sixpacktr

A-train, I agree. I don't think that the law makers have the backbone to pass the gay rights bills. It is poison to them. That way they can say they are all for it and then do nothing because of the evil religious right. However, seeing how they operate, they will do as they did with abortion and go the court route, where they have a much better chance of having those laws declared unconstitutional (how they do it, I don't know, but they do) and proceed. That will open the door to all sorts of legal marriages. I also think that no one would ask the Lord (if it were made legal) for fear of the answer. But Joseph fought it and fought it until he was told in no uncertain terms to do it or else. The Lord has his own timetable, and PM might not be part of it, I'm just speculating wildly here, but if it comes back I think that will be a severe trial for some and the persecutions will come back...

Shanstress, I know that you are no longer LDS, but I'll be honest with you, you shouldn't put the questions out there for all to see. When I was in the Bishopric we weren't even allowed to have a copy of them: they had to stay in the temple recommend book. The same goes for the guide books we are given as PH leaders, those that state church policy. They aren't made generally known. I read them both, cover to cover. There isn't anything in there that is shocking or out of this world, but the church does not want these published for all to see. Why? I don't know, but I do believe that there is a reason behind it.

I guess that is why I asked. As the documentary last night pointed out: we have become mainstream. We are no longer looked at with fear or suspicion as we once were (although, having spent the last 10 years in the South, there still is a lot of prejudice and outright lies that go on in some of the churches there). Pres Packer once stated that he worried that we had become too accepted by the rest of the world, and in actuality that should not be the case. I tend to believe him. The First Vision put us immediately at odds with the rest of the religious world. Polygamy set the civil authorities against us, as well as others. I don't know, but I think that something HUGE is going to happen sometime in the future that will once again set us apart from the world in a way that will shake the faith of many, that will act as a great winnowing out of those with an insufficient testimony. We currently kind of cling to the WofW as setting us apart, but with the studies in on smoking, drinking, etc., now the world, while still regarding us as kind of weird, can see the benefits of this lifestyle. We are seen as nice (if deluded) people, with strong families and work ethic, and as people that don't want to offend anyone. If, however, polygamy were once again embraced, I see the world immediately shunning us again. I can't see any other issue (except for animal sacrifice??) that would push the world's buttons so badly. Something has to drive them to want to drive us away from them and kill us if possible.

I think we have 10 years. I think that we will quickly go downhill and have gay marriage become accepted and lawful. The real question after that: will the Church reintroduce Polygamy as a practice then? We no longer will be outside the law, as in 1890. Remember, polygamy wasn't widespread in the church even when it was practiced. If I remember right, only about 2-3% of the men were polygamists. It was almost like a calling...

Part 2 wasn't much better, I'm afraid. I know it wasn't supposed to be a proselyting tool, but the talked to some "Mormon Intellectuals" that wanted to preach false doctrine, period. One woman made the HC Court sound like a kangaroo court, never bringing up how it actually worked, etc., and the whole blind obedience, repression of women, etc., came thru again. But there were good parts too. The woman from Oakland was a hoot, and her testimony really shined thru, I felt. So did the two stories of the families that had illness/death and their strong conviction and testimony of the sealing power and that families continue forever. I felt they focussed too much on the temple and made it sound like we do really weird things in there (kind of quaint to some, etc.), almost like we do animal sacrifice, etc. Oh well, it was from the outside looking in, and maybe that is how the world really sees us??

Kyle, When you said your in your 20s and then a liberal, I'm not surprised. Give it about 15 years, when you're married, have kids that are older, and you look at all the taxes you are paying and how much you could use them instead of someone else, and you'll become a conservative. It's just a matter of time.

WordFlood, Are you a survivalist, doomsday type of guy, or have you been put in charge of emergency preparedness at church? Great links. I was kind of apathetic (I carry my 2 years supply with me, I'd always say), but then put in charge of EP as a member of the Bishopric and helped set it up in our ward with the EP Coordinator. Really opened my eyes, and made me realize that I'd better get off my duff! That, and we had a GA come to our stake a couple of years ago quoting Pres Hinckley about the signs of the times and he finished with "You've been warned, brethren". (during a PH Ldrshp meeting). Needless to say, I was a tad alarmed...

Yes, it does. The whole reason for attending Sacrament meeting is to partake of the Sacrament and renew your covenants. Do you know that when you worthily partake of the Sacrament your sins are forgiven you again? Just like being baptized all over... I don't know your situation, and don't need to know. However, I would really counsel you to attend Sacrament and feel the spirit again and partake of the Sacrament. It will help you, I promise. I don't know your ward, but I guarantee that they will be happy to see you. I know we always were happy to see people come back...

