Carborendum

You're still saying the same thing. And ignoring my comments. You know what? Have a nice day.

Churches themselves are exempt. But... Certain properties that the "religious business entity" owns may not be considered part of that exemption. Even a religious entity must apply for an exemption certificate. So, if they did not actually apply, then they owe taxes.

Sometimes I have to wonder if you're actually paying attention to what I wrote. That's not what I've said at all. It isn't about people having problems with X, Y, or Z. I've indicated that I, myself, have difficulties with some things. It's called "loyal opposition." I'm sure you're familiar with the term. It is the ATTITUDE of disrespect for the Church, the Prophet, the scriptures, and even for God. When someone says "who does he think he is?" this is an obvious show of disrespect. JJ, You know that you've got a reputation for marathon posts. If you honestly expect others to read the entire post and get all the information out of it, would it be so much to ask that you read my much shorter posts and actually pay attention to what I wrote?

Then those individuals are in the same boat as MBB. And they are on the road to apostasy if they are not fullly in apostasy already. Simply being at church each week doesn't define "faithful." If it were so, we'd all be apostate now.

I looked up their webpage. I didn't really notice anything like that. But I couldn't really see anything that I'd call histrionics. Were you talking about their facebook page?

I can't say what you have or have not heard. But what I hear from the more faithful members is that they are troubled and confused about the idea. But I've never heard any of them say You've heard these same words? Or simply that they disagree with some ideas or are "troubled"? I "disagreed" with the handgun policy. But I still respect his position as prophet. And when you say something like "Who does he think he is?" does not respect his position as prophet.

I can understand that as a reasonable argument if it were the case. But I've spoken with gay members about MBB. And they were all against the change specifically because they wanted to be their own entity. NOTE: I don't believe they were actually members of MBB. They just supported everything they did. Name recognition is one thing. Resisting change is one thing. But to specifically separate themselves from the Church is quite another. It was one of these who I quoted as saying,"Who does he think he is (referring to the prophet) telling me what I can or can't call myself?" Given that personal experience, I'm not likely to believe that "resistance to change" was the motivation. But I could be wrong. Yes, it is the old policy. I remember Pres. Hinckley speaking those words in an announcement (I believe) in conference.

I actually had someone call me "Bruce" (for obvious reasons) for about a year and a half. I thought he was just playing because he smiled each time he said it. I didn't mind. After a time, I realized that he never once called me by my name. I stopped him and asked,"You do know that isn't my name, right?" He was shocked. No. He actually thought that was my name. He smiled because he thought it was funny to come across an Asian guy who was actually named "Bruce." I think he was more hurt by that news than I ever was.

I've been thinking about this problem. And it appears that if we are to eliminate some less likely conditions and only look at most likely scenarios, utilizing only common sense with general physics principles, then it doesn't really matter how fast you drink the soda. You put as much ice as possible into the glass. This will have the greatest ratio of cooling effect on the soda. The soda has little to no chance of actually freezing. With sufficient ice-to-soda ratio, the soda will cool to near freezing without melting any of the ice. It cold be that you simply max out the ice and pour only small amounts of soda in at a time. Drink it. Then pour more soda in. This means that what little ice does melt will be drunk up as the last bit of dregs of each fill up. Then you get a fresh, undiluted quantity of soda to be cooled by the remaining ice which now has a greater specific surface to transfer the heat.

You specifically named individual prophets. The cited verses also named those specific prophets as among those in gathering. It states that the purpose of the gathering was for Christ to INSTRUCT AND PREPARE them for going into spirit prison to do the teaching. Then it says that those so named (i.e. the same prophets that you named) in that gathering were the ones who were being so taught and prepared to go and do the teaching.

Absolutely agree. I was once at a tux shop trying to get measured for a rental. Remember that I've always looked young for my age. The gal at the shop must have been around 18 to 20. I was about 24. She kept calling me "dear" in a tone that sounded like a motherly talking down tone to a neighborhood child. I answered a question she asked, and then I said,"And please stop calling me 'dear'." She immediately tensed up and responded,"Yes, sir."

