Dravin

Because drinking those for a Mormons has negative outcomes, they offend our God and are certainly unhealthy spiritually if not physically. It distances them from God, you yourself says it precludes temple worship something we feel is bad (not being allowed to worship in the temple). God said, "Don't do it."* Not following God is a sin, ergo doing what God has told you not to do is sinning. Are you equally confused by say, thinking idol worship is bad? We have been told not to do it, we have been told such is a sin for us to do. Sin has negative outcomes, ergo drinking coffee (a sin) has negative consequences for us. Yes it was first advice, now it is commandment and something I covenanted with the Lord I would not do, thinking that breaking a promise to God is bad or that doing such is negative isn't that alien of a concept, or maybe it is. So can marital sex, addmitedly STDs are less of a concern but pregnancy is a possiblity. As far as STDs, a monogomous pair of coinhabitors who either tested clean or have never had sex before are at no more risk for STDs or unwanted pregnancy than a married couple in the same situation. Premarital sex != one night stands. BTW, I know people who don't think premarital sex or watching a movie where somebody takes the name of the Lord in vain is offensive or unhealthy.

I'm curious during the height of the cold war did we have an embargo against Russia? Seems to me the a good way to combat communism is to flood them with our decadent western goods particularly any culture we could get over there. I am not a PoliSci major however. Edi: Aww, beaten to it.

To be fair there are some subjects we are a lot more vocal about online then we are in real life, particularly around people we know might be offended though not necessarily. Now you've been active on the board more than I have so you may know more about what he actually tells his friends then I do. Just something to keep in mind though. Online I might go on about the evils of coinhabitation when ever the subject comes up but that doesn't mean if I have a friend doing so I don't shut up about the subject around him.

That's understandable, an athiest would find it difficult to grok* why somebody who is LDS doesn't want to watch a movie that takes the Lord's name in vain a ton of times. Same with various things, and it works both ways. The thinking that premartial sex is fine and dandy isn't that easy to grok for a lot of LDS either. For the record I don't think John Doe is morally lacking because he drinks coffee, nor if he has a glass of wine, well unless he's LDS, then he's breaking covenants but that's not what you are talking about. * I use grok here to indicate more than an intellectual exercise, an atheist can surely understand the thinking, "God find's it offensive, he's told me not to do it so I don't want to sit there and listen to it." just as somebody who is LDS can intellectually understand that if one doesn't believe its destructive spiritually and God hasn't told you not to, what's the beef? I may be using grok incorrectly but to be me it signifies a more gut understanding then an intellectual one.

