MarginOfError

bed bugs?

You may need to have a chat with the head of the Gynecology Department here. He specializes in IVF and fertility treatments, and when he talks about this process, he talks about implanting eggs, donating eggs, eggs this and eggs that. In fact, the only time he or his colleagues use the word blastocyte is when they're writing a manuscript. Apparently, not even the experts feel that there is that much need for clarity in casual conversation.

Potato, potahto...not many of us care as much about the technical details as we do the overarching topic. In this case, even the less specific term carries sufficient meaning.

Okay, kona, we get your point of view, and you get ours...how about everyone plays nice and just drops it. I feel bad for momof5, who just wanted honest opinions on the situation and we're slowly turning it into a competition for best opinion. I can't say I like where it's headed. momof5, I think the key point to take away from this is that you really can't make a bad decision in this case. As far as I can tell, it's an emotional decision. If you feel comfortable with the decision to donate your eggs to other couples, with or without restrictions, then we'll all support that. And we'll all be anxious to see the miracle babies when they arrive.

Flip a coin. I don't think it really matters since after you get sealed you're going to remember it as the anniversary of your sealing more than you will the anniversary of your baptism/confirmation.

If someone told me I looked like a mormon I'd probably get offended. I don't have enough hair to have Utah hair.

I would see if he has any interest in the young adult genre. These include the classics such as The Giver, The Bronze Bow, Walk Two Moons, and other such books. Intersperse these types of books with some heavier reading and non-fiction. I wouldn't get too much heavier however, and if you're going to go much beyond this reading level, I'd make sure it stays with fantasy. As books get more advanced than the young adult genre, the concepts, issues, and sub-plots tend to get more complex. He may be comprehending at an advanced reading level, but you'll have to try to weigh that against how well his critical thinking skills are developed. At his age I'd be more focused on keeping his interest in books up while his brain continues to develop into abstract thinking. Oh, and disregard my advice if you think his ability to think on that plane is similarly advanced.

With me being something of an economic ignoramus, what would be the result if we just let the market go the way it is now, by which I mean, the government didn't bail out anybody? What happens if we let it crash and burn?

What books has your son read recently? I want to have an idea of a baseline level of what he's reading since 3rd grade level and 9th grade level are very non-descript (I was required to read Pride and Predjudice in 9th grade, which I don't think it really a 15 year old reading level).

prude I'm really kidding. This is a perfectly valid and acceptable opinion.

I wouldn't worry about it because the Lord has an uncanny way of recognizing personal circumstances. I wouldn't worry because I don't believe any of the fertilized eggs getting tossed out are going to the Celestial Kingdom anyway. I wouldn't worry because anyone that can afford IVF and wants a child that badly is going to get one from somewhere, and I'm certain that the donor would hold not accountability for whatever ideals the receiving family instilled in the resultant child.

If I were in the situation, I'd be willing to donate them. I wouldn't even have the restriction of an active sealed couple. Congratulations on the success of your procedure. I've been dabbling in IVF research a bit recently as your numbers are very good. I hope all goes well with your pregnancy.

I can't recall ever seeing what the decision criteria are for determining who goes where. I know that in some circles it is common to think that those who have received baptism go to paradise and those who have no go to 'spirit prison,' but I know of nothing scriptural that backs this up. The baptism criterion seems suspect to me anyway because you can't uniformly divide the righteous and the wicked over baptism. There are those who haven't received baptism that are more righteous than some that have not received baptism. Such a static model doesn't seem to fit the reality of human complexity very well. I'm content to accept what bytor has posted. The righteous go to paradise, the wicked don't, and there's someone a lot more capable than me making the decision about who goes where.

Way out there, with nothing to back it up. Or perhaps Adam was created out of the dust of the earth? (Gen 3:19, Moses 4:25) Both Adam and Christ were fathered by some process we don't understand. Adam being from the dust, and Christ being born of a virgin mother, conceived of the Holy Ghost. The methods we consider procreative need not necessarily apply in one case, and could not apply in the other to fulfill scripture. And you're right, these things aren't taught in the temple. For myriad reason. One of which is it is pure speculation. The way you tell me to go 'study and pray' about it implies that you think I haven't. But I have, and it reeks of speculative fill-in-the-blank. And for what purpose? It has nothing to do with our purpose on earth. If you really wish to continue this, start a new thread or e-mail me. Out of respect for rich, tom, and PS, let's get out of their worthwhile conversation.

How convenient. Yes, you did. And in doing so, you neither refuted anything I said, nor supported anything you said. Agreed. Let's put together some thoughtful commentary then. In one of the posts you've deleted, you said, "If Eve were to become immortal, by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, before the 'mortal Messiah' was born, the Savior would have been born immortal...." You had previously stated that an mortal Savior was necessary because only a mortal Savior could fulfill the Atonement. So, by your reasoning, if Eve were to remain in the Garden of Eden and eat from the Tree of Life, she would become immortal, and all her offspring after her would become immortal. The result would have been an immortal Savior that would frustrate the Plan of Happiness (not to mention an incredible overpopulation problem). But let's briefly consider the susceptibility of Adam and Eve to death. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden of Eden, they had perfect bodies; they were not sucseptible to death. We read in 2 Nephi 2:22, "if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen,....And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." Is this not the very definition of immortal? Then, in the following verse, we learn "And they [Adam and Eve] would have had no children;...." So in their first immortal state, Adam and Eve could not reproduce. After the Fall, Adam and Eve became mortal ( Moses 6:48) and were then able to have children (2 Nephi 2:19-25). So what would have happened had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life? Do they retain the ability to have children? Do they lose it? One possibility is that they maintain the ability to have children, and as has been suggested, these children would inherit the immortality of their parents. The scriptures, however, give absolutely no examples of two immortal parents bearing immortal children with physical bodies. In fact, the scriptures don't agree with this at all. We do know that we are God's offspring (Acts 17:28-29, Romans 8:16), and in fact, the literal offspring of God (for example, Marion G. Romney. See also Search Results for Literal Offspring). Yet, as his literal offspring, we did not inherit his immortality, but gained only spiritual embodiments that were later housed in physical bodies. This either means: immortal beings do no procreate in the same way as mortal beings, and we are the product of some other procreative processimmortal beings can procreate like mortals and there exists some class of beings that inherit immortal physical bodies and we are entirely unaware of their existence.I like to take the scriptures at face value and accept that we are God's offspring, which leaves the implication that immortal beings do not procreate in the same way that mortal beings do (perhaps rightfully so--I can't imagine many women are excited about being pregnant throughout the eternities). This leads to the conclusion that, had Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life, they would not be having immortal children because, in fact, they would not be having children. Again, I reiterate my points from the previous posts about why the Tree of Life had to be guarded. It was an act of mercy to allow the time necessary for Adam and Eve to learn the Gospel, accept the Atonement, and repent of their sins. If they had eaten it, they would have become immortal, ending their probationary state, and they would have been judged on their actions up to the point of becoming immortal. I might also add a word of caution about seeking truths that are not taught in the scriptures. I do not contest that such truths can be discovered, but such areas are a great place for Satan to deceive and ensnare. That's quite a risk to take when considering that these truths, having not been revealed in the past, are entirely irrelevant to our earthly goals. Furthermore, such truths have not been revealed to the world. They will not be revealed to the world unless it be through authorized channels, namely the prophets. If the Lord sees fit to reveal these truths to an individual, it will likely be an individual who can be trusted not to reveal the truths outside of proper authority. Any who receive these truths and choose to reveal them act outside of the trust God has given them when he revealed such truth to them.

I believe my post was accompanied by scripture. In fact, I believe it was you who posted no references to explain your conclusions. At this point, the burden of proof lies with you. Equally bad logic is saying that they are true because Alma didn't say them.

