CrimsonKairos

Well now that you've embarassed yourself Ajax, perhaps we could stick to the original subject. By that, I mean there's no need for you to comment any further. Your position is clear.

Well said, PC. Thanks.

I'll answer this one specifically. On 5 NOV 2005 a guy driving a van had a siezure and hit my dad's VW Golf head-on. My father suffered broken bones and brain injuries. He was in a coma for several weeks. He's just now beginning to take faltering steps on his own. He still doesn't remember my name. I've been helping my mother care for him 24/7 for the past 14 or so months. Our local congregation (called a "ward" or if a smaller congregation, a "branch") responded with tons of support. After five weeks in the hospital, we brought my father home (still rather comatose). The Relief Society (the sisters in the ward) immediately arranged for someone to bring dinners to us twice a week. This has continued for over a year. That's a lot of meals. And a lot of sacrifice and service on the ward's part. When we needed yard work done, our friends in the ward organized some helpers and in a few hours every single item of yard work was done. This has occured several times. The priesthood leader of a ward is called Bishop (for branches, he's the Branch President). Several wards in a geographical region comprise a "stake." The priesthood leader of the stake is called, yep, the Stake President. He's normally a very busy man, overseeing several wards of hundreds of people each. Our Stake President visited us in the hospital, visits us regularly at home, and has brought meals over himself many times. He's a very busy man, and one of the most Christ-like people I've ever met. Yet he still takes time to check up on us (I know we're not the only ones with problems and needs in the stake). Understand, he has a full-time job as well. All LDS clergy are volunteers, often without formal training, who receive no salary or monetary compensation for their time spent fulfilling Church obligations. A sister from the ward recently delivered a project she'd been working on for several months. Every Sunday, she'd go to the youth classes and adult classes and have people write messages to us on pieces of paper. Then she taped all the pieces of paper together to make a long scroll. This puppy was long...really, really long. It took me probably 15 minutes to read all the well-wishes and messages. That was a very touching show of support from the ward, since not everyone can bring us meals or do yard work or what have you. Just today, a brother from the ward delivered another gift from the Relief Society: a huge hand-made quilt. I'm just floored at all that the Church has done for me and my family as we've struggled through this latest trial. And it's not just members of a clique my parents belonged to in our ward that have reached out. Several people moved into the ward after my dad's accident. They've never met us. They still serve us and give when help is needed. My parents are two of the most giving people I know. It's been awkward to be the ones receiving service instead of giving it. And boy, have we been inundated with acts of kindness, shows of support, gifts, meals and Christ-like love. There's no other Church I'd rather be a member of during hard times. I can't imagine having to go through this without a ward family to help shoulder the burden. Within the LDS Church, there is a culture of service and sacrifice. I guess it stems from scriptures like this one from the Book of Mormon: "And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." (Mosiah 2:17) My family's experience with a traumatic brain injury that's devastated my father and our relationship to him has been softened by the firm support and giving hearts of our fellow saints. Jesus gives perhaps the clearest definition of what it means to be a "Christian" or disciple of Christ: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35) According to this definition, there are no better Christians I know of than the faithful members of the LDS Church, they who give so much, so willingly, without concern for repayment or recognition. Despite all the arguments that try to prove that LDS members aren't "Christian" because we don't accept this creed or that doctrine, yet we are Christian, according to the standard put forth by the Master himself in the above scripture. God bless everyone who helps their neighbor. This is--in a way--the highest form of worship, for in serving others we are only serving God. This is my witness in the spotless name of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the clarification PC. I still don't get how a bald lady with a deformed child looks almost normal. Normal for what?

