Leaderboard

So last night I was invited to the home of a co-worker for dinner. It's Ramadan, so it was a breaking of the fast. (In Islamic tradition, during Ramadan you fast during the day and eat once the sun goes down.) Man, the food was incredible. It was a blend of Tunisian and Spanish (as in Spain spanish) food. But that wasn't my realization. During dinner, everybody had white wine except me, and after dinner I was offered Turkish coffee but I declined. Total resulting drama: Zero. What I mean is this... When I'm among non-LDS Christians or Atheists, I don't like to discuss matters like the Word of Wisdom because more often than not I get funny looks, incredulous laughing, or taunting about how silly it is that we can't have [insert whatever beverage here]. Sometimes I get a lecture about how a certain amount of alcohol daily is good for you, or how there's nothing wrong with a cup of tea. When I'm among Muslims however, (and in my experience this is also true of Hindu folks) when I say I'm unable to partake in those things because of my religious beliefs, they understand completely and that's that. They just get it. No offense is taken, no criticism, no exaggerated eye rolls. They respect it because they have their own dietary rules. It often leads to an enlightening and friendly conversation about our different beliefs and traditions. But man... Tunisian food... I'm gonna be daydreaming about that stuff for a while.

Why would you assume I make some kind of speech? Is this lecture based on that assumption? @Midwest LDS hit the nail on the head.

Yeah I explain the reason when asked. If people don't ask, I assume they don't care so I leave it at that. In practice, declining coffee results in people asking why about 99% of the time so there it is.

What I said was "when I say I'm unable to partake in those things because of my religious beliefs, they understand completely and that's that." Nowhere did I say anything that could reasonably be interpreted as "giving a big speech," as you accused me of doing. And yes, I will bother with an explanation because I am asked why. That's still not the same as "giving a big speech." Whatever hostility or pre-conceived assumptions you may have, please don't lay them on me.

That doesn't work as well as you think it will. Speaking from personal experience, you (generic) say no thanks, then they ask why, then you say you don't drink (using alcohol as an example), they ask why again. So then you explain it to them simply, and that's when the lectures start, because by saying it's religious (no speech needed trust me) they immediately assume you are judging them and want to prove their way of doing things is correct. I'm not saying there aren't people who accept a simple no thanks when given, I've had those conversations as well, but there are a lot of people on this Earth who fit into @unixknight description.

I'm no SW geek fanboy, and even I thought this "update" was pretty well done. Of course, all the SW fanboys and fangirls have probably already seen this, but here's to betting they won't mind seeing it again.

(But seriously... the new Abaddon model is sweeeeeeet)

1998 Canada - end of the 6 week corporate training event. Everyone is having champagne, I'm having coke. Some brief confusion, because it was a big toast. "You can't even have alcohol in wine?" "Not even during a special event?" It made no sense to many of them. Then it just wasn't an issue any more. I think there might have been some worry that I had a problem with the event itself, or toasts in general, or them personally, or something. But I was fully engaged in all the events of the evening, with the single exception of the alcohol in my glass. They all knew I was LDS, because at the beginning of the thing they did a "everyone state something personal about yourselves, and we'll try to guess who said it" deal, and my entry was "I am a Mormon". (The room guessed three different people that weren't me, before I came clean.)

Woot, just sent in an order! No tags, Hallelujah! The Church is True!

I found much the same thing with my good Muslim friend in grad school. He did ask about things, eventually, usually in the lab, but there was no drama or amazed expressions, just acknowledgement of my beliefs. Btw, I'm with Mores in wondering about the white wine. If anything, alcohol is more strictly prohibited in Islam than in our own religion. Maybe there was a miscommunication going on there; I would think any Muslim who was faithful enough to observe Ramadan would be much too faithful ever to drink wine. Or is Ramadan a cultural thing for your friends, rather than religious?

I was wondering that myself!

These seem like reasonable steps to me.

