JohnsonJones

If you are referring to your first post in this thread...I didn't see anything. I saw you state that your answer was in the text below, and then it just showed up as a big blank space on my screen. If it was in there, I did not read it. I thought it was a joke or something (the blank space) in regards to the answer. If there was actual writing there, for some reason it did not show up...so I did not read it. Sorry. PS: If there was something there, did you post it in a different way or something? I'd be curious as to what you wrote.

Well, there IS the simpler answer. Right now the question is something similar to...If I put a car in outerspace, would it be able to move? By itself, it's sort of ridiculous because there are a bunch of quantifiers that are missing. However, there IS a simple answer. Without the engines operating to provide thrust and providing that power, the wheels do not move. The conveyor belt is not moving. Hence the plane goes no where, because it isn't providing thrust. When I first do engine start on the jet, it's only providing electrical power to the aircraft. Even if I do move forward, unless I provide enough thrust to move the plane forward, it isn't going to take off. The question asked in the original part of this topic is read as if it's relating to groundspeed (the question Mythbusters tried to present, but even then, it was flawed as you see the pilot actually built power above what he should have, which builds the question whether it was staged...it's not noticeable unless you know what to look at, but he builds power farther and has greater acceleration eventually than what they are driving it seems...but even then, once airborne, is no longer stationary...as it's no longer groundspeed being answered). Unfortunately, THIS is the question everyone actually THINKS is being asked. In this scenario, yes, the plane takes off, but that is because the takeoff is not reliant upon the groundspeed. It is reliant upon the thrust of the airplane. The reason for this is because the wheels are not a good measure of the forward momentum of the aircraft. It is an intermediary of that power when it is on the ground. The entirety of the power of the aircraft is behind it, as it is being thrust forward by the engines. The wheels are merely a reflection of that power upon the ground, when it is in contact with the ground. Hence, the do not receive nor reflect the entire power of the aircraft. This is one of the laws of Physics, that when a force acts, and equal but opposite force also reacts. The reason the aircraft can take off is that the ground is not providing an equal but opposite force to that of the wings or the thrust of the aircraft caused by the engines. The wheels are not translating that force, and hence the aircraft, even if you think it is stationary, is actually, via it's force, moving forward. It is not acted upon by an equal and opposite force, because it's wheels are not transferring the entirety of that force. This is the question people typically think is being asked, and the one Mythbusters answered...but that's NOT what is actually being stated. However, the original question was... This is not possible. It cannot roll the opposite direction the plane wants to move in order to keep it stationary. It would constantly need to accelerate and move to counter the ENGINES which would then continue to accelerate in an infinite loop. In order to keep it stationary, it needs to react to the ENGINES, not the wheels, and thus is a reaction to the airspeed and thrust rather than the groundspeed (which has nothing to do with the aircraft). Hence, you would never get the thrust for the airflow and the aircraft would remain stationary...if you could even get something like that to work. In reality, this should be impossible to even do (and if it did react to the engines the aircraft might actually start to move backwards which means the engines would need more thrust to move forward...and you get an infinite loop as it repeats this ad nauseum). Hence, the question itself is really asking about something that is pretty much impossible. PS: Just to be clear, I am WAAAY open to having someone post evidence (physical evidence, Mythbusters was actually a flawed one, for more than what I said, some have noted it appeared that the pilot applied x2 the amount of acceleration normally needed which matches the 2x=x idea meaning he was actually going faster than the groundspeed stated...but even with that said, the principles of force should say he might be able to take off, but ultra lights are a very BAD example as they can take off on a dime in the right conditions already...we need a heavier aircraft for a good example...if they could get a way to work it) that shows the principles in action. I'd love to see physical evidence which shows the plane can take off in this situation, if it were at all possible. As per Bernoulli's principals, I think it is effectively null and void in some purposes though, but I'd love to see that scientific idea proven false by someone, though simply using a rocket probably isn't what I'm looking for. The US military may be interested in it also, considering they still use Catapults on the Naval Carriers.

The question asked relies on the plane being stationary. When accounting for thrust, this should be impossible. if you accounted for thrust, in order to act upon it, the plane would need to move backwards (not all the power of the airplane is transferred to the wheels of the said airplane). However, as per the question this is not allowed, thus it needs to remain stationary. Furthermore, this would be in reaction to the ENGINES, not the wheels of the airplane. It would be in response to the aircraft, and NOT the groundspeed. Hence the problems with the question itself. It would in essence, perhaps create an infinite loop. What many seem to think it is asking, is what Mythbusters changed it to instead. That is, if a plane is on a runway going at the same speed of it's groundspeed in the opposite direction, would it be able to take off...but groundspeed is NOT airspeed.

