Trefor Heywood

One has to conclude that the subject of the Dealing with the Adversary class was Craig himself! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Temple Lady: What you say is straight from the Book of Mormon But it makes more sense to me than the "soul sleep" theory taught by VPW. Regarding Matthew, even if true, it was only a temporary arrnagement in that presumeably they would have died again as would Lazarus, or anybody else the Bible records as having been raised from the dead with the single exception of Jesus. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I can see what point you are trying to make Zix. However, the fate of Saruman is still a loose end that I feel should have been addressed in the cinematic version. He is not a minor character in the story, he has played a large part in the action of the first two films and then all of a sudden he becomes a non-person! It is almost ironic that Boromir, who dies at the end of FOTR and who Tolkien kills off right at the beginning of the second book, still manages to appear, through flashback, in all three, whilst Saruman does not. It would have been more satisfactory if they had still let Treebeard report he had let Saruman go and the returning Hobbits caught Saruman just before he was able to ravage the Shire, proking Wormtongue enough to still finish him off. However I guess it is speculation until the EE DVD as to how it is going to be dealt with ;)--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

One has to accept that minor characters in books do not appear in the subsequent film. But as you say, the scouring of the Shire was an important element in the book - it was Saruman's attempt at revenge for being thwarted and it clearly shows his eventual fate. The Sackville-Bagginses were only briefly referred to in FOTR and there is no subsequent reference to them at all, despite the fact that Lotho is used by Saruman in the book. One could almost see this happening when Frodo in the film leaves at short notice without selling Bag End to the SBs which would have given them the social position that could then have been exploited by Saruman. I expect that PJ will give his reasons for the changes and omissions in the extended DVD appendices. I think they will have to be pretty darn good to satisfy those of us who are Tolkien purists! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

But he did play the younger Bilbo Raf - question is would it look realistic in a full film. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

All they need to do is make him look like he did at the beginning of FOTR when it shows Bilbo finding the Ring. i.e. make him look like a 50 year old hobbit - I expect he is older than that already... Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I know there is talk about it Hope R. The Hobbiton set is, I believe, still extant. They demolished the Edoras set but I am not sure what they did with the Rivendell set that they constructed. If I am right, they only need three LOTR characters - Bilbo, Gandalf and Elrond and for continuity the same actors should be preferred. But he wants to make King Kong first so we must posess our souls in patience. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I have seen Taken but I am not sure what you mean in how it could have applied something to LOTR... Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

No doubt some people will hate PJ for missing out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Downs, Buckland, also. Plus all the sagas and stories referred to in LOTR. I wait to see what he does about Saruman and Wormtongue in the extended DVD. Certainly seeing them merely left locked and unpunished in Orthanc was not satisfactory. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I have finally seen ROTK also for the first time. The special effects were brilliant and the acting etc. I just had a slight feeling of disjointedness with no satisfactory explanation about Saruman and Wormtongue and that other things should have been cut instead if length was the problem. We know this will be dealt with in the extended DVD though. But I saw the Oscars not really being just for the one film but for the whole caboodle - the academy were aware it was going to be a trilogy rather than sequels. They probably thought it was best to wait for the whole epic story to have been seen. I hear that Peter Jackson's next venture is going to be yet another remake of King Kong. What is he going to use for the finale? That tower in Auckland? :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Here in the UK "dinky" means little :)--> We have Dinky Toys - metal model cars etc as opposed to dinkies that are used as toys. So to speak.... :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Heefner and Doop? Never heard of them - guess VP must have been successful! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I read it too. All very complicated stuff as I remember starting with this French Catholic priest who had a secret source of money. Think I should find where in the house I left it! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Zix: As Garth said, the points raised by Mr Card have already been dealt with elsewhere and I can tell you that every point he makes have been made at LDS semi-annual general conferences in Salt Lake City. Mr Card couches the arguments in secular language in his article for public consumption. I was not constructing a straw man nor attacking him personally for his religious beliefs, I was making some points about his church and their teaching and practices upon the issues, It is a fact that Mormons in good standing are expected to follow the counsel of their leaders no matter whether or not they agree with them. I have Mormon friends, I have been to Mormon services (and enjoyed them) and I will confess that I think that their missionaries are cute. I have a great admiration for their commitment and tenacity. But the LDS leadership is very theocratic - what matters is not what was taught or happened in the past, but in what their current prophet says which changes and outweighs anything a previous prophet has said. The current prophet (the nonegarian Gordon B Hinckley) has decided to make a big issue out of marriage, even publishing a declaration about it which many will henceforth consider to be scripture. Privately many Mormons will not take such a view but publically they must appear as enthusiastic about it as every single Iraqi was about the glorious and inspired leadership of Saddam Hussein. Even the Pope does not excommunicate those who disagree with him, the LDS do. Not unlike TWI really.... Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Radar: I don't just try and post articles for the sake of it or to clock up my posting stats. It's a genuine attempt to show what others are saying and also to inform. I don't expect for a minute that there will be any road to Damascus like conversions by my doing so, nor that everyone will read them. Published sources are sometimes a good way of counterracting some opinions that are expressed. I could have posted much much more, but I try to be selective in ensuring that the same ground is not continuously covered. If I just posted articles and never wrote a dickie bird myself then I could be accused of being afraid or unable to express myself, this as you are no doubt aware, is not the case! ;)--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Zix: Mr Card is a Mormon and his church has an interesting history regarding marriage and "flaunting the laws" itself. His church only dropped polygamy for political purposes and self-preservation. It was one of the most rabid opponents of civil rights and took a low view of coloured people for many years, denying them the Mormon priesthoods and temple ordinances. It has also been one of the most rabid opponents of gay marriage and has continued to cling to outmoded viewpoints about homosexuality. His church even used to apply electric shock therapy, believing this could change a person's nature. His church's doctrines have split families up over the issue and led to suicides. His church is led by elderly men in their seventies, eighties and even nineties - the very group who have the biggest problem with the issue. These men claim to speak for the Lord, that when they speak the thinking has already been done and do no take kindly to opposition of any kind - they excommunicated many Mormon intellectuals, including historians, who came up with some inconvenient facts about their church's history - including how they were once accepting of gays. I correspond with gay Mormons and ex Mormons and am fully aware of what has gone on and what continues to go on. Prominent Mormons are also almost overwhelmingly Republican. He talks about the ayatollahs - he should look to his own church headquarters. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Another interesting viewpoint which I post without comment: Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

