"I did a screenplay and it was awful. It was too long. It lacked the proper visual metaphors. I was too close to the book to be able to see it as a film. David didn't have that problem. Working on this film with David has taught me one great deal about taking the printed word, a screenplay, and making it into a film."
The problem with shaky cam is that it is trying to give the impression of a camera and/or cameraman inside the action. But that's not what I want. I want to be in the action. Not through the proxy of a camera. My eyes and brain have the ability to compensate for a good amount of shaking. When I see shaky cam it pulls me out of the movie, because I am painfully aware that this is not what it would look like were I in the action.
I understand that by not giving something the eye can focus on they are attempting to replicate the confusion and frenzy that take place in battle, but I think there are better ways to convey these.
Also, when they had the unsteady camera filming the conversation between Kirk and Pike in the bar that was way too much. Unless I'm drunk over at the next table and can't sit upright for the life of me I don't expect to be bobbing about.
so what we envisioned we thought our future selves might want in 2009 isn't actually quite what it turns out we actually wanted.
Right. He knows that what we want is what we end up achieving. And I'm sure he knows that he will be wrong on some of his predictions. A large part of what he is doing when he makes these predictions is trying to get people informed about what is possible, to stimulate people's imaginations, so that we will want the things that he thinks are important and good for our future. The goal of making predictions is more than just to be Slashdot fodder ten years from now.
Some Mormons have polygamous marriages today. Just not members of the largest sects, LDS and RLDS. When you say, "Mormons have not had plural marriages in well over a century" what you really mean is that the LDS sect within Mormonism has not had plural marriages in well over a century.
The LDS book of scripture shown in the picture linked above contains the text of the King James Version of the Bible, not the text of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Some excerpts of the Joseph Smith Translation text are included in footnotes and endnotes (which is not sufficient to reconstitute the entire JST version), and, more often than not, are not read in LDS church services.
As I tried to explain above in a non-explicit way, what I was attempting to convey by using the word isolation is to be in a state where we don't have these relationships with our family. And of course, when you are sealed both upstream and downstream and sideways your family is essentially everyone.
You're right. I should not have said non-existence. Disorganized existence would maybe be the words Brigham Young would have used. See below. The Atonement of Christ saves us from a disorganized existence.
Regarding isolation, we believe that you cannot enter into the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unless you have entered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage -- i.e. you have been sealed. Remember that we are sealed to our parents, sealed to our spouses, and sealed to our children. Why are we sealed? To bind us together as a family; to covenant with each other to preserve our relationships. I find it interesting that the highest ordinance we perform in our temples is the sealing ordinance.
http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-53.html
Life and death are set before us, and we are at liberty to choose which we will. ...
To me, these principles are like the vision of open day upon this beautiful earth. Life and death are easily understood in the light of the Holy Ghost,but, like every thing else, they are hard to be understood in its absence.
To choose life is to choose an eternal existence in an organized capacity: to refuse life and choose death is to refuse an eternal existence in an organized capacity, and be contented to become decomposed, and return again to native element.
Life is an accumulation of every property and principle that is calculated to enrich, to ennoble, to enlarge, and to increase, in every particular,the dominion of individual man. To me, life would signify an extension.I have the privilege of spreading abroad, of enlarging my borders, of increasing in endless knowledge, wisdom, and power, and in every gift of God.
To live as I am, without progress, is not life, in fact we may say that is impossible. There is no such principle in existence, neither can there be. All organized existence is in progress, either to an endless advancement in eternal perfections, or back to dissolution. You may explore all the eternities that have been, were it possible, then come to that which we now understand according to the principles of natural philosophy, and where is there an element, an individual living thing, an organized body, of whatever nature, that continues as it is? IT CAN NOT BE FOUND. All things that have come within the bounds of man's limited knowledge-the things he naturally understands, teach him, that there is no period, in all the eternities,wherein organized existence will become stationary, that it cannot advance in knowledge, wisdom, power, and glory.
