Vort

It is an interesting topic. However, I would strongly caution against attempting to make any "proofs" of the Book of Mormon. Such an attempt will surely fail; the Lord expects us to exercise faith in him and receive our testimony from his own mouth, rather than dig up a sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla". Having noted that caution, I think the subject is fascinating. To the surprise of just about everyone, written Egyptian was found to be a phonetic language. Specifically, the hieroglyphs had a phonetic value, and were used in conjunction with other hieroglyphs that functioned as "logographs" that represented words or ideas (technically, they represent morphemes, or meaningful basal linguistic units). They also used hieroglyphs and marks as determinatives to specify how a word was being used (so, for example, if you wrote the glyphs for "bell" and you also had a god named "Bel", you might want to put a symbol or mark afterward that specified "this is not a deity"). If you gave such a system some thought and greatly restricted the vocabulary allowed, you can see that you might well end up with a tremendously effective shorthand way of writing, highly compact and efficient, if a little short on expressive synonyms. In other words, something remarkably like the text that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated from...

I have noticed a tendency among some here (and other places) to say "let's agree to disagree" whenever they can't substantiate their argument. As near as I can tell, "let's agree to disagree" really means "I don't believe you, but I can't disprove what you say or buttress my own arguments, so instead of admitting that I might be wrong, I'd rather drop the whole topic." Which is fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn't seem to me a very useful way to find truth. Can you imagine if Pasteur's contemporaries had said, "Let's just agree to disagree about this 'microbiology' stuff"?

Why do you think that is the question? I don't think it is; I think everyone freely acknowledges that the answer is "Yes". Personally, I see the question as completely irrelevant. Did someone in this thread say it's not natural for a homosexual to experience same-sex attraction? Because if so, I missed it. Not true, and certainly not "end of story". I don't deny that there is a biological component, but if you had been taught from infancy that women were dirty and repugnant, and that homosex was the pure and preferable way to copulate, then like many of the ancient Greeks, you would likely find your "natural" inclinations tended toward the masculine persuasion. You would find women useful for keeping house, having babies, and tending children, and would save your deeper sexual affections for your catamite. Strangely enough, even the ancient Greeks who exalted homosexuality so highly still managed to understand that marriage is of necessity an intersexual relationship. Neither the ancient Greeks nor any other ancient culture of which I'm aware ever practiced "homosexual marriage". Please point out where anyone suggested such a thing. I think you're using a red herring. But this is true by definition. Even homosexuality is uncondemned as long as it is kept within the Lord's bounds -- which is to say, it is not acted upon. I do not believe the scriptures ever make any such statement. Please back up your claim. Pride cannot be "kept pure" any more than raw sewage can be "kept pure".

You are much kinder than I am. Thank you for your example. PS My own personal observation is that men tend to have more feeling attached to sex, not less, which is why promiscuous men seem on average more messed up than promiscuous women. Male promiscuity tends to lead to men who almost lose the ability to feel love at all; in women, this same tendency seems less pronounced. At least, that's how it looks to me.

My grandma died in the mid-1980s and my grandpa in the mid-1990s. They both worked in the temple, and AFAIK they both continued to drink coffee (I think they switched to Sanka in the 1970s) throughout their lives. Not disagreeing with the spirit of what you're saying -- I would be mightily surprised at a bishop today giving a temple recommend to someone who blatantly violated the word of wisdom by drinking coffee, even Sanka.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured. When you can't defend a proposition or give a cogent, reasoned argument to back up your opinion, just trot out the tired "agree to disagree" line.

Thanks. Actually, I already knew that. Still waiting for your reasoned response to what I wrote.

We disagree.That much is obvious. How so? So is engaging in anal sex. You are wrong. I assure you, it is completely natural to me to want to fornicate with multiple women. It is completely natural to me to want to get maximum return with minimum effort. And it is completely natural to me to want to revenge myself on those who mistreat me. All of these things are completely, utterly natural to me. None is so blind as she who will not see.

