Heavenguard

Really?? When was that? (I assume before my time?) My mom told me the same thing mouth wash (I assume she heard it on the radio). But, as Pam says, I might as well not live. What's the key? Live right and eat well. Try not to eat so much processed foods, everything in moderation.

The logic is faulty, because you could also say that God also gave us the wisdom and ability to create weapons of war, tools to destroy his creations, industry that is slowly (or not so slowly) killing the planet. Not that I disagree with taking medication, just saying you can't use that logic as justification.And I agree with Fiannan too. I work with (although not in) alternative/complementary medicine. The core of these things are finding the source of the problem, and not just covering up or externally managing the symptoms, but lifestyle change to fix them. (Not to say that there's no immediate short-term help, but there are longer goals that don't seem to exist in standard western medicine.) But don't take me as an antagonistic judgmental other, I take medication too. I have a as-yet undiagnosed problem for two years. To sum it up in one word: Pain. I've seen multiple doctors/specialists regarding this, and every one of them has given me a clean bill of health. That means they otherwise have nothing they can do to help me (or that I can do to help myself), because they can't even find the problem. My family doctor gave me the pain medication so I could deal with it otherwise. If I could do something to overcome the source of the pain without pills, I would, but I can't because nobody can counsel me on how. I don't like taking medication, even when I'm sick. I try to let my body deal with itself as much as possible. But sometimes, I just have to - when I can't even get out of my house to get to work, I have to. When you're in pain, you can't think in lines of code, you just think you want to not be in pain. The people who judge: they're not medical professionals, and don't know any better. You can either try to educate them, tolerate them, or just befriend them so they can see that you're not a bad guy.

Okay, I'll bite. :3 Keeping in mind this is not an LDS POV, so things it may not turn out to be be as applicable for YSA, but I don't think we differ so much, really... My observation would be that although these are different steps, there's something of a gradiented timeline to them. As Maxel said: In other words, normal healthy relationships develop from friendship --> dating --> marriage (if marriage is ever reached). But even in each step, there's a difference of expectation in the early stages of a friendship, and a friendship (if maintained) an old one, and a pair who've only started dating, and one that's been together for years. I'm actually always open to making new friends. Always, always, always. I could say that I wouldn't need more friends, I do have plenty enough. However, you never know who you meet who will become a really good or 'best' friend. My bestest bestest bestest friend ever, I've known her since about Gr. 5. My two next closest friends I've known since high school, and the other about a year ago. Dating (in Maxel's definition, I think "seeing" is more common use, though?) is something I've actually never really thought of until about three weeks ago when I met someone and started seeing him. I always thought that whoever I got involved with would be someone that I'd get to know as a friend first, and build from that. However, I have to say that this fellow has been, actually, quite the gentleman about it. We talk a lot, do light activities together - we're getting to know each other. I really appreciate that he hasn't put any "moves" on me yet, while I try to figure him for who he is. I think it is both wise and considerate, for the guy and for the girl. If it doesn't work, the guy doesn't end up investing too much, and the girl isn't pressured either. While the line between dating and courtship (which I think is more commonly called dating now, I hardly ever hear "courtship" these days... though I like it!) can get fuzzy, the one thing I've learned is that both people need to be very clear which side of the line they're on, and what are the expectations once there. When both people are on the same page - and know it, there will be less anxiety, frustrations, disappointments, anger (fights), and the like. Well, I'm not married yet, so I can't say much to this fact... except that I do hope for it one day :3 But again, I think discussion expectations and laying down household ground rules is very important -- before reaching this stage. Kinda like a pre-nuptual agreement, only not concerning assets.

Although I have met some good looking guys, and are friends with some of them... two observations: 1) They may know how attractive they are, and get a bit of an inflated ego about it, or 2) They may be very high maintenance. Neither is attractive, despite the pretty face. Seriously, a guy that takes more time than I to get ready in the morning? No girl wants that...

That kid ... goodness, he looks so cute, I just want to pinch his cheeks. A kid whose cheeks I want to pinch should not be a father... sigh.

Granted, but now you have 100s of people wanting more! I wish the skies weren't so gloomy today.

I want you to realize one thing, Chris: These past indiscretions had nothing to do with you. I don't mean that in a "not your business" sort of manner, but these things happened before she met you - they have NO reflection of how she sees you or feels about you. I understand you're hurt by the fact that she didn't 'save herself' for you - but she didn't even know that you existed then. If she's anything at all like you say she is, you know that none of these things would ever have happened if she had you then. You don't need to forgive her, as she never wronged you. What you need to learn is that these are things that happened in the past, and will forever stay there, as they are not a show who she is. The most important thing that needs to happen here is she needs to learn how to forgive herself (for being with her ex-fiance), and that being taken advantage of emotionally is NOT her fault in any way. (Which I suspect she knows on the mental level, being that the guy is now an ex-friend, but she may not know it on the emotional level.) I might think that couples' therapy could be an option.

Granted, but unfortunately you've inherited their un-glamorous talents, like doing laundry. I wish I were on vacation.

I was thinking about the devil, Satan, and the things we attribute to him. - That he is named Lucifer - He was an angel who rebelled against God - A host of angels followed him when he was expelled from Heaven Lucifer means Morning Star, and is coined in Isaiah 14:12 to mean the Babylonian King who captured Israel. Isaiah did not mean to name the devil; lucifer is the Latin translation of "morning star" (which, in our English bibles, are translated as "morning star", thus we never actually see the name "Lucifer" in the Bible anywhere). The above-mentioned stories are from extra-biblical Hebrew tradition, so I started to wonder about the veracity of that story. The creation story is something of Hebrew tradition that I (and many) don't take literally, but rather allegorically, and wondered if perhaps this story should also be seen that way? I'm really not sure, but that's not the point. I saw just earlier a thread that asked about things concerning Lucifer (meaning Satan), and it just made me go Ah, another source of information. So I wanted to ask, where do the little things that we do know about the pre-mortal existence, particularly Satan, come from?

If someone came and claimed to be the second coming of Jesus of the Bible, I would not believe him, because Jesus never proclaimed himself to be the Messiah or Christ. He made statements such as I am from the Father, I and the Father are one, etc, but never just blatantly shouted out "I AM THE ANOINTED ONE YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!" I would only believe in someone as Jesus' second coming if he was consistent with Jesus in the Bible.

Wow, mightynancy, that's really cool. I think it's really great that we can not only accept and tolerate other cultures, but be taught about them and how to take part in celebrating together. Personally, I really don't care about Chinese new year much myself (I'm Chinese, born Canadian), but I appreciate that people who aren't Chinese by heritage can really get into it.

If you reduce something by a percentage, there will always be something left, to infinity. Although I'd say that they still let me breathe their air for free :)

My friend is sort of in that situation. Her parents were legally separated, and after that time, her father had two children with another woman. He has now returned to my friend's family, his "first" one. My friend and her (full-blooded, of the same mother) sisters have accepted this fact of their father's other family. My friend's mom sort of just ignores it most of the time, but at times will go into a sort of frantic tantrum over the fact that her husband has another family when it comes up. But this is what my friend says to her mother: it would be incredibly irresponsible for her father to just leave that family and abandon the mother to raise their two children by herself, and to leave the children fatherless. And since this is a question about Christian church's attitudes, my friend is a Christian. Very few people in our church know about this situation (I could count on one hand). Her father is not a Christian, but his sin is in his past infidelity. (That is, if he does not continue to engage in that sort of relationship with the "other" woman.) But would it also not be a sin for him to abandon the other woman and his two young children? I can't really blame the other woman if she believed the marriage was over, and certainly the children don't deserve to lose their father.

You answered 20 out of 33 correctly — 60.61 % I'm disappointed in myself, even as a C'nadian.

I have a friend, she is probably the most confrontational person I know, and has the EQ of a gnat. She told me how one time she was at school studying for an upcoming exam in a common area, and a pair of LDS fellows set up a table with some tracts and the like. She said she couldn't stand giving them the opportunity to talk to people, so she went up to them and just started challenging them right up till the time of her exam, at which time she said she had to go and left them. But then again, she's also the type to tell the homeless to get a job ... so ... I suppose I shouldn't be surprised ...

I'm sorry, I have to roll my eyes at that Wal-mart page. Do you know why those products have RFID tags? Inventory and tracking. A huge chain store like Wal-mart, of course they would implement that sort of technology in order to keep their inventory and stock straight. You need an RFID reader in order to read an RFID tag, and those work in close proximity; RFID does not transmit. A shipment of hundreds of several hundred- or thousand dollar televisions - if you're the manufacturer/shipper, don't you want to make sure they all arrive when and where they're supposed to? Is RFID evil, or the mark of the beast? No. It is just technology. Can they be used in a way that is evil, or the mark of the beast? Yes. People's intentions can be evil. Consider how the symbol of the Star of David was used to identify people as Jews so that they could be persecuted. Is/was the Star of David evil? No, it was merely a symbol. It's what the intention of its use that was evil. Edit: I also have to roll my eyes at "Spychips". That's just name-calling and propaganda.

