Just_A_Guy

Just don't confuse "stupor of thought" for "fear".

If I remember correctly the third President of the Church, John Taylor, was a British national (by way of Canada).

I'm no quantum theorist; I can't even define time on our level with any precision! But here's a quote from Elder Maxwell that ties in a couple of different sources:

You're forgetting the Interstate Commerce Clause. For better or for worse, the Bill of Rights protections are not absolute.

PC, does protestantism teach that God exists outside of time--that all things past, present, and future are continually before Him as "one eternal now"?

Per your own liberal theorists (Keynes), the Iraq War couldn't have harmed your economy (unless your workforce was decimated by a catastrophic loss of life, which has not been the case); because it caused an increase in government spending which should have helped your economy. What it did do was increase your government debt, and I'd be interested to see some solid statistics on that. However, it looks like (at least as a proportion of GDP) the UK's national debt was already trending upwards prior to 2003. Over the short term, yes. We'll see if it lasts (see also California). If it doesn't--that, too, will be a result of having Socialists in charge for 30 years. And I suspect that, like California, the socialized nations of western Europe will be seeking bailouts from other state actors who have managed their affairs more (dare I say it?) conservatively.

But apparently, the UK government has its own financial problems.

Over a few decades, maybe. But there's only so many accounting gimmicks you can use to make a country appear solvent, and we're already using many of those. Over the long term, either government will run out of money (and all those people on government health care will be left hanging), or government will be forced to raise tax rates to a point where the healthy revolt and overthrow the government (again, leaving the people on government health care hanging).

Come on, Moksha. He's sacrificing his own interests for the greater good. Where's that selfless, collectivist spirit liberals always claim to have?

Good to see you back, Rachelle. Has your husband confessed his role in the whole thing to proper priesthood authorities? If he has and is otherwise making a sincere attempt to live the Gospel and the BP decides "he's suffered enough", or whatever; than that's one thing. But you talk about your husband being "practically inactive at this point", in the present tense. I don't think it's unfair to require that your husband demonstrate his contrition towards the Lord as evidence of his contrition towards you. Well, there's a fine line between "earning trust" and "punishment". The former is OK; the latter is not. That said: He cheated on you. He cheated on you. He forfeited every type of claim he might have on you and on your children, and you owe him nothing--yet you've given him a second chance. He should accept whatever standards you impose on him with a smile on his face, and he should thank you for being so concerned about the health of your marriage and his own spiritual welfare.

Let's not take a commonsense approach or anything . . . (Be sure to read the comments to the above-linked post--at least the first ten of them, or so. Data are irrelevant!)

I've read very little Nibley, but from what I've read Jackson appears to be spot-on. I like the idea of the GAs hearing a variety of perspectives about a variety of topics; so I'm no more bothered by their listening to Nibley lecture than I am by their attending a private screening of Amazing Grace from Larry H. Miller. Oh, and by the way--a couple of years ago, for a Client Crisis Management course in law school, I did a research paper about the Church's public relations efforts during the Mark Hofmann affair. During the course of that research I went into LDS Archives and read every single news release, Ensign article, and Church News story from the period during which Hofmann's documents were coming out. The Church did buy (or broker the purchase of) a lot of his stuff; but its pronouncements on the validity of those documents were a lot more circumspect than some would have you believe. Turley's Victims is also a must-read for anyone who hopes to discourse intelligibly on Mark Hofmann.

What Ryanh said.

I'd just tell your bishop pretty much the same thing you wrote here.

I see your point. I'm not sure the analogy is perfect, though, since from your post it appears that Henry's relationship with Zina was effectually terminated. Still food for thought, though. Thanks.

Jim, the poll was not whether we "would" partake if "allowed", but if we "could" partake if "commanded". But then, I suspect you knew that. And I suppose that, if I believed I were saved regardless of my own personal conduct, I might also be willing to make such bald-faced misrepresentations.

'K, now I'm confused. Per this and the parallel Trib story, there was obvious and prolonged trespassing. Either the Church elected not to seek backup from the SLPD, or the SLPD chose to look the other way. Both scenarios leave me baffled. I'd like to think the SLPD isn't so corrupt. As for the Church--yeah, another politically-incorrect eviction may cause more adverse PR; but at this point methinks we may as well hang for a chicken as an egg . . .

