Maxel

All right, I see what you're saying. However, I didn't mean to imply anything that hadn't already been established through earlier conversations. And there's good reason to argue that doubting certain parts in the Bible is easier than doubting certain parts in the Book of Mormon. The more recently given scripture is the scripture that is more relevant to our day and situation, and scripture from the current dispensation is the most relevant. Scripture given through divine translation that was kept by prophets over the years and edited by its final keepers would be far, far less prone to errors of any kind than the books of scripture that make up the Bible. Perhaps because others do not hold the right to do some acts that are God's right?Consider an earthly analogy: would it be lawful for a lynch mob to execute a man accused of murder without a proper trial? No- because the right to take the man's life is not given to the mob. Would it be lawful for a jury, having heard testimony and evidence against the accused, to sentence him to death? Yes- because the right to take the accused's life (as a punishment) is given to the court and jury. I was reading Alma 40 just now and verses 11-12 struck me as having a lot to do with the question of 'would the Lord take the life of an innocent because of his/her parents' wickedness'? 11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. 12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow. The fact that the life of a child has to be taken is horrible and sad- but the fate of the child is far more glorious than its abrupt end might suggest. I appreciate the frankness. This helps me understand where you are coming from more easily- thank you for that.

I haven't watched the videos (can't right now), but the idea of the citizens of a country accused of being corrupt defending their country seems to be a disingenuous setup. C.S. Lewis once said that the bad man thinks he is good and the good man knows he is bad. That is, the closer one is to being 'good', the more (s)he realizes the flaws in his/her character. The closer one is to being 'bad', the less one understands just how bad (s)he is. So, if Amsterdam is corrupt its people may very well be corrupt. Would they understand and know of their own corruptness? That being said, I have no idea what the videos contain so I cannot pass judgment on them. I did think the setup interesting, though- I'll be on later when I can watch them.

I'm not quite sure how I implied that. I stated that you are hesitant to accept the Restoration scriptures as wholly true (and I think you're forced to agree with me, seeing as how you believe the events in 1 Nephi 4 can't have happened as they are described). I'm wondering why you don't even offer an opinion- you admit yourself that religious writings are net necessarily not historical. So, what do you think would happen to the children in the earlier situation? Just humor me. Or take the spin out of your own words and flatly say that you believe those Nephite cities weren't destroyed and that the Book of Mormon is wrong in it's portrayal those events too.

Lilac, you hit it the nail on the head. Everything boils down the the veracity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS religion- the entire religion is only as valid and strong as the Book of Mormon.

Are the scriptures not evidence enough for this discussion? Since you're hesitant to accept the Restoration scriptures as wholly inspired and true, however, I'll let that pass. However, the supporting evidence in the canonical LDS scriptures (which is where we draw the entirety of this discussion from) favors the scenario of 'the whole world except Noah being evil'.Let me reduce the question to one scenario: Do you believe there were any innocent children in the Nephite cities that were destroyed at Christ's coming? If not, state your reasoning as to why not. If so, what do you think happened to them?

I'm praying my wife doesn't respond that way to compliments... Ugh.

All defenses up! Megaman squad, move in! :megaman: Heavy artillery, take up the rear! :tank: We'll stave off this attack yet!

Wubly, everyone- as in the emoticon --> . Insert the emoticon's code into a post and you'll see what I mean (it's spelled 'wub').

Snow- I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack the nature of my thinking and say I'm trying to spin evil as good and good as evil. Thanks in advance. I'd also appreciate it if you answered the questions I posed earlier: if the whole world were indeed evil and Noah's family were the only righteous people left, what would you have God do with the innocent children? What about the innocent children in the Nephite cities that were destroyed at Christ's cricifixion- do you think they were somehow miraculously spared, that they died with their parents, or that there were no innocent children in those cities (or something else)? Also, do you believe there were no innocent children in Ammonihah when it was destroyed according to prophecy?

