Just_A_Guy

As a conservative, I prefer to pray for the death of kittens, puppies, and bunny rabbits.

I wholly concur. Similarly, I would venture to guess that we can pretty much agree that most people who say they "know", probably don't. But to roundly insist that "nobody" knows--and to directly challenge someone's claim of "knowledge" even though one has no idea of what experiences underpin such a claim--would seem to suggest (to me, anyways) that one has deeper concerns than just a fanatical devotion to proper usage of the English language.

Wow. Ten pages is pretty long for a discussion that purports to be wholly about semantics.

This is worth reading.

This may interest you (it's an appendage of this post at By Common Consent, a follow-up to which just came out last week). Wish I could remember where I read it, but my recollection is that after President Taylor died there was some concern that Wilford Woodruff might be too easily swayed by George Q. Cannon, whom some had accused (generally unfairly) of having usurped too much power within the Church. This concern was allegedly the biggest obstacle to President Woodruff's immediate succession.

Thanks for the clarification. But I must confess myself a little confused as to why you dismissed my sum-up of Matthew's account of events on the Mount of Transfiguration with a call to be "realistic", if you weren't trying to at least hint that it didn't happen (or didn't happen to Peter, or didn't happen prior to Peter's alleged denial, etc). I don't. Why, then, did you use the story to support the assertion that Peter didn't really have "knowledge" in this post?

Your point being . . . that the events on the Mount of Transfiguration as relayed by Matthew never happened at all? Why, then, do you take the story of Peter's denial at face value?

Snow, I think we need to bear in mind that at the time of Peter's denial he had already a) seen Jesus transfigured, b) seen the translated Elijah ministering to Him, c) seen the translated Moses ministering to Him, and d) heard the voice of God the Father attesting to His divinity. I know my wife exists. I know she doesn't like it when I cuss. But--wonder of wonders--every now and again, I cuss in front of her. Do I therefore not really "know" that my wife exists? Or is it possible for me to "know" something without fully internalizing all of the obligations that that knowledge gives me?

Could you elucidate, Mason? Wikipedia says that Alma Dayer LeBaron wasn't born until 1886; and I'm not aware that the meeting to which I refer included anyone besides the Q of 12.

If you click on the dot to the right of the name, the drop-down menu still appears . . . after you scroll up to the top of the page (at least, in Firefox). Me no likey.

The irony here is that, prior to about 1840-1850, underwear was not universally worn. (Don't ask how I know this.)

The set has also, IIRC, nearly tripled in price. It seems to me that Elder Richards had some rather impolitic things to say about other religions. That may be one reason for the book's withdrawal from the "approved list".

Can someone explain this "Czars" business to me in one paragraph or less? I haven't been following Beck very closely lately.

I've got to agree with Beefche here. COBRA merely prolongs a pre-existing contractual relationship for a fixed period of time, on the condition that the consumer pay the full price for the benefit he has hitherto received for free or for a reduced price. That's very different than forcing people/entities who have previously decided they don't care to do business together, into a contractual relationship subsidized by the taxpayer.

Hold on a minute. I still want to know if you were implying that no one who hasn't read Mein Kampf has any business criticizing Hitler. I suspected as much. But I didn't think I was allowed to say it. :)

1) Seems a little odd that a bishop would get involved in what is essentially a family dispute--I've never seen it done--but if you're OK with it, then that's all that matters. 2) Let's be honest here. If what you say is true, your SIL is making a concerted effort to destroy your personal, professional, and ecclesiastical life. That is pure evil. You do not "negotiate" with people like that--you defend yourself. I don't mean you get even; I mean you close the avenues she has been using to hurt you. No more contact with her unless she comes crawling on her hands and knees to the bishop's meeting. As soon as you can practically do so, change jobs and don't let her know where your new job is. If she persists, have a lawyer write her an official letter explaining such concepts as "defamation" and "civil stalking injunction". (I don't know exactly what she's accusing you of, but in many states it is still defamation per se to falsely impugn a woman's chastity.)

Dual Screen Laptop on Sale by Christmas

Is ABC still owned by Disney?

Your stake may have had a historian that kept a copy and/or forwarded a copy on to LDS Archives in Salt Lake City. I'd contact both entities.

Fair point about "foreign" cars being manufactured in America. And since lots of those foreign-owned US plants aren't unionized, it's still a fail for the UAW. As for "spend[ing] money they otherwise would have held on to": let's not kid ourselves. They borrowed money they otherwise wouldn't have borrowed. That money will have to be paid back. All the President has done is prolong the inevitable with another macroeconomic accounting gimmick.

The numbers are in. The winner is . . . foreign automakers.

Not enough duct tape?

Not trying to invoke Godwin, but the analogy is too obvious: Have you read Mein Kampf, trulykiwi? If not, aren't you (by your own definition) "clueless" about Hitler and therefore unqualified to make any moral judgments about his policies?

But, can we get this absolute knowledge of God before the final judgment? Before we have been (in this life, or the next) sealed up unto eternal life? We can know many of God's attributes, but I think it's a bit dicey to assume that we know Him completely at this stage of our existence; and then to use such an assumption in order to stuff Him into some kind of box.

Snow, is there a thread here where you've worked out your idea of a) whether Adam and Eve existed at all, b) their role, if indeed they existed, and c) if they didn't exist, then the theological import of their story as related in scripture? I'd be interested to read it. Thanks--