Leaderboard

All depends on their reading abilities Sorry, my dumb comment for the day. (exits stage left)

I am officially offended at the following: * Yogurt beats ketchup * Mayo beats salsa * Soda isn't bigger, and bottled water isn't smaller. America needs change. Vote for [redacted by Pam, who is now sending her admin police to beat me with their all-seeing batons].

Yeah, MSNBC and news. *snicker* Folks interested in news, journalism, insightful and relevant commentary and opinion - they don't go to MSNBC. If you want to see what some network exec believes maximizes ratings and views for a 24/7 news network - that's why you go see MSNBC.

I'm not sure I totally agree. She acted like an idiot, but she's pretty much admitted that she was wrong - or at least that she went too far. She hasn't done any lasting damage (except to the cause she was supporting) and the journalist she was calling up "muscle" against took no notice of her or her minions. Revoke her unpaid appointment in the journalism department - OK maybe - but don't sack her from the university altogether. This is just going to make an ill-deserved martyr out of her.

Anything from this era:

I have three toddlers. One just turned 3, the other will turn 3 in April, and the youngest turns 2 in June. They aren't all biologically mine but they are all in my custody. The youngest repeats endlessly how unhappy he is with the current situation very loudly. He says "N, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n" for the entirety of sacrament meeting, which we spent in the foyer. The two older ones can wiggle out of my lap sometimes, and take off in opposite directions. All of them know how to open doors. I did get the two older ones to sit quietly holding handout cards with pictures of Christ as their reward. Then they started eating the cards and pretending to be very hungry beasts who gobble up missionary handout cards. One fell over throwing a fit once and thought it was funny, then he started throwing his head into the ground and saying ouch! The second youngest thought that looked like fun and started in on it while I'm holding the youngest, who is doing everything in his power to wriggle out of my grasp, while trying to get them to stop. I was tying the second youngest shoes when the youngest came over and threw himself into both of us then started yelling "N, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n!" The oldest began jumping up and down and telling me loudly that "JUDAH (the youngest) IS CRYING!" Sacrament is insane for us, we didn't attend our stake conference because we just can't do that for 2 hours, then last sunday I had mandatory overtime and my wife cannot manage the kids by herself due to health issues. This was probably one of our worst weeks, they were a bit out of practice. Sometimes we make it all the way through sacrament with only a fight or two breaking out, and no endless screaming. Just the occasional complaints about wanting to be next to daddy or whatever it is that strikes them at the time. Little ones are just tough, that's life. The good notes, we made it to sacrament meeting on time this week. We made it to sacrament before they got too unruly. My primary lesson went great.

This is the difference between a professional and non-professional. And in my experience, it's the difference between someone who will excel, be recognized, and succeed, and someone who will spend the rest of their lives hoping for big tips.

My kids know the foyer by it's other name, "the hallway - where there's no fun".

As a parent, I have sympathy for her. But also as a parent, I wonder what in the heck is she doing with her toddler when she takes him out to the foyer? Does she just put him down? News flash: OF COURSE he's going to run around! He's a TODDLER! The key is to make the foyer a much less pleasant place than the chapel, so that the child prefers sitting quietly in the chapel to going out to the foyer. In the chapel, the child can play quietly with his toys or read his books or whatever. In the foyer, the child sits on the parent's lap facing a wall, and is not allowed to move. Older children simply sit on the floor facing the wall. They just have to sit there. You don't scream at them or beat them or cause them physical distress. You simply make the foyer a highly unattractive option. Even the most recalcitrant child will begin rethinking his strategy after a half-dozen trips to sit looking at a wall for five or ten minutes. Of course, this means the parent does not get to sit in the foyer and visit with other parents, or walk around himself/herself. It means the parent is punished as much as the child, probably more than the child. Welcome to parenthood. It's one of the sacrifices you make because you love your child and want to help mold him from being a tiny terroristic barbarian into a social human being.

