Amillia

What I heard was that Bush thinks we are too stupid to tell us about the stock market needing our cash to stay afloat and that we had to be bushwacked with a blind of SS threat (that wasn't real) in order to get us to voluntarily give our cash to the faltering stock market ~ because bush doesn't want the crash of 29 rerun coming up and biting his presidency in the butt! You heard wrong. I don't think so. I should be more clear. You may not have heard wrong, but what you heard IS wrong. Does that help? George Bush does not think Americans are stupid, the AFL/CIO wants US to think that HE thinks that. Actually, it looks to me as if you are the gullible one believing everything the AFL/CIO writes in their fundraising letters. Out of curiosity, how much of their SPAM do you get in a month? What credible evidences are there that the stock market is faltering? Please be as specific as possible, with supporting links or references. I didn't hear this in an e-mail. It was spoken on a radio program. I believe it. I think you are the gulible one.

Japanese inventions!!!!

What I heard was that Bush thinks we are too stupid to tell us about the stock market needing our cash to stay afloat and that we had to be bushwacked with a blind of SS threat (that wasn't real) in order to get us to voluntarily give our cash to the faltering stock market ~ because bush doesn't want the crash of 29 rerun coming up and biting his presidency in the butt! Don't you guys remember Bill Clinton hyping the Social Security "crisis" during his presidency? Now the Dems are saying "no crisis, never was." I wouldn't call Social Security's upcoming insolvency a "crisis" -- there's plenty of time to fix the problem one way or another. But there is a built-in problem with the time coming in only a few years where the system will start paying out more than it takes in, and the problem will only get worse. I suspect the ultimate result will be to cut benefits, which is why I want to be able to take control of part of my own payroll tax so it can't be cut. Basically, I figure my choice is (1) a guarantee that the government will cut my benefits; and (2) the possibility that declining investments could result in cuts in my benefits. I'll risk the possibility over the sure thing. No I do not remember Clinton saying there was a crisis. He must not have gone on the road to campaign the change.

Thanks Jenda! B) Sheesh... just when it was getting fun. Seems to be the way of this board... or bored. Well for Maureen's and Chicago's sake I will put up a scripture to ponder: D&C 121: 11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun; 12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness; 13 Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost; 14 That they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off; 15 And not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall. 16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. 17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. 18 And those who aswear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death— 19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the bordinances of mine house. 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them. 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation. 22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea. 23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell. 24 Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all; 25 For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be.

Hmmm, an interesting belief. One is free to follow one's religious beliefs so long as their religious beliefs don't violate your idea of how marriage ought be structured. Tell me, do you think multiple sexual partners in general should be prohibited, or just if the multiple partners are married to each other? compelling questions Snow.

that women not being the "lesser" of the sexes, but being understanding of what range of authority women have (or don't have) in the LDS faith. That we as LDS women are willing to support the male gender in holding the priesthood, and not having hissy fits ** because the church "rules against" women holding such authority. and thumb their noses at those "rules"? Am I on the right track USN? Or have I totally derailed and gone completely off the track?** such wording taken from a woman I know who became a pastor I think you have what he meant to say. I think women don't mind being submissive to righteous men. The problem is ~ finding righteous men to be submissive to ~... LOL

As you obey Heavenly Father. And I am not too afraid of that happening!

Hmmmm, I didn't think of that.

Thanks Jenda! B)

Amillia - It appears I have touched a nerve. You don't seem to be denying that that is how you see things. If I'm wrong on your attitude toward what you view as "anti" then set me straight. To get back on track though, this thread is really for ChicagoGuy. It's not clear if he has been back since he has not responded yet. But hopefully, he'll be able to take away some advice from the posters here. M. Apparently you are the one whose nerve was touched here. You are making stuff up again and putting your slant to it ~ just to be able to have something to say: <span style='color:red'>You don't seem to be denying that that is how you see things. <span style='color:blue'>If I'm wrong on your attitude toward what you view as "anti" then set me straight.</span> With a common tagged on ~ As for ChicagoGuy, I hope he is busy reading whyprophet.com. :)

Oh, BTW, speaking of the lesser sex, the nightly news had a story on last night about how the women were becoming the top in everything. They are now out doing the men in education and positions in the job place. They also stated that they are the highest and most numerous honor students, valadictorians, and other places of high honor which used to be mostly held by men. It was strongly suggested that men had fallen way below women in every catagory of life. :)

