the Ogre

If being a fat, bearded, load-mouth is perfection, then I got it down. No more study for me. I'll tell the bishop to stop worrying about me. Aaron the Ogre

I think what defines a scholar pivots on what one is a scholar of. I can analyze the BoM as literature, as I'm sure some people have, but I can not discuss it as an ancient document because I know next to nothing about how to even begin and really do not care to. Why it is not important to me? My faith is not based on archeology or anthropology or any other type of scholarship, so it is not important to me. Nor do I think it should be important to gain faith based on the words and philosophies of another person.Aaron the Ogre

Bar-B-Que baby Bar-B-Que. Slow and low baby slow and low.I love paying my tithing, but I know the L-rd loves me even if I don't. I doubt you left the church over tithing (that would be pretty trite if you did). I know the L-rd loves you and the nice thing about being a mormon is agency, so you get to choose the bar-b-que sauce. Or maybe you prefer a dry rub. Or maybe it's mustard you want slathered on your ribs when you get cooked for not paying up when you were supposed to. Sorry, that burn bit got me going. (okay inhale quick three times) If you are LDS, then tithing is important. Individual righteous is a personal thing, but I think modern revelation covers that part about tithing being important for temple worthiness. (I know some people who like catsup based sauce, but mine has blueberries and cayenne pepper)

That's hard for me (my emphasis is in literary criticism and rhetoric), but there is one literary critic I know who has discussed the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith (and is not LDS-he claims Gnostic Judaism): Harold Bloom.Aaron the Ogre

However, there are many who do. I do not think it is of much concern considering the people in academia who focus on the tight circles of their own personal research or expertise.

My daughter had issues as well. Her problem was not so much with the leadership as with the other girls. I don't think telling them to wait for acceptance helps either because time for teen-agers moves so slowly. The only thing that seemed to work was just telling her to stay active and go to her friends group as well if she really wanted to. I was quite firm that she had to be active in our ward as well.

For like during church? Well if you were LDS, no one would ever ask you to do anything in church ever again. If that is your plan and purpose, then I recommend it highly (I've been wearing vans-red on the left foot and checker board on the right and I switch every week to make sure the shoes wear evenly).

Yeah . . . lol . . . I guess . . . did you listen or think about anything I said? I guess not. That's okay, enjoy the bliss you undoubtedly feel at the moment . . . I guess.BTW, because you have appointed yourself the new authority on what is correct, should I then petition you regarding everything because if you claim to be an authority over anything you have said then you may as well claim the correct interpretation of everything said (I sure hope you have oiled your pocket Urrim & Thummin so you'll be able to get it all right and accurate)? I am not to worried about it though . . . you are continuing to defend a sandy position long ago washed out by water. It's not that I claim the higher ground. Regarding any conversation had between us, I don't believe in a possible higher anything when it comes to disscussion held between two people (remember the agregate equal comment?).

. #1 I was watching hurricane Inikki roll by in Hawaii wishing that I was surfing instead of helping Maui Land and Pine ground crews cover freshly-planted, experimental pineapple fields. . #2 I was eating dog (steamed and served in gae-nip of course, not the traditional "tang" normally eatten) in the Sam Poong Department Store in Seoul South Korea the day it colapsed killing five hundred plus people. . #3 I was loading bullets in my M203 in a Heuy bolting towards the DMZ in 1988 during the olympic tennis medal rounds as part of a national alert when NK decided it would conduct unannounced field exercises. .