In looking at the Deseret Book's, Gospel Link while researching things regarding debt, it brought up filthy lucre in relation to debt. I was intrigued and did a little more digging thinking I knew what “filthy lucre” meant. I was only partially correct. Elder Spencer W. Kimball gave a conference talk regarding it. Here are a few selected passages from it. This got me to thinking about my own line of work. I drive a forklift for Coke in Sydney and at least half of what I load and unload consists of grog, spirits, plonk, booze, beer, in other words: alcoholic beverages. Of course, I also load Coke products, but not as much as you would think. Coke is really hurting and in a major down turn. It is the bulk sales of alcohol that is keeping my particular warehouse in the black. I have nothing to do with the sale of alcohol, but this talk has me wondering if I'm accepting filthy lucre. I load and unload the stuff, but is that accepting blood money? Next, I got to thinking about what is clean money. Food stamps. AFDC, WIC, SSDI, Social Security, and all forms of government welfare to private persons and corporations are all elements of socialism, and socialism has been identified as the end time secret combination that would enslave all nations. All of these programs are funded with money taken at the barrel of a gun and given to other people. All of these programs eliminate self-reliance and the concept of work. None of the money given away is worked for and thus “clean money.” So, are food stamps and other such stuff filthy lucre?

"Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food." - Al Bartlett, Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis, American Journal of Physics, 46(9), p. 876, 1978.

If you're under the impression that classical works of art are never needlessly vulgar than I think you are a just a wee bit blind on the matter. Not that I'm disagreeing with you entirely. Just that the fact that something is "classic" and/or "art" isn't really meaningful in and of itself. I remember the last time I went to a museum. I was, actually, quite a bit shocked, and a bit offended, at the sheer amount of nudity. I understand the nude in classical art has its place and level of importance at some level. But my sense was that the amount of nudity was both gratuitous and vulgar (if only mildly so).

Can you double or triple like a cheesy comment when it makes you actually laugh out loud at work . Oooh the power of a good laugh.

Tunnel driller who work too much get bored to death.

I find it somewhat amusing that personal lubricant and nail polish seem to be pretty similar in quantity to vanilla. Though it still makes me want to start a business providing impersonal lubricant.

Your point is well-taken, as far as it goes. But do you see no difference between (a) doing a filthy job that desperately needs to be done and (b) paying others to entertain you by laying this filth out in steaming heaps on a banquet table and providing you with dishes and silverware?

We had to cut our scripture reading short one night when they turned into a bunch of wild things because I read about Jacob's two-headed "monster" death and hell. At least they were listening

Often I struggle getting through a day without having to repent about something. I am thinking that reading this thread is not really helpful. It is sad what many of us do - for money - thinking that we benefit G-d, further the cause of Zion or exalt our fellow man. Does anyone understand the covenant associated with the "Law of Consecration"? We are all called upon to do things for money that we cannot justify - but can we at least agree that we all need to have an attitude of repentance? Not for what others are doing but for what we are doing. I was once involved in automating a cigarette factory - I asked not be be assigned the project - I disliked being at the place and I often prayed for relief or a way out. I could have quit - but did not - I can make excuses but I am still conflicted about my work for that company. I can only hope that G-d will somehow not hold me accountable but blame someone else? I wish I was a better example. I wish I could condemn others and not fell guilty for what I have done. Sometimes we get dealt a bad hand. As a friend of mine once said - life is a game you cannot win, you cannot break even and you cannot get out of the game. It really sucks coming to earth as a fallen son or daughter of G-d, Perhaps this is in part why Lucifer was able to draw a third part of heaven to avoid having to suffer the fall. The Traveler

It appears that some responding really have not pondered or thought much on this subject. Obviously there are a lot of spirits that come to this life and do not "prove" anything to anyone and certainly not what many think is necessary as a proof. Let me give a couple of examples - a newborn that takes one breath and dies. Someone with sever mental disabilities that is never accountable for anything. From scripture we should learn that is is necessary to have an "earthly" experience for the following reasons: 1. To gain a physical body 2. To participate in the fall 3. To learn (by experience) the good from the evil. 4. To express our agency. As near as I can determine there are the fundamental reasons we experience mortality. A few things I would add to the questions going on concerning our probation: 1. Despite what seem to be the tenor of many of the responses - our probation does not begin with our earth life. Therefore, I believe that attempting to isolate any proof of who or what we are by considering just that which we experience between birth and death is a fallacy that will only lead us to false conclusions. 2. Despite what many seem to think - our probation does not end with our physical death. Also - part of our probation experience is a spiritual death. It would appear that many are not taking this into account and seem to think we are expected to behave as if we really are not in a spiritually dead condition - for example thinking that it is somehow possible to even come close to keeping all G-d's commandments. In essence there is very little that is good that can be proven to G-d, ourselves or anyone else as fallen beings. Those that are at in a "rush" to judge themselves or others while in this fallen state - are making a very silly mistake. 3. There is nothing that we can do (prove) during our probation that will exclude us or qualify us from or for any eternal blessing or opportunity. Rather we need to Humble ourselves to beg and plead for Mercy (repentance) and accept G-d's love and mercy as extended through the Atonement of Christ. Those of you that think you are capable of doing anything in and of yourselves to prove or qualify anything are nuts, on the wrong track and are not paying attention - to life experience or scripture. The Traveler