The situations are different in a few major ways. - The Lamanites were an enemy nation and lived within fairly defined geographical regions. They did not have access to biological or nuclear weapons (a nuclear attack--on whatever scale--against a Western country is inevitable). - The terrorists are not an enemy nation and can't be easily defined geographically. They do have access to biological and nuclear weapons. A lone Lamanite couldn't kill or injure thousands of Nephites in one attack. There is an ideological difference as well...radical Muslims want to destroy the West and our way of life; radical Lamanites wanted to conquer and rule the Nephites, not destroy them or their economy. I never said anything of the kind. I agree with how they dealt with their enemies...enemies who are fundamentally different from Islamist-terrorists in our day. To apply how generals dealt with foes using medieval technology to our current situation is introducing an unreasonable anachronism. Let me be specific. I'd offer the terrorists the chance to cease and desist. The USA has done that many times. After 9/11 we said enough is enough. No more chances. It's war. If the terrorists gave up and swore to leave us alone, and actually stopped their IED's and attacks, the USA wouldn't hunt them all down just to kill them and neither would I. I said I'd eliminate all radical Muslims because they're radical...and not willing to change or surrender. In that case, yes, I'd eliminate them all. Again, one Lamanite couldn't wipe out a Nephite city with just a sword. Our foes are of a different nature today. You're entitled to your opinion. I shudder to think of how boring the show "24" would be if no torture was allowed. :) Seriously, it's a valuable tool and I wholly support it. Yes, I understand that my enemies would torture me if I were captured. I'm not going to serve my enemies tea and cakes and ask politely for them to tell me where their dirty-nuke is. In case anyone missed it, I never said I agree with everything talk show hosts propose. I think locking up all Muslims in our country because they're Muslims is ridiculous.

Two things I have to give Mel props for. Frist, if I remember correctly, he opens the movie with a quote from Isaiah (my favorite Old Testament prophet). Second, he shows drops of blood mingled with Christ's sweat in Gethsemane. That's a detail not even LDS depictions include (I know the reasons, or suspect them anyway). I don't get why Mel depicted Satan as a freaky bald lady holding a child that looks like it came out of the X-Files. Anyone get that?

Jesse, what is the nature of your study?

From a cinematographer's point of view, The Passion was well-executed and shot beautifully. From a disciple's point of view, I found the movie tiresome and not at all edifying. It was useful as a slap in the face so perhaps I'd have something to think about the next time I am tempted to sin (i.e. "Hey idiot, don't you remember what Christ went through for you?). It is definitely for adults. I disliked the lack of emphasis of why Christ suffered at all.

I didn't read the part you edited out. Now I'm curious, lol. Never said they did. I don't think anyone "wants" to kill someone. There's a difference between "wanting" to and "choosing" to. Moroni didn't want to. Moroni chose to. He had compelling reasons. When I say I'd like to eliminate all radical Muslims, I have compelling reasons to say so. In case anyone doesn't know, by radical I mean terrorist-Jihadist-Islamo-fascists who refuse to discuss their grievances or desires calmy but instead make their argument with C-4, RPG's and IED's. I believe I mentioned twice in my pattern that the enemy was offered the chance to surrender. I'm beginning to wonder what post you read. It surely wasn't mine. No need for an FYI here. I agree that making prisoners work is just common sense. We don't know that Moroni or the Nephite army didn't torture prisoners. Torturing someone is not the same as enjoying torturing someone. Even if the Nephites didn't torture their prisoners, that doesn't mean it's not a good idea in our day. Of course, the Nephite commanders were usually righteous men, often prophets, who consulted with the Lord and let God guide them in their efforts to defend their people. Our commanders today don't necessarily rely on prayer or the Lord for information, y'know? Not necessarily. People keep bandying the word "extreme" around in a pejorative manner. In case anyone hasn't noticed, our enemies are extreme; their goals are extreme; their methods are extreme; their motivation is extreme. Such a situation calls for extreme measures and extreme responses.

Probably a mormon myth. I don't see movies based on ratings, but on content and reviews. I've seen plenty of PG-13 movies that were more offensive to the spirit than some R movies. MPAA is hardly a scientific approach.

