LittleWyvern

My prediction that gay marriage will fade from the public discourse over time stems from my belief that the current gay marriage movement is, at its core, a fad. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about pop culture, but I think that soon American culture and its short attention span will find some other shiny thing to pay attention to. EDIT: Before Soulsearcher jumps in here, I'm not denying that there was, at the beginning, a genuine movement for gay marriage. However, it's obvious now that it has been completely taken over by pop culture, as anybody who "comes out" gets a guaranteed 15 minutes of fame and accolades from the media. The movement rose quickly on the wave of pop culture and will be dumped just as fast when pop culture moves on to something else, as it always does.

That's probably the most probable outcome. Here's how I see events going from here: State bans on gay marriages start falling slowly around the nation The Church stops allowing Bishops to perform civil marriages The 1 year "civil marriage before temple marriage" penalty goes away in the US like it has in several European countries The Church encourages, but does not require, members to get married civilly per AoF 12 (unless the Church standpoint on AoF 12 changes) Gay marriage stops being a hot topic and everybody stops freaking out about it If you know me, you'll know I'm most excited for #5 to happen.

If the upgrade has a CAPTCHA system, it should. Most of these kind of spammers aren't actually people, they're just programs.

They might have some form of mildew. If you can hang them out in direct contact with sunlight, the sunlight will likely kill the mildew then a wash will clear it completely out. EDIT: If the weather's not great outside you could probably accomplish the same thing with a UV lamp.

This is a really sad commentary on American society. I'm not disagreeing with him: the fact that this is true is really sad. ...and I shouldn't have explored that blog. That guy is super anti-Muslim. *barf*

This thread:

Here's a physics joke for you: EDIT: Sorry, I'm not good at jokes.

The answer is... nobody. The law I'm talking about is a legal liability law, and any talk of having a person enforce such laws is completely nonsensical. This law has nothing to do with government programs, regulation, or even the nebulous concept of "gun control." The reason why I support it is that I hope it would be a strictly non-compulsory way of encouraging gun owners to consider the consequences of their actions and take more personal responsibility of storing their guns in a safe manner. Nobody would enforce it, there would be no invasion or intrusion, and there wouldn't be any more bureaucracy: it's just a way to encourage a certain way of thinking in the hopes of preventing a few gun accidents. Now, of course I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how such a law would be implemented, but I'm fully supportive of the theory. Perhaps this idea is just a desirable but unattainable pipe dream.

I'm supportive of such a law in order to prevent gun accidents from occuring in the first place. I agree with you that there's more than enough laws to prosecute such events after they occur, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

All your questions have to do with acts of theft, and I don't think anybody believes that such a law should apply in questions of theft. I don't even think storage measures need to be the "multi-thousand dollar gun safe" ethier. I think the idea MoE is trying to describe is a sane dose of much needed personal responsibility in order to prevent gun accidents. A simple locked case as simple as a metal box with a key/combination lock could prevent many gun accidents, many of which involve children.

I don't think that's comparable. Stealing a car is an act of theft, and obviously you shouldn't be held accountable for things people do with your stuff that they stole. That's way different from kids tragically injuring and/or killing themselves or their siblings by playing with guns that have been left unsecured. These tragic events are not an act of theft. I think MoE's proposal strikes a good balance because it doesn't mandate personal responsibility, it simply encourages it (and personal responsibility is something that American culture needs desperately right now).

While gun safes and responsible parents could have prevented many school shootings, it turns out that it would not have stopped this one. The shooter in this case was 18 years old and purchased his shotgun and ammo completely legally according to the laws of Colorado.

As will I, as I can't seem to have a conversation with Finrock without Vort butting and and trying to argue. Finrock, if you have any questions about what I've said, send me a message.

Look, Vort, I do not want to have an argument with you. Such arguments rarely, if ever, end well. I was simply trying to demonstrate to Finrock why I believed what I believed. You may suggest that I interpret things with a sledgehammer and bait me into an argument all you want, but I couldn't care less. I have stated what I believe and why I believe it. You are free to believe what you want.

