Relentless

Nah, it's funny. i didn't even see it until you pointed it out

I have quite a bit hanging up around my home. Shortly after my wife was baptized, we got a picture of the Temple, framed it and hung it in our dining room. It seemed to bring a new spirit into our home. My boys have numerous pictures of scriptural heros hanging on their wall. My 4 year old's favorite is the one with Samuel the Lamenite standing on the wall. I don't know if it affects them at all, but I hope it does, hence me paying for all the pictures.

No, why? Do you think I should? Can I see the same Doctor who helps you deal with the inevidible, soul-crushing, incapacitating sense of defeat you suffer every year at the hands of the Chargers?

For me it is simple. I tell them them I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Then I watch as they get a confused look, like they should know what I am saying. After 30-45 seconds of bewilderment, I offer something like "some people call us Mormons". Then it clicks and they proceed to ask how many wives I have. Serriously though, most people I talk to are in the Military, and it usually comes up when they want me to go drinking with them. I have gotten ridiculed more for not drinking then for anything else. Fellow Soldiers accuse me of not being a man, and my favorite quote; "I can't trust a man who won't drink with me". To this I usually tell them "Well, you don't need to trust me, but it would behoove you to, as I am your medic" All in all, it has led to some great conversations, and I can't tell you how many "I used to be Mormon, but now I'm Christian" Soldiers I have met.

Pam pam pam, you can admit it, you already are a Bronco fan. Everyone knows it. It's ok, we all would like to congragulate you on the best decision you have ever made, and please know, we all support you in it.

Pam, I already "convinced" Vort to change his mind, you're next...

The same could be said for many different products at some point during their creation. Fat rendering is a horrid smell, yet the fats produced go into everything from makeup to food. Cattleyards can have a stench that reaches over 10 miles away, and yet the beef industry is alive and well.

Only if you trade in your dog for it.

Really? I thought you So I made you change your mind huh?