Only if you were as friendly with her as you are with me. I kinda felt that with the years together on this board, I was able to refer to @anatess2 as "BABE!!!" and not get thrown under the bus or accused of something sexual.

I have just gotten out of a meeting which provided a wonderful explanation of what I have been trying to get across about aggression being good. I've been hired to supplement their engineering team (that's usually the case). But whenever I start with a new client, I have to sit back for a bit to get the lay of the land. This is polite behavior and also wise behavior. After all these guys know their company policies and procedures. They know their end users and what the history and purpose of the projects better than I do. It makes sense for me to shut up and learn from them until I learn the ropes. This was a scheduling meeting. At the beginning of each major project the heads of all the departments get together to go over the schedule and make sure that the dates are reasonable and that they make sense. I immediately saw several things that were labeled incorrectly. I also saw some things that were legally out of order. Yes, there are some laws saying we cannot do B before A. Nevertheless, I kept my mouth shut because I figured someone else would see these things before I did. Only one person saw the legal issue that I did. But he was having trouble articulating it. He tried several times to explain his position, and all the others simply said that they didn't understand. Now, what I did was what feminists would call "mansplaining" if this other engineer had been a woman. But regardless of the gender, he wasn't communicating the issue that was clear to both him and me. So, I interjected and explained his point a little more clearly. They all understood and they began to discuss the work around for that. The next issue was that the labels were all wrong. And part of the confusion everyone had over the schedule was that the labels didn't accurately describe what was expected on the schedule. Again, it seemed that everyone was talking over each others' heads. Not interrupting, but it was like they spoke different languages. So, again, I stepped in and literally had to tell the scheduler,"He's saying to move line 48 to the same start date a line 93." A unified "Oh! Yeah!..." came from several parties. I also suggested several changes to the labels and they all agreed. Now, notice that this all happened with a bunch of men. This was not sexist. It is just that I'm an alpha male. And most of the men there were not. But just because I'm an alpha, doesn't mean I was being rude. It doesn't mean I wasn't listening. It doesn't mean I had to belittle anyone. I did have to interrupt a few times because they were just talking in circles for so long I couldn't take it anymore. And each time I interrupted and clarified what we were really dealing with and what the basis of disagreement or confusion was, they all understood. I could have very easily decided,"Oh I guess I don't really care what this is labeled or if we're following the right sequence or not. They'll figure it out." If I had, we would have been there another hour. Literally, at the end the scheduler said that he was surprised that we got out of there in an hour. I was wondering why it took an hour to figure it all out. I figure about 10 min to look it over. 10 min to state the problems and 5 minutes to fix them. All the rest was talking in circles because no one wanted to be aggressive enough to simply get things done. Once I laid it all out clearly and firmly, they all agreed. And we moved forward. This can happen with men or women. But it requires that someone have clarity to see to the heart of the matter, have the communication skills to clearly state it, and the aggressive nature to put that idea forth in a bold manner. Then a decision is made quickly, and we move on. The passive nature of,"well, I don't know, so I'll let someone else handle it." simply doesn't get things done. And there is no reason that "aggression" and "ambition" cannot be applied in a virtuous, righteous, and well-mannered way.

You still haven't drawn a line about where you would say that such a change is impossible. What changes specifcally? Or, if you prefer, are you saying Orders? Families? Genera? Species? Sub-species? Where are you saying A is understandable change, but B is not understandable change? If it is not a bold line, then at least describe a grey area in a sufficiently specific manner that we can actually discuss it. What do you accept as a "reasonable" amount of change to believe in? Depending on where you draw that line, your first statement may be correct or incorrect.

