speedomansam

hehe, i always love surfing in front of the nuclear plant.the only valid fear about nuclear waste is the transportation situation. that's where the risk is.

ooh, i like this subject. i took AP envirnomental science at school and we talked about it a lot. although it was a year ago and i can't quite remember it all.. buthere's my two cents: yes, we will run out of gas. guarenteed. peak oil has already been reached, or it will be reached very soon, and then it's a serious downhill curve. however, right now, it's just too expensive to research alternative technology like fuel cells and other types of fuel. When gas gets to be $70 dollars a barrel, these other technologies will become viable, economical options and will be heavily researched and developed. In the mean time, before these other techonologies become adequately implemented, massive problems/starvations will occur all around the world. as fas as electricity goes, nuclear is by far the best option. there are tons of alternative energy sources, but they are all minimal, although further development will undoubtedly take place making them viable options once we run out of coal (but, the U.S. has adequate coal reserves for 150 years) however, the real problem in the world is population growth. proud duck was right--developed countries like the U.S. and Europe have low growth rates. Much of Europe is negative and the U.S.s is aroud even (excluding immigrants). however, developing countries populations explode, and it takes about 100 years for growth to slow and for the population to get out of their poverty so they don't feel a need to have big families to work the farm. ultimately, we can't stop this population growth until it reaches about 20 billion, and then the world cannot support itself sustainably. massive starvations/wars/famines will occur even if there isn't some disaster like global warming. the more educated i get about this stuff (and from this frazzled post it probably seems I'm not very, but I've actually read quite a lot. it's just been a while), the more I'm convinced ther's ulitmately nothing we can do. that's why it's a good thing the second coming is near. all you optimists, i'm aware of all the technologies that haven't been developed yet that could potentially save us all, but that's not likely. especially with the agenda of today's world.

ok, so this is your argument: the book of mormon is evidence that God loves his children as it proves he still speaks to man. it proves there is a prophet on the earth today, that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. it proves that God is no respector of persons for people that die without a knowledge of the Gospel (and hence are not baptized) are not damned. it elaborates on life after death and the resurrection (as you were wondering about this earlier, check Alma 40-41). it proves that the apostasy which both history and scripture witness is over. it marks that we are indeed in the dispensation of the fulness of times. it's existence proves that priesthood authority is on the earth today with a direct and documented line to Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon proves the Bible is the word of God, just like the Bible proves the Book of Mormon is the word of God. The doctrines in the Bible are clarified in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has a unique promise that if one prays, in faith, on the name of Jesus Christ, they will receive a witness of its divinity from the Holy Ghost. if these things don't strike you as powerful and unique, there's nothing further worth discussing.

jason, so you acknowledge there are truths in the BoM, you simply refuse to acknowledge/see them as precious because you don't believe them. but, you quoted Joseph Smith: and then said in AP English, we just started studying logical fallacies, and your viewpoint seems like a fallacy. point out if I'm misunderstanding you, but this seems to essentially be your stance: "to draw closer to God through the BoM than any other book, the BoM must be proven to contain different precepts than other books". that is non-sequitur, a logical fallacy. Different precepts are not needed (though you admitted there are at least two), they merely need to be available in more clarity and not be altered by man. if you ask the world what precepts are in the Bible, you'll get a host of different answers. if you ask the world what precepts are in the BoM, you'll get the same answers (if you ask the part of the world who has actually read it). Thus, because the precepts in the BoM are plain, it will be much easier for a man to draw closer to God because they are easier to understand. consider this: even if it was true that the BoM had nothing differeren than the Bible, which we just proved is not, the fact that the BoM lays out these truths in 1/3 the pages would make it considerably easier for a man to find and understand all the precepts in it, thus making it easier for him to draw near to God. consider this: the precepts of the Bible have been changed over time--there is no denying that. whether by mistranslations or by intentional alterations, changes have been made. the BoM, on the other hand, is directly translated from God (arguments that there have been changes in the BoM since first publication are not relevant here as the quotation you are concerned about came before them, these changes are merely grammatical and for slight clarifications, and even if you don't believe that, the records of all changes made are available). Thus, which book is one going to get closer to God by--one that is or is not the altered word of God? one that is less or more correct? by the way, the BoM teaches that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. that's quite the precept not specifically in the Bible. taking this further, the existence of the BoM directly connotes a restoration of the gospel. so, in context, a precept of the BoM directly includes the revelations that Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets, received from God.

