[ZION] Einstein and religion

[Stephen Beecroft]

Allow me to come back here just long enough to tell you about a link I 
found while researching some work (no, really).  Someone here was 
writing about the idea that "God is dead" and related things about 
20th-century beliefs and disbeliefs.  I found a link wherein Albert 
Einstein discusses some ideas about a personal God and such.  His words 
are sixty or seventy or more years old, but I still hear their themes 
underlying the words of a great many irreligious people, so I thought 
they might be relevant:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

I've said it before:  As a philosopher, Einstein was one heck of a 
physicist.  Back to my happy exile.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Genetic Republicans

[Stephen Beecroft]

> I have an amazing tolerance for perversity, which perhaps
> explains why I abide your insufferable sanctimony with grin
> and a groan.

My friends, I've had enough of taking (and witnessing) abuse in what is 
supposed to be a friendly forum.  If I were more mature, I would follow 
the example of Tom, Jim, Johnna, and a few others, and ignore it, 
seeking instead to help those who promulgate such hatefulness.  But I'm 
not, so there you are.  Sincere best wishes to the many here whom I 
consider friends.  See you around.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Genetic Republicans

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN

This is about as funny as the Hillary Clinton joke posted a few days 
ago, and in about as good taste.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Martha Stewart Guilty

[Stephen Beecroft]

-JWR-
> Martha Stewart is guilty on all counts.

On all remaining counts, perhaps.  Several (the most serious, I think) 
were dismissed a week or two ago.

I think it's a pity.  If she's guilty, then she needs to pay the 
penalty, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence.  I think it was 
part witch-hunt to put the successful woman down, part cautionary tale 
to other Rich & Famous People that "We Will Come After You Too".

Appeal doubtless to follow.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Cool Riddle

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jonathan-
> Name something that is better than God, that dead people eat
> all of the time, and that if you eat it you will die?

I think I know it, but I ain't guessin' nuthin' 'less you ask me to.

Stephen

(Fast Sunday coming up)

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] The Return of the King

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Tilly-
> Last winter I decided to take the Beecroft challenge and see
> what really was in Pride and Prejudice

Till!  I'm flattered.  And glad to hear you enjoyed it, eventually at 
least.

> Her style has to grow on you, I guess.

Orson Scott Card, LDS writer of fiction/science fiction/fantasy, has 
complained that most present-day authors eschew developing the character 
of "good guys" because, as they claim, bad guys are "more interesting".  
Card maintains that the good guys are actually far more interesting, and 
that evil is essentially banal.  That is exactly the viewpoint I get 
from Austen novels.  Her protagonists are interesting, engaging, 
honorable if flawed, while the antagonists are ultimately revealed to be 
veneer-thin and distastefully similar in their smallness.  Or that's my 
view of things.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] The Return of the King

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Tom-
> I found the Tolkein movie that I watched (something about rings
> I think)

Just curious if there's a Tolkien movie that isn't "about rings"...

> to be a tiresome road movie where the heroes kept getting into
> impossible situations for no apparent reason and then being
> rescued in the best Greek tragedy tradition by deux ex machina.

Not sure why you find _deus ex machina_ to be "tiresome", though in any 
case I disagree that much if any of the conflict resolution in Tolkien's 
writings qualifies as such.  (Qualifies as _deus ex machina_, I mean.  I 
won't argue about matters of taste, like whether a given story is 
tiresome.)  As for "getting into impossible situations for no apparent 
reason", you may have to give some examples to clue in those of us who 
don't know what you're referring to.

> The Potter stuff is similar, but at least mildly entertaining,

Apparently there are a few others, here and there, who find the Tolkien 
movies "at least mildly entertaining".

> I just prefer reading Narnia and having the challenge of sorting
> out the strong Christian symbols running around the outside of
> the storyline.

Allegory is certainly much easier on the reader, as long as he shares 
with the author the underlying knowledge necessary to interpret the 
allegory correctly.  Tolkien, though himself a devoted Christian (in 
fact, he converted C. S. Lewis, if I recall correctly), explicitly 
denied any allegorical intent in his writings.  The result is that the 
reader has to work a little harder, dig a little deeper, and try to 
understand his symbolism within the framework the author used to 
construct the fable -- which in essence is what Tolkien's so-called 
"trilogy" is.

Granted, not everyone enjoys such a mental workout.  They get little 
reward for their efforts, and thus find it tiresome.  Maybe that is what 
you were referring to, though since you were commenting on the recent 
movie version and not the books, I really don't know.  But I do know 
that since beginning to reread Tolkien in my forty-first year, I have 
been immensely enjoying the depth of imagery and texture of narrative 
that quite escaped the notice of my half-aged self two decades ago.  I 
certainly enjoy allegory as much as the next fellow, but my respect for 
Tolkien has deepened.

However, if the movie adaptations have left you with the sour taste of a 
contrived-resolution road movie, you perhaps ought not to waste your 
time reading the books.  I can only imagine what the spectre of Tom 
Bombadil would do to your blood pressure.

Hey, I'm Tom Bombadil, Tommy Bom-bom-ba-dil-lo!
My head is a sieve, and my brain is like Bril-lo!
I dance and I sing, and I sing and I dance!
I'm a jolly old godling in search of my pants!

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Very cold news sources

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> network of stringers in virtually every berg in the world.

Enjoying the mental picture of CNN correspondents huddled, shivering, on 
various icebergs floating around the north Atlantic...

A visiting Asian* seated himself on an airplane next to the window, and 
was shortly joined by a man wearing a yarmukle.  This second man kept 
glancing over at the first with an unmistakeably hostile air.  Finally, 
after they had taken off, the man with the yarmukle turned to the Asian 
and said, "I just want you to know that I will never forgive what you 
Chinese did to us at Pearl Harbor."  Stunned, the Asian sat in silence 
for a few moments, then finally said, "It wasn't the Chinese that 
attacked Pearl Harbor; it was the Japanese.  In any case, I'm neither 
Chinese nor Japanese.  I'm Korean."  The other man replied, "Chinese, 
Japanese, Korean, what's the difference?", and turned smugly away.

They sat in silence for a few more minutes, whereupon the Asian said to 
his seatmate, "I just want you to know that I will never forgive what 
you Pennsylvania Dutch Jews did to the Titanic."  The Jewish man looked 
askance at the Asian and said, "Don't be an idiot.  The Pennsylvania 
Dutch aren't Jews, and in any case, it was an iceberg that sank the 
Titanic."  The Asian replied, "Goldberg, Pittsburg, iceberg, what's the 
difference?"

Stephen

*I learned a short while ago that the term "Oriental" is now considered 
offensive, unless you're talking about restaurants ("Oriental food" is 
still acceptable, at least for the time being).  The preferred term is 
"Asian", which seems rather vague to me -- are we talking about Arabs, 
or Slavs, or Jews, or...?

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Sons of Perdition

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> I love the way some of you apply gospel doctrine in your lives.
> Amazing.

I've gotta tell you, Ron, that I've been thinking exactly the same thing 
while reading your posts to this list for the last week.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] "Mother" Teresa

[Stephen Beecroft]

Christopher Hitchens hates "Mother" Teresa.  This is not a secret.  
Given some of Hitchens' proclivities, I am not necessarily prone to 
uncritical acceptance of his viewpoint, but the man is very intelligent 
and, I think, makes a few good points.  (Not that I know enough about 
the issues to make an informed judgment.)  Given the praise of "Mother" 
Teresa taking place when I first returned to this list a few weeks back, 
I thought some might find this piece interesting, even despite its URL:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/

Excerpt:

"MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said 
that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only 
known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the 
emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory 
reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking 
misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose 
rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln 
Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? 
The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it 
always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick 
herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have 
her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred 
countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is 
modesty and humility?

"The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to 
alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like 
an activist for 'the poorest of the poor.' People do not like to admit 
that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth 
was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any 
follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back 
abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice 
of the 'Missionaries of Charity,' but they had no audience for their 
story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints 
should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a 
Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda."

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] "

[Stephen Beecroft]

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] Hai karate?

[Stephen Beecroft]

About seventeen years ago, I lived at BYU with my cousin in a big old 
yellow polygamist house in Provo (5th East and 7th North, across the 
street from the laundromat there) that had been divided into four 
apartments.  The smallest of those apartments was inhabited by a guy who 
taught ninjutsu, that is, ninja stuff.  Really.  He and his students 
(eight or so) would take large, sneaky steps around the yard with a 
three-foot sword tucked into their sash, slitting imaginary throats and 
throwing ninja stars at the tree trunks.  Sometimes they wore those 
little face-hiding scarves.  My cousin and I always felt safer knowing 
we lived by a ninja, and it had some entertainment value, as well.

So my question is: Does anyone on this list do martial arts-type stuff?  
Any ninjas, or karate kids, or judo choppers, or boxers, or Muay Thai 
kickboxers?  Any of that stuff actually work in a practical self-defense 
situation?  My kids took aikido for a while, which was very fun for them 
and all, but got way too expensive for us, and I never thought it looked 
very useful for any actual self-defense purposes.  Anyone care to 
educate me?

Samurai Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] My intro

[Stephen Beecroft]

Who am I?

Think back to high school.  Remember the coolest kid there?  He was 
incredibly smart, but so athletic that the jocks wanted to hang with him 
anyway.  He was so good-looking that the cheerleaders all wanted to date 
him, but his girlfriend was the friendly but shy girl with braces that 
no one (besides him) ever noticed was beautiful until she was a senior.  
He was the guy who was always nice to freshmen, even geeky ones; who 
didn't back down to any of the bullies, even when they were bugging 
others instead of him; who got along with all the teachers and the 
administrators, but still managed to be everyone's favorite person.  
Every parent wanted their daughter to date him and their son to be just 
like him.  He was voted Most Likely To Succeed, and at your 20-year 
reunion, he was the one to show up with his old girlfriend (now wife) 
with pictures of their ten children and an agreeable and understated 
manner belying his twenty-million-dollar profit from selling off his 
biotech company, which you read about in _The Economist_ a couple of 
months ago.

Remember that guy?

Now remember his socially-inept, clumsy, nerdy little zit-faced brother 
who stammered a lot and wet his pants during the sex ed segment of 
Health class?  That's me.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Dungeons and Dragons

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Cousin Bill-
> It decided I would be a Chaotic Good Half-Elf Bard.

-JWR-
> I'm a neutral, good, human, fighter, ranger.

I'm a confused bipolar half-Romulan smuggler accountant.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Nehors - was: Unconditional Love

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> Ah, the Church of Ezra resurrects itself. Who is its profit: Reed?

I don't understand this.  Why would the prophet's words in General 
Conference constitute the "Church of Ezra"?  And why would Reed Benson 
be called its "profit"?  While I don't know Reed Benson personally, I 
have had a few dealings with him, and he has always struck me as being 
very honest and open, not someone who goes about seeking to cash in on 
his father's name or position.

Or have I misinterpreted your comments?  Sorry if that's the case; maybe 
you can clarify them for me.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Whom God hateth

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stephen-
> However, as I pointed out, the very wording of the scriptural
> verses I cited shows that God hates the person or people being
> named<

[Note that I believe you were replying to an earlier, erroneously-sent 
version of my email.  Possibly I expressed myself somewhat more clearly 
in the later version.]

-Ron-
> Really? Would God hate the man if the man repented of his sins?
> I think not.

Agreed.

> Ditto the rest of your citations.

