JimmiGerman

Wait, wait... let me count the pages first!
 
One page... then comes two pages... three.... for..... f-four?..... f-five..... okay, I'm out of the running. 

Spelling checkers and autocorrection can be endless sources of trouble.  A co-worker of mine once wrote a long proposal for a client.  She was a terrible speller and got into the habit of blindly accepting all the corrections that her software proposed, and she misspelled "faces" in the sentence, "your web site will attract more attention if contains many pictures of human faces."  She clicked through to confirm all her spelling corrections and inadvertently accepted another word (with two E's) as the desired spelling without noticing it.  The client called a few days later and said, "I got your proposal, thanks, and I have some little questions and one really big question."

Two to three hours on the road is bad enough on a dress shirt in the best of conditions.  Throw in Texas heat, a cheap car, and the distinct possibility of having to do some roadside maintenance, ($700 1997 Saturn. So far, I've had to replace the brake master cylinder in an Autozone parking lot on the way to a dance, remove and clean up the throttle body on the way to a fireside, JB Weld a busted headlight adjuster on the way to another dance, and change a blowout on the way home from a SA planning meeting.) and I don't wear "Sunday best" for any drive over about 15 minutes.

Re gender distributions:  From what I understand--no, Mormonism did not suffer from an extraordinary surfeit of widows; and polygamy was not first and foremost an effort to marry off the widows that did exist.  However, early Mormonism did tend to attract more female converts than male; which is why we never suffered from the phenomenon of unmarried males who simply couldn't find a mate (an issue that results in some modern fundamentalist groups basically telling their young men that they have to find a wife from outside the faith and convert her, or--as in the case of the FLDS--simply excommunicating the excess young men for some imagined offense). 
 
I remember reading, a couple of years ago, an article that looked at early Mormon marriage rates and conversion demographics and concluded that, had we not pulled the plug on polygamy when we did, we soon would have developed a real problem with perennially unmarried males.  (Can't find the source at the moment, unfortunately.)

Lila tanyan wacin yanke.         Why does your chief have no squaw? Medicine man Blue Feather says your chief  lives in a big tipi where white smoke comes out, where they come in multitudes to adhore him. Big tipi, big chief, many horse, but no squaw. Who makes cooking and moccasin? No good. Yelo.

Hau! Tokeske yaun he?    

Very interesting – your personal views of Robert Eisenman.  Prior to 1993 Robert published a book called Dead Sea Scroll Conspiracy.  In that book he claimed that the Catholic Church via scholastic suppression was hiding at least 50 Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts and preventing publication of such manuscripts.  In 1993 microfiche photos were discovered in a basement of a university in Boston.  These microfiche photos were published on the internet despite threats of lawsuits to prevent publication were taking place.  Among the microfiche photos 50 previously unrecorded and unpublished Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts were discovered – Just as Robert Eisenman had claimed.  Florentino Garcia Martinez was to first to publish a translation of the 50 controversial manuscripts in question.  His work was done without commentary – translation only – thus is, in my opinion the most subjective.
 
Contrary to you claim variant reading and textual criticism has drastically increased because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  For example several new versions of the Bible (in particular the Old Testament) have been published.  There is much more concerning textual criticism and that is why I quoted Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. a Catholic scholar that tries to deal with the changes.   I am sure you can find many Catholic scholars that claim every point you want to make.   But since you are not familiar with the 1993 controversy you are not informed enough to understand – let alone contribute to the depth of understanding needed for an actual realization of what an unbiased view may constitute.

It doesn't surprise me. I'm personally convinced,  many Californian judges are not only friends of homosexuals but homosexual themselves.  (Remember Proposition 8). 
 
In my opinion one should pay attention in the future to the fact, that there is a certain parity between homosexual judges and normally oriented ones. Therefore the state or the authorities would have to put those sexual inclinations publicly. And it should be possible to disqualify a judge of suspected bias if he's a homosexual and has to judge about cases around homosexuality.

I agree. I've wondered how their isn't a conflict of interest problem with allowing gay judges to rule on these laws.  Just as they believe being a BSA would make a judge biased toward gays. Seems hypocritical.

It doesn't surprise me. I'm personally convinced,  many Californian judges are not only friends of homosexuals but homosexual themselves.  (Remember Proposition 8). 
 
In my opinion one should pay attention in the future to the fact, that there is a certain parity between homosexual judges and normally oriented ones. Therefore the state or the authorities would have to put those sexual inclinations publicly. And it should be possible to disqualify a judge of suspected bias if he's a homosexual and has to judge about cases around homosexuality.

When I'm talking about God, I certainly do it in the meaning of a supernatural power, with technological abilities surely comprising methods and applications far beyond our imagination (i.e. "creation"). For me, God exists in a higher dimensional multiverse (instead of "universe"), and for him the four-dimensional spacetime (three-dimensional space plus velocity and "time") is maybe only a lower part of a multi dimensional super space (however, "space" wouldn't be the right word). As former spiritual beings in God's sphere or multiverse we have been reduced (from a higher-dimensional "spiritual" being) to experience a lower existence in a mortal body. This, according to the Mormons' belief, is part of God's great plan of redemption. I would also call it refinement.
 
During our mortal existence we have to make choices. This is also part of the Mormon belief. After we will have been gone through this mortal status, with new experiences, knowledge, insights, worthy and deserving the next step of an eternal progress God Allmighty has planned for us, during a certain time in the Ghost World, a spiritual form of existence, after we've lost our physical body, we will be expecting God's final judgement, and maybe become resurrected as immortal beings, with a physical body and our soul (the spiritual part) united and inseparable combined forever and eternally.
 
