Vort

Anyone agree that it's time for Sister_Kimbe to be shown the door?

I tend to agree with bytebear. Computers are commodities these days. $500 should buy you a very good system, complete with screen and printer. $1000 should buy you a high-end workstation. I am a computer programmer and writer, and I have a two-year-old machine that was the cheapest decent machine available (I think I paid <$400). Today, it's still twice as much computer as I need, though I'm not complaining. Your "dream system" sounds very nice, to be sure -- too nice, vast overkill. Your hubby would probably be just as happy with a system at a fifth the price. If you insist on going Mac, then it will cost you two or three times as much for equivalent functionality, but you still should not be spending much over $1000, everything included.

Sorry, but these people are just weird.

I think you acted like a jerk, and that any decent and civilized person would be embarrassed for you at your actions.

Don't hold your breath, beefche. Tyler is A True Believer®. He can't respond to others' questions, but he doesn't mind because he already knows he's right. Reasoned discourse is irrelevant.

Then why have you refused to respond to what I've said? If my debate tactics are nothing more than childish rants, surely you can give reasoned responses rather than just patronizing name-calling and avoidance of factual information. Seriously, Tyler. You are an adult now. Please talk like a grown-up. Answer the questions put to you.

I agree with Beefche. But if you're 51 years old, it's likely that you meet with the high priests instead of the elders. In that case, talk to your high priests group leader; he takes care of home teaching for your group and will assign you home teachers. Tell him you really want home teachers, and he will make sure he gets them to you -- even if he ends up assigning himself as your home teacher. The idea of you serving as a home teacher is a good one, too. You probably will not be assigned as a home teacher until you receive the Aaronic Priesthood office of teacher, though. Again, talk to your quorum leader, either the elders quorum president or the high priests group leader.

Why?

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, Sali. Based on what you have written, you are either naive or dishonest. I prefer to believe the former. I own corporations. My ownership pieces are called "shares", which I bought on the market. I bought those "shares" because I expect them to increase in value. That is, I have a vested interest in seeing the corporation make money. I depend on it for my retirement. I have made a deal with those corporations: I will give them some of my money, and in return they will increase in value. Now, if the CEOs of those corporations suddenly decide that they are just too profitable and that they need to cut back on profits, where does that leave me? I made a deal with them, and I did so in order to take care of my family. When the corporation suddenly decides it doesn't want to make money any more, THEY ARE STEALING FROM ME! They are breaking the promise they made with me! So if I can, I will do whatever I can to get rid of the CEO and put someone in who makes money for the corporation. (Or else I will bail out on the corporation, sell my shares, which will help decrease the price of the shares and the value of the corporation, driving them further into the hole, while I take my money and go shopping for a corporation that will actually MAKE MONEY.) You utterly fail to realize that when corporations don't make money, THE SHAREHOLDERS don't make money. And who are the shareholders? I AM. So are you, if you own any stocks or mutual funds. Or perhaps you do realize that, and you are actively seeking to bankrupt me and millions of other decent, hardworking people who own shares in corporations. That makes you dishonest, a thief. But, as I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Seriously? You actually believe that a corporation could pay another, say, $500 million in taxes out of the CEO's salary? Again: You are naive or dishonest. Which is it? No, Sali. The principle is the "curse of Adam", which says "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." Corporations provide many ways for people to earn their money. Know-nothing do-gooders want to take the corporations' profits and redistribute them so that everyone can be rich without actually having to work. This is thievery, and by the way it won't work. SOMEONE has to be doing the actual work. We can't just keep printing up money and make everyone "rich".

