Jamie123

A while ago, I posted a terribly heretical message on one of these threads to the effect that David Lynch's version of Frank Herbert's Dune is not "a terrible movie" (as is the recieved wisdom on this matter) but is actually rather good. At last I've found someone who really agrees with me! I don't totally agree with everything he says. To begin with, the movie is not true to the book. For example: * The whole concept of "wierding" was introduced by the film makers. * Ditto the "heart plugs" (or whatever they were) of the Harkonnens. * Patrick Stewart was nothing at all like the ugly but loveable Gurney Halleck of the novel. * Jessica is far more openly emotional than she was in the original; there is no way the Jessica of the novel would have burst into tears the way Francesca Annis did on hearing that the Duke was dead. She pretty much goes to pieces during that whole section of the movie. That's not the way a Bene Gesserit would have acted, even if her husband had just been murdered. To appreciate it, you have to dissociate it from the book and take it as a wholly new interpretation of the story, set in the universe of Lynch, not of Herbert. But it is a great movie, whatever "everyone" says about it!

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Boo hoo! It's not fair! How come MOE gets to use the "C" word without a smacked botty, and a dismal lecture about "Rule 6" from you-know-who?

Congratulations I'll give you a piece of advice my best man gave me on my wedding day: No matter how much you argue/bicker/shout/sulk/throw kitchen utensils at each other during he day, always tell the other person you love them before bed, and kiss them goodnight :)

"Fine tooth-comb" instead of "fine-toothed comb". (I'd like to know who combs his teeth!)

Is it really 9 years since the Nauvoo temple was rebuilt? I'm betting they'd only just finished laying the last stone when you and your wife were married there!

(Francois de La Rochefoucauld)

Ah - Thanks Dravin - I think I understand where he's coming from now: Disproof of Mormonism would indicate (to a Mormon) that revelation itself cannot be trusted, and any other church which relied upon it must also be flawed. Though I suppose there may be more than one kind of revelation. The direct "burning-in-the-bosom" type revelation (which I've always mistrusted myself anyway) might be proven unreliable, but could revelation come in other forms which an ex-Mormon might learn to trust?

It depends what you mean by "All Mormonism". You could interpret that as "all parts of Mormonism which differentiate it from other forms of Christianity". If every assumption that Mormons make were proven false then pretty much the entire world would cease to exist. I'm sorry but this is totally false. The concept of the Holy Spirit as witness and counsellor is present in the Bible (John 15:26). This is accepted by nearly all Christians. Many other churches stress the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It isn't just a "Mormon thing".

I agree - and this is why other churches have certain dedicated members who engage in what is negatively referred to as "priestcraft" and are supported (directly or indirectly) by the general members' tithes. The trouble is, these paid clergy are few in number and have a horrendous amount of work dumped on them because the general members think: "It's the vicar's job, not ours!" The Church of England is not as wealthy as it once was and cannot support so many paid clergy, so in some areas a single overworked priest serves 3 or 4 different parishes. That is why lay people are being encouraged to train for unpaid ministry; the ideal situation would be 2 or 3 voluntary unpaid clergy (what we call "readers", "SPA's" and "ordained local ministers") assisting each full-time vicar - but that's often a far-off dream. The idea of a fully unpaid clergy is further off still, but I suppose the LDS church has shown it could work. And the thought that the vicar "has a day job too" would be a disincentive for people to shirk their fair share of serving others!

Remember the acrostic BEDMAS: B(rackets) first, then E(xponents), then D(ivision) and M(ultiplication), last of all A(ddition) and S(ubtraction). A useful one for trigonometry is SOHCAHTOA: Sine Opposite over Hypotenuse. Cosine Adjacent over Hypotenuse. Tangent Opposite over Adjacent.

The trouble comes when such people have power and influence in the community. An "important person" on this forum made a response to one of my threads a while back which really hurt me for a while. And it shouldn't have done because when all's said and done this is only an Internet message board. Nobody here should exert that much power over your "real" life, and if you let them upset you then you are (in effect) handing them that power on a plate. Plus of course it's not easy to know when something you've said yourself on the spur of the moment might have hurt someone else. Something to think about... I've had a long experience of Internet communities. I know how easy it is to get "sucked in" and to start living a secondary life with all its joys and heartaches. But real life has enough heartaches as it is. If you find yourself getting overly upset about message posters, it's probably time to shut the laptop for a while and spent more time with your real-life friends and family. (A piece of advice I need to take more often myself!)

I'm guessing this is to do with someone who's getting married. My first guess would be Beefche and Dravin My second guess would be Funkytown.

LOL - I wonder if the pitcher is laughing about it now!

