Vort

How sad. Did you miss my point because you will not see it, or because you cannot see it? But, of course, this is nothing like what I wrote.

I don't know your situation, so I can't speak with any authority to your particular case. But in general, fasting makes everybody sick, until they get used to it. Until your body adapts to fasting, you will get a headache and feel pretty awful. That doesn't mean you're dying, even if you think you feel like you are. It means you have to habituate your body to fasting. Too many people give up on fasting without ever really giving it a chance. Fast once a month for a year, and if after the twelfth fast you are still feeling absolutely awful every time you fast, then you might want to reconsider your commitment. Until then, you can't know about fasting until you have given it an honest effort. In 1894, President Wilford Woodruff said: It was remarked this morning that some people said they could not fast because it made their head ache. Well, I can fast, and so can any other man; and if it makes my head ache by keeping the commandments of God, let it ache. There may be some people whose health is so delicate and fragile that they would be harmed by fasting for 24 hours. Such people are very, very rare; for the vast majority of us, our overall health could only improve by avoiding food for a day. I believe if the Saints, and indeed anyone else, fasted once a month, they would see real health benefits. To answer your question more directly: No, I don't believe there is any Lent-like substitute for fasting, like giving up TV or sex or phone conversations for 24 hours. The law of the fast is specific to food, I think.

No, of course not. I was just kidding.

I suppose then they are not saved.

Let me also point out that people were not ignoring or dismissing the Biblical scriptures you posted. They seem to have been disagreeing with your interpretation of those scriptures. Much different.

We need to accept salvation. Accepting salvation means much more than saying, "Lord, I believe! I receive you into my heart, Jesus!" We must love the Lord. And as Jesus taught, if you love him, you will keep his commandments.

This whole discussion is nonsense. God is exactly who and what he is. We do not define God; we merely seek to describe him. We do not worship a pantheon of gods, as did the ancient Greeks and Romans; we worship one God. But that does not preclude multiple persons. We know the nature of God, not because the Bible describes him so perfectly -- it does not -- but because we had a prophet tell us in clear and reasonably precise language what that nature is. Arguing about what the Bible does or does not say is not merely fruitless, it is pointless.

WHAT?! How DARE you say that! Why, I'm just so overcome with indignation at such an ignorant comment! Plus, the smiley was just totally uncalled for.

Yes. The last comment, outside the quotation marks.

Yes, except for the last comment, which I assume was the OP's.

Why was it awkward?

Haven't watched the video and have no desire to do so. Which "backwards views" were those? That intellectual property rights should be respected and enforced? Assuming the video shows the father beating up his daughter while the mother does nothing to protect her: Why should she be exonerated from any responsibility? Because she was "abused", that therefore means she is not legally or morally required to protect her own daughter? Even if the video is as awful and as damning as I imagine it to be (based on the description given), a single video rarely gives a proper and holistic view of a situation. Rushing to judgment based on a single YouTube video is generally an act of ignorance.

In a true Hofstadterian spirit, I would attempt to fail.

Putting "j/k" after your posts (or, equivalently but even more annoyingly, putting a smiley) is like telling a joke and then guffawing, jabbing your elbow repeatedly into your listeners' ribs, and loudly asking, "Get it? Get it? Pretty funny, huh? Get it?" Mere words utterly fail to describe the irritation caused by such behavior. Of course, telling a joke without loudly anouncing, "Hey! I JUST TOLD YOU A JOKE!" does run the risk of people not understanding your joke. So if you are not willing to post your witty repartee and then hear the crickets chirping, better stick with the smileys. j/k! :) (j/k about the j/k and the smiley!) (No, not really! j/k about the previous j/k!!) (Haw, haw! I take it back! j/k!) :):):) Oh, I am such the joker! Look, j/k. Seriously.

Careful, Slamjet:

At the risk of being pedantic, it's a silly and nonsensical question, and not because it's self-referential. It's poorly worded. It's like saying, "If pigs had wings, what is the probability that today is Wednesday?" "The correct answer" is an undefined quantity, so any non-negative percentage up to 100% might be "the correct answer". The question obviously wants to be self-referential. If we assume that (1) the correct answer is given in the choices and (2) that the correct answer is cleverly self-referential, then the correct answer is unobtainable. It must be 25% -- the odds of selecting one of four -- but since there are two 25% answers, it is 50%. But of course, there is only one 50% answer, so it cannot be that. It strives to be exactly the same silliness as doing this sort of thing: When I answer a multiple choice question, I always pick: a) any answer but the first. b) the last answer, in all cases. c) I do not pick any answers in multiple choice questions. I must admit that I appreciate such humor, when it is pulled off correctly.

It is probably worth noting that everyone who fails to repent will be destroyed. More specifically, those who have covenanted with God and then fail to live up to those covenants are under particular condemnation. In effect, Emma was being told to live up to her covenants.

You must never, never, never "get physical" with your spouse. This is always bad. Had roles been reversed, I'm sure you would have been shocked and outraged. Do yourself and him a favor, and never allow this particular thing to happen again. Also, I doubt he has forgotten your acidic and hurtful words. Such things are not forgotten, and will eat away at your marriage. Try to discipline yourself not to say such things, even when you think he somehow "deserves" it.

I, too, have never understood the joy of killing an animal. I have killed animals on occasion, but I have never enjoyed it. I understand that there is more to the hunt than killing the animal, but most hunters of my acquaintance would not hunt if they weren't allowed to kill the animal. I have nothing against hunting per se, but I think it's ghastly to enjoy killing animals.