I am staggered by the naivete you show. Do you seriously believe that: Corporate executives will decrease corporate profit (which is profit to each individual investor, all of whom are ultimately human beings) and thus subject themselves to termination -- and rightfully so -- rather than pass the increased cost of business on to the consumer?Doing so would be a good solution?What you are saying, in effect, is: "Corporations make too much money. We should take some of that money away." That is theft. If you don't want what the corporations manufacture, don't buy it. If you think Sony makes too darn much money, don't buy Sony camcorders. It's that easy. Duh. But don't destroy the ability of people to make money through business in a futile attempt to force corporations to be generous. Sali, there have been corporations founded on the idea that they should make only a minimal profit and should engage themselves in doing good with their profits, rather than returning investment profits to the investors. Why don't we see those corporations? Oh, yes, that's right. Because THEY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. And how much good do they do our society by being out of business? Oh, yes, that's right. None. There are special laws and benefits set up for corporations who are not interested in making profits for their investors. Such corporations are called "non-profits". But not every corporation wants to be a non-profit. Please. At some point, the naivete and foolishness must stop, and people must think, converse, and act like adults. Profiting from your labor is not evil. Agreeing with people on a set wage for a job is not exploitation. The Marxist promises of communal wealth are lies. Then you are wrong. Corporations are not greedy, any more than automobiles or religions are greedy. The individuals who run the corporations may or may not be greedy, but the evidence you marshall against the evil corporations does not indicate greed on the part of those running the corporations. Not to any extent.

Thomas F. Jefferson. I love it. Fitzpatrick? Fogarty? Fenwick? Corporations don't have a sense of Ethical Morality, because corporations do not exist in the physical or spiritual world. Corporations are a legal construct, nothing more. But you appear to be missing the point entirely. Corporations exist as a legal construct because they are beneficial to us. Those who protest corporations do so using the very benefits that corporations offer. Demonizing corporations is absurd, and refusing to acknowledge the benefits of corporations while enjoying those same benefits is pathetically ignorant at best, and cynically hypocritical at worst. If corporations are "taxed" at a higher rate, how do you suppose they pay those "taxes"? Do you think all the board members, vice presidents, and executive officers take a pay cut? Uh, no. They simply raise the prices on their goods and services. In other words, WE, the consumers, pay the so-called "corporate taxes".

You are welcome at Church. We will be glad to see you. If you are not sure where to go on Sunday, visit Visit Us | Mormon.org and type in city and state.

If I ever needed to evacuate a cat, I would just use my shop vac. A vet might have a fancier way of doing it.

The Holy Ghost.

My point exactly. God and Christ are one, but this does not imply any mystic Trinity.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the interwebs. Your biological father is not alive to contest your adoption, so unless there are other irregularities, I would assume your adoption is still legal. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the interwebs.

No. There is no requirement or imperative that you ever get a patriarchal blessing. Most active Saints do wish to avail themselves of this blessing, however. I believe full-time missionaries will be given their patriarchal blessing in the MTC if they have not already received it.

What a curmudgeonly thing to say. Wish I'd thought of it.

What do you suppose it means to be joint-heirs with Christ and inherit "all that the Father hath"? Why do you suppose God wants us to refer to him as Father? Christ himself even said that he was "my [Jesus'] father and your father". Do you suppose this is merely poetic device, some sort of divine rhetoric?

I live near Seattle, where every day is firday.

Agreed. But the point is, Jesus was fully human. Your statement was: I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine. Even in Trinity theology, Jesus was fully human. So your claim fails unless you discount Jesus' very existence. This is very different from your claim above. I do not believe that any Latter-day Saint here has made the claim that we can "become God". I have heard Trinitarians make such a claim, but not Latter-day Saints. God is an individual, and he is not me (or you). We do not "become" him. That is not the meaning of being one with God.

Sadly, yes. You are the only one. Sorry.

Please show in the Bible where this strange doctrine is taught, that God "won't create or duplicate Himself".

I asked: So, then, you are saying that God is incapable of creating something equal to himself. Right? So God is not all-powerful in your estimation, because he can't create a being like himself. Do I understand you correctly? Please answer the questions. There are any number of things that God "cannot" do, depending on how you define "cannot". God "cannot" do meaningless, self-contradictory "things" that are not actual possibilities but merely linguistic constructs that are games, that hinge on the flexibility that language gives us.