JCDean, As Bill Cosby used to say: Raht own, raht own... It is simply amazing to me how little those that live in the free enterprise system treasure what they have. They think that socialism or, heaven help us, communism is the answer. I sometimes wonder if the God in Heaven doesn't sometimes just hang his head and wonder: what more do they want! I give them freedom, I give them the opportunity to be whatever they want, and they gripe! And these people ignore the absolute ecstasy of people that have found this freedom after having had their rights trampled on for years or decades, who can't understand how ANYONE in the West could complain. But as the Savior said: Wisdom is justified in her children....

I'm getting a chance to take it easy. We just moved and I was called as the MP 4th Sunday Instructor for our branch. Yippee!

No, you understand correctly. The Celestial Law is Consecration (which, BTW, we have covenanted to do...). However, we aren't held to that standard at this time because of whatever reason. The fact that most church members do not pay a full tithe could be the reason why. I did the math one time, very roughly, and figured that only about 10-13% of church members pay a full tithe. And look at what the church does with that money! Just think if everyone active paid a full tithe, and then if everyone that was a member did. I cannot imagine the good that would be done. A temple in every stake, about 3 other BYUs, etc., etc. Not to mention fast offerings. But because we are where we are the Lord isn't going to thrust upon us a law we cannot keep, because then too many of his children would be damned...

I have grown a little tired of Townhall, as it seems a lot of these guys are over there. Mr. Adams is another one that likes to take shots are the Mormons. I read some of the articles, but for the most part don't go over there anymore...

So many replies, so many things I could say, but won't

The only person off limits is Jack. When they killed Curtis (Black Jack) at the beginning of this season I couldn't believe it. Now they have Doyle, the other Jack... With 24 and Prison Break, no time for Home Evening on Mondays!

Are you all sure about the guns not being allowed on a plane? I thought that if you put it in a bag and checked it, and declared it, then it was alright. Obviously you can't bring it on the plane with you... Having travelled a lot, I get a kick out of how I could pass thru Atlanta with penknife in my bag, no problem, but if I had 4 oz of deodorant in my bag when I got on at a smaller airport (instead of 3 oz in a clear plastic bag), I was pulled aside and given a full body cavity search!

Thats what Im talking about! Give me the law of consecration please! I would be all over that!! Easier to say than to do. The early saints thought it was great too, until it touched their possessions. I must say that I don't really agree with the premise of this thread. I personally don't see a thing wrong with owning a big house, a tank, a rocket, or a battleship if you can afford it. If you can't, and you try to, then I think that is where greed comes in. If you are jealous of those that have those things, or you have to have it because someone else does, that is where greed comes in. The standard of living in the US is what it is. The rest of the world, for the most part, is jealous of this and that is why they hate us. The forget the incredible amount of foreign aid we give, the incredible amount of money that comes from us "greedy Americans" that feeds, clothes, and provides medicine for them. That includes the welfare bums out there. It is easy to cast stones. If you are paying you tithing and a generous fast offering, then the Lord is happy with you.

Watched it once or twice, kind of switching back and forth, before 24 started. My time from 9-10 p.m. from Jan thru May is called for... Jack Bauer is the true Hero!

My family and I watched it last night (we taped 24!). I thought it was okay. I thought they focused too much on Mountain Meadows and on Polygamy. MM was depicted as the result of years of persecution and the "blind obedience" thing, which kind of rubbed me wrong. I have no doubt that some of the members committed murder. But what they left out was that there was some confrontation btw the Fancher party and the Mormons, and that there were some that claimed to have taken part in Parley Pratt's assassination, or at least condoned it, and I remember reading somewhere that some of them even said they had Parley in a barrel in the wagon train (that may be a faith promoting rumor...). To say the least, these were not innocent people that just happened across a bunch of mind numbed robots doing Brigham Young's bidding. That doesn't excuse what happened, but it does help understand why some of the men cracked, I believe. On polygamy, they kept stating that this was the doctrine we wish we could ignore and get out of our past. I don't! It was divinely given, it was renounced (not denounced) in order to save the church from having all of its property confiscated and its leadership jailed (which very possibly could have led to a huge apostasy). I believe that some day it will come back. I don't know when, I don't know how, but I believe it will. Not that I want or need another wife! I drive her nuts and she me--besides, I don't need her to have an ally... They also had people on there that portrayed Joseph as a charlatan, as an oversexed tyrant in ways, etc. Nothing new there. I think this was a good thing. It will lead to conversations, and I think that in the long run this will be good because of the questions it raises. I already had a woman here at work tell me how excited she was to watch it. Now I'll have the opportunity to correct some of the misleading paths this went down and maybe help her see... I'm looking forward to tonight. I'm particularly wanting to see the clip about the black woman in Oakland that is now the RS President. They had a clip of her last night: these guys tell me about a white boy, a dead angel, and some gold plates! How preposterous it sounds! But how true it is, and how grateful I am that I believe the Prophet Joseph.