Sorry, I'm missing your meaning.  Ditto in what way?  That God would 
cease to hate the repentant individual in each case?  As I mentioned 
above, I agree with you on this point.

> Glossifying the scriptures is very human. Even you indulge.

Moi?  Shirley ewe jest.  (In fact, I think assigning such glosses is 
almost unavoidable in mortality, and I'm certainly as mortal as anyone.  
The best we can do is remain conscious of this failing and try to stem 
it where possible.)

> I noticed you have not mentioned the oft-quoted advice: "love
> the sinner, hate the sin."

And good advice it is.  But I was seeking to establish the specific 
point that the scriptures teach that God does indeed hate some 
individuals, and try to establish the larger point Elder Nelson 
addressed, that God's love is not unconditional.  So the good advice you 
quote above didn't seem germane.

> Such, I think, underscores the point I tried to make.

Then perhaps we're trying to make different points.  If your point is 
that God loves us struggling sinners despite our wretched state, I think 
you've succeeded -- though I doubt anyone here disagreed with you to 
begin with.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Repentance from adultery (was: RE: Is God's Love Unconditional?)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Grampa Bill-
> Not at all certain of this, but it appears that this might be 
> instruction rather than doctrine.

In this matter, I would be much more inclined to trust the understanding 
of a bishop/former bishop than my own.  (Especially since my 
understanding of this principle is, as I mentioned, pretty shaky to 
begin with.)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] Definitions (was: RE: Eternal Life vs. Immortality)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> To me, immortality and eternal life have the same meaning. Your
> definition of "immortality" is mine for "salvatation."  Yours
> for "eternal life" is mine for "exaltation."

I think you meant "salivation".  ;)~ <--(drool)

This points up once again that which I personally believe to be the 
basis for almost all philosophical pondering:  The definition of words.  
Obviously, we must have common word definitions in order to communicate. 
 Almost as obviously, the Lord has historically used existing words in a 
given language to represent concepts that are actually above or beyond 
the accepted meaning of the word; witness "eternal life", a state which 
we believe comes to those who have died.

I believe this is the case with God's "hatred" of sinful and unrepentant 
individuals.  Some object to the term "hate", thinking that somehow it 
lessens God's majesty or perfection to "hate" anyone or anything; or 
perhaps they're afraid that if perfect love does not preclude hatred, 
maybe God won't love them.  As I wrote before, I don't understand the 
psychological reasons, even in myself, that people have such a strong 
reaction to the clear scriptural teaching that God's love is 
conditional.  Nor do I believe that God's hatred of the unrepentant 
wicked is spiritually similar to my hatred of that mean bully who picked 
on me in school when I was a boy.  But still, God uses the word "hate" 
to represent his feelings, so I don't think we're authorized to correct 
him on that point.

As to your specific example of eternal life vs. immortality, I believe 
current prophetic usage of the terms has established that eternal life 
== exaltation, while immortality == resurrection.  You may hold private 
definitions, of course, but in public conversation one generally reverts 
to the established meanings.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Repentance from adultery (was: RE: Is God's Love Unconditional?)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> But a more important question: Why do people on ZION focus so
> intently on such things -- judging others in particular --
> anyway?  Who authorizes us to hold people to "artificial
> standards" that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do
> with the gospel Christ taught and can not be applied uniformly
> across the church organization?  What useful purpose is served?

I'm certainly not qualified to speak for anyone on this list other than 
myself.  In my case, my intent was not to judge others or hold anyone to 
standards, artifical or otherwise.  It was simply an attempt to address 
John's challenge to substantiate what he called a "three strikes and 
you're out" rule.  The useful purpose being served is, I suppose, the 
clarification of doctrinal misunderstanding and the building of 
friendship and fellowship through conversation.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Whom God hateth

[Stephen Beecroft]

(Sorry about sending off that last one early)

-Stephen-
> Still, God has seen fit to represent his feeling as hatred, so
> I don't think we have much business telling him he's wrong.

-Ron-
> After reading the scriptures you cited that God's hatred is of
> the "deeds" a man commits.

You may gloss the scriptures however you choose, of course, as we  
probably all do at times.  However, the very wording  of the scriptural 
verses I cited indicates that God hates the person or people being 
named, and not merely the evil deeds; to wit:

(Helaman 15:4) But behold my brethren, THE LAMANITES HATH HE [GOD] HATED 
because their deeds have been evil continually, and this because of the 
iniquity of the tradition of their fathers.

(Malachi 1:2-3, cited in Romans 9:13) "I have loved you, saith the LORD. 
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? 
saith the LORD: YET I LOVED JACOB, AND I HATED ESAU, and laid his 
mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

(Proverbs 6:16-19) These six things DOTH THE LORD HATE: yea, seven are 
an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that 
shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet 
that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh 
lies, and HE THAT SOWETH DISCORD AMONG BRETHREN.

[NB: Let us hope we are not sowing discord among ourselves!]

(Psalm 5:5) The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: THOU HATEST ALL 
WORKERS OF INIQUITY.

(Psalm 11:5) The LORD trieth the righteous: BUT THE WICKED AND HIM THAT 
LOVETH VIOLENCE HIS SOUL HATETH.

(JST Psalm 11:5) Behold his eyelids shall try the children of men, and 
he shall redeem the righteous, and they shall be tried. The Lord loveth 
the righteous, BUT THE WICKED, AND HIM THAT LOVETH VIOLENCE, HIS SOUL 
HATETH.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Whom God hateth

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stephen-
> Still, God has seen fit to represent his feeling as hatred, so
> I don't think we have much business telling him he's wrong.

-Ron-
> After reading the scriptures you cited that God's hatred is of
> the "deeds" a man commits.

You may gloss the scriptures however you choose, of course, as we 
probably all do at times.  However, as I pointed out, the very wording 
of the scriptural verses I cited shows that God hates the person or 
people being named:

(Helaman 15:4) "But behold my brethren, the 
Lamanites hath he [God] hated because their deeds have been evil 
continually, and this because of the iniquity of the tradition of their 
fathers". Malachi employs the same type of usage in Malachi 1:2-3 
(cited in Romans 9:13): "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, 
Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the 
LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and 
his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

I also found a proverb (Proverbs 6:16) and two psalms (Psalm 5:5 and 
Psalm 11:5) that speak of the Lord hating the wicked. This last psalm 
is particularly interesting, because there is a Joseph Smith translation 

of it that reaffirms the Lord's hatred of the wicked and those who love 
violence:

JST Psalm 11:5: "Behold his eyelids shall try the children of men, and 
he shall redeem the righteous, and they shall be tried. The Lord loveth 
the righteous, but the wicked, and him that loveth violence, his soul 
hateth."

> 

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] Repentance from adultery (was: RE: Is God's Love Unconditional?)

[Stephen Beecroft]

John W. Redelfs wrote:
> 
> 
-Harold-
> It's also true that there is a limited number of times one can
> repent of adultery.

-JWR-
> I've heard this before, but I was challenged on it by the wife
> of our mission president.  I tried to prove the "three times and
> you are out" rule, and I was unable to.  Perhaps you can do
> better than I can.  --JWR

I always thought it was "twice and you're out" -- that is, you can 
repent of adultery once, but not twice.  I suppose this is based on D&C 
42:25-26: "But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his 
heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; But 
if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out."

The reason for this is a bit fuzzier.  As it was explained to me at the 
time, it has to do with repentence from covenant-breaking (which is 
scripturally known as adultery).  The idea seems to be that one can 
forsake his covenants one time without truly understanding what he is 
doing, but that doing so again constitutes a denial of the Holy Ghost.  
I know of no exact scriptural justification for this idea of repentence, 
though.  Just what I was told many years ago.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] Whom God hateth

[Stephen Beecroft]

-JWR-
> I went looking for some scriptural evidence that God ever hates
> any of his children, and my cursory survey did not turn up
> anything.  Am I missing something?  Surely God hates wickedness,
> but does he hate the wicked?  He hates sin, but does he hate
> sinners?  Perhaps you could point me to some scripture where
> the object of God's hatred---and yes I do believe in a God who
> hates---is a person rather than a concept or behavior.

The one that came to mind was Helaman 15:4: "But behold my brethren, the 
Lamanites hath he [God] hated because their deeds have been evil 
continually, and this because of the iniquity of the tradition of their 
fathers".  Malachi employs the same type of usage in Malachi 1:2-3 
(cited in Romans 9:13): "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, 
Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the 
LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and 
his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

I also found a proverb (Proverbs 6:16) and two psalms (Psalm 5:5 and 
Psalm 11:5) that speak of the Lord hating the wicked.  This last psalm 
is particularly interesting, because there is a Joseph Smith translation 
of it that reaffirms the Lord's hatred of the wicked and those who love 
violence:

JST Psalm 11:5: "Behold his eyelids shall try the children of men, and 
he shall redeem the righteous, and they shall be tried. The Lord loveth 
the righteous, but the wicked, and him that loveth violence, his soul 
hateth."

The context can be seen from reading the psalm from the beginning; 
Joseph retranslated verses 1-5, which can be read on page 800 in the JST 
section in the back of the LDS edition of the Bible.

God's love is so far above our mortal idea of love, so much greater, 
deeper, and more encompassing, that even calling it "love" is but a 
faint echo of its reality.  But we do the best we can with the tools 
(words, in this case) that we have.  Similarly, God's hatred is far 
beyond our petty mortal ideas of hatred, so much stronger, deeper, and 
more powerful, that "hatred" probably does not begin to describe the 
Godly emotion being portrayed.  Still, God has seen fit to represent his 
feeling as hatred, so I don't think we have much business telling him 
he's wrong.  In any case, I don't find God's hatred of the wicked to be 
a particularly ennobling concept, so I don't spend much time dwelling on 
it.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] Conditional divine love

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ron-
> God's love is unconditional, according to Hinckley (many sources).

What are some of those sources?

For some reason, this topic generates a great deal of emotion in people 
on both sides of the issue.  I fail to understand why, even in myself, 
such emotions arise.  The quality of God's love does not depend upon 
whether I understand it correctly or not.  So what's at stake?  Will the 
answer make God love me more or less?  Clearly, the existence of reality 
does not depend on my perception of it.

It seems to me that the scriptures are quite clear and consistent in 
teaching that God's love is indeed conditional.  Nowhere in scripture do 
I find indication that God's love is "unconditional".  Many places in 
scripture do I find indications that God's love is quite conditional.  
If this is a difficult doctrine for some to accept and understand, does 
that make it any less true or profound?

Let us suppose for a moment that Ron's distinction is correct; that is, 
God's love for us is unconditional, but his blessings to us are not.  
What, then, constitutes "God's love" for us?  Does it mean how fondly he 
thinks of us when we pray to him?  How much his pulse rate increases 
when we grow or diminish?  I can't think of any clear meaning for the 
phrase "God's love" in such a case.

In fact, I submit that stating that "God's love" is "unconditional" 
makes the phrase itself meaningless.  So God loves me just like he loves 
Jesus Christ and Satan, and he continues loving me in the exact same 
manner whether I strive toward exaltation or greedily fall into 
depravity?  In that case, who cares about God's love?  It's a constant, 
like gravity.  We may be thankful for it in some academic or theoretical 
sense, but it has absolutely no applicability to us in everyday things.  
So if I believe God's love to be "unconditional", I must also believe it 
to be pretty much irrelevant to my life -- in which case, why would I 
care if someone states that God's love is conditional?  Since it doesn't 
affect me anyway, what's the problem?

