person0

Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot: Article Video Clip I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be! Gadianton Robbers come to mind. Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!

I want them to be safe too. Even if we open church back up, it may be best to invite our older members to remain at home for a while, unless they choose to accept the risk. I don't want people to get sick, I would just rather continue to have our private sacrament meeting and primary class that we have been having at home each Sunday than to return to Church with stringent requirements. A gun protects against a potential threat of known serious severity. Current guidelines protect against a known threat of potentially serious severity. I am not really concerned if someone in my family contracts COVID-19, even if it causes them to die. Given all the information available to me, it is a risk I am willing to take, especially for our demographics. I don't believe that masks are truly effective in preventing the spread of the virus, particularly because my children play with them and take them off and I and my wife end up touching our face even more as we adjust the masks continually to try and alleviate the discomfort of wearing them. As far as other people are concerned; I will gladly keep my distance, as I said before; however, if you choose to shake my hand, come within six feet of me, not wash your hands appropriately, that is not on me at all. If you are at risk and choose to put yourself in a risky situation, that is not my fault. Because of the complications of managing additional restrictions beyond distancing from others, I would prefer to wait to return to church services after such restrictions are no longer required. As a side note, the inherent flaw in your question is that you are assuming I would return to church and not follow restrictions or guidelines put in place by the Church, when in fact, I simply stated that "I would rather wait" until after the restrictions are lifted. Just the same as I don't carry in church, despite the fact that I would much rather do so. I don't break the first rule you mentioned, why would you assume I would break the second?

I understand your point and I enjoyed reading your story; what I don't understand is how that relates to the theory of Adam and Eve being the progeny of an evolutionary line or the actual population growth that has occurred over the course of recorded history. I am trying to figure out how we can mesh all the data together from the supporters of organic evolution in this thread so that we spit out a result that doesn't contradict the following: Even if we assume the 7000 years didn't begin until after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and became mortal, how do we tie it all together? Are we in agreement that the humanoid creatures who supposedly lived before Adam and Eve were not children of God? I'm sure there are other important questions of note, but alas, my children are calling for me and I must go.

I'm no population expert, but just from the math it seems you didn't subtract the death rate or compound the growth rate. Is your assumption that the birth and death rate is equal? If, for example, the death rate is 9% then couldn't we can effectively compound the 1% net gain over the time period? If so, then the population would double roughly every 70 years. That said, both of those would fluctuate, plus mass extinction vs death events, etc. Even so, with a .1% net compound birth rate, the population would double every 700 years. After 8,950 years that would be a total population of ~1.5 Million.

I will happily keep my distance, but I'd rather just wait to go back until we aren't expected to wear masks.

If we agree that it cannot be truly proven either way, then we are merely arguing who's theory is more plausible based on our individual interpretations of the facts. So. . . chocolate ice-cream is the best flavor of ice-cream because it tastes the best! Just look at all the EEG scans of people when they were eating chocolate ice-cream; the readings are clear! My perspective: I will adhere as closely to erring on the religious side of the churches 'official' position, which states both of the following things: Two things of note: 1) Emphasis on the word 'official'. It is clear that from the majority of Church resources (even those that are recent), that Church publications clearly steer people away from evolutionary theory and toward a more gospel-centric interpretation of the origins of life. It is obvious from the above excerpt that the Church takes no issue with continuing to promote and steer individuals toward a more religious interpretation of the origins of life and the earth and away from any sort of dependence upon the philosophies of men. This is done by presenting individual opinions as such, while at the same time claiming no official stance. 2) In the very same statement about 'no official position on the theory of evolution' the Church reiterates that, at the minimum, there were no children of God on earth before Adam, and that he and Eve were non-mortal and non-reproductive until after they became mortal. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of what is demonstrably the 'unofficial' position of the Church and to seek explanations that align with that and available scriptural/authoritative sources. Should revelation come from the Lord that directs us more toward a macro-evolutionary understanding of creation, I will happily accept it. Would you accept a revelation to the contrary?

Not sure that follows the insect/whale comparison. Are we not the same species as God (i.e. Man)?

So you disagree with @ldsguy422's interpretation, and then proceed to provide an equally unprovable interpretation? Is it really obvious? Seems to me that based on the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses, at least a few people knew of such things. Isn't Moses the author of Genesis which included the oft disputed phrase about what happened in the days of Peleg? Doesn't the Book of Mormon refer to mass seismic and similar events that changed the face of the earth?

Once again, assumptions fail me! This time about the temperature of the ice. Hehehe!