I first read this story when I was 12. I had no idea at the time that it was a classic: it was in a compendium of sci fi stories that I borrowed from the school library. I found a pdf of it here: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/hochiminh/646441/vantt/The%20Cold%20Equations.pdf It's the story of an astronaut charged with delivering vital vaccine to a group of space colonists on a distant planet. En-route he discovers a young girl hiding aboard his capsule, who tells him she wants to see her brother who is amongst the colonists. However, the capsule has only just enough fuel to complete the mission, so the astronaut has two choices: Jettison the girl into space, in which case she will obviously die but the mission will be successful. Keep her aboard, in which case the capsule will crash (having been unable to decelerate enough for a safe landing), both he and the girl will die, and so will all the colonists who urgently need the vaccine. It's a no-brainer of course, and even his superiors aboard the mother-ship (though they are sympathetic) agree that he must do the unthinkable deed. It made quite an impression on me as a kid, but I couldn't help thinking even then that if I had been in his shoes I'd have found some way to save her. Surely there was something else on board that could have been jettisoned: furniture, shoes, clothing etc. that could have made up at least enough of the weight difference. For example, it says she was hiding in the storage cupboard; why not rip off the door of the cupboard and throw that overboard? And another thing: she got on board remarkably easily, just by distracting a cleaning woman and slipping past while she wasn't looking. The notice on the capsule door "UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT" gives no indication that if you ignore it you will die. And why wasn't the computer programmed to add a little extra fuel in case of such an emergency? (Googling the web for people's opinions on this story, I find I'm not the only person to have thought of this.) Yes I know it's only a story, but it's a good story, and it gets you thinking. It might make good set-reading for an engineering course, to get students thinking about the importance of safeguards, contingency planning, and dimensioning systems for the worst-case scenario.

I inadvertently played a game of word-association with a psychologist yesterday. It went like this: Psychologist: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Chaplain: Bible teaching improves my thinking and behaving Psychologist: Mindfulness-DBT Chaplain: meditation (learning to think God's thoughts) Psychologist: Helping clients get right with themselves Chaplain: ... get right with God Psychologist: Discovering purpose Chaplain: ... God's will for me Psychologist: Participating in communities of purpose Chaplain: ... CHURCH! My takeaway: We're created in God's image, so we'll find His reflections in diverse places. I must build bridges from those common grounds to the straight, narrow way of Jesus (John 14:6)

I think this is true. However, I think when we approach the world we need to do so with an attitude of complete trust in the Lord that He will be just, and a complete determination to instill in everyone a complete and thorough testimony of the full truth of the gospel. That is our obligation. If we approach our fellow man with a they'll-be-fine attitude there is danger. I don't necessarily believe that danger is to them -- each man will stand accountable for his own choices -- but to us. It's like raising children. Is it really fair that some people will be damned because they had crappy parents while other people are saved because their parents taught them truth, held family home evening every week, etc.? But we know that if the parents fail to teach their children, the sins are on the heads of the parents. In the long run, that gets complicated. I mean what if the parents were taught badly by their parents in the first place. And where did it begin? Cain? Does all the blame for bad parenting all go back to him? And what about parents that try but still suck as parents because they just don't get it...but they honestly do their best? Yeah...there's good reason we leave the judging up to God when it comes to who qualifies for salvation and who does not. But we are commanded to speak the truth, plainly, diligently, and boldly. We are commanded to encourage, exhort, and strive to set the example. To be missionaries and bring the gospel to the world.

