Vort

There, fixed that for you.Well, I didn't say the didn't go, I just said they didn't watch.

It has been widely reported that New Moon is the biggest opening-night release in box office history, bringing in more money in a single day than the yearly gross national product of several African nations. Almost unreported is the little-known fact that not a single male in the entire North American hemisphere has actually watched the movie, thus making New Moon the ideal vehicle for fomenting the long-brewing überfeminist revolution. Unfortunately, feminists despise New Moon almost as much as men stay away from it, so all the subliminal messages fall on deaf ears -- or perhaps more correctly, ears that hear only the voices speaking, "Oh, Edward!"

Are you sure?The kicker is, I'm not even Icelandic!

It was Helam, which may have a direct bearing on the name of his grandson Helaman.

No takers, I guess. Alma and his followers lived as free people for around twenty years, perhaps a bit more. That's TWO DECADES of freedom and peace, almost a full generation! And when they WERE brought into slavery, as they had to be, they were only in that state for a year or two. I draw from this contrast the useful lesson that, even if we are forced (or called, or condemned) to go through hard trials, our actions and our hearts can make that a 25-year horror show or a 20-year blessing and a relatively painless trial that is over quickly.

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Perhaps the "Liberals" are too blind to see that "eradicating poverty" is an impossible job. Better to make a society where those who want to succeed are allowed to try. The fact is, many or most "conservatives" are more concerned about the poor than are the "liberals", as demonstrated by the larger charitable contributions by conservatives. They just think that they themselves should do it, not that it should be turned over to the government to do by force.

What does your wife think about you dating the coworker? You might want to ask your bishop, too.

More chilling evidence:

Well then, please forgive my sarcasm. I don't believe in hauntings or spooky ghosts, so the whole topic seems a bit silly to me. The idea that a loving Father would allow the spirit of a young child to wander aimlessly instead of bringing him home is preposterous, at least to me. Why would you think that a "ghost" would interact with visible E/M radiation, or create mechanical compression waves through air? Surely if spirits were able so easily to interact with properties we can sense, there would be a vast increase in "ghost sightings". Indeed, they should be as common as conversing with other (living) people -- more common, in fact, given how many people have died vs how many are now alive.

I can't argue with this. Perhaps. I vividly recall a newsclip from the late '60s or very early '70s in which a Democratic leader was responding to a claim that the Democrats were looking to legitimize homosexuality. This leader denounced that claim in no uncertain terms, making it perfectly clear that such a thing was in no possible way on the Democratic agenda. Of course, within ten years, exactly that had become an important talking point within the Democratic Party, and today it is anathema for a Democrat to stray from the idea that homosexuality is perfectly legitimate, protected, and "beautiful". Sometimes conspiracy theories are just absurd. Other times, they sound absurd but perhaps are not. The fact that influential and powerful leaders in the political left have openly announced their support for socially subversive tactics ought to raise an alarmed cry among all those who value societal stability. It should be very well-known that the forces behind many present-day movements are the same forces that called for actions to hasten societal disintegration. Instead, this is all but unknown to the masses. If important, influential conservatives had written a paper in the 1960s extolling the virtues of Naziism or fascism, do you think it would be wrong to publicize the fact or to suggest that modern conservative politics were very likely influenced by exactly this agenda?

True. So what is the solution? Do we go ahead and answer the questions, giving them information that they don't have a framework for understanding yet? Or do we just clam up and refuse to answer, thus furthering the "secret teachings" whisperings? The best course seems to be that we give simple, direct answers at their level of understanding. However, this can be very problematic, and requires us to know what they think about things. Otherwise, we cannot give a "true" answer. For example: Someone says, "You Mormons believe you can become God, right?" What is the truthful answer? It depends on that person's level of understanding: For a person with little understanding of Mormonism, the most truthful answer is, "No." We no more believe we can become God then we believe we can become Aunt Mildred. Nor do we have any specific doctrine teaching us that we might occupy the same position that God now occupies over us (though this is commonly believed among many Saints). Since these are likely to be what the person is talking about, the negative response is the most truthful. For a person with a deeper understanding of Mormonism, the most truthful answer may be, "In a sense". We certainly do believe the Biblical teaching of Christ, that we may inherit all that the Father hath. We certainly do believe Paul's teaching that we become heirs to the Father and co-heirs with Christ. So in this case, the most truthful answer is probably a guarded positive.Anyone who asks such a question is very likely in the first group, however. The point is, a truthful answer depends on the understanding of the hearer.

