Dror

First, there is the age difference, father/daughter vs. boyfriend/girlfriend ages. As I did mention, though, even that age difference doesn't necessarily mean everything's kosher. Second, during my mission, my companion and I taught single women all the time--we had no choice, being in a small town with no sister missionaries and members who were not able to tract or teach with us all day. In these days of gay pride, you never know... As far as I'm concerned, I think I'm less likely now to mess around with a 16-year-old girl than I was when I was 16. It seems reasonable to expect a bishop would be similar. A Church leader could mess up, of course, but statistically speaking a 16-year-old boy would probably get the girl. Not to mention the bishop already has a wife to go home to. Dror

Ahhh...Thanks for the clarification, ALmom! I didn't realize he was a youth. (It didn't even occur to me--shows how long ago it's been for me! *ugh*) In THAT case, it's true that it is probably unwise to spend time alone with one's girlfriend. As far as the bishop interviewing a youth of the opposite sex goes, it's almost like a father interviewing a daughter, though even that is not always a given these days. Plus, youths do tend to have the proverbial "raging hormones" that they haven't necessarily gotten used to dealing with. In any case, it's not as though the bishop is "hanging out" with the girl--just interviewing her for a few minutes. Dror

Heh! Nine times out of ten when I see somebody driving like a maniac, they have a phone glued to their ear. When is our state legislature finally going to outlaw this? I've heard that cell phone use causes more accidents than drunk driving...

Am I missing something? Who said you are not allowed to be alone with your girlfriend? I got married several years ago--have they changed the rules during the past 6.5 years? I've never heard that a couple who are dating cannot be alone. When are you supposed to have those (chastely) romantic moments? People who are married, on the other hand, are not supposed to be alone with a member of the opposite sex, lest they be unfaithful to the person they made a covenant with. As a matter of fact, the Church is getting more cautious about letting even bishops and stake presidents be completely alone with members of the opposite sex. Apparently they're starting to build little windows into the doors of bishops' offices in the newer buildings (or so I've been told), so they don't have complete privacy. Even our local institute director has one of these little windows in his door. Did you do something untoward with your girlfriend that caused your bishop to tell you not to be alone with her? Not accusing you of anything--just wondering why you aren't supposed to be alone. Dror

shoe8523, I'm really sorry about your loss. It's ok to grieve, and there's no list of "shoulds" or "shouldn'ts." Don't feel as though you "shouldn't" feel bad--it's quite all right, and totally normal. As the others have said, your little one is in a better place, with Heavenly Father, and won't have to endure the tribulations of mortality. Of course, that won't take away your pain and feelings of loss, but it may provide some comfort. (((hugs))) Dror

I think that pollution is a bad thing regardless of global warming. I am in favor of regulations that will allow us to breathe clean air and keep the rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. clean and habitable for the creatures that live in them. If taking steps like that helps to combat global warming as well, all the better. Dror

Hi Traveler, I am well aware of the effect of H20, having lived both in arid regions and humid ones. However, it is not the only greenhouse gas and not necessarily the one responsible for the demonstrable rise in global temperatures. (I emphasize the word 'global' because some people make a big deal of the fact that the weather seems cooler where they live. That may be, but the overall temperature of the planet, as a whole, is rising.) I have also heard the theory that the global warming is the result not of man's activity, but natural cycles of warming and cooling. It sounds logical enough--after all, it has happened in the past. However, scientists are pretty well-informed. They know about the past ice ages and warming periods, too. Yet for some reason they think this time it's different. Which brings us to your claim that the scientists who are on the ball and understand what is really going on are being ignored or silenced. I am going to assume that you are saying they are being ignored/silenced by their fellow scientists, as I cannot imagine the media could be so powerful or monolithic as to accomplish this feat. Are you telling me that there exists a significant number of scientists who agree with you but with whom the powerful "establishment" scientists disagree, and that the ones in charge refuse to acknowledge what your scientists are saying? For example, that the peer-reviewed journals won't publish their work because they disagree? Admittedly this is possible. As you pointed out, this sort of thing has happened in the past, or even that the majority has been wrong. It seems unlikely to me in this case, however, partly because it is such a hot topic, and such a potentially important one. The debate has been raging for years, even decades. There is lots of money and lots of people on both sides of the debate (especially in the U.S., it appears to me)--except among scientists. As far as I can tell, there's practically a consensus among scientists. Scientists are not so isolated in their ivory laboratories that they haven't noticed the debate and considered the possibility that different things may account for global warming. They can get funding from different places, including neutral parties as well as people on either side of the debate, so it's not as if they can't do their research or publish their work one way or another. Assuming the majority of scientists are interested in quantifiable truth, not just saying what they're paid to say, why do most of them claim human activity affects the climate and contributes to global warming, and why do precious few of them claim otherwise? Maybe.... (drumroll) because it's what they honestly believe, based upon their studies. Again, like I said, I can't believe that in this environment scientists on either side of the debate could not make their voices heard. And when I hear the majority of voices saying one thing, that's what I tend to believe. In any case, even if they are wrong, would it kill us to reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants, not to mention our dependence on petroleum? Dror

