If a female tried to get into the priesthood session of GC...

[SoonerCoug]

Christianity is exploding in China, and will go interstellar once the Chinese government collapses or loosens faith restrictions.

China is ~20% illiterate. Greater literacy will remedy this.

And what makes you so sure that when the deadening effects of materialism reach their logical end-point in the Western Hemisphere, the trend won't reverse and people and societies won't return to the spiritual soul within themselves? These things are cyclical, yet Sooner and SU assume it is all one way.

The awesome thing about science is that it is true even if you don't believe it. Not so with religion.

But there is one thing that humanity has that makes Sooner's and SU's grandiose pronouncements nothing but comical blabbering. It's the existence of the soul. That is the fundamental fact of existence. If provides consciousness. It draws us heavenward. It seeks understanding, enlightenment, and wonder. It draws us to each other in love. It forms unions of the heart that are stronger than anything in the physical world. Sooner and SU are Trumans living the Truman Show. Ants going about their business building their anthill thinking it is the sum and substance of existence. But missing the forests, continents, oceans, planets, galaxies, and the Universe that dwarfs their little hill.

It sounds like you are opposed to human progress.

[All-American]

I see this is a touchy subject for you. Out of curiousity, do you have life insurance? Do you know what your rates are based on? If not, you may not want to research it.

Oh, come now, you're not suggesting that life insurance brokers attempt to offset the risk of death by calculating that risk, are you? I thought everybody knew that they set rates by looking at sheep livers.

[SoonerCoug]

Oh, come now, you're not suggesting that life insurance brokers attempt to offset the risk of death by calculating that risk, are you? I thought everybody knew that they set rates by looking at sheep livers.

True believers should not fear death or the death of their loved ones--only the manner of death.

Our society has a very hard time accepting death. I think this is because we aren't used to seeing it. (People expect their loved ones to die outside the home, etc.)

The greatest irony I have witnessed is that severely religious people often seem the least willing to let their loved ones die peacefully when it is time. This makes no sense. They are supposedly going to a better place, but people just won't let them go. I have never really understood this other than to say that perhaps these folks feel more guilt for things they did or didn't do and therefore would rather see their loved ones remain alive even if they are suffering terribly.

I think that many supposed believers don't really believe at all.

For example, what percentage of Americans supposedly believe the Bible was written by God? And yet they don't even read the book. Bizarre.

[Jacob]

True believers should not fear death or the death of their loved ones--only the manner of death.

Our society has a very hard time accepting death. I think this is because we aren't used to seeing it. (People expect their loved ones to die outside the home, etc.)

The greatest irony I have witnessed is that severely religious people often seem the least willing to let their loved ones die peacefully when it is time. This makes no sense. They are supposedly going to a better place, but people just won't let them go. I have never really understood this other than to say that perhaps these folks feel more guilt for things they did or didn't do and therefore would rather see their loved ones remain alive even if they are suffering terribly.

I think that many supposed believers don't really believe at all.

For example, what percentage of Americans supposedly believe the Bible was written by God? And yet they don't even read the book. Bizarre.

And how is it "ghoulish" to anticipate the date on which a righteous individual will shed his tabernacle and put on his immortality, residing in paradise and a more wonderful life than this?

[Non Sequitur]

True believers should not fear death or the death of their loved ones--only the manner of death.

Our society has a very hard time accepting death. I think this is because we aren't used to seeing it. (People expect their loved ones to die outside the home, etc.)

The greatest irony I have witnessed is that severely religious people often seem the least willing to let their loved ones die peacefully when it is time. This makes no sense. They are supposedly going to a better place, but people just won't let them go. I have never really understood this other than to say that perhaps these folks feel more guilt for things they did or didn't do and therefore would rather see their loved ones remain alive even if they are suffering terribly.

I think that many supposed believers don't really believe at all.

For example, what percentage of Americans supposedly believe the Bible was written by God? And yet they don't even read the book. Bizarre.

You're a smart guy, but sometimes you're a dick. This is one of those time. Both of my parents are in their 80's and I'm saddened that their end is approaching. My sadness has absolutely nothing to do with the folly of religion.