I particularly liked Elder Bednar's comment that we will all, at one time or another, be offended by someone at church. It is inevitable. It was one of those talks that will be referred to for a long time, much as Elder McConkie's talk on Christ, Pres Benson's talks on the BOM and Pride, Elder Oak's talk on Pornography. I was a Bishop's son, and knew of some that didn't come to church because they didn't like my father. I spent time in a Bishopric and had the same result, even though that Bishop was very kind hearted. I feel that many times those that take offense want a reason to not come, and saying so-and-so or that Bishop, etc., hurt my feelings so I'm never going back, is a way to achieve that. But we still have a responsiblity and obligation as HT and VT to visit them and help them as best as we can, and give them every chance to repent and prepare themselves...

Blessed, If you wish this type of generalization to stop, then you need to stand up and be counted within this movement or else it will continue to be hijacked by the whackos. Simply wishing it won't stop it. And, sadly, if we continue to think it is just a small fringe group, they are the vocal ones, they are the ones that enact laws that damage the greater good. All for the sake of a fish. Our way of life as we know it is coming to an end. These types know the judicial system, and much like the gays, will get their way unless their propaganda is fought with truth and facts. And let's be really honest here: the entire focus of the tree huggers is to destroy the US, to make us either like the Europeans or, better yet in their minds, like the 3rd world countries. And that is all driven by jealousy. Jealousy of our standard of living, jealousy of our freedoms (which are quickly dwindling away), jealousy of our ability to make whatever we want of ourselves. By making industry meet standards that are like picking pepper off of fly poop in their efficacy is stupid and immoral and exactly what the tree huggers want. Read the facts, use the God-given ability you have to see that this is a smoke screen to destroy us.

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company] The information I provided all had the quotes/footnotes/documentation, but it kind of clumped up. Everytime you see a documentation notation, it is AFTER the information. When I read this, my jaw literally dropped open. But that is the type of attitude most of the tree huggers have. Save mother earth, at all costs.

The problem, Blessed, is that even when presented with the data on DDT, people refuse to believe it. It plainly shows this woman LIED to prove a point, and everyone jumped on board, and it lasted for 30 years and over 94 MILLION deaths. As I said, I believe this will fall upon those people's heads. Just so you are aware, I am a conservationist. I don't pollute, think it is a sin to do so. Heavenly Father gave us this earth to tend and nurture. I also am pro-hunting and fishing. Man is a part of this world, and we have the beasts here for food as well as beauty. Again, killing for killing's sake and to have a nice head mounted on your wall I believe may cross a line, but I'm not sure on that. Hunters contribute way more dollars to preserving nature than most of the environmental whackos out there, thru their hunting licenses and stamps and other fund raising activities because they know that without those areas the game goes away and so does their hobby. There is a balance in all things. My belief is that people's lives are worth more than animal's lives are. Period. The whackos don't believe that. Read the post I put up before, bolded, where the UN committee even stated it was better for all those 3rd world people to die of malaria. Stalin and Hitler didn't even do as much damage. And yet the whackos keep on jumping on that big sheep wagon because they can't think for themselves. What really galls me is the most of these whackos want OTHERS to live in primitive 3rd world type conditions while they live in big mansions, fly private planes, etc., etc. Just ONCE I'D like to see an AlGore live in a hut in the middle of Africa with the threat of malaria, bad food because of no refrigeration (thanks to the ban on CFCs), unhealthy water, etc. But they care more, so I guess that is what makes them better than me...

