Prodigal_Son

A Cornell University Researcher (David Pimentel) has revealed: #An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol. # The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU." # Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price." # Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol." # The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."

I had to give a talk on this, and the brethren have given myriad specific examples of what violates the Sabbath. (Just go to lds.org and do a media search on "Sabbath" - and read a few articles from G.A.'s.) And that list includes sports (watching and playing), fishing, chores beyond the absolutely necessary, supporting any business that isn't a medical emergency type of situation, and on and on and on. It's easy to say "be your own judge" - and that's a partially correct answer. But the Brethren, from the pulpit have given many black and white this-is-okay and this-is-inappropriate statements. If it's on that list and you're a repeat offender, in my book you're guilty of lame justifications. That being said, I'm not judging anyone. My Sabbath worship isn't perfect by any stretch, so I won't point fingers at others... but I'm also not deluding myself into thinking that an Apostle's "no" is my "yes".

Okay, I know this thread is old, but I'm gonna kick a hornets nest here: What's with all the fatalistic leanings? Isn't there a promise that the earth will sustain us? Isn't it possible, even LIKELY that Christ will return before the dino-juice is gone? (I have to believe that with a purified Earth and Christ reigning supreme, new options will become known.) I am soooooooo friggin' tired of people saying: let's inconvenience ourselves today, further increase our costs of living, and eliminate practical options - just in case the crap hits the fan in 500 years!!! Idiotic.

Ah, just like that BS we call Ethanol!

How about "creek" being pronounced "crick" ??? My mother, in her late 50's, moved to Utah 10 years ago and started changing the way she pronounced this and other words... how flaky is that?

I still feel there's something I'm not getting. You point out how rare the death penalty was. So why them? You think they were unique? I highly doubt it. There's a piece of this puzzle missing...

It depends on if you speak it with proper inflection or not.

I hope I haven't conveyed that I'm questioning God. NOT AT ALL. Rather, I can tell that I'm missing something - and I'm trying to find just what that is.

They have a Chia Homer Simpson. Intellectually, those two are on the same plane (except that I happen to find Homer amusing).

Thanks for the responses. I'll ponder them for a while. My initial reaction to your comments brings 2 thoughts: #1. I am extremely hesitant to chalk anything up to "misinterpreted/mistranslated" scripture. Your argument is a valid one, and it MIGHT even be right... but I don't at all feel comfortable serving as arbiter to truth in scripture. Call it extreme, but if allowed to write THIS story off, what's to keep us writing other strange doctrines off? To each their own, but unless a GA professes a passage false, I don't feel like we can use that claim. #2. While I accept that the only solution to the quandary I'm about to present is the classic "God's thoughts are not our thoughts", I am dissatisfied with the thought that God struck them down, just like that. If he did it to these two, why not others? Why not Sidney Rigdon? Why not so many others who witnessed the Pentecost in Kirtland - only to LIE ABOUT THE PROPHET AND TO HIM - just like this NT story? I just feel like there's more to it than "they got what they deserved"... but I could be wrong...

Perhaps... though Joseph didn't correct it as he worked on translation...

I was studying in Acts the other day, and I came to the part where Peter and the others have converted thousands and they begin to live their rendition of the United Order. Annanias and Sapphira sell some land, pocket some of the proceeds, and then lie to Peter's face about it - as they make partial payment into the Order. Then, as punishment, both (seperately, but on the same day) die in front of Peter. Here's my question: What's up with the Law of Moses deaths? The Apostles are striving to teach the New Testament of Jesus Christ, but then these two casualties SCREAM direct-and-immediate Old Testament punishments. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I'd love to feel this thing out and draw some additional conclusions beyond those which I currently have. Thanks, all!

Right with you on this one. I don't come here looking for doctrinal answers. That would be not only foolish - but proof that you aren't ready for the answer - because you aren't willing to commit to finding it the way the Lord has provided. For me, I come on here to CONVERSE, not to study. I absolutely LOVE spiritual discussions. I love researching church history... But, in spite of living in Utah, I don't have peers that want to actually discuss doctrine or read the books I'm interested in. I find that MOST Saints don't want to really talk church unless we're AT church. I find that deep waters turn off (or just bore) MOST members. It's sad, perhaps even cynical... but it's the reality I experience. Thus, if any are like me, perhaps Internet Mormons (at least partially) consist of those of us who are committing our in-between-moments to making the Gospel of Jesus Christ a bigger part of our lives???

I'd have never guessed that Barbara Boxer was one of the 4 horsemen (??horsewomen??) of the Apocalypse. But then again, my avatar shows photographic proof of one of the others....

"If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more." So is that a threat? Is she going to do this to us herself? Or was she given the Sealing Powers of Heaven? If so, I might need to rethink my political stances...

I chose YES - partially because I suspect that will prevent me from ever having to face the issue. The fact is, though, that I just couldn't afford it. One wife already outspends my income.

There are some nutters on the internet. I first delved into lds forums with an apologetics site. I gave it up rather quickly because so many of the posters had removed FAITH from, well, our FAITH. They were so determined to PROVE the veracity of our claims that this drove them to wild speculations, unauthorized justifications and excuses, etc... It turned me off fast. I seem to remember an applicable anecdote in Truman Madsen's Joseph Smith audio series where, when discussing the tree of the gospel and the myriad branches of doctrine, Joseph admonished that we stick as close to the trunk as possible. THAT's where security is. THAT's where safety is. THAT's where Truth can be found and known. .................................. The only other distinction I'd like to present between church and internet is the facelessness of the internet. Chances are, we'd discuss a lot more of the greyer doctrines in church - were it not for the fact that the Bishop's sitting 2 chairs over, that our neighbor is to our right, that the older lady who is imposing-just-like-your-mother makes you reticent to say something risky or controversial or stupid. Anonymity loosens the tongue and frees us to explore doctrinal possibilities where doctrinal black-and-white haven't necessarily been revealed.

Regardless of Glines' lame attempt here, the fact of the matter is that TV is all about $$$. And having "thousands of people" tuning in "around the world" is laughably pathetic. What company is going to pay the desperately-needed advertising revenues to a viewing market so piddly? Don't get me wrong - it'd be wonderful to have. But it can't support itself. We're a peculiar people because wholesome, uplifting, and edifying entertainment is not what people want - even a lot of Saints.

Exercise sometimes has the capacity to clear the clouds when life starts to drag. A good long, breathing-hard, sweating-profusely run. That serves as a reset button for me.

Yes we do. We probably don't need new ones, but I'm not going to be pompous enough to pretend I know enough about military intelligence to assume that what we have is effective now and always will be.More to the point, however, disarming (which is what this was about) isn't going to save us money. In fact, it'll cost us. If you want to discuss budgeting concerns, we'll need a new website with massive hosting capacities. Good question. I have ideas, but unless the masses join in, it's not gonna happen. That being said, precedence should not be a free pass for any of them. That's part of the problem. Again, it comes back to the simple little straw that breaks the camel's back. In fact, speaking of camels, it's like that story about letting the camel into the tent... No comment here. I just don't care. If somebody's a scumbag, then why is our president even wasting his limited time with them? Oh, please. Bush was a moron, yes. The Patriot Act, The War in Iraq, his leanings toward globalization were all eyebrow raisers (I'm remaining as neutral as possible here, so as to stay on point). But you're comparing Apples to Oranges. Obama has affected more "change" in a couple of months than Bush did in 8 years. And Obama and his cronies in the Legislative Branch show NO SIGNS OF STOPPING!The cumulative effect of Bush II vs. Obama is certainly an intriguing debate. Bush 's decisions (be they right or wrong) have led to the deaths of myriad soldiers and bystanders alike. This affects generations. Obama, through his taxation, has enslaved the next several generations (which is the same mistake Britain made back in the day - Taxation Without Representation), while failing miserably (thus far) to fix the generation he's supposed to be helping right now. Who's the bigger offender? Hard to say. Bush's decisions came as a reaction to 9/11. Obama's decisions are coming as a reaction to what, exactly? Perhaps Bush was riding a bubble that Obama inherited - ready to burst. Perhaps Obama really IS ashamed of the US and is going to change it to his Marxist liking, come Hell or high water (and, ironically, BOTH of those are possibilities - depending on who you talk to). Personally, Obama is the bigger threat in my book. I'm not sure Bush can tie his shoes without help - and his actions were mostly reactionary (noble intentions to protect us, mingled with poor execution). Obama, however, is absolutely convinced of his moral superiority and no longer feels beholden to the American people. As cliche as it's becoming, he is acting like a ruling monarch, not an elected president. He is sinister. And he's just getting started.