Unfortunately there is a great trend for people to believe that they have no choice in their preferences.

Remember this story is set before we had robotics and automation so... So while sending a drone makes a lot of sense now... It wasn't an option then. As for the pilot training her and then killing himself... remember we are kind of talking about rocket science here. Chances are her inexperience would have simply been to great to over come in the little time and lack of training gear... And in that case if I had to stand before God and explained why I killed myself and let her die in a ball of fire and all the other die from the disease... When I could have saved all but her... well I would not want to do that either.

Yanni.

My wife is very fond of saying this simple truth: we each have a preference for either good or evil. For that matter, we also have a preference for apathy; an "I don't care" attitude. Ultimately, through the exercise of our agency, we do choose what we prefer: God or Satan. I say it in this very black and white way because there is no luke warm with our Heavenly Father. You are either progressing or regressing; there is no sitting still.

Clearly, it would not work as a response. A wine critic cannot write in his column, "We shouldn't drink wine." As long as you are a movie critic, you will have to watch many movies, and I don't see how you can avoid watching 'R'-rated movies as a part of that. Some of us look at it in this way: What if we had to watch NC-17 movies as a part of that job? Would we keep on the job and just wade through the porn flicks as best we could, hoping that none of the filth would rub off onto our psyches? Or would we decide it's time for a career change? And if the latter, do we do the same for a "hard" R movie? What if it has a lot of really, extremely explicit sex scenes, but they are between married people? (Married to each other, that is.) Would it make a difference if the actors were married to each other in real life? What if you didn't actually see any genitalia? What if it just looked like real sex, but you had reason to believe it was just fake? What if the sex is played for laughs instead of in a tittilating manner? What if the sex is not really realistic, so you can just write it off as an unrealistic absurdity? If you find the sex repulsive enough, does that sort of counteract the evil of exposing yourself to it? To some people (myself included), the above reflections are much like asking yourself which sorts of dog poop are appropriate to eat. Well, not appropriate, of course, because technically speaking, eating dog poop isn't exactly "appropriate", but how much dog poop ingestion can we reasonably get away with before others can smell it on our breath? I am not advising you to change your career, as I might do if e.g. you were a wine taster. But I do think the issue should be met head-on. How much is the counsel that we avoid R-rated movies worth? Does it represent the mind of God? If so, what are we to do? I say this not to argue the point or even to try to convince you, but to explain why some of us are asking the question, at least in a philosophical sense.

If all you do is drink water and order a minimum amount of food, then depending upon the facility's pricing structure and profit margin you could actually be costing them money if you remain too long and don't allow other customers to have your table. They lose money straight-up on the water, and if you don't order a lot of food the profit margin on the food may not make up for this. And if you take too long, then they can't bring more paying customers in to replace you and thus make up your losses. As a result, some eateries will indeed push alcohol and specific food items. These items, as you can imagine, tend to have high profit margins and so they can make more money off of them. Bottles and cans of beer have the least profit margin, and it goes from there until we're at mixed drinks and fine wines.

I don't experience this at all, and I eat out a lot. Many people don't drink alcohol at meals for a variety of reasons. Im old enough to remember being at some very hard drinking lunches (not me!) 30 or so years ago, but it's just not that way anymore. People tend to drink a lot less here in the SF Bay Area than was formerly the case.

I don't have kids (never did). But all the noise doesn't bother me. I know that is the future of the Kingdom, so I'm glad they are there. Today I got whacked from behind about ten times. And three times kids appeared from under the pew by my legs, only to be pulled back by the legs. And one tried to grab my iPad from the pew beside me before being pulled backward. I have suffered much worse in life, believe me. I'm glad to see them there, and usually I can hear most of the talk anyway. dc

I'm a waiter and I understand why they want you to order alcohol (increases your check average, thus increasing your tip amount, and many restaurants keep a ranking system of who gets what section depending upon how much in alcohol sales you had for the week along with other factors). But as an LDS member I hate selling alcohol so I'm a little different. I hate encouraging my guests to drink poison that will inhibit their ability to drive later that night. But even with all the reasons why selling alcohol is beneficial for servers, they still shouldn't treat your dining experience any different. That's just bad service.

