darth_ender

Px9g

It's hard to tell with Bingowings.

VM-9d

I was wondering if someone would be willing to check the weather for southern AZ please?  And please, don't use complex phrases like "cold front" or "precipitation" or "four cast".  Put it in layman's terms please. ;)

VM-10d.

Yeah, it'd probably be easier to make a simple mockup.  I'd enjoy having my own set anyway.  Years ago I made several sets for most of the games we've already played.  Sadly some are in rough shape, but they still function.  It would be good to add to my collection.

1) Enough archaeology to convince non-Mormons?  Probably not.  Enough to support the faith of Mormons?  Yes, and far more than non-believers realize.

2) As a whole, many believe that all Native Americans descended from Middle Easterners, but such is not a binding view, and it is quickly going out of vogue.  See here.  But your question is inaccurate, so let me clarify.  Yes, we believe that some Middle Easterners came to the Americas.  Yes, the Book of Mormon teaches that their skin changed.  Was it because they became "delightsome"?  No.  We believe they became wicked, and so to distinguish between the righteous and wicked, the wicked gained a new look.  Yes, I am aware this is controversial and sounds racist, and I'm sure TV's Frink will jump all over me for that.  But the skin color itself was not a sign of righteousness or wickedness, but rather of distinction.  In much of the Book of Mormon, the fairer-skinned folks were the less righteous and the darker more.  There was a Lamanite (dark-skinned) prophet.  The most righteous and noble warriors in the book are Lamanites.  There are lots of neat stories where the Lamanites supersede the Nephites (fair-skinned) in righteousness and in communion with God.

3) Delightsome

4) Peanut butter?  H1N1?  How could what spread so quickly? ;)  I suspect you mean my faith, but I'm not sure if I'm correct.  If that is your question, my favorite answer would be, "Because it's true, and God has a hand in it."  Other reasons might be our extensive missionary program, its welfare programs (governments should take note), its education programs, its involvement of members in all aspects, its broad appeal, its fascinating history, its family values....

BTW, if you're ever interested in playing the 2x3 variant Dobutsu Shogi, I don't know of any software that allows one to play, but this site has a Java applet:

http://81dojo.com/

You just have to sign up.  It would probably have to be a prearranged game, as it's played in real time.

DH-7f

Hey, you're back!  DK-5e

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Incidentally, this looks like an interesting website:

http://mormonthink.com/introductionweb.htm

And I particularly enjoyed this:

What if we're wrong?

People wonder what if by some chance the Church is 100% true, and that there is some sort of fantastic explanation for all the historical problems - would God punish us in the next life?

God gave us a brain and expects us to use it.  We're expected to use every means at our disposal to seek the truth and to live our lives in a desirable way.  "The Glory of God is intelligence" is something we hear at church all the time.

If the LDS Church is somehow 100% true, we're not too worried about defending our beliefs on judgment day.  If we end up 'on trial' for not believing what the LDS Church has taught, the information on this website alone would justify our actions.

We would ask God to explain the following:

• Why doesn't Joseph Smith's translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri match what Egyptologists say they mean?
• Why does the Book of Mormon mention so many things that did not exist in the Americas when the BOM took place such as horses, elephants, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc.?
• Why were we told the Book of Mormon was translated from gold plates that were never used, when Joseph put his face in a hat and looked at a common stone he found while digging a well?
• Why did Joseph marry 11 men's wives while they were still married to their husbands?

The lists of questions would go on for several pages.  If God does indeed exist, and he's the fair judge that we all believe him to be, then how could He condemn anyone for not believing a story fraught with so many problems?

Likewise if the church isn't true, then I don't think a just God would punish anyone for believing in it if they really believed it, although perhaps some people would be chided for IGNORING the red flags and continuing to believe a lie out of fear or willful ignorance.  If the church isn't true then it does not have the power to 'save' you anyway.

LDS people would probably have the same response if, in the next life, they found out that Scientology was really God's one, true church.  They would bring up the absurd problems with that religion and expect absolution for not believing in that religion.

