Dr T

Makes sense. Sorry to put you on the spot.

How do we know that AK isn't one of them?

It's so cool that you all are so supportive! Smart idea MRS.CA

Winnie, I don't know you and I apologize if this is putting you on the spot, and I'm going to ask it anyway. You seem more stressed recently. Are there major stressors in your life right now? I mean more than usual? Has there been major changes? Just worried about you. Dr. T

Hey MBASS (ador), are they twins?

Okay, to get back to Bens thread, I have a quick question for ApostleKnight. AK, you said, that sounds like a self contradictory statement. From how I am reading that, you are saying Jesus was all knowing yet forgot (implying that He didn't know) something. Can you clear up my confusion?THanks, Dr. T

Hi ApostleKnight, Do you believe they are still waking around somewhere? I wonder if they ever interact with people on this site? That would be weird. Dr. T

My 2 cents. It has the potential for serious harm. As the drug counselors say, "If you don't want a haircut, don't go to a barber." Dr. T

Hey LionHeart, Although this excerpt is not meant to be an explanation, I wanted to post it to show that even in the hard sciences, faith is an underlying factor. This is from Relativity - The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein (Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924) Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920) Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd First Published: December, 1916 Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation) In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember -- perhaps with more respect than love -- the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers. By reason of our past experience, you would certainly regard everyone with disdain who should pronounce even the most out-of-the-way proposition of this science to be untrue. But perhaps this feeling of proud certainty would leave you immediately if some one were to ask you: "What, then, do you mean by the assertion that these propositions are true?" Let us proceed to give this question a little consideration. Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognised manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning. We cannot ask whether it is true that only one straight line goes through two points. We can only say that Euclidean geometry deals with things called "straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of being uniquely determined by two points situated on it. The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves. It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true." Geometrical ideas correspond to more or less exact objects in nature, and these last are undoubtedly the exclusive cause of the genesis of those ideas. Geometry ought to refrain from such a course, in order to give to its structure the largest possible logical unity. The practice, for example, of seeing in a "distance" two marked positions on a practically rigid body is something which is lodged deeply in our habit of thought. We are accustomed further to regard three points as being situated on a straight line, if their apparent positions can be made to coincide for observation with one eye, under suitable choice of our place of observation. If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies.* Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the "truth" of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the "truth" of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with rule and compasses. Of course the conviction of the "truth" of geometrical propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience. For the present we shall assume the "truth" of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage (in the general theory of relativity) we shall see that this "truth" is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its limitation. Just thought it was cool that he shows the need for reason and that Euclid based his work on material that was not consistent will all possible plains/situations. Dr. T

What kind of issues are addressed Pushka?

THose types of discussions are good to read. They help me learn what works and what doesn't. Thank you MrsS

Thanks Lindy. I'll try that. Is the open dicussion worth reading?

Anyone know why I can't access the Open Discussion forum?

Hello LionHeart, First off, you are no more "lowly" than anyone else on this board/Earth. You are just as loved and valuable just because you are alive. It is not something that do or have that makes us higher or lower than anyone else. No letters after your name, not the amount of money you have, not intelligence, not how high you can jump, how nice you are, how many arms you have, etc. Just as my children do not help pay the bills, their value will never go up (or down) in my eyes. I have faith that we, mere humans, are in God's eyes as my children are in mine. Actually God's love is greater but I was trying to put it into perspective in human terms. As far as the faith and reason issue is concerned, faith is always associated with reason. In whatever issue we decide to use reason, there is some faith inherent in the process of coming to that conclusion. Today I started reading a book where Einstein talks a little bit about Euclidian geometry and the use of "truth" when talking about it. I bringing this up only to show that even in mathematics, faith is required (based on certain axioms) to believe that certain things follow. I was going to quote it but thought that it might bore you. If you want to read it (about a paragraph) I can post it later. Thanks, Dr. T

Hey sgallan, I don't believe you. Not that you are a godless heathan but that you took my gnome. What color hair does that gnome have and what is written on the bottom of his/her feet? Is it a male of female? How big is it? What is it wearing? Thanks, Dr. T

Hi LionHeart, I hold to the idea that faith in God is reasonable. When Kierkegaard said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized" I said that if I come to that conclusion then I would be in good company. I was referring to the discussion about a belief of an illogical premise that cannot be reconciled because the law of noncontradiction with faith. And faith would have to prevail over human logic (so far). Now was that as clear as mud? Thanks

Hey all, A.K. we're on the page. I just read it and the first thing I thought of was The Scretape Letter. :) Though provoking book like many of Lewis'.

THank you all for the great suggestions and thoughful planning ideas.

Hi Winnie G, I'm not telling you to spank or not to; my question for you would be "what would the purpose be?" What do you want to see happen? I know the, "to shape those children up!" but really, is it more to appease your own frustration, revenge at feeling disrespected, what? We know that positive reinforcement is a better predictor of prosocial behavior. If we want to see an action happen more often, we can achieve that by reinforcing the behavior (or in your case behaviour) rather than punishing a wrong behavior. Punishing a wrong behavior often will not teach the child a more appropriate behavior to replace the wrong. When a child does a "good action" a compliment ("good job", "well done", etc.) shows that child that it is good to act in that way. This behavior is more likely to reoccur than a punishment for negative bx. Consider the prison system. Do they usually come out rehabilitated? With my children, I what to see more positive behavior not so much a lack of negative behavior. Don't get me wrong, there are both in my family but I tend to focus on the good things, reinforcing them when I see them and when I catch a negative behavior, I make them apologize and figure out what other behavior they could have done and then make them do that. Over-learning like this is very useful and the reinforcement makes that behavior tend to happen again. Just my "1 cent." Dr. T P.S. have you seen my gnome?

Wait Dror, Who's head was that?

Hi Outshined, Thank you for not being so condescending as to say something like that to me. I am trying to learn though. That is why I’m here and reading like crazy. Thanks for the other article. From this issue arises something that doesn’t sit well with me and does seem significant. As stated in that article, This “the first step” was in 1829. We read in D&C 84, 20-23 “no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. (vs. 22)” The rub for me is that Joseph Smith’s vision of God the Father was in 1820. He didn’t die. Maybe I’m missing something but it doesn’t seem to add up.Thanks, Dr. T

Hello LionHeart, Just wanted to clarify. My point was not, as you said, "...where ever there is reasoning, there is an absence of faith."[sIC] That is a self defeating statement. What I mean is, you are proposing a belief through your statement of a (if it was) factual statement. See they can exist simultaneously. I am of teh opinion that even hard science requires faith. I never meant to imply that wherever there is reasoning there is an absence of faith at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression. Dr. T

Just to be sure I understanding what you all are talking about, I have some questions. My understanding is that LDS church highly esteems "the priesthood" for various functions. Did Joseph Smith and other presidents ever indicate that the priesthood is vital/essential for certain things? If so, what? Next, if no one knows if/when it was passed to him, why is that not significant? It seems that if it did happen, he would talk about/document it in some way. What would the significance be if he didn’t possess the priesthood? Thanks

Thank you MrsS. I'll take a look.

OK. I thought you were referring to the $1.50