Jamie123

In reality, the ministers are volunteers.  Incarcerated individuals have their religious practice accommodated through the use of chaplains, contractors (part-time paid clergy), volunteers, and through the provision of religious materials.  In this case, it appears that the volunteers are unpaid.  So, they are saving the state and taxpayers money.  Correctional systems tend to prohibit racist, violent, or anti-government type teachings.  If they move to prohibiting teaching about LBGT, then it may be that the actual violation is not upholding chastity but rather targeting other groups (i.e. LBGT inmates).  In a prison setting, where many inmates are immature, and can interpret religion to extremes, if the volunteer leader says, "Gays are sinners.  In the Old Testament they could be stoned to death." an unstable prisoner could interpret that as permission to beat up LBGT folks.  So, I'd exercise cautionerpreting this story.

A mathematician named Klein
Thought Mobius Loops were divine
He said "If you glue
The edges of two,
You end up with a bottle like mine!"

Now there's an interesting question; if we returned to polygamy, would senior missions expand to taking all the wives along, or would one have a road wife, a home wife, etc.?

A mathematician named Klein
Thought Mobius Loops were divine
He said "If you glue
The edges of two,
You end up with a bottle like mine!"

A mathematician named Klein
Thought Mobius Loops were divine
He said "If you glue
The edges of two,
You end up with a bottle like mine!"

Vort, I think this is the pic you need for your TiffanyButterfly23 profile. It should solve most coding problems. 
 
 
 

I can think of one example of where a thought experiment is used for proof: "reduction ad absurdum" when the reverse of the proposition to is assumed true and logical consequences are shown to contradict that assumption. A classic example is Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers. If there are (for example) only 3 prime numbers A, B and C, then any other number must be divisible by one or more of these and give no remainder. However the number (AxBxC+1) will always give a remainder 1 when divided by A, B or C and so must be another prime. Whenever a finite number of primes is assumed, the conclusion must be drawn that there is at least one more. So the number of primes must therefore be infinite.
 
 
 
Beyond this being a kind of reductio ad absurdum (see above) I don't understand it at all. It seems to be what Dawkins would have called an "argument by incredulity"; since we cannot imagine our ancestors having a different number of eyes from us it therefore can't be true. At least that's the best I can make of it - if I'm wrong, please put me right.
 
But if so I can think of many things that also seem incredible. I've watched my now-nearly-11-year-old daughter grow from a new-born baby, to a toddler, to what she is now without noticing any of the changes as they happened. (Admittedly she never grew an extra eye, but she changed enormously in other respects.) To me she always looked exactly the same one day to the next. And when I look at myself in the mirror and see the laugh lines around my eyes and the worry-lines in my forehead, I can't understand how I can have become what I am now from the fresh-faced kid in my graduation photos. But it HAS happened.
 
 
 
Though I quite like Richard Dawkins as a science author, I've never been impressed with his arguments against God. I don't think he asks the right questions. It's a while since I read The God Delusion, but I remember him comparing God to things like the "Pink Unicorn" and the "Flying Teapot"; things which if they did exist would be within and part of creation. My conception of God (though I'm not certain most LDS would agree) is something/someone outside and giving rise to creation. It's like C.S.Lewis' (sorry to bring him up again) argument about looking for Shakespeare within Shakespeare's plays, and, not finding him, concluding that Shakespeare does not exist.
 
As for evolution, the evolution-based argument against the existence of God has always sounded to me like a steel-girder-based argument against the existence of architects. (Evolution proves how we got here - therefore no need for God. Steel girders explain how buildings stand up - therefore no need for architects.) 
 
P.S. Another argument creationists make against evolution could be called the "it's not very nice argument" - which basically claims that the killing off of non-favoured individuals (those without the 3rd eye, to use dowis' example) is not something our "Nice Christian God" would allow. People who make this argument have obviously never read the Old Testament!
 
P.P.S. Some creationists will tell you that the only reason anyone believes in evolution is because they want to evade responsibility for their sins. However, when you ask them how they explain the existence of Christians who believe in evolution - Christians moreover who believe in sin and the need for grace - you'll get something like this...
 
Creationist: These believers in evolution - they just want to eliminate God so they can do as they like without taking responsibility, or being held accountable by the God who made them.
 
Critic: But what about Christians who believe in evolution?
 
Creationist: There are none.
 
Critic: There are plenty!
 
Creationist: (shakes head) These so-called Christians are deceiving themselves. Jesus told us Himself “In the beginning God made them male and female”. They are calling our Saviour a liar!
 
