SpiritDragon

Yeah, I get it... I just still feel like it sounds that way :)

My personal take is that such things are useful. Faith can be quite fickle and it is useful to have reinforcement for it with supporting material during times of weakness. There will never be a time before the Saviour comes when enough of anything is proven to the point that faith is no longer required. What I don't like is the term apologetic... it seems like there is something to apologize for.

BETA video cassette recorders Laughing about discovering eight-tracks that would never play (they were already old in my childhood) Duck Hunt on the NES is pretty hard to find these days Being able to escape technology (is there no where left without cell phone towers?) Dual audio cassette high speed dubbing that sounded like the chipmunks Life before the beast known as facebook gave everyone a platform for showcasing how narcissistic they are four digit telephone numbers (I never had an operator patch me through though) non-professional bake sales are uncommon because of modern food safety rules in my parts anyway I'm mostly impartial as to wanting it back or saying good riddance. I would get a kick out of the rear-facing seat station wagon making a come back wood side paneling and all! - perhaps more fuel efficient mind you. Affordable starter homes are also a piece of history I miss from my childhood.Now developers only make mansions.

Doctrine and covenants 19: 4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. 5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand. 6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. 7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. 8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. 9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. 10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore— 11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. 12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment. I agree that LDS theology has a different take on sin, repentance, punishment, judgment etc. than evangelical christianity does. I think it shows a great deal of respect and insight that although you see our views as less severe that you would ask for discussion rather than simply make up your mind on your own perception of our views. I find this passage of scripture above does a great deal to help explain some of these differences. Essentially we believe that everyone will repent. If they repent in this life than the atonement of Jesus Christ covers them and they need not go through more pain than that required of forsaking evil and offering a pure heart and contrite spirit. As for those who die without the law, we know that they can be taught the gospel and have ordinances performed on their behalf that they are free to choose; yet we know very little about how repentance works outside of this life. As for those who have the gospel in this life, but do not repent... these are clearly who this passage is speaking to (not necessarily exclusively). These will suffer a pain that is incomprehensible to us, essentially putting the Saviour's sacrifice to naught. The suffering endured will meet the demands of Eternal and Endless punishment under the direction of He who is Endless and Eternal, but not lasting indefinitely. I would not want to find myself in this position. It should also be noted that those suffering such will not be going on to exaltation as this would half defeat the need for a savior if we could all just suffer for our own sins. The lesser kingdoms of glory, while no doubt wonderful, do represent a damnation as far as it refers to having a limit on progression. This in contrast to eternal progression in the highest order of Celestial glory and exaltation. A thorough reading of the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants helps to paint a more clear picture of the individual kingdoms of glory, or the many mansions prepared for us. Because everyone will acknowledge that Christ is the Lord and be judged by him there will no doubt be regrets within those that are in the lesser kingdoms, but we are given assurances they will be happy places.

welcome

Hence the nature of my wondering about the original findings. It all depends on how things are defined. I would generally operate on the premise that nerds and geeks are interchangeable concepts for socially awkward sorts who may or may not be otherwise intelligent. Perhaps if the overall premise is too designate people to nerdom or geekdom based on interests than we would see geeks being the overly tech savvy/sci-fi type and the nerds being the fantasy/roleplaying type. When I envision a geek he is an overly skinny hunch-backed teenager with too thick glasses, when I picture a nerd he is an overweight 40 year old still living in his mom's basement with his collection of teenage nostalgia and remakes of it.

This whole thing got me thinking about the criteria for being a nerd. I have always equated it with a certain lack of social skills rather than particular interests, although admittedly certain activities seem to draw in the socially awkward. Anyway I found this description fun and somewhat useful: Geek One of four titles used to classify someone based on their technical and social skills. The other three titles are nerd, dork, and normie. The difference between the four titles can be easily shown in table form: ................ Technical ...... Social Title ............ Skills ......... Skills ---------- ---------------- ------------ Normie ......... No ............. Yes Geek ........... Yes ............. Yes Nerd ........... Yes ............. No Dork ............ No .............. No Normie: A normal person. Blah. Geek: An outwardly normal person who has taken the time to learn technical skills. Geeks have as normal a social life as anyone, and usually the only way to tell if someone is a geek is if they inform you of their skills. Nerd: A socially awkward person who has learned technical skills due to the spare time they enjoy from being generally neglected. Their technical knowledge then leads normies to neglect them even further, leading to more development of their technical skills, more neglection, etc. This vicious cycle drives them even more into social oblivion. Dork: A person who, although also socially awkward, doesn't have the intelligence to fill the void with technical pursuits, like a nerd, and is forced to do mindless activities. Almost always alone. Usually with an XBox. Like playing Halo. All day. Every day. Not even understanding how the Xbox is making the pretty pictures on the screen. Very sad. If you met me at a party, you would have no idea that I enjoy finite element analysis-based inviscid flow modelling using computational fluid dynamics. That's because I'm a geek. I must admit I've never heard of a normie, and never been referred to as any of the other titles. However by this classification system I too would be a geek because I seem to interact with other humans just fine, while having a very technical side (although biology is not the usual geek science). I certainly have many "nerd" interests if that means I enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, and role-playing. Perhaps this study is a better indication of the people in a population who are open to include many interests as opposed to socially awkward rejects.