Sigh... From the website... What you need to remember from this part is that the thrust is a force coming from the acceleration of gas (air surrounding the plane). The object will not stay motionless because we have unbalanced forces. So we can not design the conveyor belt to move at the same speed as wheels. it then goes on to say that Mythbusters modified the question (To what people many times understand it's asking, rather than what it is actually asking) to actually be able to do something in regards to that question. The thing is, the question everyone THINKS it is asking is not the question that IS being asked. Instead, they are understanding it to be the question that Mythbusters is asking. Mythbusters works because groundspeed is NOT the same thing as AIRSPEED (which is something I've repeated several times now) or thrust.

I mean, in answer to the question he asked. In it the website NOTATES the problem with the question...the question itself is flawed. Hence, Mythbusters had to ALTER the question in order for them to even make something that remotely works. I think the website probably ALSO mentions that it is NOT groundspeed, but the thrust that makes an airplane take off. Mythbusters, though they accounted somewhat for groundspeed (though they could not do instant matching like you would need to), they did not really account for the thrust. It is the THRUST that makes the airplane move, due to the equal but opposite properties. However, if you keep something STATIONARY, the airplane cannot fly. Even if it gets airborne, it will fall. It has to move forward through the air. The only exception, is if it's thrust ratio is greater than the friction (in which case your going to destroy the wheels or the belt), at which point it becomes a rocket and it is that force that propels it upwards. Imagine a kite. A kite needs wind against it in order to go up. If the wind is strong enough, the kite can be stationary (and the same principle applies to aircraft, if you have a strong enough headwind, you can actually take off at a groundspeed of zero miles per hour, but as I've constantly said, the differences between what mythbusters did, and the question that is typically asked is one is based upon the ground effects the other is just mentioning keeping the aircraft stationary). However, if there is no wind, the kite either falls, or you have to generate someway to provide that wind to the kite (sometimes by running really fast). However, if you have no wind, and you have no movement, and simply throw the kite up...the question then is will it go up into the air with no effort? The answer is typically no. HOWEVER, the mistake is thinking that the movement is in relation to your legs, when the question asked in this thread is based upon ALL acceleration, rather than simply one form or the other. In the kite example, your legs are the primary point of movement in the assumption...however, that does not necessarily need to be true. If you have a long enough string and are strong enough, you could pull the kite. The question at the beginning of the thread states that you would not be able to pull it either, for if you did, then the conveyor belt you are on would actually need to be moving BACKWARDS to account for the amount that you are moving the kite forward, even if your legs are not moving. In otherwords, to keep it stationary, you would need to account for the thrust. However, if you do NOT account for the thrust, at some point it WILL in fact move forward, causing airflow over the wings, and a rapid ascent (as is shown on the navy catapults via the naval carriers, except theirs is calculated so that the plane is released when the thrust is at a certain point). However, if this question is ever proven by physicist that indeed a plane can take off while stationary, we should all be able to own and take off from our own backyards soon, as that will be far cheaper than the runways which we all utilize currently. The fact that we have NOT done so, to me is bigger evidence of the flaw of the question, rather than the actual details of the science to it.

Present your evidence then. Thus far you have no evidence except, you say so. On the otherhand, you have a pilot, you have mythbusters showing it, and you have the Navy Catapults. This is a question asked by non-pilots to try to create a scenario that doesn't exist and easily answered by those who understand it. Of course, those who do not understand the basics will try to say the pilots (who actually FLY airplanes), or the physicists, or the engineers are wrong...at which point one needs to ask, exactly what are they basing this idea of theirs on. You are basing it off a intermediary medium (The wheels) which have nothing to do with taking a plane off, it has everything to do with the airflow over the wings and the thrust of the airplane. Mythbusters based theirs off of wheels, but not the thrust, but your actual question is NOT the one they actually dealt with. A plane kept truly stationary cannot take off, as shown by the Navy EVERY DAY they send up airplanes. If you have some radical science, perhaps you should build and aircraft carrier better than the Navy, or explain why their aircraft are taking off horizontally from their catapults instead of going forward. But since you won't accept MY answer from it, and admittedly I'm NOT a physicist...perhaps you will those who know better than I? plane on a conveyor belt debunked If you disagree, please post your evidence. Math is acceptable evidence even if I'm not the best mathematician. PS: I'm don't have the most hours, but I have over 2000 hours flying time. I know pretty much what it takes for an aircraft to take off. When I say, if we could take off a plane from our own backyards due to some mysterious treadmill, we WOULD. It would be a LOT cheaper. However, despite what some may claim on this treadmill/conveyor belt thus far, the biggest proof is NONE of them have actually succeeded in doing what they say is possible. When they claim pilots and aeronautical engineers just do not know what they are talking about...they don't understand how much we would actually WANT this scenario to be true because the cost ratio would be awesome. Unfortunately, no one has ever built such a fanciful machine yet... Which is probably the biggest evidence right now that it doesn't actually work the way some think it is (probably because they are accounting for ground movement rather than air movement in regards to their question). That doesn't mean that this may not be possible, and in the future we'll all have aircraft take off from our backyards, but presently...we still have to pay hanger fees and other fees because our airplanes need a runway.

