How does the oil life indicator work?

OhDannyBoy · 1 month

I just bought a new Civic and I've been trying to decide whether to go by the maintenance minder or mileage intervals. I think I've got a handle on the value of the MM.

Before oil life indicators, car manuals came with maintenance schedules. Only there were usually two--one for "normal" driving conditions, and one for "severe." That's where the guesswork comes in, trying to decide which one to follow. It can be difficult to determine whether your driving conditions are what the manufacturer would call "normal" so just to be safe (and to make more money) mechanics and dealers steer everyone toward the "severe" schedule and oil changes every 3K–5K miles.

The MM removes that guesswork. It has no idea what your oil looks like, of course, but it can count the number of cold starts per day, record the average temperature, speed, number of revolutions, all that data that you could only guess at, and determine what maintenance schedule you should use.

And it goes without saying that rather than slating you as "normal" or "severe" it can do anything in between, and it will change as your driving conditions do.

CBHawk · 1 month

I bet the one on the right is messy and the one on the left hates living with him.

Dfrtx · 1 month

Guy 2 told a story about helicopters that totally went over my head

That line sounds like a Boys Life joke.

089786 · 1 month

This is a great example of how beliefs about the afterlife are completely pliable, and can morph into anything based on what behavior they are trying to manipulate in this life.

There is nothing doctrinal about this story at all. It's just a last ditch scare tactic used against couples who have figured out a way around the church's exclusionary policy on temple marriages.

Another one is where one or both of the couple aren't worthy to enter the temple, so a civil marriage is the only option. You will hear all kinds of stories about how the only "proper" civil marriage is one performed by the couple's bishop in an LDS chapel. Again, there is nothing doctrinal to support this, it's just more manipulation. They don't want anyone to have a real wedding ceremony because it will highlight how lame the temple service is.

transmogrification · 2 months

The ERA is a big deal, because the church sees it as a victory. They believe it is an example of how they were successfully able to stem the tide of progress. It is their proof that social change is not always inevitable.

That's what gives them hope that they can succeed in the fight against gay marriage.

710_113 · 2 months

I can't think of any. Whenever the science strongly and conclusively shows that P is false, the church changes its position and claims that it never held that P was true to begin with.

The global flood might be a good example. Cinepro makes a strong case that LDS doctrine strongly and unambiguously holds that Noah's flood was global. You will never find a prophet or apostle stating that the flood could have been localized.

Any yet, any apologist or lay member who is aware of the science precluding a global flood will simply deny that it is LDS doctrine. When pressed, they will adopt any definition for "doctrine" they need to in order to dismiss it. I heard from one that since the church has never excommunicated anyone for not believing in a global flood, it must not be "official doctrine."

So a better question might be, does the church hold any position so strongly and unambiguously that believers cannot weasel out of it if need be? I would say only those beliefs which are engineered to be unfalsifiable, such as the position that Jesus is the Messiah.

thabauss · 2 months

I hung on my trainer's every word. I learned several months later that he didn't know what he was talking about.

InfamousJoeG · 3 months

I read all those in Roy's voice.

PresidentMonson · 3 months

The church thinks they can actually win against civil rights for gay people. This is why they spend millions of dollars on things like proposition 8 in California, and form buffer organizations around them to act as political lobbying entities.

I think you're right.

It kind of reminds me of when the US invaded Iraq. While the rest of the world was thinking quagmire like Vietnam, Cheney was thinking it would be just like the successful operations in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the Reagan administration.

Likewise, while much of the world equates the gay marriage movement with civil rights, LDS leaders see it more like the ERA, which they successfully helped defeat. They think that in 50 years we'll be looking back at the gay marriage movement as a time when the left over-reached, but conservative family values eventually prevailed.

cangetenough · 3 months

When I was studying for my securities licenses, I learned about the concept of materiality. Basically, information is material if its omission or misstatement could affect the decision a prudent person would make based on that information.

The church knowingly omits or withholds material information from its members. In fact, they openly admit to it, and its members often defend the practice. Packer preaches the omission of material information in his famous talk on faithful history. If something is true but not faith promoting, it shouldn't be shared. Only information which encourages people to make the decisions the church wants them to make should be revealed.

