Maxel

The issue isn't just teaching them about birth control- it's giving them access to birth control without parental consent or knowledge.Moreover, it woud be foolish to sit your children down and tell them all the ways they could run into the street and still avoid being hit by a car ('Dodge really fast!'). That's the more accurate equivalent to teaching children about birth control. Pulling your child back from the street would be equivalent to taking all steps necessary to teach your child that sex before marriage is seriously damaging and morally wrong- including implementing rules to minimize temptation (such as no dating before 16, no sleep overs involving members of the opposite sex, etc.). It should be noted that I'm not saying you teach your children to dodge cars in the street- only that your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

This is an infringement upon the rights of the parent to raise their child as they see fit. Moreover, it's irresponsible of those providing the children with these contraconceptives- it's a myth that children "will have sex anyway", and that (properly utilized) abstinence education doesn't work. Strong famlies based upon solid principles are the most effective means of lowering pregnancy and the spread of STD's among children and teenagers. The double-whammy of aggressively denying parents knowledge of their children's behavior and making it easier for children to have so-called 'risk-free' sex is seriously damaging to the children. Just another example of the moral and logical degredation of society...

Wouldn't it still be a theological myth if it was never officially taught, but the speculation of the masses? Pervasiveness doesn't equate to truthfulness.EDIT: On further reflection, I see what you're saying. I guess it would count as a myth that the Mormons believe about their own doctrine, not the incorrect perception of Mormons by outsiders. In that sense, it wouldn't be a "Mormon myth".

Ah, that makes sense. Also makes sense that Obama's changed schedule would hurt feelings, then, if he's so well-liked among the Norwegian populace.

That is harrowing.However, that's the mindset that fanatics (any kind- religious, political, etc.) get in. That's the reason that radical Islam needs to be recognized for the danger it poses to the West. I feel for our soldiers overseas.

A mysterious light phenomenon appeared over Norway this morning. From Norway News; from UK's Mail Online. Craziness, eh?

Yeah... I don't think the following logo is appropriate either. A picture of a folder that has sparked the controversy.This kind of pervasive, organized support for an elected leader among a nation's children has happened before- in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, empirical Japan, and communist Russia (among others). You might laugh at the 'ridiculousness' of people's reactions, talisyn, but this is merely a symptom of a larger issue. This logo is politically charged, was not requested by the schools, and comes on the heel of the public revelation of many teachers teaching their kids songs of praise about Obama. Also, Greg Jones is the one in charge of letting the school supplies with the logos enter circulation. It would seem that the fact he identified himself as a McCain supporter would be to suggest that he didn't let the logo through on purpose as secret political support for Obama- which is what it seems to be. When schoolgrounds become places for extreme political indoctrination, we have a serious problem. We're not there yet, but it doesn't happen overnight, and if we only laugh at the degrees by which it happens, we'll wake up one day and find ourselves in a huge mess. Okay...

Does Norway have some sort of obsession with President Obama, or is it just Norway News? 6 of the 10 most recent articles are about him, and his picture appears on the article about the odd lights this morning (as far as I can tell, he has no bearing on the story whatsoever). Is it usual for someone visiting Norway to receive the Peace Prize to receive so much media attention?

theophilus, while I don't disagree with much of your post (in fact I applaud most of it), there is one issue I'd like to address. The constant invitation to read the Book of Mormon (and pray about it) has great theological and practical significance. As attested by the very existence of 'Apatheism', thousands of years of debate have failed to prove the existence (or lack thereof) of a God. The things that prove His existence are His manifestations to us, His children- sadly, to an undiscerning person such manifestations are usually overlooked or misunderstood. However, the message that is sent by God in response to a heartfelt prayer about a simple, specific topic cannot be misconstrued except the person be willing to deceive himself. So the admonition to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, if accompanied by reasoned theological answers to questions, is one of the most powerful proselyting tools in existence.

