bytebear

As a web developer, you will always get confusion and complaints with any user interface change. You just gotta get used to it, and work out the bugs. And Pam, you need to tell your development team to turn off "magic quotes' which is the bane of PHP designed site.

I would change "invisible" to unseen, since God clearly is not invisible. And the Bible does teach that we will inherit all that He has, that we will share the throne of Christ. And, yes, we cannot do it without Christ. Christ opens the door. But that door leads to infinite and eternal possibilties.

Oh and my Wii

I had the choice between a fully loaded used car, or the basic model. The basic model was sold by a dealership and had far fewer miles, the fully loaded car was sold at a corner used car lot, so the choice was between lots of options from a used lot, or a basic model with fewer miles and still had the new car smell from a dealer. Both were the same price. I chose the basic model (and a dealer warranty), but sometimes I miss not having a sunroof, heated seats, radio controls on the steering wheel, etc. I guess I am just too practical.

Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact - FairMormon

You can be baptized even if you are transgendered because the ordinance is gender non-specific. You will likely need to have interviews with higher ups in the church however, since your situation is unique. You will likely not be allowed temple participation because it is gender specific and since your gender (in this life) is ambiguous, the church cannot determine your spiritual gender, although a revealed answer by the First Presidency could determine that. It's simply a matter of ensuring the ordinances are performed correctly, and it may be that God reveals your spiritual gender, or He may not. That's why things are decided by the First Presidency. Bishops are simply unequipped for such decisions, as are missionaries. But, meet with the missionaries, and let them know the situation. They will be able to teach you, and then make sure the proper steps are taken to prepare you for baptism.

Alma 32

At the old place, we had mice. Turns out they were grabbing peaches and then sneaking into the garage to eat them. We fixed the grate to the garage, did poison, which apparently worked but we only found like 2 dead mice. I think if you can find where they are coming in from, you will solve the majority of the problem. Also, they have poison traps that are encased in big plastic boxes so other animals can't get to the poison.

The Book of Mormon musical mocks cultural issues and a few doctrinal issues with cultural connotations, but it doesn't mock the sacred, which I think shows they didn't want to cross certain lines. They also do have an overall message that the church does make people's lives better (even with all those silly beliefs). So I see it as a positive. However, they are major potty mouths, which is disappointing.

I like the song Hello, but that's really about it.

I admire anyone who takes in foster children, or tries to help kids out of a bad situation, but what about surrogacy? I am torn, because I get that you want a perfect baby, but there are so many imperfect kids who need to be helped too. And I really find it selfish to be a single (as assuming working) parent who chooses to have a child alone (or raised by nannies). For gays, they must have a third person involved. It's simply inevitable. It's bad enough our society has made it that both parents have to work, or that so many kids are born to unstable homes, or just terminated out of convenience that we don't need to add to that. So, the church is working toward an ideal world, one where every child is conceived by a couple who is prepared to raise that child together.

That's a bit of a red herring. The church's "13 counts" were actually 13 days of not filing a document. It was an oversight. Those opposed to the church's position have made a mountain out of a molehill. The church simply corrected a very minor oversight that happened to be found 13 days late. Also the "Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar" is very misleading ("coordination" does not equate to contribution). The fact is some Mormons contributed to the other side, but no one is saying that was the church's funds.

The church teaches correct principles and lets the members govern themselves.

I find it interesting that a Muslim is critical of the LDS Church and confused about some members not agreeing with the church's involvement over this issue. Certainly most Muslims would have homosexuals killed outright and various sects of Islam have this in their belief system (if not practice). Is that not your position as well?

The simplest answer is this. There are blessings gained by having a "traditional" marriage. Children cannot be sealed to a single parent. They can only be sealed to a mother and father who are sealed to each other. This is simply the way sealings work, so any non-traditional family, including children born out of wedlock, children raised by a grandparent, or children adopted by anyone not temple worthy (including non-members). It's not that the church is trying to punish people who by choice or by circumstance do not fit into that mold, but they cannot simply change the family unit that God has established. So, the church will do everything they can to make sure members (and non-members) are afforded all the blessings they are entitled to, but some blessings are simply not attainable in this life, and as such, the leaders of the church are going to encourage behavior and decisions that do afford the potential for the greatest blessings this life can bring (which may include a child raised in a non-traditional situation if the alternatives are worse for the child). It's not fair to criticize the church for not extending blessings that cannot be given.

