Maxel

The American capitalist system allows for the poor man to apply his talents and lift himself out of poverty. Many of the CEO's of the world's largest companies today started out poor.There are those who abuse the system, yes. But that means abuses of the system are the problem- not the system itself.

I hate to fight against the common current- and I mean no disrespect to anyone- but... I just read over this tread. I don't think Choseph acted like a troll- more like someone who didn't know what to do in the situation he was presented (being invited to a Jewish wedding). Possibly not used to dealing with the religious ceremonies of other faiths. I don't think he intended any undue disrespect when he called Judaism a 'false religion', or mentioned proselyting at the wedding. I think what we have is someone lacking in tact (and possibly a principled understanding of the 11th Article of Faith) who stumbled upon a particularly sensitive subject. Choseph has been tactless in his approach, and has offended our two Jewish friends, but I don't think he deserves being treated like a troll- especially since he's posted on 3 other threads... And on that note... Welcome to the site, afinefellow718!

Ouch. Harsh.I wonder why the change? I guess 'Stain Illinois' would be offensive to Illinois-ians...

My problem with the situation is the agenda of many world leaders to use climate change as a tool to undermine individual nation's national sovereignty. I have nothing against the idea of humans causing negative climate change, nor the idea that we should be good stewards of our planet. But 'being good stewards' doesn't equate to 'enact sweeping legislation that will sweep the legs out of the global economy in a global recession'. Frankly, I don't trust the people behind the push for legislative changes (the same people using anthropogenic climate change as their battering ram). I think the issue has become too politicized for the layman to have any hope of arriving at a well-founded conclusion. I don't doubt that there's an abundance of evidence both for and against anthropogenic climate change (ACC), but all public debate is being squashed to support Al Gore's oft-repeated mantra that 'The debate is over'. I'd like it if the pro-ACC camp would de-militarize; I think that would give the anti-ACC camp the oppurtunity to do so as well.

Wow. LDSNETA, I can't believe you denied JAG's request for information you mention, and then accuse him of obfuscation. And I'm shocked by your belligerence regarding this matter. What on earth is your purpose here? (For the record, I have no intention of discussing this issue. Just, as an outsider, I am shocked and appaled by your behavior.)

I already have two threads dealing with Global Warming, so I didn't want to start another. Britain's Daily Express lead with this article today. This list is from a dossier released by the European Foundation 100 Reasons why Climate Change is Natural: Some excerpts ... Enjoy, fellow anthropogenic-climate-change-scoffers. UPDATE: In the name of fairness, I thought I'd include a link to New Scientist's article "debunking" the first 50 points of the list. I'm not sure what to think of this other article, though- in the comments section there seems to be a war about the efficacy of the article itself, and all sources (that I followed) supporting this article's claim are from New Scientist itself or Wikipedia.

Where did you find this? I spent half an hour looking and couldn't... (Sometimes my powers of googling fail me. ).I'll wait for the chance to read the whole thing before commenting. The reason I startd this thread was I heard a sound byte (gotta love those...) of Obama blaming banks for repaying the bailout money, and saying they're not 'doing their part' in the economy's recovery because loans for small businesses are still few and far between. He then went on to blame 'fat cat' bankers for a large part of the problem. What made me mad about this statement was that the administration forced the bailout money down the throats of the banks- I forget who, but one of the CEO's claimed that direct threats (not of physical violence, but still threats) were used when he tried to not take the money. There was also other evidence of the administration forcing bailout money onto the banks (also evidence that the government tried to/succeeded in forcing Texas to take part of the Stimulus Bill, despite its protestations). Now it seems that Obama is angry that the banks are doing the responsible thing and repaying the money lent to them. I didn't know anything else about the interview, so I wanted to see if anyone else knew more about it. I appreciate your thoughts, FunkyTown (and everyone else's, of course ).

Must not laugh... Must not laugh... Must not laugh......