According to LDS lore, Joseph Smith himself will have some role in the final judgment of our souls.  Shortly before he died, Joseph said "no man knows my history; if I hadn't lived it I wouldn't have believed it myself."  Well, if even Joseph wouldn't have believed it, then how can anyone blame us for not believing it either?

That looks like a pretty cool site.  There are also good points in this quote, though I'm surprised that some of the "questionable" things they bring up are not easily explained, even by genuine objective historians.  Let me give an example: David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses to the authenticity is quoted as stating that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon.  But other sources, particularly later sources indicate that the translation process was done in different methods, including simply using the plates and no assistive device.  Check out this link for more info.  The same goes for other claims, and if you want, I can point out the flawed mentions.  What's interesting to me is that there are other more serious poitns that could have been made, so I'm not trying to simply make excuses.  They really could have used better examples.  I myself appreciate their mission in spite of the crises of faith it can cause for many.  I feel I've had to reason through many things to arrive at my point, and now I find myself a stronger believer in spite of realizing how much I don't understand.

 Did some reading lately with regards to this site and its counterpoint, FAIR (the site I defer to so often for elaborate answers).  Let me begin by making sure I'm providing a balanced perspective and showing links to the Mormonthink argument first.

Mormonthink Response to FAIR

This is in response to FAIR's criticisms of the site, but I'm not sure which came first, so here is FAIR's latest comments as well.

A FairMormon Analysis of the Critical Website mormonthink.com

I have to say that even if I try to remove as much bias from my opinion as possible, FAIR by far has the stronger argument.  Let me point out some flaws in MormonThink's reasoning.

1) It claims that FAIR is attacking ad hominem by quoting their remarks made in other forums and sites, as those quotes don't actually represent the official position of MormonThink itself.  Well, that's not the definition of an ad hominem attack, which is indeed a fallacy.  However, when you are quoting statements that clarify a person's motives and beliefs, even from other sources, you are actually making a legitimate argument about the people themselves.  It in itself does not counter the arguments made, but it does show true motives.  Those on MormonThink who claim to be members of the LDS Church and remain faithful, but simply have honest questions are, in reality, being dishonest.  Many admitted that they have left the Church or only remain members in order to convince others to leave.  They say they merely ask for a reform in policy and openness, but their other words show that they actually want to destroy the Church and the testimonies of the faithful.  So these are not attacks "against the man"; they are indicators of credibility, motive, and hypocrisy, all relevant when having such an argument.

2) MormonThink does not offer a very balanced perspective as they assert.  This is all fine and good, if that were admitted upfront.  FAIR does not offer a balanced perspective either, as both of the above links point out (one in defense, one in attack).  But FAIR states that the purpose of their site is to argue in favor of the validity of Mormonism and promote faith, and they argue very well and thoroughly.  They offer point, then counterpoint.  MormonThink states that it will use both critical and apologist views and allow folks to decide for themselves.  However, as I've read several of their articles, it appears more like they offer others' criticisms, apologists' defenses, and MormonThink's conclusions, always casting the Church in a negative light with their final words.  I've yet to see them conclude that the critics are really wrong on any point.  MormonThink criticizes FAIR for not taking a balanced view, while they themselves do the same under the pretense of fairness.

And for what it's worth, the tone of a person's writings affects perception, and I see little effort to conceal contempt in several articles from the supposedly unbiased MormonThink site.  But those who are not skilled in debate may fail to realize the influence of such tone and may allow their testimonies to be shaped solely by those who try to bring down their faith.  Subtle sarcasm and statements assuming common knowledge ("Everyone knows that such and such is the case") slip through those unprepared to cope with such tactics.  This is not the kindly site it pretends to be.

3) MormonThink claims that several items of criticism have not been addressed or are hidden from general membership.  While it's true that many items are not discussed much in Church itself, the Church has been rather open, and continues to be more so in recent years.  I pointed out the article on blacks and the priesthood earlier.  Also of note is the Joseph Smith Papers online, an attempted and ongoing collection of every single document Joseph ever wrote or dictated, including what may be less than flattering, and open to every individual with an Internet connection.  But aside from the Church's official openness (is it not best to give milk before  meat?), the Church has not disallowed or hindered research in such areas of study, and every single point MormonThink has criticized has been addressed numerous times in various manners by a number of faithful members of the Church.  Sure, they do not represent the official Church position, but the Church is aware of their activities and does not discourage such.  The fact is that the points of the critics have been addressed, and the frequent assertions that they have not is dishonest.

