Mahone

Some webmasters use scripting techniques to prevent the pages always fully having to reload the entire page whenever you click on internal hyperlink, instead just loading the bit that changed to save bandwidth. Loading the page in a new window forces it to reload the entire page. I've not used these scripting techniques in webpages I have designed before, however that's how I understand they work from being observant when browsing websites that do use them

Further to our posts on this subject, I have received the same message several times for the first time today. Definately suggests a server issue. Also pages are extremely slow loading - again, not something I have experienced before, possibly due to not usually browsing the site at this time and the surge of people browsing the site due to general conference.

It isn't really possible to force people to do it though. Remembering the internet in the worldwide thing, there is no one "base" or "control room". It's extremely difficult to make changes like this and does really require worldwide cooperation.

They did. It's called web 2.0 - Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As for the video, he actually has a point. He wasn't saying the internet should be shut down, he was just highlighting some negative and valid points. Never heard of Gary Mckinnon ( Gary McKinnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )? If you think US government systems are as secure as they like to make out to be, think again. Gary broke into nasa systems simply though lax security and loopholes which any sensible network administrator would have secured. Don't always listen to what they tell you, cyber attacks on government networks are still possible and even likely. I think people underestimate the intelligence and skill that terrorists actually have access to. Before 9/11 the USA was saying that it'd be almost impossible to have a major attack on them - everyone was absolutely shocked. Just because they say it is almost impossible now, it doesn't mean to say it really is and with the nature of technology and the rate that it changes, you can -never- say that a system is 100% secure.

Are we really on such a slippery slope? 30 years ago, your own country was forcing people with a darker skin to ride on their own buses, go to their own schools and not allowing them to walk on the pavement with white people. Many, many people disagreed with the governments decision to allow them to actually be treated as equals. Even the church had to change one of it's own rules to accommodate the big change in society as what they were doing was racist, they cannot get out of that fact by denying to give a reason for it. The USA today still has much more prevalent racism than the UK, but it's a lot better than it was. I'm sure there are some people though who think the USA is on a downwards slippery slope and wishing it was like it was 30 years ago. As for assisted suicide, I do not agree with it however I have seen people in immense physical pain, pain which was never going to go away, making their quality of life absolutely nil - they can see no purpose for them actually living. Until you personally have been in that situation, where you know it is not going to stop until you die, I do not believe you have any right to condemn or judge those that choose that path. We put animals and our pets down because they are in too much pain to have any quality of life and there is nothing that can be done about it. We'd rather they were out of pain, it is the kindest thing to do. Until you have been there, you just cannot understand.

I want to also point out for the more technical among us: Welcome to Express 3.0! - SmoothWall.org Smoothwall express does all the things unixknight's C program will do, plus a lot more. It's also free. Not to mention smoothwall works at the network level, at opposed to the local level, so there is no chance of more technically minded kids being able to bypass the program. Smoothwall is used in many schools and colleges around the world. It also has a free addon called dansguardian which is a free filter, which is also very common in schools and colleges - we use it in the college I work for. As for the discussion on parents watching what their kids are doing, by all means keep an eye on them, but be careful how much you snoop on them and don't prevent them from accessing too much. I know some parents ban all forums, chatrooms etc. when this is not always a good thing. I've been extremely interested in computers since I was 11 or 12 years old. When I was about 16, my mum thought I was using the internet far too much and attempted to ban me completely (the only potentially questionable thing I was doing was visiting an lds chatroom - I definately wasn't visiting any dodgy sites). She didn't and still does not understand the internet or computers in general, so instead of trying to learn, she just banned me from what she was unfamiliar with. A completely understandable reaction from a parent, she didn't understand it, the authorities were saying it can be dangerous and I was spending a lot of time on it, so she completely disallowed any access to a computer with an internet connection. She didn't see any need to have access to the internet as it was not something she had ever had to do as she grew up (it didn't exist obviously). Any access I absolutely needed to have, I was watched by a member of the family as I worked. Now that ban only lasted two or three months, mainly because I didn't stop complaining, not to mention I had access at school which she knew she couldn't stop me using. While her reaction was understandable, she made a very stupid decision. Because of her lack of understanding and her refusal to learn, she could have made a very negative difference in my life had I not complained about her desicion as much as I did. I've already said on this forum that I work in IT and love the work that I do. However the majority of the knowledge that I have, has been gained from researching on the internet. Had I been banned for years as a teenager from accessing the internet, like my mum would have ideally wanted at the time, I would never have gained that knowledge and most likely would not be where I am now and that would likely have a drastic effect on my career. I just wanted to point this out. Don't stop things for your kids because you don't understand it. Instead try and learn it rather than boycotting it.

