NeuroTypical

Yes. Ministers of religion came into existence before anyone had ever thought up licensing, or counselors."Bless me father, for I have sinned" - confessionals are older than the AMA. Older than the modern era. Older than the industrial revolution. Older than the United States of America. Where civilizations and societies have sprung up, they've crafted laws and policies around and along the institutions of religion. Contrary to popular belief, there were things before there were governments to properly license and regulate them.

Meh - this has always been easy. The egg came first. It was laid or created by something or someone who was not a chicken. I've never understood why people make this one so hard.

Heh - I disagree strongly! 1.) No 2.) Sometimes 3.) Sometimes (Ok, maybe not all that strongly.)

It doesn't matter how fully my BIL repents of his past misdeeds - he'll spend the rest of his life with serious brain problems and chronic health issues. From an eternal perspective, absolutely repentence brings a complete removal of sin and restores one's full potential. From a mortal earthly perspective - no really - you can screw yourself and others up so seriously, that you'll bear the burden for your entire life. Repentence does not always mean removal of consequences, or restoration of full potential. Another example: It doesn't matter how great you are with kids - if you're a repentant child abuser - you will never reach your full potential with kids in our church. You'll just have to go through life outside of leadership positions or youth-related callings.

Can it? Sure. My BIL destroyed his brain and health with drug abuse as a young teen. Not sure how bright or able he would have been otherwise, but probably brighter and more able than the mentally impaired chronic-health-conditioned sad case he is today.

Not true, as in cases of justifiable homicide like defending your or another life from the immediate threat of harm. Not true. There have been many governments that have not made it illegal for it's citizens to kill one another for various reasons. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're saying, and an even harder time buying it.

Again, a literal acceptance is not necessary to believe the Bible to be the word of God.And even if you do wish a literal translation, "the whole world" could be interpreted through the ancient worldview of those peoples - they might have very well thought that everything in a 100-mi radius around them constituted the entire world. Same for "Father of all nations". "Every beast" could mean "every beast they knew about". I mean yeah, if you force yourself into one narrow interpreation of the many possibilities, you can find something that conflicts with at least one of science's "suggestions". So, for your original question: "How does one balance “faith with science” when they are at odds with one another?" I don't know - don't see the reason to force myself to be bound by one narrow interpretation over another. I guess those people have problems.

What anne said. If your statement is true, where do we get off having laws against murder and assault and whatnot?

"suggesting otherwise" does not a conflict make.

Yeah, what Dravin said. I say it often: The only good reason to be a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one. Getting baptized so a mormon will marry you, an athiest, could be a horrible train wreck waiting to happen. People weren't meant to live lies - it eats at them. You ask about a list of core beliefs? Sort of the biggie, is belief in a benevolent omniscient God, who sent His son to earth to atone for our sins. Without that core belief in the core of the gospel, anything else you figure you can go along with in our church is sort of beside the point. For the sake of any future children you may have - I urge you to proceed with the utmost caution and concern for their eventual wellbeing.

Hi Dennison and welcome. What do you teach, and at what kind of college?

A question is on my mind. Why do you want to be LDS?

Things you don't have to assume, in order to believe in a literal Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve: * The world was created in 168 hours. * Evolution is wrong. * There were no other humanoids on earth at the same time. Different ways I've heard Genesis interpreted: * It's symbolic/allegorical. * "7 days" refers to seven creative periods, that could have lasted millions of years. * Adam and Eve were the first humanoids God had dealings with, the first two who received a soul. Before that, humanoids were animals only. There's lot of flexibility in belief here. You will run into Mormons who believe different things about Genesis. Some think I'm full of it.

You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you shouldn't take a pickaxe to your in-laws. LM (no really - fantasizing about inappropriate violence sometimes helps. Yeah, PC's advice to pray for help to love them is probably better advice, but mine helps too a little...)

Hi elliott, I have to admit, you're the first Belarussian Scientologist alcoholic that I've had the pleasure of speaking to.

I'm guessing the review was to force discovery of the nonsense in the first place.

Glad to hear it.

Heh. So: Women all kid themselves. Men can turn even a simple question into an argument they have to win.

The Bible does not demand belief in a global flood. As for archaeological discovery, just because we haven't found proof of something in the past, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you believe the false claim "There is no record of a global flood, therefore there never was one", then you've got problems. But that's not science. Faith and science are not at odds with each other, regardless of whether you believe in a global flood or not.

First, someone would have to show me an example of where they're at odds. I can't find any.Oh, don't get me wrong, there are lots of things people believe, at odds with science. And there is the occasional theory and hypothesis and attempt to explain things scientifically, at odds with what I believe. But the first is not "faith", and the second is not "science".

I thought about Dr. Peterson as well. He has a great respect for the Q'ran, and even goes so far as to say parts of it may be divinely inspired. If there's anyone who could give you good advice on how to proceed, it would be him. No idea how to get in touch with him. Maybe through the Maxwell Institute at [email protected]. Welcome to the forum!

I hope nobody minds, but I'm raising my kids to be savvy shoppers. That way, they won't have to rely on finding the correct anonymous poster on the correct obscure online store's forum, to tell them that they can find pill cases cheaper than six bucks.

So many questions - we humans are unable to give relevant answers because we lack the tools to judge your brother's heart. We can, however, rest assured that the person who will judge your brother, will judge perfect judgement - in full posession of all the facts - including all the stresses and burdens your brother bore. This is a great question. I ask you - what does "able to bear" look like? Does it mean that you'll never die or be killed? Does it mean if you die of injuries or illness, you failed at bearing your burden? Of course not. I submit to you a notion: "able to bear" contains an eternal perspective. It is a question of character, not merely a question of ability to emerge on the other side of a challenge with your mortal heart still beating.I personally believe that there is a line, past which we can go or be pushed. On one side of the line, we're fully accountable for our actions. On the other side of the line, our actions are not in our control. Consider a very young child that gets mad at his sibling, and pushes him down the stairs to his death. The child did not possess the mental faculties necessary to be fully accountable for that action - it was a terrible tragedy, but the child is not to blame. Consider a person with paranoid schizophrenia, who is convinced by the voices to do some horrible thing. Earthly justice is one thing - but heavenly justice is perfect, and will perfectly blend mercy and justice. I don't know about your brother - but I know there is room for hope. That's a question for her Bishop - and the Bishop would probably need to counsel with his SP or even church HQ on that one. Yes, you're in very good company here. I lost both parents a decade apart to things that could be considered suicide. Mom refused medical treatment for a simple infection because she wanted to die. Dad refused to do anything about his mild, treatable cancer for the same reason. I've learned a few things from then to now:* If you remember who they were, not just how they choose to die, you usually end up with comforting memories. * The loved ones do not bear the blame for whatever they chose to do (or did when not accountable). Whatever marital strife or arguments or meanness or regret any loved one has, doesn't justify taking a life. Beware of misplaced guilt. * "I don't know - it's in God's hands" is an answer you can learn to live with. Not only that, it's an answer that can give a great relief of the burdens you carry. God bless.

Brigham Young has something to say about the musical. He was talking about the backlash from various Christians, but his words apply equally to Parker and Stone: