Vort

Review

Blunt truth: The discussion with this guy is a waste of time. (At best.) Yes, you could prove him wrong point by point and show that he is either deceived or lying. Hurray! You win! What's the point? As you strive with this guy, does the Spirit strive with you? If not, there is no point in the conversation. He will believe what he chooses to believe. Even if you do "prove him wrong", do you suppose that's going to stop him? Or do you think maybe you'll help reconvert him to the truth he has left? Neither option is likely. Luke 23:9 "Then [Herod] questioned with [Jesus] in many words; but he answered him nothing." 1 Nephi 8:33 "[T]hey did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not." Sometimes refusing to engage in conversation is the best answer.

The earth is something under 13,000,000 meters in diameter, so it would fit into a cubical box of volume 2 x 10^21 cubic meters (that's two sextillion cubic meters). We can't tell how "big" the size of the square in the picture represents, but we can guess. If it's considered a cube and at the level of the foreground stars, it is perhaps tens to hundreds of light-years on an edge. If it's at the level of the background galaxy, then it is perhaps one or several hundred thousand light-years on an edge. Since a light-year is about 10^16 meters, a cube 100 light-years on an edge will be 10^54 cubic meters in volume, or around 10^33 times the size of the earth. That's around a decillion times larger than the earth, considerably more than "a few million". If we take the larger, galaxy-sized estimate of 100,000 light-years on a side, the volume of the cube represented in the picture is 10^63 cubic meters,which is about 10^42 times the size of the earth, on the order of a billion decillion (a billion billion trillion trillion) times larger than the earth.

As far as I know, Kona is not excommunicated, and can therefore pay tithing.

1. God created life on Mars as a seed for life on Earth: - 1a. Conditions for life were inappropriate on Earth, so God used Mars - 1b. Life arising on Earth was inappropriate for God's purposes, so he created life on Mars that better suited his purposes - 1c. Life arose on Mars to give Earth-based life a necessary counterpart that could not properly develop in Earth conditions 2. Life on Mars arose as a consequence of life that God created on Earth: - 2a. God simply allowed life on Earth to spread throughout the solar system because it's a natural process - 2b. God specifically designed for life to spread to Mars for a reason listed in #1 above or in #3 below 3. Life on Mars exists for its own purposes beyond the purposes that concern man - 3a. God will use life on Mars in the future for purposes that don't concern us - 3b. God has used life on Mars in the past for purposes that don't concern us There are seven off the top of my head. I am sure I could come up with a dozen more, if I wanted to. But it's an exercise in futility. I have little interest in guessing the mind of God regarding the mechanics or specific purposes of his creations; I am much more interested in learning the mind of God regarding my own purposes and duties. For the record, I wasn't trying to stifle your conversation. Rather, I was pointing out what seemed to be an unstated assumption in your question: That we are able to understand the purposes of God in everything he does, and by extension that if we cannot understand those purposes, that somehow argues against God's having a purpose in the thing, and perhaps even against God's very existence.

Why do you think we would know the purposes of God? I could throw out half a dozen possibilities off the top of my head, but it would amount to nothing. That's like saying, "What were God's purposes in creating a brown dwarf in the Andromeda galaxy twenty-five thousand light years from any planet with life?" or "What was God's purpose in creating the pebble two hundred feet under my house that no one ever has or ever will unearth?" or "What was God's purpose in creating the particular molecule of helium that I just exhaled instead of some other isotope of helium?"

Sure you can. Tithing means giving a tenth to the Lord. You can pay 10% of your increase to the kingdom of God even if you are not a member of that kingdom. I have known several people who have done so.

I never tithe borrowed money, because it is not "increase". However, I always tithe money I use to pay back debts. In that sense, I am tithing the original loan plus all interest. Just more incentive to stay out of debt. :)

You cannot possibly know this. The bishop may well have been inspired to keep this young man from passing sacrament, even if he was worthy. Making a summary judgment against a bishop you've never met in a case you know almost nothing about is not wise. On the contrary, I bet most of his fellow ward members know exactly what was going on. Such news doesn't stay secret, and those who know the young girl who lied probably suspected her of lying from the start. Such people gain a reputation early.I appreciate your emotion toward the unfairness of the situation for this young man, and in fact I feel the same way. But blaming the bishop is nonsense, and I doubt even our feminist-influenced man-hating culture will forever condemn a boy for an allegation proved false.

Agreed. Sharing is not the same as tithing. We are not commanded to share all our increase, but we are commanded to tithe.If my boss gives me a $10,000 Christmas bonus, do I tithe that as "income"? It's just a gift, right? Not part of my salary. What about a year-end bonus due to the company doing well? It's not payment for services rendered. Basically, it's a gift. Why tithe that? When I pay my kids their allowance, do they tithe that? If so, why? I already tithed it! It's basically a gift to them. Or should I avoid tithing all the money I pay to them in allowance? If I'm a business owner, I am allowed to deduct business expenses from my taxes. Can I likewise deduct those expenses from my tithing? If not, I might end up paying a whooooole lot more than 10% of my net increase for tithing. On the other hand, if I need not tithe those expenses, then why shouldn't I deduct the cost of gasoline, insurance, and car maintenance from my tithing? After all, I need that stuff to get to work, so it's really just a business expense (whether or not the federal government officially recognizes that). I believe that tithing is a test of our attitude. I ask myself the following: If my bishop asked me to sign over my house and all my belongings to him as a donation to the Church, how long would it take for me to have the deed in his hand? If my honest answer is, "As soon as I could arrange it," then I take my best shot at paying an honest tithing and consider that sufficient. If my answer is anything else, then I suspect my tithing will be insufficient, no matter how I calculate it.

I think your friend has a good point, but I wouldn't express it in those words. Church activity is not directly a matter of testimony or even of resolve. I think Church activity is a habit, and habits take time to form. Each Sunday, I don't wake up, turn to my wife, and say, "Whaddya think, should we go to Church today?" We get up, get the kids up, and get to Church, because that is just what we do on Sunday. If we weren't in the habit of going to Church, it would be much harder. If an inactive (er, that is, less-active) member wishes to become active, I would suggest that s/he absolutely commit to going to Church every Sunday for three months, come hell or high water. After three months, the habit might be solid enough that there isn't the constant struggle every Sunday morning to decide whether you're going or not. It's already part of the routine.

On the contrary, Kona, I make no assumptions whatsoever, except that obedience is always better than disobedience.Your business is just that, and I won't pretend to know your situation better than you do. But neither will I admit that failing to obey God's commandments is ever the best course of action. I believe the opposite.

Your tithe-paying is neither my business nor my interest. I was simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies in what you were saying. Others have scrimped and saved for many years, only to spend it all on a single trip to the temple to be sealed. They have showed their Father in heaven that they care not at all for money, except for how it can help them get what they really want. And what they really want isn't money. You might wish to consider this when doing your calculations.Proverbs 4:7: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." I'm quite sure you are right. This isn't about what the Church needs.

This is true if your point is to give money to a Church of which you are a member. However, the article to which you were responding is titled 11 Steps to Putting the Lord before Your Money and Getting out of Debt, so I assumed you were taking the article at face value. Paying tithing is indeed a step toward putting the Lord before your money and getting out of debt, whether or not you are a member of the Church. Not directly. Rather, all children of God are commanded to join his kingdom by making covenants with him through baptism and following his commandments -- one of which is to pay tithing.

That's correct.Then you are mistaken. Well, that's a different matter entirely. You claimed that it "wouldn't work for [you]." It appears that what you really mean is that you're not willing to do it, not that it wouldn't work for you. Much different, indeed.

Consider your sig: You do what you feel led to do. But I suspect that if you decide to serve a mission, the way will open for you to do so.

Why not? Are you under the impression that you can't pay tithing unless you're LDS?

Not everyone is in a position to pick up and move. Housing, job, education, and the effect on siblings must be considered. Moving may well not be an option.

Why? Because it doesn't lead to the answer you want to provide? A brave statement from someone who has never made a planet before. That's because "supernatural" and "science" are opposite in meaning. Note, however, that one could well say the same thing about "supernatural" and "LDS religion". Your statement is false on several points. First, logic dictates no such thing. Second, and part of the reason for the first falsity, there has been plenty of evidence for a "supernatural" (your word) God. Why did you invent such a fanciful scenario? Just to discredit it? That's straw man argumentation.

"4. Give to the Needy"You can't give to the needy without being Mormon?

Actually, this process is "mitosis". Not to belabor the point, but "evolution" means something entirely different. I'm not completely sure what your point is -- it might well be valid -- but evolution refers to intergenerational change, not individual change.

But this is not at all what evolution means. Evolution does not refer to the individual development of an organism. In fact, a single organism cannot "evolve", because the term only has meaning when applied to a group through time. Evolution happens between generations, not within an individual organism.

So are horses and donkeys the same species? Lions and tigers? There are humans whose DNA is dissimilar enough that they cannot reproduce, or only do so with difficulty. (Ask around at fertility clinics.) Does this mean they are of different species?The whole concept of "species" is an ill-defined delineation of limited utility. Really, it's just verbal shorthand for a much more complex reality. As long as evolution is thought of in terms of speciation, this will exist as a problem. Not really. The odds of a male and a female organism just happening to have the same mutation at the same time and then reproducing is infinitesimal. Mutations happen in one individual, who then propagates that mutation through his/her progeny. If the mutation is beneficial, then eventually it becomes common in the population. If it is sufficiently beneficial, it may supplant most or all other alleles, or may lead an isolated population to become a (sorry for the terminology) new species. Of course I do. Noah was a real prophet; there is no reasonable doubt of that.Do I believe that the entire globe was covered by water? No, of course not. Please note that the Bible makes no such claim, either. I do not believe that the ancient Hebrews had any idea of a spherical earth. When they heard "the whole earth was covered", they didn't think of the globe being coated with water. They simply thought of the land being covered. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Not according to either the Bible or science.Unless I'm mistaken, science makes no claims on whether life has always existed. Science isn't philosophy.The Bible may not make such a claim, depending on how you interpret it. But fortunately, we are blessed with modern prophets who teach us that our own existence is eternal, in both directions.

LDS doctrine requires that Adam and Eve be literal people, and that the fall be a literal event. Presentation of events in the Garden of Eden are almost certainly symbolic to some degree; for example, no Mormon thinks that Satan was actually a snake slithering around the Garden. Many faithful, believing, committed Latter-day Saints think that evolution is a perfectly reasonable and possible explanation for the creation of man. The Church itself has no official stance on the matter aside from the fact that "Adam was the primal parent of our race". I would guess, though, that DS's statement is correct that the majority of Latter-day Saints who have an opinion on the issue probably think the evolution of man is false. I have no evidence of that, but that's my impression from a lifetime in the Church.

You could just say, with a slightly haughty air, "My brother is autistic." If you use a British accent, people will assume you're being snooty, and will treat your brother with new respect, attributing his behavior to the fact that all artists act a bit strange at times.