mordorbund

I have a question for our resident atheists. I saw the following ad on a bus (Seattle atheists are running an ad campaign). You can see this happy family of four enjoying their Christmas traditions. Now I'm curious, how common is it for atheists to still celebrate cultural Christian holidays? I'm guessing you would still do Christmas and Easter, but without the religious stories. No mangers, no mass, etc, while still having the eggs and the stockings and such. I also imagine there's a group that intentionally does nothing for these days, treating as a vacation from work and little else. What are the holidays like for you and your friends? * I'm also wondering why that boy doesn't believe in God. God still loves red-heads, just less than everyone else.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT????!!!!!! Don't you have any idea how a consistent diet of starchy foods contributes to couch potatoness?

Some relevant sections of the Church Handbook of Instruction vol 2 (the sequel). Regarding HPGL's counsellors: My brief search didn't yield anything about deciding whether an Elder should meet with the Elders' Quorum or the High Priests' Group (I'm guessing that's left to local leadership based on some of the sections describing prospective Elders), but ultimately Stake Presidents decide when/if someone is ordained a High Priest: I read "or when otherwise determined by the stake president" to mean that he can set a stake-wide rule that if a man turns 45 or 50, he should be interviewed for the office of High Priest (unless, of course vol 1 has something to clarify this that I'm not privvy to).

I remember my first "baby" blessing. He was about 3 or 4. Midway through the blessing he bolted out of the chair. Fortunately, the Bishop was expecting it and pulled him back down. No one outside the circle noticed what happened. You may want to give the blesser a heads-up about your concern (away from the child so it doesn't become a game), and then forget about your worries. *yet another mission secret comes to light years later.

You finally get a pin!!!

Apparently I've been doing it wrong!

Congratulations to both Rachel and Leah!

No basis at all. Just a flight of fancy I take. I also like to imagine that dinosaurs were actually engineered by some non-carbon life form to function as their machines. Think of some alien looking down on our planet, trying to determine what the dominant life form is. Why it's those steel-based creatures that vroom everywhere. And it looks like they alternate nesting socially around those large static steel things and individually (or in pairs) around those smaller carbon miniatures of the large steel "nesters". Presumably, they constructed the carbon structures to imitate the large nesters. There's also a carbon parasite that's involved somehow. Now fast forward several years into into the future after the robot revolution. The evolved steel robots scarcely remember their origin as manufactured tools created by the hand of carbon-based humans. In an effort to discover their origins, they find this race of giants - Eniac and such - as well as related creatures that tower over them. I'm sure it would be natural to assume that skyscrapers were some sort of older life form long since extinct. Now rewind several million years and assume that dinosaurs had some similar parasite (I don't know, maybe nitrogen based or something). After building their civilization with carbon materials they found around them, and even advancing in some levels of artificial intelligence, they still managed to nuke themselves out of existence (or lasso'd an asteroid right down on themselved). The remaining AI forms propogated and eventually became advanced enough to wonder about the old creations while knowing nothing about the old creators. Fun stuff like that.

That makes no sense. Why would God reward the tempting serpent with flight?

Genesis 3:14 Dinosaurs are just snakes with legs.

As mentioned before, you may want to review the King Follett Discourse (which talks about our relationship with Christ and God, as well as Christ's relationship with God). A few short months before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith gave the Sermon in the Grove and expanded further some of his previous thoughts (plurality of gods, meaning of Revelation - "God and His Father" - reference).

You've all got it backwards. Gather round and I will learn you in the Mordorbund Mysteries (trademark pending). Within each of us is the potential to become a god or a devil. We are free agents (think baseball) who can chose who we want for a master. In serving him, we will become like him. In the resurrection our bodies will be restored to us. Good for good and evil for evil. These supposedly useless parts are not for this life but the next. If you have followed Christ, then like Him you can enter enclosed spaces without opening a door. This is enabled via the appendix (I thought this was common knowledge - it's in the sealed writings of Joseph Fielding Smith). Also, resurrected tonsils grant you the ability to speak with a still small voice or with rushing waters. If you have followed Satan, then like him your coccyx will grow into a full spiny tail. Oh, and your skull started off fragmentary at birth so it could properly develop horns if merited (can't remember where I learned that, I think while using public transportation).

Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: Which e-book reader should you buy? | Crave - CNET

I thought I just did - you know the whole parents thing, unless you legitimately believe 2 rocks would be better. Ah good, then you do see that there is at least one positive aspect. I'm lazy, so I'll leave the "proven" part to SoulSearcher and others that are better versed in studies. Like I said before, my brief introduction to the social sciences found them woefully lacking in rigor. I'm just glad to see that I got you half way there. My real point though is that although homosexuality may be a vice (even in parenting), there are worse vices that are knowingly selected in parents. If we are serious about stopping gay marriage (or even fighting support of homosexual relationships), then we need to clean up our back yard as well. We're complaining that we have to bail out the boat without plugging the leak. I can sympathize better with marriage defenders fighting gay marriage if they also fight to reverse No Fault Divorce, popularizing adultery, and the other decisions that have led us this far. Aaaaaaaaannnnnddd now you've moved your argument. You've now taken us from "Give me one positive - just ONE" to "homosex is immoral". I don't disagree with this new argument, but it's one that's been argued back and forth in these fora several times. I'm not very interested in rehashing those arguments again. I leave it to the curious reader to review the many threads. I don't mind discussing the "find a positive" aspect though.