What a pile of undefined material emmitted from the rear orifice of a donkey (political parties unwithstanding). Equal means equal. Do not define your equality only as based on your service in the PH. That was a joke, as I have stated many times! I was not saying we are superior because we have the priesthood...I was saying that men are woefully inadequate without it, so if women had that too, it would make their superiority that much greater than it already is...ITS CALLED SARCASM! You know...HAHA? Read the other stuff I have said on the subject and take it in context... Yep, I read them and after reading it I decided to let my post stand. You might call it sarcasm, but once something is said, the sayer no longer owns it and can thus be interpreted in any way the hearer wants. Regarding context think of my donkey metaphor, if you can't understand what my context is find a donkey. There were better posts expressing what equality means. I have heard for years how people pedestalize women and I am tired of it. I dislike this kind of behavior as much as I dislike illinformed remarks made about women and their place in society (as if such a position could be defined). Men and women are as agregate wholes equal, and yet are completely different. This does not mean one is priveledged over the other. Men need to get over the thought that the PH somehow is the great equalizer. It is not, it is a resposibily and joy given men by G-d, but it does not make a man better or worse than a woman. What makes a person who they are is what they define themselves as by choice. An example is Jason's new claims at a particular faith, or that only a few weeks ago, El decided to call herself an athiest. This is how they have decided to identify themselves llike I have decided to say I am LDS. The way one works within the PH is personal choice. If you define yourself only by the priesthood, then go right ahead. This definition does not make you in anyway different then the woman who claims to be the most scrapbookinest Molly Mormon on the planet who has determined that her skills with a label maker are more important to her then her ability or opportunities to procreate. What makes a person different is only of real value when viewed from the eyes of the L-rd not anyone else. The L-rd determines value and only his measurement matters, no one else's. The L-rd has yet to say if gender or the priesthood makes one of more value, but society does it constantly. The L-rd has told us to throw off the natural man and when society becomes a natural limb of the natural man we are to ignore it unless one decides not to. These choices are what matters, not on the false ways in which society measures a person.

Bah . . . Phallacy away.

NO What a pile of undefined material emmitted from the rear orifice of a donkey (political parties unwithstanding).Equal means equal. Do not define your equality only as based on your service in the PH. Love this.

Do you mean common secular definitions? No. Do I accept certain definitions? Yes, but they are my own and I derive those from my understanding of the scriptures and LDS theology. What is evil for one person might be different for me. I think this is the same for most people. Here is an interesting concept: for mortality there is no absolute good or absolute evil. Only G-d is absolutely good as H-s antithesis is absolutely evil. In the same vien, there is no absolute truth or untruth. Mortality is not capable of it. I can not give a perfect understanding of evil or good, only approximations. The example we were discussing on another thread (the sexual abuse of a child) is an aproximation of evil, but the definition is highly personal. If you feel similarly, there is a connection between the two of us, but if you do not then there is no connection only a difference. This is where for me the examination is interesting, the study of connections and differences between faiths and theology as opposed to confirming or denying truth claims from different theologies, philosophies, religions, or moral positions regardless of their claims to reason or unreason and the ensuing dialogue between diverse groups. I do know what is true for me most of the time (though not always), but I do not seek to know the truth as defined by other mortals only the conversations between multiple groups and individuals. Other truth claims are for the most part not that interesting execpt in the conflict that comes from such claims and the then claimants. Am I interested in truth? Yes, but only that of G-d and how H- defines it. Anything else is suspect and can not be seen as absolute, only approximation. The conflicts of approximation, though, are interesting and worthy of examination. The truth of G-d is actual and real just like the light of the sun or the gravititational pull of the earth, moon, sun, and stars, but like the truth of G-d, these actualities are not completely understood (and why the work of Albert Einstein is still theory-general and special reletivity and brownian motion) and are still studied and like theological discussion, I find the conflicts more interesting then the truth claims or the individual truth claimants. If truth is relative as I seem to feel, what is the point of considering it as truth instead of as claims or framed arguements regardless of how smart they seem?

Yep, Proverbs 23:7.

No! It is the worst of trials and a curse no child should ever suffer from. For the neighbor, it could be temptation, but most likely the fulfillment of obsession, addiction, and a never-ending-quest for domination. CK! This is too extreme an example. How about the kid next door looking at porn or shop-lifting.

If the last phrase were, "to protect the life of the mother," I might be satisfied. By my simple answer, I did not mean that every single abortion must be guaranteed to end. I simply meant that the solution to killing babies is to no longer kill them. The solution to poverty, on the other hand, is multi-fronted (parents, schools, government, etc.). I'll have to tackle the rest later. ... I agree with "to protect the life of the mother". It is a much better phrase. I mean, the diet my ex likes when she is pregnant is not healthy for anyone, much less a pregnant woman.

