Just_A_Guy

Oops!

Maya, I cannot emphasize this enough: If your son wants to stay in the country, and out of jail, he has got to get a competent attorney NOW. This may sound harsh, but right now you cannot help him. A lawyer can. Save the plane fare and contribute it to his legal defense. If you're in a pickle financially, below are two directories for free/reduced rate legal services in Salt Lake Valley: --Utah State Bar Directory --"And Justice For All" Directory If all else fails, get in touch with the Salt Lake Legal Defender's Association. The attorneys in that office are somewhat overworked, but they're some of the most capable lawyers in Utah. Good luck.

With all due respect, Lbybug, based on your profiles Bytor is sixteen years older than you. Hopefully when you're at Bytor's advanced age you'll be able to afford all/most of the same niceties. As for me: I don't earn anywhere near $250K/year. If you divided that figure by ten, you'd be getting into my ballpark (but still on the high end). But ten or fifteen years from now, I hope to be grossing somewhere in that neighborhood (my take-home pay will be far less, as I'll have office overhead to maintain and student loans to pay off. But still--ain't America great? :) ) Frankly, with some hard work and planning and discipline and careful investment decisions (and a bit of luck in avoiding medical catastrophes, divorce, or the like), you don't even need a particularly high income to eventually get into that range. You just need patience while the tool of compound interest does it work. (I highly recommend Chilton's The Wealthy Barber for more on this.)

IIRC, Skousen's talk about the atonement hints that "Satan's plan" was a devious effort to unseat God. The idea was that when the elements (which Skousen claims maintain a degree of agency) saw that people who should not be saved were nonetheless being saved, they would come out in open revolt against a God whose "perfect justice" no longer awed them into compliance.

Nick, I think the issue is that you're using an overly broad definition of "heaven". Remember, according to the Plan of Salvation we die and go to the spirit world; hang out there for a while; and then are resurrected, receive our final judgment, and officially inherit a kingdom of glory. Jesus said there is no marriage (i.e. marriage ceremony, per the LDS interpretation) after the resurrection. He did not say that there is no marriage (by proxy) while spirits are in the spirit world awaiting the resurrection. And this latter type of marriage is what Elder Kimball is talking about.

What's the difference between your options 2) and 4)?

From the standpoint of "you are His child, and He loves you and cares for you, etc", you're probably right. He is our Father regardless of our own behavior. But for the purpose of claiming an eternal inheritance as a joint-heir with Christ: Our sins operate as what a lawyer would call a disclaimer. A disclaimer, even today, is irrevocable; if a person who has disclaimed the estate later wants to become an heir he must be "re-adopted" into the family from which he has estranged himself.

We were created by God, but rejected that divine legacy through sin--our "fallen natures", if you will. By the law we have been cut off from our Father; and if we wish to receive an inheritance we must legally be re-adopted into the family. As we come to Christ, we Romans 8:5-17; see also Mosiah 15:10-12 (referring to Isaiah 53:8-11).

Hi Tubaloth-- I could actually live with a scenario in which sometimes the U&T are used, and sometimes the seer stone. But I'd want to see a comprehensive chronology of who was serving as Joseph's scribe, and when. The thing is, Lucy's account also has Emma translating for Joseph immediately after the work resumed. And Emma said Joseph was using the seer stone. I've seen some interesting speculation that maybe the Church does have the U&T and the plates, on the premise that the Lord doesn't do things for us that we are capable of doing for ourselves (in this case, safeguarding sacred relics). For all we know, maybe there was a continued interchange over the long-term where Joseph was turning the U&T over to Moroni in times of crisis or danger, and then receiving it again in times of stability. The thing to remember here, though, is that (if memory serves) Joseph no longer had the Chase seer stone by the time of Woodruff's journal entry. I believe Cowdery had it in his possession when he left the church in the late 1830s. (Though Joseph did have at least one or two other seer stones as well; Brigham Young recalled Joseph's showing him a seer stone during the Nauvoo period.)

