Dravin

As far as the distinction goes, while I can understand making the distinction if one wants to discuss things in philosophical, theological, or technical contexts, using know to mean "something I really strongly believe to be the case" is accepted English usage of the word. So, even given his premise that nobody knows things in a gospel context, in the sense he means, he's objecting to standard English usage, just because it's the second definition provided by Merriam-Webster ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know ) doesn't make it incorrect. Generally when you find people arguing over if someone can claim they know something spiritual you've got someone who is arguing a connotative definition with you, and connotative definitions are highly experience, context, and culture dependent.

Can I get the US Code you are referring to that abrogates Federal statutes concerning marijuana if it is legal on the state level?

I don't even go to the homepage, I have my shortcut setup to take me directly to the forums.

When the tube is fresh I'm a little indiscriminate on where the pressure is applied, but once it's emptied a bit such that it's easier to flatten that's the route I tend to go.

It's also the scriptural approach:

You could make hummus though you'll want something to go with them, but vegetables are a perfectly find thing to dip into hummus. One can even take shortcuts with the tahini and just use a bit of peanut butter. Alternatively, spinach dip. If this is up your ally and you can't find some decent recipes online I can probably dig up a recipe for either.

A Toyota Sienna only costs ~$27,000 and seats up to 8 people, and nothing states you must fit everyone in the same car. A pair of Honda Civics are a lot cheaper than the $70,000 Denali (why are you comparing against a luxury SUV?), and that's without getting into the possibility of used vehicles.

Yep, it has the earmarks of an urban legend.

The Church pays attention to available (aka active) priesthood holders when creating branches or wards (there are minimum numbers involved), or when upgrading/downgrading from one to the other. If there were 0 men in the unit then the unit would be disbanded. As far as a ward where there was some temporary situation in which there were very few men they'd either: 1) Cancel Church that Sunday. 2) While the usual passing route (for a moderately sized ward) has two or three priesthood holders blessing the sacrament and a half-dozen or more passing, nothing prevents say three priesthood holders blessing and then passing the sacrament. The Bishop himself could help pass (or bless). This might mean passing it takes longer, but it could be done. If we're talking about a ward where there were temporarily no priesthood holders able to make it you go to #1 of the above.

The Monuments Men. I quite enjoyed it, just kept in mind it isn't a documentary.

Nine times out of ten such comments are indicative of an individual who is simply looking for confirmation of what they already want to do, so you've probably made the right call there Anatess.

If there is a demand then you'll see voluntary advertising of the methods used, see for example free range meat or organic foods. The only need I see is that the foods are safe, which is overseen by the various government alphabet soup. If one wants to tighten what is considered safe, by all means, present data and make the argument. If all you want is a government certification of "GMO Free" that businesses can slap on their products with public confidence, I'm fine with that as well.

I'm not talking about in-lab versus out of lab, I'm simply pointing out that there are more ways to modify an organism than, "Make it pesticide resistant." The objection you brought up only applies to a subset of GMO regardless of if we mean GMO to imply 'in-lab' or not. Here is the thing, your objection focuses on farming practices, not the food. You've got yourself an argument for farm practice labeling, or tighter pesticide regulation. Also, a company can benefit from a plant designed for it's pesticide by locking farmers into their product, it does not necessarily follow that the business plan is, "Farmers will dump our pesticide on their crops willy nilly." Indeed, one can argue they don't want such because it increases the likelihood of increased regulation of their product and can cause negative PR. It's fine to be cynical, but if you want to persuade me, show me the data. Otherwise all I see is people trying to argue policy based on boogeymen.

Some thoughts: 1) You seem to be equating GMO with a specific subset of GMO. Is your intent to use GMO as a shorthand for this specific subset (pesticide resistance)? Because I see no conceptual reason for ringspot resistant papya or salinity resistant wheat to result in more toxic residue getting into the food supply. 2) Depending on both what the labeled use of Monsanto's product is, and the on the farm implementation, it may or may not make 'gut-level' sense that it results in greater pesticide use. I'm not overly familiar with how the system is intended to be used, or how it actually gets implemented on the farm. 3) Those are excellent questions... for a properly conducted scientific study.

I'm with Folk on this one. There are arguments that can be made against making a connection between Jesus Christ and Quetzalcoatl but: 1) They never would have seen Jesus because they existed after the Lamanites and Nephites, and thus would have been unable to have been influenced by accounts of his visit. 2) Jesus may not have gone that far south, and thus would have been unable to be influenced by accounts of his visit. 3) The Aztecs practice religious concepts not in-line with Jesus' teachings, and thus would have been unable to be influenced by accounts of his visit. Seem specious to me, accounts can persist in time, and can cross spatial barriers, and influences from the past need not necessarily reflect the current practice. Folk's reference to Santa Claus and St. Nicholas are relevant counter examples to the idea that influence can't cross spatial or temporal distances. To that I'd add that the absorption of Yule into Christian Christmas is a counter example to the idea that influence must somehow be complete (that if accounts of Jesus were appropriated in Aztec culture his teachings would have been too). Now does this mean that there is a Jesus-Quetzalcoatl connection? Not at all. It just means one needs to make the argument that it didn't happen rather than breezily declare that it couldn't happen.

To quote Merriam-Webster: Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension

People aren't in pictures or momentos but we, speaking generically, use them as focal points for remembering them. The events of historical sites are long gone, but we visit them and remember as well. I can understand personally not being big on graves for such purposes but I don't see any conflict with them and our. LDS, beliefs.

Better yet, if you know her Love Language then target that channel. The above suggestions are good if she's keyed into words of affirmation or gifts, less so if it's acts of service, quality time, or physical touch that she's keyed into.

The Church's official statement concerning The Book of Mormon musical: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-regarding-the-book-of-mormon-broadway-musical LDS Newsroom statements concerning negative media portrayals (it mentions Big Love as it was the hot topic at the time): http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-publicity-dilemma

As Folk points out, this is pretty much an area of pure supposition. I will suppose though that if we do wear clothing in the next life it will be because of the symbolism of the clothing. It's not like the usual pragmatic concerns will apply (except modesty).

I suspect it is a consequence of the standardized cost saving ward building designs, the Church seems to be operating under the thinking that more chapels are better than prettier chapels. In a sense that same decision was made relatively recently about temples though the Church has decided that the more vs. prettier is different for temples than ward buildings (and by extension chapels) based on their differing purpose and dedication.

Some of the older buildings do have stain glass windows and the like, but you don't seem them in the standardized designs. I've also seen flowers for Easter, so you're talking about ward decisions in that respect. As far as purple and Lent, we don't observe Lent so why no purple is obvious. We don't share the same history and traditions, in a lot of respects, with Catholics and Protestants. While I can recognize the symbolism they place into such things I don't see the necessity of sharing them. In a lot of ways your question is akin to, "The Jones have these family traditions, why don't the Smiths?"

Yep, I saw that last night. Twas pretty funny.

I didn't say I sensed hostility in Anatess' post, before you do a spit take, I said it came across as defensive (in other words sensed defensiveness). I suppose in the end the distinction doesn't particularly matter, it still highlights perception versus intent, but just to be clear for the record.

I'm not sure if it'll shrink down or crop nicely, but there is this image: