Just_A_Guy

Just to clarify the record: The Church bought the Main Street Plaza subject to a pedestrian-access easement by the City of Salt Lake, on the understanding that the Church could limit certain behaviors by visitors to the property. When the ACLU pitched a hissy fit over the whole thing, the Church went ahead and bought the easement too--an action that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in the face of a separate ACLU challenge. So there is no public right-of-way over the Plaza; the Church could demand visitors to the property stick out their tongues and hop on one foot if it wanted to. It's poetic justice. If the ACLU hadn't meddled with the original deal the City would still hold the easement, the courts would probably rule in favor of the gay couple, an unholy war would erupt if Salt Lake City thought of giving the easement to the Church now, and the Main Street Plaza would become a focal point for gay rights protesters--quickly turning into Salt Lake's own Castro District. Right on the Salt Lake Temple's front doorstep. Thanks, ACLU!

Oh, I agree that they probably would. But the LDS spokesperson said nothing about "making out". She said "public displays of affection". This was patently misleading. I had a family member who used to work on Temple Square, and she and her co-workers frequently referred to the Church Office Building as the "Telestial Kingdom". Stunts like this on the part of the PR Department illustrate the point, and reinforce the lesson that there is no such thing as a perfect bureaucracy. Fully concur. Ditto.

The bishop is not a therapist or an addiction counselor. He simply doesn't have the time or the training to give you the weekly (daily! :) ) attention you need. If you ask him to do so (which is tempting), you're putting him in a somewhat awkward position. My experience with the type of issues you describe is that the bishop wanted to see me monthly or every other month; so long as I was giving weekly progress reports to a third person of my choice.

The problem is, the press release said the Church objected to all public displays of affection on the Plaza--which simply isn't true. The couple deserved what they got. But IMHO, the LDS Church's PR department has handled a crisis in a very amateurish way. Which, frankly, seems to be par for the course over the past year or so.

We know what it was now . . . apparently it was a plan to assassinate top AQ leaders. And guess what? There's a reason the plan never came to fruition: So, you've got a plan hatched by the CIA; Bush and Cheney decide not to do it, and it languishes in the bureaucracy until Obama's man in the CIA (Panetta) claims credit for killing it and tries to make it look like the Obama administration has saved us from yet another nefarious legacy of Bush/Cheney. And the press, with one or two exceptions, buys it. Mainstream journalism at its finest.

I'm not against trials per se, Funky. But I think it's a very fair question to ask who ought to be conducting those trials.

I prefer Mitt over all of the major dems of the 2008 election, and over the other 2 finalists in the Republican primary. But my first choice would have been Fred Thompson. And if I ever voted for Mitt it would have been in spite of, not because of, his Mormonism.

I'm inclined to agree. Hearing snippets from the daughter speaking at the funeral, I just thought "here we go again".

I notice MBowman is in Salt Lake City. The irony here is that those Baptist parents are probably among the myriads who complain about how Mormons "shun" outsiders, and never let their kids play with non-Mormon kids . . . ad nauseum.

I'm not sure about the economics; but some of the turbines in the article are different in that they can catch energy from updrafts and downdrafts; not just from horizontal air movement.

By all means, investigate. But I'm dubious of the idea of one ally punishing war crimes of soldiers who were on another ally's payroll. Should the Soviets have been allowed to put our boys on trial for some of the things that went on in Germany and Italy during the closing stages of World War 2? We knew--or should have known--that we were climbing into bed with slippery fellows when we started the action in Afghanistan. If we don't like the way they do business, we shouldn't do business with them anymore. It's that simple.

Some cool new designs for wind turbines are in the works.

Mea culpa. But the point is the same: it wouldn't look very good for us, in this day and age, if every Church member who lied to their ecclesiastical leader died on the spot.

Reading the NT story, consider--how did the early church (and even non-members) react to the sudden and mysterious death of two apostates? Now consider how the current church--and especially nonmembers--would react to the sudden and mysterious death of apostates. The ancients were more willing to chalk this kind of thing up to divine power. We're much more skeptical today--"divine retribution" isn't much of an alibi.

But a close reading of the article doesn't explain why Panetta cancelled the program--it just has hints and innuendo dropped by Senator Feinstein. Google the woman. She's not exactly a reliable arbiter of what is and isn't "ethical".

I'm not offended, Mahone. I was just trying to make a joke out of a rather awkward situation. I did notice your mention of defendants who are not old enough to be named in the media. This is, as far as I know, not a statutory requirement or a court procedure; it's just a professional convention by journalists.

