Vort

You wrote: "I become disturbed by the sacrilege of any human making claims to being divine." Of course, this is exactly what Jesus did. I happen to agree with your thoughts in this, but they are irrelevant. What I suggest (God creates a being equal with himself) is not the same as what you're talking about (God creating a rock so big he can't lift it). There is no linguistic "false-by-definition" game going on with God creating a being equal to himself.

Then you will be relieved to discover that no one (except you) is making that claim.

But Satan in the garden of Eden was not adorned with precious stones. At that point, he was fallen, cast out of heaven. The mention in Ezekiel 28 is out of place for Satan.

Since you won't like my answer, why not tell us what you think is the answer to this mystery?

It's not a prophecy. It is a commandment to the prophet. The king of Tyre is the guy who lives in Tyre and is the king.

I don't think you need to worry, PC. To us java virgins, coffee tastes like a mixture of dirty motor oil and toilet bowl cleaner (or so I've been told). Smells nice, though.

Then perhaps instead of proclaiming the commandments impossible to follow and finding fault with those who try, you would do better to discipline yourself to quit gossiping.

Why not? 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? God is not the president of the US. The two are not comparable.

Pam didn't ask you to start believing it. She suggested that you read the Book of Mormon with a desire to know if it is true. What fault do you find with that?

So then, Jesus Christ's existence bothers you? I don't understand. Are you saying that God cannot create something/someone equal to himself? I thought you believed God to be all-powerful.

Yes. No, of course not. Of course you would not. That is absurd. What do you suppose it means to have all power and all glory? You think it means that you just decide how you want things structured, willy-nilly, according to your own carnal weaknesses? You have not even defined your terms, so your question cannot be answered. What are "gods", and in what sense will we "be gods"?

The traditional Christian view of "getting to heaven" is very narrow. It's like getting into Harvard. Depending on which sect you ask, it involves doing certain rites (like passing certain classes), attaining a certain level of goodness (like a high GPA and test scores), and/or doing nothing at all except letting Jesus usher you in (like knowing someone on the admissions committee). The LDS have a somewhat more sophisticated (if I do say so myself) view of heaven. Heaven is not so much a destination as a condition. Our purpose on earth is to become the type of people who would be comfortable in heaven. Remember, the sheer weight of joy felt by a heavenly being is terrifying. We literally could not withstand it; it would consume us. This is why we read that, in the last days, the wicked will seek to hide from the Lord and would that the rocks would cover them. The devils tremble and flee at the presence of God. Will we? You don't earn your way to heaven, nor do you say "Lord, Lord!" and get zapped there. You walk the path step by step, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, repenting and continually striving to better yourself and call upon God. And then, one day, God confirms that you are his.

Some kids are "Mama's girls (or boys)" and some are "Daddy's girls (or boys)". Sounds like your daughter is one of the latter. Don't take it personally; it's not a judgment on your mothering or even if she loves you. (She doesn't -- she's an infant and incapable of "loving" anyone. She's still learning what it is to live in the world.) Give her a few months and she will warm up to you. But, you know, she might always have a preference for Daddy. My younger sister was like that, and it hurt my Mom's feelings. I think she got over it, and a month or two ago I was commenting to her about how my kids always preferred their mother (every one of the five was a Mama's baby -- not the first, so much, but certainly the others). Mom sympathized and recalled my younger sister. Just kinda one of those things. If you love your spouse, then it's kind of fun. "Hey, look, she likes him just like I do!" (That's actually what my Mom said about my younger sister.)

I don't understand your meaning. Jesus was Christ. The two terms are effectively synonymous. Yet he was, as the scriptures testify. See, for example, Mosiah 15:4.

Cut to the chase, HoosierGuy. The real reason Jobs was a bad guy is because he made a lot of money.

If the state recognizes the marriage, I have no doubt they will certify it.

How sure of this are you? I would assume that if the state recognizes a man and woman as married to each other, the Church does, too.

Please don't misunderstand me. I know it must sound like I was criticizing you for bringing up the topic, but really, I was not. I was speaking generally, not specifically, and certainly not about you. Forgive me if I came across as critical toward you. I didn't feel that way.

You are mistaken, Lizzy. You will indeed need this again, throughout your life. Don't deceive yourself into believing that math is useless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Good for you for noticing the units! So many of my physics students didn't even bother looking at the units, and it always messed them up. In this case, the units are meter-kilometers, or square meters times a thousand. Since you then divide by kilometers, you are again left with meters.

"Doctrine" simply means "teaching". To determine if something is a "doctrine of the Church" means to determine whether the Church currently teaches that idea. Note that by this definition, Church doctrine can be incomplete, imperfect, perhaps even wrong. If we believe some specific doctrine of the Church to be wrong, what is our duty? It is to discuss our concerns, if we must discuss them, privately, with our leaders. Then it is our duty to shut up and keep our concerns to ourselves.

"But let me tell you that it was one-third part of the spirits who were prepared to take tabernacles upon this earth, and who rebelled against the other two thirds of the heavenly host; and they were cast down to this world." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:55 Is that what you were looking for?

The question is: 1. If the Earth was the size of a basketball, how big would the moon be? And heres what i did: .00023km /12,756km= .00000001803073064 KM .00000001803073064X3476= .0000626748 KM The moon would be . 0000626748 KM Is this correct? :) Yes, you are right. Do you understand why, though? Or is it just "plug-and-chug"? The key to doing problems like this is in making the comparison. "My son's size is to my size as the mountain's size is to X", then solve for X This is done by making ratios: (My son's size)/(My size) = (The mountain's size)/(X) Now it's easy to cross-multiply and solve for X: X (My son's size) = (My size) (The mountain's size)/(My son's size) X = (My size) (The mountain's size) Same thing here. Instead of using whole phrases, let's define some variables to make things easy: Earth diameter: E (= 12,756 km) Basketball diameter: B (= 0.23 m, or 0.00023 km) Moon's diameter: M (= 3,476 km) So if the earth is a basketball, how big is the moon? In other words, E is to B as M is to X: E/B = M/X Solve for X: XE = BM X = BM / E Now put in your values: X = (0.23 m)(3,476 km) / (12,756 km) = 0.063 m, or 6.3 cm -- about 2.5 inches in diameter, roughly the size of a cue ball. Sorry, don't understand what you mean. How would the center of what change from which object being smaller?

While I don't agree with all the author's biases, I think he makes some valuable points.

You can almost certainly find a quote from a General Authority somewhere to that effect, possibly even an apostle. But that is simply the assumed meaning. I would think you would want something more authoritative than a passing reference that assumes a meaning. Of course, I know of no such "more authoritative" reference. As far as I know, the matter has never been openly discussed. I doubt most leaders have considered the matter, or having considered it have decided it was of sufficient importance to broach. Wouldn't it be acceptable just to explain that the scriptures mention "a third part" or "the third part", without specifying what that means? Alternatively, you could say that it appears to mean either one-third or one of three groups.

The scriptures are very clear: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it". This is a commandment, using essentially the same wording as was used with the ten commandments. Of course Adam and Eve could choose for themselves, as is the case with all of God's commandments. But look at God's follow-up to the declaration of free choice: "but remember that I forbid it".