Hi Zeta Flux. LDS seems to have accepted the teachings and asspirations
 

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378116]Well I certainly think it is a big deal!

Besides the Bible we have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (some of Joseph Smith's revelations and some later revelations), the Pearl of Great Price (a small collection of other writings), and the words of our prophets (although most of these are not canonized, we consider many of them as on par with scripture). The discourse you linked to is in the last category.

When I was a missionary, during the first lesson we would give the investigator a copy of the Book of Mormon.[/QUOTE]

of Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, and Augustine. They were all friends, pupils, admirers, and corresponding with a certain lady. I should like to say what is remembered, but it does awfully seem like it would be presumptuous. One believes due to not knowing. It is impossible to both know and believe one and the same thing for equality would be meaningless. Yet I know what they asked her, as well as what she taught them in answer; well beyond mere memory alone. I may not be as real as a believer like yourself, but I make words to answer and pretend it a voice.

Good poetry and good math can be equally beautiful. The math has to
make sense; the poetry can be concretely sensible or even mystically
incomprehensible and still be esthetic. The value of each sample depends
on its relationship to the rest, to the whole gamut of creativity.

That seems good, correct enough, and highly agreeable. Should it be
 

[QUOTE=davar55;378575]Good poetry and good math can be equally beautiful. The math has to
make sense; the poetry can be concretely sensible or even mystically
incomprehensible and still be esthetic. The value of each sample depends
on its relationship to the rest, to the whole gamut of creativity.[/QUOTE]

Should it be incomplete, I can't think of adding anything. Though we know a poet who avoids rhymes, I favor some. The second oldest boy in the family I am with lives in LaCrosse WI USA. If I am being understood; he and his sister in Paris translate. Then I just do the button.
So can you please help resurrect some lost poetry posts? Is there a garbage bin?

[QUOTE=Kathegetes;378599]Is there a garbage bin?[/QUOTE]
Why not start your own thread?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378601]Why not start your own thread?[/QUOTE]

Now I'm not saying that was borderline mean, but she probably meant
a bin out of which to resurrect old poetry, not a garbage bin to collect
new. Or perhaps I'm misreading both of you and you both are suggesting
a new thread for collecting decent verse.

I don't know of any "garbage bin" here. My suggestion to Kathegetes is genuine: start one. If it can be used to "resurrect some lost poetry posts", then that's fine by me.

The hint, which - despite your carefully negative sentence structure - you picked up as borderline mean, davar55, was also indeed present. I think an obscure style of writing can sometimes provoke thought and be interesting, but if the writer never explains what s/he is talking about then after a while it's a big conversation stopper. That's a pity for a thread which many people, you included, have clearly been enjoying.

Redirecting the thread:

Q: Is their a god?

A: No, it is an adjective.

It is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.

But does it describe God?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378636]It is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.[/QUOTE]


You mean possessive form of a plural pronoun. However, in English it is nearly universally only used as an adjective. :) And perhaps ESL ruins the joke.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378636]But does it describe God?[/QUOTE]

It's hard for me to imagine any of the various gods that could be described merely as a plural possessive.

What if the concept of God (note the change to capital) is merely the increasing complexity of the universe becoming aware of itself--in other words: Us. And any other sapient species in the universe.

My descent from theism to atheism briefly paused in an epiphenomenalist stage that could have been described in that manner.

Ultimately I rejected it as adding my own meaning to the noise merely because I didn't understand it. I still chuckle at this foam on the beer of the universe idea every time I drink a frosty cold adult beverage.

[QUOTE=chappy;378638]You mean possessive form of a plural pronoun. However, in English it is nearly universally only used as an adjective. :) And perhaps ESL ruins the joke. [/QUOTE]

No. "It" is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.
/explaining-the-joke

[QUOTE=axn;378641]No. "It" is actually a neuter pronoun referring to anything non-human.
/explaining-the-joke[/QUOTE]

In current "gender-identity-speak" 'they' and 'their' are used as gender neutral pronouns. This bothers me, having grown up in a grammar-nazi household, in which such number-mismatches (plural pronoun applied to an individual) were not tolerated.

However, I'd rather be uncomfortable about that, than use some of the constructed alternative words.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_solutions[/url]