> As I said, you getting the two concepts mixed up.  You're making
> synoymns of "unconditional love" and "divine blessings."

Then I suggest the scriptures also "mix up" these two concepts, because 
divine blessings are consistently represented as an indication of God's 
love, while divine cursings or divine deafness evidences God's 
disinclination toward or hatred of a people.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Wish List

[Stephen Beecroft]

-JWR-
> You may be getting this news late, but Marc Schindler passed
> away in his sleep a little more than a week ago.  I will miss
> him terribly.  He was a real pillar of the Zion list.

Yes, I had heard.  In fact, I resubbed to Zion a while ago to express my 
condolences.  I figured if we were making a "wish" list, though, I could 
wish as I wished...

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Apostate Cat

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Tom-
> The version of my poem that you have posted was a reworked version
> by Stephen Beecroft.

Please disregard my previous post.  ;)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Wish List

[Stephen Beecroft]

-JWR-
> I am compiling a wish list of people I miss, people that I wish
> would actively participate on the list.  Would any of you care to
> help me make my wish list?

Any such list would be doubtless incomplete, but in addition to those 
you've listed, I would have to add (of course) Marc Schindler, as well 
as Chris Grant (a worthwhile addition to any list) and Greg Prince (who 
probably didn't fit in here as well as some others politically, but who 
always had thoughtful posts and compelling ideas).

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Apostate Cat

[Stephen Beecroft]

-JWR-
> Since it is one of my favorites.  I dug this out of my archives:
> 
> The Apostate Cat by Tom Matkin

Actually, this is my recast version of Tom's poem, which was a bit freer 
and less versificated.  I would hate for Tom to get blamed for my 
pedantry. :)  I used it as a practice piece to see if I could impose 
some structure, and rather fancied the result.  I don't have Tom's 
original, but I can write to him to get it, unless someone else has it.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] About Marc

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Steven-
> I think highly of you too. Are you sure you don't want to
> reconsider and be a part of ZION again?

Steven, I'm flattered that you even remember me.  My good friend John 
has asked that I return, as well.  Guess he thought there wasn't enough 
bickering on the list...  As you might be able to tell from my delayed 
response, I have very little time these days for online correspondence, 
but I will keep my Zion membership active and see if I can contribute 
occasionally.  Thanks for the warm welcome.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

[ZION] About Marc

[Stephen Beecroft]

Dear friends,

I've resubscribed so that I might express to you my sense of loss at 
Marc Schindler's passing.  I did not always treat Marc with the respect 
he deserved or give adequate weight to his opinions in some matters; 
shamefully, I used this very forum more than once to express my 
displeasure at him.  In fact, I thought very highly of Marc and learned 
much from him, not just about history and politics but about email 
communication, maturity, and tolerance for diverse and seeming 
wrong-headed opinions.  As I wrote to Marc's father and brother and a 
few other people, this world is a better place for Marc's having lived 
in it, and I only hope the same can be said for each of us when our time 
comes to leave this sphere.

I've offended many of you with my insensitive blundering, or my sharp 
tongue, or my occasional sarcasm, or my strange sense of humor that 
often sounds like sarcasm.  For that, I apologize and ask your 
forgiveness.  Though I am no longer a part of this forum, I have fond 
memories of it and its participants, and sincerely wish you the best.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^

RE: [ZION] Conditional divine love

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Elder Nelson-
> "Divine love is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal. The
> full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that
> love are conditional -- predicated upon our obedience to eternal
> law."

-George-
> Stephen, this statement seems to negate your earlier idea that
> love is conditional.

Not sure why you say that. Elder Nelson's sentence that you quoted above 
plainly reads, "The full flower of divine love [...] [is] conditional". 
Other phrases that I quoted before include:

"[D]ivine love [...] cannot correctly be characterized as 
unconditional."

"[M]any verses [...] declare the conditional nature of divine love for 
us."

"[D]ivine love and blessings are not truly 'unconditional'"

> It seems to me that Love from our Father and our Savior is
> unconditional

Elder Nelson appears not to agree.

> The blessing may be conditional, but surely not the love.

Elder Nelson does not make that distinction.

> If Elder Nelson said any different than that I would be
> disappointed, but I will read the article.

Hope you enjoy it. Please don't be disappointed, though. It might turn 
out that he's just restating in different words something you already 
believe. If he really is teaching something different, then rejoice that 
we have leaders who can teach us such important "fine points".

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^

RE: [ZION] Conditional divine love

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Geoff-
> I guess in order to clear up the semantics issue, we would need
> to turn to the scriptures and words of the prophets and
> determine how / when they use the term "unconditional love".

Agreed. I'm quite sure you'll find the term absent from scripture. 
However, as you note, other (and recent or current) leaders have used 
the very term. Yet Elder Nelson says it's false.

How to rectify the two? Well, we could try some sort of "seniority" 
argument, but I personally think that's baloney. Here's my 
rectification, fwiw: The term "unconditional love" is well-known and 
evokes a certain emotional reaction. People have a sort of gut-level 
understanding of that feeling. I believe Elder Maxwell and the others 
who used the term "unconditional love" were probably attempting to rouse 
that "gut-level reaction", rather than making a philosophical commentary 
on the nature of divine love. On the other hand, Elder Nelson was very 
specifically making exactly such a philosophical commentary.

For that reason, my resolution is to accept the words of Elder Maxwell 
and others in the spirit in which I believe they were intended, similar 
in meaning to what Elder Nelson calls "divine love", while accepting 
Elder Nelson's clear teachings at absolute face value.

> Here is the real kicker - does God still love Lucifer? What about
> the Sons of Perdition?

Not sure why this is such an issue for many people, though I know it is. 
I don't pretend to speak for God or how he feels about this or that 
topic; nevertheless, according to any meaningful scriptural definition 
of "love", it seems clear to me that God does not and in fact cannot 
love Satan. God is merciful, of course, and since he embodies mercy, he 
will show to Satan and his followers as much mercy as he can, which 
basically means confining them to a kingdom of no glory. But "love" in 
any true, saving, exalting sense of the word cannot be a trait that 
Satan evokes in any heart. Revulsion, abhorrence, perhaps pity, even 
mercy, but not love.


> The other question is this: Does divine love encompass the command
> to forgive all men? Are we to love those who hurt, abuse, and
> murder us with divine love or unconditional love?

I assume the two are intimately related, though I don't pretend to 
understand the connection exactly.

Interesting discussion.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^

RE: [ZION] Conditional divine love

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Geoff-
> Great post! According to the prophets, then it appears that there
> are actually two types of love:
> 1. Divine love
> 2. Unconditional love
> They are not one and the same. However, it is true that our
> Heavenly Father has and exercises both, and that we are
> commanded to do likewise. Would you agree?

Not quite, I don't think. While it is true that "God is love", it is not 
true that "Love is God". That is, "love" is not an overriding or 
ultimate principle wherein everything and everyone is loved. I believe 
that "unconditional love" is nothing more than a linguistic construct. I 
think it's false as a concept, nonexistent, nonsensical, without 
meaning, just like "sinful God" or "miserable exaltation" are 
nonsensical and meaningless. All love, even God's love, is conditioned 
or predicated upon the laws set forth (by God) that govern it. Parents 
may think the love for their child is boundless and unconditional; but 
let that child turn against the parents and everything they have stood 
for and tried to build, and actively seek their destruction, the 
destruction of their other children, and the desecration of all that the 
parents consider holy, and the parents, while mourning their child's 
loss and hoping for his return, are likely to find that their love is 
conditional after all.

In this vein, I don't think we're commanded to exercise "unconditional 
love", which wouldn't even make any sense anyway if that term is an 
oxymoron. I think we're commanded to love as God loves, but as Elder 
Nelson pointed out, divine love is not "unconditional". We are commanded 
to forgive all men, and to show forth the love of Christ; but I don't 
think this means any sort of "unconditional love". Admittedly, like all 
philosophical discussions, this becomes a matter of defition and 
semantics.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^

[ZION] Conditional divine love

[Stephen Beecroft]

Some time ago on this very list (probably its incarnation on zilker.net 
or some other pre-Topica server), a rather heated discussion -- imagine 
that! -- arose regarding, of all topics, God's love. Some of us claimed 
that the scriptures clearly teach that God's love is conditional, given 
to some more than to others, and dependent in its intensity on the 
actions and heart of the recipient; while others steadfastly maintained 
that God's love is unconditional, that he loves the rankest, vilest 
sinner just as much as he loves the most virtuous of men and women.

I thus find it interesting that this month's Ensign includes an article 
by Elder Nelson extolling the *conditional* nature of God's love. I 
definitely recommend the article to all, which starts on page 20 of the 
February 2003 Ensign. Some relevant quotations follow:

"While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and 
universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as *unconditional*." 
[emphasis in original]

"With scriptural patterns of conditional statements in mind, we note 
many verses that declare the conditional nature of divine love for us. 
Examples include: [John 15:10; D&C 95:12; John 14:23; Proverbs 8:17; 
Acts 10:34-35; 1 Nephi 17:40; John 14:21]"

"Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly 
'unconditional' can defend us against common fallacies such as these: 
'Since God's love is unconditional, He will love me regardless...'; or 
'Since ''God is love,'' He will love me unconditionally, regardless...' 
These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception."

"Divine love is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal. The full 
flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are 
conditional -- predicated upon our obedience to eternal law."

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^

[ZION] You're back!

[Stephen Beecroft]

Missed me, huh?

I knew you couldn't stay away for long.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

[Stephen Beecroft]

-George-
> When God created this universe

-Jon-
> He did not create this universe. He caused it to be organized.
> Big difference!

-Stephen-
> The prophets and the scriptures are unanimous in declaring that
> God did, indeed, create the heavens and the earth. "Cause to be
> organized" is what "create" means, just like when you create an
> email or a songwriter creates a song. George is right in his usage.

-Jon-
> Sorry, but your stating a specific definition does not make it so.

Nor does your so stating. So let's use a neutral, reliable third party's 
definition. How do the scriptures use the term "create"? How do the 
prophets use it? What does the dictionary say? (American or Canadian, 
your choice.)

> The prophets and the scriptures tell me something different than
> they tell you.

Impossible. One of us must not be hearing correctly. And since the 
scriptures clearly state the God "created" the heavens and the earth, in 
this case I don't think I'm the one with the earwax buildup...

Q-Tips, anyone?

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Worship Christ

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Paul-
> there are times in my life when I sneak a prayer to Jesus only
> without thinking of the Father. I wouldn't teach this at the
> church pulpit, or what not, but I am telling my friends (you) in
> private that sometimes (not often) I just want to focus my
>  thoughts on Christ alone and tell him that I love him and need
> him-- he is my brother. This tone does come from the Book of
> Mormon.

I don't know if this is appropriate or not. I rather suspect not, based 
on Christ's teachings and the example set by our leaders, but I am not 
sure. Note that in the Book of Mormon, they only prayed to Christ 
directly when he was physically standing in front of them, as he himself 
pointed out (3 Ne 19:22: "Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost 
because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me 
because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and THEY PRAY UNTO ME 
BECAUSE I AM WITH THEM").

-Jon-
> Ya know, now that you mention it, I don't think that there is
> anything wrong with having a little talk with Christ.  The
> gratitude I am certain we all feel for Christ and what He did
> for us is well beyond anything that I can express in words.