jason, your definition of "plain and precious" seems to be more like "plain, precious, and completely new and groundbreaking in a manner that will definitely change everything i had previously conceived about obtaining salvation". it just seems to me like you're looking beyond the mark, similar to how Jacob explained the jews had done which caused them to reject Christ (Jacob 4). to me, all light, knowledge, and truth is plain and precious thus, every truth in the BoM is plain and precious. I'll list a few other truths, which of course are plain and precious, though you might refuse to acknowledge them as such: -the priesthood of God is greatly clarified and expounded upon in the BoM -the resurrection is made very clear and simple -a greater understanding of the atonement and God's mercy towards his children is available from study of the BoM -the order of the ordinances of baptism and the sacrament -the salvation of children and the evil of infant-baptism (if you don't think this is plain and precious...) -an understanding of the fall of adam and that men are not born under original sin. an understanding that Adam's fall was really an essential part of the plan of salvation and that it was actually an immense blessing is, i don't believe, found in the Bible you will see glimpses of understanding of these things gleaned from the Bible in the thousands of different Christian denominations around the world. however, these thousands of denominations have used the Bible to come up with very, very different understandings of all this doctrine. these things are all made plain in the BoM. a study in the BoM of these topics which are found in the Bible will make them very plain, and indeed precious, where as history shows that a study of these topics in the Bible alone did not make these topics plain, but rather a source of vast disagreement between the peoples of the world.

woh woh, metallica nothing. hehe, i actually haven't heard metallica's. yeah, i figured "fade to black" probably isn't the most uplifting song. but with many songs, including that one, i love because of the melodies and i haven't really gotten the lyrics yet. but, right off the bat it's at least not "down"-lifting because it doesn't sound angry. i guess music is ultimately about how it makes you feel. if good, then it's good, if bad, then bad. i'd like to say this feeling is different for everyone, but that just may be the easy out, the political answer. anyway, this is random, but remember- the wicked take the truth to be hard. we all do that sometimes

neo, based on you music tastes, i'll bet you'd probably like Matt Nathanson a whole lot. I'd also say you would love Limbeck. Mike Park and the New Amsterdams and Jack Johnson are acoustic acts you'd like (though the new New Amsterdams album that's coming out seems pretty terrible). Do you like Weezer? I grew up on them. If you like them, you'd probably also like Ozma a whole lot. You have JEW's old stuff? It's good. And the Juliana Theory (though not the "Love" album) and The Get Up Kids are good, too. Don't wanna do any self-promotion, but can't help it. I highly reccomend you check out this link: http://www.cleanlycopacetic.com/downloads/downloads because it has lots of free, legal mp3 downloads of different genres of music to broaden your horizons. plus all the music is profanity-free, so that's always a plus. For you, I'd reccommend checking out the acoustic songs and the twee pop songs first.

woh, if you were serious, and even if you weren't, whatever made you say that is not good.username, i'm quite into music (i even run a music web zine). i like a lot of the bands on your list. megadeth, metallica, zeppelin, ac/dc, and aerosmith all have put out great songs. however, do not deny they've also put out a lot of music that is the opposite of uplifting. megadeth, for instance, actually does have satanic lyrics in their older albums. you've got to be careful with what you listen to. i used to love all of metallica and megadeth's stuff (with the exception of the satanic stuff that i never really listened to) but now i can't listen to a lot of it simply because it's so grating it doesn't make me feel good. it's hard to listen to "symphony of destruction" and "architecture of aggression" by megadeth and feel the spirit. but then again, "fade to black" and "unforgiven" and "nothing else matters" by metallica i still love, as well as a few songs from megadeth. i think what really attracted me to this kind of music is the amazing instrumental musicianship (you should check out megadeth's instrumental songs like instrumental versions of "she wolf" and "vortex", they're amazing) but as i got older i realized that lyrically and vocally (the angry way they sing) they can be contrary to the spirit. but such is the case with all music, from pop to coutry to rap. you've always got to be careful, and we could probably all do better. that's why i run a clean music zine, but a lot of the music on there could probably be better. anyways, i wish you the best in your musical endeavors.