[SoonerCoug]

You're a smart guy, but sometimes you're a dick. This is one of those time. Both of my parents are in their 80's and I'm saddened that their end is approaching. My sadness has absolutely nothing to do with the folly of religion.

I was talking about people putting their family member on a ventilator even when it is hopeless. I'm not a dick. People who torture their dying relatives are dicks. This sort of thing happens all the time. You should see the way many people die in this country--it's horrible. Families very frequently refuse to give up, even when it means their family members are suffering terribly. They will put a 95-year-old in the ICU on a ventilator, repeatedly insist on CPR (break all their ribs), and slowly watch them waste away for weeks. That's all I was saying. You're right--it isn't always tied to religion. But I have noticed that some of the most religious people also seem the least able to let their family members die peacefully. All I'm saying is that there is a right and a wrong way to handle these situations. I'm not saying people can't be sad about it.

I'm also saying that our society shields people from death to the point that it makes it more difficult for people to accept and cope.

[pellegrino]

IIRC, when people vote/sustain leadership, a ward's Relief Society president & counselors are proposed & sustained in Sacrament meetings.
The Elders Quorum leadership is proposed & sustained in the quorum.

Men get to vote on sustaining the women's leadership.
The women have no voice in sustaining the men's (other than the roll-call at Stake Conference).

They sustain their bishop and his counselors when they are called. The whole congregation does. In general, however, you are correct, other priesthood leadership positions are only sustained by their relevant quorums.

[Bo Diddley]

China is ~20% illiterate. Greater literacy will remedy this.



The awesome thing about science is that it is true even if you don't believe it. Not so with religion.



It sounds like you are opposed to human progress.

So God ceases to exist when people don't believe in him?

Does science ever really get to the truth? It seems an approximation, that is always being refined. Will science ever really lead to a knowledge of the absolute truth?

[byu71]

So God ceases to exist when people don't believe in him?

Does science ever really get to the truth? It seems an approximation, that is always being refined. Will science ever really lead to a knowledge of the absolute truth?

When I hear about that Teenage girl that was taken away from her parents in the Northeast U.S., I think of Sooner and the flawless accuracy of medical science.

[Solon]

So God ceases to exist when people don't believe in him?

Does science ever really get to the truth? It seems an approximation, that is always being refined. Will science ever really lead to a knowledge of the absolute truth?

The difference between science & faith isn't really the basis for belief or knowledge.
It's the willingness to adjust "knowledge" based on observable (and replicable) facts.
It's the recognition that knowledge is earned through logic & discussion & rational inquiry, not disseminated through irreproachable fiat by means of a priestly class.

Science recognizes that it doesn't have all the answers. Religion often does not.

[SoonerCoug]

So God ceases to exist when people don't believe in him?

Does science ever really get to the truth? It seems an approximation, that is always being refined. Will science ever really lead to a knowledge of the absolute truth?

Yes, science really does get to the truth. You're sitting there typing at a computer and seriously wondering about the answer to that question? You think the computer magically appeared there by the glory of God?

God help us all.

[Bo Diddley]

The difference between science & faith isn't really the basis for belief or knowledge.
It's the willingness to adjust "knowledge" based on observable (and replicable) facts.
It's the recognition that knowledge is earned through logic & discussion & rational inquiry, not disseminated through irreproachable fiat by means of a priestly class.

Science recognizes that it doesn't have all the answers. Religion often does not.

A very reasonable response.

Yes, science really does get to the truth. You're sitting there typing at a computer and seriously wondering about the answer to that question? You think the computer magically appeared there by the glory of God?

God help us all.

And you don't really answer my questions.

[San Juan Sun]

images-10.jpeg

[jay santos]

85t8y.jpg

[Moliere]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4038[/ATTACH]

Maybe I'm not up to speed, but chiasmus in the BoM seems to be one of those things that critics can only say was unconsciously included. Basically saying that Joseph (or whomever they think wrote it) got lucky that it turned out to be chiasmic in places. This is an incredibly weak argument. So what am I missing?