Vort

You want me to find wording in the Bible that teaches "all the earth was under water -- but, oh, this is not meant to anticipate a changed worldview that teaches that we live on a gigantic sphere"? It's anachronistic. That's the point. The Bible can no more say that the Flood was "global" than Newton's Principia Mathematica can teach about relativistic gravitation.

Yeah, I didn't scroll down far enough.

Or patting some random woman on the rear end (or other places). When my wife's younger sister was recently married, she and her husband sat talking with us in our living room when his hand unconsciously found its way down her blouse... Three of us laughed about it, including the perp. The victim was somewhat less amused.

And therefore...? The immediate topic is whether God's love is unconditional. I have put forth arguments to show that God's love is indeed conditional. You are now trying to turn it into a question of whether loving A more than B means that B is unloved. But, of course, that is a straw man. Or rather, you infer that meaning. Actually what you said was: I think she was saying that his love is unconditional, which it is. I disagree. I might. But I didn't. Nor is it what I said. So you are suggesting that I did not read the entire article? Then you are wrong. Elder Nelson (not Maxwell) said outright that divine love is not unconditional. For some strange reason, you seem to be avoiding this most studiously, even while you throw up all sorts of other tangential objections to things you only infer from my words. And therefore...? Then you are missing the point. God offers his love to all, freely. That love is life and salvation. But not all receive that love. Who receives the love of God? Those who satisfy the conditions. Ergo, conditional divine love. That is like saying, "My dog is a German shepherd. THAT is why you are wrong about Beluga whales." In other words, you have failed to demonstrate any flaws in my logic, despite your triumphant claims. Or else I'm just too darn dense to see it, in which case I ask that you explain your deconstruction of my logic a bit more explicitly. You wrote: I think we can all agree that none of US could love someone who had just NAILED our hands and feet to wood enough to say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". You are wrong. We do not all agree on that point. Whether or not Relentless is capable of demonstrating that level of love is not the topic. What are you talking about? I never said that something was your opinion. Perhaps you are talking about this: That it "seems pretty unconditional" to you really doesn't mean much, does it? This is not a question of how unconditional some act of love might seem to Relentless. If so, then once again you missed the point. We were discussing whether God's love is unconditional, not whether some certain act of love seems unconditional to you. For you to bring up an example and then say, "That looks pretty unconditional to me", thus implying that God's love must be unconditional in all cases, is as if I claimed that all cars were white, then pointed to a cream-colored car and said, "That one looks pretty white to me", then acting as if I had just proved my point about all cars being white. This is problematic on at least two counts: I never made any such claim as you suggest, so your point is ill-taken.The idea that since we both lack authority to make definitive statements, therefore our opinions are of equal validity, is absurd. If it is my opinion that a bat is a mammal and your opinion that a bat is a fish, both opinions aren't equally valid, even if neither of us is a practicing zoologist. Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me...I caused that he should be cast down; If God's love is the reception of his glory and presence, as stated in 1 Nephi, then being eternally cast out of his glory and presence is the opposite. How does this demonstrate your thesis that God's love is unconditional? What do you believe is meant by "the love of God"? Pray tell, what has this to do with the topic under discussion? Now, now, this is not honest. I claimed that God's love is not unconditional. You are making up the rest.

Please prove this. Elder Nelson appears to disagree with you: While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. (Emphasis in original.) Saying that my statement is "off base" is not the same as demonstrating that my statement is "off base". I welcome a demonstration. I think my argument has legs. Again, merely claiming that my logic is flawed and my example wrong does not establish it as so. You are incorrect. That it "seems pretty unconditional" to you really doesn't mean much, does it? This is not a question of how unconditional some act of love might seem to Relentless. Does God love Satan in any meaningful, useful sense? If so, please demonstrate. If not, please explain how God's love is "unconditional".

You're the only one, friend.

You have totally, completely, and utterly missed the point of my post. Actually, "unconditional love" means loving without condition. I do not believe that God loves without condition. This is even more obviously true when we consider the meaning of God's love, as explained in 1 Nephi 22:25: And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God. Remember that the waters and the tree, though available to all, are given only to those who actually make the effort to come and get them.

Thoughts from a non-non-LDS: Temple worship was a feature of Judaism, among other ancient religions. Hebrew temple worship revolved around animal sacrifice, or at least that was its most visible feature. Christ's atonement did away with animal sacrifice; thus, in the minds of most non-LDS Christians, the atonement doubtless did away with the necessity or even the relevance of temple worship.

This is like saying, that because the ancient europeans did not know about the Americas then the Americas didn't exist.The occurence of an event is not influenced by the knowledge of a person about that event. Obviously, you are completely missing the point. You and others are arguing that we should believe a in global flood because the Biblical record describes the flood as global. I am pointing out that this is utter nonsense. Uh...yes?

You should have asked her if she had read the Book of Mormon. When she said "yes", you should have asked her if her favorite part was where the bear chases Joseph Smith up a tree.