i've gotten a bad feeling about this board and i'm going to stop frequenting it.

i just got my eagle, but i've always hated scouting, too. the only things i've liked are the campouts and doing an eagle project. the merit badges are full of bologne, as is all the documentation required for the eagle project itself. Tanner, have you actually sat down and looked at the new Duty to God? there's a million things to do in there and now it's actually harder to achieve than the young woman's award is. Among the 49 things a deacon must do, 49 things a teacher must do, and 49 things a priest must do, there's also a 10, 20, and 30 hour service project each must do. This duty to God program definitely does focus on gaining a testimony. If anything, this program needs to be less intensive, rather than more, because a lot of the requirements are incredibly nit picky and too specific (example: one of them is to speak in sacrament meeting about a righteous father and the effect he's had. another is to help an old person vote. another is to organize a crime prevention program in your neighborhood. aren't these just a tad ridiculous?) But i do agree, Duty to God should receive more emphasis than the eagle award.

you explain yourself very well. i don't think there's much more to be said in either regard. although how is enjoying modern conveniences connected to historical research?

thanks, though, this has made me think.

from the limited reading i've done on the subject, science has not refuted this; it's very much in the air as a fair reading and analysis of the DNA testing they've done is inconclusive. anyway, i don't want this to turn into an argument about that. intelectual dishonesty? i don't think so. as explained above, from what i've seen the scientific method doesn't conclude american indians aren't principally lamanites. my interpretation of genesis was literal in both circumstances--that god caused the flood and that the earth was created in 6 days (and as days translated literally means periods, i am taking it literally). in explaining how the creation seems wrong, i was taking a viewpoint in the likeness of TheProudDuck's that believes science first and then scripture, if science backs it up (i know that sounds harsh, so don't get offended because that philosophy is merely the extreme of what TheProudDuck was arguing). i did this to demonstrate how just because a prophet seems wrong (to one who uses a scientific philosophy) doesn't mean he is. In this case, it took the further knowledge of scripture (that days means periods) to prove him right. other times, it takes the further knowledge of science (like finally discovering horse bones in the Americas, proving that horses did indeed exist way back then) to prove him right. either way, what once science has proved wrong may later be proved right. science changes. which brings me back to your insinuating claim that i was being intellectually dishonest. are apologists intelectually dishonest? because they're always searching for ways, researching ways, using the scientific method to come up with ways, to prove what once seemed wrong as right, are they being dishonest? are they being total intellectually dishonest nutheads? is having faith being intellectually dishonest? if so, i'll take the faith (and don't go off saying it would be blind) and you know what? i really don't have a problem with modern day prophets being wrong. it's very hard to be completely filled with the spirit and guided by him 100% of the time. thus, in this day in age, when every single thing a prophet says is monitored to use against him, it's a miracle they don't look like the idiots that presidential candidates do. but, occasionally they may do something like yell at their wife, lose the spirit, and then say something crazy like we're never going to the moon in some sort of high council board meeting. the scriptures we have though, are not like that. they are the evidence of prophets meticulously writing down prophecy as they are guided by the spirit, or occasionally inspired speaches like King Benjamins or examples of teaching by the spirit like Alma and the sons of Moroni. Anything bogas that was said on a prophet's "off day", probably wasn't written down, and if it was i think it would have been screened out by whoever compiled the records under the direction of the spirit. And, anything wrong that still got through (or perhaps was changed) and ended up in the scripures today we call the standard works, Joseph Smith retranslated. and, you still see this editing process in modern times. JFS saying something about not going to the moon didn't end up in the D&C. Thus, i believe that what we read in the scriptures is pretty much right and not evidence of prophets overinterpreting what was revealed to them.