Thanks for clarifying. But, if you'll permit me to say so, "safety" is kind of a sliding scale. How rare do attacks have to be before we can call Iraq safe? Must they be completely eradicated? Must they become (on a per capita basis) as rare and non-lethal as terrorist attacks on, say, Israel; or Pakistan? Or will we just presume that Iraq is not safe as long as American troops are there; and that it is safe after they're gone? Sure, the invasion stirred the pot. But the contents thereof were already poisonous (and the Bush administration's failure to see that was unbelievably reckless). All would not have been well in Iraq if we had just left it alone--see, e.g., this pre-war UNICEF release and this ten-year assessment of the effects of Gulf War II. After 1991 (or, for that matter, after the First Gulf [iran-Iraq] War)? I'd be interested to see sources on that. While electricity production plunged for several years after the invasion, this CS Monitor article makes it clear that even Hussein couldn't keep Baghdad's lights on 24-7. Let's not build prewar Iraq into some kind of Utopia. It wasn't. And if you weren't a Sunni and weren't living in one of the areas under allied protection; it was pure hell. Not to downplay her plight, but I think it's important to note that she's looking for rice to feed to chickens; not looking for rice to feed herself. And you haven't provided any proof that kids weren't picking through the gutters for rice before the invasion. I saw plenty of kids playing in sewer water in Brazil. Should that observation, in and of itself, be enough to support an allegation that Brazil under Cardozo and Lula is not undergoing any actual economic development? Anyhow: Yes, Bush #$@% up. Royally. But let's not pretend that defeat in Iraq is only a matter of time. It isn't.

Thanks for the quote, Nick. As it pertains to the original question, I don't see the quote as being remotely problematic. Elder Kimball specifically mentions the spirit world--i.e., before the resurrection. I think it's incorrect to read Elder Kimball as saying that Joseph Smith will be handing out women all willy nilly, completely on his own authority and independently of the women's own wishes in the matter. Elder Kimball is obviously speaking off-the-cuff (read the whole sermon; he meanders over a variety of subjects), and I wouldn't hold him to a hyper-literal interpretation in this instance. Kimball could just as easily be presenting Smith as a "messenger" figure as a "lawgiver" figure. The concept of "free will" is not a new doctrine in the Church; Kimball was well aware of it. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Kimball was also well aware that ultimately it's Jesus Christ, and not Joseph Smith, who's calling the shots in the spirit world.

He doesn't. Those who receive a telestial glory only receive it after approximately one thousand years of hell (torment, suffering, whatever). If Hitler repents during those thousand years, the Atonement of Christ will cover him and he will receive a telestial glory. If he is so hardened that he never repents, I would venture to guess that he'll go to perdition. And, IIRC, those in the telestial kingdom will never receive the ministrations (i.e. direct presence) of either God the Father or Jesus Christ after the final judgment.

Hi, Tubaloth; I hope you're doing well this evening. Whitmer, as cited in the article I linked in the other thread. Let me know if you need me to post another link here (I'm in a bit of a rush at present but can do it later if you like). My idea is that that's exactly what happened--the U&T were, I suspect, somehow "easier" or "clearer" to use than the seer stone was. Again, see Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism by Bushman for Lucy's report of Joseph's remarks in this regard. Why? Whitmer said (possibly erroneously) that Joseph saw the actual words--or at least, the words affiliated with proper names. But Whitmer never implied that it just came to Joseph without any effort or spiritual preparation on Joseph's part. The U&T was a tool, not a toy. Why should Joseph be permitted to keep it (especially under such a strict injunction of secrecy), once he'd learned how to apply another tool to the same task and get the same result? No idea what "most LDS scholars" believe. I wouldn't say we "can't trust it"; but I would say that where the account differs from another account that comes directly from the hand of someone who was also there--Joseph's account (pardon the expression) shouldn't automatically be taken as "gospel". We often get locked into this idea of referring to THE Urim and Thummim. But there isn't just one. It's a type of object, not just one particular object. The High Priest of Israel had one. The Brother of Jared had another. I believe there's some authority to suggest that each exalted person will get one. The earth, eventually, will become one. The U&T with the plates and the seer stone were both Urim and Thummim. Just because I refer frequently to a "dollar" doesn't mean I'm always talking about the "dollar" with the serial number L234563453B. Touché. But technically, the "revelations" do not specify the means by which they were received. The headings to the revelations make such specifications, but the headings are not scripture. Until I've had a chance to see a compilation of Cowdery's accounts, I'll have to defer comment. But Whitmer is not an "odd ball". We have Emma Smith, too. I believe (though I may be in error) that we also have hearsay accounts from Isaac Hale. Would you mind refreshing my memory as to that article (link?). Thanks. Only if we assume that a) Whitmer was right about the see-each-word-in-the-stone process (which he may not have been, while still being correct that the seer stone was used), and/or b) that the process Whitmer described was used through the translation of the entire Book of Mormon as we have it. Point taken, but I should think there would have been a specific revelation that would have been recorded in the History of the Church, if not in the D&C proper. Especially after just having been burned through the Martin Harris debacle--would Joseph be willing to circumvent a clear and concise commandment based on a mere "feeling"? The word-for-word translation part, yes. But that's not the part I'm asking you to believe. I'm arguing merely that the seer stone was in fact used in the translation process. Joseph didn't tell David he used the stone. David claimed he saw Joseph do it. So did Emma. That's about as first-hand as you can get. :)

Not really. You've provided an inapplicable extract of the Apocalypse, a couple of (I presume) hymns, and a section of Luke from which you extrapolated an interpretation which is not supported by the text and which is challenged by the plain language of 1 Peter 3:19 (which you have challenged unsuccessfully).

