NeuroTypical

Or, you can point them to my "wife's" blog:

What a strange question. No, if you're basing a belief system on historical fact, it's not faith. I don't need to have faith that Egypt used to be run by pharoas, for example. Christian faith is based on the reality and divinity of Christ - something that no archaeological record will ever prove. Consider the difference between archaeological evidence, and conclusive archaeological evidence. Plenty of the first has been found, almost none of the second. That claim is a damnable lie propagated by people who have been soundly denounced by real live DNA scientists. My advice - take a week or two and pour through these resources:The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - DNA criticism response page Well, they were sincere questions a decade ago, before anyone responded to them. Now the responses are out there, and they're good responses. So today, these questions are only indicative of ignorance, sincere or not.LM

That's true. All you've done is implied Just_A_Guy of "arguing himself out of believing anything", implied that disagreeing with a global flood = not putting faith in God, implied that he is "Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth."Then you tell Gatorman you're "merely expressing my belief". Well, no you're not, you're attacking Just_A_Guy personally with unrighteous and uncharitable implications. It is true you are not referring to anyone directly with an insult. You're dancing around and implying it. Being unwilling to come out and insult him directly does put you outside of the normal YEC/Global Flood/Hollow Earth bag-o-tricks, but yeah... you may wish to consider how your tone and implications are not really adding to the persuasive elements you've offered... LM

Isn't it nice we can disagree, and still be friends. LM

So, the last major study of homeschooling was Dr. Lawrence Rudner's University of Maryland study Home Schooling Works, done back in 1998. It was time for something a bit more current: Overall result: Homeschooled kids continue to whip their public school counterparts in national averages by at least 30 percentile points. Other interesting things from the NHERI website: * 97.9% of homeschooled kids are in married couple families. Most home school mothers (81%) do not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (97.6%) do work for pay. * The percent of homeschool students in this study who are White/not-Hispanic (91.7%) is disproportionately high compared to public school students nationwide.

The great Robert Burns opined on this subject a long, long time ago. He's just seen lice crawling around on a lady's bonnet at church:

Very strong emotions. They can dictate what reality looks like, and you are almost powerless to see reality in any other way. But the thing about emotions, is that they're fleeting, and they change. They're based on brain juce - not reality.I know your entire being is screaming out from every fiber, that you can't bear to be apart. Every fiber of your being is right, but only for a week or three. You're that far away from a completely different outlook on life. There's no way for your intellect to convince your emotions that you can live without her. All you can do is decide which is to be the master. So, emotions or intellect - pick one. LM

That's the part I think is unrealistic. This church pays equal attention to both repentence and forgiveness. It's not a church of psycobabble and victim culture. "Emotional distress" in person B's case, is caused by being out of harmony with the gospel (i.e. needs to forgive person A and move on with life.) The church isn't about to harm person A because person B is having a problem living the gospel.(Keep in mind, I'm not saying this wouldn't be a great work of fiction. I'm not telling anyone how to write a book.) LM

Sounds like great fiction. I don't see it happening in real life. One thing to consider - Bishops don't get involved with disciplinary matters dealing with Melchizedec priesthood holders in the first place. Bishops are over the Aaronic only. LM

I saw a video with some smarty-pants guy setting up shop next to the free hugs people, his sign said "Better hugs $1!" He managed to get a rise out of one or two of the free hugs people. LM

My own personal opinion: None of my business if people want to give their kids the sacrament or not. None of their business about my kids.

I've found it quite helpful to study statistics and logic. That knowledge, coupled with an understanding of the bias of the person delivering the news, helps me figure out what's really going on.I like stratfor.com's commentary on geopolitics. Their bias: When they turn out to be right, they make more money. So, when they talk about what will happen with this administration or that world event, it's because they want to accurately forecast, not because they have a preferred result they want to see happen. LM

Some sources I threw together a while ago: CHILDREN TO PARTAKE OF SACRAMENT Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.350 All little children virtually belong to the Church until they are eight years of age. Should they die before that age, they would enter the celestial kingdom. The Savior said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then why should they be deprived of the sacrament? The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.226 The sacrament is for the Saints, for those who have actually made covenants at the waters of baptism primarily, but there is no evidence that I find where the Lord would ever exclude the children who were rapidly moving toward baptism and who were learning and being taught to worship the Lord and be ready for the covenants as their age and development would permit…. SHOULD CHILDREN WHO ARE MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS OF AGE AND ARE NOT BAPTIZED STILL PARTAKE OF THE SACRAMENT? Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention, p.76 Apostle Francis Marion Lyman Answer: Certainly; until they can be baptized. If they are the children of Latter-day Saints they are certainly entitled to partake of the sacrament until the ordinance of baptism can be administered to them, which may be two weeks, six weeks, or even more. But do not hurt the tender hearts of the little children who are willing and anxious to be baptized, by withholding the emblems from them, but are possibly neglected for awhile by the parents or by the Bishop who have not made provisions for their baptism. NON-MEMBERS AND THE SACRAMENT The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.226 If a person, not a member of the Church, is in the congregation, we do not forbid him partaking of it, but would properly advise that the sacrament is for the renewing of covenants. And, since he has not made the true covenant of baptism or temple covenant, he is exempt. However, his partaking of the sacrament if he is clean and worthy and devout would not bring upon him any condemnation as it would for those who have made solemn covenants and then have ignored or defied them. Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.298 If a nonmember with no ill intent partakes of the sacrament, it is in his case as though he had simply eaten bread and drunk wine or water. He will be judged according to the intent of his heart.

Sharing is fine. Having it taken by force is what this thread is about.