Yeah, but are there enough of those hard-core EVs to create such a super majority? I don't think so. I also do not think all LDSs would also support a complete ban.Regarding abortion, I have told by many EVs that the LDS church is indeed liberal, but that is after they tell me we are heretical and accursed. There are worse things to be called than this, so I don't worry and leave them to their divisive ignorance.

Jaime,I'm not an RM either and have done many of the incredibly stupid men do. I just bought a new pair of vans on Saturday. I've been wearing vans for my entire life, but my daughter told me the black and white check ones were stupid looking. I haven't had a pair of those since I was twenty. I really wanted a pair again, so I got them. I think they are fabulous and then told my daughter not to mess with my mid-life crisis. What reminds me the most of the stupidities of my youth? "One Bourbon, One Scotch, and One Beer" by George Thorogood. What reminds me of the trek back into church activity? "The Unforgiven" by Metallica. Aaron the Ogre

Exactly. Which is why there needs to be a lot of work done to accomplish this goal, and only a few would want it completely outlawed anyway. We are discussing American politics after all aren't we. See, we do agree.

This is where Frank's market ideas can be applied. Most doctor's operate out of politcal belief, but for the most part they are in it for the money. When the market stops demanding it, then the market for such surgery will disappear. So then how do dry up the market's drive. Religion has not done it. On an EV board I sometimes frequent that is notorious for their opposition to abortion I have noted that no one condemns people who have had abortions, abortionists, and pro-choicers/NOW with the same fervency they condemn every Latter-day Saint on the planet. If their zeal for attacking the LDS church were the same as convincing their own flocks of the wrong in abortion, then some progress would happen. The problem with Frank's model is that it will not control something that is obviously immoral. Laissez Faire politics and economics do not control something that is wrong. Look at many of the industries in the US prior to the creation of laws that required enforced safety systems. Me too. I think this is also true of most LDSs. There was a poll of Utahns after the last election that revealed most voted for Pres. Bush because of his views on abortion and homosexuality rather then a complete belief in his entire platform. Don't get me wrong, Utah is definitely a conservative state, but it is not nearly as conservative as many in the Eagle forum would like. Overall, I think most LDSs are fairly moderate except on the issues I noted above. A friend of mine recently emailed saying to not worry about childhood poverty because the L-rd during the second coming would take care of everything and that we should not worry about it now. I did not email back. I went over to his house and hit him with my newspaper and then ate dinner with him, his wife, and kids and worked him over considering the thoughtlessness of his position. “Stop It” is wishful thinking and a constitutional amendment will not happen unless the abortion debate can be better managed. The absolutism of Stop it is as short sighted as most arguments supporting atheism. And to be also blunt, I do not think you will be satisfied with an answer that dictates a national abortion law that outlaws abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. OI!!! I am not interested in expanding the role or influence of the US government in anyone's life. In fact over all it needs to just back down, but there are some areas that need improvement (this does not mean more funding however, maybe rearranging the money already brought in would be better-and no this does not mean cutting military or space spending). I already think we have socialized daycare and medicine. I think they are vital, but at the same time that does not mean they are perfect. We are living in a society that is nearly as socialized as is Europe. I think we can learn from what the English are doing while recognizing that their situation is not ours (I would rather be homeless and steal then live in the project-like estates they force the poor and redundant into). I think they should be the extreme side of the equation opposite Frank's libertarianism and then devise a system that deconstructs this binary closer to libertarianism then what GB does. Maintaining the status quo is out of the question, however. There is a lot of corruption in our system and loopholes that need examination. While recognizing your reticence, I feel it is closer to cowardice (the position and philosophy, not you personally) then prudence. Yup, my exact concern. I agree with this as well, but I think it is a risk that must be taken. An active understanding of your allies is important in forging a solution to problems that must be overcome. I think so too, as on many issues we've exchanged views on. But, Ohhhhh, that 10%!!!

Now say it three times, we are all credible witnesses.