yeah, it's all me. thanks, though! my voice actually isn't that good. it took me many takes to sing that well, and it's still a bit off key at parts. i bought a little recording thing that hooks up to my computer so i'm in the process of making enough songs for a demo album.

i swam as a kid and would dorkily wear my speedo everywhere because it was the only suit i had, even when i was pretty much the only kid in a speedo at a party. so, then my sister started calling me speedomansam. but, i actually hate swimming. i'd much rather run--then at least you can breathe and there's stuff to look at. i don't think all prophets get a revelation in which they are shown everything. i do think there is a huge difference between prophets and the prophet to lead a dispensation. but anyway, we do know that moses talked with God face to face and was shown the entire world and all the inhabitants of the world. we do know that moses quoted God as saying "I will cause" the flood. did he misquote? i had never heard those things about Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young, though i suspected there had to be apparently wacko sayings by them. even still, everything you mentioned as something where prophets have been wrong may be refutable. i don't know the context of those things (and not knowing the context is how so many against the LDS church misinterpret doctrine. additionally, even those who see the context can misinterpret--for example: people that interpret D&C 124 to mean baptisms for the dead were only to occur while building the temple and not to be done afterwards). Anyways, i think it is significant that JFS said the moon thing while he wasn't The Prophet (and perhaps he meant live on the moon or a different moon (or maybe the moon was a metaphor)). Blacks and the priesthood said by BY: what does redeemed mean, anyway? Didn't Christ redeem everybody, blacks and whites, with the atonement? So, does this mean blacks weren't to receive the priesthood until after the atonement? BY and intermarriage: perhaps he meant was punishble, not is, or perhaps marrying interracially actually is some great sin (the church still councils against it). The BOM title page stating indians desended from lamanites: perhaps they did. At this point, there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary. Anyways, i've never seen where you got that info from, so i can't judge for myself. I just brought all that up to make sure you realize that just because something seems way wrong by logic, doesn't mean it is. Was the earth created in 6 days? Perhaps, but that seems way wrong as science tells us it took billions of years. Moses sure seemed wrong on that one, didn't he? But, of course, we know that days actually mean periods, so maybe he was right after all. interesting discussion. just curious, what did you mean by this?:

i just recorded my own song, "A Chance With You". you can download it here when i first started to play, i liked to do all that stuff you listed.

i understand that prophets can be wrong--they're human--and if i found so my testimony would be able to pull through. but, when have they been wrong? perhaps there is something in having faith that they are right, even if it appears that they are wrong. if you start picking and choosing what to believe as prophecy and what to disregard as simple "man" talk, that's when things get dangerous. it can lead to things like "hmm, maybe the whole building a temple thing was just joseph smith overinterpeting his command to build houses of worship" and "hey, perhaps adam and eve weren't even the first people on the earth. how would moses ever know that?". these are fairly exaggerated claims, but you see what it can lead to. i know you're coming from a sincere viewpoint and think you're smart enough to get things right by picking and choosing, and maybe you are. i'm pretty sure moses is the author of genesis. is he not? now, are you saying that Moses, who talked with God face to face and was pretty much shown everything, is wrong and you're right? there's nothing in the new testament, or even the D&C, that Moses didn't know. or was moses speaking as a man when he said he talked to God?

