Vort

I disagree. The scriptures are not a grand puzzle, waiting for some sufficiently smart person to put the pieces together and reveal the whole picture. Such is the thinking that inspires people like John Pratt, an otherwise intelligent man who spends his time involved in outlandish exegesis, numerology, and astrology. Here's a clue: Whenever you're critically reading a scriptural text and start analyzing the underlying patterns and meanings of specific numbers and number sequences, and especially whenever you're reading prophecy and trying to work out specific dates, there is a very high chance you're venturing into crackpot territory.

Yet another example of the true genius of Weird Al. "Go hang a salami! I'm a lasagna hog!"

Actually, I believe that none of these is an unanswered mystery. Even I, an anonymous guy on an internet discussion board, can point to answers for all of them. Sure they could. In fact, paleontologists can do the physics to work out (generally) how large their muscle mass was in order to run, move, etc. Sure there is. Several billion years ago, the proto-earth had stratified much like it is now, with a preponderance of iron and nickel at the core and the outer layers being mostly the less dense silicates and lithium compounds. Current ideas suggest that this proto-earth was struck by a Mars-sized body that caused a large amount of the proto-earth to be thrown into space. This detritus was mostly from the outer region, so it was more of the lithium and silica compounds than the heavier iron, cobalt, and nickel. Much of this material fell back to earth; some of it escaped the planet; and the rest coalesced into our Moon. Sure they have. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond some time. The short answer is that all plants and animals were not domesticated at the same time. For example, strawberries were only domesticated in about the time of Christ, and were only made amenable to large production two or three hundred years ago. Macadamia nuts were only recently domesticated; acorns still have not been domesticated. In contrast, wheat has been domesticated since prehistory, perhaps as early as 12,000 years ago. Similarly, dogs and sheep have been domesticated for well over 10,000 years, while turkeys were domesticated probably no more than 1500 years ago. Sure there is. A well-established principle of biology is that life spreads out to fill available niches; if a habitat can support life, there probably will be life there. Since the high-radiation, high-vacuum environment of interplanetary space is not amenable to life as we know it on earth, you don't find life floating around outer space or colonizing other planets. At least, we haven't found any yet, but that's not to say we won't. Sure there is; it's called the anthropic principle. As for "short period of time", anthropologists estimate it's been seven million years since the human and chimpanzee genetic lines diverged. That doesn't seem too short a period to me. The Book of Mormon gives as good an answer for this as anything: "For when they are learned, they think they are wise..." I would also suggest that technological innovation has been going on for very many thousands of years, and that rapid innovation has been going on for at least the last 500 years -- depending on what you want to classify as "rapid innovation".

Not to worry. It's entirely appropriate to kneel in prayer at home.

I had to wait for my visa, as well. I was in the MTC for two months, then another two-and-a-half months waiting for my visa to come through. In all, it was nine or ten months from receiving my mission call until I finally got visa approval. Be strong, stay close to the Spirit, determine to serve God in whatever manner he sees fit, no matter the consequences. If you do these things, you can't go wrong.

It's not polite to brag. Sincerely, Dirk Steele

Of course not. Where did you get such an idea? Our homes should be the closest thing to the celestial kingdom. Indeed, our homes should in effect be a celestial kingdom. The celestial room is merely a room, albeit one that represents the concept of the celestial kingdom. The model is that we go to the temple, symbolically enter the celestial kingdom, ponder on that ideal, then go home and get busy making the celestial kingdom.

What should I do about my girlfriend's friend named FairChild? I don't like FairChild because she thinks I'm a jerk. Bob

There is a health club near where I live. It is the Rolls Royce of health clubs, and most especially in the locker rooms. The men's locker room features: Dual-level architectureTwo flat-panel TV sets with leather couches and footrests all aroundDry saunaSteam roomFour (!) large, beautiful hot tubsDecor and artwork fitting for (and slightly reminiscent of) a Roman templeOh, and lots and lots and lots of showers, sinks, mirrors, and other restroom facilitiesSeriously, you could go into the locker room and lounge around all day. Some do.The funny thing is, of course, that the real work that makes you healthy gets done outside the locker room. That's where you sweat and groan, hurt and push, and force yourself to do the things that make you a better athlete. The locker room is really just a very posh, comfortable way to wash yourself clean after the workout. Important for good health? Well, yes, but it doesn't replace the weight machines, elliptical trainers, basketball courts, and so forth. I think that, in a way, temples are similar. They are a beautiful place of repose, where we can commune with the Spirit in a way difficult in other places, where we can slough off the world and for a few moments get a small sampling of the divine. But the real work goes on at work, at Church, and especially at home. That's where the the benefit is realized. Like the shower after the workout, the temple is important for our spiritual health, but I don't think it's designed as the primary element in our journey. (Having said that, I suspect that almost all of us could stand to shower a lot more than we do...) Just as you would not expect someone to come in the locker room and start doing pushups or working the heavy bag, I think there are activities which, though perfectly acceptable and even righteous in and of themselves, are perhaps out of place in many areas of the temple -- especially in the celestial room. Kneeling in personal prayer strikes me as one of those.

Then you have grossly misunderstood me. I suspect that, in most cases, kneeling to pray in the celestial room is inappropriate. We kneel as a sign of humility and respect before God, and when we kneel, it is usually in private, as a couple, or in a small group (e.g. a family or quorum). Kneeling in the celestial room does not strike me as keeping in harmony with the spirit of kneeling prayer. Of course, a given individual might be oblivious to this distinction and thus kneel to pray in the celestial room. I would never suggest that the act is innately wrong. But I do think it is probably inappropriate. Apparently, given that some have suggested that temples actually ask people to stand if more than one or two kneel in prayer, I am not the only one.