With that innocent expression? How can you say such a thing? [bats eyes]

True and false. The existence of one plan from decades ago (closer to 40 years than 50) hardly reflects current leftist ideals. However, the authors of said paper were important and highly influential figures in leftist politics (the surviving one still is). For example, they were the impetus behind the "Motor Voter" laws. So saying that their paper and their work as a whole has had little effect on leftist political ideals is simply ignoring reality.

I wish it were. Unfortunately, those leftists were (and are) all too serious about what they proposed.

Whoa!!! I think you're right! I think there really IS a ghost there! A dirty-fingered ghost! And I think I see the ghost of his father telling him to clean off that door jamb, too!

Any takers? BONUS BONUS QUESTION: Without looking, do you remember the name Alma and his people gave to their land and city in the land of Nephi?

Ghosts often take the form of door jambs. Darned ghosts.

The label is not arbitrary. They mean different things. If I said "plural marriage (aka law of chastity -- the label is arbitrary)", you would immediately recognize this as incorrect. The same applies to the above statement. We are under covenant to live the law of consecration right now, today. We no longer live the united order.

It is also worth noting that what you are calling the "law of consecration", which is more properly identified as the united order, was entered into by covenant and required the participant to dedicate himself totally to the work he did in the order as well as live by a very strict, very high moral code of conduct. It was as far removed from government welfare (or, for that matter, from communism) as can be imagined.

Clever but meaningless. Swift's famous essay dealt with a parody of 18th-century attitudes. Cloward and Piven's paper is all too real, all too literal, and produced by two respected members of the radical leftist establishment. I find it ironic (yet not surprising) that the response to a conservative pointing out actual and respected leftist antiestablishment doctrine is to cite as a "conservative plan" an unreal, purposely merciless plan produced hundreds of years ago by someone who didn't believe what he was writing in order to mock his political opponents. Is it any wonder that meaningful political dialog is almost totally lacking in the US today? (Btw, what do we expect the response to be? "Hey, lighten up! It was just a joke!" Sound familiar?)

In-N-Out's good, I agree, but FatBurger has them beat all to heck. Given the choice, we would always take FatBurger. (Except I really like the way In-N-Out does its buns.)

Okay. We have established that the main group of southern Nephites under Limhi were in bondage for a full generation. We have also established that the other southern Nephite group under Alma were brought into bondage in fulfillment of the prophecy made in light of their unrepentant state after Abinadi's first mission to them. Next question: How long did the people under Alma live as a free people in the land of Nephi, and how long did they spend in bondage under Amlici? Bonus follow-up: What lessons do you draw in contrasting the Nephites under Alma and those under Limhi?

Oh, I understand. You're asking if there is a Jewish doctrinal reason why the LDS work for the dead is objectionable. Good question. Obviously, I'm not qualified to answer that question, but it does lead me to wonder. I suppose that any religion that sees other religions as necessarily false will believe that their doctrinal practices are in some sense abominable. One of the truly beautiful and great things about the establishment of the US is that it provided for free practice (within reason) for ALL religions, even if their beliefs and practices looked "abominable" to others. Though the US may not always have lived up to that ideal, it certainly has been a great thing.

Not so. If I say that eating is a form of nutrification, it need not follow that all eating is nutritious. I can eat cotton candy, dirt, or animal excrement without experiencing nutritional content. Still, when I take in nutrition, it is typically done by eating. Similarly, true prayer is indeed worship, even if it's possible to pray in a non-worshipful way. I'd say that worship is the adoration and veneration of God. That is the real core of worship. So to ask if God worships is to ask if God adores and venerates God. This is obviously true in the case of Jesus Christ, but not of the Father.