Apr 15, 2012 -- 3:24PM, Aka_me wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Ironhold wrote:

Considering that the Phelps likely don't even recognize our right to continue existing, we wouldn't have as much pull on him as his fellow religionists.

this would make an excellent opportunity for the LDS church to reach out to the other denominations in saying "let's all work together" to show these jackalopes and the world at large that no other Christian group condones their actions or ideas.

there's no reason the LDS church can't make this a priority, and if they aren't willing to do it...

the idea that it's somehow MORE important for other denominations to do it is ASSININE!

That all assumes the other denominations would be willing to hear an idea that originates from us.

Steve Powell has just been convicted of voyeurism.

However, the trial didn't yield anything new concerning what happened to Susan Powell.

Thing is,

1. Steve Powell hated the LDS faith and wanted his son and grandchildren out of it

2. Steve Powell was peeping on the daughter-in-law he so hated

Something tells me that if Josh didn't do it, Steve did.

[/quote]
You can cite source on this?[/quote]
 

Steve Powell didn't have long talks with his son via the phone, trying to convince him to leave the LDS Church, or get into heated screaming matches with Mr. Cox in public, because he liked Mormonism. That much I gleened from listening to TV and radio news.

~ Theophilus

May 16, 2012 -- 9:01PM, Theo wrote:

It will be interesting to see what kind of time SP gets.

Personally, I still have questions about how the Pierce County Sherriff's dpmt. came upon the evidence they used to charge and convict him of voyeurism. They had no clue, that I know of, that SP was a peeping-tom who did the screwy things he did, except as relates to Susan Powell, until they got a warrant to raid his home because they suspected him of the Susan Powell "disappearance."  

While I have no sympathy for Steve Powell - I do wonder if his rights were trampled on by the police. Do the police have authority to charge you for a crime they only uncovered as a result of discovery, after examining your home and possessions over something barely unrelated?

Frankly, my knowledge of the Law is pretty much based upon watching Criminal Minds and CSI shows... so I am only thinking out loud.

~ Theophilus

It varies by jurisdiction.

Suppose, for example, that a cop pulls you over because you have a tail light out. The cop is feeling lenient, and so tells you to just go ahead, open up your trunk, and check to see if the light's loose (lights can get loose on cars). In the process of you opening up your trunk, the cop sees a dead body. You've just been busted as an accessory to murder, if not murder one.

In this case, it's possible that they were looking for e-mails to/from or about Susan and found the images in the process. If so, then under most jurisdictions it'd be perfectly kosher.

May 16, 2012 -- 11:18PM, Ironhold wrote:

Go back and read through both this thread and the thread on the Discovery Networks forums I linked to.

telling someone to go read 2 long threads full of personal opinion DOES NOT count as a reference.

please provide a link to FACTUAL information if one exists.

when did Josh get baptised LDS?

did Josh formally request his name be removed from the records?