-
Posts
15753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
281
Everything posted by Just_A_Guy
-
Just going off the numbers on the House vote, it appears Pelosi couldn't get her own party to fall in lock-step behind her (most of them did, but not all. The vote shouldn't have been nearly as close as it was). I don't expect the Senate to behave differently, but we'll see.
-
Today, they do have that opportunity--at least, theologically (even if politically their governments don't allow it). Back then: We know, at least in Jacob and Esau's case, that Esau explicitly forfeited the blessing. So did Reuben, Jacob's firstborn (as I understand it, because he seduced one of Jacob's concubines). It may well be that there was some unrighteousness on Ishmael's part as well--certainly there was on his mother's (though Abraham's response seems unwarranted). McConkie also had some interesting thoughts in this vein which he expressed in Mormon Doctrine under the heading of "Election of Grace". These views persisted even in later editions of the book published after the priesthood ban was removed. They're highly controversial, but you might want to take a look and see whether they work for you. My understanding is, yes. I've always heard it taught that people who had no chance to marry in the here-and-now get the opportunity to select a mate prior to the resurrection. It was then. It isn't now, and has not been since Christ's resurrection.
-
Don't jump the gun, folks. It's still got to get through the Senate, and until Franken gets seated I don't think the Dems could get a cloture vote in the face of a Republican filibuster.
-
How 'bout "Call Mom!"?
-
I'm not up on my British colloquialisms, but "The Flylady" has a certain ring to it. Edit: Oh, I just found out about the "original" flylady. I suppose that name is trademarked already . . .
-
In that case, creepy though it is, I don't see a logical way for the law to get at the guy. Possession of child porn is, AFAIK, a strict-liability offense: if you have it, you're guilty, and the court doesn't care how you got it. In this case, I would argue that the image is not child pornography--it's merely a child's face on an adult's body. Liability for defamation only arises when the defamatory material is published--so if the guy is only keeping the images for himself, I'd regretfully have to say no penalties.
-
Christ is my Savior and I will follow His prophet.
Just_A_Guy replied to applepansy's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
Applepansy, I hope your post above isn't a response to my new thread yesterday (which I haven't looked at yet, but will shortly). I wasn't trying to single anyone out; I just happened across the website and thought it was interesting. My apologies if I've caused offense. -
VoilĂ !
-
There should definitely be civil liability to the child whose image has been co-opted. But criminal penalties? I vote no.
-
A very interesting response to the (in)famous Improvement Era ward teachers' message, by President George Albert Smith, here. Apparently it's been on fairlds.org for a while, but I'd never seen it. I think the BCC post author's underlying purpose is to paint the priesthood ban as a mistake (a premise I cannot swallow), but there is nonetheless some useful perspective in President Smith's letter.
-
Can't you just pick up the phone, call over to the temple, and ask to speak to the matron?
-
Some statistics on inherited wealth.
-
Talisyn, perhaps you missed my earlier post to this thread where I defended Obama's earlier silence.
-
Obama Rescinds July 4 Invitation to Iranians Now, the latent conservative in me says, "this is a step in the right direction". But, frankly, I thought Obama was going biting his tongue in order to pursue a long-term diplomatic solution, and I was willing to go with him on that and see what happened. Having committed to a strategy, it would have been nice to see the President stick with it a little longer before getting weak-kneed in the face of US popular opinion.
-
How far are you willing to take this? Does someone have a right to a $150,000 dollar house, when that same money could employ well over a hundred and fifty people in the third-world for a year? It's easy to want to dictate the lifestyle for people who are richer than us. But for every person richer than you are, there are several hundred people poorer than you are who think anyone with even your own standard of living must be an inveterate spendthrift.
-
Winnie, have you seen the order preventing your daughter from taking the kids from the city? I've practiced a bit of family law. My experience is that once the judge decides to award a parent custody of a child, the judge will allow that parent to live wherever the parent needs to live to support him/herself, regardless of how far away that may be from the non-custodial parent. This is a snap judgment, but if forced to make a call my guess would be that your daughter doesn't want to come home and she's using this "the order says I have to stay" nonsense as cover. Your son-in-law needs a lawyer. If he can't afford one, there's nothing stopping you from reimbursing him for his legal fees. If you believe your grandkids are truly in danger, then your daughter needs to be stopped.
-
A few thoughts, though I'm certainly no expert in the field: The blessings are the Covenant. They're God's half of it, anyways. I'm not sure I buy the assertion in ViolinGirl's link that the covenant is entirely unilateral with nothing required on our part (though parts of it certainly are--see below). Good question. I look forward to learning the answer. At least in part, yes. See the following from Orson F. Whitney: Because everything that Abraham received, we may also receive. This is spelled out a little more clearly in the temple, but consider Abraham 2:11:
-
I think it'd be more accurate to say that we interpret the ideals of Jesus differently.
-
Stupid and scared--but in power.
-
Why would "LDS Church" need a euphemism? It isn't a cuss word or an obscenity. Yes. Next question?
-
In the absence of statistical evidence comparing women who wear the burqa by choice to women who wear it by government fiat--I don't agree. Just because you wouldn't wear it, doesn't mean that no rational woman would. Would we be comfortable with the French government speaking thus of temple garments?
-
And, from a more cynical point of view: The protesters are not going to win this. They can't. They don't have the guns, they may not even have the majority, and there's no way in high hades they're going to get meaningful foreign intervention in their favor. President Obama has committed to a dialogue with the Iranian government, and endorsing a group that that government has just suppressed violently is not going to be conducive to that effort. That's the problem with diplomacy--sometimes you've just gotta bite your tongue. The President is gambling that by suppressing the natural impulse to impotently rant about Iranian oppression now, we might better be in a position to effect meaningful change in the long run. Also--and I haven't been following this closely--but from what I understand, there's still a decent chance Ahmadinejad actually won. If they did carry out the recount in front of UN inspectors and it turns out Ahmadinejad and Khameni were right all along, we're going to come out looking pretty stupid.
-
I saw that story via Instapundit. Reynolds' tagline was "I didn't know ACORN was in Iran!"
-
I don't twitter, but if any of you twitter users want to help--here's one way.
-
The irony is that these music pirates are getting heavier fines than the real pirates off Africa, who are mostly being returned to shore and turned loose.