Problem is, most European countries have even more permissive social climates than we do, and they're not being "scourged" by terrorists as much as we are. When someone blows up the red-light district in Copenhagen or Amsterdam, then you might have a point. To the contrary, it's been the more socially conservative countries, like the United States and Spain, that have taken the biggest hits. By your logic, the tsunami in SE Asia drowned Swedish tourists because they were libertines, but drowned the pious Muslim Indonesians next door because -- what? They were too socially conservative? The whole idea that God uses disasters and the "scourging" of barbarians to punish the wicked is a theological relic and a colossal misunderstanding, no matter what the scriptures say. If the ancient prophets interpreted plagues, wars, etc. as being called down by God, they were speaking as men, based on limited light and knowledge. (What a useful phrase that is!) "There is no other way" to become like God than to experience life in a fallen, natural world. Living in a such a world means first, that people like terrorists may use their free will to hurt innocents, and second, that the earth itself will try very hard to drown, bury, shake, burn, or blow you to death with no more care for your particular animated dust than it has for a dirt clod in the path of a flood. "So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life." God gives us commandments because He wants us to be safe and have joy, as well as to prepare for eternal life. Some of the commandments, like the Word of Wisdom and law of chastity, protect us temporally as well as spiritually; others won't help you avoid tidal waves, but will give you the spiritual strength to deal with the damage they do. If the wickedness of the people in Noah's time led to their deaths by drowning in the flood, it was less a consequence, I believe, of a vengeful God sending the flood to destroy them, than of their being too spiritually dead to hear the voice of God warning that a flood was going to take place -- possibly from entirely natural causes -- and they'd better get to high ground. If the Nephites got slaughtered on occasion, it was less a case of the Lord putting bees in the Lamanites' ears than of their pride and wickedness weakening them in the face of assaults that were going to happen in any case. actually, europe's received much more terrorist attacks than the US. that's why they're so desensitised and calloused to it and aren't as willing to help us fight it. hmm, God didn't cause the flood in Noah's time? Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to arain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. you believe what you want, but i don't think there's any way to misinterpret that scripture. that was God speaking, so you can't say that some prophet, presumably Moses, decided to speak as a man there. that's dangerous thinking, anyhow.

yes the facts i have stated are all that there is.... i have struggled myself with why the bishop said that.... i know very little about missions... any good links to some websites where i can learn more?? stop looking for links to websites.are you looking for an answer or material to fuel discontent? with an issue such as yours, you're not going to find an "answer" on the internet, only uninspired speculation. as scary as it may be, get off the internet and go talk with your bishop for clarification, voicing your concerns. then, if you honestly feel something is still amiss, you should talk to your stake president. ultimately, however, i think the responsibilty of your son's girlfriend's sister serving a mission lies with herself. so, perhaps she should be the one to do these things.

you can't really blame the man if his almanac was wrong.

i think the vast majority of people won't find the straight and narrow, but i don't think that necesarrily means they'll be aligned with the anti christ. actually, after thinking about it further i think you're right; the vast majority won't believe in Christ, even after they've had missionaries, and not believing in Christ makes you aligned with the Anti-Christ who will be preaching something to that effect.but i think the great and abominable church already exists (any church that is not the true church of God according to the BOM) and that the world will probably get more atheistic as time progresses, listening to an Anti-Christ telling them to "eat, drink, and be merry". billions of people have already suffered from false churches so perhaps that's evidence enough that Great and Abominable Churches already exists. i just have a hard time imagining the world uniting, even under satan. won't there be wars everywhere and the only refuge will be zion?

i just thought he was a really cool girl

too much drama

woh, this is kinda random, but for some reason i always thought snow was a girl... for some reason i must associate the word snow as feminine. it makes way more sense, now, though.oh, and aiken, snow was giving you serious advice to a serious question; the very first thing he said was stake president and that's what you should do--talk to your stake president.

I have been re-active for almost two months now Spencer and it is people like you who are making it a very sickening experience. You all think you are so clever. is this sickening experience being exposed to sarcastic remarks and other jibs? because you'll find those anywhere, but, ironic as it is, you'll find them most between friends. friends have a habit of putting each other down out of fun--because they know the person that is "insulting" them wouldn't actually ever try to insult them, sarcastic remarks and jibs serve to strengthen friendship. that's probably a little twisted, but that's how everyone works now a days. of course, in a perfect world, i doubt anyone would ever be sarcastic, especially to a friend (could you imagine Jesus being sarcastic?). so, amillia, don't take any sort of sarcastic remark the wrong way. there's very few people, if any, that are truly trying to put you down. plus, this kind of a thing on a message board gets especially messy. on the internet, everyone is anonymous; it's very hard to see a human behind the words. thus, our human weakness allows us to make these mean remarks that never would have been said in real life because we aren't afraid of hurting feelings. if somebody in real life, who you barely knew, came up to you and said something you deemed to be dumb, would you make a mean jib at them? of course not! that would be mean! but on the internet, it just doesn't seem like you're hurting anyone.