Anyone else a Dune fan? (If you're not, it's a sci-fi series of books created by Frank Herbert, and expanded by his son Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. Fremen are the sand-dwelling folk, who live in seitches, and if you don't care, you can probably stop reading.) Anyway, I've been jumping so thoroughly into the fandom, that I am at risk of becoming known as "that one poster who can't shut up about Dune". I know I'm not alone, so here's a thread for us. Agree or disagree, argue or contribute, feel free to participate. Expect lots of good-natured back-and-forthery, and lots of brilliantly zingy jabs at other groups. I've been enthralled by the Dune universe since I read the first 3 books in elementary school so I could keep up with my smug buddy who thought he was a better reader. Frank Herbert had definite opinions about what drives humans, planets, religion, and politics, and from where I'm standing, a full 66.67% of them are in harmony with the gospel. And the rest are worth thinking about, in order to be able to clearly articulate why I disagree. As I binge-read my big stack of Dune books in preparation for the new movie coming in 2020, I'm being reminded of how much of an impact those books had on me. Plus, being a Dune fan keeps me on that "I'm cooler than you because I like something less popular" pedestal which I value so deeply. I'm firmly convinced in the lost 116 pages of the BoM, it has a broader "tree of life" vision, in which the iron-rod holders look one way and see the great and spacious building, and look the other way and see me standing there on my smug pedestal, not deigning to notice you people. Anyway, to kick the thread off proper:

Shabbat Shalom! May the L-RD bless thee, and keep thee; The L-RD make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee. The L-RD lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee shalom. -Numbers 6: 24-26 May HaShem bless you and your families during the new and glorious week.

Today I received a wonderful gift from the internet. I loved the graph so much that I had to review the original document. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=50CB355D87CECF5348B7B5497FFB5DEC?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf Some of my favorite passages from the study. And be aware that the study was performed at the Cornell University psychology department, on its own undergrad students (Ivy League, 1470 average SAT score of entering freshmen)... These concepts can obviously be applied to the Gospel... Perhaps one of the purposes of life is to displace Mt. Stupid from heaven to Earth. The importance of humility can not be over stressed. Pride is a sure sign of ignorance. Negative feedback is a good thing. It helps us recognize our ignorance and may allow us to learn.

For those of you that grew up watching Arthur on PBS. https://tvline.com/2019/05/13/arthur-mr-ratburn-gay-wedding-episode/

I'll offer you (and anyone else reading this) a piece of sincere friendly advice: You may want to avoid doing that until you've built up enough of a rapport with someone that they'll know how to take it. Human communication is 20% words and 80% body language. Without the body language component we're going to communicate at 20% effectiveness at best, which means we will always tend to take each other's words at face value unless we have reason to do otherwise. It's the best we can do.

... While beating them over the head with your politicized environmentalist propaganda.

And the indoctrination of the young continues. Wake up, parents!

The short answers are: Strict, no, and no way. The longer answers: Honor code: The honor code basically says that you will live your life as a faithful Latter-day Saint while you attend BYU (including during vacation breaks). This means no extramarital sex of any sort, no Word of Wisdom violations, being honest in your dealings with others, using clean language, and basically acting like a decent human being. In addition, the honor code also includes some dress and grooming standards that are vaguely reminiscent of missionary-type rules: Men are to keep their hair cut reasonably short and are not to grow out facial hair, except they are allowed a trimmed moustache. Men and women are expected to dress decently (i.e. not in rags or revealing, immodest clothing) and to avoid extreme styles in clothing, haircut, piercings, etc. My understanding is that more than half of "honor code violations" consist of supposed violations in the dress and grooming standards. So men with heavy beards who skipped shaving for a couple of days might get flagged. Note that I, personally, never had anything to do with the honor code office and never saw any action taken against people. Obviously, such things happened, but not that I witnessed. Enforcers: I am sure such people exist. I didn't know any, or if I did know any, I didn't know they were that type. Most people at BYU who care enough about a standards violation to do something about it would rather ask the person if they can help than call the honor code office. In a population consisting largely of unmarried people in their early 20s, sexual transgressions are obviously not an uncommon thing (though the large majority of BYU students strictly observe the law of chastity). Here again, my observation is that people are more inclined to want to help than to get someone in trouble. An exception might be someone who flaunts their actions, but I don't remember many such cases. North Korea: BYU detractors will agree with the comparison. Good for them. They should leave BYU and never, ever return. That's my uncharitable take.

