Maxel

Why bother with this sort of response, Snow? You've made assumptions that far exceed what Gatorman actually said (to say that we are (rightfully so) dependent on God for our sustained life does not equate to God being responsible for all evil). To boot, you rail against his post which is mostly scripture. Do you have a problem with the scripture itself- which does deal with prayer and is not wholly irrelevant- or with Gatorman's interpretation?I feel exactly the same way as Gatorman and was about to post what he said; that's why I'm taking the liberty of replying to your post, Snow.

Snow, I will here admit that my recent interactions with you have been largely defensive as a hold-over from months ago- for that, I apologize. I haven't been around nearly as much in the intervening time and if you changed your attitude in that time I missed it. I want to stress my apology: I fear that I've been defensive without cause and my vision is clouded regarding you. Snow, you're sidestepping the real issue. The way you use "dogma" and "dogmatic" (or have in the past) is usually as an insult used to attack those whose opinions concerning God are different than yours. However, I admit this was as of 4 months ago so you might not do that anymore- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. I wasn't just talking about this thread. You've been pretty brutal to Believer on another thread. Doesn't matter if he 'started it', was being blind to the evidence, whatever- the fact remains that you said some things that were rude and condescending.. I'm unclear as to the thrust of your claim. Are you saying that one cannot condescend to another unless the condescendee submits/is, in fact, crucially inferior to the condescendor? Or that an action cannot be condescending in nature unless the previously stated parameters are met? Or that an action cannot be perceived as condescending unless the stated parameters are met? Or that a condescending action cannot harm the condescendee's faith? I don't know how to properly understand your claim until I know a bit more- and I am interested in finding out what you believe concerning this topic.To clarify my statement: acting condescending to another when discussing matters of faith is damaging to the condescendee's faith- or at the very least, their soul. Whether the condescendee's faith can handle it, whether the condescendee is gracious and perfectly humble in their response and reaction, the fact is that the condescendee has been hurt by the condescender, and the condescendee's faith may very easily be damaged.

Can we drop this? I'm sorry I brought it up again. Really, I am.

I hear that once you hit 100,000 posts you get the title of "Stipling Warrior". However, it remains only a rumor at this point...

Possibly. I'm unaware of any conclusion reached, but if I missed one I apologize.And I'm assuming the "point" that pam meant was the most recent round of offense taken on another thread, not anything older than that. Not trying to start anything...

See if I care, you lily-livered horned toad![/multiple-personalities]

Don't attack me! I'm reporting you!

Probably the fool, I'm afraid.

I once counted 14...Dangit! Now the question is am I the fool, the liar, or both?

Michael220: The historical events that the Bible claimed transpired are often unsupported by archaeological evidence (the exodus from Israel, for example). Contrarily, there are historical evidences that support the Book of Mormon's claims of historicity, but nothing that proves anything. If our faith is based in facts accepted by the scientific and anthropological community, our faith is in serious danger of death. Our faith needs to be rooted in knowledge given us from God- the kind of knowledge that Christ praised Peter for having. Matthew 15:16-17 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Agreed. However, that doesn't exonerate the person doing the tearing down- and the line of reasoning that "the other's faith was weak anyway" is a weak attempt to get out from any responsibility in the destruction of said faith. I have to agree with Believer on this one, and I'd argue that the scriptures do as well- this falls in the realm of not offending our brother but strengthening him instead. What others do with their faith is their business- how we interact with them and affect the strength of their faith is our business. Sorry to make two posts about a minor tangent, but.... Dang! This topic (and related ones) are coming up so much lately, and I don't see many people defending the charitable course of action (not tearing down others and their faith).

Come now, Snow. Surely you understand that calling someone's opinions "dogmatic" because said opinions are based on scripture amounts to tearing down the other's faith- as does making almost any condescending remarks aimed at others' opinions based on faith.

Have to love those political self-fulfilled prophecies- whether it's "your side" or the "other side" that did the fulfilling.

I haven't gotten to read the article, but I believe Mr. Shirts was explicit in stating that Bell didn't wholly agree with Joseph Smith or believe Smith was a prophet who translated the facsimile correct- only that Bell partly agrees with Smith's interpretation.Perhaps you're committing a little straw-grasping yourself?

That's not the point. The point is that science evolves and matures, and as it does so old theories of how the universe operates are proven incorrect and new theories are developed to explain the new level of knowledge. I think this fact is indisputable.A person, seeing this, may form opinions about how the universe operates (or about Earth's history) based on scriptural accounts that don't jive with current scientific thought (plate tectonics, for example, is not a perfect theory, or even proven- despite its accuracy and usefulness). The bottom line, however, is that pursuing it and harping on someone for being dogmatic is unhealthy for both parties involved, and it's far from being charitable.

Seeing as how science matures and continues to give us different lenses of truth through which to view the world, I don't see how one could be faulted for preferring to use scripture as a source of understanding about certain subjects.

I sense another battle coming... Could we all step back and pray about what Christ would do? I know it's a corny, primary-level suggestion, but I think we all could use it.

Thanks! I've actually been wanting to do I, Don Quixote for a while- just need to find a backup track. I might do it a capella soon...

I saw this video and article and I was, to put it mildly, very happy. GOP Congressman Booed for Telling People to Turn Off Glenn Beck Beck responded to Rep. Inglis' mistake on his website: Another Town Hall, Another Idiot Congressman -Sincerely, Zealous Beck Fan

Aesa- Despite our initial battle over the zeitgeist movement, I've grown to respect you rational approach to issues and the calmness and fairness you exhibit in listening to others. So it is as a respectful peer that I say the following to you: These are tough times, and one of the greatest comforts we can receive in this world is the Gift of the Holy Ghost. There is also comfort in knowing- not just hoping, but knowing- that God exists. There is a way to know- all it takes is humility and a sincere desire to know, then a prayer to the Father in the name of Christ asking Him whether He is real. If you truly desire to know, you will come to know. The question of God aside- does your family have a history of mental illness, like depression? Genetics play a big role in whether or not one has clinical depression or not, and clinical depression can be healthily treated with counseling and medication. You'll be in my prayers, friend.

I answer hesitantly, but some questions were asked that serve as a stumbling block for many people; perhaps answers I have heard from other sources would be beneficial for some. The truth's in the details. I've yet to hear anyone from another faith claim an expierience like a witness from the Holy Ghost telling them their religion is true. In fact, I believe certain Christian religions are the only ones that claim one can know the truth about their religion by virtue of divine manifestation. The Lord heals all sicknesses, in His due time- but He cannot work among men of the earth except where real faith is present. Amputees, and all who are chronically sick, are healed at their Resurection. Doctrine and Covenants 58:29-33 29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned. 30 Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments? 31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled? 32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. 33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above. If a man or woman prays for knowledge and doesn't receive it then the person asks amiss (asks for knowledge they ought not to have), is not exercising enough faith to receive that which is being asked for, or is not asking in the proper manner. At present, I can't think of anything else that would stop a prayer for knowledge being answered.

Disilluzioned- At present, there is a movie playing loudly in the other room and I can't give the proper attention to your post. As soon as I can, I will respond to your post.

Not to sound too fringe-crazy right-wing conservative, but.... You can pray about it and ask God.

Exactly, and that's the name of the game with this administration- positive short-term forecasts, but heaven forbid anyone look through the lens of reality and try to see the long term consequences.

Most of those scenes were dance scenes- I imagine it was pretty hard to draw the dance scenes. I don't really blame them for using the same templates over and over again back then. I love classical Disney... Can't stand the new stuff though.