the Ogre

Jim:I can understand what you are saying. I cannot deny the testimony that I have, when I was converted (LDS for Saved) I felt nothing like I have never felt before. That feeling is still in my heart and has grown over the years. Now, what if that spirit turned into an actual vision where I saw J-sus? Not only that, what if a person came up to me and said: that is J-sus the son of Mary, the S-n of G-d? That would be way more than the feeling when the spirit washes over you, that is seeing G-d with your own eyes. That cannot be denied, but what if you did. That then denial is "sin against the H-ly Gh-st and that, according to LDS doctrine, cannot be denied. I hope this helps. I appreciate your posts. Aaron the Ogre

I understand how you are defining it and I have heard others say something similar. I think this is one of those cases where Latter-day saints believe differently. There are plenty of members who have "left" the church and those who have been "excommunicated". We do not equate "excommunication" or "leaving the fold" with unforgivable sin except where someone has had the ultimate witness of J-sus. What I mean is to actually see H-m in H-s glory and have the H-ly Gh-st witness the event. Very few people have this. The New Testament shows John the Baptist's witness. If he denied this witness, then he would be guilty of "Sins against the H-ly Gh-st", but he never did, so he's got it made.

Both are nasty. Why? They taste like coffee. BTW: I love your pictures. They are awesome.

I'm curious too, does this have to do with word-count?

Would I vote for Cheney? No, I would not. Would I feel differently than I do now in the face of cataclysmic terrorism? Yes. I moderated my politics after 9/11 recognizing the futility of typical conservatism. I would change my mind on a dime, but I am sure I still would not vote for Dick Cheney. I do not 100% buy the Bush/Cheney administration attempted to stay to the high road. I think Cheney navigated the US into the position of international pariah or was directly involved with it. I think he would do worse as president.

Husky: Welcome to LDS.net. I hope you do post some. Aaron the Ogre

Jeeze, tell them to shut the heck up next time. No one needs to hear that stuff. You will come out on top the next time. I've done the same at work and in school (UVU). If a man said the same in school, he could be censured and kicked out. The same should apply to those girls. Regarding the professor, get used to it. Most of mine have been hypocritical and petty in plenty of areas.

Nope. My grandpa did it up to his death at 88. We young 'uns can do it too.

Good decision, but the GOP only seems to to support two of those four (and the abortion option weakly, Bush's abortion position is one of his few redeeming qualities). People have told me I need to listen to Beck. I do, but even he would say the GOP only recently seems interested in small government (ie.. all his anti-progressive rants). The GOP is progressive (no child left behind). If you want real conservatism that is a little respectful, you will not in the GOP right now.I however only support three of the things you indicate. I am not convinced small government is the right direction any longer.

I told people here about the old pedophile in my stake. He was convicted, exed, did his time, came back to church, was reinstated, and attends faithfully for the last twenty-or-so years since his release from prison. He is single and sticks to himself and sits by himself in church. Many people are not kind to him and some have even been cruel (I am not discounting the evil he committed, but repentance is possible -- I learned about his story from a ward-member trying to warn me about him). He is very old, but still rides the bus two days a week to work in the Mount Timpanogos Temple. He can go to church. He can pay his tithing. He can pay his fast offerings. He can do indexing. He can work in the temple. He is a temple worker (I do not know in what capacity, but I know it is not as paid staff). If you go to that temple often, you have seen him. I have. It is no ones business what one did in their past (even if it took loads of hard work to reenter the temple). Please, work in the temple. Everyone has something they need to do and there is always a need.

I think Cheney's speech was just as skewed Obama's speech here.I think Cheney is positioning himself for a run at the presidency. I think the Republican Party would be fools to not consider him. But, it things don't change, and they always do, and Cheney wins the GOP nomination, I will be voting for my first Democrat for President regardless of his opinions on abortion or veterans rights.

I respect that. A burned hand teaches best.

Freckles (what a cool name): Welcome to LDS.net. I hope you enjoy it here and post often. Aaron the Ogre

I know Avraham Gileadi and have met (briefly) D. Michael Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, and Maxine Hanks. There is no doubt that the church was right. Dr. Gileadi is very open about where his error was. The other three are, in my opinion, in active denial. I think there is a problem with discounting their knowledge. I have enjoyed reading Hanks and Anderson (not always agreeing, however). I understand the need to be cautious, but to completely discount their life's work is to encourage ignorance. What is wrong is to declare excommunicated-members are right and the church is wrong and then to go on a campaign on their behalf.I think the brethren were right and what happened in September 1993 with the September Six and the many other who were aligned with them was a clear declaration regarding LDS scholarship. This, of course, is absolutely correct.

I got my answer from an old BYU Studies Journal. I subscribe, but don't tell anyone (do you want to know silly: I yell at it all the time for missing the point -- yelling at a book, oh my).