Technically this isn't physically possible with room-temperature soda because the initial contact of ice and soda will necessarily melt, at least partially, the first piece of ice with which the soda comes into contact. Until the entire glass is filled with liquid to the extent that all ice-cubes can share in the cooling of the soda, the ice on top that is continuously hit with 'freshly room-temperature' soda, will continue to melt. Test it for yourself, it is pretty much unavoidable. 😞

Based on this response from you, I suppose I made one incorrect assumption. As should be clear from a re-read of my answer, I interpreted, "Exactly the amount of ice needed to bring the pop's temperature down to the freezing point of water", to mean INSTANTANEOUSLY (or nearly), as in, 'as soon as the glass is full, it is ice-cold'. However, I suppose you might believe that indicating eventuality in your question could make the question too easy. Oh well 🤷‍♂️

These questions are more plausible as an argument for a 'local flood' than they are for macro-evolution. You are suggesting that biological macro-evolution has occurred at-least since the Great Flood, and yet, you give examples of micro-evolution to attempt to validate it? Because living things reproduce the same kind of living thing. . . which is obvious. I don't understand why you are asking that question. A hybrid is a mix of two different of the same kind. You can mix two different breeds of dogs, but you cannot breed a dog and a monkey to create a new creature; I'm not sure how you thought this argues against my perspective and for yours. Okay so then we don't disagree on this; got it. So this is an interesting statement. You state that there is evidence for macro-evolution, and then on the basis of these evidences jump to the conclusion that it must be true, and then based on that conclusion, you imply that I have indicated somewhere that God would not be involved. I wouldn't consider that an effective argument. While I don't accept organic macro-evolution from one kind to another, if it were someday revealed to be true, God most certainly would be involved in the process. Such is not in conflict with anything I have said. I don't see how anything within your response here is a real counterpoint to my position. That said, since I have answered all your questions, would you please go back and answer the ones I asked in my previous posts?

That directly validates my point that if macro-evolution were a true principle, it would have needed only to happen once, hence there is no reason to believe that our earth's inhabitants were generated via the process of evolution. A mutation occurs by 'chance' and that mutation turns out to be beneficial; those with the mutation thrive and in many cases, those without it, die. Hence the mutation doesn't die out, only because it is advantageous. Mutations that lack advantage die out, because the mutation is not desirable to the population. Modern medicine works to overcome this. Without mortality, mutation would not occur. You are using the word evolution to represent what is colloquially referred to as growth. No one is arguing against growth. The embryo already has within it all information about what it will grow into; a human embryo doesn't change into some creature other than human. Yes, most people know that; It has been repeated often and is essentially the same as your position on an embryo growing into a human. Not what anyone else in this thread talking about when referring to evolution If macro-evolution were real in the eternal sense without mortality being needed, why would evolution stop? Why do we identify glorified man as the ultimate perfection? Are there more advantageous mutations that will occur? Our scriptures indicate that God is a man. You would have to suggest that there could be beings greater than God either now or in the future eternities; that is not something I am willing to believe.

I have said this before and I will say it again: Even if it were that macro-evolution of species is a true principle, at best, it is no longer a necessary characteristic of the creation process and, in fact, would be an inefficient mechanism in the creation of an earth. Why? Since evolution requires death and gradual adaptation over millions of years, once the process is completed a single time, why would you start it all over again? If we agree that God has created 'worlds without number' and that Moses did indeed see the vast expanse of his creations, would it not be more efficient for God to simply relocate plants, animals, and all manner of living creatures - including mankind - from one planet to another? If so, then while evolution may have been used at one point in eternities past, it was not needful or prudent to begin it anew for the creation of our world. Would a perfect God not also be perfectly efficient? I believe he would! Let us consider another perspective: Suppose for a moment that you were tasked to create something new; however, this something new would already have many similarities to something that already exists. Would you not use your knowledge of what already exists to create this new thing? If God created man, could he not decide to create monkeys with similar features? If God knows that an animal will need a heart, lungs, kidneys, mouth, eyes, etc, could he not have simply designed his own creatures using this knowledge? Do we not have artists in our world today who have taken what they know of our earth and designed fictitious creatures in the likeness of other creatures? Of course we do. If we, as imperfect and fallen man, are capable of such designs, surely God is capable of so much more. I return to my original premise. Regardless of whether or not macro-evolution is ultimately revealed as a true principle, it was certainly not necessary for the creation of man on this earth because man already existed.