I included the option of multiple parents. Where do you think that falls in moral parenting? I didn't include any sort of non-human parents, because historically there have been only 3 children raised by wolves - Romulus, Remus, and yourself. I see where you're going with the whole slippery slope argument; by the same logic we should go down that route. If allowing gay marriage means we also license beastial marriage, then the same logic dictates that the same degradations against marriage in the past inevitibly means we must permit gay marriage. I would find this argument more compelling if "protecting marriage" meant not just preventing homosexual unions, but also included reversing some of the decisions that got us down this slippery slope.

Actually, this is the perfect reason to apply statistics. First we determine criteria on which to judge what "fit parenting" is. Then we try to isolate variables to see what factors contribute to it and what factors don't. Is it household income? Total number of children? Number of parents? Size of nuclear family? Gender of parents? My limited experience with family science has unfortunately not exposed me to much hard science in most of the studies I've delved into (small sample sizes, difficulty in isolating variables, etc). Traveler's initial post(s - he's posted his question several times, and I thought it odd no one challenged him) stated that there is a single criterion by which we can judge the value of homosexual relationships (without clarification, this included marriage, parenting, or any other aspect of such a union) and that is reproduction. By that criterion alone, I agree that homosexual relationships do not have any value in society, especially as parents. By that criterion alone, I agree that swingers, rapists, and adulterers are contributers to society. I just don't think that sole criterion should be used to judge societal value. I respect this argument, but that's not the one I was challenging. I am specifically challenging an argument that is not based on religious convictions but on a general morality as defined by social good. If truth be told, I hope Traveler or others can properly rebut it, as it's been primary hole in my defense of traditional marriage for a number of years (and a reason I don't generally participate in these threads). I have some thoughts on the ideal I'll come back to. No need to apologize to me. I wasn't offended in the least. That's not what I'm saying at all. I certainly think that (all else being equal) there is a hierarchy of desirable parents. Apparently the State thinks so too, otherwise it would keep out of parenting and child distribution altogether. Fortunately, the State sets the bar so low that I can parent. Unfortunately, the State sets the bar so low that undesirables can parent as well. There's reasons for that, but I don't know that they're very relevant to this discussion. I agree that there has been a moral decline in the value of marriage with a number of points contributing to that decline. It would be fair enough to say "thus far and no farther", but like I said before, we allow individuals to adopt with or without a spouse so we should do what we can to increase the quality of parenting from such. Gays are asking that we legalize gay marriage which will contribute, or an alternative I'm not hearing is we change our screening criteria so that only couples can adopt. Then we could bar gays from adopting (and marriage, because there would be even less benefit for it now) until it is proved that gay couples do no worse than straight couples at rearing children (they MUST do better than single parents). Actually, we should do just that. Society tends to value a poor quality of life over no life, and so most states do not allow euthenasia. Similarly, the voice of Hope has convinced many states to favor life without parole over the death penalty. If there is absolutely no other choice but to use a child as shark chum or to use her as a medical guinea pig, I think most people would be abhored but resolve that it's for the best for her to grow up in a lab (actually, I think most people would start looking for an alternative immediately). Personally, I agree. So let's talk about the ideal for a moment. Society should desire fit parents be the caretakers of children. But, sadly, we have children without fit parents, so what do we do with them? Well obviously we should try to give them ideal fit parents. What do we when we run out of the ideal? We could terminate them. Or we could give them less-than-ideal parents. So (all else being equal) what's the hierarchy of fit parents? Please sort this list from most desirable to least (all else being equal - this is, after all a discussion on homesexual parents and not, say, smokers, or liars, or whatnot). Feel free to mix and match for various levels of sub-optimal, as well as just including who is plain undesirable. Type of relationship Married in a templeMarried in a churchMarried civilyLiving together in a commited relationshipIn a steady relationshipNone (single, or perhaps an orphanage?)Relationship to child Biological father and Biological motherBiological fatherBiological motherAdoptive parent(s)NoneCouple variations Man and womanMan and multiple women (polygyny or open adultery)Multiple men and woman (polyandry or open adultery)Multiple men and multiple women (swingers or open marriage)Man and manWoman and womanSingle manSingle womanNone Again, the rape argument isn't a problem for me.

According to Memory alpha Sandra Smith Episode is Turnabout Intruder Season 3 79th episode produced ?