I spent a few minutes thinking over the many, many disastrous incidents I have had in my 22 year life so far lol. Many of them still make me cringe to this day, so I'll only talk about one which I think I'm just about over lol. First I should say that I've always been very susceptible to motion sickness/travel sickness, an unfortunate thing I inherited from my mother. So I usually avoid fairgrounds as a rule. However, when I was about 14, my cousin insisted I accompany her to the fairground that has been temporarily set up just down the road from my house. Well the very first ride we went on was the teapots. Almost immediately the ride started I felt my head start to spin. I closed my eyes and tried to concentrate on something else, but nothing worked. I even tried alerting the staff that I was going to be sick, but to no avail, they refused to stop the ride. Anyway, about 40 seconds into the ride, I literally vomited everywhere. All down the t-shirt I was wearing at the time, all down my jeans, all over the "tea cup" we were in. The staff operating the ride saw what had happened, yet still refused to stop the ride until the time for it to finish arrived. As I got off, I was shaking slightly from feeling so ill, then noticed EVERYONE who was on the ride and a whole load of people around it were watching me. Plus there was a whole bunch of teenage girls pointing at me covered in my own vomit and giggling - not good for a 14 year old boys ego. The fairground was about two miles from my house, needless to say we went straight back home, but we had to walk, with me covered in vomit. I think that rates as one of my most embrassing experiences, but there are worse, but I still cringe over those ones so would rather not go into them here lol.

Yep. That's one of these golden oldies. Makes me laugh every time I read it.

Sorry. I do try, but when typing in the early hours of the morning and already running behind on sleep, I tend to get grouchy but wooohooo it's now the easter holidays. But being support staff, I'm still expected to go in to work. D'oh. Should be a quiet week though, this is one of the great advantages to working in education

I hope you didn't realise how dodgy this sounds when you wrote it for your own sake hehe

So your entire point is based on your opinion that he does exist and has that authority? I'm sorry, that doesn't fly with me. I cam claim I have authority from God to rule over England, and no-one would believe me. They have been informed that I have that authority, but will choose not to believe me. Now obviously I don't have that authority, but if I really did, do you think it could have been said they were rebelling against me because they didn't believe me and therefore didn't do exactly as I told them to do? That makes no sense at all. They had no idea I really had that authority, even though I did tell them. If I told a group of women I was a police man and that they needed to leave the area immediately, they'd ask for my ID (or they should). If I cannot produce it, they'd think I was being an idiot and pretending to be a policeman. They'd most likely tell me to go away. Now if I really was a policeman, could I say in court that they were rebelling against me for not obeying me? Not really. Dravin, I have to say I really don't like your tone. Your arguments are turning ad hominem which is pretty immature. First you imply that I'm stupid and now you are telling me I'm pretending to have authority over the meaning of words. I cannot change the meaning of a word, but I can use what is the correct definition in my arguments. There was no change to the correct meaning of the word. If someone is in authority, but cannot prove it and is not accepted to be in authority by the person, then they cannot possibly be rebelling - otherwise in my examples above, the court could sentence those women for rebelling against that policeman and God could sentence those people to enternal damnation for rebelling because they didn't obey me or accept my authority. Do you really think He would do that, when they had absolutely no idea I was telling the truth? Judas is a very bad example, He didn't at any point not believe in Jesus - so yes, he was rebelling. Only when the authority is otherwise accepted by the person in question. Since when did the word acknowledge come to mean believe? They are two different things, which you seem to be doing a lot with my posts. You take my words and twist them to emphasis your point, even though that was not what I said. See my examples as to what you logic seems to support. Clearly, but no, that was not my question. Your logic just doesn't make sense. You seem to have very narrow minded views.

