Vort

Assuming you did not read or understand his post was charity. The alternative is to suppose you are a liar, or else are simply too stupid to be able to divine his intent. I did indeed. And like the vast majority of Dravin's posts, it was well-considered and insightful, the furthest thing possible from a knee-jerk reaction based on an inattentive misreading. So it appears you still have not bothered to read or consider what Traveler wrote. Let me help you by providing the offending paragraph: In the debates over homosexual marriage I have asked for at least one benefit for society provided by homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage (relationships) is necessary and beneficial to insure that human society endure beyond the current generation. In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality. That is really sad when we consider that so many want to publicly force everyone to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. The true reality is that it is not the same nor is the social benefit even close to the same. His intent is clear, even obvious, to anyone who cares actually to read what he wrote rather than just assign meaning to his words based on their own bigoted prejudice: Homosexual "marriage" provides no societal benefit, not even the (arguable) societal benefit provided by forcible rape, something we all agree is bad. Now, perhaps you disagree with his meaning (that homosexual "marriage" provides no society benefit). Fine. Provide an example of societal benefit, and you have carried your point. Or perhaps you disagree that his hyperbolic example of forcible rape resulting in pregnancy is one of actual society benefit. Fine. Express why you disagree. Or perhaps you find the example itself so repugnant that you feel you must voice objection to it. Fine. By all means, do so. I myself have noted several times that I think it an unfortunate example that obscures rather than clarifies his point. But what is not acceptable is to assign a false meaning to what Traveler wrote and then castigate him for that meaning. That's a dishonest strawman technique. Traveler never wrote or suggested that forcible rape is morally superior to homosexuality. Better yet, explain to your co-workers that they should take care to read what is written and not impose their bigotry (as you have clearly indicated) on the situation, rather than bleating, "Oh, he's a Mormon, so that's why he is saying [insert something that he didn't say but that confirms their prejudicial bigotry against Mormons]." "[N]ot allowing women to hold the Priesthood," huh? I guess your prejudices are pretty well exposed. Perhaps you would do well to quit caring so ardently what other people might think of us. So, then, the correct thing to do is to jump on the Condemnation Bandwagon. Truth is irrelevant! The only thing that matters is that we LOOK like we're being the heroic defenders of the downtrodden! Who cares what someone actually said or meant? Our sacred duty is to help crucify those who transgress political correctness! Barf.

Bull crap. That's pretty much all the response your idiotic post and comments to workmates merits. You are either not smart enough to understand Traveler's point or not honest enough to look past the poor way he tried to make it. If you hate Mormons so much, leave. And if you're bad-mouthing Mormons at work, I can only hope any nearby Mormons who hear you complain to management and you find your bigoted rear ends out the door.

Perhaps it would be even better for people to understand that a speaker (or writer) sometimes tries to establish his point by using an extreme example. This is actually a common rhetorical device, not unlike a parable of sorts. When you, the reader, see such a thing, it is incumbent upon YOU to read what he says carefully and try to understand his meaning. In the present case, Traveler made his meaning clear to anyone who bothered actually to read what he wrote. As I said previously, I think his example was unfortunate, as it tended to obscure rather than clarify his point. But he most obviously was not arguing that rape was beneficial. If Traveler was guilty of choosing a poor hyperbolic example, the readers who castigated him were guilty of failing in their duty to be careful and reasonable readers who give the benefit of the doubt to those who write -- as the list rules state.

Don't let it bug you, s_i_f. Rameumptom sometimes gets a bit carried away in his prose. Tor example, President (Joseph Fielding) Smith did not teach that man would never reach the moon; he simply offered his opinion that God would not allow it. The men Ram mentioned were prophets of God and good, decent men, but like the rest of us were products of their time. They felt much freer to state their opinions on any given subject as if they were doctrine. Their understanding, as Elder McConkie once stated, was "it is our job to teach the doctrine, and it is your job to sustain us." I happen to think there is much wisdom in this, but I also think it is not a good idea for apostles or other General Authorities to broadcast opinion or deficient understanding as "the word". This is a tough game to play, however. At what point should a General Authority consider his understanding sufficiently perfect to be able to preach it? Clearly, that's a judgment call. I am not convinced that the Spirit will always tell us which of our beliefs are too faulty to teach in sacrament or testimony meeting (or General Conference). We must speak with the Spirit, and listeners must listen with the Spirit. Elder McConkie and others taught some things about the "seed of Cain" being the black African race and not receiving the Priesthood until certain things happened. When the 1978 revelation was presented to the Quorum of Twelve, they approved it unanimously -- including Elder McConkie. And Elder McConkie was one of the first, and most insistent, in proclaiming the revelation: We have read these passages and their associated passages [about proclaiming the gospel to all people everywhere] for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, "Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things." There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. I think that's the right attitude. Prophets are still people. Do not let this trouble you. The Lord will never allow his prophets to lead the Church astray. This is true, even if some of the doctrine is not yet perfect. Wheh the time is appropriate, we will understand the doctrine correctly.

