Just_A_Guy

Are you in Utah? Here are the instructions and paperwork on getting a civil stalking injunction. You don't even need a lawyer (though it is better if you have one). Alternately, you can use the Online Court Assistance Program.

Your point being what, exactly? That any Mormon who says that is a mindless automaton? Or just that experience has shown the saying to be a truism?

Gosh, Rachelle, I wish I could help you. Would a bit of humor help? (By complete coincidence, I stumbled on this ten minutes after reading your post.) (Edit: Please don't think that I'm making light of your situation. It's just that, sometimes, all you can do is laugh. You know?)

To the contrary, Saul/Paul was living very piously according to the truth that he had received and his good-faith (if horribly flawed) interpretations thereof.

from his post as chair of the Utah Senate Judiciary Committee. See here. Frankly, this is long overdue. About three years ago, Buttars wrote a letter to a Provo judge trying to bully the judge into issuing a verdict favorable to one of Buttars' big donors. I'm not convinced Buttars is getting a fair deal regarding his recent comments (I haven't followed the issue closely, but the Trib's reporting in particular seems to be cherry-picking quotes without providing context); but even so the guy's as crooked as they come (by Utah standards, anyways). I'm glad he's no longer in a position to influence our state judiciary.

I know. I should have been more clear. I believe it to be true about the LDS religion as well. I used quote marks only to indicate that the phraseology was not my own.

Good point, Hordak. Besides, several of Joseph Smith's wives were simultaneously married to other men. Still, though, I like Margin of Error's overall point. Who knows what abominations would have been done under the cloak of legalized polygamy during the 1960s?

OK, I know I've posted a lot on the Obama threads lately, and I'm trying to quit. But I did want to post a link to the following analysis of Bush's vs. Obama's spending habits. Not sure what I think about it, exactly; but it seemed interesting: Who are the Big Spenders?

Mmmmm . . . green jell-o with chocolate chips . . .

I've seen it too, Moksha, but the saying "don't believe everything you see on the internet" comes to mind. These places are supervised by state agencies, which (unlike internet webmasters) cannot perpetuate counterfactual allegations just because they happen to dislike the conservative Mormons who run the place.

On a slightly related tangent: Obama gets schooled in Foreign Policy Apparently, it is not possible to accomplish all America's foreign policy objectives just by talking and NotBeingBush™. But hey, at least we don't need to worry about Iran enriching uranium anymore. (They have all they need.)

Nox, he qualified that statement by saying "if you ignore the voice of the people", which was probably a response to your ambiguous statement that "I refuse to follow this man". If, by your statement, you mean that you will refuse to observe any laws that come down from his administration--then yes, unfortunately, you've got a lot in common with the Kingmen. If that's not what you meant, then his statement doesn't apply to you. So why take offense? :)

Well, I would say it teaches that it is the best way to Christ, and that a man can get "nearer to His precepts" through it than through any other religion. Agreed. The fact that I can't shoot worth a darn, doesn't mean that guns are completely useless to anyone. I haven't got a clue how to use Dreamweaver, but that doesn't mean that the program itself can't be used to build a functional website in the hands of a capable user. As your brother in Christ, I rejoice in your new relationship with Him. As a Mormon, I sorrow that you were unable to utilize the tenets of our religion in establishing such a relationship. But please don't assume that because Mormonism didn't work for you, it won't work for anyone and that no Mormon knows Jesus as well as you do. It just ain't so.

ShootingStar, please don't take offense at this, but I find your posts very hard to follow. It appears that you are composing your posts in a foreign language and then translating them into English; but (if you'll pardon my saying so) a lot of the translations contain stilted language or seem to misuse some very nuanced English words. Lots of us here speak foreign languages. I would respectfully suggest (if the moderators approve) that you submit a post in your native tongue and then allow a native English speaker to translate it, so that we all may understand it a little better.

No; I believe that particular teaching is peculiar to us Mormons.

There is precedent, though, in God's giving Israel the Mosaic Law after they had proven themselves incapable of living the higher law He originally gave Moses on Sinai.

J-Pip: The point being, that it is by no means certain that James actually subjected himself to an extrajudicial mob.

If you're asking about "otherwise undiscoverable" names, my understanding is that after the Second Coming but before the resurrection of those individuals, heavenly messengers will reveal their identities to those living on earth and request that the work be done.

That, and the capital gains tax. Remember, too, that in 2010 the estate tax goes away completely (to be resurrected in 2011). It will be interesting to see what effect--if any--that has on the economy, as heirs will have larger inheritances to re-invest (provided they don't use them to pay down debt).

Well, it goes against what we've been told, yes. (Note: I'm not alleging a sinister cover-up here, just sloppy over-simplified history.) Yes, he did. When the Smiths moved from the Hale home to the Whitmer farm, David served as scribe in the translation process for a time. See the article I cite above. As per Joseph's account in the History of the Church, yes. My understanding, though, is that he was not always careful to separate out the U&T he received with the plates from the seer stone he found in the Chase well. Moreover, the History of the Church was itself largely ghost-written by scribes (I'm not sure if this particular part of it was, but for me that's currently enough to leave an open question). I like that. I really like that.

Technically, it wasn't the entire legislature. The bills died in committee. But yes, I agree with your overall point. What you're ultimately saying is, "If Utah didn't have so many people who vote for Chris Buttars, Chris Buttars wouldn't keep getting elected". :) What bewilders me is that Buttars' district holds a large concentration of non-Anglos. How does he do it?

I must confess my visceral disagreement with the above. The last thing people who demonstrably can't handle credit need, is more credit. If that means our economy needs to go through a few years of detox, so be it. The longer we try to keep this bubble alive, the more catastrophic will be its ultimate collapse. And sooner or later, it will collapse. Aside from that, I must confess to feeling a little taken in. First Democrats argue for liberalization of bankruptcy laws so that people who need one can get a "fresh start"; but then they argue that people shouldn't even have to declare bankruptcy! What, exactly, is the end game in all this?

Yeah, I'm with Gwen. Keep your options open, but don't go all psycho on her. If it's meant to be, she'll get her own revelation without any help from you. (Said from the heart of Utah Valley in the shadow of BYU, worldwide capital of unfulfilled "revelations on The One To Marry")

Oh, I agree completely. Polygamy is a very dangerous tool in the hands of a people who are unable or unwilling to live a celestial law. Even such decent people as Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith couldn't get all of their marriages to work--Young and Smith both had a divorce or two apiece. Lived properly, though, there are huge potential advantages--mutual emotional support among the wives; arguably more checks against the husband's power to act unilaterally, decreased labor in household duties, and stronger connections between different families (I've seen research suggesting that one of the reasons so many Mormons were willing to move to Utah with Brigham Young is that many of them--especially in the higher echelons of leadership--were interrelated by marriage). In the long term, the temple blessings of eternal increase can be accelerated as the family's child-producing capacity increases. That said, I've seen stories about polygamous relationships gone wrong that would make your hair curl. There was an incident in American Fork in the 1860s where a polygamous wife, in a fit of jealousy, actually locked another (younger) one of her husband's wives out of the family home in the dead of winter; she froze to death right there on the doorstep. I've long suspected that even without Federal intervention, the law of plural marriage would have been not long for this world.

J-Pip, did you miss the part where I noted that accounts differ as to James' death, and that Josephus at least argues that it was a government action? Just because John Foxe wrote something fifteen hundred years after the fact, doesn't make it gospel truth. You are on very shaky ground, both theologically and historically, if you insist that Christ's teachings demand we become doormats the first time someone calls out for our blood.