Jump to content

Amulek

Members
  • Content Count

    1,887
  • Joined

Community Reputation

2,662 Excellent

About Amulek

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

2,148 profile views
  1. Intellectual Reserve holds the trademark for it (see, here). That's about as close to ownership as one can get.
  2. It sounds like the prosecutor is just stacking charges. If the guy is mentally ill, hopefully that will be taken into consideration as the case progresses.
  3. Funny you say that, because whenever I hear some outlandish story involving local church leadership doing something crazy, it feels like 9 times out of 10 it originates in the Wasatch front. Y'all need to get your act together.
  4. One of the best Bishops I have ever known was a psychiatrist. He grew up in Idaho and had an Ivy League education. He wore a fine beard and a pair of Birkenstocks to church every Sunday. He was intelligent, observant, jovial, kind, and just an honest to goodness all-around good person. I don't think there was anyone in the ward who didn't think he was (at minimum) a "good Bishop." YMMV.
  5. Oh, I've got know way of knowing what caused him to misspeak. I just know that it's not uncommon for people to do so, even when they specifically intend not to. For all I know, he may have even read exactly what was on the teleprompter and then just failed to catch himself in time to correct it before it was too late. Regardless, I'm sure President Oaks regrets his oversight (for actually failing to recognize Sis. Aburto and not merely out of a feeling of personal embarrassment), and I'm sure no offense was taken. Still, I can understand how even an unintended slight might cause som
  6. I didn't know it was even a small controversy. I did notice that he only said 'brethren,' but I assumed that was him just repeating what he had said the night before when he conducted / concluded the priesthood session. I remember watching a panel discussion once with linguists and neuroscientists talking about speech works, and how our minds make mistakes like this all the time. Words get missed, switched, etc. with some degree of regularity. And it doesn't evidence some kind of Freudian hidden meaning or anything; it's just how our brains work. I've certainly done the same thing myself
  7. A premise with which not everyone agrees. And, I might add, is not obviously true. One might (reasonably) posit the following as a starting point instead: It's never moral to kill innocent people. Nonsense. If a woman who is eight and a half months pregnant decides to terminate her pregnancy just because she wants to fly to Europe for vacation (merely for fun and not because of some crazy, lifeboat type scenario you might try to come up with), that's immoral. Period.
  8. Well yes, it's an opinion, so of course it's subjective. Do you think there is an objective way to determine the most important reason for sexual behavior?
  9. Does anyone? Honestly, GLAAD has been harping on the portrayal of gays in entertainment media - including films coming out of Hollywood - for years. I imagine BYUtv will portray LGBT characters about as fairly and honestly as most other companies. Only I predict they will be criticized more harshly for doing just as well as everyone else.
  10. Well, the temple films start out pretty solid...
  11. I think we are just not using "primary purpose" in the same way. You seem to be using like this: if we were to make a bar chart of human sexual encounters, with "Reasons" on the X axis and "Number" on the Y axis, then the primary purpose for sex would be the one with the highest count (i.e., the arithmetic mode). I recognize that people engage in sexual activity for lots of reasons, and the majority of the time the reason isn't expressly for reproduction. I don't know that I would agree with your assessment about "social" being the number one purpose in that view though - I think t
  12. I'm speaking of the primary purpose for sex existing, not that procreation is the primary reason behind every sexual encounter. Or, as stated in the referenced Wiki page, "procreation continues to be the primary explanation for sexual behavior."
  13. This does not compute. The primary purpose of sex is procreation (see, e.g., millions of years of evolution for, you know, like, every living thing on the planet). When someone who is capable of procreation willingly participates in sex, the creation of new life is the natural consequence of that act. What I see you trying to do here is to apply the principle of choice not merely to the act of sex itself but to the consequences of sex as well. But I don't think that tracks. It's like saying 'I do not equate consensual bank robbing with consent to be imprisioned.' Con
  14. Unfortunate. Perhaps there's nothing to do but wait and see if they ever bring back their greatest flavor: Chocolate Moo-llennium Crunch.
×
×
  • Create New...