LittleWyvern

Yeah, rich old people who don't understand technology.

It's been my experience that Prophets focus more on the spirit of the law rather than the letter. Knowing the spirit of the law, it's easy to pray and ask God whether a certain thing is wrong or right on the Sabbath.

Hey, you missed April Fools.

Maxel, I think we're getting off track. I completely agree with you doctrinally: I believe homosexuality is a sin, I believe suicide is a sin, etc, etc, but these beliefs won't stand up in a court of law, where the legality of doctor assisted suicide will ultimately be decided sooner or later. I'm not a lawyer, but I suppose one would need to prove at-home suicide better for society than doctor-assisted suicide for starters. And I still don't think doctor-assisted suicide makes human life a commodity more than at-home suicide does. Currently, doctor-assisted suicide is a very thought out and serious choice, that necessarily must be done of free will. It would take a completely totalitarian government to force this decision upon others (murder would have to be decriminalized, for starters: forcing somebody to give up their own life amounts to murder in my opinion. And as for the criminality of suicide, suicide is one of those things that's almost impossible to prosecute. If it were illegal, common law would probably demand that the punishment be answered upon the heads of the children, but I don't know of any country that does that. This Wikipedia article gives some legal info: it appears that in most countries, suicide itself is not a crime, but attempting suicide or trying to get somebody to commit suicide against their will is.

You're applying what amounts to the scientific method on religious truth. Religion isn't science, and science isn't metaphysics. From a religious standpoint, truth is intimate and mostly self-reported, and cannot be proven using the classical methods.

I have yet to be convinced that this is a slippery slope, since I don't think suicide and homosexuality are related in their mechanism (and I disagree that homosexuality forces other people to do anything, but that's another thread). Maybe I just don't understand the connection? I don't see how these examples relate. Heroin is illegal. Murder is illegal. Suicide is not. That's the key. If suicide was illegal then I'd be all for keeping anybody from assisting in it. Since this is mostly a legal issue, whether suicide is a sin or not in a certain religion is irrelevant.

I don't think so. The terminally ill husband's wife is going through with this procedure because she wants to, she requested it, and is doing it of her own free will. There's a Grand Canyon worth of a logical leap until we get to people deciding when somebody else will die. In any case, I don't see the merits of trying to stop something like this. If a person wants to commit suicide and are kept from doing so in a doctors office, they'll just do it at home. I don't see the merits of one over the other (except, perhaps, cleanliness. They're both expensive eventually).

I think Maxel is alluding to Alma 32. Alma gives a better explanation of how it works than I can, so I'll just paste the relevant parts here.

How is babby formed?

Jay Rockefeller says a lot of things...

That's interesting. If someone were to ask me the same question I'd say indifference. I suppose it's related.

That one was way too obvious.

Now that's momentum!

More people should read Locke then.

I admit that my knowledge of politics is mostly theory and abstraction. I've never said politics is lily-white, but there are structures in place to prevent corruption and to prevent the workings of the senate to vary widely from the theory. If there is still Tammany Hall levels of corruption in the senate, that can be fixed like it has before. I'm not a politician, so I guess I don't have as much insider knowledge as you. Still, laughing at me isn't all that necessary. If you think I'm wrong, just tell me and don't bother mocking me for it, it wastes your time. I'm not mad, though... if I can't take one random stranger laughing at me because he thinks my eyes are glossed over, I have more serious problems.

Section 9 and Section 10 of Article 1 simply prohibits "ex post facto laws." Whether something is judged to be an ex post facto law or not is really up to the judiciary.

Aww, foiled by the Great Firewall of BYU yet again. But still bumping this thread because I'm sure the video is awesome somehow.

I think the point was to teach the general concept of modesty before trying to teach the specific implementations of modesty. If one understand what modesty means in a general sense, it will be incredibly easy to derive what modesty means in specific situations: such as dress, actions, words, body language, etc.... even situations that you haven't specifically taught yet! Using your example, it's a bit like teaching what the + and = do before trying to teach A+B=C. If the + and = signs are understood, then not only is A+B=C natural but D+E=F and G+H=I.

Ha! Maybe this is why I like random hiking trips! :)

A good definition of a Prophets are teachers of known doctrine. We also call our prophets seers and revelators as well, so they can perceive things in the present and future (respectively) as well. So, you're right. To qualify, one must be called of God, as being a prophet usually means receiving and giving revelation as well. Often times, with prophets in the Bible, you can also read the story of their calling. I don't think there have ever been any female prophets, but females can teach just as well as males can. :)

I've gotta try this sometime. :)

The law itself may not be constitutional, but attempting to apply the law before it was law is. @john_doe: revvin' up that ol' laugh-mock button, eh? Might as well laugh at myself too. Start a party.

I'm famous.

If somebody uses these new communication channels for only mindless babble, they're Doin' It Wrong.

You make it sound like the senators have put themselves into this position just to be all-powerful. Senators used to be appointed by the House. The Founders wanted more filters on senators than there are now. Now that the senators are elected directly, they are held directly responsible. Senators who don't care about their own citizens (and there seems to be many of them) and stomp all over their own state won't be reelected, no matter how much money they have. There are laws in place to prevent that sort of corruption. You're assuming the Senate is one big Tammany Hall.