Just_A_Guy

I seem to remember that even back in 2004 we were hearing reports of some kind of intercepted Al Quaeda manual that told members that, if they were captured, they should allege torture. Not sure how much detail it gave, though. Thanks for the link, Jenamarie.

This is weird. Under the current status quo, the exemption amount has been increasing up from its 2001 level of $1 million per person. It maxes out this year at $2 million per person, the estate tax goes away completely in 2010, and in 2011 the tax comes back with an exemption amount equal to 2001 levels. So even Obama's "proposal" (and this is the first I've heard of it) would have been a 75% increase of the Bush-era estate tax cuts. I'll have to read more about this later. Right now, my head hurts.

As I understand it (and Elphaba, if I'm wrong, I really hope you'll chime in here!), we've done all of these (alone) for years. We've just never combined techniques--or used different techniques in close succession--the way we did in the last eight years. Frankly, I think we need to get over some of our taboos about "torture" and say "yes, it's goshawful, and we avoid it when we can. But if we think you've got information that will save American lives from an imminent attack, we will use whatever means necessary to extract it." PR considerations aside (and I realize that's a big leap), it seems more realistic to prescribing a procedure for "torture warrants" or institute an "anything goes for one week after capture" policy than it does to keep propping up this decades-old "we don't torture" façade. If those who actually do the torturing knew that their actions would be a matter of public record and scrutinized by all who follow them, we might actually see less use of torture.

. . . here. Bybee, a Church member and BYU grad, was in the White House Office of Legislative Counsel during the "torture memo" fiasco, and signed off on them.

I don't think so. AMEN!!!!!!

Foreverafter, sometime ago you alluded to a speech from Brigham Young given in October of 1861 which outlines two ways a wife may "be free" of her spouse in the eternities. See here for the pertinent portions of the text of that speech. President Young is clear: if the husband is unfaithful, the woman is free in the eternities. In the alternative, if a woman can find a worthy priesthood holder who wishes to marry her (and that man, by default, will have "more power in the priesthood and higher keys" than the first husband who, by his unworthiness, has no priesthood whatsoever--see D&C 121), and the first husband consents (which per my understanding of Church procedure is necessary in order to obtain a cancellation of sealings)--again, husband #1 has no claim on her in the eternities. In short, a husband has no claim on his ex-wife who has received a formal cancellation of sealings and has remarried a worthy priesthood holder. Oh, and by the way: I pray you will never have to walk the road to which you seek to condemn others.

Does the Copper scroll explicitly mention brass plates? I'm aware of how the brass plates were regarded after they came to the Nephites. I guess I'm just unconvinced that they necessarily had the same status before they came to Nephi's possession. If the brass plates were associated with the temple, wouldn't they have been in the care of the Levites? And wasn't Laban a distant relation of Lehi, who was of Manasseh?

Well, we need to define "combating" communism. The approach you outline seems to be more or less what we've been doing with China. It lessens the risk they pose to us, but (to my knowledge) it hasn't really changed the way the Chinese government deals with its own people.

Well, I'm not talking so much about casualty numbers as tactical analyses of the insurgencies in the Philippines and Iraq. We already played the body-count game in Vietnam, and we got roasted for it.

Don't British subjects from Northern Ireland prefer the term "Ulstermen"?

Traveler - I appreciate your response, but I'm skeptical. By this logic, shouldn't every Torah in Israel have been kept in the Ark? Or do you argue that the brass plates were had by Moses himself, and therefore were inherently more sacred than any other scroll of holy writings? Surely a book doesn't become an "item of the covenant" simply because it is recorded on finer or more durable materials?

What is your source for concluding that the Brass Plates should have resided within the Ark? Thanks--

Among an awful lot of people on the left, it isn't. Ya gotta give 'em credit for consistency. To be perfectly Machiavellian, it seems like there isn't much reason to stick around in either country. Neither country has both the will and the resources to strike us in our homeland. I think the primary reasons for staying are 1) a moral commitment to the people (assuming it's still possible for us to fulfill it), and 2) preventing a power vacuum that will enable the rise of a power that can strike us in our heartland (e.g. Iran).

Well, Jesus = Jehovah. So, to a mainstream Christian, for all practical purposes, Jesus is God as they know Him. It's just that we Mormons sort of insert a new being (or two!) into the equation.

He is a God and one of the three members of what we term the "Godhead" which consists of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (Holy Ghost). They are united in purpose under the direction of God the Father, but are separate Beings. Usually God the Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ. However, there is scriptural precedent (in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible) for praying directly to Jesus when we are in His physical presence. No. Jesus is a God. In fact, He is (per current LDS understanding and belief) Jehovah. But He is subordinate to His Father, Elohim. Yes--see above. But this is not a group of squabbling deities. It is a united council consisting of three individuals, two of whom (Jesus/Jehovah and the Holy Spirit) are subject to the third (God the Father/Elohim).

I do find it interesting that, in the whole Iraq discussion, we haven't looked back more intently on the Philippine Insurrection (which cost four thousand American lives and possibly as many as one and a half million Filipino lives).

Beck, you are following the devil and you're not a real Mormon.

Paint the fence. Then, the next night, sneak across the property line and cut down the trees. (No. Not really.)

Game, set, and match to Tarnished (say "Abish" ten times fast) (but not where anyone can hear you).

There was an easy way for the corporate bigwigs to avoid this: Don't let the government become a shareholder by accepting government money. Our government was wrong to offer the money. The corporations were short-sighted to accept it. (In other threads, Bytor, you've hinted that some banks were forced to take TARP money. I'd be a little more troubled if I knew this were in fact the case. Do you have any links?)

I think Vort's explanation is pretty well in-line with statements by both secular and LDS scholars. The Romans weren't the most merciful of rulers, but emptying Nazareth (or any other village, however inconsequential) on an annual basis makes no sense. It'd destroy the local economy for a week or more; it would siphon potential tax revenues off into the expenses concomitant with a lengthy trip; and it would create a glut of money-laden travelers on roads where robbery was common. Moreover, the grown-up Jesus seems to have had no trouble digging up local tax collectors to teach wherever He happened to be ministering. EDIT: Oops--cross-posted with Vort.

I haven't been able to view the video, but this isn't just idle talk. There is a bill on the floor. It actually doesn't provide for shutting down the internet (though it does allow Obama to disconnect Federal resources from the internet in the event of emergency). But more troubling is the following provision: Allow me to translate: If government wants to know what's on your computer, they will have two options: 1) get a warrant, seize your computer, bring it in and analyze it (which option they've always had); 2) hack it remotely, without getting a warrant. Rockefeller, Nelson, and Snowe would never have let a Republican administration slip this by them.

I'm getting on sensitive ground here and won't pursue a discussion on the point, but may I suggest that you consider the hand position of both the person being baptized and the person doing the baptizing? Now compare them to a couple of elements of the endowment, and consider: Why the difference? (Answer: I have no idea. But I don't think it's just a coincidence.)

Yeah, Guinn is the one. Technically only good law in Oklahoma, but I suspect it had an influence on Church policy worldwide.

Ah. That makes a bit more sense.