this abundant domestic resource to generate electricity helps meet America’s growing energy demands while improving our energy security and protecting our environment." Department of Energy - Wind Here's some things that might be of interest in regards to using renewable energy: Inhabitat Florida Announces World’s First Solar-Powered City (It's a lie to say it's the first though - there is also Masdar City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " A British Wind Energy Association report gives an average generation cost of onshore wind power of around 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour (2005)" And it's getting cheaper. "In 2004, wind energy cost one-fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced." Uncle Sam's New Year's Resolution "The most comprehensive study to date found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MToE (million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world's current energy use in all forms" Global wind power at 80 m Renewable energy is nothing but abundant on this planet. There are two things holding it back: lack of brains in politics, and the need to profit. Oil and other increasingly scarce fossil fuels are much more profitable to maintain than renewable energy.

That is utter nonsense John. The problem is, in-fact, that they're way too abundant and as based on the laws of supply and demand when something is abundant and well distributed it's price is low (or even free) and therefore profit cannot be gained from such mediums. It is these abundant technologies that are putting monetary economics on a collision course to "the end." That is true, but it is certainly not the most efficient means for producing a lot of the things we have. I should add the invention of substitutes, is relatively easy - all it takes us to put our creative ingenuity to such a task. All the inventions in our society didn't happen by some 'freak accident' - a scientists creates something by means of knowing that it is possible based on whether it is a 'physical phenomenon' and this is why inventors know they can do something before they do it.

Already, long done. Not only that, it will become expensive to harvest and oil companies will continue what they've been doing (slowing production to raise price).On top of that, we just can't sustain this polluting energy source. You can see, how very unsustainable this is.