Naw, I'm just saying that it is service provided. The ending of life takes a lot less sophistication than saving one in most circumstances so its a service that could be provide by a machine, in a lot of cases its self-administered (of course in that case it obviously isn't assisted). I suppose I am ignorant on the subject though, is there mandatory sit-downs or screenings by (or performed on behalf) of the doctor before he'll assist? The whole reason for doctor assisted suicide that I can see are the following: Nobody is going to stop you, nobody is going to bring you back, and its painless. Though I suppose there is a fourth for those in very poor medical condition and that is sitting in a hospital bed they aren't in a position phyiscally to get to such a booth if it exsisted or go through the rigormorole of doing it the old fashion way of making sure you won't be interrupted. As far as reflecting a change in society's views it would remove any ideas of medical oversight or anything resembling screening. Makes it less medical and more getter done. Seeing your comment about compassion I'd imagine such a society would be less for treating people who are suicide and just giving them a quater and dropping them off on the street corner, that's pure conjecture on my part though. Something has come of this conversation, the more I've been forced/encouraged to think about it even if legally such a thing could exist I don't see us reaching that point even if doctor assisted suicide lost any and all stigmas that are currently attached to it by society . Just like if abortion reached the status of some radical feminists would approve of I don't think we'd get abort-o-matics they'd still be performed by doctors. My understanding is that in Soviet Russia the prefered form of birth control was abortion instead of the pill (this is coming from the dusty shelves of my memory, this may not be correct) and even if they could I don't think they would have put up abort-o-matics. Of course that means if we did get suicide booths then society has change a whole heck of a lot but it becomes less useful to speculate on that. It's be like speculating what would happen if Stalin the 2nd gained power in the US, good with some popcorn but not exactly of any use in discussing the current societal situation. I generally don't consider the state in the buisness of preventing me from doing stuff that isn't A criminal (so suicide doesn't fall under that) or B a danger to others (most suicide attempts don't fall under that) doesn't matter how compansionate the state is or how much society at large doesn't want me to do it or even how much thought I put into it or how much emotional pain may have led up to the desicion. Think of abortion, most of society doesn't want this to be my first choice, a lot of society will help me with this not being the case, the law will even prevent me at a certain point from performing it when it feels I would cross over in to B territory however the state does not prevent me from doing it before that point, there is no 72 abortion prevention lock-ups to see if I'm actually going to go through with it. This does not mean society has no opinion on the matter or is even cheering me on, or that such decisions are being made lightly and on a whim. You can even get counseling if you are thinking about it same as you can get counciling if you are thinking about suicide but the state does not prevent it. I think you are infering something I'm not trying to imply, that the decision to kill yourself is on the same level as deciding to buy a snickers (and my fault for using that analogy, I can see why you may not have understood what I'm trying to say). I'm just saying as far as I understand they are both equally legal, why does the state step in to prevent one and not the other. Historical precendent and opposition to suicide and not to Snickers is an answer but I was wondering if there was some legal distrinction I'm missing. Well, I did and do derive some measure of enjoyment from posting. On a more nitpicky note, one of the ways to get around to undersanding someone's point if you don't understand it would be continued discourse, so if one didn't understand and wanted to, replying to the post is the obvious thing to do. I suppose you could have done a background check. People can still be insensitive punks and still experienced personal tragedy, so the fact you feel I'm a dork on the subject doesn't actually let you know anything. Most people would be more sensitive so you can assume and in most cases safely but that isn't the same as knowing. I had a cousin die and one almost die because somebody ran a red light, was persued by the cops thus he ran another light to get away, he plowed into the car my cousins were in. The one who died was riding shotgun, after the accident he was behind the driver. The driver almost died, would have if not for the fortune of the accident happening literally in sight and sound of the hospital, they heard the the accident in the ER, if he'd been much further way he wouldn't have made it. This isn't an appeal to claim, "I know somebody who died, I understand suicide." Because I don't, even if somebody who was close commited it I don't think I would, the concept of taking your own life because continued life is to horrid to contimplate will always be foreign to me unless I take a visit there myself. What I'm saying is that people can make jokes about speeding, running from the cops or disobeying traffic signs and I won't react in any way different than somebody who hasn't experienced what I have. Heck, I even crack such jokes myself, there would be no way to tell from such behavior any passed history I may or may not have on the subject. My understanding of that word is pretty much spot on with dictionary.com "I'd rather shoot myself than go out with you." falls under it as far as I can tell just as any other number of "I'd rather do X than Y" comments that get thrown around, of course if you'd rather do X then Y then it isn't exageration but most people don't assume you'd rather end your life then go to a museum or a date. What is your understanding of the word?

The usuage of coffee or tea by the population at large. I may have missed what you were trying to say several posts back, it sounded like you were implying I'd find it hard to believe that lots of people drink coffee and tea something that wouldn't be the case even if I thought merely looking at it or smelling it was a mortal sin. *shrug* You answered the question in the response to the next chunk of qouted text. Thanks, thats what I wanted to know. You may have said it already and just had to speak slowly to get it through to me. I might, don't honestly know. There answers be it, "We are Cheseians and it is a mortal sin to allow them in our house" at one end of the spectrum (note I'm not saying allowing coffee, tea, alcohol or even a pack of cigerettes in your home is a mortal sin) to "'Cuz." would affect if I thought them silly or not but have no bearing on wether I was offended or honored it... Okay, if they said, "Its because we honestly truly hate you and know of your love of cheese and sparkling cider and are thus attempting to discourage you from comming over." I'd probably be offended, still honor it though*. * Not saying you wouldn't honor it, please, please, please don't take it that way.

Well you'd be incorrect then, I've never actually watch Futurama. Isn't that the case because somebody will stop you? If you have suicide booths the cops aren't exactly going to prevent you from entering or a pair of EMTs bring you back, also such a thing would signal quite a change on society's views on suicide far more than healthy doctor assisted suicide. Well that's demonstrably false. And you weren't actually requesting information on my age and what I've researched on killing one's self. I was unware that you could read my mind. Okay, my question is this. Since suicide is legal (not questioning this point) what is the legal rational for doing something like this. Generally we don't prevent people from doing legal stuff. See and instead of assuming you weren't just interested I actually gave you the benefit of a doubt and tried to explain again, I obviously failed but its the thought that counts. My use of snickers is flippant but see above to see what I'm trying to ask. Why in the world did you respond to mine? I doubt it was for the witty repartee since there isn't any. Sometimes we do things because nothing else pops up as pressing at the time. Well now because I told you, before you didn't actually know you just assumed. Not much for hyperbole, suppose there is nothing wrong with that. Yep, I just disagree with it.