?????? That's the only way I've ever heard it pronounced. How do you pronounce it over there at Hogwarts?

That gives US something to look forward to.

Haha. I love this one. I don't often use it myself, but when applied properly...well, I think it's hilarious. Admittedly, my wife responds to some of my more inane ideas with this one rather frequently...

SHAME for America is not humility. This clown is doing everything he can - as fast as he can - to CHANGE America in every way he can. And often for no more valid reason than to seemingly prove the uninhibited sovereignty of the Executive Branch. Why should we pursue the Missile Defense Shield? For two glaringly obvious reasons:1.) Nukes from Iran. 2.) Nukes from Russia. (Remember their little stint into Georgia? They're not so feeble as they pretend to be. Go read what Ezra T. Benson wrote about Russia...) Here's an excerpt from The Telegraph out of the U.K. The nuclear power balance, as at 2007, was a Russian superiority of 2,146 land-launched nuclear warheads to 1,600 US; this was counterbalanced by a US superiority of 3,168 sea-launched US warheads to 1,392 Russian and 1,098 air-launched US warheads to 624 Russian. What should also be factored in is the leaking, deteriorating, rust-bucket condition of some of Russia’s deterrent ordnance, although it has already decommissioned the most basket-case Soviet weaponry. The bottom line, however, is that it is Russia which is now in the lead in ICBM development, not America. For America voluntarily to reduce its nuclear superiority is madness. Bien-pensant talk of a nuclear-free world displays total stupidity in a global situation where nuclear weaponry is proliferating, not receding. There is even a nuclear bomb in Pakistan, which is teetering on the brink of failed statehood at the hands of Islamist insurgents. Is this a time for America to disarm, to “sell the store” as one trenchant right-wing commentator has already described Obama’s posturing in Moscow? For Obama, success is not the delivery of watertight nuclear security for America; it is a feel-good news conference and photo opportunity that will create huge approval ratings on liberal campuses where the delusions of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war movement still linger on in these isolated Jurassic Parks. It seems certain Obama will sacrifice the anti-missile shield in Europe that would have been our defence against a nuclear Iran after the ayatollahs, with Russian help, emerge as potential vapourising agents of the infidel. The interceptor missiles do not even carry warheads: they rely on an impact at 14,900mph to destroy any incoming missile, so Russian hysteria about this “threat” is synthetic. Because by having that awesome power we successfully curtail anyone's use of nukes against us and our allies. The whole "speak softly and carry a big stick routine". I was more alluding to the cluelessness and collective unconcern among the populace. The American people right now remind me of Mildred Montag (wife of Guy Montag in Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451") who at least PRETEND to be happily clueless and plodding along through life - content with the amusements offered to distract her. Yes, no doubt about it. You may very well be right. I hope so, too. Both guys are/were abusing their power and stretching the limits of their office's authority - and are to be distrusted. In fact, that distrust can and SHOULD be felt towards ALL our politicians.

You guys need to read post #35.