Blessed, Didn't mean to offend you, but I stand by my remarks on mental. And it wasn't meant as a joke, but I am serious. They fail to see the forest for the trees. As for DDT, I am copying some of the tidbits from JunkScience regarding DDT. It was a myth then, and repeating that DDT is bad doesn't make it correct: "In May 1955 the Eighth World Health Assembly adopted a Global Malaria Eradication Campaign based on the widespread use of DDT against mosquitos and of antimalarial drugs to treat malaria and to eliminate the parasite in humans. As a result of the Campaign, malaria was eradicated by 1967 from all developed countries where the disease was endemic and large areas of tropical Asia and Latin America were freed from the risk of infection. The Malaria Eradication Campaign was only launched in three countries of tropical Africa since it was not considered feasible in the others. Despite these achievements, improvements in the malaria situation could not be maintained indefinitely by time-limited, highly prescriptive and centralized programmes." [bull World Health Organ 1998;76(1):11-6] "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable." [National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.] It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years. [Africa News, January 27, 1999] Here is some more: Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs. Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing." [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company] How's that for caring about people? Kind of scary, isn't it? Along the lines of Nazi Germany's propaganda? How about this? Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic. William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won." But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that "DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation." But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus stated, "As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions ... because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review." Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by stating that as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the government, but as head of the EPA he was "a maker of policy." [barrons, 10 November 1975] Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." [sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)] Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. [santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972] After reversing the EPA hearing examiner's decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just "internal memos." Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus' "Opinion and Order on DDT." IV. Human exposure Actual human exposures have always been far lower than the "acceptable" level. Human ingestion of DDT was estimated to average about 0.0026 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day) about 0.18 milligrams per day. [Hayes, W. 1956. J Amer Medical Assn, Oct. 1956] In 1967, the daily average intake of DDT by 20 men with high occupational exposure was estimated to be 17.5 to 18 mg/man per day, as compared with an average of 0.04 mg/man per day for the general population. [iARC V.5, 1974]. Dr. Alice Ottoboni, toxicologist for the state of California, estimated that the average American ingests between 0.0006 mg/kg/day and 0.0001 mg/kg/day of DDT. [Ottoboni, A. et al. California's Health, August 1969 & May 1972] "In the United States, the average amount of DDT and DDE eaten daily in food in 1981 was 2.24 micrograms per day (ug/day) (0.000032 mg/kg/day), with root and leafy vegetables containing the highest amount. Meat, fish, and poultry also contain very low levels of these compounds." [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD] The World Health Organization set an acceptable daily intake of DDT for humans at 0.01 mg/kg/day. "Air samples in the United States have shown levels of DDT ranging from 0.00001 to 1.56 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3), depending on the location and year of sampling. Most reported samples were collected in the mid 1970s, and present levels are expected to be much lower. DDT and DDE have been reported in surface waters at levels of 0.001 micrograms per liter (ug/L), while DDD generally is not found in surface water. National soil testing programs in the early 1970s have reported levels in soil ranging from 0.18 to 5.86 parts per million (ppm)." [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD] V. Cancer DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in Silent Spring and a breast carcinogen in Our Stolen Future. Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates." [J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25] A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. "Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer." [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Jun;8(6):525-32] There is more, if you care to read it. It has been a crock dreamed up by some author that skewed her information (how about that?!) to prove a point that never existed. In my opinion, the deaths of millions are upon the heads of these idiots that wanted to save a few birds (and the data proved it really didn't make any difference). I remember as a kid being told that DDT was next to talking to strangers in danger, and that all the baby eagles were going to die. At that time I was a young mind full of mush and actually believed it. Now, though, I can think, unlike most of the sheep that climb on AlGore's private plane...

It's only a matter of time before these people begin to blame the solar flares (which, by the way, also cause global warming. I mean, if you bring the sun closer to us by several million miles, it has to raise temps, doesn't it?) on us. The environmentalists are costing this planet billions of dollars, as well as costing millions of lives because of Malaria and other diseases. DDT was a very safe and very effective method of controlling mosquitoes. But since a few eagles eggs became a little thin we switched to something much less effective and much more deadly to humans, and now millions a year die because of the tree hugging whackos. They prize the life of animals more than they do of humans. It is simply unbelievable, but moreso that so many sheep buy into their propaganda...

Winnie G, Pres Hinckley is exactly dead on in this. If the homes are secure and correct principles are being taught (honesty, love, etc.) then we don't need a theocracy, which seems to be sgallan's fear, because people will choose what is right anyway. Where the problem comes in is that the family is under assault today, and the gov't has chosen to be everyone's nanny, which is causing all the problems IMHO. The gov't should stay out of religion, but shouldn't be prohibiting the free exercise of it. The crud about infringing on some poor Muslim's rights, or atheist rights, by showing a creche or other scene on the public square during Christmas is a crock of crap. What do they think the season is about?! It isn't an endorsement of Christianity, simply an acknowledgement of a holiday. But the lawyers, in the best Zeezrom and Nehor tradition, have made it a religious issue, with the evil Christians trying to force their religion down other's throats... Common sense has left the building...