And that has nothing at all to do with how common it is. Yes, but why not is the question I'm asking. Because society says so is a perfectly valid answer. I was just wondering why you thought it so different to bring in one item they don't drink and consume it there verses another item they don't drink (for the same reason) and consume it over there. Maybe, but I'd respect it I certainly wouldn't be offended, their house not mine. Just like I'd respect a vegetarian who asked me not to bring over jerky or a Jew a cheese burger. *shrug*

That is a different question. The question was, "Why would a good spirit do such a thing?" That's what people are saying. God command thou shalt not kill (better rendered murder), if God commands you to do it it isn't murder. You can still refuse all you want, but refusing to obey the Lord is sin. The two main records that testify of him (the Bible and the Book of Mormon) say he's done just that (commanded people killed), he's also taken it into his own hands (so to speak) he's responsible for the flood and Sodom and Gomorah which killed a lot of people, then there is the plagues of Egypt (every first born) and the parting of the Red Sea. Aaron's sons Abihu and Nadab were struck down for offering strange fire. Uzzah was killed for putting his hand out to steady the Ark. Also God struck dead Annais and his wife for lying to Peter, though I suppose you could argue they died of shame. Those are just a few examples, there is more. He was known as Jehovah at the time, but it was him. Also, one of the overriding principles that governed Jesus' life was obedience, "not my will, but thine, be done." All irelevant to, "What has God commanded me?" I can feel empathy for Laban, Nephi obviously did, he didn't want to kill him, the idea was repugnant, so you can't say he didn't have empathy, but he did as was commanded by one who had the right and authority to pass capital judgment. The scriptures do not say, If you love me and society agrees with it, keep my commandments. If that King was God, first it wouldn't be selfish, and two I wouldn't think of it as murder just like I wouldn't think it murder if a man was tried and convicted by law, less so in fact. God isn't gonna get it wrong and like I've said, he has more authority then society ever did. God commands me to kill. God has the authority to issue such a command. If I don't obey God I am sinning. Sinning has serious consequences for enternity more so than anything the state may do to me or nightmares that may ensure. The logical conclusion is to do it, that's what Vort was talking about. As far as empathy, you are essentialy saying that executioners and furthermore soldiers have no empathy, is this what you mean to maintain? Empathy means feeling for another person, putting yourself in their shoes, it does not mean you won't obey God because somebody may not like you doing so and it'll make them feel bad. Of course one could make the argument that God killing the wicked before they can heap even more condemnation upon their heads is a merciful act, and if God knows this and commands you to end their life to not do so shows a lack of mercy and empathy for that person's immortal welfare not to mention a love of God (If you love me, keep my commandments).

They may, they may not. My experience with HOAs, while indirect, has not left me impressed with them.

Only problem might be an disagreeable HOA (Home Owners Association), if there are no regulation on what you can paint your fence though, you can definitely have some fun with it.

My favorite description of lotteries? A tax on those who are bad at math.

I've been in that situation (secretary when the EQ Presidency changed), its probably just a kink in communications. I could see both former and future EQ thinking the other would inform you and neither doing so. That might be why he's there. Either to change some of his traits or to help you learn patience... you haven't been praying for more patience lately have you? I know you feel like its politics but it isn't nessicarily. I had a mission companion who was fretting over being a Zone Leader, he worked hard, he'd be good at it (I agreed with him) and it seems like others are getting 'promoted' who are less qualified. I'll repeat my advice: People aren't nesscicarily called because they will be good at it, sometimes they are called because they will grow from it or they have a particular trait that the Lord needs there are the time even if they might generally be considered not good at it. You might be perfect but maybe others need the oportunity more, and maybe the Lord needs you to grow in other ways than that particular calling would spur. You should definitly talk to him about why you are having issues and see if you can resolve differences, nothing may actually come of up (it could though) but at least you'd have tried. Just going in and saying, "Your X, Y and Z and I can't stand working for you, I can't do it!" isn't a good idea though.

I dunno, might offend the Marxists, speaking personally though if people started calling me, "Your Highness." or "M'Lord." I could live with it.