If a man could ever arrive at the point that would put an end to the accumulation of life-the point at which he could increase no more, and advance no further, we should naturally say he commenced to decrease at the same point. Again, when he has gained the zenith of knowledge, wisdom, and power,it is the point at which he begins to retrograde; his natural abilities will begin to contract, and so he will continue to decrease, until all he knew is lost in the chaos of forgetfulness. As we understand naturally,this is the conclusion we must come to, if a termination to the increase of life and the acquisition of knowledge is true. ...
If mankind will choose the opposite to life held out in the Gospel,it will lead them to dissolution, to decomposition, to death; they will be destroyed. but not as it is commonly understood. For instance, we would have destroyed more of the material called flour, had we possessed it this spring in greater abundance. We should have destroyed more of the wood that grows on the mountains, could we have got it with more ease, which seems to us to be utterly destroyed when it is consumed, with fire. But such is not the case, it will exist in native element. That which is consumed by eating, or by burning is nothing more than simply reduced to another shape, in which it is ready for another process of action.
The text of the LDS KJV is the text of the KJV. The LDS version adds footnotes, a Bible dictionary and an index. Some of the changes that Joseph Smith made are spread between the footnotes and some endnotes at the back, but these are separate from the KJV text itself, and reading the Joseph Smith changes involves flipping back and forth between the KJV text and the footnotes and/or endnotes.
Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible. These verses are, in fact, still in their Bibles, because it is the KJV, after all.
Mormons are married in their temples, and believe that this marriage lasts after death. The marriage is performed in life, and not in the resurrection; in the resurrection they are already married, and do not need to marry or be given in marriage.
The LDS church uses the King James Bible in church services.
You are referring to the Mormon "Joseph Smith Translation" version of the King James Bible, which is not generally used but occasionally referenced in LDS services. It is not a translation in the normal sense of the word, because Joseph Smith did not have any source documents that they were working from. He had a King James Bible and made changes to the text in the margins, with the intent of publishing the finished product. (I don't believe Joseph Smith or the LDS church actually published this Bible during his lifetime.)
Mormons believe that the process as a whole was done by inspiration from God, and so is generally more "correct" than the KJV, but they do not agree about, and are not generally concerned with, whether any particular change is a restoration of the original words of the author, a rewording of the KJV text for clarity, or an addition of new content in an appropriate place in the KJV text.
You have already interpreted the Bible according to your beliefs in making that statement. Your statement amounts to saying, "You're not Christian because you're not Christian."
Maybe I used the wrong word: with 'untouchable' I tried to express "something that I cannot experience". I am simply unable to experience a deity in any way. I csnnot feel, touch or hear a deity, nor can someone scienticfically prove to me that a deity exists. Therefor I assume that no such deity exists.
Just as meditation and care for nature bring a Buddhist enlightenment, prayer, study and following the teachings of Jesus bring a Christian to God, in a way that brings personal evidence of God's existence. Mormons believe this includes both experiencing the Holy Ghost, as well as the possibility of witnessing a physical manifestation of God.
I think even the assumption that we can be saved is wrong. "Saved from what?", is always my question.
"Being saved" for a Mormon is to have a society of (extended) family with God, and being able to grow in knowledge and power together. Saved from what? Non-existence and isolation. Mormons accept personal responsibility for participating with God in saving others from these, which is manifest in our fascination with performing ordinances in our temples for deceased people, and organizing our ancestors and children into family units by covenant.
What is "following the buddhist path" if not a request to follow certain practices?
Mormons, as well, believe that "following the Mormon path" relieves suffering in this life. In fact, there is a strong tradition from the beginnings of Mormonism that we should be creating heaven here now. Heaven, for a Mormon, is not only "after you die", but is to a large extent a continuation of life here.
Mormonism's God is not untouchable, but is expressly approachable. This also is foundational to Mormonism. And there is certainly talk of enlightenment in Mormonism, from the Holy Ghost and through our own efforts toward becoming enlightened; and enlightenment is a necessary part of "being saved" in Mormonism.
It's not my definition; it's the biblical definition.
Because everyone agrees about how the Bible should be interpreted. Wait, no they don't. How do you adjudicate between competing interpretations?
Slashdot Mirror
Shatner is bilingual. He speaks Esperanto. Or, at least, he could when he made a movie spoken in Esperanto.
The Hobbit was published in 1937, while the Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 and 1955.