I'd hardly call television time quality together time anyway, unless you're both open to talking about the show while watching. Otherwise, the TV is the only one talking. There was a guy with which television time actually was some really good quality time, though, because we'd laugh at and talk about whatever ridiculous thing was happening (we both liked to watch shows like Survivorman, Man vs Wild and Mantracker), and then we'd eventually start ignoring the tv. :)

If good is not one of the choices, how does one choose it? To mark a ballot besides to vote for someone whose name is already printed on it is to surrender your vote. It is a citizen's right to vote; I believe it is a citizen's duty to vote. How else could you justifiably make any sort of demands of the government, whether the one you voted for is in power or another?

You don't say?

YES, THANK YOU. I HATE THIS SO MUCH!! It doesn't make any sense!! You should not of said that? No, you should not have said that!

New Ancient :)

I agree with the theory that Mr. Woodward is putting forth here. The scenario that Woodward is illustrating is that the DNA of Lehi (and his descendants) is a of 'very very small' pool, and would have gotten lost amidst thie greater population of the already-present aboriginals. This theory, I agree, is very sound. Woodward calls the suppositions that the Americas were (besides the Mulekites and Jaredites) uninhabited, or at least largely uninhabited, false models. I think few would otherwise think that the Americas were uninhabited. So why would there be these false models to begin with when discussing the Book of Mormon? My observation would be because it says in the Introduction that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians. I would suppose that this idea is based from 2 Nephi 1, which says that the covenanted land is kept secret from other nations, and that it will be their (the descendants of Lehi's) possession so long as they remain in God's commands. This asserts that the land is unknown by others, and supposes that it is not possessed by anyone else. Given that the aboriginals didn't really have a concept of possessing land, I can let that one go pretty easily, but the 'kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations' is more difficult to deal with. For the Lamanites to be the principal ancestors of the American Indians (as in the Introduction), it would have to mean either there were few aboriginals here to begin with and Lehi and family joined them, or the greater population of aboriginals somehow lessened and the descendants of Lehi became the greater population, or the other popular speculation that there were no people in the Americas at all. 1 Nephi 12 says that Laman's descendants went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land. That paints a picture of a great population, not a small one, or at perhaps one that's well concentrated in a particular area. The dwindling that comes after that is described as one of unbelief, not numbers. I'm certain that another argument to defend this point will arise as our scientific understanding continues to do so, but this argument in particular does little to logically persuade me. This is not a matter of faith in this instance because Mr. Woodward is using a logical, scientific argument.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. I did always have issue with that teaching, as that would be tantamount to putting Mary on the same plane as Jesus. Would someone be able explain the conceived by the Holy Ghost/Son of God/Individuals of the Godhead idea? I give that not all lay people will know all about everything, of course, but if someone could, that'd be very interesting for me to know.

I just wanted to give a note of thanks for sharing those POVs. Hm, but now when I think about it, (in Luke) Gabriel told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her, and (in Matthew), an angel tells Joseph that Mary's child is of the Holy Spirit. That Jesus is the Son of God is perfectly natural still to those who are Trinitarians (I just had a look at that thread - could you tell?), but how do the LDS reconcile Gabriel's claims that Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit, but that he is born of God, being that the LDS see Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost as three individual beings that together form the "team" of the Godhead?

I was led to believe that the unofficial (that is, not written as doctrine, but authoritatively taught) belief is that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but that God (the Father) came to Mary as a physical man and had union with Mary in order to conceive Jesus. (And thus, making her no longer a virgin at the time of bearing Jesus.) That is why I explicitly stated that Mary did not have any union with any man, God or otherwise, and that her pregnancy was by the Holy Spirit in Protestant and Catholic belief. Ezra Taft Benson: The body in which He (Jesus) performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father. Heber Kimball: In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. Journal of Discourses, Volume 8 (The context is that we, as people, can know of God's business because we are his children, and children know much of a father's business because of that relationship.) The former President's words run contrary to the Protestant and Catholic beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Kimball's words alludes strongly to the idea that God is the literal father of Jesus' earthly body. I know that this idea is outdated for a lot of people, but I'm not aware of an official rescinding of those teachings.