Maxel

There is no ease. That flow chart is the most convoluted thing I have ever seen.Hence the [/irony] tag.

I was worried about government-run health care, but after I saw this flow chart outlining every detail, I was put at ease. I like the efficiency! Keep it up, politicians! [/sarcasm]

I've come to view the two commandments as allegorical of our spiritual conditions before and after our descent to earth. In the premortal existence, we saw that Heavenly Father was different from us (he had a body). We know that we wanted bodies as well. Heavenly Father explained what the price would be for gaining a body: adversity, temporary spiritual death, physical death, etc. We were willing anyway. To catalyze humanity's existence, the first man and woman- Adam and Eve- had to receive contradictory commandments. One of them insured they would stay in their innocent state (not partaking of the fruit)- the other held a promise of progression (being fruitful and multiply). I think the choice of which to follow was left to the most basic part of Adam and Eve's innocent nature, and one reason Michael the archangel was chosen to be Adam was that Michael's basic nature was so powerfully good and virtuous: ultimately, he (and Eve) would choose to suffer the inevitable consequences of sin- to know what it is to err and taste the bitter in life- so that they could eventually grow to be more like Heavenly Father.

I have doubts about being able to do it (even in the best of circumstances), but I still answered "yes". 1 Nephi 17:50 "...If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done."

From the article: The Obama brand: saving our world while destorying our country!

I roam the internet and read about all those issues that Dr. Shades wrote about- so I am (more or less) aware of the condradictory opinions and historical/scientific facts out there. Yet I fit into the "chapel Mormon" category more. I have to agree with a-train, Loudmouth_Mormon and others- this seems to be someone trying to create a false division between those doing apologetic work for FAIR and the Neal E. Maxwell Institute and those who aren't. An attempt to create division in the Lord's church by straining at gnats.

I'll offer my opinion, although it's late and I'm tired so it won't be backed up with scriptural support. Christ has said that 'my sheep know my voice'- I take this to mean that those who would be his sheep (those who would humble themselves and submit to Christ's will) understand the doctrines of Christ's gospel when they hear them. Those who would follow Christ, know the "timbre of His voice", so to speak. The hard implication is that those who are not humble, who would not follow Christ's voice, don't understand because they cannot understand. This kind of doctrine is easily abused by those who don't understand it. People like Phelps can claim that everyone else is a child of the devil using this doctrine and then hide their heads in the sand when it comes to the other weighty matters of the law (charity, tolerance, etc.).

No way! Someone beat me to it!

Fall of the King-Men You play as Captain Moroni and go around rooting our traitors from among the village people and make them swear an oath to freedom or kill them. One of the bosses could be Nehor's ghost. It'll make millions I tell 'ya, millions!!!

Where's that laugh button?

I haven't listened to much of Michael Jackon's stuff- I've never been into the pop music genre- so I don't know, but didn't Jackson push the envelope on what was appropriate and accepted in popular music?

THe wurld is endeen'!!!!

I think the institution of religion has served to transmit fundamental morals and truths from one generation to another, and serves to keep the people that belong to it in line. More than that, however, religion constructs a framework upon which we can place those morals and truths so that we don't confuse which is most important. Ultimately, the most important thing about religion is the question "is it true or not?", as FunkyTown explained.

A few years ago the Westboro Baptist Church came to the town I lived in to protest at a soldier's funeral. I found a lengthy, in-depth article about them and stayed up all night reading it. The basics are (as I remember them): -Fred Phelps (founder of the Church) is an extremely angry man. Abused as a child, he learned to dominate his "enemies" (i.e. "everyone") physically through boxing. He went to a seminary (forget which one) and then law school to become a lawyer. Since then, he's forced every one of his kids to become lawyers. -Every member of his church is part of his family- either born into or married into. Most of his children don't leave because he abused them terribly when they were children (if I remember, only 3 out of his 10+ children left his church) and they're brainwashed into believing that if they leave his church they're going to hell (the ones who did leave even got nifty letters from Phelps sentencing them to hell). -They know their rights- the reason they're all lawyers is so they can band together and sue anyone who infringes upon those rights and win. -Before settling in Kansas, Phelps moved to Utah for a brief stint of Mormon-bashing. However, he left when he couldn't rile up the Mormons enough for his liking. -Fred Phelps is the mastermind. His poor children and grandchildren are the victims of lives of physical and emotional abuse. Those are the basics, as I remember them. I'll try to find the article I read and link it.