News story: AEI offers $10K Does anybody else find this amusing, that this group funded by big oil should offer big bucks to try to find scientists willing to agree with it? Most scientists I've read or personally know agree that global warming exists and that human activity contributes to it. How many times will the scientific community have to speak before conservative Americans pull their head out of the sand? Sure, conservatives can always pull somebody out of a hat who agrees with them, especially if they pay them well, but the fact is that the vast majority of scientists do believe in climate change and that humans play a role in it. Am I relying too much on expert opinion? Well, if I want my computer fixed, I'll go to somebody who knows about computers. If I get cancer, I'll go to an oncologist. If I want help with my taxes... well, you get the idea. Dror

Hi Puterguy01, Please forgive my ignorance, but is all rap music evil? I'm not talking about whether or not you like the style, but whether all rap music is inherently evil. Is there some rap music that is not inherently evil but that you don't like anyway because it doesn't appeal to you? If so, what kind was your brother listening to? If he was listening to bad stuff, on the one hand I wouldn't judge him too harshly--there are worse vices by far. However, it may be good to explain to him why you think it unwise to listen to stuff like that. It's not exactly conducive to the Spirit and doesn't prepare one well for a mission. I think you already know that experimenting with evil just to have the experience is not such a good idea. (Understatement of the day!!) Have you talked to your parents about this? Dror

Well, maybe the teachings and example of a man who lived 2000 years ago are no longer pertinent, but... What would Jesus do? Can you honestly picture him torturing people, even though they would be willing to torture him? Can you picture him killing all radical Muslims become some of them commit acts of terrorism? Maybe '24' would not be as exciting to watch, but we're talking about real life and real people, not a TV show--there is a difference. Dror

So what is your position? You admit the Book of Mormon folks didn't eliminate all of their enemies, but then proceed to say you have compelling reasons to say you'd like to eliminate all radical Muslims. Are you admitting, then, to disagreeing with the Book of Mormon military leaders on what is appropriate? It sounds to me like they did not kill all of their enemies, yet you do want to kill all of yours. Moroni had defeated his enemies and had them clearly and completely in his power, and then offered to let them surrender their arms and go home free. We have not defeated the terrorists, had them in our power, and then offered to let them go home free if they surrender their arms and promise not to attack again, and doubt our leaders ever would do such a thing. We have captured some of the terrorists, but I have not heard any accounts of our leaders offering them freedom if they promise not to attack us again. I would make so bold as to say that torture is wrong, whether in our day or in ancient times. Maybe we are giving the word "extreme" a bad rap. We could talk about people who are "extremely kind," "extremely generous, "extremely gentle," "extremely faithful," etc. When you're talking about talk show hosts in favor or torture, murder, the suspension of civil rights, etc., etc., however, that's the bad kind of extreme.Anyway, I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. Even so, it appears we might disagree on some things anyway. But that's ok! Dror