Just spoke to my Mother-in-law tonight about this. She says she was pretty upset at her own mother's funeral here not too long ago. She said, "my mother was a hard working woman. In the trenches with worn hands and worn finger tips. I showed up to see my mother in the casket with fake press-on 2" bright red nails looking like a clown. She never looked like that a day in her life". She then followed up with, "I don't want a open casket so they can't turn me into a clown".

I'll grant you the concept point. The for example, on the contrary, is a stretch.

http://www.chowhound.com/food-news/106088/no-drinks-bad-service/

Well way to ruin my philosophical debate with JaG!

Am in Utah, but would be curious to know the answer. I think I'd have some fun: "Just water thanks, makes it easier to calculate the tip." "Is the food that bad?" "Ecto cooler?" (I would kill for Hi-C to bring back Ecto Cooler. ) etc.

I haven't read the book, but I did see a SciFi channel movie based on it. In that, he DID try to teach her to land the ship. As I recall, she was some kind of underclass in that society and was consequently almost completely uneducated she wasn't stupid, but she wasn't capable of learning everything she needed to learn in the amount of time they had.

A) Why were they in the boat? B) I think Mythbusters did that but onto cement and on purpose! (Well...not a yacht maybe...)

I agree with TFP's statements in this thread, specifically with that expressed above. If I may expand on this: I speak only for myself, but I suspect I also reflect TFP's thoughts in saying that this is not about condemning Ironhold's choices, or even his actions. This is about speaking plain and obvious (if uncomfortable and politically incorrect) truth. Ironhold has the agency to do as he chooses, and (at least in the matter of movie viewing) will get no condemnation from me. But, for example, if watching R-rated movies ends up having a deleterious effect on Ironhold's relationship with God or with his own wife, or if his example leads others to watch movies that end up damaging them, then this will not be an innocent casualty or an honest mistake. It will be the consequence of a deliberate activity -- not necessarily a sinful activity per se, but one that we have been warned about repeatedly. We have indeed been counseled to avoid R-rated movies. Many (though no one in this thread, as far as I know) have explained away that counsel, saying in effect that the authorities who spoke it didn't mean it like that, and that it's really all our own choice, and we should just use the Spirit to guide us in movie choices and not pay any attention to the MPAA rating. Many on this very forum have testified about how great this or that R-rated movie was and how glad they are that they watched it, no matter what some General Authority may have said twenty or thirty years ago. It is entirely possible to watch an R-rated movie and not be degraded, just as it is entirely possible to smoke a cigarette and not get addicted. My father-in-law converted to the LDS faith and walked away from cigarettes, never missing them. (Not so with his Iron City beer, which he missed a great deal, though he never drank it again.) But the parallel is obvious and should be instructive. Do you really want to smoke -- an activity that, at best, doesn't do you any good -- and simply hope it doesn't damage you? Even if you avoid addiction, will your example lead others, perhaps those you love best, to follow suit? It's very unlikely that they will remain undamaged, even if you do. The Lord's instruction to us is clear: He comes first. All else is secondary to the kingdom of God -- yes, even our spouse and our children and parents. We are to serve God and obey him, and ever seek after his Spirit. That is our most important duty in life. Anything -- anything -- that damages the Spirit should be spurned. But what if it costs us our livelihood? Then we should find another way of living. What if it costs us our friends, or even our family? This is abundantly answered by the Lord himself. What if it costs us our very lives? Again, does anyone really not understand the answer to this? I have no personal judgment to levy against anyone who chooses to watch R-rated movies. As far as I know, it's not a question asked when the bishop determines worthiness. I am involved enough in my own efforts at self-discipline, self-improvement, and keeping myself clean, that I have neither the time nor the interest to check up on anyone else that I'm not husband or father of. And even in that case, unless they are minors in my care, I limit myself to counsel and suggestion. But let's call a spade a spade. We all agree that watching a porno flick is bad. I suspect we would mostly all agree that someone who watches said porno flick is very probably not spiritually worthy of going to the temple or doing the other duties of a Saint. Many of us would say that such actions constitute sinful behavior, maybe a grave sin, and that repentance must take place. But where's the line? Does it have to be rated NC-17 (which, after all, is merely another MPAA rating)? Does it have to show clear, explicit sex? Is nudity enough? What sort of nudity is acceptable? Matt Damon's butt cheeks? A little female nipple? Some pubic hair, but not much? What if we don't actually show the nudity? Body paint technically covers all those parts. What if we don't show the sex too openly, but cover the couple loosely with a sheet? Does all the moaning and screaming count? I mean, it's just moaning and screaming. Maybe they have bedbugs or something. The whole thing is a prolonged exercise in self-deception. We are trying to do as Elder Maxwell warned us that we cannot do, live in Zion but keep a summer home in Babylon. At some point in our lives, we must make the choice. I contend that we make that choice with every action we take. Please note that I am not speaking of any individual. This conversation is largely in response to what Ironhold has written, but I am not targeting him with what I write. He may do as he chooses with no condemnation from me, and I mean that very literally. I do not condemn anyone. But I believe my words are universally true, or at least that they attempt to point to a universal truth, and as such they apply to everyone, even if not specifically direct at anyone in particular. The nature of our life here is to become someone. Who are we becoming? Are we becoming Jesus Christ? Each choice pushes us toward or away from that goal. I think this is what TFP is saying. In any case, it's how I see things.