Didn't say it did was actually trying to imply the opposite. The Jews will suffer is not permission to make the Jews suffer. You are talking about God giving somebody a heart attack, how is that not preplanned? God kills using somebody with a knife or he does it himself with a lightning bolt both are equaly planed. Both are equal exercise of any authority to do such (kill somebody) or a violation of Laban's right to not have him do such. If the state condemned somebody after due process of law and he was therefore executed, is the executioner a murderer? Instead of a state we have God, who unlike the state makes no mistakes and his juristiction is not bound by lines on a map nor can the defense hide any evidence, nor does he rely on eye witnesses as he's seen it all himself. You may have issues with the judgement passed by God but that isn't his executioner's (Nephi's) fault. As an aside about the judgement being just or not considering they only first asked for the book and then tried to buy it off him and he tried to kill them (Laman twice, the others once) I wouldn't be surprised if not giving up the Brass Plates wasn't the only thing he was guilty of before God. There is a technical point brough up though, Nephi probably was legally speaking from the eyes of the authorities a murderer, one of the reasons they got Zoram to go with them instead of just letting him run off to the city without talking to him. Of course helping slaves run away was against the law, so man's law is not the arbiter of what is and isn't moral. Also, what does vengence have to do with anything, somebody can seek vengence when I politly correct them in public which is neither against the laws of the land or of God (the correction). Or if we want a closer example, if I acting as an authorized executionor of the state gas somebody's brother they can see vengence but what I did was not illegal in any way. I'm not aware of anywhere that deems an execution acting on behalf of the state illegal, of course here we are talking about God who has more authority, power and right than any goverment of man. Your arguement seems to all boil down to whether God has the right and authority to exercise capital punishment. Christians are all gonna say yes. If you look at the Old Testemant Nephi isn't the first time God has condemned somebody to death and didn't do it with heart attacks or lightning bolts.

Considering that God didn't command Hitler to kill the Jews then no, it isn't. The signs were there that the Jews were going to suffer some pretty horrible things not that the Gentiles should crack to it and get it happening. How do you know if you can reason with me or not? You haven't even tried. Instead of actually discussing the topic we get Ad Hominem goodness. [Aside] That may be the fastest I've seen Godwin's Law come to fruition. [/Aside]

I heard some theories and ideas ( some plausible some out there) and some of those depend on how you interpret the phrase the mark of the beast, but I'm not aware of any revelation specifically stating what the mark of the beast is. If you want a ton of ideas from people you can start a thread on that topic. Edit: You beat me to it.

Probably any topic you can find him posting in or starting a topic on. :) Go ahead and start a topic on whatever you want as long as it follows the rules and is in the right forum, the people who do want to talk about it will find their way there, don't worry. Oh, and Hallo. :)

Nope it doesn't. It does however say something in the Doctrine and Covenants which some members of the Church (but not Vort :)) take to mean he was born on April 6th. If you read the thread you'll get the details on why that is, and why December 25th isn't considered credible.

So I just may be remembering somebody with a chip on their shoulder or twisted panties in their britches. Gotcha. Does that mean us Aussies, Canucks and Yanks share in some degree of that perfection? Practically Perfect in at least one way?

Can God murder? He's the one who pronounced the sentence, not Nephi. Edit: Edited for obvious guilt of begging the question. He did, through Nephi. Just like he'll use people (like Mother Teresa or Amulek if you want a BoM example) to bless people, he'll use people to punish people. Look at all the slaying the Isrealites did upon entering Caanan under his express command. Saul got in trouble for sparing livestock and a king (whom Sammuel upon finding out hacked to pieces, the king that is). Of course he'll also use people to punish people not through his express command, such as the Assyrians, in that case he just let them do what they wanted and didn't protect the Kingdom of Isreal. I look at the colonization of American the same way, it wasn't God's express command in that case that we be nasty to them he just didn't intervene. Vengence is mine, saith the Lord. It isn't limited to vulcanos and hurricanes. Edit: Not saying slaughtering the natives wasn't a sin, as it wasn't an express command it was. Probably, but it wouldn't have made Nephi figure out just how strong his resolution to follow the commandments he's been given even if he doesn't like them actually was though. How is it more excusable if God kills with a heart attack verses a servant? If we accept the idea that God can meet out the death sentence how is not so relevant. I don't see the huge difference between a heart attack and Nephi. God commanded and was obeyed, in one case by Nephi in the other by Laban's heart. The end result is Laban dead by God's command, and if it is God's command you can't blame the Spirit for carrying that command and Nephi can't really be deemed immoral for following God's commands. Well, I suppose he could but not in a Judeo-Christian sense because not obeying God is immoral. Of course wether Nephi was actually commanded or not is a whole 'nother discussion.

Besides bloody brilliant! (Okay, to much Harry Potter may has just been evidenced) Random question that popped into my mind: What do you call somebody from the UK? If they are from Great Britain its British, Ireland is Irish, Scotland is Scottish, Wales is Welsh. Is there a term the covers everyone? UKer? United Kingdomite? I seem to recall in the dim passages of my memory somebody getting offended at being called British because their location displayed on a message board (don't recall which one) said UK. So is there a correct term to refer to somebody from the UK of indiscriminate kingdom origin?

Hi!

Yep, carp is much different from northern pike (one of my personal favorites having grown up with it in Alaska) which is much different from halibut which is much different from pacific salmon (another personal favorite) which is much different from scallops.

I think its slurring into a not nice term for a female dog or pushy woman for them.