Just_A_Guy

That is fetchin' awesome.

What is the answer to that? :)

Via Google I see that the Church has a rather large stake in Bahrain. Is that what you were thinking of? Wikipedia says that Iran funded a group that engineered a failed coup against the Khalifah family back in 1981. As for American connections, all I can find is that Bahrain's current king attended military schools in the UK and the US.

For a somewhat persuasive argument that there is a method to Obama's apparent madness, see here.

Dear AIG: I Quit

Re LDS meeting times: Not sure if this came up earlier, but where multiple wards share a chapel (I've seen this both in Utah and in California) they usually trade off meeting times annually. So your ward might meet at 9 AM in 2009, and at 1 PM in 2010.

How did selling arms to the Iranians in 1985 get hostages released in 1981?

Good point . . . IIRC he's up to his neck in the Fannie/Freddie meltdown. Politician's rule: Whenever you find yourself in deep shizzle . . . play the persecuted minority and hope someone changes the subject.

Only when we're in the middle of explaining it to a non-Mormon, and they look at us like we're absolutely nuts. What's that old saying . . . you go to Heaven for the weather, and Hell for the company.

That's a relative statement, of course. I don't think it will stack up to what you have in the UK--not by a long shot--and the local newspapers are filled with letters to the editor bitterly railing about the lack of bus coverage in certain areas of Salt Lake Valley. Furniture rental is always an option, if you prefer. As for groceries, my wife and I and one kid were able to make it on around $150-$200/month back in the day (this was in south Salt Lake valley). Since we had a 2nd baby and my wife took over budgeting, I have no idea what we're spending nowadays.

Technically, he believes that as a general rule a state should be free to pass its own laws; and that gay sex is not a sufficiently protected constitutional right to be included as one of the exceptions to that rule.

Right--the sealing is contingent on the faithfulness of the parents (who are parties to the covenant). It is not contingent on the faithfulness of the children (who are beneficiaries of, but not parties to, that covenant). I would disagree with Hordak's reading of Lorenzo Snow's teaching--President Snow mentions only errant children, not errant wives or husbands. For the children, the sealing ordinance guarantees two things (assuming the parents keep their covenants): Salvation (but not necessarily exaltation) for each child. In other words, Jesus will admit them to one of the levels of heaven--but not necessarily the highest one.The children will, in some sense, "belong" to the parents. Again, this doesn't necessarily guarantee that they will be perpetually in close physical proximity to each other--though "visitation" is presumably an option. They can enjoy each other's company whenever the spouse in the higher kingdom wishes it to be so. But they will not be married. Also, the entire point of reaching the highest level of heaven ("exaltation") is to be allowed to create new worlds and create new people to live on those worlds. That work takes a male and a female, working together. If, between a married couple, the wife is exalted and the husband is not; the wife cannot enter into that work alone and the husband will not be privileged to participate. So, if she wants the blessing of "eternal increase", she'll have to find another man.

Not a young woman; but I'm married to someone who likes to think of herself as a relatively young woman. Bikinis as I understand it are almost universally frowned upon in Mormon culture. I think "tankinis" are kind of a gray area; though my wife personally disapproves of them.

Oh, good heavens, no! Quite the opposite--my point was merely that on this particular point, I'm not convinced there's as large a need for secrecy as Bro. Rudick seems to think.

I dunno. A couple of gay people I know have no problem in taking formerly derogatory terms ("queer", et al) and wearing them as a badge of honor. Why can't we social conservatives do the same? Anyone want to join me in starting a "homophobes" club?

I don't think they're "separated" in the sense that they will never, never see each other again. But the man-and-wife relationship will be at an end. If the partner who "made it" wants to receive the blessing of eternal increase (in other words, the ability to create new worlds and create people to live on those worlds, which blessing pertains only to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom), they will need to find a new spouse. In principle, it is possible for a non-Mormon to attain a celestial glory (that's the whole point of doing temple work). It would depend, though, on the degree to which the individual made an informed decision to reject the truths taught by Mormonism during their lifetimes. I wouldn't presume to guess how that applies to anyone personally. Lowest level of heaven is still heaven--but you've got to go through a thousand years of hell to get there. There is an even lower level that is not "heaven" at all (we call it "perdition" or "outer darkness") but relatively few are ever bad enough to wind up there.