**Edited because I said something inappropriate here. I hope CK didn't read it. If you did, I apologize for being too extreme! No offense intended--I think you're a good person! --Dror** Nor is it the same as what you have described the BOM military leaders as doing. They didn't slaughter their enemies wholesale; that is, they didn't eliminate all of them. They may have killed those who tried to escape, but they didn't kill everybody. Moreover, you seem to have missed what the Book of Mormon goes to great pains to point out, that Moroni, for one, did not want to kill even one person. He did what he did only out of the most extreme necessity, when the very survival of his people was in imminent danger. Even then he didn't just kill the people who attacked his people without provocation--he gave them a chance to simply give up their arms, promise not to attack again, and go home free men. I have heard of nothing like that in the modern era, and certainly not in the fight against terrorism. Even when they refused to make that covenant he did not kill them, but kept them prisoner and yes, made them work. (FYI, prisoners usually prefer to work rather than sitting in a cell all day--it's used as an incentive in modern prisons to get prisoners to behave well. Even this was very humane and progressive on Moroni's part, not necessarily a matter of punishment.) As far as we know, Moroni did not torture his prisoners, and he did not kill them without a very good reason. Comparing what righteous Book of Mormon figures did to what some of the extreme talk show hosts suggest is just wrong. Dror

I agree with you, PC. Unfortunately, I have heard a surprising number of ordinary everyday people I know personally say outrageous things pertaining to Muslims and Islam, or the Middle East. For example, the young lady I used to work with who thinks we should nuke the entire Middle East in order to solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. (Maybe she doesn't realize the most populous Muslim countries are not in the Middle East!) She said she realizes plenty of innocent people would get killed, but that they would go straight to the Celestial Kingdom, so it wouldn't be so bad to kill them in defense of the American people. (According to her logic, wouldn't innocent Americans killed by terrorists also go the the Celestial Kingdom, and therefore terrorism isn't really all that bad?) Anyway, my point is, talk radio is popular for a reason. One, it is entertaining. Two, a lot of people agree with them. They may or may not be a majority, but they're enough to keep talk radio in business, and that kinda scares me. If people totally disagreed with them/were offended by them, I don't think they would listen to those programs even if they are entertaining. I think your average American understands the difference between normal, moderate Muslims and fundamentalists. But there are enough people displaying prejudice that it worries me. Dror

I didn't know the Muslims believed that. What about the Jews? Are they considered believers (for purposes of waging war on unbelievers), who will then be asked to convert to Islam after the war? After all, Judaism is one of the great monotheistic Abrahamic religions.Dror

I've been thinking that if we must make a big production of giving gifts at this general time of year, why not do it for St. Nicholas Day instead of Christmas? That would help decommercialize Christmas, with (at least) two benefits: (1) it could help us focus more on Christ at Christmastime, and (2) it could help "de-stress" Christmas by taking some of the pressure off. As for the Christian nature of Christmas, I think it is as religious as we choose to make it. There is no shortage of religious Christmas cards, ornaments, creches, etc. There may be a few cranks out there who get offended when somebody puts a nativity scene up in the public square, but there is no grand conspiracy, no "War on Christmas" in real life. On a (mildly) humorous note, the other day my boss was griping all day long because of a story he heard on the radio about a rabbi in a city at the other end of the country who threatened to sue the city over its Christmas decorations. Well, that was an isolated incident. Here where we live, I go downtown, see Christmas decorations all over the statehouse, Christmas lights, wreaths, etc. on many, many building, a huge nativity scene in front of one office building, a Christmas model train display in a bank, etc., etc. Similar things in all the suburbs. We have good-sized Jewish and Muslim communities here, and we live in a "blue" county, but ne'er a complaint! People even have the nerve to say "Merry Christmas" to each other here! = As you pointed out, businesses are out to make money. I don't think they care whether their wares are religious in nature or not, as long as they sell. So it's really a matter of what we buy. Dror

Leave it to a Frenchman to come up with something like that! Amazing! That was funny, too!

