Dravin

Venom, as in people being nasty, mean, bitter, or otherwise unpleasant.

Neither would having one that says, "Leave a message." It won't make you breakfast in bed either. The point is to keep people from freaking out that they can't reach you, not somehow craft a magical voice mail message that helps you if you're sick, injured or dead.

I think it's about a sea change in public (if not the general public's actual thoughts than those opinions voiced in public) opinion concerning traditional religious mores. I think religion is in the process of going from being seen as the bastion of morality to the bastion of unwanted perspectives and opinions. In other terms, it's less vengeance and more a shift towards seeing conservative religion as akin to the KKK. This is not to discount cases where there are individuals, and even organizations, engaging in revenge against conservative religion, but I think classification of happenings such as highlighted in the OP as vengeance is to dismiss a trend. I honestly think those behind barring the practice of law by those graduates are doing it because they see it as akin to a bunch of lawyers getting together to keep their marriages racially pure*. *The validity of such a comparison is of course up to debate, my point is not that the comparison is valid but that I think the individuals are making it.

Lakumi, you've been around these boards long enough to know the answer to such questions. Which means you're either incapable of learning or you enjoy feigning ignorance for some reason. I see little point in regurgitating to you things you've already been told repeatedly. At any rate my surety is quite irrelevant to the comments I made. My initial post presupposed the point of view of a believer in Christ, my response to you had nothing to do with the surety of belief of the existence of anything.

It not being extant. Nope, if something exists killing those that believe in it/them doesn't make it no longer exist. Unless we're talking about existence as a social construct, but that's outside of the scope of my comments. Nothing suddenly made him not exist, he never existed. Not unless we're talking about as a social or cultural construct and that's outside of the scope of my comments. Proof of existence is separate from existence. If Ishtar exists then Ishtar exists independent of any proof of Ishtar's existence and independent of anyone's believe in Ishtar's existence.

One would think the obvious difference for any believer in Christ is this: Christ exists, Baal does not. Thus the difference in following Christ and following Baal is that the follower of Christ follows an extant being.

Except when your sick, injured or dead, what?

What is interesting is that while it seems like a conundrum asking, "What would Jesus do?" doesn't change the nature of the dilemmas being presented. At it's heart it's asking what the correct, moral, and godly thing to do in the situation is. It doesn't matter if you're asking it as a hypothetical for Jesus or as a hypothetical for yourself*. *I suppose it cuts down on, "I know it's wrong but..." type responses.

You turn your phone off. Though to be fair, the expectation that you'll be reachable is there. Which can result in people freaking out if they know you have a cell phone and they expect to be able to reach you but can't. I suppose you could temporarily change your voice mail message to something like, "I'm not dead, sick, or injured, I've just turned off my phone. Leave a message and I'll get back to you when I turn it back on."

I daresay in all my time at Church I've not heard, or at least don't recall, the A Parent's Guide referenced or passed out. I've experienced For the Strength of Youth being referenced and passed out on multiple occasions. I'm inclined to say the general visibility of the For the Strength of Youth booklet is orders of magnitude higher profile than A Parent's Guide.

There is an interesting relationship with Emma in the Church. I'm inclined to agree with you that it's hard to look at history and not see some sort of falling away, but there are also much that is admirable. It showcases, I think, the need to look at historical figures, and people in general, as more than just "bad" or "good", that admirable people can otherwise fall short to some degree, and those who might be qualified as less than admirable can otherwise be admirable in some respects.

Frozen, a couple weeks ago, unless I'm mistaken. We're planning on seeing Godzilla and X-Men: Days of Future Past in the next few weeks (Yay for cheap Saturday morning shows).

Which takes us right back to success = privilege. Circle of life complete.

Ultimately it's God's authority to give or not give isn't it? So it doesn't matter if it is a desert island scenario or not, if God gives it then you have it. If he doesn't, you don't. All the hypothetical scenarios in the world are simply window dressing to that central premise.

If there was a doctrinal necessity the Church would design it's buildings, meetings, or both to realize its goal so that priesthood holders could pass to each individual. Which would suggest to me it isn't an exception to the doctrine made by necessity. In any case, doctrinal distinction or necessity exception, Dr. T's question stands. If it's the former, it becomes, "Why is a necessity exception given for the logistics on the pew level but not in getting it from the sacrament table to the pew, or between pews?" If it's the latter, it becomes, "What is the doctrinal distinction between the sacrament being passed along the pew versus it being passed from the sacrament table to the pew, and between pews?*" *It is possible the doctrinal distinction is from sacrament table and back and not between the pews. Lacking a doctrinal distinction it still makes sense to have the passers transfer the sacrament between pews.

Only if you're worthy. Are you worthy? Excellent question for your Bishop. I'd suggest that if you are wondering about your worthiness, and since one of the temple recommend interview questions is about if you consider yourself worthy that you postpone attending the temple until after you've spoken with your Bishop.

There are homeless up in Alaska, of course homeless tends to mean less living under an overpass and more having a camp setup on the edge of town.

I do have to say I'm liking the relatively recent change of McDonald's putting the calories of food items up on the menu boards. Sure it doesn't help with the micronutrients and the balance of macronutrients (it doesn't take all that much effort to find those things out)) but it is useful for doing a basic level check of how many calories you are putting into your body ..

I'd say that they aren't identical was his point, at least as I read it, that Joseph Smith relates to Mormonism in ways in which Charles Darwin doesn't relate to evolution. He was responding to Anatess who was trying to draw an equation between Newton and Joseph Smith and he was disagreeing that the equation was valid (though instead of using Newton he switch to Darwin, probably because he doesn't feel the scientist in question is particularly pertinent to his point). Ultimately it's up to Lakumi to clarify.

Some of the comments in this thread make me think of this song: Automatic - Miranda Lambert

Logical break there may be, but if he wasn't saying one has to be irrational to disagree with Darwin's ideas then he wasn't saying one has to be irrational to disagree with Darwin's ideas. *shrug*

I could be wrong Folk, but I think he was trying to say that if one was rational one could hate Charles Darwin personally but still take his ideas on their own merits. Not that one has to be irrational to question his ideas.

Lakumi pretty consistently responds to any comment or admission that marriage is not 100% puppies and rainbows with something like you just experienced.

Mikey, you may be getting frustrated because people aren't coming out with lists such as, "He'll likely do X, Y, or Z". Pam has touched on why people aren't able to give such lists with confidence, because it depends on multiple things, but there is a degree of danger in us just blindly speculating. If say Pam or Estradling pipped up with, "He'll likely do X, or Y" and your Bishop does in fact do Z you may be inclined to feel that since Z is less desirable, from your perspective, than X or Y that your Bishop is being unreasonable. After all, you asked about online and the consensus was X or Y, not Z! You may immediately object with, "I'm not that silly! I understand that these are just in the dark suggestions offered by people divorced from the realities involved.", but folks who have been on the site long enough know to be wary. We have seen people come and complain that because, based on what other people have told them (most likely with the best of intentions), that their Bishop is being unreasonable because he's doing Z and not the expected X or Y. So while it may be frustrating for you, understand people like Pam or Estradling aren't trying to be frustrating or unhelpful, they just don't want to accidentally undermine your Bishop.

If it isn't water, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and arguably transportation, it's a luxury.