Hmm, upon reflection, the above answer may be too complex for one to understand. Let's put it this way, the original question is flawed. (the main mistake of the question is this The conveyor belt is perfectly programmed to roll the opposite direction the plane wants to move, in order to keep it stationary ). There are some things to understand about Aircraft in general... 1. It needs thrust and airflow in order to take off. This airflow has to be generated in some fashion. 2. An item at rests...stays at rest. 3. A force acting in one direction has an equal and opposite force acting in the opposite direction. 4. If a plane truly stays stationary, it is NOT going to be moving. In order for it takeoff, it MUST be moving forward. (example, using the mythbusters episode as an example...they keep the aircraft stationary until it moves at twice the rate they are trying to keep their belt moving in the opposite direction. Once that occurs, the plane (and that type need VERY LITTLE thrust to move it forward) suddenly starts moving forward faster than they can move, it no longer remains stationary and in fact is moving forward with the airflow over it's wings being as such...if it was kept stationary, it would not have any airflow over it's wings and it would not move forward, even if it somehow got airborne, this imaginary conveyor belt would reach up and drag it back down motionless or it would crash, but if you watch the video, the plane actually flies forward). 5. NOW, if you have no engines working at this point, the plane will not take off unless you have a headwind that causes the airflow high enough to cause takeoff speed. 6. There is a caveat, but which requires a plane to NOT remain stationary, and it is exhibited by the Navy catapults. What is happening at the same time the wheels are moving, is that the propeller or jets are creating thrust. This is SEPARATE from the ground movement. It has nothing to do with the question really, nor with the ground movement. All ground movement is in your takeoff roll is to create airflow over the wings. Thrust is used to promote this ground movement, but it is this thrust which is vital to the takeoff, not the actual ground movement, as ground movement and airflow are two different things (As I've stated). 7. When you reach an appropriate thrust, it will force your aircraft forward. AT that point, what matters is how much airflow you have over the wings. With enough thrust, you can take off in a very short area... (example, now using the Navy Catapults as an example. They create it so that the plane has the thrust needed to take off in a very short distance. A regular plane may need a half mile runway to work on the ground to get the thrust needed to get the airflow over it's wings in order to takeoff ,but a Navy Catapult reduces this distance to a VERY SHORT runway. Hence, with the thrust, you can takeoff almost instantly, shown daily on Navy Aircraft. One could also point that this is demonstrated by the Mythbusters video, though they do not understand it. It has very little to do with their runway belt, and more to do with the fact that at a certain point that aircraft generates enough thrust to counteract anything that may be happening on the ground, and once it hits that 2x=x ratio, takes off in a very short manner, as this is a similar idea to what is happening in the navy Catapults when thrust is being generated). 8. However, as per the question, if an aircraft was actually kept stationary, meaning even the thrust was managed to be kept at an absolute standstill...then no, the plane would not take off. It would be impossible unless there was another way to generate airflow over the wings. This is due to friction and the friction between the wheels and the conveyor belt...but this is considered impossible to actually pull off, and if one did, in theory the belt or the wheels would eventually break down. If it were possible however, it would prove interesting. The reason the mythbusters plane actually was able to take off is that they changed the parameters of what they did compared to what the question actually asks. Adding... 9. The big thing to remember is there is a DIFFERENCE between groundspeed and airspeed, or the speed the wheels turn on the ground and the speed that the air is moving over the wings. 10. The wheels do NOT represent airspeed...hence a conveyor belt that matched their speed is only utilizing one conveyance of power and friction. Once thrust is enough, it overcomes the need for that and takeoff is inevitable. HOWEVER...if there ever was a belt designed to exactly match the thrust of an aircraft immediately (instead of responding to wheels which is an indirect medium), the answer as per the question...as I stated before, I believe is that the aircraft could not take off. It requires the airflow, and if there is no airflow it cannot fly. Anything thus far though, has not been aimed at the airflow factor, but more the groundspeed factor. In regards to the wheels turning, it is the THRUST which overcomes that obstacle...regardless of the runway belt that one is dragging behind their car. Hoepfully that explains what I was thinking a little more clearly. PS: One other item that was brought up that I might be corrected upon. IF the thrust was high enough, it COULD go airborne even if kept stationary...like a rocket. This would be independent of airflow over the wings though, but in this matter (not demonstrated in the mythbusters scenario though, that was an airflow-thrust thing instead) a rocket could indeed become airborne, even if held stationary (an example if you wish to try it, blow up a balloon and then if you can keep it stationary against a wall, have it go against a ceiling and a wall corner...it will stay afloat until it runs out of fuel/air). on this, I am corrected from my above answer I suppose.