I took a quiz that said I was a Mormon.

This is false doctrine, plain and simple. Of course, you may believe what you like, but don't for a moment suppose this is what the kingdom of God teaches. It is not. Funny, then, that the scriptures never make this distinction. So if you have faith, then you will never suggest that it's okay to disobey God "if what God asks you to do is wrong", since you trust that God will not command you to do wrong. Do I have that right? I think the last six words of your quote above illustrate my point. Perhaps that's your point, too, and I just haven't understood your expression of it. If so, this is much different from your previous claim that the best recourse to a difficult commandment is to tell our perfect Father in Heaven "where he could shove that commandment".

Hey, c'mon! It's SEVEN GRAND, Soulman! What do you expect? That represents, like, eight thousand boxes of green Jello. That stuff doesn't grow on trees, you know.

If Ben can leg press 2200 kg then he is a pachyderm. I'm pretty sure he meant it in the same sense that I might write, "Today it was 114 degrees out! (That's 20 below for you Canadians.)" Anyway, that's my current theory.

I think Ben's "mistake" was intentional.

Oh well. I'd rather go to hell for doing what I know in my heart to be right than go to heaven for doing something I know to be wrong.So you believe that obeying God is wrong, then, and disobeying him is right. Interesting. If your heart is telling you that God is wrong or evil, then I would suggest you listen to something other than your heart.

There is no such thing as being sealed to only one parent. The nature of the sealing necessarily implies a father and a mother. EDIT: Specifically, a sealing to a parent explicitly states that the child's status is as if s/he had been born in the covenant. That covenant is entered by parents, a man and a woman jointly. There is no such thing as entering into the marriage covenant singly; thus, a child can be sealed only to a couple married in the new and everlasting covenant.

36.211% of statistics are improperly precise. About 50% of statistics are approximations. 103% of statistics don't make sense. 10% of statistics have religious overtones. 99.98%of statistics are very inclusive, while 0.02% are highly exclusionary. 80% of statistics use round numbers.

Dear Lil I Red: I used the word "lorn" and my S.O. scoffed. So instead I used "bereft", and she scoffed yet more. I am deeply wounded. Can you help me understand how best to get cold revenge? Thanks, Lorn and Bereft

I agree, it does.

Kneeling prayer takes two forms: Private prayer, done "in thy closet". Small group prayers such as family prayer, where all present participate.It would be uncomfortable indeed were we to enter the celestial room and see people kneeling in various places, faces scrunched up in prayer while we find a path around them and try to enjoy the celestial room without tripping over the kneeling devouts. Besides, do you really want to enter the celestial room and be greeted by the sight of rows of rear ends belonging to those kneeling at the couches? The celestial room should be a place of quiet contemplation and repose, but not a prayer meeting. I suspect that if kneeling prayer were common in the celestial room, it would change the ambience of that room to something other than what it should be.

That's not at all clear. How does it follow? What do you mean? I don't understand even what you're asking. In general, though, I would say that since you are the one claiming something, it is for you to explain, not me. You didn't answer any of my questions. I'd like to see your answers. I implied no such thing. But I said exactly the opposite, Dr T: Assuming an ex nihilo creation, God could have created me differently. The fact is that he chose to create me as he did, knowing full well what he was doing and what the outcome would be. Therefore, God is responsible for my state in eternity because of how he created me. There are exactly three ways that this may not be true: (1) God is not omnipotent -- that is, he could not have created me any differently. (2) God is not omniscient -- that is, he did not know my final end at the moment he created me. (3) God did not create me from nothing -- that is, I was already preexistent and self-existent. You and I both reject possibilities (1) and (2). That leaves only one other possibility -- which clearly demonstrates that ex nihilo creationism is false. If you disagree, please explain why.

Is this simply an article of your faith, or is there some philosophical or logical reason why you believe this to be the case? I believe this is non sequitur. Can you demonstrate this to be so? Is there a reason (other than that is what you believe) why God's "creation" of all things must mean ex nihilo ("giving them their total being")? I would argue that this is easily disproven. You believe God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), based on the following quotation: If God "created" me in the sense that he "gave me my total being", then in the moment before he accomplished my creation, he knew (because he is omniscient) that I would be an evil creature destined for eternal damnation. He also knew in that moment (because he is omnipotent) how to create me such that I would not be an evil creature destined for eternal damnation. Thus, in any meaningful sense, God, my Creator ex nihilo, is fully responsible for the fact that I am an evil creature destined for eternal damnation. But this is absurd. God cannot be personally responsible for my being evil and damnable. That violates the idea that God is perfectly good. If you accept an omnipotent and perfectly good God the Father, there are only two possible resolutions to this: (1) God is not omniscient (and there are actually some people, including Mormons, that believe this); or, (2) God did not create me ex nihilo. If you reject the former resolution, then the latter is the only possible conclusion.

I remember around the time I was in high school, the big scare was that we were descending into an ice age, with human-caused pollution as one of the primary culprits in the cooling. Same song, second verse.

PC, Earlier in this thread, I quoted Matthew 7:21-27 as a possible LDS response to the OP's question. I'm curious about evangelicals who (unlike you) believe in the "declare-Christ-and-you're-saved-no-matter-what!" doctrine: What is their take on these verses of scripture? Do you know?