If we are assuming 'perfect insulation' and that C is physically possible, then the best answer would be C because once the soda is at the freezing point of water, the ice will no longer melt. That said in a real-world scenario I would require additional variables: - What is the capacity of the glass? - How much soda do you wish to consume? - How quickly will you drink the soda after pouring? (This one being the most important) If the quantity of soda is unimportant and you intend to drink it quickly, then A and C will achieve the same result, although A will achieve it faster. If you intend to drink it slowly, A will preserve the coolest temperature longer. Assuming B does not achieve C, and that C requires a quantity of ice that is between A and B, then B will minimize dilution over a longer period. C would give you the best of both worlds, but could not individually win either requirement on it's own. The real question is, why are you not doing one of the following to better fulfill your desires? - Put the soda bottle in the freezer for sufficient time to chill it to satisfaction. (I seriously put my soda in the freezer - I especially like when it get just slightly slushy!) - Pour some soda into an ice-cube tray and make 'soda ice' such that dilution does not become a factor. (I also have done this and it is awesome!) - Mix the syrup to a higher concentration such that the initial dilution of the soda by the ice melting during the temperature adjustment brings the mixture to the correct level of consumption? (Although I haven't done a truly scientific test, I am certain we do this for the fountain machines we have at work) Okay. I've had my fun. 😁 ANECDOTE: I once got into a heated argument with a college professor about a test question that went something like this: "Daily, a manager reviews the production data for all branches from the previous day and uses it in making business decisions; what is this called?" Supposedly, the answer was 'using real-time data'; no way I was letting that go! The professor refused to relent because that was the answer given by the creators of the text book 🙄. She was unwilling to accept the difference between day old data and true real-time or near real-time data, like stock-market updates. It may come as no surprise that despite her PHD in business management, she had never worked a non-teaching job in her life!

I read about half of Visions of Glory. I got bored with it and didn't continue reading. I consider privately authored spiritual expositions in the same light as the D&C represents the Apocrypha. In most situations, it is not really worth my time to decipher truth from interpolation from someones private writings. There are so many 'good books' to read, already. That said, a few ideas here and there from private authors have helped me identify my personal opinions; ultimately, I may disagree with the author's interpretation while being pleased that it led me to my own. Outside of accepted canonical sources, I find it best to maintain a certain level of skepticism, especially as it concerns things that have not yet been directly revealed.

Either of those is plausible, however, I think it more likely to be the latter.

I will be very surprised if Biden ends up being the nominee by the time we get to November. Perhaps they are simply playing into that.

Would you prefer that we post biased leftist articles and then fact-check them and pinpoint all the falsehoods? Seems like that would take a lot more effort.

Amazon has 6 reviews of the book from 2019, out of a total of ~220 reviews. That is less than 3% and 220 reviews is nothing to brag about, so I could see that it is certainly dwindling. I'd venture to guess it is to the point where those types of anti efforts are enacted when an 'need' is perceived. Honestly, right now, the world is at war with Christianity as a whole; in that respect, I think we are happy to come together on our similar faith in Christ to combat the apathy and hatred that appears to be growing not only in mainstream society, but in various branched and denominations of self-proclaimed 'Christianity' as well. It will only get harder as we press on; the wheat and tares are being separated!

@Traveler, a faithful member on my mission reached out to Ed Decker when he was investigating the Church. He said 'it didn't take but five minutes to realize he was full of it,' and that was one thing that helped cement and confirm his decision that he wanted to join the Church. If I were a betting man, I'd wager he mean to say (The God Makers). An interesting anecdote: In High School, I made an agreement with a schoolmate to read 'The God Makers' and he would read the Book of Mormon. I kept my end of the bargain, but he failed to keep his. He was surprised when I was able to refute and clarify most of the points of the book; I think he was convinced that the book would be so profound and effective that I would want to leave the Church, he never intended to keep his end of the bargain 😞 He did come to Church with me once, though, and I went with him, so I can at least give him that!

I depends on what you mean by 'reincarnation'. I know a few Latter-Day Saints who believe that those who become Sons of Perdition will be reverted back to their form of existence as an embodied spirit or intelligence and that they will be granted what essentially amounts to a 're-do' at mortal life. In fact, there was an Area 70 over my state who taught that to my mother. Personally, I believe it is wrong; however, even if it were to be true, I don't think it is something we ought to teach or dwell on because it is most likely to lead people into a false sense of security in thinking that they could have another chance. Here is a link to an article on the matter, and the history of this teaching, as it originates from obscure teachings from Brigham Young. Once again, I personally do not believe this thought to be true; however, it would be the closest thing to reincarnation that any Latter-Day Saint I know of believes.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point I believe you are making, however, given that Christ's resurrection is part of His Atonement, I believe your choice of words to be technically inaccurate. Might I suggest a rephrasing? My faith chooses to focus on Christ's resurrection, rather than His death. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the symbol of the cross.

My brain struggled for a second but then I recognized what you were talking about because of my past study of WiFi field generation and how the orientation of the dipoles affect it. I suppose put me down for 1/2 geek; I understood it, but it wasn't what I was thinking, haha 🙂