A quote from Dan Savage in Village Voice Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jonny: His “statutes” as you call them are largely a matter of interpretation. I don’t see adherence to what some see as his “statutes” on divorce or on killing, or on how some people treat each other. People can be very selective as to what they agree or disagree with God about. Long Gone: The rehash of the same old illogical argument regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It does not address the question in hand about the right to marry the same sex. When it comes to prohibitions, the onus should be on those who support the prohibition to clearly demonstrate WHY it should be prohibited, after all in a court a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Arguments on the basis of tradition or reproduction have already been demonstrated to be flawed. Garth has pointed out that equal protection is not a matter of something have to justify itself to others. It should be the automatic default when there are no good valid solid and obvious reasons why it should be otherwise. Such marriages by western standards, would be no more acceptable than brother-sister or father-daughter marriages. In other societies these have been a traditional practice despite the genetic problems created by inbreeding. Obviously in a same sex situation there would be no danger of this but I cannot foresee many situations where such people would wish to take this up to any major degree. If you were to rule that same sex marriage could only be allowed if the provision was equally applied to such examples I would make no objection for the sake of the vast majority of unrelated people who would benefit. It is not something, I hasten to add, that I would be into myself. I suspect, however, that similar kinship exclusions would be applied as they are to heterosexual marriage. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: Just because you disagree with the judges does not mean that their considerations are wrong. I have disagreed with Supreme Court decisions also but they do try very hard to use the power that is given to them very carefully indeed in addressing the cases that come before them. The process of choosing them is all political – proposed by the incumbent president – and interrogated by congress. Once invested, they are not required to follow a party line to attempt to follow purely judicial principles. They “invent” nothing – they have to deal with the constitution as it is written, not as some people would write it. Many decisions have been “contrary to all precedent” – the Dredd Scott case for example set a precedent about slavery – do you think that should still be followed just because it set a precedent? I think that Garth did a good explanation on that one. Maybe sometimes language can be heated but when you see some of the language that is used against gays by some you should hopefully understand. Understandings of rights evolve, they are not fixed by one moment in time. I do not condemn people as bigots simply for disagreeing but for their arguments and their language. We have no written constitution nor bill or rights over here except those granted by the monarch through act of parliament and yet we seem to have a better understanding of rights sometimes than those have something in more tangible form. Of course there is a proposed European Constitution which will, when established have precedence over domestic law and some countries in Europe do have gay marriage already. Our country has an "understanding", not a definition. However it is at least prepared to make a legal allowance for gay relationships that your proposed amendment does not. Effectively it will be marriage in all but name and will give full legal protections and recognition. No church has to recognise a civil marriage religiously. But then again the state does not have to recognise a religious marriage without the civil element. In most countries in Europe two ceremonies are actually required – the civil one first legitimises the marriage in the eyes of the state and that is the only one which does. Grace Kelly was married to Prince Rainier in a civil marriage the day before the big “show” that was the religious one. Here we are civilised enough to allow one ceremony providing a legitimate registrar is present to witness and register the marriage. The Church of England clergy act as civil registrars for example for church marriages. Divorce is always a civil matter. If Roman Catholics divorce that does not mean that they are free to marry again in the eyes of their church who may refuse remarriage and also the sacraments to those who remarry, even civilly, without going through the church’s own annulment process. They only decided against "marriage" because they felt the time was not yet quite right to use the term but the civil arrangements are akin to marriage in all but name. They could be converted to marriages without the need for another ceremony. There is a reactionary element in our unelected House of Lords wgho fight tooth and nail against any improvement in matters like this. zixar: But the amendment still EXTENDED rights by making the franchise available to those who had previously been denied it. It was progress and not regress. In this country we are already seeing the consideration of voting being extended to 16 year olds, less discrimination again. As has been pointed out, only Prohibition has actually denied rights and that was repealed. It’s a poor example as discrimination that you cite. Hmm, I could get Freudian but I will avoid the temptation! ;)--> Another poor example and yet another blatant example of where you Americans get it things SO wrong! :D--> It is a uniform custom in the country and is to prevent accidents. It is nothing to do with sexuality, race, age, or religion or gender. Adjustment to that custom is possible just as you guys have to adjust to the correct way of doing things when you drive over here. chwester: Your understanding of Sodom is so easily demolishable as your understanding of judgement. For you God is a God of hate who throws childish hissy fits when he does not get his own way. Like Garth, if I believed in your God, I too would have to be an atheist. dmiller: Well I do know some X-rated Welsh but that wasn’t some of it! :o--> mr p-Mosh Cac is the same in Welsh so I can translate that much! Ceud Mile F?te! Jonny: It was only because it removed the hurt from the word and was turned into a word of affirmation. Not everyone likes it although it doesn’t bother me - it’s not a word I would chose to describe myself though. You saying gays are constipated? --> mj: The people are the people, all the people not just the majority of the people. Majorities can be tyrannical and persecuting as history has shown over and over again. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

You too ex! a ti hefyd ex! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"