I do love a challenge. Okay, so let's start with the definition of a fallacy (I already gave it, but what the heck, you think I don't know what the word means, so I'll indulge you); Fal-la-cy Noun plural -cies 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc. 2. a misleading or unsound argument 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness 4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound 5. Obsolete 6. a false notion 7. a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid argument 8. incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness 9. the quality of being deceptive Synonyms; misconception, delusion, misapprehension So I think I do know what a fallacy is. As for your next line of reasoning; "You don't know how scholars figure these things out but that doesn't make it a fallacy", that is not a sound argument. Unless I missed something, we don't know who actually penned the books. Let us start with Mark; "The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Papias' authority in this was John the Presbyter. While the text of Papias is no longer extant, it was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea." So while we don't know who wrote the Gospel according to Mark, it would seem that they had a better chance of meeting the savior than the author of the Illiad (although modern scholars now believe that "Homer" was not one man, but a ficticious author credited with both the Illiad and the Odysey, which are now thought to be compelations of oral stories handed down over time), because they were not in a different region some 800-1100 years BC. So did I "soundly demonstrate" why it would be safer to think that the author of Mark might have met the Savior then the author(s) of the Illiad? Or should I adopt your line of reasoning and claim that I have no desire to teach you (or in otherwords back up my arguments with something other than opinions given as facts)? Well, let's keep going I guess, because I doubt you are satisfied yet (not that I suspect you ever will be, because you do have a superior intellect to me and all). Let's look at Genesis For centuries, Moses had been believed to have been the author of Genesis, and Wellhausen's hypothesis was thus received by traditionally-minded Jews and Christians as an attack on one of their central beliefs. But in the first half of the 20th century the science of Biblical archaeology, developed by William F. Albright and his followers, combined with the new methods of biblical scholarship known as source criticism and tradition history, developed by Hermann Gunkel, Robert Alter and Martin Noth, seemed to demonstrate that the stories of Genesis (or, at least, the stories of the Patriarchs; the early part of Genesis—from the Creation to the Tower of Babel—which were already regarded as legendary by mainstream scholarship) were based in genuinely ancient oral tradition grounded in the material culture of the 2nd millennium BC. Thus by the middle of the 20th century it seemed that archaeology and scholarship had reconciled Wellhausen with a modified version of authorship by Moses.[79] This consensus was challenged in the 1970s by the publication of two books, Thomas L. Thompson's "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" (1974), and John Van Seters's "Abraham in History and Tradition" (1975), both of which pointed out that the archaeological evidence connecting the author of Genesis to the 2nd millennium BC could equally well apply to the 1st millennium, and that oral traditions were not nearly so easily recoverable as Gunkel and others had said. A third influential work, R. N. Whybray's "The Making of the Pentateuch" (1987), analysed the assumptions underlying Wellhausen's work and found them illogical and unconvincing, and William G. Dever attacked the philosophical foundations of Albrightean biblical archaeology, arguing that it was neither desirable nor possible to use the Bible to interpret the archaeological record. The theories currently being advanced can be divided into three:[citation needed] 1). Revisions of Wellhausen's documentary model, of which Richard Elliot Friedman's is one of the better known;[80] 2). Fragmentary models such as that of R. N. Whybray, who sees the Torah as the product of a single author working from a multitude of small fragments rather than from large coherent source texts;[81], 3). Supplementary models such as that advanced by John Van Seters, who sees in Genesis the gradual accretion of material over many centuries and from many hands.[82] The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BC continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted, but with greater respect being made to the ancient nature of the majority of the material. [83] Although, a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BC. Alongside these new approaches to the history of the text has come an increasing interest in the way the narratives tell their stories, concentrating not on the origins of Genesis but on its meaning, both for the society which produced it and for the modern day, placing "a new emphasis on the narrative's purpose to shape audiences' perceptions of the world around them and to instruct them in how to live in this world and relate to its God."[84] And if we consider the Torrah Mosaic authorship" is the ascription to Moses of the authorship of the five books of the Torah or Pentateuch. This is expressed in the Talmud, a collection of Jewish traditions and exegesis dating from the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE, and was presumably based on the several verses in the Torah describing Moses writing "torah" (instruction) from God.[citation needed] According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, "The traditional doctrine of Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah has its source in Deuteronomy 31:9–12, 24, more than in any other passage...The Torah itself contains no explicit statement ascribing its authorship to Moses, while Mosaic attribution is restricted to legal and ritual prescription and is hardly to be found in connection with the narrative material."[16] However, according to Catholic Encyclopedia, the attribution of the Torah to Moses dates as back to the Bible itself, noting the fact that several books of the Bible, reference the Torah as the Book of Moses, Law of Moses, etc,[17] and can also be found in the New Testament.[17] Deuteronomy 31:9 and Deuteronomy 31:24-26 describe how Moses writes "torah" (instruction) on a scroll and lays it beside the ark of the Covenant.[18] The attribution of the Torah to Moses is also expressed by the early Roman historian Josephus Flavius. Statements implying belief in Mosaic authorship of the Torah are contained in Joshua,[19] Kings,[20] Chronicles,[21] Ezra[22] and Nehemiah.[23] The rabbis of the Talmud (c. 200-500 CE) discussed exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. In the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 60a it is written "Said R' Yochanan, the Torah was given in a series of small scrolls," implying that the Torah was written gradually and compiled from a variety of documents over time. Another opinion there that states that the entire Torah was given at one time. Menachem Mendel Kasher points to certain traditions of the Oral Torah that showed Moses quoting Genesis prior to the epiphany at Sinai. Based on a number of Bible verses and rabbinic statements, he suggests that Moses had certain documents authored by the Patriarchs that he made use of when redacting that book.[24] According to Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century rabbi and philosopher, Moses was the Torah's author, receiving it from God either as divine inspiration or as direct dictation in the Hebrew year 2449 AM (1313 BCE).[25][26] Later rabbis (and the Talmudic rabbis as well - see tractate Bava Basra 15a) and Christian scholars noticed some difficulties with the idea of Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah, notably the fact that the book of Deuteronomy describes Moses' death; later versions of the tradition therefore held that some portions of the Torah were added by others - the death of Moses in particular was ascribed to Joshua. The Talmud explains this by saying that Moses wrote it tearfully, in anticipation of his death; another tradition is that Joshua added these words after Moses died (the next book is the Book of Joshua which, according to Jewish tradition, was written by Joshua himself), and that the final verses of the book of Deuteronomy read like an epitaph to Moses. Mosaic authorship was accepted with very little discussion by both Jews and Christians until the 17th century, when the rise of secular scholarship and the associated willingness to subject even the Bible to the test of reason led to its rejection by mainstream biblical scholars. The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. Many contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).[9] Scholarly discussion for much of the 20th century was principally couched in terms of the documentary hypothesis, according to which the Torah is a synthesis of documents from a small number of originally independent sources.[10] According to the most influential version of the hypothesis, as formulated by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918), the Pentateuch is composed of four separate and identifiable texts, dating roughly from the period of Solomon up until exilic priests and scribes. These various texts were brought together as one document (the Five Books of Moses of the Torah) by scribes after the exile. The Jahwist (or J) - written c 950 BCE.[10] The southern kingdom's (i.e. Judah) interpretation. It is named according to the prolific use of the name "Yahweh" (or Jaweh, in German, the divine name or Tetragrammaton) in its text. The Elohist (or E) - written c 850 BCE.[10] The northern kingdom's (i.e. Israel) interpretation. As above, it is named because of its preferred use of "Elohim" (a generic title used to describe a god, God, or gods). The Deuteronomist (or D) - written c 650-621 BCE.[10] Dating specifically from the time of King Josiah of Judah and responsible for the book of Deuteronomy as well as Joshua and most of the subsequent books up to 2 Kings. The Priestly source (or P) - written during or after the exile, c 550-400 BCE.[10] So named because of its focus on Levitical laws. The documentary hypothesis has been increasingly challenged since the 1970s, and alternative views now see the Torah as having been compiled from a multitude of small fragments rather than a handful of large coherent source texts,[27] or as having gradually accreted over many centuries and through many hands.[28] The shorthand Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomistic is still used nevertheless to characterise identifiable and differentiable content and style. The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[29] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE. David Hubbard's 1956 thesis on the Kebra Nagast notes that the few quotations that appear to be from a pre-Hilkiah Deuteronomic source are either from a lost 10th centery written version or an oral tradition Well, I guess we don't KNOW who wrote Genesis, although there are many who believe it was written by Moses; consider Deut 31:24, 26 24 ¶ And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished 26 Take this abook of the blaw, and put it in the side of the cark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a dwitness against thee. The cross refrences in the footnotes of 26 a TG Scriptures, Preservation. b 1 Kgs. 8: 21. 21 And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the acovenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. c TG Ark of the Covenant. d Ex. 25: 21. 21 And thou shalt put the amercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the btestimony that I shall give thee. So it apears that Moses did write some book, and it was preserved. Although "scholars" don't really believe this... Hm, I guess once again if we aproach the authorship with an open mind, there is no way to make a definative statement such as "none of whom ever met the Savior", once again rendering your statement a fallacy. Well, I guess we really need to look at the last of the source materials; the book of Moses. An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830—February 1831 Wait a minute, who wrote this? Was it Joseph Smith? Well, I guess you could say he never met the Savior, but then you'd be denying the first vision, which would seem to undermine Joseph Smith's authority as a prophet and make his fruits (the Book of Mormon) false. Now you might well argue that as it is an extract of the bible as revealed to Joseph Smith that he didn't "write" it, but seeing as how your earlier argument was that the one who "wrote" the books was the one who put pen to paper, well, I think it's safe to say that Joseph Smith "wrote" the book of Moses.

