Vort

I do read it a bit differently from you. The offices of deacon and teacher are "necessary appendages" to the Aaronic Priesthood -- necessary because they allow that Priesthood to fulfill its purpose: To prepare men to receive the higher Priesthood. Calling those offices "necessary" does not suggest in any way that the office of priest is somehow less "necessary". So that begs the question (and yes, I really do mean begs the question): In what sense are the offices of deacon and teacher necessary to allow the Aaronic Priesthood to fulfill its purpose? I would suggest that immediately conferring upon a new convert the authority to baptize (or, equivalently, to bless the sacramental emblems) would be harmful for many individuals. They need to learn to serve and progress, step by step, until they are ready to officiate in ordinances. So why two "lower" offices, deacon and teacher? Why not just one preparatory office? After all, a deacon can do pretty much anything a teacher can do, if occasion requires. (For example, my son is the president of his deacon's quorum and is also my home teaching companion -- unusual, but not unheard of or even particularly rare). I would suggest some variation of the same reason given above. That's my input, anyway. Not the whole reason, I'm sure, but perhaps a part of it.

It amounts to exactly the same thing. God isn't really a line (or three) in space. It's a comparison, a parable of sorts. So saying "Ah, but we're using non-Euclidian space" is saying, in essence, "Ah, but the rules of existence and inferential logic you are using do not apply here, because God dwells in a mysterious non-spatial space using non-lawful laws." Well, heck, if you're going to propose that, you can say literally anything about God. After all, no rules of reason with which we are familiar apply to any degree! Which is utterly useless, even if true. And the point is, they are claiming that our beliefs "don't make sense". No fair calling the kettle black and then saying that your own blackness doesn't count.

Happy to help. Seriously. I haven't done calculus in years, and it's fun to dust off the ol' brain and give things a whirl. Plus, I like your posts elsewhere, so I'm happy to help out if I can. Hope things really have been of some help, and again, good luck on your tests.

In fact, the Constitution explicitly delegates to the states all powers it does not reserve for the federal government, which would include levying property taxes.

My use of the pronoun "you" in the slavery example wasn't pointed at you (AGStacker). It was a nonspecific pronoun. If we lived 150 years ago in England, I would have used "one" instead of "you". I agree it is not what the Founders envisioned, and I agree that to a large extent it is corrupt. But to be fair, our modern society incorporates technology-related facets that the Founding Fathers did not envision, indeed could not have envisioned. And even in 1789, the Constitution was a patchwork of compromises, so in that sense we really are not that far off today.

Though I'm a proponent of the so-called "Fair Tax" and am generally in agreement with you, I think it should be pointed out that the taxes mentioned among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon are far different from ours. They were not taxes on earnings; they were taxes on possessions. Nothing prevented the government from taxing the same property every year, as for example the Lamanite kings did with the Nephites in subjection to them when they required half of all they had yearly. And, of course, it was tribute money, used by the overlords for themselves and (maybe) their own people, with no thought of it being used for public works among the taxed people. It was purely a form of slavery. However much you dislike the US tax system, I think you would be engaging in hyperbole to claim that it amounts to slavery. It does not.

Actually, I believe it's implicit in the Greek term (παρθένοις). But your point is still well-taken; the virgins are a symbol for us all, not only for women.

Good enough. I guess that I'm one of those "careful" people, at least in this. In my experience, if you are not very careful when setting up your problem, including naming the axes, you are asking to get confused and screw things up. But hey, if things are working for you, then don't fix what ain't broke.

I disagree with the whole idea of internet-based groupthink diagnosis, which is what you've been experiencing here. I also disagree with people telling a woman to leave her "abusive" husband when the supposed "abuse" has not been established. If I understand you correctly -- and I admit I may not -- your husband's "abuse" of your son comprises: He engaged in unspecified actions that you characterize as "emotional abuse".He speaks impatiently and sometimes unkindly to your son, accusing him of being "the problem" in your marriage.He spanked your son when your son was younger.He physically restrained your son recently, which involved twisting his arm behind his back in a "chicken wing" maneuver*.To my ears, this does not rise to the level of abuse. I don't necessarily condone his actions, especially telling a child that he is the cause of his parents' marital difficulties (even though sometimes it's true...). But the term "abuse" gets thrown around entirely too much today, in my opinion. Perhaps I'm naive, but I suspect that half or more of the claims of "abuse" are nothing of the sort, which cheapens and lessens the actual claims of abuse that are made. *I note that your objection to your husband's chicken-winging your son was in your son's "promising hockey career". A word to the wise: Your son will never play professional hockey. And if you think a broken arm or wrist will destroy a potential hockey career, then you don't understand the nature of hockey. This is not to dismiss your husband's actions. Physical action against a child is normally not a good idea, and the older the child, the less of a good idea it is. But based on your description (and I'm not willing to accept at face value your unqualified judgment of "emotional abuse" against your husband), I am not convinced his stated misbehavior rises to the level of abuse. And I most certainly would not be calling for you to divorce him -- a shocking and explicitly unchristian thing for anyone to say without hard evidence of abusive behavior, especially on an anonymous discussion list. I do not mean to minimize what has happened. Perhaps your husband really has been abusive to your son; in that case, you must act appropriately. But many today are only too quick to cry "Abuse! Leave the scumbag!" over any perceived slight. My opinion will not be popular, but there you have it. Please think very carefully before condemning or abandoning your husband. If he's abusive, leave -- but make sure it's that he's really being abusive, and not just that you are mad at him.