What do you mean? Christians preach the gospel at General Conference, both outside the building and inside. And not just Christians, but Christians called and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Preaching the gospel is never bad, unless you are casting your pearls before swine. Oh, wait. Do you mean the so-called "Christians" who delight in telling Latter-day Saint adults and children that they're going to hell? Yes, that's anti-Mormon. Yes. One is a plural that refers to human beings, while the other is a singular that refers to the hatred preached by those of the former type.

What do you mean? That they were claiming that they would be playing in this year's national championship game? If so, that is a lie. No BYU official or player ever made such a claim. You are telling a blatant untruth. If you believe such a thing, then prove it. Show me a quote. Or did you mean that they were saying that their goal was to play in a BCS bowl and, eventually, the national championship game? Well, duh. Of course that is their goal, and the goal of about fifty other football programs. BYU personnel were simply honest enough to admit that, since they have no conference championship to play for, that's their goal. Ha ha ha. Like anyone believes you're a BYU fan. Please name two dozen teams that have been measurably and consistently better than BYU over the last decade. Let's examine these boastful, controversial quotes from the first article. Mendenhall first: We didn’t go independent to be safe. We went independent to move the program into a new era, so I’m excited for the challenge and hopefully up to it. There are many that hope we fail. Anytime there’s a religious affiliation, it’s like talking about politics; it’s divisive.  ‘You think you’re better than playing in a conference? It serves you right if you don’t win.’ I hear that all the time. But there are as many or more that would like to see if we can pull it off and applaud the effort to carve out a new place. I’m more cerebral now and more comfortable in my own skin, meaning I don’t care what others think. It comes mostly from constant praise and constant criticism and constant spotlight and realizing I shouldn’t try to please everybody. If we maintain our winning ways in football, with more exposure, I can’t see it doing anything but making us more marketable for whatever comes next, and hopefully that will outweigh the comfort of a conference. Wow. Talk about boasting! Oh. Wait. There was no boasting, just dash reading his own insecurities into a coach's words. Aha! It must have been evil Heaps who said all the bad stuff! Let's see: Why not shoot for the stars? We’re hoping to have a very explosive offense. We have a long way to go, but we’re going to be there. We’re not shooting for a conference championship. We’re shooting for a national championship. Yes! There it is! He FREELY ADMITTED that shooting for a national championship was shooting for the stars, and then said, "Why not?" If that's not boasting, then... Oh. Wait. It isn't boasting. Brother dash is living in a fantasy world. No! It must be in that OTHER article dash cites! Let's look: Nobody has asked me to say that from the athletic director to the administration, etc. It is just simply that I am looking to help our program reach its potential. And I would like us to move forward. When I consider now, what are the obstacles? And is it possible? I think it is. And I would just as soon say it. There will be detractors everywhere that say it is not possible, that we won't be able to. I am not one of them. I think it is possible. I can't give you a timeframe, but it is a worthwhile goal. And what if, with our standards, with this climate, and with this institution, what if we were able to accomplish that here? What would that do to the national landscape? And that to me is an intriguing reason to get up every day and come to work. And that is something I think we all look for as a purpose to continue on with whatever we are doing. Please point out the boasting, dash. (Or do something really revolutionary, and admit you were wrong.) Let's see if I understand you correctly. In dash's reality, Utah leaving a sucky conference for a better conference is virtuous, but BYU leaving a sucky conference for independence is evil. Do I have that right? You have yet to demonstrate any cockiness on BYU's part. And Holmoe made it clear that exposure, not money, was the goal. Are you calling Brother Holmoe a liar? I hope you have learned your lesson about humiliating yourself by making false claims that you are unable to back up, then having your dishonesty exposed. But I doubt it.

What?! 66? Skippy said you were 106! Don't go changing things up on me, now.

Lewis Carroll wishes you a happy birthday! 'You are old, Father William', the young man said, 'And your hair has become very white; And yet you incessantly stand on your head -- Do you think, at your age, it is right?' 'In my youth', Father William replied to his son, 'I feared it might injure the brain; But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none, Why, I do it again and again.' 'You are old', said the youth, 'as I mentioned before, And have grown most uncommonly fat; Yet you turned a back-somersault in at the door -- Pray, what is the reason of that?' 'In my youth', said the sage, as he shook his grey locks, 'I kept all my limbs very supple By the use of this ointment - one shilling the box - Allow me to sell you a couple?' 'You are old', said the youth, 'and your jaws are too weak For anything tougher than suet; Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak - Pray, how did you manage to do it?' 'In my youth', said his father, 'I took to the law, And argued each case with my wife; And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw, Has lasted the rest of my life.' 'You are old', said the youth, 'one would hardly suppose That your eye was as steady as ever; Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose - What made you so awfully clever?' 'I have answered three questions, and that is enough,' Said his father, 'don't give yourself airs! Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff? Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!'

I agree, but I would suggest the deficiency is not really in the language. Rather, it is in the very nature of communication using flexible tokens (e.g. the spoken word). Multiple meanings are not merely desirable; they are irreplaceable. This leads to linguistic usage that plays off the multiple meanings, resulting in inherently ambiguous statements. It is unavoidable. The only solution is to have a guide that tells you when your interpretation is correct, much like Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon translation experience. Thus, the primacy of the gift of the Holy Ghost and the reason we receive this gift immediately upon baptism into the Church.

But that is not disobedience. You can't disobey a commandment you have never received. Also, being "happy" right now is no guarantee of being happy in ten years, or a hundred, or a thousand. Those whose relationship is founded on immorality or dishonesty are absolutely sure to lose that relationship. Their only hope is to replace the foundation of their relationship with something more enduring.