Trust me, there is NO way to get an airplane afloat without air movement over it's wings...or don't. Your right, one of us is a pilot and knows the basic things needed to fly, stall, or actually get lift on an airplane. I'm betting anyone who claims an airplane can go up in the air while at a standstill is also not a pilot...I could be wrong...but that would be just weird once you know how a plane actually takes off and flies. Ground movement plays very little, but if you have no air movement on the wings...the rest really doesn't matter at all. Who came up with this question anyways? If you can show me proof of this in action, I might deliberate about it (The mythbusters episode was already shown to be false as the airplane was still moving through the air at twice the speed they were pulling the little conveyor belt...aka...it was still moving across the ground at twice the takeoff speed needed as per it's wheels [which ironically meant it was actually moving forward and not at a standstill]...who actually relies on Mythbusters for science??? In order to match the plane, they would have to be going at double the speed of the plane at an accelerating rate that exactly matches the plane at a 2x=x forumula, which they didn't do). That said, as I said before, the ground speed actually has very little to do with anything, it has everything to do with the airspeed over the wings. If there is NO airspeed over the wings...it is not going to go anywhere. For a plane taking off at a general 200 Knots, you would have to have the conveyor belt going at close to the speed of sound. For a small plane like in mythbusters, you'd still have to be accelerating faster than the vehicle could accelerate and faster than the car might be able to go. But what you are dealing with is AIRSPEED vs. groundspeed. If the conveyor belt thing worked, we'd actually use it on aircraft carriers rather than the catapults to spin the wheels and the engines to build up thrust because the less space needed to takeoff (and land) the better on one of those. However, you can spin the wheels there, but until it's released by the catapult, you aren't going to fly. That's because it's due to airspeed over the wings, and very little to do with the actual groundspeed (Which is what I tried to demonstrate with the headwind idea when taking off). The spinning wheels but no takeoff is demonstrated daily by the US Navy from what I hear... On the otherhand, airflow over an airplane is demonstrated daily in other arenas. For example, a helicopter (which needs no groundspeed to take off, but generates airspeed in other ways) also needs airspeed over the appropriate arenas. However, if you simply move the airplane on wheels on a conveyor belt, with no thrust over the wings...it's going to be stationary just like it is at other times.

I guess another way of looking at this is to make a correlation. In Catholicism you have Saints and you have Angels. Angels are considered to have great power, and Saints are considered close enough to be able to plead your case when you offer your prayers up to them. LDS have a similar view, but instead of Saints like the Catholics have them, view it that those who are righteous enough become Angels. In this light, consider how powerful angels are in the Catholic customs. It is THIS that LDS are referring to in many ways in what an LDS member may become. However, instead of referring it as Angels, they refer to them as gods (lower case g) which is different than GOD (upper case G). In fact, in many LDS traditions, those who are resurrected become Angels (as per Michael who was Adam, Gabriel who was Noah, etc...etc...etc), but this is synonmymous with those who are resurrected and receive their glory...aka...gods (as with the little g). Perhaps that can explain a little more in depth in regards to the weird LDS notions of what comes after this life...though somethings are added on in addition to that, it is this basic parallel that you could utilize to try to understand the LDS thoughts on why we worship the Father and it is NOT polytheism as in multiple deities and such.

I believe as per the laws of physics, and as a private pilot myself, the answer would be no. I do not know why smart people would even debate this. The reason a plane is able to fly is due to the shape of the wing and the airflow over that wing. If the wind is strong enough, the airplane does not even need to get faster, it will fly if it is pointed into that headwind. In fact, the headwind or tailwind is calculated into the takeoff calculations on when you need to pullback/takeoff, as well as the landing calculations. Normally, the air at ground level is not strong enough for takeoff. Simplifying the calculations However, if I were in a jet and I need 135 KPH to takeoff, with that airflow over my wings with a full tank, that's a base level. However, if their is a groundwind that I'm taking off in, and it's a direct headwind, that is 10 Knots per hour, than my takeoff speed will be 125 Knots. However, if I had the runway countering my groundspeed to 0 Knots, then I'd need to add 135 knots to that to beat that runway/conveyer belt in order to counter that. I need the speed of the air over my wings to equal that 135 knots, or I am not going to be able to take off. An aircraft going at 0 miles per hour on the ground, will go nowhere, unless their is a strong enough headwind that makes the airflow over the wings equal the amount needed for a takeoff speed. In otherwords, it does not matter how fast your wheels are going, or how fast your ground speed actually is, what matters is the AIRFLOW or airspeed on your wings. If that airspeed is not fast enough, you will never fly. This is because it's due to physics in what allows the airplane to fly, NOT your ground speed, or even your wheels. This is very basic stuff.