I have no problem with people, companies, and societies behaving more eco-friendly. In fact, I applaud it.My problem is with guber-national trends to trump science (real science, where debate is encouraged, not oppressed) and reason in favor of feel-good environmentalism. We face the very real potential of the governments of the world cutting in on the economic growth of the entire planet. My major concern is that this is an action to get the foot in the door for even more severe legislation- I also fear that an "end justifies the means" mentality (such as the one exhibited by Blair in his comment) is merely an excuse to "do whatever I want to NOW". I ate some beef today... Where can I sign up?

googolplex

I don't disagree wth you here. In my opinion, the removal of more overt religiosity in government is a symptom of the degredation of the government and the people, not the degredation itself. I think such acts are but a few of the physical deeds in which the changing national sentiment manifests itself. I haven't tried (at least not in recent years ). I think such things can be directly related to the breakdown of the family as the nationally recognized, fundamental unit of society. I think this goes hand-in-hand with the moral degredation of society. Amen.Although I do take my marching orders from Glenn Beck...

The little kids probably had lymphoma and needed universal healthcare, and the dog was probably dying because of warming temperatures.

boyando, I think the point is to create as much hysteria among the masses as possible; to create the moral equivalent of war using social issues. If those in power can achieve this, the will of the people will be much easier to bend. War- and its 'moral equivalents'- have long been excuses to circumvent traditional political structure. I think you bring up a good point, too, about the inability to effectively trace the effect global warming countermeasures would have. I'd wager that any long-term effect would require at least 10 years to measure- and the fate of the entire world could change in 10 years. Since Obama came into office, we've had one crisis after another. The financial crisis has always loomed in the background, but specifically we've had the TARP and Stimulis Bill crises, the H1N1 crisis, the Healthcare crisis, the global warming crisis... Notice that the 'bad guys' in these crises are always either 'the system' (such as capitalism) or those preceding Obama in power (Bush). I guess the exception is the N1H1 crisis, which was apparantely never bad enough to warrant the hysteria it received. Notice how Obama is still using the bank bailouts to try to manipulate the private sector- bailouts that not all the banks wanted or needed, but were forced to accept anyway. Now the banks are "in the taxpayers' debt" and now "owe" it to us to [enter whatever Obama wants here]. This has been your friendly neighborhood crazy conservative conspiracy nut...

I'm content with the Trinitarian explanation for all your questions and others like them, Gatorman. I am willing to accept that the idea of 'believing in something that we cannot concretely define' isn't crazy- in a way, that is the very definition of faith. I do get annoyed when people like SolaFide come in and employ double standards to try to trip up LDS theology, but for someone who's willing to let differences be differences I have the utmost respect. I get the feeling that more than just SolaFide got attacked in this thread (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity itself), and I can't help but feel for our Trinitarian friends who don't try to trip us up who might be hurt by our words.

The way that 'religious neutrality' is sought in the public sphere baffles me. It seems that the movement isn't to get all religions included, but to remove religion from the public conscience (since Christianity is indisputably the dominant religion, I think this often takes the form of anti-Christian sentiments or agendas). Instead of tearing down a statue of the 10 Commandments, why not erect one of another religious codex of laws? It seems to be based on a desire to depart from all religiously-inspired culture and morality, which is IMO folly.

Can't disagree with that.Does anyone know why it's forbidden, though? We know the name of John, who also is tarrying as the Three Nephites, as well as the name of all possible candidates for the 3 Nephites... I'm not going to question the Lord's decision on the matter, but I do wonder what the reason for withholding their names is.

My excuse is that I had started the reply before SolaFide001 was banned- I just took a while to edit and post. These kind of discussions are frustrating. I can handle discussions about the Trinity when those arguing for a Triune God recognize that the Trinity doctrine isn't plainly written into the Bible, but relies largely in interpretation through the lens of the Creeds. When the person fails to do even that, though... You end up with ~16 pages of back-and-forth that, ultimately, accomplishes nothing but reaffirms prejudices.

From The Guardian: Despite the leak of damaging emails from the University of East Anglia Blair said the need for action was as evident as ever. "It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn't need to be. "What is beyond debate, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity. Therefore, given the seriousness of the consequences, we should act." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, at a conference that is supposed to lay the foundation to end the warming of the entire planet-- a plan that requires scientific consensus and support to make sure they take the correct measures, with the correct degree of severity-- the science isn't really that important? I get what he's saying about the scientific support being "huge" that the climate is changing. However, it's the support for anthropogenic climate change that's important- and if that science isn't as "certain as its proponents allege", is there really a need to take drastic measures and rework the global economic and political infrastructure? This call to action based on admittedly spurious data- 'act now; screw the reason!'- seems a remarkably fascist sentiment to me. It isn't helped by the shameless propoganda accompanying this conference.

Did anyone see it? Any thoughts- specifically on what he said about the banks and 'fat-cat' bank owners?

