On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:25:28 -0800, Doug McGee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I did go to a restaurant on a Sunday back in June. We were on vacation
and figured we had to eat something.
Hmm, so it is ok to break the sabbath on vacation? You probably should
have bought something the night before.
Scott favored us with the following:
I tend to use (not abuse) the Ox in the mire philosophy. For
instance, there was a time a few months back where I had to
run to the store for something we really needed on a Sunday.
I felt really bad about it, and resolved more strongly to anticipate
such
Pres. Harold B. Lee had an interesting aphorism. He said, It's okay to rescue
your ox from the mire on Sunday. But not if you pushed him into it on Saturday
evening. (he meant: prepare yourselves for the Sabbath ahead of time to the
extent you can)
Geoff FOWLER wrote:
Scott favored us with the
In my opinion the more parties the better.
Stacy.
I agree. . .party on, dude!!
Yeahh! Let's all have a party!!
:-)))
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit
The United
Order was voluntary, socialism isn't. That is a pretty big difference
in
my book.
Of course your right, John. Why didn't I think of that?
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
In effect we've struck a devil's bargain -- raw materials and geography in turn
for huddling under your nuclear umbrella, so your son's actually not far off the
mark.
I'd feel much safer without the umbrella, especially since 11 September 2001. No one
has ever yet given me a list of the
John:
Speaking of unlawful transfer of property, a couple of days ago my son made
an interesting observation. He said that the USA provides a national
defense for Canada and gets Canada to pay for it by abusing trade
regulations. I'm not sure you would agree with the first half of the
Gary said:
women reproductive issues - I can't use the real term because it is
against charter,
Yeah but we knew what you meant.
;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
*Some* of that criticism of the Repubs is deserved, I think -- Bush was tight with
oil interests, which is okay, but he allowed further deregulations which basically
allowed companies to hide a lot of stuff from their shareholders.
Not that we're lily-white, either. The TSX (the Toronto Stock
The difference is that Zion will not force you to give up your wheat or
other items. One must voluntarily give all things through consecration,
otherwise it isn't taken. Of course, those who will not consecrate also
will not be allowed to dwell in Zion, but you have choices. The Lord
doesn't
Then I think that ALL Utah Mormons should be ex'ed. Hmmm - good bye
President Hinckley.
OK, so that won't work. How about this? Set up a booth in the malls which
will give $100 to anyone with a temple recommend. Collect the names. After
a few weeks, ex them all!
Yes!
By the way, when I get
Yup, us bad old Utah Mormons..
Gosh, I haven't been to the Mall on a Sunday yet. I must just not know what
I'm missing. Do they have free entertainment on Sundays???
Thinking back, I don't recall the last time I was even at a grocery store or
any other kind of store on a Sunday.
I did go
After much pondering, Jon Spencer favored us with:
Then I think that ALL Utah Mormons should be ex'ed. Hmmm - good bye
President Hinckley.
Are you suggesting that President Hinckley goes shopping at the mall on
Sunday? grin
OK, so that won't work. How about this? Set up a booth in the
After much pondering, Doug McGee favored us with:
Yup, us bad old Utah Mormons..
Gosh, I haven't been to the Mall on a Sunday yet. I must just not know what
I'm missing. Do they have free entertainment on Sundays???
Thinking back, I don't recall the last time I was even at a grocery store
Perhaps the motivation behind liberal rhetoric reacting to the
Republican domination in US politics is more instructive than all the
supposedly moderate and centrist Democrat voices urging respect and
tolerance for their views. Perhaps Bill Moyers editorial gives a better
picture of what
We hicks out here in the stayx don't shop on Sundays (speaking for me and my
house, anywho). I won't even put gas in the car on Sunday. We always make sure
there's enough gas in the cars on Saturday so that whoever is taking a vehicle
into Edmonton Monday morning has enough.
