Ray A

That is obviously one key factor. The problem is that the divorce rate is so high, and single-parent families so prevalent now, that parents have less control. Two is mostly more effective than one, and I think this as I was a single parent for about 7 years, as some here probably are. Some single parents do just fine, but many have lost control of their kids, especially where there is no father-figure in the home. The problem really goes back to the breakdown of the traditional family unit, I think anyway. This, btw, isn't a lecture, just an observation. The bottom line is that I think we should be looking at causes first, rather than draconian punishment which still leaves the causes intact. Anyone can have children, and no one checks to see if they are capable of bringing those children up responsibly. It's sort of like putting the cleaner in charge of a jumbo jet.

It comes from Brainyquote, but mind you, I've been a Gandhi reader off and on for about 25 years, including Louis Fischer's biography, which IMO is probably the best. Here's another "Gandhi-ism":

skalenfehl & Ray, Criminal Justice Consultants (all donations go to a rehabilitation fund)

Rehabilitation obviously isn't working very well. Here's another hyothetical suggestion. Make criminals work for those they steal from. Make them come face to face with the people they offended. Let the offended explain how hard they work, how much it takes to earn money and run a business. Then make them work in that business for about three months, without pay, and get to know all the staff, and all the lives they affected. If you lock them away, or even use chain gangs, they never see the real effects of what they've done, or how they've hurt people, and in jail they're only going to become more isolated and hardened. Maybe that's one reason "rehabilitation" doesn't work well. Let the offended be able to ask to his/her face, "why did you do it?"

Execution for stealing a few mints, no matter how many times, seems rather draconian. No, Traveler, it's a silly idea. People who shoplift don't always go around raping women. People who rape may not be shoplifters. People commit house theft to get money for drugs. Something like 80% of house break and enter is drug-related. These people are sick, literally physically sick, and they do this to get a "hit" just to feel normal. They need to be treated, not executed. Bringing back total prohibition would be a "better idea", but in fact prohibition increased crime. Now if you're talking about a repeat offending pedophile, they should be locked away for life. But in this concept you've presented, someone who steals a few mints three times, should meet the same fate as a repeat and unrepentant pedophile. Don't think I'm lenient, or want to water things down, as I'm subjected to crime of some nature nearly every single week I work, but to execute someone who really needs help? They can have my small change, it can always be replaced, no matter how annoying, but the last thing I'd want is to see their lives ended. This is a concept entirely devoid of mercy, and justice. Imagine if Jesus only gave us three strikes for theft, then put the millstone around our necks.

Would that include people like King Lamoni?

One minor correction:

There are some rather glum views on this thread. I really don't think people are all that evil, to the point of being in league with Satan, nor the line between good and evil so finely defined. There is plenty of evil in the world, and no one can deny that. Gandhi didn't believe in Christianity, nor Mormonism, but I wouldn't say he was "deceived by the devil".

While there is no concrete historical evidence that proves the Book of Mormon true, there are impressive internal evidences. John Tvedtnes: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Scholarship_in_Mormonism_and_Mormonism_in_Scholarship.html When a major biblical scholar pauses like this, we should take note. Is this another of Joseph Smith's "lucky hits"? Unlikely. Another is the Book of Mormon's description of Columbus, 1 Nephi 13: It could be argued that Joseph knew about Columbus, and presumably he did, but I did quite a lot of background research on this and discovered that Columbus' almost obsessive spiritual/religious nature was largely unknown to historians in 1830. Columbus' diaries and and letters were not extensively published until the 19th century (one was published in 1891). Taken from "Columbus and his world" (1986): This is an almost perfect description of the Book of Mormon revelation: No, this isn't proof, but it's certainly something worth considering. A critic disparaging the idea that Joseph Smith revealed something new, because "we all knew about Columbus in 1830", perhaps hasn't considered this. The Holy Spirit won't convince them, but facts like this might get them thinking a little more, and perhaps being a little less cynical. Or, perhaps not. It might all just be a waste of time.

If perfectionism is a source of angst for you, read some J. Golden Kimball stories and lighten up. The Official J. Golden Kimball Site

I've sent you an email Amy, and you can email me anytime you like. And I'm sorry to hear about your loss too, just a week before. That certainly would have been heart-rending. I imagine my stillborn son would have been a lot like my live son, and I can only imagine what he would have got up to when I look at Josh, who is a bit of a "larrikin" (Oz term for irreverent). One time he poured ketchup over his head at school and pretended someone had hit him. Rushed to the emergency medical room at the school, they wiped the "blood" until it was revealed there were no scars. Apparently he put on an Oscar winning performance, groaning and all. The school principal rang me to complain about his behaviour, and I replied I'd give Josh "a good talking to", but when I hung up I burst into laughter. What could I say when he got home? Holding back the laughter I just said "don't do it again". So in a way I experience vicariously what my stillborn son may have been like through Josh. But 23 years later I still feel that emptiness and loss when I think about it, and although I say I have five children, I really have six, and my children are the greatest source of happiness to me. I am proud of them, even when they ignore my advice. :)

After reading of the losses of women here it makes my experience seem rather minor, but I guess no stillbirth is minor. We had twin boys in December 1984, but one was stillborn. He perished at about the seven month mark, apparently cut off from oxygen by a twisted tube. He remained in the womb until the birth of the live twin, and we knew beforehand that he had perished. I saw his body, and they were identical twins. Part of his face was deformed, but otherwise he looked exactly like his brother, who is 23 years old today. I still think of "he who might have been", and I only need to look at my son to know what he would have looked like.