Sorry to be the curmudgeon in this lovefest, but I thought it was kinda stupid. Didn't really have anything to do with Mormons or Mormonism. Knocking doors Sunday morning? Possible, but not likely. And what's with the "Mormon Tapper-nacle Choir" (ha ha ha...not really) wearing the gospel choir robes? Did anyone even bother to LOOK at the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and see that we don't wear choir robes? I realize it was a throwaway effort and it's silly to analyze it too closely, but I'm a little disappointed. It would be as if someone made up a song about Jews and Judaism that included references to Mohammed and the worship of sacred cows. Well, as they said, they really don't know anything about Mormonism (other than the 15-second scan they did on Wikipedia), so I guess they just need to hear the good word as taught by the missionaries.

Just be glad it wasn't -40 F! (If at first you don't succeed...)

I would, but I would not blame anyone who decided it was just another form of health insurance. I would do so because the $6000 feels like increase to me, whereas a health care perquisite does not. Otoh, maybe I should start paying tithing on the value of the health care my employer provides.

The over-under for LDSNETA's banning is 8:30 am PST.

I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?This appears to be LDSNETA's way of saying "not".

Original lyric: "Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, / Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame."

And this: - If we had a billionaire like Lance Hunt as our benefactor... - That's because Lance Hunt is Captain Amazing - Don't start that again. Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses. - He takes them off when he transforms. - That doesn't make any sense. He wouldn't be able to see. And this: - Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's... - Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage... - ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right? - [pause] Not necessarily.

There is no Biblical evidence of a "global" flood. There is no evidence (that I know of) that the ancient Hebrews of 2500 BC even knew they lived on a globe. A "global flood" is thus utterly anachronistic.

Who is he to declare LDS doctrine? Sorry, I must have missed the post where someone said he can't give his opinion. In my case, of course you do. Are you suggesting that I have not "looked into it"? Or do you think that because I came to a different conclusion from someone else, therefore I must need to "look into it" some more? Thanks for the invite. I appreciate it, but decline, as I have little interest in discussions that center around how scientific principles or conclusions ought to be determined by someone's scriptural gloss.

Sure, it's evidence. But it does not establish anything. Or are you willing to state that nothing ever published in the Ensign has been counterfactual or contrary to LDS doctrine?

True. True. True. True. False. Neither of which positions qualify him to speak about things clearly beyond his ken.

How so?

OK, who claimed to have published research on the matter? 'Fess up. Inquiring minds will have all sorts of questions to ask you.

AP reporters have determined that the "outed" (or "stolen", depending on your political viewpoint) emails do not show that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but rather that climate scientists have all the intricate social skills of a maladjusted seventh grader wearing plaid pants and Coke-bottle glasses with tape across the nosepiece. (Big, big surprise there!) Now we can all breathe easy, relax, and let our honest politicians continue in the important, nay vital, work they have been doing: Making the world safe for climate change! Or can we? Is the AP report accurate? Who you gonna believe, them or your lying eyes? Which most accurately reflects your own viewpoint? Manmade global warming is: Real! The scientists said it, I believe it, that settles it!Real! The AP is famous for its deep understanding of all things scientific.Probably real. The preponderance of evidence weighs toward anthropogenic global warming. I know this because I have actually done research on the topic and am qualified to offer a knowledgeable opinion on the matter.Probably real. The preponderance of evidence blah blah, or at least that's what they say, and I figure they wouldn't make such a thing up. It makes sense to me that a few billion people burning hydrocarbons for a few centuries would impact the chemical makeup of the atmosphere enough to cause some observable change.I have no idea. It's all over my head anyway, but if I trust them to collect and spend my tax money wisely, why not this, too? (That could be an argument either way.)Probably false. I can't put my finger on it, but the whole thing smells distinctly fishy to me. If anthropogenic global warming is real, why can't they just expose the proof so that everyone can see it?Probably false. Scientists are human, too, and they often are not nearly as smart as they think. This unfortunate "cause" has gained traction, mostly among the ignorant political Left and those who have just enough education to be dangerous but not enough to actually see through the smokescreen to the man behind the curtain.False! The earth has heated up and cooled down throughout its history. Why ought we to think that the last couple of decades (when we actually started paying attention) are suddenly so completely different from all other historical occurrences?False! It's all a scam, a plot by communists, earth worshipers, energy companies, and/or the world bank and the Illuminati to restrict our freedoms and ability to travel or even think clearly by foisting off this absurd "the-sky-is-falling!" scenario onto us, and the sheeple are too stupid and too committed to their drugs, fornications, and other debauchery even to care!

I think that's what we are all wondering. Vanhin decided this was just a troll. Your dreams are perhaps somewhat tamer than those of most people... That is the absolute epitome of hyperbole (pronounced EP-uh-towm uv HAI-per-bowl, for all you Brian Regen fans).