This got me to thinking. Ultimately, it always rests on the 2A. That is really what the Founders declared when they mutually pledged their LIVES... It was high treason. It was also a blood oath. The founders were not simply fringe men with fringe ideas and questionable mental stability. These were leaders, well respected in their communities and the nation. And when they formally organized, they inspired enough others that it became a powerful movement. And that eventually had to be backed up by bullets.

OK. So I read it wrong from your post. I don't know if you'd ever say a feminine version of that like the sea turtle. But I think, "babe..." would be the closest. And if anyone thinks that's sexist or derogatory, I've heard many women refer to other women as "babe". I've also heard many men refer to their female counterparts as "babe" and they don't seem to mind. In fact, my wife also refers to me as "babe." quite often. I never even gave it a second thought. So, maybe this is gender neutral like "hey, guys! Howya doin'?" (said to a mixed group). FTR, I was thinking of "DUDE!!!" like when they were yelling at each other the tattoos on "Dude where's my car?" I don't think any feminine word would be subject to the same "who's on first" treatment.

As for the astonishment, that was why they took the trophy. We were all astonished in the lab. The family was ok talking about it because they were removed several generations from it happening. This person told of when they first discovered the discrepancy in names, birthdates, etc. She told her mother who referred her to her grandmother. "This must be a mistake, right?" the grandmother simply stiffened up and gave the "hush" finger-to-lips motion and shook her head. "We don't talk about that." So, I wasn't exactly clear on how many generations had passed. But apparently the level of anathema had decreased each generation until this woman's grandmother didn't speak of it. But this woman, herself, was ok talking about it. Still shocking. Yes.

@Vort, I noticed your "confused" reaction to my comment re: the family history lab. 1. We don't actually have a "family history center." We just meet once a week on activity night utilizing any free room we can find. So, I call it a "lab". 2. The family skeletons was just a topic I brought up because it was a way of getting excited about family history. You find that we're not just boring people. We find both the heroic and the depraved. I found out that the great grandfather that our whole family admired for so long was married twice (not polygamous). And he had a baby with a third woman in between the first and second wife (out of wedlock). Someone else countered with the story that a great grandfather committed incest with his daughter who gave birth to a child. That child was this person's ancestor. This was in response to @Colirio's question to JAG re: the great vs. great great.

Since this topic is open, I'd like to point out that there is a third category that is often omitted. "Conveniences." This is fundamentally a want that is not quite a "need". But it sure seems that way. For instance, a microwave is a convenience. But by having it, we reduce our need to buy more food because we can refrigerate and re-heat rather than throw away spoiled food because we don't eat immediately. In the end, it saves resources by preventing waste.

At least you can cite individuals with some credentials. Korea has been invaded and conquered so many times, that it is impossible for any Korean to NOT be descended from some warrior or other. But it was most likely a warrior who got killed on the front lines -- after having sired a child.

I was actually just adding an edit to my post stating exactly this. But I believe the venn diagram that was offered, agreed with your/our definition.

Not mutually exclusive Want is a lack. Correct. But we can lack things that are not necessarily needs. Hence the phrase "shall want for nothing." If we ignore the "wants" which are not "needs" then the following statement doesn't make much sense.

I was in the family history lab before the quarantine and we were talking about family skeletons. And one family took the trophy when they found out that this was exactly the case.

You're the lawyer of the group. And a pretty good one at that. So, I don't think anyone would be correcting you about that. Here's the question to ask about that: Is the determining factor "arrest" or "freedom to leave"? When you're brought before a Congressional Hearing or a formal interrogation by law enforcement (the FBI qualifies) I don't think you're free to leave. But I don't believe he was arrested at the time. If I receive a subpoena and I'm only considered a witness, am I read my Miranda rights? In the course of a police investigation, police may be asking people in a neighborhood about a crime. But as they listen to the "witnesses" they can be screening for people who may be considered a participant in the crime. Are they read their miranda rights? So, it really depends on the fine print about when exactly you MUST be read your Miranda rights.