If, as a teen and young man, I were to have been similarly "true to myself" and refused to "live a life that was not me", I would have fornicated incessantly and with many girls, lied and cheated my way through school, and figured out a way to torture and perhaps kill those I didn't like. Instead, I subjected myself to civilization and tried to live by the precepts of the gospel. Today, I still exert effort to avoid such evils as I mentioned, but I believe I am very much better for having chosen to live by principle rather than "being true to myself." So why exactly do you feel proud of someone for having chosen the lesser part? I have never understood that line of reasoning.

If no one knows, as you (correctly) claim, then how do you know that "certainly it's different than having a child of flesh and bones"?

Why not, that was Satans plan,I see no evidence that Satan had a "plan" beyond usurping the glory of God. If you can teach me the scriptures that tell of this Satanic plan, I would love to hear. No, he could not do so. Suggesting he could do so betrays a misunderstanding of what exaltation means. Compare Alma's teachings to his son Corianton about the meaning of "restoration".

I don't believe the scriptures ever teach that Satan had any such "plan". The only teaching I find that bears any slight resemblance to what you have said is that Satan proposed a modification to the Father's plan in order to usurp his glory: Of course, Satan had no way to make good on his claim; he was lying, as should come as no surprise to us. As I said before, I concede that, if you refer to Satan's desire to destroy our agency as an attempt to "force" us, then that might qualify.

I believe this is false. Could God force us to be exalted? Clearly not. Again, I believe this is false. Satan wants to destroy us, as he has wanted to do since he fell. I know of no scripture suggesting that Satan tried to "force us" to do anything -- unless you mean he wishes to destroy our agency. In that case, I agree. I was going to object to your wording, but in fact I think you've touched on a deep and important truth that I am only just beginning to understand. Exaltation, salvation, indeed existence itself, seem to be communal efforts. No single entity called "mankind" will be judged before the bar of God or receive its single everlasting inheritance, yet in some manner our progress as individuals is circumscribed and even defined by our progress as a species. I still don't know what to make of this, but it seems to be a true principle.

If you believe the scriptures, you must believe in divine punishment. The flip side to that is that it appears that "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth" (Hebrews 12:6). Divine punishment is real, but appears to be confined to his covenant people. As a general rule, it doesn't appear that the "unwashed masses" are subject to divine punishment for misbehavior, just the natural consequences of their actions.

No, it is not possible to study and pray too much. However, it is possible to study and pray at inappropriate times. Remember Elder Oaks' recent General Conference address about "Good, Better, and Best"? If you're studying scriptures prayerfully when you should be getting your reports done at work, then you are not acting appropriately. As long as study and prayer are the best things you could be doing at the moment, you cannot do them "too much".

Vitriolic orations rarely triumph.

Vort, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Can you explain the bolded portion?What I mean is this: In our society, we have developed an idea of sexual consent and defined it to mean that a person gives permission for sexual activity when that person is legally capable of giving such permission. If the "age of consent" is 16, for example, then a girl who is 15 years 364.99 days old cannot legally consent to sex -- yet she can 15 minutes later. This makes no sense in either a biological or a common-sense way. I have known several 13-year-old girls who could pass for 25. If one of these consents to sex with a 22-year-old man who assumes she is his same age, should he really be convicted of rape? What sense does that make? To clarify: If Roman Polanski were put away for the rest of his life, I would not object. The guy is scum, and the fact that the likes of Woody Allen and Whoopi Goldberg rush to his defense only proves the point. After reading many of the links others have supplied in this thread, I have not the least shred of sympathy for Polanski. He is a child rapist in any realistic sense. My comment highlighted above does not apply to him.

That doesn't sound like an "outie", it sounds like a hernia. She should get it surgically corrected.

I agree with your feelings on this matter. Having said that, I see a huge difference between a man forcibly penetrating a woman who doesn't want him or who is incapacitated and a man having sex with a physically adult woman who is not legally allowed to give consent. They are two different crimes that (in English) happen to share the common legal name of "rape". I have little sympathy for Polanski and his apologists, but I believe the muddy thinking on this issue is not all on one side. For the record, I do not disagree with the DOJ on the matter. I would just like to see a sober, clear-eyed, non-histrionic treatment of the matter in public discussion. (Like THAT's likely to happen.)