I think, to offer a comprehensive answer, the terms "faith" and "faithful" need to be defined in greater detail. I think thekabalist's comment that Vanhin linked helps us feel out a definition for "faith": a trust in God (and not just a surface, everything-will-be-okay-because-I-believe trust; a trust that is predicated on obedience and thrives on consecrated discipleship). If we use this definition, then: Faith = a living trust in God. Faithful = living according to the commandments of God because we trust His judgment, power, and mercy. Using these definitions, I think that faith is a prerequisite of faithfulness, and that faithfulness is the natural fruit of faith. However, bluedreams touched the belief/faith question: what is the difference between faith and belief. I've come to believe, over the years, that 'belief' is the initial stage of 'faith' (as defined above). It is the cognizant acceptance of a doctrine (such as the existence of God) that doesn't necessarily include faith into the mix. For example, there are many that believe in the existence of God (even the devils), but not all seek to know or do His will. Therefore, such belief does not lead to faith. I think the key ingredient that turns belief into faith is works- the kind of works that Christ has commanded us to do (particularly the acceptance and keeping of covenants). Many times in the scriptures we see the commandment to follow the Lord in a verb form (usually 'walking' or 'keeping'), yet we know that our works are not enough to save us. It is the consecrating power of the Atonement that binds together our belief in Christ, a heart with pure intentions, and our works to create 'faith' and 'faithfulness'.

*Puts on his crazy hat*Hemidakota... The creation of a totalitarian state is a necessary evil in saving humanity from itself. There is no God, so we humans have to take action on our own behalf. A technocratic or socialistic society is the only way to stabilize the turbulent happenings of this miserable world- it is only by giving power to those who have only our best interests in mind (such as Barack Obama, Al Gore, Harry Reid, or Hillary Clinton) power to lead the masses to a better future and weed out the inherent imperfections of humanity. I am Progressive, hear me roar. *Takes off his crazy hat*

boyando- I came to the same conclusion (about rabid environmentalists being a major factor behind the economic and political turmoil of the last days) a while ago, too. Just look at the Copehnhagen meeting. If any agreement is arrived at, there will be no way to enforce it except the erection of some sort of international committee. With the precedent that following the agreement will be vital to the continuance of our planet, I cannot see any violation being taken lightly. It's also not a secret that cap-and-trade policies will seriously hinder our already fragile economy, effectively leading to the weakening of our nation's ability to stand independent. I cannot see a realistic future that includes international constraints on CO2 emission that doesn't lead to some sort of global governance and global police force. Once that is in place, what's the next international "crisis" (also backed by spurious science) that will require immediate action? The negative effect of religion on children and humanity? Man's inability to act humanely to his fellow man and, therefore, the requirement of an all-powerful, beneficial State to intercede? So, I'm with you boyando.

Congrautlations beefche!

Pegasus-thekabalist doesn't strike me as having the characteristics of a deceiver (and I've discerned more than one deceiver on this board alone (not to tout myself as an expert on the subject )). Thus far, I haven't seen him offering anything by way of commandment or attempting to shake anyone's faith in God or even the LDS Church- in fact, I feel that the insights he offers are very faith-affirming and, to me, they are very welcome. I'm unaware of anything thekabalist has said that questions the teachings of the LDS Church- in fact, from an outsider's perspective, his is one of the most believing I have ever seen (he has otherwise affirmed that he believes the Book of Mormon is of Hebraic origin). So while you may believe he has ulterior motives for posting here (I can't imagine what they would be...), I don't agree. I most certainly have not had the Holy Ghost testify anything to me on the matter.

I'm not going to believe that global climate change (as described in ozzy's first point) isn't happening. What is all too apparent is that there are conspiring men who are determined to use it (and various other sociopolitical issues) to bring about their own, misguided vision of what the world ought to be like.

I'm not Vort, but one reason occured to me:It seems that credit card debt is one of the last things people usually pay off. I'd imagine that the amount of irresponsible credit card holders (those with debt) far outnumber responsible holders. Therefore, much of the company's assets would be in IOU's, not money or property. I doubt the charges to the store make up for the price of goods purchased. If I just 'explained' a basic law of economics, just pat my head and send me on my way. I'll be over on the merry-go-round...

This is the same story of a wonderful gentleman I knew in Colorado. Basically, he was too responsible a customer- they couldn't charge him late fees, and they were losing money because he took advantage of the rewards program.