It is true that God caused the Lamanites to have a different skin color. However, calling it a "curse" is completely false doctrine, and exactly the kind of teaching the Church is stating as false and wrong. Since we have differing ideas of what the Church statement says, let me back up my argument with some scriptures and history. Firstly, the main idea the "curse" idea is based off of, the so-called "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" teachings, were inventions of 15th Century Spain and Portugal partly to justify their practice of slavery. While the curse is mentioned in historical documents before this, the idea of black skin being a curse was not taught until then. We have revealed scripture that finally shows this idea as false, even if the fact that it was invented wasn't evidence enough. Let's read Moses 7:8. What was cursed? The land, not the people. How was it cursed? With heat. What gift does God give those who live in hot climates? Melanin appropriate to their environment. It is wonderful that we have the Pearl of Great Price to help us avoid the error in interpretation that led the Spanish and Portuguese to believe in this false notion. Another scripture that refutes the idea of black skin being a "curse" is found in the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Book of Mormon can get complicated when trying to understand if black skin really is a curse. There is the one verse you've* already mentioned, but several other verses touch on this topic. Let's consider as one example Jacob's sermon as recorded in Jacob 2 and 3. Jacob has three main messages: condemnation of sexual sins, pursuit of wealth, and condemnation of the Nephites' hatred of the Lamanites: While Jacob clearly states the the Lamanites did have a dark skin, he is also clearly not teaching a curse of any kind. Instead, he is telling the Nephites specifically not to treat the Lamanites any different because of their skin color. Instead, the Nephites are to remember their own sins instead. This is clearly not how one speaks of a "cursed" people. Nephi himself also later teaches in 2 Nephi 26:33 that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female.” We also have for support of the idea that black skin is not a curse the revising hand of Mormon. While he could only include a hundreth part of the records, he does include details which further demonstrate that the Lamanites and Nephites are alike unto God. He includes the prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite, who foretells the coming of Christ. He points to tribalism and "all manner of -ites" as part of the reason the Nephites fell from righteousness. Most importantly, though, we have this recent statement of the Church as a clear disavowal of the "black skin is a curse" doctrine. This statement is clear enough to me that black skin is not a curse or a sign of disfavor. *I wrote this post mostly to Finrock. Vort had not posted when I wrote this post. EDIT: also, what skippy said regarding "skin color as metaphor."

If the Church is clearly disavowing the teaching that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, then it clearly isn't a Book of Mormon doctrine.

Meanwhile, the locals .

Oh, I think we've already learned something with the dismal performance of healthcare.gov and the ease of use and stability of state exchange websites. If your state decided to run their own exchanges, things generally are working great. See how much better things work when you run things on a state level?

that face

Yeah, I guess I see the point. If all SC wants to do is throw up an expensive roadblock in front of federal law, more power to them. As long as the law follows the "no state resources" idea and not the nullification idea, it seems constitutional to me. Still, though, this law feels like a waste of money in only delaying the inevitable.

Ok, so if this is a "no state resources" law as mentioned in New York v. United States, SC doesn't assist in implementing the new healthcare law, the federal government steps in and performs the actions that the SC state government refuses to do and... SC accomplishes what, exactly? I mean, I guess I can see the point, Republican and Tea Party lawmakers are trying to do what they think they need to in order to Save America, but I don't see any tangible end result to this law other than SC having a new shiny expensive tax deduction. Perhaps the lawmakers who are behind this bill are intending this as a act they can use in their future campaign efforts, so they can say they stood up against Obama's Efforts to Destroy America, even though this bill doesn't do much. It kinda reminds me of protesters going into "dead weight" mode in order to make arresting them harder. It doesn't accomplish anything, but it is a symbolic gesture, so maybe that's the point.

It looks to me like this bill essentially tries to codify a form of nullification. This theory states in its simplest form that states can ignore federal laws whenever they disagree with them. Regardless of my opinion of Obamacare I think this is a really dangerous precedent to set. Even if this law does pass, I don't think it will last very long, as the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down via the same arguments used in Cooper v. Aaron, a case where states tried a similar form of nullification. EDIT: Now that I've looked into it more, there are cases such as New York v. United States which state that the federal government can not "commandeer" state governments or resources in order to to enforce federal laws. Thus, this bill could pass muster but only in a very restricted form which I think will only delay the inevitable.

^^^

I am reluctant to make conclusions about the will of God, as His ways are not our ways and His ways will rarely make sense to our mortal perspective. Regardless, this the Church of Christ but is managed and led here on Earth by human beings. Sometimes God allows us to be imperfect in order for us to grow and progress. I personally don't know whether the priesthood ban was divinely inspired or a product of the environment of 19th Century American religious trends, but neither outcome would sway my testimony of the prophet either way. I'd be fine with the ban being by revelation or with the ban being uninspired to begin with (and hence allowed in order to have some effect on the Church that would otherwise be impossible). What's far more important to me is that we have greater knowledge revealed to us and we should act on it and help the Church progress to growth and, eventually, a Zion state of mind and community. This now includes directly opposing racism in all its many shapes and forms. EDIT: See that quote in my signature? I think it's relevant here and I totally believe it.