Things like this are absolutely wonderful if one has a firm faith in their own belief system. I find, however, that learning about the actual doctrine before hearing from members of other religions is beneficial because I am better equipped to learn where they're coming from. Also- if one is constantly belitting and/or neglecting one's own belief system, things like this will probably serve to further sever the individual from his/her faith until the person is left believing that tolerance and acceptance of diversity is the ultimate in righteous living- which is, frankly, a false idea. We need more tolerance of diversity in this world, but what we need more than that is a belief in general absolute values of right and wrong- values that accurately reflect the basic truths about life.

Yeah, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church. Not a nice or good man; not nice or good at all. And that's putting it very, very mildly.

Applepansy's problem is with members of the Church who question the value of following the prophet, not non-members- don't worry, you haven't done anything to offend her (I'm pretty sure).

That's a sad, sad tale. I'm thinking of being a theatre/vocal major in college- I think that would be so fun, but I'm worried about a lack of job oppurtunities if I take that route.

I like that anecdote, whether it's real or not. The underlying philosophy of a lot of low-echelon government workers seems to be "I don't care". Compounded with a beaurocracy that generates more red tape than service, one has a problem.

I don't like ACORN- it seethes corruption, and the numerous (13+ as of 1 1/2 months ago) counts of voter registration fraud don't give it a sterling record. Personally, I like the idea of the post office conducting the census, but I don't know if it could work yet.

I love to sing! I've been singing since 7th grade, and I'm about average skill-wise. Got a decent range and I'm a high baritone/low tenor. Anyone else out there like to sing- particularly musical theater?

Wikipedia gives two definitions:1) a person has moral responsibility for a situation if that person has an obligation to ensure that something happens 2) a person has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that person for the situation I assume when Anthony spoke of 'God absolving us of moral responsibility' in this situation he meant the first, as God the Eternal Judge doesn't waive His right to judge us. The simple answer is, then, that they ought to follow the prophet- who we believe is appointed by God to lead us in the paths we ought to walk. However, it is the person's job to do all those things I mentioned in my previous post to come to an understanding of why the prophet is saying such things- otherwise, the person wouldn't be a wise servant and wouldn't be right before God (in this respect). It seems your hold up with the situation seems to be about the prophet being wrong and a person knowing it. The thing is, because of the nature of prophets and the prophetic office, it's nigh impossible for the average member to concretely know whether the prophet is right or wrong concerning doctrinal matters, and impossible to know the prophet is wrong concerning policy matters. It seems to me that your premise is skewed. The best thing to do in this case (in my opinion) is to use the proper channels and procedures to understand why the manual contains the Adam-God doctrine and to voice one's objection (to the Bishop/Stake President/whoever). Ultimately, though, the duty of the teacher is to teach the lesson- the question becomes 'which is more important- my pride or my duty?' In this case, it seems the person would be under no condemnation for following the prophet instead of his conscience in this situation. We know that the heart can be deceived (Deuteronomy 11:16) and that our conscience can be wrong (depending on how one uses the word and concept of 'conscience'- here I speak of the basic, oft-faulty ideas of right and wrong that humans are taught and become ingrained through the influence of the world)- however, to a Mormon with a living testimony of the power and calling of the prophets, their duty is clear- follow the prophet. Only when the two are in conflict (and I wish to point out that it is far, far rarer for a spiritual witness to be at odds with prophetic counsel than it is for one's conscience to be opposed). I read AnthonyB's words to mean we are (supposedly) absolved of moral responsibility by God all the time- which is dead wrong. Even when one follows the prophet against one's own conscience, I don't think one is absolved of moral responsibility unless that person seeks to understand why the counsel is given in the first place- hence my stressing of the prayer and pondering that needs to be done by the individual.

That's so awesome, LostSheep! Good job, and good luck!

I saw a trailer for this the other day and thought of you, Hemi.

That's a bummer. LDS.net lost a good, faithful member. Sad day.