What he's really saying is that the Bible has some linkage with independent secular history and therefore has some definite basis in fact, whereas the Book of Mormon does not and could therefore (for all we know) be a complete fantasy - on a par with Tolkien's Silmarillion. I'd challenge him to produce "external evidence" of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, the sojourn in Egypt, Moses' burning bush, the crossing of the "Red Sea", the Battle of Jericho...in fact anything major and unambiguous up to the time of the Captivity in Babylon. Then ask him about the 2 contradicting geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke, and ask him if one...or indeed both...mightn't be the result of what he calls "psychosis". He'll have an answer to this I'm sure, but I'll bet my last penny it'll rely on some speculative (or "psychotic"?) proposition. I'd agree the geography of the Bible Lands (with a few exceptions like the "Red Sea" - which must in reality have been a papyrus lagoon) is identifiable, but then again so is the geography of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae - a book very like the Old Testament, but which everyone now agrees is mostly made-up. So many of the OT stories are conceivably "just legends", I don't think there's much less "blind faith" (or "psychosis") required to believe them literally true.

That's very true, and I think "consumerist" type considerations are behind a lot of people's choice of church. The LDS missionary idea that "there are so many churches because there are so many different ideas about God" (which of course they attribute to the loss of the original priesthood) has an element of truth, but I also think a lot of the diversity in worship is really to do with differences in taste. This is certainly true in our case anyway.

"Nigel called me a zombie for pinching his chemistry apron". That's how you remember the reactivity sequence of metals: Na [sodium] Ca [Calcium] Mg [Magnesium] Al [Aluminium] Zn [Zinc] Fe [iron] Pb [Lead] H [Hydrogen - behaves like a metal here] Cu [Copper] Ag [silver] (Haha - looks like I did learn something at school after all!) P.S. I've just remembered another one: "No-one can make a Zulu female pinch her cousin's arm."

Thanks Funky. It really depends what you mean by "important" and "unimportant". There are levels of importance, and just because something is "important" doesn't mean you couldn't live without it. There were periods - specially back in my student days - when I worshipped as a Nonconformist (though I've always considered myself basically Anglican). I daresay it won't harm me to do it again. But you're right though - if it's going to happen, it's better to do it cheerfully than bitterly. But if we're going to make this change it's going to take me time to adjust.

Same way with .(In case you don't know who Sir Paul Condon is, used to be head of the Metropolitan Police in London.)

For some time now we've had connections with our local Evangelical Free Church. Our daughter went to playgroup and nursery there, and noiw goes to a mid-week youth group. My wife goes to a ladies' mid-week Bible class there. I'm fine with that - I like it. The trouble is, my wife now says she wants to start going to that church on Sundays instead of to the Church of England. She says she's never really liked the repetitiveness of the Anglican liturgy, that she doesn't like going to the altar to receive communion (mainly because she was originally a Baptist, and it's not what she was brought up with) and she particularly doesn't like the High Church practices that the new vicar is bringing in. (She seemed to like him too - till he started scattering holy water around and singing the Eucharistic Prayer.) Now having an Anglo-Catholic background, I do like all that stuff. But I'm ready to compromise: I've suggested that we join a more charismatic/evangelical-type parish instead (there's a particular one we've been to a few times) but she's not up for that either. She says it's still got the Anglican liturgy, and she doesn't understand why that is so important to me. I've always maintained there was no difference - that it's what you believe that matters, not what specific denomination you are - but this is tearing me apart. Though I suppose I will eventually go along with it.... It's going to be a hard wrench though.

Yes - I'd like to thank all the moderators too. (Even the grumpy one! )

I'm not necessarily looking for either - I'm just interested in what people think about it. What you see is very interesting :) For some time now I've been thinking that Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity are not so different as certan people make tham out to be. Krister Stendahl (who was a Lutheran bishop) said that there were three principles to abide by in inter-faith dialogue. Firstly learn about a religion from the people themselves, not from their critics. Secondly, don't compare your best with their worst - compare their best with your best. Thirdly, leave room for "holy envy" (by which he meant it's OK to admire aspects of religions which are not your own). I've tried to apply these principles on this site, and my knowledge of LDS is certainly a lot different from what it was 2 1/2 years ago when I first came to this site.

I'm a little surprised by that statement too. The missionaries told me that the decision whether or not to use contraception was up to individual couples.

LOL - for a very funny answer to that question try reading David Lodge's novel "The British Museum is Falling Down".

Thanks Skippy - though that's more of a reason not to be interested in dialogue. I think it's very true - pastors of very strict, conservative churches like to protect their congregations from the ideas of the unwashed liberal riff-raff (like me!) who don't believe in a literal 6-day creation or that Charles Darwin was the devil in disguise. And it does make some sense: Though we might theoretically admit we could be wrong, life's too short to analyse everybody else's perspectives before making our own choices. And we need to do the best we can in the limited time we have. On the other hand, if every non-Mormon thought that way, no one would ever open the doors to the missionaries...or (for that matter) put their trust in Moroni's promise...