It seems to me that much of what we have from Satan are his own claims about himself. Sure Satan has SAID he wears emblems of his power and priesthoods ... But what the actual extent of those powers are...? I still maintain that because the Lord has often called him the "father of lies" that THAT is his biggest power. That makes him sound like we should be able to easily overcome him. We just don't believe him, right? But if you think about the power of a lie to cause havoc and confusion, especially when people hold fast to lies and then (re)act accordingly, would such a thing not be a sort of antithesis to truth and true faith? Satan, whatever powers he's allowed to use, should not be underestimated in his power to LIE convincingly.

I teach 2nd grade. I can't imagine the vast majority of 2nd graders needing this type of in-depth discussion. I still have a couple who can't even wander across the hall to the bathroom without getting lost, let alone worry about gender identity. That being said, 2nd graders are smarter than many give them credit for. Should these things be discussed? Sure, but age appropriateness is a thing and a thing that should be considered. What bothers me is the notion of going beyond answering a few questions or proactively presenting this information for age-appropriateness. Words are powerful. No, talking to your kid about gender identity probably won't make them change genders willy-nilly, in and of itself. But there is a culture that encourages this acceptance and even champions it far beyond the exceptions in unusual, critical cases.

Yes, but would JESUS draw lines in the sand... Oh wait, maybe He would!

This is uncharacteristically unfriendly of you, Gator. It also dodges my point: We do in fact speak for Christ. We have to. We are required to. That's what it means to take his name upon us.

I'm saying that we choose what we love and desire most. The idea that we "just do" love and desire things and that's just the way it is and that controls what we ultimately become denies agency and choice. The idea that what we love controls the exercising of our agency is backwards. The exercising of our agency controls what we love.

I am completely convinced that many do not understand what it is to worship. The reason I am convinced that worship is not well understood is because so many do not seem to understand that the nature of worship is - that we become what we worship. Worship is becoming - it is something that changes a person's mind and heart - it changes them into what they worship. If you worship honesty as an attribute of G-d then you must become honest. If you worship love as an attribute of G-d then you must love. If someone does not understand how worship changes them – it is only because they do not worship but make their pretending worship a charade and a lie.

Poor, unlucky super-lucky what's-her-name, mutated into a hyperintelligent, hyperstrong inhuman (or superhuman) beast. I did not really like Niven's books, his protagonist, or almost anything about his stories besides the actual ring structure itself, but she was an interesting character, with a satisfyingly tragic end.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/25/mizzou-professor-who-pushed-reporter-away-from-protesters-is-fired/ Click has officially been fired by Mizzou for what she did.

I think you hit the nail on the head in that last sentence... People who ought to be ashamed of their behavior are being taught not only that their behavior is valid, but they're actually being encouraged to act that way. The problem with special snowflakes these days isn't that they exist of that they're vocal, it's that we're coddling them when we should be teaching them to know better.