Yep, it's not that unusual to decline alcohol. Maybe you're a recovering alcoholic, or maybe you already drank your limit, or maybe you just don't like the taste of alcohol and/or how it makes you feel. But declining coffee, especially in the Seattle area, will generate curious stares. Btw, here at work we have Starbucks coffee machines at every kitchenette area that also dispense hot chocolate. Every few days, a machine will need to run its automatic rinse cycle, which involves you putting an empty cup under the dispenser and pressing "Rinse". When you do this, the machine rinses and then spits out black, coffee-scented liquid into the cup, which you dump (or maybe drink, if you're really desperate for coffee). So it just so happens that an hour ago, I decided to get hot chocolate, and wouldn't you know it, the machine needed to rinse. So I'm standing there while the black rinse water fills the cup when out from a room behind me walks a member of my (new) ward, one I have seen here and there but who didn't know I was actually working in the same building (actually on the same floor, in the same wing, with the team that literally sits right next to his room). We chatted for a few moments, and only later did I realize how it may have looked to him to come across me getting myself a nice steaming cup of black coffee at the Starbucks coffee machine. But good news! After getting my hot chocolate, I walked back to the room I was using, and very nearly ran into him coming around a corner, holding my frothy cup of (what I assume was obviously) hot chocolate and not coffee. Redemption! Or I suppose I could have just said I was getting the coffee for my good friend, the @prisonchaplain...

Well in your experience it works in mine it doesn't so there you go. We are probably both right depending on the person we are talking too☺.

And another tip: If you ever go travelling to Asia, you can buy temple garments at the distribution center there while you're visiting the temple (if you can find your size - they didn't sell one my husband's size). You can save a lot of money.

I, too, have long enjoyed Herbert's universe. I have also, long been the subject of mockery for bringing the first Dune movie home, since it just failed to capture what Herbert put together. I am cautiously optimistic that the new movie will be worth seeing. Until then, I occasionally pick up the books (or audio books) and re-read them. (Currently on the verge of picking up God -- Emperor of Dune again). I will note that I have not read past Herbert's original five books into the extended books that his son wrote. Something "purist" in me did not want to go beyond Herbert's own writing -- even though I know Brian used notes and such from his dad to write the books. Every once in a while, I entertain the notion that Tatooine was a distantly pre-Butlerian jihad Arrakis. The almighty Sarlak (or a mobile cousin) would become Arrakis's great worms. I never get much beyond that.

Important distinction: We don't know this sort of thing didn't happen before, we just know it wasn't formally enshrined in a policy before. Policies spring from two sources: Proactive ("it's a good idea, we need to make sure we do that every time"), and reactive ("Oh - we should have been doing this all the time, and now we're taking heat for those times we didn't - better make it policy"). Reactive can also be "Oh crap my job is on the line, I look like an idiot, better put out a policy before I get fired. I hate those complainers and wish they would die in a fire.". We usually don't know what's behind a policy. It's charitable to think of the BYU honor code office as trying to do what's best for everybody, and falling into the first reactive example.

I've had a couple sets of these for a few weeks now and they are every bit as comfy as you might imagine.

Just a tip: To keep this fabric from turning ecru and frayed... don't use chlorine-type bleach and wash it in cold water.

Why do you keep trying to convince me that toxic feminism exists? I know it does. Like I said, you're preaching to the choir. I'm not sure if we actually even disagree, or whether you think I'm arguing something different from what I am. I'll state my position: There's no set definition of the term 'feminism' because different people look at it form different points of view. Thus, 'feminism' means different things to different people. Therefore, any discussion of whether or not someone is a 'real' feminist is just a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Nobody gets to be the gatekeeper on who may call themselves a feminist. (Which was the point I was making in my first post of this thread when I talked about the co-worker who insisted that my wife couldn't be a feminist because she's pro-life.) I never disagreed with you on your points about toxic feminism being a thing, or that many parts of it have taken on misandry.

It can be. Depends on the circumstances.

From the other thread: Thanks KSL for circling back and answering my question. From this new article: I see now. This group is piggy-backing on the change.org petition (which I commented on in the other thread) to push for their own agenda. Except, they haven't really laid out an agenda yet. From the previous article: As far as I'm concerned Return Honor is a non-story and a non-source. Until they know what they want they shouldn't be cited in another article.

He gave a couple of different versions over CES firesides/broadcasts from about 2005-2014. I think the title was something like "dating vs. hanging out." I tried to find a link, but my iPad is acting up and not opening anything on the Church's website.

These new garments for men are really good. I live in a very humid tropical environment and the fabric breathes really well and they actually built a pouch for guys (what took them so long) so it keeps things from sticking too your legs. Also the bottoms don’t roll up on your legs. The sleeves are slightly shorter and don’t bunch up under you shirt. Add in the fabric is very soft. Win win win win.

