log2

The fact that people CAN point guns - either themselves, or by proxy - to force others to do as they say does not have any bearing on whether they are JUSTIFIED in so doing. That's a problem with government, not a problem with pot. I would argue that a great many, if not all, of the laws which impose those tax burdens are themselves unjustified. And that's a problem with socialism, not pot smoking.

That's NECESSARY! The bio-web stuff was just icky on so many levels.

So, if I smell bad, you can kill me? Or, more seriously - how does anyone's smoking pot generate a claim to self-defense on your part, whereby you can legitimize utilizing deadly force to stop them from so doing?

Yeah! Let's get a little " " up in here, yo!Is it proper to enforce our morals upon others by the edge of the sword?

When I was your age, I had to walk uphill in the snow, both ways, to take a date to the local MacDonald's Restaurant, where both of us would read a book to ourselves while uttering the occasional "Um," "Ah," and "Well, I never..." Strangely, it wasn't too conducive to interpersonal communications with each other. But if we wanted to talk to each other, we wouldn't have been using our texts, now, would we?

Because at least one tradition had it that Moses was translated.

I don't find it to be ambiguous - you'll be dead. Those alive at the Savior's coming are not twinkled till they die.

I wonder - does anybody find that caffeine dulls the heart, making it more difficult to discern the promptings of the Spirit? I've taught my children they should avoid caffeine, but also that it is up to them.

But what do I do in the 4.75 years till he arrives?

As the aforementioned crazy person, when my lycanthropy subsided, I had my kids watch it a little with me. I have no idea how the Japanese get a rabbit out of the "man-in-the-moon."

And, of course, you get my point. So why not cut me a little slack - when I read that stuff years ago, how could I possibly know I would be required to provide it years later?

I'm willing to grant many things. I've noticed you tend to sneer at me very frequently. Is that the standard I should aspire to?

Then you've defined yourself outside of this conversation, having revealed you did not read the thread in its entirety, and I guess have excused me from having to respond to any more of your posts.You might try granting that I don't have evil intentions - but it seems the "thou shalt not judge" board guideline is overlooked so long as someone takes a sufficiently unpopular position.

Please see the post immediately prior to this one. I also can, by this standard, claim - and I'm not actually making this claim, understand - that you did not attend church today, as you cannot produce documentation of it. Some charity ought to prevail in such discussions among brothers and sisters in Christ, right?

Sorry - if you want, you can do what I've done, and hunt down all of his "blood atonement" sermons. You'll see the pattern clearly. He doesn't use the phrase "Sons of Perdition" often - he most commonly refers to them as "angels to the Devil." And you'll also see that the Law of Chastity, even to him, was solely concerned with interpersonal sexual relations. The argument I have made stands on its own. Brigham's teachings were only appealed to as a reductio ad absurdum for the position that masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, and is not necessary to make my case.