Cal

Speak for yourself, Strawbaby! Say the wrong thing, and you can count on either PD, Snow or me to eat you alive! Okay, okay.... I was just kidding. We'll kill you first, then eat you alive. And as a twist of fate would have it......YOU would be the main entree after SF countered the attack, and took you (or PD, or Snow) apart. Don't underestimate the power of a determined woman. Well, since I've yet to see any evidence of either PD, Snow nor myself being taken apart in any way that approaches really good logic on SF's part, I'll say for all three of us, I don't think we're exactly shaking in our boots yet.

what? huh? topic forgotten....erased. So how's the weather? Oh, and Cal......you hade a great list to pick and chose from, some are very, very true . So, what is your flavor of the month?

Cuz when Mormons obsess over what other other people do with their genital, and where they choose to place them, it makes the whole durned lot of us look like paranoid idiots and I am tired my dear brothers and sisters who are also imprisoned in the faith make us look like tweaked puftahs. It's like the asinine anti-Mormon evangelicals who instead of proudly preaching their own message of hope, choose to create an "other" (us the Mormons) and then condemn us. Mormonism, on the other and superior hand, don't usually dump on an "other" but rather preach our our positive message.... except for when the paranoids start dumping on gays. If you think heterosexuality is so hot, then tout it and stop braying at the gays. Snow--we seem to be agreeing on too many things lately, this has got to stop!

The Traveler YOur post starts out with an unproven, and perhaps, unexamined assumption.

I just re-read Mr. Tolworthy's reasons for leaving and I wouldn't characterize the catalyst for leaving as 'abuse' - I would say he had a request from his church, the church chose not to respect his request therefore he had no choice but to stick up for himself and end the relationship. Don't know him personally at all but I tend to believe his reasons than hear-say from others. Really? Are your reasons because you don't like what you are reading or because you think they are lying - or maybe something else all together? - please share. M. 1st....I don't care what tolworthy put out for the world to read, it isn't the whole story. Seldom do disaffected saints tell it like it really is. 2nd....I don't care who you chose to believe. I know what I know. 3rd.....I have read all of it before from different sources and one can put the same information in a positive light or they can use it to try and discredit the church. These used it to discredit the church. 4th.....with all your getting ~ get understanding. This seems to always be lacking in the anti-approach to anything. One question, Amillia--Do you think it is possible for a person to leave the church for any reason, OTHER THAN, personal sinfulness? For example--it is possible a person could find that the history of the church as they were taught it at first, turns out not to be the same as the history as discovered by objective historical research? Could a person be totally morally clean, clear headed, kind to dogs and children, and still find the church to be something other than what the missionaries/parents/ ss teachers taught him it was? And that, feeling deceived and misled, he chose to reexamine the church, and found that, had he known BEFORE he was baptized, these things, he would not have joined. And thereby then decides to leave. Is that possible?

Amillia - I've noticed you make a lot of general statements without any substance to back it up. So for something more positive here's a chance for you to show me (or all the board) what those great works of JS's are. I am just curious as to what your opinion might be in regards to these great works. I have no intention of disagreeing with your opinion, I'm just wondering if you can actually add some substance to your general statement of great works. To help you out, some definitions of GREAT are: *Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis. *Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art. *Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West *Eminent; distinguished: a great leader. Please and Thank you and Good Luck! M. Receiving of revelations, which are totally profound such as are found in the D&C. Translating the BofM through the Spiritual Gift from God. Living through endless torment, and persecution and staying true. Just for starters. BTW I really don't want to answer your posts. Maureen--that will teach you to challenge Amillia!

To think that, in the eyes of God, all sins are equal, is to create a God that isn't even as bright as we are.And if not all sins are equal, then there must be some rationale for making the distinctions. Gee what could that rationale be? Perhaps it has something to do with the objective harm it causes. If we use that rationale, and assume God uses that one too, it might be a little easier to make out a heirarchy of sinfulness. Otherwise we will have to come up with some other criteria as to what measuring stick God would use. Can we think of some? How about----- 1) The frequency test: The more times God mentions it, the worse it is. (This one makes the most sense to me). 2) The "Snow definition": The more pleasurable, the worse it is. 3) The PD definition: Naaa, they are all the same. 4) The atheist test: What ever you do is twice as bad if done by an atheist. 5) The government test: If the government doesn't punish it, why should God? 6) The TBM test: Everything is a sin, so don't bother making any distinctions. 7) The time test: The longer it takes to not feel guilty about it, the worse the sin. 8) The harm done test (already mentioned): The more objective harm, the worse the sin. 9) The how do I feel test: The worse you feel afterward, the worse the sin. 10) Twisted Snow definition test: The better you feel afterward, the worse the sin. 11) The Bishop test: If the Bishop says its a sin, it probably is. 12) The twisted Bishop test: If the Bishop is doing it, its probably a sin. 13) The hypocricy test: If the Bishop says not to do it, and does it himself, it is no longer a sin. 14) The "identity of the accuser" test: If the accuser says its wrong, find out how much damage the guy can do you if he finds out about you. If he can't excommunicate you, its not a sin. 15) The 'LDS Chat Line test': If the majority of the members of the Chat line say its a sin---make sure you do it---its probably going to make you feel great!