Is that tem-PEE or TEM-pee? I remember hearing an Eastern news reporter talk about Spokane, which he pronounced "spo-CAIN". And then there is the great state of Nevayda.

The problem with this truism is that once you start making clear that special situations require adaptation, suddenly EVERYONE is a "special situation". If the rule fits 99% of the people 99% of the time, then you would expect no more than 2% or so to be outside the rule at any given time. Yet what do we see? Everyone is an exception. "I can't serve in a calling because of X." "I can't fast because of Y." "I can't home teach because of Z." Doubtless a few of these are valid, but when significant numbers start "adapting" [read: ignoring] the rule to fit their "circumstances", you have to think that special circumstances really aren't at play here.

s_i_f, anne: Do you both truly fail to understand the point Traveler was trying to establish, or are you just being obstinate in picking apart his point because you don't like the wording? Traveler was not saying that rape, heterosexual or otherwise, is morally superior to homosexual relations. Surely you understand this. Don't you? If so, why the hue and cry? Even if you don't like how Traveler expressed himself (and I think his choice of hyperbole unfortunate), isn't his point rather obviously true?

My close friend in grad school, a devout and very knowledgeable Sunni Muslim, expressly disclaimed any possibility of revelation by the Holy Ghost for a spiritual confirmation. He flatly denied any such thing, much as numerous evangelical Christians have done. In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of exactly zero religions that claim what the Latter-day Saints claim: That if you ask God about the truth of the religion or its parts, God himself will reveal that truth to you.

I disagree. If I were to find out that the Book of Mormon were not literally historically true -- not in every detail, because no history is "perfect", but in general scope -- I would have absolutely no use whatsoever for the book. It would be a lie.

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual - Section 89 - The Word of Wisdom Since Section 89 (Feb 1833) was received two and a half years after Section 27 (Aug 1830), it is reasonable to suppose that the absolute prohibition against alcoholic beverages was not anticipated or referred to in the earlier section. It is also not obvious, at least to me, that a general prohibition against consuming alcohol would necessarily apply to sacramental wine.

Much of what you write may be true, but pointing the finger at PC is unjustified and mistaken. Neither you nor I can look into his heart, judge his intent, or divine his standing before God. PC seems like an honest and upright man to me. I have little doubt that, at some point in his progression, he will do what we all must do and join the kingdom of God. At this point, he apparently has not found reason to believe that the LDS Church is that kingdom. I am confident that such knowledge will come in time to all the honest in heart.

Not that I recall. I admit, I may have simply missed that fact all these years of studying the Book of Mormon, but I do not believe any such thing is said. I believe that Joseph Smith never identified the places of any of the Book of Mormon narrative. Please do not put much stock in Book of Mormon cartoons or any other videos or paintings or whatever. Those are meant to represent the scriptures, and are not themselves scripture. Arnold Friberg was a talented painter, but he never claimed to be a revelator. The immense amount of metal in the European-style swords and armor in his paintings don't ring particularly true to me.

Once again, you've bull's-eyed the issue, Dravin. That's one of the things I admire about you and seek to emulate: The ability to distill an argument to its core and then express it clearly and succinctly. Again, you are right. I never (well, rarely) argue from popularity, given how decadent and generally stinky I often find popular "art". Rather, as you say, the point is that if you're talking to a mixed group, leveling general criticisms toward popular things, especially popular things that are essentially harmless, is a recipe for giving needless offense.

