PrinceofLight2000

Are you a little person? I'm not sure what you meant by this.

I'd just like to share that I lost my father when I was 13. He had bad depression, and it finally got the best of him. He took his own life, though I don't believe he was in his right mind when he did. As I look back, I realize more and more that he was inspired, and everything he told me while he was alive wasn't as important then, but it applies to almost everything I'm going through now. I think these things happen for a reason. My father did his job. I have no reason to believe that these children won't have a similar outcome to what I had. It reminds me of how Martin Harris lost the manuscripts of the plates of Lehi. It was because of his and Joseph's choices that the plates got lost, but Heavenly Father in His infinite wisdom had anticipated this and commanded Nephi to copy an account of Lehi's writings into his own. I think Heavenly Father does the same to counsel children who lose their parents in an untimely manner, for any reason.

Me too, but unfortunately I have to refrain from listening when it doesn't. haha.

Utterly deplorable.

Let me pose a question. Is it a sin to use someone else's anger as a vehicle to satisfy one's own? Edit: OP, I'm not directing anything at you, just putting it up for discussion.

Nor do I. I don't think any moral person would delight in any form of bloodshed. However, sometimes it's necessary, and even commanded by God. I don't think Heavenly Father wanted Nephi to have to murder Laban (obviously), since Laban is His son as well. But in His wisdom He knew it would be necessary, as painful as the idea was. Notice that GTA was one of the games I singled out as being unsavory.

Goku for the win. He is a beacon of goodness. YouTube - YouTube - DBZ - Goku's Speech (Remastered) [HQ]

Depends on the context of the blood. Wars (including intergalactic ones) are usually fought for noble purposes on one side or the other. If you're squeamish, that's alright, and you shouldn't play if it gets to the point that it bothers you (I can't take a ton of blood or guts either), but Halo is still a good game with a wholesome message about the nature of warfare. Sometimes war is the only option. It's unfortunate that humans have to be injured and die, but we need to be able to defend ourselves from threats. I don't feel any war that we've had in recent years has been an offensive war. They have either been in our defense (Afghanistan and Iraq), or to stop the brutal actions against humanity perpetrated by others (Iraq). Don't forget that violence is detailed even in scripture. Remember when Ammon cut off the arms of the Lamanites? I'm sure that involved quite a bit of blood. It's the reason for the violence that is the key. If you'd like all of my thoughts on this topic, I have a post up above. lol.

I tend to agree. I doubt he'd have used that terminology if he was familiar with the Church.

Fixed!

Did Adam and Eve... ...have umbilical cords?

I like to call them interactive plays, haha.

Or keep it entirely out of the courts.

Have you got AIM or MSN? I have a ton of bands you'd probably be interested in if you love Story of the Year, lol.

Then I'll make sure I inherit the highest kingdom.

So, let me get this straight. We can discuss political subjects based on our ideologies, but nothing to do with party or candidate, as long as we don't throw around insults and maintain respect for others' freedom of speech and rights to their opinions?

I hate stating the obvious, but just in case. Supreme Court rulings can only be overturned by a newer more recent ruling, and that has its own set of obstacles because of judicial precedent. It's too difficult to overturn to be safe for anyone's freedom to make laws for what they believe to be right. This is in addition to 9 people alone deciding what is right when they shouldn't be.

This is exactly the ripple effect Justice was referring to earlier. http://www.lds.net/forums/524921-post94.html

No, not necessarily the majority, although that would give it a lot more power. The Founders gave us a representative democracy to prevent against complete populism. In many ways, when we vote for a candidate, we choose what morals we want to support as well. that does not mean such legislators should ignore the will of the people, since the people are supposed to have the majority of the power. That's why we also have initiatives, and why elected officials need to respect those initiatives. If they don't, there's a process for that as well. We vote out the legislators and put in people who would reinstate the morality present in the initiative. It happened because, as I have said, the judge decided to usurp power and make something constitutional out of a moral issue to be determined by the legislature. Just because a case is brought to court doesn't mean that it should be heard. The judge should have shown restraint and not taken on the case. Remember, the Constitution is neutral on morality not determined by rights outlined inside it. There's no amendment which states that marriage is a right; changing the text of the Constitution to change that neutrality. I would not support any similar court decision. If this usurpation of power continues through the Supreme Court, which it has in other issues, I've got a lot to worry about.

First, you have consistently completely forgotten the fact that LEGISLATION CAN BE REPEALED AND CHANGED BY INITIATIVES, THAT IS WHY IT'S ALLOWED. When morality in the people's mind changes, the legislation can change as well. You're incorrect also about your interpretation of how judicial review applies. The judicial branch clarifies the Constitution, it doesn't fabricate rights not present in it by "interpreting law". Furthermore, this judge DID NOT rule based on his state's constitution, he ruled based on premises in the federal Constitution. Additionally, I argued in a previous reply that his analysis was incorrect. http://www.lds.net/forums/524684-post82.html The bold statement proves you're a relativist. Perceptions of what morality is are subjective, but moral truth is not.

Also, just one more quick point, Soulsearcher. You keep asking me for a legal argument. How is my constitutional/legislative argument not a legal argument? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

http://www.lds.net/forums/525341-post136.html There isn't currently a law that says it's a legal limit. However, again, all laws are predicated on a greater shared morality amongst the people of a society. It's certainly ok from a constitutional basis to impose such laws pertaining to the matter, from both sides of a moral issue. The relativist approach you're taking ("a classical fault") is a dangerous one. If we are not to determine legal standards based on morality, from what should we determine them? What the government says? Or should we let the people move toward populist anarchy and cause society to collapse? That's exactly what the Founders wanted to protect against by giving the power to determine and enforce morality to the people, by legislation.

If you can visualize the moves you want to use, just incorporate the visualization into descriptive writing. You don't have to name martial arts and expect your readers to understand the finer points of the techniques unless that's what you're aiming at for your reading audience. I'm doing the same thing with my novel, here's a small excerpt of a technique I used descriptive language with to give the reader an idea of what the move should look like. It's only half-finished though, haha. Ivan curved a high snap kick under his arm, popping his shoulder free of its joint. He slammed his heel into the drunk’s cheek and carried the blow downward, smashing his head into the floorboards.

This second part seems much, much more likely. Not to mention that tainted water which hasn't been drank will flow out to the oceans and possibly reach other people.

Father and mother cannot be blurred, for they will always be male and female, respectively. What their roles are in respect to how that family works best for its own needs are what change. Utterly and despicably wrong. It is first and foremost the parents' responsibility to teach the child about interaction, not the government's. My parents insisted to me ten years ago when I was a child that fornication was wrong, whereas the government now takes a position similar to "If you're gonna do it, use protection". Also, there should be a distinction when a teacher acts as a friend, not a teacher, and shows the child a strong example of a traditional family, as opposed to teaching what that family should be in the classroom. You're right. Tolerance doesn't affect people who are adamantly against gay marriage. It does, however, affect children who haven't learned the difference, or people who are on the fence regarding the issue. All legal arguments are inherently moral ones. All legislation is inherently legislation based on morals. Just because you interpret what is moral differently than what I do based on man's law, doesn't make it any less constitutional for me to impose a higher law which is also based on morals by the same process of legislation. Again, we must draw a line between what is constitutional and what is moral. The judiciary has jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The legislature has jurisdiction over moral ones.