So is it several then? Have you contacted the Guiness people?

For some reason I can't use the laugh out loud button on this. But it is funny!

It is snowing right now in Denver. We are going to have a brown / dingy christmas because all the dirt, splashback and mag citrate turns the white snow colors. I'm dreaming of a dingy, dirty brown black and gray christmas...

I am hesitant to offer any advice here because I know that I am far from a great husband. Some people might even call me a terrible husband. I do know that I am very much in love with my wife, and that in the 5 years of us being married, I love her more today than I did when I first proposed. That said, there was a time when I was very selfish, and it was very humbling to realize how selfish I was, and how much my actions hurt the woman I want to be with forever. Your husband is probably stuck in this selfish stage. Where all he thinks about (or at least whom he thinks about first) is himself. Unfortunately there is little advice on how to get him to change. I know, because there was a time when I wanted my wife to change so badly, that I ended up judging all of her actions and making her feel bad about it. It wasn't until a long cold night's walk and talk with her that I realized that she had not yet made any of the commitments (gospel wise) that I had, that it was not fair of me to expect her to live to my standards. That she was how she was when I fell in love with her, and that it was I, not her that had changed. I can tell you that in the scriptures we are told to serve those we love, and to care for them. To pray for those who despitefully use us. This was one of the largest factors in my wife's conversion I think, having people love her and serve her, yet not make her feel bad in receiving this service. So my advice to you would be to look for the positive in your marriage. I suspect you will be surprised at how much you find. When you feel like you hate him, and you feel like you can't take anymore, remember the words of the Savior; Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, thy brethren, ye have done it unto me.

No, it was garbage...

Nah, Pam just had her 258th birthday I read somewhere. That's old!

Nope, I could barely sit through it!

The enviromentalist message is there, but so is amazing imagery, jaw dropping action and a compelling story line centered around thew main character; Jake Sully.

My roommate while I was deployed was a huge SW fan. He had a set of movie quality storm trooper armor that cost over $1000.

I will admit I feel a little heebie jeebied. I am curious to know what you think about homosexuality being genetic or not. I have my own ideas, but seeing as how I don't have any "gay" friends, all I can do is speculate.

Yes, I won! Now where's my prize?

All I know is I can't wait for my accelerator suit... Your tax dollars at work!

About a movie he wrote or produced? I find it hard to believe teenage girls were saying that about Terminator 3, so you must be refering to Titanic, which was 12 years ago. Not long ago? And so now you are comparing me to a teenage girl? Oooo, feel the burn.

And yet this movie is still the most awesome movie I have ever seen.

Actually I hate it when people talk DURING movies.