Are we then also justified in praying to our celestial Mother? I don't 
believe so; people who have taught this particualr thing have been 
excommunicated for apostasy. Perhaps praying to Jesus is somehow 
entirely different. But to my small mind, our prayers are directed to 
the Father and to him alone. If Jesus comes to visit me, I'll pray to 
him; otherwise, I think it's probably not appropriate.

That's just my viewpoint, of course. Do whatever you feel right about 
doing.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

[ZION] Unsolicited, irrelevant opinion

[Stephen Beecroft]

IMO:

Topica is no worse than many other free mailing-list services, and is 
better than many. Its downtime is actually relatively small, all things 
considered. Zion has a history on Topica that now stretches back three 
and a half years -- quite a long time in Internet-speak. Finally, if the 
Topica Zion list is abandoned and deleted, all messages in the archive 
will be lost. I know of no good way to retrieve those from Topica 
beforehand. Now perhaps I overestimate the worth of those archives; I 
just know I find them useful. Personally, I'd rather stay with Topica, 
and probably will not move over with the list. But that's just my 
opinion, not worth the electrons it's printed with.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

[Stephen Beecroft]

-George-
> When God created this universe

-Jon-
> He did not create this universe. He caused it to be organized.
> Big difference!

The prophets and the scriptures are unanimous in declaring that God did, 
indeed, create the heavens and the earth. "Cause to be organized" is 
what "create" means, just like when you create an email or a songwriter 
creates a song. George is right in his usage.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Worship Christ

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Paul-
> What do you mean we don't worship Christ? I worship Jesus Christ
> and so do the prophets of every dispensation. [...] I agree with
> you on this John and submit the following to Marc which I think
> shows that we must worship Christ as well as his Father and not
> just in name only: [...]

Bruce R. McConkie, BYU Devotional speech, 2 March 1982:

 "Let us set forth those doctrines and concepts that a gracious
 God has given to us in this day and which must be understood in
 order to gain eternal life. They are: 

 "1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else. 

 "We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost.
 I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping
 Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely
 different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being
 reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in
 the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the
 Creator."

I don't believe Elder McConkie's teachings on the topic conflict with 
the other quotations you provided, and it does clearly teach that we do 
not worship Christ in the same sense as we worship the Father. I can't 
speak for Marc, of course (heaven forbid I try!), and truthfully I don't 
even remember the context of what he said; but in my mind this teaching 
gives validity to the doctrine that we don't worship Christ. At this 
point, I think it's all a matter of definition.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Article in "Science" on genetic diversity

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> Within-population differences among individuals account for 93
> to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups
> constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior
> information about the origins of individuals, we identified
> six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major
> geographic regions, and subsclusters that often correspond to
> individual populations.

What?! Is this suggesting the outrageous proposition that 
commonly-defined racial characteristics are  genetically based?

> General agreement of genetic and predefined populations
> suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate
> assessments of epidemiological risks

Wow. I guess it is. Who would have believed such a counterintuitive 
idea? (Besides myself and most of the adult population of the western 
world, I mean.)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] can't be a sealer

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Paul-
> No one got back on the subject of why a man can't be a sealer in
> the temple if he has been divorced even by no fault of his own.

I don't know why. I don't think it matters. Being a sealer is not a 
right, and in the strict sense is not even a privilege. It is a calling, 
just like being a gospel doctrine teacher or a bishop or an apostle. We 
don't control our callings. We merely accept them as they come. If the 
Lord's Church has a policy not to call divorced men as sealers, what of 
it? A man needn't be a sealer to gain eternal life. He needn't even hold 
any certain Priesthood office, so long as he holds the Priesthood 
itself.

Whether we work as a sealer in the temple, or as the prophet to head the 
Church, or as one who opens a dispensation, is as irrelevant to our 
salvation and exaltation as whether we were asked to be the second grade 
hall monitor during the first week of the year when we were seven. If we 
seek after God and do as we're asked, we will inherit the unimaginable 
-- all that the Father hath. I'm just glad we have temple sealers. I'm 
also glad we have brain surgeons, but I don't particularly want to be 
one.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jon-
> God cannot rob justice to pay mercy.
> How's that?

Nope. Another false-by-definition, as well as (I think) a misquotation 
of scripture, which says that *mercy* cannot rob justice. I already 
brought up the example that God "cannot" save people in their sins, 
which is clearly a false-by-definition nonsensical phrase -- "save" and 
"sinful condition" are mutually exclusive. "Robbing justice" to "pay 
mercy" is another nonsensical phrase, coined exactly so that by the 
juxtaposition people could see that it doesn't make sense. False by 
definition.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stephen-
> I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that
> God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of "natural
> law" or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of
> false-by-definition.

-Chet-
> He cannot lie.
> He cannot disobey any of his own commandments.
> He cannot go back on his word.
> These are not false-by-definition

On the contrary, they are false by definition, or else false by wording 
choice. Here is the logic:

"God cannot lie" means either 1) God is incapable of lying, that is, he 
does not possess the moral capacity to tell an untruth or lead others 
astray through false communication; or, 2) God constantly and 
unfailingly chooses not to lie, at the peril of his very existence as 
God.

In the former case, this is not an "inability" with God. Rather, it is a 
linguistic trick acknowledging God's perfect status; he is a Being in 
whom all truth independently dwells. He *cannot* lie, because whatever 
he says is, by definition, true. Saying in such a situation that God is 
"unable to lie" is clearly a verbal joust along the lines of saying that 
God is "unable to make a stone so big he can't lift it". In this case, 
the idea is certainly false by definition -- God's word itself being 
defined as truth.

In the latter case, saying "God cannot lie" is really another way of 
saying "God will not lie", since those who hold to idea #2 impute to God 
the ability to sin. It's not correct to say he "can't" in the sense of 
"it's outside his ability", but merely means he "can't" in the sense 
that "he will cease to exist as God if he does". This, then, is not an 
example of something God is actually unable to do, but rather an example 
of something God merely refuses to do. (I personally do not hold to this 
latter line of argument, but the point is, even if you do, you can't use 
it as an example of something God "can't" do, except in a verbal 
sleight-of-hand.)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Natural Law

[Stephen Beecroft]

-George-
> Much of what is quoted by Sis Black is from a paper by LaMar
> Garrard, "God, Natural Law, and the Doctrine and Covenants"

Brother Garrard may well have been my wife's and my favorite teacher at 
BYU, even though we only ever had him for one class. When he came in the 
first day, I thought he was the goofiest-looking teacher I had ever 
seen. By the end of the term, I thought his face reflected the 
countenance of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was from him that I most 
forcefully learned that God is the Lawgiver, the very point we're 
discussing now. He's also the teacher who effectively pointed out that 
we do indeed believe in salvation by grace, despite what many Latter-day 
Saints mistakenly believe and even teach.

I also took a genealogy course from Sister Black, which I enjoyed quite 
a bit. I worked harder in that class than in any other religion class I 
ever took. I got very good marks all the way through on tests and 
projects, but only pulled a 'B' on the final. My course grade: B+. I've 
never quite forgiven her for that... (Not that I'd normally be unhappy 
with a B+ in a tough course, but it's the only religion class I ever 
took that I got less than an 'A' in, and I honestly thought I'd earned 
an 'A'. Ah, well. Cue the violins. At least I know how to spell 
carob-beans.)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

[Stephen Beecroft]

> I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that
> God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of "natural 
>law" or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of
> false-by-definition.

Sorry for the weenie-speak. Let me try again:

I disbelieve that any man or woman can -- and in fact defy anyone to -- 
name something that God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of 
"natural law" or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of 
false-by-definition.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law

[Stephen Beecroft]

-John-
> It is my understanding of Mormon doctrine that the laws by which
> Heavenly Father became and exalted being are coeternal with him.
> They are uncreate.  And it was by obedience to these laws that
> he because God.

My understanding follows Jim's quotation of Joseph Smith's teachings and 
of the scriptures; that God *instituted laws* among us. Whether those 
laws were pre-existent or not seems of little import. Remember, Marc's 
comment was that God is "subject to 'natural law'". This is demonstrably 
untrue; God is above nature, has created nature, and has instituted her 
laws.

Physicists now postulate that our universe was born perhaps 13 billion 
years ago, and that the laws of physics that we observe came into being 
at that point. If this is the case, then since we Latter-day Saints 
consider God to have been the creator of this universe, we could 
certainly imagine that he might have chosen whatever other set of 
physical laws to exist instead. We might also imagine that, as creator 
of the universe, he exists in such a state as to be able to effect 
whatever changes in it that he sees fit -- that is, he is "above" the 
universe, not subject to it. He could, for example, "travel faster than 
light", an event that doesn't even have a well-defined meaning to us.

I don't pretend the above is LDS doctrine. Rather, it is compatible with 
LDS doctrine, and is the closest I can come to reconciling doctrinal 
truth with scientific understanding. In any case, I feel quite sure that 
God is the Lawgiver, the creator of the universe, the God of nature, and 
thus to claim that he is "subject to 'natural law'" is incorrect.

> The idea that he made all the laws included those by which he
> progressed to become a God is a Protestant idea.

Hardly. Protestantism rejects as blasphemous the very idea that God 
"pregressed to become a God", so they certainly have no opinion on 
whether he created the laws that led to that exaltation! Besides, the 
laws governing God's exaltation are not the point under discussion; 
rather, we're talking about "natural law" and whether God is subject to 
it.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> The problem arises out of the word "natural," and is a limitation
> of our language. By natural are we referring to the corruptible
> telestial world, or are we referring simply to the fact that
> there are higher laws which are "natural" but which operate in
> *their* realms, and which we by their and our very nature cannot
> comprehend? I'm using the term in its latter connotation.

I don't disagree with this. My hesitation comes in labelling God as 
something other than omnipotent, even in saying that God isn't 
omnipotent "in the sense the [Roman Catholics] believed". The fact that 
other religions don't understand the meaning of words like "omnipotent" 
does not negate the fact that God is truly all-powerful, far, far beyond 
any remote possibility that we have to imagine it. No, God can't do 
undoable things, like save people in their sins, or make a thing 
simultaneously exist and not exist. But these things are ultimately 
tautologically false; that is, they defy their own definition. I would 
be surprised if any man or woman can name something that God cannot do, 
whether because of the limitations of "natural law" or anything else, 
that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stephen-
> God's word defines "natural law". He is the master, not the
> subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver.

-Jim-
> Yes, I thought that was a significant point to emphasize.

Interesting that we independently arrived at a similar conclusion, even 
using similar wording. Almost like we were both listening to the same 
doctrine...

> Perhaps this is just another one of those silly, figurative
> notions that unenlightened fundamentalists like me trip over
> so often.

Probably so. I would weep for your pitiful, ignorant state, but you're 
above my visual range.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> We LDS do *not* believe God is omnipotent in the sense the Romans
> used this term -- we believe he's subject to "natural law,"

Perhaps you believe so. I don't. God's word defines "natural law". He is 
the master, not the subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Microsoft interview questions

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> No wonder Microsoft's spellchecker is so lousy ;-) (carabiners,
> from a German word for "carbine hook".

Ah. I had never seen/heard the term, and the guy (Russian) 
called/spelled them "carob-beaners". I wondered how that term had come 
about. What's a "carob bean", anyway?

But I had nothing to do with Microsoft's spell-checker. Otherwise, it 
wouldn't suggest "Bereft" every time I write my name.

> IIRC, aren't Italy's alpine police known as carabinieri?)