I invite my children to fast, starting from the age of six or eight. If they don't want to fast a full day (which the younger ones never do), I invite them to fast for a period of time, e.g. to skip breakfast. By the time they're twelve or so, I let them know that I expect them to participate in a full fast unless they're too sick. But I don't force them to do so; it's their choice.

Of course it is eating a meal. That's the whole point of the sacrament -- it's a reenactment of Jesus' last supper with his disciples. It is only a token meal, but it is still a meal. Mamma mia. No, it is not breaking the spiritual ordinance of the fast, though strictly speaking is is breaking the physical ordeal of the fast. Fasting per se is of little value, unless it is accompanied by sincere prayer and used as a spiritual ordinance. Ma senza dubbio avete gia realizzato questo punto...

Children think their parents are God. They assume their parents have complete control of any situation, and implicitly put their entire trust in their well-being into their parents' hands (like they have much of a choice in the matter). That is how we are supposed to act with respect to God -- the difference being, God really is God.

Rachelle, if you were my sister, I would advise you to leave your unfaithful husband and let him live his life without you, while you go on to make something better and more beautiful of your time here on earth. But since you're not my sister, I'll just keep my thoughts to myself... EDIT: I realize that, in saying this, I would be violating my own stricture against ever advising someone on the internet to leave his or her spouse, which is exactly why I kept my thoughts on the matter to myself...

The following is not LDS doctrine, merely my interpretation of LDS doctrine. That said... The so-called "Parable of the prodigal son" is not primarily about the wandering prodigal; it is clearly about the "faithful" elder son. It is the third of three parables talking about the rejoicing of those who find that which was lost. Remember, the pretext to these parables was the Lord being criticized for dining with sinners. In response, the Lord told these three parables. The first was about a lost sheep, and how the good shepherd leaves the ninety and nine in the wilderness to go after it. The second was about a piece of gold lost by a woman, who then sweeps her house diligently until she finds it, then rejoices with her friends in finding the thing of value. In both cases, the focus is on the finding of the lost thing of value. Then, to bring this point home to his listeners (who doubtless comprised more than just the "Pharisees and scribes" mentioned), he told the parable of the wandering son and the faithful son. The point of this parable was not to pass judgment on the wandering son; his foolishness was apparent to all who heard. Rather, the focus was on the reaction of the elder son, who, rather than rejoicing in the return of "thy brother" (as his father put it), instead burned with resentment at the treatment of "this thy son" (as he castigated his father). Remember, in the verse immediately preceding the beginning of this parable, the Lord teaches that "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." Clearly, the elder son was not [yet] numbered among "the angels of God". He needed to learn the lesson of rejoicing in the repentant sinner rather than complaining that all his faithfulness was "vain" (cf. Malachi 3:14 "Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts?") I don't believe this parable says anything about the reward of the faithful versus that of the repentant sinner. If it does, then it is certainly to our condemnation, because we all surely fall into the category of the prodigal rather than the "faithful" son.

True but irrelevant. The sun is bright. The moon is dimmer than the sun. The stars are much dimmer than the moon. That is the entire point of Paul's comparisons. The specifics of the stellar fusion cycle have nothing to do with it. Probably not. The comparison was based off of Paul's teachings, not from then-current ideas in astronomy. In any case, the nature of such comparisons is that the parallel fails when looked at too closely. This is obvious. If I say that a man with a severe skin disorder has skin "like tree bark", you won't have to look too hard to find numerous discrepancies between tree bark and the man's skin. You will quickly conclude that the man's skin is not actually tree bark at all; rather, they are two completely different things. Congratulations! You have discovered the obvious. Similarly. the future kingdoms of glory might be compared to the light of the sun, moon, and stars, but even a cursory examination of those symbols will turn up lots of discrepancies. That's why they are symbols of truth rather than the truth itself.