Thank you for your kind words and comments. I have been reading the various new official FLDS websites (all three of them) and have referred many friends and associates to them for “the rest of the story.”

I should clarify that I do not find anything “weird” about your manner of dress or hair-stylings. In fact, they are quite similar to those chosen by women in other conservative Christian denominations. I find nothing at all weird about them. The world, on the other hand, has plenty of weird hair and clothing choices that I would never choose for myself nor want my children to choose. For me and my family, we have made conservative choices in hair and clothing styles as well.

= =

Connor,

Do you suppose this case will eventually come up as a “proof” of why the nation “needs REAL ID”? Apparently old fashioned IDs like birth certificates and drivers licenses just don’t cut it anymore.

Perhaps children learning that it is ok to be different

Perhaps teachings children that it is “ok” to SIN will bring the condemnations of God upon our heads. Homosexual behavior is sin. Whatever urges someone feels, whatever inclinations they have in that direction, it is still a sin to act on them.

We should teach our children to be compassionate and humble (the Lord’s version of “tolerance”), but to teach them that any behavior is ok is in defiance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

face the pressures of excessive conformity

The pressure to conform? Well, our modern society and philosophy has taught us that our conscience is merely a social construction - that we feel bad for things we do only because other people disapprove of them. Modern philosophy is teaching us that our conscience is merely “a pressure to conform.”

The Lord has taught us that our conscience is divinely given, and that we sometimes feel bad for some of our actions because they are genuinely wrong. No amount of societal acceptance will change that… although we can sometimes use the opinions of our peers to drug our conscience and make ourselves feel good about it.

Let’s face it, gay marriage isn’t a threat to hetero-sexual marriage. It is a threat to the prejudices of those who cling to ancient bronze-age mythologies and to the institutions that cling to those mythologies and profit from them.

Does not God’s doctrine “cling to” and His work “profit” from the ancient bronze-age institution of hetero-sexual marriage? So then, according to your take, gay marriage is a threat to His work (the exaltation of man). Interesting. I would agree with you.

Perhaps children learning that it is ok to be different…

… and pretty soon nearly everything is ok because there is a whole lot of “different” stuff out there that we need to be tolerant of.

Even if the fight against gay marriage is lost politically, I believe we have an obligation to stand up against it.

For what happens in cultural decline both leaders and followers are really accountable. Historically, of course, it is easy to criticize bad leaders, but we should not give followers a free pass. Otherwise, in their rationalization of their degeneration they may say they were just following orders, while the leader was just ordering followers! However, much more is required of followers in a democratic society wherein individual character matters so much in both leaders and followers.

Neal A. Maxwell “‘Repent of [Our] Selfishness’ (D&C 56:8),” Ensign, May 1999, 23

Jay

Maybe more inclusion and more tolerance is what children need to ensure they get the nurturing they need to develop. Perhaps children learning that it is ok to be different rather than face the pressures of excessive conformity is less of a threat to the health of our children.

Let’s face it, gay marriage isn’t a threat to hetero-sexual marriage. It is a threat to the prejudices of those who cling to ancient bronze-age mythologies and to the institutions that cling to those mythologies and profit from them.

Atleast, that is my take.

—————————————————————————————————-
http://xanga.com/catherinehayesjr

Any monetary system is merely an illusion that everybody agrees upon, but I too am of the mind that tying money to some physical substance like gold or silver - something that we don’t have the ability to readily create - creates a stabilizing effect and helps keep government from making insane decisions regarding currency. Of course, they love making insane decisions so a return to a physical standard seems unlikely. With the trillions pumping through the world’s economy I’m not even sure that it’s completely possible, but something seems worth a shot.

(Of course, I’m aware that currencies fluctuated, and I hardly have doomsday on my mind for the U.S.)

Doesn’t seem like a Constitutional role of government but merely a good thing to do, exactly the sort of thing that government should butt the heck out of, perhaps a bad choice of words given the topic of this post.

Then again, my church favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual in nature so maybe a strict Constitutional interpretation isn’t the way to go in every case.

(Nice image. Looks to me like Jeff Bridges and an overweight Danny Trejo just got hitched.)

Obi Wan’s proposal would be exactly the same in practice as legalizing gay “marriage.” There is overwhelming evidence that children and society benefit most from being raised by a mother and a father. Hence, the state has an interest in providing special treatment to heterosexual marriage.

The slippery slope argument is accurate. We’re already seeing it in Europe and Canada. When gay “marriage” becomes the law of the land, states will soon find that they have no power to restrict polygamy, polyamoury, or any other such “marriage” arrangement. And schools will be forced to include curriculum that advocates these alternative arragements and treats them on the same level as monogamous heterosexual marriage. This is already happening in Massachusetts.

Obi Wan’s idea of getting rid of legal marriage would produce precisely the same results.

Stanley Kurtz has done a lot of research that shows definitively that heterosexual marriage rates drop off, and significant family and social decline occurs when three factors are in place: 1) unmarried heterosexual unions become generally accepted, 2) it becomes common for couples to have more than one child out of wedlock, and 3) gay marriage becomes legally acceptable. It doesn’t matter in which order these things occur.

It will take only two generations of this to completely destroy traditional marriage as a societal norm. No society in history has ever survived such devastation.

Maybe social conservatives could start selling “Heterosexual Marriage Protection Kits” so sodomites don’t californicate traditional marriages. I’d hate to see perfectly good heterosexual marriages be ruined by gays getting married.

The best way to protect heterosexual marriages would be to

- prohibit spousal weight gain
- outlaw poor financial decision making
- mandate toilet seats be put down

Brigham Young himself admitted that he was not legally married to all but one of his wives. Anna Eliza Webb Young when divorcing Brigham found out she had no legal claim against Brigham Young’s assets, just as Brigham’s legal counsel had argued.

In Utah, we have a history of separating legal marriage (civil unions if you want to call them that) from religious marriages. To a great extent, that is what the Supreme Court of California was trying to address. And by the way, six out of the seven judges I believe were appointed by Republican Governors.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com has an interesting post on the subject.

We can visualize gold or silver being the basis for money, since our Dollar was at one time based upon gold and silver.

When the gold price climbs to $1000 per oz., the ounce of gold stayed the same, being a standard. What fluctuates is the value of the paper money, not the gold. An ounce of gold is the same now as it was in 1913. Gold is something of value that can be standardized and used and recognized everywhere.

I suggest one of those standards today is a barrel of oil. A barrel of oil is the same barrel of oil today as it was in 1913. When the price of a barrel goes up, it only represents the increase in the amount of paper Dollars it takes to purchase it.

A “Dollar” or a “Euro” or a “Pound” is not a standard, and their values fluctuate up or down, whereas the value of gold, silver or oil are constant.

At least that’s the way I see it.

As currencies are nothing more than stores of wealth (promises of redemption to demand the services/goods of another), they can take many forms. Historically they have been shells, tree bark, and other things that at the time were seen as valuable, limited in quantity, as storable by those that used them.

Gold/silver have long fit the mark. Since their supply is not easily able to be altered by those in power, they are a hedge against inflation. Looking at historical charts clearly indicate their ability to preserve wealth while the dollar declines.

But when I speak of alternative currencies, I not only refer to gold/silver, but any form of preserving one’s wealth. This might be the euro, or it might be a few bushels of wheat. Whatever the commodity, it should be something that will have demand down the road, so if you desire, you can get rid of it and acquire something else (the purpose of currency).