Precisely. You keep pointing out this "problem," but what solutions do you propose? Revising the young men/women's curriculum? Handing out pamphlets to parents? I think you have many valid points. It just seems profitless to keep pointing to people's excessive focus on clothes, instead of just saying, "Hey people, remember that when you teach about modesty, you should include how you act, what you watch, how you talk, etc... and not just what you wear." What you seem to be doing is this: "Hey people, remember that when you teach about modesty, you should include how you act, what you watch, how you talk, etc... Also, loosen up on standards for sporting events, plays, dance recitals, and stop being Victorian-extremists." I understand that it might be upsetting to have people criticize what your daughter wore for her recital or what have you, but that doesn't mean you need to tell all of us that we're too obsessed with covering our bodies, or that by covering our bodies we're ashamed of them. That's simply not true. The opposite is usually true in fact...we cover our bodies because we value them and don't want to "cast our pearl before swine." As for that picture of the BYU student in her "track outfit," this always cracks me up and ticks me off simultaneously. If you think you have to dress like that to run, then the problem is with your legs, not your clothes. That's just such crap. Anyone remember the Afghanistan female runner at the Olympics who wore pants and a long-sleeve shirt to perform? I thought that was awesome. Not that shorts are evil, but what that girl in the picture is wearing is not shorts...I don't have a name for it, but it's ridiculous. Tights for volleyball, tanktops for basketball...it's just crap. People can be competitive while wearing more cloth than is currently the norm. As for, "Why can guys go without shirts and girls can't wear tanktops," it's a ludicrous question. Everyone knows that guys get turned on by things that usually don't turn on girls. Guys usually have stronger sex drives than girls. Blah, blah, blah. All the stereotypes are true. Deal with it people. Yes, some people might be excessively obsessed with how much clothing is okay. I'd rather err on the side of too conservative than on the side of too liberal. Women control the morality of society. Think about that. Women control the morality of society. Men are born with a strong desire to "multiply" and have a more carnal outlook on the world than women. There are exceptions, fine. The point still stands. Women aren't born with the desire to dress skimpy and immodestly, or appear in pornographic magazines or movies. That's a decision. Men's sex drives are largely determined by hormones. Women's clothing choices are largely determined by fad and fashion. Yes, men need to control their hormones and choose the right. I'm not excusing men at all. If I ever have any daughters, I'll be lovingly caressing a shotgun when their dates come pick them up. What I'm pointing out is that it's a matter of nature versus culture. Is it easier to ask men to alter their hormonal make-up, or ask women to alter their choice in clothing? Both need to take an active part in preserving modesty and chastity in society. Sure. But if we're getting down to nuts and bolts, it's rather ridiculous to tell guys not to get turned on by girls in swimsuits and "track uniforms." I think it is reasonable to ask girls to be open to wearing a little more material when competing in sports or performing. How is that extreme or excessive?

Extreme isn't necessarily bad. I'd have no problem eliminating all radical Muslims. I'd have no problem eliminating all radical Christians either, but they aren't using IED's and internet-televised beheadings to spread their message and agenda. I admire the way Book of Mormon generals and captains dealt with hostile Lamanites. 1. Give them a chance to surrender. 2. Hit them with the full force of their army. 3. Give losing enemies the chance to surrender again. 4. Put prisoners to work. 5. Kill those attempting to escape. There are some exceptions to this pattern, but by and large this is how the Book of Mormon military leaders (who were often spiritual leaders) dealt with their enemies. I wish we had the guts to pursue the same pattern today.

Isn't that Michael Medved?

You make a lot of good points PC. I have nothing against peaceful Muslims, or members of any religion or no religion at all. Fundamental Isalm refers to those who believe the Wahhabi-flavor of Islam, or something like thereto. What is wahhabism, a.k.a. salafism? Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi As practiced in Iran and Saudi Arabia: Beat women for not wearing abayas in public, for crossing the street alone; treat women as property; all non-Muslims have no rights and are worthless; etc... Saudi Arabia and other countries do believe these things, as a whole. Sure there are always moderate factions within most groups. When I say fundamental Islam, or Islamists, I'm referring to people who believe they are good Muslims, who truly do believe the Koran is God's word, and that they are His servants. I know there are terrorists who use Islam to further their own goals. But there are honest-to-gosh radical muslims who are muslims, not pretenders, and whole countries are governed by such fundamentalists. Read Carmen bin Ladin's book, "Inside the Kingdom." It's an eye-opener, written by a Muslim. She reveals what fundamental Islam is and what it consists of (and what Islamists would love to see displace our culture, economy, legal system and way of life). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist

Comparing the Nazi's ideas about and treatment of Jews to America's ideas about and treatment of Muslims is ridiculous. I mean that in every sense of the word. Ree-dik-you-lus. There weren't radical groups of Jews blowing themselves up in German trains, or setting up road-side bombs on major roadways, or capturing German workers and sawing their heads off with knives, or declaring Holy War on Germany in the name of Yahweh. The differences are stark. Germany had no practical, empirical reason to hate the Jews. Stated another way, the Jews hadn't attacked or declared intent to attack Germany. Radical Muslims have attacked and declared intent to attack America and her allies. The Nazis' fear/hate of Judaism was founded on pseudo-science and propaganda. America's fear/hate of fundamental Islam is founded on 9/11, the beheadings in Iraq and elsewhere, and countless conflicts around the globe involving Muslim fanatics.