Coming back to your question I would say, this will be some kind of a new body; improved, without former handycaps, calamities or disabilities, but in the same shape and with the same physiognomics and characteristics as before. You've mentioned "cremation", but this means nothing for God. He can delete and restore. This is part of his allmightyness. Of course we can't see how it works, but could a man of, let's say,  the 15th century once imagine men were landing on the Moon? Or even on Mars? What a radio was? And could a man of the, let's say, beginning 1950s imagine what a computer was and how people communicated via internet...?
 
God is billions and billions of years ahead, eons and eons. It's always difficult for me to understand or accept peoples' naive questions concerning God if, besides, the questioner ignores God's allmightyness and inconceivable technological abilities. And if you say "technology" isn't the right word, I would like to ask you for a better one. But in this connection or sense the word "technology" should not be understood within the frame of its common meaning according to human technological achievements.
 
In German we make a difference between das selbe... and das gleiche... and this means the same is not always exactly the same. Therefore, a duplicate wouldn't be the same as the original. But imagine God's technology would be able to restore a human being, his physical body, with the same atoms or subparticles and molecular structures, and under further aspects we don't know and we can't imagine, so that it would be the same person (united with his soul) again. And would you say there is no eternity only because a human mind can't imagine there was one...?

It is my belief and understanding that we will be resurrected as ourselves and not as anybody else.  Whatever it is that is actually and uniquely you is what will be resurrected.  Sometimes words and their definitions are important.  Take the term salvation.  This word has the same root as the word salvage.  When we salvage a ship wreak we gather up that which remains that has value.  I believe this is important to understand.  In essence I believe we are salvaged in the resurrection according to those "elements" that have remaining value.  I believe this is why the scriptures differentiate the resurrection.

An elderly Mormon asked his doctor if he thought he'd live to be a hundred.

The doctor asked the man, "Do you smoke or drink?"

"No," he replied, "I've never done either."

"Do you gamble, drive fast cars, and fool around with women?" inquired the doctor.

"No, I've never done any of those things either."

"Well then," said the doctor, "what do you want to live to be a hundred for?"
 
:)

An elderly Mormon asked his doctor if he thought he'd live to be a hundred.

The doctor asked the man, "Do you smoke or drink?"

"No," he replied, "I've never done either."

"Do you gamble, drive fast cars, and fool around with women?" inquired the doctor.

"No, I've never done any of those things either."

"Well then," said the doctor, "what do you want to live to be a hundred for?"
 
:)

That's because you're using the thumbnail URL. If you look at the URLs Google use for their image thumbnails, there is no file extension at the end of the URL. Your browser knows how to interpret the the image however, even without the file extension, by looking at the contents of the file.
 
The forum software isn't quite that advanced, and it's looking for a image file extension to verify whether it'll accept that type of file. It doesn't see one, so it simply doesn't allow it.
 
If you look at the image file you posted that did work, you can see the URL does have a JPG file extension at the end of it. Therefore the forum software knows what it is and allows it.
 
The solution is just to click 'view the full size image'. That will take you to a URL that likely has the file extension at the end of it.
 
You should be very careful doing this though. It's known as hot-linking and many websites don't like you to embed images direct from their websites. If you do that, it downloads the image from their website each time someone loads this forum page, using their bandwidth and costing them money. They can and do use techniques using cookies to show a different image to anyone who hasn't visited their website directly but is viewing the image via a different website, like lds.net. Sometimes this different image isn't very pleasant.

Well spoken! 

My horror story: Sorry, I've deleted it. People might think I'm a coward, afraid of flying. and that would be, of course, a total misunderstanding of the facts.
 
PS... Thanks, Vort, for the "like" - and sorry I had to delete my story. Please don't tell anyone about my airport disaster in that small Aircross turboprop plane before the take off, and what the stewardess said, and what she called to the pilot, and how the airport bus brought me back to the terminal. You alone certainly know that I'm not afraid of flying, and there was a very important phone call I had forgotten (as I mentioned, it was the time before the mobile phone), and that I had to leave the plane and to return to the terminal immediately.  ...

I took a look at your blog and the first thing that jumped out at me and you might want to change.  Any time you are using the full name of the Church is needs to be done correctly.  
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 
The "d" should be lower case.  :)

Hahahaaa! Nope! This is like it was in the American sitcom (in German: Eine schrecklich nette Familie) when Al Bundy (as a shoe seller assistant) once invented "God's shoes" to make money, and they were of golden metal, and looked the same you've shown here. Of course, it was going to end up in a flop. 

It's a question of esthetics.  A right sock belongs to the right foot. A right shoe belongs to the right foot. Or would you recommend to mix your left shoe with your right? No. And what would a sock look like if you weared it several times on your right foot and then suddenly on your left? It wouldn't fit perfectly and it wouldn't look fine. Do you wear a right glove on your left hand, ladies? No, certainly not.

Ye might know the problem: ye put yer socks into the washing machine, an' later ye don't know which ones were the right or left ones. I've found an absolutely reliable solution: always tie a knot in yer right socks (or yer left ones, it depends on ye, if ye're a Yankee or a Southern man). Make a tight knot. Put'em into the machine, and, as the knot won't get open,  then lay'em the same way on the heater and let'em dry. They'll be clean and will dry, because the knot doesn't matter. This is what I would recommend  to ye, and the (maybe) final solution of an old Yankee problem, and, not to lose my religion, don't le' me unmention the South will rise again.

Jesuits.  Not sure why they'd be there, but I can't think of a reason that wouldn't be at least weird if not outright bad.

Father-in-law

Warning, the below is very frank.
 
Get counseling or lose your marriage.  And I don't need to tell you how expensive divorce lawyers are.

And how. I would go further, and say the two are utterly irreconcilable. Neoplatonism, including Aristotelian metaphysics (and many other Greek philosophical concepts), is in many cases antithetical to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.