Maxel

Quinn and Vort, you guys both make a lot of sense. Going on what Quinn said- if adultery were a violation of contract, then that would mean marriage was a legally recognized and maintained institution (not surprising, since a majority of the Nephites when the law was established were Christians). Is it only a fallen and hard-hearted people who won't openly and legally admit marriage is a serious and binding contract? This strikes a consonant cord with what we're seeing discussed on the national stage with the same-sex marriage debate.

I like to make comparisons between what we know about the Nephite system of law and America's. For a while, Alma 30:9-10 has interested me: 9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. 10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. I've always thought that the system of Nephite law was inspired of God (like the Constitution) and therefore secured the natural rights of the Nephites. I've been wondering about how, exactly, committing adultery would justifiably be a criminal offense (listed among murder and robbery). The only thing I can think of similar in American jurisprudence are the now-abolished anti-sodomy laws (which dealt with a specific type of fornication and not adultery in general). Anyone have insight, thoughts, or questions?

Isn't it possible that the earth is getting warmer, but that humans aren't wholly (or mostly) to blame? I like what you said on your blog about remembering the 1970's fear if Global Cooling, and that the Earth goes through natural changes.

It's possible that people are drawing conclusions that aren't warranted. My question, though, is why aren't the scientists in question going through the emails in question and trying to figure out what the infamous "decline" was?If there's really nothing to fear, there's no reason for the scientists not to make the email correspondences (email chains?) in question fully public, so that we can see the full conversation and know exactly what the "decline" in reference is. I don't know much about the situation, I admit- it's not that interesting to me, other than an organization devoted to researching global warming may have been caught with their 'hands in the cookie jar', so to speak. I wish the scientists in question would release the pertinent emails so the matter could be settled. If there really is nothing to these allegations, it will make those who questioned the emails in the first place seem very silly- despite their concerns being legitimate at the time they were had. As I said before, where there's smoke there's (usually) fire. I'd like to know for certain one way or the other.

I've been wondering this for a while: For those who support Universal Health Care, I have just two questions: 1) How do you propose we pay for the cost of the health care? 2) How do you propose we pay off our national debt? No need to get too specific- I just want to see what you guys' general ideas are. So far, the only idea I've heard of is 'tax the rich'- which I think is a horrible, horrible idea.

Moksha, you might be interested in this passage from the above-quoted talk from Elder Romney: Seems to be a heavy argument against Nationalized health care, yes? The rich would resent the tax- not because they have a dearth of love in their souls, but because it's a forced taxation, taken by coercion from the government. Similarly, we must ask ourselves if a gift freely given with no requirements will be well taken care of by someone who has little experience in the duties required in a stewardship. Don't forget that the Church Welfare System requires reciprocal action from those who receive goods- there's no such thing as a free lunch in this world. Then again, Elder Romney was one of those pesky, greedy capitalist pigs, so that might explain his words...

I think that in the preexistence, our actions played a role in where we ended up. While I believe that God truly is no respecter of persons, I think that he means he judges no one based on circumstances outside of their control. God will, of course, exalt the righteous who had faith in His son and send the unrighteous to eternal torment- that's a "respecting of persons" in a way. However, I don't think that will happen until after people have had the chance to fully understand and then reject or receive the true Gospel. By the way, I think Hemidakota's question was intended to get us to think about the situation, not make a statement of doctrine.

I was thinking about making a joke about that... But I refrained. You have all the fun, JAG.

It would be a "smoking gun" proving that the organization is not above manipulating the data to bolster their case- that the organization is untrustworthy.My concern is the emphasis placed on the issue of global warming and the fact that it's being used as a tool to gain power. When prominent organizations researching and supporting global warming are exposed fudging the data, that sends up red flags. Where there's smoke, there's often fire. If a group of people are willing to lie and hide certain facts for their political gain, what will they not do?