The fundamentalist Islamists are fascist inasmuch as they try to acquire power through physical force and terror. In the "traditional" Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al) the majority of Muslims are fundamentalists thanks to their governments. If you really want to get a better understanding of mainstream Islam in those countries, particularly the one Osama hails from, read Inside the Kingdom by Carmen bin Laden (one of Osama's sisters-in-law who was raised as a "casual Muslim" before entering the strict world of Saudi Islam through her marriage). I still say irradiate the oil-rich regions controlled by fundamental Muslim governments and rob them of their wealth. If they despise the West and capitalism so much, they should give up the benefits of our way of life (cars, tv, radio, modern medical technology, airplanes, etc...). Otherwise, they reek of hypocrisy. You can't keep one foot in the 7th century and the other in the 21st century. Carmen bin Laden says it well...the muslims of Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist countries are born with a rear-view mirror on their foreheads, forever looking back to Mohammed's time and the first generation of Muslims. We all know what happens to someone who drives down the freeway with their eyes glued to their rear-view mirror...

Good point.

I often wonder how scriptural figures would act if injected into current events. How do you all think Captain Moroni would act if he were an army general in charge of Iraqi operations? I have my own opinions, but what do you guys think, and would you agree with his tactics (based on his performance in the Book of Mormon)?

Again, I must point to this excellent explanation by a gifted LDS astronomer: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html It is an intriguing possibility, with sound reasoning behind. Check out all his articles for a great read! http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/index.html

Not sure.

This is the college-student's quick'n'dirty meal, but I was surprised how good it tasted when I tried it. Just cook up some mac'n'cheese, then add frozen peas and some salsa. Stir all together, grate some fresh cheddar cheese on top, let it melt...you have to try it to understand it.

I think of the oil as testimony and personal commitment to Christ. This involves knowing him. If the bridegroom passed the virgins and it was dark, they had to know him and what he looked like in order to know whom to follow to the wedding feast or what have you. Sure they could've just said, "It must be the guy in the front of the procession decked out in fancy attire," but hypothetically another bridegroom could have been passing on his way to another feast. In another vein, the oil in their lamps allowed them to generate the light necessary to illuminate the bridegroom's features and recognize him. Again, it could be argued that they could've recognized his voice in the absence of a visual confirmation, but that too involves knowing him personally. The parallel to recognizing the Master's "voice" is a simple yet powerful one. In any case, the way I apply this parable to myself is to regularly inspect myself and my spirituality...see if I feel firm in my beliefs and understanding of the gospel...see if I'm willing to purchase the "oil" through study and service and sacrifice...see if I am willing to wait in the night as long as necessary until the Bridegroom (with a capital "B") comes by and invites me to follow, etc...

There is a note in the manuscript of Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of the KJV Bible (JST) that says the Song of Solomon is not inspired writing. That's the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Interestingly, the D&C quotes some of the Song of Solomon content (none of the "sexy stuff" though). Compare these: SoS 6:10 and D&C 5:14, D&C 105:31, and D&C 109:73. Are and aren't what? What do you mean by 'lost books'? Brigham Young proposed that the Word of Wisdom be made a binding commandment on the LDS Church in 1851. It was unanimously approved in that year. It wasn't until the early 1900's that strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom was a requirement for receiving a temple recommend, however. I couldn't find the document on my computer right now that gives specific dates about when obeying the Word of Wisdom was made a requirement for entering the temple. What about them? They aren't part of the official LDS canon of scripture. Some will argue that Joseph Smith didn't write or give them, someone else did. Either way, they are to me inspired writings with valuable teachings. If anyone knows that I am incorrect about any of the above, please post the correction.

Well I'm glad someone got my point. Thanks PC.

Glad I don't live near the coast. B) Part of your argument didn't make sense. The whole ocean is "on land," i.e. the earth's crust. Even if you put an ice cube on a slab of granite and let the ice melt, the overall "height" or level of water would still go down. I'm not sure I get what you're saying.