I simply can't assume that 1000 years means exactly 1000 years or even around 1000 years. I take "millennium" to mean a very long time, longer than we can imagine and who knows it may be a logarithmic scale.

My thoughts are these. Although we now have a portion of the papyri, we don't have the full set of documents, and secondly, we don't know the nature of the translation process. Smith produced translations two ways. The Book of Mormon was translated using "interpreters" also called the urim and thummim, and apparently seer stones. The process is not entirely clear and seems to have evolved into a more fluid process once Smith got the hang of how to translate. The Book of Moses and other JST translations came to Smith through the mind, and possibly using seer stones, but certainly not from original manuscripts or transcribed from existing documents. They were "translated" by reading the existing text and inspiration flowed. They are not, to my understanding, literal translations. They are not scholarly corrections to the text to make them fit the original authors thoughts and text. They are meant to clarify and expand on the original message. Most people assume the Book of Abraham was a variant of the Book of Mormon translation, but I believe it was more akin to the second process. The only difference was that funeral Egyptian scrolls acted as the catalyst for the prophetic writings to flow, rather than the Bible. So, if Smith can be a prophetic scribe for the Book of Moses using nothing more than the Book of Genesis, why not also create the Book of Abraham from funeral scrolls. Now, he may have believed his visions were a direct translation, and certainly early church leaders and members felt it was a literal translation, and so you may want to debate why Smith or others believed that. Regardless, that doesn't change the prophetic calling of Smith or the truth that flowed from his inspired texts.

I am a child of the 80s, right smack dab in the middle of GenX, so I have a soft spot for alternative rock, although as I have mellowed with time, I find that I don't really have a genre any more. I like certain songs from country to rock to musicals to big band and instrumentals. I don't really care for rap or hip hop. And I really don't get house or anything with a redundant thumping over and over.

I look at it this way. The concept of us becoming gods and populating worlds is the natural conclusion based on the knowledge we have (including some very compelling Bible verses). In a parallel thought, the majority of Christendom believes in a Trinity of persons who make up God. Although we don't agree on the details, I get that it's a natural conclusion based on their knowledge. Now, neither doctrine is perfectly spelled out, but are inferred from current understanding. But, if one were to paint the Trinity as a three headed God, or a blob like creature who can shape shift and is really good at ventriloquism and has multiple personalities, I would have to say that they really don't understand the nuances or nature of the Trinity. Similarly the concept of eternal progression is far nuanced, and frankly if Christians were constantly mocked for believing in a triune God, I would probably downplay the three persons, and emphasize the monotheistic aspect of God.

"A veritable swimming pool of water greets you when you open the toilet lid and when you flush, it all goes down the drain in a huge rotating whirlpool.” I'm a little scared. What are toilets like elsewhere?

I think it's a simple but important lesson. We are entering the House of the Lord, and we must be holy to enter into His presence. It simply reminds us that the space is holy, not just because it's dedicated to the Lord, but that those who enter are (or should be) holy.

This may sound strange, but my first funeral was when I was maybe 8 years old. My grandpa took me to the viewing of a neighbor. I guess it was for me to experience it, but it was one of those rare one on ones I had with my grandpa, since no one else went (even my grandma). So now funerals, and particularly viewings make me think of that special experience I had with grandpa, just him and me.

The phrase "Holiness to the Lord" comes from the Old Testament. Exodus 39:30 30 ¶And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, Holiness to the Lord. Exodus 28:36 36 ¶And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, Holiness to the Lord.

I really don't get the controversy. Other than the mocking, the Bible is very clear that we will inherit ALL that God has, and we will SHARE HIS THRONE. How much more clear do you have to be?

Your examples are more about blind faith. I am reminded of D&C 9:8-9: Real faith comes after you have a confirmation of what the Lord wants you to do. This may mean making decisions that may seem foolish to others (or even yourself).