Vort

WomenOfCaliber, that lipstick will give you lead poisoning.

I confess, I don't understand this "proof". You start by assuming x*0=0, then go through a chain of arithmetic that arrives you at the conclusion that 0=x*0. But that was your initial assumption, so as a proof, it appears to be circular. That's because it's not a conjecture or even an observation, but a definition. 0 is the additive identity, defined as that number which, when added to any number x, returns x. Starting from basic number theory principles, it is straightforward to show that the additive identity in the real number system has the value 0, and that the same 0 times any number also yields 0. (This answer is intuitively obvious in language because of our happy choice in using "times" for multiplication.) In any case, the OP is correct. As a group, religious folks suck at math. The unspoken part is that, as a group, atheists suck at math just as badly if not worse.

First apply foundation, then blush, then eyeliner, and lipstick last.

In what sense is such sexual activity between married persons "fornication"? You may consider such a thing "impure" or "unholy", but I don't see how it can fit the definition of "fornication".

My image of you. I'm pretty much the same in real life. Maybe not as obnoxious or overtly know-it-all, somewhat more friendly. But for the most part, WYSIWYG.

It's not equating. It's comparing. It's often easier to see the point in the extreme. For example, if I didn't like my children using a certain harsh word, I might ask them if they would use much more vulgar terms. "Of course not!" they would protest, but the point would be obvious: If you refuse to use vulgar words, you are better off avoiding semi-vulgar words, too. The point about fornication is easy enough to see that almost everyone will understand it. The idea is clear: Fornication is a prohibited practice, so in my house we do not practice or tolerate fornication. Now just generalize this: XXX is a prohibited practice, so in my house we do not practice or tolerate XXX. Is coffee-drinking prohibited? Absolutely, if you're LDS. Is it equal in effect to fornication? Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is, it's a prohibited practice, so we don't do it in our home. Many religions throughout history have viewed fornication and even murder as acceptable and "not a sin". Does that mean that if we found ourselves in such a culture, we should happily accept fornication and murder in our home? Maybe provide a person to rape and/or kill? The fact that "many people" or even "most people" don't find some given practice offensive doesn't really have anything at all to do with whether YOU or I should allow it in our home. Just as I'm sure that many non-Christians find it absurd that something as simple as using the term "God" as an expression of frustration could be viewed as sinful. Yet it is.

The history of the Priesthood is the story of its expansion. Initially, it was patrilineal. Only those in the line of the patriarchs held it. After Israel's time, the lesser Priesthood was given to Levi's descendents, and only they held it. In the meridian of time, it expanded beyond that, and we can assume that even Gentiles probably held the Priesthood. Joseph Smith ordained a black man (of African descent) to be an Elder. But for some reason, those of black African descent were in general barred from holding the Priesthood earlier in this dispensation. We do not know why; many men expressed their opinions or understanding, but I don't believe the First Presidency ever gave a canonical reason why. As at other times, that restriction was eventually overcome, and for more than 30 years the Church has taught the all worthy men may hold Christ's Priesthood and receive the blessings associated with it.

I disagree with this kind of rationalizing. This appears to be legalistic thinking that ignores the spirit of the law. So far as I know, there is no commandment prohibiting us from allowing unmarried or homosexual sex in our homes, either. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. There may be good arguments to be made for the idea of LDS families serving coffee to their non-LDS, coffee-drinking family and friends, but "there's no commandment against it" isn't one of them.

You are probably correct, PC. I know of no coffee-fueled wife-beatings -- though I've been told that coffee withdrawal can be an ugly thing. The point is, the same God that commanded "Thou shalt not kill" also commanded us to avoid thinking lustful thoughts. Certainly lustful thoughts are not as evil or damaging as murder, yet that doesn't make it okay to think lustful thoughts by comparison. I don't think it's a terrible sin for Latter-day Saints to keep and serve coffee to their coffee-drinking guests. I don't know that God takes particular offense at it. Nevertheless, we have been commanded not to drink coffee. If we ask our guests not to smoke, fornicate, or otherwise engage in behaviors that we find improper while under our roof, why not coffee? If I visit my Muslim friend, I don't expect him to serve me bacon, and I'm not offended when he does not. If he did, I would wonder about his commitment to his ideals.