Pretty sad. I do not have the original questions or how I answered them. The survey went for a few pages, so the surveyors were quite good at focusing accuracy and what was really sinful to a 1980s teen-ager. I however have the categories with correct-answers scribbled in pasted in my old seminary scriptures.Here are the categories that they tested for: Adultery, Bearing false witness, Disrespecting parents, Envy, Homosexuality, Idolatry, Immodesty, Incest, Insults, Lewdness, Lying, Murder, Over-eating, Pride, Profanity, Rape, Sabbath observance, Sin against the H-ly Gh-st, Unchaste behavior, and Word of Wisdom violations. I found this during a FHE lesson I gave before Chr-stmas. I think the church has come a long way from the naive methodologies of the past. If I remember right, some of the kids didn't even know what the primary sins were, except murder but since none of us committed it, why would it be important (if a tree in the woods etc etc etc). Mind-blowing, but I wonder how kids today would fare. Late edit: the top five answers were 1. Word of Wisdom violations, 2. Profanity, 3. Bearing false witness, 4. Murder, and 5. Pride.

Tricky tricky. It depends on which translation you use and which one can be used to verify the Jaredite tradition. I think 'C' (nappashu) as opposed to 'D' (tsohar) (though both probably were present), because (1) it is more practical and (2) more contextual.I know of several references to polished stones and/or shining stones as per reference Noah's Ark, but I still think they had to provide loads of air for the animals to breath and the Noah account nowhere mentions the need to submerge. I think it is a possibility that the Brother of Jared knew of Noah's stone and used it as inspiration, but this is all speculation and based on the work of dirty apologetics, so bah: C.

Yay . . . you used the old-college try (always pick 'c', statistically it yields better results). C is correct out of the following list: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.Baruch, an apocryphal book, is actually the name of a text whose author is unknown, but who did attribute it to Jeremiah's scribe Baruch. This was common practise and is not looked down upon (some scholars actually think The Song of Solomon was written by a woman). I think an LDS or Chr-stian list would be different. I think we would place Malachi a bit higher on the list. I also think it is interesting (fascinating even) that the order of prominence is also the same order as they fall in the KJV sans Baruch.

Right on. Your spider-sense is amazing. Can you climb walls too:D:D?

I just watched this video. I like it. I am excited about the new temple. My brother lives about half a mile away. He and his wife are very excited. I want more temples and I know more are coming.

I think you are absolutely correct for parts of it, but not all.Very cool answer though.

LM: This is the core of the problem. No one is willing to come forward from the Gun-nut fringe and pony-up some accountability coin. They are affraid of the slippery-slope and other equally stupid arguments. I would be branded a gun-nut by the left and gun-control freak by the right and in no way could I begin to draw people in. I think gun-owners need to start this dialogue, most gun-advocates are only interested in street-cleaning the opposition instead of taking clear, precise, careful shots at intelligent debate. Ogre

Hmmmmm . . . I thought about that Hemi, but I don't buy it. I think it is a precursor to either.As an insight, I think a Gantt Chart with Conversion/Born-again/Change of Character being the median line. Some of these factors we are discussing would start and end before and after this median. Some can only come after the median line (works/ordinances). I am complicating the process because the question nor the answer is linear.

Dr. T: This is tricky, but according to modern-Rabbinical tradition(it doesn't matter: Orthodox, Conservative, or even Reform), what would be the correct order of importance for the following biblical prophets (they list seventeen, unlike the sixteen most Chr-stians are familiar with)? Give it the old-college try! a) Nahum, Joel, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Daniel b) Alma the Younger, Nephi the son of Lehi, Moroni, Samuel the Lamanite, Jacob c) Isaiah, Hosea, Jonah, Habakkuk, Malachi d) Baruch, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Malachi, Isaiah

I love you Captain! This is one of the funniest things ever. You are great!Regarding the preparedness aspect: a serviceable 9mm, a good hunting rifle, and/or 12guage is all anyone needs to be prepared. I remember a report from Katrina that the people who did have food-storage and also had guns got to keep their food-storage. For home-defense, I have a little-league baseball bat. I have used it once (the guy spent time in the hospital before going to jail). I still have a gun-nuts teen-ager at home, so no guns now (he goes shooting with his uncles and grandpa all the time). I have gotten mugged once (NYC), robbed twice (I wasn't home -- ROK and Provo), and home invaded once (Baseball bat -- Orem); if I had to rely on a gun, I would be dead. I do not automatically think a gun is important, but it is handy. Regarding gun-rights, I like the idea of C&C, but I do not think the education requirements are sufficient. I think there should also be qualification standards proving the gun-owner knows how to determine who is dangerous and who is not (a class just does not cut it). I think the qualification should be required for each gun type owned; AKs are different than shot-guns, I think the owner should be-able to prove skillful knowledge of operation before being able to purchase the weapon. I like trigger locks, safes, prolonged waiting-periods, and difficult certification/re-certification classes. I also think the psychological profile for gun-purchases needs to be wider and quite exclusionary. I do think it is a constitutional right to bear arms, but I also think it is the responsibility of gun-owners to prove they are capable of not harming others BEFORE they purchase or are allowed to possess a gun. The criminal, the insane, the mentally-ill, and the stupid should be barred from gun ownership.