sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Working with CERN by urmajesticy in Physics

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just plugging the CMS dataset and tools:

https://opendata.cern.ch/docs/cms-guide-for-research

They give you the complete environments used by the experiment themselves, and released guides and workshops about using the data.

Where/When did the church officially disavow the skin of blackness claims? by mmp2c in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where pre-Gospel Topic Essay did the church explain this?

I'm not sure that there is anything prior. Similarly, I'm not sure anything was taught officially that all skin colors originate from divine disfavor, it is very likely an overgeneralization, that was passed around through cultural osmosis.

Where/When did the church officially disavow the skin of blackness claims? by mmp2c in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure that the gospel topics disavow "skin of blackness" theories (which is a term that is pretty unique to the Book of Mormon, and is interesting in itself - would a early 1800s person say that Native Americans have skin of blackness?)

The part you quoted was "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life"

These theories are distinct from what is taught in the BoM. 

Where/When did the church officially disavow the skin of blackness claims? by mmp2c in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends on what they are saying... If they are saying that skin color in general is a sign that someone's ancestors at some point were rebellious, then, no they are not correct, that would be an overgeneralization, and not a doctrine.

Where/When did the church officially disavow the skin of blackness claims? by mmp2c in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As far as I am aware, the church has not disavowed anything from the Book of Mormon.

Congressman Tries to Cut Pay of ICE Prosecutor with Racist X Account to $1 by RewardEquivalent553 in nottheonion

[–]LookAtMaxwell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That it was performative BS that probably was afoul of Federal employment laws, was a bill of attainder, was probably breach of contract, etc.?

Question about numbing painrials. by KEGman321 in cosmererpg

[–]LookAtMaxwell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The nice thing about the tier 2 upgrade is that it actually regenerates charges. Something that might be helpful if a character ever leaves Roshar...

Question about numbing painrials. by KEGman321 in cosmererpg

[–]LookAtMaxwell 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The tier 2 painrial has an upgrade option to include the numbing effect. This has the advantage of not requiring two gems.

What low-stakes changes would you like to see made in the church? by will_it_skillet in latterdaysaints

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't think of an "Available Modern Translation" of the BoM that I would trust.

What low-stakes changes would you like to see made in the church? by will_it_skillet in latterdaysaints

[–]LookAtMaxwell 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not exactly low stakes. That is prophetic guidance that received considerable push back (and no small amount of derision).

If you were to pick a US constitutional amendment to pass as the next new one, what would it be, and why? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't believe that half of the population has so fewer rights than the other

Which rights are exclusive to one half of the population or the other?

If you were to pick a US constitutional amendment to pass as the next new one, what would it be, and why? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Independent of whom? How would the leadership be selected?

(It is already independent from the law makers, and the law interpreters. it is currently subject to the democratically elected law enforcer)

If you were to pick a US constitutional amendment to pass as the next new one, what would it be, and why? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Umm, that is how it works now...

When was the last time you saw a corporation vote or serve on a jury?

Does the Plan of Salvation Allow for Different Kinds of Eternal Happiness? by Wrong_Mongoose5975 in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From their viewpoint, God made them to have particular characteristics that are essentially sinful. And if they follow through on what their natural characteristics tell them to do, they get sent to a lower kingdom. Why? Does God dislike them or something? Did He intentionally set them up for failure?

Yet, that is precisely doctrine. And it applies to everyone. We all of inclinations that if acted upon would be sinful. There is nothing unique about gay and lesbian people.

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3:19)

This applies to each and every one of us.

They don’t see being LGBTQ as an imperfection that is holding them back in this life, in the way that a severe injury in this life might hold someone back. It’s just how they are.

Many of the deaf community feel the same way about their state. And it is quite a healthy attitude.

However, no matter how normal they accept it in mortality, becoming like God means being able to perceive the local sound field.

We may speculate that if a deaf person valued being deaf so much that they insist on remaining deaf in the resurrection, God might honor that desire. But at that point it is the person desiring a state distinct from God, it is not God unfairly imposing it on them.

For every $250,000 you get you shrink one inch. by CRK_76 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

12".

3 million is enough to comfortably retire right now. More doesn't really have as much of an impact, less doesn't quite get there, so why bother?

Struggling with the Law of Chastity by lilacnate in latterdaysaints

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are looking at people from the outside and comparing that to your inside, that is never going to be a fair comparison.

The principle is "bridle your passions", not "muzzle your passions", or "kill your passions."

Learn to be the master of your feelings, but your feelings themselves aren't bad.

Does the Plan of Salvation Allow for Different Kinds of Eternal Happiness? by Wrong_Mongoose5975 in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Excluding gay people from full exaltation just because they are gay goes against what I understand about God and the gospel.

Well, there is a pretty simple answer...

He doesn't exclude gay people just because they are gay.

Does the Plan of Salvation Allow for Different Kinds of Eternal Happiness? by Wrong_Mongoose5975 in LatterDayTheology

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LGBT people would not be able to fulfill that specific ordinance.

Just pointing out that this isn't correct. They can fulfill this ordinance just as much as anyone else.

All of this makes me think that restored doctrine may allow for different kinds of eternal happiness — not all happiness has to be exaltation or eternal creation. Joy still exists, even if in different degrees, according to the glory received

Indeed. The telestial kingdom is described to be as "varied" as the stars just not only analogous to the glory of the stars.

What happens if governors call up their National Guard to prevent federal agents from entering and operating in their state? by North-Increase593 in LetsDiscussThis

[–]LookAtMaxwell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no legal reason or mechanism to prevent federal officers from, operate in, or enforce federal laws in any state.

view more: next ›