If the Lord stated (and very clearly so) that it is not good for man to be alone, but never once mentioned anywhere that it was not good for woman to be a lone, how can we be the lesser sex?And if we are so lesser, then why are we given the greater responsibility of co-creating with God, bodies for His children? And if men and women are to become one flesh, the equation is lopsided ~ from the lesser half. Where in the scriptures does it say women are lesser? Do you know about the prophetess Deborah? Now her husband was the lesser sex if ever there was one. And if Eve hadn't gone and made the decision to eat of the fruit, we wouldn't be here yet. That is why she was given the greater responsibility of carrying the children ~ cause she would be the one strong enough to handle the job. She proved herself the smarter and greater one in the garden and men wrote it down differently (as if it were a major faux pas) inorder to accomandate their pathetic egos. :)

What I heard was that Bush thinks we are too stupid to tell us about the stock market needing our cash to stay afloat and that we had to be bushwacked with a blind of SS threat (that wasn't real) in order to get us to voluntarily give our cash to the faltering stock market ~ because bush doesn't want the crash of 29 rerun coming up and biting his presidency in the butt! You heard wrong. I don't think so.

I wonder why it is that Japan doesn't invent squat while the US is the creative engine that drives world technological and cultural creation. You are kidding right? Cause that just isn't true.

Well what I heard is that Eddie Haskel was killed in Vietnam. So what. So ~ you don't believe it?

Well I at least know what my problem is ~ LOL I just thought I was getting old.

I know you are a sweet guy with a rough row to hoe. Hang in there ~ and not to worry about our disagreements. It just makes for a better understanding of the world we live in.

What I heard was that Bush thinks we are too stupid to tell us about the stock market needing our cash to stay afloat and that we had to be bushwacked with a blind of SS threat (that wasn't real) in order to get us to voluntarily give our cash to the faltering stock market ~ because bush doesn't want the crash of 29 rerun coming up and biting his presidency in the butt!

Right - I'm going to assume you are talking about these so-called "anti" authors. So if the hardships of polygamy are not written in that happy-go-lucky flavour then it must be "anti". Nothing terrible or real every happens to real people in the Mormon church, everyone lives such care-free lives with no concerns. So are you calling me "anti" now? Because I am non-LDS and don't see all Mormon history through rose-coloured glasses? I am far from "anti". I enjoy history and sometimes history isn't all positive, sometimes it's nasty - that's life! M. Maureen, you seem to have a lot of issues and I really don't want to deal with them. before you ask what issues: 1. Over dramatizing and villanizing everything I say. For instance: <span style='color:red'>he left the "true church" therefore he is of the "devil" now. I keep forgetting that. If it's not faith-promoting, it's crap, right? So are you calling me "anti" now? really Maureen grow up!

Homosexuality is a cognitive activity - Cognitive activities are learned. It is not the point that there is homosexuality - the point is that the truth is being hidden and a lie told over and over again until the lie is believed instead of truth. Therefore the question is what should someone do if they are aware of a lie. I am much more concerned with those that are so obsessed that they turn againt the truth and those that support it. The Traveler I agree. I read a study where they discussed the stages young people go through and how each one is impacting the end result of the adult human. They showed how much of the reason young people start thinking of themselves in terms of homosexuality is because that is what they have been given as an explanation for different (normal) judgments they make about themselves from feed back they get from their peer groups. It definitely is a cognitive choice, but most young people today do not understand the whole big picture of human developement ~ both physical and psychological.

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.

I have wished several times we were more like the Japanese in our training up and schooling of our children.

It is funny how things to do with our bodies living and dying seem to affect us on a permenant level. I remember the first time I saw a car accident when I was just little and the people were bleeding. It left an indelable impression on me for ever after. Hope things start looking up for you. You deserve something good to happen soon.

I think Mr. Tolworthy may see his departure different than you, but then again what does he know. I understand the word 'anti' as being against something and I'm pretty sure all of these authors are not against the Mormon church - they all have a very deep connection to the church. As far as I know both Newell and Avery are Mormon. Quinn was excommunicated but that didn't change his attitude and he is still Mormon via his beliefs. And Palmer was disfellowshipped but he is very much an ardent Mormon in his love for his church. So explain to me Amillia why you think these authors are 'anti'? M. I knew the mr. tolworthy during the months prior to his leaving the church. We had several indepth discussions, and emailed for a while; but maybe you know him better than I do~ And you know when people let anger blind them, they start using all sorts of other things to cover their leaving the church, after all they can't allow themselves or others to know they are really to blame ~ can they ~ it has to be the church's fault. Why do I think these authors are anti? LOL well I have read their stuff and it certainly isn't pro.

That sounds hard. You must be a very strong (inside and out) kind of guy.