There are other major differences (see below). The difference in agency is the fundamental difference betwen Satan's and God's plan- there are many more differences between the two, such as power, righteousness, honesty, godliness, wisdom, etc.They're different not only in their implementation and form, but also in their fundamental natures and philosophies. It is Christ's nature that made Him fit to be the Savior; it is Satan's nature and actions that led Him to rebel against God. Making everyone equal requires a strong head of the community (as you said, the United Order was administered at a local level) at every major level- township, state, nation, etc. Add corruption into the mix, and the entire system can collapse- especially if the corruption comes from the top. For "Communism" to work, the leaders would have to be devoted heart and soul to the good of their people. Since men cannot see what lies in others' hearts, however, men are inadequate electors of good Communist officials. Only God can and ought to promote a person to the level of authority that a bishop holds in the United Order. More philosophical differences between socialism (Communism) and the United Order, from a talk by Elder Marion G. Romney Notice that Romney specifically admits that "all socialists may not be atheists"- this isn't 'godless Communism' he's adressing, but the underlying philosophy of socialism itself, as defined by prominent socialist philosophers.

I've actually been thinking about a closely related subject recently. Interesting read- thanks for posting it, Elphaba.

I believe man has contributed some to the earth's changing temperature. It may be fair to say that we're responsible for ~1% of the total change, but we still make a difference. What I don't like- and what these emails seem to be a "smoking gun" of- is political and sceintific maneuvering to blow the issue out of proportion and use it for their own gains. It's no secret that there's lots of money and power to be gained by playing the global warming game (look at Al Gore, for instance)- evidence that the scientific data may be fudged, even a little, speaks volumes about the motivations of the scientists involved.

I like this painting. I don't agree that everyone he included should be in their respective spots, but I think the central message- that God inspired the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, and is responsible for the prosperity of America- is right on the money. Do you disagree with those notions, bluedreams?

Saying the United Order is very similar to Communism is tantamount to saying that Christ is very similar to Satan. Yes, there are many things in common- but it's in the differences that the real importance lies. Communism is Satan's cheap rip-off of the United Order. I don't know why some Mormon intellectuals go on about the similarities between the two. I can't believe that some liberals are just blowing this article off. The facts presented in the article are key in understanding the radical left, and also gives some insight into modern-day happenings (ACORN's actions, the crises the administration's "fixing" with more money, and more). An article like this is very relevant, I think. Average liberals may not agree with these tactics- but powerful people in the White House do.

Facts are tiresome and unwieldy, and are for old-fashioned, out-of-touch thinkers. Fuzzy fantasy is soft and fluffy, and should always be preferred among the enlightened ones. Welcome to the Obamanation. Enjoy your stay.

Wait, wait- praying for the death of an unjust leader is tantamount to actively recruiting jihadists to kill Americans? Did I get that right?Godless, I wouldn't say religious extremism is a mental illness. Not all violent acts are due to illness- sometimes, the person is just too devout in untrue beliefs (such as the belief that one needs to kill for said belief).

Terrorists are the new non-radical freedom fighters. Peaceful 9/12 protestors and Tea Party protetors are the new radicals. Welcome to the Obamanation. Enjoy your stay.

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are joining for a tour in 2010. Kind of crazy, as I never thought they meshed well (O'Reilly's much calmer and tempered in his approach). More information here. Thoughts?

Rico- Since the phrase "do violence to the institution of marriage" has been discussed so eloquently by Vort and Elphaba recently, I suggest you look there. The entire reason the Church can get behind this measure is because it doesn't do anything to hurt the institution of marriage. The issue isn't giving new, made-up rights to certain groups of individuals, but preserving and securing the natural rights enjoyed by all Americans. The only dog the Church has had in this fight, from the beginning, was protecting the traditional institution of marriage. That's the ENTIRE reason it got into Proposition 8- because it was a law dealing with the legal definition of the life union between men and women ('marriage'). The Church isn't anti-gay- it's pro-family and pro-liberty. It is the latter two stances that dictate its official actions.