I think taking into account the law of the harvest might help one to differentiate between random coincidences and genuine blessings (although I don't believe in random coincidences, I know others do). We're not always blessed for righteous acts immediately, but for every righteous seed that we sow, a good reward will be reaped eventually- maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday. I'd wager that approaching the Lord and asking Him to help one see the blessings in one's life will help one to achieve greater discernment in the matter. Ultimately, I am of the belief that all good things come from our Father in Heaven- we can usually discern which things we have 'earned' through our good deeds through comparing the nature of the righteous seed planted to the reward reaped.

I don't feel like arguing the point. I ask, though- do you think the Nephite cities destroyed at Christ's crucifixion had any innocent children living in them? Or were the children somehow taken away/killed by the parents/whatever? Do you think a just God would alow abused children reared in wickedness (through no fault of their own) to go on living for years, dealing with the emotional trauma associated with the abuse?Which is more just: a swift end to prolonged suffering and then comfort and rest, or the needless perpetuation of earthly suffering? One thing that might be interesting to note: I don't think 'innocent' equates to 'righteous'. A child is innocent because (s)he doesn't know better (is without the law); righteousness comes from choosing the better path in life and seeking to live the law. Now who is being facetious...I was being serious... It is appointed to all men to die (except for the very, very few who are translated). I'd wager Christ's death was merciful- he could have gone on living forever in agony, I guess, but there was no reason to prolong His suffering once the appointed task was completed. I don't see death as such a tragic thing- painful sometimes, yes, but it's something we all must go through, and is a gateway to the spiritual realm beyond mortality.

Congratulations maybeinNH! Good luck in your new life of Mormonism!

If President Obama sticks to the basics of goal-making and keeping, more power to him- judging by the website JAG linked, that's the planned gist of what he's saying. However, I will stand by the idea that the wording of the original question ('How will I help the president?') is creepy and inappropriate. I can see how the intention would be for children to think that graduating from school would be helping the president- but then that crosses some lines I'm uncomfortable crossing.

Would you have Noah raise all the children who hadn't reached the age of accountability? Or perhaps let them form their own society of children? Hope that those little children hadn't already been corrupted by their depraved parents' abuse (which we can safely assume included physical, emotional, and sexual)? What would you have the Lord do, Snow- or are you implying that the account is untrue? (Or were you being facetious and I missed it? If so, I apologize.)Death can be an act of mercy- especially when the one dying is "saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven" (D&C 137:10).

Ah, but her madness makes her more wubly.

I could NEVER get the hang of freecell. I tried and failed- epically. Besides, I don't have freecell on my iPod (and I shudder to think of having to play Freecell with only a mouse wheel... ).

Thanks for doing the legwork, Elphaba! The following from the BBC news account lead me to believe that Diallo hadn't pulled out his wallet yet: That, coupled with the wikipedia account (which portrays Diallo reaching into his jacket but not actually taking out his wallet) lead me to believe Diallo hadn't gotten his wallet all the way out of his jacket.Whatever really did happen, there's evidently enough reason to assume Carroll panicked more from the action of Diallo reaching into his jacket rather than holding an object misidentified as a gun. I think part of the reason this story made it so big was the fact that 41 rounds were fired (19 hitting Diallo)- an average of 10.25 rounds per officer. It seems to be more of a case of stressed officers panicking and overreacting than racial profiling. That won't, of course, stop Michael Moore from using the situation to his advantage and sell his brand of malcontention. One thing I did find funny (ironic?) in the video is the scene where Moore takes the black man's cell phone and asks the crowd what it looks like in his hand. It's harder to tell what the object is in the black man's hand because (shocker!) the outline of the black object is harder to see against black skin- i.e., it would be harder to tell if it was a cell phone or a small handgun in teh black man's hand (especially at night).