I would view it as a prophecy of the consequences (punishment) that would befall the people if they chose a king to rule over them instead of God ruling over them. I could not find a similar warning in the Book of Mormon. Maybe the Nephites having a king was viewed as positive? Thank you, Gale

Thanks, it troubles that I don't really like what other churches are doing in condemning LDS doctrine. Yet they don't have a problem with Jesus appearing to the Apostles after His resurrection, which also seems to conflict the warnings about private meetings. I also would like to be able to approach LDS doctrine rationally without throwing logic out the window.

I don’t have a lot of experience with Bible apps; but I imagine that even for someone who isn’t LDS, the LDS Gospel Library app might be worth installing just for its search capabilities.

Yes. In fact, the human brain has evolved, for survival purposes, to tune out the constant sensations in our life and devote the limited awareness resources to anomalies. Rarely are we conscious of the fairly constant and relatively clean air around us, though that doesn't mean that it isn't there. However, when there is an anomaly, like finding that relatively clean air displaced by dense smoke and/or substantial impurities and repugnant odors, we become acutely aware. The same is true for extreme changes in temperature. Likewise, we tend to only become aware of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit when we lose the companionship through the smoke and impurities and stench of sin or when the Spirit heats up or sounds louder above its gentle warmth and near silent whispers. (Jn 3:8, Act 2:1-4) Not coincidentally, the Hebrew and Greek words for spirit also mean "wind or "breath"--see HERE. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

1. Welcome! 2. One of the sources of confusion is that the Church doesn’t make much of the guidelines publicly available. It’s handled on a case-by-case basis, and I understand it’s handled directly by the First Presidency. Fundamentally, there can be a cancellation or a clearance. The cancellation, of course, nullifies the entire sealing. The clearance clears the man to remarry, but it does not nullify the first sealing. The clearance does not mean that your boyfriend will “be with” his ex in the eternities. It merely means that a sealing entitles a person to claim certain blessings from the Lord (blessings that go far beyond who one will “be with”); and unless/until she identifies another man to be married to or is finally and eternally barred from claiming them—she claims them by virtue of her first sealing. A man does not have the right to unilaterally cut his (ex-)wife off from those blessings; and I strongly believe that safeguarding those blessings is the reason the process is structured the way that it is. 3. Not quite correct. A clearance allows a man to be sealed to a new woman without nullifying the blessings that the ex-wife may claim through the prior sealing. I understand that if a clearance or cancellation were denied, at one point the Church used to allow the couple to go forward with a time-only wedding in the temple. I have no idea whether this is still the case. 4. I don’t have an authoritative basis for this, except that I believe in a God who does right. In the scenario you describe—you and he are right, she’s wrong. She can claim the blessings of exaltation and eternal increase as a sealed person, assuming she is otherwise worthy—but she can’t force him to take her back if he doesn’t want to. Now, if you’re worried that he might willingly take her back—whether in this life or in eternity—I’m not sure whether that’s theologically possible. But even if it were, that scenario strikes me as being something that is more of a relationship issue that you and he need to sort out, and not so much a theological one. 5. The sealing covenant entails obligations not only between the parties; but between each party individually and God. If they are true and faithful to their end, then they have the assurance that a new and worthy third party can basically be spliced into the relationship. Now, you might say—“but I know darned well that she wasn’t true and faithful, so why not just cancel the sealing and have done with it?” And the reason, I think, is that the Church doesn’t arrogate to itself the prerogative to adjudicate fault in a divorce. Rather it grants each party as much leeway as possible to repent and avail themselves of the covenants already made, which in this case means leaving the sealing administratively intact while also permitting both parties the right to move on with other partners if and when they are ready to do so. 6. I’m not a woman (hence my moniker!), but hope this may be helpful in some small way.

Mission Accomplished.

If a government didn't enforce its laws, would it still be a government? If the Father didn't enforce the law, He would still exist, but He would have no authority, he would cease to be God. Alma 42 has extended meaning for me. I grew up with weak parents, and by weak, I mean they literally had no authority in the house. Nothing they said to me carried any weight, nothing would happen if they threatened me with a punishment. And as a consequence, I've had to learn some things in adulthood I should have learned when I was a child. Weakness in authority has negative consequences for "weaker intelligences."