Late News Flash: Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says

Welcome to the club. Life gets better and better as time goes by. Promise.

I went through separation/divorce eight years ago. If your wife didn't leave you bankrupt, then you're faring better than I did, at least in the financial department. I understand what bitterness is. I understand what real pain is. I know what it's like to begin rebuilding your life by starting over again from scratch, by buying a $20 toaster, sleeping on floor matresses for four years, and working up to buying a car and getting back on your feet. From bankruptcy, eight years later I'm now debt free, and my name cleared. I am still single, and have no desire, at the moment, to remarry. Perhaps 22 years of marriage does something like this to you, ending in a complete disaster. It is natural to want to fall back on the Church, and the priesthood, because you need sanctuary, and you need to reinforce your self-worth after being treated so callously. Your ex-wife obviously didn't honour your priesthood, and this magnifies your feelings negatively. As important as the priesthood is, it is not entirely you. Who you are is more important to any potential future partner, than whether or not you even hold the priesthood. Women don't want to marry the PH, they marry you, the person, for who you are, not what titles you hold. When President Kimball was an apostle, he reflected that all the adulation he got was not because of who he was, but because of the office he held. And he never let that power get to his head, always remembering this fact. By the time of his death people did honour him for who he was, not only because of the office he held, but because through the years his example of humility and dedication and self-sacrifice left a lasting legacy on the minds and hearts of those who knew him. The priesthood doesn't make the man, the man makes the priesthood by magnifying it in righteous ways, and by making righteous judgements.

Thanks for the clarification. Cogs must be your long lost twin. (I like Cogs, btw.)

Todd, this isn't "the latest data", it's age old, recyled garbage. Maybe you think it is "the latest data"? The evidence for an old earth and evolution is quite stunning, IF you understand even the basic "data". It is no coincidence that we humans share more than 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. Based on that average, I'd say it's a bullseye for evolution, looking at it simplistically. If you'd care to read Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, where he doesn't attack religion, you'd see how silly it is to think the world was created in seven days, or even seven thousand years.

I know this question was directed to Heather, but I'd like to give my opinion, if you don't mind. Mormon scholars like Professor Daniel C. Peterson have hugely influenced my opinion of Mormonism. It may surprise you to learn that one of the main reasons I was re-baptised into the Church, a skeptic like me, was because of Professor Peterson's writings. I was once his fierce critic, too, but his intelligence swayed me back to his opinion, and I retain a certain open-mindedness because of that. I am not a critic of "feeling", nor testimony, but a testimony, or feeling, is simply, alone, not good enough to gauge truth. If a testimony is valid, it will be backed by "evidential fruits". Orson Pratt fervently argued this. I fully realise that Mormon scholars are subjected to criticism within the Church itself, by those who feel they know absolute truth through feeling alone. On this basis, you open yourself to all sorts of charges, such as you are no different to other denominations who rely solely on "feeling". Do you take out an insurance policy only on feeling? Do you make an investiment only on feeling? Do you buy a car only on feeling? Or do you check the car's history? Why should these criteria be any different in the search for religious and spiritual truth? Is there some kind of exception here? And why should I believe you over Muslims, who "feel" the Qur'an is the absolute "word of God"? There are some valid tests that can be made here, which do not denigrate testimony, but which in fact add to conviction. I could accept Islam, but my faculties persuade me to go beyond "feeling" in that regard. So there must be a healthy mix of opposites. "Study it out in your mind", and gain knowledge. Did Joseph ask his followers to rely solely on feeling? I don't for one minute believe that. If Mormonism is to "add up", it must appeal to both intellectual and spiritual faculties. If it doesn't, you're going to have mass apostasy on your hands. Censorship, in any form, will alienate the best minds on forums, including those who have no beef with Mormonism, but valid criticisms, which should be able to stand the test. And I believe they can. But if you want to go on 'feeling" alone - you can count me out.

Ray's Wiki: More about the Koala (from a reliable source this time): Too bad they aren't as big as camels.

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They still practice polygamy.

Somehow I don't think that's the problem. For a start we know next to nothing about apostate women in the Book of Mormon. It was the men who went astray, and their women followed them. [blunt]Your ex, and your personal experience, isn't an excuse to label all women in the Church, nor all women in the world. [/blunt] Best of luck in your search.

I'm probably wrong, just some similarities. Coggins is a long time poster on LDS related boards, who likes to take on "antis".

I think so.

Three books I highly recommend (I've read a few thousand): Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable. Damian Thompson, The End of Time: Faith and Fear in the Shadow of the Millennium. Armand Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation. Dawkins is at his scientific best here, no lectures about the evils of religion, just plain science in its quest for understanding. Thompson reminds us all that "second-coming speculation" has been around for over a millennium, and the disappointments have been quite spectacular. Mauss is a believing LDS historian who will make you think, and even reconsider your views about some aspects of Mormonism. His other very laudable work with co-author Lester Bush is Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, which is now online: Civil Turmoil -- Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue After you read this your understanding of the historical development of the "black ban" may never be the same, and you'll understand why it was only a policy.

I have one "weird" (?) advantage over you, Cog (?). I will never turn against Joseph Smith, even if the BoM is fiction. And let my critics laugh and question to scorn. I like to keep them in derision.