I'm reasonably certain he was wrong when he believed his guest who claimed to be an ex-LDS apostle that would astrally travel from temple to temple in the celestial room.That radio show is great entertainment. But the more sensational the claim, I'm guessing the less true it is. Proof of precolombian and post-ice age elephants would be sensational. Folks who have proof of sensational things are being counterproductive when they send it in to C2C, because most rational people will automatically assume what they here has an 'other side to the story' that makes much more sense. LM

I'm the single wage earner for a family of four, we usually clear $55K/yr., and maybe $7K/yr goes to medical bills. We do not have "the most money".* One family member gets her two doctor visits per week for low-urgency care. * Another family member had heart surgery to correct something that was taking years off her life. It was a low-urgency condition, but we got it the same month we decided to. * In the last several years, we've had surgery on a 'precancerous condition', thyroid surgery, double ankle surgery, vocal chord surgery. All very low in urgency, all without wait times, exactly when we needed them. * We have numerous doctor visits per year on anything from pediatric neurology to endocrine system issues to PTSD counseling to well-child exams to women's stuff to the plantar wart on my foot that hurts. All of them happen when they're supposed to - no rationing, no waiting times. * Between the four of us, we take maybe ten different prescriptions for anything from thyroid levels to cholesterol meds to antidepressants to seasonal allergies. We get to take them when we need them, because doctors are always available to write the needed prescriptions. HEthePrimate's fearmongering via class-warfare doesn't match my middle-class experience. I have the worlds best healthcare for my family, who needs it very much. Please, please, PLEASE don't let the government mess with it. LM

Yeah, you can't renew covenants you haven't made. From that standpoint, children under 8 taking the sacrament doesn't mean much. The practical aspect of not provoking a bunch of whiny kids has been mentioned. The church figures that taking the sacrament is a worthwhile teaching tool for kids, and they should be allowed. Similar deal with nonmember investigators. If they get a spiritual boost, or feel closer to God, by participating in the sacrament, more power to them. I just make it clear (or I made it clear when one of them asked me in Gospel Principles class), that the covenant-renewing aspect of it doesn't apply until they make covenants. It's not like someone jumps out of the bushes and says "Ha-ha! You took the sacrament - that means you're Mormon now!" LM

38. If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make fog horns out of? (Or for that matter, juice harps?)

Well, I must say, this situation most certainly is not unique to mormons. When folks have strong and deep opinions about religion (and politics and race and jobs, for that matter), it can pain them when someone they care about switches to 'another side'.Consider the neighbor who won't accept it that you went from Democrat to Republican. Or athiest to evangelical. Or turned your back on the community's lifeblood of coal mine work and went to college. Or bought a foreign car. Or married someone he disapproves of. Yeah, your neighbor needs to accept reality. But he's struggling because he's a fallible human with human weaknesses, not because he's mormon. No, we really don't care about missing out on your tithing. If you made a difference with your service, I'm sure it will be missed though. Hope whatever you've found is working for you. LM

Well, since China still produces a massive tsunami of pirated music and software, I'd have to disagree. (About the useful part, not the ethical part. )

Well, China executing white collar criminals is really nothing new. I remember back in the '80's, we were trying to get tough on them for all the software and music piracy coming out of China. So in a gesture of good faith, China executed some music pirates. Not really the most useful way to handle crime, IMO...

From what I've been able to put together in my in-law's family, there are three perpetrators, at least two of them started out as victims themselves. Unfortunately, those 3 perps have spread it to the next generation, molesting at least one niece and one nephew. Yes, I'm very aware that these two kids are now at higher risk of becoming perpetrators themselves. This is how the poison spreads. I'm not advocating we focus on victims and ignore or shun the perps. I am advocating that before we act on behalf of the perpetrator, we consider the impact our actions might have on the victim. Seanette said something interesting - advocating against "telling the kids to deal with it while falling all over yourself to keep from hurting the offender's feelings by actually calling evil what it is." It's interesting because it's exactly, almost word for word, a page out of my in-law's story. It's not uncommon from what I understand. LDS Social Services occasionally runs a "parents of offenders" class, which attempts to help the parents deal with the realities behind their children's actions, and how the parents have often had a hand in creating offenders. Where possible, offenders who have responded well to therapy and have kept their noses clean, participate in these classes and try to help parents understand their part in the drama. It's a complicated subject where every success is won by patience and long-suffering. LM

If it's the legislation I'm thinking about, it's also threatening to put lots of people out of business. Child's ATV's have lead in engine compartments. Some kid furniture has lead components. My next door neighbor runs a Catholic website - he estimates this could impact 20-30% of his business (people buying stuff for a kid's first communion. It's madness, and it needs to be stopped. LM

Sounds good to me, believer. Sounds like a false dichotomy too, but whatever. If I could advance my own false dichotomy in response to yours: I would much rather spend my time helping victims recover and increase their shot at a healthy normal life, than abandon them by buddying up with known preadators and extending blind acceptance to them. Now, of course, those are not my only two options, just like 'helping vs condemning' the perpetrators aren't your only two. I personally know several victims of child sex abuse, and I personally know several perpetrators. My in-laws contain both types in startling numbers. On occasion, when I'm forced to chose, I stand with the victims. Occasionally, this means condemning the actions of the perpetrators, declining to associate with them. Am I wrong to do so? LM

Ahh, the sad tale of a directionless 19 yr old. I've walked that path. Those were rough years (made easier on me because my parents needed me around until my mom's death). If I had to do it again, I would sign up for a term of military service, and see what my options were at the end of that term. A mission would have been better for me, but I shared lost's tale of not being able to honestly serve as a believing member in good standing. One thing I learned from those years, and I guess this is what I'd want Lost to hear: It's ok if life sucks for a while. It doesn't mean things will always be that way. If there's no solution, then just endure, and a path will present itself. It will eventually get better if you don't give up. LM