That's fine, but if you're integrating using disks, I don't see how you can be using dx. The disks stack in the y direction, and their differential thickness is along y, not x. What am I missing here?

The story goes that the LDS soldier found himself in the field of battle with nothing but his rifle, his fatigues, his boots, and his pocket Book of Mormon. As he ran to a foxhole, he got shot, but the bullet deflected off his Book of Mormon, saving his life. When he checked his pocket edition later, he found the bullet never made it past 2 Nephi. My advice for 2 Nephi: If the Isaiah chapters are giving you trouble, just read them without worrying about understanding everything. The Isaiah chapters are unique in the Book of Mormon for being difficult to understand for many readers, especially those who have never read it. Just slog through them, not worrying about whether you think you understand them, and read the rest. Don't let 2 Nephi hold you up. The good news is that in years to come, you will begin to find some real beauty and meaning in 2 Nephi. The fact that you don't find it now doesn't matter. Don't worry about it. Just push through. There is not really all that much Isaiah in 2 Nephi; chapters 12 through 24, which make up the bulk of the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon, span only 16 pages. Chapters 7 and 8, also Isaiah, are only about 2½ pages total. As for Exodus: I'm 48, and am rereading the Old Testament for the first time in many years. I actually found Exodus to be quite engaging and interesting. My problem had been in Numbers, but this time around, except for a couple of dry spots and a couple of disturbing spots, I have found even Numbers to be interesting. I'm now at Deuteronomy; we'll see how that goes. Best of luck to you. Push through and don't worry about understanding everything the first time. You won't, but that's okay, because you don't need to. And you will find the rest of the Book of Mormon so interesting and great that you will be glad you pushed through the Isaiah chapters of 2 Nephi.

For some reason, when you wrote "cylinders" I thought you meant "cylindrical disks" rather than "cylindrical shells". If you use cylindrical shells -- which is what you are doing if you are integrating with respect to x -- it's much messier. For one thing, you need to figure out what to use for the distance through which you lift the cylindrical shell of water. It's not immediately obvious, since the distance to y=4 varies throughout the height of the cylindrical shell. After a little thought, I'm sure you can just use the average distance of the shell's height to the top, or in other words, half the shell's height, which is (4-y)/2 = (4-¼x²)/2 = (2-x²/8). Let's try it. The circumference of the shell at any position x is just 2πx, and the cylindrical height is 4-y = 4-¼x², so the total differential volume is: dV = (2πx) (4-¼x²) dx = π (8x-½x³) dx and the weight is just ϱ dV, where ϱ is the density (which we consider to be uniform). As we previously discussed, the (average) height you have to lift this shell is (2-x²/8), so the total differential work done in lifting that cylinder is dW = (2-x²/8) ϱ dV = (2-x²/8) (ϱπ) (8x-½x³) dx = ϱπ [16x - x³ - x³ + (x^5)/16] dx = ϱπ [16x - 2x³ + (x^5)/16] dx Integrating from x=0 to x=4 yields: W = ϱπ ∫ [16x - 2x³ + (x^5)/16] dx {from x=0 to x=4} = ϱπ [8x² - ½(x^4) + (x^6)/96] {from x=0 to x=4} = ϱπ [128 - 128 + 4096/96 - 0 + 0 - 0] = 128 ϱπ/3 Substituting ϱ = 62.5 lb/ft³ gives W = 8000π/3 ft-lbs as before. But notice how much uglier it is to use cylinders here. Disks are just lots better, by far simpler and cleaner, none of this "average distance" garbage and other such uglification factors. Good luck on the test. Hope everything goes well.

It should be noted that neither Elder Maxwell's opinions in his book nor The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual that quotes Elder Maxwell's book constitute LDS doctrine. Many earlier leaders did not accept the idea that God somehow dwells "outside" our universe or time. That thought is actually not new, but very old, being a part of the neoplatonist ideals that corrupted Christianity nineteen hundred years ago. I don't have a firm opinion on the matter, but I think it would be false to say that the Church teaches that God dwells outside time in a sort of eternal Now. Whether that idea has merit or not, I can't say.

"Do angels really have wings? No, of course not. Wings on angels are symbolic of their ability to go wherever God sends them and of their ability to do whatever they are required, even things that would be impossible for mortals. Angels don't have wings any more than they have feathers. But does it hurt to put paper wings on Primary children dressed as angels? No, probably not. There are probably more important things to worry about. Primary presidents are great for figuring out such things." - Vort, Lds.net, 1 December 2011

Let's make differential-thickness disks and lift them out one by one. As you've noted, the defining parabola's equation is y = ¼x² or, solving for x, x = 2√y Each disk has radius r = x, and so has area A = πr² = πx² = π(2√y)² = 4πy So the differential volume for each disk is dV = 4πy dy Since the density ϱ is constant, the weight of each disk is just ϱ dV. The work to raise each disk is the disk's weight times the distance to the top (y = 4). For any given disk, that height is (4 - y). Thus, for each disk, the differential work is dW = (4 - y) ϱ dV = (4 - y) ϱ (4πy dy) = 4πϱ (4y - y²) dy Now we can do the integral: W = ∫ 4πϱ (4y - y²) dy {between y=0 and y=4} = 4πϱ ∫ (4y - y²) dy {between y=0 and y=4} = 4πϱ [2y² - y³/3] {between y=0 and y=4} = 4πϱ [32 - 64/3 - 0 + 0] = 4πϱ (32/3) = 128πϱ/3 Given a value of ϱ=62.5 lbs/ft³ (it's actually closer to 62.4, but whatever), that makes the work 128π(62.5)/3 = 8000π/3 ft-lbs (Note how cleverly I added the units back in here -- they should have been used all along, but I left them off to reduce clutter. But seriously, you should ALWAYS show your units all the way along.)

I believe a tax on income is a disincentive to earning money, and is simply A Bad Thing®. The other two types of taxes seem reasonable to me, at least in principle (no pun intended).

If you want to regain full fellowship, just follow what your bishop lays out. If you do not want to regain full fellowship, you will not be excommunicated just for that fact alone. But you are likely to have lots of well-meaning people continually asking you what they can do to help you.

When I tell people that calculus is easier than algebra, they tend to look at me funny. But I believe it's true. Certainly was for me. Algebra required a real shift in my paradigm of understanding. I had such difficulty figuring out the purpose of "the unknown value", and it took me a while to learn to view an equation as a balance. In contrast, calculus required gaining an understanding of infinite series and sums (which wasn't that hard), then learning some tricks for derivatives and integrals. There's also something very satisfying about decomposing a seemingly difficult integral problem and finding the answer, step by step.

How awful. I am so sorry for your trials. Here are some thoughts that may offer you insight: Drugs affect more than your body and mind. They also greatly affect your spiritual sensitivity. When you began using drugs, you deeply affected your ability to feel the Spirit of God. I suspect this is a primary reason (though not the only one) why you feel so alone.God's existence does not mean we won't experience terrible events or trials. God's existence means that we have someone to help us when we experience those trials. You can use the trials to separate yourself from God, or you can find a deeper dependence on and love for God through your trials.A testimony is found through sincere seeking. In part, this involves doing the things you have been doing, like going to Church and living the standards. But it also involves the elements of personal devotion: prayer, scripture reading, temple attendance, and the like. If you have ceased performing the personal devotions, you are unlikely to feel your own testimony.Your two oldest children are gone from you for now, but they are not gone forever, and are not lost. You may not believe that right now, but it is so. Like all the rest of us who have ever lived, you will die, and when you do, you will know your oldest children again. Prepare to meet them.You have five other children who depend on you and look to you for an example. Don't allow yourself the luxury of wallowing in despair and self-pity. Be the kind of person they can look to for courage and inspiration. And don't just pretend to be that person; put in the difficult effort to find God in your life and make him a part of it, so that you can actually BE that person.Those are my thoughts, for whatever they might be worth to you.

I would laugh, if there were but a laugh button...

FAIR WARNING: I am the very last person you would ever want to get fashion advice from. Looking at the picture (and it is a very pretty dress), my impression is that the sleeveless/strapless look may not go over well at an LDS service, and in fact may not even be allowed. I suspect that few LDS bishops in my area (western US) would allow a strapless gown for a chapel wedding. But I don't know if that's the case where you are, so you may wish to check with your fiance's bishop first. If it's not deemed appropriate, I suspect there are sisters (and, heck, maybe even some of the brethren) who could make some adjustments to the wedding gown to make it acceptable.

What happened, doss? Decided you didn't like Ender's Game, after all?

I haven't posted to this thread because I haven't felt I had anything to offer. But let me echo the words of others and perhaps add a few of my own: When you join the kingdom of God and repent, you are turning your back on your previous life and "sins" (if you care to think in those terms). You are more than simply the sum of your previous actions. You cannot undo your earlier life, but that is not important. Get on the path and start walking it, and watch your spiritual life change and blossom in a way you could never have imagined. Quit worrying about sins you may have committed in the past. Look forward, not backward.

I make no personal judgments toward the worthiness or spiritual state of Sister Anderson. I simply am not very interested in anything she has to say, except perhaps for specific historical facts that she can document adequately. Even then, I tend to take her words with a grain of salt.

Note that the Prophet did not say that the war would be fought to free the slaves, only that slavery would most likely be the issue that sparked the war.