Perhaps, but is that so wrong? After all, a person has got to eat. Law of the jungle, right?

Good comments, guys. Back in my younger days, because I had been spanked and worse at times, I thought it was appropriate to "rule with an iron fist". With my first two children, I came to realize that all it accomplished was resentment and a lowering of their self esteem. With my third child, I simply stopped any form of physical approach. I found that when hitting is off the table, the child will respond to lesser forms with greater effect. With my third child, the worse would be that I would start counting...1.....2.....3..... Usually by the time I got to 3, she would run off and do what was asked. I never got passed three, and virtually never spanked her. ( I think I might have once when she ran into the street.) Thinking back now, I never would have started off with a spanking policy. Eventually, kids do what their parents want because they want to please their parents. And they eventually won't want to if they resent you or fear you. I was curious if anyone still thought that spanking was a good idea. So far no one seems to think so.

Cal, I'm not fanatically anti-SUV, mainly because I actually do quite a bit of driving where a high-clearance vehicle comes in handy. Still not sure what I'm going to do without my Tacoma on backcountry trips. That said, there's something really goofy about all the Newport Beach parking lots full of SUVs that never see dirt. Then there's the fact that people drive them as if they're cars, not trucks, resulting in the rollovers you mentioned. I figure I'm so self-evidently cool already that putting me in a minivan will just give me a much-needed handicap to keep lesser breeds from being murderously envious. B) Oh behave!

Energy techonology first. Almost ALL technologies are expensive at first. Even conventional gasoline burning engines were once much simpler--the public got used to the extra expense of emission controls etc. Secondly, the public doesn't think twice about spending 40 or 50,000 dollars on a gas guzzling SUV. If such cars didn't exist, do you think they would stop buying cars? China--you might be right that China's entry into the Western-style economy MIGHT curb its population problem--but that is a future HOPE. What they have done lately, though draconian, was, from a practical stand point--probably necessary. If China's current population came anywhere near the US mode of consumption, the world environment would be in even more trouble--Global warming etc.

Jeff has played some pretty serious parts. I'm not sure what you mean by comical. I guess it depends upon how you view JS!

If I exagerated the figures a bit, Bush STILL ignored the projections. He never made any attempt AT ALL to rescue SS when he could have. And now, he wants to privatize it. With what rationale? So that smart people can have a better retirement? Smart people are ALREADY going to have a better retirement through their own private accounts. So what is the point? Bush's rationale is a thinly veiled attempt to benefit private Financial institutions at the public expense.

OK, PD, you said it, I didn't. I will retract my statement. Some of my response to your comments would be the same as I made to Snow. Secondly, you wish that SS didn't take out as much given that it is a "subsistance" allowance, so to speak. Well, SS, the last time I looked, doesn't take all that much out of the average pay check, and provides only a fraction of what a good retirement would be. We are hardly breaking any ones back financially. LIke I said to Snow, your "dumbest common denominator" is exactly the group that needs SS. You have plenty of opportunity to invest for retirement on your own. SS was developed a plan for the "dumbest common denominator". If the governement had any real reliable way to tell the difference, then maybe what you are saying would work--but any one of us, with a little bad luck, could fall into the "dumbest common denominator" category--think about it---there are a myriad of scenarios that one hopes would never happen, but if they did--your might just be thanking uncle sam for forcing you to save something.

That's the point. People want government to provide for them instead of them providing for themselves. In reality the level of required sophistication is absurdly low. Get a 401K or Roth IRA, put it into a managed retirement instruments like a balance mutual and bond funds and save more instead of saving less. Zero expertise is required. In my main investment with Vanguard, I pick my retirement year, my desired retirement income and Vanguard takes care of the rest. Five minutes tops. If I could take half the money I put into SS and invest it at the rate of return the funds in my portfolio have performed at (some of them dating back 70 years), my retirement income would be multiples above what I will get from SS. Instead I am forced to let Uncle Sam treat me like an idiot who can't be trusted with his own money so that they can give me a return that is rock bottom low. But again, Snow, not everyone is as savy as you. What seems simple to you is not so simple to a lot of, shall we say, less fortunate types. Less fortunate in that they weren't born with the mental machinery to make wise decisions for their futures. And some are just victims of some very bad luck--health tragedies etc. What should the government do. Sit back and watch them all wander homeless in the streets. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are a heck of a lot of people that simply can't survive without some help in their old age. It's simply a social necessity--blame it on thier own stupidity if you want to, but that changes nothing. Our government has a policy of preventing its elderly from starving in the streets. If you don't like that, I just hope you are never in the position to need it. You seem to take the attitude that if people bring it on themselves, then that relieves the rest of us from any responsibility to help them. You often defend the BoM ( at least more so than even I do)---then read what it says about helping the poor.