The Church's assurances were based on reciprocal assurances from the City. Once the ACLU upset the apple cart and forced the city to renege on its own promises, there was no reason--moral or legal--for the Church to uphold its end of the deal. Private property rights makes the question moot. But if people are seriously arguing that gay-equality trumps (or should trump) the constitutionally-protected right to property, then one of the fundamental arguments in favor of Prop 8 is pretty much vindicated. If gay rights can trump the Seventh Amendment, why can't they trump the First? The sale of the easement was not a done deal--nor was it even on the table--until the ACLU got involved. We owe Rocky Anderson more than we ever imagined we might. Maybe we should send him a thank-you note?

The Church's assurances were based on reciprocal assurances from the City. Once the ACLU upset the apple cart and forced the city to renege on its own promises, there was no reason--moral or legal--for the Church to uphold its end of the deal. Private property rights makes the question moot. Of course, several people are now arguing in favor of a bizarro-world where you can have "religious freedom" while simultaneously barring organized religions from owning property. Go figure. If the ACLU had let the original deal stand, the City would have the easement and the Church would be legally bound to maintain public access even after the City had essentially (if unwillingly) welshed out of a crucial condition of the deal.

"Get to"?

The consequences of sin aren't mitigated just because Satan made the sin look so nice that a whole lot of people fell for it. Soldier, I won't say you're hell-bound. But you are on very, very dangerous ground. We know what the D&C says about men who look on a woman with the specific intent to lust after her; and we know what the Book of Mormon says about adulterers. Connect the dots. You have got to get away from this. Moreover, the pornography will feed into conditions that will ultimately make this life a type of hell for you. Talk to your bishop posthaste, and get involved with the Church's addiction recovery program.

There's a great exchange in It's a Wonderful Life where George Bailey asks Clarence if he has any money; Clarence replies that they don't have money in heaven and George retorts "Well, it comes in kind of handy down here, bub." That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

It doesn't sound like the counsel from your old and new bishop is inherently contradictory--pay as much as you can, and the ward will make up the rest. The new Bishop isn't pulling a major bait-and-switch on you. Missionaries aren't supported out of general ward funds or by Salt Lake money; there's a special ward missionary fund that supports missionaries who need it and that fund is replenished by the donations of ward members. At some point, Church members will have to be approached and asked to replenish that fund sufficiently to keep you on your mission. Your new bishop is just making a procedural error about who is supposed to solicit donations to that fund. It's not your responsibility--it's his. I would just respond to the Bishop, as tactfully as possible, "OK, I saved x amount, and here's a check for it. I've gotten some conflicting advice about how the rest is handled--would you mind looking it up in the Church Handbook of Instructions and letting me know if it has any suggestions about how I should proceed?"

A few observations: 1. I presume you refer to government's using its police power to limit the choice of private property owners to govern what happens on their own property? 2. A cell phone signal-blocking additive for paint is already in development, as are special panels that can be added to the interior of large spaces like movie theaters. These wouldn't violate the statute, because they are not electronic devices (look for the cell phone companies to raise a holy stink about this when these products hit the market.) 3. Suggesting that a 1934 statute should be applied to cell phones is a tenuous argument at best. The statute was designed primarily to address the problem of at-sea communications. In those days, a steamship's radio was manufactured by one of several competing companies (e.g. Marconi, Telefunken, DeForest) and those companies also provided the radio operator. The rivalry between those companies was pretty intense, and the operators were known to intentionally jam the signals of their competitors--not to exercise control over their own property, abate a nuisance, or as a desirable service to their customers; but purely in an attempt to eliminate competition. If your Motorola were designed to block the signal from adjacent Nokias, it would be fair to apply the statute. But the issues here are completely different.

I can appoint you as the executor of my will, Erudito; but I can't make you serve as such if you really don't want to. Similarly, God cannot (or will not--I'm not sure LDS theology is particularly clear on this point) force us individually to carry out His will. He tells us what He wants us to do, and then we choose whether we will do it or not. Now, if you want something really mind-blowing: LDS theology teaches that God exists outside of time--that, as Joseph Smith put it, all things past, present, and future are continually before Him as "one eternal now". So, while from our perspective, we still have a choice: from God's perspective (one of them, anyways) it's already a done deal.