Sampson

I am trying to help of friend of mine in her philosophy class but don't know the answer to this one. If the doctrine enforced a position that those with dark skin are cursed and can't enter mormon temples, then what happened in 1978? Did the doctrine change? Are blacks no longer cursed? Did the policy change and the doctrine remained the same? Please help me to understand?

It seems like polygamy helped create quite a few mormons and since the religion and book of mormon support it, according to them God sanctioned it, then why would they change the rules. Is it only good for the earlier mormons? Please help me to understand.

As far as I can tell the issue of the Miss California/Miss USA pageant organizing and financing Carrie Prejean's breast implant is a non-issue in the eyes of the media.

Everyone is so focused on the gay marriage controversy and the nude photo controversy that the issue of conflict of interest and unfairness to other contestants is not being discussed.

Isn't the entire integrity of the contest undermined by this?

I invite others to help me understand why this isn't a conflict of interest on the part of the pageant and why it is not an issue of fairness to the other contestants who were not offered free breast implants.

(Please separate your answer from the gay marriage and nude photo controversy.)

McCain has suspended his campaign in Michigan, is pouring extra resources into Pennsylvania where he is behind in double digits and his "hockey mom" is even getting booed at hockey games. Instead of risking loss of the presidency, congress and senate, shouldn't we republicans instead focus our resources into salvaging the legislature instead of a non-team playing maverick who is conservative one moment, pushing gov. give-a-ways the next moment, advocating experience one moment and slamming us with Palin the next?

Republican respondents only please for this family discussion.

McCain has suspended his campaign in Michigan, is pooring extra resources into Pennsylvania where he is behind in double digits and his "hockey mom" is even getting booed at hockey games. Instead of risking loss of the presidency, congress and senate, shouldn't we instead focus our resources into salvaging the legislature instead of a non-team playing maverick who is conservative one moment, pushing gov. give-a-ways the next moment, advocating experience one moment and slamming us with Palin the next?

Republican respondents only please for this family discussion.

I don't really know the legal answer to this, it may depend on Alaska state law. There is also the issue of her being a model of behavior as Gov. of Alaska and the moral issue related endangering her son?

www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/496213.html

I am totally mixed up on what is a Republican/conservative value and a liberal value. Can someone explain how bailing out Wallstreet is a conservative value and how government bailout of mortgage holders is a conservative value? How is this different from welfare? Seriously, I don't understand it.

Your Open QuestionShow me another »

Does it matter that Todd Palin has Palled around with an Alaska separatist party?

http://www.akip.org/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/

http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basic...

Also, would a female "non-beauty queen type" be allowed to wink her way through a debate or even to acceptably wink at all during a debate.

Does it matter that these people are involved in these scandals?

Why would John McCain protect these indicted criminals, when he himself was already associated with the Keeting 5?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

The back and forth attacks are a distraction from the serious real issues at hand.

Should the Obama campaign refrain from a counter-accusation and address the Gov. Palin's accusation that he "pals with terrorists" and is "associated with terrorists" by way of a SLANDER suit?

The facts at hand being:

1. Her accusations relate to one person "Ayers", but she states terrorists-plural.

2. She states that Barack has an association with the Weatherman organization which was active when Barack was 8 years old.

3. She describes the relationship as "palling around" but he has only met the guy a limited number of times, lives in the same neighborhood and there has been no communication at all since 2005.

4. Her clear intention is to paint Barack as being a terrorist or a friend of terrorists.

My question isn't to debate the validity of Palin's false accusations, but to question whether at some point political misrepresentation and name-calling of an opponent should be met with a law-suit!

The back and forth attacks are a distraction from the serious real issues at hand.

Should the Obama campaign refrain from a counter-accusation and address the Gov. Palin's accusation that he "pals with terrorists" and is "associated with terrorists" by way of a SLANDER suit?

The facts at hand being:

1. Her accusations relate to one person "Ayers", but she states terrorists-plural.

2. She states that Barack has an association with the Weatherman organization which was active when Barack was 8 years old.

3. She describes the relationship as "palling around" but he has only met the guy a limited number of times, lives in the same neighborhood and there has been no communication at all since 2005.

4. Her clear intention is to paint Barack as being a terrorist or a friend of terrorists.

My question isn't to debate the validity of Palin's false accusations, but to question whether at some point political misrepresentation and name-calling of an opponent should be met with a law-suit!

Which area is the best for staying in a hotel for access to the boardwalk and a fun experience.

Was this choice a shallow choice, meant to increase election odds, or a deep and serious choice meant more to improve governance as an elected official.

For the VP that would be someone to discuss and debate decisions, someone who would help you not make a mistake by offering constructive criticism and most importantly a presidential as a replacement for times when the president is incapacitated (surgery, kidnapping) or dead.

I hope that Gov. Palin is not a "Shallow Pal", what do you think?

Please help me so that I can justify my decision to go with McCain.

Is our ability to accept imperfection on the McCain/Palin ticket proof that we should just vote for that ticket and close this expensive campaign?

1. If Barack's wife actually joined an organization that advocated state succession from the USA he would be history.

2. If Barack's daughters were using drugs and/or had a teenage pregnancy he would be history.

3. If Barack stated that he didn't know what a vice president really does he would be history.

4. If Barack stated that he really didn't know much about economics and then two months later claimed to be an economic expert he would be history.

5. If Barack said that we was rushing to Washington to "save" the U.S. economy, it would evidence arrogance.

5. If Barack had graduated at the bottom of his class or taken 6 years in 5 colleges to graduate then he would be history.

6. If Barack were in the middle of an investigation for improper use of power and were blocking progression of that investigation, then he would be history.

This just goes to proove that we really want the McCain/Palin team no matter what and should just vote for them.

I think that this is just a smear rumor. Can we put this issue to rest please. It doesn't even matter anyway.