I've been to several various temples recently, and I've noticed something that maybe what you are referring to (or maybe something else). While many temples I've visited recently are overflowing or are really doing well, there were a few temples that had shockingly low attendance. In some, it was less than fourteen individuals in a session total...which makes the sessions seem VERY sparse. I was surprised at how low the attendance was. In fact, a little worried in some ways about those areas. is that happening in Canada as well?

As per Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie, from what I understand, this is correct. The following is MY interpretation of their statements. The thing to understand about ordinances is that they are NOT complete until they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. If one does not follow the commandments or resigns, this may mean that their ordinances will not be "finalized" by the Holy Spirit of Promise. This is normally by choice...in my opinion...not that of the Holy Spirit, but by the individual. This is why an ordinance is needed for temple sealings, but NOT for voiding those temple sealings. Only revelation can tell a General Authority whether a one sealing will supersede another in regards to whether it will be finalized by the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is one reason the First Presidency is involved in many temple sealing cancellations when needed, as their revelation is needed on that matter. This is why, even if someone leaves the church, that ordinance still stands...the question is whether it can be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise or not. This also is why there is no need to repeat all the ordinances one has completed, as it can simply be done by a restoration of blessings, which brings in the promise of it being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise for a final absolute sealing on one's head when the time is right. All ordinances are so, including sealings. Now, the sealings between parents and children is unique and special. As per the individuals listed above, and clarified far more by Joseph F. Smith in his doctrines of Salvation (I believe it is volume 2) and Bruce R. McConkie (who I think was the editor for the recent printings as well, also in some of his own writings) stated that if children are not worthy or fall away from the church, they are STILL sealed to their parents. What will happen though, is that the children will STILL need to pay the price for whatever they have neglected, and after they have done all that the price entails, will be saved with their family in the Celestial Kingdom. NOW...of interest, they will be in the lowest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and that entails many other things. For starters, it means that they will have whatever body they deserve, which, if they were not righteous or fell away, means a Telestial or Terrestrial body. How this is that they can endure in the Celestial Kingdom in such a body I do not know. However, the assurance for parents is unless their children forsake the kingdom to fall into Outer Darkness...all their family that they have here, they will inherit and possess in the hereafter. The sealing bonds of the Lord are powerful enough to seal those families together, even there, for children to their parents. In my opinion, this then explains what the third degree of the Celestial Kingdom is. Further expounding upon this, Joseph Smith explained that the second degree of the Celestial Kingdom are those who merit the Celestial glory, and receive all it's power except that granted by the Patriarchial order. This is because they forsook (and that's a good word for it, in that they CHOSE not to get married, which means those that wanted to get sealed for all eternity and did not have the opportunity are not included and probably will have that opportunity if they so desire at some point in this life or the next) the celestial marriage when given the opportunity. Thus they are servants in the Celestial kingdom to those who are in the highest degree of glory. However, in my opinion, even if a child falls away from the church, as long as they do not turn to be a son of perdition, they are STILL sealed to their parents, as it is a parental blessing and ordinance under the Father's priesthood and the Sealer's power...rather than that which comes to the child itself.

I know they helped me get the apps on my Tablet (Was not a Kindle though). This emphasis on the new ways to read stuff at church is hard on old folk like me who are not exactly technologically savvy. I DO have a Kindle (the older ones which are not tablets, they only read books), but never got the gospel library on that. It does have the Book of Mormon and the Bible that you can put on it though through the more traditional method. Unfortunately, that's about the extent of my knowledge on the Kindle.

