Just_A_Guy

The Incredibles is PG. Too violent.

Good point, I may be jumping the gun. Of course, if an abortion doctor is shot in front of his clinic, we all know who did it--right?

. . . thought you ought to know. That is all.

Read this. Some of the best marital advice I ever got came from a cousin who warned me, before I got married: "You may not always love your wife. But as long as you each like each other, you'll be fine."

Luckily, there is no proof that such a plan exists now, or ever existed.

I imagine you hear "Please step out of the car, sir" a bit more often than I do.

And if we don't pass this plan, does he intend to keep the waste and inefficiency, out of spite?Hmm.

The ordinance remains on the records of the Church until he receives a formal cancellation of sealings. However, sealings--like every other ordinance of the Gospel--are effective only according to the faith, obedience, and repentance of those who receive them. IMHO, if your gentleman friend and his ex wife do not wish to be together in the eternities--they won't be; regardless of whether a formal cancellation ever came out of Salt Lake.

Doctrinally, you may be right (I'm not convinced; but I won't quibble at present). But I'm not sure a civil court or a legislative body would find your argument persuasive. From a legal standpoint, the government can--and has--prohibited persons and organizations from solemnizing religious rites. Including, under some circumstances, LDS temple sealings.

President Obama can say whatever he wants about his plan. Until he submits a new bill, though; what we have is the House version--and the criticisms of that stand until the bill is thoroughly amended or withdrawn. Let's play the "which is more likely" game. Is it more likely that the President is going to completely withdraw/rework a 1,000-plus-page bill which, the evidence suggests, already incorporates his true vision for health care reform? Or is it more likely that he'll tell us he's completely withdrawn/reworked it while, in practice, offering a few token amendments and then forcing the bill through essentially as-is once the public furor has died down? Despite his pretty words, I would suggest his record shows that President Obama's preferred tactic is to marginalize, not to compromise.

Yet the law has ordered the church to stop doing polygamous sealings, even when the Church did not seek government recognition for those sealings. And the Church--under extreme duress--complied.

San Francisco. Who else? :)

Are you sure about that? (Analysis based on Congressman Lamar Smith's column, which you can find here.)

How do we know it, FlyingPurpleMonkey? Please include citations to the Hawaii Open Records statute.

Apologies; I'll call you Ari, then. :) Were you born in Hawaii? That's interesting. Not too long ago I got a SS card for my infant daughter (born in UT), and all the SSA demanded was the certification of live birth and not the long-form birth certificate. My recollection is that when my wife and I were married, again--all they needed was the certification of live birth. I have no idea what regulations govern the Hawaii State Archives. But the funny thing is, if Obama did use the big stick of federal power and forced Hawaii to turn the original certificate over in spite of its own regulations--what howls of "state's rights" would then emanate from the exact same group that is currently demanding the certificate! At any rate: the President met the standard required by our country's highest tribunal. All that remains is to placate a crowd that wouldn't vote for him anyways, and most of whom--to be blunt--if given the original birth certificate, would shred it as soon as read it.

OK, GrandmaAri, here's the deal: The President does not have custody or control of the long-form birth certificate. That's in the State of Hawaii Archives. So this talk about "him releasing his birth certificate" is madness. He doesn't have the document. Even if he could get the State to retrieve the long-form certificate (could you get your birth state to retrieve yours?), there is no way in high hades that they're going to part with the original. And you and I both know that you won't be satisfied with a photocopy of the long-form birth certificate. If you'll accuse the state of Hawaii of forging a short-form, you'll no doubt also accuse them of doing the same with the long form if and when it comes to light. So why should the President act as if there's a question concerning his citizenship when the State of Hawaii vouches for him and contemporaneously published newspapers mention his birth?

Umm . . . it's not like aliens flew in and elected the guy . . . Or he considers himself a US citizen, believes that the evidence already provided should satisfy everyone with a reasonably open mind on the matter, and has not been asked to provide an actual certificate by anyone with lawful authority to do so. AMEN!!!!!

GrandmaAri, two points: 1. How do you account for contemporaneously-published birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers? 2. As a legal matter, the Constitution does not require "proof of citizenship". It requires "citizenship" but is silent as to how this is to be demonstrated. It is the province of the US Supreme Court to make that call; and so far they do not appear to have done so. And now, a question: If the President does come up with a certificate of live birth in order to demonstrate his qualification for office (making himself, as far as I know, the first US president to do so)--what then? Will you accept it?

Umm . . . as I understand it, the local (Hawaiian) newspaper printed a birth announcement within a few days. Short of time traveling, I don't see any viable conspiracy that could make that happen.

Wow, I missed that. On the other hand, one can almost kinda sort understand the frustration. That's probably the first word the President has heard from a Republican lawmaker regarding health care reform since . . . well, since last April.

Temple thermostats are calibrated by temple engineers and controlled by temple presidencies--both groups tend to be constituted of elderly males. It'll be an icebox in there.

Touché. What she needs is a solicitor, not a lawyer. In all seriousness--yes, the US has pretty specific sexual-harassment legislation and most states have clear processes for a civil stalking injunction. I don't know what analogues exist in Her Majesty's justice system. Janey, does this guy have so much power that you don't think there's a single solicitor in your area whom you can trust to keep the situation confidential and give you solid legal advice?

All I can say is: when you do find a future mate, be sure you're very clear with each other about what you expect, what aspects of your character you intend to keep, and what aspects of your character may be subject to change. As an aside, though, I'd suggest that if you think you'll wind up living as a Mormon down the road--start now. I've never known a convert to say "gee, I'm glad I had those first twenty or thirty years of my life to yuck it up in the world". I've known plenty who say "I wish I'd found this sooner".

Here's the deal, rmorrow: If you marry a non-Mormon while you're living a non-Mormon lifestyle, and later you decide you want to embrace the Mormon lifestyle - how fair is that to your husband, who thought he was getting one thing and now all of a sudden has something else?

This talk seems to suggest that "the Law of the Gospel" is a generic term for all divinely-appointed laws pertaining to this Creation. I'm not sure how satisfying this explanation is, though; in context of the Endowment it would seem to make certain elements of the ceremony redundant. Can we find a better explanation?