Just_A_Guy

If you speak of reconciling Nephi's behavior to 21st-century notions of justice and fair play and "legality", I agree. If you speak of reconciling Nephi's behavior to 7th century B.C. Jewish law, or to the will of God Himself as affirmed by Nephi and Alma and relayed on to us via Joseph Smith--I'm not so sure. I'm a little curious as to how He could weigh in on the matter in a way that would be persuasive to you? I don't recall advancing such an argument; but it's late and I'm tired and I could be wrong. Point me to where I made that point, and I'll do my best to clarify. :)

Helvécio Martins . . . Brazilian. This guy is the first black Seventy of African nationality (as opposed to African descent). So, technically, the title of this thread is not accurate.

I think the classic counter-argument to #2 above is the Republican (and, to some degree, Blue Dog Democrat) opposition to the first time TARP came up for a vote, even when Bush was still in the White House. Republicans have lost their credibility on matters of financial responsibility, but the fact that they were mostly against TARP even before the election suggests that their current stance is not just a tantrum over losing the Presidency.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you! You honestly mean to tell me that rewriting Peter's denial of Christ as "'I don't know what the h--- you're talking about!'" does nothing for you?

By the way, the following is long but well-worth the read: The Dark Art of Interrogation

Congratulations. You've shown, not only that there is but one God, but also that Jesus is not that God. Is that really the point you wanted to make?

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney is saying that since we've declassified the memos authorizing the use of the techniques, we should declassify the memos explaining what we learned through those techniques. Personally, I think that makes sense. We're already getting some interesting tidbits.

I'm waiting for Miss California to sue the whole pageant for discrimination.

C'mon, Applepansy. Reading Mark 1:10-11 as has a certain panache to it.

Da FETCH?!?!?!

Some axe.

While Bybee's reasoning in the newly-released memo, at least, is (IMHO) problematic, it's probably also important to note that he based his memo on certain representations of what the CIA said it had done, was doing, and would do in the future. It's appearing that the CIA was not telling Bybee the whole truth. Garbage in, garbage out.

Well . . . they recite scriptures that clearly support their arguments and assume that that concludes the matter . . . yeah. I'm not comfortable taking demonstrable errors in the Bible and using those as proof that the Book of Mormon contains the same types of errors. Our whole religion is based (at least in significant part) on the idea that the Book of Mormon was needed because it is in some sense more "pure", theologically, than the Bible alone was. I think I would use a slightly different thought process. Step 1: Did it happen, or didn't it? Step 2: If it did, how can we reconcile this with a God who tells us that He is just and benevolent? Logic and reason are certainly important, but if/when they lead us to rewrite an unequivocal self-identified historical record that was created and affirmed by a number of men who hold themselves out to be (and whom we profess to be) prophets of God--I start to get a little worried. Nephi said that God told him--repeatedly--to kill Laban. I'm not ready to throw that narrative out merely because it doesn't jibe with the lately-evolved mores of a society that has known nothing of true self-defense for at least three generations.

You mean, 2/3 of them will be inactive?

Snow, is this a mere intellectual exercise? Or are you gradually building towards an assertion that God didn't really tell Nephi to kill Laban at all? And if the latter--what do you think really happened?

PC, are you perchance thinking of realclearpolitics.com? Stallion, I thought I'd heard somewhere that the head of the California Republican Party showed up to the Sacramento tea party and was roundly booed off the stage. Can you confirm?

Certainly. I'm still working through the memo bit-by-bit; when I responded I'd only skimed up to the part where it was talking about how the US had adopted the Convention in the first place with certain specified reservations. I'm getting to that part now. Frankly, I'd be a little more sympathetic to this line of thinking if Congress had actually given the President an actual declaration of war against Al Quaeda.

Hi Sister_in_faith-- Without wishing to diminish the gravity of your own experience, and without wanting to go through my own past in lurid detail, I will simply say that this is not always the case.

If your assertion is that American judges or lawyers should be disciplined merely for ignoring international law that has not been incorporated into US statute or treaty, I disagree. (By the way, LW, I'm getting a stiff neck from looking at your avatar! )

First off, your friend is free to remarry. She cannot, per current Church policy, be sealed to a new husband during her lifetime, but she can be sealed to him posthumously and the children can be sealed into that marriage. Warning: Speculation coming. I think we need to stop and think about what it means to be "sealed". I think we often assume that a) each Kingdom of Glory is a "place"; b) a sealing is intended primarily to guarantee perpetual physical proximity to each other; and c) unsealed persons will never be able to associate with each other after the Resurrection. I, for one, believe that a) each Kingdom of Glory is a state of being, not necessarily a physical location; b) a sealing is intended primarily to determine the lineage through which blessings flow (similar to a patriarchal blessing); and c) with the exceptions of married couples (who I think will no longer be able to procreate), unsealed persons will still have substantially the same relationships in the afterlife that they enjoy here. Under this scenario: A divorce doesn't really affect the kids. They can still see both parents whenever they want, and the question of who they are "sealed" to doesn't make any more difference to them than it does to me whether my Israelite lineage (as declared in my Patriarchal Blessing) comes through Ephraim or Judah or Issachar.Where one spouse is unworthy to make it to the CK, the worthy spouse may still associate with the unworthy spouse--they just can't jointly participate in the work reserved for exalted couples.Where a kid of a sealed couple is unworthy of exaltation, he/she (per Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoting Joseph Smith) still enjoys a guarantee that he/she will not be left in Outer Darkness. The parents can still see the kid whenever they wish.I should stress that the foregoing is not necessarily official Church doctrine. At the same time, I'm not aware of any authority that seriously challenges this paradigm. And it does seem to alleviate some of the perceived harshness of the conventional view.

I agree with others that you're going to need some professional help. In the meantime, though--at least for me--staying busy is a help, as is trying to make a point of always being around other people (or at least not being holed up somewhere by myself). I hope you're getting some legal assistance as well. If your court date is about what I think it's about--this can have long-term consequences for you, and you need to be informed about those before you enter a plea.

Frankly, I don't see a need for one hundred eighty-odd waterboardings on the same person within thirty days. But I'll freely admit to a dearth of familiarity with the issue. Nevertheless, this is far beyond the scope of what the Bybee memo said was permissible. Even if that amount of waterboarding is morally justifiable, it's a rather egregious instance of the CIA's exceeding its authority (and, now that they have Presidential immunity, setting up someone else--viz Bybee--to take the fall for their excesses).

This seems to be excessive to me.

A timely tidbit about the organization of the tea parties, via Instapundit: GOP Fails To Hijack Maine Tea Parties.

Can we get over this one already? That's not what Limbaugh meant. It's not even what he said.