Critic: Whether they are or not is irrelevant. They believe they are sinners. They believe they need God's grace. If you're right, what can possibly be their motivation for believing in evolution?
 
Creationist: (laughs) How on earth would I know? Go and ask them!
 
Critic: What do you mean "how on earth would I know?" You told me less than a minute ago that you knew exactly what their motivation was! Now you're wriggling out of the question by telling me that you don't!
 
Creationist: (laughs and shakes his head, and goes to find someone else to talk to)

LDS does not have exclusive ownership of the gospel. CS Lewis and others have correctly identified and expressed true gospel principles; thus the quotes by our General Authorities. Are they to be quoted in all things, of course not.

I believe the term that is used most often to describe his title/occupation/genre is a Christian Apologist, which if I am understanding that term correctly, puts him under the somewhat broad umbrella of the title of theologian. 
 
I like what Vort said, that Lewis is an explainer rather than an authority. One (unknown) commentator on his works said that "he possesses the rare gift of making righteousness readable." I think that is why he is so often quoted, never as a replacement for actual doctrine or scripture but as a succinct "summing up" in modern language. Everyone should do their own study of faith and works and not let their own understanding rely solely on what is one of Lewis' most famous "object lessons." But it is helpful nonetheless to be able to picture that pair of scissors.  

Lewis is not an authority, he is an explainer.

I originally posted this in another thread, but it was so off-topic I don't really think it belongs there - it needs another thread of its own. It has to do with this quote by Folk Prophet
 
 
I tend to agree: C.S. Lewis has been such a part of my general reading experience over the years, I have to guard myself against confusing certain "Lewisisms" with Biblical teachings. Its not even as if I necessarily agree with everything the guy wrote. (I totally disagree with the "trilemma" for example.) But he has a way of casting a spell with his words - and like he says himself "spells are used for breaking enchantments". He's helped me to see many of the dogmas of the modern world for what they are.
 
Another things about Lewis is he seems to be one of the few non-LDS Christian authors that LDS people know about, read and respect. Whenever I've mentioned my other favourite Christian authors - Adrian Plass for example, or Philip Yancey or Henri Nouwen on this forum, I've been met with blank silence. Whenever I bring up C.S. Lewis everyone here knows immediately who I'm talking about.
 
Yet another interesting thing about C.S.Lewis is that the religious and literary "intelligentsia" of America seem to take him a lot more seriously than do their counterparts in the UK. For example, the Episcopalian Church in the USA (I believe) have a feast day for Lewis in their calendar; Lewis is not so honoured in the Church of England. American universities keep collections of his letters and manuscripts; British universities barely acknowledge his existence!
 
And this is true also of the other Inklings authors - most notably J.R.R. Tolkien. A few years ago two surveys were performed in the UK to discover the "greatest book of the 20th Century". One survey involved the general public, the other the academic literary community. The general public put The Lord of the Rings firmly at the top of the list, while C.S.Lewis' books were not far behind. The literary academics' list did not include either Lewis or Tolkien. It was full of Graeme Greene, T.S. Elliot, G.K. Chesterton and Evelyn Waugh (all great authors, I don't deny) but not a single mention "the people's" favourites!
 
The Inklings are not considered "high brow", but who cares? They are appreciated by the people who matter - such plebs as myself, Americans and the LDS!

Step one; install urinals so there's no toilet seat issue.

I guess I'm just a mortal, short-sighted and selfish kind of person. But at least I know my limitations
 
P.S. Having just written that, doubt now assails me... Perhaps I'm putting God into His box again!  
P.P.S. A random thought: if Man were intended to have more than one wife, why didn't God create Adam and Eve, Denise, Felicity, Gina, Helen, Irene and Jane? 
 
P.P.P.S. I know I'm being a bit flippant here, but now I've thought about it some more I think Folk Prophet does raise an interesting point.

As much as I definitely understand this sentiment, one might also say, for example: Why would anyone want a large family? Having 7 or 8 or 9 (10? 13?) kids would be such a pain. How could anyone live with that level of aggravation? How much nicer to just have one or two kids!
 
Yes...from a mortal, short-sighted, selfish kind of p.o.v., this holds some level of pseudo-logic and appeal. But the truth is that large families tend to bring great joy and blessings to those who are willing to so sacrifice.
 
I cannot help but wonder if the sacrifice of plural marriage (and there's not denying it would be a sacrifice all around (women "on-the-side" not withstanding ) might not also, in reality, bring all the greater joy and blessings.