In short, to TV's Frink and others, feel free to read MormonThink.com.  I'm sure it's very informative.  But don't be fooled into believing that you are getting a balanced perspective.

Hey, thanks a lot!  It looks interesting to me, so I'm glad you're willing to give it a try.  Hopefully it is rewarding for you as well :)

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Good.  Finally!  You've been keeping me busy all day!  ;)

 That's what she said.

 She who? Your mom?

Wow.  That sounds pretty cool!  Best of luck to you and your class :)

Good.  Finally!  You've been keeping me busy all day!  ;)

Of course I don't mind, it was a fun day playing this game.  Have a good night.  My move when you return is P-5f.

I've heard many times of Kriegspiel, and I'm curious to know what kinds of hints there are.  I don't know if I have the memory to play a game that way, but I'm sure it's an intriguing challenge.  Progressive Chess sounds utterly horrifying to me.  I imagine games don't last longer than a few turns.  And I've heard of Smess as well, and hear it's an intriguing game.  It's honestly amazing how many underrated games there are, such as Smess.  I remember reading in a book years ago that Smess looks a bit whimsical and may sound simplistic, but it's actually a complex game.  I think it'd be fun to try sometime as well.

You should try out self eliminator chess.  I doubt your students program the AI, do they?  Simply programming the moves sounds pretty straightforward.  You should give it a whirl.  If you're ever interested, I'm sure you've noticed that some of us are playing correspondence games here, and I know RicOlie_2 and I are both interested in Self Eliminator.

If you are into that sort of thing and ever find the book I mentioned, it's worth a look.  I just found my copy and realized that I misspelled his last name: Schmittberger.  It only mentions the softer version of the game where your only legal move must be accepted.  Honestly, I kind of like the idea of one legal move being a loss.  Like you said, it balances out, and you shouldn't have accepted a move that put yourself in that position!

Good, good.  Ln-8d

Does this look like yours (minus my last lion move)?

In spite of the piece confusion, I think I would have played it all the same.  If it looks right, I'll make a different move.

Oh geez, I think I already see one mistake, but I doubt it's the one you're referring to.

EDIT: Yes, I'm sure I know what I did wrong now.  I think I keep confusing the DK and the DH.  You're going to think I have dyslexia or something like that with all the silly mistakes I make.  I'll fix my board and show it to you.  And yes, I don't want to move my lion there in this case.

Here's what I have:

Since I nearly always am the one who made an error, can you see where something went wrong?

I wish to point out that our lions are presently safe from each other, since they are both two squares away and they are both defended, and the only exception to this rule is when making a double capture and the first capture is not a pawn or go between.

LnxP8f-7f

Yeah, he ain't too bad when he's not crushing you.  I'm sure I'd be equally devastated were I playing the Zillions AI.  I pretty much feel the same as you on all points.  It's fun, it takes a bit to get going, but not nearly as long as I thought.  I don't mind not having drops, as that would be a crazy game.  I do find it strange that all the ranging pieces are towards the front and the stepping pieces in the rear.  I suppose they either serve a more defensive function or else they come into play after both players have suffered immense attrition and only the steppers remain.  I am a little saddened that there is no knight (literal translation: horse), as it, the Heavenly Horse, and the Lion are the only pieces capable of nonlinear moves in all of the shogi universe (that I'm aware of).  Everything else is diagonal or orthogonal.  But it's a minor loss.  Overall, this is a pretty fun game.

How dare you say that, you Commie!

Yes, YES, YESSSS!!!!

*maniacal laughter*

*crash of thunder*

TV's Frink said:

Ro-AR

 Al-Ol

What is TV's Frink's favorite brand of skin care products?

Oil of Olie, as if it weren't obvious!