Doug McGee wrote:
I think what everyone means by socialists are the people informally who
believe that the government should pay for health care for everyone
regardless of income or social status, not necessarily those that belong to
the Communist party or groups thereof. I think this needs to be clarified
In a previous post, Stacy Smith wrote, I think what everyone means by
socialists are the people informally who
believe that the government should pay for health care for everyone
regardless of income or social status, not necessarily those that belong to
the Communist party or groups thereof. I
At 09:42 11/12/2002 -0800, Stacy wrote:
I think what everyone means by socialists are the people informally who
believe that the government should pay for health care for everyone
regardless of income or social status, not necessarily those that belong
to the Communist party or groups thereof.
After much pondering, Irwin Delay favored us with:
Thanks for the clarification. We are not even married yet and I need to be
corrected. (grin)
After you are married, you will get all the correction you need. grin --JWR
Gary Smith wrote:
I think the problem in a one party system is shown historically. The
South became polarized to the Democratic party in the 1850s, with other
parties being totally squeezed out (Republicans, Whigs, Know-Nothings,
etc)
Well, actually the Know-Nothings became known as
Yeah, fundamentalists are taking control all over the place. Pretty sad, isn't it?
Jim Cobabe wrote:
Perhaps the motivation behind liberal rhetoric reacting to the
Republican domination in US politics is more instructive than all the
supposedly moderate and centrist Democrat voices urging
-Irwin-
Thanks for the clarification. We are not even married yet and
I need to be corrected. (grin)
-John-
After you are married, you will get all the correction you need.
That's what I thought at first, but Michelle informs me that this is a
slanderous falsehood.
Stephen
In my opinion the more parties the better.
Stacy.
At 07:00 AM 11/12/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
I think the problem in a one party system is shown historically. The
South became polarized to the Democratic party in the 1850s, with other
parties
Well said, and welcome to the list, Irwin.
Irwin Delay wrote:
Hello, my name is Irwin Delay. I recently joined the list. Although I am not
a Latter-day Saint, I have been reading LDS literature for the past three
years. Also, I am engaged to a Latter-day Saint.
I must respond to the
-- Stacy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion the more parties the better.
Stacy.
I agree. . .party on, dude!!
val
At 07:00 AM 11/12/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
I think the problem in a one party system is shown historically. The
At 11:42 11/12/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
And politicians are like underwear: they need to be
changed periodically.
And dunked in suds and hung out to dry. (or would taken to the cleaners
be better? no, that's what they do to us)
Till the ever watchful
At 11:00 11/12/2002 -0800, you wrote:
In my opinion the more parties the better.
YES!!! the more the merrier. Now who's bringing the cookies? the
green jello
Till the party animal
//
/// ZION LIST
John W. Redelfs wrote:
For instance, to me a socialist is anyone who advocates government
redistribution of the wealth from those who produce wealth to those who
don't. Using that definition the Democratic party is definitely controlled
by socialists. But then using that definition, the
What I read into Elder Jensen's article is if the Democratic party isn't
what we want it to be, then perhaps if enough of us were to switch over
to it, we could change it for the better. We'd kick the socialists out
of
it and into the Green Party (or other socialist party of one's choice),
and
Thinking back, I don't recall the last time I was even at a grocery
store or
any other kind of store on a Sunday.
I've snuck out a few times over the years and it makes me feel guilty.
But, when I've gone shopping after midnight (Monday morning) my
conscience is as clear as can be. What do you
Well, I had a rather different idea about what kind of parties to have. Lol.
Stacy.
At 02:18 PM 11/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
At 11:00 11/12/2002 -0800, you wrote:
In my opinion the more parties the better.
YES!!! the more the merrier. Now who's bringing the cookies? the
green
I've been thinking of becoming a Democrat. I can't see a nickle's worth
of
difference between Democrats and Republicans except in their
rhetoric. They both vote the same wrong way on the issues that matter
to
me. And since I never vote for the candidate of either party, why not
be a
Irwin wrote,
A strong federal government is a must in order to
protect the rights of the minority.
I agree, just so long as they don't step on my right while in the process
of protecting others. ;-)
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would refrain from making such comments on the list in case certain
persons come on this list that are known between us. I wasn't trying to
correct you but only giving my views on the subject for the list. Do I
believe everyone should have free health care? Too expensive in my
opinion.
Paul wrote:
I've snuck out a few times over the years and it makes me feel
guilty.