That's what I'm saying. I don't know that Chamberlain was a coward, just a fool.

I can understand why a man might want to have a woman (or women) on the side in addition to his wife, though even that might lead to a rather complicated and stressful life. But why would anyone want to have more than one actual wife?
 
There was a TV show a few weeks ago about a "Mormon" man who had (I think) seven wives - and several sets of kids by different wives - all living together in one house. It was, admittedly, rather a big house - but all the same. How could anyone live with that level of aggravation?
 
How much nicer just to have one wife, and all your kids by her!

Even if Iran and ISIS never ever get together you might still get knocked down by a bus tomorrow. Repentance is always a good idea.

Even if Iran and ISIS never ever get together you might still get knocked down by a bus tomorrow. Repentance is always a good idea.

That's very interesting! Imaginary numbers are a constant source of amusement. I remember reading this paradox a while back: -1=i^2=sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)=sqrt(-1*-1)=sqrt(1)=1, so -1=1 and 1+1=0. I once showed that to the head of our math school; she was stumped for a while, but later got back to me with the suggestion that you need to say sqrt(1)=-1 at the last step. (But why isn't the positive root just as valid?) Another solution I found on the web is that the rule sqrt(a)*sqrt(b)=sqrt(a*b) is not valid when a and b are both imaginary.

Thanks for the correction of Euler's equation vs. Euler's identity, Jamie. I note that in addition to:
 
i = e^(iθ)
 
for all θ = ½π(1 + 4n), it's also true that:
 
i = -e^(iθ)
 for all θ = ½π(3 + 4n). Not that this has any real philosophical relevance to anything we're discussing, of course. Just saying.

I find it a lot easier to imagine the future extending from now to eternity, than the past stretching back to eternity. This would mean that whatever point in the past we go back to there was always a "before that". The mind reels at the thought - we feel there ought to be a start - an origin. But the mind reels at that idea too; we ask what caused that origin? In other words we start demanding a "before that".
 
This reminds me of when I first read the novel The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle. (Hoyle, who was well as being a novelist was also a physics professor at Cambridge and co-originator of the "steady state" theory of universe. It was he who coined the phrase "the Big Bang" to ridicule other physicists who believed the universe had an explosive beginning; little did he know these "other physicists" would soon start using the phrase themselves!)
 
Anyway (*SPOILER ALERT*) in The Black Cloud Earth's Solar System is visited by a huge interstellar dust cloud which settles around the sun and causes the Earth to freeze. Scientists studying the cloud discover it is actually an intelligent living organism and find a means to communicate with it. The cloud-being is equally surprised to discover anything so bizarre as intelligent life on a planet, but nevertheless permits sunlight to return and humanity is saved from a frozen grave. The scientists question the cloud for some months, during which they ask it about its origins; they learn how the cloud-creatures reproduce, but when they ask how their species began the cloud disagrees that it ever had a beginning. The main character (a Cambridge professor and thinly-disguised fictionalized Hoyle) then does a metaphorical victory-dance over the Big Bang theory.
 
But of course it's now (almost) universally accepted that Hoyle was wrong; the universe did have a beginning and it was a Big Bang. Furthermore the very idea of time before the big bang is shown to be meaningless. But who knows? Maybe there was another kind of time which ended when our time began. Or maybe there is a kind of "Time" that transcends and contains what we know as "time" - that is occupied by Gods, Spirits etc.. 
 
Interestingly though, as for any future "end of time" the evidence of cosmic inflation is against it. It was once believed that the expansion was slowing down - that it would one day reverse and end in a "big crunch". But not a bit of it - the universe is not only expanding but it is expanding faster all the time. It would seem that time had a start, but will never have an end.
 
So it would seem....but who knows. I wonder whether cosmologists will still be saying the same thing 100 years from now?
 
P.S. Another really great novel by Hoyle is Inferno - in which the cloud-beings also make a brief appearance.

(I'm not an expert on Mormonism, or on theology in general, so my apologies in advance if anything in this post is grotesquely wrong.)
 
Aspects of Mormonism I don’t really care about one way or the other:
 
1. Joseph Smith
2. The Restoration/Priesthood
3. A Living Prophet
4. The Temple
 
All of these things really hang together: the Restoration of the Priesthood and the Temple came through Joseph Smith, who was first of a line of “Living Prophets”. This intrigues me somewhat, and that it happened (or supposedly happened) during what historians would call "the Modern Period" lends it a certain credibility over things that were said to have happened 2,000 years ago. But my overall response is (as some would say) “Meh!”
 
