LittleWyvern

huh? I just was remarking on how these two events paralleled each other. I did not mean to make any conclusions on either event.

I don't understand this. If people think that Prop 8 is morally wrong, why blame the Mormons? The political process itself is amoral. If people want to attack Prop 8 on moral or constitutional grounds, that makes sense, but to make this about the Mormons only will never accomplish anything. This is why I think the No on 8 crowd lost in a blue state (it parallels, sorta, why McCain lost as well). While the no on 8 crowd wanted to make the campaign about those evil Mormons, the yes on 8 crowd wanted to make the campaign about every traditional family (while McCain wanted to make the campaign about how evil Obama was, Obama wanted to make it about everybody). If the "marriage equality" movement is to have any success in the future, they need to stop bashing the Mormons.

Onetimequestion: If you'd like to lecture us, feel free to put it in its own thread so that we at least know what you're accusing us of. You've confused me completely by tossing away the topic.

My mom tells me that when I was about 2 or so I loved M.C. Hammer. Every time a song of his comes on, no matter where I was, I would start dancing. There's a funny story about me and my mom in an airport... And... now I'm listening to Joe Hisaishi. What a difference 17 years makes!

*sings* Oh why can't every daaaay be like Christmas...

You may both be right. Moses 1:34 is the scripture Hemidakota is probably referring to, which states that Adam was "the first man of all men." Does this mean that Adam was the first man as a concept, or man as a species? Without further revelation, I don't think we can know for sure either way, so this is probably one of the many "unsolved mysteries" of the LDS faith. *hums the "Unsolved Mysteries" theme to himself*

This is my fault then, I didn't mean to make it seem like it was universally used this way, or that it was the "right" term to use.

Uh... I don't. EDIT: It may be helpful to note that the concept of "glory" is relative to the observer. Even the lowest kingdom, the telestial kingdom, has glory that is described as beyond our comprehension. So, while our progression is stopped here in this kingdom, it doesn't sound like damnation to me.

Salvation in what sense? Salvation basically means being saved from something, whether it is death, sin, etc. If you mean salvation in terms salvation from death, then this is definitely not damnation. All men will be saved from death and have eternal life (the difference is where you'll spend that time). Personally, I don't use the term damnation the same way Maxel uses: I reserve it for condemning someone to hell (which I feel you may understand the term as). The terms aren't as important as understanding the concepts.

You are absolutely correct here. :) EDIT: I fear we may be just competing with verbal gymnastics.

It's not a common term because of the ambiguity.

I think there might be a misunderstanding of words here. If you understand eternal damnation as eternal punishment/agony/torment/etc., only outer darkness, or hell, fits that description. We believe that very few people will go to hell, as the qualifications for hell are incredibly "low," so to speak (you'd have to see Jesus in the flesh and deny he is Jesus, for starters). Eternal damnation is also used mostly within the LDS church to mean a lack of progression. With this description in mind, anything other than exaltation (part of the celestial kingdom) fits this description.

To me, too often the word "Christian" (as a religion classification term) is defined to be "believes in mainstream Christian (as a set of teachings term) teachings." While you've proven the historical importance of the above definition, I don't see how this has significance today. We have a term for that now: "mainstream Christianity." I may be biased, but I doubt many LDS church members would consider themselves mainstream in any way, but still consider themselves Christian due to their strong relationship with Christ.

Yeah, but that's all implementation, not theory.

How so? I've always thought that a pure United Order society is as close to theoretical communism as any group in the United States has ever been. It bears no resemblance to how communism has been put into practice (the USSR was more of a dictatorship, it never really was a pure communistic society, but it was at least built on those values).

Not yet... I'm still climbing the mountain of paperwork.

Speaking of socialist and communist societies, I think Putin said it best: Essentially, socialism and communism sound good on paper but will never work so long as greed prevails in society (remember the United Order?).

It's hard to aesthetically appreciate ruts when stuck inside them.

My apologies, then, for misunderstanding your usage of the term theory. Science can never know anything for certain. It can only say that this is how we think the world works, based on what we have observed and tested. In other words, it can only provide approximations that get better over time, as we have more information available to us (your theory of relativity example is a good one. Nobody knew that our mass depends on how fast we're going, but before this theory developed we had no way of measuring this). So I'm not saying that evolution is fact (indeed, if the only way we could truly say we know something is a rigid proof, then only mathematics would be valid for teaching), just that it is the best explanation we have based on what we know about the world around us. However, I still stand behind my original conclusion. Creationism is neither scientific nor a theory, so I do not believe it has a place in a scientific context.

Can you give an example? I'm not understanding this part. I don't think you understand how the word theory is used in a scientific context, as you're using the work theory as if to devalue the theory of evolution. In science, theories have been thoroughly tested, based on inductive reasoning, and are formulated in ways that can be disproved should different information become available. The theory of evolution fits this definition, especially the 100 years of through testing it has. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proven or disproven by science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and therefore it is pointless to teach it in a scientific setting. After, biology is a science, and all knowledge we have of biology is learned from the scientific method. Apologies, but I don't see how this relates. A study of government is academic, creationism is faith-based.

Simply put, religion is not scientific. EDIT: Please note that I am not making any statement regarding the truthfulness of either.

I hope the agenda of that meeting isn't "Boil 'em? Mash 'em? Stick 'em in a stew?"

Stuck in a rut, eh? Well, you have to dig around your tires a little, put something down that will give your tires some traction if you have one, and just slooooowly move forward. :) Having somebody go around the back and push will also be helpful. EDIT: Why can't I thank and laugh at the same time?

The way I see it, religion and science both ask two very different questions. Science asks "How?", and such questions can be answered by the scientific method. Religion asks "Who?", which becomes outside the range of anything science can ever do by means of the scientific method. So, I really think that science should have its place in the classroom, and religion should have its place at church. I'm currently taking a biology class at BYU, and this is generally how they do things there. Besides, what's wrong with Theistic Evolution?

My number before I moved to college was very close to the local Bi-Mart's number.