On Planet Vort, of course. I don't think so, but thanks for the thought. It is not Rowling's "style" I object to. (I might even go so far as to say that "I don't believe in style", or more precisely, "Style is a stupid thing to make an attribute of a writer. People either express themselves adequately and tell a good story, or they do not.") My biggest problem with Rowling is that she just cannot get away from deus ex machina devices in her story. Any fantasy world has to have consistent rules so you can judge what the characters' options are, what they should do or could do. But Rowling seems to make things up as she goes along: There's a problem we can't figure out how to surmount, but wait! Here is a piece of magic I never bothered to mention that solves the problem perfectly! I think a perfectly acceptable alternate ending, using Ms. Rowling's own established methodology.

I don't think so: So his divorce in another jurisdiction didn't break the covenant nor did they need to remarry again here because they didn't divorce here due to costs

Oh. Uh, yeah. Your second post. Of course. Why, no, I didn't miss that at all. Why do you ask?

A long time ago, maybe fifteen years or more, my wife bought Roadside Geology of Washington and read it to me as we drove along. Now my kids (or at least one or two of them) love to hear it as we drive across the mountains. Really amazing stuff.

Okay, so I don't have a scanner available to scan my answer. Let's see if I can give it succinctly by typing it: In this case, cylinders are actually a lot easier to do than disks (washers). As you note, integration has to go along the y direction because the differential thicknesses are measured along y, not x. The height of each differential cylinder (distance between the y axis and the curve) is just 1/y. The circumference of each differential cylinder is 2π times the radius, or 2πy. So the surface area of each cylinder is 2πy (1/y) = 2π (!!) Therefore, the volume is V = ∫2π dy [between 1 and 3] = 2πy [between 1 and 3] = 2π (3 - 1) = 4π Turns out to be very simple -- much simpler than integrating along the x axis using washers, though of course the answer is the same.

Sister Vort would roll her eyes and sigh at the question. Actually, I expect that most people with a mathematical bent or who just enjoy math do so. It's too much fun not to play around with. Kind of like composing poetry; once you start, you don't want to stop.

annewandering, you might want to give Card a try. His motto is never to let "style" get in the way of storytelling.

Nor mine. And if they said it did, I would beat them until their attitude improved.

A bikini on a baby boy? Seriously? That is just wrong. I'd sooner let my baby boy run around naked then put him in a bikini. (Though that could present its own problems. "Oh, my goodness! What is wrong with that poor child?" "Looks like his parents didn't have him circumcised." "The MONSTERS!")

Please listen to Tyler in this. If your problem is that you crave approval from others, joining the military won't help.

The elephant in Harry Potter's living room is that it is not particularly well-written. Even to the end of the seventh book, you never quite get past the feeling that you are reading the work of an earnest and talented high school student. Please note that although I am quietly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, I am not making an ado of his nudity.

In actual practice, even speaking out against a position taken by the First Presidency is unlikely to result in Church discipline of any real sort, even at the level of having your temple recommend taken away. Well-known cases of Church dissenters having discipline imposed are always of people who take an active and public stand against the Church's teachings or its leaders and then refuse to modify their public stance, even after direct requests by their leaders -- in other words, open apostasy. When such people mourn their loss of activity or membership in the Church, I see only crocodile tears as they seek to further their agenda. I doubt such policies have much or any relevance to anyone on this list. Putting aside snark and sarcasm (but only for a brief moment), I would observe that, in my experience and understanding: You are allowed to believe whatever you want without threat to your Church membership (though of course holding temple recommend presupposes certain beliefs on your part, such as belief in God and in his modern prophets, without which you cannot get a temple recommend, assuming you are honest enough to answer the questions truthfully). You are allowed to vote however and for whomever you wish, without consequence or even examination by Church authorities on your vote. You can hold a political or social position contrary to the Church's expressed desires and even work for that position without loss of Church privilege.In actual practice, unless you directly come out openly and publicly against the Church's teachings in some area and refuse to move from your position -- in other words, you are in open rebellion against the Church -- you need not worry about your social or political beliefs affecting your Church membership or temple recommend status. That is not to say that such beliefs will have no effect on your spiritual status. On the contrary, they most certainly will; you cannot hold and act on beliefs without those beliefs affecting and changing you. But your membership status is unlikely to be affected.