Aspects of Mormonism I do care about:
 
1. “Man is that he might have joy”.
 
God is the literal loving Father of all humanity. He loves and desires the happiness of every human being living or who has ever lived, regardless of whether they believe in or even know about Him. Not everyone will necessarily achieve salvation, just as not every child of the most loving earthly father will necessarily live a happy life; failure to achieve happiness would not be due to any plan by the father. But there was never any person born for whom God did not intend salvation.
 
Contrast this with the view that God’s Fatherhood begins only when a person comes to Christ, and that a person can only come to Christ through God’s favour. There is no libertarian “free will”; individuals are “free” to act only as a clock is “free” to strike the hour. (Some people call this “compatibilist” free will.) Humanity is therefore divided between the Elect (those who have or who are scheduled to come to Christ) and the Reprobate (those who have not and will never come to Christ, and are therefore scheduled for eternal suffering).
 
This view is sometimes called “Calvinism”, though it is not (I believe) what Calvin originally taught*. Others would call it “Hypercalvinism”. It includes the idea of “limited atonement” – that Christ only died for the Elect. (What would have been the point of His dying for anyone else?) I’ve always had a deep-seated dislike for this idea, and you’ve no idea how it bugs me that it’s enshrined in the Articles of Faith of my own denomination.
 
You do of course have the alternative view of Arminianism – though I must confess I don’t really understand this: some would see it as almost identical to what the Mormons believe - with the proviso that God desires all come to Christ, and in doing so become His sons/daughters. But that's really not quite it: if I understand rightly it still includes the concept of perfect divine foreknowledge; that God knows in advance what path any individual will take. If God is omnipotent, and if He desires happiness for all, then why did He not program each individual to take the correct path? (This was of course Satan’s plan – but with libertarian free will ruled out what other path was there for a loving God – even if it would have made the history books rather boring?) The only answer is that He did not intend to – and thus we are back to Calvinism.
 
But what if God is like a Father – a loving perfect father – to all humanity? What if He hopes, suffers, fears, weeps for and takes joy in all His children.....guides them, but allows them to make their own mistakes? Then…well then there’s hope for everyone!
 
Could it be true?
 
* My knowledge of Calvinism and Arminianism comes primarily from having read The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought (300 pages covering St.Paul to Billy Graham) so I can hardly claim to be an expert. But from what I understand John Calvin himself was never overly keen on the idea of predestination, and he's been somewhat unfairly "blamed" for it.

.     Euler's equation:
e^(iπ) = -1
 
.     Take square root of both sides:
√[e^(iπ)] = √[-1]
[e^(iπ)]^½= i
 
.     Reversing and simplifying:
i = e^(iπ/2)
 
.    So,
 
i^i = [e^(iπ/2)]^i
 
.     which simplifies to:
i^i = e^(i²π/2)
i^i = e^(-π/2)i^i = 1/[e^(π/2)] .     This is easily calculated:i^i ≈ 1/4.810477 ≈ 0.20788 How about that? Though I am not seeing how including a factor of (1+4n) in the exponent is supposed to yield the same number. This would appear to be true for positions on the unit circle - you're essentially looking at the 90° point - but it is not obvious to me that there should be an expectation that this would generalize to all real numbers. My mathematical understanding is not deep enough to offer a firm opinion.
 
As to how this applies to concepts such as the Trinity. I think of Kurt Gödel, who published his famous and utterly revolutionary Incompleteness Theorem along with his own ideas about how this philosophically applied to the human condition. I am not convinced that the human conditon is well-represented by number systems, though. So I am not at all convinced that the consequences that Gödel himself suggested are even applicable.

This has been discussed here before, but no one this time has mentioned Moses killing the Egyptian.
 
On an earlier thread someone came up with a convoluted argument that this wasn't really murder because Moses was doing what he had to do to save the Israelite that the Egyptian was beating. Let's face it (and please excuse the sarcasm): what other option would a prince of Egypt have?
 
There's also the matter of David killing the man who brought him the crown. OK - so this man had just killed the king, but only because the king had told him to do it. (I always felt sorry for that guy.)
 
And then there's Joab killing Absalom, after David has expressly told him not to. (Though I suppose Joab did later come to a sticky end because of this.)

Quite right - it's incredibly hard. But is it any harder than "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."?
 
I don't think many of God's commandments are actually going to be obeyed in this life!