I'll toss this out there Traveler. In an ideal system, there would be absolutely no benefit to gay marriage. A broken system, not unlike the rape case you mentioned, introduces areas where gay marriage can be beneficial. I know a 4 year old girl who was the result of a young teenager raped by her step-father. This family was producing children (meeting your criterion for societal growth), but in most other respects they were not contributing members of society. Their quality of child rearing was such that the neutral-to-negative impact they had was getting passed on to the next generation, with an increase. The State decided that the child deserved a better home. I admittedly don't know the stats on the ratio of parents willing to adopt compared to the number of children available; assuming the adoption rate is low on account of a lack of adopters, increasing the number of stable, committed marriages will increase that pool. I've heard some conflicting reports about the child rearing abilities of gay couples. I've heard of some that rate them the same as single-parent households, while just this week I heard a report that said they rate the same as traditional couples. Gay couples are already permitted to adopt. They do not independently increase society's numbers, but they can increase society's quality. Gay marriage adds stability to this group, increasing their effectiveness.

From the Modesty entry in Mormon Doctrine (the second paragraph is the most relevant):

Heterophobes.

I was going to withold judgment until I saw some pics, but according to the article she doesn't look like a piggy, she just sounds like one.

New Testament Scripture Mastery Cards - LDS Online Store Old Testament Scripture Mastery Cards - LDS Online Store Book of Mormon Scripture Mastery Cards - LDS Online Store Doctrine and Covenants Scripture Mastery Cards - LDS Online Store

Back to the OP, I wonder if the characterization of polytheism is too caricatured. My summary of your criteria (correct me if I'm missing something) of a worthwhile god is 1. omnipotence (prevents in-fighting among gods) 2. single-purposed (again, preventing in-fighting among gods) 3. self-advertising across the world (assuming he is no respecter of persons) My understanding of the Hindu faith (I may need to chat with some friends to see how right I get this) is there is really 3 Gods - the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Destroyer. All other deities (including the local favorite) is really an avatar of one of these three. The 3 Gods work together causing balance in the universe. As a group, they have omnipotence. As a group, they are single-purposed - you might even say they are clearer in their relationships than the trinity. The same God who is all about love and wants to save the world required genocide and personally wiped out entire cities? The Hindus have a less internally conflicted sense of deity. You get the "advertising" through the avatars and reincarnation. Even if the religion stayed confined permanently in India, you would still eventually have the chance to learn all about it in one (or many) of your lives.

I'll share my views at the risk of sounding bat-flapping insane. The sacrament is sacred. Terribly sacred. Paul mentions in passing that some people have gotten sick or died from taking it unworthily. More importantly, partaking of it unworthily brings damnation. God takes His ordinances very seriously and will not be mocked. Children have a divine form of protected status. You cannot offend one without risking judgment. They are innocent, and any philosophy that teaches otherwise will sink the subscriber to hell. Mormon warned about combining these two (children and ordinances) in the case of baptism. "But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works." Use some of the sacrament arguments for baptism and things start sounding really dodgy. "I figure [actually performing the ordinance and not just a dry-run without the prayers] is good practice for when he'll actually be able to do it for real." "She sees all her friends getting baptized and I really can't tell her she needs to wait." "It's probably just a fancy bath for my child, but it keeps her quiet." "The [goody goody family that we look up to] already baptized their 6-month old." It doesn't really fly. For these reasons, I strongly held that my children will not be taking the sacrament until they have covenants to renew. My wife disagreed. So for our next Family Home Evening we had a lesson on the Sacrament. She read up on the scriptures and I read up on the scriptures, and then things got funny. Latter-day prophets speak of the need to take the sacrament to renew our covenants, but the scriptures themselves state no such thing (you can wrangle some to fit that interpretation, but it's not explicit). The Sacrament is taken in remembrance of our Lord. After we discussed it we agreed that our son can take the sacrament when he starts showing (age-appropriate) signs that he's thinking about Jesus. We had to prep him that this was not a snack (we would put the snacks away during the sacrament song and bring them out again after the deacons were seated). We made a Jesus picture book for him to focus on during the sacrament. If he got restless or wanted a snack during, I would hold him (that was her concern, so I alleviated it by making my problem). While I held him, I would point out the deacons and tell him what they were doing. It didn't take long for him to be ready* for the sacrament. *I realize these are my family's standards for what it means to take the sacrament. I would recommend each family to determine what is an appropriate way to introduce the holy emblems. What I didn't realize before is that the sacrament is not baptism and serves other purposes. I still maintain that the ordinance is sacred and should not be taken lightly, and this is how it has borne out for us.

Amen! I'm sick of hearing how unit conversions are sooo much easier with metric. I call baloney. Inches to feet has the nice clean factor of 12; feet to yards, 3; yards to miles, 1760 - nice and clean. Throw centimeters into the mix and now I have to work with 2.54. What am I supposed to do with THAT!! Oh, and that first clock got me humming the .