rjjockers- We "merit" the grace of God through faith in Christ. It's true that we don't "deserve" it, but it is a gift freely given from God, because without His grace we couldn't gain immortality and exaltation- which is His work and glory (Moses 1:37). 2 Nephi 25:23 should not be read as exonerating a man from his wickedness because of his righteousness- indeed, 2 Nephi 25:23 reaffirms the need for grace in our lives. Think of it this way: the greatest man who ever lived (excluding Christ) who never said a belittling comment to another human being; who never looked lustfully among a woman who wasn't his wife; who always gave 100% of himself to those in need; who boldly declared the Gospel of Christ to all he met; who bridled all his passions and desires- a man like this, who truly gave all that he had in the service of his God, could not be saved because of his good works. Even for the best men on the Earth, Christ's grace is vital to their exaltation and redemption. Would you have us believe that nothing, not even an attempt to better our lives and follow the Savior's example, is required of us before we are received into the kingdom of God? By the way, if you'd state your true intentions now that'd be great. Please understand that, judging by the nature of all 4 of your posts on this forum, I'm thinking you're a troll here to belittle the faith and try to prove that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are incompatible. Please be advised that such efforts will prove fruitless and will be a waste of time. If, however, you are here to learn what we believe or seek to expand the limits of your own knowledge, you will be pleasantly rewarded.

I asked a knowledgeable source this question. I wanted to be sure, so I asked it 10 times. Of thoe 10 times, I received 8 "Yes" answers, one "No" answer and one "Try again later". After this extensive research, I'd have to say that "All signs point to yes".

You conservatives just don't understand why it's so wrong to own pets. Animals are a part of nature. Nature is better than mankind- we've done nothing but screw this planet up since we got here. In fact, things would be better off if we didn't exist. Since natural beings ('animals') are better than unnatural beings ('human'), it's wrong for humans to own animals. The idea is preposterous! Think about it: in all of beautiful nature, what is the one creature that can think and act for itself, exhibiting acts of especial cruelty? Man. In all of beautiful and innocent nature, which is the one creature that innovates new ways to subject other entities to itself, in essence enslaving the natural world? Man! It's clear to any clear-thinking, level-headed, caring, kind-hearted, rational person that mankind's presence is ruinous to our animal superiors. The first step in righting this tragic wrong is freeing all domesticated animals from their slavery and let them run wild, enjoying their natural habitat. This message brought to you by animal rights kooks everywhere. Animal Rights: Because Humans Suck. [/sarcasm]

Interesting. Good to know about the similarity in name between local Humane Society chapters and the HSUS (I was also confused at first, because 7 out of the 8 animals my family has owned have come from the local chapter of the Humane Society). Sickening and intersting. Thanks for posting, anatess. BTW, I think you might be able to edit the title by editing your OP? Don't know if you can do that on this board, but on other forums you can...

Or the gay rights activists don't want to hear what we're saying until they think we're caving in and willing to sing their tune. I guarantee you that the same gay rights activists who were happy with this will be dissappointed the next time the Church makes any kind of official declaration regarding the sanctity of marriage.What they don't understand- because their eyes are shrouded in darkness- is that the Church really doesn't hate or fear gays, but that the Church is mainly concerned with seeing the divine institution of marriage preserved in the societies in which it (the Church) exists. To those who equate sexuality with one's being, being against gay marriage equals hating homosexuals. To those who see more clearly, being against gay marriage does not equal hating homosexuals. This kind of misunderstanding from those opposed to the Church will become more prevalent and blatant as time moves forward, methinks.

If Cass Sunstein has his way, soon animals will be able to sue humans in court. From there, it's a short trip to animals being able to enter into legal contracts. If that does happen, we may very well be met with this exact dilemma: do we protect the rights of Canophiles and their furry, 'consenting' sexual partners?(Sorry, couldn't resist. )