Can I just say how weird it is to have a discussion board debating whether I'm more likely to be a pedophile than Michael Freakin' Jackson? Where did I go wrong?

I wonder if part of the reason isn't because, as Americans, we tend to read American-produced war accounts; which will demonstrate a preference for American sources; and American involvement in WW2 was four times as long as American involvement in WW1?

Joseph's marriages behind Emma's back aren't necessarily in contravention of what Foreverafter is saying. D&C 132:64-65 exempts the one who holds the keys of the sealing power (i.e. the President of the Church) from the Law of Sarah (the provision that gives the first wife veto over the husband's decision to take subsequent wives). My recollection, however, is that Foreverafter and I disagree as to the substance of the Law of Sarah. Personally--and I can't back this up with any sources at present--I have a lot of sympathy for Foreverafter's hints that many in the Church were not living the law of plural marriage properly and that this was, to some degree, a factor in the law's suspension. I've read accounts of how some husbands treated polygamous wives--and, more commonly, how polygamous wives treated each other--that would curdle your blood. I wouldn't be surprised if President Woodruff's explanation were indeed the primary factor in the decision--but I also wouldn't be surprised to hear that OD-1 contains a certain amount of spin. Here you've got a decision that had the potential to--and, in a small way, did--split the Church; but President Woodruff couches the decision in such a manner as to unite the Church in resentment about the big, bad government that's forcing this policy upon them. Maybe someday we'll get a chance to ask him ourselves. I suppose I could also sympathize with Foreverafter's argument that the first wife always takes pre-eminence; at least theologically. But from a practical standpoint, I think that any polygamist who openly favors one of his wives--even the first one--is just begging for trouble.

See here, which draws largely on Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. I don't always agree with Compton's conclusions, but his research and his use of primary sources are top-notch.

I agree with Bytebear. It's really very simple: if you start doing something on a Sunday, and you lose the Spirit--quit doing it.

Getting a judgment and collecting on it are two different things--as the Goldman family has learned to their cost. As to Jackson specifically, I don't know--I haven't paid much attention to the charges against him (though I want to go on record as saying that I've never been (repeatedly) accused of child molestation, so I'd say there's slightly more reason to suspect Jackson than me). My point is just that it would be pretty silly to--for example--let an accused child molester babysit your kids just because "he's innocent until proven guilty!". This idea that trials can retroactively alter reality baffles me, and it seems to be fairly common. As for publicizing trials: I think the benefits outweigh the costs. For one thing, as a citizen I like to know what the state's prosecutors are up to--the whole idea of people being tried in secret on a routine basis kind of unnerves me. For another, at least on a local level people do often have a legitimate need to know. I want to know if the guy who is about to do my brain surgery has a DUI, or if the escrow agent on my home purchase has been accused of embezzling money, or if my next store neighbor has a pending sex offense case. Though I agree with you that when such charges become a national media circus, it's generally to no one's advantage.

Just because the law makes polygamy legal, doesn't mean God will make it legal. I have a pet theory that polygamy was rescinded as much because the Church was showing it couldn't handle the principle, as it was because of trouble with the US government. As for me: it would be complicated, because I've already had pornography issues during my current marriage. I doubt my wife would trust me to pick a new wife for the right reasons--heck, I wouldn't even trust myself to do it for the right reasons. I've read about polygamous families in the past where the first wife pretty much selected--and even, in a few cases, proposed on behalf of the husband to--the new wife. If my family were compelled to live polygamy, that's probably how we'd go about it. By the way, Carl, I'd be interested to see you break this poll down by gender.

I've always assumed that, as a disembodied spirit, Satan has at minimum the ability to see and hear physical beings. That being the case, I'd say sure--he probably is aware of the content of a verbal prayer. I'd even say he has a limited ability to answer that prayer, if the right people are willing to subject themselves to his will or if the prayer is for some kind of natural phenomena that Satan has limited power to control: In the Book of Mormon, when Ammon is talking to King Lamoni, there's a passing comment about how no one can know the thoughts of our heart save God alone. I'm not sure how far to take this statement; but if one interprets it to say that Satan cannot interpret our thoughts then I agree that it's also logical that Satan shouldn't be able to plant thoughts in our heads. Which would mean that we (and even the authors of some of our scriptures) tend to give him far too much blame for sins that are really a result of our own fallen natures. Which is entirely possible.

I should think so. Ejected from an anger management class? Yeesh.