According to Herbert his screenplay was "awful".
"I did a screenplay and it was awful. It was too long. It lacked the proper visual metaphors. I was too close to the book to be able to see it as a film. David didn't have that problem. Working on this film with David has taught me one great deal about taking the printed word, a screenplay, and making it into a film."
Right near the end of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rTvjJxUebA&feature=related
Because kicking 2/3 of the drivers off the roads is being less of a nanny than making people wear seatbelts.
The problem with shaky cam is that it is trying to give the impression of a camera and/or cameraman inside the action. But that's not what I want. I want to be in the action. Not through the proxy of a camera. My eyes and brain have the ability to compensate for a good amount of shaking. When I see shaky cam it pulls me out of the movie, because I am painfully aware that this is not what it would look like were I in the action.
I understand that by not giving something the eye can focus on they are attempting to replicate the confusion and frenzy that take place in battle, but I think there are better ways to convey these.
Also, when they had the unsteady camera filming the conversation between Kirk and Pike in the bar that was way too much. Unless I'm drunk over at the next table and can't sit upright for the life of me I don't expect to be bobbing about.
Like William Shatner? (And I'll bet he doesn't even know Klingon.)
I think that interpretation is less common today than it was 30 years ago or so.
Behold, I give you Mormon Rap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TeV8yp8ALM
Right. He knows that what we want is what we end up achieving. And I'm sure he knows that he will be wrong on some of his predictions. A large part of what he is doing when he makes these predictions is trying to get people informed about what is possible, to stimulate people's imaginations, so that we will want the things that he thinks are important and good for our future. The goal of making predictions is more than just to be Slashdot fodder ten years from now.
So, Slashdotters, what do you want in ten years?
And you shouldn't be sending text messages during your chemistry test, either.
The LDS church dropped polygamy in 1890. There were other sects of Mormonism at the time. Other than that I agree with you.
Some Mormons have polygamous marriages today. Just not members of the largest sects, LDS and RLDS. When you say, "Mormons have not had plural marriages in well over a century" what you really mean is that the LDS sect within Mormonism has not had plural marriages in well over a century.
CFR.
They could call it Hockey-Tux.
The Chinese did kick ass, even if you discount their gymnastics medals.
The LDS book of scripture shown in the picture linked above contains the text of the King James Version of the Bible, not the text of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Some excerpts of the Joseph Smith Translation text are included in footnotes and endnotes (which is not sufficient to reconstitute the entire JST version), and, more often than not, are not read in LDS church services.
As I tried to explain above in a non-explicit way, what I was attempting to convey by using the word isolation is to be in a state where we don't have these relationships with our family. And of course, when you are sealed both upstream and downstream and sideways your family is essentially everyone.
Regarding isolation, we believe that you cannot enter into the highest degree of the celestial kingdom unless you have entered into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage -- i.e. you have been sealed. Remember that we are sealed to our parents, sealed to our spouses, and sealed to our children. Why are we sealed? To bind us together as a family; to covenant with each other to preserve our relationships. I find it interesting that the highest ordinance we perform in our temples is the sealing ordinance.
http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-53.html
Life and death are set before us, and we are at liberty to choose which we will.
To me, these principles are like the vision of open day upon this beautiful earth. Life and death are easily understood in the light of the Holy Ghost,but, like every thing else, they are hard to be understood in its absence.
To choose life is to choose an eternal existence in an organized capacity: to refuse life and choose death is to refuse an eternal existence in an organized capacity, and be contented to become decomposed, and return again to native element.
Life is an accumulation of every property and principle that is calculated to enrich, to ennoble, to enlarge, and to increase, in every particular,the dominion of individual man. To me, life would signify an extension.I have the privilege of spreading abroad, of enlarging my borders, of increasing in endless knowledge, wisdom, and power, and in every gift of God.
To live as I am, without progress, is not life, in fact we may say that is impossible. There is no such principle in existence, neither can there be. All organized existence is in progress, either to an endless advancement in eternal perfections, or back to dissolution. You may explore all the eternities that have been, were it possible, then come to that which we now understand according to the principles of natural philosophy, and where is there an element, an individual living thing, an organized body, of whatever nature, that continues as it is? IT CAN NOT BE FOUND. All things that have come within the bounds of man's limited knowledge-the things he naturally understands, teach him, that there is no period, in all the eternities,wherein organized existence will become stationary, that it cannot advance in knowledge, wisdom, power, and glory.