I know personally, being a Bishop does NOT make one righteous, or even one of the righteous. That's a standard some Mormons try to use, but it's not really any real standard in regards to how righteous or unrighteous one is. It's a church calling, just like any other church calling and one is just as likely to receive salvation as a home teacher or any other calling as one is if they are a Bishop. Upon saying this though, I did not say Sanderson was hellbound, but that I WAS surprised a Mormon would write such things as he did. I find it sad that some Mormons resort to such things. I suppose if one wants to appeal to the world, that is what one does these days, but there's a difference between what appeals to the world and what appeals to the Lord. I've been clear that I'm not condemning you or others who read it, but for me personally, it is NOT something I want to read. It's below the standards that I normally select for entertainment value in what I choose to read on my personal time. What I find surprising is how many are willing to gloss over this stuff and/or make excuses for it in what should be an entertainment item. It's a fantasy, not some essay on today's problem and how to solve them, not some historical book, or anything else. It's written for entertainment, and as such, to me, is not something I would choose to read. I used my grandson's example above to show various things. In relation to what you said, I don't condemn my grandkid, and I made it explicitly clear that it's not against any church regulation to read these things (did anyone even READ my long post above, this was explained in detail but it seems no one actually read or understood it?). However, it IS against my own personal standards. What I DO find shocking in this thread is that people have been so accustomed to reading this stuff they don't even recognize it or why it may be offensive to those who do NOT choose to read this type of stuff or find it in their entertainment mediums on a regular basis. That doesn't make you a bad person if you read It, but trying to gloss over that there are things that may be offensive to others that may not read that type of material or hide it and say it does not exist...I don't understand this type of mindset. You can admit it's in there, but that it does not bother you for various reasons, even if it may bother those with more delicate sensibilities to those matters. What he writes is unacceptable in regards to what I normally choose to read. I gave it a fair chance though, and I did not comment until after I read the items I brought so to give those who spoke favorably about it a fair chance. To be honest, I probably should have put it down after the first few pages when it first started talking about things that...frankly, were not things I enjoyed reading about. Bad Guys or not, there are ways to convey that someone is evil without touching upon things that frankly, are offensive in it's manner to those who do not read those types of things in their literature. As I said above, once again, there's nothing in the church regulations that are against you reading this type of stuff. However, I am shocked when Mormon authors who write such things may be held up in such high regard as per things of the world, when I would have hoped they would know better. Yes, I do hold Mormons to a higher standard than I do others, because as I implied, if he were NOT Mormon, I would not have been shocked in the least. I still would prefer not to read the books he writes, but I wouldn't have been as shocked as I was in regards to the material which he wrote about.

The immoral stuff is pretty obvious in the book. You may be so involved and used to reading stuff like that, but to those who do NOT read that type of stuff, it is actually pretty disgusting. Just like I wouldn't go into detail describing something more explicit, like a pornographic book, I'm not about to go into detail about dirty things inside these books. If I found it disgusting to read, I'm not about to stoop to that level in describing it here! It has some really disgustingly dirty and horrendous stuff in this book. I've been pretty respectful overall about it prior to this. Trying to mock someone's morals because you don't want to see your favorite author criticized is something I think is not going to help matters. You suggested the book, you did NOT say anything about how dirty it was, and I went into it without expecting anything. If there are those out there that are like me, and do NOT want to read about such things in our entertainment medium, than they will find themselves just as disgusted as I was. I went into as much detail as I would, and I am not going to be goaded into discussing it in detail like some pornographic rag would. Zil touched upon some of it, but excluded the more gory details it goes into (and it gets into far more detail than what she covered in her phrases). Just because you gloss over some immoral references and actions does NOT mean that it is acceptable. Trying to convince someone to lower their morals, or goad them into talking about immoral things is NOT something I am going to do. You suggested a book. I decided to try it out on your suggestions and others here. I found things that were reprehensible to me in my selections of reading and tried to explain as politely as possible that I really did not like this type of stuff in my literature that I read for entertainment, I was saddened to see a Mormon Author treat such subjects so frivously and even write about such things, and I basically found it disgusting. At the time, I was just commenting on the author, but I will say this since I've been criticized about my morals and morality here directly. I have said this to others in my life, and unfortunately though not surprised, saddened that I may have to say this here. I am a MORMON. I know other Mormons may not hold the same standards as I do, but that does NOT change that MY standards in regards to what I try to read and watch are something I aspire to. I try NOT to read or watch certain things, and I am not going to lower them simply because people are mocking my standards. I would appreciate if you would respect that I have standards that I have and not try to use peer pressure or other such things to try to convince me to lower them. thank you.

Catechism from the Vatican The above explanation also shows why a Catholic has no problem with the three separate manifestations at the Baptism found in the New Testament, because it is seen as it is interpreted by the Vatican above. PS: This is as per the Vatican, not necessarily other offshoots of Catholicism or Protestants. It seems there are various interpretations of the trinity, even among those who claim to believe in the trinity. In that regard, believe it or not, there are some Mormons here that actually down and out sound almost Trinitarian in some of their explanations, as they don't deviate half as much from each other as some of the more far out explanations of the trinity do for some sects. Modality is just one of the explanations some utilize in their ideas of what the trinity espouses, but there are many others. Sometimes it seems there are as many explanations of what the trinity is as there are different major sects (Methodist, Baptist, Calvinists) that claim to believe in the trinity. Sometimes the differences are very small, sometimes they are very big.

I think I explained it above. It has some very immoral acts discussed in the book, as well as excessive in violence. I'm not going to get into the details if that is what you are wanting, I'm not Brandon Sanderson in my eagerness to delve into that type of stuff, if that is what you are asking. I find the stuff distasteful, so, going into detail about it, is not something I'm going to do. I tried the author out, but I found that the author was NOT my type of author. I'm not really a fantasy type reader, but if I were, it's just a little too dirty for my taste. It may seem normal to those who read this type of stuff all the time, maybe even clean if they read worse, but for me, it's far dirtier than what I am used to or what I prefer reading. I was surprised a Mormon would write things like that. I did give him a fair try though. I'm not sure what more you would want me to do. Not all of us share the same tastes or interests.