Basically, what the church is doing would be a crime in an investing, accounting, or other economic situation.

Jithrop · 3 months

The main issue for me is that it doesn't read like it was engraved on metal plates. Think about it. If you were engraving something on metal plates, you wouldn't repeat yourself so much or correct yourself in the text as often as the Book of Mormon does. All that reads like someone who is dictating and making it up on the fly, and isn't concerned about editing it down because he's trying to fill space as it is.

If you were actually engraving something into metal you would figure out ahead of time the most concise way to get your point across, maybe write out a couple of rough drafts first, and basically refine the text down to its most efficient form before you started the difficult process of engraving into metal. There would be no "or, in other words" in the text.

Now, you could argue that the original text was that concise and efficient, and it was the translator trying to make sense of it who added all the repetition and clarification. But that introduces other problems.

Aceanuu · 4 months

I'm having the same issue. I stepped away from the game for a couple of weeks, and when I started playing again a few days ago, I started getting the same fov effects you're describing.

Ever figure out how to fix it?

NewbieHere · 4 months

Don't know why you're getting downvoted, I totally agree with what you're saying here.

Although I take issue with what might rightly be called sexism and unrighteous dominion displayed by the bishopric in this case, if this is what the OP has signed up for and bought into, then she needs to learn how to handle it effectively.

Obviously she is in the right, and if she wants to fight the bishopric on this then she will eventually win. But it sounds like she's not looking for a fight, but a solution amenable to everyone. If that's the case then challenging ward leadership is probably not the route to go.

When in Rome...

onewatt · 4 months

Hence the saying:

Catholic doctrine holds that the pope is infallible, but the members don't really believe it. Whereas LDS doctrine hold that the prophet is not infallible, but the members don't really believe it.

onewatt · 4 months

I doubt they polled more than a representative sample of Mormons, it is Gallup after all and I'm sure they know what they're doing. It's just that a large percentage of Mormons polled probably responded Monson, as Mormons tend to admire their prophet above other public figures almost universally. Few other demographics polled are as focused as Mormons in their admiration. Then there is the added dynamic that Mormons are missionary minded, always looking to get the word out, and getting Monson's name to show up on a poll like this is one way to do just that.

You see the same thing in polls like the Modern Library's 100 Best Novels. The board's list comprises universally acclaimed literature, while the readers' poll looks like a horse race between the followers of Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard. It's not that there are more Objectivists and Scientologists who read, it's just that they are more focused in their estimation of what constitutes good literature, and also driven to vote up the books of their chosen ideologies.

A similar thing happened in 1999 when Mormons started a campaign to get Hinckley on Time Magazine's list of the most influential people of the century.

TL;DR: Mormons vote as a block. That's what got them kicked out of Missouri, after all.

Resinade · 4 months

As in, why am I on earth? Or why am I in the living room about to turn on the TV?

RoflsaurasRex · 4 months

If you're in a position to transfer to another school while you're still in good academic standing at BYU, I would definitely look into that. One thing I plan to teach my kids--whether they end up believing in the church or not--is that it's never a good idea to put your livelihood in the hands of an ecclesiastical authority. That means don't work for a church, don't go to a church school, etc. You got to keep your worlds apart. That way if you change your mind about religion or your commitment to their version of "morality," your transcripts/paychecks are not held hostage.

If you're stuck at BYU because that's the only school your parents will pay for, then I say fly under the radar. Don't give anyone any reason to suspect your unbelief. Sinning is one thing--they love dragging people through the repentance process. But don't let on that you don't believe until you have your diploma in hand and have moved on.

For now I would jump though whatever hoops your parents and bishop set up for you, just so that they aren't on the defensive and are willing to help you out. Then, once you have everything situated to your advantage (hopefully at a good secular university) then you can begin to separate yourself from the church and be in a position to deal with the possible fallout with your parents and family.

Brolygamist · 4 months

If an LDS mission is humanitarian aid work, then so are all the anti-Mormon ministries trying to free people from the clutches of Mormonism.

Still, I'll bet that kid can throw a pigskin a quarter mile.

maxwellcorside · 4 months

I was the same way when I first started out: anything with a pro-Christian slant was a major turn-off.