But, when I've gone shopping after midnight (Monday morning) my
conscience is as clear as can be. What do you think of that? I love
those
loopholes. ;-)
I don't consider them loopholes at all. When I started
At 12:46 11/12/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
This is a concept we're well acquainted with in Canada, where we separate
the Head
of State from Head of Government. The Head of State (the husband) is purely
ceremonial and only really needed in times of crisis ;-)
You mean Red was giving me bad
Irwin wrote,
A strong federal government is a must in order to
protect the rights of the minority.
Paul:
I agree, just so long as they don't step on my right while in the process
of protecting others. ;-)
Dan:
A strong federal government is also a must in order to eliminate the rights
of
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Such as laws which allowed the workers of Enron to have their pension
funds robbed
by the big brass (sorry, I couldn't resist, although I'm sure John
would actually agree).
You bet I do. That's called corporate welfare, and is just
After much pondering, Paul Osborne favored us with:
Plunder?? Can we read about this in the DC? Consecration? United Order?
Let us take from the riches of John Redelfs and give to poor Paul
Osborne! After all, we are all brethren and we should be more equal in
wealth. Right?
If you need
Irwin,
Welcome to the list. I hope you'll enjoy your stay.
Let me clarify my points for you and everyone else on the list. The
Democratic party has evolved tremendously since the days of Thomas
Jefferson. He saw a great need for a limited government, in order to keep
the federal government from
Well, you'll note how most of his projects end up.
Elmer L. Fairbank wrote:
At 12:46 11/12/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote:
This is a concept we're well acquainted with in Canada, where we separate
the Head
of State from Head of Government. The Head of State (the husband) is purely
ceremonial
I don't care whose watch they were codified under -- they're still laws which
allow for unlawful transfer of property.
Dan R Allen wrote:
John W. Redelfs wrote:
For instance, to me a socialist is anyone who advocates government
redistribution of the wealth from those who produce wealth to
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
I don't care whose watch they were codified under -- they're still laws which
allow for unlawful transfer of property.
Speaking of unlawful transfer of property, a couple of days ago my son made
an interesting observation. He said that
But how do you know that then is not now?
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Maybe. But that will be then. This is now, and we're to listen to the
counsel
we're given now.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
One party rule will eventually fulfil the prophetic vision of early
Church leaders. There will be only one
Party animal!
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
In my opinion the more parties the better.
//
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
At 07:25 AM 11/12/2002 -0800, Doug wrote:
Yup, us bad old Utah Mormons..
Don't be redundant.
Rick Mathis
//
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
I have heard that one of the most profitable times for Dominos in Provo is
the 12 am shift on Monday morning.
Jon
Paul Osborne wrote:
I've snuck out a few times over the years and it makes me feel guilty.
But, when I've gone shopping after midnight (Monday morning) my
conscience is as clear
In effect we've struck a devil's bargain -- raw materials and geography in turn
for huddling under your nuclear umbrella, so your son's actually not far off the
mark.
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
I don't care whose watch they were codified
I give up. You have indeed trapped me in a time warp. Just don't mess up the 31st
century, where I come from.
Jon Spencer wrote:
But how do you know that then is not now?
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Maybe. But that will be then. This is now, and we're to listen to the
counsel
we're
Steven Montgomery wrote:
At 04:11 PM 11/11/2002, Marc wrote:
Here in Utah in part I think it's related to the fact that the
Democratic
Party has in the last 20 years waned to the point where it really is
almost not a
factor in our political life right now. And I think there is a
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
-Marc-
One party domination is in direct defiance of the Brethren.
Defiance? Institutions are not capable of defiance, only individuals.
Which individuals do you believe are in defiance of the Brethren?
Well, for starters the Republican congressman who publicly
Maybe. But that will be then. This is now, and we're to listen to the counsel
we're given now.
Jim Cobabe wrote:
One party rule will eventually fulfil the prophetic vision of early
Church leaders. There will be only one party that follows the Lord.
Everyone else will follow the adversary.
I understand that the Church does not endorse any political policy,
except in cases where a moral issue is involved. There is a strong
effort to avoid the suggestion that the platform of a particular
political party represents or has the unilateral backing of the Church.
This has been the
54 matches
Mail list logo