There is order to all things. The original order was that whoever the woman was sealed to, until that sealing was undone, that was who she was sealed to. This also went in order in regards to the order presented in the Bible. In this, even if a woman married another man, all children born were to the first husband. This was a matter of order in the Kingdom. To change this creates chaos, and unnecessary ordinances. It puts chaos into what was once orderly. The excuse is to push it down the line, that such things will be cleared up in the millennium, as if making disorder and chaos now is justified by that excuse. The easier matter would be to keep it as it was, and IF extra ordinances were needed in the millennium, then such matters would be cleared up then. However, this is a little item in regards to church practices overall, so it's the minutia in the details. Yes. ALL temple work that isn't done by my family is against any requests of the family members. I thought it was 110 years, but I think your pdf you linked to stated it was 95 years. Except for me, ALL of my relatives in my family line above me I were born over 95 years ago...so there's that. I do not understand how they are allowed to do some of these things though, as it also states they are not supposed to do it for famous people they are not related to or otherwise in that manner, but apparently they do so. I suppose they've had similar problems with other who are famous (and my relatives, though easily well known, are not famous types like listed in the document per se, but there are those that probably feel like they want to be related to my family line for various reasons). I've talked called the phone line multiple times to clear these things up, and the basic jist I've gotten is what can be done has been done. It is just one of those things that occur and happen with in the church in regards to temple work. It does make me wonder how many times people are going to do Queen Elizabeth's temple work once she passes away...if it is this many for my own family, it's possible she'll have half a dozen doing hers within a decade or less. As I said though, it's a small matter in regards to the overall whole of the gospel. We'd rather have temple work done for those who need it than not. I think the bigger factor that disturbs me is the sealing women to multiple husbands...and that it was done in my family line against our wishes.

I have talked to those on Family search (they have a help line, we were trying to merge the names, so that only her's showed at the time, but don't you know it, others pop up anyways). I don't know how to see who did the proxy work via family search. I'm not exactly computer literate, so it may be that I just can't figure these things out. I do not know a public source which you can be referred to in regards to your question. I think the first Handbook of Instruction to refer to this was in 1989 or thereabouts when the policy change came about. I think it is still referred to in the Handbook (1) and probably in temple instructions/handbooks, but I do not know of a publically available source that is put out officialy by the LDS church. Then I read the link which you posted... In it, it states Which basically states what I said. It's not something I actually agree with, however it is a small item in regards to the church practices.

Depends on how long ago the stuff occurred. I believe the time limit is 110 years. I'm quite old comparatively to some here, and hence my grandparents and their siblings were born in the 1800s (19th century) type old. In other situations, I don't know what goes on. I mentioned some while ago, that despite me being the only member in my family in the LDS church, apparently other people feel like they have free reign to do my family genealogy. My family does have some very notable connections in some areas which may make some of them well known, and perhaps LDS want to do that temple work for them after they are dead...but as far as I know, it is NOT the actual LDS family members doing it in many cases (that member being Me, or my kids...at least they absolutely deny knowledge of certain things to me). At one point, my grandmother had her temple work done 5 different times a few years ago, and it's only increased since then!!!! (it's weird how the family tree/search thing shows this. It shows her and I bring it up and then I see how many times her ordinances are being done with different squares indicating that she is a different person, but those different persons all have the same information and are all considered my Grandmother in the exact same slot!!! with the same parents, birthdate, etc.).

I think the waiting period is heavily dependent on each Bishop and each situation. I've seen Bishops handle very similar situations very differently. Some would give your fiancé a temple recommend today and say, get married and sealed as quickly as possible. Others would have that same situation have the individual not have a recommend and wait for up to a year. In that light, it's very hard to say how long the bishop may or may not do things. The best thing to do for someone in a family that is suffering from something like this is to love them. Simply show that you love them even with all their mistakes and problems. Something to consider. There are some who are addicted to pornography that will suffer from this addiction their entire lives. It is a life long struggle for some. If you marry someone that is in this situation, this may be something that you will have to deal with for your entire marriage. I'm not wanting to discourage anyone here, but I have unfortunately seen this play out. It works best when one spouse unconditionally loves the other, AND...the problem does not blossom or explode into worse problems (in a VERY FEW incidents, I have seen these addictions turn into something that the addicted individual wants to play out in their lives rather than just watching it via a screen or other things). Some find out that they cannot live with a spouse that struggles with this problem, though, and it leads to a very tragic end (normally divorce, and I personally do not feel this type of thing is something that should be divorced over...but that's a personal opinion). You should be asking yourself, what will you do if she cannot overcome this? If she cannot, this is something that you could possibly deal with for the rest of your life. I would say it is something that can be handled, as long as there is unconditional love there. I just mention it because if you have not considered it, you probably should consider that aspect. On the otherhand, congratulations on the engagement, I hope you do get married and have a VERY HAPPY marriage. Hopefully you guys can get married sooner than later.

