Vort

Congratulations on this. I am very far from such a state. I do well to love the people close to me, and I sometimes struggle loving the people I know, even those I know only through internet discussion boards.

Does anybody actually worship the cross or The Garden. You may have misread what I wrote. I didn't say that anyone worshiped the cross; rather, I spoke of "cross-focused worship".

Close. I'm an INTJ. :) I've already gotten some parts to build a PVC steam engine with the kids when I get some time, probably over Christmas break. I'm about 28 years out of high school, but thanks for the idea. Actually, I called up the local community college to ask about metal shop, but they told me they didn't have any metal or wood shop (!!!) and that I should contact some local trade schools. I'd love to buy a small metal lathe or mill, but I have neither the money nor the space. Thanks for the links, too. I've actually already seen most of them. I did a little research on production Stirling engines and was surprised to find that no one has really scaled them up to industrial usage. I wonder why not? I assume it's because internal combustion is an old, well-developed technology, and it is not financially attractive to put the effort into developing an efficient industrial-sized Stirling engine. Actually, that's a bit hard to believe, but I can't think of anything more likely. Anyway, I'm thinking of starting very small, e.g. with my PVC steam (air) engine, and just seeing where things go. I found out how to make sugar rocket engines, and my boys and I have done a tiny bit of rocketry in Scouting, so I'm thinking of exploring that avenue at some point. Really, I just want to talk with others who have built engines of any sort and get ideas from them about how one goes about doing things.

Awesome.

Nothing so dramatic. I just want to build some engines, and I'm wondering if anyone else has done so.

Yeah... Yeah! Yea--uh, wait. Maybe not.

I tend to call young girls "sweetheart", which is fine until they start getting about 14 or so. Then I just sound like a dirty old man. Ewwwww. Fortunately, most of the young girls I interact with are in my ward, so by the time they turn 14 I have had a good chance to learn their names.

Not three days. It was a day, a night, and a day as if it were one day. So that's approximately 36 hours of continuous light. Clearly, the whole earth was not lit up, since the Bible mentions nothing about this sign. It was apparently only for the Nephites. At Christ's death, the more wicked part of the people in the Nephite civilization were destroyed, and the survivors endured three days of darkness. Nothing like this is recorded to have happened in Jerusalem.

What Brother Church does not mention is that his old Mormon family joined the Church before the law of chastity was revealed, so therefore it doesn't apply to him, either. He's almost right when he says he's a "Mormon". He just uses one too many "m"s.

I went to BYU. It was the most amazing time of my life to that point. The rules do not make BYU "ridiculous". They help it to stay the amazing place it is. Anyone who thinks BYU is "ridiculous" should stay far away from it, so that people who value it (such as my children) can more easily attend. I have never understood this line of reasoning, though it's popular among BYU haters. Do you seriously believe that Brigham Young would not be allowed to take classes or do anything else he wanted to at BYU? On the contrary, you are welcome to your ideas, apostate or otherwise. Please feel perfectly free to stay far, far away from BYU. I'm not offended in the least. But if you are going to criticize, your criticisms should be based in truth, not in absurdity like "BYU would not allow Brigham Young to attend".

Good question. There are several points you need to understand: The law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ. That law itself was based on eternal principles; saying that the law of Moses was fulfilled doesn't therefore mean that we don't keep the Ten Commandments any more. The parts we no longer keep are those parts specific to the law of Moses, such as animal sacrifice and the various elements of ritual purity (e.g. don't eat pork, avoid menstruating women). The other elements, such as the Ten Commandments and the law of tithing, are eternal principles. Of course we keep them. In the same vein, Mormons do not follow the law of Moses per se, but we certainly do strive to follow the principles upon which that law was based. We have been specifically commanded to pay tithing; see D&C 119. So tithing is not ony an ancient law, but a modern one, as well.

No one asks that you write down all LDS history. Just cite your sources. Here's a better idea: YOU Google these things, then pick out the hits that buttress your arguments. Point up the exact passages, sentences, or other parts that support what you are claiming. Then post those. For more on Hill-Billy's technique of "I've mentioned my sources, so it's not my fault if you don't bother to read them", listen to Nibley's excellent How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book.

