RanMan

Yes. They moved over to Family Tree so I suggest you switch over and enter your new data there. Hope that helps. :)

I am a bit surprised at the posts in this thread. I came from a forum where people criticized others horribly. I thought I had left that behind, but I guess not. This sort of behavior from so many makes me think I had better look for another place to spend my time.

Works for me.

Could you give some examples. I'm not sure what would be helpful to you. I use google to find results that I wouldn't normally find when I use my regular resources. This could be from church records someone decided to put online - and that helped me find one of the people in my family tree that didn't show up anywhere else. It could be someone else's family tree that is related to the work you are doing. Google also produces some nice online book results - such as google books - which has many times given me some very rich history on the ancestors I was researching (not always mine). If you have questions - I would be very happy to answer what I can. Although I am no expert. I do get a fair amount of results though. :)

There are some data entry jobs that can be done from home. I looked into that at one point, but unfortunately don't have any information to direct you to companies that do this.

I found it interesting that it is supported by these players on the left, but state this on their webpage: We are conservatives and moderates, progressives and liberals, non-believers and people of deep faith, united by escalating assaults on our reason, our environment, and our rights. Which conservative organizations are part of this? Maybe they're there, but I missed them if they are. What conservative speakers will be present for this rally?

No. Should I?

Since it's a joke to you, there really isn't any reason for me to give a serious response.

If this thread is any example of that, I think it would be interesting to see what you would say when you're not being tolerant of peoples right to say things - such as wishing Cusak would pipe down and go make some more crappy movies.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. :)

An´i`mate v. t. 1. To give natural life to; to make alive; to quicken; as, the soul animates the body. [imp. & p. p. Animated; p. pr. & vb. n. Animating.] Which is what President McKay stated. Which is what I stated. A clone, since it is animated, has a soul / spirit. I don't think it gets any plainer than that.

Then there isn't anything more to discuss. This is all that matters as to the topic of the thread. The spirit animating the body answers the question in the original post. "Would a human clone be considered to have a soul?" Since the spirit animates the body then clones would have souls. :)

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you. :)

I'm quite familiar with what constitutes a soul. However, your response just reinforces my thought that you may not have a clear understanding of what it means to be animated - which is, as President McKay indicates, the first basic truth of life. None of these examples have an impact on how a spirit "animates" a body. As such, they have no impact on my original statement. :)

I don't. However, to the question of the Spirit animating the body, this is taken from the Teachings of David O. McKay: Teachings of David O. McKay Each of us has two contrasting natures: the physical and the spiritual. Man is a dual being, and his life a plan of God. That is the first fundamental fact to keep in mind. Man has a natural body and a spiritual body. In declaring this fact the scriptures are very explicit: “And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” [Abraham 5:7.] Man’s body, therefore, is but the tabernacle in which his spirit dwells. Too many, far too many, are prone to regard the body as the man, and consequently to direct their efforts to the gratifying of the body’s pleasures, its appetites, its desires, its passions. Too few recognize that the real man is an immortal spirit, which [is] “intelligence or the light of truth,” [see D&C 93:29] animated as an individual entity before the body was begotten, and that this spiritual entity with all its distinguishing traits will continue after the body ceases to respond to its earthly environment. Said the Savior: “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” (John 16:28.) As Christ’s pre-existent Spirit animated a body of flesh and bones, so does the pre-existent spirit of every human being born into this world. Will you keep that in mind as the first basic truth of life? Perhaps the problem is that you don't have a clear understanding of what it means to "animate" something.

Yeah, my bad for thinking that I could respond to a question in a serious manner and expect the same in return.

Blashpemer! How dare you mention the heathen Lakers in Suns country.

I think the real question is how do you avoid getting a calling.

Clones would have souls. It is the spirt / soul that animates a body. I think that regardless of how a body is formed, the placing of a soul / spirit remains the same. It would be similar to twins I think; their physical genetic structure is nearly identical, yet each has an individual and unique spirit. :)

Of course not. They weren't opposing the variance we were asking for they were opposing the temple being built at all. The awful eyesore of a water park is ok, but an LDS temple will ruin the neighborhood.

As I understand it, the original problem was due to asking for a variance for the height of the building. Under the current laws, they can't legally do anything about it if we build within the parameters of the building ordinances. That was the reason for forgoing the previous design - we wouldn't need a vairance and by such wouldn't need anyone's approval. :)

Sorry, I had missed your response to me until just now. I must have missed the portion of the discussion where it was determined that man can be given the authority to bind on Earth with no stipulations. I would need to know more about that stance before I agree or disagree. Outside the temple, there exists only the authority to marry for the length of mortality. The authority comes from man made institutions, but is approved of by God as it pertains to the maintaining of virtue. If I'm not mistaken there is a quote about the bed not being defiled in a marriage. I see some mixing of authority coming from man and authority coming from God in this thread and that seems inaccurate and flawed for the presentation of a valid argument. Regardless, God has placed stipulations on the marriages which are performed by those whom He has given authority, and I would say that man made institutions have stipulations as to marriages which they have authority to perform. In fact, I think this is the crux of the matter. Marriage is listed as a union between a man and a woman. It is recently that attempts have been made to change the traditional understanding of marriage to include same-gender unions. So I guess I disagree; the traditional definition of marriage stipulates a union between a man and a woman. Stipulations do exist. I'm sure that this is not the only one. And that makes your second question somewhat moot - the reason why the authority to bind two men or two women together is being opposed is because the original stipluation for marriage be that it is a union of a man and a woman. Man made institutions giving the authority to perform this sort of marriage goes against the original purpose and use of this institution. Same gender marriage exceeds the authority given to bind in mortality. I think the "unrighteous dominion" question is back to mixing the mad made authority with the God give authority on this issue. Why not stick to one or the other rather than confusing the two. However, would the person performing a same gender marriage be held accountable for some sort of sinful action? I think so. If the person is voluntarily performing this function then they are enabling sinful behavior. And the performance of a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple does not remove the sinful nature of the union. First of all, because marriage wasn't intended to be applied to same sex couples; and secondly, the Bible clearly points out the sinful nature of same sex fornication. The Bible refers to it as an abomination and the performance of a marriage, authorized by a man made institution, does not change God's stance on the matter. I don't believe that there is sin in "fornication" if that is the term you are using for sex. there is only sin when this is used outside its proper place - which is within the bounds of marriage. Sex is a beautiful thing. There is nothing wrong with it. Only with the misuse of it. As to your last paragraph - Yes. Same sex marriages / unions will be called out, as you put it, during judgment. My understanding of the topic is that God does not approve of same sex unions and a ceremony performed with authority given by a man made institution will not change this at all. Hopefully I was clear in my responses. If not, feel free to ask for further explanation. :)

I must be out of the loop too, because I haven't heard that either. :)

That is incorrect. For a civil marriage they have the authority to marry for the duration of mortality. :)

I have. So far, if I am looking for dis-information, ex-LDS are the best source for it. Discussions with them have reinforced my faith in the Church. :)