Personally, I don't see a major problem with her remarrying in general once she feels ready to make--and keep--that kind of commitment. But it'd raise some eyebrows if she were planning to marry the guy she'd been having an affair with--not for reasons of "sin" as much as that I just don't think you can build a good marriage on such a cracked foundation.

Signaled that what was finished?

Which, again, you have not supported that with a contextually- and textually-unambiguous scriptural statement. Your repetition of a conclusory statement does not make it so.

Edit: Previous post deleted. I'm just going to drop it and take a little break. Have a good day, everyone! :)

Here is a partial list of the use of the term "kerusso" in the New Testament. So, according to you, there was no "preaching" or "evangelizing" in any of these instances. Right? EDIT: Fixed link.

Security--even economic security--is not freedom. EDIT: Just saw your most recent post; I respond to it below. You seem to believe that your grandparents and parents never got anything back for their taxes. Even if that were true--how many living descendants of your grandparents are there, currently? Even if I subscribed to your idea of generational entitlement, I would wager that you aren't owed as much as you seem to believe you are owed. For which you could have taken a loan, and paid it off later using the taxes you otherwise would have paid to the government. (Believe it or not, a government that isn't providing health care doesn't have to charge such high taxes.) Exactly. Subsidized by someone who was forced to part with their hard-earned money on pain of imprisonment. I don't find that acceptable--at least, not where non-essential treatment is concerned.

Here's the deal, though. Assuming you really did put into the system exactly what you took out; then you could have (in the US) established a Health Savings Account in the meantime, pulled the money when you needed it, and collected interest in the meantime. At best, you've lost the interest you could have made. (Actually, at best, you've erred in your calculations and you really did get back more than you put in. But there, again, the net result is that someone else got hosed.) At worst, you got less back than you put into the system. I'm confused. You say "we got better service before the monopolies ended" and then act as though those companies still exist. Assuming that the original company still exists among new competitors and is still giving better service than those new competitors--you assume that this will always be so. It won't. The competitors will adapt their service, or they will die. You also assume that the newcomers have the same access to regulators, suppliers, permits and property easements, labor, etc. that the old former monopolies do. To the extent that the old government monopolies weren't stripped of all their government-provided advantages--well, that's not really a free market at all! Good heavens, that's a broad question! But I would say that the answer generally is, "not as free/fair as is commonly assumed". Take, for example, the US health care industry. It's often highlighted as an example of the problems of the free market, but it's not a free market at all! A friend of mine recently tried to get an advance quote on how much a particular procedure would cost him--and ran into a cat's cradle of secrecy and sweetheart-deals between providers and HMO's. The one institution that quoted him a price (and the institution where he had the procedure done) later billed him an amount far in excess of the original price quoted. The engine that drives a free market is informed consumers making rational choices about their expenditures. I could get behind legislation that safeguards the consumer's ability to make rational choices by ensuring the free flow of accurate information and attacking collusion by the suppliers of goods and services. Beyond that (and basic welfare so that people aren't starving to death in the streets), I'm suspicious. (Incidentally, Mike Leavitt implemented a pilot program in HUD that would have made it easier to get advance quotes on the cost of health care services. It was recently killed by a joint effort of Congress--the Repubs were in the pocket of HMO lobbyists who wanted to preserve the status quo; and the Dems didn't want market-based health care reform to work.)

You didn't lose very much. But somebody else had to pay for all those perks. Whether they should have been forced to do so on penalty of imprisonment, is my major beef with socialism. As for utility companies: too often, deregulation/privatization seems to lead to the substitution of private monopolies for public ones. If forced to choose, I'd say a public monopoly (i.e.--egads!--bureaucratic socialism) is preferable. But I still maintain that a truly free and open market is superior to both. While I don't know the specific situation in your neck of the woods, I will venture to guess that you'd be getting much better service if your phone, electricity, and/or water companies genuinely feared losing your (or your city's) business.

You have not supported that with a contextually- and textually-unambiguous scriptural statement. Your repeating a statement does not make it so.

You only think that's bad because no one has ever made fun of you for being bald.

Which is beside the point. The point is, they had a meaningful opportunity to change their ways. The people Peter tells us Jesus preached to; if I am to believe your theology; didn't. So why did Jesus preach to them personally? Your answer to this question seems to be that the glory of God and the ability to dwell in His presence just isn't salvation enough--to be truly "saved", the righteous must have an opportunity to settle old scores. People who gloat always feel justified in their actions. But it's still boorish behavior.