Re: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
At 09:25 PM 3/9/04, Grampa Bill in Savannah wrote: Rick Mathis wrote: So, Bill, is she married? I have a 25 year old menace to society who doesn't seem to be making much movement in that direction. = Grampa answers. She's single and IMHO a knock-out beauty. She has, however, been going steady with a non-member for some eight years now. She has sworn she would not marry outside the temple, but I see no signs of either marriage or her dumping him. Her older sister's opinion is she's just gotten comfortable and doesn't want to re-enter the dating scene, but then, Older Sister has an opinion on most everything. Yer boy TR eligible or card-carrying? RM? Nitpick for discussion concerning your questions: So is it you or she who would not consider marriage to, frex, someone who held a TR but joined the Church too late to serve a mission as a young man? -- Ronn! :) // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry
Get real. He said it (he just didn't identify whom it was who supported him - do you watch/follow the news at all?). Just like he put himself in for the Poiple Hearts. Just like he dragged photographers around with him to take his pictures when he was in Nam. A very humble man. Jon - Original Message - From: "RB Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:57 AM Subject: RE: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry > Did we learn this from John Kerry? Did John Kerry say"these > foreign leaders like me better?" Or was this a report in the > news media which said that foreign leaders like Kerry better or > something like that. > > Playing the "company he keeps" game could damn a lot of > candidates, Mr. President included. Seems to me that we should > be pleased that our President has contacts around the world. > Have contacts, being highly regarded doesn't suggest that one is > a pushover. > > Ron > > >-Original Message- > >From: Jon Spencer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:04 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry > > > > > >You left out France, Germany, Iran, and Belgium. You > >also forgot to state > >those you strongly support Bush, namely the Iraqis, the > >Iranians, the > >Libyans, etc. > > > >You can tell a lot about a person by the company he > >keeps. I like my > >company better. > > > >Jon > >- Original Message - > >From: "John W. Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:21 PM > >Subject: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry > > > > > >> In the news today we learn from John Kerry that a > >number of foreign > >leaders > >> strongly hope that he wins the Presidency in November. Which > >> leaders? Well, Kerry can't say, of course. But > >allow me to guess: The > >> leaders of North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba and > >Canada. --JWR > >> > >> > > > > > >// > >> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >> > > > > > >/ > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >// > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > >/ > --- > > > > > > > > // > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > > > > // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
At 07:25 PM 3/9/2004, Bill wrote: She's single and IMHO a knock-out beauty. She has, however, been going steady with a non-member for some eight years now. She has sworn she would not marry outside the temple, but I see no signs of either marriage or her dumping him. Her older sister's opinion is she's just gotten comfortable and doesn't want to re-enter the dating scene, but then, Older Sister has an opinion on most everything. Yer boy TR eligible or card-carrying? RM? Yes to both. Hmm. What is a golddigger called if it's a man? :) -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
At 07:25 PM 3/9/2004, Bill wrote: She's single and IMHO a knock-out beauty. She has, however, been going steady with a non-member for some eight years now. She has sworn she would not marry outside the temple, but I see no signs of either marriage or her dumping him. Her older sister's opinion is she's just gotten comfortable and doesn't want to re-enter the dating scene, but then, Older Sister has an opinion on most everything. Yer boy TR eligible or card-carrying? RM? Yes to both. Hmm. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Rick Mathis wrote: So, Bill, is she married? I have a 25 year old menace to society who doesn't seem to be making much movement in that direction. = Grampa answers. She's single and IMHO a knock-out beauty. She has, however, been going steady with a non-member for some eight years now. She has sworn she would not marry outside the temple, but I see no signs of either marriage or her dumping him. Her older sister's opinion is she's just gotten comfortable and doesn't want to re-enter the dating scene, but then, Older Sister has an opinion on most everything. Yer boy TR eligible or card-carrying? RM? Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] An Answer to the World - Divorce and Single Parent Children
Maggie Gallagher: By gutting the marital contract, no-fault divorce has transformed what it means to get married. The state will no longer enforce permanent legal commitments to a spouse. Formally, at least, no-fault divorce thus demotes marriage from a binding relation into something best described as cohabitation with insurance benefits. What have we gotten in exchange for this sweeping abandonment of the idea that marriage is a public, legal commitment, and not merely a private exchange of sentimental wishes? When in the 1970s and early 1980s no-fault divorce swept through state legislatures, its advocates promised us two great benefits: (1) no-fault would reduce conflict, as spouses would no longer be forced to assign legal blame for the marriages end, and (2) no-fault would enhance respect for the law, as couples longing for a divorce would no longer have to commit perjury, lodge false accusations of adultery, to get one. In this sense, as Herbert Jacob points out in his excellent history, Silent Revolution, no-fault divorce was the brainchild of elites who consistently portrayed it as a mere technical adjustment to the law, a minor change that would in no way endanger marriage or encourage divorce, but merely close the gap between the law in theory and the law as it was actually practiced. In reality no-fault divorce laws did something decidedly more revolutionary. Rather than transferring to the couple the right to decide when a divorce is justified, no-fault laws transferred that right to the individual. No-fault is thus something of a misnomer; a more accurate term would be unilateral divorce on demand. The idea that couples who wish to divorce should be able to do so without making false accusations is now uncontroversial. Even the most aggressive of the new divorce reforms to restore fault recently proposed in Michigan permits couples to dissolve their marriages quietly and amicably, by mutual consent. The idea that marriage is a covenant larger than the two people who make it has already been lost. What the current no-fault debate revolves around is the lesser question: Is marriage less than a legal contract between two people? Is the marriage contract enforceable, and if so how? When we marry, are we making a binding commitment or a fully revokable one (if "revokable commitment" is not an oxymoron)? If the latter, what is the difference, morally and legally, between getting married and living together? Why have a legal institution dedicated to making a public promise the law considers too burdensome to enforce? // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] An Answer to the World - Divorce and Single Parent Children
Maggie Gallagher and Judith Wallerstien discuss social problems stemming from contemporary divorce practices. Many insightful comments. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9708/gallagher.html // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
At 06:58 PM 3/9/2004, Bill wrote: Failure to obtain education, training, or skills is a certain route to a impoverished life. I have a daughter who is a pharmacist. The day she graduated, Wal-Mart kicked her 26 K wage up over 50K. Two months later, the very day she passed her Registry they made her a manager at a six figure salary. So, Bill, is she married? I have a 25 year old menace to society who doesn't seem to be making much movement in that direction. Rick Mathis // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] An Answer to the World - Divorce and Single Parent Children
Some good resource material here: http://new.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1115.cfm // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Jonathan Scott wrote: Can any of you think of any other of major sources of poverty since 1960? Credit cards? Anything... = Grampa Bill comments: The breakdown of the family stands at the head of the poverty cycle. Children of single parents are many times more likely to be brought up in poverty than the offspring of functional families. Failure to obtain education, training, or skills is a certain route to a impoverished life. I have a daughter who is a pharmacist. The day she graduated, Wal-Mart kicked her 26 K wage up over 50K. Two months later, the very day she passed her Registry they made her a manager at a six figure salary. This from Wal-Mart, which has been called "vicious and predatory." OTOH I have a niece who dropped out of high school and gave birth to a child out of wedlock. Guess which one will live a life of poverty? And no, I do not blame corporate America. If Wal-Mart paid their door greeters six figures, they'd be bankrupt in less than a year! All in all, I'd say the root cause of poverty in most cases is a failure to accept responsibility for our actions. -- Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Howdy, My next chapters will be dealing with all the new sources of poverty that have shown up since the sixties...or before. I need information on corporations and on how they are making more money than before at the cost of employees salaries...perhaps also a chapter on jobs going overseas. Can any of you think of any other of major sources of poverty since 1960? Credit cards? Anything... Ron...the filter is off. I'd appreciate your input as well. Be rude again and the filter goes right back up though. I doubt you care, but nonetheless, I'm listening again. -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] An Answer to the World - Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Feedback Please --- Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Abraham Maslow, born April 1, 1908, was a psychologist who offered a theory called the "Hierarchy of Needs." He stated that all the needs of a human being could be grouped into five different layers, each layer being sorted by it's importance to our survival and happiness. The Physiological Needs Food, Air, Water, Avoiding Pain, Sex...etc. The Safety and Security Needs Shelter, Stability, Protection The Love and Belonging Needs Romance, Family, Children, Avoiding Loneliness The Esteem Needs the respect of others, fame, glory, reputation, confidence, achievement, freedom...etc. The Self-Actualization Needs "Be All That You Can Be," "Becoming the Fullest" He then also stated that we fulfill these needs in order of importance. In other words, we will not try to fulfill a need on any layer if there is an unfulfilled need on a more vital layer. For example, if we are starving (a physiological need) but are also lonely (a love and belonging need) we will tend to the need that is most important for our survival first. Therefore, we would seek after food before trying to find companionship. He also stated that all of the needs within any one layer are also ordered according to their importance. For example, if a person is dying of thirst, but is also being physically attacked, the person would naturally deal with the attack before trying to find water. Under stressful conditions, or when survival is threatened, we can "regress" to a lower need level. When you[r] great career falls flat, you might seek out a little attention. When your family ups and leaves you, it seems that love is again all you ever wanted. When you face chapter eleven after a long and happy life, you suddenly can't think of anything except money. These things can occur on a society-wide basis as well: When society suddenly flounders, people start clamoring for a strong leader to take over and make things right. When the bombs start falling, they look for safety. When the food stops coming into the stores, their needs become even more basic. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html According to Maslow therefore, poverty creates crime. And anything that is responsible for an increase in poverty is also responsible for the crime that accompanies it. One way therefore to deal with the increase in crime is to ease poverty. The New Deal was probably the first time we saw social problems as not individual but social and approached solutions with social answers (WPA, CCC camps, work projects, social security, etc., etc.) Franklin Roosevelt realized living conditions were related to crime. Posters were even produced to educate the public that eliminating slum conditions was a way to reduce crime. C. Wright Mills knew that individual troubles could often be addressed more effectively by creating social resources. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society came out of a vast amount of sociological research. Politicians were listening to sociologists. They knew poverty was connected to crime. The war on poverty was designed to get to the roots of crime. But the conservatives today have declared war only on individual criminals and we have abandoned attention to social factors. http://www.skaggs island.org/democracy/dubois/politicsofsociology.html So, as we look at the change from Judeo/Christian morals towards Nihilism, if the change caused financial stress in our communities, then the change may also be responsible, to some degree, for the increases in crime in those communities. Sources: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html http://www.skaggs island.org/democracy/dubois/politicsofsociology.html -- Jonathan Scott -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Trial by Media
RB Scott wrote: I doubt her company will tank, although it will go through some rough times. == Grampa Bill comments: Best guess I've heard is that once the value drops low enough, she'll buy it back and take it private. With a privately owned company, she will be able to serve as Chairman and CEO, which she can not do as a convicted felon in a publicly owned company. Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] An Answer to the World - Divorce and Single Parent Children
Feedback Please --- Divorce and Single Parent Children I have included here several sources that I located on the internet concerning the causes and effects of divorce. The central cause of divorce appears to be women entering the work place. Because women are now capable of some financial independence, there is a greater tendancy for divorce. But as I have shown in the last chapter, and is agreed with in the following sources, there is also a greater tendancy for those who do divorce to live in poverty. And as the Abraham Maslow Hierarchy of Needs chapter shows, increased poverty directly leads to an increase of crime. Therefore, logically, women entering the work force can be seen as one of the causes of the increase in crime since the 1960s. CAUSES FOR DIVORCE What Explains Higher Divorce Rates? Please note that most explanations for divorce, especially increasing divorce rates through time, place the "blame" on women. That is, when women have the power to divorce or when a woman's social situation allows her [to] effectively deal with the consequences of divorce (e.g., lost income) divorce rates will increase. Also, realize that in our culture we tend to view divorce as a 'social problem' and view it negatively (although this is changing). Try not to allow this to color your understanding of divorce. Another point should be made about divorce: it takes two to divorce. When it is shown that increased economic opportunities for women lead to divorce this seems to indicate that divorce is caused by women. However, imagine two cases: (1) a farm woman in the 1900s with an abusive husband; and (2) a woman lawyer today living with an abusive husband. One would predict that the modern women would more likely divorce and the farm woman would not even though she might like to. However, if neither of the men were abusive then neither of the women might be motivated to divorce. The hypothesis is that divorce rates increase with increasing female status. Trent and South state: "Increases in economic opportunities for women provide the requisite independence for dissolving unhappy marriages (p. 198)." Pearson and Hendrix note that divorce rates are higher as * women inherit real and moveable property * polyandry is permitted * adultery is not strongly punished for men or women * and other factors that indicate women can be political and religious actors http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/peenotes.htm --- CAUSES FOR DIVORCE Causes of Divorce 1. Individualism is on the rise, families spending less time together 2. Romantic love often fades. 3. Women are less dependent on men, increasing participation in the labor force 4. Many of today's marriages are stressful; both people working, raising children is harder 5. Divorce is more socially acceptable 6. Divorce is legally easier to accomplish Who Divorces? Young spouses (brief courtships, few financial resources, and aren't emotionally mature) Unexpected pregnancies, and substance abuse also increases the chances, individuals who are not religious are more likely to divorce than those who are. More common among women with successful careers, moving also boosts the odds (weakens ties with families and friends) Habitual divorcees, if they do it once, more likely to do it again. http://www.mstc.edu/Instructor/SRathe/socnotes13.htm --- CAUSES FOR DIVORCE Some demographers consider divorce to be a result of growing individualisation and secularisation in society. These two processes put pressure on the traditional values of marriage and raising children, leading to an increased divorce rate. If this is true, European societies with less secularisation and individualisation should have lower divorce rates. If a higher educational level of couples produces a higher level of individualisation, there should be a positive relation between educational level of both spouses and their divorce risk. An