I really don't know how to make my meaning any clearer than I have already tried to do, but I'll try again, just in case it helps this time. Consider the following list: I am overweight. I would guess I am at least 40 pounds heavier than when I graduated from high school. I do not hate myself for this fact (though I'm not happy about it), and I don't think I am an evil person because of this. Yet the fact is that I weigh more than I ought to BECAUSE I EAT TOO MUCH.I am an American; thus, most of the people I know and most of the people I love are Americans. Most of the adults I know, and certainly most that are my age and older, are overweight. I do not think less of them for this fact or believe them morally deficient. But I am also perfectly well aware that the reason they are overweight is because they eat more food than they need.I have never been to India, but I have known quite a number of Indians. Not a single one of them has been significantly overweight. Furthermore, of the Indians I have known, the ones that have been at all overweight are those who have lived in the US for some years and have become more accustomed to the US method of eating (lots and lots). I do not think of Indians as more virtuous than Americans, but I do think of them as smaller.When I visited France, I saw many hundreds of people, possibly thousands. I noticed a great many fat tourists, especially Americans, but also Brits and Germans. I noticed very few fat French people, however. Significantly, I found the French way of eating devoted to small portions of very tasty but non-greasy, not-fatty foods. I do not believe the French to be morally superior to Americans, Brits, or Germans because of this, but I do think of them as thinner.Now consider the following points: People who eat a lot tend to be fatter than people who do not. This is not a veiled statistical difference, but an obvious and nearly universal difference, easily noticed by even a casual observer.If you expend 1500 Calories in metabolic activity in a day and you consume food from which you derive 1500 Calories that day, it is impossible for you to have a net weight gain, except from water or non-digested food in your gut. Water and non-digested food in one's gut do not make one fat.If you have Eating Pattern X at which you establish a steady and healthy weight, and then you experience a change in body chemistry or environment that causes your metabolism to slow, you will begin to gain weight if you continue to follow Eating Pattern X.Being fat does not mean you are morally reprehensible, or weak, or ugly. It means you're fat.If someone is fat, that fat came from somewhere. It did not enter the fat person by osmosis through the bath water or as a curse from the fairies. It entered by way of his or her mouth.You can control what you put in your mouth.No one requires you to eat more than your body needs to sustain itself. Therefore, your weight is under your control.Seriously, what is so controversial about this? I am fat, and I am not happy about it, but I also don't pretend that my fatness is caused by factors outside my control. I am 100% responsible for being fat. I eat too much. This does not make me a bad person, or even decrease my worth. It means that I am responsible for being fat. And in 99.9% of cases, this is true with other people, too. Even those with a glandular condition. If you eat much more than you need, you will get fat. If you stop eating more than you need, you will get thinner. That is not controversial; it is biology. Obviously, I have touched a raw nerve for some people. I am sorry your feelings are hurt. Such was never my intent. But I don't apologize for the facts I said, because they are true. OF COURSE people are fat because they eat too much! How else would they GET FAT? But as I would rather not offend the list members, and as those who accept the truths I have stated already believe me and those who reject them will simply continue to refuse to admit what anyone can see by looking, I see no value in continuing to assert the trivially obvious. My apologies for offending by my manner of speech.

Parents are responsible for educating their children. The public school system is provided as a help to parents to achieve that goal. Parents need not avail themselves of the services of public schools. It's a completely different argument from health care.

What makes you think the division of the earth in Peleg's day is geographical? A political division is far more likely to be the meaning. Hate to tell you folks, but the continents were divided a very, very, very long time before there were any people around.

"To dress down" means "to scold". It was meant as a joke. Ha, ha, ha...oh, never mind.

I'm not sure it's a meaningful distinction. We tell our children, "You can choose your actions, but you can't choose the consequences of your actions." We could equally well tell them, "When you choose your actions, you are choosing the consequences of those actions."

Steam? Stirling? Internal combustion? By "build", I don't mean just assemble, I mean actually create the parts.

Special thanks to Hugh Nibley and his discourse "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book".

I have no idea, mileys. It is my opinion that no one else knows this, either. If someone does, it is because God has revealed it to him or her as a private matter, and s/he is not likely to be telling anyone about it. Two things we know: God is just.God is merciful.If we do our best, we will be fine. If we fall short of our best -- which we all do -- we depend on God's grace. Whatever your son's problems in life, my understanding is that repentance and exaltation are still available to him. Do not despair. Just live your life well and assume the best.

Look, I told you where to go for information. If you're too lazy to do your own research, well, I guess you'll just have to wallow in ignorance.

That's because you are forgetting the clear teachings of Theodore Belden Lewis. Shame on you! Don't you people ever read ANYTHING?!

The writings of Charles W. Penrose and George Q. Cannon both suggest the opposite of your conclusion, especially when coupled with Joseph F. Smith's comments. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go do your homework.

I'm really tempted to dress you down for this post. But I won't.

I think you probably are missing something, yes. But then, you may also be right. Is it possible for someone to eat a healthy selection of food that still leaves him malnourished, and yet still gain weight? If this is possible, then I concur with your scenario. Otherwise, it is clearly false. By definition, a "healthy" amount of food is the amount required for proper and healthy functioning of the body. Any less than this amount is "too little food", and will lead to ill health. You are suggesting that it is possible to eat "too little food" (so that you are malnourished) and yet still gain weight; otherwise, the overweight person has but to cut his food consumption. I believe that, at most, only a tiny percentage of people are actually required to eat themselves into fatness in order to remain properly nourished. I suspect that tiny percentage is actually zero, but I concede that there may be the very rare individual who simply cannot get proper nourishment from a reasonable amount of food, and therefore must eat until he is obese to get that nourishment. But certainly for the 99.999% of us who are fat, our problem is not diabetes or thyroid whatever. Our problem is that we eat too darn much.