Yes, the special forces guys who carry machine guns. Also known as 
carob-beaners.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

[ZION] Microsoft interview questions

[Stephen Beecroft]

The funnest thing about interviewing at Microsoft are the famous (or 
infamous) "interview questions", of which you're likely to get at least 
one per interview. A classic example is:

You have three closed barrels in front of you, one filled with black 
marbles, one filled with white marbles, and one filled with a mix of 
black and white marbles. You also have three labels, one to a barrel, 
reading "Black", "White", and "Mixed". You are told that each barrel has 
the wrong sign on it. You are allowed to draw one marble from a barrel. 
What is the least number of marbles you can draw to put the signs 
aright, and from which barrel(s) do you draw it/them? *(Answer below)

Here's one I just got this afternoon that I hadn't heard before, though 
I'm pretty sure it's an old question:

You wish to market a climbing chain consisting of some lengths of chain 
that can be joined together by carob-beaners (removeable links). Regular 
chain links are dirt-cheap; carob-beaners are very expensive. You want 
to market a chain set that can be used to create a chain of any length 
between one and twenty-one links, without any "left-over" links. (That 
is, you must have exactly 21 links in your kit, including 
carob-beaners.) What is the least number of carob-beaners you must 
include in the kit, and what are the lengths of chain you must also 
include? **(Answer below)

Stephen

(SPOILER: Answers below)






* Draw one marble from the barrel labeled "Mixed", since you know it's 
either the black or the white barrel (it isn't mixed -- the labels are 
all wrong). Put the appropriate label on that barrel, move the remaining 
"Black" or "White" label onto the now-unsigned barrel, and put the 
"Mixed" label on the remaining barrel.

** Short answer: Three carob-beaners, four lengths of chain as follows: 
7 links, 7 links, 3 links, 1 link. Longer answer: You can quickly show 
that two carob-beaners is insufficient for making the correct 
combinations, since you must then have a three-link chain (your 
carob-beaners only combine for two links), and then a six-link chain 
(your three-link chain and carob-beaners only combine for five links). 
Two carob-beaners will only allow you to join a maximum of three lengths 
of chain; so your third length has to be 21 - 6 - 3 - 1 - 1, or ten 
links long. However, you have no way to make a nine-link chain: 6 + 1 + 
1 = 8, and 6 + 1 + 3 = 10 (you can't directly join the six-link and 
three-link chains without a carob-beaner). So (Point #1) you will 
require at least three carob-beaners. Now, if you have three 
carob-beaners, that means you can have up to four lengths of chain. But 
how do you go from a 20-link chain to a 21-link chain? You have to add 
on a single link. That last link is either one of your carob-beaners (in 
which case you can only have three lengths of chain, not four), or else 
you have to have a one-link length of chain. You can quickly show that 
three carob-beaners and three lengths of chain won't work, so (Point #2) 
one of your four chain lengths must be a single link. Once you see these 
two points, you can play with the combinations and figure out the chain 
lengths that will allow you to do it with three carob-beaners. If anyone 
has insight how to arrive at an answer faster, please do tell.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> A new study of Brazilians confirms what biologists have always
> known (but maybe not anthropologists?): namely, that there is
> no genetic basis for determining race:
> 
><>
> 

The study discussed in the article was performed on Brazilians, a highly 
racially-heterogenous group -- and on a very heterogenous subgroup of 
Brazilians, too. The study is ridiculous; it's like saying, "There is no 
such thing as dog breeds, because we went to the pound and found no 
strong correlation between the mongrels' supposed breed and their actual 
attributes". Totally bogus. I will bet that performing the same study 
between groups of Japanese, Norwegians, and Ethiopians would give the 
lie to the statement that "skin colour is a poor indication of 
ancestry."

Besides, the concept of "race" consists of much more than skin color, 
despite the article's implication otherwise. Body build, height, facial 
features, hair color/texture/distribution, subcutaneous adipose 
preponderance -- all these are considered "racial features". While 
mentioned in the study, these are clearly relegated to the back seat, as 
evidenced by the article's opening line.

There very clearly is a "biological basis" for the characteristics we 
classify as race. It's called genetics. The statement that there is "no 
biological basis for race" is absurd on its face, and those that hold to 
it are either deeply ignorant or else have an axe to grind.

It's one thing to say that current racial classifications are imprecise, 
or getting blurred, or not useful for this or that purpose. All such 
proclamations may or may not be true. But to say that race doesn't exist 
is to be tautologically incorrect -- people whose ancestry originated in 
different parts of the world look more like others with similar ancestry 
than they do like those with ancestry from other parts of the world. And 
children look like their parents, so to say that there is no biological 
basis for race is to play the fool.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] New guy

[Stephen Beecroft]

-George-
> Could that be right, wright. or wrong?

The "W" should be capitalized. Write "Wright" right. (But don't fixate 
on it to the point that you feel compelled to do so, or you'll find 
yourself performing the "Write 'Wright' right" rite.)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Re: New guy

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Val-
> Can this list handle another Cobabe?? :-o

No, we can't have two Cobabes. At least one of them has to be the 
primary Babe. I suppose they'll have to decide between themselves which 
is better-looking.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] The Two Towers (LOTR)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Gary-
> Also, if you send the answers to this list, make sure to warn
> everyone that there is spoiler information involved.

Good call.

WARNING!! This message contains SPOILER INFORMATION!! Don't read it 
unless you already know everything it says! In which case, reading it is 
superfluous. But then, I'm talking to a bunch of people that participate 
in an email discussion list, so I'm being redundant.

> 1) What is Gollum's real name?

Mullog.

> 2) What is the name of the king's evil advisor?

Francie Ducros.

> 3) What is an Ent?

The wife of an Ooncle.

> 4) Who is Gollum's friend that helps him?

That would be Mr. Valium.

> 5) How does Frodo escape the tower?

The firemen get him with their ladder rig.

> 6) How many palantiri are there total, and how many are known
> of by the end of book 3?

The same number as before I got here. If you've lost some of your 
palantiri, don't try to pin the blame on me.

> 7) What army does Aragorn raise to help him win a major battle?

An army of those fast-growing Star Wars clones.

Just kidding! He probably just raised himself some army Ents. As you 
know, they are social ensects, and can thrive in one of those 
glass-sided Ent farms.

> That should do it. If you can answer these questions, then I
> agree that you remember the books remarkably well.

About time you made that admission. (By the way, which books are we 
talking about?)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Saving My Head

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Tom-
> And you can always get some of that spray to make the bald spot
> disappear.

I remember seeing a commercial on TV a couple of years ago touting a 
cure-all spray to make bald men, well, carpeted. I watched in 
fascination as they applied a can of spray paint to the balding head of 
a middle-aged man. When they were done, the transformation was nothing 
short of amazing. The erstwhile balding, middle-aged man now looked like 
a balding, middle-aged man with a spray-painted bald spot. I laughed 
myself silly (which probably explains Marc Schindler's perceptive 
comments), but there must have been enough balding, middle-aged men 
desperate enough to be dialing their toll-free number to make the 
commercials profitable.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is an idiot

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> A customer is not in any way responsible for what one of its
> subcontractors say unless it is in the context of both of them
> acting together.

-Stephen-
> So then, why do you bother including the disclaimer at the end
> of each of your posts?

-Marc-
> I don't follow you. I don't have any clients, nor am I anybody
> else's client on this list.

I have faith in you, Marc. If you keep on trying, I'm sure you'll 
finally get it.

> But I *will* tell you why I started putting that disclaimer
> on all of my email. Once, on a non-LDS list, a geography list
> on about.com moderated by a young geography prof at UCDavis,
> someone took exception to something I said and threatened to
> take his complaint to my boss.

What?! You mean, you were threatened with having your views attributed 
to the guy signing your paycheck? Whoda thunk that a "customer" (or 
employer) is indeed often implicated, fairly or not, in the words of its 
"subcontractors" (or employees)? Amazing!

-Marc-
> If you can't even get that right, it's no surprise that you get
> everything else wrong, too.

-Stephen-
> Thanks for the kind words.

-Marc-
> Hey, it's my job.

Seriously? You get paid for being insulting?

> Just pointing these things out, like you like to do. Who watches
> the watchers?

Marc Schindler, of course.

-The Watchers Watcher-
> Jim was wrong, as I've demonstrated on several ocasions. I
> don't care about his dictionary definition. Ducros is no Ari
> Fleischer.

-Stephen-
> So then, the dictionary is only correct if it agrees with your
> personal definition?

-The Watchers Watcher-
> He was wrong when he said it was a public statement -- he's
> never retracted that, even after being shown that it wasn't a
> public statement.

It was a statement made in a public setting, which makes it fair game. 
But I don't recall you going ballistic over the public vs private nature 
of the statement so much as Jim's use of the term "politician" to 
describe Ducros.

> And it is illogical to claim that because I disagree with
> someone's interpretation of a dictionary in use in one
> particular country, that I therefore hold an idiosyncratic
> definition of my own.

How about that? And here I thought it was illogical to maintain that you 
were correct in the face of proof that you are wrong. Silly me.

> Hello?

Hello. How's it going? Nice tantrum you're throwing.

> There are far more anglophones outside the USA than inside the
> USA.

Well, that pretty much sums up the argument, doesn't it?

Assuming for a moment that Jim's dictionary definition of "politician" 
is, as you insist, strictly an American usage: Jim's an American. Do you 
expect him to quit using his native tongue just because he's talking to 
Marc Schindler? I confess, I had no idea just how important you are.

> I explained the difference between Ducros and Fleischer.

Yes, you did. Exhaustively. Repetitively. In minute detail. And, above 
all, condescendingly. (And thanks for that.)

> I have worked with provincial counterparts of Ducros. I think
> I can speak on the basis of direct experience.

Ah. I see. You're looking for genuflection. Allow me to be the first:

All Hail Marc Schindler, The Wise, Compassionate, and Darned-Near 
All-Knowing!

-The Watchers Watcher-
> Your ignorance just makes you look silly.

-Stephen-
> How true this is. Thanks again for more kind words.

-The Watchers Watcher-
> Well, you're the one who's used to being in the "keep 'em
> straight" saddle.

Not familiar with that saddle. I assume that what you're saying is that, 
despite the condescending tone you take with others, you don't like 
being publicly corrected or shown to be in error. And why should you? 
Heaven knows you've performed enough public service to the rest of us 
provincial ignoramuses (or should I say, Americans -- or even 
Republicans) by gently cluing us in via your wondrous condescension 
toward us and your genial manner, that you should be far removed from 
anyone actually daring to offer a different opinion from yours, much 
less actual correction. I'm in complete agreement.

> I meant nothing personal or insulting.

Of course you did not. Just another example of my silliness!

Why, I am sure you would happily tell your boss, your co-worker, your 
wife, or your dinner-party guest, "Your ignorance just makes you look 
silly". How could they possibly take offense at that? It's neither 
personal (except perhaps for the "you" part) nor insulting (except 
perhaps for the "ignorance" and "silly" parts). Thanks for pointing that 
out. Your clarifications are so helpful, and your strict, self-searching 
honesty refreshing.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent

RE: [ZION] Temperature conversion chart

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stacy-
> How do I decrease my sensitivity to cold?