Nice. Analogy. A++. The real questions, though: is the Father in the United States or Canada?

SolaFide, I don't think you've dealt with the assertion made by Evangelical theologians (with more knowledge than you) that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the text of the Bible itself (I posted on this here). If you did and I missed it, I apologize. Really? You arrived at the advanced doctrine of the Tinity through the text of the Bible itself? Which translation of the Bible did you use (this is important)? It doesn't mean that man cannot misinterpret the Lord's revelations to us, though. The Godhead! Oh...Joking aside, SolaFide, you cannot prove, using the text of the Bible, that the Trinity is rock-solid Biblical doctrine (you may believe it is, but the hard evidence is not there to convince anyone else). Hundreds- thousands- of theologians before you have tried, and failed. The matter is one of interpretation, and the Trinitarian interpretation is nowadays derived from the Christian creeds, which are supposedly authoritative. If the Creeds aren't authoritative, than you have to admit you believe in the Trinity not because it's plainly taught in the Bible (we've established that it's not), but because your religious tradition demands it. And tradition is one of the worst reasons to believe anything.

Another question that might be worth looking into is what judgments will the Lord level on a people because of the wickedness of their rulers? Regarding this theme: Alma 10:27: And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges. (Note that under standing Nephite law, lawyers and judges were the highest legal authority except for the chief judge) Mosiah 29:17-18 17 For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! 18 Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage. A wicked ruler inevitably brings wickedness into the lives of his people- wickedness which opens them up for the Lord's judgment, even unto destruction. Can we honestly assume, assuming Pharoah was a man so hardened in his heart as to deny the power of God in the plagues, that his people were righteous and above judgment? Indeed, the Israelites had to perform a specific sacrifice and ritual to save their firstborn children, and suffered through the plauges with their Egyptian masters. The idea that the Lord is at fault in this case goes hand-in-hand with the denial that it is the Lord's right, as the Atoning one, to bring life and death to the people of Earth. And the Lord does punish a people for the greivous sins of one among them: In Joshua 7, we read that Israel suffered defeat in battle and feared for its safety because one man- Achan- disobeyed the Lord's commandments and took some of Jericho's spoils. It's my belief that this is one of the reasons that we are commanded to excommunicate the unrepentant who have sinned grievously- lest they are judged and, because they still belong to the Church, the Church is negatively affected.

I believe you misunderstood my intention.That Joseph translated the Golden Plates is most definitely vital to our understanding of the Gospel and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. However, more minor details- such as his exact translation method- aren't as important and may, in fact, subtract from the discussion's intended spirit of reverence. If the Church was going to teach its temporal history in enough detail to merit the inclusion of Joseph's use of the hat in the translation process, what other information would it be duty-bound to include? There's a ton in the history of the Church that doesn't get talked about at Church for good reason- I listed some examples earlier. Plus, it's easy to get bogged down in the history and completely miss the doctrinal gems found therein.

Do they hide it? No, as has been witnessed by your quoting of official church sources on the subject. And I would argue that it is well known, to anyone who cares look into the matter. Because such facts aren't spoon-fed to us in Gospel Doctrine classes doesn't mean the Church is hiding anything, or being dishonest in any fashion.Besides, if the Church decided to begin teaching its temporal history in Sunday School classes, and if they were meticulous enough to include the fact that Joseph Smith used the hat in the translation process, what other facets of information would bog down the classes and clutter the spirit? I really don't want to go to a Sunday School class and learn about the Kinderhook Plates, or the controversy over the Abraham papyri, or speculation on how many wives Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had, or be taught a lesson on Joseph Smith's treasure hunting activities. There's not enough time as it is. I prefer my Gospel Doctrine classes heavy on the doctrine, light on the history. Since the inception of the Church, sufficient records have been kept and circulated to satisfy anyone's curiosity on any matter. No doubt the Church has fine-tuned its efforts to make information readily available (I doubt a 500-page Church History manual was available in the 19th Century), but I don't think it's ever been actively involved in hiding information of this kind.

For the sake of argument, I'd say this statement isn't technically accurate. It's very possible, assuming Noah's flood was a localized event, that the area hasn't been flooded since. Although floods do occur all over the earth, that doesn't mean that every inch of the earth has been flooded since the days of Noah.But for the record, I support your conclusion deseret, that the flood was worldwide.