Just_A_Guy

Umm . . . who was doing the fear tactics and scare mongering, here? Maybe you're not aware of this because you're not in the US, but there are options in place for Americans who cannot pay for their own healthcare. Not perfect ones, mind you. But contrary to international belief, American hospital doorsteps are not littered with the corpses of people who couldn't afford health care. I agree with you here. Whatever you call the American system, it is not competition or a free market in any meaningful way.

So glad you asked: On the final Conference committee version: House 424-1 (the 1 being Ron Paul, Republican). Senate 89-3 (the 3 being Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint--all Republicans). Signed the Bill: George W. Bush, Republican.

President Bush was the president who signed CPSIA. The regulatory agency had been "bending" the text of the statute in an attempt to not apply it to situations like this; but a recent court decision held that the agency must conform to the plain language of the statute.

The Sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants. Where there has been no baptism, the sacrament doesn't do any good from a theological standpoint. That said, our two-year-old does take it, and we're trying to train her to "think about Jesus" as she does so.

Libertarianism, of course! Seriously--I don't see how you get anarchy from what Bytor advocates. He's saying we should abandon allegiance to party, not government. There is a difference.

Yup. Same reason Pres. Woodruff got the revelation to end polygamy.

The concern is that old books had lead in the ink. And no, Pam, it's unfortunately not a joke. Remember all those lead-tainted toys from China we were hearing about last year? Well, Congress had to Do Something™. And CPSIA is what they did. The same congressional act also applies to used children's clothing and toys: it has to be tested for lead before it's sold at a secondhand store, and last I heard new clothing for children under 12 is now not allowed to have rhinestones (which apparently contain trace amounts of lead). Overlawyered.com has been chronicling the situation for some time, but the major media outlets seem to be largely ignoring the issue.

The sale of children's books printed before 1985 is about to become illegal. (No, this isn't Obama's fault. It's Bush's.)

Lots of good advice here. I'll just plug one more book: Confronting Pornography. And yes, don't get caught in that "I'll deal with it when I'm out of my parents' house" procrastination bit. Because even if you make it through your mission--then you're in a singles ward, and what would that cute blonde think if she saw you pass on the Sacrament one week? Or maybe you're at BYU and you're worried about losing your ecclesiastical endorsement. Then suddenly The One comes along, and you don't want to derail your wedding plans . . . and then you're married, and how can you tell her you concealed this all that time . . . It will never be easier for you to clear this up than it is right now. Do it. :)

Well, if you don't eat . . .

I'm neither a therapist nor a theologian, but it strikes me that we really know (as opposed to inferring) so little about Heavenly Mother that your particular needs aren't going to be filled so much by an academic study of Her as they would be by building relationships with stable, mature women in the here-and-now. (Your mileage may vary, though. :))

No, seven is the perfect family size. Meaning you should have five children (unless you are a polygamist, in which case you need fewer).

Maybe, but at least in some cases sealings can be done even where there was never an official marriage ceremony (this is common, for example, in Danish genealogy). Does the Church have a policy saying that for proxy work, a marriage certificate is needed for jurisdictions A, B, and C but not for jurisdictions X, Y, and Z?

A friend of mine is in an analogous situation (parents were never sealed, divorced after he was born, and married other people). I was with him in a temple recorder's office when he asked what he was supposed to do. He was basically told (in much nicer terms than what I'm about to say) that he needed to wait for both of them to die, and then seal them by proxy and then be sealed to them by proxy. As for who's going to be "with" whom in the hereafter: Well, technically (IMHO), the only person you're "with" all the time is your spouse. So I wouldn't get too worked up about whether I'll be sealed to one, both, or neither parent. Just do as much as you can to keep your temple-marriage intact, and the Lord will work out the rest.

Hmm. Wow. Sign me up for that state-run health care!

1. The "Boy Scouts of America" is by definition not a worldwide program. 2. I believe I already mentioned the DesNews' article referring to the salaries of employees of the Girl Scouts and Boys & Girls Club (about 50% of what the BSA pays), as well as anecdotes I've heard about 4H (similar ballpark). LDS involvement with the BSA was an appropriate course of action when the policy was initiated. Whether it is still appropriate in light of the BSA's increasing financial demands in general, and its policy of pointedly shaking down LDS units in particular, is an open question. Let me ask you this: If, after President Monson's death, his successor elects to ditch the BSA--will that be an inspired decision?

Why must the terms "secret" and "sacred" be mutually exclusive? I agree with what a lot of MOE says, but the fact is that in the temple we are specifically barred from revealing certain elements of the ceremony. By the standard dictionary definition of the word, there is a significant component of secrecy in the temple.

What is your source for the claim that the LDS Church ever had a formal affiliation with the Girl Scouts? My mother (61 this year) remembers no such activities when she was growing up. The issue isn't that the men are or aren't decent guys with sincere motives. The issue is that the BSA is continually whining about budget shortfalls, selling off to real estate developers properties that were donated to the boys (like the old Camp 49er in California some years back), and raising the financial burden on its members with increasing fees and materials costs at its Scout Offices--all the while maintaining an overpaid bureaucracy whose primary objective (from the round table meetings I've been to) is to justify its own existence. Then they have the unmitigated gall to ask me for a couple hundred bucks on the pretense that it's "for the kids", while conveniently omitting the fact that those kids all belong to the local council executives.

To solicit. In two different wards. Congrats if you haven't had to go through that.

We aren't talking about a company. We're talking about a non-profit, funded to no small degree by donations that a) were solicited by people who were told it was their priesthood duty to solicit said donations; b) were donated by people who frequently (erroneously) thought that the funds would go directly to the local troop; and c) were a precondition for the troop's receiving certain benefits that non-LDS troops receive with no strings attached. By the way, the article states that people doing equivalent work for other organizations (Girl Scouts, Boys & Girls Club), make about half as much; and from anecdotal experience I understand this to be true of 4-H as well.

A very, very good living.

This is pretty much the result you'd get if the Federal government began turning many of its functions back over to the individual states. On the whole--barring emergencies, as you say--I think it's an appropriate result. Of course. Isn't the key aim of socialism to make sure that everyone is equally miserable? Seriously--I think most Republicans don't have a problem with government's providing some sort of safety net. The issue is, to use the old analogy, making sure that the net does not become as comfortable as a hammock.

I'm not sure whether Masonry (either Scottish or York Rite) can properly be classified as a "secret combination" when both its general membership and its guiding principles are openly acknowledged.

Ironically, one of Joseph Smith's plural wives was Lucinda Morgan--widow of the victim of the most notorious (alleged) Masonic murder in American history.

Funky, the US interstate system was Eisenhower's brainchild, not FDR's. And FWIW, there was a strong national-defense component to them: Eisenhower had seen first-hand the strategic advantage that well-planned, well-constructed roadways (like the Autobahn) gave to the Germans during WW2. (Personally, I think a "general welfare" argument is unnecessary since Congress' ability to impose universal health care can be extrapolated from our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. I also dislike the "general welfare" argument because it lets Congress do pretty much whatever it wants to, as long as it can claim an arguably utilitarian basis for its actions.) By the way (and I don't know if it's come up already, since I was out-of-state all last week), here is an interesting video with some admittedly cherry-picked quotes that suggest the President does intend for private insurers to be edged out of the market over the long-term.