Jamie123

I can't hear "Rocky" without thinking of Sylvester Stallone.

Anyone else seen this yet? I took the family last weekend, and we all laughed and laughed - I thought it was one of the best animated movies I've seen for a long time. (Well OK - Madagascar 2 was pretty funny as well!) It starts with a young bride who gets zapped by a meteorite on the morning of her wedding, grows 50ft tall (like you do) and gets taken to the secret military base where all the other freaks and mutants are kept. Fortunately these "monsters" become the heroes when the earth is invaded by aliens! I thought the funniest character was Bob (a sort of parody of The Blob), a blue gelatinous creature who constantly gets himself confused with everyone else!

People from Mormandy.

I'm primarily a Midlander - a Leicester lad - though nowadays I live in Surrey :)

It's certainly not a very common word, though I do remember it from a rather lovely carol which I once had to sing the tenor part to: Chorus: Past three o’clock and a cold frosty morning, Past three o’clock, good morrow masters all! Born is a baby, gentle as may be, Son of the eternal, Father supernal. Seraph quire singeth, angel bell ringeth, Hark how they rhyme it, time it and chime it. Mid earth rejoices hearing such voices Ne’ertofore so well caroling Nowell. Hinds o’er the pearly dewy lawn early, Seek the high Stranger laid in a manger. Cheese from thy dairy, bring it for Mary, And not for money, butter and honey. Light out the star-land leadeth from far land, Princes to meet him, worship and greet him. Myrrh from full coffer, incense they offer, Nor is the golden nugget withholden. Thus they I pray you, up sirs nor stay you, ‘Till ye confess him, likewise and bless him.

Pleased to meet you Soulsearcher. I am not a member of the LDS Church, but I do live in the UK. Welcome :)

I know this thread has gone off-course somewhat, and that's partly due to me. I really hope things work out for your friend. Godspeed - Jamie.

Gravity is created by mass and by the proximity of that mass (Newton's F=GMm/r^2 law). For a solid earth, gravity would act uniformly towards the earth's center, and decrease as one approached the center. At the center, a person would be weightless, since he would be surrounded by equal concentrations of mass on all sides, whose gravitational effects would cancel out.In the case of a hollow earth, the situation is different: The gravitational pull would not necessarily be towards the earth's center, but towards the earth's shell. The direction of gravity would depend on which side of the shell you were on: For someone on the outside the force would be downwards towards the center, while someone on the inside would feel the same force acting outwards. A person who tunneled half way through the shell would feel no gravity at all, since he would have equal amounts of mass on either side. Given the symmetry of the situation, the ocean on the outside of the earth would have no more reason to flow into the earth than the ocean on the inside would have to flow out.

The same to you with bells on!

A person from Britain is properly called a "Briton". (Americans sometimes shortened this to "Brit".) Other countries have different names for us: The French call us - amongst other less complimentary things - "Les Rosbifs" because of our liking for roast beef. (We have no cause to complain, as we often refer to them as "The Frogs".) One of the most peculiar names for is "The Poms", used by people from Australia, Zimbabwe and a few other southern countries. I've heard two theories about this: 1. POM stands for "Prisoner Of Mother (England)", referring to the fact that British immigrants were largely convicted felons, transported there for penal servitude. 2. "Pom" is short for "pomegranate". The locals named us after this fruit because of our (supposedly) red faces. (I've never thought we had particularly red skin: Maybe we turned red quickly because we weren't used to their fierce sun. BTW, "Briton" applies to everyone from mainland Britain, though (as Willow points out) not necessarily from Northern Ireland.

Who knows - maybe the tall selenites Joseph Smith spoke of are living inside the moon.

There are good gamblers and bad gamblers. A good gambler knows which risks to take, and how much to gamble. The ability to do this quickly and instinctively could be considered a "gift" of sorts - though I think it could probably be put to better use than to win money in card games. A talented gambler might, for example, become a good insurance actuary.

I believe not. I once bought some decaf specially so I'd have something to offer the missionaries - then discovered when they arrived that they weren't allowed to drink that either.

LOL - the following quote from Roald Dahl springs to mind: This proves that gambling's not a sin, provided that you always win! I've no idea what the Mormon take would be, but (assuming that you're talking about gambling with cards etc.) my gut feeling is that it would be uncharitable - since the only way you can win is by causing the other person to lose - possibly money he or she can't afford. On the subject of Mormons and gambling, I read a story some years ago about a group of BYU students who were caught gambling at Las Vegas, and accused of breaching the university's honor code. They were all acquitted on the grounds that there was no written rule forbidding gambling off-campus - though they were given a stern lecture on the possible dangers of it.

Ever heard of a guy called Rodney Clough? There's a short bio of him here: World Top Secret: Our Earth Is Hollow!: About the Author. His ideas are colorful to say the least, but he is an LDS member who served a full-time mission. (Not that that necessarily means he isn't either barmy or a bizarre fantasist.) Of course, I've heard of the "hollow earth" theory before: Sir Humphrey Davey (1778-1828) who was the leading British scientist of his day believed something similar, and his ideas were used by Jules Verne in Journey to the Centre of the Earth. Edgar Allen Poe wrote about it too, but it's news to me that anyone takes it seriously today. I've not particularly researched Clough's theory, but a few ideas spring to mind: 1. Holes in the north and south poles - even if relatively small - would have been noticed by now by explorers, not to mention by satellites and aircraft, submarines passing under the north polar ice sheet. (To be fair, Clough does claim that the American explorer Richard Evelyn Byrd (1888-1957) flew an aircraft into the earth's northern aperture, and that his report was suppressed in typical conspiracy-theory fashion.) Furthermore, the position of Scott and Amundson's "pole" would have to be wrong - why has no one noticed this? 2. If the earth is hollow, with a shell only 800 miles thick, how is there enough mass to create the observed gravitational field? Either the earth's crust is MUCH denser than we think it is, or else the universal gravitational constant is wrong by several orders of magnitude. Also other planets would need to be hollow to make the same theory apply to them. 3. How could any naturalistic process explain a hollow planet's formation? I'm no expert, but it seems sensible that interstellar dust should coalesce under gravity to form solid spherical bodies. A hollow shell would suggest something akin to "bubble" formation - with some fluid or gas trapped inside. Is this possible? (I don't know.) Of course, the other possibility is that the hollow earth (and other hollow planets) did not form by natural processes at all, but were intelligently constructed. 4. There is also the whole theory of seismology. Again this is not my subject, but the earth's inner has (I understand) been deduced from the passage of seismic waves through its core. If the core is hollow, a lot of currently-accepted theories will need to be wrong. I know its not of much practical importance, but I've also found such speculations rather interesting. Does anyone else have any thoughts/opinions?

OK - but in that case why bother with the adjective? I assumed it was used to imply "most serious". If all sin is spiritual, why not just call it all "sin"? At no point have I ever disputed the dangers of sexual immorality. If you read my post in its entirity, you will see that I acknowledge the damage that it does to us. However, I can't agree that lust necessarily stems from pride. I think I would agree with you there - though I'm a little wary of your usage of the word "damaging". I've learned from our past exchanges that you're a consequentialist, whereas I'm not. Again I agree. I did not say that it was "no big deal". Read my post again. I believe that, yes. I was talking about my changing perceptions of Mormonism. In the past I've found it difficult to understand why the LDS takes a different position of birth control to the Catholic Church. I believe I now have an answer to that. OK - good answer.

I apologize - after I'd thought about it a bit, I reckoned that was probably what you meant. I don't know for sure, but I suspect many churches that do teach "do as you like - you're saved" are actually perverting the teachings of their original founders. I think the overall situation can be understood as follows. The Christian is faced with the following two principles: 1. God commands us to repent of our sins and henceforth to live righteous lives. 2. As fallen creatures, we know that we have no capacity to obey this command. Therefore our righteousness can only come from Christ. This is obviously problematic, and the Christian feels like the child who's told to "speak when he's spoken to, and not to answer back!" If he follows Principle 1 and ignores Principle 2, he inevitably fails and drives himself mad with guilt. On the other hand, if he concentrates on 2 at the expense of 1, he becomes the "do as you like, you're saved!" caricature that many synergist Christians (Mormons included) use to parody monergists. However, there's a simple 3rd principle that can be added: 3. Repent, try to live a sinless life, accept that you will not succeed, and trust Christ to pick up the slack. But do not use your inevitable failure as an excuse not to do the best that you can.

I understand and pretty much agree with what you are saying. But it is not true to say that "other religions" do not believe that you have to repent again and again. If you have ever been to an Anglican communion service, you will have heard something like this: We say that every week before receiving the sacrament (the bread and wine that contain the Real Presence of Christ). We do believe is that our repentance is only possible because Christ already paid the price for our sins, but this is not the same as saying "sin as much as you like because Christ already paid the price for it".

Thank you, rameumptom. The idea that fornication should be considered a "spiritual sin" is a little strange to me. Over the years, I've come to view sexual immorality less serious than other sins since (like gluttony or sloth) it comes form a simple carnal desire, not from any deep-rooted spiritual pride. Of course, not saying that lust isn't dangerous, or that (unless repented of) it doesn't damage our relationships with our partners and with God. But it is immeasurably less serious than other things of which Man is capable. (I'm not claiming necessarily to be right about this. I'm merely trying to explain where I'm coming from.) On the other hand, I can begin to understand though where the LDS position comes from: The ability to copulate and thus create children is (as I understand it - please correct me if I'm wrong) part of God's creative power devolved upon mankind. If we use it wrongly, we are abusing what is effectively a "priesthood authority". I've often considered this a weak point in LDS doctrine since - if applied consistently - it would require a ban any form of non-procreative sex. But I read somewhere recently (possibly on this site) that the Church does recognize a secondary function of sex as a means of bringing marriage partners closer together. (Another thought: Plants and animals also have the power to reproduce themselves. Does this mean they too share in God's creative act?)

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but what are the first two most heinous crimes?

1. Only Mormons believe in the authority of the LDS Church. 2. Not all members of this site are Mormons. 3. Those who are not Mormons by definition disbelieve in LDS authority. Why do such people participate in an LDS-oriented forum? Because they understand this site is open to everyone and are grateful for this opportunity to learn about a different faith from their own. However: I think trouble arises because many non-LDS find it difficult not to view things in the light of their own religious traditions. Most people with a Protestant (or even a liberal Catholic) background tend to see repentance as a personal thing between themselves and God: They might discuss their sins with a minister or priest, and even be given some form of penance to help their repentance, but that would be an informal and strictly private thing. Vort: If non-LDS are welcome here, LDS-members cannot expect always to hear LDS-oriented opinions expressed on the forum. It's not always easy for a non-LDS to put his/her preconceptions aside and see things from an LDS perspective. On the other hand, its often difficult for LDS members to see where non-LDS are coming from. There's bound to be a lot of pointless back-and-forth cross-purposes argument, unless we try to understand the differences between our religious worldviews.

I know he shouldn't have done it, and he was old enough to know better, but 6 years seems excessive for something that was just plain stupid rather than evil. When I was at school we had a spate of "bomb scares" instigated by students. (The authorities never found out who was doing it, but most of us kids had our suspicions.) Still, I suppose this will discourage other people from doing anything similar.

Rather like the telephone bill. (Which you've hidden to stop your wife/husband/parents/landlord seeing how much money you've wasted. Best solution is to burn the thing.)

I'm no expert on Joseph Smith, but didn't he also claim that there were some very tall people, dressed like Quakers, who lived on the moon? (Not that that sort of idea was uncommon in his day: The astronomer William Herschel - discoverer of Uranus - believed there were large-headed beings living on the sun.)

This is very true. Several times I've been put in my place by someone (supposedly) "older, wiser and better" than myself, when I dared to point out she was not living up to the standards she was expecting from me. Spiritual "rank-pulling" is not confined to any one church.Example: [Older, Wiser and Better Person] (Some negative observation about my habits/lifestyle) [Me] Yes, but what about you....? [Older, Wiser and Better Person] Me? How dare you criticize me! What do you know about me? [Me] Well, i seems to me you're doing the same thing that... [Older, Wiser and Better Person] You need to learn some humility! I spent five years in Bible college, and I've been round the world on a missionary ship, and I've read the Bible ten times, and I've been slain in the Spirit! I know better than you! [Me] Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that... [Older, Wiser and Better Person] You need to earn the right to criticize me... [Me] (thinks: When did you earn the right to criticize me?) [Older, Wiser and Better Person] ...and you've got unrealistic expectations! You don't live up to what you're expecting from me! [Me] (thinks: Isn't that exactly what I was saying to you? And anyway, you make such extravagant claims about your own spirituality, you can hardly blame me for having high expectations.) OK....you win. I exaggerate slightly :) But there are some very enthusiastic Christians who see themselves as "mature believers" but are actually nothing of the sort. They understand the theory, but they do not see that they are failing to put it into practice. They confuse what they are with what they ought to be. On the other hand, they all too readily see the faults of other people (particularly those whom they consider "younger" Christians than themselves) and are continually pointing the finger at them. Those "young" Christians are in something of a dilemma: They see the faults in themselves that the "mature" Christians point out, but also see the same (or similar) faults in their spiritual "elders". If they react one way, they add "lack of humility" to their own list of sins (and get accused of the dreaded ad hominem). If they blinker themselves to their elders' faults and pretend that these people are perfect, they (i) encourage them to become more judgmental than ever and (ii) make false idols out of them - neither of which is good. I think that "true" humility requires a middle road. If you were a younger sibling in your family, you probably saw your elder siblings as more experienced (and possibly wiser) than yourself, but not as perfect role models. You probably didn't take their haughty behavior very seriously, and yet still loved them in spite of it. I think it has to be the same in the "spiritual" family of the Church.