I have this image of reverend Lovejoy patting Bart on the back saying "there there," but I can't seem to find a video clip to post for you. That being said I am confident all of these things will work themselves out.

I'm big on keeping family together. I feel for you, because I would have a hard time if my wife were obese, but I do not believe it justifies moving on. One of the reasons I believe we are supposed to develop familial relationships is to develop unconditional love. Moving on will not help you develop this attribute, but suggests a possible refusal to develop it. Spiritual growth is never easy. My vote is to stay with him and continue to support him.

I am also sorry that you've had poor experiences with extremists. I've yet to meet an organic extremist.

Great question. A nutrient dense diet fairs very well in terms of satiety. There are various mechanisms by which the body deals with hunger signals. Biochemically the body sends hunger signals to meet the demand for nutrients. Most of us eat food that is too high in macronutrients (calories) and too low in micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, phytochemicals, etc.) This typically leads to over-eating due to too many calories without sufficient micronutrients to help shut down the hunger signals. The stomach itself also has stretch receptors that indicate when it is filled up. When the diet consists of mainly fibre-rich foods the stomach fills up and also sends a satiety signal to the brain. This is in contrast to a diet with calorie dense food choices that contributes a high level of excess before either the mechanical or biochemical satiety signals go off. Also the fibre slow digestion of food which increases the amount of staying power, so you don't just feel stuffed for a 1/2 hour and then get ravenous.

Chemically speaking this is true. Although it has always seemed a somewhat stupid title, organic in the marketplace does refer to specific standards that said product must meet to be labeled as such. Sadly it is also true that the organic label does get abused, but to state that those supporting organics lack intelligence (don't know any better) is simply uncalled for.

This article gives some ideas http://earthopensource.org/index.php/7-feeding-the-world/7-1-myth-gm-crops-are-needed-to-feed-the-world-s-growing-population

Love it.

Care to elaborate?

warbler

I found this amusing and wondered what others think of it http://lds.net/blog/buzz/news-buzz/can-mormon-predict-sex-life/

umbrella bird

thrush (another unfortunate name)

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking questions. As for farming policy, is it wrong for people to want to know where and how their food is raised? Perhaps it would be better to label pesticide exposure with a color coded system than to worry about GMO's, IDK? I already asserted that I agree with you, but because of the exposure I get to it in my area these are the first to come to mind for me. I never meant to suggest they are the only kind. Just asking if their existence should factor into the equation of labeling or not.

Sometimes I miss that laugh button

Ostrich

My intent is to discuss other's thoughts on GMO labeling. My thoughts being that if GMO labeling were to take place it should certainly only refer to those products made in a lab with novel gene sequencing. I could care less to find out that a specific breeding process brought me broccoli, cabbage, and kale from the same plant, or that by retaining only certain seeds from plants with certain properties that others of their kind don't exhibit (or at least not as strongly) we found a way to have wheat that withstands harsher climates with a shorter growing season. I do wonder if people should have a right to know if the food they are eating has been manipulated on the genetic level in a lab. Simply put if we were talking about humans I wouldn't be worried about selectively bread Aryans or interracial offspring, but I would like to know if I was going to eat my neighbour if they had fish genes spliced into their genetic code so they could breathe underwater. Or even more succinctly I believe the answer to your question is YES, I am only concerned with biotech-man-made-novel foods as a potential candidate for labeling. Good question though, just what GMO's would be labeled. Because if selectively bread crops were to require labeling it is true that there is no such thing as non-gmo and the label would be useless. Indeed, I have a bias toward assuming more spraying with round-up/(insert other) ready crops because I live in ag-country and that is what we get here. Plus it makes the most sense for biotech from a money perspective to sell products that are adapted to use chemicals that they also stand to profit from. Call me cynical.

I'm just curious, you don't see any difference between selective breeding of plant species and laboratory DNA transfer in otherwise incompatible species? The latter only existing since the mid 1970's. Even if the food itself is safe, is there no concern about the increased pesticide/herbicide usage which these crops are created for. Does it not follow that a round-up ready field can end up with a lot more toxic residue getting into the food supply. Should we consider environmental factors like super-weeds that are unnaturally tough as an adaptation to increased herbicide exposure, or bees dying en masse? Should people have a choice to make ecological decisions like this when they purchase food? Miracles do exist

crane