It wouldn't be failing in the first place if Bush hadn't purposefully ignored it years ago. And now he uses that as an excuse to privatize. As I said before, if you want private investment for retirement, get an IRA. Don't make the government a party to it--there is no basis in reason for that.

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject. Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive? Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to "paddle" the behind?

Speak for yourself, Strawbaby! Say the wrong thing, and you can count on either PD, Snow or me to eat you alive! Okay, okay.... I was just kidding. We'll kill you first, then eat you alive.

As to the question of whether you can remain a mormon----as long as you don't become a public pain in the ###### of the church, no one is likely to take your name off the rolls. In fact, by the stories I hear, getting your name off the church rolls is a really challenge in and of itself.

You can join the Reform Mormons. They claim to support the church and want to continue to attend and be counted among the faithful, but they insist on the freedom to question, think and be of independent mind--and not feel obligated to buy the "company" line, hook line and sinker. They have a web site--look it up.

I suspect that the foot-dragging has to do with a relationship between auto makers and the oil industry. Then again, I could just be paranoid... If you are paranoid, then you have a heck of a lot of company! :)

But what is the point? What is the purpose of social security? The last time I looked it was to provide a safety net for those who aren't able, for what ever reason, to provide for themselves, PRIVATELY, a decent, survival level retirement. Why should the Federal government participate, even partially, in private retirement investment. I doesn't make any sense. If people were wise enough to make private investment decisions that would leave them with a survivable benefit, we wouldn't need SS in the first place.No, any move toward privatization, is a transparent raid of the public trust fund for private gain. End of story. Bush just wants to line the pockets of some of his financial croanies in the Financial services industry. The move makes no sense otherwise. When Bush first came into the white house he had about 3 trillion surplus he could have used to secure SS. Instead, he gave all the money back in a tax break, mostly for the rich, that even the american public didn't really want. His closest financial advisers, including his first Sec of Treasury, recommended just that, and he ignored them---to important to repay the rich guys who put him in office.

PD--stick with the Honda or Toyota--I agree the american cars are crap. I would love to be patriotic about american cars but I can't find any good reason to buy garbage just to make a political statement. Besides, the american companies have been in the cabbose with regard to innovating fuel efficiency, they deserve the financial spanking they have received at the hands of the car buying public. SUV's--what a fraud foised on the car-buying public!!! It just goes to show you can get people to buy anything if you can make it look cool enough in a TV commercial. Amazing how detroit figured out that you could put nice seats in a pick up truck, and sell it for twice the price--a triumph of financial planning for the industry. Americans bought it hook line and sinker. I though truck were for TRUCKING and OFF road terrain. I'ld like to see the survey of the percentage of SUV owners that have even ONCE taken the vehicle ANYWHERE but the city streets. What a waste of resources. Not only are they gas hogs, but they are safety hazards--roll overs, damage other cars more in accidents--and cost more in insurance. PD--if I respected your mind before, I am even more impressed that you have not fallen for the "Honey, I have to have an SUV" Minivans are one of the best buys in an automobile--lots of room, more than most SUV's--closer to the ground so they don't roll over, less insurance costs, and much more fuel efficient. Personally, I prefer the Lexus LS 400---best car ever made, bar none. I've had mine for 6 years and had virtually no major repairs, rides great, low insurance, good gas milage, lots of room, --it has as more room than my wifes RX 300 (which I couldn't talk her out of--I tried to persuade her to get a Honda Odyssey--she wouldn't have any of it--women for you--so she gets to make the payments)

You certainly have my vote. The neo-conseratives have been trying to undo the New Deal since they got a smiggen of power. SS is supposed to be a safety net to make sure that our old folks don't starve to death in the gutters. It's just not a pretty sight in a country that is supposed to be the compassionate and wealthy nation to the world.Privatizing it is tantamount to eliminating it. If people could simply invest and take care of themselves privately, SS would have never been suggested in the first place. Bush and his cynical and greedy Financial lobby supporters simply want to raid the public Trust fund and channel the profits into private stockholder pockets. Not everyone is a financially savy as PD and Snow--and I don't mean that in any negative way guys. Some people simply don't know how to make themselves fiancially secure--why should we believe that the people who need SS AT ALL would be capable of wisely investing the money deducted from their paychecks? If they could, they wouldn't need SS anyway? It is the nature of the very people SS is supposed to help take care of to NOT be able to invest wisely. Should the elderly simply be left to fend for themselves just because they don't know how to invest for the future or can't? Should the punishment for bad finacial management through a life time be to starve to death in the streets. That is what will happen to many, if SS is privatized. Those that make poor investment choices will lose most their SS account money, and be left with the same amount had SS never existed. So, again, what is Bush trying to accomplish. The goal is transparent. Line the pockets of the private finacial concerns on wall street. Send Bush back where he came from, then, as PD suggested in another thread (if I can stretch his statement a bit) pave over Texas and use it as a giant solar collector.

For sure he looks nothing like JS. I would suggest Jeff Goldblum--at least he has the nose for it, a has a certain resemblence from some angles.