Convert to Celsius. If you find yourself getting cold at a mere 59 
degrees Farenheit, for example, people will laugh and mock and point 
their finger at you and call you various unpleasant names, like "weenie" 
or "pansy-girl" or "Gary Smith". But if you convert to Celsius, you 
won't get cold until it's a bone-chilling 15 degrees out -- and who 
could blame you? Impress your friends by basking in 38-degree water. 
When they express amazement, tell them you're afraid you won't see 
eye-to-eye with them until it's forty below. If nothing else, they'll be 
too confused to continue making fun of you.

Ever-helpful,

Stephen the Sage

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is an idiot

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> A customer is not in any way responsible for what one of its
> subcontractors say unless it is in the context of both of them
> acting together.

So then, why do you bother including the disclaimer at the end of each 
of your posts?

> And please read properly: it was the *Alberta* government in
> the MediaWorks situation, not the *Canadian* government.

Good point, duly noted.

> If you can't even get that right, it's no surprise that you
> get everything else wrong, too.

Thanks for the kind words.

> Jim was wrong, as I've demonstrated on several ocasions. I
> don't care about his dictionary definition. Ducros is no Ari
> Fleischer.

So then, the dictionary is only correct if it agrees with your personal 
definition?

> Your ignorance just makes you look silly.

How true this is. Thanks again for more kind words.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is an idiot

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> Odd that we get critized for merely reacting to the U.S. but now
> a truly insignificant molehill is over-shadowed by a mountain,
> and all the

Marc, I'm baffled at your insistent glee on this topic. I have seen no 
"mountain" regarding this. I would have missed the initial report 
altogether if not for Jim's pointing it out, and would probably have 
thought nothing of it afterward had you not gone ballistic. The first 
newspaper report I've noticed of it was in Tuesday's, I think, Seattle 
Times, on page A10. About three column-inches (47.6 
Canuck-Celsius-column-centimeters). It may have been bigger news in DC, 
giving many there a laugh, but I really don't think many Americans paid 
much attention to it.

But I suppose that's bad, too. Either we don't pay enough attention to 
Canada and Canadians, or we pay too much attention. As I mentioned 
before, I suspect you're merely demonstrating that famous Canadian 
thin-skinnedness.

> IMore tommmorow, but I'm glad to see you've dropped your claim
> that she was a politician.

Jim did not drop that claim, as far as I can tell. At least, I hope he 
didn't. He was right.

> Why don't officials have the right to free speech?

Who says they don't? Publishing "private" conversations overheard in a 
public setting is hardly comparable to, say, bugging someone's 
telephone.

> Secondly, Jim, you don't seem to have read the article you
> posted, just as you misremembered what the nature of the
> position.

But he did not misremember the nature of the position.

> The article does *not* say that any public officials or
> politicians said anything. It was a private company,
> MediaWorks, who made the comment

True, so you are technically correct about Jim being in error. But he is 
correct in spirit. MediaWorks was acting in its capacity as a contract 
media advisor to government. So while the Canadian government did not 
make the comment, their hired help did. In either case, it reflects on 
the Canadian government.

> Are you going to admit you were wrong in both instances, truly
> hoist by your own petard regarding the nature of both incidents.

I really don't understand your bloodlust here. Jim was right, not wrong, 
in his assessment of Ducros as a politician, as he clearly demonstrated 
by appeal to a dictionary definition. Why are you so insistent that Jim 
admit his supposed error?

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Canada watch: background behind Francie Ducros' resignation

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> And Jim never did admit he was wrong in his initial report.

Why should he? He wasn't wrong.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Coffee, tea or eternity?

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> W/L 5/8 BELOW
> Any plumbers out there who can read toiletese? ;-)

I'm neither a plumber nor fluent in toiletese, but I suspect the first 
number is the tank capacity, while the second refers to the total amount 
of water per flush.

Septic Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Francie Ducros to quit

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> As I have suggested to USAmericans who are over-reacting, leave
> the thin-skinned theatrics to us Canuckistanis. We do it far
> better, having had more practice. ;-)

"Over-reacting"? As far as I have seen, you've made that comment to two 
people on this list -- Jim, who expressed amazement that Ducros would 
voice such a politically incorrect, though honest, opinion; and myself, 
who disagreed with your characterization of Ducros as a non-politician. 
Neither viewpoint seems to me to be an overreaction.

But then, perhaps you were merely demonstrating your point. :)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is a moron

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> OK. And? A civil servant fits none of these definitions.

You don't think she qualifies as "one actively engaged in conducting the 
business of a government"? You don't think she is "a person engaged in 
party politics as a profession"? I think she very clearly qualifies 
under at least those two definitions.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] November 2002 Ministry Update

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stacy-
> What do you all think of this?  Should Protestant Fundamentalists
> be the ones to tell homosexuals how to live their lives?

Why not? Free country and all that. We have all sorts of people telling 
each other how to live their lives. For instance, I've gotten over being 
inordinately upset about the man- and family-hating feminists vomiting 
their horrid ideas all over our society, so I think sexual deviants can 
learn to put up with divergent opinions, as well.

And for once, the fundies seem to be correct about this, or at least 
much closer to correct than those they're preaching to. There is very 
little I find praiseworthy in fundamentalist doctrine or preaching, but 
when the homosexual lobby hates them, that's a pretty good indication 
that they're on the right track.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is a moron

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jim-
> Canadian politician calls President Bush a moron.

-Marc-
> It wasn't a politician, it was an aide,

Huh? That's like saying, "It wasn't an animal, it was a housefly." Of 
course she is a politician. Do you mean that she is not an elected 
official? That much is clear, but really doesn't impact Jim's point.

> and it was in a private conversation at a social event,

All the more reason to keep one's mouth shut instead of spewing such 
bile. How humiliating for her, and deservedly so.

> *No politician* said this -- Ducros hasn't been elected to
> anything, she's just Chrétien's communications director.

I don't think "politician" and "elected official" are necessarily 
synonymous, which is apparently your understanding. So you think that 
Colin Powell is not a politician? George Stephanopolous was not a 
politician? I disagree.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Coffee, tea or eternity?

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Paul-
> PS. Hi Jack!

Tut, tut. We don't make such overt terroristic threats on this list.

A Pauled,

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] No Desire To Discuss What Is Forbidden

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> My only fear in bringing Pamela Anderson into the discussion
> was that I might be accused of artificiality
> (tiddly-BOOM)



As our Mexican neighbors might say, "Si! Si!"



Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Something Else To Ponder

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stacy-
> I've long suspected that psychoactive drugs, while helping
> someone to feel better, also lessens perception of personal
> revelation.  Am I right?

I'm no authority on the matter, but I believe you are. As a general 
rule, it seems transparently obvious to me that altering one's brain 
chemistry can't lead to closer communion with the Spirit of God. 
Individual exceptions doubtless exist regarding those who supplement 
their natural deficiencies with attempted replacement; for example, I 
doubt epilepsy _per se_ brings people unto Christ, so Dilantin or 
something of the sort may well put those so afflicted in a literally 
better frame of mind.

One of my favorite missionary companions, who became a close personal 
friend both during and after my mission, told me of his pre-mission, 
pre-Church-activity drug usage. He said that, in retrospect, a cocaine 
high reminded him of nothing so much as a deep spiritual experience -- 
except that there was no communion with the Spirit, and that true 
spirituality doesn't end with a "crash" that leaves the person suicidal. 
He believed that many drug users crave this feeling of spiritual peace 
and serenity, and that's why they become addicted.

I realize you probably weren't talking about illegal drug usage, but I 
thought it a relevant insight anyway.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Pamela Lee Anderson: poster girl of a different sort now

[Stephen Beecroft]

I'm quite sure that the mere mention of Pamela Lee Anderson violates 
several elements of the charter. Which means I'll probably get booted 
now.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Main Street Plaza: Meridian Editorial

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jim referenced-
> http://www.meridianmagazine.com/editorial/021118plaza.html

I noticed a couple of days the Salt Lake Tribulation had a *front-page* 
story (at least it was a lead story in their web edition), telling that 
the Church would release a statement about the plaza and speculating 
what it might be. I was struck anew by how outrageously paranoid and 
anti-Mormon the Trib is -- they not only don't wait for the news to 
happen before reporting it, but they report not-as-yet-happened news 
with their own editorial slant on it, and on the front page, yet!

I would be ashamed to pay any money for that rag. I would think any 
believing Latter-day Saint would feel the same. And that opinion is 
worth just what you've paid for it.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Hogwarts and all

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stacy-
> Don't you know that'll just irritate Protestant Fundamentalists 
> worse than anything else?  They'll think we're Satanists for sure!

Strong evidence, indeed, in arguing for the virtue of Harry Potter 
books...

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

[ZION] Caffeine chemistry

[Stephen Beecroft]

Quick recap and primer for all interested parties (or should I say, both 
interested parties):

Xanthine (ZAN-theen) is purine with oxygens bonded in the 2 and 6 
positions, that is, 2,6-dihydroxypurine. Ronn also referred to this as 
2,6-dioxopurine and as purine-2,6-dione, apparently following alternate 
(I would guess older) nomenclatures. Structurally, it's actually a 
fairly small, simple molecule. See 
http://www.serva.de/products/data/38420.01.shtml for details.

If you take xanthine and bond methyl groups (CH3) to it, you get a 
family of substances called (unsurprisingly) methylxanthines. If you 
bond three methyls in the 1, 3, and 7 positions, you get 
1,3,7-trimethylxanthine, also called caffeine. This is the best-known of 
the methylxanthines, which share some similar physiological properties.

If you bond only two methyl groups instead of three, you get a related 
but slightly different molecule. Exactly which molecule you get depends 
on where you put the methyls:

If you bond the two methyls to the 3 and 7 positions, you get 
theobromine, which Ronn tells us is the primary methylxanthine found in 
chocolate. Thus, when people tell you that "chocolate doesn't contain 
any caffeine", they are technically correct, though wrong in spirit. 
Theobromine differs chemically from caffeine only by a single methyl 
group, and its stimulant properties are not dissimilar.

If you bond the two methyls to the 1 and 3 positions, you get 
theophylline (1,3-dimethylxanthine), which Ronn tells us is more common 
in tea than in coffee or chocolate. It's also an asthma treatment 
because it's a bronchodilator, something Stacy apparently realizes. Ronn 
tells us that regular old caffeine can be used in a pinch as a 
bronchodilator, as well.

If you bond the two methyls to the 1 and 7 positions, which was Ronn's 
"missing" family member, you get paraxanthine, or 1,7-dimethylxanthine. 
Unsurprisingly, this is a major caffeine metabolite, which is to say 
that this is one of the chemicals produced by your body when it breaks 
down caffeine. It's also identified as an adenosine receptor ligand, 
which means it ties itself to certain receptor sites. By the way, that's 
typically how psychoactive drugs work -- they attach themselves to 
various receptor sites.

Does this mean that paraxanthine is a psychoactive drug? I don't know; 
maybe. Perhaps other xanthines or methylxanthines act as adenosine 
receptor ligands. Maybe that's ultimately how caffeine produces its 
effects on the brain. In any case, now you have some idea about caffeine 
(found in coffee) and three closely related chemicals, theobromine 
(found in chocolate), theophylline (found in tea), and paraxanthine 
(found in Starbucks customers).

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Hogwarts and all

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Gary-
> My wife and I saw it today. What a great film. I haven't read
> the books, but now will have to do it. Definitely a great
> series. This film was better than the first, and the first
> was really good. I like how so many characters were developed
> in such a short time, and the power behind the plot. Also, the
> humor was much better in this one than the last.