Thank-you willow, I didn't get around to replying to this thread yesterday but you pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Regarding the scenarios people have been giving me, they are very extreme examples and that is not what I am referring to. My words were for the OPs situation, not for every situation. Please take that into account. If I tell you that you need to take salt in order to live, you can tell me that you shouldn't eat salt because it will kill you. Yes, that is true if you take it in extreme quantities, but the fact remains you need to take it in order to live. @lilered - if the person was going to rent a building off me for run a business which made all it's money in tabacco and porn, then no, I would not rent it to him. However if he was going to set up a newsagents which sell all and sundry, including top shelf magazines and cigarettes (like in every newsagents and supermarket) then I'd have no problem with doing it. Are you going to stop shopping at supermarkets because they sell top shelf magazines and you may be indrectly helping to fund the companies who provide those magazines? Can you see how the two situations are completely different? The OP is very much in the latter situation. @dravin - you are completely wrong. Social norms are extremely relevant. You are basically saying that everything is black and white and there is no grey area. I'm afraid that is completely theoretical and based on an ideal world. In practise, there is definately a grey area. Sometimes you do need to compromise in order to fit in with social norms and not to do so would be imposing your beliefs on others. The coffee example is a very good one, which is why I keep using it. Your examples are extreme and not what I'm talking about. It is not against church rules to serve someone a cup of coffee, so why refuse to do it? The reason can only simply be you don't want to enable them yourself to break the rules that you live by, thereby imposing your rules onto them making it more difficult for them to get a cup of coffee. The reason I bought up the issue of social norms is that I was pointing out that you have to make exceptions. You said "I believe that insisting that I provide you with something I'm morally opposed to is pushing your beliefs on me" is where you have to make an exception when it comes to social norms - they are not pushing their beliefs onto you, it's just what is socially acceptable. Remember LDS are the minority and we have to live with that. Providing you do not have to break the rules yourself, do not try and impose it onto others when what is happening is within social norms. The example of it being a social norm to watch porn with your guests is very extreme and requires you yourself to break your rules. The church would not even set up in a society that did this. You say that principles apply to a variety of situations, and they do, but as I said, there are grey areas and it completely depends on the situation - sometimes you need to compromise in order to fit in. The church used to hold the same beliefs that you do, that everything is black and white. But they soon learnt that not making any compromises wasn't a good idea. They may not be "of the world" but they are still in the world and they need to fit in otherwise laws get passed which make it legal to kill anyone who is a mormon. Examples: Plural marriage and blacks holding the priesthood. Missionary rules are changed to fit in with the socially acceptable norms of the area they are in. I don't know if you have been endowed, but the process has been changed a number of times since Joseph Smith first received instruction on how to do it. This is one of the most important things that happens in the church, yet they have changed how it works quite drastically since it started. The initatory has also changed a lot. Why? Because the way it happened before was way too far out of social norms, even for members of the church. The endowment was scaring people with what could be perceived as death threats and the initatory was quite revealing. So in summary: You cannot just refuse to have anything to do with those social normalities even if you don't have to partake in them because yes, this would be classed as trying to push your rules onto them. LDS members are in the minority, you need to accept this. It is up to us to make compromises, not everyone else.

Your analogy is still broken. A much closer one would be someone claiming to be your mother for several years, but you then have reason to believe she isn't in fact your real mother. You may have made promises to her to look after her in her old age, but you didn't make those promises to that woman, you made it to your mother who you no longer believed she was. In my honest opinion and by the definition of the word 'rebellion', this cannot bne rebelling. If you do NOT believe she is your mother, she holds no authority over you. Thid obviously doesn't apply to under 18s as they are legally under the guard of their parents and therefore the parent has legal authority over them. The church has no legal excuse, therefore my analogy is a much more accurate one. I can accept that you believe someone leaving the church to be wrong, that is merely your opinion and I cannot change that and I wouldn't want to. However, to say someone is rebelling when they do not meet the definition of the word is wrong - it's trying to make them out to be doing something worse then they actually are. That is what I have issue with. Doing what you believe to be right without defying any laws or rules of a legal or ACCEPTED authority figure is not rebelling. As the church is no longer an accepted authority figure for the person in question, they are not rebelling. And to say they lied every time they took the sacrament/were baptised/did their endowment may be completely wrong. Again, every person is different, but peoples true beliefs can and will change sometimes. You have to accept this. I'm sure you used to believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy with all your heart. Now that you no longer believe in the tooth fairy, is it rebelling against her that you no longer leave your tooth under the pillow? It would be a form of rebellion if you still believed in her and were somehow angry with her, so purposely didn't leave your tooth under the pillow. But as you don't believe she exists, you cannot be rebelling against her.

I'm not going to respond to the whole post, I'm already late for bed. However I thought it'd be quick to point out that my entire point was that they DON'T know that he has told them to do X because they don't believe it! And by you constantly saying it isn't hard to understand is questioning my intelligence, I'd rather you didn't do that. Thank-you.

Ah. You live in the USA. Go figure. I should have mentioned that it is a sign of politeness in the UK to offer to make a visitor a cup of tea or coffee. It's bad enough that we don't do that in our house and people do take offense by it sometimes. However refusing to serve them a cup when they actually ask for it would be considered extremely impolite. And yes, I consider that to be pushing your own beliefs on others. My non-member grandmother would be extremely offended if I refused when she asked for a coffee. In fact we have a jar of coffee in our house just for the odd occasion that she comes. I don't know of any mormons who would object to having a cup of coffee in their house when they aren't drinking it themselves and if there are any, I think they are being silly. If we weren't allowed anywhere near coffee beans, that would be completely different. Of course people can do what they like. I've never said that they must not quit their job if they don't want to do it. They have every right to do that. However, if the reason is something along the lines of what the OP stated, I would still say they were trying to force their beliefs on others. You cannot actually FORCE people to not do certain things you disagree with, but you can make it more difficult for them to do these things by quitting your job. They have to find someone to replace you which takes time and effort. So yes, I class this is trying to force your beliefs on others. Whether you believe this is a good thing to do or not is up to you. BUT each situation is different and I gave examples in my previous post. Again, of course he can do what he wants. I didn't questioned his legal rights even once. However the same applies as above. Though being the store owner is being more DIRECTLY involved in feeding the addiction of these people, which is completely different to the scenario the OP was in. He is the employee, not the CEO. My comments were for his scenario and were not to be taken for every single situation imaginable. Again, completely different situation. I don't think I need to explain why, I need to go to bed, it's 1:30am. But take into account my scenario of the online porn industry and ISPs. Yes, an LDS employee can quit his job working for AT&T (I think that's an American ISP) when he discovers that porn actually travels through their servers directly to the customer, but he'd be pretty silly to do so IMO (N.B no legal rights have been questioned in this post).

Rebellion is turning against authority. Normally this is referring to governments who officially have that authority by law, therefore anyone who turns against them is officially a rebel. The church has no authority by law therefore a person can only rebel against it if they personally believe the church to have the authority it claims to have. If they don't believe it, they are not rebelling against it any more than a person who shuts their door in the missionaries faces. Just like you are not rebelling against that telemarketer you may have told you are not interested to in the past week. Just like ending a contract with a company because you believed they didn't stick to their end of the bargin. It's not rebellion, you may believe it to be wrong if you are an employee of said company, but rebellion is completely the wrong word to use.

By the same logic, if a non member of my family comes to my home and asks me to make them a cup of coffee, do I refuse because I am told we are not allowed to drink it? I may not have coffee in my house, but say they bought their own? Do I still refuse to make it? The porn shop is a bad analogy because you will undoubtedly come across the material yourself and it's a bad environment to be in. But I do not see anything wrong with a till operator selling cigerettes to someone. As long as you aren't smoking them yourself, it's not a problem. However if you think selling them to other people becomes a temptation to yourself, then it becomes a problem. That said, if you were MAKING the cigarettes for a living, then I would say that was over stepping the bounds. I see it as the same as the online porn industry and internet service providers. The porn industry makes the porn, the internet service providers allow it to be given to the general public. You wouldn't want to work for the people making the porn and be a DIRECT cause of people doing what you believe to be wrong, but would this prevent you working for the internet service provider? For most LDS members it wouldn't. The same applies to a shop keeper selling tobacco. The same also applies to the OP.

I think that's assuming she is leaving out of pride. It would seem that way from what the OP said, however only the person leaving can truly know. Maybe she believes the one true church could not have treated her the way the LDS church have treated her with the disiplinary actions? Not all bishops / stake presidents are as thoughtful and kind as they are made out to be in general during these times. I agree that if she is leaving out of pride and still believes the church to be true deep down, then that is a rebellion. If she is in true doubt about the latter, it is not.

Echoing what others have said, you can't take away other peoples agency to do what they want to do. You cannot force your beliefs on other people. Refusing to maintain servers that may contain pornographic material is effectively the same as trying to force your beliefs on other people. Providing you never have to actually view it in order to do your job, there should be no problem. On the other hand, if you are required to view it as part of your job - then you may need to look at your job description and see whether it mentions anything like that in there. If it doesn't, they cannot force you to view it.

As has been said above, if you really do no longer believe that the church is true, how is it rebellion? You can rebel if you really believe the church has true authority over you (as most members do) but choose to break the rules anyway. However if you truly don't believe the LDS gospel, I personally don't consider that to be rebellion by choosing to leave it. And IF the church is true, I don't think God would be being very fair to judge someone harshly by doing what they truly believed to be correct at the time. There is a big "taboo" about people who wish to have their name removed from the church records. Though that is because a lot of people do not know the stories behind their reasoning in doing so. Back on topic though, if she does wish to have her name removed from church records, she'll be forced to wait 30 days for it to actually take effect and the church will send her a pamphlet to attempt to get her to change her mind in those 30 days. I am not claiming the church is false in this post. To be honest, I am really uncertain. However I can definately see things from the point of view of the person wishing to leave.

I think this post should probably be removed. This guy only signed up to post this link and he didn't even bother to post a message with it - SPAM :)

A lot of temples across the globe have a reflection pool - they always try and get one into the design if they can. It doesn't have to be one in Utah. They may not all be as big, however you still get the same effect.

Lol, I don't agree 100% with your last point, I don't think it's as simple as that, but that falls into the category of my issues with the church and not for this thread I guess.

Hehe, clearly didn't make him any more successful

Accusing three people of assault, especially when one of them is not really a friend of the other two, more of an associate, is a lot more difficult than just accusing the two of them. It's three peoples word against one. It's not fool proof, but it has worked in the past. It's a bit more difficult to get both an extra woman and man to attend whenever there is a single sister being taught. Plus they may feel like they are being a nuisance when two extra people have to attend just because they are single.