I thought other presidents had done this kind of address to the children of the nation before? The biggest problem that we can fairly discern has been solved (the question of 'how can I help President Obama?' on the worksheets), IMO. Gonna have to wait and see what he actually says before I can pass judgment. If he sticks to talking about goals- that's great, more power to him.

Oh man... That was a funny read. I like the absurdity of it all- then I wince when I realize the lawyers are doing the exact same thing with Obamacare.

It's not that the house won't stay clean as much as my mom has too much stuff to fit into her itty bitty house. She's a pack rat and accumulated stuff over 20 years of an abusive marriage; 'stuff' made her feel better emotionally. There is literally not enough room for everything, and I can't clean it without her because she knows where everything goes. She's too tired to clean anything herself and working with her is impossible because she gets upset (and I get upset a lot too) and stressed out. I can't clean the house because there's not enough shelf space for all the stuff in said house. It's physically impossible to make it work. That's why cleaning is a fruitless effort- it's impossible to stay clean because there's always piles of 'stuff' everywhere. It drives me insane.

I have nothing to do. My mom's house is a wreck- she wants me to clean it. I could spend all day cleaning things, but then they will be messy in a few days. Why bother? There's things outside I could be doing, like building a brick path. But it's been raining the past few days. I can't read; too depressed for a book to hold my attention for long. Right now I'm puttering around the house, listening to General Conference addresses on my iPod, playing solitaire (on my iPod), doing some dishes and checking this forum every 30 minutes or so. Does anyone know a remedy for this kind of tediousness? (I'm not depressed because of some traumatic event; I have clinical depression and am on medication. I'm fine, I still go through periods where things are harder than normal. This is one of those times). I feel like a good use of my time would be to .

The problem is, what you quoted (semodex's words from post 17) don't lead one to think semodex believes that God put the 'stamp of approval' on everything that Smith did. You took semodex's actual words and took them to the hyperbolic extreme- that's how I understood your post.I'll see your example about fallen prophets and raise you the examples of prophets who did not fall (which, not coincidentally, are greater in number in the Bible than examples of fallen prophets). And even if a prophet did fall, are we not still bound by his actions done as a prophet? And doesn't the Lord remove fallen prophets sooner rather than later? Tell my why a loving God who knows how to give good gifts to His children would dilute the message of His latter-day words (the Book of Mormon) by allowing Smith to fall away and start a false church in the Lord's name? Either the Book of Mormon is true and, by correlation, so is the LDS Church; the Book of Mormon is false and, by correlation, so is the LDS Church; or God is a fool who cannot give good gifts to His children. There is no defendable middle ground. The preceding should not be construed that the Lord put His stamp of approval on everything Joseph Smith did- but we should be wise and understand that whatsoever a prophet does in the Lord's name is right, especially regarding the establishment and maintaining of the Lord's Church.

Something else about this makes me mad. According to every account I've found so far (including the BBC and wikipedia accounts), the wallet was never actually in Diallo's (the man who was shot 41 times) hand. No one has much information about what happened (if anyone does, I'd love to see the link). So the very basis of Moore's tradgedy of errors is fallacious- NYPD officers don't have some sort of track record mistaking wallets for phones. At best, some have a track record of firing first and asking questions later (which is damnable, but not necessarily racially-driven). Moore strikes out again- but makes it look like a home run.

Wow- I didn't get on early enough to catch the first rendition of that paragraph. I actually like what they changed it to- a writing activity focused on the child's goals is, I think, a really good idea.

If the entire antediluvian world was wicked and outright rejected God, then it is within God's sphere of authority to destroy them. Traveler's original statement: does not exclude the possibility that the Lord destroys a society because of its wickedness; that the Lord only destroys a wicked people for the sake of the righteous.I'd appreciate it if the historicity tangent was dropped; I don't want this to turn into another thread debating the the (im)possibility of a worldwide flood. As long as the conversation relating to the flood stays related to the OP and topic that's fine. Thanks in advance, guys.