I agree with your husband. When I hear a "letter vs. spirit" argument being used, in 99% of the cases it's someone seeking to justify behavior he knows is wrong: "By going to this movie with my wife on Sunday, I'm building my relationship with her, so I'm living the spirit of the law instead of just the letter.""By not paying tithing, I'm establishing my finances and getting my feet under me so I can take better care of my family, so I'm living the spirit of the law and not just the letter.""Without caffeine I get a headache, so it's actually healthy for me to drink a cup of coffee every few hours. I'm living the spirit of the law, not just the letter."All of these cases are obviously bogus, but typically it's when I hear the idea of "living the spirit of the law and not just the letter." I think much better illustrations of that idea are as follows: "I've already done my home teaching for this month, but I think I'll drop by the Smiths' house really quick and see if they got their roof patched. If not, maybe I can help them out.""Cola is not against the Word of Wisdom, per se, but drinking it always makes me feel unwell and headachy. From now on, I'm going to avoid cola drinks. Heck, I should just avoid drinking soda pop altogether; I'm twenty pounds overweight as it is, and that stuff doesn't do me a bit of good.""Maybe I can do more than just drag myself to seminary every morning at 6:00. I know what chapters we're going over tomorrow; I'll just study that part for my scripture reading tonight, and in class tomorrow I will participate in the discussion."

Would you serve them liquor? If smoking pot were legal, would you keep some weed to offer them? Maybe a filled crack pipe or some heroin? If you put your unmarried friends up for the night, would you offer to let them sleep in the same bed? If they brought a pornographic movie with them, would you let them use your DVD player to watch it? You may respond, "But coffee isn't like those other horrible things at all!" Well, in one important respect it is: All are contrary to the word of God as revealed to us. In an LDS home, LDS standards should prevail. That's not to make our guests uncomfortable, but to establish the values of our own home.

Nice to see you again, PC. Can you explain your understanding of the trinity? What does it mean to avoid "confounding the persons" and "dividing the substance"? How is this accomplished in (your view of) the teaching of the trinity?

Then perhaps you can explain it. Then perhaps you can explain it. Then perhaps you can explain them. That is good to know. I don't know. Which distinction are you trying to make? Who God chastises and who he punishes? I assume he loves the sinner. Early Church leaders who apostasized and then returned spoke of God's chastening of them for their sins, and how it brought them to repentence. They did not seem to make a distinction between chastisement and punishment.

"Murder"? What is "murder"? Murder is the intentional and wrongful killing of another human being. Did Nephi kill another human being? Yes. Was Nephi's killing intentional? Yes. Was Nephi's killing wrongful? No. Therefore, it was not murder. But how do we know that the killing was not wrongful? An act is wrongful if it is contrary to God's commandments. Did Nephi act contrary to God's commandments in killing Laban? Obviously, he did not, since God commanded him to kill Laban. There is, of course, one important difference: Suicide bombers are not actually instructed by God to blow themselves up in order to kill as many people as possible. It's actually a very easy thing, Newcomer. Pretend for a moment that God was speaking to you, and that you knew this to be the God of all creation and of perfect righteousness, who would only command you to do right. Furthermore, refusing to do what God commanded you would be wrong and harmful, both to you and to those you cared about. If that God commanded you to do XXXXX (fill in the XXXXXs with whatever you wish), would you do it? Of course you would. Any reasonable, intelligent person of integrity would. This is magical thinking. God is not magic. He is not "I Dream of Jeannie", where he folds his arms and blinks his eyes and things pop into or out of existence. God has all power, but that doesn't mean that anything you can express in words is meaningful or doable, even by God. Can God make himself cease to exist? Can God make you to exist and also, simultaneously, to not exist? Can God make water stop being water while it's still water? These things have no meaning, even though I can form the words to express them. So I reject the idea that "God could have done [whatever] some other way just by his force of will!" Sure he could have. Instead, God chose to do it the way he did -- by commanding Nephi to slay him. So what? He's God; by definition, whatever he does is good. And I am sure that Nephi learned important lessons by doing this, so much so that many years later, he still took up precious room on gold plates to painstakingly describe this act and the thoughts and feelings that went into it. He could have just glossed over it, you know.

I disagree; I think this is where the discussion finally gets useful. 99.9% of philosophy is a discussion of word meaning. This is natural, since words are not just the vehicles of our thoughts but actually the clay from which they are formed. When we finally reach a point of semantic discussion, often that means that we are finally getting down to the real crux of the matter. So in effect, what you are saying is that the scripture doesn't really mean anything. "Punishment" doesn't mean anything with respect to God, because God never punishes anyone, so therefore a scripture that says "God punishes" doesn't really mean it. That is the crux of the matter, and the very point of our disagreement. I reject that idea. I think the scriptures are indeed meaningful. If God chose to tell us that he "punishes" the wicked, then clearly that means something. What it means might be open to interpretation, but I don't think you can just wave your hands and say "Nah, it doesn't mean anything." It does indeed mean something; it means that God punishes the wicked. When I punish my daughter, am I "doing something negative"? Sure. But I'm doing it to drive toward a positive result -- a better-disciplined daughter. I am not looking to cause her pain or torture her, nor am I seeking to somehow relieve my own frustrations on her poor hide. I am teaching her as any loving father tries to teach his daughter. Nothing negative about that. I believe the main problem here is that you insist on thinking of punishment as "negative" or "bad", and since you can't think of God as "negative" or "bad", you reject the idea that God punishes. But the scriptures very clearly teach that God punishes the wicked and chastises those he loves. You cannot escape it. So you have a choice. You can: Reject the scriptures, claim they don't teach what they very clearly do teach, or simply ignore them and say you don't believe them, and thus continue with your current paradigm.Accept the scriptures and rethink your paradigm, which will probably result in you shifting your thinking on the matter of punishment.Personally, I believe #2 is the wiser choice.