Lots of good sources for unbiased information on Mormonism have been offered here, but the thing that was most helpful to me was working through the apologists' own arguments in favor of the church. Browse the FAIR wiki or an apologist message board.

This is useful because it removes virtually all doubt about historical bias or inaccuracy. If the church's own apologists are forced to admit that Smith married women who were already married to other men, for example, then you can be pretty sure that it happened. Because if there were any doubt or ambiguity at all, they would exploit it to maximum advantage, denying that it ever happened, or playing it off as an anti-Mormon lie, as they do so often. The historical record is good enough on enough topics to shred any testimony based solely on what FAIR is forced to admit before attempting to defend.

FancyDressKitten · 4 months

Furthermore, all of their training is geared toward converting fellow Christians, and to a lesser degree fellow theists. They really aren't equipped to try and convert atheists to theism.

That doesn't mean they won't try, of course. It just means that whenever they try to tackle atheism, they are going off script. They're on their own, and relying on whatever ideas and arguments about atheism they might have picked up in their youth. So as you might imagine there's really no predicting how they will approach the subject--as opposed to their rather tightly focused presentation toward other Christians, with atheists they tend to be all over the map.

A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu · 4 months

That's just it. There are ways to get around a lot of what goes on in Mormonism, but that's kind of beside the point. It's all about emotional manipulation and cultural coercion. Technically your Momon leaders don't have any real power over you and you can do what you want, but a person who realizes that and is willing to take advantage of it isn't likely to be Mormon anyway.

So yes, you can tithe on your net or even less, you can decline any calling you wish, you can choose not to serve a mission, etc, etc. You won't suffer any formal discipline for any of this. But the social and cultural fallout you will undoubtedly suffer for not doing what is expected of you is real and can be intense.

Likewise, you can get married in an open civil ceremony and then get sealed in the temple a year later. No rule against it, and yet every step of the way there will be leaders and even loved ones telling you you're doing it wrong.

TKOL · 4 months

Atheist.

Technically I consider myself an agnostic atheist secular humanist, but I find that most people asking this question only care whether or not you are theist, which I am not.

lifelongguy · 4 months

It's kinda like the fact that in addition to the writings of Abraham, Smith also received the writings of Joseph in Egypt.

Only he never got around to translating them.

And neither did any subsequent prophet/seer/revelator.

Makes you wonder why God miraculously delivered these priceless records into the hands of his prophet if he was just going to lose/ignore them.

R3bel · 4 months

When I found myself in a similar situation, I obtained a TR through illegitimate means in order to avoid being the only family member not in attendance at my younger brother's sealing.

Come to find out, my older brother didn't have a TR and was excluded from the sealing. I never felt the slightest bit guilty about attending the ceremony as an atheist with a fake TR, but I did feel bad about my brother being excluded when I should have been out there as well. If I had known ahead of time I would have loved to have sat out the ceremony with him in the waiting room.

Also surprising: my family didn't seem to judge him in the slightest for his not being "worthy" to attend. This also made me rethink my strategy of subterfuge.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to predict how people will react. It may be that your absence from the temple sealing will result in exactly the shitstorm you dread. My dread for the same caused me to go to extreme measures to avoid it, but I discovered that it probably would not have been as bad as I thought.

You might consider just being open with them about your beliefs. Maybe they will be more understanding than you think.

Or, just let your sister know that you don't have a valid temple recommend, so you won't be able to attend the ceremony, and leave it at that. People usually assume that it's a "worthiness" issue rather than a belief issue, and for whatever reason that seems to be more acceptable to Mormons. Hell, I've always assumed as much about my brother, but honestly I don't still don't know why he couldn't attend the sealing.

Dunvegan · 4 months

Mitt would probably try to obfuscate by bringing up something offensive that Jeremiah Wright once taught that Obama doesn't really believe, in order to discredit the whole tactic of dragging past religious beliefs into a political debate.

Five-Year Club	Secret Santa 2011
Secret Santa 2010	Summer Santa 2010
Verified Email

Sophocles

TROPHY CASE

Sophocles

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login