Experience is a rich learning tool, which is why the Lord gives us trials.

Some people believe that mistakes are a good learning tool, perhaps because they have learned so much from them. I don't deny that you can learn from sin, but I do believe that there is a better way. Certainly if you saw someone try and pet the aligator and get eaten, you wouldn't want to try it yourself "just to see for yourself".

Learning from others is more efficient and leaves you less scars. Some argue that the learning isn't as deep, and tehy are correct I am sure. But there is something else that they may not understand and that is the Spirit. If there were no God, if we really were left to our natural states, then one would never be enlightened by being "sheltered" into always choosing teh right. But God does exist, and the Holy Ghost is sent to enlighten our minds beyond our natural reasoning, but only if we're choosing the right. I have personally felt this light, and it's envigorating. I still don't understand teh benefits of being sober contrasted with the woes of being drunk, but I am convinced that I understand more from the Spirit in other things because I have chosen the right in choosing the right by not drinking.

A God needs to understand what a drunk person goes through, so that he can help the drunk. God doesn't sin to understand the sinner, he pays an atonement. I believe in that he experiences, in proxy, but in excruciating detail, what it is that the sinner experiences. More so, God somehow aquires the ability to erase the scars on the sinner, so that they can remember the sin, but not carry the scar. God aquires teh ability, but only uses it if teh sinner really chooses to be cleaned. How many people really want to part with their sins?

Back to trails. Trials are difficult experiences that are not a result of sins (although can be complicated by sins). They are the experietial learning that we can learn in this life. There are scars here too, but they also can be erased through the atonement. Forgiveness is the key. I've often wondered how the Saints could live such happy lives despite the terrible persecution they went through. I now think this is the answer.

I didn't realize that My Fair Lady was such a long movie!

I liked it too J, and, like you, I found Professor Higgins tiresome. I wished Eliza could have found someone better. It's an example of a nice woman making a poor choice because of relationships.

Kohlberg found six stages of moral development from studying boys at a boys school in Eastern US. He found that the boys fit into a bell curve (he was a psychologist) of pre-conventional (few people) of doing things primarily because of fear or greed, conventional (most people) of doing things primarily because of pride or popularity, and post conventional (few people again) of doing things primarily because of logic or love.

He tried the same study on girls in a girls school.

No luck. They went all over the map and fluctuated all the time. Kohlberg eventually said that girls make decisions differently than boys. He noted that relationships play a key role.

I think that's why Eliza came back to professor Higgins even though he didn't come close to deserving her affection. She loved him.

Oh that somehow my daughters could fall in love with good men! Sometimes I wish we practiced arranged marriages like they did in the old days.

When I was a young university student I tried to learn how to play Fur Elise. I stopped piano lessons (after about 6 of them) back when I was 10 or so, and now I was 18, so I couldn't learn it properly by site reading, I had to learn it slowly, and only one part. But I got it, kinda. I practiced where ever I could. J plays it a lot better than I ever did.

And how about those Nana birds in Toodooha? What do they look like I wonder? I wonder if A will post a picture of them?

And what are the top 10 cities in the world (population wise) I hope C posts them, in order of biggest to smallest.

I want to look through the microscope that E made!

And where is V's blog?

I once saw a movie called Pi about a guy who had inadvertently found the ultimate number. I can't remember how it related to Pi, but throughout the movie he cited the warning he heard as a child that he shouldn't look into the sun. He did, and it eventually lead him to this great number. It's a pretty cool movie, even if it is all in black and white.

The Urim and Thummim (or seer stones) were ancinetly given to specific prophets. The borther of Jared had one, Moroni had one (or two?) and so did Joseph Smith. We're promised one according to D&C 130:10 if we're righteous. The question I have is: when. Is it after this life? Could it be during this life.

I personally believe that the prophet has one, and maybe the entire first presidency and quorum of the twelve? After all they have the title of seers. I think Ammon implies in Mosiah 18:13 that the title of seer means that they have the stone.

It's an important thing.

In the Time Machine movie J pointed out that there WAS a "two-people-at-the-same-time problem", that Alexander showed up early at the date, told Emma to go home, and disregard his being upset when she didn't show up. I didn't catch that, my bad.

But I still don't see how fate insists that she must die because the time machine was built. Was fate aware of Alexander's intentions?

I've often wondered about the multiple universe theory. When I first thought that all the universes started at the same time and that some are just more similar to ours than others, perhaps with just one difference of someone's decision, I can accept that, at least in theory. But when I learned that this wasn't the theory, that, according to the theory, a new universe is spawned at someone making a decision, one universe housing one decision, and another universe housing another option of that decision, I ask, how did the universe judge that this was a potential juncture? Hmmph!

I saw the Time Machine (2002) movie last night (again) and was just as unimpressed as I was the first time. I was unimpressed with the book too, but this movie is far worse. What bothered me the most was not only did it make almost no sense, but that it TRIED to.

Let me explain.

I think that the whole reason for the budding love scene at the beginning of the movie was to create a question in the mind of Alexander (the scientist who created the time machine): why can't you change the past. The question itself wasn't very convincing, I mean he tried like TWICE to go back and both times his love Emma dies. So from that he concludes "I could come back a thousand times... and see her die a thousand ways." Right, what a big sample size!

In fact our good friend Uber-buddy (the control freak supreme) notes that it's BECAUSE she died that Alexander built the time machine SO she HAS to die each time because ... otherwise he never would have made the time machine... get it? kinda?

The possibility that of different time lines isn't entertained, which explains why Alexander doesn't worry about running into himself when he goes back in time to save Emma (or at least the movie doesn't broach the subject).

So it the movie tries to be all profound by saying that you can't change the past. OK, fine. But then it doesn't know what to do after that. I mean it knows that it wants to live happily ever after, and that would mean killing off all the Morlocks, but how do you tie in "can't change the past" with that, or even kill them off in a logical (and Hollywood visually impressive) way? They came up dry. I'm sure some movie business guy decided to make the time machine blow up in a "rush-it-so-there's-no-time-to-think climax" and somehow blow up all the Morlocks, but no one good.

What's good about the movie. J cites the special effects, like the plants growing and seasons changing. I agree. I also think the winter city scenes at the beginning are picturesque. Ah, that the rest of the movie were as good ...

OK, I made my own new blog so I can post stuff too.

Chicken Little? I LOVED the movie. I mean it wasn't deep or anything, but it was fun. I laughed hard. Finally IMDB put some stuff up, while I was watching it the second time, I checked and there wasn't even an image for the movie! (much less trivia which I like to read). What an inventive story to make it so that the sky actually does fall. And J, the fish actually does talk the editor recorded himself talking through a tube going into a water cooler tank. And I like Fish because he (or she?) is never scared, and gets the group into situations they wouldn't have got themselves into, like into the UFO.

I like how it develops a relationship with a father and a son, and friends. I also like how it plays with other movies like King Kong, ET, Signs, war of the worlds, and makes fun of how Hollywood changes stories. I think they had a lot of fun making it.