PC, Just to clear the air. I am not pointing an angry finger at you (as in Jason's ad hominem pout), just the position in general. That said, let's get back to the fun and general sport of finger pointing. You say no, I say yes. Absolutely yes. I am however not lobbying for some type of "particular [political] proposal" or ideology. I think that the US can do something about poverty, but many have given up or some think it is important to have a poverty class so that some important jobs can be done or to give good Chr-stians something to do or talk about. I think as we explore space, fight international terrorism and tyranny, and make loads of cash as capitalists, we as a people can also cure poverty. I do not think throwing money is the solution, but I also know that the solutions that will work (equalizing education and access to employment, to name two possible beginnings) are going to take money. Sorry, nothing is free in the world we live in unfortunately. The solutions to widespread social ills amongst children can be much more complex and nuanced. The solutions to both abortion and poverty are complex and nuanced. The first is so because many very influential people and political groups think it is important to have 100% access to any type of abortion and even more to limited forms of abortion. Criminalizing abortions will not work because it will go under ground again or people will go overseas as they are beginning to do so now. And again, it is the worst form of moral blackmail to say: You cannot legitimate oppose legalized killing if you do not also advocate a particular government program response to hardships amongst children. If you are going to insist on calling it blackmail, then you have a right to the term, but watch who you call a blackmailer. I can easily say one is hand in hand with the other. I would like to say to poor mothers that their babies will be able to live a better life not on the dole or redundant. Many people need government assistance, but wouldn't it be great if we worked as a people to defeat entitlement addiction, abortion, and poverty. It can be done, but to only stand for one and not the others is self-defeating. I will also say quite simply that those who oppose abortion, but do not want to find a solution to poverty (political or not) deserve to have their feet held to the fire. And again, I totally disagree. To be blunt--you do not have to be a liberal Democrat to oppose legalized killng of children. Quite often people of faith are paying full taxes in addition to 10% of their income to their communities of faith. They offer hours of volunteer time, they give more to charities than the unchurched, and sometimes, they even fund public education, while paying for their own children's religious education. Then, we get accused of being hypocrites because we do not support program-B, which will result in yet another raise in taxes, for often nebulous results. I am not a liberal anything and oppose poverty. I have said that abortion most of the time is foul, but the LDS church has said that there are instances that it can be allowed. I stand by those qualifications. I am also not conservative anything and oppose abortion (with noted qualifications and one other) and most big government programs (as Frank pointed out many are corrupt, but reformation is possible--so many loopholes and exemptions must be closed). What I will say is that I am a nebulous person (as is everyone else, we are not a single atom, but billions and as such how can anyone be simple?). I recognize the problem as nebulous and as such the solution as nebulous. With anything human, reductionism is wrong. Why did the L-rd not teach us laws as he commanded Moses to do and instead taught us principals? The L-rd recognized that our world is nebulous and that only governing principals will work. What if there are people with no principals and they need specifics, then invent the specifics as long as they do not violate or bypass the governing principals. Now for the real kicker: who is it that gets to determine these governing principals? With humans there is always opposition. Some people (like myself) are just plain contrary and disagree just for sport. Others do it because they seriously want to disable anything that might actually benefit humanity (by saying this I am not putting you in this pot). Get beyond the simple view of existence and then eventually solutions can be forged.

Yed,I am sorry I did not PM you as well, but I have been concerned and have been patrolling some of the other boards looking for you (I was looking for you signature writing style and heart). I am glad you reposted. I hope you continue to post here. Your voice is sorely needed. Aaron the Ogre

I see, its okay to fight abortion and allow people, children in particular, to live in the sewer.One does not beget the other, but I do not see how they are separate. Abortion for the most part is foul, but so is not extending a hand to those who need a help up. You do not see the hypocrisy in you position, but I fail in not being blinded by it. You are right, it is not about increasing the overall human pop. But I think their name is a misnomer, if they are not willing to help improve the quality of life of those who need it, they ought be using a different one.

There can be no doubt that there is wide-spread abuse of the system, but isn't that reason to implement changes to the system and how it is managed? What you have stated does not provide reason enough for eradication of programs that do help many people that need the assistance.