No need to, really. D&C 130:11

My recollection is that Carter did go in with guns blazing, and got his posterior handed to him after the desert sands broke down our shiny new military equipment. Really, though--Iran's options were to kill all the hostages (an act of war, even to Carter--and while sandstorms can bog down special ops forces with helicopters on a rescue mission, they don't do much against high-flying B-52s on strategic bombing raids) or to let them go eventually. Much as I love Ronaldus Magnus, I don't think we can credit him or his electoral victory with resolving this particular crisis.

That's not quite right, if you listen very closely to the first five minutes of the endowment session. (Unless you're referring to a temple ordinance other than the initiatory/endowment/sealing.)

I'm not big on sucking up to Iran and I think Obama's actions were supremely bone-headed, but in fairness, it was Carter who tried to resolve the Iran hostage crisis through (bungled) military action; and it was Carter who made the deals that ultimately got the hostages released. The Iranian leadership is, to be sure, comprised of petulant little twits. But if Iran were truly intent on global domination at all costs, they'd never have made peace with Saddam after the First Gulf War back in the eighties. Teddy Roosevelt could have handled these people by speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Problem is, the previous administration whittled down our stick and the current administration has taken to screaming loudly. FWIW, too, Iran is basically sandwiched between two huge American armies right now (in Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east). Anyone could be forgiven a little paranoia under those circumstances.

Ha! I get it! Because only conservative extremists actually ever become violent!

I had a chance to meet one of Hughes' "Mormon Mafia" several years ago. He wasn't really trained in "security", and a lot of his fellow "Mormon mafiosos" weren't, either--I got the impression that a lot/most of them started working for Hughes in other capacities, and sort of fell into the whole "personal assistant/security" role.

Gabelpa, I'll take it your answer to my question is b).

I remember Professor Susan Rugh of BYU once saying something to the effect that Nauvoo's economy really wasn't sustainable over the long term--had little or no agricultural base to support it. At any rate, New York became to hot to hold Joseph even without allegations of polygamy; and while it was a minor factor in Kirtland and Missouri it wasn't really the major issue. I doubt the Saints could have stayed in Nauvoo for long, even without polygamy. Between their voting practices, the power of the Nauvoo Legion, land speculation, and the relatively independent court system; I don't think their neighbors would have put up with them in the long run. Besides, had the Saints stayed in Illinois/Iowa, what effect might the Civil War have had on them? As it was, our contributions were token and our people emerged from the ordeal practically unscathed. President McKay's experience of praying for permission to lift the priesthood ban and receiving a direct "no" in response, would seem to indicate that the policy did indeed come from the Lord. Granted, it may have been the Lord allowing for the weakness of a people too consumed with pride to allow another race to exercise ecclesiastical authority over them. But I don't think even Joseph could have completely eradicated racism among the Saints.

I think it interesting that Karger has so little faith in the CFPPC's ongoing investigation that he feels the need to draw their attention to every new thing he finds on the internet. It's been four months since Karger's initial complaint was filed. It's been a month and a half since the Church's final campaign disclosures. Government wheels turn slowly, but even so I suspect the investigation is winding down. If there were going to be a hearing (where the Church would have to bring its lawyers), the date would be set already. I suspect that Karger knows--via his informants in Church Headquarters--that there will be no hearing; he knows his first complaint was full of misstatements; and he fears that a decision exonerating the Church will be forthcoming very shortly. So, if forced to guess, I'd say that this is a ploy by Karger to either draw out the investigation or else be able to accuse the CFPPC of bias by alleging that they couldn't possibly have had time to consider the points raised in his second complaint before issuing their decision.