economic tradition attributes the rise in divorce rates to changes in the balance between the cost and benefits of marriage for both husband and wife. If this is true there should be a higher divorce rate among women with high income jobs, because a high income lowers the cost of divorce for them. In that case, divorce rates in European societies with more full-time working mothers in higher positions should be higher. But the negative effect of parental divorce on children is often explained by the poverty of mother-headed single families. In that case, negative effects of parental divorce should be smaller in European societies with more full-time working mothers in higher positions than in other societies. Social security systems might reduce the degree of poverty in mother-headed single families, which might lead to differences in negative effects of parental divorce between European societies. Liberal divorce laws might also lead to higher levels of divorc
[ZION] Retroactive laws
John W. Redelfs wrote: --- I don't see how a law passed in the 21st century could have any effect on your 19th century ancestors. Laws aren't retroactive. --- It seldom makes any sense that they would be, but as I understand it, legal instruments are sometimes made to be retroactive, "nunc pro tunc". This generally happens when the instrument is amended some time after a judgement. Since such things are just a sort of fiction that we collectively respect, there is no rational obstacle standing in the way of such an arbitrary rule. In any case I cannot imagine how retroactive marriage rules would inconvenience any of my plurally married ancestors. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:59 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong > > >RB Scott wrote: >>Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a >religious >>covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government >has no business >>getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like >determining what >>constitutes a "marriage." > >If marriage is only a "religious blessing, a religious >covenant," why has >the Church invested so heavily in the argument over same-sex >marriage? What is the Church's reasoning? I assume >you may have some >insight into this because of your special contacts in >the hierarchy.< I don't have any special insights in this regard. I'm as confused as the next guy. My hunch is the Church sees DOMA passage as one way to get the "polygamy" prospect off the table, once and for all. I underscore: it's only a hunch. >>Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on >you that the proposed >>Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union >between one man and >>one woman. > >It is true that many of those talking about a federal >marriage amendment >are talking about one man and one woman, but to the >best of my knowledge >the wording of the amendment has not yet been settled. >It may be that it >will be worded "a man and a woman" which could leave >the door open to >plural marriage.< Possibly. I doubt it because one of the fears being trumpted by DOMA proponents was "if we allow gay marriage, the next thing we'll have is polygamy. " I think I read this from Brother Wilkins. This left me scratching my head. >>I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the >amendment pass, it >>will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the >marriages of several of >>my ancestors. It will render people like me >descendants of illegitimate >>relationships, the offspring of bastard children. > >I don't see how a law passed in the 21st century could >have any effect on >your 19th century ancestors. Laws aren't retroactive.< We've always maintained that polygamy was legal, a religious issue. Others argued that it as an abomination. Passing the law -- especially with support from the Mormon Church -- seems to be an acknowledged that our former enemies were right, after all. Expediency makes for strange bedfellows, it seems. > >>Where will the Church be should, at some point down >the road, the Lord >>order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is >unlikely...but >>there is a darned important principle in play here, >one that too many of >>us are ignoring. > >I personally believe that plural marriage will be >reinstituted. But I >don't think that possibility should be used to >surrender in the fight to >define marriage as only between a man and a woman. >Perhaps we will lose >the fight. Perhaps the fight will cause the >dissolution of the Union, and >Zion will arise as a sovereign nation in the west with its own >laws. Whatever happens there is a clear right and >wrong in the current >debate. And we ought to choose the right regardless of >what may become >necessary in some yet unforeseen future. Laws that are >passed can be >repealed. Even amendments can be repealed as >circumstances change.<< Interesting. I'm sure I don't need to point out the ironies in your statement. Ron // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a "marriage." If marriage is only a "religious blessing, a religious covenant," why has the Church invested so heavily in the argument over same-sex marriage? What is the Church's reasoning? I assume you may have some insight into this because of your special contacts in the hierarchy. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It is true that many of those talking about a federal marriage amendment are talking about one man and one woman, but to the best of my knowledge the wording of the amendment has not yet been settled. It may be that it will be worded "a man and a woman" which could leave the door open to plural marriage. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. I don't see how a law passed in the 21st century could have any effect on your 19th century ancestors. Laws aren't retroactive. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. I personally believe that plural marriage will be reinstituted. But I don't think that possibility should be used to surrender in the fight to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Perhaps we will lose the fight. Perhaps the fight will cause the dissolution of the Union, and Zion will arise as a sovereign nation in the west with its own laws. Whatever happens there is a clear right and wrong in the current debate. And we ought to choose the right regardless of what may become necessary in some yet unforeseen future. Laws that are passed can be repealed. Even amendments can be repealed as circumstances change. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a "marriage." The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of "unions" and "partnerships" it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. RBS >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong > > >Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay >marriage movement >is wrong. >Gary > >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml > >'Gay marriage' confusions >Thomas Sowell (archive) > >March 9, 2004 > >Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as >the "gay marriage" >issue. > >There is, for example, the argument that the government >has no business >getting involved with marriage in the first place. That >is a personal >relation, the argument goes. > >Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a >legal relation. To >say that government should not get involved in legal >relations is to say >that government has no business governing. > >Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they >said that what >happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the >government's business. But now gay activists are taking >the opposite >view, that it is government's business -- and that >government has an >obligation to give its approval. > >Then there are the strained analogies with the civil >rights struggles of >the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged >the racial laws >of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong >with Massachusetts >judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws >that they >consider unjust today? > >First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were >private citizens >and they did not put themselves above the law. On the >contrary, they >submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support >needed to change >the laws. > >As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King >wielded the power >of government. Their situation was very different from >that of public >officials who use the power delegated to them through >the framework of >law to betray that framework itself, which they swore >to uphold as a >condition of receiving their power. > >The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, >who defied the law >by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the >University of Alabama under a court order. > >After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his >rights to argue >for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders >argued against it. >But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy >the law was a >violation of his oath. > >If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the >mayor of San >Francisco want to resign their jobs and start >advocating gay marriage, >they have every right to do so. But that is wholly >different from using >the authority delegated to them under the law to >subvert the law. > >Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have >overturned unjust >laws in the past and that society is better off for it. >The argument >that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the >past is hardly a >basis for accepting unlawful acts in general. > >If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts >that you agree with, >then of course others will have other unlawful acts >that they agree >with. Considering how many different groups have how >many different sets >of values, that road leads to anarc
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
I doubt her company will tank, although it will go through some rough times. >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:10 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media > > >The sad thing is, she was offered a deal wherein she >wouldn't have to do >jail time, but her lawyer talked her out of it. I'm >hearing she'll get >about 18 months. And, of course her company will tank. >Gary > >Tom Matkin wrote: >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: RB Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 4:46 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media >> >> >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:42 PM >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: Re: [ZION] Trial by Media >> > >> > >> >RB Scott wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? >> >> >> >>Ron >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Which trial? >> > >> >Tom >> >> The criminal trial >> >> Can't compare that with Martha's trial. Most of us >saw almost every >> minute of it, sometimes several times. True we had >endless "spin" >> commentaries trying to sort it out for us, but we saw >the evidence. I >> also believe that the jury practiced "jury >nullification". In effect, >> they knew full well that OJ was guilty, but they >chose to nullify the >> prosecution for other reasons. Either they accepted >the "race card" as a >> trump to the actual evidence, or they nullified >because they believed >> the LAPD was unworthy of the conviction. Probably a >combination of those >> two reasons. How do you compare the OJ trial with >Martha's trial? It >> seems to me that Martha had no defense and therefore >put up no defense. >> She relied on her reputation and a parade of >celebrity supporters >> sitting behind her in the courtroom to influence the >jury. The jury >> didn't buy it. It is also my understanding that had >she admitted doing >> what she obviously did - dumping shares on an inside >tip - she could >> have taken the high road by admitting her hasty ill >advised action and >> been fined and gone on with her life. Instead she >falsified her >> records, lied to the investigators, and asked others >to lie for her, the >> latter being the most despicable of things. Of >course, I have to state >> my prejudice here. I feel like her whole "branding" >thing is big lie. >> She comes off as this great expert that knows >everything and about >> everything and that can manipulate anything into >anything. She came to >> believe her own fabrication and it rose up and bit >her - in the end - so >> to speak. >> >> Tom >> >> > > > >Gerald (Gary) Smith >geraldsmith@ juno.com >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom > > >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs
True enough. >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:03 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs > > >Or, if it initially fails, it could cause enough anger >in the states by >normal, God-fearing people, that they will throw the >bums out that >refused to vote for it. That is my hope. >Congress can be recalled by its constituents. Another >check given by the >Constitution >Gary Smith > > >John W. Redelfs wrote: >> >> RB Scott wrote: >> >My guess is that it won't be approved by Congress. >The danger in >> >a drawn out, bitter campaign that ultimately loses is that it >> >will absorb so much political and financial captial >there won't >> >be much left over to shape how (or if) same sex marriage is >> >presented in the schools. A destructive "to the >winner goes the >> >spoils" mentality could rule the process. >> >> Just an additional argument for home schooling. --JWR >> >> >> > > > >Gerald (Gary) Smith >geraldsmith@ juno.com >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom > > >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Cause for rejoicing
I heard a rumor that Stacy Smith's husband was baptized over the weekend. I'm sure that is an awesome thing for her. Congrats, Heidi! Gary mormonyoyoman wrote: > > Heartfelt congratulations to Heidi! There are few things as satisfying > as > seeing one's family doing the celestial thing! > > *jeep! > ---Chet > "If ya thinks ya is right, ya deserfs credit - even if ya is wrong." > --Gus > Segar via Popeye > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Am I wasting my time?
I've just been too busy to look at it. Gary Jonathan Scott wrote: > > Hello, > I've noticed that you all don't seem too interested in the > things that I'm writing. Could you please tell me why that is? Is > it that you disagree? Is it that you don't care? Is it that you're > too busy to read my posts? > I'm putting a lot of time into this, and I really could use > the help (feedback). > > P.S. the answer to the riddle was "nothing." > -- > Jonathan Scott Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
The sad thing is, she was offered a deal wherein she wouldn't have to do jail time, but her lawyer talked her out of it. I'm hearing she'll get about 18 months. And, of course her company will tank. Gary Tom Matkin wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > From: RB Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 4:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ZION] Trial by Media > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:42 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [ZION] Trial by Media > > > > > >RB Scott wrote: > > > >> > >>You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? > >> > >>Ron > >> > >> > > > >Which trial? > > > >Tom > > The criminal trial > > Can't compare that with Martha's trial. Most of us saw almost every > minute of it, sometimes several times. True we had endless "spin" > commentaries trying to sort it out for us, but we saw the evidence. I > also believe that the jury practiced "jury nullification". In effect, > they knew full well that OJ was guilty, but they chose to nullify the > prosecution for other reasons. Either they accepted the "race card" as a > trump to the actual evidence, or they nullified because they believed > the LAPD was unworthy of the conviction. Probably a combination of those > two reasons. How do you compare the OJ trial with Martha's trial? It > seems to me that Martha had no defense and therefore put up no defense. > She relied on her reputation and a parade of celebrity supporters > sitting behind her in the courtroom to influence the jury. The jury > didn't buy it. It is also my understanding that had she admitted doing > what she obviously did - dumping shares on an inside tip - she could > have taken the high road by admitting her hasty ill advised action and > been fined and gone on with her life. Instead she falsified her > records, lied to the investigators, and asked others to lie for her, the > latter being the most despicable of things. Of course, I have to state > my prejudice here. I feel like her whole "branding" thing is big lie. > She comes off as this great expert that knows everything and about > everything and that can manipulate anything into anything. She came to > believe her own fabrication and it rose up and bit her - in the end - so > to speak. > > Tom > > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay marriage movement is wrong. Gary http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml 'Gay marriage' confusions Thomas Sowell (archive) March 9, 2004 Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue. There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes. Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval. Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they consider unjust today? First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws. As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power. The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order. After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a violation of his oath. If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law. Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the past is hardly a basis for accepting unlawful acts in general. If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts that you agree with, then of course others will have other unlawful acts that they agree with. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy. Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and other places to know not to go there? The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species? Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that. Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake. Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex. Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality. ©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.
RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs
Or, if it initially fails, it could cause enough anger in the states by normal, God-fearing people, that they will throw the bums out that refused to vote for it. That is my hope. Congress can be recalled by its constituents. Another check given by the Constitution Gary Smith John W. Redelfs wrote: > > RB Scott wrote: > >My guess is that it won't be approved by Congress. The danger in > >a drawn out, bitter campaign that ultimately loses is that it > >will absorb so much political and financial captial there won't > >be much left over to shape how (or if) same sex marriage is > >presented in the schools. A destructive "to the winner goes the > >spoils" mentality could rule the process. > > Just an additional argument for home schooling. --JWR > > > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Cause for rejoicing
Heartfelt congratulations to Heidi! There are few things as satisfying as seeing one's family doing the celestial thing! *jeep! ---Chet "If ya thinks ya is right, ya deserfs credit - even if ya is wrong." --Gus Segar via Popeye // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Cause for rejoicing
Yesterday, I given reasons to rejoice. They are: (1)I saw the first daffodils of the year...spring (and my seasonal sinus problems) can't be too far off! (2)...and this is the MOST important: My sister (the one in Boston) and her boyfriend have announced plans to marry in August in the Washington DC Temple. If that isn't happy news, I don't know what is. This is the sister who, a few years ago, turned down a marriage proposal from a young man who could not take her to the temple. That took courage, in my opinion. It is the best thing - but not the easiest - to remain single rather than to marry outside the temple. She had faith that she would eventually find someone who could take her to the temple. Her fiance is someone she has known since the both of them were 12 years old, and his family was in another ward in our stake (I knew some of his older siblings). They were friends at BYU and ran in the same circle of friends, and things turned romantic in the last year and a half or so for them. It's been a long distance romance - her in Boston, him in SLC - and I'm not sure yet that they've worked out who will move where, but, as I told her recently, you find the right person, marry in the right place and the other stuff will just work out. Anyway, I just wanted to share my excitement! Gotta run! Heidi the fair Heidi Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coll. My congrats. -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Cause for rejoicing
Yesterday, I given reasons to rejoice. They are: (1)I saw the first daffodils of the year...spring (and my seasonal sinus problems) can't be too far off! (2)...and this is the MOST important: My sister (the one in Boston) and her boyfriend have announced plans to marry in August in the Washington DC Temple. If that isn't happy news, I don't know what is. This is the sister who, a few years ago, turned down a marriage proposal from a young man who could not take her to the temple. That took courage, in my opinion. It is the best thing - but not the easiest - to remain single rather than to marry outside the temple. She had faith that she would eventually find someone who could take her to the temple. Her fiance is someone she has known since the both of them were 12 years old, and his family was in another ward in our stake (I knew some of his older siblings). They were friends at BYU and ran in the same circle of friends, and things turned romantic in the last year and a half or so for them. It's been a long distance romance - her in Boston, him in SLC - and I'm not sure yet that they've worked out who will move where, but, as I told her recently, you find the right person, marry in the right place and the other stuff will just work out. Anyway, I just wanted to share my excitement! Gotta run! Heidi the fair Heidi Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry
Did we learn this from John Kerry? Did John Kerry say"these foreign leaders like me better?" Or was this a report in the news media which said that foreign leaders like Kerry better or something like that. Playing the "company he keeps" game could damn a lot of candidates, Mr. President included. Seems to me that we should be pleased that our President has contacts around the world. Have contacts, being highly regarded doesn't suggest that one is a pushover. Ron >-Original Message- >From: Jon Spencer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:04 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry > > >You left out France, Germany, Iran, and Belgium. You >also forgot to state >those you strongly support Bush, namely the Iraqis, the >Iranians, the >Libyans, etc. > >You can tell a lot about a person by the company he >keeps. I like my >company better. > >Jon >- Original Message - >From: "John W. Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:21 PM >Subject: [ZION] Foreign Leaders Support Kerry > > >> In the news today we learn from John Kerry that a >number of foreign >leaders >> strongly hope that he wins the Presidency in November. Which >> leaders? Well, Kerry can't say, of course. But >allow me to guess: The >> leaders of North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba and >Canada. --JWR >> >> > > >// >> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// >> > > >/ >> >> >> > > >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ --- > > > // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