Having known lots of Protestants and Mormons, and watching the way they tend to live their lives I am sorely tempted to observe: Protestants call themselves sinners—but most of them don’t believe it. Mormons call themselves saints—but most of them don’t believe it.

I appreciate and respect that on a personal level. But with all due respect, this seems less like an argument that I’ve misunderstood your theology; and more like a protestation that you personally are a good guy in spite of the fatalistically libertine underpinnings of the theology being advanced. Which is fair, given the context of my observation (which I perhaps rendered in an overly personal way); but it doesn’t really address the underlying theological conundrum: fundamentally, there seems to be no universal reason or need for the sort of ongoing contrition or penitence or resolve that fires your own personal faith-journey. Your post also strikes me as taking a simplistic view of what sin is and how it affects us—in other words, what the true “wages of sin” really are. For example: I commit adultery. I am converted. I have overcome my sin! I then commit adultery again. Now, maybe by virtue of that earlier conversion I have somehow escaped the eternal damnation that I deserve. But the there are other wages of sin. There’s the cycle of character rot in my own soul that the act of adultery both results from, and reinforces. There’s the spiritual and perhaps material harm done to my partner in adultery. There’s the heartbreak to my wife, the loss of trust to my children, the material consequences of unintended pregnancy and disease and divorce. Can I really say I have “overcome” my predisposition for adultery on Monday, and act as Satan’s agent for unleashing all of these horrors on Tuesday? This is the difference I’m seeing between Latter-day Saint theology, as compared to your paradigm. In yours, the approach seems to be to look at one’s sins and shrug and say “well, I’m a sinner and Jesus covered it, so on to the next day; and I know I’ll rise in the resurrection as a better person, so I don’t need to grapple with the fallout of what I’ve done or try to do better going forward, except insofar as I may find doing so to be personally fulfilling due to my material circumstances or my idiosyncratic sense of altruism.” The LDS approach seems to be more along the line of “Yes, I sin. Call me a sinner—whatevs. I’ve known that for years. But I’m not going to perseverate on it. It’s my job to work hand-in-hand with Jesus to become less of a sinner now and try to contain the consequences of my fallen nature, rather than standing idly by while my nature continues to degenerate and innocent third parties suffer for my reprobate acts; and the further along I get in that process now, the better off I’ll be on the long run.”

Folks, @AbramM simply knows way more than we do, and is enlightened—some would say "woke"—beyond our poor ability. This is why he is qualified to get on the "Learn about the Mormon* Church" subforum and lecture us about our improper doctrine. *Isn't it time we renamed the forum?

So you are a Baptist. Lucky guess Joking aside, we agree on Law requiring a need for a Savior and that the purpose of law is not to condemn us to hell - totally agreed 2 Nephi 2 is a fantastic read here. Here are a couple of excerpts: 2 Nephi 2:5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. 6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. 7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. 8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. 28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit; You are also right about conviction of sin - we tend to call that "Godly sorrow" which is different than the one who is sorry only because they were caught. Sorrow unto salvation. We label ourselves children of God and believe in a divine destiny. I am aware of Baptist's beliefs as far as heavenly destiny. This difference in perspective is also why we don't go around calling ourselves sinners as our destiny is to overcome sin entirely through Jesus Christ - and to perfect ourselves through Him (which won't happen in this life. This life is but a step on that path.) I think another good example here is many protestants celebrate the death of Jesus Christ where members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints focus on his life - and the fact he is alive today. We equate the consequence of sin as spiritual death, or separation from God, just as physical death is the death of the body and is separation from this world. We believe we can overcome both through Jesus Christ - liberated from both spiritual and physical death. We believe this liberation from sin can happen daily and weekly as we partake of the sacred sacrament. I don't think you meant "I always want to be convicted of my sin" - An eternal convict?

Or.... Alma is engaging in a rhetorical device similar to mathematical proof by contradiction.

But I also admitted I was exaggerating to make a point. M.

Your saving grace is that there are only two registered lawyer jokes. The rest are just true stories.

Not sure if there are non-human-being exceptions for gators.

In contrast, my grad school Muslim friend refused even to celebrate birthdays, because that's something the infidels do.

I'm not really sure. As I think back on it, my co-worker may have only been drinking water, as I was. I didn't pay very close attention so my initial statement that "everybody else" had wine may have been mistaken. His friend (also Muslim) had some but I think for him it was more about the culture. The person who had the most was another co-worker of mine, a Baptist.