For a living sessions (receiving one's own endowment) it probably depends on the Temple. Many prefer that you call and set up an appointment for a session two or three weeks in advance. That way they can prepare and if you do not have someone to assist you, they can find someone to help you out in that instance. Good Luck on being successful this time.

Either there was a mistake made somewhere, or she has been misinformed. The LDS church has been quite firm that a woman has to have the first sealing cancelled if she is to be sealed to another. The only way this occurs differently these days is after they are dead. This dates back to the beginning of Temple sealings and such from what I understand, so it's not a new principle. As you mentioned, it is according to her statements so there is room there to say, I think she may have misunderstood something or a mistake of some sort was made, either by her or someone else. To say it is highly irregular if it occurred (as in, against LDS church policy) is stating it lightly. I'm curious how this did occur, if it did, when it is actually against church Policies going far before even I was born. Now if she is dead...as I explained above, the LDS church has changed how it handles it.

I do not see how she could be correct if she is alive. Point blank, this is not allowed in the LDS church as far as I know, and is not allowed to this day. You have to have a cancellation of sealing to the first spouse in her case, in order to be sealed to the second. Now, something that I personally don't really think is right, is a change they started in the temples in regards to the dead. After one is passed away, they seal women to any and all husbands they were ever married to. Serial abuser and tried to kill his own wife...doesn't matter...they seal her to him. Beat her down and she fled for her life till she could get a divorce...doesn't matter...they'll still seal her to him. Children object to any sealing at all between the two...doesn't matter...they seal her to him. I know, because this happened to my relative who was married to an abuser at the age of 13, and finally got free of him. Of all the things wished for, was that if there were sealings, under no circumstance was she ever to be sealed to that man. Guess what happened. It's my own fallibility on this issue though. It bothers me deeply. I understand the idea that some present that she will be able to choose, or otherwise, but if the Kingdom is one of order, throwing chaos into it with what should be an unnecessary ordinance... Don't get me wrong, I'm still strongly a believer and I know the gospel is true, but this is one of those things that actually bother me a little.

That's an interesting question I suppose. In Nephi's case, that is a story that has troubled MANY people. Individuals are NOT alone for having it trouble them, some to the point that they have problems even accepting the church or the Book of Mormon. Let's look at the actual story though. Nephi sought to buy the Brass plates and brought everything his family owned in order to buy it. Laban stole that property and then sought to kill Nephi. He and his guards/soldiers were actively trying to kill Nephi at the time. To put it in perspective, it would be if you brought me everything you owned. Instead of selling you something or making a trade for it, I illegally seized it and then to hide up my crime I decided I would kill you on sight, or anyone from my employ or gang would kill you on sight without the approval or consent of the US laws. In this light, it could be considered debatable on whether if you killed me, because me and my entire organization was trying to kill you, was legal in self defense, or whether it was wrong. I think it's actually a pretty good debate one could have about the morality of it, even if the Lord was not involved. In the event of Saul, it's more questionable if we take the Lord out of the picture. Today, I think society would condemn his actions as genocide. However, the fact is that he was commanded of the Lord to do so. Today we would probably condemn the ruler of warcrimes, but unless the world actually brought him in, as long as he remained solvent, he could not be charged (much like Stalin could be recognized for great evil today, but we never did anything to him...but then he was not commanded to do so). The big thing in this is to know that it was commanded of the Lord, which is the big difference there. In this instance however, it would probably not be us, the little people, receiving the order. It would be more like the prophet delivering this type of commandment to us and it would be more a question of whether we chose to follow that command or not. As we see from the Story of King Saul, he chose not to follow it completely. He was not struck dead instantly, or any other such thing. The ramifications of what he chose came later, but it was not an instant type of punishment. In Abraham's case, this may be the most problematic for people in regards to how he received and fulfilled the commandment. If he had actually been allowed to go through with it, it probably would be heavily problematic for people to this day. The only thing that saves the story is that the Lord stops him from doing it at the last minute. The story can be seen as a parable though, and if it bothers you to think about what would have happened if Abraham had actually sacrificed his son, there is another story that actually tells of a father who did sacrifice his son in such a manner. Our Father let his son, the Savior, die for us. Instead of sending an angel down to stop it like he did with Abraham, he allowed his son to be sacrificed for us. Thus we are saved both from spiritual death and physical death, but only because our Father allowed his only begotten son to be sacrificed in that manner. It is this that was symbolized by Abrahams story, and if that impacts us, to think of the great impact that the real story of Jesus Christ has upon us and our lives and eternities.