I think you've gone off the deep end, and I want to make it clear that this is not an opinion widely held in the Church, nor is there much in the way of evidence to support it. In fact, there is ample evidence to give an alternate explanation to why Adam and Eve could not partake of the fruit from the Tree of Life. It is pretty clear that the probationary time of man ends upon the introduction of immortality to man. Adam and Eve could not partake of the fruit of the tree of life because it would end their probationary state without giving them the time they needed to repent. The very doctrine of posthumous ordinances lends support to this interpretation. The decision to not let Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the Tree of Life had nothing to do with the Savior's birth, and everything to do with Adam and Eve's salvation.

We (or at least most of us) have no idea comprehension of the strain on a person's soul when they commit suicide. We have no capacity to judge that action. Christ will address it in His own way. Whether Judas goes to heaven or to hell (or anywhere in between) is entirely out of my hands and I'm satisfied with whatever decision is made. As far as I'm concerned, the guy suffered enough. I'm willing to cut him a break and discuss his actions in a purely historical context.

Anyone who would go to BYU (of any variety) has got to be nuts.

Please forgive me for not addressing the other questions. I hope that others have done enough to address those points for you, but I'm not sure that the above point has been addressed. I'll also ask that you forgive me for copying and pasting a section of a post from another thread on prayer. The simple answer is that we worship the Beings that are make our eternal salvation possible. Now, to expound: Let us assume multiple gods as you have described in your original post. Also, let us assume LDS doctrine, that the Father developed a plan whereby His children could obtain a body, experience, and the chance to receive a glory similar to His own. To obtain these things, He requires that we live a life according to commandments that he has set. Unfortunately, we're all a bunch of delinquent children who can't seem to get it quite right. Thus, we aren't deserving of the reward he has for us. Our good fortune is, however, that one person was able to live life entirely according to the laws of the Father. This person steps up and says to the Father, "I have met your requirements and am therefore free from your laws. I wold like to purchase all the others from you by paying the price of their shortcomings." The Father agrees, and releases all other souls to this person after the price is paid. Under this description, we would worship Jesus Christ, since he is the one who makes salvation possible for each of us. It is our understanding from the scriptures that Christ also requires that we worship God the Father. We worship no other entities because no other entities play a role in our salvation. I hope that comes across the way I intended. Great question. Look forward to having you around.

Crap...i've been foiled. I didn't catch that before. Thanks.

I will admit to having no knowledge of English language structure...at least not in any form than colloquial in the modern era. My comments were intended toward current usage of the forms, which have been stated by Church leadership to denote reverence and respect. It appears then, that colloquially, we currently use Thou and You in the complete opposite manner in which they were perceived by the original linguists. Thanks for the heads up on that, though. I do find that nugget quite interesting.

Again, I reiterate, doctrine is not pronounced from the microphone of 60 Minutes. If the command is to be given that we are do abstain from caffeine, it will be given through General Conference, or a letter to the membership of the Church that will be read over the pulpit (there may be a very few other venues but that is beyond the scope of this thread). Simply put, as the conditions are currently stated, if two people present to the Lord under the exact same guilt, save one consumes caffeine and one does not, I am certain that those to individuals will receive the same reward. And I mean neither to call you holier-than-me, nor a hypocrite. Just want to clarify what is Church doctrine and what is personal interpretation.

Actually, I'm not. In fact, I'm stating that abstaining from caffeine isn't doctrine at all.

MOE's official advice: Put her in a nursing home and/or assisted living. Visit her no less than once a week. When she starts guilt tripping you, tell her that if she continues, you'll start reducing your visits to the obligatory once a week visit. I agree that we should take care of our parents to the best of our ability. But under no circumstances should taking care of our parents impede our happiness. (Note, impeding convenience is not the same as impeding happiness, and this situation truly sounds like impeding happiness). This dynamic being discussed here is still relatively new. Today's middle aged are being thrust into this unique position of being asked to care for their parents who are living longer and with greater health needs than any previous generation. The social and cultural norms about how much a child should give back to their parents and what boundaries should be respected are still very much in debate.