Happy Birthday, Maureen! Peace and long life... :) Dror

Happy Thanksgiving (belated) to all! Dror

Mods, Why do I have to log in twice every time I log in? After entering my username and password, it always says there was an error and I'm not logged in. After I enter them a second time, it works. What gives? Dror

My situation is not the same as yours--I'm a widower, and don't have kids--but I do share a similar concern: how do women see me? I'm in my late 30s, and so too old for the YSAs, and too young to fit in at the local Single Adult activities.As for the kids, I can't imagine why a woman would run because you have kids. I'm sure you'll be able to find another companion without too much trouble. BTW, I have a great deal of respect for you, taking care of your kids and all. It's no small responsibility. My mother was a single mother and I'm just amazed that she was able to keep afloat and take care of us like she did. Women understand that, I think, and will respect you for it. Dror

You're kidding, right? Of course it's wrong to date a married person! You know that perfectly well. It seems to me you're thinking with your You-know-what and not your brain. Get out of a bad situation before it gets worse, ok?!I'm not trying to put you down, just trying to save you from a lot of trouble. Dror

I'm not going to go into the whole tax thing, but just an FYI--Medicaid does not take care of those who are so poor they can't afford health care. I can't afford health care, but they refuse me aid because I work too much! If I worked less I might be able to get it, but then I'd be poorer because I'd, well, be working less. As it is, I simply don't get paid enough, and my boss (owner of a small business) can't afford to give us benefits, either. Yes, I am looking for a better job, but why should the person who replaces me have to do without health care coverage? What a lot of people are upset about is not that we're not being spoonfed and pampered by the government, but that we work hard for a living, just as hard as anybody else, and still cannot get what we need.I don't have all the answers, but I think one thing we need to focus on is making health care more affordable. Is it really worth it to give a person a hyper-expensive operation in order to give them a few months or a year or so more to live, while others' lives are being shortened or made miserable by lack of access to health care? Might we save money if health insurance companies paid for preventive medicine, rather than waiting for crises? Also, is there some way we could help small businesses provide insurance for their employees (and encourage small businesses in general? It seems big businesses get most of the breaks because they can give more to politicians' campaigns).

CK, I have long wondered why Jesus had to die for our sins at all. After all, how is His death supposed to remove our sins? Why couldn't the Father simply say to us, "you are forgiven," without Jesus' dying? One popular way of looking at the Atonement posits that God requires that punishment be meted out for our sins. Because Jesus loves us, He took our sins upon Himself by accepting our punishment, so we would not have to be punished, thus fulfilling the demands of justice. And yet, this is not justice. True justice requires that the person who is actually responsible suffer the penalty for his sins. Why would punishment be necessary? As a deterrent? If so, then Jesus is thwarting justice by removing the deterrent. Could punishment be for revenge? We do bad things, make God angry, and He feels the need to punish us? Or if Jesus is willing to accept it, to punish Him? Limited though my understanding of God may be, this just doesn't jibe with what I do know about Him. A close friend of mine has suggested that maybe the Atonement is more of a revelation than a courtroom scene. Specifically, a revelation of God Himself. We know from the scriptures that Jesus is a perfect likeness of Heavenly Father. Jesus states that what we see Him do is only what the Father would do. Is it possible that by suffering and dying for our sins, Jesus showed, as powerfully as He could, what God the Father would have done in His place? Is it possible that the Atonement is the revelation that God would rather suffer unspeakable pain Himself than inflict punishment upon us, even though He is perfectly innocent, and we are quite guilty? What Man has greater love than this, than to lay down His life for His fellows? (Somehow I get the feeling some people won't like what I've said! That's ok--I don't claim a perfect understanding. It's worth thinking about, though.) Dror

PC,It may well be that some feel overextended by giving a lot within the Church and by taxes, etc. But, as GardenGirl pointed out, not everybody feels that way. The Church does not instruct people to avoid public assistance if they are in need. (In fact, sometimes I think Church leaders would rather that people get public assistance than help from the Church!) It does teach that people should do everything possible to be "self-sufficient," that is, to get off welfare as soon as possible. (The reason I put "self-sufficient" in quotation marks is that I don't believe in self-sufficiency. That is, I don't believe it exists. Nobody is entirely self-sufficient--we all need other people and, most of all, we need God. We therefore should not begrudge people our aid when they need it. However, there is a flip side--people who are in need today, although they need not feel ashamed of needing to receive aid, should be willing to return the favor by doing what they can not to burden their benefactors, and when they are able, to help others in their turn. So, even though I don't believe in the concept of self-sufficiency, the Church's aims and mine are essentially the same. It's largely a question of attitude, rather than goals. )

Me, too. There weren't even curtains around my voting booth!