Just_A_Guy

I don't know that churches are subject to zoning restrictions of that nature. Nor am I aware of any temple anywhere that was ever less than 30 feet tall. Maybe the one Nephi built in the new world?

I think Jacob 2 is clear. Whatever other cultures do, the default among the Lord's people is "no, unless God says yes". Looking on women is fine, unless there's lust involved. Again, see Jacob 2. The only one who can tell you if you're looking on women "with lust"--and, therefore, sinning--is you.

What do you make of Hillel's writings before 10 BC?

Administratively, I don't know what the Family History Department's position would be. But from a practical standpoint and answering the question of who-will-be-with-whom-in-the-eternities: A sealing is only valid if both parties keep their covenants. Here, the couple civilly divorced and in so doing (IMHO) broke their covenants to each other. Whatever might remain on the Church's books for the short run, in reality there's no longer any "covenant" for that child to be grafted into.

On the other hand, we don't want to exclude doctors from the process entirely. There has to be a happy medium somewhere; otherwise we may as well go whole hog on this idea that "professionals are not the best ones to reform their own industries" and do things like this.

[parody] I tend to be much more logical. If Hillel wrote about it before Jesus of Nazareth, it's logical to assume that whoever wrote the Bible "borrowed" this concept from Hillel (for the record I don't believe Jesus of Nazareth wrote it). Logic would dictate that Jesus of Nazareth knew of Hillel and borrowed the man's teaching. Using logic, I hardly see this as an accident or coincidence, but rather further proof that Jesus of Nazareth was not a prophet of God, but believed in other rabbis' teachings. [/parody]

You stated a fact; I stated a fact. No attack there, unless you count the rebuttal of your veiled jibes as an attack.

Just as an FYI, the Jewish scholar Hillel claimed during his lifetime (70 BC - 10 BC) that "what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Sound familiar?

I wasn't aware that the Bible teaches that no one goes to heaven. Have you run that one by your pastor? While talking to your pastor, why don't you try this "no one ever goes to hell" bit on for size. Yeah. God never changes. He is not now living on the earth in the form of a man; so He must have never lived on earth in the form of a man. Congratulations. You've just disproved that Jesus ever came to earth. Yeah; the Bible discourages Sabbath-day observance. The Bible does not condemn gluttony or drunkenness. Got it. So, according to the Bible, little children will not be resurrected. ----- I suspect a good many mainline Christians would take issue with your interpretation of the Bible. More to the point, your interpretation is fundamentally irreconcilable with Mormonism. And frankly, I'm glad of it.

Indeed.

It's looking like an awful lot of innocent people may have gone to jail for deaths due to Shaken Baby Syndrome.

More critiques of The Harvard Study That Wasn't, here. Note that both the sources cited are not exactly centrists; however, their critiques seem sound and they do draw on CBO numbers.

C'mon, MsQwerty. You mean, you weren't swooning with the rest of the women in this country when President Bush swaggered along the Abraham Lincoln's deck in that flight suit? What's wrong with you?

In Israel's case, I'm not convinced guns and money will help if Obama's shilly-shallying buys Israel's enemies the time they need to go nuclear. (Not saying Iran, or whoever, would immediately nuke Israel if given the chance; but it'd fundamentally change the game over there into a sort of "Mini-MAD" and I don't think that new status quo would favor Israel.)

Wow. Given your history here, the above is the very picture of "sucker bait". Have fun, kids-- --JAG

Yes; much better to shun the countries that do like us and the Congressional Republicans.

Personally I don't "subscribe" to it; but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

But an opinion that is not based in facts cannot be wrong. So there!!!

Not all body fluids are equal. The threat of transmitting AIDS via saliva and mucous is negligible.

By the way, for those who care to slough through it, Volokh has a series of posts about the constitutionality of health care reform. See here and look at the list of related posts.

I'll agree to disagree with you on several points, MsQwerty, but did want to respond to the following: The automatic stay, which prevents creditors from attempting to collect a bill from you, goes into effect at the moment you file your case for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy court sends out notices to the creditors in about a week or so. Chapter 7 cases are usually wrapped up in three to four months; Chapter 13s take three to five years, depending on your income and a variety of mathematical factors. But again--the debt relief goes into place immediately upon filing. People who actually file for bankruptcy have pretty much resolved to carry on, and so I'd imagine their suicide rate (as opposed to those who are merely insolvent) is reasonably low. Again--it's just a case of getting out the information as to what people's options are. I've tried to initiate a discussion on several threads as to what "bankruptcy" really means. So far no one seems to have engaged on it. Do you wish to? They could have, if they'd known how the system works. They didn't. That is lamentable; but not an automatic justification for some kind of universal healthcare system above and beyondd what is already in place. I'm only talking about the duties imposed by the hospital's commitment to save life in the event that there is *no* payment. And in practice, there *is* some degree of payment--either through the hospital's own private financial assistance program, or through already-existing Medicaid programs. I think I already provided numbers illustrating that there is no way a person can pull their own weight in a universal-health-care system in the US by contributing merely 1.5% of their annual income. By the numbers, under universal healthcare the average woman can choose having two or three kids, or an appendectomy, or a severe case of pneumonia, during her entire life. Anything more, and it is no longer "her" money that's paying for it. I prefer to think of it as the "free market" - people seeking the best bargain for comparable services. I don't find the UN's moral authority convincing on . . . anything, really. I'm happy to discuss the policy implications of health care on their own merits. It's one thing to say that it makes pragmatic sense to force everyone, at the point of a gun, to turn over their money for certain socially necessary programs. It's entirely another thing to say that that's what our Christian religion demands. Thanks; she's doing better. I don't think many people oppose the concept of reform; it's that we don't want a single-payer system and--despite all the smoke he blows--our President is on-record supporting such a system and the economists are telling us that the proposals on the table will tend towards that goal. Nor is anyone seriously talking about eliminating CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. It would be fair to say that our tolerance of these programs suggests a concession that government has a responsibility to guarantee lifesaving care, but not (beyond a certain point) comfort or elective care. In other words, many of us on the right are willing to be compelled to underwrite a guarantee of life--but not happiness. Personally, I think we need to do a multi-pronged effort whereby we a) impose a truly free market by forcing medical care providers to give up-front, comprehensible fee schedules that can be compared with those of other providers (possibly incorporating some version of the President's proposed insurance exchange); b) smart tort reform; and c) keeping, but economizing, the existing Medicare and Medicaid systems. Some idea, yes. But they're going from the fundamental assumptions that a) we can keep on printing money indefinitely; b) there will always be a sufficient taxpayer/financier base to support the scheme; and c) the taxpayers/financiers will play along no matter how expensive the scheme becomes. What happens if we get one-tenth, or one-third, or one-half of Americans with no resources for their own health care except the government--and then the government goes broke? Saying "it will cost less if we reduce costs" is meaningless, yes.

Maxel and Elphaba, your wish is my command (new one is a luxury yacht in the act of falling off a crane in the UAE).

Every other religion teaches that winding up as an angel is a pretty decent reward. What's wrong with angels in Mormonism? Do you believe the church leaders when they say that people who are unmarried through no fault of their own will lose none of the blessings of exaltation?

Yeah; both are mentioned at various locations in the OT. I've seen a lot of speculation as to what they are and how they differ; but certainly nothing doctrinal.

Huh. I always got the impression that the lower two classes both became ministering angels to the highest class. Maybe it's like the difference between Cherubim and Seraphim?