I think DigitalShadow has a point about a person's ignorance leading them to exhibit what seem to be dishonest behaviors. Perhaps in some cases a line should be drawn between intellectual dishonesty (i.e., holding double standards when evaluating evidence) and intentional dishonesty (purposely offering false information for selfish gain or to accomplish a "greater good"). I don't think this person is lying (unless she's secretly a diehard conservative ). Probably not even dishonest intentions- possibly someone looking for real discourse (wading into a "nest of vipers", as it were), or to 'stir up trouble' among a group ideologically opposed to her. Well, the action is definitely dishonest. However, depending on the quality and coherence of his website, he may honestly believe that no one would be offended by whatever controversial comments are made there, and no matter how roughly a visitor is treated. That's intellectual dishonesty. Judging by her competency level, however, she may honestly believe in what she's saying and be unable to honestly see the double standard she's setting.However, if this particular poster happens to be learned in the subject and is capable of advanced abstract thought, then this poster has moved from solely intellectual dishonesty to intentional dishonesty, crossing both lines. Both members could actually be exhibiting somewhat dishonest behavior, I think.1) While foolish, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to group entire races together and label them. If the accuser refuses to offer evidence when pressured, however, he's crossed the line into intellectual dishonesty. 2) The second list member's objection is valid, but the counter-example could be intellectually dishonest is the intent is to prove that the first list member's assertions were wholly incorrect. If the intent is merely to show that "not all members of the bully and victim group were, respectively, bullies and victims", I don't think that would be intellectual dishonesty. 3) The first list member's refusal to acknowledge the new evidence presented could be intellectual dishonesty, and possibly intentional dishonesty. However, it could be honest (on both counts) if the second list member's evidence was entirely unsubstantiated, and subject to suspicion. I think this example could go both ways- but I think the intention was that the first list member was being both intellectually and intentionally dishonest, while the second list member was defending his people against dishonest accusations. It sounds like X is ignoring evidence and/or purposely hiding the fact that (s)he is in the wrong. I'd say Y acted in a wholly honest fashion, while X abandoned honesty the moment it became inconvenient. If Z really didn't read the analysis, then to engage in discussion without admitting the fact (and pressing the same point after it's been answered) is dishonest. However, I sometimes don't respond to all the points made by another poster, especially in situations where lots of facts are traded with each post. I used to try to at least acknowledge the other poster's valid points, but over the past month I've gotten lazy...

What was the thing about the alarm at the beginning? I listened a few times but couldn't make that part out... Did an alarm sound before the recording began? I liked it, DESPITE not having insomnia. I laughed when you made the comment about not asking for testimonies, but "good reports". I also think your approach to your worship meetings- allowing the worshippers to publicly declare the good things that the Lord has done for them- is wise.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, LostSheep. There are a number of possible explanations, ranging from the absurd to the scientifically credible. Ponder on it a while, but don't let it become a stumbling block. I think Wingnut's proffered explanation and thoughts are worth a second thought and some pondering, as well. Ultimately, what's important is that you keep moving forward in your quest for greater faith and knowledge, and not let this become a stumbling block.

Laugh? Thank? I can't decide...

You may post scriptures that support trinitarian theory, but I will interpret them differently- because said scriptures do not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. I've danced this dance many times before with many different people- I have read the entire New Testament at least once before, as well as doing some minor research on the topic. I am not ignorant of what the Bible says.No less prestige a source than the Harper's Bible Dictionary admits that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found explicitly taught in the New Testament. More precisely, it states (as quoted from the talk The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Has Sent by LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland): "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].” (Source (#3)). For further discussion on the philosophical foundations of the Trinity, see Stephen E. Robinson's The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God. You can also look to the chapter on the nature of God in the book How Wide the Divide, co-authored by professors Stephen E. Robinson (a Mormon scholar) and Craig L. Blomberg (an Evangelical scholar). I hope you'll see that, as far as finding evidence for trinitarian doctrine in the Bible, the most convincing arguments rely heavily on interpretive assumptions, not hard evidence from the text itself. thekabalist takes issue with this stance, as do I and Islamic theology. You can argue that Jews and Muslims misunderstand their own theology, or yours- but the fact is that an agreement that a triune God is monotheistic is a one-sided agreement.

Wow... Blasphemous name change. What on earth drove her to that...?

SolaFide, God's triune nature cannot be proven from the Bible. There's not enough evidence. This fact is admitted by not a few Christian writings. If one wants to believe in a triune God, then they will find the evidence they need. However, the corpus of scripture is insufficient to prove that a triune God exists- especially in all the intricacies defined by the Nicean Creed. Admittedly, the Bible alone is insufficient to prove the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead- however, we aren't limited to the writings contained in the Bible (a collection of books declared authoritative and inspired by a council of men without authority). Our canon is open in practice, and we receive new revelation from He whose right it is to give it.

With all due respect, SolaFide, you're making theological distinctions that the Jewish and Islam religions reject. Generally, (theologically speaking) triune Christians are the only ones who contend that a triune God is monotheistic.If my previous statement was somewhat broad, I apologize- but the gist and thrust of the message is still accurate and important.