Not this one.

No, of course I do not. That is absurd, and is certainly not what I wrote. Why would there be punishment in such cases? You are using "deceived" to mean a blameless action. Clearly, there is no blame in the cases you mention above. I did not think you were actually asking this at first, because the answer is so obvious that any Primary child could tell you. If you are deceived in complete innocence, there is no moral culpability involved. I already stated that in an earlier post on this thread. So now I'm curious: Why ask such a seemingly obvious question? I agree that if I ask someone to turn on the light, which I have secretly wired to electrocute a hundred people, the person is not guilty of the murders of those people, and God will not punish him for their murders. This seems to be an area of some concern for you. Why? Do you think that you see divine punishment against those who innocently and without guile or knowledge do acts that have bad results?

My opinion is that investigators, like everyone else, learn line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. I feel no compulsion to give a fully detailed presentation about LDS beliefs in the Godhead in response to an idle question, or even a well-considered question. No matter what I say (or anyone else, for that matter), the questioner will not fully understand the doctrine. Our duty is to point him in the right direction to find truth, not to make sure we give him every last morsel that we can find. Sincere seekers will always find the truth. Jesus is God. That is the central fact of importance. That Jim might not understand the statement the same way you or I do is not really relevant -- because I absolutely guarantee you, if I tell him "Jesus is just a God among several", he will not understand that the same way that you or I do. He may very well conclude, as others before him have done, that Latter-day Saints are unChristian polytheists. So which statement leads Jim closer to the truth? "Jesus is God", which is undeniably and unassailably true -- though Jim will understand it somewhat differenty from me -- or the other -- which Jim will certainly misunderstand, not being able to comprehend the ideas from his present frame of reference, and thus is likely to draw a bunch of false conclusions about the gospel and its adherents? In my opinion, the first statement is far truer and more productive. Milk is still good, nutritious food, and babies don't choke on it like they do on bread.

Not sure I agree. Can you give an example? The freeing truth of the gospel is that we can always choose our reactions, and we own our choices. To help them learn the consequences of their actions, so they do not allow themselves to be deceived again. How is it not? Point 1. A person is deceived to act contrary to what they would have done without the deception. (If they had not been deceived?) This is what we commonly call "temptation". Satan deceives us into believing that the rewards of carnality exceed the rewards of spirituality. For this reason, we are commanded not to be carnal, not to yield to temptation, and not to be deceived. Point 2. What do I expect from a just and merciful God (complete with the "o") concerning the person deceived? I expect that God will deal justly and mercifully with the person. This just, merciful action may include explicit divine punishment and will almost certainly include allowing the person to suffer the consequences of his/her actions. In this way, the person will hopefully grow wiser and not allow himself/herself to be deceived as easily the next time.

To answer the original question: I believe that our choices reflect and reveal our "real nature". People don't choose contrary to their real nature. If a person is truly deceived in that they do not understand what they are doing, then no, I don't believe there is any moral taint to that. If you innocently choose the wrong road that has a bridge out and someone dies in the ensuing accident, I don't believe you're morally culpable of murder. But if you ignore a sign that you should have seen that says "Bridge Out" or you go around the roadblock or something, then yes, you do indeed bear some moral responsibility for the accident and its consequences. You may not be guilty of murder, but you're guilty of something.

I am examining threepercent's statement: "I dont believe that that G-d punishes anyone, at all, ever, anywhere, period." Good recommendation. Is that the recommendation you would make to someone who said, "I dont believe that that G-d punishes anyone, at all, ever, anywhere, period."? Because if so, I missed your response to threepercent.

That's fine, we understand differently, and LMM made a comment, too. But that doesn't answer the scriptures. You said that you don't believe God ever punishes anyone. You were emphatic. I referred you to some scriptures that seem to me to disprove your emphatic belief. How do you respond to those scriptures? Saying, "Well, we just have to agree to disagree" is just another way of saying "I don't believe any scriptures except those that teach what I already believe anyway."