If a man could ever arrive at the point that would put an end to the accumulation of life-the point at which he could increase no more, and advance no further, we should naturally say he commenced to decrease at the same point. Again, when he has gained the zenith of knowledge, wisdom, and power,it is the point at which he begins to retrograde; his natural abilities will begin to contract, and so he will continue to decrease, until all he knew is lost in the chaos of forgetfulness. As we understand naturally,this is the conclusion we must come to, if a termination to the increase of life and the acquisition of knowledge is true.
If mankind will choose the opposite to life held out in the Gospel,it will lead them to dissolution, to decomposition, to death; they will be destroyed. but not as it is commonly understood. For instance, we would have destroyed more of the material called flour, had we possessed it this spring in greater abundance. We should have destroyed more of the wood that grows on the mountains, could we have got it with more ease, which seems to us to be utterly destroyed when it is consumed, with fire. But such is not the case, it will exist in native element. That which is consumed by eating, or by burning is nothing more than simply reduced to another shape, in which it is ready for another process of action.
The text of the LDS KJV is the text of the KJV. The LDS version adds footnotes, a Bible dictionary and an index. Some of the changes that Joseph Smith made are spread between the footnotes and some endnotes at the back, but these are separate from the KJV text itself, and reading the Joseph Smith changes involves flipping back and forth between the KJV text and the footnotes and/or endnotes.
Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible. These verses are, in fact, still in their Bibles, because it is the KJV, after all. Mormons are married in their temples, and believe that this marriage lasts after death. The marriage is performed in life, and not in the resurrection; in the resurrection they are already married, and do not need to marry or be given in marriage.
The LDS church uses the King James Bible in church services.
You are referring to the Mormon "Joseph Smith Translation" version of the King James Bible, which is not generally used but occasionally referenced in LDS services. It is not a translation in the normal sense of the word, because Joseph Smith did not have any source documents that they were working from. He had a King James Bible and made changes to the text in the margins, with the intent of publishing the finished product. (I don't believe Joseph Smith or the LDS church actually published this Bible during his lifetime.)
Mormons believe that the process as a whole was done by inspiration from God, and so is generally more "correct" than the KJV, but they do not agree about, and are not generally concerned with, whether any particular change is a restoration of the original words of the author, a rewording of the KJV text for clarity, or an addition of new content in an appropriate place in the KJV text.
You have already interpreted the Bible according to your beliefs in making that statement. Your statement amounts to saying, "You're not Christian because you're not Christian."
Just as meditation and care for nature bring a Buddhist enlightenment, prayer, study and following the teachings of Jesus bring a Christian to God, in a way that brings personal evidence of God's existence. Mormons believe this includes both experiencing the Holy Ghost, as well as the possibility of witnessing a physical manifestation of God.
I think even the assumption that we can be saved is wrong. "Saved from what?", is always my question.
"Being saved" for a Mormon is to have a society of (extended) family with God, and being able to grow in knowledge and power together. Saved from what? Non-existence and isolation. Mormons accept personal responsibility for participating with God in saving others from these, which is manifest in our fascination with performing ordinances in our temples for deceased people, and organizing our ancestors and children into family units by covenant.
What is "following the buddhist path" if not a request to follow certain practices?
Mormons, as well, believe that "following the Mormon path" relieves suffering in this life. In fact, there is a strong tradition from the beginnings of Mormonism that we should be creating heaven here now. Heaven, for a Mormon, is not only "after you die", but is to a large extent a continuation of life here.
Mormonism's God is not untouchable, but is expressly approachable. This also is foundational to Mormonism. And there is certainly talk of enlightenment in Mormonism, from the Holy Ghost and through our own efforts toward becoming enlightened; and enlightenment is a necessary part of "being saved" in Mormonism.
It's not my definition; it's the biblical definition.
Because everyone agrees about how the Bible should be interpreted. Wait, no they don't. How do you adjudicate between competing interpretations?