Funny coincidence. We just took the kids to it today, too. I agree that 
it was better done than the first, though I personally am quite happy 
that Chris Columbus is out of the picture (so to speak) from now on. A 
director can't help but leave his fingerprints all over his opus, and 
"Stonehands" Columbus leaves mighty big prints. Michelle disagrees, but 
in this, I'm right.

You should realize that not everyone is taken by the books. Our own Mark 
is less than fond of them, for example. But I think they're fun. The 
fact that a successful and entertaining film adaptation can be made by 
Chris Columbus should be evidence enough of solid concept and good 
screenplay translation of a fundamentally sound novel. :)

> Question: my wife heard a rumor that the actor who played the
> big gentle giant guy that Harry hooks onto (the one who wanted
> a dragon in the first movie) has recently died in an accident.
> Anyone know if this is true? I hope not, as his character
> truly helps round out the movies.

Not as far as I know. Richard Harris, the actor who played Dumbledore, 
died a few weeks ago. (By the way -- and I don't think this qualifies as 
any sort of spoiler -- they should have made Hagrid about twice as big. 
Ah, well.)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] "Social" Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> Oh, NOW you've opened a can of worms. Ronn -- a short lecture on
> chemical nomenclature if you don't mind. What *do* those numbers
> before a chemical compound's name mean?

I'm not Ronn, nor to I play him on TV, but I did take organic chemistry 
a couple of decades ago at BYU. Organic molecules are named by the main 
"backbone" or "ring" molecule -- in this case, xanthine -- with prefixes 
indicating the atoms or molecules/groups attached. Each atom or 
molecule/group named also has a number preceding it that identifies its 
position on the backbone molecule. If you have two of the same kind of 
group, you precede the identifier with "di" and give both numbers 
separated by a comma. Three of the same kind merits you a "tri" and all 
three numbers separated by commas, and so forth.

Test Monday.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] "Social" Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ronn-
>> (FWIW, I've been unable to find out why there is apparently no
>> such compound as 1,7-trimethylxanthine.
>
> Oops.  I meant 1,7-dimethylxanthine . . .

Also called "paraxanthine"; described as an adenosine receptor ligand 
and a major metabolite of caffeine at

http://www.sigma-aldrich.com/rbi/datasheet/a005dat.pdf

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] "Social" Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Ronn-
> (FWIW, I've been unable to find out why there is apparently no
> such compound as 1,7-trimethylxanthine.

Perhaps because the "1,7" and the "tri" prefixes are mutually exclusive? 
Just a guess. :)

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Evolution's missing link

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Gary-
> Here is the evolution of Michael Jackson's face
> http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html

This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I'm not even a fan, 
and I feel terrible for him. The gospel could heal this man, but I doubt 
anything else could. How nightmarish his life must be, to willingly 
submit to such mutilation.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Answer to life

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Gary-
> what if the person isn't using Euclidean mathematics? Then
> 9 times 6 may NOT equal 42.

[...]

-Jon-
> Then 9 times 6 equals 46.  And that IS the correct answer.

-Marc-
> In the decimal system, of course, you decidigicist, you...

Just occurred to me: 9 x 6 = 42 in base 13, and 9 x 6 = 46 in base 12. 
Obviously, Gary and Jon are simply off-base.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Magnetic Personality

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Tom-
> It seems that the incident actually did happen.  Here's a typical
> report that came up when I did a "Fetch" search on "MRI killing"

Guess you're right. Here's another:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/mri010731.html

How sad. I know it's old news by now, but still, how tragic.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Magnetic Personality

[Stephen Beecroft]

Googling on "mri kill boy oxygen" gave a couple of hits that looked like 
confirmations. The first hit was 404; the second was a safety site 
(http://www.altair.org/hazard.html) that included this warning under 
"Magnetic":

 Ferrous metal objects can pose a danger near high powered
 magnets, such as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit
 because the maagnet draws magnetic objects to it. Flying
 items can hurt and kill, including a young boy who died in
 2001 from injuries after a metal oxygen tank was brought
 into an MRI unit, flew toward the magnet, and struck him
 in the head.

This sounds more likely; someone foolishly wheeled a steel tank into an 
occupied MRI unit, resulting in tragedy. Not exactly a confirmation of 
the event out of the realm of urban legend, I realize, but I can believe 
it. Hope it didn't really happen, though.

Stephen

Marc A. Schindler wrote:
> It couldn't have been a CAT scan, which is just a glorified, spinning 
> x-ray
> machine, basically. I heard it was an MRI. I don't dispute Stephen -- he 
> sounds
> like he knows what he's talking about, but I can't remember any more 
> than what I
> wrote.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Stephen Beecroft:
> >
> > >-Marc-
> > >> ... a tech had inadvertently left an oxygen cylinder in the
> > >> room, and when the MRI was turned on, it got sucked
> > >> right into the core, killing the poor patient (a young boy)
> > >> instantly.
> >
> > > Unless MRI technology has changed significantly in the
> > > last 7-8 years, I find this a bit hard to swallow.
> >
> > I heard the story pretty much as Marc described it.  I didn't
> > hear a retraction.  Maybe it wasn't an MRI or was a CAT
> > scan or something, or maybe the report wasn't accurate,
> > but I do remember hearing about it a few months ago on
> > the radio and reading about it in the paper.
> >
> > Larry Jackson
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 
> > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> > Only $9.95 per month!
> > Visit www.juno.com
> >
> > //
> > 
> > ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> > ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
> > /
> > 
> >
> 
> --
> Marc A. Schindler
> Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
> 
> “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he 
> will pick
> himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill
> 
> Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the 
> author
> solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s 
> employer,
> nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Answer to life

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> Then the sum of the squaws with the hides is equal to the
> squaw of the hippopotamus, of course.

I told this joke probably eight years ago on Zion. One member, who shall 
remain unnamed (you're welcome, Dave), didn't like me messing up the 
spiritual tenor of the list with silly jokes. So naturally, I've made a 
great effort ever since to give this list all the solemn dignity it 
merits.

> Sheesh, didn't you take high school geometry? ;-)

Naturally. It involved cutting various simple shapes out of construction 
paper, then deciding which shapes looked most like Canada. This was a 
challenge for most of us, since we didn't even know which state Canada 
was in -- plus, those blunt scissors could still damage tender fingers, 
ears, lips, and tongues if not used with care. Then we were required to 
write an essay detailing how Canada felt about being compared to a 
construction paper shape. That essay alone almost wore out my crayon.

> (That's called yer Pithergory Theory, according to Charlie
> Farquhason)

Is that the AustraloPithergory Theory? Any relation to the Piltdown 
Theory?

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] a whirlwind trip south

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> Seriously -- did you guys hear about a case back east somewhere,
> New York state, iirc, where a tech had inadvertently left an
> oxygen cylinder in the room, and when the MRI was turned on, it
> got sucked right into the core, killing the poor patient (a
> young boy) instantly.

Unless MRI technology has changed significantly in the last 7-8 years, I 
find this a bit hard to swallow. An MRI uses a huge, powerful magnetic 
field, on the order of 1-2 Tesla. This field is static and "always on". 
In fact, there is (or at least, there used to be) a big red "Quench" 
button in the MRI room, used to shut off the magnet. A surefire way to 
experience a sudden job change was to press the button without 
sufficient cause. Anyhow, performing the MRI involved introducing 
relatively small changes to this huge magnetic field (using another coil 
or coils) at varying frequencies. So "turning on the MRI" should not 
result in any perceptible change in the magnetic field, which is pretty 
constant as far as things like keys and oxygen tanks go. Ronn can 
explain more, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

> I didn't think I could have an MRI because my sternum
> (breastbone) looks like the inside of a Canadian Tire store
> (or Home Depot or whatever your hardware chains are called)
> -- it's all wired together with titanium wire. Plus the
> sleeve of my heart valve is made out of silver, and the
> valve posts are also titanium. The rest is kevlar and
> dacron, of all things.  But anyway, lotsa metal.

As far as I know, only ferromagnetic materials pose a danger. I don't 
think either titanium or silver is ferromagnetic, though I could be 
wrong. And as you point out, the techs can mathematically correct for 
the presence of metal, which will introduce distortions whether or not 
it's ferromagnetic.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Answer to life

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Gary-
> what if the person isn't using Euclidean mathematics? Then
> 9 times 6 may NOT equal 42.

And if he is using Euclidean mathematics?

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] One party rule?

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Irwin-
> Thanks for the clarification. We are not even married yet and
> I need to be corrected. (grin)

-John-
> After you are married, you will get all the correction you need.

That's what I thought at first, but Michelle informs me that this is a 
slanderous falsehood.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] A Whirlwind Trip South

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stephen-
> -Stephen-
>> I wish I could, Stephen.  But there isn't any coastal route from
>> the Seattle area to Prince Rupert.

Amazing. I quoted myself. No, wait, that was actually John. I just got 
confused and thought he was me because he's going to be in Utah with me. 
Except that I don't live in Utah. This is so confusing...

I picked my wife up at the airport late last night. We didn't get to bed 
until after 2:00. I plead sleep deprivation.

The Real Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] A Whirlwind Trip South

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Stephen-
> I wish I could, Stephen.  But there isn't any coastal route from
> the Seattle area to Prince Rupert.

Nonsense! There's always a route. Oh, do you mean a route you can drive 
your car through? Never mind.

> You mean you can't get in any of the building because they laid
> you off?  Shame on them.

I left Microsoft a little over a year ago and have been working as a 
"contingent staffer", basically a contract player. I can't work for more 
than a year at a time without taking a "mandatory break in service" of 
100 days. So that's what I'm doing now.

> Now that you are no longer working for Microsoft, do you still
> have the tenacious loyalty to them that you used to feel?

I don't know how much personal loyalty I ever felt toward Microsoft -- 
some, I suppose. I feel none now, nor have I in well over a year, at 
least. Microsoft is a corporation and will do what it thinks it needs to 
do to keep its corporate interests satisfied. If keeping me happy helps 
them, they'll keep me happy. Otherwise, they won't. That is the nature 
of business in America.

I enjoy working at Microsoft. It's a stimulating and rewarding work 
environment. They hire gobs of very smart, very competent people. I 
always feel stretched working there. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't 
consider working elsewhere, with non-MS technology. I would and I am.

> How is the job hunt going?

Far more slowly than I had anticipated, to tell the truth. The job 
market in the Seattle area is so slow, I'm starting to look elsewhere. 
Thanks for asking.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Answer to life

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jon-
>>> It's kind of like saying that the answer to life, the universe
>>> and everything is 42.
>>
>> Ahh, that's true.  But what is the question
>
> The question is: "What is 9 times 6?"

And to think some scoff at American ignorance! Let that be a lesson to 
you, Marc, on the power and profundity of the American mind.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] One Party Rule?

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> [Previously] One party domination is in direct defiance of the
> Brethren.
> [Now] Also, you've missed a quite legitimate parsing of my
> sentence. When one says x is in defiance of y, that implies
> that "belief in x" is in defiance of y.

Okay, that's reasonable. I don't agree with it, but it's much different 
from (and more inoffensive than) the meaning I originally inferred from 
your words.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] A Whirlwind Trip South

[Stephen Beecroft]

If you decide to take the coastal route, stop by and visit. I'll even 
show you around Microsoft's campus, though I can't get in any 
buildings...

