mordorbund

Is this a Lewisian way of suggesting that God's transformative (even deifying) love is manifest in both the ritualistic Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) church? Or should this be taken to mean that Lewis supposes God to use both superstitions (to use your term) and reason to draw people to Him. A variation on Alma 29:8 perhaps? Where does this put the new priest then? Are the gods working through him in the "language" of the culture? Or does he not "get it" and is leading them on the road to apostasy?

Maybe you’ll have more influence on the inside than the outside. 😜👮‍♂️ | | | | 👮‍♀️

Are people really posting fewer jokes about @pams age or does she just forget most of them now?

I'm guessing her last name isn't Bauhaus.

Sorry Vort, this was the communication team-building activity. Your comment belongs with next quarter's learn-your-personality team-building activity.

I though you save that stuff for Valentine's Day.

That's odd. The English "router" should be pronounced the same as the American "rotor". Everyone knows you get the American equivalent of an English wourd by dropping the "u".

Dude. That's not how you cite your sources.

Now tell the young people about the chat function.

Aaaaaaand just like that NT became a Star Trek villain.

I've always found the Church's name dashing.

I was actually told differently. I was told that all those things I spoke of were all Aleph0. And there were more things in Aleph1. But as I said, I have no idea what that means. The person telling me all this struggled to explain it himself. And the example he gave me was something I disproved in a couple minutes. Maybe he didn't know either. Thanks for clarifying that you're working off a dimensional model. I want to revisit this just so it can be closed cleanly. infinityn has cardinality of Aleph0. This can be shown using the same argument that's used for INFRational having cardinality Aleph0. You line up all the whole numbers on one axis and all the whole numbers on another axis and you cleanly map the 2D to 1D with zigzags. A special zigzag you can use for this is the Hilbert curve. This is useful because there's a 3D analog that maps cleanly to 1D. I haven't done anything rigorous, but given the nature of nD cubes, I imagine you have that mapping for any infinityn. I'm not sure if it applies to infinityinfinity. and all bets are off if you intend to use INFReals for your axes (since just the first axis alone is in Aleph1). I don't see this as much different than the original 3-d and infinite-D model. Sure there is a numerical difference. But conceptually, they're pretty much the same. The difference is that for any given y, x12 = x23. This is essentially the math equivalent of eat, drink, and be merry. God will be us with a few stripes, but eventually we'll have all the same experiences as Celestial people. It just takes longer. And who really cares about longer when we're talking about eternity? In contrast, the dimensional model says you will never experience "up, but not North".

I'm not sure. On the one hand, I see the value in experimenting with different implementations of covenant principles to discover what actually works and what doesn't. For one thing it dispels a lot of myths and fantasies about what God is actually asking for (refer back to Traveler's or LoudMouthMormon's comments about what happens when you help the poor monetarily but not with skills training; or the back-and-forth in this thread about whether it's really just the labor that's deeded out or if the property is actually stewarded). For another it becomes something of a pilot program for the large-scale thing. Based on Discourses of Brigham Young, I gather that Brigham's vision of the Millennial government was essentially that Christ will return, say "Zion has it right" and then roll it out across other communities. On the other hand, we have the story of Zeniff in the Book of Mormon. He describes himself as being zealous in reclaiming the Nephite inheritance, but seems to recognize that he displayed a terrible lack of wisdom in some of the agreements he entered; which left them vexed by the Lamanites in his time and in bondage within a few generations. And I must admit that head-image me would look askance at anyone who told me they were purchasing land in Missouri just so they could donate it when the Church eventually asks for it. So I can see how it would be unwise to start practicing the United Order without additional (revealed) guidance. But on the other hand, Zeniff, Noah, and Limhi's interactions with the Lamanites seem to provide a turning point. Nephi, Jacob, and Enos all sent out missionary efforts to reclaim them but failed tremendously. It's not until after they've have a community of Nephites live among them for generations that Mosiah's sons are able to make any headway. So if the Lord wasn't behind the initial zeal He certainly turned it for His own purposes. So God can certainly consecrate such efforts for good. But on the other hand, can isn't the same as will. And the question was about the wisdom of it not the utility in God's economy. But on the other hand.....

$6Million!!!!!??? Count me in!!!! Oh. Only $4.2 million. Well nevermind then.