I believe I understand what you're getting at, and I completely agree. Words are merely a representation of ideas, and ideas are merely a mental model of external reality. Our ideas don't represent reality perfectly, and our words don't represent our ideas perfectly. So our words are bound to be wrong on many occasions. The Spirit is the singular method through which we may learn everlasting truth. However, regarding your sentences above, I admit that when I don't feel the Holy Ghost when reading scripture or listening to a General Conference address, my default assumption is that I am somehow deficient, rather than that the doctrine is false. I have only rarely been proven wrong using that method. :) But when conversation drifts away from how the kingdom of God operates and what the saving doctrines are, and becomes people repeating a speculation by BH Roberts about what Section 20's wording implies (an implication that those closest to Joseph Smith himself didn't even share), I feel no compunction about disagreeing with such. That's what it's really about, isn't it? Moses wanted to make a nation of kings and priests, but his people were unable or unwilling to meet that standard. Three thousand years later, the Lord has chosen us to be his people and is again trying to create a nation of kings and priests -- but for that to happen, we need to be prophets and prophetesses, each of us.

Let me try to clarify, pam. As far as I know, I have only spoken pure LDS doctrine. You may take my words however you wish to take them, of course. But I clearly pointed out that Jesus and God are separate individuals, not "one and the same", so I am at a loss to understand how you could read what I wrote and get that idea, especially given that you are LDS and believe the same things I believe. We are monotheists. We do not believe in a pantheon of heirarchically ordered gods, with Elohim as Zeus and Jehovah as Apollo. We worship one God. That God is the Father. In the previous two sentences, I used the word "God" in two slightly different ways. In the first of the two sentences, the word "God" means "supreme ruling power", and refers to what we Latter-day Saints sometimes call "the Godhead". It consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In the second sentence, I referenced "that God", meaning "God" in the first sentence, but referred specifically to the Father. In the full sense of the word, we worship the Father and no one else. The Father is our Father, our Creator, the Almighty. He is the Author of the plan of salvation we are now working through. It is through his power and his word (which is to say, Jesus Christ) that all things were created. Jesus himself made it perfectly clear that all glory, all power, and all might be ascribed to and given to the Father. It is to the Father and to him alone that we pray. We do not pray to the Son. We do not pray to the Holy Ghost. Our covenants are made with the Father, not with the Son or with the Holy Ghost. When we use the term "God", it almost always is in reference to the Father -- though Jesus is clearly part of the "Godhead" and Jesus clearly has been raised to be equal to the Father, so it is also perfectly true and appropriate that we refer to Jesus as God. (I try to avoid referring to Jesus as "a God". Technically, it is a true statement, but it has a distinctly unpleasant polytheistic ring to it, and invites scorn and misunderstanding from non-Latter-day Saints who hear such terms being used. Non-LDS Christians would have to agree that, for example, the Father is "a God", but they would never use such terminology, since the presence of the indefinite article implies more than one God. In LDS theology, we understand the subtle distinction between the Godhead and its individual members, but non-members have no such understanding. Better to avoid the issue entirely.) It is perfectly approriate to refer to the Father as "God", using that to represent all the members of the "Godhead". It would be not unlike referring to President Monson as a placeholder for the First Presidency. The decisions of President Monson ARE the decisions of the First Presidency. The First Presidency is the highest ruling body on earth over the kingdom of God, but since President Monson presides within the First Presidency, his decisions and their decisions are essentially indistinguishable. Each is called President, yet we don't have three Presidencies, but one. This is superficially similar to but deeply unlike the unbiblical idea of a "trinity", where the worshippers seek to avoid "dividing the substance" or "confounding the persons" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This seems to me to be really just a fancy way of trying to eat your cake and have it, too, wherein "God" gets to be "one in substance" -- that is, one single Being -- but somehow maintain three separate identities, and this difference is somehow acknowledged to be important. The trinity doctrine is considered by larger non-LDS Christianity to be a "mystery", which in non-LDS terms does not mean something that cannot be understood except through the Spirit, but rather something that cannot be understood at all. Ironically, while larger Christianity considers us to be an apostate and polytheistic sect, Islam considers Christianity as a whole in exactly the same light due to the "trinity" doctrine.

Nor do I agree on your self assumptions or pure speculation.I do not know what "self assumptions" you're talking about. But I see that you still haven't answered my question. Come on, Hemi. Are you going to engage in conversation or not? You have made a statement: "Jesus was born on 6 April 1 BC." Now please explain what that means. If you can't explain its meaning, then how is it a meaningful statement? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Which is the "significance [i assume that's what you meant] factor"? Are you saying that Jesus is "the prophet already seen"? Who would the "prophet not already seen" be? I think maybe you're missing a verb or something. If that's how you want to break things down, then of course you have your answer. (Unfortunately, I still do not have mine...how hard is it simply to explain to me what the date means that you propose as Jesus' "birthday"?)