Stephen

John W. Redelfs wrote:
> It looks like I'm going to make a whirlwind visit to SLC-Provo this 
> coming 
> weekend.  My son-in-law, Jeff, has taken a job with the University of 
> Alaska in Juneau and has to report for work on the 19th.  He is going to 
> 
> fly up and leave my daughter with the job of driving the family 
> automobile 
> to Prince Rupert and putting it on the ferry.  I thought I would fly 
> down 
> there and help her drive back.
> 
> So...  I'm going to be in Provo from about 4:00 PM Saturday, until I hit 
> 
> the road for Canada on Wednesday morning, Nov. 20th.  I've got to be to 
> the 
> ferry in Prince Rupert by Sunday the 24th at 4:30 PM.
> 
> By my calculations it is going to be a 1287 miles trip from Provo to 
> Prince 
> Rupert by shortest route.  But the route passes pretty close to Cardston 
> 
> and Edmonton.  I wonder if I should breeze through and say hi to Tom and 
> 
> the two Emontonions on my way.  It would only add about 300 miles to my 
> trip, and I'm going to get to Prince Rupert about a day early anyway.  
> It 
> sure would be fun to meet Tom, Marc and Mark face to face.
> 
> Anyone in the Provo-SLC area that would like to go to McDonald's with me 
> or 
> something?
> 
> Your friend and brother,
> John W. Redelfs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

[ZION] Madsen claims

[Stephen Beecroft]

I enjoy listening to Truman Madsen. Though he tends to sappy and 
over-the-top rhetoric, he is knowledgeable and pretty enjoyable to 
listen to. I'm listening to some lectures he gave on Joseph Smith, 
wherein he references some things I'm not familiar with and have been 
unable to turn up on Google. Can anyone help me out with references?

1. Lillian Freeze (Lilian Freise? something like that) recorded that 
Joseph Smith said that the day would come that only Latter-day Saint 
women would want to have children.

2. William Dimick (Demick? Dimik?) was told by Joseph that he would 
never taste of death.

Help, anyone?

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] One Party Rule?

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> One party domination is in direct defiance of the Brethren.

"Defiance"? Institutions are not capable of defiance, only individuals. 
Which individuals do you believe are in defiance of the Brethren? The 
leaders of the Republican party in Utah? Any Utah Republicans? Any LDS 
Republicans? Please clarify your accusation, so I can tell whether I and 
my family are included in it.

> Tribune: What is the attitude of church leaders toward the
> lingering sentiment among some Mormons -- apparently stemming
> back to comments made by former LDS President Ezra Taft Benson
> -- that it is difficult to be a good LDS member and a Democrat?

I recall that statement as being "liberal Democrat", though of course I 
could be mistaken. But even if I am correct, this is after all the 
Tribune we're talking about, so it's rather naive to expect truth or 
balance.

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

[ZION] "Social" Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jim-
> In my experience it is common to find "social" mormons with a
> misplaced sense of loyalty to such matters.  They identify more
> strongly with sociopolitical ideology than with their faith in
> Christ.

Funny you should write this, Jim. Just today, I was bathing in raw 
sewage, er, that is, reading the SL Tribune, and happened upon this 
article:

http://www.sltrib.com/11092002/saturday/saturday.htm

The article talks about a group of Mormons who "strive for social 
justice" and have branded themselves "Mormons for Equality and Social 
Justice, or MESJ". One member paradoxically states that "one of the 
unstated goals of the organization is that you can be both 'liberal' and 
Mormon." Another goes on to say:

"Sometimes it's hard to say I'm Mormon because of the political 
stereotype."

Social Mormon, indeed. Note that it's not hard for him to say he's 
liberal among Mormons; rather, it's hard for him to acknowledge he's 
Mormon among liberals. In my personal experience, I find this fairly 
typical for those American Latter-day Saints who consider themselves 
politically "liberal".

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Steven-
> Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United
> States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians.

Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes "moral high ground" in a war. 
Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus 
legitimate targets, just like Dresden. If the US was going for 
demoralizing civilian casualties, why didn't they nuke Tokyo?

Since 1945, there has been a moratorium in usage of nuclear weapons 
during war, one which the US has scrupulously observed, and in fact has 
even taken a lead role in carving out such "international law". In 1945, 
no such law existed. It's anachronistic (and worse) to try to hold the 
US of 1945 to a code of conduct that didn't exist at the time.

> I think a "demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have
> accomplished the same purpose.

Maybe, or maybe not. In either case, I think this suggestion is naive at 
best. Developing nuclear weapons was hugely expensive -- so now the US 
is supposed to give up its advantage of surprise by openly announcing to 
the enemy its secret weapon, giving them a demonstration, no less? 
That's simply not how it's done. I doubt any intelligent and honest 
military commander would have done any such thing.

To repeat: Japan was the aggressor. They killed many of our men and 
women in battle, and tortured and killed many other POWs. They committed 
atrocities that are even now being discovered, disclosed, and rued. At 
any time, they could have openly surrendered and been spared the further 
consequences of war. They chose not to. That is not the US' fault, no 
matter how you slice it.

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Liberal dems unveil...

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jim-
> Senator Peolosi from San Francisco is being groomed to take
> over the top of the Dem heap in the Congress [...] It will be
> truly gratifying if such openly radical nuts dominate in the
> new Democrat organization.

-John-
>> [Steven] Choosing Senator Pelosi will ring a death knell for
>> the Democratic Party.
>
> In that case, I hope they choose Senator Pelosi.  One of the
> two main parties needs to be done away with so another one can
> take its place.

-Steven-
> I would be tickled pink if the Democratic Party did choose
> Senator Pelosi. I would hold graveyard services to honor
> their demise and then go out and celebrate! ;-)

It appears you've gotten your wish. I certainly hope you all are right. 
My observation is that when wackos get into leadership position, they 
eventually stop looking quite so wacky. "A monster of so frightful mien" 
and all that.

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_-
> This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the
> dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace
> table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this
> historical view, like the original commentary intended for the
> exhibit, is not supported by the facts.

Just to be clear: If the net effect of dropping two atomic bombs was to 
kill 100,000 of the enemy and thereby save _one_ American life, it would 
have been the moral duty of the commander-in-chief to do so. I doubt you 
can convince me that Americans would not have died had the bombs not 
been dropped; therefore, in my moral calculus, at least, dropping the 
bombs was the only moral decision Truman could have made.

> But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as
> early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack
> on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the
> fateful use of the atomic bombs.

I see. So, the enemy starts asking about "peace" twenty or so weeks 
after taking out your strategic harbor, and therefore you're supposed to 
believe they're sincere. Do I have that right?

> Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost
> a year before the conflict ended."

Um, that would have been 1944. What happened to six months after Pearl 
Harbor?

> In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the
> immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until
> such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against
> Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on
> civilian populations.

Yes, Mark presented a web site detailing this same evidence a few years 
back. Interesting reading, perhaps with some truth to it. But in the 
end, it's bogus. All Japan had to do was to broadcast their 
unconditional surrender and they would have been spared. Blockade or no, 
Japan struck first and picked the fight, committing unspeakable 
atrocities in the warfare. If they didn't want to "lose face" by open 
surrender, that is their own fault, no the US's.

> Toshikasu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Office,
> delivered a highly confidential message to the interned
> British ambassador, Sir Robert Craigi. It contained a
> "discreet hint regarding the eventual restoration of peace."
> Emanating from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo, this message
> stated, "Should it happen that the British Government became
> desirous of discussing or negotiating peace they would find
> the Japanese Government ready to be helpful."

Yet we mannerless Americans, with no grasp whatsoever of the subtle 
nuances of civilized etiquette, just went on ahead and bombed them, all 
because of a little misunderstanding over a Hawaiian naval base. Yes, I 
see your point.

> In his 1952 book Fleet Admiral King, Admiral Ernest J. King
> reported President Roosevelt's 1942 understanding that "by
> the application of sea power, Japan could be forced to
> surrender without an invasion of her home islands." This
> attitude, shared by most of our military leaders, would
> quickly be abandoned by the President. Instead, the costly
> island-by-island advance of U.S. forces northward through
> the Pacific continued.

Hmmm. Might that be because Admiral King perhaps didn't witness the 
attempted taking of Italian peninsula, an Axis ally that actually had a 
lot of population who secretly sided with the Allies, and who in any 
case didn't plan to fight -- and that still resulted in a bloody 
campaign starting from the south and spanning the length of the country, 
a country roughly the size of Japan? If a comparatively "friendly foe" 
like Italy would be untakeable by naval forces alone and require 
extensive, bloody infantry warfare, why should the commander-in-chief 
have supposed that Japan, the original aggressor, a country whose pilots 
willingly sacrificed themselves to mess up carrier decks, would lay down 
and become docile under a similar situation?

> The only unwavering stipulation sought by anyone in the
> Japanese "peace party" was the retention of the Emperor and
> the continuance of the monarchy.

Perhaps the Japanese leaders ought to have realized that "unconditional" 
meant just that, and that they had long ago (say, 7 Dec 1941) forfeited 
any right to name the conditions of their surrender.

This sort of post facto second-guessing lies somewhere between silly and 
offensive. If my son were fighting in the Pacific theater, I would 
demand his (and my) commander-in-chief to protect his life, even at the 
cost of the enemy's lives. That's the CIC's job, second in priority only 
to winning the war. As far as I can tell, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
achieved both ends. To repeat: Japan could have broadcast their 
surrender at any time, even six months after Pearl Harbor. They could 
have broadcast an unconditional surrender in July 1945. They could have 
broadcast it after Hiroshima. They chose to wait. Whose fault is tha

RE: [ZION] Home automation

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Jon-
> Yep - I have automated quite a bit at our bookstore, and some
> at my home (because I can never get any time to finish it.
> What area do you have in mind?

Probably my basement family room, to start with. I've been dreaming 
about home automation for many years, and toying with the idea of 
implementation for 2-3 years now. A little over a year ago, I started 
working for the Microsoft eHome division, doing what amounts to home 
automation. I was in heaven for about three weeks. If a massive 
organizational restructuring hadn't moved me to a completely unrelated 
area, I would probably have been knee-deep into it.

I got a call from one of my oldest and dearest friends a few days ago, 
someone I haven't seen in probably twelve years, though he was briefly a 
member of a couple of email lists I was on, including Zion. He was in 
town doing some work at MS as a vendor. We got together for a few hours 
after work and had a wonderful time. He is apparently quite involved in 
home automation, and has rekindled that spark in me. So I just wanted to 
know what others had been doing.

I did a quick search yesterday and found out that, for many people, home 
automation is synonymous with X10. This might be problematic; I think 
X10 technology is a neat idea, but I'm not overly interested in using it 
in my own home, unless I decide it's really the best way. I'd rather 
drill some holes and run wires to each switch and whatnot. So if you've 
been using X10, or if you haven't, I'd like to know your reasoning and 
thoughts, what you've done, what's useful, what isn't, what you'd do 
differently, etc.

Also, do you use voice recognition/control? That's a centerpiece of my 
own ideas, and fairly easily implemented with some of the MS libraries. 
I assume you use a computer (or two, or three) to control your 
automation. Do you use professional or available software, or do you 
"roll your own"?

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

[ZION] Home automation

[Stephen Beecroft]

Anyone here interested in home automation? Anyone do any?

Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Paul-
> The President of the United States and US intelligence has
> determined that he is guilty. Case closed.

-John-
> Just hope they don't find you guilty of anything without evidence.

I agree with John. Poor Saddam. My heart bleeds for him.

Sympathetic Stephen

/
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^